Blaming the poor - whatever happened to solidarity ?

The Guardian today reveals that even Labour supporters have bought into the Osbornite vision of the undeserving poor.   "Labour party supporters increasingly believe that welfare recipients are undeserving and that the welfare state encourages dependence, with a noticeable share saying that poverty is caused by a personal failing rather than a problem with society."  This is the conclusion of a study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.  

The maps above come from a different report last year showing where the greatest risks of poverty according to Experian.  Leaving aside Experian's total inaccuracy about my own affairs, I suspect there is a strong correlation between the riskier areas and the areas with the highest Labour votes.  We know that Tories and UKIP blame the poor but where is our society headed if Labour voters join in ?

The Rowntree website has a lot of material on poverty but I couldn't find the actual report so I don't know about the attitudes of Liberal Democrat voters.  The party's membership cards quote the preamble to the constitution: "The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity."   Much debate goes on about the relative merits of liberty and equality but a better phrase uttered on the radio by David Goodhart has stayed with me: "The twin aims of Liberalism - solidarity and diversity".   

Referendums,lies and damned lies

Today on Facebook a friend posted an article by Vince Cable saying that Liberal Democrats would table an amendment in the debate on the humble address (response to Queen's Speech) calling for a referendum on British membership of the EU. Only problem: the article was from 2007.

It was the wrong idea in 2007 and it's even more the wrong idea today, but not just because we would lose the referendum today.  Misunderstanding about the EU is deeper than it ever was and not by accident.  The media have been feeding the public lies and distortions about the EU for several decades. Many politicians from all parties have compounded the problem by repeating the casual xenophobia on which it is all based.      But the whole idea of a referendum is wrong.

A referendum is the worst possible way to decide complex issues. Why ?

1. People rarely vote on the merits of the actual issue, but on clusters of related and unrelated matters.  Classic example: the referendum on AV.   Polls show and have shown for years widespread support for electoral reform but people voted on their opinion of the Liberal Democrats at the time.

2. When an issue is complex, if people vote on the issue at all, they vote on the basis of media representations of the issue, which are often far from accurate and usually biased.  In this case, a tiny minority (both for and against British membership) would read the actual treaties.  The vast majority will have read and heard over and over again the myths propagated by the media. Before you respond that I am being elitist, I am not saying that people are incapable of understanding the issues.  In frequent discussions face to face I am convinced that most people can understand the issues.  I AM saying that they won't because they won't have a face-to-face discussion.  Instead they will face the continued bombardment of deliberate distortion in the media.

Europhobes (they are not sceptics, not doubtful or critical - they want out) will argue that the issue of in-or-out is not complex in itself.  Everyone can understand it.   If the Scots can decide whether they want to be an independent country, so can the UK.   Totally different question.  Scottish Nationalists are actually less nationalist than the British europhobes.  They want Scotland to be a country within the European Union, a supranational body.  Europhobes by contrast peddle the myth of national sovereignty, that Britain should and could have the power to decide all questions independently.   A moment's reflection on the global economy, the environment and security shows this to be impossible.  They constantly paint supporters of the EU as wanting to "create a country called Europe", another lie.   The EU is about different countries working together.

If anyone persists in arguing the merits of referendums, do they then think that the question of whether British soldiers should fight, kill and die abroad would be a suitable subject to put to referendum.  The public has never been asked to vote on the North Atlantic Treaty nor on the fundamental change a few years ago when NATO decided that mutual defence included fighting out-of-area.    Perhaps questions rather more important than anything for which the EU has competence ?

Wigan

For a few words from the man who introduced Wigan to the world - Eddie Waring - on another good day for the town in 1965, see here.

Looking forward to Tory split

Excellent New Statesman comment on Lawson's outburst.  "Lawson's piece is a reminder of why the EU referendum has the potential to result in the biggest Conservative split since the reform of the Corn Laws. "  Now that's a day we can all look forward to.

Robin Cook resigned. 396 warmongers should have.

Whilst looking for something else I came upon Robin Cook's resignation speech on You Tube.  I remember listening to it at the time.  It still moves me to tears and anger at Tony Blair and his fellow war criminals on the Labour front bench.   At the end of the clip when the house claps, you can see their embarrassed immobility, except for John Prescott who shifts his great weight uncomfortably.  Cook  was a better man than any of you.   I for one will not forget how Labour and Tories took us to war on false pretences.  Tories need not pretend that Blair deceived them.  He didn't deceive Cook and he didn't deceive me and he didn't deceive the millions who marched against his shameful war.

