The Sound of Gunfire

Another small blow for freedom

2009-10-13T20:43:00.002+01:00

It's been somewhat overshadowed by the Trafigura affair, but it's good that Dutch MP Geert Wilders has managed to overturn the ban on him coming to the UK which was introduced by former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith (whatever happened to her?).

I am no apologist for his views, which as I blogged in February are based on falsehoods and distortions. But I don't believe he incites violence and so he should be free to come to this country to air his views. People like Wilders can best be tackled if their opinions are exposed and argued with, not given a false sense of martyrdom by being banned from coming in.

It's a remarkable achievement...

2009-10-13T19:29:00.002+01:00

...to go from being a company known by relatively few people to becoming a symbol of global corporate evil within the space of 24 hours.

It's even more remarkable to do so without having much coverage in the mainstream media.

Today's events surrounding Trafigura and its doomed attempt to gag coverage of its toxic dumping in the Ivory Coast certainly show the ability of the internet/blogs/Twitter to make the running on a story like this, although Alix Mortimer is probably right that this would all have been in vain without political action also being taken. It certainly shows an ability for new media outlets to react in a more flexible way than traditional media, very few of whom took the decision to publish the parliamentary question at the centre of the storm.

Some might believe this demonstrates the inability of corporations to control and censor adverse information about themselves. Certainly, where information is in the public domain or easily accessible, it's stupid and futile for any company or government even to attempt to keep embarrassing information under wraps.

But let's not kid ourselves that this is anything other than a small victory for freedom. We all only found out about the Trafigura toxic dumping only as a result of them taking their blunderbus and aiming it squarely at their own feet by attempting to censor reporting of Parliament. The injunction had been in place for weeks until it was revealed in Paul Farrelly's question.

There are doubtless numerous corporations whose sins we haven't heard of, because they are able to use injunctions and gagging clauses to prevent the public from finding about their crimes and misdemeanours.

The main benefit of this whole affair has been to let sunshine in on the whole panoply of ways in which press freedom is limited in this country. Using injunctions to gag parliamentary reporting is only the most extreme example of the limitations placed upon the press. Whether it's our absurd libel laws, which even restrict legitimate scientific enquiry, or the increasing threat from rules governing breach of confidentiality, the reality is that the UK has some of the most restrictive laws governing freedom of expression and press freedom of any democratic country.

While we should celebrate that Trafigura and Carter-Ruck have been defeated in this instance, it's only a small step in the wider battle for freedom opf expression.

A question

2009-10-13T12:16:00.002+01:00

Imagine you're a multinational firm facing the following question being asked in Parliament:

Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura.

Do you (a) realise that few people pay much attention to what happens in Parliament and that even if it is reported in the media, not too many people will actually read the reports, or (b) get a gagging order against a national newspaper which tries to report the story, thereby giving the story real legs and encouraging websites across the world to publish the details and thereby highlight the absurd lengths you're going to in order to suppress a story of legitimate public concern, in the process trampling on centuries of parliamentary freedom?

Answers on a used injunction to Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors, please.

I'm delighted that the Lib Dems have realised the importance of this issue and are tabling an urgent question about it.

Gnats face both ways on defence

2009-10-12T23:00:00.002+01:00

More fantasy politics from our beloved Gnats, this time talking about defence.

Angus Robertson, the MP for RAF Kinloss and RAF Lossiemouth, has been outlining how he thinks Scotland could go it alone on defence when freed of the clutches of the Evil English.

To an extent that's fair enough: you wouldn't expect a Gnat MP to do anything else but bang on about how Scotland will be a land of milk and honey come the happy day when independence is achieved and all of Scotland's problems are solved instantly. The fact that Scotland would have to face the significant cost of shelling out for its own defences should it ever gain independence is largely irrelevant.

But what really got my attention was Robertson's statement that the remains of the UK could continue to use military bases in an independent Scotland.

Let me see if I've got this straight. Robertson wants the supposed benefits of Scotland going it alone on defence AND he wants England to continue to base its forces north of the border?

Why the hell should England do that? If Scotland did go it alone, why on earth would England continue to subsidise Scotland in that way? If Scotland did ever become independent, you can be certain that both RAF Kinloss and RAF Lossiemouth would see their squadrons withdrawn to RAF Lineham or RAF Brize Norton quicker than you can say 'massive blow to Moray's economy'.

Defence is one of those areas that Scotland would more or less have to build up from scratch if it ever became independent, with all the costs that would involve. And it's far too important a subject for people like Robertson to indulge in the sort of juvenile gesture politics he's been displaying today.

Even MPs deserve natural justice

2009-10-12T22:13:00.002+01:00

People have rightly been angered over the behaviour of many MPs with regard to their expenses. It has been a tale of greed and, in some cases, of downright corruption.

But that doesn't mean that MPs have forfeited any right to natural justice. MPs have the same right as anyone else to know the nature of any charges against them and to know that they will be subject to a fair process in dealing with these.

It's not a principle that MPs have always applied when dealing with other people, particularly in some of the assaults on civil liberties which the Labour government has introduced, such as control orders.

But MPs have discovered today why such principles are important. Sir Thomas Legg's introduction of new standards relating to expenses claimed for cleaning and gardening means that MPs are being made subject to rules that are being applied retrospectively, which is an abominable principle. As a result, Gordon Brown is having to repay more than £12,000 and Nick Clegg over £900.

Legg's introduction of a £3,000 limit on cleaning and gardening seems to me to be a wholly arbitrary decision. He could have decided that having MPs claiming for cleaning and gardening was not 'wholly, exclusively and necessarily' related to their parliamentary duties and thus should be paid back in full. That would be a tough call for many MPs, but he would at least be applying the rule which applied at the time. Or he could have decided that gardening and cleaning were entirely legitimate expenses for MPs and that nobody should therefore pay back any of these costs.

But he's done neither - he decided to introduce a wholly arbitrary limit under which cleaning and gardening expenses are 'deemed' reasonable if they are under £3,000. Why £3k and not £2k or £5k? There doesn't seem any particular reason to have chosen that figure.

As it is, Legg's introduction of such a limit would seem to breach Article 11 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed." Those rights apply even to people we might not approve of, including MPs.

Michael Gove: An apology

2009-10-08T13:22:00.002+01:00

I apologise that Michael Gove seems to have drawn his narrative of British history from my rather jokey suggestion a few weeks back. The main difference is that Gove appears to be serious.

If you want to know why Gove's proposed history curriculum is so absurd, just read these two terrific postings by the awesome President for Life of the People's Republic, as well as Mark Pack's posting.

Salmond, debates and the Gray man

2009-10-06T19:30:00.002+01:00

Lib Dem Voice has published my views on the election debates controversy in the latest in the series of posts from Scottish Lib Dem bloggers, Haggis, Neeps and Liberalism. You can find it here.

Carol Thatcher should sue!

2009-10-05T22:11:00.002+01:00

I'm not a fan of Strictly Come Dancing. Nor have I ever seen Hole in the Wall, which from the trailers seems like a prime argument for abolishing the licence fee.

Anton Du Beke has therefore rarely entered my consciousness. Even if you came up to me with his photo and told me: "This is Anton Du Beke, who has achieved minor celebrity through appearing on a TV dance show," I'd just have to take your word for it.

But I'm talking about him today because of the story about him apologising after calling his dance partner a 'Paki'.

The Beeb believes that his apology puts an end to the matter. This seems like astonishing double standards, given that Carol Thatcher was axed from The One Show for calling someone a 'golliwog'.

The corporation says the difference between Thatcher and Du Beke is that the latter apologised for his remarks whereas Thatcher didn't. But an apology wasn't enough to save Big Ron Atkinson from being sacked as a football pundit by ITV after calling Marcel Desailly a 'thick nigger'.

Now, there's certainly an argument for saying that using such racial epithets, unpleasant though they might be, shouldn't automatically lead to someone losing their job. I have some sympathy with that view - I think there's a big difference between Carol Thatcher referring to someone as a golliwog in a private conversation and, say, a policeman using the term when searching a young black man.

And you can certainly accuse the Beeb of having skewed priorities by getting rid of Carol Thatcher for her comment, but allowing the BNP on Question Time to peddle their filth.

But the point is, if the use of such terms is thought so unacceptable that people can lose their jobs over them, it shouldn't matter too much whether someone apologises or not - the damage has been done.

If Du Beke is not axed by the Beeb, I think Carol Thatcher should sue the corporation for sex discrimination, as she's certainly been treated differently from a man in the same situation. I think she'd stand an excellent chance of winning.

Sloppy talk from Cameron

2009-10-05T21:32:00.002+01:00

I suspect it was just sloppy wording, but I was intrigued by the way David Cameron phrased his rather vacuous pledge of respecting Scotland should he become Prime Minister.

Now leave aside the fact that respect has to be a two-way process. I doubt that Alex Salmond is going to do anything other than continually provoke fights between the Scottish Government and Westminster, in the way he's done over the past few years.

And ignore also the fact that respect can't hide the fact that there will be difficult decisions that have to be made about budgets and priorities, even without any manufactured disputes.

Let's look at how Cameron actually worded his pledge of respect. He said: "I would govern with respect because I know that even if we do well, we are unlikely to get a majority of Scottish seats and so we have to govern and work with the Scottish administration."

I'm sure it's unintentional, but that implies that if somehow the Tories did get a majority of Scottish seats at Westminster, they wouldn't feel the need to work with the Scottish Government, even though it's a completely separate Parliament elected by a different system and so is not responsible to Westminster.

In itself this probably doesn't matter much, but if Prime Minister Cameron is this sloppy when he's negotiating with the Scottish Government, I'm afraid Alex Salmond is going to run rings round him.

Brown's Labour conference speech: first draft

2009-09-29T20:55:00.003+01:00

And so today, in the midst of events that are transforming our world, we meet united (apart from those idiots Purnell and Blears, obviously) and determined to fight for the future.

Our country confronts the biggest choice for a generation. It’s a choice between two parties, yes. But more importantly a choice between two directions for our country. (You can tell I was a crap Chancellor, as I can't count beyond two).

In the last eighteen months we have had to confront the biggest economic choices the world has faced since the 1930s, as a result of my stunning incompetence in regulating the financial system and failure to stop the unsustainable debt-led boom.

And times of great challenge mean choices of great consequence, so let me share with you a little about the choices we are making. Our first choice is to blame anyone but ourselves for the economic chaos. And our second choice is to splurge even more dosh on our ballooning deficit between now and the election, to really screw things up for the next government. And our third choice is to make ineffective gestures which might get a headline or two, such as our VAT cut last year. We also made the choice to introduce a mortgage rescue scheme which has benefited only a
handful of homeowners.

And although we're hopeless, the Tories would be even worse. Did you know they eat babies and indulge in Satanic rituals under the guise of Bullingdon Club drinking sessions?

As for the bankers, I guarantee that they will all be whipped three times daily and survive in future on a of bread and a glass of water. The fact that I have no real ability to enforce this is irrelevant, as is my own failure to regulate the banking system properly.

Now it's time for some buzzwords about fairness, ignoring the fact that the gap between rich and poor has widened under 12 years of Labour rule. The word values should also be used a lot.

I grew up in an ordinary family in an ordinary town (unlike those toffs Cameron and Osborne). Like most families on middle and modest incomes we believed in making the most of our talents.
But we knew that no matter how hard we worked free education was our only pathway to being the best we could be, but despite that I'm proud of saddling students with tuition fees and record levels of debt.

And I come from a family which, independent and self reliant as it was, could not have kept going without the compassion and caring of the NHS which has not been a sixty year mistake but a sixty year liberation. Take that, you swivel-eyed loon Hannan.

And it has been those experiences, and that background, that has taught me that yes, too much government can make people powerless, but that won't stop me from leading the bossiest and most authoritarian government of modern times, which wants to make 11 million people prove they are not paedophiles before taking the neighbours' kids to swimming lessons.

We will not allow those on middle and modest incomes to be buffeted about in a storm not of their making. We'll just create the most complicated tax system anywhere in the western world, so that people won't realise that when we give them a minimum wage and tax credits (pause for cheers), we're just going to take it back by other means.

And so this is our choice – to make rules about how to toughen the rules on those who break the rules, as the more rules we have, the better. That's why we'll introduce new rules on bankers’ bonuses (pause for boos). And any director of any of our banks who is negligent will be disqualified from holding any such post, although such rules won't apply to Prime Ministers or former Chancellors of the Exchequers, obviously.

In the uncharted waters we sail, the challenge of change demands nothing less than a new model for our economy, a new model for a more responsible society and a new model for a more accountable politics. Do you think if I say the word 'new' enough, people will forget we've been in power for 12 years?

Staying with the status quo is not an option. The issue is not whether to change, but how, although there can't possibly be any change which involves me leaving Downing Street.

It's now time for some guff about the economic principles which underlie my approach, although obviously I don't want people to remember any of my previous principles like the 'Golden Rule' on borrowing. I probably also ought to mention the Post Office somewhere in here, despite my government's record of closing thousands of post offices. And I also ought to say some green buzzwords as well.

Next I'm going to announce all sorts of spending pledges on education, jobs and care for the elderly, even though we won't be able to afford a single one of them due to the government deficit. But I'm absolutely not going to announce any spending cuts anywhere to pay for them.

However, I do have to say something about the deficit, so I'll pretend that by passing a new law, the problem can somehow be tackled. It's nonsense, but I'm hoping no-one will notice that. I'll also mention a rise in National Insurance to help tackle the deficit, even though it's a tax on jobs.

By the way, did I mention the Tories want to burn down every hospital and school in the country? In contrast, under Labour the UK is a land of milk and honey (insert all the buzzwords here about the minimum wage etc to get the delegates cheering).

Now it's time for some more authoritarian stuff. I think teenage mums should be locked up. We also need to boss parents around a bit more. And all our teenagers are drunken yobs who must be given ASBOs. We're also going to backtrack on 24-hour drinking which was introduced by the evil previous government (Tony Blair's, obviously).

I'm also going to continue the fear-mongering over terrorism and immigration. Bloody foreigners must continue to have ID cards, but I'm not going to make them compulsory for British citizens, even though we're going to keep the massive ID database which underlies them.

I love Britain, I do.

Time for a name-check for President Obama, in the hope that people will think I'm just like him. I probably also ought to mention some guff about all the problems the world faces, even though I don't have a clue how to deal with most of them. Overseas aid (pause for cheers).

Did I mention I love the NHS and will guarantee unlimited funding for it, so that we can get rid of all diseases? Unlike the Tories, who want to leave everyone to die horribly on a hospital trolley.

But a fair and responsible Britain must be an accountable Britain. Tory MPs who fiddled their expenses should be drowned in their moats. I'm aware that some Labour MPs were also on the take (yes, Blears and Morley and Moran, I'm looking at you).

And so where there is proven financial corruption by an MP and in cases where wrong-doing has been demonstrated but Parliament fails to act we will give constituents the right to recall their Member of Parliament. But we're not going to legislate on this before the election, even though we could.

I'm also going to announce a referendum on the unproportional Alternative Vote system, even though we promised a referendum on electoral reform in 1997 and never delivered. I'm also going to end the hereditary principle in the House of Lords, even though I've had 12 years to do something about it and not done it. Who knows, both these pledges could be enough to get one or two Lib Dems into voting for us, the fools.

I’ve been honest with you about where we’ve got it right, which is actually not very much, if I were actually being honest. And where we’ve fallen short and have to do more, which is in just about every area.

Did I mention the Tories are evil toffs?

And so I say to the British people the election to come will not be about my future, as we all know I'm doomed.

And I say to you now: Insert peroration here, not that anyone will actually believe a word I've said.

Lib Dem Federal Conference: Vince Cable

2009-09-22T14:49:00.002+01:00

The Sage of Twickenham, Vince Cable, also addressed conference yesterday and it was as usual very good stuff. It's absolutely no reflection on Vince that following his speech I took to my sickbed for the rest of the day.

You can see his speech here.

Lib Dem Federal Conference: Tim Farron

2009-09-22T14:46:00.002+01:00

Tim Farron, the excellent MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale, gave a terrific and passionate speech to the conference yesterday.

Annoyingly, I can't actually find a video of it to put up, but you can read his speech here.

Lib Dem Federal Conference: Real Women

2009-09-22T14:13:00.002+01:00

My amendment on Real Women was accepted for debate on Saturday afternoon.

I knew even before starting that it was a battle I was never likely to win, and so it proved. Speaker after speaker lined up to oppose me and the result was that the policy was passed without my amendment.

This means that we now have policy on airbrushing of images which I think is essentially unworkable, but I can't say I'm too downhearted. It was good to have the debate and it would have been an amazingly dull session without my amendment being discussed.

One point that was made during the debate which I meant to address, but forgot to do so in my summing up. A parallel had been drawn with the laws on drink driving, saying that these had preceded a cultural change in the way we now see drink driving as unacceptable. However, I'd point out that the cultural change started to happen long before the drink driving laws were toughened up. I'd also point out that you can easily define a certain level of alcohol in the bloodstream which is unacceptable and that it's far more difficult to define what is and isn't an unrealistic portrayal of women (and men for that matter).

But that's now in the past and I was delighted that the rest of the Real Women proposals were passed.

