Former Labour Equality Minister in Gingerphobic Attack

There was always one chant I always felt uncomfortable with in the stands at Scottish football stands. It was the one attacking the poor unfortunate ginger player on the opposition team, and how his natural colouring was unacceptable. The reason being that being in Scotland there were plenty of ginger fans in our own section, heck the majority of what are now my grey hairs on head or in beard once were ginger.

Therefore to stand at your parties Scottish conference and make a ginger gibe can't not have gone down too well, one of the people sat on the platform looks rather uncomfortable as she applauds, the former Women and Equalities Minister, for it is her. She went futher and called him a rodent. Actually seeing a beavers are rodents and stem the torrent of resources washing away maybe we should use that. Danny Alexander Chief Dambuilder to the Treasury.

There is one other thing, my Lib Dem colleagues in Scotland haven't mutated into Tories and more than they mutated in Labourites during eight years of coalition Government in Scotland. Harriet in Scotland the people understand coalition is the coming together for a common cause, it does not take away from either party what makes them fundamentally themselves.

When will Labour start to talk policy rather than hurl insults? If they want to win seats they have to say what they will do, rather than merely saying, "Oh no! You can't be doing that."

Grow up Labour. Get back into politics and out of the playground name calling.

Update: Here is the Twitter comeback from Danny Alexander:

"I am proud to be ginger and rodents do valuable work cleaning up mess others leave behind. Red squirrel deserves to survive, unlike Labour"

Conservatives Seeking to Conserve: Change You Can Ignore In

There is a somewhat crude irony that the Tories, as highlighted by ConservativeHome and Iain Dale, are arguing for a threshold on the Alternative Vote (AV) referendum to keep the First Past the Post (FPTP) status quo. The reason being that as recently as May 6th the majority of people in the United Kingdom supported a party that advocating a replacement of FPTP. Both Labour and the Lib Dems advocated change along with many of the minor parties.

There is another irony that on American Labor day the min supporter of AV at that election, the Labour Party are seemingly opposed to voting for it. Not they claim because of AV itself, but because it is paired with making the seats of equal size. Somehow they think that in making every vote have equal value that this is gerrymandering, many of us have yet to find this definition in any dictionary (of for that matter as a footnote or definition in the Blair memoir).

So the threshold argument is just one way to appease Tory MPs not happy with it being in the agreement, but the decision to have a referendum is in the agreement. The fact that the Tories want to have a threshold suggests to me that they know they will lose the argument against change. Be 'conservatives' change is never part of their remit.

AV means that some of those safe, almost hereditary, seats in the shires can't be handed out to some London based, Oxbridge graduated, loyalist for services rendered to the party. Who no more know their constituency that a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company. Who have no more intention of living or staying in their constituency that the Loch Ness monster has of taking a regular bow to the tourists.

I'm no great supporter of AV, like Iain Dale I believe it is the least step away from AV , but unlike Iain I believe the people want and deserve more. They want a system that allows them greater proportionality. Many, like me, have never cast a vote that makes a difference in who our MP was, AV a least will give them that.

However, the more the advocates of FPTP try and argue that it is the best voting system out there for a multiple party system such as ours the more determined I am to get the referendum to pass on 5 May next year. Of course the first step is today getting it started on its path through the House of Commons.

Lib Dems and Tories are Taking Action in the Rage Against Labour's Treasured Faulty Machine

There is a rather excellent article by Simon Jenkins in today's Guardian and one that the We Got Rage Against the Machine to Number One I've Voting Liberal Democrat Lib Dem voters turned doubters would do well to note.

It talks about the contrast between the Tory/Lib Dem coalition realising the public expenditure system is faulty and the Labour machine failing to ignore that there is anything wrong as that this is the way we promised things in 1945 and that is the way they should be.

He lists examples such as "Andrew Lansley's bid to dismantle tottering NHS bureaucracy. He wants to do it not by slicing budgets, which seldom works, but by removing layers, which might." David Cameron's question of the "static poor" who soak up particularly larger housing stock for life when their own needs change over time.

Instead of just railing against the benefits cheats, waste, fraudulent spending, the concept of entitlement and the individuals relationship with the state, the current Government appears set to do something about it. The must radical shake up since the 1940s when the post-war Labour Government set much of the machinery in motion. Sadly as the machinery is either broken, or out of date but anyway is largely no longer fit for purpose and needs a radical overhaul.

Looking at what the Lib Dems promised in our manifesto it was a radical overview and reappraisal of the Government machine. We promised to overhaul of taxation, benefits and so many other Government departments. We promised to cut out a lot of the red tape and make the wheels of Government run smoothly again. Basically in the terms of the machine metaphor giving it an oil change is only part of the requirement, checking if any efficiency can be made with new parts is also a part of the thorough service.

