Dear Daily Telegraph: The History of Splitting

The Daily Telegraph today has an article entitled 'The Liberals have a History of Splitting'.

It says that:

"Most Lib Dems chose Charles Kennedy as leader. Most chose Sir Menzies Campbell. Most chose Paddy Ashdown. And most have just chosen Simon Hughes to be the party's deputy leader."

Of course the last part in inaccurate as only the majority of Lib Dem MPs chose Simon as Deputy Leader. But the whole tenant of the argument is that over the last century only the Liberal had a tendency to split or splinter.

It ignores the fact that at the time that the Liberals split before the Nationalist Government the Labour party itself had split with the Independent Labour party opposing mobilisation during the First World War, the anti-war campaigner Ramsey MacDonald resigned as leader and Arthur Anderson took over. The same grouping would disaffiliate itself once more in 1932 under MacDonald. But in 1931 the Labour cabinet itself was split over spending and wage cuts split. It led to MacDonald and his keys allies resigning and setting up the National Government with the support of Tories and Liberals.In 1951 there was a split into the Gatskillite and Bevanite camps over the future direction of socialism.

Of course in 1981 there was a major split that led to the formation of a new party, whose successors would later go on to be in Government, that was of course the SDP. There followed the Militant tendency which led to a further split as some Labour MPs and members went off to the Socialist groups.

Which leads us on Ed Miliband telling us that Nick Clegg is betraying Liberal tradition and that he is actually a Tory. Now if ever there was a Government that had betrayed its own tradition it would be the Labour government of the last 13 years of which Ed was a part of in the later stages. As for betraying the Liberal tradition maybe Ed would like to define exactly what he means by that. There are a number of liberal ideologies all contained within the Liberal Democrats, so we are always coming to compromises on setting out policy and our stall.

He goes as far as calling Nick a Tory. Having read his thoughts on the future of Liberalism in the The Liberal Moment at about this time last year was able to ask questions a matter of hours after finishing reading it. I know he's not a Tory, but his is part of a Government that is largely occupied by Tories, therefore of course there will be more Conservative policies straight out of their manifesto than ours, but there are also a number of compromises on policies where than can be action.

Waking up this morning as I did in Conservative-free* Northern Ireland I don't fell like a Tory because of the coalition. Every upheaval that faces Miliband's party does seem to lead to another split. There are so many socialist parties in some parts of Scotland (esp Glasgow) that they are tripping over each other.

So Ed be careful throwing those stones about, there are dangers as always under the Labour party, just because you are being called the Bennite candidate is no need to go off in a huff.

* And Ulster Unionist at Westminster level.

Whatever Happened to Privacy

Earlier today I was ordering coffee and tea for me and my mum in Bangor when on the screen was scrolling the BBC 24 news about David Laws. One of the things that I picked up from the scrolling was the use of the phrase:

Laws didn't want to disclose his "sexuality"

The inverted commas were what struck most. Ok I will admit there was a story there, but the story of the day has shifted unto one of sexuality and one where private life has been exposed as part of another story because of the link into the original story. Ben Bradshaw the Labour MP said:

why should anyone in Britain today feel ashamed to acknowledge they're gay” y ashamed?

Linda Jack responded with:

More likely fear of losing family - just because it was easy 4 you doesn't mean it is as easy 4 others - maybe you haven't noticed but whether we like it or not homophobia is still alive and well in our enlightened country.

Jonathan Fryer sums it up quite well by saying on Twitter.

Yes, it's tragic that some people have to hide their sexuality, but it's equally tragic when people are forced to parade it

What has happened today is a case of that. If you are in the public eye it is not uncommon for some of your partners not to want to be in that spotlight. Whilst I'm prepared like Ben to wear my sexuality if not on my sleeve at least not hidden away. There are others for whom this has been a reason. I recall what I said about Simon Hughes when he was similarly forcibly exposed.

