The defrocking of Saint Vincent

James Graham has a brain the size of Asia and spends every waking moment thinking deeply and judiciously about politics (well not really, he also thinks about comics and things). He does the thinking so we don't have to.

I thoroughly recommend his latest offering: Our Vince: from Fred Astaire to Mr Bean? It is such a brilliant post that I struggle to find words to sufficiently describe its brilliance.

Most LibDem party members don't have degrees in politics. They spend most of their time doing a thing called "work" and "life" and only pick up the odd mention of party conference through the filter of the media and life events like blocked drains.

Well, this year I am one of those party members so described above.

As James set outs, our economic policy has been jerked about so much recently that, on the ground, I don't have a clue what it is. Do we want to cut taxes? Or increase taxes? Cut spending? Cut waste? Do we want a local income tax or have we finally gone all Tony Vickers and gone for Land Value taxation?

Or is our economic policy now basically: "What Vince says" ?

Friends come up to me and say "Vince Cable was great on Sky News". "Great" I reply - "I hope he was able to give you an idea of our latest policies, because I haven't got a clue".

Scrap scrapping tuition fees? Don't be silly. OK delay the scrappage a bit but it really is monstrous to ditch such a totemic policy. It removes one of the main reasons for having a Liberal Democrat party in the first place.

A mansion tax? Well, we get caned whenever we mention higher taxes for high earners. But how on earth can we seriously espouse a mansion tax when we are still, as I understand it (though I haven't checked for Vince's latest pronouncement on Sky News this morning) advocating local income tax? The problem with mixing the two is that one contradicts the other in terms of principle. Income tax is a progressive tax based on ability to pay (based on income). A mansion tax is a tax based on the property you happen to be fortunate enough to be living in.

I have to make a confession here. I have a problem with Land Value Taxation. I haven't a clue what it is. Whenever I have tried to understand it, my eyes have glazed over, I have felt the will to live seeping from my being and I have been overwhelmed with the urge to slit my wrists. But I now know that is vaguely associated with the Mansion tax. Great. Except didn't we ditch the rates system because it meant that little old ladies without much income but living in a big house got unfairly caned? Isn't the whole point of the local income tax to get around that problem - so that you only tax those with the ability to pay at the relevant level?

And before anyone asks how we are going to get the deficit down and pay for scrapping tuition fees let me say this: sooner or later politicians are going to have to do the fair and sensible thing and stick income tax up substantially. We can't wiggle around trying to avoid the issue any longer.

Overall, I don't have a problem having certain policies as long as there is evidence that they have been properly thought out and discussed thoroughly at all levels, and are sufficiently sensible and within the party's framework of beliefs to be accepted by members. I certainly don't think the scrap scrapping tuition fees announcement meets that criteria and I don't think the Mansion tax meets it either. We appear to have far too much leading from the front going on here. OK, Paddy did that quite a lot. But there was a point when, even with him, he looked around over his shoulder and found that he wasn't being blindly followed any longer.

"Con-man" and Miriam's embarrassing straps

Ah! Glorious sort-of Indian summer! I could aactually just about feel some warmth from the sun today. As I read my Observer, lulled by the trickles from the Kennet and Avon Canal and seranaded by Testosterone-charged Big screen football fans, I could actually feel the pheromones surging through my veins as I read that the Cleggster has been berating the Camster for being a "con-man". Well done Cleggie. If you want evidence for that audacious charge - read through my blog posts for the last three and a bit years. But then again, don't. Unless you are suffering from chronic insomnia, that is.

I am not a fashion expert and I can feel a Lord Bonker's Diary piece coming on here. But straps, braces and suspenders are designed, are they not? - tell me if I am wrong - to keep things up. Otherwise they are useless. And if such straps, braces or suspenders are themselves falling down, they can't be doing a very good job of keeping up the thing they are employed to keep up.

So, by their falling down and needing to be hitched up again while being filmed by18 cameras, those straps of Miriam Gonzalez Durantez's ....um......er.......lower half garment (yes - I am so much not a fashion expert that I struggle with differentiating between skirts, dresses and trousers) were something of, dare I say it, a minor bijou fashion errorette, were they not?

Screwing up and bygones

Mark Oaten's autobiography "Screwing up" is published on 26th September and a large edited extract appeared in the Independent yesterday. From the extract, the book seems worth a read if only because it seems to have been approached from the viewpoint of searing honesty:

Yet in the end the harsh truth was that there was no-one else to blame. Not a male escort, not the News of the World, just me.

This is about the fifth iteration of all this. I was surprised, looking back in my archive, that it was actually June 2006 when Mark produced a Newsnight film about this fall from grace. That included a homage to Sigmund Freud's actual couch. (I kid you not) And now it's September 2009. "Will this damage the party?" - Is the hysterical cry. Of course not. Don't be silly. He didn't break the law. He didn't start a war under false pretences. Noone died. He didn't hurt anyone except his family and himself.

So, it's ancient history. Bygones which are well and truly bygoned. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..." etc etc. I wish Mark all the best with the book and his future, and I particularly hope the publication is of some benefit to his family. I feel sorry for them and for Mark.

There is a vibrant discussion about this on Liberal Democrat Voice. And Jonathan Calder and Mark Littlewood seem to be maneuvering their battleships on the matter.

Should we even discuss and speculate as to why he did it? Well, if you publish a book on a subject, it would seem perverse if you didn't want people to talk about the subject. After all, you don't publish a book just for one copy to be stuck on the shelf of the British Library to collect dust, do you? You want to actually sell the odd copy, don't you? And discussion sells the book.

So my two-penneth worth, or rather the eminent psychotherapist, Philip Hodson's two-penneth worth, is this:

Finally, the role of the unconscious mind in causing these very sad and destructive social unmaskings should not be underestimated. For many husbands, particularly in middle-age, there is a quiet and unexplained desperation to escape an existing pattern of life. Possibly they are attracted to power more than power is attracted to them, and this triggers depression. Perhaps their career no longer fits them at all but they cannot easily think about sloughing off its constricting skin. Part of them wants to play; part of them seeks attention; part wants to drop out; part wants to be young again; part wants to be mothered; part wants to be an artist; part wants to retire – but none of these is considered ‘rational’. Instead, they get themselves into a horrible public pickle – rather like the ex-Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Allan Green who of all people was caught kerb-crawling in King’s Cross in the early 1990s. Or like Mark Oaten in 2006 who was trapped in the headlights of the News of the World. Their tragedy is that secretly they must have wanted to be caught.