In conclusion Jenkins says:

"To do Nick Clegg and his Lib Dems justice, they have at least engaged. Through the happenstance of the electoral system, they are joined in the most vigorous debate British politics has seen in half a century. Labour knew last year that some suchcrisis was in the offing; there were signs of Alistair Darling and others steeling themselves for the fray. Now the left has removed itself to doze on planet 1945. One day it must return."

So if the rage against the machinists are a little upset with some of what the Lib Dems are doing in Government look at what they are considering doing to the machine. A full overhaul, with the Lib Dems in there to uphold the values we hold unto so that Cameron isn't to ride totally roughshod over those in need. Labour are just opening their mouths in protest without a real alternative, indeed with a real grip on the reality of today.

Simon Fires First Warning Shot 'Cross Coalition Bows

Yesterday the newly elected deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats Simon Hughes fired the first major warning shot across the coalition's ship bows.

It's all coming down to the matter of fairness. Having been canvassing members for the past three weeks there was a noticeable shift in their line of questioning come Tuesday. The reason of course that instead of the speculation of what the budget would bring we had the detail. Simon highlighted one of the concerns the welfare system in this case the pensioners. It's bad enough that many may have to wait longer for a state pension without other benefits being hacked into as well. As he said:

"The coalition deal is a deal. There cannot be any unpicking of items in that deal, otherwise the whole thing risks falling apart."

One key element of that as far as Lib Dems are concerned is that yes we need to tackle the deficit and we need to do it fairly. Impinging VAT increases (although noted bringing us in line or behind most of Europe) , benefits getting frozen while inflation continues and not properly tackling the tax loopholes as we promised are some of the areas of concern. The raise in the personal income allowance and the aviation taxes does offset some of that. Making it a less regressive budget than the Tories had promised during the campaign, but does it really make it a progressive budget?

Of course it is hard to be fully progressive when you have not one but both hands tied behind your back by the level of debt left by Labour. I've heard the Labour arguments that their investments were required to bail out the banks and to secure jobs. Securing jobs is fine but they could have and should have looked at the whole mentality of public sector expenditure before now. At the end of each spending round there are always inventive ways to use up to budget so as not to lose any for the next year. Yet Labour and the SNP are both saying there is no more room for efficiencies. There always has been, and unless something is done always will, the mentality of the public sector is to spend money rather than to save it.

You only have to look at the attitude of many of the MPs caught out over expenses. Some did use the defence it was needed, but the majority claimed it was within the rules as if it was an entitlement rather than a provision if required.

So yes Simon is right to sound a warning shot, and that is all it is, we Lib Dems are prepared to make tough calls on expenditure just as long as you are fair to the poorest in our society when you are doing so. Don't exacerbate their problems for the sake of expediency.

Feeling Blue and Rudderless Under the Goldie Tide

"There is no-one in charge. We need to have someone who is in charge of the Conservative party in Scotland, preferably elected by the membership.

"The membership and the constituencies have been allowed to atrophy. The branches have disappeared. There's no real link between the voluntary side of the party and the MSPs."

So said former conservative Scottish Secretary Lord Forsyth yesterday, which won't be good news for Annabel Goldie with less than a year until the Scottish elections. Although some party insiders said it was the "memory of Lord Forsyth in government" that was affecting Tory performance at elections in Scotland.

But there were questions about a name change in Scotland (Scottish Reform anyone), a separation from the party in England and a clear out of the leadership. Goldie as leader in Holyrood, David McLetchie (the former leader) as campaign director and Andrew Fulton as Chairman.

Paul McBride QC echoed the rudderless message when he said:

"The problem was that we spent large amounts of money but there was no clear leader who had powers to hire and fire, make strategic decisions and have a say on who stood as candidates.

"We had people working for us having to report to three or four different people and that was unacceptable."

I'll agree there did appear to be a large amount of money spent even out here in Linlithgow and East Falkirk. I have to say that all that money didn't tell me anything about the Tory's policies.

There was also disquiet about some of the older member of their Holyrood team Mary Scanlon, 60, Nanette Milne 68, Ted Brocklebank, 67 and Sir Jamie McGrigor, 60 who have been elected on the list not for a constituency. Some are saying they should be removed from the party list for next year and others are calling for a two strikes and you're out policy.

Sounds like disarray in the Scottish part of a party that is governing from Westminster and doesn't sound like a winning formula for anywhere in just over 11 months time.

Liberal Conservative Deal Good News for Rural Fuel Prices

So the Liberal Conservative coalition is going to start pilot programmes to look at how fuel prices in rural areas can be cut when the oil price is high. It's a step towards a workable scheme that was promised in the Liberal Democrat manifesto.

As George Lyon MEP says:

"This is an important first step in our fight for fairer fuel prices in rural Scotland.

