The Liberal Ogrons

Side Show Nick

2011-05-07T23:59:00.000-07:00

Nick Clegg seemed to be taking things a bit personally, even before the 'public execution' on Thursday. At least now he knows it's not all in the mind, I expect that'll save a bit on therapist bills. Still, he got a good seat at the Royal Wedding and his pledge to end the jobs for life culture of MPs seems to have worked in his case.

Now all the fuss has died down, and the crowd has drifted away, can it be my turn to wade in and kick the man when he's down? You're really not that good Nick. You had a decent half hour on a public debate and I think it went to a lot of people's heads but unfortunately, and this is the real problem, hot air is simply hot air and politicians are still judged, by supporters at least, by their actions rather than by their promises. Nick Clegg, you very quickly became Richard Rich to David Cameron's Thomas Cromwell, which, in this 'Man For All Seasons' analogy I've embarked on, makes me either the common man or Sir Thomas More depending on how much red wine I've consumed.

Having said all that, I'm pretty cross with the political commentators who explained away the Lib Dem defeat by glibly characterising their supporters as protest voters. There still seems to be a paucity of thought around voter motivation and political expectation. Many Liberal supporters, far from protesting about anything, used to vote orange because they believed in lots of things unprovided for elsewhere. Call it naive, and you will, but I thought the Liberal Democrats stood for something, lots of things, one of them being integrity. It turns out they were doing exactly what tired old commentators accused them of doing - promising the earth because they could, agreeing with anything, because it didn't matter.

The Liberal Democrats won't be back in my lifetime because their Unique Selling Point has vanished. Many of us, MANY of us, saw the short termism of Labour (Tory) policies and the impending disaster of living off credit. We weren't all having a party, most of us were just doing what we had to do to keep up. We didn't want to be, or want, Billionaires. The Liberals offered a way back to community policies rooted in the health and good of the nation, building a society based on plenty and moving forward with compassion and purpose. Then, in one single issue, the tuition fees, they showed that it had all been a mirage. They were exactly like the others. Saying what we wanted to hear because no-one else was saying it.

Those voters in the north have gone wearily back to Labour because perhaps they're better now? Faint chance. Those voters in the south have less options and for them, the Lib Dem's are still the only way of fighting the Tories. Those in Wales have rejected the unfashionably loony left policies of the nationalists and returned to the Labour comfort zone of a party which rebelled against its central leadership during the vacuous Blair years. Only in Scotland did anyone have a real option and lucky them, they've got a chance of not just better Government but complete disassociation.

The British either now support the cuts, overwhelmingly because they're not suffering with the roll back of public services, at least not yet, or they're against them because they are. Very few ordinary voters bother with the intellectual struggle of it when faced with personal failure or success. Vince Cable may rant against the tribal Conservatives but he's sharing a house with them, raking out the grate of the Tory fireplace so they can get another policy in the oven. Nick Clegg may not like the way we treat him but, well, tough. See you in the dole queue Cleggy?

The End of the Affair

2011-04-18T13:50:00.000-07:00

So my membership renewal has dropped through the letter box and the days of actively supporting a political party are drawing to a close. Or are they?

Well, probably, yes. Nothing that has happened since I started this blog has convinced me that I'm wrong and the Coalition is right. We're stilled poised on the edge of economic disaster with an opposition unable to admit culpability and a Government unable to come up with anything but more of the same. The wafer thin list of positives bandied about by senior Lib Dems are a poor price to pay for the inevitable catastrophic loss of support that will become evident after the local elections. Of course, we could have predicted this. We have the lessons of history. Dr Who has returned in triumph, the Daleks have made every series but the the Ogrons have yet to be noticed, unwanted in a new age where Daleks can levitate and mix their own cocktails. The Lib Dems, and the Ogrons, are going to be missing for a long time.

For those of us on the left of the party, a membership reminder comes signed by Simon Hughes, Nick Clegg doesn't get a mention. The injustice of Nick Clegg's fall from grace is etched upon the brow of all serving Liberals but unless they acknowledge the depth of betrayal felt by long serving members the party faces a bleak future. We know we're supposed to like Mr Hughes with his impeccable back catalogue of left leaning speeches but now he's part of the gang that we don't want to join.

On public services, Liberals are pretending to discuss while services are dismantled and left unworkable. There is already no turning back, it is pointless pretending to be a brake. On the economy, the Liberals have done nothing except fail to stop Vince Cable's leaks. The about turn on tuition fees lost them a generation of supporters, the defence of pensioners and the lowest waged simply a sop to a system that ensures a widening of the standard of living gap.

I'm limply delivering a few AV referendum votes locally, as a favour to the local party as confused by the sudden turn of events as I am. Should anyone stop me on the doorstep, I'll hope to be persuaded by their argument because I hold no view. Voting reform has gone to the polls at a time when its supporters can't bring themselves to support Nick Clegg. There's another campaign lost before it starts.

We believe in a fairer Britan. Simon Hughes underlines that in his letter. Perhaps the Ogrons did too? I can see them presenting their ideas to the Dalek leader, written on a bit of cardboard in barely legible scrawl. Cue flash, an Ogron in negative and the end of the alliance. David Cameron can barely keep his attack dogs in their kennels as it is, as soon as he feels emboldened he must surely try to end the Coalition. Those Lib Dems smart enough and professional enough would do well to switch to the blue rosette. The rest of them, if they have any conscience at all, will join me in trying to figure out where we go now.

After years of paying the man, I'm back in the apolitical world. I imagine it's a bit like being released from prison. Carrying my campaign rosettes and badges in a box, I'm striding out into a brave new future. And heading straight for a pub.

Budget Time.

2011-03-21T15:11:00.000-07:00

Almost a year in to this car crash of a ruling Coalition we're facing another budget, this one a growth budget from Boy George and his posh mates. It'll be aimed at getting the small to medium businesses employing the thousands of public sector workers thrown on to the altar of free enterprise. Enough talk of cuts, now we focus on getting back in the race and back on top.

From where I sit, its a pretty funny race we're hoping to compete in. The world is changing and the old sureties about Europe and the West are changing with it, bad news for the West, but also for the world. The new leaders are the economies putting people second, those miracle workers in China and India that let industry flourish where human rights fear to tread. Those panting along in the chasing pack are trying to change pace by casting off regulation, talking up flexible working patterns but not, as yet, sacrificing human spirit and progress in an attempt to win.

Boy George will want to talk a bit about regulation. The more rapid backbenchers have been baying for the re-balancing agenda to take off, allowing the state to retire behind the crusading lines of resurgent private enterprise. What will the Liberals do then? Are they really so desperate to win the AV referendum that all thoughts of opposing yet another lurch to the right are ignored in favour of winning the one thing that might justify their co-operation? It would seem so.

The Coalition continues to benefit the senior party at the expense of the Lib Dems. The powers behind David Cameron's throne continue to urge the destruction of public services and the reward of private endeavour, albeit the private endeavour of large global corporations intent on private accumulation of wealth. George Osborne will tell us he's supporting growth but his real support goes to those who admire the lack of restraint shown by the aggressive developing countries. This recession will go on for some time but when the economy recovers, a lot more people are going to realise that it really no longer matters, that markets, not countries hold sway. In five years time, Liberals will have a lot more to worry about than AV.

