The Queen's Speech - Initial Thoughts

For the last time in this the 15th Parliament of her reign the Queen has delivered the words that her Government's wishes. Well after all the pomp and circumstance has led to the Queen taking her seat on the throne in the House of Lords. When Black Rod entered the Commons though it was surprisingly sparsely populated on the Labour benches.

Frank (Oops*) Dennis Skinner shouted out "Royal Expenses are on the way!" in his traditional role as mischief maker in chief. Then all the Members, including the Lib Dems showing they still respect the authority of the crown just not the the content of this speech, followed the Speaker to the other place. But what did the speech contain once they all stood at the back of the Upper Chamber?

Well the main thrust was the economy but how was that to be done? Fostering growth through education and training. International collaboration for Economic Growth and Climate Change (strangely of course the rejection of bring 10:10 to the House recently grates against that, can't get their own House in order). Though they have mentioned their new buzz cleaner fuel Carbon Capture and Storage, but no mention about utilising other renewables and to there was an announcement to help the poorest households with their energy bills. There is also going to be the legislation laid to bring about a high speed rail link between London and Scotland.

Regulation of the financial service industry to be brought in over the governance and benefits that the banking sector currently enjoys. So Gordon Brown is going to sort out the mess of the regulation of the financial sector that he brought in as Chancellor. There was also the vague promise to bring lgislation forward to half the deficit. Wow! That will be a lot to achieve in 70 days, and it is also very wishy washy, it is hardly a line that can be thrown away, yet the speech component of this would be able to fit into a Tweet.

Free personal care, but only to those in highest need. Parents to take responsibility of children's anti-social behaviour, so an even greater tightening of civil liberty you may not be judged by the sins of your fathers but those of your children. This from the Government that wants everybody to work full time, encouraging people off benefits with a stick, so parental supervision is going to be harder to achieve in some cases. 'Continue' to narrow the gap between rich and poor, equality of pay between men and women. Neither of these two have been effective attacked in 12 years of a Labour government surprisingly and now in their dying breathe they want to resolve the issues they have ignored or on occasions made worse over the last 3 parliaments. But there is to be movement on temporary agency workers, something that I've seen first hand for the last 8 years or so and needs greater protection, long overdue.

Constitutional reform, will continue to be brought forward, a democratic mandate for the Lords. Sadly there appeared to be very little in this section of reforming Parliament, not enough to please the people. Though Parliament will work with the Northern Irish to continue the devolution of Police and Law and Order, the one outstanding devolution from the Agreement from the start of Blair's years. There is also a promise of more powers to Wales and a continuation of working with Scotland, I didn't hear anything to implement any of the Calman proposals so Labour are dropping the ball on Scotland, and the Tories are unlikely to pick it up if they take power.

However, how this Government can work towards a world without nuclear weapons while being committed to replacing Trident is something we all want to know. But they are to bring an end to cluster munitions, after 12 years they have finally got around to tyring to deal with one Princess Diana's legacies and do away with landmines.

There is a lot of noble talk but there are some things that are too big to have been left to the end, the Equality Bill for example surely should have been a first term commitment rather than a rump achievement. They are taking steps towards the Lib Dem policy of free personal care. There was some mention of education as well, so the mantra from the pre-1997 election of "Education, Education, Education" is still looking for a resolution over 12 years later, surely some sort of failure of their Prime objective. Lord's Reform is still a draft bill, nothing about fair votes, getting big money out of politics, stuff that could have given a clean bill to the next parliament but no steps in that direction.

These are purely my initial thoughts of what struck me from what was said, as it was being said. I may look at the full text later and pick up some other things.

*May have something to do with the watching the repeat of BBC Children in Need's Frank Skinner narrated Round the World in 80 Days just before sleep last night.

New Edict from Non-Scientific Home Office

Memo from the Home Office:

From the Inquisition Chamber,
Home Office,
Whitehall,
SW1

Effective Immediately.