"Successive Labour and Conservative Governments have blocked Liberal Democrat attempts to secure a fuel duty reduction in areas where driving is a necessity, not a luxury.

"Now with Liberal Democrats in Government we have a chance to deliver on what other parties have refused to even consider.

"I will work with Scottish Secretary Danny Alexander MP to make sure pilot schemes are introduced in Scotland so we can begin to lift the serious financial burden of sky-high fuel prices."

The price differential from the national average can be as much as 15p a litre in some of our worst hit rural areas and the option of public transport is largely non-existent or at best infrequent to residents in such areas.

It shows the changes that Liberal Democrats are bringing to the new Government and follows on from the debate Alistair Carmichael secured on 10 February this year where there was far reaching issues raised from many voices and areas heard from, though none from the SNP. In that debate Alistair said:

"I bring that answer* to hon. Members' attention because it is important for us to understand that the problems that are faced by our communities are not unique; they are shared by different communities in the European Union. However, they get very different treatment from their Governments than that which we have experienced.

"I have asked Ministers in the past to consider such a derogation, and I make the same request of the Minister today. Will she consider setting up a pilot scheme to assess whether the Government's concerns are legitimate, real and substantial-I suspect that they are not-or whether they are just an excuse for continuing to do nothing?"

So Lib Dems are delivering on things they have asked for under Labour through working with the Conservatives. Who'd have thought it?

Obviously not James Macintyre at the New Statesman who thought that Labour had a good working relationship with the Liberal Democrats down the years. Here is one example of the reverse. An example of where talking the talk isn't enough, Labour failed to learn to walk the walk. That is why the people have turned against them action is what the people want.

* One received from George Lyon on 8 January from the EU Commission (excuse the civil service speak):

"The Commission can, nevertheless, confirm that-on a different basis-in order to partially offset the additional costs of insularity - and thus geographical remoteness and difficulties of supply, France was authorised to apply a reduced rate of taxation to unleaded petrol used as motor fuel and consumed in the Corsican department. Moreover, at the moment of the adoption of Council Directive 2003/96/EC4-and for similar reasons as France-Portugal and Greece were authorised to apply reduced rates of taxation for fuel consumed in the Autonomous Regions of the Azores and Madeira and on some Greek islands. Concerning the details of the schemes, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that in the case of Corsica, the reduction is 1 cent per litre. In the case of the Greek islands, the reduction can be up to 2.2 cents per litre. In the case of Azores and Madeira, the directive does not specify the amount of the tax reduction, however, according to the information available to the Commission, the degree of tax differentiations from the Portuguese mainland is 1.5 cents per litre (Madeira) and 3.8 cents per litre in the case of the island of Azores."

1922 and All That

The outcry from Conservative back benchers over Cameron gaining ministerial say in the 1922 committee shows that there is something that the bigger partner of the coalition could learn from the smaller partner. That lesson is let the party democracy have its say.

The 1922 Committee has been sort of the conscious of the Conservative party just as the Liberal Democrats Federal Executive and conferences are to our own party. It was the place where the backbenchers could have their say without fear of ministerial interference. They could talk openly about their concerns without fear of recrimination.

Of course the Liberal Democrats have long maintained that anyone can talk openly in debate against a certain line the leadership want to take. In fact there have been times that conference has voted against the 'perceived' leadership line. But there isn't any recriminations in doing so, that is part of democracy. That voice from the foot soldiers is often different and more in touch than those in the Westminster bubble

So with the 1922 Committee vote going 168 to 118 in favour of allowing Ministers in, 78 of whom voted for.

David Cameron had taken his decision to enter a coalition to all his MPs, Nick Clegg had done likewise, as well as the Federal Exec as required, but further to the special conference which wasn't required after the first two approved. He may have been scared of the feedback he may have received from the membership but was still prepared to let them have their say. Cameron is now trying to silence and maybe control a bit tighter some of those that form that Government, it may not bode well as a matter of trust.

As former MP Paul Goodman said:

"A week ago, Cameron retained the goodwill of most of his MPs, despite failing to win the election outright and forming a coalition with an opposing party – on what many of them regarded as dubious terms. However, much of that goodwill has vanished since yesterday afternoon."

There is of course nothing stopping the backbenchers forming a second group, maybe calling it the 2010 Committee in which they can keep the Ministers and 'pay roll' vote out of proceedings and discussions. I wonder how long it will take to form that group?

May's Own Private IDAHO

Today is International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia(IDAHO)* it is the 20th Anniversary of the World Health Organisation de-listing homosexuality as a mental illness. Some people who think there is still a cure should get with the 1990s and realise it isn't a disease.

So our Home Secretary and Equality Minister Theresa May issued this statement:

"This government is committed to creating a society that is fair for everyone and supports equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people.