There may be family reasons with some people, yes even today, that such things are not publicly wanting to be discussed. In David Laws his catholic upbringing may have something to do with that, also the world of the city of London being a "man's world" is not conducive to such openness.

There is also the matter of protecting the privacy of a partner. In my own past there are for a number of reason who would not have been out there standing beside me as part of my very public life. There are all manner of reasons, their own level of coming to terms with their sexuality, their career or job prospects (perceived or real), for some it is the cross political persuasion issue. It's why I usually only refer to partners on this blog by some coded name.

Invasion of privacy of a third party is something that needs to be protected. Yes there was a story to be revealed. Although why now? If the Telegraph had the full un-redacted expenses claims last year the timing of this disclosure as well as the rest of the story that is coming out with it points towards spitefulness to a degree. But I digress, I'm not the one to expose a partner. If they are a public figure and also out then that will be easier for us both to deal with, but that isn't always the case, therefore I do compartmentalise by private life from my public when I have to. In fact isn't that something all of us who aren't Belle de Jour etc do?

The extent of what level of privacy is required depends on the individual concerns and needs of the situation and couple. I wish we live in a world where such things never matter, but look at the Gaily Fail and the Torygraph as examples of MSM who do make an issue of it, or the BBC's use of "sexuality" earlier today, why emphasise it and then expect homosexuals and their partners to expect to be open and treated fairly?

How's This For a Broken Society

One of key things about being an MP is to represent the constituents of your constituency and their issues and concerns with dignity and in confidence. (Of course you may approach a constituent for the right to use their case to get much needed publicity for a particular cause).

One thing you should not do in publish the address details etc. or someone writing to you asking a question that you do not agree with. The Conservative Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Leyton and Wanstead Edwin Northover has however got such details published in the Telegraph.

The question that was asked was one of those campaign cut and paste questions. In the lead up to 2005 I received quite a number of these, and replied to every one, even those that I did not agree with, but with what was the alternative we were offering and why I felt that was better.

If Edwin Northover can fail to respect those he wishes to represent over such a simple matter. Also if James Delingpole who wrote the article considers it stalking for constituents to ask their perspective candidates questions in order to guide their voting intentions he clearly doesn't understand representative democracy. Or maybe doesn't want a difference of opinion to his own.

No question from a concerned voter/constituent should be treated in this way. The fact that the email came from Northover's office means that he and his team are not worthy of the public support they seek (It also asks questions about the training of candidates and staff that the Conservatives carry out). The poor constituent now has those who disagree with his views posting his personal details on line, so from a enquiry being deemed as 'stalking' the shoe now is on the foot and harassment is being carried out.

So much for caring conservatism.

A One-man Band that's Playing Out of Tune

I'd never thought I'd see that judgement of David Cameron this far out from election day. I most certainly didn't expect to see it in the Torygraph after 13 years of Labour rule.

However, that is just what Simon Heffer has written in the Telegraph. Dave fired the starting pistol 3 weeks ago in Woodstock and he may as well have been Woodstock from the Peanuts cartoons as far as Heffer is concerned. Comments such as:

"Word is coming back that the poster campaign of an airbrushed, tieless, presidential Mr Cameron has not been quite the success the party's advertising agency had imagined it would be."

and

"Such an attitude suggests that Mr Cameron is himself a safe pair of hands, but that is not the case, and that has been a small part of the reason for the change of climate. His blunder a fortnight ago over the taxation of married couples continues to resonate."

Strike at the leader himself. But he is announcing everything himself Health, Education, we'll half expect him to be marrying any heterosexual couples he can find personally next, before reaching for George's cheque book (while he still can) to give them their allowance as a gift on the big day.

But as the Telegraph points out the Labour coup showed one thing (eventually) strength in depth. It is also something that the Lib Dems have been good on in recent years it isn't all Nick but Vince is the most trusted Tresuary Spokesman on any front bench, Chris Huhne, Simon Hughes, Norman Baker, etc are all hitting back hardballs and there are many, many more. But as the article point out:

"Were a wave of adversity to crash against the bows of its own vessel, what use would some of the hands be who might come on deck? Strength in depth is not something the [Tory] party obviously has."