Nick Harvey on second homes - a damn disgrace

While generally admiring the man as an excellent LIbDem MP, I have long been rather perplexed by some statements by Nick Harvey. His role as spokesperson for the Commons Commission has often led to him defending rather uncomfortable positions. Defending what many see as House of Commons profligacy is a case in point. Now, Liberal Democrat Voice draws attention to Nick Harvey's statement, concerning MPs' second homes, to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. In summary, as the LDV headline puts it, Nick Harvey says that 'MPs should be able to profit from second homes'.

This leads me to ask: Has Nick Harvey gone native? Has a bit too much of the inherent self-righteous pomposity of parliament rubbed off on him?

He doesn't seem to get it, does he? I mean, the public's absolute disgust for the whole MPs' expenses scandal. On the specifics of his statement, he says:

The MP has borne all the risk, which may prove painful for some in the current market, and
maintained the property in marketable condition. The taxpayer could not be expected to bear any capital loss. The fair and equitable sharing of any capital gain is through the capital gain tax system.

But surely, if the taxpayer has actually paid the mortgage over years, the poor old taxpayer should see the benefit if there is any, should they not? And it doesn't take a genius to work out that, under Nick Clegg's plan, if the state takes the profit from a second home sale, then, logically, the state should also absorb the loss, if there is one.

But come off it, the likelihood of a loss forthcoming is fairly low.

I am inclined to sympathise with Andrew Duffield, commenter on LDV:

What risk? Even with the current downturn, anyone who bought a property 4 or more years ago has made money on it – from doing absolutely nothing.
The proportion of this unearned uplift on an MP’s second home that has been financed with public funds belongs wholly and completely to the taxpayer – all 100% of it. Nick Harvey’s assertion that it is ok for him to pay a mere 18% CGT on this value, while pocketing a massive 82% for himself, not only flies in the face of Nick Clegg’s line on the matter, but also 100 years of Liberal policy and any sense of moral decency. Harvey should be hung out to dry.

While I personally would like to see publicly owned MPs' accomodation, I have also re-read Nick Clegg's proposal, which I think I slightly misunderstood. It is an admirable proposal and should be supported by all LibDem MPs. Here's what it says on his website:

First, if an MP wants to own a second home they should pay for it themselves. Right now MPs can claim almost £25,000 a year to cover the mortgage interest payments on their second home and to furnish it. It’s true that MPs representing constituencies outside of Greater London need a base near Westminster so that they can do their job properly and attend late night votes. But it isn’t right that taxpayers foot the bill for properties that could potentially yield politicians huge capital gains.
The second homes allowance should be cut and restricted to rental properties and basic bills. Greater London MPs, and Ministers given ‘grace and favour’ accommodation, shouldn’t get the allowance at all.

The Times, quoted on Nick Clegg's website, added:

MPs who already have properties would be given 36 months before Parliament refused to fund their mortgage interest payments. MPs who then sold their second homes would be forced to return to the taxpayer a proportion of the mortgage interest they had claimed, out of the profit. The precise formula to determine how much MPs should return has yet to be finalised, with party officials still examining how best to deal with houses in negative equity.The Liberal Democrat leader is determined, however, to lay down the principle that MPs should not continue to profit from huge capital gains at the taxpayers’ expense. Research in 2006 by House of Commons authorities found that 485 MPs — three quarters of the total — claimed mortgage interest payments. MPs have benefited considerably from the tripling of property prices since 1997, which have pushed up the average price of a Westminster flat from £171,000 to £543,000 last year. Despite being able to claim more than £20,000 a year for mortgage interest payments, MPs can keep any profit from second home sales when they leave Parliament.

Quite frankly, it is a damn disgrace that Nick Harvey is not supporting our leader on this. It is clear that Nick Clegg's radical stance is needed both from a principled viewpoint but also from the point of view of public anger on this.

Vibrant 'Real Women' launch

Updated at the bottom

The attractive Real Women web site and the magazine-style policy proposal document are in grave danger of making Liberal Democrat policy making popular.

In general, I have a major concern about the document in that it is full of proposals but has very, very little in the way of evidence and preamble to explain why those proposals are needed. Most Liberal Democrat policy documents do set out ample evidence as background to their proposals. In this document, there are a few snappy bullet points and a couple of women's stories. But apart from that, the document takes the need for its proposals as read. I find that very concerning. Why? Because I enjoy criticising Women Liberal Democrats? Well no, actually. I think this whole policy initiative is excellent and exciting. I want it to succeed and I am afraid that, to succeed, it has to convince the cynics of the need for its proposals. And, yes, most of those cynics will be men I am afraid.

But apart from that, the light nature of this document (and I am thinking primarily about the paucity of back-up evidence and rationale, rather than its style) seems to be saying “We’ll only get the attention of women if we produce a sort of Hello-style magazine instead of the normal weighty policy document.” It’s not for me to say, but isn’t that rather patronising to women?

Taking each area in turn, the pay equality section contains some excellent proposals and certainly hits home with its statistic about the UK being behind Sri Lanka and Syria in terms of pay equality. I notice that the pre-trailed "no name" proposal for job applications is included. In one sense this is a good, clear policy that will take away any suspicion of equality in some people's minds. In practical terms I think it is quite bizarre. Just imagine a job application form, if you will. It starts with name, address, age, marital status etc etc. First of all, I am not sure that someone could not guess the sex of the applicant from the details on the form. Hobbies for example. OK, there are, quite rightly, many excellent women with a passion for Rugby, Body building and Formula 1 car racing (Hello Caron, in the latter case). There are also many excellent men who like Lacrosse, flower arranging and Take That. But some form of surmise, perhaps even the wrong one, could be made. A single sex school in the education section, might be a give away. It just seems very strange to have someone's address and their age and marital status, but not their name. Apart from anything else, it would be relatively straight forward to find out the sex of the applicant. Look them up in the phone book, electoral register etc and then make an educated guess from their job history.

