ANT OR DEC?

Taking a few snatched moments out of my busy schedule I had a quick look at the Radio Times website to see what I could divert myself with this evening. One of the programmes listed on ITV takes a bunch of no-marks and drops them in a little wood next to a posh hotel in Australia. It’s called ‘I’m a Celebrity, Get Me Out Of Here…’ but the programme title is cut short on the website after 10pm because of a lack of space. It therefore reads far more accurately ‘I’m a c…’

CHRISTMAS RULES FOR COUNCIL STAFF, 5BC

Prepared for colleagues, passed on in the hope it will divert:

Staff are reminded that a number of additional Council procedures will apply over the Christmas period:

1. This is a busy time for Building Control as they tend to receive call outs to inspect ‘rude’ stables at this time of year. Please factor this in when passing over requests for visits relating to your service area. A similar restriction applies to environmental health, who are often called out to inspect local hotels to ensure they are not exceeding licensed visitor numbers.

2. Christmas is also a busy time for the homeless persons unit. Please note that the Council is only responsible for finding appropriate accommodation for family members, not their pets. In the event of anyone turning up with pets, such as donkeys, it may be necessary to provide temporary accommodation in stables or other local livestock facilities.

3. Babies placed in mangers must be subject to a full social services screening interview to ensure their personal rights are not affected by being placed in animal feed.

4. All visitors to stables hosting angelic infants must be subject to a full CRB check and should therefore apply for clearance at least 8 weeks in advance. The Council will not accept ‘a host of angels foretelling of the Good News’ as a valid reason not to undergo this check in the appropriate timescale.

5. In the event of a further foot and mouth outbreak, farm workers will not be permitted to have contact with local animals. Please advise anyone asking that visits to stables within the town will be strictly prohibited and no livestock will be permitted to enter, even when offered as seasonal gifts.

6. The Council will be visited by some foreign dignitaries over the Christmas period. The precise time of their arrival is a matter of dispute: according to officers in the east wing they will arrive on January 6th but those in the south annex believe they will be here by December 6th. Please make them welcome when they do arrive.

7. Council staff are reminded that they should not accept gifts from members of the public under any circumstances. Any gifts offered or received must be placed in the appropriate store. To remind staff, Gold is stored on the first floor east wing, Frankincense is next to the reception area and myrrh is in the cupboard in the ladies toilets on the second floor.

8. Don’t forget that after the holiday, government officials will be visiting the area with a ‘hit squad’ with the intention of addressing overcrowding and child poverty targets. Please offer the ‘hit squad’ any assistance they require, which may range from census information to sword sharpening, as failure to do so may affect out CPA score.

Please ensure you adhere to these guidelines and, on behalf of the management, have a Merry Christmas

DAVE PONDERS, DAVE COMES UP WITH A SIMPLE ANSWER, DAVE IS WRONG

David Cameron gave a speech in Washington today in which he called for NATO troops to be deployed in Kosovo to avert the risk of a Russian backed crisis after the Kosovan government has threatened to declare independence on December 10th.

Isn’t this – crudely put - how the First World War started, with different ‘empires’ lining up behind their respecitve pugilists until one slipped and tried to land a blow on the other, causing everyone else to pile in on top. That experience ended well, didn’t it, so why not repeat it?

What about negotiation? What about making it clear to the Kosovan government that if they do declare independence, they’re on their own. That should make them think. What about reminding the Serbs that they say they want to be in the EU and starting another war within 20 years of the last one won’t exactly burnish their image internationally.

It’s clear that we need a robust force available in the event of any difficulty arising but this can’t be the first stage. It beggars belief that a senior British politician sees sending in the troops to one of the most unstable areas in the world as the best solution to a current crisis. Haven’t we moved on at all?

WHY IS GENUINELY HELD BELIEF SO CRUELLY ABUSED?