"This means supporting civil partnerships, tackling homophobic bullying wherever it occurs, changing the law regarding historic convictions for consensual gay sex and using our international influence to put pressure on countries where LGB&T people are persecuted.

"These commitments show our determination to tear down the barriers that continue to hold people back."

Considering May's own voting record on gay rights and that most of her party's predecessors the lifting of historic convictions for consensual gay sex is a start of the great repeal act against some of the Conservative's policies.

However, the statement is welcome. Especially in light of the reaction earlier this year of one of their MEPs to the situation in Uganda. I hope the UK under a Tory and Lib Dem government does bring pressure internationally for gay rights.


* Look I know the T has been dropped altogether don't look at me.

A Few Words of Experience About Coalitions

I've seen some of my own party up in arms, whil the opportunistic Greens are offering a switch and the SNP ranting as usual about being left out of a rainbow alliance. So I think I have to tell you a little story about my own political journey.

Once upon a time I lived in a Lib Dem controlled council, but I left and since then (in 1997) it returned Liberal Democrat MPs.

Since that time I have worked for the ultimate coalition assembly of all powers in Northern Ireland. I have voted in 2003 on entering a coalition with Labour in the Scottish Parliament. I have been courted by both the SNP and Labour ahead of the 2007 council election with the aim of making deals for a coalition after the outcome and I have now agreed that the Conservative coalition is the best way forward for our country at this time.

Of those last three the first is a mix of First Past the Post and addional member top up, the second was by single transferable vote, the last of course was First Past the Post.

Here's the thing I would love to be back in the situation that Kingston council would have offered and even stronger after Thursday of allowing all the Lib Dem pledges to be inacted. Howvever, in 2003 when I entered the special conference to decide to enter a second partnership agreement I went in with questions. When the main two parties in West Lothian approached me, I had questions that would have needed to be answered. Again over the last few days I have had questions and many of them have been expressed on this blog.

I don't sit comfortably with the Conservatives, I cut my political teeth fighting them. I know many of my Lib Dem friends feel the same. I lean to the left of our party, I backed Simon Hughes to replace Charles Kennedy for example. I'm very much a social liberal with some economic liberal tendancies.

However, I do believe in electoral reform. I've seen it work in Northern Ireland and in Scotland, where people have to work together to get things done. People who do not always agree with each other all the time on all things. I have seen some combinations in a room to discuss real politics in Northern Ireland that you wouldn't believe if you look at the TV coverage of the time.

If my fellow Lib Dems agree that we need electoral reform to make a truly fair Britain they should know that there will probably never be an opportunity to hold absolute control by any party, including ourselves in some Scottish councils, ever again. In those circumstances it is a matter of who can step up to the plate and agree to get things done.

For those who felt that we should have gone in with Labour and the rest look at how much lack of control Labour had over its own MPs while those discussions were going on. I note that the Guardian and some other commentators have said that the Lib Dems lack discipline, but that has not been seen in the last week, it is Labour who showed they lacked that common purpose.

Look at what I posted earlier of what the Lib Dems have actually acheived. Look also at the things the regressive Conservatives have dropped to enable us to get these things in there. Look at all that Labour only were prepared to do "in principle" they didn't even send the man responsible for the costs to talks, it was all dependent on Darling. Osborne and Laws who are not working together both knew the costs of making deals in the Liberal Conservative talks, the Conservatives were prepared to move towards us and our stand point something that Labour seemed to not want to do in the negotiation team and more tellingly in the wider PLP.

So here it is, the new politics is about working together after the results are in. It doesn't mean that I don't campaign hard against either Labour, the SNP, Tories or others. You don't believe me ask them. They know that I will hold them to task.

But whether in Northern Ireland, West Lothian, Scotland or the UK if you have to work together to get things moving, advancing and rolling along you best do that, or else the people, the banks and whomever will crucify you for merely fiddling while things burn all around you.

Voting Liberal Democrat Brings Change in 2010

If you voted for me or any of my Liberal Democrat colleagues I'd like to say thank you and ask you to look at all the pledges from our manifesto that are now going to be enacted over the next 5 years of Government.


A Fair Start for Children

• Introduce a Pupil Premium to give all children a fair start.

Fairer taxes and Economic Reform

• A substantial increase in the personal allowance from April 2011 with a longer term policy objective of further increasing the personal allowance to £10,000, making further real terms steps each year towards this objective
• Reform of the banking system, ensuring a flow of lending to businesses and a Banking Levy. An independent commission on separating retail and investment banking.
• Capital Gains Tax reform

Fair Politics

• Fixed-term parliaments and a referendum on electoral reform for the House of Commons.
• A power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP was found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing.
• A wholly or mainly elected House of Lords on the basis of proportional representation.
• Giving Parliament control of its own agenda so that all bills are properly debated.
• Enacting the Calman Commission proposals and a referendum on further Welsh devolution.
• A statutory register of lobbyists.
• A limit on political donations and reform of party funding in order to remove big money from politics.
• Radical devolution of power and greater financial autonomy to local government and community groups.