The Empty Room

2011-03-15T15:00:00.000-07:00

The conference went pretty well for the rebels. The NHS radical overhaul was discussed, rejected and sent back to the Coalition, too late to save our NHS (about 10 years too late possibly) but not too late to start a fight. The party agonised over its new direction in the face of unpopularity and Nick Clegg was made to look stupid and ministerial in equal measure. He spoke about his new country 'alarm clock Britain' and rejected Thatcherism and Blairism, linking the Liberals instead with Mill, Lloyd George, Keynes, Beveridge, all people who must be sleeping uneasily with the present company their legacy keeps. At least the greatest, Gladstone, was left out of it, Clegg obviously has some respect.

The Lib Dems had a great conference actually, good for Britain if you believe they are part of Government. Their problem was, Japan had an earthquake. Real life and death struggles took over and Nick and his friends and foes alike were talking in an empty room.

Conference Ahoy!

2011-03-11T13:49:00.000-08:00

The Liberal Democrats' spring conference is upon us. I used to enjoy a party conference - ridiculous dreamers espousing ridiculous ideas made all the more ridiculous because they were good honest ideas that had no place in Government. Remember the 1p in the pound rise in income tax? Ditching the Lottery? Oh how we made them laugh.

Well the spring conference has ditched all the fun. Out go the beards and jeans, in come the I-Suits, rolling up their tailor made sleeves to fight the good fight against backsliders, waverers and, above all, rebels. The party that used to celebrate diversity and open discussion is in town to lecture and brow beat those still loyal to Liberal values and it's going to do it with a heady blend of truth and hyperbole. I'm guessing the slogan will be 'Despite the mess Labour left us in......'

Liberal Democrat News was full of 'Despite the mess Labour left us in...' stuff. Let me tell you now, because it will save all of us time, for every £300 coming in the nation spends £400. I'm not sure why, in a leaflet which talks about £150billion extra borrowing year on year, they've reduced it to hundreds - why not 3p and 4p? - but the message is clear, it was this way when we took over. Labour got rid of the boom and left us bust. Well true. But let's be old Liberal about this. Who created the boom? What created the boom? Who benefited from the boom? Is boom good?

The Labour party should never be forgiven until it apologises properly for it's pursuit of Tory policies to their logical conclusion. Says who? Well, apart from me, Tim Farron, that's who, the party President. In the best bit of LDN, Tim Farron rallies the troops with a very Liberal piece (once we get the \mess Labour left us with bit out of the way) about the cause of our woes. Tony Blair, he writes, came to power, not with a new plan for Government, but with a recycled version of Thatcherism. He goes on 'While the Tories may believe that the state is over bloated and must be cut back, we don't agree with them, we simply acknowledge that we can't afford current levels of expenditure'. Great stuff, honest, confrontational, a real taste of the unease felt by all but those at the top over the Coalition state of affairs. One can only assume he's trying to keep us sweet (see, now I'm a cynical member of a bulk standard political party).

Why can't we afford current national expenditure? Where is the economic debate, where is the social debate? I think Tim and his mates are going to get a bit of it this weekend and he should listen before he becomes President of nothing and no-one in particular. The Coalition has members voted for by the non right leaning voters of the UK. It also has right wing thinkers in positions of real power prepared to remove the remaining barriers to free market lunacy. The conference is where Tim Farron, Nick Clegg, Uncle Vince and Danny Boy will finally meet the people they're supposed to represent and, despite all the gagging techniques put on them, the rabble will have their say.

One of the points being discussed will be NHS reforms. Taking another piece in the LDN by smoothie Paul Burstow, Minister of State for Care Services, the NHS reforms are all good and he has no intention of addressing the points made by health professionals and instead cherry picks the statistics he likes to prove he's right. His attitude encapsulates my opposition to the Lib Dems involvement in the Coalition. His points are Tory points, Tory propaganda, Tory idealism. The views from the ordinary party members, many of them public servants, are ignored under the convenience of Coalition unity and 'the mess Labour left us'. The line that should frighten all of us, it scares me, is 'We believe decisions about your healthcare should be made by doctors'. The layers of deception in this simple statement are staggering. Being old Liberal again - They are now. The reforms change nothing. The System works well, the evidence is loaded (in fact much of the evidence is only there because the NHS is one of the few health systems to attempt 100% coverage, they're not allowed to exclude problems or ignore stakeholders). None of the reforms were in the Liberal Democrats' manifesto and none of the lies hastening the commercialisation of a battered NHS should be defended by Liberal Democrat MPs.

The attack on public services by the the Coalition will continue but this conference might give us an idea of whether the Coalition will. As Sheffield gears up for the show, lets hope the fight turns nasty. I'm not expecting much but in a week when Tottenham do better than Arsenal perhaps I can allow myself to believe in miracles.

On a serious note

2011-02-28T13:50:00.000-08:00

Another sad event. Those Dr Who fans, like me, careering towards their 50th birthday, will have noticed with regret the passing of Nicholas Courtney http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12549622. As The Brigadier he hung around longer than any Dr and pulled off the trick of being the loveable face of the Establishment without losing believability.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/nicholas-courtney-actor-known-for-his-longrunning-role-as-the-brigadier-in-doctor-who-2226111.html

Those of you not in the slightest touched by this, normal service will be resumed shortly.

The Post Industrial Society

2011-02-21T13:26:00.000-08:00

Having being away from my desk for a few weeks coping with real life, it's good to be able to come back and talk about a death. Daniel Bell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Bell has finally given up on the post industrial society he predicted and gone to reside elsewhere. Those not familiar with his work will have heard the phrases and perhaps read the work of his disciple, Future Shock by Alvin Toffler. Or perhaps not.

Bell was a bit of a worrier and probably not great at parties but he got quite a lot of predictions about the future spot on. His background made people take him seriously and the creator of futurology, or whatever its called, can probably sleep in peace knowing he wont be ridiculed as the man who said cassette tape would take over the world. In that respect he's luckier that George Orwell who, because he wrote fiction, is ignored as a prophet of the future despite his uncanny portrayal or 21st century Orange County in 1984.

What Orwell and Bell have in common, apart from the inability to breathe, is that they both predicted a world similar to the one we're sailing into. They gave their visions a relentlessly pessimistic spin. What neither had to do in their books was give space to the lobbyists and free marketeers who currently rule the known world. These economists, free trade fanatics, frowners and lickspittles are employed by and for the financial institutions and big industry leaders they are paid to comment on. Not a day goes by without be-suited men appearing in front of an office backdrop similar to the office backdrop the man they're talking about appeared in a few moments before. The BBC love these talking heads, they give them air time to fill air time. Today, liver experts, presumably with no axe to grind other than improving the nations health, published an article urging the Government to impose a minimum alcohol price per unit. The BBC managed to find the reasoned tones of someone from the Drink More Wine and Beer Association (I think that was the name) and gave him five minutes to ridicule these experts. The BBC, who didn't have a liver expert on, probably regarded this as reasonable, allowing the beleaguered side of the argument a free and fair response. I'm reminded of that fabulous line by Joe Strummer - "If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway".