As a practising (but still very bad) Christian, if I I read about a teacher in a school for different faiths in another country who had held a competition between the children of varying faiths to pick a name for a teaching aid and the children had chosen a perfectly ordinary name - 'Jesus', say - which may be shared by a large number of men in that country and across the Christian world, and the authorities in that country had taken exception to this exercise and arrested that teacher for this perfectly normal exercise to engage her pupils, I imagine I would be amused first, then horrified at the idiocy of the authorities concerned, then disappointed that my faith was so misunderstood by some people that they would undertake such mind numbingly stupid actions in its name.

I imagine I would question the validity of my faith if can be so abused. But then that is the fundamental weakness of religion. Beautiful ideals are always perverted by people seeking to reinforce their positions here on earth - and that near fatal conflict at the root of all religion is why I will always be a very bad Christian.

THE BOTTOM LINE

I've already filled in and sent my vote for Nick Clegg - stamp dutifully put on envelope - and I remain confident that he has the public profile to win this contest.

I was thinking about my own constituency, which just happens to be represented in Parliament by one D. Cameron esq. and where we are not exactly a force to be reckoned with, although we are the official opposition (a rather flattering description). I would like the local party to use the leadership election as a springboard for revitalising our local party and encouraging the people who have left recently to return.

It would be good to present then with a vision for the future which has a Liberal Democrat party winning votes across the UK and challenging the Tory politics of despair. We also need to point a spotlight on Cameron's principled attempts to change his party which, like the plans of his predecesssors, have foundered on the rocks of the party membership, which remains too old, too right wing and too narrow minded.

The vision for the future would be built on more local democracy, fair votes, fair local taxation, a significantly better relationship with a more accountable Europe and a better image for the party. A much better image, one that the millions of voters who really don't care about politics so they vote Labour or Tory because its easy would actually identify with and support. (Woah: that last sentence lacked a verb - does that make me a Cameroonie?!)

Quite starkly, I don't see how the 'vision thing' would be communicated by Chris Huhne who, for all his obvious talents, simply lacks the indefinable quality which seems to connect with voters. I have always been entirely cynical about this election since I lacked strong views about either candidate but what I have heard from Nick Clegg has actually stirred me into a belief that maybe, just maybe, he can effect a real change in how people see us.

That's the bottom line: not how principled, united and good we see ourselves as we trudge around perenially in third place but how those millions of voters more interested in when the Christmas Radio Times will be published than in who is running the country see us - and how they respond to our simple, clear well communicated messages come the next General Election

We need to win an election and, to the best of my knowledge, only one of the candidates has set that simple ambition out clearly. That's why he got my vote.

ESCAPE? GREAT...

A thought occurs about the England football unofficial anthem. The Great Escape theme is a wonderful piece of music but it celebrats glorious defeat. It may be peripheral but surely something a bit more positive would be better.

What about 'We will rock you' by Queen. Queen just work on so many basic levels and the tune is instantly recognisable. Plus everyone can clap along with it.

It's just an idea. Any suggestions, or is this a bit beyond the LD blogosphere pale?

WHAT WOULD NICK AND CHRIS SAY ABOUT ENGLAND'S SHAME...?

So England lost again at football. This country needs to take a long, hard look at its team and our ambitions for international football based on this supremely dreadful performance.

Croatia were excellent, playing the perfect away game: defending when necessary and being fast and ambitious on the break. England by contrast fumbled the ball, passed it more often than not to the opposition and generlly looked like a team without ambition.

Only the superb David Beckham gave 100%, running from end to end, getting involvd in as much of the play as possible and floating in the perfect cross which set up Peter Crouch for a wonderful goal.

Then England sat back - and Croatia scored, as they were always going to. They had 11 players, we had 2: Beckham and Crouch.

As for the manager, yes he's as limited as a shell company in the Canaries but blame should not be ascribed to him alone. The players are to blame. They are a bunch of 'stars' with no ambition to win for England at all.

MY advice for the new manager - please let it be El Tel again! - is to pick players from the Championship. We may not be as strong but at least we'll have 11 players on the pitch who want to be there and who care about the result.

STANDARDS CONTINUE TO SLIDE ON THE TODAY PROGRAMME

Radio 4's idiotic flagship 'news' programme this morning demonstrated its profound failings with two outstandingly bad pieces.