A fair and sustainable future

• Establish a smart electricity grid and the roll-out of smart meters.
• Establish feed-in tariff systems in electricity
• A huge increase in energy from waste through anaerobic digestion.
• The creation of a green investment bank.
• The provision of home energy improvement paid for by the savings from lower energy bills.
• Retention of energy performance certificates when HIPs are scrapped.
• Measures to encourage marine energy.
• The establishment of an emissions performance standard that will prevent coal-fired power stations being built unless they are equipped with sufficient CCS to meet the emissions performance standard.
• Establish a high-speed rail network.
• Cancel the third runway at Heathrow and refuse additional runways at Gatwick and Stansted.
• Replace the Air Passenger Duty with a ‘per plane’ duty.
• The provision of a floor price for carbon, as well as efforts to persuade the EU to move towards full auctioning of ETS permits.
• Make the import or possession of illegal timber a criminal offence.
• Promote green spaces and wildlife corridors in order to halt the loss of habitats and restore biodiversity.
• Reduce central government carbon emissions by 10 per cent within 12 months.
• Increase the target for energy from renewable sources.

Pensions

• Restoration of the earnings link for the basic state pension from April 2011 with a “triple guarantee” that pensions are raised by the higher of earnings, prices or 2.5%.
• Phase out the default retirement age and end the rules requiring compulsory annuitisation at 75.
• Implement the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman’s recommendation to make fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policyholders.

Civil Liberties

• Scrap the ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the next generation of biometric passports and the ContactPoint Database.
• Outlaw the finger-printing of children at school without parental permission.
• Extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.
• Adopt the Scottish approach to stopping retention of innocent people’s DNA on the DNA database.
• Defend trial by jury.
• Restore rights to non-violent protest.
• A review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech.
• Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.
• Further regulation of CCTV.
• Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason.
• A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.
• End the detention of children for immigration purposes.

I'm sure you'll agree that is a great deal there to be proud of. I'm somewhat upset that more of our fair start for children proposals don't appear on this list especially the things that many young families were so enthused about like shared parental leave. Maybe we'll just have to lobby Iain Duncan Smith about going further.

Thank you for voting for a fairer Britain, I'm sure my colleagues in cabinet or parliament will carry on making sure we built upon the trust that you have put in the Lib Dems on May 6th.

How Gay Friendly is the Home Office?

A gay couple may be able to spend the night at the Home Office as Chris Grayling has not ended up taking the Shadow Post he held when he uttered the word that B&B owners had the right to deny a service to same sex couples. However, just how gay friendly is his replacement Theresa May.

In 1998 she voted against equalising the age of consent and in 2000, she voted against the repeal of Section 28, legislation that banned the 'promotion' of homosexuality by local government and schools.

In 2001 and 2002 she voted against gay couples jointly adopting children.

In 2004, like much of the Conservative front bench, Mrs May did vote in favour of civil partnerships. But in the same year, Mrs May didn't attend Parliament for any of the four votes that led to the Gender Recognition Act.

In 2008 she voted in favour of a defeated bill which said that IVF rights should require a male role model- effectively discriminating against lesbian fertility rights.

So while none of the great offices of state have gone to the Lib Dems (Osborne at Treasury, Hague at Foreign Office, Fox at Defence, along with Cameron and May) we have ended up with someone whose record on gay rights does not bode well at the Home Office. Someone whose approach to Europe does not bode well at the Foreign Office and someone whose grasp of Economics leads to despair at the Treasury (thankfully David Laws is there to back him up). Look I know the policy concessions were good, but what happened in dealing with the great offices.

Tory or Labour: Why the Right Decision Was Tory?

I have been getting a lot of email from constituents from both sides of the divide over the argument of which coalition, and indeed none, the Liberal Democrats should have entered into. So I'd like to make the following comment on the goings on of the last five days and especially the last 24 hours or so.

I now am watching scenes of Gordon Brown resigning while we do not yet now if the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives have agreed upon the decision as William Hague only left the discussions after Brown entered the Palace.

One phrase that grated with me when it first came out what the Labour negotiating team saying they were defending their manifesto. That crated not of coalition but of hanging on indeed attempting to take over. It appears that the Conservatives have understood the new politics better, they have made concessions, indeed this evening some of their MPs have said that some of their policies which they didn't like could be got rid of to be replaced with Lib Dem ones.