A complete history of England

2009-09-15T09:25:00.002+01:00

Ancient Britons felt blue. Romans came, saw and conquered, built a wall and left. Alfred burned some cakes. 1066 and all that. Magna Carta died in vain. Agincourt and Crecy*. Henry VIII had six mothers-in-law. Frankie and Betty bowled out the Armada. Charles I lost his head. George III went mad and lost America. Nelson was armless. At Waterloo Napoleon did surrender. Victoria invents sponge cakes and waterfalls and Prince Albert invents the Prince Albert. Two World Wars and one World Cup. Extra-time with the Argies.

Is that all OK for the officially recognised patriotic version, Melanie?

* But don't mention who actually won the Hundred Years' War, natch.

Will we myth history if it's left in the past?

2009-09-14T20:37:00.003+01:00

I saw Stephen's posting the other day about the way history is taught in schools and thought about posting a response then.

But I'm glad I didn't, as today I read another couple of articles which touch on this debate, from the appalling Melanie Philips and the mercurial Yasmin Alibhai-Brown respectively. Both bemoan the lack of historical knowledge among so many young people today, as shown by a survey that showed some people think Winston Churchill was the first man on the moon or that the vast majority of people couldn't name a single 19th century British Prime Minister. But they do so from radically different standpoints: Philips because a lack of historical knowledge undermines patriotism and Alibhai-Brown because it undermines our ability to think critically about our society.

These two articles highlight the two contrasting approaches to teaching the subject that Stephen highlighted: history as myth and history as a means of examing the truth about our society.

Like Stephen, I wasn't educated in Scotland, so I can't comment directly on the way history is taught here. But like him, I would be surprised if field trips to Culloden or Bannockburn just promoted a narrow nationalistic outlook. I recall my own schooldays when we had trips up to the Imperial War Museum in London: they didn't turn me into a raving Teutonophobe or a flag-waving British patriot; if anything just the reverse. That's why I think Alibhai-Brown's approach is rather more rooted in reality than Melanie Philips.

But there is one sense in which Philips is correct, which is that any society does have to have some idea of where it has come from if it is to have shared values that keep people from being constantly at one another's throats. Whether we think of ourselves as Scottish, British, English, Jamaican, British Asian or whatever, there does have to be some understanding of what that means and where that identity comes from.

However, one question I do wish to ask is whether the English have an unusual lack of interest in their own history. In Scotland, the vast majority of people will have at least some awareness of the Highland Clearances, and almost every TV programme on Scotland's history will say something about it - as Peter Capaldi's excellent A Portrait Of Scotland did last week. But in England, knowledge of the Enclosure Acts - which had similar aims of creating larger agricultural units and had the effect of driving a lot of people away from land they had previously claimed ownership of - is more or less confined to specialist academic historians.

Now, maybe this doesn't matter too much. Perhaps Scotland is held back by focusing too much on its history and England benefits from its amnesia about its past. And to take a more extreme example, the conflict in Northern Ireland has been fuelled by a striking obsession with past wrongs, with both sides commemorating ancient battles and rivalries which are perhaps better left to decay gently within the pages of dusty history books.

But history IS important. Maybe it doesn't matter too much if students don't know who Lord Liverpool or Lord Rosebery were. Maybe it doesn't particularly matter that the English tend to think of an anti-Semitic rapist and probable murderer who barely visited his kingdom and bled it dry to fund his military adventures in the Middle East as a 'good king' (Richard I). Or that a well-regarded military commander, able administrator and literate Renaissance prince is popularly viewed as a deformed hunchbacked tyrannical monster who committed infanticide (Richard III).

However, a lack of historical understanding of our society and how we got to where we are now will affect us. Alibhai-Brown is absolutely correct that understanding our history is a key part of thinking about where we're going as a society. Our colonial past does have an impact on the sort of society we are now, for instance. And to take one important recent example, Tony Blair's lack of historical understanding certainly contributed to getting us entangled in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But, as Philips shows, if we don't have a critical understanding of how our past affects the way we are now, there are all too many people willing to fill the gap with myths. Philips seems to want to cultivate an uncritical patriotism which somehow blames 'multiculturalism' for the lack of understanding of our past. That's the same sort of myth-making territory that people like the BNP occupy with their dream of a country which is exclusively white and Christian, rather than recognising that Britain has been shaped by and benefited from successive waves of immigration.

The same myth-making tradition is also present among some strands of Scottish nationalism. To listen to some people, you might get the impression that the next significant date in Scottish history after the Battle of Culloden in 1746 (in my view a necessary defeat for the Jacobite dreams of a revived absolutist monarchy) was 1967, when Scotland's football team beat England 3-2 to become 'World Champions'. I exaggerate, but not by much. It's the same myth-making which has resulted in Braveheart becoming such a popular film among nationalists, despite it being a complete historical travesty.

So, where does all this leave us now? Well, one thing I can definitely say is that Henry Ford got it completely wrong: history is NOT more or less bunk. Sure, historical parallels are never exact and history is always written by the victors (the popular view of Richard III referred to above was largely created by Tudor writers seeking to justify the victory of the usurper known to history as Henry VII). But without it, we will be prey to being dominated more by myths than reality - and that could lead us to some very nasty places indeed. It's in our own interests to ensure that hsitory has a future.

I agree with Brendan Barber

2009-09-14T12:24:00.004+01:00

Brendan Barber is absolutely right.

I'm so glad we've moved on from the days when the governing party's economic incompetence led to recession which left 3 million people on the dole.

I'm delighted we no longer have a government which attacks some of the poorest people in scoiety, taking away their benefits and even turning them out of their homes if they can't work.

It makes a refreshing change not to have a government which blindly supports right-wing Republican presidents in their military escapades.

It's terrific not to have a government which panders to the right-wing tabloid press on issues like immigration.

And I'm sure I'm not alone in welcoming the fact that we no longer have a government which doesn't care about the gap between rich and poor.

Yep, Brendan Barber's totally correct. If we had all those things happening, there would undoubtedly be riots in the streets.

Delight for Michael Shields

2009-09-09T21:41:00.002+01:00

Having blogged a while back about Jack Straw's disgraceful decision to deny a pardon for jailed Liverpool fan Michael Shields, I'm delighted that Straw has now reversed that stance and released Mr Shields.

While this is a very welcome decision, we should not forget that Mr Shields spent four years in jail for a crime he didn't commit. And Straw unnecessarily prolonged that hell by first of all denying he had the right to issue a pardon and then refusing to accept the clear evidence that anyone with even the slightest awareness of this case could see: that Michael Shields was innocent. I don't see what new evidence could have appeared in the last couple of months which Straw would not have been aware of when he made his original decision.

But having said that, today is more about celebrating that Mr Shields is a free and innocent man once more.

This is what health fascism looks like

2009-09-08T22:04:00.003+01:00

The British Medical Association is a threat to to our freedom.

That's the only conclusion I can come to with the news today that they're seeking a total ban on alcohol advertising. This is an outrageously over the top response to the problems we have in the UK with regard to booze abuse.

Let's be clear about this: the doctors want to ban the promotion of a perfectly legal product, enjoyed by millions every day, on the grounds that doing so will somehow reduce the problems of binge drinking and the health problems which result. This is nonsense.

If such a ban were introduced, I doubt it would make any real difference to the levels of binge drinking in this country. People don't over-indulge in booze because they've seen an ad on the telly promoting a particular brand of wine or beer - they get drunk because they want to, because of problems in their lives, because they don't know their limits, because they're having too much fun to stop, because of peer pressure, because of 100 different reasons. Indeed, I don't recall seeing too many ads for Buckfast on the telly, but that doesn't stop it being a favourite tipple among teen binge drinkers.

As well as being ineffective, such a ban would also be wrong in principle. This isn't the same as banning tobacco advertising. That's a product which has absolutely positive side, whereas there are numerous health benefits claimed for moderate consumption of alcohol. So we've got the strange situation that doctors' leaders are wanting to ban the promotion of a product which, in moderation, can have significant health benefits - crazy or what?

And a booze ad ban would also have other effects. It's estimated it would cost the media industry somewhere in the region of £180m in advertising revenue, at a time when many companies are suffering significantly as a result of the recession. And according to this story in The Times, drink companies are the second biggest sponsors (behind the financial services sector) of sport in this country, supplying a total of £487 million last year. I wonder how the BMA would propose to fill that £1.4 billion gap between now and the London Olympics if alcohol sponsorship were withdrawn tomorrow?

It's time to stop this health fascism nonsense in its tracks. The mad medical zealots can't be allowed to erode our freedom any further.

Farewell to Keith Waterhouse 1929-2009

2009-09-04T18:48:00.003+01:00

Today is a sad day for all of us who care about the English language, as Keith Waterhouse has died.

Most of the tributes to him are likely to focus on Billy Liar and Jeffrey Bernard Is Unwell, which is fair enough, as both are modern classics.

But as someone who works as a journalist, I wish to highlight Waterhouse's contribution in that area. His book Waterhouse on Newspaper Style should be required reading for all journalists as it is a lively and thought-provoking look at the way we use language. I would also recommend it to non-journalists who have a passion for using words correctly and with flair.

Waterhouse's columns for the Daily Mirror and latterly the Daily Mail were among the best bits in both papers. I rarely read the Mail, but if I did and it had one of Waterhouse's columns in, I would savour every word, as there would always be some turn of phrase which surprised or delighted. He always wrote with elegance and wit, so you could appreciate what he was saying even if you disagreed with every word.

And Waterhouse will always be a hero for his relentless campaign to improve standards of English in this country. I support the aims of his Association for the Abolition of the Aberrant Apostrophe. He also delighted in pricking official jargon and pomposity.

I hope you will all join me in raising a glass to one of the finest writers of his generation.

In (partial) defence of Lembit Opik

2009-09-01T00:07:00.002+01:00

I don't normally read Lembit Opik's column in the Daily Sport - it's not really my preferred sort of reading.

But when someone (in this case Jane Watkinson - hello again Jane!) uses one of his articles to make a call for him to be chucked out the party, I'll make it my business to have a look at what he's written to decide if he deserves the suggested punishment.

And in this case, not in a million years. I'm not Lembit's biggest fan - I didn't vote for him in either party presidential election - but there is nothing there that would justify a charge of bringing the party into disrepute or withdrawing the party whip from him. Yes, he does sometimes make slightly risque and somewhat sexist jokes in his column, but he also uses it to make some good political points in a way his readership can engage with. Although I'm not keen on the occasional sexism, is it enough to justify chucking him out the party?

Even though his column appears in the porn-heavy Daily Sport, I don't think that is sufficient justification for chucking him out either. Let's face it, Nick Clegg has written for the Mail and the Sun, but that doesn't mean he shares those papers' views towards foreigners. Appearing in a paper does not equal approving of everything in that paper.

I've known Lembit for several years - I seem to recall getting some public speaking training from him at a youth and student conference at least 15 years ago - and he is somebody who is usually charming and able to engage with people on their own level.

I would also say his views are liberal. Although I would disagree with Lembit on the detail of quite a few policies, I am in no doubt that his views are derived from a liberal viewpoint.

I also think that the sort of individuality, even eccentricity, that Lembit displays is exactly what our party should be about. Chucking him out the party would send a signal that we're a pretty humourless bunch who want everyone to act and think exactly the same. Is that really the image you want people to have of the party, Jane?

That's not to say that everything that Jane says is wrong or over the top. With the talents Lembit has, he should have been challenging for the party leadership by now. Jane is correct to talk about Lembit's fundamental lack of seriousness, which I believe has held him back from achieving all he could have done in politics. Instead, he seems content to revel in the world of being a C-list celebrity.

Lembit's done nothing sufficiently bad to justify throwing him out of the party. But this little spat is indicative of his failure as a politician. He's allowed an element of frivolity to become the dominant part of his public persona. If he wants to be thought of as a serious politician rather than just a celeb, he will have to become more serious. I wonder if he's capable of that?

Stop trolling, Irfan!

2009-08-28T18:18:00.002+01:00

I'm not going to link to Irfan Ahmed's latest idiotic posting, in which he regurgitates a lie from Tory Bear that the Lib Dems are set to drop their policy of abolishing tuition fees.

Not only did Irfan not check his facts (the Lib Dems reaffirmed our opposition to tuition fees as recently as our last conference), he chose to headline his posting 'Fib Dems?'

If you look at the post, you'll find Irfan's struck through the text after comments from myself and others which demolished his argument.

But this is only the latest instalment of idiocy from Mr Ahmed, following his accusation recently that our party president is a crook. He has had posts in the past which have verged on the anti-semitic and homophobic, as well as one which said women were incapable of taking political decisions and should leave it to men. He has also claimed that there was a moral equivalence between a Tory MP who tried to stop youths from playing football where they shouldn't and the youths who then beat him up.

A word of advice, Irfan: stop being such a bloody fool. I'm not the only person who's concluded that you're nothing more than a troll.

The Future of Devolution - draft amendment

2009-08-27T20:37:00.002+01:00

Another motion on the agenda at Bournemouth next month is The Future Of Devolution, proposed by the Scottish and Welsh Liberal Democrats.

This is OK as far as it goes, but there is one glaring hole in it, which is that the motion focuses only on Scotland and Wales. There's absolutely no mention of that big bit directly below Scotland and to the right of Wales - what's it called again? Oh yes, England.

To have a motion about devolution which doesn't mention the single biggest bit of the UK seems somewhat naive, and possibly a little dangerous given the views sometimes expressed south of the border about the way Scotland and Wales can control their domestic affairs but England can't.

Now, it's not really for me to suggest how England ought to govern itself, although I have some ideas on that score. But the issue does need to be discussed at some point.

That's why I've drafted the following amendment:

Add at end:
Conference also believes that government in England is far too centralised and unaccountable and instructs the Federal Policy Committee to bring forward proposals to Federal Conference within the next 18 months on how this can be tackled.

As with the Real Women one, if you support this amendment and are a Lib Dem federal conference voting rep, email me at bernardsalmon[at]cix.co.uk with your name, membership number and local party.

Real Women - draft amendment

2009-08-27T19:25:00.003+01:00

I've finally got around to reading the new Lib Dem policy paper Real Women today.

On the whole, I think it's pretty good stuff. It tackles issues that affect women, without making me as a man feel I'm engaged in a massive conspiracy against the entire female population. It proposes lots of sensible, practical ways in which to enable women to improve their own lives.

But there are flaws in the motion that Lib Dem federal conference will be discussing next month when we get together in Bournemouth. There are parts of it which assume that some of the problems it seeks to address can be solved by state regulation, rather than through cultural change, which I think is a wrong-headed approach.

In particular, I'm thinking of the proposals relating to how women are portrayed in the media. These are either utterly impractical and unenforceable (eg the proposals governing how pictures can be modified) or involve the sort of petty state regulation that Lib Dems should be opposing. The proposals on lessons on body-image involve the sort of centralised control of education that I thought we were against. And the idea to introduce 'name blanking' for job applications is just silly bureaucratic nonsense.

That's why I've drafted this amendment, which I'm seeking support for. It's only a draft at the moment, so this may not be quite the final version, but if you're a Lib Dem federal conference voting rep and wish to support it, email me at bernardsalmon[at]cix.co.uk (replace the [at] with an @). I'll need your name, Lib Dem membership number and your local party.

This is the amendment:

Delete sections 3 and 4 (lines 39-52) and replace with:

3. Proposals to challenge the often narrow portrayal of gender roles within the media, but recognising that this can best be done through a process of cultural change rather than by regulation by the state.

4. Proposals to empower young girls (and boys) to challenge conformity and to decrease their chances of developing eating disorders by encouraging schools and local authorities to develop age-appropriate lessons on body-image and media literacy as part of Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) in schools.

Delete section 6(d) (lines 65-66).

These are the relevant sections of the motion as they currently stand:

3. Proposals to challenge the narrow and overly sexualised aesthetic presented in the media and popular culture by:

a) Requiring OFCOM and the ASA to mainstream gender equality into their regulation of the media.
b) Requiring all advertisements to declare the extent to which digital retouching technology has been used to create overly perfected and unrealistic images of women (and men).

4. Proposals to allow young girls (and boys) the space to challenge conformity and to decrease their chances of developing eating disorders by:

a) Banning the use of digital retouching technology in advertisements aimed at under 16s, which creates overly perfected and unrealistic images of women (and men); we would work with industry professionals to ensure that legislation was appropriately worded to reflect these aims.
b) Providing age-appropriate lessons on body-image and media literacy as part of Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) in schools.

6. Plans to tackle discrimination at work and in pay by:
d) Introducing a 'name blanking' policy so that job applicants apply with National Insurance numbers.

A few additions to my blogroll

2009-08-19T18:43:00.002+01:00

Partly following on from my last post, I've now updated my blogroll. As well as Mark Reckons and Himmelgarten Cafe whom I've already referred to, the Honourable Lady Mark, Fraser MacPherson, that elephant in the room, the Social Liberal Forum (whose two recent posts on the health debate I'd recommend that people read), Norfolk Blogger and the excellent Welsh Lib Dem site Freedom Central all make it for the first time. I've also got round to updating the often infuriating, frequently plain wrong but always interesting Charlotte Gore from her old site to her new one.

Banning MPs' outside jobs would be bad for democracy

2009-08-19T17:21:00.002+01:00

Mark Thompson's Mark Reckons blog is always thoughtful, well-written and interesting. He's certainly been one of the stars of the Lib Dem blogosphere over the past year. I really must get around some time to adding him to my blogroll, as well as one or two others like the cafe owner.