What has this rant against free market ethics got to do with the Liberal Democrats I'd hear you ask if I weren't on a Computer and inhabiting an empty ether. Well we have a few good men in Orange out there who belatedly seem to be questioning the progress of free and fair debate in the Coalition. Nick Clegg may get a bit upset when Lord Oakeshott loses his temper with the Tories over insipid bank negotiations, he may tut at Liberal councillors pointing out the reality of massive cuts and privatisation and he may groan when he hears of attempts to hijack the spring conference by discussing policy but perhaps he should be studying his new friends instead and trying to work out his role in the joint decision making process. We have lived through twelve years of increasingly disappointing Labour rule and now look to be heading for a decade of state dismantling without so much as a whisper of dissent from the Liberal elite.

Why are the big ideas of the centre and left ignored by the Coalition? Obviously because they are abhorrent to the ruling grandees and rottweilers of the Tory party. Why is Nick Clegg unable to get past the blizzard of free market lobbying? Not so obvious, but I'm beginning to think its because, Europe aside, he agrees with it. No-one in this slick ruling elite is prepared to notice that they are failing their constituents. The labour party is unable to escape its past. The media is owned by, and full of, the global rich and the impartial state institutions such as the BBC are falling over themselves to canvass the opinion of the Coalition sponsored lobbyists.

If Daniel Bell took any satisfaction from his predictions coming true he hid it well. Mind you, no-one really came a calling, just as no-one really views Orwell as a visionary. If Adolf Hitler flew in today.......

Male on Sunday.

2011-02-01T14:18:00.000-08:00

If there is one person I like to actively ignore it's Peter Hitchens, the well known big head who always comes at a subject due east of unreasonable. Last Sunday he caught me by surprise by appearing shortly after Andy Murray had collapsed in the Melbourne heat, heading up the comment and analysis on The Politics Show.

I thought he said two things of note, much as it pains me to say it, one loud and clear, the other ignored despite obviously being close to the Hitchens heart, or at least as close as anything can get. Firstly, he made the point that the cuts imposed on Britain by the Coalition, the Tories and the Lib Dems, Daleks and Ogrons, are mainly for show. They can't in themselves make much difference but they convince the bond markets that Britain is serious about its debts. The second point, at the end of a long sentence, made in a hurry but with determination, was that the Government may have underestimated quite how much the economy relies on investment and jobs in the public sector.

Taking the first point. The bond markets are in the ascendancy in the global economy. In a world reliant on credit and the exchange of money in a bewildering flood of schemes and enterprises, Hitchens concludes that the central plank of the Government economic policy is a confidence building measure. He's probably right. So why has Vince Cable done so little to change the way Britain works, one of his key election themes? If we are all enduring a long term pain for a short term gain, why are the Liberals not working toward reforming our economy so that in future we are not held to ransom by short selling? Mr Cable used to be convinced that the financial sector was too large for a healthy economy, is he still so sure and if he isn't, would it not be possible to tell us why? The deeper the world gets into the pockets of global capitalism, the clearer the need to regulate and defend the societies it meddles with. The amounts of money that can be removed from any functioning sovereign economy are now so enormous, none of us should feel safe until our elected leaders (hmmmmn) come up with an escape plan.

On to Hitchens' second point. Why is this not a battle cry from the opposition benches? All of us rely on a healthy public sector to keep the lights on. In many parts of the country the public sector offers the only employment capable of basing a secure mortgage paying economy on. Of course it is expensive, but that money so reluctantly invested in people rarely leaves our shores, most of it is plugged straight back into a local economy, supporting the private sector with steady reliable custom. The rewards of the public sector are more evident now than the drawbacks were when we were all drunk on credit. The work force valued security above wealth, now they face being left with neither because, abandoned by their traditional champions, they're left to the venom of the free market supporters, frothing at the mouth with indignation at the supposed waste of tax payers money.

We have become a sham meritocracy. We talk about social mobility without noticing it's always been all one way, William the Conqueror brought over the current cabinet. Those lucky enough to join the elite make sure the meritocratic ideas don't get in the way of their children's education. When the going gets tough, rather than large scale reform or meaningful dialogue, the elite poke the serfs with sticks and demonise them. The Coalition is carrying out a right wing manifesto under cover of keeping the bond markets happy and dissolving our public services while blaming the deficit on the cost of paying staff to work in them. It's bad enough as it is without having to agree with Peter Hitchens as well.

Balls

2011-01-24T14:38:00.000-08:00

The outgoing chief of the CBI, Sir Richard Lambert, has had a pop at the Coalition. I doubt the Daleks or the Ogrons looked up from their world domination plans. One person who did comment on it was Ed Balls, the new hope of the Official Opposition. I'm not sure I can raise a proper sentence.

Sir Richard Lambert appears to be upbraiding the Government of some other country, the one where society actually is considered before big business. "Politics appears to have trumped economics" apparently, according to the eminent Sir Richard, presumably knighted for making Britain a better place to live. Reading between the few lines I can keep my eyes open for, it would seem the pace of de-regulation is a major thrust of his complaint. According to Nick Robinson at the Beeb, he 'fears that the government's cap on immigration could stop firms hiring the workers they need. He's worried by ministers plans to scrap the age at which people are forced to retire, ministers' unwillingness to expand London's airports, proposed anti bribery laws and much besides' adding the Lambert quote "It's hard to see anything much has happened" 'on government promises to cut Whitehall regulation'.

Enter Ed Balls. He feels, apparently , that Sir Richard Lambert agrees with the labour line. Well, no, Ed, he doesn't and why oh why are you claiming he does? There are economists galore willing to oppose Coalition policy, why does the Labour party feels the need to rope the CBI into its cohort of supporters? Ah yes, because Balls got us here, helped pave the way for the rampaging Tory invasion of our way of life, the deluded champion of market forces as market forces swept away our place in the world and helped settle the CBI, big BIG business and free market fruitcakes into the corridors of power. Ed Balls probably thought Sir Lambert Richman owed him.

There comes a moment in all the great Dr Who episodes when a trusted aide turns out to have been in the pay of the opposition all along. Hopefully Ed Balls is going to feel the betrayal. If he does, perhaps he'll come clean about his own past and lead the fightback without the baggage of denial. Until he does, let me catch up on sleep, its going to be a rough old year.

The Alternative Vote

2011-01-12T14:52:00.000-08:00

Somehow, in the shadow of the increasingly dark clouds of western economic gloom, the LibDems are sticking to the plan of campaigning for the Alternatve Voting system. This, for those who neither know nor care, is the compromise to proportional representation that the Daleks have allowed the Ogrons to champion at a national referendum. Like so much about the coalition, it's almost unbelievable that such a half-cocked vision is allowed the time of day.