You can find Cook's speech here and the Iraq debate here.  It is a peculiarity of Hansard that whilst the record contains the full text of Tony Blair's motion for war, it does not appear to contain the text of the amendment opposing war without UNSC consent.  The amendment was lost 396 to 217.  You may read here the list of MPs who voted NO to the amendment and therefore yes to war.  Never let them forget it.

Are we living through the 1930s again ?

This is Gabor Vona, the chairman of the Hungarian party Jobbik, addressing his fellow racists.   This  weekend hundreds of them protested in Budapest against the city's hosting of the World Jewish Congress.  Nor is this a minor party.  It is Hungary's third largest with 43 MPs and 3 MEPs.  The old Hungarian Liberal party,  the Alliance of Free Democrats (Szabad Demokraták Szövetsége) has almost disappeared but there is hope in a new group, Together 2014 (Együtt 2014), four of whose members came to help us in the Cambridgeshire County Council elections.  

The rise of right-wing populist parties such as UKIP in UK, Golden Dawn in Greece and the Five Star Movement in Italy is characteristic of European austerity.  In hard times people reject traditional parties and gravitate to those offering nationalism, quick fixes, hatred and fear of others.  Traditional parties meanwhile fail to present their core beliefs effectively for fear of losing votes to each other, thereby guaranteeing that they do lose votes because nobody knows what they stand for.   This disastrous mixture of failure and demagoguery feeds of economic distress.

Have we learned nothing from the 1930s ?   Please, please let not the 2010s finish as they did.

This is so Daily Mail: the spy in the fridge !

The Daily Mail has found a story that combines all its fear and hate and sheer bonkers fantasy in one go : the spy in the fridge.     The rant with pictures is about devices which would shut off domestic appliances automatically to avoid power cuts.  Here's how the Mail sees it and the true picture:

1) Daily Mail: EU Conspiracy
An " EU-wide body of energy regulators" has suggested it to the European Commission -oooooh, scary !  Foreigners telling us what to do !
True Picture
The European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E) is the network of operators "cooperating for reliable operation, optimal management and sound technical evolution of the European electricity transmission system."  UK and European partners co-operating.

2) Daily Mail: Bloody green nutters and their wind farms
"...the European Union’s most influential energy bodies...are pushing for the move as green energy sources such as wind farms are less predictable than traditional power stations"
True picture
The problem isn't wind farms, it's sudden peaks in demand.  You can't ramp up supply quickly.  As the text says, in the last resort this would prevent large scale blackouts.   So obviously the Mail would prefer all electricity shut down rather than selected appliances

3) Daily Mail: They can stop you watching royal weddings !   
It's just not British.   They worked in a picture of the Duchess of Cambridge but even the Mail couldn't find a way to show her in a bikini this time.
True picture
Royal weddings don't cause sudden, unpredictable peaks.  That's what "outside sources" as the Mail calls them, i.e. Transmission System Operators plan for.

4) Daily Mail: Big brother to switch off your fridge
 (No, not the Bazalgette bollocks - I suspect the Mail rather likes that)
David Davis said: "There is a Big Brother element to this – and it also shows the energy suppliers passing down their incompetence to the customers. They should be supplying energy as customers need it, not the when they want to give it."
True picture
Ah, the old "predict and supply" policy.  The assumption that we are all entitled to all the energy we ever want, whatever the consequences for global warming and resource depletion. Oh I forgot, the Mail doesn't really believe in climate change.  It's a liberal conspiracy. Let Marcus deal with that.

(By the way, I don't read the Mail but thanks to Donnachadh McCarthy for the link.   For any one who hasn't seen it yet, the final word on the Mail is here.)

Happy now ? How laid back are you ?

The Office for National Statistics has published figures for national wellbeing, which show which parts of the UK are happiest, most relaxed and most fulfilled.   The BBC summarises with a table of the top and bottom 5 places for each statistic.   It turns out that the remoter parts of Scotland are the most laid back.   There are a number of interesting graphs including this one which shows how much people think they can influence local decisions:

What a pity the turnout in local elections doesn't rise to these levels !

House of Lords insists on equality duty

Update on the government's determination to remove the EHRC's general duty.   Last night the House of Lords insisted on its amendment to keep the duty.  Ping Pong continues.   Come on Liberal Democrat MPs ! Wake up !