And, all this focus on the application sifting doesn't take away any absence of gender evidence from the most crucial part of all job selection processes - the interview. I would also like to see evidence of the proportion of women making it to the interview stage. Many companies now make sure that interview lists are gender balanced. Where is the evidence that women are under-represented in interview lists? To what extent is it a problem?

Despite the attractive magazine nature of the document, there is a need for explanation of many of the measures. For example, what the heck are "hypothetical comparators" in equal pay claims? I think I can guess, but it would be helpful to read more explanation.

There are some very good proposals in the document, including a lot of existing LibDem policies. The question: "How will you pay for it?" is bound to come up for several of the proposals - for example: increasing the number of midwives and health visitors and providing free childcare for 20 hours a week from 18 months to school starting age. The latter is one heck of a commitment. I'd like to see costings and some explanation as to how it would be paid for.

'Paid parental leave for up to 19 months'? That sounds very expensive indeed. So expensive, indeed, that it is likely to be laughed out of court. I am sorry but I have to ask, is this a serious proposal? "Paid parental leave" is that fully paid or similar to the Statutory Maternity Pay at the moment?

I thoroughly support the proposals for more flexible working.

The body image section is where my blood pressure starts rising. How's this for a rag bag of non-sequiturs?:

Media images of women are often unrealistic and unattainable with little room for a range of body sizes and shapes- the problem of representation is worst of all for older women and disabled women. A Grazia survey of 5000 women found that a third worry about the way their body looks “every waking minute”, and just one in 50 is happy with her body. This pressure has a negative effect on women’s wellbeing, and research increasingly shows that it creates body image issues and can contribute to eating disorders. Perhaps most worryingly of all, there has been a 25 per cent increase in the number of girls under nine who are being treated for eating disorders.

That paragraph actually doesn't relate any of its assertions to evidence. The quoted survey says that women worry about their body shape. But that survey doesn't say that this is caused by "media images".

So, there has been an increase in eating disorder treatment. But "media images" have been around for over a hundred years. Can that increase be linked to some form of increase in the prevalence of harmful "media images" ? Or is it possible that there are other factors at play? To those questions, this document gives the answer of "??????????????????????????????????" What also isn’t mentioned is the frightening rise in obesity. So, if “media images” are impacting people’s behaviours, surely it could be argued that, put simply, pictures of thin people are causing people to become obese? That’s how ridiculous the attempted connection is, in the absence of any evidence.

Is Liberal Democrat policy now to be dictated by surveys in Grazia? Being flippant, if a Grazia survey says a third of women worry about their body every minute, then surveys in GQ and the like have said that men think about sex every ten seconds. So it would seem that men have all the fun don’t they?

In 1917, the physically perfect woman was about 5ft 4in tall and weighed nearly 10 stone.

On what evidence is this based? (I couldn't find anything on the Social Issues Research Centre (creditted at the bottom of the paragraph) web site about it). And what is this nonsense about "physically perfect"? Isn't the document itself guilty of imposing the very idea of "physical perfection"?

Protect children from body image pressure by preventing the use of altered and enhanced images in advertising aimed at under 16s, through changes to Advertising Standards Authority rules.

I really do think this is very impractical in terms of its implementation. You can achieve a great deal with superb lighting, make-up and a bit of Vaseline on the lens. Would these be banned? And would simple contrast and brightness changes to photographs be banned? And surely a ban related to advertising only, would leave intact the main culprits - the front page and editorial photographic spreads.

Otherwise there are some good proposals in this section, such as advertising the success rates of cosmetic surgery operations, increasing education in body image, health and well-being and giving reduced sports club membership to the young.

The document has some excellent proposals concerning violence against women such as more Rape Crisis Centres and Sexual Assault Referral Centres. The paper quite rightly highlights the problem whereby women entering refuges are often forced to give up their work.

All in all, this is one of the most vibrant policy launches in years, but it needs more back-up.

Update: After receiving welcome feedback on another forum, I have been doing some research on Eating Disorders and would recommend these web sites: Disordered Eating, Beat, University of Maryland Medical Center, Eating Disorder Expert, BBC News article, and NHS clinical knowledge summaries. The Beat site is linked from the Real Women site, and has some very poignant survivor stories.

I would like to emphasise that I accept and recognise that there is a link between media images and eating disorders. I haven't said otherwise. What I am saying is that the Real Women document presents no evidence to connect media images and eating disorders (other than mentioning an only indirectly relevant finding from a Grazia poll) - which is very strange given that the document does present links to evidence for other proposals which it makes. All I am after is a mention of a relatively scientific study or survey. I am also saying that the prevention of enhanced images in advertising aimed at under 16 year olds will be ineffective in that it will be easily circumvented through non-digital means and leave intact the main culprits - editorial photographs including glossy front page photos. My main concern here is that the Liberal Democrat party may well get slated for what may be seen as a "knee-jerk tokenistic nanny state ban" proposal which diverts attention from, and reduces the credibility of, real solutions (many of which are presented elsewhere in this document) and may do the party, the 'Real Women' initiative and, most importantly, those with eating disorders no good whatsoever.

The danger of under-reaction

Normally, I over-react to something which appals me. That over-reaction lasts about one and a half seconds during which time I issue all sorts of interesting words under my breath and think all sorts of thoughts which, if enacted, would land me with a heavy jail sentence.

Often I am able to recover and perhaps I under-react as a reaction to my over-reaction. (One has to keep civilised after all, apparently).

I think that is what I did last Saturday. I wrote a post very quickly (within about ten minutes in fact) responding to a post from a regular blogger about women voting.

I would like to retract the elements of soft tone in that post.

Now here's what I really think:

I quite accept that such views about women exist in society (thank you, Asquith). If I heard them down the pub I would shrug my shoulders and move away from the speaker.

But the idea that anyone who is a member of the Liberal Democrats and blogs within the LibDem aggregator expresses such bigoted views about women is utterly appalling. Such views are completely in contravention with the whole spirit of the Liberal Democrats and the letter of our preamble to the Constitution.

I just think of some of the women I have admired and do admire in this party. Enid Lakeman. Baroness Nancy Seear. Baronesses Williams, Sharp, Barker etc etc. Then I re-read these words:

Many women don’t have a clue about politics so they need someone to make their decisions for them and for that reason its OK for the man to decide who the women votes or is it? I don’t see anything wrong with a man making the decision in the household to who everyone votes but then that is just me.

