Do Labour Need a Better Campaign Coordinator?

There is a very good piece by Mark Pack on Liberal Democrat Voice about poor Andy Burnham MP who happens to the be the Labour Party's campaign coordinator.

Burnham has said:

"It would be a recipe for chaos and confusion if Labour candidates were also supporting AV in their literature."

Yet Pack points out that there was no chaos or confusion across London when a referendum called by a Labour government on the same day as other elections.

On the subject of the Alternative Vote and Labour's stance Will Straw on Left Foot Forward is calling for Labour to campaign for the Yes vote. He gives two reasons for this:

Firstly it belies the spirit of Labour’s existing policy at a time when the party is (rightly) criticising others for veering from their previous objectives. Labour’s manifesto said:

"To ensure that every MP is supported by the majority of their constituents voting at each election, we will hold a referendum on introducing the Alternative Vote for elections to the House of Commons."

Also Ed Miliband during his successful leadership bid said "I support AV for the House of Commons and will campaign for it."

Other reasons, he rules out the chaos, confusion and cost element, quite correctly a line of support on literature is not that difficult. 


The opposition from Labour in the commons appears to be nothing more than political sour grapes for finding themselves on the opposite side of the House. It is time to put aside political sniping and get on with the serious business of getting a fairer voting system. 


I look forward to working with the Labour Party in Northern Ireland on getting further votes for Westminster and everyone who believes in this step.
 
Please note this blog is moving to http://stephensliberaljournal.blogspot.com please update your blog roll accordingly.

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"

Six Votes In It: Ed Miliband's Margin of Victory

Because the Labour Leadership election is not down under one member one vote just how close was the final outcome. After all1.3% is a pretty close race. But all the talk of the Unions winning it for younger brother Ed need to be looked at in light of the six people who actually cost it for David.

My friend and once upon a time blogger Mark Thompson has actually done the maths.
With just 1.3% in it David only needed a 0.65% swing so from the smallest electorate making up 33.33% of the electorate that was the MPs and MEPs. Each of their votes counted as 0.1253% overall for the entire election. Five of them comes to just 0.6265% whereas six comes to the magic 0.7518% or but another way 50.1018% of the vote enough to have edged out his younger brother.

The Unions Anoint Ed

Well in the end it really was a nail biting finish. It was down to the fourth round of the ballot that decided the result between the Milibands. In the end it came down to:

MPs 53-47 to David;
Members 54-46 to David;
Unions 60-40 to Ed.

Overall Ed 50.65% David 49.35%

Yes I was doing the maths in my head before the result for David was declared first (how much of a geek am I?) even turning and saying it. I knew before that forty nine came out of the Chair of the NEC's mouth which Miliband brother was next in line. But the split is that he lost out in two of the three colleges. The members and MPs/MEPs were not behind him, but the Unions were.

However, Nick Robinson and Laura Kuenssberg were talking over round two declarations and most of round three to tell us that David Miliband was smiling and Ed was looking tense, before Nick 'declared' the result for David. My friend Helen Duffet posted a tweet 'Ed Miliband wins title of Labour's best pokerface. Watch 'im.'

So in honour of the new Labour leader's performance before the count was declared here's this.

The Grand Old Miliband

The Grand Old Miliband
He sought ten thousand Lib Dems
He wound them up to the top of the hill
But he'll let them down again

You see there is one issue with being so blatent in stealing the disillusioned of another party as Dave Miliband wants to put it. The fact is that such people want the party that they then support to fit around them, rather that standing for what theye believe in, they are like refugees wanding in the wilderness seeing what fits them best.

What is worse is if you are trying to attract them to something that has lost its way in recent years, that many still within do not recognise as being part of them and their beliefs which many in Labour have found in recent times.

It is why I turn back to that Nick Clegg interview in the Independent yesterday. Not the 'headline grabbing' bit, but elsewhere he said:

"So this [conference] is an incredibly important opportunity for those Liberal Democrats who are in government to show people in the party that they retain the same values, instincts and ambitions – that walking through the door of power does not mean you lose your soul."