One key thing is the sustainability of either alliance. The Labour one was tenuous and that was clear, there was no way that Labour could guarantee any vote on any major legislation, Labour MPs in Scotland were even ruining any chance of a fall back with the SNP by mocking them at every turn, which was just wrong. The Labour deal and every step they appear to have made, even the resignation f Gordon before agreement is formally met by the others appears to be doing everything to undermine the governance of our country.

As I blogged earlier my own Labour MP have even been taking it out on constituents. Labour appear to be trying to get the people to make up their minds again as soon as possible rather than achieve any sense of stability towards the national interest.

Anyone who will know me will attest that one thing I am not is a right wing member of the Liberal Democrats. For me to earlier today to say that a deal with the Conservatives was the right, proper and only thing to do was a big step. But it is the thing to do but the best for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, for Scotland and the United Kingdom. It will undoubtedly be hard for many of you to understand or to take, I'd welcome you to email me if you disagree and I will answer your enquires personally.

Decision Time

I'll have to admit a referendum on AV which one part of a coalition is free to campaign against is the not the ideal way to bring about new politics, however I doubt that this is the only concession that the Conservative team have given away. I suspect that there are also retractions on just how must they are going to cut in the first year as well.

You also have to look at some of the things that we have agreed upon.

Education

There is plenty of scope for agreement, the Tories are also looking at a pupil premium and freeing up schools to do what they want. One contentious issue will be over homophobic bullying and teaching of same sex education as part of the curriculum, even in faith schools.

Taxation

The Conservatives had intimated that they will look at the lifting of the personal tax allowance to see how this can be afforded. This is an encouraging sign for the lowest paid in our society. This may allow room for manoeuvre to get rid of the inheritance tax cuts for the super rich possibly to tax them instead on their properties. We shall wait and see but the Tories have intimated movement to make taxation fairer.

Civil Liberties

The Tories are with us on cutting the surveillance state, scrapping the ID card scheme that has been the Labour puppy for so long. Also part of this is loosening up red tape for businesses.

The Economy

There is a basic agreement in what needs to be done the real debate is over the time scale. There is a desire from both sides to get the banks lending, to cut the deficit over the term of this parliament and give Britain a greener and sustainable economic future.

Political Reform

Voting system aside there is movement to fixed term parliaments not set at the whim of the incumbent, the right to recall a corrupt MP and cutting the size of the House of Commons.

I know there will be people who said that they didn't vote Clegg to get a Conservative government, however more people in this country did vote for the Conservative MP than any other party and they returned more MPs. The Conservative government that would exist with a Liberal Democrat coalition partner would have a greenness to it, an inbuilt social conscious as well as a desire for new politics. Yesterday's Guardian cartoon showed Cameron crushing the cricket of wooden boy Clegg's conscience, however the Lib Dems in coalition with the Conservatives would act as a social conscience for the larger partner. Look at the promise to look at the poorest end of income tax above for a start.

If people voted Liberal Democrat to get electoral reform and their views to be expressed in Westminster more vocally then you have to realise that there is agreement between us and both the main parties in some areas and disagreement with both on others. I think Nick Clegg and the negotiating team will be looking at what offer is best to fulfil the nation's interests, that includes stability and economic recovery first and foremost. We have to show that coalition government can work here in the UK if we are to move for true proportionality. Only if it works and we can show we work with a party that is not the natural bedfellows will both the two main parties realise that there is hope of a future for them.

We were right to talk with the Tories as they had the best mandate from the people. We are still right to talk with them and try and come to some sort of agreement to best serve the people.

That Extra Mile

Last night William Hague described the upped offer to the Liberal Democrats as 'going the extra mile' so what must have been lacking before?

His statement said:

"In the interests of trying to create a stable, secure government, we will go the extra mile and we will offer the Liberal Democrats, in a coalition government, the holding of a referendum on the alternative vote system, so that the people of this country can decide the best electoral system."

It appears that before that statement the Tories may only have been seeking an 'confidence and supply' agreement, why else would Hague add the phrase in a coalition government after the word offer? If a coalition was already the default position surely this would have appeared in the phrase a stable, secure, coalition government at the top of the statement?

Then there is also the move from a conference on electoral reform to the Pauline conversion of the Damascus Road of offering a referendum on AV. Why is it that both of the two old parties are most fixated by AV*? The simple answer of course is that while it is electoral reform it is most like the current system and still offers them some hope of forming a majority government on less that 40% of the popular vote.

Both Labour and the Conservatives wish they were still in a two party system are are delusional about conceding any ground the multitude of other parties that have fought hard to make small inroads under FPTP. They still are thinking it is their right to govern are are willing to concede the littlest option but not the fairest.

So was it really an extra mile or merely a jump of panic?

* To be fair the latest wooing from Labour is a referendum later on STV after whipping through AV.

Has Dave Blown It?