We have listened to scientific advise, and after a review decided that we know best after all, therefore in the this the year of our Lord Mandelson 2 we declare:

• The earth is flat and all globes shall be taken from schools and places of learning forthwith and beaten into a level playing field (Minster of Sport to be consulted about availability of these)
• This earth is at the centre of the Universe, the sun, planets and stars revolve around us. Anyone caught mentioning Galileo is to be rowed to the edge of the world and thrown off.
• If any ape suggests we are their decedent we say shoot them. Apparently those Gorillas have been saying that most loudly, shouldn't take too long for the SAS to get rid of the remaining ones. (However, send them by boat, man wasn't meant to fly, that is just unnatural)
  
• Penicillin is just mould and we will commission Kim and Aggie to look into its effective removal.
• This going to a switch in the wall and things coming on is witchcraft. We will take all 'electrical' engineers to the nearest lake and test them for witchery by means of ordeal by water. Any floaters, we expect the majority, will be burnt at the stake.
• Vehicles that move without visible means or forward momentum are also beyond our reasoning. We will announce an amnesty for those that use such contraptions to trade them in for 2 horses so as they can pull their carts.
• Mead, beer and the smoking of the noble weed brought back from the edge of the world by Sir Walter Rayleigh are honourable pastimes and the later does not affect innocent by standers. Anyone who suggests otherwise is clearly Nutts.
• We are not too sure about the lumpy, round, root crop he also brought back and we think there is still some need for scientific research. We have asked Colonel Sanders and Ronald McDonald to get all the goodness out of this item.

Signed Alan Johnson

Lord High Inquisitor

It's not the Champagne that is the Story

I agree with Mark who reckoned this morning that the fact that David Cameron had a full champagne flute in his hand last night at a Spectator fringe event was largely a non-story. At least I agree that supping the champagne in itself is a non-story, I trust it was a decent example of the vintner's art.

What made the whole thing a story is that the Tories have been trying, and failing, to control the media agenda at this, which for them, is a crunch conference.It is the conference before a General Election and as a party looking to take over the UK the Conservatives want to get their message across. Yet they are trying to do just what Labour did in the run up to 1997 and thereafter control the beast that is the fourth estate.

A flute of champagne at a Conservative Party Conference would never have been a front page headline and full page story apart from the fact that Eric Pickles had ordered, yes the Tories can be authoritarian too, all the front bench spokespeople not to be seen with champagne. The Alistair Campbell impersonation that the Tory media machine is attempting is where the story actually lies.However, that media machine is failing whole heartedly. Last night on Channel Four news the Tory Conference story was Ben Summerskill, director of Stonewall not turning up at the LGBTory Conference Pride event, it was backed up by Stephen Fry being interviewed about the open letter that was sent. The morning the papers ran with the champagne storied and Europe continues to hang like the sword of Damocles over the whole shebang. We've all seen the panels on Newsnight in which the PPCs are even not allowed to say 'anything' when the Europe question is posed, how different from the Lib Dems at Bournemouth.

Even when it comes to policy they are seen as stealing and then not too well. Millennium Elephant points out the plagarism of a poor student that Osborne has perpetrated to fill the void of a lack of substantive Economic ideas that his party had before the crunch started to bite. Like any mediocre student he went to the library and looked up what the master had written, taken some key points out of it, tried to pass it off as his own work, but fell short as the whole thing doesn't fit right together. The comments in the side when Osborne receives his work back would probably say 'you have grasped some of the key principles but failed to understand the mechanics behind them to create a coherent, comprehensive answer'.

As Millennium wrote:

"At the Liberal Democrat conference, just a fortnight ago, we were having debates and arguments and even out-and-out scraps about which of our MANY well-established, long-standing, democratically approved, POPULAR policies we could STILL AFFORD to place front and centre in a manifesto.

"It was PAINFUL. It was DIFFICULT. It was what REAL "tough choices" actually looks like.

"The Conservatories, by contrast, have NOTHING.

"There are NO policies that they have had to say "we can't do that"; there were NO polices there in the first place."

So while the age of spin spins inexplicably out of control under the Conservative masters the lesson learnt from that flute is that the media is an uncontrollable as the bubbles in the glass. They will always be there ready for the fresh excitement of being unleashed. While you think you have control as you hold the glass however, the bubbles themselves will do whatever they want.