If you are coming to us because you share our values we still have thos values he does go on:

"If anything, we are doing the most difficult things now, partly because everything is so obscured by the bad, worrying news about deficit reduction. Rather than it getting worse, maybe over time – after very, very difficult decisions on public spending – the wider purpose and vocation of the Government will become more obvious.

"Both for the Lib Dems as a party and for the country, we need to be more explicit about what a radical, reforming government this is going to be. The worst thing would have been to go into government and be an insipid adornment to the establishment way of doing things."

We are going to make change but we do have this mighty cloud and a think fog left over us, because of the way Labour have left us.

David talks about leading a progressive party in opposition. Yet currently Labour are simply just in opposition. Opposing everything even progressive measures they stood on just a few short months ago. I'm glad there are still no fresh ideas from any of the Labour leadership contenders, because without the ideas there will be no long-term retention of the people you attempt to woo. Labour are

The Lib Dems are a party of ideas, ideas that come from the members as well as the leadership, something that Liberal Democrat conference has already shown and will continue to show over the next few days. Ideas which are progressive. Ideas that we would like to see come into the Government, ideas that can make a real change for the better and betterment of people.

There's No Future For...Hang On a Minute...There Is #IAgreeWithNick #IndyFail

This is the front page of the Independent that caused a stooshie around about the time of the 10 o'clock news bulletins and Newsnight. Quite a little bit of mischief was being created from all sorts of quarters. But that isn't the full quote indeed it isn't a direct quote at all. It is a headline truncation of this from an interview Nick Clegg gave:

"There were some people, particularly around the height of the Iraq war, who gave up on the Labour Party and turned to the Liberal Democrats as a sort of left-wing conscience of the Labour Party.

"I totally understand that some of these people are not happy with what the Lib Dems are doing in coalition with the Conservatives. The Lib Dems never were and aren't a receptacle for left-wing dissatisfaction with Labour. There is no future for that; there never was."

Now that does not say no future as a party of the left merely not as a receptacle of dissatisfied members from a party of the left. Which is true. I've always seen myself as a left leaning member of a centrist party, but never as left leaning as the Labour party of my youth. (Younger readers may shocked to learn that once upon a time Labour were a party of the far left in this country, the years BT [before Tony]).

Now I've always described myself as socially liberal with economically liberal tendencies some of my Lib Dem colleagues describe themselves as the reverse. That is neither left nor right over all, but certainly aims to be progressive. Progressive both for business and for individuals. Not hindering one for the benefit of the other as both the Tory and Labour parties tend to do.

That is what being a liberal is all about, however it appears that the front page designed of today's Independent didn't understand that and took their own slant on the quote out of context and changed the meaning entirely.

The result. I still agree with Nick.

Maybe No Dusty Bin but 3-2-1

Earlier today Sally Bercow tweeted this

It got me thinking what would have been the five cryptic clues that Ted Rogers would have read out on the show 3-2-1 for the five Labour Leadership contenders.

For younger readers 3-2-1 was a Saturday evening entertainment/quiz show by Yorkshire Television which had sketches intermingled with cryptic clues for contestants to try and guess what prizes they were. One of the prizes was Dusty Bin for which the contestants actually got a new bin and a small souvenir version.

So here are my set of clues can you tell who is who:

I'm off to the races and that suits me fine
But this two horse race needs a new winner this time.
I'll energetically bring about change
My words once laid out the Scottish range.


I've jumped to the challenge since I was born
But Swedish robes have my reputation torn
Some call me tasteless, but net beware
Our kids are best under two parent care.


I'm no coach potato any day of the week
I'm the first or so my tutor might speak.
Some Finns aren't so white I learnt to my cost
My child will be educated bugger the cost.


My ancestry is an important part of who I am
But I do with education is like American.
Though not with the Tracey's international rescue
Grey matter was the porn writer's 'hey you!'.


JFK was a way to help with my studies
But my family and animals is part of the stories.
It's good to talk but not always while driving
But second homes really ought to be in the West Riding.

I'll give you the answers tomorrow.

UPDATED Human Trafficking: Labour, Lib Dems and the EU Directive

Originally posted at 04:18. Now updated with new information which in my humble opinion makes this vitally important and potentially a coalition deal breaker.