But (you knew there was a but coming, didn't you?) I think his posting today about stopping MPs from having outside interests is wrong. In a battle of the Marks, Mr Bureaucracy also takes issue with Mr Reckons. I largely agree with Mark V that it's none of our business, but I also have other concerns.

I want our parliaments to be composed of as wide a range of people as possible. If MPs were banned from having second jobs, I suspect the sort of people who get elected would become even narrower than they are already.

Mark Reckons does allow some exceptions, for people who have been directors of their own businesses who might wish to keep involved in the running of their firms. But if that's OK, why should a GP not be allowed to practise at least part-time? Given the vagaries of politics, they could be out of a job in a few years and face the prospect of either getting a new profession or having to undergo retraining to update their skills. Indeed, we've already had GP Howard Stoate deciding to stand down as an MP, as he feared new rules about second jobs would not allow him to continue to practise.

Or what about a journalist? Part of the job of a politician is to debate ideas and policies, which can be done through writing articles for the media. It seems rather unfair that a journalist who becomes an MP could continue to get paid for writing articles, but a GP couldn't continue to practise.

And if being a doctor or a journalist is also OK, why not a lawyer or a forex trader or an astrophysicist? By denying those people the right to continue to have paid outside interests, you're more likely to find they'll decide that standing for Parliament just isn't worth it in terms of the career sacrifice.

We already have a problem with politicians being drawn from an increasingly narrow section of the population, with student politics being followed by a job with an MP or a think tank, followed by election as a local councillor and then on into Parliament, and so on up the greasy pole. I want people in politics who have a wider experience of life than just politics. Stopping MPs from having paid outside interests would only make that problem much worse.

Porkie pies on ham sandwich risk?

2009-08-17T17:54:00.003+01:00

Blimey, it's easy to get out of the habit of this blogging lark, isn't it?

But I've been prompted to get back into things by today's story about a cancer charity's call for ham sandwiches to be no longer part of kids' lunchboxes due to an apparent increased risk of bowel cancer from processed meats.

My first reaction on hearing this story this morning was to think it wasn't anything new - and indeed it isn't, as a quick Google search comes up with these items from March 2008, November 2007 and June 2005, amongst others.

But the evidence behind this claim is not quite what it seems. Yes, there almost certainly is a link between consumption of red meat and increased risk of bowel cancer, but it's not as hard and fast as the call to stop giving kids ham sandwiches might suggest.

For a start, the World Cancer Research Fund, which made the call, acknowledges that little research has been done on red meat consumption in kids. Many of the studies which make up the research are like this one, which focuses on elderly people in the USA. It's certainly plausible to speculate that elderly people might be more prone to developing cancers linked to red meat consumption or that there is something about the way food is processed in the USA which might lead to the results. This study also notes that increased red meat consumption was linked to colorectal cancer when adjusting for age and energy intake, but when additional factors such as obesity or smoking were taken into account, the link is less clear.

It's also important to put the increased risk, such as it is, in context. As the American Institute for Cancer Research notes, the increased risk of bowel cancer from eating red meat is somewhere in the region of 20-25 per cent, which compares with an increased risk of lung cancer from smoking of up to 2000%. The rate of colorectal cancer in the UK is 55 per 100,000 people for men and 34.1 for women. A 25% increase in the risk of getting bowel cancer from excessive consumption of red meat would therefore mean a rate of about 68 per 100,000 for men and 42 for women. It's also worth noting that mortality rates for bowel cancer are falling, although more young people are developing the condition.

Even putting these issues aside, it's not easy to isolate the exact impact which red and processed meat has when compared to other aspects of diet. For instance, it seems that a diet with plenty of fibre is associated with a reduced risk of bowel cancer. Would a diet which is high in both red meat and fibre be good or bad? The evidence is unclear.

There are also questions about exactly what the figures show. In this study of 500,000 elderly Americans, it appears that those in the top 20 per cent for red meat consumption had a 25 per cent greater likelihood of developing various cancers than those in the lowest 20 per cent (although their incidence of leukaemia and melanoma were reduced). That indicates that eating A LOT of red or processed may be bad for you. But it certainly doesn't indicate that moderate consumption of red meat will give you cancer - and I can't find any evidence that it does.

Indeed, some experts question to what extent diet generally is an important factor in combating or causing cancer. This article, for instance, claims that regular exercise and maintaining a healthy weight are most important and that eating fruit and veg to prevent cancer is more significant in preventing cancer than eating red meat is in causing it.

So, should you give your kids ham sandwiches for lunch? I don't see any great reason not to, especially if you also slip an apple and a cereal bar into their lunchboxes. If they then run around the playground a bit after having it, so much the better.

Anyone who tells you that ham sandwiches will give your kids cancer is being unduly alarmist and is not giving you all the facts.

Right, I'm off to get a bacon sandwich for my tea.

Michael Shields: the injustice continues

2009-07-03T09:30:00.003+01:00

Very disappointing news yesterday, with Justice Secretary Jack Straw denying a pardon to jailed Liverpool fan Michael Shields.

For those who don't know, Shields was jailed for 10 years in Bulgaria following an attack on a barman there in 2005. But he has always maintained his innocence.

Despite the fact that another man has admitted carrying out the attack, but won't testify to that effect, Straw has concluded that he has to be sure that Shields is both morally and technically innocent before granting a pardon and that he can't give one where he doesn't have that certainty.

This is a disgrace. When someone else has confessed to a crime, the morally and technically correct course of action is to make redress to anyone wrongly convicted of involvement in that crime.

With this decision, Jack Straw is colluding in a miscarriage of justice. He would be more correct to call himself the Injustice Secretary.

UPDATE: If you wish to show your support for Michael Shields, you can do so here.

A superb portrait of Hockney

2009-07-01T22:42:00.002+01:00

Last night's Imagine on BBC1 provided a fascinating picture of one of Britain's greatest artists, David Hockney.

It followed him over a three-year period, covering his move back from Los Angeles to his native Yorkshire. It also showed him at work for the first time and provided a real insight into his creative process.

The programme showed enough of his work for us to be able to see what a truly exceptional artist Hockney is. From the sun-drenched pictures in LA, through his experiments with photo collage and on to his excellent Yorkshire landscapes, Hockney has been a real artistic star for a long time. I can think of few artists who have produced such quality of work in such a range of styles over such a long time.

The only jarring note came when Damien Hirst was asked to comment on a monumental series of canvases which Hockney had created for the Royal Academy. Hirst's response was: "Well, I wouldn't have it on my wall."

Of course you wouldn't, Damien. That's because you're an artistic charlatan who hasn't let a fundamental lack of talent stop you from becoming very rich from your mediocre art. You're not fit even to clean Hockney's brushes. In a few hundred years time, people will still be looking at and admiring Hockney's work, whereas Hirst will just be a footnote in art history - "He made HOW MUCH from selling that stuff?"

But Hirst's yawn-worthy opinions aside, I recommend that anyone with a love of art watch this programme. It's an excellent portrayal of a master artist.

Who needs nuclear?

2009-06-30T19:56:00.002+01:00

The official opening yesterday of the £160 million Glendoe hydro power station in the hills above Loch Ness coincided with an announcement from Scottish and Southern Energy that it intends to create two new hydro schemes in the Great Glen.

This is excellent news for those of us who believe that real effort should be made to ensure much more use of renewable sources of energy are used. Although we don't yet know any of the details of the proposed Great Glen schemes, projects like this are important if we are to make a real switch to greener energy.

These new hydro schemes should be seen alongside the development of other forms of greener energy. I have blogged before (here, here and here) about the potential contribution which renewable sources can make to Britain's energy requirements.

The development of wave and tidal power (still in their infancy, but with potential to deliver very significant amounts of energy), together with contributions from solar power, offshore wind farms and geothermal, between them have the capacity to deliver a huge amount of Britain's energy requirements within the next few decades.

The question thus arises as to why we should bother investing in new nuclear fission power stations. As I've highlighted before, nuclear power is not renewable, it still produces significant amounts of waste to which the only 'solution' is burial for a few thousand years until we've worked out what to do with it, it's quite an expensive way of generating power and it's not even that good at reducing carbon emissions.

In answer to my own question, with the big energy firms investing ever more sums in renewable energy schemes, I don't see that we do need nuclear fission power. I have no problem with research continuing into nuclear fusion power, but at the moment that's very far from being a viable source of power. And until that happens, our focus should be on developing renewable sources of energy - not going down the failed route of nuclear fission power.

Yes to more powers, yes to a referendum, no to independence

2009-06-29T22:50:00.004+01:00

If the poll commissioned by BBC Scotland is accurate, most people in Scotland back more powers for the Scottish Parliament, most people want to see a referendum on the issue, and most people oppose outright independence.

The detail of the poll is quite interesting, with a majority seemingly wanting to go beyond what the Calman Commission proposed, with about two-thirds wanting control of pensions devolved to Scotland.

There is reason for caution about that figure, as it's not clear whether people would support that idea if it meant greater running costs with Scotland and the rest of the UK operating different systems. I'm also not sure how it would impact on people and companies operating on both sides of the border. It's also not clear whether it would be just the pensions system, or whether the whole of the social security system would be devolved.

Nevertheless, that question does indicate that there is a real demand for the Scottish Parliament to have greater powers. The overall figures are pretty clear: 47% back a Scottish Parliament with increased powers but remaining part of the UK, while just 28% want complete independence. A referendum is backed by 56% of those polled, compared with 37% who don't want a referendum.

That means there's a real opportunity here for those who believe in increased powers for the Scottish Parliament but don't want independence - the position of all three parties who backed the Calman Commission. A referendum on the issue should be held as soon as is practical, with independence also on the ballot. I believe a more powerful Scottish Parliament within the UK would win a substantial majority and the issue would be settled for at least a generation. Let the argument begin!

Gnats go cap in hand to Westminster

2009-06-22T14:49:00.002+01:00

Funny how the Gnats continually insist that Scotland can survive on its own - but then moan about wanting more dosh from Westminster when it suits them.

That appears to be the case with Scottish Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon's call for £100m to vaccinate everyone in Scotland against swine flu.

There are two reasons why Westminster should tell Nicola to take a running jump. Firstly, I don't see why everyone in Scotland needs vaccinating against a disease which has killed precisely one person in this country, someone who appears to have also had complicating health issues. From what I can gather, swine flu seems little different to 'normal' flu, so why is vaccination for everyone thought necessary when it isn't done for the flu outbreaks we get every single year?

The other reason is that Scotland is responsible for health spending. If Sturgeon thinks that mass vaccination is necessary in Scotland, then it's up to the Scottish Government to find the money to do it. That's what devolution's all about.

It seems that the Gnats prefer to go cap in hand to Westminster than to do something for which they have direct responsibility.

Anyone but Beckett

2009-06-22T10:10:00.002+01:00

Like my colleague Stephen Glenn, I think Margaret Beckett is eminently unsuitable to be the next Speaker of the House of Commons.

There are two basic reasons why she shouldn't be Speaker. Firstly, she's always been first and foremost a partisan Labour figure - always has been, always will be. She's always been slavishly loyal to whatever the prevailing orthodoxy has been in the Labour Party. She was a Bennite when that was fashionable, before evolving into a loyal deputy to John Smith, then becoming a Blairite and eventually serving willingly under Gordon Brown. What makes anyone think she'd be any different if elected Speaker?

And secondly, can anyone really see Beckett standing up for Parliament against the executive? Nope, me neither. She would be a tool of the Government, not of the Commons. That's the last thing the Commons needs at the moment.

There are several decent candidates to succeed the execrable Michael Martin: Richard Shepherd, Alan Beith and George Young would all be very good Speakers. I just hope MPs have the sense to elect one of them, rather than Margaret Beckett, who would be an appallingly bad choice.

How not to respond to expenses questions

2009-06-19T09:29:00.003+01:00

A quite extraordinary performance from Falkirk West Labour MP Eric Joyce on Newsnight Scotland last night.

He is the biggest expenses claimant among the MPs and he quite clearly doesn't get the anger there is across the country about the issue.

In the interview by Gordon Brewer, he sees no problem in hiring as a consultant a man to whom he'd acted as best man at his wedding. When asked why he charged the taxpayer for buying three oil paintings for his constituency office, Joyce's answer was: "Because they look nice".

And the most toe-curlingly embarrassing moment was when he was asked whether he'd paid capital gains tax when he'd sold his second home and responded that Brewer was trying to delve into his personal life. My jaw was hanging open at that point. He really just doesn't get it at all.

If you want to see Joyce's spectacularly misjudged and arrogant performance for yourself, here it is.

Beware of technical fixes

2009-06-16T22:27:00.003+01:00

The Scottish Government yesterday outlined its new road safety strategy, with the laudable aim of cutting road deaths by 40% and halving the number of serious injuries within 10 years.

Some of it does seem sensible, such as an approach to driver training which emphasises lifelong learning and improvement. Far too many people consider that passing a test gives them an automatic expert status when it comes to motoring. Only a tiny proportion of drivers will take part in schemes such as Pass Plus, which provide additional training after someone's passed their test.

But there are other proposals which are far more questionable, such as the idea to fit cars with speed limiters. Preventing drivers from exceeding the speed limit initially sounds like a sensible idea, but I think it's a gimmick which is unlikely to make much difference to the accident rate.

For a start, such devices would obviously do nothing to prevent accidents where speed is not a factor, whether that's poor overtaking, tailgating, lack of observation at junctions, lack of lane discipline or drink and drug driving.

But even where speed is a factor in causing an accident, speed limiters won't make much difference. In many cases, the problem isn't necessarily illegal speeding, but driving too fast for the road or the conditions.

For instance, near to where I live there are a couple of stretches of single-track road with several blind bends. The speed limit on those is actually 60mph, but anyone who goes much above 30mph on those is almost certainly a crazy driver. But a speed limiter wouldn't stop someone from going at a potentially suicidal 50mph.

And nor would speed limiters do anything to stop someone going too fast in fog or ice or snow, even if they're not exceeding the legal limit.

In my view, speed limiters sound like the sort of technical fix beloved of governments looking for a gimmick to pretend they're taking action to deal with a problem. Indeed, it could be argued that speed limiters would actually make the problem worse, as they could lull people into thinking they're driving at a safe speed when they're not.

There are other aspects of the strategy which I'm not too keen on either. Curfews for newly qualified drivers? Let's discriminate against people doing a night shift, shall we?

Or a limit on the number of passengers newly-qualified drivers can carry? Some young drivers have a partner and a couple of kids, so that's them screwed.

I'm a bit more ambivalent about limiting the size of engine which young drivers can drive. I can see the logic of this, as many young drivers do like to get behind the wheel of cars which are too powerful for them which they then lose control of and crash. But it strikes me there would be a significant problem with this, as police are not to know how powerful a car really is just by looking at it, so how are they possibly able to enforce such a provision? And is a 40-year-old in a Ferrari really less dangerous than a 20-year-old in a Subaru Impreza?

Although many of these proposals do have their heart in the right place, I think few if any will make much difference to road safety. The main things which will are the improved driver training referred to above, combined with an encouragement for drivers to adopt an attitude where safety is paramount. We should beware of both technical fixes and ineffective legal measures.

Iraq inquiry: let the light shine in

2009-06-16T00:10:00.003+01:00

I was going to do a posting about Gordon Brown's disgraceful decision to hold an inquiry into the Iraq war behind closed doors, but I don't think I have anything to say which has not already been said by, amongst others, David Watts, Caron, Costigan Quist, Paul Reynolds and Willie Rennie. Public scrutiny is the best way to ensure something like this never happens again. Light must be shone on the murky workings of government which led us into this disaster.

Calman: the next steps

2009-06-15T23:18:00.004+01:00

Today's final report from the Calman Commission is designed to plot a way forward for devolution in Scotland.

The report itself is OK as far as it goes: it recognises that Scotland needs to be responsible for deciding a greater share of its own finances and it sets out a case for additional powers to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

The down side is that there are proposals for certain fairly minor responsibilities to be handed back to Westminster. I haven't yet read the full report, only the executive summary, so I don't know the Commission's thinking behind these, but I have to say I am inherently suspicious of any proposal to exercise power further away from the people and I suspect these might be an area of controversy.

I think it is also fair to say that Calman is not a particularly bold vision for the future of devolution. The Scottish Lib Dems, for instance, wish to go far further than is proposed by Calman, with the Scottish Parliament having control over a whole range of taxes, not just the 10p income tax rate and a few minor taxes proposed by Calman. We would also give a much wider range of powers to the Scottish Parliament than Calman envisages. You can find more details of our proposals here.

However, Calman was almost certainly constrained by the need to achieve consensus among all the parties to the commission, with neither the Tories or Labour as keen as the Scottish Lib Dems on an enhaned home rule settlement. It is a tribute to Calman that the final report was unanimous and it is an important landmark that both the Tories and Labour have now agreed to an enhanced role for the Scottish Parliament, including over its own finances.

The question now arises of where we go from here. In my view, there now needs to be a much wider debate about the future of Scottish devolution. Although Calman did make an effort to take evidence from a range of groups, there now needs to be much more public involvement in deciding how we proceed.

And the best way that can happen is if we have a referendum on the proposals, with independence being the other option. I have in the past argued (here and here) that a referendum should wait until we have fully worked out proposals for both an enhanced devolution settlement and for independence. Well, we now have the former. What we need now is for the Gnats to come up with a proposal for independence which is more than just a slogan.

And when they do that, we can have a big argument about it all and then vote on it. Over to you, Mr Salmond.