It then list them:

• George Osborne - scared of him putting a foot wrong his deputy Philip Hammond deals with more intelligent media and arguing the case.
• Philip Hammond - clever but no crowd-pleaser.
• William Hague - crowd please yes, but bored with the parts of his Foreign policy brief that doesn't include the USA.
• Michael Gove - a top flight performed but landed with the policies of elitism from Cameron that he must find hard to be sincere with.
• Ken Clarke - experienced but rarely hitting the airwaves for fear of raking the ghosts of Toryism past.
• Which woman will spark the imagination Theresa May? Caroline Spelman? Theresa Villiers?

Also Heffer doesn't expect Cameronism to follow Reaganism or Thatcherism into the dictionary as a right wing philosophy. He points out:

"We know two things that he stands for, because his poster tells us. He stands for cutting the deficit; and for not cutting the NHS. Never mind that these two policies appear contradictory: the NHS accounts for about a seventh of total public spending, and therefore cutting the public sector without cutting that particular part is going to take a certain amount of prestidigitation.

"He has also let it be known that he stands for various things that either matter not a jot to many natural Conservative voters, or are way down their list of priorities, or to which they are viscerally opposed: such as spending large amounts of scarce public money on overseas aid, continuing to belong to the European Union, and regarding grammar schools as an embarrassment. None of this yet appears to be an election-winning cocktail."

So maybe I should stop calling the Telegraph the Torygraph. It appears that not even they are enamoured by the thought of Dave as Prime Minister. If even Lord Tebbit one of the most loyal of Thatcherites can say:

"I hate to say it, but only one party leader seems to have grasped that, if you construct a system where unskilled people are worse off by taking a job than by staying on welfare, they remain trapped in poverty - and that is Nick Clegg."

Things are not looking rosey for the Anthill Notting Hill Mob.

Livingston FC: What the Papers are Saying

I was flicking through the sport's pages this morning to see what the papers say about the imminent liquidation of Livingston.

The Grauniad fail when they say:

'Presumably the number of people reading this column who care, or even know about, the probable demise of Livingston FC can be counted on the fingers of an oven glove.'

Personally I find such presumptions about Scots first and Livingston fans secondly a disgrace. An oven glove has one finger. Other than myself I can think of several other readers of that paper in the support. I may have to confine them to the level of the unmentionable red top.

The Daily Telegraph mention that this is the fourth Scottish Team to go out of business in 7 years, Livingston, Gretna, Clydebank and Airdrieonians. Though on a minor technicality Clydebank's position basically survived when the outfit moved to Airdrie.

The Scotsman has been matter of factly updating its story since early yesterday morning and says the fate lies in the SFL meeting this morning. But as the Daily Mail reports that would require a change in the SFLs rules over insolvency. Basically as Massone's company still technically owns the club as registered with the SFL which he is not prepared to give up voluntarily they may severe those links and offer Neil Rankine and Gordon McDougall, waiting in the wings with a joint rescue bid, the rights to the identity.

The small hope is rule 76 which says:

"Any club who goes in for an insolvency procedure are in breach of SFL rules. The committee then have full power to deal with it as it thinks fit."

The Herald reports that though the deadline for Massone to hand over his shares to McGruther acting for the Administrators to hand over his shares yesterday, is willing to wait until he walks into the meeting at Hampden this afternoon at 2pm for a change of heart. But he will need the shares in his hand and the interested parties by his side or else all looks doomed.

The unmentionable paper do publish a plea from Chris Innes* the team captain to the SFL to give a stay of execution. He of course went through this all last summer with Gretna.