I'm sorry, Irfan. You have had enough yellow cards over gays, Israel and, even, incredibly, basic justice. This is a red card now.

Can Sarah Teather see through the TV into my living room?

On Question Time (42:30 in) last Thursday, Sarah Teather said that "middle class people drinking wine at home are just as likely to poison their livers as young people out drinking at the weekend".

I didn't see this when it was first broadcast because I was slumped asleep in front of the telly having enjoyed a bottle of excellent Lindeman's Shiraz. So I do wonder whether she saw me there and that my comatose figure spurred her into her denunciation of middle class wine drinkers.

It was an excellent Shiraz though and I have taken a couple of days off alcohol since, to recover.

Norwich North - time to deliver

I hear from sources that the Labour vote in Norwich is proving 75% "soft" and amenable to voting for another party. We just have to persuade them. Please schedule in a trip to Norwich before polling day to help April Pond with some gentle delivery. It's a glorious city. Full details are here.

Charlotte Gore martyrs herself

Mark Valladares has responded sensibly to a post from Charlotte Gore about standing as a parliamentary candidate.

First of all, it is utter and complete cobblers to say that blogging freely, even freely to the extent that Charlotte blogs, precludes winning elections. You only have to look at Boris Johnson. Now he really went to town over years publishing his dodgy, eccentric views to millions of people, not just the thousands (or indeed tens) that read blogs. And the Labour party went through his columns with a fine tooth comb and repeated the dodgy bits ad nauseam in the London mayoral campaign. Johnson still won. So, let's stop this nonsense that says that expressing policy views freely precludes running for office.

Putting that aside for a second, if we assume that Charlotte Gore's blog outpourings preclude her from office then you have to ask yourself: Well, why did she start blogging (with attitude) then? If she didn't realise that what she would write could rebound on her and require subsequent defending, then perhaps she is just not cut out for standing for election in any case. Or if she doesn't want to defend her views on a public election platform - ditto.

There is a remarkable air of strawman self-matyrdom about Charlotte's post. Her letter to electors sounds like a barnstroming election platform to me, rather than the electoral suicide pill she says it is.

Let's face it. If you conclude yourself that your campaigning skills are "terrible" and your ability to "connect with 'normal people' is non-existent" then those reasons, if they are true (which I suspect they are not, by the way) alone are enough not to stand for election. But let's have none of this utter rubbish about blogging precluding one from running. If you want to stand for office and you're any good, you'll have sufficient desire to stand up and explain anything you've written in your blog of the likes (i.e logical liberal policy stances) mentioned by Charlotte. Of course, if you start insulting the electorate, for example, by blogging about meeting electors who all seem to be drunk (a la the Hartlepool by-election), then that is another matter.

So join the rest of us 65 million people in this country, Charlotte, who don't want to stand for political office and drop the disingenuous claptrap about blogging being an obstacle.

Who wants to be an MP anyway? It's a pants job. And being a Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate is a fairly thankless task. Just read Paddy Ashdown's account of his desperate early days as a candidate - and he won eventually. Indeed, Charlotte herself recognises the key tasks for a candidate:

Then there’s standing for a party currently in 3rd place in a Tory target seat, in a town that’s pretty much in love with the BNP and has, according to Acorn data, about 500 people that would be classed as typical lib dem voters. Hmm. Then there’s the challenge of getting 20,000 people to vote for you in a year’s time. I did some rough maths and worked out I’d need to be pursuading something like 65 a day. I’d need to raise buckets of money and dazzle and beguile lots of people into delivering leaflets for me. I’d need to keep getting in the local paper, too.

Needing to get into the local paper? What an appalling imposition we put on our candidates! Starting from third place? Paddy never had to do that did he? (Well, he did, actually). Raising money? Persuading people to deliver leaflets? Heavens above! Whatever next! We really do put our candidates through the Twelve Labours of Hercules, don't we? It's a wonder we have any candidates at all.

Grandiose fantasy Liberal cabinet

William Gladstone - Prime Minister
Winston Churchill - First Lord of the Admiralty and Deputy Prime Minister
John Maynard Keynes - Chancellor of the Exchequer

Now, who else is there?..........

Ah, yes

Vince Cable, Chief Secretary to the Treasury
Nancy Seear, Work and Pensions
Jenny Tonge, International Development
Roy Jenkins, Home Sceretary
Shirley Williams, Leader of Commons, Lord Privy Seal
Ray Michie, Sceretary of State for Scotland
Jo Swinson, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Herbert Asquith, Constitutional Affairs
Susan Kramer, Transport
Baroness Barker, Chancellor, Duchy of Lancaster
Lynne Featherstone, Children, Schools and Families
Baroness Nicholson, Leader of the House of Lords
William Beveridge, Secretary for Health
Nick Clegg, Foreign Secretary
Lloyd George, Defence
John Cleese, Culture, Media and Sport
John Pardoe, Business Innovation and Skills
Jo Grimond, Cabinet Office
Paddy Ashdown, Energy and Climate Change
John Stuart Mill, Justice
Charles Kennedy, Communities and Local Government
Jenny Willott, Secretary of State for Wales
Julia Goldsworthy, Northern Ireland
Menzies Campbell, Minister for the Olympics
Baroness Sharp, Paymaster General
Also attending:
Baroness Ludford, Housing
Baroness Neuberger, Minister of State, Business, Innovations and Skills
Baroness Northover, Employment & Welfare Reform
Lord Roberts of Llandudno, Africa, Asia and UN

Thanks to LDV , Caron and Irfan Ahmed.

Crack open the champagne!

...Or a rambling personal note on the council election results.

First of all, if you lost your seat in the elections, regardless of your party label or lack of it, do remember that losing at an election is God's/Fate's (delete as applicable) way of telling you to live a little.

Stephen Tall gives a very balanced view of the LibDems' performance here.

Overall, the Liberal Democrats projected share of the vote is cause for opening up the champagne! Trebles all round!

It's at 28%, compared to the Tories' 38% - just a ten point gap between us and the Tories. Compare that to the opinion polls in July/August 2008 when we were regularly twenty seven points - yes - count them - twenty seven points behind the Tories. If you don't believe me then look at this graph, which shows the LibDems around 18% in July/August 2008, with the Tories on around 45%.