You can see how the Lords voted here at Column 1294.    Surprising how the Lib Dem Lords split.  Not entirely predictable.

Equality legislation: Lib Dem MPs hand free gift to Labour

Last Tuesday the Commons voted 310 - 244  to reject a Lords amendment to keep Section 3 of the Equality Act.  In other words they supported the government's proposal to repeal  Section 3 which sets out the general duty of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission which says:

The Commission shall exercise its functions under this Part with a view to encouraging and supporting the development of a society in which- 

(a) people’s ability to achieve their potential is not limited by prejudice or discrimination, 
(b) there is respect for and protection of each individual’s human rights, 
(c) there is respect for the dignity and worth of each individual, 
(d) each individual has an equal opportunity to participate in society, and 
(e) there is mutual respect between groups based on understanding and valuing of diversity and on shared respect for equality and human rights. 

As we can see, there is not a single word there that a Liberal Democrat could disagree with.  Yet 41 Lib Dem MP's voted to scrap it.  MPs John Hemming, Adrian Sanders, Sarah Teather and David Ward rebelled against the government and deputy leader Simon Hughes abstained after speaking against the government line but the whips still won the day.  11 of our MPs were absent. Party president Tim Farron urged ministers to back down but when they did not he voted with the whip.

Jo Swinson, the minister responsible argued that the section has no effect in law.  Cambridge law professor Sir Bob Hepple QC begs to differ.   As the Welsh Liberal Democrat Conference  pointed out yesterday:

* Section 3 is entirely congruent with the preamble to our party’s constitution and repealing it would be to act against all our fundamental beliefs and instincts. 

* Our MPs had no mandate to vote against it last Tuesday because: 

1. The party fully supported the 2006 Act. 
2. In our 2010 manifesto the Party reaffirmed its commitment to further advancing equality and human rights. 

3. This commitment was carried forward into the coalition agreement. 

I cannot see that the government has made out its case to repeal Section 3. If, as they argue, it has no effect, then why waste time debating it. If, as others argue, it has a beneficial effect then leave it in place. Repealing this section hands a gift to the Labour Party who will quote Liberal Democrats' opposition to Section 3 every chance they get. What were our ministers thinking of when they agreed to this ?

Which parliament serves its people better ?

Last Wednesday our parliament spent over seven hours praising Thatcher  (at our expense).  Bercow had initially refused Cameron's request, saying we can do it next Monday when we meet anyway.  Miliband backed Cameron and Bercow gave way.

Yesterday, the New Zealand parliament voted on the definition of marriage.  See what happened when marriage between same sex partners was approved.    The House of Commons often leaves me close to tears but not for a good reason.  Time to emigrate ?

Thatcher's Funeral

Some people have commented upon the cost of Lady Thatcher's funeral.  The following script from 2008 showed some foresight.
Script

Part	Words / Actions
[directions]	[Margaret Thatcher sitting on stage; pulls hair spray from her handbag and sprays her hair.]
[F/X]	[Knock at the door]
Thatcher	Dennis! Dennis, do see who it is!
[F/X]	[More knocks at the door]
Thatcher	Oh yes, of course. Dennis was phased out. [shouts] Come in. We are at home.
[directions]	[Enter civil servant]
CS	Lady Thatcher? Good afternoon, your ladyship.
Thatcher	Yes, what do you want?
CS	I’m from the Cabinet Office. Gordon Brown sent me.
Thatcher	Brown? Isn’t he the one who wants to be prime minister but has no idea why? So unlike that dear Mr Blair... [mind wanders] How is Mr Blair?
CS	He resigned, your ladyship.
Thatcher	Then who’s running the country?
CS	Mr Brown is, your ladyship
Thatcher	Oh dear... Anyway, come to the point. What do you want?
CS	It’s rather a delicate matter, your ladyship…
Thatcher	Oh God! What’s Mark done now?
CS	It’s not Mark. It’s you, your ladyship.
Thatcher	They want me back? I knew the day would come! We are ready!
CS	Not quite, your ladyship. It’s about your funeral.