Yesterday on my way to Liberal Drinks in Belfast I read a story that really got me seething, sadly I couldn't get signal on the train or it would already have been written up.

Apparently the coalition government has used its European opt-out not to sign up to a directive that includes a common definition of trafficking which makes it easier to convict people across the 27 member states. Dennis McShane is up in arms about the Government failing to sign up to this directive.

In the European campaign before it got scuppered by the expenses scandal the Lib Dems were quite correction pointing out some of the errors in the EU and some of its strengths including cross-border policing. We especially aimed our attack at the Conservatives who were wanting to scrap many of the protections that the EU gave our citizens under co-operative policing. Therefore if a directive was being ignored, or opted out on by the new Government Lib Dems would rightly be pointing that Dennis McShane has a right to be angry.

However, when I googled to find said directive the only result that came back that matched the remit of the story is this one. It has been open to signature since the 16th of May, so you suggest a new government would be keen to act on it. Unfortunately that particular 16th May is in 2005. Therefore does that mean that the directive has been around for five years? Does that mean the Labour Government, under which Dennis McShane was Europe Minister, failed to sign the directive in a full term of parliament?

Now of course there may well be another directive in 2010 that I have been unable to find. If there is and someone would like to post a link to it in my comments please do and I'll amend the post accordingly. However, it does on the surface, after my initial anger, to be yet another case of the Labour opposition trying to punch holes in the Government ship and ending up merely exposing their own shortcomings.

Update As I asked above any update on a new directive would be welcomed. Well Olga Ivannikova has provided just that. There was a new directive on 29 March 2010.

Therefore I would echo Olga's that we as Liberal Democrats should stand up so that nobody is enslaved in this or any other way. Not kowtow to Eurosceptic Tories who want nothing to do with Europe even when it is for the betterment of humanity.

This for me is a line in the sand which the Lib Dems should not step over. We should sign up to this EU directive. If not we as Liberal Democrats should walk away from the coalition.

Endorsement of the Day

This morning I had a debate with John Prescott on Twitter regarding NHS Direct. I reckon we both fought our respective corners and fought them hard. Figurative punches were being thrown much to my relief. Me pointing out the lack of money to do everything and the rational for looking at what was essential and therefore needed to keep being funded was what was important.

The fact that nurses currently on the NHS Direct lines will be returned to front line duties and actually treating people. At one point John seemed to suggest that NHS Direct nurses in their current number were essential as "It's about the quality of service - the reassurance and knowledge that saves lives." But NHS Direct isn't where lives are saved that is through the diagnosis and treatment by Doctors and Nurse Practitioners in our surgeries and hospital.

Anyway we got to a point where the entrenchment was shifting, John said, "In case you hadn't noticed, YOU'RE the Government now. Enjoy!"

To which I replied "Sadly John I didn't get elected. But yeah I know that. At least this Government has realised there is a fiscal hole unlike you"

That led to this:

While I'd obviously welcome such a ringing endorsement for my debating skills from an ex-Deputy Prime Minister from a former Government. I'm sure I can could on the endorsement of the current Deputy Prime Minister in the current Government and leader of my party Nick Clegg.

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.

Those Charles Kennedy Rumours

Charles Kennedy and Nick Clegg on campaign trail in Glasgow
Your writer is just to the left of shot with other candidates

Yesterday evening as we were travelling the rumours of a Charles Kennedy defection to Labour started to circulate.

Charles Kennedy was one of the early SDP success stories taking the Ross, Cromarty and Skye seat in the 1983 General Election: just after a young Liberal, named Simon Hughes, was elected in a by-election in Bermondsey. Charles is the last incumbent Lib Dem MP who was elected on an SDP ticket and I like the fact that both he and Simon are becoming the spokespeople for the conscience of the party. They are two of the senior members who came from different perspectives to rise to the top.

However, the rumours appear to be either Labour led or some are suggesting from right-wing bloggers to destabilise the coalition. Looking back at that January day in 2006 when Charles resigned the leadership there were no rumours that that was the step he was going to take that morning. I know I was caught up in the media circus being phoned to come to the studio for an interview before the speed of change overtook that. So I don't think he's allow rumours of this kind to get out, he'd make the move and do it.