VotertragedyapproachesGordonisatrocious*

I guess I'm on a song lyric re-writing burst myself. One wonders what Gordon Brown would come out with if faced with the threat of a Jeremy Paxman interview on Newsnight. After all the blogopshere has already taken Brown to town. Would a nervy Prime Minister see the menace in Paxo's eyes and fess up? Maybe: though probably not as musically as the Sherman brothers' lyrics to Mary Poppins which I've rehashed below though.

PAXMAN

So Prime Minister your speech went down well in the hall but the Sun are saying you’ve lost it. Have you really lost all ambition and hope of forming the next Government.

BROWN

No Jeremy
No Jeremy
That’s not what I see!
Because I’m as plucky
As plucky can be

So Jeremy
So Jeremy
What you say isn’t true!
The people will decide
It’s not up to you
And the Sun is remiss
If they think so too

PAXMAN

Now in Mori’s opinion poll
You’ve been stung
It shows that Labour’s
On the bottommost rung

BROWN

Though Prescott spends time
Dreamin’ of chaps he could choke
In the next Parliament
It’s the people who vote

Now Jeremy
Now Jeremy
Can we talk policy!
It’s how we can win
And winners be

PAXMAN

Your policy
From what I see
Aren’t really that new!
You’ve made some often
But not seen them through
As for teenage mums
It’s workhouse renewed

BROWN

Ah Jeremy
Err Jeremy
Ask the BNP!
It’s their policy
We nicked it you see

So Jeremy
Oh Jeremy
Voting change too!
Lib Dems will love us
When that we review
We'll give them AV
Yes that's what we'll do.

But Jeremy
Lord ‘reditry
‘istr’y they’ll be!
When people place their vote
For Labour and me

No where is there
A more 'appier crew
Than them wot sings
"The Red Flag, me,
Labour new!"
But you've shown Jeremy
Our policy
Is see through!

Lyrics Stephen Glenn
Music Richard M. Sherman and Robert B. Sherman

*Working out the title maybe I chose the wrong song, or maybe I'm just still being inspired.

Rachel Sylvester: Fail

Rachel Sylvester's column in today's Times really wound me up as I walked from the bus stop to work. First her headline drew me in then wound me up as she quoted Oliver James, but more on that later.



What really got me exacerbated was her daring to comment on politics when she clearly has no idea of opposition "parties" (yes plural) or at least of the English language. She says:

"At the very moment when leadership is required to deal with the economic downturn, politicians of all parties are frozen in the headlights of the recession. The Government is now the majority shareholder of several banks but seems to have no control over the bankers.The opposition parties are quick to criticise Labour's decisions but find it hard to say what they would do instead.

"The political elite has been neutered by the collective failure to predict and prevent the credit crunch and their apparent powerlessness to reverse it now."

Scathing comments if they were 100% true. She mentions parties, Rachel that is the plural of party yet you only mention the Tories as an opposition party. The reason that this really grates is that one party did predict what might happen, did call for measures to be tightened to prevent the banks having carte blanche and are now suggesting what to do different to get out of it. Yes, folks surprise, surprise the MSM, or at least Ms Sylvester, have overlooked the Liberal Democrats.



Strange then that she should have used Oliver James's quote about Tweeters:

"Twittering stems from a lack of identity. It's a constant update of who you are, what you are, where you are. Nobody would Twitter if they had a strong sense of identity."

Strange that as Ms Sylvester calls for a party to have a sense of a identity, by her own definition it would seem, had over 1000 uses of the #ldconf hashtag over their conference weekend. Top trended during the leaders speech as well as souring when Howard Dean was speaking. I think that overturns both what Ms Sylvester tried to propagate and disproves what Oliver James has said.



We're Liberal Democrats, we have an identity, and we're going to speak, Tweet, blog and make a fuss about it because it will make a difference.

Lynne Featherstone MP agrees.
Footnote: Proof positive that she doesn't get Twitter she says Nick Clegg Tweets but has fallen for the unofficial Nick as it even says in the profile.