The rest of us are watching the death of social politics, of any sort of pretence that society is more important than money. While the Ogrons are printing their leaflets, the reservoir of right wing Dalek resentment is building up behind the coalition dam.

Here is a quote from Tim Montgomerie, the editor in chief of Tory website ConservativeHome - "If Cameron keeps appeasing Clegg, he risks killing off the Tory party". Or this from Mark Pritchard of the 1922 committee about the rumour that certain individuals want to permanently cement relations between the two parties - "There are fundamentalists among them who are this very moment straining their political sinews in a misguided attempt to try to supplant the very heart and soul of the Conservative party itself – a clumsy attempt to try to deconstruct the most successful political party in British history,"

Tories are apparently incensed, the grass roots are ready to march. It needs to be considered because the coalition, which has all but killed off my party, is now being blamed for poisoning the Tories. To which I have to retort that if what we are now staring at is a compromise wildly out of kilter with Tory aspirations then the coalition is an evil which none of us should endure. It is hiding an ideological battle for the soul of the country which is going to come out sooner of later.

The Alternative Vote will be soundly rejected should any referendum ever be put before the British public. None of us want it, it is too little or too much. What I want, and what we need, is an alternative vision, a break from the spiralling cost of fulfilling market greed. The Labour party is hampered by its complicity in creating the atmosphere where de-regulation thrived. The real Tory party is waiting for the chance to realise its free market dream and the coalition is just cover behind which the troops can form up. I'm not sure there is anyone left to fight for my vision but as I listen to the daily news bulletins I honestly can't believe that everyone out there is unaware of the chaotic lack of leadership and the paucity of thinking that has brought us to this sorry state.

When Daleks rule the world, what is the point of Humans?

Happy New Year

2011-01-02T15:44:00.000-08:00

My daughter has been thrilled with Wii Just Dance this Christmas. 20 seconds into a neck and neck competition wrecking the front room to 'Cotton Eye Joe' or some such ditty I was forced to cede the dance floor to the four year old while I removed my fleece, high energy barn dance being beyond my limit these days. To my surprise I continued scoring points, the act of removing my garment only slightly less successful than my previous attempts at dancing.

Most people would laugh or perhaps complain about the accuracy of the game but a metaphor leapt out at me as soon as it happened. My daughter and I had exposed the Monetary Policy Committee. There was she, Mervyn King lets say, wildly waving her control, piling on the points with a deft shimmy and knee bend and there was I, more Andrew Sentance, grabbing the odd headline with an off kilter spin and there was Just Dance, for these purposes the British economy, carrying on with the barest nod of recognition. While we're 'dancing', we look like we're in some sort of control but as soon as we stop the truth is self evident - whatever we do is largely irrelevant.

Interest rates are now 0.5% and yet the effect of such a rate on the economy is imperceptible. Inflation is up because the things we buy are affected by global supply and demand not by interest rates. Unemployment is up because we no longer have enough meaningful jobs to offer our citizens, whatever the Bank of England does. Goods now queue to come into our country and money floods to leave it and mucking about with the rates is small change in such a disastrous balance.

For those of you not familiar with Galbraith, the main thrust of 'The Affluent Society' is that the time to manage an economy is when it is doing well. The wise men at the Bank of England and the wise men of New Labour presided over such a period and let the economy off the leash. With notable exceptions they preferred to take the plaudits for overseeing a credit led housing boom every bit as damaging as the de-regulated asset stripping of the eighties. There is another great metaphor for this in 'Cloudy with a chance of Meatballs' (another of my daughter's favourites) as the obese calorie addicted Mayor floats off to sea on an edible raft. The final frames have the Mayor sinking as he eats the last of the vessel, too fat to help himself avoid the inevitable. In the film it's funny, in fact the film is genius but then it's a cartoon entertainment, not real life.

Well Happy New Year everyone. My prediction is that this is the year the recession bites because this is the year that those being told to tighten their belts turm out to be the same people who sold their belts long ago and bought a shiny all in one silk catsuit on credit. They don't rent council houses or live with their parents, they own houses and pay mortgages and car loans and credit card bills, many of them because they were told to do so and many more because property was the only show in town.

I don't mean to sound miserable, although I'm more upbeat than say The Mail, but it's important to set out the back drop to my opposition to the Coalition because carols and a festive hangover or two have hardened my resolve. If you can't even out jive a four year old dancing to 'Kids In America', you have to have something or someone to blame - why not make it Nick Clegg?

Let's hear it for the kids

2010-12-20T14:15:00.000-08:00

It is difficult in ones later years to say anything contrary to the accepted wisdom without sounding like a conspiracy theorist or Rik out of the Young Ones (old ones favourite from long ago). Lobbyists are now so good at their job and so entwined with the political establishment that we are defeated before we start by the tinkle of superiors laughing. Not so students. They can call Norman Tebbitt a fascist with sincerity and get away with it because, until they get offered a job by them, they ignore lobbyists. And it's now easy for them to ignore lobbyists because unlike me, they're not listening to Radio Four or reading The Guardian, they're gathering the views of the cyber networks.

More power to their mouse clicks I say. I could bang on about the growth of private equity ownership of UK companies but what would be the point? Who would listen to me? I'm not sure I would if a halfway decent football match was on telly. But students don't have to listen to me or Boots the Chemist style PR gurus - they just shut their ears and go and occupy Topshop for a few hours to make their point. Why shouldn't they? For the millions who believe that the economic management of this country is in the hands of a handful of vested offshore interests (conspiracy!) there is no political champion. Ed Milliband is off trying to work out how to rid himself of his union backers so he can look better on telly (conspiracy! Oh no, sorry, more of a fact) and the Liberals are shacked up with the Tories.

UK Uncut have targeted Philip Green, billionaire owner of a clothing empire paying less than his fair share in tax. The political establishment tuts in disapproval as largely non-violent sit-ins hyphen their way into the news. UK Uncut aren't particularly bothered about having John Humphreys mediate a discussion three minutes before cock crow with a well heeled ex-lawyer representing Topshop. Philip Green, who advises the Government on efficiency savings, has already pointed out it's the UK tax system at fault - it allows him to avoid tax by paying his wife a £1.2 billion dividend. Tina Green lives in Monaco. Mr Green will tell you, if you listen, that punishing the rich will encourage them to leave the country, despite the fact that almost the only people connected with Philip Green still working in the UK are his customers. UK Uncut don't seem to care much about the argument - they're young, on the side of right and willing to actually do something.

What can an old Liberal do with such folk? Well, make them a cup of tea after a hard day's sit in for a start. They are the vanguard of a group who are fed up and want things to change because, as most of us know, the system is broken and needs a fix. There is no consensus in Britain anymore, we are virtually leaderless and thrown to the gods of right wing economic theory without so much as a reasoned debate before breakfast. If Nick Clegg wanted to do something worthwhile with his next few years perhaps he could work out a real middle way, one that helped people without stifling them, rewarded enterprise without exiling it and gave us a future that didn't cling to the past.