All in all not a pleasant mornings reading, with only the thinnest glimmer of hope. Angelo you have seen only a small part of how upset the community is as many of us had to be at work yesterday. You appear to be the only person left who thinks you are able to save this club by holding unto your shares. Wake up! Smell the espresso and do the right thing.

*Hey after yesterday's horrible headline they gave a decent story today. But I still remember Hillsborough.

Master of the House?

I'd just like to draw your attention to this brilliant casting of 'One More Day' from Les Miserables by Political Dissuasion.

Footnote: I would have tagged more of the cast list but Blogger wouldn't let me, look for yourself.

Scotsman Backs Down

Earlier today the Scotsman's David Maddox posted on the Steamie the paper's blog an article which included unfounded allegations about Jo Swinson's expenses. Indeed this was the same day that the Grauniad had to apologise for printing those falsehoods.

Caron's article alerted me to the latest bit of sloppy and lazy journalism over this whole affair. After correcting the blog a David, possibly Maddox himself, left an apology on Caron's blog stating he had 'checked with the Telegraph who said they had not retracted anything on the original story'. Herein lies the rub, the Telegraph, as James Graham pointed out, are treading a thin line between fact, innuendo, sexism and fiction.

A superficial reading of the article would lead the casual reader to assume that the record of Jo Swinson MP’s expenses claims demonstrate that she had claimed for makeup and dusters. However, a more careful reading reveals the following information:

1 – that although receipts containing those items had been submitted, there is no actual evidence that these specific items had been claimed for. Indeed, this claim is explicitly denied by Jo Swinson herself and no evidence has been brought forward to give us cause to doubt this whatsoever.

2 – furthermore, that in at least one case the items which had been claimed for were clearly marked by an asterisk. In the case of the eyeliner and dusters this was not the case.

3 – the claim that Jo Swinson is "known in Westminster for the attention she pays to her appearance" is entirely unsubstantiated and innuendo-laden. There is nothing remarkable about a Member of Parliament not wishing to look unkempt; indeed they would be open to criticism if they did so.

4 – the headline epithet "makeover queen" is equally unsubstantiated. No-one appears to have called Jo Swinson this apart from the article’s author, Rosa Prince, herself.

5 – the page design is clearly intended to convey the idea that Jo Swinson has had numerous "makeovers" - yet the photographs provided are merely
pictures of her looking slightly different over a period of eight years.

As I pointed out earlier today just because the Tell-lie-graph has exclusive exposure to these expenses claim the fact that many of their points about MPs are merely leading questions, unsubstantiated, unchecked, unresearched, unjournalised if you will. Far from reporting public opinion they are leading it and don't care what half or even untruths they can spread in the telling.

The Tell-lie-graph should carry a health warning at present.

Somethings you read here should be done so with a pinch of salt. Read every word, our lawyers have carefully inserted some so as to keep us legal but to make you miss the meaning. By the way as salt is the root for the word salary we'll be looking for MPs who have mixed up salt and salary with expenses, we're still looking.

It doesn't which is more the point. Look into the facts yourself. Read carefully and look at the reaction and indeed history of your MP's quotes on expenses, transparency etc.

Even the Telegraph appears to be running out of patience

I note that on day 20 of the Daily Telegraph dissecting the MPs expenses that even they appear to have run out of patience. They near the back of the paper have started with the As of every MP that has not yet featured in their own designated article. They are merely printing the ACA or London Allowance it would seem.

Now all of these figures are publicly available on a number of websites however it is the Telegraph trying to cram everyone in over the next few days that is the issue. Today we only get as far as the Cs, but each MP has a little box in which some spurious note which could easily be interpreted in a number of ways is left. It is in depth journalism is merely a comment into some of the expenses claimed. Some of these would appear acceptable under the normal run of events but after 20 days of the incessant reporting in the Telegraph it is likely that the public will not see it that way.