SNP in Coalition? Brave New World Required

I see that Jeff is yet again displaying his love for the Lib Dems on his sleeve by referring to Jason Allardyce from today's Sunday Times.

Of course Jeff focused on the comments that were nice to the SNP and somehow missed out this:

"Many of us would be happy if we could deal with the SNP. Labour is now so contaminated that a deal with them looks impossible."

It is the contamination of the Labour Party that is the key. Back in 1999 there was a sense that Labour could move things forward and in 2003 with them weakened and the Lib Dems position strengthened we were able to get more policy across than four years earlier. However, the Labour party may have been the ones to bring in devolution to the UK Scotland and to a lesser extent Wales and Northern Ireland but they have since stalled in their commitment to that end.

There is room for a stronger Scottish Parliament and next weekends Scottish Liberal Democrat Conference will be discussing some key policies to make that so. So while Jeff, like Jason Allardyce, points out the current opinion polls, I'm looking to the future and the policies that the Lib Dems are discussing. Those from Harrogate and for Perth next week fill me with hope that we won't get splattered in the polls either at the next General Election of Scottish.

Nick Clegg said in his conference speech earlier today:

"So when, in the coming months, we offer people practical help. It will not just be sticking plaster solutions - it will be part of a new, better approach. That's what makes us different from the others.

"All parties make promises. You'll get a policy from each about job security; about repossessions; about help with bills. The real question is will they be policies to patch up the old order, or policies to build a new one?

"You know where the Liberal Democrats will stand. We will not promise just to rebuild what we had before. We will promise to build it anew, and build it better."

That is a bold new message. At a time when Labour and the Conservatives are unable to think outside the box, either because of the restraints of the unions or business, or because they are limited in what they can comprehend. The Nats also have shied away from boldness but only because they want to do it one way and seem incapable of seeking the aid of others constructively.

With our economy in ruins, our politicians at a new low (if that were possible), now is the time to make bold steps to restore confidence, in our banks, in our economy, in our politicians.

As Nick went on to say the current state that we find ourselves in "opens the door to a genuinely new way of doing things." He concluding by summing up the hotch potch of fixes from left and right saying:

"You have everything to gain because we will do things differently. A never-ending cycle of red-blue, blue-red government has got us into this mess - it is never going to get us out. Try something new.

"Now is the time to think big. If you want better, choose different. Choose the Liberal Democrats."

So with the failing of the old guard with the old style there is room for a major rethink. If it ain't broke don't fix it, but if it is? Now is the time for boldness. Labour have lacked it, the Tories have nothing to add, the Nats speak in boldness yet fail to act.

Now all we have to do is get the message across

Did you Hear the One About the SNP Making a Promise?

It would sound like the start of a comedian heading towards a punchline if it weren't about another SNP failure to deliver an election pledge. In their manifesto in 2007 they pledged to reduce class sizes to 18 for P1-3 by 2011.

Now West Lothian's progress, though welcome, does not a whole country make. Just look at the shocking progress in Dundee where progress has actually gone backwards in 2008. I heard on the BBC News earlier that on current rates of progress it would take 18 years 80 (EIGHTY) years* (87 years according to the Scotsman) to reach the Government pledge. So that would only be 16 years late then and any currently born child would be at, or contemplating, university should they have chosen that path.

One of the hindrances to real progress being made has been the lack on investment by the SNP government over the last 18 months. This has led to some councils cutting teaching staff or assistants to meet their budgetary expectations. That doesn't even take into account the moratorium that many have faced on capital spending on new schools to provide the space capability to me even to dream of such a target.

*Apparently I misheard the news earlier. Thanks to Bernard Salmon for the correction.

We Will Look to Spend Better

In response to the pledge to cut taxes and redistribute spending to priority issues today marked another step along that path. Cable said earlier today that he and Jeremy Browne would be carrying out a thorough and painstaking review of all central government spending. The end target is to highlight £20bn of public expenditure that can be reallocated to places it is needed more and better spent.

The first of those priorities was also focused on today education.

From providing 20 hours of free quality care and nursery education for every child from 18 months. To infant classes no larger than 15 pupils on to scraping tuition fees for for first Higher Education degree qualifications whatever level those qualifications are.