Firstly, the programme reported from Pakistan and some editorial error gave loads of airtime to a ranting, bearded madman who refused to listen to reason but instead railed on about the issues which concerned him, continually interrupting the person he was speaking to. I wonder what General Musharraf made of Naughtie.

Later in the broadcast, I found myself sympathising with the Scottish pundit who was interviewed about the game against Italy today. He wasn't asked about team selection or tactics or about his ambitions for the Scottish team in Europe. No, he was simply asked how much it mattered in Scotland that they could qualify when England were looking like failing to do so. Now I know there is a certain antipathy to England over the Tweed but I still found this question rather childish and a little, shall we say, dismissive of the Scottish team.

QUESTION TIME: SO WHAT DID WE LEARN?

Question Time has just finished and it proved quite illuminating. Both Nick and Chris performed well and there were unsurprisingly few moments of real tension. Chris did come out with some barbed comments about Nick's approach to Trident but generally this was good natured.

Chris scord points with this viewer with some interesting comments about Trident tying us into a 50 year ontract with the USA and he of course spoke well throughout the programme,

As for Nick, he was similarly assured. He must win the prize for 'bleeding heart' liberalism as he likes to raise problems in that earnest, American 'I'm going to cry, it's so bad' way but he is undoubtedly polished. His comment that his children's education is not a matter for debate did rankle with me. It is, Nick and if you have any ambition to be in the public eye, it always will be. As an alumnus of a dreadful state school I feel the issue of investing in our education system personally, as should our MPs.

I started the programme as a 'Cleggie' and that's how I ended it. The reasons for this were both down to Chris Huhne demonstrating weaknesses rather than Nick being sensational.

Firstly, Chris Huhne does go on too long. He dosn't understand soundbites, as the dreadful nine word slogan for his campaign attests and I'm afraid that we live in a soundbite world. Secondly, he demonstrated a ruthlessness which is not appealing, even though I recognise that it is necessary in politics. It needs to be more subtle than Chris demonstrated on this occasion.

All that said, I remain fully supportive of Chris as an extremely able MP and party spokesman but my vote for Nick is confirmed. My only proviso is tht he needs to sort out the education issue. It does matter.

PARLIAMENT GOES GREEN BUT SHOULD IT GO TO BEDFORDSHIRE INSTEAD?

The Guardian today reported on plans to introduce new environmental measures for Parliament to reduce its carbon footprint, including the possible introduction of bore holes for water, tidal power at what is apparently a very good spot for such technology and a rather large wind turbine in the neighbouring park, Victoria Gardens. The newspaper states the bleeding obvious when it says that ‘there is likely to strong opposition’ from the various groups who want us to live in a rapidly overheating but oh-so-pretty museum.

It would be nice to think that these plans would be taken forward but I remain deeply sceptical of their chances of success. The article says the new wind turbine would be a ‘bold statement of intent’ which it surely would. It would draw all the opprobrium from the anti-wind power camp to bear on the ‘mother of parliaments’, which would be no bad thing since it would focus everyone’s mind on the arguments and it would allow the parliamentary windmill to be a specific testing ground for the technology. The article points out that the available wind resource in central London is at the bottom end of what is useful so it could be a fascinating experiment.

It seems blindingly obvious that windmills should be built in cities since they are hardly unspoilt wildernesses and they have lots of high places. Plus the energy is needed there. It would seem more sensible to put a blooming great windmill in Westminster on top of an existing building, such as the new Portcullis House, for example, which is part of the Palace of Westminster set-up.

THese plans are eye-catching and ambitious but there is a far better alternative. Why not build a new Parliament somewhere like Milton Keynes? A new, purpose built office could be made to be far greener than any number of adaptations on the existing building ever could. It would also avoid any trouble over changes to the existing Houses of Parliament and free up the wonderful buildings to be made into a major heritage site and museum. It would not seem outlandish to continue to use the House of Lords in its existing site to allow the noble Lords to continue their valuable role of research but to physically and constitutionally separate them from the work of the legislature, which could be given some form of elected senate to carry out the scrutiny role (I’m going too far now, aren’t I..?)