PR to aid the BNP? That's a lie, Mr Cameron

2009-06-10T20:37:00.004+01:00

Of all the arguments against proportional representation, the laziest one is that it benefits extremist parties such as the hateful BNP. David Cameron rolled out this canard once again today at Prime Minister's Questions, saying that it was a PR system which allowed the BNP to get people elected to the European Parliament.

And in one sense, he does have a point. The party list system used in the European elections is probably the easiest one in which smaller parties can prosper, among them extremists like the BNP.

But there's certainly no easy relationship between even a party list PR system and success for extremist parties like the BNP. If there were, why did the BNP not get anyone elected in 1999 and 2004, when exactly the same system was used for the European elections? The truth is that then not enough people voted for them to be able to win any seats in the European Parliament, whereas this time they did.

And that isn't even the whole story. In Yorkshire and the Humber, this time round the BNP secured fewer votes in total than they did in 2004. But because turnout had dropped significantly and the Labour vote in particular collapsed, this was enough to get them one of the seats on offer.

But the thing is, I am not aware of anybody who thinks we should introduce party list systems for Westminster elections. They are not a great system, as they give far too much power to party machines to determine who is elected. If you look at the systems which are in place across the UK, it doesn't seem to be the case that any of them particularly help parties like the BNP get elected - just the reverse.

For the Scottish and Welsh parliaments, the system used is the additional member system, with first past the post constituencies supplemented by regional list top-ups. Both parliaments have now had three elections using this system and not one fascist has ever been elected to them.

It's the same story if you look at STV, the system used for the Scottish local elections. Across the whole of Scotland, not a single BNP councillor was elected in 2007. Compare that to the London Borough of Barking, when the BNP picked up 12 seats in 2006 - under first past the post. And look at the Republic of Ireland - they have NEVER had a fascist party elected to the Dail and I've looked at all their election results back to 1937.

Indeed, because there is no relationship between votes and seats under first past the post, the BNP often find it quite easy to win seats on quite low percentages of the vote, especially in areas which have low turnout and/or have a history of being run by a single party for a long time (eg Burnley and Barking).

At a national level, the only reason the BNP has never had someone elected to the Westminster parliament is because its vote is not sufficiently concentrated to allow it to win such seats. If the BNP all piled in to just a few seats, they could easily get people elected to Westminster - and probably on a lower percentage of the national vote than they would require to win seats in a PR election.

And the basic point is that there is no electoral system which can guarantee that extremist parties are excluded. Under any system, if people vote for them in enough numbers, they will win seats. The key thing is not to try and rig electoral systems to stop them, but to address the reasons why people are voting for fascists in the first place. And that has far more to do with a sense of alienation and frustration than it has to do with the electoral system used.

Indeed, the fact that first past the post is associated with single party majority government, - often the same for decades at a time, especially at a local level - is, I would suggest, far more likely to create the conditions under which fascist parties can thrive than a system where people know their votes will count.

I would say the evidence contradicts Mr Cameron's claim: fascist parties are more likely to get a foothold under first past the post, rather than under the various PR systems used in the UK. But it's unlikely to stop Cameron from repeatedly trotting out the lie that PR benefits the BNP. And that lie must be repeatedly exposed for the nonsense it is.

Brown the Reformer is fiction

2009-06-09T22:59:00.004+01:00

The expected announcement tomorrow by Gordon Brown that there will be a look at electoral reform is another sign that he just doesn't have a clue about what he's doing.

For a start, the issue's only going to be looked at by his 'Democratic Renewal Committee', an Orwellian sounding body which is just a fancy name for a ministerial committee. Does Brown not understand the anger there is about the failures of our political system? Does he really believe that just having the issue looked at by a group of his hand-picked cronies is the way forward, rather than giving people more of a sense of ownership and involvement in their own political system?

I could also ask why Labour's even bothering to have a review of the electoral system. Didn't they have one 10 years ago, the Jenkins Commission, which recommended introducing AV+ (the alternative vote supplemented by a regional top-up party list system)? Wasn't it Labour Party policy to have a referendum on these proposals, a pledge which they conveniently dropped (due in no small part to the opposition within the Cabinet of one G Brown)?

And according to the Beeb, Brown's apparently wanting his review to come up with a recommendation for plain AV, with no top-up. Nothing like prejudging your own review, is there?

But if that is Brown's conclusion, it shows why he just doesn't have a clue about electoral reform, and the wider constitutional agenda. AV is often LESS proportional than first past the post, is MORE likely to exaggerate swings between parties, DOES NOT allow voters to choose between candidates from the same party and does ALMOST NOTHING to solve the problem of MPs with safe seats. In 1997, for instance, it's very likely that had the election been held under AV, it would have produced a LARGER Labour majority, with the Tories suffering a near wipeout.

I have to say, in any referendum on electoral reform, I would vote to retain first past the post rather than have a switch to pure AV. I could just about live with AV+, although I wouldn't have any enthusiasm for it.

But I believe there's only one system which really empowers voters and that's the single transferable vote, as used in Ireland (north and south) and in local elections in Scotland. STV allows voters to choose between candidates from the same party, or from different parties, is roughly proportional and retains and enhances a link between a geographical area and its representatives, by allowing voters a choice of representatives they can approach with a problem.

If Brown were serious about electoral reform, this would be the system he would propose. But of course, he isn't. He just wants to be seen as making noises about reform, but without a timetable or even a firm commitment actually to do anything. Brown the Reformer is a fictitious character.

Calm down, dears

2009-05-31T00:31:00.002+01:00

It's just an opinion poll.

A lot of the Lib Dem blogosphere is cock-a-hoop at the Lib Dems being ahead of Labour in an opinion poll for the first time in years.

I'm going to inject a note of caution and say that it looks like a rogue to me. Also, other polls have been all over the place in the last few weeks - some showing us fourth behind UKIP - so I wonder to what extent any poll can really be trusted in the current climate.

But if this poll is confirmed by others in weeks to come, it's a welcome boost and is a just reward for the way Nick Clegg has led the party in recent weeks.

Good stuff from Shirley Williams

2009-05-21T14:58:00.001+01:00

There's an excellent article in The Independent today from Shirley Williams, arguing against an early election and putting forward a very good case for further constitutional reform. You can read it here.

Praise where it's due

2009-05-18T19:12:00.002+01:00

It's not often that I praise Tory MPs on this blog, but I think Harwich and Clacton MP Douglas Carswell has played a blinder over the past few days on the whole issue of the Speaker.

It took significant courage to be the first MP to raise his head above the parapet and demand that Michael Martin should go.

And what's important is that he hasn't called on the Speaker to go because of a personal vendetta against him - far from it. Contrary to what some of the Speaker's supporters have been saying, the issue is not about Michael Martin's background, but about his ability to do the job.

If you read Carswell's blog, you'll see that he views the removal of the Speaker as the first, necessary, step in a wider programme of political reform and constitutional change designed to make Parliament more transparent, more accountable and more important. Hell, he even favours switching to the single transferable vote for elections to the House of Commons, to give voters a choice between candidates from the same party and to avoid having too many safe seats.

Although I'm a political geek, I have to say that Douglas Carswell had barely registered on my radar until now. But I am impressed with what I've heard from him over the past week or so.

If he keeps this up, I'll be sending him a Lib Dem membership form.

Tell Michael Martin his time's up

2009-05-18T17:53:00.002+01:00

The following is the text of an email I have just sent to Michael Martin, urging him to stand down as Speaker of the House of Commons.

If anyone wishes to do likewise, his email address is martinm@parliament.uk

Dear Mr Martin,

I have never before written to a public official urging them to step down from their post and it is with great reluctance that I do so now.

I believe you have proven that you're simply not up to the job of being the Speaker of the House of Commons.

You have sought to block the publication of MPs' expenses and have generally acted as an obstacle to sensible reforms to the system.

I also believe your failure even to seek a warrant when police wished to search the office of Damian Green MP was an appalling error of judgement on your part.

And I believe your personal attacks last week on Kate Hoey and Norman Baker on the subject of MPs expenses mean that you have forfeited the impartiality which is the foundation of a Speaker's authority. You compounded this with your dismissive reaction to David Winnick's point of order the following day.

I therefore urge you, in the interests of both Parliament and the country, to resign your position as Speaker of the House of Commons with immediate effect.

Yours sincerely,
Bernard Salmon

Who should be the next Speaker?

2009-05-17T23:24:00.004+01:00

With Nick Clegg and my local MP Danny Alexander joining in the chorus of calls for Speaker Michael Martin to quit, his days must be numbered.

So who should take over when he either quits or is forced out? One possibility would obviously be one of the current Deputy Speakers - Sir Alan Haselhurst, Sylvia Heal or Sir Michael Lord. Unfortunately, Sir Alan is one of those who have been named by the Daily Telegraph as being involved in the expenses scandal. Sir Michael, meanwhile, is 70. Although I don't think he's yet announced his retirement, the chances are that he'll be standing down at the next election.

That leaves just Sylvia Heal as the only Deputy Speaker who might realistically be in a position to take over. However, it's questionable to what extent just appointing one of the deputies would represent the sort of change that Parliament needs if it's to regain public confidence.

Another more telling reason why Sylvia Heal might not get it is that she would then be the third Speaker in a row to come from the Labour benches and I'm not sure that would be a great idea. Unfortunately, that is an argument that can be made against other possible candidates for the Speakership, such as Frank Field or Kate Hoey, both of whom would have the reforming credentials needed to take over as Speaker at this point.

If a non-Labour Speaker is to be appointed, some people in the past have suggested that Ming Campbell might be an appropriate choice. However, his involvement in the expenses row and the fact that he is a former party leader I think count against him. I would suggest the only likely Lib Dem candidate would be Sir Alan Beith - a man who is well respected throughout the House of Commons.

I have to say that I struggled to think of a Tory MP of sufficient seniority who hasn't been implicated in the expenses scandal, but then a name suddenly came to me: Sir Malcolm Rifkind. Again, he is well thought of throughout the House and would, I am sure, do the job very well. He has also indicated that he is standing for re-election next time.

But all this assumes that the House of Commons does what is necessary and removes Speaker Michael Martin as soon as possible. Any statement from the Speaker that he intends to stay in the job until the next election will be unacceptable. He must go now.

A snap poll now is not the answer

2009-05-16T23:26:00.002+01:00

In a typically elegant argument, Paul Walter sums up the current demand for a snap general election to sort out the current mess over MPs' expenses. It's a thoughtful and passionate piece, but I'm going to argue it's dead wrong.

Firstly, I don't see how a general election now would actually solve the problem, namely the lax system for MPs expenses. Would it not be better to get a new system in place and then allow the electorate to have their say? A poll now would run the risk of having a botched reform rushed into place simply for the sake of having something to put before the voters in order to claim that the problem had been 'solved'. That's no way to make policy on an issue as sensitive as MPs' expenses. It's better to take time to get the system right.

Even if reform to the system is delayed beyond such a poll, there is then the danger that with at least four years before the next election, reform could be shelved as the anger among the electorate dissipates.

And, although I understand the anger that many people feel, is the issue of MPs' expenses really one which merits a whole general election dedicated solely to it? In my adult lifetime, the two issues I've been most angry about have been the poll tax and the decision to invade Iraq, even though millions of people marched against it. I don't recall a general election being held on either of those issues, despite the public anger involved.

There's also the question about whether a general election should be dedicated to just one issue. At a time of such economic crisis, I want to hear what the various parties propose to do to sort out that mess. There is a very real danger that those issues could be completely drowned out by an electorate wanting to express their anger over the expenses scandal.

In addition, is a general election really the most appropriate way to ensure that those guilty in the expenses row are punished? Doesn't natural justice demand that parties or Parliament should be able to take appropriate disciplinary action against those who have abused the rules, including deselection and forced resignations to cause by-elections in the most serious cases?

A general election now would almost certainly result in a move to 'throw the bums out'. Unfortunately, such an anti-incumbency mood might well sweep up many people who've done nothing wrong and who may even have been advocates of reform.

I would ask people like Paul Walters who is more likely to lose their seats in a 'throw the bums out election' - proponents of reform like Sarah Teather and Adrian Sanders, with majorities of around 2,000, or someone like Hazel Blears, sitting on a majority of 8,000 in Salford or Elliot Morley who has a 9,000 majority in Scunthorpe? Maybe the electorate will be able to distinguish all the rogues from the honest MPs and vote accordingly, but I'm not confident that would necessarily be the case.

Indeed, as Mark Reckons points out that there does seem to be some sort of correlation between the safeness of an MP's seat and the likelihood of them being involved in the expenses scandal, it may be that the rogues would be more likely to be rewarded with an extra four years in Parliament which might be thoroughly undeserved in some cases.

No, in this case, revenge is definitely a dish best served cold. Give local parties a chance to deselect MPs where they think that appropriate and allow campaigns to be built up against MPs who have abused the system but who haven't been forced out by their parties. A general election now won't allow that to happen and would be completely wrong.

Speaker Michael Martin is doomed

2009-05-15T14:35:00.000+01:00

Lembit Opik's expressed his support.

Morley's 'defence' doesn't stand up

2009-05-14T19:14:00.002+01:00

The BBC News website reports that Elliot Morley says the reason he was claiming money for his mortgage even though he'd paid it off was that he did his accounting in 'yearly bundles'.

Yet, somehow, he managed to claim the cash for 18 months. To be fair to him, if he's sufficiently bad at maths not to realise that 18 months is longer than a year, it's no wonder he got into such a muddle over his mortgage claims.

But among people I spoke to today, there was utter incomprehension that anyone could miss something as significant as finally paying off a mortgage.

I also find it rather odd that he alerted Labour's chief whip to the problem a few weeks ago - but according to the Beeb he didn't provide full details. This whole thing stinks.

Even Betty Boothroyd slams Speaker

2009-05-14T17:56:00.004+01:00

I see both The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph are calling on Speaker Michael Martin to quit.

And even Michael Martin's predecessor, Betty Boothroyd, has expressed her disapproval over his conduct. The Daily Mail quotes an MP friend of hers as saying:

"I have spoken to Betty and she is just appalled at the way Michael Martin has behaved. She sees it as a failure of leadership. If Betty had been in charge she would have called the three party leaders in and banged their heads together like little boys until they agreed to reform the system.
'She would instantly have seen how damaging it is to Parliament to have this issue festering. Michael Martin has done none of that."

It comes to something when even a former Speaker is so appalled at the way her successor is doing the job that she makes her views known in public.

If Michael Martin had a shred of dignity, he would go now. Unfortunately, it looks as though he'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming from the Speaker's chair.

Churchill, Europe and the idiots of UKIP

2009-05-13T17:08:00.002+01:00

Got home this afternoon to find the first election communications on my doormat from parties ahead of the forthcoming European elections.

One of them was from UKIP (United Kingdom Idiots Party) and contained a big headline saying: "Say NO to European Union", illustrated with a picture of Winston Churchill giving a V for victory sign.

That'll be the same Winston Churchill who famously said: "We must build a kind of United States of Europe," will it?

Indeed, it's worth quoting several passages from Churchill's speech in Zurich in 1946 to show how wrong it is that UKIP are trying to associate him with an anti-European stance:

If Europe were once united in the sharing of its common inheritance, there would be no limit to the happiness, to the prosperity and the glory which its three or four hundred million people would enjoy...

It is to re-create the European Family, or as much of it as we can, and to provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom. We must build a kind of United States of Europe. In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living...

And why should there not be a European group which could give a sense of enlarged patriotism and common citizenship to the distracted peoples of this turbulent and mighty continent? And why should it not take its rightful place with other great groupings and help to shape the onward destinies of men?...

The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honor by their contribution to the common cause..

If we are to form the United States of Europe, or whatever name it may take, we must begin now...

...we must re-create the European Family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe...

Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America and I trust Soviet Russia-for then indeed all would be well-must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine. Therefore I say to you, let Europe arise!

Great bit of ad placing

2009-05-13T15:34:00.004+01:00

I was amused by this story on The Scotsman website about the pressure on Michael Martin to quit as Speaker - not so much by the story itself, but the ingenious placing of an ad directly above it about Shipwrecks of Scotland!

And the nominations for Worst Speaker Of All Time are...

2009-05-12T20:27:00.004+01:00

... Michael Martin, for his obvious bias towards his former Labour colleagues during his time in office.

... Michael Martin, for unnecessarily spending money to seek a second opinion from lawyers when seeking to block details of MPs' travel expenses from being published under the Freedom of Information Act.

... Michael Martin, for his own extravagance in foreign trips and expenses.

... Michael Martin, for failing to seek a warrant from police wishing to search the office of Tory MP Damian Green.

.... Michael Martin, for his utterly unjustified attack yesterday on two MPs (Kate Hoey and Norman Baker) who have been long-time campaigners for reform of the MPs' expenses system.

And the winner is... well, surprise, surprise, it's Michael Martin, for becoming the first Speaker in over 300 years to be facing the prospect of a motion of no confidence, showing the lack of faith many of his Parliamentary colleague have in his ability to do the job.

And yet, despite this thoroughly deserved award, Gordon Brown still thinks that Speaker Martin is doing 'a good job'.

Yet another Gnat manifesto pledge bites the dust

2009-05-12T20:01:00.002+01:00

The Press and Journal reports today that yet another SNP manifesto promise is unlikely to be fulfilled.