Also, after all the nonsense we have had over the last few years about leaders, we have at last got a leader who is performing brilliantly, particularly over the last few weeks. Nick Clegg was particularly good and omnipresent on the media yesterday. This is cause for great rejoicing.

Oh, and, by golly, by gosh, we have at last got something which might be loosely described as that precious, precious commodity which the Liberal Democrats have searched and searched and searched for, for many long years. Yes, you guessed it - a narrative!

And let's savour Bristol a little shall we? Barbara Janke and her team have been plugging away at Bristol for many years. This is not an overnight success story. If you go back to the 1995 elections, Labour held a staggering 53 seats on Bristol City Council, with the LibDems on 9 and Tories on 6. So, little by little, the Bristol LibDems have plugged away and gradually built up their representation on the city council to the current level: LibDems 36, Labour 16, Tories 17, Greens 1. Well done team Bristol!

By the way, before any LibDems get too depressed, or indeed any Tories get too elated, they should look at this excellent analysis from Duncan Stott on Split Horizons. It shows that the Tories have grabbed seats way above their vote share. For example, in Staffordshire they won 79% of the seats with only 43% of the votes. How can that be good for democracy? Indeed, I'd argue that it isn't even good for the Conservatives. In a few years time they will get over-complacent, knackered and out of touch from too many council cabals, and then the electorate will take their revenge on them. It's all rather pointless.

I'd like now to focus on Cornwall and congratulate my fellow countryfolk (from, admittedly, my airey-fairey vantage point of exile in in a county where the trees go straight up and round) on establishing Cornwall Council. Yay! At long last!

And many congratulations to the Liberal Democrats for establishing an excellent representation on the new council - 38 seats. That, for Cornwall, is actually very good, bearing in mind it is an area with a tradition of many Indpendent councillors. I am particularly cheered that the whole of the Bude and Stratton area is now represented by LibDem councillors! Hurrah! So, many congratulations to Nathan Bale in Bude North and Stratton, Nigel Pearce in Bude South and Paula Dolphin in Flexbury and Poughill. This is a marvellous full house, when you consider that the area has been represented by independents (as well as some Liberal Democrats more recently) for many many years.

It was also good to see Glenton Brown being elected in Tintagel, a LibDem hat-trick in Launceston and a very strong LibDem showing both in Newquay and Penzance.

Many congratulations to Robin (Lord) Teverson on being elected for St Mewan ward and congratulations to David Hughes for being elected for Tywardreath ward, or the Du Maurier ward, if you prefer it (which you probably don't).

Finally, I would note that no Labour candidates were elected to Cornwall council. This is remarkable when you consider that Labour has traditionally been strong in the Redruth-Cambourne-Falmouth area. They used to have the MP going back years when Dr John Dunwoody held it, then Cathy Atherton from 1997. Indeed Cathy Atherton tried to get elected to the council in Carn Brea North but come third. The nearest Labour came anywhere to winning a seat was in Redruth North where they came 2nd.

Ros Scott and the art of the "running commentary"

LibDem President Ros Scott has announced that she has ended her blog:

Recent events have caused me to reflect on the best way to communicate with the Party. Blogging is a great medium for recording instantaneous reaction to events, but there are times when the constraints of the Party Constitution, the legal framework and political sensibilities mean that instantaneous comment on my part is inappropriate and potentially dangerous. However, the existence of my blog seems to have led some people into thinking that it is possible to keep up a running commentary on what is going on. I wish to avoid a recurrence of that and so, with some regret, have closed down my blog. In future, minutes of FE will be published here on LDV, within the one month required by the Standing Orders, and I’ll post this monthly report as close to the end of the month as possible. Liberal Democrat News and all member e-mails will form alternative means of communication.

I am fascinated by this line:

However, the existence of my blog seems to have led some people into thinking that it is possible to keep up a running commentary on what is going on.

What did you expect, Ros? A blog is a "running commentary".

I appreciate that this is probably the right decision. But please also reflect on your own actions.

You told everyone, on your blog, that there was a crucial FE meeting happening a few days before it. If you hadn't told everyone via your blog, you wouldn't have been inundated with enquiries as to what happened in that meeting.

And you were the person who gave a Federal Executive update on your blog on 24th March 2009 the day after it happened (text below). So perhaps it might occur to you that people were expecting a running commentary because you were actually giving them one up until when the solids hit the Vent-Axia!

I appreciate you were bold enough to start a blog in the first place and, obviously, events proved that this was untenable. That is disappointing but you can't be blamed for trying. I just think it is a said day for openess (or lack of it) in the Liberal Democrat party.

Last nights meeting was a bit of a marathon, as we had a pretty packed agenda and almost a full tally of members to make contributions to the debate. Nick Clegg updated FE on some of his most recent activities, and his assessment of the current political situation before we went on to receive a strategy presentation from our new communications guru, Chris Fox. Chris and Nick took questions and responded to comments from FE in what proved to be a lively session.We looked at the regular set of performance indicators, and decided on some new ones, and worked out our forward scrutiny programme for the coming year before moving on to our two remaining significant items of business. Ros Harper, Chair of the Campaign for Gender Balance introduced a paper on the question of retention of parliamentary candidates, in which there was a thorough review of the reasons why candidates drop out, based on a series of interviews with former candidates and local parties. Their paper made a number of practical suggestions about candidate support which we will try to take forward, in conjunction with the various party bodies, over the coming year.Brian Orrell spoke to to his extensive paper on previous European elections giving us a really useful contextual background to the election in June. Part 2 of his work, on the PR elections in Scotland, Wales and London, will be discussed at our next meeting in May.I'll write a more full report of FE next week, but this does, I hope, give a flavour of last night's work.

Old Clegg's Almanack

A sumptuous interview with the Cleggster in the Guardian. Something to bask in.

It is noticeable that Nick Clegg seems to be in the fortune telling business:

"I've got cards up my sleeve," he says coyly, but won't elaborate. Instead, he offers, "Let me spell out what I think is going to unfold. There's clearly something unsustainable about MPs saying, 'We've done something seriously wrong but we are going to hang around until the next general election.' I think for the most serious abuses, instead of having MPs adjudicated by party panels behind closed doors, the adjudication will have to transfer to independent hands such as the standards commissioner. Then I think the demand for by-elections will be overwhelming. If we don't have a general election we're going to have a war of attrition. People won't be satisfied by vague ideas. They're not going to be fobbed off with that."