Does my society look big in this? lol

Just for the record

2010-12-09T12:47:00.000-08:00

I'm not going to bang on about this but for those wanting to know what pledge the Liberal Democrats signed prior to becoming a member of the Coalition the details are here http://www.voteforstudents.co.uk/

Actually, I could bang on about it, who's going to stop me? I'm becoming a bit like the drunk in the local pub only I'm doing it online for mutual convenience.

When the Liberal Democrats agreed as a party to sign the NUS pledge to NOT raise tuition fees I presume they were thinking one of three things

1) Let's just sign this and get these freakin' students off our backs

or

2) Let's sign this because it's worth a few votes and it's not like we'll ever have to account for our actions

or

3) Let's sign this because they're right, we've thought it through and our policy on tuition fees mirrrors their campaign.

As all the Liberal Democrat candidates signed the pledge, presumably it wasn't for the first reason, they weren't door-stepped. If it was for the third reason, well shame on you Nick Clegg for agreeing to something you hadn't researched or costed, given that it's taken you no time at all to 'see the sense' in the Government proposal. And if it was the middle option, how many more core principles do we as a party hold dear that are agreed upon not because they're right, but because they're simply a convenient way of attracting a wider support base?

We've certainly grown up as a party, we've left the fresh faced enthusiastic idealistic teenage misfits and joined the sour faced twit uncle cartel of established political parties. And I remember when whisky and fags were our only vices....

The Crunch

2010-12-06T13:34:00.000-08:00

I'm enjoying the discomfort over the tuition fees far more than is appropriate given the misery of education debt approaching most of us. At last we see a few of the Lib Dems remembering who they are and to what purpose they govern.

One of my central points about the Coalition is that in order to take part in it the Liberals have subsumed their personality to such a degree that they have become Ogrons to the Tory Daleks. Coalitions work pretty well if everyone agrees or if it is a partnership of equals but the Lib Dems have brought almost nothing to the table and supported a Tory manifesto without demur. Now, at last, tuition fees have prodded a few of them into action.

Back in the early 80s I was a fairly pointless manager of a well known record and tape outlet and my immediate boss was one Norman Baker, the area manager. He was quite good at his job and therefore hated by those of us intent on shoving Echo and the Bunnymen on the shop stereo and ignoring customers wishing to buy anything by Kajagoogoo. He left to join London Transport when the ethos of the company finally ground him, disappearing from view before emerging as the dynamic MP for Lewis. In many ways he stole my career!....

Norman Baker is now getting back into my good books by going public on his doubts around voting with the Government. So he should. As I've said before, the rights and wrongs of the policy are almost irrelevant. What matters to me is that a group of politicians many of us held dear for their unconventional take on the corridors of power are about to go native and vote for something they not only never supported, but for something they all 'actively' opposed.

It does matter to me that politicians do what they say and it should matter to all of us. It may be inconvenient for Vince Cable to vote against his own policy but I'd much rather he voted for what he made us believe was his policy, Democracy only really works if we believe politicians will do what they promise they'll do and if the whiff of power deflects them from their pledge then we are all the losers. We didn't make them sign the pledge, they went for it because they either believed in it or believed it would get them elected. Students around the country should carefully note what they do on Thursday and learn a valuable lesson about trust and the wider world they are about to join.

Lonely furrow revisited

2010-11-29T13:50:00.000-08:00

A promising leader in The Observer about fair pay contained the sentence 'There are valid questions to be asked about the scale of public spending under Labour, whether taxpayers got value for money.' It depressed me more than perhaps it should have done because, as usual, the taxpayer got name-checked as the arbiter of right and wrong.

Am I the only person who hates the tax payer? Well, no, actually, most of the neo-cons hate them as well as they feel they shouldn't exist. I'm a big fan of tax, especially income tax and am more than happy to pay it most of the time but I can't ever feel on the side of the taxpayer owing to his/her apparent allegiance to every petty minded argument against fairness and equality.

Now, The Observer article was actually right up my strasse. It made the points they I'd make if I was barely literate and able to pronounce or spell 'phenomonen' without laughing. The Liberal Democrats seem unable to carve themselves a role and are fast disappearing as a political entity but the article could direct their future path if they would but dare. The current political future is being shaped by the meritocratic ideas of an unelected elite using the past as the justification for their policies. The past owned by New Labour. The LibDems seem to agree. I don't and here's why. The Labour party didn't mismanage the economy, they ignored it. As long as the tax revenues kept rolling in, they were free to pursue their chosen policies, accepting the credit for a buoyant housing market and all the credit it stacked up. You can see what I did there.

The Tories want a return to housing led boom but I predict they wont get it, at least I'm pretty sure they won't. They may have a resurgent economy to crow about as we come back from the abyss but we avoided the abyss by bailing out the banks, not by creating a Big Society. We're not sunk but we're going to have to wait quite a few years for the wind to pick up. It will eventually of course, and the Government in power in five years will probably take the credit for that. We'll all be busy little ants again.

I think the Liberal Democrats should stop the Coalition now before it's too late. Clegg and Co are no longer acting in the interests of the country, they're acting in the interest of elitism and vested interest. The LibDems are being lobbied out of existence. If we really are partners in Government then we should stop cleaning the doorstep and start ordering breakfast. The Labour party used the wealth of increasingly disinterested big business and the credit boom to prop up their regime. The Tories want to lead us back to that but with less of the obvious benefits. I want to enjoy life, not by being rich but by being happy and safe - is that not a slogan to begin again with? I want to live a life where I'm not running to keep up all the time and so do you, don't you?

Of course you could be on the side of the taxpayer, the alliance of joyless penny pinchers who begrudge the state every penny because it might do something good at their expense. The taxpayers are always hard working (work really hard on this and think of a job in Britain where you have to work really hard to good purpose, as oppose to working really long hours) and seem to derive no pleasure in life. They are the dead, as Wilfred Owen might say. Surely we continually work long hours because we have to, not because we want to? Shouldn't it be the other way round?

Personally I think we should be on the side of the individual, the one that wants to be part of something rather than against everything not designed to make him or herself materially better off. And I thought the LibDems were on that side once. They could be again, or they might be on the other side or they might, seriously, be on no side at all. And then they become just as sad as all the people who have sneered so publicly at them for all my years told them they were.

Out of the shadows

2010-11-22T13:36:00.000-08:00

There came a time, in every series, when the Daleks passed through the confused ranks of the monosyllabic Ogrons and announced themselves as the real villains of the piece. The Ogrons shuffled off stage left without so much as a whimper. The same fate may befall the Lib Dems.

I haven't heard a lot from them this week. Instead I've enjoyed the 'firing' of Lord Young for saying what most supporters of the sick meritocracy we call the United Kingdom actually think (we've never had it - so good!) and endured the pitter patter of Daily Mail speak from Grant Shapps on Today. "With five million on the waiting list", he stated, oblivious to the sad reflection on Tory policy, "we can't allow people council houses for life". And then presumably went off for a kipper and Bucks Fizz for breakfast.

I like to think that the Ogrons didn't think, just grunted and shrugged their shoulders as another invasion got underway without them. The Lib Dems presumably (surely?) do think and either agree or disagree with what goes on in their name. What filters back to me? Well, my email traffic is down if that's any guide.