The Gnats promised in their 2007 Holyrood election manifesto to double the number of school nurses. However, the P&J says that the number has gone up by just 17 overall, from 312 to 329.

As Lib Dem health spokesman Ross Finnie notes, that's just a 5% increase, meaning it's highly unlikely the Gnats will manage to meet their pledge in the remaining two years before the next Holyrood election.

Just another one to add to local income tax, 1,000 additional police officers and the class sizes pledge, amongst others.

Gnat MSP's anti-gay bigotry

2009-05-10T23:15:00.003+01:00

There's been a dispute in the Church of Scotland over the past few weeks about whether an openly gay minister, Scott Rennie, is allowed to take charge of a parish in Aberdeen.

Although Scott is a fellow Lib Dem, I can't say I know him. But you can read his thought-provoking insight into the dispute over his appointment here.

His appointment is to be the subject of a motion to the Church of Scotland General Assembly and this has been the subject of vigorous debate, including among MSPs.

Among the politicians commenting has been Nationalist MSP Dave Thompson. According to The Herald, he said: "I do believe, however, that once someone declares himself as a Christian that they should comply with the teaching of the Bible and that active homosexuality is incompatible with that teaching."

Well, if we're talking about textual purity, I'm interested to see how Mr Thompson squares his beliefs with the following passage from the SNP's Holyrood manifesto in 2007: "the SNP will not promote or support legislation or policies which discriminate on the grounds of race, disability, age, gender, faith or religion, social background or sexual orientation."

Some might say that once someone declares himself as a Nationalist MSP, he should comply with the provisions of the manifesto and that active bigotry is incompatible with that manifesto. Or is this yet another part of their manifesto that's not meant to be taken seriously?

Keeping expenses row in proportion

2009-05-09T20:43:00.003+01:00

Hysteria? Witch-hunt? Media feeding frenzy? Or all three? I think that just about sums up the current situation with regard to MPs' expenses.

As ever, earlier on today the sage Mr Quist had some wise words to say about the expenses row. Like him, my experience of MPs is that on the whole they are dedicated individuals who work hard for their constituents and are not all in it to make money. And I agree with him that we shouldn't expect MPs to be out of pocket or living in penury when doing their jobs.

Like it or not, if you don't pay MPs properly, you'll just expose them to all sorts of blandishments and inducements from private interests who, believe it or not, may not always have the wider public interest at the top of their priorities.

But I thought it worthwhile to do an international comparison to see whether our MPs are well remunerated or not. In the USA, for instance, the salary for rank and file members of Congress is currently $174,000. If I've done my maths correctly, at the current exchange rate of $1.52 to the pound, that works out at roughly £114,473 per year - which compares very favourably with the £64,766 our MPs get. In France, the figure is slightly lower at approximately £57,228, while Germany and Italy are £80,880 and £57,756 respectively, although the Italy figure is boosted by very generous expenses. (All figures courtesy of the BBC). In other words, the basic pay of our MPs is not that excessive by international standards.

But do our MPs have excessive expenses claims? Again, not really. As the BBC points out in the same article already referred to, MPs' average expenses claim is £135,600, which does sound a lot, until you realise that the most significant part of that is the salaries that MPs pay their staff. That means that the rough total we pay for our MPs (salary plus expenses times 646 MPs) is about £129.4m (note that I'm not including ministerial salaries in this figure).

Compare that to the USA, where, to take just a few examples at random, California Senator Diane Feinstein had a total staffing bill in 2008 of $4,066,020 to serve a population of about 36.75m, while in less populated Wyoming, Senator Michael Enzi spent $1.9m on staffing. For members of the House of Representatives, the cost of running their offices, including both staff and other expenses, is between $1.4 and $1.7m each. In 2008, the cost of running the US Senate was apparently $869.3m, while for the House of Repesentatives it was about $1.2 billion. Even if you take into account that the US Congress is serving a population of about 303m, while our Parliament serves just under 61m, I think our MPs are bloody good value.

And note that the above figures for the US Congress don't even include the regular trips and junkets which are on offer from a whole host of private organisations. A lot of these are doubtless all above board and worthwhile, such as the three trips by members of Congress to Afghanistan and the seven to Iraq in the last few years. However, that compares with 34 to Antigua and Barbuda, 35 to the Bahamas, and 48 to Jamaica. OK, these aren't paid for out of public funds, but the suspicion must surely be that some of these are pleasant trips to the sun in exchange for services rendered or future favours expected.

Now, our MPs are certainly not immune from accepting hospitality from private interests - just think of George Osborne and Peter Mandelson on the billionaire's yacht in Crete last summer, for instance - but their junketing and hospitality pales into insignificance when compared to the American experience. In all last year, members of Congress and their staff accepted trips totalling just over $2.85m.

I'm certainly not saying that some UK MPs haven't been abusing or milking the system, but I don't think it's true to say that our MPs are all a bunch of cheats, rogues and thieves. By international standards, and particularly in comparison with the USA, I think on the whole we get very good value from them.

Mixed feelings abut Nick's conversations

2009-05-08T23:38:00.002+01:00

I caught the Lib Dem election broadcast on TV earlier on this evening. I thought it was pretty good overall - Nick Clegg came across well as someone who tries to listen to the concerns and issues people have, and the film concluded with a simple focus on the party's tax message.

So, why the mixed feelings? Well, none of the issues mentioned by Nick - Iraq, civil liberties, tax - have much to do with either Europe or the English county council elections, supposedly the levels of government which are the focus of the coming elections.

Let's not forget that in 2004 we fought a European election campaign which barely mentioned Europe. And we came fourth, behind UKIP.

I recognise there are limits as to what can be included in a five-minute slot, but would it really have been that difficult at least to mention the role which the EU has in helping our economies recover, or the benefits we get from international co-operation?

And on a broader point, if the Lib Dems are not going to make the case that the UK benefits from playing its part in the EU, who is? Of course, we have to be critical of its failings and make sure we're calling for a reformed and more democratic union, but overall we do need to make the case for positive involvement within the EU. It'll go by default if we don't take the lead.

So, I hope in the next few weeks we will at least have some focus on a pro-European case. It doesn't need to be a major part of the campaign, but it does need to be there.

If you want to see the film for yourself, here it is:

Do Lib Dems lack ambition?

2009-05-08T21:20:00.002+01:00

Don't worry, I haven't died of swine flu - been busy with all sorts of things over the last few weeks which didn't leave much time for blogging.

But I've been prompted to get back into the swing of things by a couple of articles on Lib Dem Voice in the past couple of days. First of all, Stephen Tall had a discussion about what the Lib Dems need to do to become the official opposition in place of Labour. And then today Steve Pitt followed that up with this piece about what the Lib Dems stand for.

I do agree with a lot of what the two Steves have to say. But the trouble is that both are based on the notion that what the Lib Dems really want to do is become the official opposition.

I have to say, as a pitch for votes, that's not the most inspiring one I've heard: vote for us, even though we intend losing the next three or four elections. Why should people get active for the party if the best we can dream of is having almost no influence for the next couple of decades or so?

Well, I don't know about the rest of the party, but that's not what I want. I want the Lib Dems to be a party of government, preferably by ourselves but with another party if we're able to get a significant amount of Lib Dem policies through, as we did in Scotland from 1999-2007.

And this isn't just dreaming: I've never known politics to be quite as fluid and volatile as it is at the moment. Labour is heading for a significant defeat next year and is then likely to indulge in a period of bloodletting as it tries to work out where it goes next.

I agree with Stephen Tall that this presents a significant opportunity for us and I agree with Steve Pitt that if we can be clear about what we stand for, we could benefit tremendously.

But let's add a fourth condition to Stephen Tall's article: a Tory government rapidly becoming unpopular as a result of having to take difficult decisions to sort out the mess left by Labour. In such a situation, is it really beyond the bounds of possibility to see the election after next resulting in something along the lines of LD 32%, Con 34% Lab 28%, Others 8%? In such a scenario, given the random nature of our electoral system, that could result in almost anything from a Tory majority through to Lib Dems being the largest party in a hung parliament, or possibly even scraping a majority depending on how the votes stack up in individual seats.

OK, I admit this is probably a tall order to achieve in practice. In reality, we probably face a long, hard struggle to make progress. But unless the Lib Dems start thinking big and showing some real ambition, we're never going to get anywhere near being either the official opposition or the government. And I can certainly think of better things I could be doing than busting a gut for a party which is not serious about being anything other than a minority interest.

Electric cars are not the answer - yet

2009-04-17T23:30:00.002+01:00

It must be my week to bash environmental ideas. Yesterday's announcement by the Government for grants of up to £5,000 for people to buy electric and plug-in hybrid cars from 2011 will do precisely nothing to curb the UK's carbon emissions.

Well, not quite precisely nothing. Road transport currently accounts for about 21% of the UK's carbon emissions. The £250m the Government announced yesterday is aimed at trebling the number of electric cars on the road, which sounds impressive until you realise that they would still only account for 0.3% of vehicles. If you do the maths, that means the increase in electric vehicles will get rid of approximately 0.063% of the UK's carbon emissions (actually slightly less than that, as the production and recharging of electric cars would still produce a certain amount of carbon emissions).

I would gently suggest that this is utterly irrelevant. I suspect it would be far more effective to encourage people to convert from gas guzzling cars to more fuel efficient motors, such as the Fiat Panda diesel that I drive.

And another reason why the £250m the Government's spending on this is going to be wasted is that electric cars are not yet at the stage where they are a reliable enough form of motoring for most people. Most electric cars have a fairly limited range and take a significant amount of time to recharge the batteries. Until electric cars have a range of about 200 miles and take about half an hour to recharge their batteries (ie the amount of time many motorists would spend in a motorway service station), I suspect I, like 99.7% of motorists, will not be interested in buying one.

The £250m would be far better spent on helping manufacturers improve battery technology substantially rather than being used to subsidise the purchase of the inadequate electric cars we have at the moment. Yesterday's announcement was far more about the Government wanting to be seen to be green than about any practical action to reduce carbon emissions from road transport.

File under: "You couldn't make it up"

2009-04-17T10:29:00.002+01:00

Came across this on Daily Kos. The Republican congressional candidate in a special election caused by Kirsten Gillibrand being elevated to the Senate in place of Hillary Clinton is suing to be declared the winner, even though he's currently 178 votes BEHIND.

I know Republicans have a history of being declared the winners of elections when their guy got fewer votes, but someone really ought to tell them that the basic principle of a first past the post electoral system is that the person with the MOST votes wins.

Is Brown the new Nixon?

2009-04-15T23:15:00.004+01:00

The other day, I made a joking comparison between what seems to have become known as Smeargate and Watergate.

But this rather more serious comparison of Gordon Brown and Richard Nixon by Dominic Sandbrook in the Evening Standard is well worth reading.

Danny Finkelstein: apology accepted

2009-04-15T17:47:00.003+01:00

In the run-up to the G20 protests, Times columnist Danny Finkelstein wrote a piece expressing surprise that a number of Lib Dem MPs were acting as official monitors of police behaviour at the demos, describing it as an insult to the police.

Well, Danny is now man enough to admit that he got that wrong and he's to be applauded for doing so. There aren't too many journalists who do that. It's to his credit that he was able to do that.

A day to remember

2009-04-15T16:58:00.004+01:00

Saturday 15th April 1989 seemed like it would be a very good day. In Folkestone, where I was at the time, the sun was shining and it was a lovely spring day.

In the morning, I was going to the launch of the local Democrats' (as we still were then) campaign for the county council elections, the first major set of elections I'd be taking part in since joining the party the year before. And then in the afternoon I had the prospect of a couple of FA Cup semi-finals to enjoy.

The election campaign launch was an enjoyable occasion. The party locally was then in the midst of a good run of election results which would eventually see us take control of the district council. Everyone was in good heart and looking forward to the battle.

When it was over, I walked home and got in at about 3.15pm. I immediately turned on the telly and tuned in to Grandstand for news of the cup semis. At first everything seemed normal. For the first couple of minutes I think there was some horseracing being shown.

But a couple of minutes later, the presenter (was it Des Lynam? That's one of the few things I don't recall) said they were crossing to Hillsborough as there had been an 'incident'. We then got John Motson telling us that there had been some sort of problem with the crowd at one end of the ground. Details were sketchy, but he feared there might be casualties.

A few minutes later came word that we were looking at fatalities. And it was with mounting horror that the full scale of the tragedy at Hillsborough gradually became apparent.

I'm a football fan. Although at that time I'd never been to a really big game (I then used to follow Folkestone in the Southern League), I knew that the tragedy was something that could have happened to me, could have happened to any football fan. 96 people were there supporting their team and hoping to witness a great occasion. They never came home.

I remember in the days following the tragedy my eyes welling up when I saw the pictures of the floral tributes which were laid at Anfield. It was an emotional time for any football fan.

It is a disgrace that no-one was held responsible for the tragedy. I can only imagine what the families of the victims have gone through, what they are still going through.

That is why at 3.06pm today, the exact moment the crush happened 20 years ago, I stopped work for a minute and just paid a silent tribute to the memories of the victims of Hillsborough. I think football fans all over the country will have done the same.

Insulated from the real world

2009-04-14T13:37:00.003+01:00

"Ere, Fletch, what are you inside for anyway?"

"Well, Godber, my son, it was just a bit of the usual - armed robbery, the odd car theft, like. Oh, and I didn't get me 'ome insulated."

"Yer what?"

"You 'eard me, son. The eco cops came round and found me 'ome was emitting about as much 'eat as Her Maj's gaff at Windsor a few years back. Gave me six years for that, they did. Only got five for the armed robberies."

That, at least, is what Dr Richard Dixon might wish to see. He's the director of WWF Scotland and wants to see it become a crime for people not to insulate their homes properly.

Now, I generally support ideas to help make people take the environment more seriously. But every so often environmentalists come up with some absolutely barmy ideas, like this one.

Just think about it, at a time when the prison population is bulging, Dr Dixon thinks it would be a good idea to drag people into the courts and turn them into criminals for not having a home which is sufficiently energy efficient for his liking. That is just bonkers.

Dr Dixon also suggests that the state could have the power to carry out insulation works on a home without permission and then bill the owner for the work carried out. That sounds like extortion to me.

Let's be clear: it is a good idea for people to insulate their homes and make them energy efficient. But the way to do that is by encouragement, through the use of grants and things like feed-in tariffs for renewable energy. Turning people into criminals because their homes aren't green enough would only create massive resentment.

Sometimes environmentalists give the impression that they are insulated from the real world. Whichever planet Dr Dixon is trying to save, it's certainly not the same one I'm on.

A few random questions

2009-04-12T19:38:00.003+01:00

1) Which is McBride - Haldeman, Ehrlichman or Chuck Colson?
2) Would that mean Derek Draper is Gordon Liddy? And which of these two should be more insulted by that comparison?
3) Who's going to play Graham Norton in the film version of his epic TV interviews with disgraced Prime Minister Gordon Brown?

Brown just doesn't get it

2009-04-12T15:42:00.002+01:00

One of the reasons why people close to Gordon Brown have been thinking about a smear campaign is that the Labour Party is in a desperate situation. In general, when things are going well for a party, they don't feel the need to indulge in those sort of tactics. If you're confident of victory, why risk things by engaging in dubious tactics?

But if you want to know just why Labour is in such desperate straits, have a look at the latest wheeze from Brown: compulsory "voluntary" service for young people. Now let's leave aside the fact that if something is compulsory, it can't in any way be seen as voluntary. Let's look at the merits of the scheme.

Firstly, why single out young people? Doubtless it is good for them to be involved with their communities, but surely the same also applies to everyone. Why not just make it compulsory for everyone to do a certain amount of community work per year?

Next, why would such a scheme require a new National Youth Service? There are already plenty of opportunities for people, young or otherwise, to do things in their community, whether it's coaching a sports team, working in a charity shop, working for a conservation body, helping care for an elderly relative and so on. A National Youth Service just seems like a bureaucratic means of controlling things so that the community service is channelled towards things our New Labour masters approve of.

Also, what about the contribution young people already make towards our communities? Not all young people are drunken, promiscuous, knife-wielding, drug-addled, granny-bashing hoodies. Many young people already play a significant role in their communities - how would that be recognised under this new scheme?

And why does such a scheme need to be compulsory anyway? Gordon Brown doubtless thinks that because it's a good idea for young people to be involved in their communities, it's a good idea to make them be involved. That's the Labour mindset: force people to do something that many are doing anyway but some have no interest in doing at all. Rather than encouraging young people to feel they're making a contribution, Labour wants them to feel they're doing something because they have to.

All this shows that Brown and the Labour Party just don't get why they are so disliked. They don't accept any responsibility for the big things they've got wrong, like the economy. And on the smaller things, all too often they don't think things through.

That means they're likely to remain widely disliked until being kicked out of office next year. And that unfortunately means they're likely to indulge in more dubious tactics in the months to come.

Guido and the politics of personal destruction

2009-04-12T15:04:00.002+01:00

Although Guido has undoubtedly performed a public service in helping get rid of the odious Damian McBride, I have to say that I very rarely read his blog.

Why? Well, basically he indulges in the same sort of personality based politics that he rightly condemns McBride for. Guido's basic stock in trade is that all politicians are lying, thieving, self-serving, hypocritical, perverted scumbags. Indeed, he takes his pseudonym from the apparent belief that Guido Fawkes was the last person to enter Parliament with any honest intent.