A new site outside London would cut congestion in the city and it could be sited somewhere where MPs from around the country would find it easier to get to on a regular basis. A key requirement for any new site would have to be excellent public transport – which admittedly Milton Keynes doesn’t quite have but you get the idea.

Examples of countries with separate capitals and ‘first cities’ abound, including the Netherlands (Amsterdam and The Hague), Australia (Canberra and Sydney) and the USA (Washington and New York/Los Angeles) to name three.

There’s a ‘green’ proposal for Parliament which is guaranteed to raise the hackles of all the people who think that green leather is the sine qua non of an effective legislature. They’re wrong and it might just be time to consider giving the monarch back her chapel and building a 21st century Chamber.

TORIES IN SENSIBLE PRISONS POLICY SHOCK

News that Jonathan Aitken is to advise the Tories on penal reform policy has been met with scorn by Labour Whip Tom Watson, who said: "Next week, Jeffrey Archer heads the truth and reconciliation commission, Neil Hamilton on modernising parliamentary scrutiny, and Shirley Porter reviews London housing."

Well, far be it from me to disagree with a representative of this far-sighted and oh-so-cerebral government but this seems like an eminently practical decision on behalf of the Tory Centre for Social Justice, Ian Duncan Smith’s think tank. The work of IDS since he was ousted in favour of Michael Howard is so strikingly at odds with his record as Tory leader that it could almost be two separate people.

The decision to use Aitken’s experience is intelligent and entirely sound and it might just produce something a little more enlightened than the usual Tory chant that ‘prison works’ (prop. M. Howard) when it so obviously doesn’t for the vast majority of offenders.

It also presents a nice prospect for the rest of us when the result of Aitken’s work is presented to Dave, hopefully highlighting the ghastly state of many of our prisons and recommending a more humane approach to dealing with offenders. How will Dave present that to his still rabid grassroots? Sadly the only likely outcome of this sound proposal is no change and more of the same Tory hubris.

THIS WEEK'S POINTLESS WHITEHALL RULE

The Independent reports today (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article3138365.ece) about British soldiers who fought in Malaya in the late 1950s were recently rewarded by the King of Malaysia with a new medal honouring their sacrifice in a largely secret war for independence lasting around six years. This is a very welcome gesture and one which most normal people would treat with the gratitude it so clearly deserves. It is a timely reminder that the British Army did quite a bit more in the last century than win two world wars and then follow the Americans around to be their unofficial target practice.

Unfortunately, the Ministry of Defence has decreed that (i) medals cannot be issued for conflicts which are more than five years old and (ii) the servicemen concerned have been awarded British medals so they cannot possibly wear a second medal honouring their role in the same campaign. The Ministry has therefore decreed that veterans turning out for the Remembrance Day parade on Sunday will not be allowed to wear them.

One delicious anomaly which the article throws up is that Russia recently issued a medal for merchant seamen who kept the north Atlantic convoys going through the Second World War. This was accepted a little more graciously by the British government.

Thankfully, British Servicemen tend not to be as craven as the civil servants who send them into battle without the right equipment so it seems a large number will attend the Sunday ceremony wearing the medal. I look forward with much anticipation to the sight of civil servants trying to remove the offending articles. Perhaps the governemnt will even try to shoe-horn this particular issue into the increasingly draconian state response to any signs of dissent around Whitehall and Parliament Square. Police baton-charging veterans? It doesn’t seem so far-fetched these days…

Hopefully, one or two civil servants will retire to the ministry with their pride – and possibly more besides – slightly dented to reflect on the ludicrous nature of so many rules which still govern our country and which date from a period entirely out of keeping with modern practices. They might also consider how may of these bizarre traditions – such as much of the coronation - were invented to add a little more ‘pomp’ but which otherwise carry little meaning.