But I don't think he'd make the move. At his first PMQ deputising for Cameron Nick Clegg reasserted that the party opposite had gone into an illegal war in Iraq. That is the view of the vast majority in our paty, including of course Charles Kennedy. I don't think he'd feel at ease sitting shoulder to shoulder with the Labour members who voted for that war. The same goes for other former Labour members who are now part of the Lib Dems, who I suspect are the "rumoured colleagues" that Charles Kennedy will bring with him.

Life within the Liberal Democrats is often a tightrope of ideological struggle between the various strands of thoughts on issues. Liberal Democrats are used to fighting for their corner and their point of view even with their colleagues. We don't give up that fight easily and after 100 days of coalition government and looking around the blogosphere and see that after initial trepidation the party is starting to speak its heart and mind once again.

That is why I think Charles and Simon and others will act from within the party and not seek to do things from elsewhere. Also there is the comment made earlier this week Nick Clegg:

"If we weren't in a coalition now I don't think people would take any notice of the Liberal Democrats.

"If we were in a coalition with Labour arguably our identity crisis would be even worse."

Also if you are dissatisfied about the way the Government is doing things the easier way to bring about that change is from within that Government rather than from the other side of the House, which currently after 13 years of leadership is merely leading the league in whinging.

If Charles Kennedy is to be a figurehead within the party for the social liberal agenda being heard I'd be more that happy to man the rigging or scrub the decks for that good ship. I'm not, however, for lowering the flag of liberalism to raise a flag of convenience of any hue.

Read also: Not always you see Tom Harris defending Lib Dems, he is often doing just the opposite, but he is defending Charles from some totally unfounded claims.

First Socialism, Now Chartism: Labour's Gravestones

You will of course not see the word (S)socialism in any Labour party manifesto since 1992. Of course this was a result of the removal of Clause 4.

There is another precursor to the Labour party through the labour movement: Chartism. The People's Charter of 1838 laid out 6 principles, in he language and context of parliament of the day they were.

1. A vote for every man twenty-one years of age, of sound mind, and not undergoing punishment for crime.
2. The secret ballot. - To protect the elector in the exercise of his vote.
3. No property qualification for members of Parliament - thus enabling the constituencies to return the man of their choice, be he rich or poor.
4. Payment of members, thus enabling an honest tradesman, working man, or other person, to serve a constituency, when taken from his business to attend to the interests of the Country.
5. Equal Constituencies, securing the same amount of representation for the same number of electors, instead of allowing small constituencies to swamp the votes of large ones.
6. Annual parliaments, thus presenting the most effectual check to bribery and intimidation, since though a constituency might be bought once in seven years (even with the ballot), no purse could buy a constituency (under a system of universal suffrage) in each ensuing twelve-month; and since members, when elected for a year only, would not be able to defy and betray their constituents as now.

Now Jack Straw and Labour's argument against the change in constituency sizes is all to do with point one. As David Miliband has just written for Comment is Free "according to the electoral commission, there are currently more than 3.5 million eligible voters missing from the electoral roll, and there is no way that problem can be significantly tackled in just six months". While it may be true that not a lot can be done about in 6 months one has to ask what had Labour been doing about over the last 13 years. Years indeed that there were boundary reviews.

While Miliband is saying that "the government intends to arbitrarily reduce the size of the commons by 50 seats" this is only a 7.7% reduction. In fact up here in Scotland for the 2005 election we did see a redrawing of the boundaries roughly on equal footing while there a 18.1% reduction of seats from 72 to 59. Miliband is also talking about "the rigidity of the arithmetical formula means that traditional communities are bound to be split up".

Maybe he would care to explain to me and Charles Dundas and the residents of Blackburn how in the recent General election I was seeking to represent the majority of the northern part of Susan Boyle's village, while Charles was seeking to represent a southern segment included the Britain's got talent singer. This was a boundary change carried out under Labour and the Boundary Commission.<

What they are all missing is in point 5. The chartist realised that the only way to have equal constituencies was based on the number of electors. Believe it or not this measure of equality is part of the Labour movement's historic fight. It is part of their history just as it is the Liberal Democrats seeing as the Liberals brought that into effect via the Reform Bills are are attempting to correct it again, now that it has got out of equilibrium.