Now, unlike what McBride was up to, doubtless much of what appears on Guido's blog is actually true, or at least an approximation of it. But Guido is only human and makes mistakes like the rest of us. And I suspect it wouldn't be entirely unknown for people to feed Guido titbits which aren't true, knowing that they're likely to appear on his blog.

I think we need to get away from the view that all politicians are rogues and fair game for anything that's thrown at them. By all means, when any engage in any wrongdoing, that must be exposed. But the more that people feel that politics is not a profession that good and honourable people can have a part in, the more likely it is that such people will be put off from taking part, leaving the way clear for the rogues to take over.

Let's face it, what right-thinking person is going to get involved in politics if they feel their partner's mental health is going to be questioned or their opponents are going to make up lies about them having had an affair? Many people would think it's not worth the hassle.

We need to recognise that the politics of personal destruction has no place in public life. And that means we need to see McBride and Guido for what they are: two sides of the same coin.

Brown has questions to answer over McBride emails

2009-04-12T02:59:00.002+01:00

The fact that Damian McBride has quit his post as Gordon Brown's special adviser over the attempt to smear the Tories shouldn't be seen as the end of this affair.

In my view, this episode is far worse than the recent various MPs' expenses scandals. Those have been mainly about politicians exploiting generous rules to the full and it is not clear to what extent those rules have been infringed, if at all.

By contrast, even thinking about indulging in the politics of personal destruction is, or should be, a big no-no. There can be no conceivable justification whatsoever for launching smears against opponents and that sort of behaviour must be stamped out.

But the fact that McBride has fallen on his sword is not enough. There are plenty of questions that need answering.

1) Will Brown launch a full independent investigation into whether this was a one-off or whether smear tactics have been discussed before?
2) Will he ensure that all relevant emails and other communications are disclosed to such an investigation? After all, if there's nothing to hide, he's got nothing to fear...
3) Given that Brown himself has a reputation for being someone who operates through a small but trusted team of close-knit advisers, is it the case that McBride never discussed these tactics with his boss? Is that really credible? Given that people like Brown's former spin doctor Charlie Whelan were copied in on the emails, is it really credible to suggest that none of them thought to mention the exchange to Brown?
4) McBride worked closely with Cabinet Office minister Tom Watson, another close adviser to Brown who is referred to in emails between McBride and Draper. He denies any involvement in the smear campaign. However, Watson does have form in spreading smears and innuendo: for instance, he was sacked from his role as campaign manager in the Hartlepool by-election after claiming that Lib Dem candidate Jody Dunn was 'soft on drugs' because she'd represented drug addicts in her capacity as a barrister. Is it really credible to suggest that an attack dog like Watson had no involvement with planning smears, especially given how closely he and McBride worked together?
5) Derek Draper is a long-time associate of Business Secretary Peter Mandelson. Given that Draper's return to active politics coincided with Mandelson's return to British politics from Europe, did Draper have any discussions with Mandelson about these tactics?
6) Will Brown give a commitment to sack anyone else in his government who is found to have taken part in discussions about smear tactics?

I can see this saga running and running.

I'm not a fan of Polly Toynbee...

2009-03-31T01:07:00.001+01:00

...but I think her take on the MPs expenses row is spot on.

The real significance of 'Porngate'

2009-03-31T00:12:00.004+01:00

Over on Lib Dem Voice yesterday, Alix Mortimer demonstrated how hollow the mantra of 'if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear' actually is in the wake of Jacqui Smith's unfortunate expenses claim.

Although the claim has certainly given us all a good laugh, it does have some political significance. Alix highlighted part of it and I want to look at another aspect of it.

Over the past few months, Jacqui Smith has been busy telling us all that government plans to increase data storage and surveillance and to extend anti-terror laws even further were all perfectly OK really as they were subject to a series of 'safeguards'. Here's a couple of examples.

But I have a simple question for Ms Smith: what sort of safeguards are there against the sort of bone-headed stupidity you and your husband have shown? Him in including the porn films in your expenses claim, you for failing to check it properly - "Darling, what are these 'additional features'?"

Everyone, including public servants, is capable of such stupidity from time to time (the decision to put the details of 26 million child benefit claimants on to two unencrypted CDs springs to mind, for instance). Any safeguards on increasing the power of the state must literally be foolproof or they are worthless.

And more broadly, should we be asking the Guildford Four and the family of Jean Charles de Menezes what safeguards are effective in protecting innocent people in the fevered response to a major terrorist incident? Again, if any safeguards put into place in anti-terror laws would not have prevented either situation, they are worthless.

Ultimately, Jacqui Smith's embarrassment over her husband's viewing habits will fade. But this should be another reminder that the government's pledge that increased state power is all OK because it's in the hands of 'the good guys' who are competent and never act stupidly is somewhat hollow. There are no safeguards against human stupidity.

The easiest job in the world

2009-03-30T23:36:00.002+01:00

I can understand how a combined broadband/TV package can be included in an expenses claim. I can even understand how that might mistakenly have included a claim for adult entertainment.

What I can't understand is how the pay TV element can have been paid as a legitimate expense by the parliamentary authorities. They must have the easiest job in the world. Do they actually do any checking of MPs' expenses?

Apparently not, as they don't even bother to check whether somebody claiming that a caravan on Mersea Island is their main residence is maybe exaggerating somewhat. Presumably the parliamentary authorities are operating on the Good Chaps principle - that as all MPs are Good Chaps (even the Chapesses), a Good Chap wouldn't inquire whether a fellow Good Chap is acting in a way that a Good Chap wouldn't.

A full list of Jacqui Smith's expenses does show some interesting items - the £1,000 antique style fireplace or the £550 Habitat stone kitchen sink, for instance. Under no circumstances can these be considered as necessary to fulfil the role of an MP. But they are entirely within the current rules, which bizarrely allow not just the cost of buying a second home, but also the furnishings to go with them.

I don't have a problem with the idea of MPs being allowed funds to buy a second home - let's face it, no Scottish MP would be able to do their job properly if that were banned. But MPs should recognise that they are pretty well paid overall and I don't think it should be seen as too onerous on them to pay for most or all of the furnishings themselves.

I retain the view I expressed a few days ago: that most MPs are hard working and dedicated to doing what they believe is best for their constituents. They are also, on the whole, not venal or corrupt. But for the sake of their own reputations, and for the reputation of Parliament and politics as a whole, they need to get a grip on this and as quickly as possible.

You can't trust the SNP, part 4,937

2009-03-24T23:49:00.003Z

No, I'm not referring to today's news that teacher numbers in Scotland have fallen by almost a thousand, in contrast to the SNP's pledge in 2007 to maintain teacher numbers. That's just a Gnat manifesto promise and I think we all know by now that they're not meant to be taken seriously.

What I'm actually looking at is the way that some Gnats refuse to accept reality when the Government reverses yet another policy.

Take, for example, the debate on forestry in the Scottish Parliament last week following the abandonment of the Gnats' plan to lease out up to a third of Scotland's forests, and in particular the contribution from Highlands and Islands Gnat member Dave Thomson.

In it, the Edinburgh-based MSP launches an extraordinary tirade against the Lib Dems for supposedly misleading people about the nature of the Government's proposals, claiming they only applied to forests in the south and west of Scotland and that we were scaremongering when we pointed out the effects they could have on forests in the Highlands.

It's a magnificent attack, marred only by one small issue: the official briefing document on the subject makes absolutely no mention of the leasing proposal being confined to the south and west of Scotland. It's quite clear that the leasing plan was one for national consideration.

Now, I'm not going to suggest that Mr Thomson was lying through his teeth. Nor am I going to say that he's obviously so blinded by his hatred for the Lib Dems that he can't even think straight. I'm not even going to suggest that he's too stupid to be an MSP.

But I do think it's quite extraordinary that someone who lives only a few hundred yards from Craig Phadrig forest in Inverness hasn't bothered to keep himself informed about basic issues about the future management of it - and then is daft enough to launch an attack on others when we point out possible problems with his government's proposals.

Mr Thomson, you can be the Gnats' attack dog if you wish. But just make sure you're not barking up the wrong tree in future.

UPDATE: Whoops - delete all instances of 'Thomson' and replace with 'Thompson'. Although some might suggest it's actually the Gnat MSP who's been taking the p.

Alistair Campbell has a point

2009-03-24T22:34:00.002Z

Just been watching The Culture Show, which this week featured Mark Kermode inviting Alistair Campbell to watch Armando Ianucci's film In The Loop - the big screen version of The Thick Of It. The character of foul-mouthed spin doctor Malcolm Tucker was, of course, famously inspired by Campbell.

It's fair to say that Campbell was rather less impressed with the film than Kermode was. Kermode found it very funny, largely because he accepts its depiction of politics as a venal, corrupt business. By contrast, Campbell felt that the film was largely a cartoon which bore little real relation to the way politics actually operates. He also laid into Kermode for his cynicism.

Now, Campbell probably isn't the best person to make this case, given his role at the heart of a government which took this country to war on a false premise. But he is right to say that the view of politics as a wholly corrupt practice is pretty much without foundation.

Most politicians I know are dedicated, hard-working individuals who genuinely wish to make a difference to the people they represent. I admit that it's mainly Lib Dem politicians that I know, so perhaps my experiences are not entirely representative, but I suspect the same is true of people from all parties. Yes, politicians are human and they make mistakes and quite often they'll say and do things for political convenience, but on the whole they are not corrupt or wholly self-serving.

And that's why I find it difficult to get too worked up about the latest expenses scandals swirling around Westminster. Yes, there will always be a small minority of politicians who seek to exploit their position for their own gain, but most aren't in it for what they can get out of it.

That's not to say there aren't issues which need to be addressed with regard to the regime surrounding MPs' expenses: the cases of Derek Conway, Jacqui Smith and Tony McNulty quite clearly shows that there are. Although only the first of those has, so far, been found to have broken the (fairly generous) rules, the public anger that's resulted probably makes the current system untenable.

But any changes to the system must recognise the important role which politicians play and be sufficiently generous to enable people from a wide range of backgrounds to play their part in public life. And while it is right that the loopholes on the second home allowance and on MPs' earnings outside Parliament are tightened, we should recognise that politicians in this country are not wholly venal and corrupt, and in fact are a pretty decent bunch overall. And so, although I never thought I'd find myself saying this, Alistair Campbell has a point.

Scottish Conference: Tavish Scott

2009-03-16T20:00:00.002Z

Scottish conference concluded, as usual, with the leader's speech.

Tavish Scott gave us a powerful and passionate speech which was largely focused on the economy. I thought it was a pretty decent effort, with strong denunciations of Labour's failures and of the Gnats for their sole focus on promoting independence rather than trying to get the economy sorted.

There were several good lines and a few decent jokes as well, which seemed to go down well with the conference-goers. Tavish got the loudest applause for his demand that the Gnats should drop their demand for an independence referendum, although I don't entirely agree with his stance on that.

But there are a couple of things which irk me very slightly about the speech. One was a stylistic thing. The prompters which Tavish was using were set quite high, meaning that he was talking over our heads and looking away into the far distance. Even on screen, it looks as though he's speaking to someone fairly over our heads rather than to the person watching.

The other slightly annoying thing is not to do with the speech itself, but on our promoting it afterwards. I would have liked to have given you a link to the full speech or embedded a video in this posting but I can't find one. That's possibly something the party needs to address, maybe by finding a willing volunteer who could post it to Youtube or somewhere similar.

But these are just minor criticisms and shouldn't detract from what was a very good speech.

Scottish Conference: Investigating the 'blood ban'

2009-03-16T19:47:00.002Z

One feature of Scottish Lib Dem conferences is that there are often small but important debates on a range of policies.

One such came on Sunday morning at Perth with a motion from Liberal Youth Scotland calling for an investigation into whether it's still appropriate for gay and bisexual men to be banned for life from giving blood.

This was a good motion which focused on whether advances in technology mean that a lifetime ban is needed any more. Conference recognised that the most important thing is the security of the blood supply, but that the relevant authorities do need to outline whether a complete ban recognises all the relevant risk factors and whether other risks need to be taken into account for potential blood donors.

Conference supported the motion and Liberal Youth Scotland are to be congratulated on putting it forward.

Scottish Conference: More powers for the Scottish Parliament

2009-03-16T19:24:00.003Z

One of the things about any conference is that there are usually a few things going on at the same time.

Thus it was that while the conference in Perth debated giving more powers to the Scottish Parliament, I was in a training session. So I can't give you a blow-by-blow account of the debate, although the first couple of speeches were good.

But I am delighted with the policy that conference passed in my absence. It is a radical vision of a powerful Scottish Parliament within a federal Britain. There are new powers proposed for the Scottish Parliament to control drugs policy, energy policy, firearms, human rights and marine policy, as well as a system of shared competence with the UK on issues such as broadcasting and unemployment.

And just as importantly, the policy also includes extending the Scottish Parliament's fiscal powers. Borrowing powers are included and Holyrood would get the power to control a range of taxes, such as income tax, vehicle excise duty, alcohol and tobacco duties and several others. There's a proposal for shared revenues between Holyrood and Westminster for VAT and North Sea oil duties and for Westminster to have sole control over things like national insurance and taxes related to welfare benefits.

This is a bold set of policies and it shows that we can have a much more powerful Scottish Parliament without going down the Gnats' road of a costly and unnecessary break-up of the United Kingdom. I hope we in the Lib Dems campaign hard on them in the run-up to the next elections, both at Westminster and at Holyrood.

Scottish Conference: Vince Cable

2009-03-14T14:33:00.002Z

As well as taking part in the Q&A session yesterday, Vince Cable also gave a keynote address to the Scottish Conference today.

Vince highlighted that blame for our current economic problems was widely shared: it's not just the bankers, as there were also failures by regulators and by politicians. He very elegantly demolished Gordon Brown's contention that the recession was purely a global problem by highlighting the many things this government had got wrong, chiefly failing to deal with the housing boom by not including house prices in their measures to tackle inflation.

Although the speech was quite sober and downbeat in style, the content was as usual razor-sharp. Vince noted the exceptionally cosy relationship between the Labour government and the world of high finance, going as far as to call this 'corrupt'.

And he also noted the difficulties that an independent Scotland would have had in dealing with the financial crisis by showing that if Scotland had to deal with the collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland, it would have cost many times the country's GDP to bail it out, leading to Iceland-style economic collapse.

He also said that successive governments had failed to deal with issues relating to poverty and that many of the problems in Scotland were no better than they were during his time as a Glasgow city councillor a few decades ago.

But he warned that if we were to tackle these, then governments would have to be disciplined in their approach to public spending. And that would mean cuts not only to things we're ideologically opposed to such as ID cards, but also some things which aren't bad ideas in themselves - such as child trust funds - but which are probably a lower priority than some other areas.

All in all, Vince showed yet again what a star he is and he got a deserved standing ovation from the conference-goers.

Scottish Conference: The Economy

2009-03-14T13:59:00.002Z

Greetings from Perth, where the Scottish Liberal Democrats have gathered this weekend for our spring conference.

There's no doubt what the main theme of the conference is: it's the economy, stupid. Yesterday we passed a comprehensive package of policies to get our economy moving again. You can find details of the policy in the conference agenda. By the way, I would have thought that the Scottish Lib Dem website would have had the policies in an easy to find part of their website rather than just on the agenda, but we don't seem to be updating the site to give people live updates, which seems a bit of a wasted opportunity.

The main features of the policy are investment in the green economy, support for small and medium-sized enterprises and cutting taxes for people on low and medium incomes, paid for by shifting the burden of taxation more on to the wealthiest in society and to pollution.

One of the important things about the policy is that it seeks action at a Scottish, UK and European level, as we recognise that no level of government can possibly tackle all the economic issues by itself.

This policy debate was followed by a question and answer session with Scottish Lib Dem finance spokesman Jeremy Purvis, Andy Willox of the Federation of Small Businesses and St Vincent of Threadneedle Street. It was an interesting discussion, although I don't really have the time to go into detail about it. But it served as another means for some of our target seat candidates to say something which will doubtless be reflected in their local papers in due course.

And this morning we had a debate on financial inclusion. We recognise that many poorer people can find it difficult to access affordable credit to pay for some necessities and are often therefore prey to loan sharks and doorstep lenders who charge a high rate of interest such as the Provident.

Conference supported a policy with three main aspects: a call for legislation to ensure a maximum rate of interest which any loan provider can charge, in line with laws in many other European countries; better financial education and support for alternative financial providers such as credit unions. There was also a call for the Post Office to be able to develop a basic banking service which people across the country can access.

As a former credit union secretary I spoke briefly in this debate, highlighting the important role which credit unions can play on this issue, providing low-cost loans and also helping people break the cycle of debt by encouraging saving. But we need to recognise that credit unions also have a patchy coverage across Scotland and many also suffer difficulties in getting enough of their members to take a role in running them, so they are not a magic solution.

But I am delighted that the Lib Dems are addressing issues such as these and coming up with real practical solutions for many of the tough economic issues we face.

Harrogate Conference: Kirsty Williams

2009-03-09T22:35:00.002Z

I missed new Welsh Lib Dem leader Kirsty Williams' speech to the conference at Harrogate. But I'd heard it was pretty good, and so I sought it out on the party website just now.

And the reports were right. Kirsty has the makings of a real political star, as she's passionate, intelligent and an excellent speaker. I'm confident that under her leadership, the Welsh Lib Dems will face a bright future.