Thatcher	We are not dead and we have no intention of dying. The lady’s not for burning!
CS	The Prime Minister has asked me…
Thatcher	[interrupts] Ah dear, dear Tony, such a good disciple...
CS	Gordon Brown, your ladyship. He has asked me to prepare your State Funeral.
Thatcher	Yes, well I suppose we must do it properly. I expect a full display of our nation’s military prowess, culminating in the sinking of an Argentinian battleship.
CS	The Prime Minister feels that the country owes you a lot…
Thatcher	Does he really? He’s not as bad as I thought. You know, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
CS	The PM wants your funeral to reflect the great contribution you have made to our nation’s history.
Thatcher	Just rejoice, rejoice! We must have everyone there. Everyone except Ted Heath, of course... Oh I forgot. He was phased out.
CS	Heads of State will be invited.
Thatcher	That nice General Pinochet...
CS	I’m afraid he’s… been phased out too.
Thatcher	I don’t want that wet Etonian, Cameron. Tony will come of course. But not that dreadful wife; she’s a bit left wing. Tony can give the eulogy and bring his friend Mr Berlusconi.
CS	Mr Blair can also bring his friend Cliff Richard, who will sing an appropriate song…
Thatcher	‘Living Doll’?
CS	No, I was thinking more, ‘Power to all our friends’.
Thatcher	What about Ronald? He was so helpful in the Falklands. I promised to follow him to the end of the earth – and he offered to arrange it.
CS	So sorry. President Reagan has also been phased out. But all the leading members of society will be there.
Thatcher	There is no such thing as society! But I do want the band of the Grenadier Guards.
CS	There’s just one thing, your ladyship. Mr Brown wants your funeral to reflect your own values…
Thatcher	Well it could hardly reflect his. We don’t know what they are.

  

CS	…and therefore I am afraid that the Guards Band is unlikely…
Thatcher	Why not? The lady wants them and the lady’s not for turning!
CS	[Aside] Not even in the grave. [To Thatcher] I’m afraid the budget may not permit, although the Grenadier Guards might make the winning bid...
Thatcher	Bid?
CS	Yes, your ladyship. Bid.
Thatcher	But whatever for?
CS	Yes, your Ladyship. As a mark of respect, we will be putting the State Funeral out to Compulsory Competitive Tender.
[directions]	[lights out]

[ENDS]

Thereby hangs a tail

Friends have commented that cats seem to follow me around.  If I had been a woman years ago, I would have been burned.  Yesterday canvassing in Cambridge, a beautiful Burmese cat took a fancy to me and accompanied me to a doorstep.  When the residents opened the door, the cat went straight in. "What a lovely cat you have", I began, but it wasn't their cat and they had never seen it before.  They chased the cat which disappeared upstairs.  I never found out how they were going to vote.

So, farewell Margaret Thatcher

(Margaret Thatcher waving from Central Office after winning the 1983 election.  The building is now Europe House, HQ of the European Parliament in London. Ha !)

Never since the death of Princess Diana has so much been said and written in 24 hours about one dead person.  Some of the eulogies had me reaching for the sick bag, but nor could I join those who are tempted to echo Thatcher's own words, "Just rejoice, rejoice !".  I did rejoice greatly when she lost power but the death of someone who once held power years ago does not provoke gaudeamus igitur.

I will not add to the litany of praise and blame but this story will suffice. One day in the early '90s I was walking in the Cuillins with Lord Bonkers and my son Charlie.   As we returned to Glen Brittle we were overtaken by a thin, elderly, bearded man.  As we removed our walking boots at the car we could see him becoming very agitated in the telephone box. (The Glen Brittle telephone box was a vital resource.   You were advised to ring a friend before setting out and ring again on returning.   If you failed to call the second time, your friend could alert the mountain rescue.)  The professor (it turned out that he really was) emerged from the box and we asked him what was the matter.    He told us the telephone didn't work and his mother (God knows how old she was) would be getting at the gin as he was late in calling.   "I teach nuclear physics but I can't make the phone work", he expostulated.  He had managed to get through to an operator to complain.  The operator wouldn't put his call through, told him it wasn't a BT telephone but refused to divulge which company did operate the box.   (We're getting there. Bear with).   At this point, he drew his conclusion, "Margaret Thatcher ruined this country", then he drew breath and added "Mind you, I'm not a socialist".   He was of course one of us, invigorated by mountain air, exasperated by failing technology, a Liberal expressing the outrage that we all feel in our hearts.

Three impossible things before breakfast

David Cameron is rapidly catching up with the White Queen.  In one speech today he shows he can believe three impossible things before breakfast.