The Telegraph is clearly now on a warpath to print something about each and every Member of Parliament which while I cry out for the claims to be made public the way they are going about it is not neutral. There should be a full detailed listing of expenses claimed by MP's but this should then be commented on by one source nationally as the Telegraph is doing. To be fair it has attacked Tory MPs as as everyone else but none the less its latest venture leaves questions hanging that it seems that time, space and reportage mean they are not going to delve too deeply. Its like they are hanging a tasty morsel around the neck of each MP before throwing them to the hungry lions.

Of course some of the MPs have been open about their expenses for some time even though this has not been required of them. Others have pre-empted the MPs by making their known over recent weeks. There is a need for reform, there is a need for transparency. Although the Telegraph it may be argued has done a service by acting as the catalyst to get the big two parties to toe along behind the Lib Dems to seek reform the time surely has come for them to hand over the wheel to someone that will take the action needed.

Beckford Needs to Retract, Apologise and Resign on Argyll and Bute

I notice this morning after mounting criticism from amateur geographers in Scotland and beyond still list Alan Reid MP for Argyll and Bute on their list of shame with the extract:

Alan Reid claimed more than £1,500 on his parliamentary expenses for staying in
hotels and bed-and-breakfasts near his home.

These were hardly just up the road from Cardross. Nor when taking in the island nature, CalMac timetabling, weather rescheduling at standard of roads in much of the outlying reaches of Argyll and Bute.

There has been growing outrage over MPs making outrageous claims. But not call for Martin Beckford (pictured left) to apologise or dare I say it resign for the inaccuracies and misleadings of his article. I for one think he should and am wondering why none of the letters that I'm sure have been sent along with mine complaining about this have been published in the Telegraph.

Michael Beckford what say you?




Update: A quick bit of research, almost as quick as looking up the Wikipedia constituency map, shows that Martin Beckford is social and religious affairs correspondent for The Daily Telegraph. He's not really a political mover and therefore may have little knowledge of the working of constituency politics.

Therefore I call on Benedict Brogan (right) the Chief Political correspondent on the Telegraph who must have overall editorial control over the revelations over the last week to answer some questions.

1. Did he have final editorial say in what went into the 6 pages per day coverage in the Telegraph?


2. Did he look at each of the articles to see if there was justification to call the MP to account?


3. As he failed to answer last night on BBC's Question Time how exactly did he come to have in his procession what are stolen goods? And has he handed details of his source to the police who are investigating their theft?


4. Does he have nay idea how beautiful, vast and awkward to get to bits of the Argyll and Bute constituency actually are? Or do any of the 25 members of staff he claims on these stories have such knowledge?


5. Why wasn't such knowledge either used or checked before publication?


6. Why is there still no apology, no retraction or no other action over these spurious claims?

The 'Lie' of the Land

Hat Tip to Andrew Reeves

I see that Michael Beckford in complaining about Alan Reid MP for Argyll and Bute expenses for his summer tour around his constituency. Until she was recently made redundant on her return from her maternity leave my ex-fiancee used to work for the company that trained CalMac in their computer systems. She undertook her first tour of islands shortly after getting her job in 2005 and it wasn't cheap. For her to do all the CalMac bases in the west was something like £3-4000, before she claimed for petrol. Also for some of the islands the service (and don't forget she was working on behalf of the company providing the ferries) necessitated she had to stay overnight in one port after an day's training before leaving on the first Ferry out to go to another port for training.

Yes the distances as the crow flies may be less than what is covered by the London underground network. But in many of these cases going outward and onward is more expedient than doubling back. Indeed by booking B&Bs and staying overnight and booking a circular roving route Alan Reid is actually saving the tax payer money rather than booking a whole series of returns to visit the outlying parts and constituents.

I don't mind the Telegraph digging up waste and extravagance, but trying to show a hard working MP serving his constituents in a conscientious way shows a great misunderstanding of the geography, transport difficulties and workings of some of the more rural parts of our country. Indeed it is a ridiculous untruth to put this down as wastage and shows a lack on indepth journalism and merely looking at the headline figures without working out just what they are for.