FACE IT DAVE, YOU CAN REDESIGN THE LABEL BUT THE CONTENTS REMAIN TAINTED

So a Tory candidate has had to resign after endorsing that troubled and deeply limited politician, Enoch Powell, who famously ran away from the challenge of improving our society, instead promising us ‘rivers of blood’ as a result of untrammelled immigration. His ‘prediction’ never came about thanks primarily to the sensible approach to this issue among more intelligent politicians and the ingrained tolerance which people try to deny but which Britain still enjoys, whatever the wilder elements on the right wing and in the media would have us believe. Unfortunately, a Tory, one Nigel Hastilow, decided to stoke this particular fire once more.

His resignation is superficially good for the Tories, who can distance themselves from him and commend his ‘honourable’ response to the furore. However, it once again brings into sharp focus the true malaise at the heart of the Tory Party – a malaise which voters should be reminded of as often as possible.

David Cameron has tried to change them and he deserves credit for his efforts. He has thrown away their symbol, the sub-fascist torch, he has thrown away many of their basic tenets, such as a complete indifference to the environment but he will never be able to change the membership, those delightful right-wingers and public school brats who will this morning have picked up their Telegraphs and Daily Himmlers and declared in exasperated tones that Mr Hastilow was indeed speaking for us all.

Happily, he was doing nothing of the sort but his comments do seem to reflect a significant amount of grassroots Tory opinion, which is why they still have so far to go. What the Tories need is a leader who does not throw out all their traditional beliefs but who builds on them to develop a more modern approach to politics. Dave has tried but he has gone too far without taking the party with him. We need a strong right-wing party in this country to reflect the legitimate views of a large number of people but it must get away from its old colonial view of the world if it is to get anywhere.

There is one bright spot from all this. A UKIP comment endorsed Mr Hastilow’s views, saying that he had been expresing the views of ‘millions’ of people. That’s good for Mr Hastilow, as his next career move is clear. It’s also good for the rest of us as the true nature of UKIP becomes ever clearer.

There’s my advice for Dave: leave UKIP to mop up the ‘nutter’ vote and concentrate on the European Christian Democrat model for the future. Better still, give up and let someone else have a go. Maybe it is time for Little Billy Hague, after all.

CAN WE VETO THE 'PEOPLE’S VETO'?

Oh dear. One of the headlines of the Chris Huhne campaign is the proposal for a ‘people’s veto’. This would see voters being given the right to challenge legislation if 2.5% of the population registered their opposition. Well, where to begin on this?

First it is the kind of populist clap-trap which you would expect from the Tories when they are desperate to gain support. The idea of giving power back to voters is an old saw and it completely ignores the need for improving the existing systems of scrutiny of legislation, namely both Houses of Parliament and the need for MPs to engage fully with their constituencies – which LD MPs are generally pretty good at.

Second, how would this be organised and checked to ensure that any such objection garnered the requisite 2.5% of the electorate. To the cry ‘the internet’ I would simply point out the amazing ease with which interest groups can hijack public debates these days using this very useful tool. I’m not saying that’s wrong, just that I don’t really want national legislation decided by Greenpeace or the Women’s Institute.

Thirdly, how long would it be before we got our own ‘Megan’s Law’? That lovely piece of American legislation came about as the result of popular pressure for local communities to know if convicted paedophiles are living locally. This entirely reasonable desire on the part of parents has resulted in a public database which makes the job of monitoring the whereabouts of paedophiles that much more difficult for America’s lousy law enforcement agencies. I have a hell of a lot more faith in our authorities and I’d rather they could do the job of monitoring such people effectively than leaving it in the hands of local ‘lynch mobs’.

Finally, we live in a representative democracy in which we elect people to decide on our laws. The system is as full of holes as an old colander but it’s the system we have. This idea for ‘people’s vetos’ will blast a hole through the system – rather as the government’s botched devolution has done – without setting out a comprehensive solution, which is what we need.

I have already set out my stall with regard to this election but I am dismayed that one of our very able candidates has come out with such a trite proposal, which does him no justice.

Putting it bluntly, this ain’t Switzerland – thank God!