Is Dave, or more to the point the Conservative Party about to blow their chance of power for the second time in this election?

In the hour it has taken me to get from work to home there is a faltering in the talks between the Tories and Lib Dems. Gordon Brown has wasted no time in removing himself as an obstacle in potential talks with Labour. The talks with Labour are starting tonight so is the clock ticking on a Cameron premiership? Is there going to be a rainbow over Westminster?

But hang on just as I'm typing this George Osborne has just offered a referendum on AV. But as both Labour and the Conservatives are aware, that is not the preferred option as outlined in the Liberal Democrat manifesto the preference is for single transferable vote. As the Guardian pointed out earlier AV is only marginally more proportional that first past the post.

William Hague has just tried to cast off his Damascus road conversion to proportional representation as letting "the people decide the best system". If you really want the people to decide the best system why not offer them the best system, the one that balances up a local accountability with proportionality.

Earlier we learned that agreement had been made on reducing the number of MPs, the Lib Dems being more radical than the Conservatives on that cut, that would need a redrawing of the boundaries anyway. If that is the case what is stop asking the boundary commission to draw up multi-member STV constituencies instead.

AV on constituencies, like we have now, may be disproportionate to the Tories as second preferences may go to the 'progressive alliance' but STV will at least reward them for strength where they are considerably strong. Maybe it is time for the Tories to truly wake up to what is the best and fairest way of electoral reform.

What Will the Next 24 Hours Bring?

As I resume post-election blogging I'd like to start by pointing out that even as a candidate in last Thursday's election I have no more access to the information of what is being discussed in London than any other party member. Therefore what I am about to type is based purely on the media reports of the last few days.

The statements last night from Danny Alexander and William Hague both focused on how the talks were working through the economic questions. This is the key stage of supporting any Government forward from this point. It is possible that the Liberal Democrats could agree to support a sound policy to deal with the deficit without entering a formal coalition. If this area can be resolved it would be possible that Cameron could lead a minority administration without the need for further support. It would also put the banks and markets at rest over what they see as uncertainty.

However that would then leave him requiring support on other issues and policy implementations when they come up. I'm sure that other areas of dispute, as Alex Wilcock put it the other day the other 3 key principles of our manifesto are up for discussion. All through the election Nick, myself and all our candidates emphasised that these four elements of fairness were the core of what we were standing for. Many of you have expressed to me your opinions on that going forward. These could well be the deciding points for how formal or informal the relationship between the Conservatives and the Lib Dems might be.

Somebody has raised the issue with me of have the Conservatives got the right to law down the law over Scotland. That may be one place where our 11 Scottish Lib Dem MPs may end up having a say. But we were voting in a UK wide election just the Conservatives have lost the trust of the Scots since the Thatcher years.

Whether there is a full blown coalition or a deal of "confidence and supply" one thing does appear clear a deal with Labour is off the table as Nick Clegg said last night that such a deal would be illegitimate in the public's eyes.

One possible scenario could be however, a confidence and supply agreement with the Tories and using the first opposition day to get a vote on proportional representation (if the Tories do not give on this) if Labour back that, Caroline Lucas, the Northern Irish parties and Scottish and Welsh Nationalists would also leading to a majority in the house on the issue.

Democracy and Principles in Proportional Representation

So the general election, the effects of which I still feel in too many muscles, has resulted in a hung parliament, so what now?

As some who for as long as I have been politically active and aware know that our current electoral system is anything but fair I have seen yet another example of just how unfair that system is. The difference is that this time many of the people in our country are also aware of just how unfair that has been too.

Also I'm someone who has long been a supporter of a single transferable vote electoral system to elect multiple members to constituency as the best way to get that imbalance between votes and seats resolved. With such a system comes the result that you are going to have parties that have to act together to get things done, that is the nature of the beast. Of course the people have spoken in a certain way about certain keys issues and cast their vote accordingly.

The issue that arises after a vote is what are the key principles that a party stands for that cannot be written off to work along side another party. In this election the Liberal Democrats have had those 4 key principles outlined clearly all along.

• Fair taxes
• Fair start for our children
• Fair chance for our economy
• Fair deal for politics

Also through this election, and again yesterday, Nick Clegg had always said that the party with the clear mandate from the people, should be allowed the chance to attempt to form the next government. Political commentators at times wanted him to define whether that meant votes or seats, he refused to speculate saying it would be clear at the time. Indeed it is as the Conservatives have both the lead in seats and votes.

So that does lead to the question of the four key principles and where the two parties are separated. On our children and economy we are closest, though with the economy there is a major difference on when it is prudent to start making cuts in government spending, although the majority of the population have back the Labour and Lib Dem notion that it should not be straight away.