Back in the days when I thought 'That Mitchell and Webb Look' was going to be great, the first sketch, I laughed uproariously, like an Enid Blyton character, as the Germans wondered, what with all their deaths head regalia and black shiny uniforms, whether they weren't actually the 'baddies'? Do Nick Clegg and Vince Cable have the same doubts? Do they look around at their team, notice Shapps, Redwood, Lilley, the ghosts of Thatcher and Tebbitt, Osbourne, Gove and think that they might actually be the 'baddies'?

Iain Duncan Smith?

2010-11-14T13:19:00.000-08:00

I received an email form Iain Duncan Smith today. At least I would have assumed it was from Iain Duncan Smith if it hadn't notified me that the sender was Nick Clegg. My confusion arose from the first paragraph which bears repetition so we all know the Deputy Leaders state of mind.

Our Universal Credit is a radical and liberal policy. It will simplify
and amalgamate the main welfare benefits into one single system; ensure
that work always pays; and alleviate poverty by boosting take-up and
encouraging people into work. It is exactly the kind of change that we
came into politics to make.
Now I may be reading the wrong articles and watching the wrong news programmes but I thought this was Iain Duncan Smith's big idea? The Tories like it, they think its a winner so they've claimed it as their own. Nick Clegg can tell the party 'faithful' it's 'our' policy but surely he doesn't think anyone will believe him? This policy is true blue spin, and talking up work without providing it is not the change I campaigned for on behalf of Nick Clegg. The single credit policy has been around as an idea for ages, the desire to make work pay the battle cry of successive post war Governments, I didn't hear Nick Clegg exhorting party activists to extol their virtues a few months ago, B.C.

Given the first paragraph is so depressing, it comes as no surprise that another great Liberal is dragged in to brighten things up.

We will return the welfare system to its historic mission, as articulated by the
great Liberal William Beveridge, to offer security but not ‘stifle
incentive, opportunity and responsibility’.

Well, no, actually Nick, I don't agree with your argument. Nothing anyone has talked about with regard to the welfare state has anything to do with stifling incentive, opportunity and responsibility. It has nothing to do with these and everything to do with saving money by inciting the prejudice of the population. Now is not the time to tackle such great welfare reforms and neither is it the time for Liberals to turn their backs on the millions systematically disenfranchised by the Tory governments of Thatcher and Major and largely ignored by Blair and Brown. Not only do these people deserve a better champion than Bob Crow, they deserve a system that really helps them by re-balancing society and gives them a light at the end of the tunnel. Millions more will soon be joining them as real jobs disappear in the public sector and short termism and insecurity haunt the economy.

Will Hutton , who is sometimes a bit, well, wrong, can also be totally right and today he wrote an article containing values and arguments so beautifully simplistic that I think Nick Clegg would do well to offer it as the new Liberal manifesto. Not all of it, just the last bit. He wrote, ostensibly about tuition fees:

'The message is explicit: you British are on your own. Buy a house, fend for yourself and now pay your tuition fees. Society is going missing.

It is the sense of being helpless, of being forgotten, of having the social settlement recast in ways that takes away while offering nothing in return, and above all, not being heard that so inflames not just students but huge swaths of the British'

Personally I'd put an 'e' in swaths to make it look better but there is a kernel of an idea there for those looking for a banner to fight under. Everything that has been done for the benefit of the rich has taken away something from the rest of us and more and more of us are aware of it. Iain Duncan Smith may be offering a brave new idea for a fearful world but he's not offering the help he suggests, just an idea to keep those people still treading water happy. That Nick Clegg should claim this pretence at justice as partially his idea to the dwindling band of loyalists outside the halls of Westminster is a sad reminder, if any were needed, of just who he feels his friends are.

I'm not stupid, it isn't the economy

2010-11-09T14:04:00.000-08:00

James Carville is credited, I believe, with getting Bill Clinton to the White House with the simple campaign 'It's the economy, stupid'. Mr Carville was/is a clever man with a brain a bit bigger than mine but I would like to think that his phrase, or his choice, has been used inappropriately for long enough. I may be stupid, but I don't think it was the economy.

Public pronouncements have a way of being hijacked by loud mouths. We probably all remember Cherie Blair suggesting it was possible to understand the motivation behind the mothers of Palestinian suicide bombers. Within hours the story ran that she was defending suicide bombers, a hopelessly inadequate assessment of a fair comment which should have led to a reasoned debate. Anyone suggesting it isn't all about the economy in public would survive for about five minutes as a serious politician so, thankfully, I'm neither a politician or a public figure. So let me explain myself.

My Liberal past, the one influenced by John Stuart Mill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill and William E Gladstone and a rag bag bunch of free thinkers, Galbraithian economists and talkative alcoholics led me to believe in the power of society. The seventy or so years we tread the earth should be as enjoyable as possible, the enjoyment derived from interaction within the society you inhabit and contact with the societies you reach out to or are touched by. I fear, though I'm not unbending in my belief, that social Capitalism may well be the best way to achieve this but my starting point was, and remains, that any economic or political structure should be aimed at supporting the ability of an individual to prosper without undue impact on the prospects of others.

On social Capitalism, I recently listened to an interesting debate (Start The Week) on Quaker Capitalism, the belief by founding fathers of major British companies that Capitalism wasn't just about making money, possibly very little to do with making money, but the more to do with the establishment of a welfare state. But I digress.

The economy, however it is driven, is vital in achieving the aims of me and my economic heroes but, and here is my point, it's what the economy does for you that is important. For some, this will be a house in Monaco, for others a desire to let go the restraints of the society that made them but for a goodly majority I think its the absence of fear, the confidence of security, the platform for life that motivates. If it's just about the economy, we could be China, India, we could perhaps go further and become the slave dealing states of ancient worlds or the Imperialist African hungry economies of early and pre-Victorian societies.

Without the means to realise goals we are doomed but without the ability to reach for them we are equally defeated. Like fire and water, the economy is a good servant but a poor master; if we base our future on achieving financial goals we dispense with the need for Government, we are lost. But if we plan for the best possible outcome for everyone we may take the economic decisions that restore our society to balance.

I don't think James Carville meant it was all about the economy to the exclusion of all else but I think many Tories do. I've always thought that. What worries me is that the Liberal party seem increasingly to be trapped into thinking that way, the way of social and economic Darwinists. It's the John Stuart Mill, stupid.

The shop window

2010-11-08T15:06:00.000-08:00

I've been busy. I remember Jonathon Sachs explaining on the Today programme how he was taught to expect leisure time to expand as machines took the strain. Capitalism put a stop to that. I often wonder who these dreamers were who worried about excess leisure time, was our future ever so uncertain?

It came to me earlier that the Liberals may just be making a rudimentary error which, when pointed out, will have them back on the right track as soon as the first flush of embarrassment has faded.

Nick Clegg seems convinced that the Coalition is his chance to prove that the Liberal's can handle power when it is thrust upon them. It must seem so from the office of the Deputy Leader. Nick Clegg must think that if the economy improves, the powerless behind the throne will steal some of the glory. His gamble remains that the Coalition will convince voters that the Liberals are a party of Government.