1. North Korea wants to launch a nuclear attack against the UK alone, not involving the USA or anyone else.
2. North Korea is capable of delivering a nuclear attack against the UK.
3. North Korea, which is not put off by the US nuclear and conventional capability, will be put off by Trident or its successor.

Wow, Dave, if that's all true we should spend billions on replacing Trident, shouldn't we ?   So much more important than actually supplying our conventional forces with the basic kit they need !   Which planet are you on, Dave, and why are you so keen to destroy it ?

Don't join the xenophobes, Nick

It is hard to believe that recent statements by Cameron, Clegg and Miliband on immigration were spontaneously synchronous.   Perhaps they were just responding to each other.  More likely they were all responding to UKIP's performance in Eastleigh.  Nick Clegg's statement came first.  Wrong and foolish, Nick.    We don't want the xenophobe vote and, even if we did, we wouldn't get it. Farage would.   Far better to talk sense about immigration and its benefits, like President Obama and like Francesca Montemaggi in her blog Blunt and Disorderly.  Simon Titley also analyses Nick Clegg's attempts to change Liberal Democrat policy unilaterally on the Liberator blog.

Don't do it, Nick.  We won't let you. We're still Liberals.   As we used to say in the Young European Federalists, Xenophobes, Go Home !

Where were Blair's tears ?

I never thought I would have something good to say about Margaret Thatcher but archives released by Churchill College reveal that she understood what her decisions meant for soldiers and sailors, even weeping over the loss of HMS Sheffield.    I doubt that papers released in future will show such concern by Tony Blair over the lives he destroyed in Iraq through his lies and cavalier attitude to war and invasion.

Fine words butter no parsnips

As usual great rhetoric from Obama in Israel:
Palestinians have "a right to be a free people in their own land".
"The only way for Israel to to endure and thrive as a Jewish and democratic state is through the realisation of an independent and viable Palestine".

I am not cynical about his rhetoric or the value of saying such things in the heart of Israel but US support for Israel despite the continued illegal settlement building and despite their treatment of innocent Palestinians, all of which Obama condemned, this support gives Israel permission to carry on.   

Palestinians are cynical about Obama as they see US aid to Israel increase.and no change in their situation.

Time to butter some parsnips, Mr President.

Belgium - "a land that might almost have been dreamed"

I spent a total of seven years of my life living in Belgium but I never met the man obsessed with penguins.  Tabloids like to use "Brussels" as shorthand for the EU, as if there was some bureaucratic cellar in the Grand Place dreaming up madder and madder regulations to impose on Britain.   Douglas Adams' take on Belgium was surprisingly unpopular when I played it to a Belgian friend.   Jonathan Meades' take does more justice to the country and its delightful oddness.  See volume 2 of 3 at  6m29s for the national sport of finch watching and 9m30s for the museum of underpants, but if you have time watch all three volumes. Penguin man is in volume 3.  It will lighten and illuminate your day.

"Can you name 12 famous Belgians ?" people ask.  No problem:
Jacques Brel
Adolphe Saxe (inventor of the Saxophone)
Plastic Bertrand
Georges Simenon
Herman van Rompuy
Eddy Merckx
Herge (inventor of Tintin - you're not allowed Tintin)
Rene Magritte
Leo Baekeland (inventor of Bakelite)
Audrey Hepburn
Jean-Claude Van Damme
Maurice Maeterlinck

I've excluded people born before Belgium became a nation (1830) such as Peter Paul Rubens and Simon Stevin (inventor of double entry bookkeeping).   If you want more, there is an excellent website on the theme called "Famous Belgians".   John Cleese doesn't seem to like them.

(That's enough Belgium - Ed)

Sorry I'm slow moderating comments

Just seen several comments awaiting moderation.   I returned from Brighton hoarse, not the singing but a rapidly developing cold, but this is no excuse.  I'm sorry I didn't check sooner.

An excess of deference. Never give up !

At the Liberal Democrat Spring Conference, Jo Shaw, a human rights campaigner and former parliamentary candidate, resigned from the party in the most public fashion when speaking from the rostrum against the Justice and Security Bill.  Conference overwhelmingly supported her view but she was wrong to resign.   A party is the sum of all its members not the errors of its leaders.  I hope she will be back.