Some of the other parties have been ridiculing us that we don't know where the spending can be made. Well we have started the search. In six months will they be quite as cock a hoop. Indeed before the mockers flock there is a full costing of what this first trance will cost, and ideas of where it could come from already.

While these policies only apply to England you can be assured the the principle will be taken on a raised in Scotland by the Scottish Liberal Democrats led by Tavish Scott and Jeremy Purvis for the education advancement here in Scotland. Adjusted to what has already been achieved since devolution and just as in 2005 we here in Scotland had to have a radically different manifesto to other parts of the UK as much of the core then had already been achieved or was in progress here North of the border.

Clegg Wants to Break Through the Cosy Cabal

"This is the route out of recession. But the other parties will not
deliver it. Liberal Democrats – and Liberal Democrats alone – can
truly change Britain for the better.

"Together, I know we can make it happen."

Is how Nick Clegg finished his speech opening the One Day Policy Conference at the LSE about Progressive Society. He accused Labour and the Conservatives of forming a cosy political cabal sucking the life out of politics.

"Both parties' dependence on special interests, their centralising,
micro-managing ways, that ignore the needs of ordinary people and local
communities, that’s what’s sucked the life out of our politics.

"The two old parties have been running Britain, turn and turn about, making
the same mistakes, for longer than most people can remember. A cosy cabal,
not wanting to change too much. Happy enough with the status quo because
they know they’ll get their foot in the door of a ministerial limousine sooner
or later.

"Labour and the Conservatives – the old parties – are
incapable of real change."

He went out to outline areas of real and radical change in taxation, investment in a stable, green economy fit for or children. About not "clobbering" future generations with debt due to our inability to do anything or the right thing to shorten and limit he effects of the recession. About carrying out a spending review to make sure that what is spent is spent well. Looking at investing wisely in areas such as childcare and education.

Both Labour in Westminster and the SNP in Holyrood have argued that our tax cuts and spending plans do not add up, but have they really looked at what we are saying. We are saying that a review will show up the waste and enable us to spend better. Look at some of the things that Government does spend money on, not necessarily bad things, but not necessarily the best use of money. Nick says:

"It's the duty of a responsible party and a responsible government to squeeze
everything it can out of every penny of tax. This is not "government money"
– it’s people's money, money they worked long and hard to earn. We should
take it away in taxes only when we’re certain we’ll spend it well."

Yes we are facing tough times financially but just as the people are finding ways to get the most out of what disposable income they have remaining, so the government should and ought do likewise. Yes we need to invest, but invest it wisely and make changes that will make it easier for people to able to cope, after all politicians are the people's representatives. The Nats in Scotland have announced less than 1% change on what their spending review said in 2007. The Tories likewise are staring in the headlights like a rabbit with their do nothingness. Or Labour with their "pinprick" VAT reduction which has had no effect.

Labour and the Tories, Nick argues will never make a big change like this. They’re far too timid, too stuck in the old ways.

I see that Tom Harris isn't too impressed quelle surprise no change there then.

The Tale of Two Debates

Both the student wings of the SNP and Liberal Democrats in under a week had their say in the SNP government's decision to raise the age of off-sales to over 21s. The SNPs youth tabled an ammendment to their parties motion while Liberal Youth Scotland proposed the motion that had an ammendment of additions from the Policy Committee.

As reported in the press over the weekend Friday's debate by the Nats changed from being about the policy to "one of delegate loyalty to the leadership". The Lib Dem debate meanwhile had stuck to the liberalism or rather ill-liberalism of several of the SNP proposals, the stigmatism of 18-21 year olds as well as separate supermarket queues.

It was hardly surprising that when loyalty became an added issue to the debate in Perth on Friday that the Scottish Youth for Independence amendment was defeated 191-130, whereas when only the policy was as stake in Edinburgh at the Lib Dems conference on the Saturday the amendment had a few more objectors but the motion was carried almost unanimously.

The Times may well have congratulated the SNP for allowing the youth wings amendment to be debated by the party hierarchy but when using Shona Robinson carried out the subtle change for the substance of the motion to confidence in the leadership was it really given a fair run?