My take on it is that the voters will recognise that the Liberals are able to adapt to retain influence. They might see it as a selfless sacrifice and a few votes may follow but basically, by merging with the ideals of the Tory party, the Liberals have been seen to believe in nothing more than power. And bang, there goes the USP. I see this as a schoolboy error for a party to make but, of course, the party didn't make it, the party leaders did, politicians with jobs and influence and a whole set of new friends explaining the way the world really works.

So, although it came to me earlier that the Ogrons will hold their hand up at some point, it now comes to me, a couple of paragraphs later, that they won't because the rudimentary error I made was in expecting individuals to care much about the aims and beliefs of the political party they belong to when the need to have aims and beliefs has passed. This turns the Liberals into Curiosity Killed The Cat rather than The Clash, corrupted by the seeming success of a mistaken public reaction. Fortunately, I was never in the Cat fan club.

So the older the coalition gets the harder its going to be for me to walk across to shake Clegg's hand and vice versa. We are falling out of love, each knew shock leaving us (well, only me really but that doesn't work for the analogy) betrayed by the depth of misunderstanding. In the Liberal shop window is the ability to rule without, it seems, the inconvenience of obligation. In my shabby corner shop window, the faith in my political and economic beliefs steadfast against the corruption of power.

The only thing perhaps we can both agree on is that the way things are, we may never have enough leisure time for Jonathan Sachs and his generation to worry about. I just happen to think that's a sad thing to contemplate.

A lonely furrow

2010-10-26T14:15:00.000-07:00

Ploughing the sands. That's a saying I liked until I realised that perhaps I was ploughing the sands with my ideas on social well-being but now it turns out I'm simply ploughing a lonely furrow. And it's only lonely becasue my celebrity endorsers have no idea they're endorsing me.

Ploughing the sands, should anyone care, relates to the pointless pursuance of a particular task, such as writing a blog for no-one or resurrecting long lost economic ideals or remembering the Ogrons. I'm a bit of a fan of cultivating sand in my spare time. Just because you're in a minority doesn't mean you're wrong!

The Guardian has come to my rescue. Two A list celebrities have come out and agreed with me, assuming their complete ignorance of my existence is no bar to agreement. First up - Armando Iannucci http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/23/armando-iannucci-interview-coalition-cuts who, it turns out, voted Lib Dem in 2003 and came along for the ride until the C word. Secondly, Iain/Ian Banks has waded in with his usual heart-on-his-sleeve sincerity in the letters page http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/23/city-boys-drool-over-cuts.

Both of these articles encourage me that I'm not the only one still inclined to believe that cuts are not the answer to the crisis, or at least not the only answer. When Nick Clegg railed against the FSA for condemning the spending review as unfair he made the valid point that you can't judge fairness by targets and statistics. What he needs to rediscover is that you can't measure success quite so easily either. A return to the days when a triple A credit rating was all the government of the day aspired would be a failure and, however difficult, Clegg must remember it is a politicians job to remain steady under the persuasive muscle of expensive lobbyists and deliver a life and opportunity for all members of a society before, rather than after, all other considerations.

We none of us choose the societies we are born into but those of us lucky enough to grow up in a free and fair society should never forget the sacrifice of others in ensuring our basic freedoms. Before we sneer too loudly at the stupidity of the Tea Party in America, we should remember the cheering backbenchers last Wednesday as Osborne announced the demise of a way of life for 500,000 innocent vicims of an economic theory. And now, if you'll excuse me, the sand is looking a bit dry.

Let's hear it for the cuts....

2010-10-22T14:51:00.000-07:00

As Boy Osbourne sat down after formalising the inevitable social butchery of Coalition spending cuts, the Tory benches erupted in wild applause. It was pretty sickening to hear, possibly worse to witness live and in the flesh for those Libs inhabiting the Commons. I'm not so sure it was such a bad thing myself. The obvious glee of the barely restrained Tory right might have served as a recruitment drive for a New Model Army, but it also shone a light, yes one of those lights that politicians are busy shining in many a nook and whatnot, on an uneasy Nick Clegg.

I think Mr Clegg may be squirming under the pressure of being shackled to the silent blue hordes. When Labour kicks the bin it is is to Nick Clegg that everyone looks to get a reaction. When the Press analyse policy, it is the Liberal Democrats who invite scrutiny. We/They have become the modern day Ypres salient - break through here and the war is as good as won for those wishing to rush back to the polls or sell a few more newspapers. And, if I can take the WW1 analagy a little further than Douglas Haig managed to advance the line, the relentless bombardment has intensified with the news of an all time low in the opinion polls for the Liberals, this despite the majority of Sun readers agreeing with the cuts and public opinion still seemingly benign.

Nick Clegg certainly didn't like the Institute for Fiscal Studies' findings that the cuts hit the poor hardest. "Distorted nonsense" he decried. He may have a point, we shouldn't see life, the universe, everything as just a profit and loss account disposed to be judged financially. But he must know that the cuts were not in the manifesto, that by and large they were in the Tory manifesto. Cameron has paused and let the coalition partners come panting up the road behind him, full of 'we didn't realise' (tuition fees) and 'the view from here is not what it was from there'. I think Nick Clegg knows his supporters are sceptical at best, that they believe the cuts are unfair and that Tory supporters don't and don't care what his supporters think. If you follow me.

If the party wants me back (and they may not) or even people like me, it might play well to expose the gaps that are now, for the first time, appearing. Liberals have taken gambles in the recent past and most have paid off but if they want this unholy alliance to get anywhere near working they need to publicise their unease. Nick Clegg might feel this is contrary to the spirit of coalition but, like finding a way of making the banks pay big time without chasing them away to their tax havens, pushing the boundaries of dissent against the Tory overlords might just keep the sorry ship afloat long enough to salvage the cargo.

They're all the same

2010-10-18T12:37:00.000-07:00

I had my attention drawn to this weeks Victoria Coren article in the Observer http://m.guardian.co.uk/?id=102202&story=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/17/victoria-coren-nick-clegg-greer-jacobson.. Pretty much what you would expect, pretty much what I would expect until the line 'This isn't meant to be an attack on the Lib Dems; all the parties are the same. They're interchangeable'. This really shows how far the Liberals have come and how low they've sunk. No longer ridiculed by the nod to their unelectability, they're grouped in with all the other parties in the laziest put down of all.

In the good old days I used to rail against this comment. Well done the chattering classes, dismissing heartfelt passion and energy as the corrupted morals of each and every politician. Moving slightly to catch more sun, the loungers fall back on one of the staples - all politicans are in it for themselves, a truth so self evident that it serves as a clincher for any dispute.