To my surprise, Jo did not support my campaign against accreditation, which I promise is not over. Of course the question of secret justice in the courts is a far more important matter but how we run our own party and how much members care about it angers me more.   Although I share Jo's view of secret courts, I can understand the argument on the other side and do not consider that those for whom it is persuasive are therefore not Liberals.   Strangely, I am more upset by the manipulation of our own processes by those we elect to run our party's committees.  If I wanted unfair procedures or manipulation, I would have joined the Labour Party.

Last year it was the Federal Finance and Administration Committee (FFAC) which overruled the clear view of conference by imposing accreditation again. This conference saw another blatant example. The Federal Conference Committee took it upon itself to overrule a ballot of members on the choice of emergency motions.  They rejected the representatives' choice to debate the economy and substituted their lower preference to discuss Leveson.  Whatever the respective merits of the motions, they behaved undemocratically and beyond their powers.   Standing Order 4.5 empowers the committee: "Following the counting of any ballots the Committee shall decide how many motions shall be debated in the time available.".  It does NOT empower them to choose WHICH motions shall be debated nor to overrule the ballot.  When I shouted "outrageous" as the decision was announced, a lady objected that the committee had informed us before the ballot that they would do this.   Giving notice that you intend to behave undemocratically and to exceed your powers is no excuse !  Andrew Wiseman, chairman of the committee, told me that they had done it before.  I regard that as asking for previous offences to be taken into account.

When Martin Tod challenged the decision by seeking to suspend Standing Orders, we failed to get the required 2/3 majority.   This saddens me immensely.   It represents a change in the culture of our politics.  I have no doubt that the old Liberal Assembly would have stood up for itself and respect for its rules and suspended the standing orders to put the committee in its place as its servant.   We are suffering from an excess of deference to authority.  Jo, come back and help us challenge it.

Why we waited

Returning from Brighton yesterday, we were held up in long queues south of the Dartford crossing, where we found the bridge was closed.  I have now learned the cause of our delay.  A man wanted to commit suicide by jumping from the bridge and the police and negotiators closed the bridge and spent four hours trying to dissuade him.  This sad story is only relieved by the thought tat the authorities tried so hard to save this man.   I do not begrudge our long wait in a queue of cars if it gave him the chance of living, which sadly he did not take.

Voter fatigue

Back from Eastleigh with a bad ankle (too many doors) and a bad stomach (too much fast food), but happy.   On polling day, we found many residents had attached hand-written notes to their front doors, loosely translated as "Go away !".  O'Farrell posted one on twitter than was more explicit in conveying what Clement Freud used to render as "Go forth and multiply".  In case they can't be read the two above say "NO leaflets or callers: religious or political" and "No voting rubbish please".   Given the huge effort by Liberal Democrats and other parties, it would not be fair to say that these people don't value their vote.  They had simply had enough paper and enough canvassers.  Those who have the vote will never value it as much as those who don't.  In the 1980s I was knocking up with a vigorous old lady, a former suffragette, when a first-time 18-year-old girl voter said she probably wouldn't vote as she had to wash her hair.   My companion exploded at her. "I marched to get you the vote" and much more.  The girl agreed to go and vote.

Dining with the Tories

The allegations against Chris Renard, like all such allegations, provoke the inflammatory old saying "No smoke without fire".   As a longstanding pipe-smoker I know that it takes attention to light a fire and more attention to blow smoke rings.  It would be interesting to know whether the women concerned approached Channel 4 or Channel 4 approached them.  If the latter, who prompted Channel 4 and why now ?  Were the women interviewed before or after the Eastleigh by-election was called ?  Whatever the answers, we cannot doubt that the Tory press is exploiting the issue to the full.  Just look at today's misleading headlines.    Can anyone believe that these allegations have emerged during the Eastleigh by-election by accident ?    The Tories themselves can maintain a disingenuous silence.   Their backers in the press will do their work for them.   Another old saying applies, when dining with the Tories "Take a long spoon"

BBC, which continent do we live in ?

It's OK.  There's still ten days for the BBC to start reporting on the Italian election.  Compare how much attention they had paid to the US Presidential election ten days before the vote.  Remember how much coverage they gave to the Danish election ? No ? Not a lot. Then tell me the BBC reports Europe fairly !