As for the exceptions of the two island seats in Scotland and 3 most northerly mainland seats. Yes four of them are currently represented by Liberal Democrats but it hasn't always been so. Indeed Orkney and Shetland was for many years the only Liberal seat in Scotland before Jo Grimond had other hard working members to join in in the extreme conditions of those large, remote, scattered, far off (even from Edinburgh never mind Westminster) seats.

Seeing as I've had Labour MPs challenge me on the size of what STV seats would mean even in my area, which would be less than these seats are currently, it seems rather two-faced of Labour to no suggest increasing that acreage.

However, I will agree with Labour on one point, the public consultation must still be maintained for the recommendations. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that the recommendations must come up with seats of equal-ish size. That is something that can be dealt with my amending the proposals rather that scuttling the entire ship though.

PS You didn't hear anyone argue for the 6th and never fulfilled Chartist ambition o annual elections to make sure MPs would "not be able to defy and betray their constituents as now" during the expenses issue. Wonder why?

Labour's 11 Week U-Turn

In the Labour party manifesto for May they had as point one under The next stage of national renewal:

Referenda, held on the same day, for moving to the Alternative Vote for elections to the House of Commons and to a democratic and accountable Second Chamber.

It is there in black and white.

So how do they respond to just such a bill that will be introduced to move to the Alternative Vote for Westminster elections? The shadow cabinet, who bear in mind are largely the cabinet that framed said manifesto, say they will be voting against it.

Jack Straw says that the bill being introduced with a reduction in the number of members, which both Coalition partners stood on, which will require boundary changes is gerrymandering. How on earth Labour can thing equalling out the size of constituencies can be construed as gerrymandering is something I'd already dealt with. Though to summarise to resist equalising the representation for each MP is actually more like gerrymandering to any sane individual.

Mark Harper, the constitutional affairs minister sums up the reaction to Labour's ludicrous assertion by saying:

"All this bluster simply highlights the fact that Labour MPs do not believe in seats of equal size and votes counting equally across the whole of the United Kingdom."

It does look like the inclusion in the manifesto was to try and wean some Lib Dem supporters back to vote Labour and to try and prepare the way for possibly a Lib-Lab pact after the election. Labour failed on both counts when it became obvious that they cannot be trusted in either circumstance. This new turning away from their own manifesto pledge is further proof of that.

Balls Quitting Labour Leadership Race is Well...Just...That

There was speculation over the weekend that once the largest union Unite had given its endorsement to Ed Miliband and not Ed Balls that the latter would step down from the leadership race. He is however being backed by the Communication Workers Union.

On Radio 4s World This Weekend Balls has denied that he is quitting, coming out saying that he was "fighting to the end and I'm fighting to win". He went on to say that he was never a front runner for this race having neither the early organisation of some of his rivals, nor the CLP (Constituency Labour Party) and union endorsements of his rivals.

"My message to local party activists, councillors and union members is this: I am fighting to defend the jobs and front line public services in your local communities.

"I will carry on fighting to stop unfair tax rises and the withdrawal of essential benefits, I will carry on fighting to defeat a coalition hell-bent on cutting public services, putting up VAT, cancelling new schools and turning recovery into a double-dip recession.

"I am fighting to win this leadership contest to continue these campaigns, to give a voice to our communities and constituents and to show that as leader I would be best placed to set out an alternative plan for jobs and social justice for our country."

I'm a wee bit concerned with that middle paragraph and am wondering what he was doing about the unfair tax rises and if not withdrawal the obstructing of people being able to access essential benefits easily under the 13 years of Labour. Also during the election Labour were relying on the first quarter's mediocre growth figures as signs of recovery. The second quarter, 2/3 under the coalition government have show significant strengthening (which could all be down to one month) and less chance of a double dip than there may have been going into May's election.