If, like me, you missed her speech at Harrogate, here it is:

Kirsty Williams AM speaks to spring federal conference 2009
Uploaded by libdem

Guardian in a parallel universe?

2009-03-09T11:06:00.003Z

Today's report in The Guardian about the Lib Dems preparing for a coalition must mean the paper's existing in some sort of alternative universe from me.

At conference in Harrogate, nobody I know was talking about coalitions or deals with other parties. It just wasn't an issue.

It may well be the case that senior people in the party are thinking about how we would react in different scenarios, but planning for how we would react in a given situation is certainly not the same as wanting to achieve that situation. It sounds like prudential planning to me, not coalition-mongering. And I'd be immensely surprised if the scenarios didn't include the possibilities of the Lib Dems opposing a German-style grand coalition, or of some sort of minority government, with or without Lib Dem support.

And there are other reasons for thinking The Guardian's on another planet with this article. It mentions that conference backed £7 billion of spending cuts. Given that the spending plans weren't even discussed, I don't see where Allegra Stratton gets that from.

And she also says that conference backed our current policy on abolishing tuition fees, despite fears from opponents that the £3 billion cost was unaffordable. Really? As I highlighted in one of my reports from Conference, NO amendment seeking to retain tuition fees was discussed and NO speaker made the case that the policy should change. So who were these people that Allegra Stratton refers to?

Allegra Stratton, were you actually in Harrogate?

Harrogate Conference: The Cleggster

2009-03-08T17:17:00.004Z

Conference rounded off as usual with the Glorious Leader's speech.

Overall I thought Nick deserved an A for his delivery. He is becoming an impressive speaker and, apart from one or two minor stumbles, again gave a powerful and passionate delivery.

In terms of content, though, I think it was probably a B minus. There wasn't anything particularly wrong with it, and indeed much of it was good liberal stuff, including the explicit mention of Europe as being vital to the UK's interests. But I didn't really feel there was an over-arching theme to the speech and I'm not sure there were any really memorable lines. Clegg also made a point that he wasn't including many jokes in the speech, which made it a very serious and earnest affair. Perhaps a couple more touches of humour might have lightened things a bit.

I also have a couple of minor quibbles with what he said. He attacked populism, without making clear what he meant by that. Saying the Iraq war was wrong might well be a populist message, but it can also be a liberal one, for instance. And his attack on populism doesn't really sit easily with his line about the bankers - "Disqualify them now, right now" - which sounded like pure populism to me.

I would also query Nick's assertion that the UK government 'loses' £40 billion a year through tax avoidance. Let's not forget that tax avoidance is about entirely legal means of minimising tax liabilities, so the government has never been entitled to that money in the first place. He probably needed to include a line about how we would simplify the tax system to make tax avoidance harder.

But overall this was a good speech in which Nick clearly set out the main policies that we'll be fighting the next election on. If you want to read the full speech, here it is.

UPDATE: One other thing I meant to say. While the criticism of Brown's 'British jobs for British workers' line was well-made, is it really true to say that Brown hasn't challenged protectionism in Europe?

Harrogate Conference: Childcare

2009-03-08T17:01:00.002Z

How many different ways are there of saying that childcare is A Good Thing And We Should Have More Of It?

Quite a lot, apparently, judging by the debate on the subject at Lib Dem conference. Speaker after speaker lined up to say the proposals for up to 20 hours per week flexible childcare from age 18 months and for parental leave of a total of 19 months, to be split between the parents as they see fit, were a thoroughly good thing.

All in all, that made the debate one of those which covers a quite important subject, but is actually quite dull because everyone's agreeing with each other.

Summing up the debate, my local MP Danny Alexander emphasised that the proposals would cost quite a bit to implement and that tough choices would have to be made on things like cash for new roads (not including the A9, A96 and A82, obviously).

But one thing we need to spell out more clearly is how businesses, particularly small businesses, will be helped with implementing the new childcare proposals. We need to ensure we're not giving our opponents a stick to beat us with in terms of putting new burdens on already struggling small firms.

You can read the full childcare proposals here.

Harrogate Conference: Faith Schools

2009-03-08T16:05:00.002Z

As part of the debate on our proposals for education, there was much discussion on the issue of faith schools. This is an issue which excites a lot of passion among liberals, with people of faith lining up against committed secularists and plenty of positions in between.

The main proposal was a compromise one which sought to allow people the freedom to choose state-funded faith schools but which sought to abolish schools being able to select pupils on the basis of their faith.

The first amendment was to try and delete all reference to faith schools from the motion, in other words to allow the existing situation with regard to faith schools to continue, with all the potential unfairnesses that implies.

The second amendment sought the abolition of all state-funded faith schools within five years, probably an unrealistic option given that a third of schools in the UK are faith schools. As several speakers pointed out, if you were designing an education system from scratch then it's questionable to what extent you'd have a system of faith schools, but that's not where we are and you can't just wave a magic wand and make the faith schools vanish.

The third alternative was another compromise which sought to make sure that faith schools demonstrate their inclusivity or face the loss of state funding if they don't, with the decision taken at a local level.

Despite, or perhaps because of, having gone to a faith primary school, I'm not a big fan of faith schools. I think in general separating kids out by their religion is not a great idea. Nevertheless, if people do want to choose the option of getting their kids educated at a faith school, that's a choice they should have.

In the end, following an excellent summation speech by Tim Farron MP, I voted for the third amendment, which was successful. However, conference rightly voted down a part of this amendment which would have extended the ability to discriminate on religious grounds to the appointment of senior members of the school's leadership, rather than just those giving religious instruction.

This was an excellent debate and ultimately the correct decision was made.

Harrogate Conference: Howard Dean

2009-03-07T18:01:00.002Z

Having been disappointed at the last federal conference in Bournemouth that we hadn't had any external speakers, I was delighted to see that this time round Howard Dean was invited to speak.

The former Vermont Governor and Chairman of the Democratic National Committee between 2005 and 2009 gave an excellent speech. He focused on the '50-state' strategy which led to the Democrats becoming far more competitive in places previously regarded as Republican strongholds and helped the Obama campaign win in November. It also helped ensure victories in congressional races such as the Senate seat in Alaska. There are perhaps lessons here for the Lib Dems in moving beyond a strict targeting strategy towards developing the party more widely across the country.

Dean also spoke of the need to talk with people on their own terms, emphasising the way the Obama campaign had reached out to groups previously considered unreachable and talking to them in their own language. He also noted that people tend to vote with their values.

He also outlined some of the challenges the Obama administration is facing, particularly in the international sphere. He noted the need for the USA to act in a multilateral fashion and the importance of direct diplomacy. In doing so, he made the important point that you don't make peace with your friends but with your foes.

All in all, this was a terrific speech from Dean and got him a deserved standing ovation.

Harrogate Conference: The dog that didn't bark

2009-03-07T17:53:00.003Z

I was delighted that Lib Dem conference decided to retain its policy on abolishing tuition fees in England (they've already been abolished in Scotland, of course).

Or rather, it didn't so much decide it as accept it by acclamation. Despite murmurings earlier in the year that there would be an attempt to reverse our policy, in the end no amendment was discussed on the subject and no speakers made the case that our policy should change.

I find it slightly odd that the people who wanted to accept tuition fees didn't put their case forward for discussion by conference. Did they realise it would be a forlorn debate as the party would vote overwhelmingly in favour of our current policy? Or are they keeping their powder dry for a future occasion.

Either way, the right decision was made and Lib Dems can be proud that we still oppose the disincentive to going on into higher education that tuition fees represent. We are still the only major party bopposed to tuition fees and I hope we will continue to make as much of this policy at the next election as we did last time.

Referendum issue won't go away

2009-03-05T10:32:00.002Z

The news today that Labour and the Tories will both be supporting a Lib Dem amendment in the Scottish Parliament to prevent any referendum on independence before the next Holyrood elections in 2011 is somewhat worrying.

Now, I'm not one of those, such as Lib Dem MSP John Farquhar Munro, who think that a referendum should be held immediately to 'clear the air'. But I think it is futile not to recognise that a referendum probably does need to be held at some stage. Saying that a referendum can't happen in this parliament seems somewhat arbitrary.

It's also of concern to those of us who want the Scottish Parliament to have significant additional powers - in particular over finance - but who believe that independence would be damaging. I had hoped that the Calman Commission might come up with some radical proposals to enhance devolution and it would only be right that such proposals be put before the Scottish people in a referendum, with independence as an alternative option. However, if a referendum of any kind is not going to happen, that may indicate that Calman is going to be rather tamer than some of us might wish.

As I've argued before, a referendum should only be held when there are concrete proposals on the table for both independence and an enhanced devolution settlement. If that doesn't happen before 2011, then it's fine to continue opposing a referendum. But if there are such proposals, then a referendum should be held.

And it's absurd to think that this is an issue that's just going to go away.

Why the Aberdeenshire expulsions would be unjust

2009-03-03T21:58:00.005Z

Ruaraidh Dobson has a posting defending the Scottish Lib Dems' Executive's decision to suspend three Aberdeenshire councillors - Paul Johnston, Debra Storr and Sam Coull - and to start expulsion proceedings.

I wish to explain why Ruaraidh is, to use his own phrase 'dead wrong' about this matter. I believe that expelling the three councillors would be utterly unjust and that they have been the victims of a vendetta carried out by senior members of the Aberdeenshire council Lib Dem group.

And to do that, I believe it would be helpful to give a timeline of some of the major facts and incidents which have led to the current mess. Of course, as an outsider, I don't know every detail of what has happened and there may be some things I am not aware of, so this may only be a partial account, but I believe it will give a flavour of why the decision to expel the three councillors would be unjust.

November 27, 2006: American billionaire Donald Trump unveils plans for a golf and housing development on the Menie Estate in Aberdeenshire.

March 30, 2007: The formal planning application is submitted.

September 11, 2007: Aberdeenshire planning officials recommend approval of the proposals.

November 20, 2007: The Formartine Area Committee of Aberdeenshire Council approves the application.

November 29, 2007: After an extensive debate, Lib Dem councillor Martin Ford uses his casting vote as chairman of the council's Infrastructure Services Committee to reject the application. The vote was between refusing the application or deferring it to allow further negotiation, although Trump has indicated he is unwilling to negotiate. The decision causes a stir around the world

November 30, 2007: Lib Dem councillor Debra Storr claims she was assaulted after having voted against the application.

December 3, 2007: Donald Trump announces he will not be launching an appeal against the refusal of the development.

December 4, 2007: Scottish ministers decide to call in the application.

December 5, 2007: It is announced that there is to be a vote of no confidence in Martin Ford as chairman of the ISC.

December 12, 2007: Although there are no allegations of any wrongdoing on his part, Martin Ford is removed from his position as chairman of the ISC. A majority of Lib Dem councillors fail to support him. Martin is subsequently removed from other positions allocated by the Lib Dem Group. He says this was done without authority from the Lib Dem group and without even informing him in advance.

April 7, 2008: An attempt is made to expel Martin Ford from the Lib Dem group. The motion is withdrawn.

June 10, 2008: The public inquiry into the Trump development begins. Cllrs Johnston, Ford and Storr submit their views that the decision to reject the application should be upheld.

June 29, 2008: Lib Dem councillor Paul Johnston makes comments about Trump having been given a £5m 'sweetener'. Fellow councillors take exception to these comments. Although he insists he has done nothing wrong, Cllr Johnston agrees to refer himself to the Standards Commission to allow them to investigate.

October 2, 2008: Aberdeenshire Council passes a motion condemning Cllr Johnston for his comments. The Lib Dem group had agreed to note that the matter was being investigated by the Standards Commission and that as they were the appropriate body to investigate the matter, the council should not express an opinion on the matter. However, Lib Dem group leader Anne Robertson moves the successful motion, apparently after consulting the Conservative group, the Lib Dems' partners in the ruling coalition. Cllr Storr, seconded by Cllr Ford, moves an amendment supporting the original Lib Dem line.

November 3, 2008: The Trump application is approved by the Scottish government.

November 17, 2008: The Lib Dem group on Aberdeenshire Council votes to expel Debra Storr from the group for the 'crime' of having moved an amendment against the position of the Lib Dem group leader.

November 18, 2008: Having not yet been told of the vote to expel her, Cllr Storr announces her resignation from the Lib Dem group.

November 23, 2008: Martin Ford annnounces he will no longer attend meetings of the Lib Dem group, in protest at the decision to expel Debra Storr.

January 9, 2009: Paul Johnston is exonerated by the Standards Commission over his 'sweetener' comments.

January 22, 2009: The Lib Dem group on Aberdeenshire Council refuses to attach a note to the minutes of the October meeting noting that Paul Johnston had been exonerated, despite officer advice that it was perfectly feasible to do so.

January 23, 2009: Cllrs Ford, Johnston and Coull decide to leave the Lib Dem group. Together with Debra Storr, they form the Democratic Independent Group. Their standing orders explicitly state that they will not have a political whip.

January 27, 2009: Martin Ford resigns from the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

February 14, 2009: The four members of the DIG support an amendment to the Aberdeenshire Council budget which was proposed by the Lib Dem/Tory administration.

February 28, 2009: The Scottish Lib Dem Executive agrees to suspend Cllrs Storr, Johnston and Coull from membership and to initiate proceedings towards their expulsion.

And that brings us to where we are today. There are quite a few other things I could have mentioned about how the four councillors feel they have been bullied or victimised by leading members of the Aberdeenshire Lib Dem group, but I thought I'd keep this to largely established facts. But even looking at those, I think there is ample evidence to suggest that Cllrs Ford, Storr, Johnston and Coull have been the subject of a vendetta against them, based on their opposition to the Trump development. Ruaraidh, and other members of the Scottish Executive, I hope you you read this and consider whether your support for the expulsion of the Aberdeenshire Three is justified.

Booze and price: the evidence

2009-03-02T22:23:00.004Z

Is there a scientific relationship between the price of booze and its consumption? I ask because during a radio discussion on the Scottish Government's proposals to introduce a minimum price for booze, an expert insisted there was.

This intrigued me, as I thought the picture was far more mixed than he was admitting. Certainly there is some support for his view, such as this one which highlights that there is indeed a reduction of consumption when the price goes up.

But that only relates to overall consumption. This study suggests that increasing the price of booze will have little impact on binge drinking. This one, meanwhile, suggests there is a gender difference between men and women, with men being far less affected by price changes in terms of their binge drinking than women are, although for both the demand for booze is relatively inelastic. It should be noted that the study is of college students only.

Let us assume that all three studies are accurate. What conclusions can we draw? Well, the most obvious one has to be that raising the price of booze will reduce overall consumption of alcohol - but mainly for moderate drinkers and women. Male binge drinkers are less likely to respond to price signals.

Indeed, the evidence that price does little to affect binge drinking is quite significant. As the ever-reliable Wikipedia notes, there is a tradition of binge drinking in Scandinavian countries, despite the historically high prices and restricted availability of alcohol. In southern Europe, by contrast, binge drinking is much less common, despite the relative cheapness of alcohol.

That's why today's proposals from the Scottish Government are largely irrelevant to the issue of tackling Scotland's drinking culture. Yes, the introduction of minimum prices will certainly have an effect on consumption, but only at the margins. And it's unlikely to do anything to tackle the uncomfortable fact that too many people in our society drink to get drunk. Until people learn how to drink responsibly, laws on booze are not going to make much difference. And we are currently a long, long way from that.

Smoking bill should be stubbed out

2009-02-27T00:27:00.003Z

If there's one thing where the SNP and Labour are united, it's in sharing a nannying approach to subjects such as smoking and drinking.

The latest example of this came yesterday when the Scottish Government published its anti-smoking bill, which contains proposals to ban cigarette vending machines and prevent the display of tobacco-related products in shops. I've blogged about this subject before when the Labour government came up with similar proposals to implement at Westminster and I stand by the comments I made then.

Banning the display of tobacco products and vending machines will not make much difference to the incidence of smoking. Indeed, I note in The Herald report a claim that the New Zealand government decided against introducing such a ban on the grounds that there was no real evidence that such a ban was effective in reducing smoking.

There is also a cost implication for retailers, with the Scottish Grocers Federation saying that it believes that will be between £5,000 and £10,000 on average.

And worst of all, it's a completely nannying measure. The ban on smoking in public buildings could be justified on the grounds of preventing harm to others through passive smoking. But vending machines don't cause any harm to others and nor does the display of tobacco products. That's why I'm disappointed that Scottish Lib Dem health spokesman Ross Finnie seems to be backing the bill in principle, even if he does criticise the Gnats for wanting to introduce a blanket ban.

Although I'm not a smoker, I'd be quite happy to see the new smoking bill stubbed out.

Think of a number, any number

2009-02-26T23:10:00.002Z

If the number you thought of was 8,664, the chances are your name is Alex Salmond.

That's the figure the Chancer in Chief has come up with for the number of jobs lost should Scotland have to accept a budget cut of £1 billion over two years thanks to the 'efficiency savings' proposed by Alistair Darling.

If you do the calculation, that gives a figure of £115,420.13 per job. The mean average full-time earnings last year in Scotland were £28,296, while median average earnings were approximately £23,925 (weekly figure of £460.10 x 52). If we assume that all those who lose their jobs would be on average wages, then Salmond is basically assuming a multiplier effect of 4 or 4.5 times the wages lost.* That seems rather high to me.