And then a sentence which reveals Old Clegg at his most all-seeing and Almanackish:

I ask him why he's smiling. "I'm smiling because I know what's coming next."

Ah!

P.S. My other favourite bit of the interview is this, which should be inserted surgically somewhere in the corporate Tory blogo-body:

In all our conversations, Clegg says nothing that could have come from Cameron's mouth. There is little discernible similarity as a character either; any confusion between the two men would require, for one thing, almost total ignorance of our class system, for Clegg's Eurocentric internationalism - his mother was Dutch, his home life is bilingual, he used to work for the European commission - places him on a different planet from the sloaney Englishness of the Tory leader. He is a quintessential Liberal, and on issues from ID cards to the environment can plausibly claim to be ahead of the curve.

Observer says vote Liberal Democrat

From today's Observer leading article:

Nick Clegg is the most instinctively European leader at Westminster. That is currently a lonely position, but the Lib Dems have a decent record of taking minority stands that are later vindicated. On the environment, on civil liberties and on the mounting debt bubble, the Lib Dems were quietly but consistently ahead of the Westminster curve.

Likewise on transparency. In 2007, they opposed the Conservative move, tacitly encouraged by Labour, to exempt Parliament from the Freedom of Information Act. The Lib Dems alone took a party line for openness.

That is worth recalling as Mr Cameron and Mr Brown engage in an unseemly scramble for reformist credentials. Also to the Lib Dems' credit is their long-standing support for proportional representation. Of course, electoral reform is patently in the interests of a third party seeking to disrupt a duopoly, but that doesn't make it a bad policy.

The case for the current system generally coalesces around the idea that, whatever its faults, it is a trusted old friend of stable government. But in the wake of the expenses scandal, arguments that amount to defence of the status quo ring especially hollow. And it is the expenses scandal that will decide how most Britons vote on Thursday.

While MPs from all parties are tainted, the parties themselves are not equally guilty. A credible record of support for transparency and for constitutional reform reflects well on Nick Clegg's team.

This Thursday's vote is being held in a uniquely febrile climate. It should be about Europe; it will be about the expenses scandal. On both counts, it is a moment to reward the principled consistency of the Liberal Democrats.

As they say in the trade, I would like to associate myself with the views of the previous speaker.

Gratuitous self-gratification

Well, why not?

Dear Andrew Rawnsley:

...If you want to maximise the chances of securing serious constitutional reform, then the party to vote for is the Lib Dems.

...David Cameron is timid when it comes to reform in Britain. He sees the objection to privileging whoever is prime minister with the ability to try to fix the race by calling an election at any time of his or her choosing. He says he will "seriously consider" introducing the fixed-term parliament. Yes, I am sure he would think about that for all of a sub-nanosecond after he had stepped into Number 10.

...One promise that I do believe from the Tories is that they will implement a sweeping redistribution of constituency boundaries to make more equal the number of voters in each seat. This will not make each vote equal in value. It will have the effect of inflating the number of Tory MPs and culling the ranks of their opponents. After a decade in which the system has been tilted against the Conservatives, they are going to make jolly sure that in future the bias is in their favour.

...The Tory seducer hopes to weaken the knees of liberal Britain with the romance of a "massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power". What he's most ambitious to achieve is a massive redistribution of power from Gordon Brown to David Cameron.

Joyous canvassing incidents

I have to force myself to type the word "meme". I can't stand the things. I have resisted many of them but the latest one from Stephen Tall enticed me.

Most joyous canvassing memory:

Canvassing in the 1993 Newbury by-election in Kintbury, I sent a colleague off to canvass a house where he had to walk past their front room to get to the front door. Anyway, he came back rather more quickly than expected. I asked him "What were they?". Shaking his head a little, he said respectfully and wistfully: "They were making love in the front room, so I didn't have the heart to knock on their door and disturb them."

Most canvassing joyous tale 2 :

Trevor Brown, an extinct Newbury councillor who is remarkably easy-going and mild-mannered, canvassed a self-confessed Tory who had a real go at him, shouting at him for several minutes about the "bloody liberals". Dear Trevor patiently took all this head on, raised his eyebrows, nodded politely and ummed and ahhed. After a few minutes the fellow exhausted his rantings and there was a pause. At that, Trevor said very mildly: "Well fuck off then", turned smartly on his heels and walked briskly off back down the path, leaving a somewhat frustrated Tory ex-ranter.

Expensesgate: Liberal Democrats dwarfed by Labour and Conservative claims

I've gone through the Telegraph's summary of the MPs from the three main parties mentioned in their various dispatches on expenses over the last few weeks. In terms of the £ amount of the allegations, mentioned in the summaries, Labour are way out in front with the Conservatives just behind and the Liberal Democrats trailing way behind.

The average amount of the allegations for Labour MPs is £21,824.

The average amount of the allegations for Conservative MPs is £15,784.

The average amount of the allegations for Liberal Democrats MPs is £4,632.

It is a rather rough and ready exercise but gives us a feel for the sort of numbers which are being bandied about, split by party. I have only included figures mentioned in the Telegraph's summary. These included amounts claimed but not paid, and monthly amounts mentioned for mortgage payments. In some cases figures were not mentioned in the summary. I have ommitted MPs who were obviously being praised by the Telegraph. I have also avoided "judgments of Solomon" - so I have left in Alan Beith's amount, even though he seems to have explained it very well and I have left in Geoff Hoon's huge amount even though I am sure it could be deconstructed. I have made a judgment call on Jo Swinson because I know she didn't actually claim for the amounts the Telegraph imply she claimed - and please let me know if there is anyone else who comes under that banner.

I would also say that the Telegraph seem to have done a heck of a lot more work on Labour MPs than they have done on MPs from other parties. But that it is just a feeling I got from rattling through all the names.

Gordon Brown considers LibDem-Lab deal

Well, he can go and boil his head unless he cancels the Summer recess and implements Nick Clegg's full 100 day plan.