I'm glad that Balls is not stepping out of the race, just wish he and the other contenders will start to admit they have left the UK economy in a state and stop trying to blame everything on someone else. It isn't becoming of them and the British public won't be taken as fools.

Gerrymander: Would Labour be Best Using the UED?

The Uxbridge English Dictionary as any fans of Radio 4's I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue will attest is the lesser known, but far more interesting sibling to the better known, and some say more authoritarian*, version from up the Thames at Oxford.

However, while consulting the UEB I looked up Gerrymander, here is the entry.

Gerrymander (jr-mndr, gr-)

Preposition Colloquialism Ulster Six Counties Used to indicate the location of the Republican leader as in 'There is Mr Adams over there.'

Of course such use is far more closer to the use that the Labour party seem to be taking to changing the number of MPs. There are saying that the Coalition are going to be gerrymandering seats if they cut the number down by 50 and make the number of electors in each more equal.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines Gerrymandering as:

To divide (a geographic area) into voting districts so as to give unfair advantage to one party in elections.

So say one party could win all the less populous inner city seats and not really make significant inroads into the rural seats with greater number of voters. In the end mathematically allowing them to win a greater number of seats theoretically with a lesser number of votes nationwide. This could well be seen as a case of gerrymandering. Isn't this the situation that Labour are trying to defend? Many of the inner city seats, in Labour heartlands, tend to have smaller electorates. So just who are the gerrymanders.

Of course having 50 fewer MPs will also save costs while the work of Government will carry on as normal. Considering as recently as 1983 we got by with 635 MPs. Indeed without the realignment in Scotland we would currently have 663 MPs which would be the highest number since the Irish Free State was set up.

Less than a 10% reduction especially in light of the expenses scandal and the need to save money seems a sensible measure. Of course the Liberal Democrats often cited by Labour, of all parties, as being a party of big Government actually wanted to get rid of more politicians centrally at Westminster whilst devolving power downwards.

Next week on I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue will Jack Dee be introducing in the anecdote to sane political statement Harriet Harman appear along with Graeme Garden, Tim Brooke-Taylor and Barry Cryer. Just as long as Harman doesn't insist on the lovely Samantha having an equal role and actually saying something for the first time in 38 years.

A little historical note

The word gerrymander comes from the time that Elbridge Gerry was Governor of Massachusetts. In 1812 one of his party in 1812 redrew an election district that looked to be the shape of a salamander. The painter Gilbert Stuart saw it on the wall of a newspaper office and added head, wing and claws to make it look more like the beast. Saying on completion 'That will do for a Salamander!' The Editor retorted back 'Gerrymander!'


* What do some people really know? Tsk!

Messers Ed Talking Balls Over Iraq

Is there a war going on?

Today Ed Balls said in the Telegraph that the war on Iraq was was "wrong" and "a mistake". Going on to say:

"We shouldn't have changed our argument from international law to regime change in a non-transparent way. It was an error for which we as a country paid a heavy price, and for which many people paid with their lives.

"Saddam Hussein was a horrible man, and I am pleased he is no longer running Iraq. But the war was wrong."

Ed Miliband told the Guardian the decision to go to war was taken "led to a catastrophic loss of trust in Labour" adding:

"I was pretty clear at the time that I thought there needs to be more due process here.

"As we all know, the basis for going to war was on the basis of Saddam's threat in terms of weapons of mass destruction and therefore that is why I felt the weapons inspectors should have been given more time to find out whether he had those weapons, and Hans Blix – the head of the UN weapons inspectorate – was saying that he wanted to be given more time. The basis for going to war was the threat that he posed.

"The combination of not giving the weapons inspectors more time, and then the weapons not being found, I think for a lot of people it led to a catastrophic loss of trust for us, and we do need to draw a line under it."

You'd think there was a leadership election on or something. Oh yes there is.

Of course Balls was an advisor for Gordon Brown at the time of the invasion and is going to some lengths to try to distance himself from the decision that was backed by his then boss. Strange then that he also says if he had been an MP at the time he would have voted for the decision based on the evidence provided and at the same time saying:

"It was a mistake. On the information we had, we shouldn't have prosecuted the war."