Salmond seems to be assuming that if posts are lost, none of those involved will find alternative employment or would retire. There also seems to be an assumption that those affected would see their spending drop to something close to zero, which is very unlikely to happen. Even if only a quarter of those who lost their jobs found other work and the rest continued to spend at 25% of their previous level (on esssentials such as food and electricity), then that would lift the multiplier effect that Salmond's assuming to well over 5 times the wages lost, which seems even more unrealistic.

But of course, the Scottish Government could only have come up with such a precise figure like 8,664 if they'd done a thorough study of the services to be affected and knew exactly where the axe would fall in every department. But if they'd done such a thorough study, I'm sure they could have come up with areas where things could be done more efficiently - maybe about £1 billion over 2 years, perhaps. With a public sector as large as Scotland's, that shouldn't be that difficult.

Now, I wouldn't want you to think that Salmond had just plucked a large figure for job losses out of the air and was using it to scare people and score political points. Perish the thought. But I would be really interested to see whether anyone can justify such a precise figure as 8,664 jobs lost. I suspect the reality would be rather different - maybe more, maybe fewer jobs going. But I doubt very much it would be 8,664.

* There is of course the factor that people who lose their jobs would then be on benefits and the cost of those may be included in this figure. But equally, people on benefits would still have some spending power, so those factors may cancel each other out.

Singing from the Tony Blair songbook

2009-02-23T17:59:00.002Z

The Tories have clearly been listening to Tony Blair's Greatest Hits.

One of the best songs on that record is the snappily-titled 'Let's Think Up A Tough-Sounding New Initiative On Crime To Grab A Few Headlines And Then Quietly Forget About It When Its Impracticality Becomes Clear.' I'm sure you must know it - Blair was singing it all the time. It became his signature tune.

Well, the Tories have released a cover version, thanks to Chris Grayling And The Shinyheads. And, like most cover versions, it's not as good as the original. Yeah, the lyrics are just the same - Blair was singing about child curfews and the like for quite a while, but even then the words never really made sense.

But Grayling's new arrangement leaves a lot to be desired. For a start there's a new percussion section in which the police have to apply for a court order to enforce the curfew. It sounds good initially, but when you listen closely it just falls apart. How The Police drum up the evidence that such a curfew is required and what safeguards teens have against being wrongly snared aren't very clear.

But the real problem is the guitar solo of enforcement. Will The Police really want to play a gig every night at the youngsters' homes? And would the kids really want to be in the audience for that concert? Some might say The Police could get a better paying gig by playing as the support act to the Real Criminals. There are others who would point out that a duet with The Parents might be more harmonious. Of course, some members of The Parents are letting their children into gigs for free and allowing them to give the paying punters a hard time, but I think The Police and The Parents could make a formidable supergroup if given the opportunity.

Grayling has also added in one or two lines of his own to the original. But the lyric about 'taking kids home if they're misbehaving' certainly isn't original, and indeed is a standard one throughout the music industry. But the Shinyheads' lead singer really needs to explain the whole song to me, as I don't understand why if the kids aren't alright, they're not facing the music from The Magistrates.

In short, I think the Tories need to come up with their own songs, not rely on Tony Blair's old tunes. I can't see this record selling.

And the award for Best Rant goes to...

2009-02-23T17:51:00.000Z

... former Labour leadership contender Bryan Gould, for this splendid effort on Comment is Free.

Lib Dems benefit from Labour's collapse?

2009-02-20T15:45:00.003Z

Two interesting articles in today's Guardian, which taken together point to a real opportunity for the Lib Dems.

In the first, John Harris, not someone I always agree with, points out that many Labour cabinet ministers are positioning themselves for the inevitable leadership election following their party's likely defeat at the next election. However, none of them are showing why they'd be any different or have any real understanding of the hole Labour finds itself in. Nor are they showing that they have any real ideas about what Labour should stand for in the future.

Harris calls all this positioning the inevitable noise before defeat, which seems a fair enough assessment. And if Labour is beaten at the next election, does anyone think that a Miliband, Balls, Harman or Cooper would be the sort of inspirational figure who could lead a Labour revival? No, thought not. That's the sort of talent pool you get when you have a party which is interested in power purely for its own sake.

And that points to the opportunity the Lib Dems have got, which is amplified in Martin Kettle's article. He notes that recent opinion polls have been more favourable to the Lib Dems (a couple have had us back up to 22%, the figure we polled at the last election) and that we could be set for an unexpectedly decent result come the election if that continues.

Come the next election, the question is going to be whether people trust the party that got us into our current mess to get us out of it. For all Labour's rhetoric about the recession being a global problem, no-one seriously believes that policy decisions in the UK had no impact on our current problems. The failure of the financial regulatory system put in place by Gordon Brown and the housing bubble created by the government's refusal to include house prices in its measures to tackle inflation were both Labour's fault.

And Kettle is right to highlight that the Lib Dems may be benefitting at last from Vince Cable's economic expertise. If that continues, not only do we have a real opportunity to have a good election - and Kettle is right to say that second place in the popular vote is not beyond us if Labour really does collapse - but we would also be well-positioned when Labour indulges in its ritual blood-letting.

Roll on the next election - and beyond!

Labour in its death throes

2009-02-20T15:27:00.001Z

If you thought the idea of Harriet Harman as the next leader of the Labour Party was ridiculous, then how about this one: Yvette Cooper. Truly, the Labour Party is in its death throes.

The Convention on Modern Liberty

2009-02-19T16:25:00.003Z

I'm not going to be able to make it to the Convention on Modern Liberty, which is taking place on February 28 in London and at locations around the country.

But I would urge anyone who is able to take part in whatever way they can. Liberty has been under attack for some time in this country, with Tim Garton Ash noting in today's Guardian the extent of the freedoms we have lost, with no compensating gain in security or efficiency.

If you want an indication of just why the Convention is so necessary and so timely, just look at today's story about an asylum-seeking gay man who was illegally deported from the UK and has since faced ill treatment from the authorities in his native country. And yet the Home Office, despite admitting the illegal nature of his deportation, were arguing that they had no duty to take him back. Thankfully, the High Court thought better.

I've added a sidebar on the Convention, or alternatively click here.

Where do we go from here?

2009-02-18T19:31:00.002Z

My article on what the Scottish Lib Dems should do in the wake of the SNP's abandonment of abolition of the council tax is now up over at Lib Dem Voice.

On causing offence to religion

2009-02-15T15:34:00.002Z

The debate over the Geert Wilders controversy has put the spotlight on to what extent it is acceptable to cause offence to religious feelings and beliefs. And I wish to amplify why I think it's a very dangerous road to go down to accept restrictions on freedom based on offence to religious sensibilities as opposed to incitement to hatred.

Let's indulge in a few thought experiments. Suppose I were to write the following sentence: "Jesus sodding Christ! That fat bastard Buddha ripped the turban from a Sikh's head to slaughter the sacred cow, in order to celebrate the gay wedding of Moses and Muhammad."

In that sentence, have I potentially offended all the world's major religions? Yes, probably. Is what I say true? No, as Moses and Muhammad weren't gay and didn't live at the same time, for instance. Does that sentence incite hatred or violence against religion? I don't think so, but if the test for deciding whether or not something can be said is whether it gives offence, then I wouldn't be able to say that.

Let's move on to a slightly more controversial example. "Monotheistic religions have been responsible for more deaths than Adolf Hitler." Is that offensive to Judaism, Christianity and Islam? Yes, probably. Is it true? Again, probably it is, but I don't know that there are any reliable statistics for number of deaths caused by numerous religious-inspired wars. But does it incite violence against those religions? I doubt it. But again it would be banned if the test were just causing offence.

How about this one: "The Roman Catholic Church, an organisation headed by a former member of the Hitler Youth and which collaborated with fascists during the Second World War, has been responsible for the deaths of countless women and children in Africa due to its opposition to sensible birth control policies."

Now, that sentence will probably offend many Catholics due to the gratuitous mention of Pope Benedict's youthful activities and the implication that the church is a Nazi organisation. Is it true? A case can certainly be presented that it is true, but it is more a matter of opinion than a statement of fact. Does it incite violence? No. Is the intention to disparage the Catholic church and thus possibly increase hatred against Catholics? Possibly, but I think restricting statements like this would be an intolerable restriction of legitimate debate.

And what about: "The Holocaust didn't happen and the gas chambers in Auschwitz were faked by a worldwide Jewish conspiracy." Now that sentence would be a criminal offence in many countries, but not the UK. It's also untrue, as the Holocaust is a matter of historical record. It is also used to incite hatred against Jews. Should it therefore be banned? I don't think so, as the best defence against the scum who peddle this filth is to expose the hollowness of their arguments and not to give them the fake respectability of being able to portray themselves as victims of people restricting freedom of speech.

And finally for an easy one: "Kill the Jews, kill the Christians, kill the Muslims." Should sentences like that be banned? Yes, as there is a clear danger that somebody could act on that. It directly promotes violence and such incitement has no place in any society.

It's in this context that I think Geert Wilders should have been free to come into this country to promote his views.Wilders, as others have noted, is no defender of freedom. His film is repugnant, as it is designed to stir up resentment of Muslims. And it's also untrue as it relies on inaccurate or out of context Koranic translations. But it doesn't incite violence, as even many supporters of the ban acknowledge. And for that reason, the fact that it was offensive to many Muslims and to others should not have been a reason to restrict Wilders' freedom.

Religion and free speech

2009-02-13T19:39:00.001Z

In the light of the Geert Wilders controversy, it's well worth reading this defence of the right to criticise religious belief from Johann Hari.

Wilders does not incite violence

2009-02-12T21:03:00.003Z

Today's decision by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith to ban Geert Wilders from entering the UK is spectacularly inept.

Not only is it wrong in principle (I thought we were meant to have freedom of movement in the EU?), it's also been counter-productive. The decision has ensured far more publicity for Wilders' views than he would ever have got if he'd been allowed in.

Like many people, I looked on the net to see what all the fuss was about and watched Fitna, the video at the centre of the controversy. And, having watched it, I am clear that it does NOT incite violence or hatred against Islam as a whole. It is extremely critical of Islamic extremism, often in quite a graphic way, but there is nothing in it which I think would be likely to incite violence.

That makes Smith's decision to ban him in my view utterly ludicrous. And it also makes Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne wrong to support her decision. I was a supporter of Chris during both recent leadership elections, but I think he's got this one badly wrong.

Wilders' views on Islam are, I think, both wrong and fairly repugnant. And, if you Google for "Geert Wilders video" you will find not only the film itself, but also several refutations of it, which indicate that Wilders has based his views on Koranic translations which may be false and taken out of context.

For me this does raise a question about how we tackle extremist views of all kinds. Banning Wilders from entering the UK is certainly counter-productive and it means that the arguments against his position haven't really been put.

But there is also an issue about how we tackle some of the extremist Islamic views which Wilders highlights in his film. And one of the problems of this whole affair is that the voices of moderate Muslims have been drowned out - both by those Muslims for whom Wilders' presence was a problem and by Wilders himself.

If we are to tackle the very real threat of Islamic extremism, then in future we have to avoid creating sympathy for extremist voices such as Wilders by banning him. But we also have to strengthen moderate Muslim voices, to avoid the sort of fears that people like Wilders play upon.

UPDATE: Lib Dem Voice also has a discussion on the subject, on which I've also expressed my views. It includes a link to something Chris Huhne has previously said on a similar subject. Can we have the old Chris Huhne back please?

What the Gnats said about council tax

2009-02-12T13:22:00.002Z

"The council tax is deeply oppressive, deeply unfair. We see that, virtually everyone in Scotland I meet knows that. It's wrong and we're going to abolish it." - Alex Salmond, April 2007.

"I have no doubt Scotland will judge harshly any MSP who votes to keep the council tax in the face of the overwhelming benefit that would flow to millions of ordinary Scots" - Alex Salmond, September 2008.

"There will be no misunderstanding. We are determined to abolish the unfair council tax. The council tax is an inherently unfair tax with a very loose connection to people's ability to pay" - Alex Salmond, April 2008.

"The SNP will scrap the Council Tax and introduce a fairer system based on ability to pay. Families and individuals on low and middle incomes will on average be between £260 and £350 a year better off. Nine out of ten pensioners will pay less local tax." - SNP election manifesto 2007.

"The SNP are pledged to scrap the council tax, and Labour's attacks on the SNP in defence of this iniquitous tax is a spectacular own-goal. Labour's unfair council tax and the SNP policy for fair local tax will be a major campaign issue. It is a big winner for the SNP in this election - overwhelmingly, people back the SNP in wanting to axe the council tax." - Nicola Sturgeon, March 2007.

"An SNP government will help pensioners and families too. We'll get rid, once and for all, of the unfair council tax. The council tax that has gone up by 55 per cent under Labour and which hits hardest those who can least afford to pay it. We'll put in its place a local income tax, based on ability to pay. Under our proposals, a majority of pensioners will pay nothing and most people will pay less than they do now. It is called fairness. It is a principle that old Labour used to believe in but that New Labour has betrayed. - Nicola Sturgeon, September 2005.

"There has been talk about helping disadvantaged communities and the need for social justice. I cannot think of a more immediate way to achieve those goals than by abolishing the council tax...On the doorsteps during the election a year ago, that issue was first on their minds. In all the opinion polling since then, a majority of those who say that they will support each of the parties in Scotland support a local income tax and want an end to the council tax. That will be achieved in this year by the Government, which I welcome very much." Rob Gibson MSP, September 2008.

And here's what I say to Alex Salmond: You and your party are a bunch of unprincipled lying charlatans who will say and do anything to get in power and then betray your promises one by one.

No sex please, we're Scottish

2009-02-10T22:39:00.002Z

The news today that the Scottish government is considering making its law cracking down on consensual teenage sex even tougher is worrying on several levels.

Firstly, there is a very strong whiff of authoritarian moralising about the whole business. It seeks to bring girls aged 13-15 on to the same legal footing as teenage boys and open them up to prosecution should they indulge in consensual sex.

On one level, this is entirely fair. If boys are to be prosecuted for having under-age sex, then it does seem equitable that girls should be liable to the same penalties.

But can anyone tell me exactly what the purpose is of criminalising teenagers in this way? Teenagers have sex - always have, always will. Putting them through the criminal justice system for indulging in entirely consensual acts seems like madness to me. To brand a 14-year-old as a sex offender for shagging another 14-year-old seems somewhat daft.

Yes, there is an age of consent, so what those teens are doing is illegal. And yes, the earlier that people have sex the more likely they are to suffer from sexually transmitted diseases or teenage pregnancies.

But that doesn't mean that putting them through the criminal justice system is the appropriate way of dealing with the issue. Indeed, it seems like one of the worst ways of dealing with it. It is a health, education and moral issue - not a legal one. The more you make it a legal matter, the less likely you are to have teenagers coming forward asking for help - with obvious implications for STDs and teenage pregnancy.

And things get worse if you consider the idea that oral sex is to be included in the legislation. If oral sex, why not masturbation? Or any other activity which might in any way lead to teenagers having any kind of sexual thought whatsoever? This sounds to me like a legal minefield and the perfect recipe for a bad law. Defining the various practices which are to be considered illegal for teenagers seems nightmarish and there will also be significant difficulties in enforcing it.

This is legislation motivated more by moral unease about the thought of teenagers having sex than by a serious attempt to address an issue. This is something the Scottish government needs to rethink - unless it really wants to criminalise a whole generation of teenagers for doing nothing more than what comes naturally to them.

Picture perfect

2009-02-02T22:28:00.004Z

I was pleased to hear today's news that the £50m appeal to secure the future of the Titian painting Diana and Actaeon within the collection of the National Galleries of Scotland and the National Gallery has been successful.

I made a small donation to the appeal, as I believe it's important that investment is made in culture, and having world class art collections in Scotland and the UK is part of that.

Obviously, some people question such expenditure at a time of economic crisis, but many of those people don't think we should ever spend anything on cultural matters. That's a coherent point of view, but not one I share. A vibrant cultural sector actually helps the wider economy, both in terms of the wealth generated by cultural activities themselves and the impact it has on sectors like tourism. I would say we can't afford not to invest in culture.

Ending the budget chaos

2009-01-29T12:30:00.002Z

What would it take for the Scottish Lib Dems to back the new budget that the Gnats will be putting before the Scottish Parliament, following the rejection of the original yesterday?

Caron has already given one answer and that's certainly something worthy of consideration. But I would like to throw something else into the discussion, which I think would be equally beneficial.

It looks like we're not going to get the 2p income tax cut we proposed, but that doesn't mean we should abandon all ideas of doing something to help the economy. Looking at our manifesto from the 2007 elections, I see lots of good ideas in there which would help Scottish businesses through these difficult times.

For instance, we proposed doubling the support available to small businesses and setting up a fund to help small community retailers. Progress towards that would certainly be an option to win Lib Dem support. Combine that with a return to 2007 levels of funding for Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise and I suspect the Gnats might well be close to a deal.

There are other options as well: progress on our long-term target to treble research and development or the WiFi Towns and Cities Fund mentioned in the manifesto would certainly be possibilities. And ending the proposed cuts to bus and train transport in Scotland, which I highlighted in a previous post, should certainly be on the table.

But all this requires the Gnats to stop their posturing and arrogance and really make an effort to reach consensus on a budget which does something for the Scottish economy. The budget they proposed was so inadequate to the task that rejecting it was the best choice for Scotland. Perhaps now they will be ready to recognise their minority status in the Scottish Parliament and work with others on a budget that meets Scotland's needs.