Let's all join the NRA's list of opponents

According to a BBC report here, the National Rifle Association has set up and published an index of its opponents including Britney Spears,Barry Manilow, the makers of Ben & Jerry's ice cream, George Clooney, the Kansas City Royals baseball team, Chaka Khan, Hallmark greeting cards, the American Nurses Association, Dick Van Dyke, the National Parent Teacher Association, Moon Zappa, offspring of the late musician Frank, Kevin Bacon, Tony Bennett, Missy Elliott, Gloria Estefan, Art Garfunkel, Dustin Hoffman, Ricki Lake, John McEnroe, Sarah Jessica Parker, Sylvester Stallone, Reese Witherspoon.

Can't find the list.  They seem to have taken it down from their website.

If you want to go on the index of the opponents of the NRA, join the Facebook Page here:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-the-NRA-Index-of-opponents/539115289443935

Well bless me !

Caption competition: What's Pope Tony saying ?

Here's a suggestion.
"Look, you can trust me.  I'm an honest kind of guy.  Kiss my ring."

Labour policy revealed (at last)

I've finally discovered what the Labour Party's policy on everything is !

The trivial world of the Today programme

Dumbing down at the BBC proceeds apace.  The Today programme covers Michael Gove's GCSE reforms.  Very little discussion of their merits or otherwise.   The presenter's agenda is clear, to label changes as a U-turn.  We leave the subject little the wiser to race through the possibility of a solar storm.  Clearly Sarah Montague wants to get this over quickly.  She interviews the scientist as if he were a politician avoiding the question.  His explanation of the phenomenon becomes disjointed by her frequent interruptions.  I'm shouting at the radio - "Let the man speak !".  He uses the word "perturbation". That's too much for Montague.  She questions it.   It's all right Sarah.  We're the Radio 4 audience.  We've heard it before. Why this rude rush ?  All is revealed.  We have to get to the important item: the BBC Breakfast Poll on how many people eat lunch at their desk.

I have in my hand a piece of paper...

Fascinating debate tonight in Cambridge on whether the preamble to the constitution of the Liberal Democrats should be amended.   We decided not to, not only because Cllr Colin Rosenstiel has  amended it enough already, but because it embodies in reasonable prose values which have stood the test of time.   There are indeed one or two minor infelicities of expression and a bit of repetition but nothing any of us would actually want to oppose.

Julian Huppert compared our golden opening words with the other main parties.

The Liberal Democrats (constitution here)The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives.

The Labour Party (constitution here)

Clause 1 - Name and Objects

1 This organisation shall be known as ‘The Labour Party’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the party’). Its purpose is to organise and maintain in Parliament and in the country a political Labour Party.

The Conservative Party (constitution here)

PART I

NAME, PURPOSE, OBJECTS AND VALUES

1 This is the Constitution of a political party which shall be known as “The Conservative and

Unionist Party” (referred to in this Constitution as “the Party”).  

2 Its purpose is to sustain and promote within the  Nation the objects and values of the

Conservative Party.

So the Labour Party and the Conservative Party  exist to maintain and promote themselves.  I always thought so.  (Actually the Labour Party says a little more in Clause 4 - no, not that clause 4)

Looking a little deeper, I wondered about how each party makes policy.

The Liberal Democrats (constitution here)

5.8 Subject to the foregoing procedure, all Federal policy papers and motions approved by

the Federal Conference shall thereby become the policy of the Federal Party.

...

6.7 Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Conference shall be the sovereign

representative body of the Party, and shall have power to determine the policy of the

Party in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Article 5.

The Labour Party (constitution here)

Clause 5 - Party Programme

1 Party conference shall decide from time to time what specific proposals of legislative, financial or administrative reform shall be included in the party programme. This shall be based on the rolling programme presented to conference by the National Policy Forum as approved by conference. No proposal shall be included in the party programme unless it has been adopted by conference by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the votes recorded on a card vote.

BUT N.B. " The 2008 Labour Party Conference was the first at which affiliated trade unions and Constituency Labour Parties did not have the right to submit motions on contemporary issues that would previously have been debated.^[28] Labour Party conferences now include more "keynote" addresses, guest speakers and question-and-answer sessions, while specific discussion of policy now takes place in the National Policy Forum."  (Source - wikipedia)  How many constituency members in the National Policy Forum ? 55.

The Conservative Party (constitution here)

PART VIII
THE CONSERVATIVE POLICY FORUM
64 There shall be established and maintained a national policy development forum to be known as
the Conservative Policy Forum, the principal functions of which shall be:
64.1 to encourage and co-ordinate the formulation and development of policy ideas

...
BUT  nowhere in the Tory Constitution can I find who actually decides on policy. It's a mystery.