So on the information he was privy to he said we shouldn't have prosecuted the war yet at the same time says if he'd been elected he would have voted for it. Huh? Is it just me that finds that argument doesn't add up.

Miliband was in the states at the time unlike big brother David but said he had 'some very heated arguments' with Gordon Brown about it but decided it was better to fight for climate change from inside the cabinet. That would be fighting so hard that you couldn't even get the party to make Parliament cut their own carbon emissions by 10% in 2010 as part of the 10:10 initiative that you said you supported in principle, right?

Well as the only two leadership candidates who weren't elected to the House of Commons at the time of the vote to go to war on Iraq these two may have been able to put a line under it. Sadly they failed to do that with their diversionary tactics.

Five Men and a Lady

Diane Abbott has announced she is tostand in the Labour leadership race. At last there is some diversity.

I don't just mean in her race or gender either. Now we have a diversity of views. When John Cruddas announced he wasn't standing I thought we were heading towards a vanilla election not just the white middle-class males, some would say all five looked like brothers rather than just the Milibands, but also in their opinions.

Now all us political wonks know that Diane is more free-flowing with her views on the new Labour project, on the This Week sofa, sipping the Blue Nun proffered by Andrew Neil, she has disagreed with both Blairism and Brownites in the past. She truly is a breathe of fresh air into the Labour leadership contest.

Maybe sitting those weeks in the studio with ex-leader Charles Kennedy and the man who missed his chance for leader courtesy of the voters of Enfield Southgate in 1997 Michael Portillo she knows she is up for the task at hand. As she said launching her campaign:

"The other candidates are all nice and would make good leaders of the Labour Party but they all look the same... We cannot be offering a slate of candidates who all look the same. The Labour Party's much more diverse than that.

"I looked at the field and said 'If not now, when?' And 'If not me, who?'

"It's important that we recapture the civil liberties agenda from the Tories and the Lib Dems.

"It's important that we re-energise the party and bring democracy back to the party.

"We need a proper debate on immigration, where children of immigrants like me also have a voice."

If I were a member I'd probably vote for her. As a member of another party I'd be worried if she actually won. She may well be the person to shake up Labour and give New Labour it's Clause IV boost. Depends how the party is felling about such a shake up. In the words of the classic Goodness Gracious Me Sketch the party may still want the 'blandest thing on the menu' maybe Diane is just too spicy for the Labour Parties tastes.

Polly Toynbee Ain't No Rocket Scientist

I was going to let Polly Toynbee's comment yesterday about Lab-Lib being the only legitimate coalition go until I saw her quote on the front of today's paper*.

"Shimmering on the horizon was the chance for a progressive alliance, a rocket about to take off. Then it crashed to earth."

Now I'll admit I'm no rocket scientist but over 30 years of reading sci-fi and sci-fact gives me a basic understanding of many of the key principles. So lets look at that above statement piece by piece.

On the horizon

You know I'll give her that, this is accurate. The Labour negotiating team remained on the horizon. Their aim was to defend their manifesto. It was like Custer's last stand. They were entrenching trying to defend the indefensible and not give ground. Hence they were on the horizon.

Chance for a progressive alliance

Yeah was a chance for an alliance, yes it would have been widely of progressive thought, but here's the crux. How much of that progressiveness would have been allowed to progress? It was a minority at worst or rainbow mash up at best. There would have been many conflicting agendas to try and get anything done. Yeah while there may have been a possibility of a progressive alliance how much chance did it really have to manoeuvre?

Rocket about to take off

As I said before there was no give from the Labour. The first docking of American and USSR vehicles in space came across a problem, they had different shaped airlocks. There was a solution they worked together to make it compatible. If they didn't then 5 space travellers would have been killed by the vacuum created by the incorrectly linked vessels.

The problem was the same with the Labour and Lib Dem negotiations, however, there was no give from one side. Without compromise to move into brave new politics things would have been wiped out into the vacuum of political space. The Lib Dems had brought down their Scottish coalition negotiating team, it appears that Labour had not. In 1999 and 2003 Labour did know how to work together with others to come to a satisfactory settlement this time they didn't.