Well the Vote is to Make it Happen

The big debate for the vision and direction of the party has just been passed, unamended down in Bournemouth, there was excellent coverage of the debate for and against (if slightly biased IMHO) by Stephen Tall over here at Lib Dem Voice.

While as Brian Taylor said there was a rather mixed response from the floor at conference the fact the tax cuts have been passed at conference means that the party will now be promising a radical agenda for social justice whenever the General Election comes along. We're trusting the people to do what is right with more of their money, you can't be more liberal than that. I know that the party will still ensure there is sufficient provision for those unable to earn an income for whatever reason. Those supporting the cuts (many of them big hitters in the cabinet) have said that this is only part of our social justice agenda going forward.

So the Lib Dems look set to deliver a fairer tax system, lifting more people out of poverty than Gordon Brown knows about (at least the ones he keeps claiming to be helping). If we can deliver this plus social justice we really will have the radical edge in UK politics.

When is a Rebellion Not a Rebellion?

The Independent has the headline this morning Clegg faces grassroots rebellion over his £20bn tax cutting plan.

Now I'm assuming that the Indy is using the word in linmes with the following definition:

"organized opposition to authority; a conflict in which one faction tries to
wrest control from another"

As opposed to the sense of:

"organized opposition to a government or other authority involving the use of
violence"

As I don't expect my fellow Lib Dems to be brandishing pick axes, sickles or pitchforks as they apporach the platform later this afternoon. Although such activity may well shift the coverage off BBC Parliament and unto BBC1 or BBC2.

Indeed as Paul Holmes MP points out in his article in Lib Dem Voice at the end of last week.

"It would appear that Liberal Democrat policy has changed to one of cutting
public expenditure to fund tax cuts rather than switching wasteful or less
desirable New Labour expenditure to fund needed investment in accord with
Liberal Democrat policies. "

So indeed rather than being a rebellion it is a case of sticking to what has gone before that may be what may happen in Bournemouth later. It is as Paul also puts it the vagueness that is the issue the as "yet unidentified spending cuts in order to fund as yet unspecified tax cuts".

So should the amendment from Paul, Evan Harris et al pass it is not rebellion but clarification. Indeed if anything it can't be a rebellion as the authority on setting policy within our party is the democracy of conference which has yet to say one way or the other which way we are going on this policy paper laid before them by the policy committee.

Lipstick on a Pig: The Porcine of the Species

Well neither Barak Obama nor John McCain were first to coin the phrase "putting lipstick on a pig" though both have used it it was first cited in the online Urban Dictionary as far back as August 10, 2004; when it was defined as:

A term used by many, generally in reference to someone who may be trying to make something or someone look appealing or attractive when it quite clearly will not work, or will only deceive the dumbest of people.

Although Time magazine ran a story ran a story on the history of the phrase and it first sprung from funding for an American football stadium in 1985.

"One of the oldest published quotes using the entire phrase appeared in
The Washington Post in November 1985. Asked by the San Francisco Board of
Supervisors to put his station's $20,000 fundraiser earnings toward the
renovation of Candlestick Park, KNBR personality Ron Lyons scoffed, "That would
be like putting lipstick on a pig."

Well there's no doubt this idiom survived the collision of two words and thoughts to conjure up a phrase that has a specific use and parlance. This evolution of language has seen the word survive and be fit to be used by both candidates during this election cycle. So why the brouhaha over it's use? Has it really become a term of sexist abuse as the latest attack ads on US TV would have us believe? Lets look into the context of how both Senator's use the phrase.

The first use was by the Senator from Arizona not as they may have you believe by the one from Illinois. It was actually made in the context of a female opponent. As CNN reports it was John McCain who first used the phrase:

In Iowa last October, McCain drew comparisons between Hillary Clinton's current
health care plan and the one she championed in 1993: "I think they put some
lipstick on the pig, but it's still a pig." He used roughly the same line in
May, after effectively claiming the Republican nomination.

Now look at the alleged sexist use of the phrase by Barak Obama on Monday in Virginia.