That '100 days to save democracy' plan in full

Here's Nick Clegg's plan in full:

Changing Politics For Good
A 100 Day Action Plan to save Britain’s Democracy

Britain’s democracy is at a turning point. Not in living memory has confidence in politicians, trust in the system, or faith in the government’s capacity to change things been as low as it is today. The expenses scandal has exposed a culture of arrogance and secrecy that has long been at the heart of our democracy.

Now the true extent of the rot in the system is clear to people, there is huge and growing public demand for change. This has become a once in a generation chance to reform politics completely, putting power back into the hands of the people, where it belongs. The need for constitutional renewal is now recognised across the political spectrum.

Many of the proposals put forward, however, are full of caveats and caution, proposing committees to consider change rather than change itself. This approach would be a disaster, delaying in the face of an emergency and allowing the opportunity for change to seep away. Reform must be swift and decisive, and must address all the key issues of accountability and transparency because unless all the dead wood is cut out, the rot will continue.

This paper sets out an action plan to save Britain’s democracy. Almost all the reforms needed can be achieved in the next 100 days, and we should not let the process go on longer than this. This is possible because most of the necessary legislation is already before Parliament – it is just currently being blocked by establishment figures. The remaining legislation can be drawn up quickly – there have been Private Members’ Bills promoted by the Liberal Democrats and others in the past that can be recycled – and pushed through.

Of course, those who have a vested interest in the status quo will argue that things can’t be done this quickly, secretly hoping that momentum will, indeed, dissipate. They are mistaken: the changes needed have been long discussed, and many even agreed in principle. There can be no more excuses or stalling. Those who seek to delay are barriers to reform: they want to ride out the storm with warm words without letting any change actually happen.

The upcoming 11 week summer recess would hand them a victory – potentially destroying the momentum for change. Therefore, Parliament should not break for the summer recess until the following steps are agreed and passed into law:

Commitment to accept Kelly expenses reform in full
Recall power for MPs suspended for misconduct
House of Lords reform
Party funding reform
Fixed term Parliaments
Enabling legislation for a referendum on AV+
Changes to House of Commons procedure to reduce executive power

Together, over the next 100 days, we could achieve nothing less than the total reinvention of British politics, underpinned by the fundamental principles of accountability, transparency and probity. These months would become a great moment in British political history, rather than a shabby footnote to a shameful month of revelations.

100 Day Action Plan
DAY 1: A resolution of both Houses to accept Sir Christopher Kelly’s expenses review
WEEK 1: Clerks to draw up Members of Parliament (Recall) Bill
WEEK 2: Government to table Hayden Phillips amendments to Political Parties and Elections Bill currently before the House of Lords
WEEK 3: Parliament to pass Lord Tyler’s Constitutional Renewal Bill currently before the House of Lords
WEEK 4: New Speaker to convene Party talks to agree changes to Commons procedure. Changes to be agreed by Day 100; implemented for the new Parliamentary Term.
WEEKS 4-5: Parliament to pass enabling legislation for a referendum on AV+
WEEK 6-7: Parliament to pass enabling legislation for an elected Senate
WEEKS 8-9: Parliament to pass Members of Parliament (Recall) Bill
WEEK 10: Commissioner to report on all MPs to Parliament; votes to be held on suspension
WEEK 11+: Petitions to begin in relevant constituencies if voters choose
DAY 100: Referendum to be held on new proportional election system


Detailed proposals

1. Commitment to accept Kelly expenses reform in full
The expenses scandal is at the heart of the collapse in public trust in politicians, and must be the first thing to be cleared up. By accepting Sir Christopher Kelly’s recommendations “blind” – before we see them – MPs would demonstrate a clear commitment to act in the public interest rather than their own. Parliament cannot legally bind its own hands, but MPs who agreed to the Kelly review now would find it difficult to go back on their word come the autumn. We should therefore pass a resolution in both Houses of Parliament to abide by Sir Christopher Kelly’s recommendations in full, without seeking to amend or challenge them.

DAY 1: A resolution of both Houses to accept Sir Christopher Kelly’s expenses review

2. Recall power for MPs suspended for misconduct

People are rightly furious that there is nothing they can do to get rid of their MP even if they have committed the most egregious fraud on their expenses claims. We should create a power of recall so if an MP is recommended for suspension by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, 5% of constituents can petition to remove that MP from office, prompting a by-election. All of those against whom serious allegations have been made - claiming mortgage payments without having a mortgage, “flipped” their home for personal profit or avoided Capital Gains Tax - should be investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

WEEK 1: Clerks to draw up Members of Parliament (Recall) Bill
All MPs who have claimed mortgage payments without having a mortgage, “flipped” their home or avoided Capital Gains Tax to be referred for investigation to Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
WEEKS 8-9: Parliament to pass Members of Parliament (Recall) Bill
WEEK 10: Commissioner to report on all MPs to Parliament; votes to be held on suspension
WEEK 11+: Petitions to begin in relevant constituencies if voters choose

3. House of Lords reform

Agreement has already been reached - MPs have voted decisively for direct elections of all peers, and agreement largely reached about the powers of the upper chamber. This must now be implemented.

The new House should be called the Senate to detach it permanently from the peerage. Elections should be on a different basis from the Commons but the need to choose a mechanism should not be an excuse for delay. The Power Commission’s recommendation that Senators be elected for three Parliamentary terms, with a third of the House elected at each General Election, should be adopted because it was decided by an independent, non-partisan and consultative process. Senators should represent a larger area than MPs: for simplicity, our suggested model is that this should be the top-up areas used in an AV+ voting system (see 6. below). A third of current peers could then be expelled at each of the next three elections, volunteers first, followed by those chosen at random but according to party balance.

WEEK 6-7: Parliament to pass enabling legislation for an elected Senate

4. Party funding reform

The relationship between money and politics is rotten and is hollowing out our whole political system. We need to remove the influence of big money from politics for good. While the Liberal Democrats want to go much further than proposed by the Hayden Phillips process, in the interests of swift action, we are willing to support the Hayden Phillips recommendations. The Conservatives pulled out of the negotiations but should either return to them or see the proposals pushed through regardless, with the addition of vital restrictions on spending in individual constituencies; on donors using dummy companies registered in Britain to channel money to political parties; and on donations from individuals who are either not resident or not domiciled in Britain for tax purposes.