On taxes the Conservatives were not looking to alleviate the burden on the poorest, indeed what they were aiming for was to further relieve tax on the richest with their inheritance tax proposals.

However, it is on fair politics that the biggest gulf exists, but it is the one point that the public are feeling most strongly about. They at the moment really want their vote to count. Turnout was actually up across the country this time, people wanted their voice to be heard. The Tories talk of electoral reform in the last 24 hours has been but a mere tinkering around the edges. David Cameron is merely offering a conference on electoral reform. Personally I think it is not enough, for a second election in a row one party has got 1 in 4 votes yet has only 1 in 10 seats, while a party with 36% of the vote has 49% of the seats.

We no longer live is a two party system, indeed we have two parties taking their first seats in Westminster the Greens and Alliance Party, and two more losing their places Respect and the Ulster Unionists. First past the post works where there are two parties but most seats in this election where contested by four or more parties, never mind candidates. There is a need for change in how we cast our vote and how that vote represents the views of the people. Also then how that view is reflected in Westminster itself.

There is a need for parties, the people and other influences to realise that the voice of the people is no longer clearly advocating one way to do things, but several. That parties will need to work together but they must represent the views of those who have voted.

For thirteen years the Labour party have kept electoral reform on the back burner, bringing it up again to the fore only as the election approached. Therefore David Cameron's statement yesterday to merely kick it into the long grass of another conference is not enough, it is only a way of dodging the fundamental issue of what is wrong with our political system. People are already saying that for the Liberal Democrats to forego our principle on this is not acceptable, that is true of those who have turned to us from elsewhere on this occasion as well as our long term support.

I think it is time to draw that line in the sand and not cross it.

Quote of the Day - on SNP Policies

"the SNP strategy fails to impress. The idea that we send a bunch of Scottish MPs to Westminster purely to turn the screw, so that we do better at the expense of other parts of the UK, smacks of the churlish small-mindedness we must avoid."

For today's Scotland on Sunday where they back the Liberal Democrats as a "real vote for change".

On Labour they summarise:

"putting aside the obvious pitfalls of failing to learn the lessons of history, it falls on the matter of trust. Brown has become a tragic figure who can do no right, but even if he is jettisoned by his colleagues, we can no longer trust Labour to govern."

Of the Tories

"For them there is also the matter of trust: do we trust David Cameron in his message that the party has changed and left behind its more divisive social attitudes*; or do we suspect that underneath it remains the same old Tory party? And then there is the practical issue of a vote in Scotland: how many seats are the Tories actually able to win here?"

Speaking of the Lib Dems they say:

"Make no mistake that this time around a vote for the Liberal Democrats is not a protest vote, one that can be cast casually because it will have little impact on the eventual outcome, but is a vote that could have extremely far-reaching consequences. It could increase the chances of a hung parliament, and there have been dire warnings about what that would mean for the economy. But those warnings have been exposed as barely credible.

"The highly respected Institute for Fiscal Studies, in its analysis of the parties' financial plans, said the Lib Dems had the smallest black hole of the main three in their funding schemes, and that there were no hidden tax rises on top.

"Another consequence of a vote for the Lib Dems is the potential for bringing in the greatest constitutional reform this country has seen in a century."

* Check out here or here to see what some selected Tory candidates social attitudes have been fond to be.

Hung Parliament Won't of Itself Affect UK Financial Position

You've heard the Tory scare stories:

• A hung parliament will lead to us calling in the IMF
• A hung parliament will lead to the UK losing its triple A credit rating
• A hung parliament will lead to financial insecurity
• A hung parliament leads to Armageddon

Not necessarily so. There are 16 countries with a triple A rating and as the Independent points out 10 of those had coalition governments. Indeed many of the governments that took the toughest action.

Indeed Arnaud Mares, lead UK analyst for Moody's ratings agency, said:

"A hung parliament does not in itself have direct implications for Moody's UK rating. The three main parties broadly agree on the desirability of fiscal consolidation on a scale that, if implemented strictly over the course of the next parliament, would be consistent with the Government maintaining its Moody's AAA rating."

So in the words of David Cameron on Thursday night in the debate "let's end the scaremongering".

Where is the Labservative Substance this Week?

At the weekend both David Cameron and Gordon Brown said more or less the same thing this election is about substance not personality.

This morning Nick Clegg talked about radical reform in our schools, yesterday he talked about banking reform as well as fairness for rural Britain and on Monday he was talking about stimulating the green economy.

Now I may be wrong but all I've heard from the Labservatives is how they are all about change, or that they are the progressives. Unlike Nick they haven't been putting any substance behind those claims all week. Indeed the Labservatives have been talking about negative issues, usually part truths about the Lib Dems all week. Come on Gordon and Dave where is the substance? Or is that lacking because there isn't any real change, progressiveness or radicalism in what you have to offer?