I refute it but I find it harder to dismiss it completely out of hand these days. The number of politicians who have stood the test of time and more or less stuck to a principle or two seem an exotic rarity. The Liberals promised to be a sanctuary for them in a hostile world but since the dawn of the coalition I have to say I might just have been a bit too wide-eyed and innocent. In order to make power work it would seem they have to let principle go and in doing so, challenge the very nature of what a party stands for. If the bottom line of the coalition is that Nick Clegg defends his spending cuts by talking up the brilliance of allowing more two year olds to be taught by the state (2 year olds for pities sake) in total work families, for example, I begin to see that power does have the ability to corrupt principles enough to make it pointless following a team. Perhaps its just the Government and the Opposition?

I'm no longer sure I like the idea of coalition politics in any form but I'm fully aware the poisoned economy has made being in charge a slightly iffy proposition. The trouble is, if in adversity you feel unable to speak up loudly for the things you disagree with (as the Tories will do over voting reform) then what exactly is the Liberal Democrats place in the world?

An Education

2010-10-12T15:08:00.000-07:00

Once again it falls to the Ogrons to front the latest assault on the quality of life. Whatever the rights and wrongs of Lord Browne's report into graduate funding, it's the Lib Dems that have come out to play with the media. Was the report shown to the Tories at all? Does anyone have any idea, 24 hours in, what David Cameron's view is?

Pre-coalition, this was exactly the issue that made me glad to be orange. Some Liberals may have embraced controversial issues because they knew they would never have to enact them but I always felt power for power's sake was pointless. It would have been easier to support the Labour party if being on the winning side was all that mattered but for me, and many like me, it meant more to be righty than mighty. And I don't think it was falling back on our principles that made us unelectable, more the pocketing of our mainline policies by the other two when it suited them and the constant barrage of condescending comment from all sides.

So what do those Liberals who signed the education pledge not to raise tuition fees do now? If Vince Cable is to be believed, nothing. Apparently the reality of the situation has forced him to see tuition fees in a new light. Not the 'where did it all go so wrong?' light, more the 'now I'm in power I can stopping mucking about and go with the flow' light. We used to value university education, now we put a value on it, another sop to the 'why should I pay for.....?' brigade.

We already know Oxford and Cambridge open their doors less to the working classes, if such a term doesn't sound too Eric Blair, than their less fussy neighbours. Removing the cap will make it worse. Oxbridge doesn't need to pander to the masses as much as it needs hard cash and the overseas students and public school pupils who already pack their lecture halls will be willing and able to pay a premium, possible even glad to if it keeps the riff raff out. We give in to the social Darwinism yet again without murmur, the perpetuation of unfairness in society marching on triumphant. Or perhaps it's just coincidence that all the clever people go to Eton, generation after generation of them.

The Liberals do us all a disservice by accepting Lord Browne's proposals without debate. The chance to examine how we got here has been trumped yet again by the need to act immediately. And not a Tory in sight.

On Blogs

2010-10-08T13:29:00.000-07:00

As you get into this Blog business you realise that some people out there are blog happy. Are they frustrated authors? Are they authors? Most people I know have time to squeeze in The Inbetweeners before falling asleep on the sofa with the kid's packed lunch still unmade.

Nick Robinson, that masterly observer of the modern game of tabloid reported politics, gets paid for it so fair do's. Apostrophe in do's? Many of the other blogs I've toured have no such excuse, they're just out there filling in the hours they've rescued from the demands of life. To be fair, most of them seem to have readers and therefore need to keep going for fear of being seen as impulsive, unlike myself. I'm impulsive, but, you know, four followers is less than my band got on a wet thursday after Christmas. No one would notice if I gave up and those of you good enough to have become followers might justifiably sigh with relief.

But its good for my soul. Someone once wrote that we have forgotten how to disagree and I don't disagree with that. In the days when I willingly went door to door selling the LibDem message (about six months ago) I took comfort in the fact that I stood for something rather than hid from everything and I'm hoping this blog will give me the same rosy glow. I believe it's important to stand up and bare a small part of your soul to random friends and strangers - it shows you're for something, not against everything.

Blogs, it seems, may well have replaced the pub. Or it may be Facebook or Twitter. I learn't many a lesson in a pub. Before the advent of the internet the pub offered a forum to discuss opinions, a public place where friends gathered and exchanged views. You can't do that in the pub so easily now, unless its the local, no music, meat raffle on Friday pub where the old gimmers hang out. The pub has had its soul stolen, its purpose perverted.

So those of you wondering why I started this blog a) read the first post and b) think of the good it does me and my fellow bloggers. Convinced I have something to say in a world often moving too fast to listen, the blog lets me stand up to be knocked down and gives me the rolling arguements to shape my soul, antagonise my friends and work out my allegiance. It might do the same for you?

Red Ed?

2010-09-30T13:02:00.000-07:00

I thought it best to let the soap opera run its course (as if) before thinking about where the election of Ed Miliband leaves me. Apparently it leaves the Tories weak with laughter. The BBC told me that one, chummily reporting as fact the prevailing view that Labour have lost their best chance to bounce back by rejecting the elder Miliband. Ed might be a nice guy, but he's naive, leftish, in the pocket of the unions and wholly unknown to the electorate.

For those of us interested in the outcome, the effect of the press, condescendingly nice, has been unsettling. Suddenly, the last port in the austerity storm looks a bit feeble. We Liberals are used to this. Voters may have liked the Liberal Democrats, they might even have preferred them over the others, but they wouldn't like to actually give them power. Like allowing Brian Clough to become England manager, it's best left in the 'what if?' category. As a paranoid Liberal, every day saw the little dig designed to keep us down, the broadsheets joining in the tabloid game of keeping up the sterotype. We were simply too nice, well meaning and do goody to be trusted with anything but a few councils.

Now Labour are going to get the treatment. Murdoch and his ilk will build up David Miliband, praise the work of Blairite ministers and express regret that their day has passed. The BBC, which has so much influence over how many of us think, because we think it strives to be impartial, will report the news we don't read. It will tell us what the papers say. It will make us think about the origins of smoke. It will worry us.

Those of you familiar with Michael Haneke's Funny Games http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funny_Games_(1997_film) will know that the premise of the film is that violence is violence whether its real or simply portrayal. The audience is seeing what happens, knowing its not real but being confronted with the idea that it perhaps doesn't matter that its not real. The reporting of something becomes as powerful as the thing itself.

So, too, with Ed Miliband. The accepted truth becomes fact whether it is or not. David is the clever one, the leader, the saviour of Labour. Ed was a nice idea who tricked his way, or had someone else trick his way, into first place. We are all unsettled, we liked the idea but do we like the fact? The small group of press barons who claim (when it suits them) to hold the power of government in their grubby hands don't have to attack Ed Miliband, they just have to do what everyone in the media has been doing to the Liberal party for 50 odd years, they just have to sow the seeds of doubt.

Don't be swayed dear Etherons. Ed Miliband is clever and erudite and is trying to be inclusive. David Miliband was pretty similar but he had baggage. His speech at conference wasn't some miracle oration too late to save the day, it was simply an OK speech from a clever politician who will be deeply missed but who wont be irreplaceable. Hats off to the way he's retained his dignity and made the right move. He'll be back, he'll be helping but Ed is the immediate future and I'm still thinking of jumping ship.