They were sticking to their manifesto. It was like turning up at the NASA assembly building with Galilleo's plans for flight and being scoffed at by the NASA engineers when they refused to change things. It wasn't the commander of the mission alone that was the problem, it was his engineers and indeed his crew who had started to debate how to avoid allowing AV from their own manifesto as well.

Crashed to the Earth

Sorry Polly to crash to the earth you have to first take off.

That requires the right fuel, it also requires enough fuel to break gravity and eventually the atmosphere. There wasn't the right fuel it was a volatile mix but not enough to power anything. Also there wasn't enough of it to allow lift-off. Yeah there would have been 313 MPs in Alliance with SDLP and Alliance party 317 but that still isn't enough to provide a stable flight into the future. NASA would have been worried about tiles falling off effecting re-entry with disastrous effects at every step of the journey.

As for Shimmering I think it was lukewarm at best way off getting to the simmering stage whatsoever.

If you want to play the blame game as your article says Polly, you'll have to admit that Labour spent 13 years becoming less progressive by the day and that is what cost them a chance to form a fully progressive alliance. The Lib Dems increased their share of the vote but because of the vagaries of our electoral system ended up with less representation, and Cameron won over most of those who turned up to vote. Simples!

* Yes Murdoch has truly lost my pound a day.

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.

Michael Connarty Being Curt with Non-Labour Voting Constituents #LabourFail #LEF

Strange to think that only last Thursday Michael Connarty was being as nice as pie to the people (well with the possible exception of Tam Smith) representing the votes cast by over half the constituents in Linlithgow and East Falkirk.

A concerned constituent has forwarded an email that was sent to him from Connarty over the issue of forming a coalition. Indeed he was urging him not to form a minority or rainbow coalition. The additions in red are my own corrections and comments.

Strong words Mr X,

Why should the Lib Dems be in any government when their vote fell, to 24% actually Michael this was an increase from 22% That means 76% of those who voted , voted AGAINST them, and their main platform of proportional representation So 24% vote and less that 10% seats is proportional? Also as you heard me debate three times you know there was more that that to our main platform. Indeed in our own coinstituency [sic] their vote FELL from 15% to 12%.Tsk 15.3% to 12.8% and also to your and your agents surprise, well done on that squeeze message over the last two days.

Indeed as an avowed Non Labour voter, do you not think it a bit odd and inappropriate to write to me to 'urge' me to do anything? I thought an MP was elected to represent the people not merely those that voted for him. Even Ian Paisley always represented his Catholic constituents. Would it not be more appropriate to write to the leader of the party for which you did vote to URGE them to do something. Well seeing as the Liberal Democrat representative at the election has been informed I'll leave that up to Michael as to whether I'll be passing the message on or not.

I am a graduate Economist you know that was one line I never used against Michael's constant use of it despite it being true and have been elected to various levels of representation for over 30 years. I am actually quite capable of analysing the situation for myself and assessing what would be best in the interests of the people of Linlithgow and East Falkirk. So in other words people of Linlithgow and East Falkirk if you have a concern it will fall on the deaf ears of your elected representative as he is clearly more than capable of working out all your concerns without hearing from you.

I am certain the Queen* will find it of great interest if you decide to write to her. Rather a smug sign off from someone who is an elected representative of over 30 years.

Michael Connarty MP

So there you have it folks we have elected an MP who argues that he needs two offices so that he can hear from the people he represents and serve them over two local authorities, two health trust, two police boards but he is capable of making up his own mind without hearing from you. Now that is a waste of opportunity. Something I'll be letting the people of Linlithgow and East Falkirk before we meet again, and I think we will, across a ballot paper Michael.

As I've already started answering concerns of the people of Linlithgow and East Falkirk once again it looks like I'm ready to take on the concerns of the local residents and challenge Michael when he continues to fail to meet those expectations. Maybe next time the people who turned to Labour in the dying days away from considering Liberal Democrat won't be so easily swung back.

* Actually seeing as the constituent has military experience and threatened to resign their commission and fight against an unelected Government by peaceful means shows a depth of feeling.