Hayden Phillips’ proposals, in brief, are: donations from a single individual or organisation in any given year should be capped at £50,000. Spending by political parties (including national, regional and local branches) should be capped at £100m across the electoral cycle. Trade union affiliations to the Labour Party should continue only to the extent that individual members give genuine annual consent to their subscriptions being used in that way and should otherwise be treated in the same way as other donations.

WEEK 2: Government to table Hayden Phillips amendments to Political Parties and Elections Bill currently before the House of Lords

5. Fixed term Parliaments

It is completely wrong for the government to be able to give themselves an electoral advantage by choosing the date of the election to suit them. Fixed term Parliaments are the norm across the democratic world and should be introduced in the UK. Now is not the time for consideration, but action. Paul Tyler’s Constitutional Renewal Bill, currently before the House of Lords, would limit all further sessions of Parliament to four years, fixing the dates of all future general elections after 2010. The bill will also enact government manifesto and ministerial commitments on Freedom of Information, the power of the Attorney General, civil service reform, parliamentary scrutiny of international treaties, and public protest rights, which should also be agreed as part of this reform programme.

WEEK 3+: Parliament to pass Constitutional Renewal Bill currently before the House of Lords

6. Enabling legislation for a referendum on AV+

There is growing consensus that a new electoral system is needed in the UK. The Liberal Democrats believe the best system would be multi-member constituencies elected by Single Transferable Vote, but it is unlikely that agreement could be reached on such a system in the timescale necessary.

Roy Jenkins’ review of electoral systems in 1997 recommended the Alternative Vote + system; Labour committed in their 1997 manifesto to a referendum on this; and there are an increasing number of people, including cabinet members, supporting the move now. We therefore recommend that the Jenkins AV+ recommendation be put to the country immediately at the end of this 100 Day Reform Programme. It must not be put to the country by the government, but by Parliament as a whole; and must not be put on the day of the General Election, where the unpopularity of the government could damage the referendum.

If passed, the new electoral system should be introduced for the election subsequent to 2010, with the Electoral Commission charged with drawing up the new larger constituencies and top-up areas (for additional members and Senators) in time. The aim should be to reduce the total number of MPs by 150 and Peers by 300.

WEEKS 4-5: Parliament to pass enabling legislation for a referendum on AV+
DAY 100: Referendum to be held on new proportional election system

7. Changes to House of Commons procedure to reduce executive power

The election of a new Speaker on 22 June offers an opportunity for radical reform of the way debate and scrutiny is organised for the House of Commons. We recognise that changes within the House of Commons are only part of political reform: they alone will not renew democracy and must not be used as a smokescreen for leaving other issues untouched. However, the new Speaker will have a mandate for reform and should use that unprecedented influence to drive forward change immediately upon his/her election, with new rules in place for the new Parliamentary term that begins in October. This should address:

Legislation: the Parliamentary timetable should be controlled by Parliament, not the government, as it is currently too easy for Ministers use the timetable to evade scrutiny of contentious or complicated legislation. Arrangements for post-legislative scrutiny should also be considered, along with greater use of “sunset clauses” to stop obsolete laws from causing problems.
Spending: Parliament needs time to scrutinise the government’s spending programme, with the ability to amend proposals.
Public appointments: Ministerial and high level public sector appointments should be subject to confirmation hearings in Parliament. Parliament should be able to vote Ministers and politically-appointed quango heads out of office with a super-majority of two-thirds.
Backbench initiatives: Early Day Motions with substantial support must be given time for debate and votes and Private Members’ Bills given additional time, too. It should no longer be possible for ministers to ‘talk out’ private members’ bills.

WEEK 4: New Speaker to convene Party talks to agree changes to Commons procedure. Changes to be agreed by Day 100; implemented for the new Parliamentary Term.

Clegg's breathtaking 100 day plan to reinvent British politics

This will induce the nearest thing LibDem nerds get to a simultaneous orgasm over politics.

In tomorrow's Guardian, Nick Clegg proposes a breathtaking 100 day plan to reform British politics. He says that MPs should not go on holiday until their wholesale reinvention of the whole system. His article is entitled "Bar the gates. No summer holiday before the overhaul".

This is great stuff! Nick Clegg knocks Cameron's timid muttering about 'nip and tuck' reforms into a cocked hat. Brilliantly, he describes Cameron's statement thus: "Open source software, new select committee chairs and legislative text messages will not rescue British democracy," he wrote. "They are designed to provide verbal cover for maintaining the status quo."

The whole constitutional reform bag of nuts (or most of it, at least) is in Nick's plan, although controversially, he includes Lord Jenkin's AV+ as the subject of a referendum on "PR" - sharp intake of breath from blogging community!

Nick can certainly be commended for following the motto "carpe diem" in choosing this moment to give Britain the full gamma blast of the constitutional reform menu. He demonstrates the instincts of a radical reformer: "Let's stop all this self-congratulatory hype about the mother of parliaments and get on with improving it."

Together, over the next 100 days, we could achieve nothing less than the total reinvention of British politics. These months could become a great moment in British political history, rather than a shabby footnote to a shameful month of scandal. Let us seize, not squander, the opportunity for change.

It's as likely to happen in 100 days as hell freezing over, but at least it puts down a marker and shows up Cameron's statement this week as the meaningless nonsense it is.

In the first two weeks parliament would agree to accept the recommendations of the review into MPs' expenses and allowances by the standards watchdog, draw up a bill to allow for the recall of errant MPs, and impose a £50,000 cap on individual donations to political parties in any year.
The Clegg plan would then introduce major constitutional reforms:
• By week three legislation would be passed to introduce fixed parliamentary terms of four years from 2010, denying the prime minister the right to name the date of general elections.
• By week four the new Commons Speaker would convene all-party talks to introduce a series of changes to parliamentary procedure that would be agreed by day 100. These include handing MPs the right to decide the parliamentary timetable, ­giving MPs a greater chance to scrutinise government spending and subject ministers to confirmation hearings.
• By weeks four to five parliament would pass legislation to allow a referendum to be held on electoral reform – the alternative vote plus system proposed by the late Lord Jenkins – that would be held on day 100.
• By weeks six to seven parliament would pass legislation to replace the House of Lords with a wholly elected senate.