"John McCain says he's about change too, and so I guess his whole angle is,
'Watch out George Bush -- except for economic policy, health care policy, tax
policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics -- we're
really going to shake things up in Washington.'

"That's not change. That's just calling something the same thing something
different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. You
know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it's still
going to stink after eight years. We've had enough of the same old thing."

Now maybe McCain spokesman Brian Rogers can tell me what he thinks is the "big difference" between the two references. He says:

"McCain was referring to a policy proposal. Obama was referring to [Alaska]
Gov. Sarah Palin. It's obviously disrespectful and offensive.

"Who has been talking about lipstick lately? It was obvious. The crowd
went crazy because of it."

Erm well lets take a careful look at those two paragraphs of text from Barak. He starts by stating he is talking about McCain, about his lining up with Bushes policy in Washington. Now as Sarah Palin who actually described herself (and all hockey moms) as a pitbull with lipstick, loves to remind us she isn't one of the Washington set. So clearly she cannot be lining up change in line with those policies i.e. putting lipstick on a pig.

He carries on after the first analogy with a second about fish in paper still stinking after 8 years again a reference to the Bush policies that McCain has supported. The context is complete on either side of the edit that is doing the rounds in republican circles and on the airwaves in the States. Fortunately as the Huffington Post points out many in the media are not so easily fooled or deceived like the dumbest people.

No where in what Obama said does he refer to, nor hint at, Governor Palin. Of course McCain only started talking about "change" after the Democratic candidates in the primaries got mileage from it. Surely instead of a sexism charge which has no foundation in truth a trades description violation should be levelled at the McCain camp.

One senator used the phrase "putting lipstick on a pig" in relation to a female opponent. But the female opponent in question Hillary Rodham Clinton didn't take offence at it, nor use it to turn the tables on the man who said it, because Hillary is more of a man about it that McCain, Brian Rogers or his campaign team are.

You Better Knock, Knock, Knock on Doors

On Monday Ideas of Civilisation posted an interesting piece on his blog called "Should politicians have to contact voters?". It caused a little bit of debate in the comments thread of which I partook. Well yesterday I noticed this challenge issued by Nick Clegg which takes up just that point.

Nick points out as with IoC that most people feel alienated with politicians, I can vouch for that from the contact I have had with people on the doorstep. They rarely see their politician and in some instances have gone many years without any direct contact with a member of any political party coming to them before I turned up. Too often it seems that politicians especially in what are conceived to be safe seats take their electorate for granted and fail to connect.

Nick points out that he also feels the best way to engage with people is to go and talk to them saying:

"I'm passionate about connecting with people. Talking with them, listening to them, and learning from them. That is why since I became Leader I've been holding Town Hall meetings in constituencies across the country. And that is why at our conference in Bournemouth I will be challenging our party to knock on at least a million doors between the end of conference and Polling Day for the Local [in parts of England] and European elections. It is a tough challenge, but one which I am confident that we are more than capable of meeting.

"For Liberal Democrats calling on people to talk to them isn't just about elections and votes. It is about understanding what matters to residents in our communities. Our opponents often deride us for listening to the very real concerns of voters about local issues. But it is something to be proud of that we take seriously such concerns and, more importantly, work to act on them. This is what community politics is all about; and this is what makes us different from the other parties. Community politics rightly lies at the heart of our party and the way in which we do politics."

I totally agree, while you yourself may be somewhat tuned in to the concerns at a certain level you can get caught up too much in the high level, high profile politics. So without direct contact with non-political people you can miss an underlying groundswell of opinion from residents, concerned parents, the elderly or some other group in your society. A number of people have at times said to me that they feel that Lib Dem policies are often common sense, although sometimes followed by the phrase but I can't see myself voting for you. I think the fact that Lib Dem politicians and activists do engage with people is partly why our policies do form common sense, we hear both sides of the argument before going to conference to shape policy and the direction our party will take.

I for one will be out and about on doorsteps but I can't do a million on my own of course.

Two Knights. So What?

We're Knights of the Round Table,
We dance when ere we're able,
We do routines and chorus scenes
With footwork impeccable.*

From Monty Phyton and the Holy Grail and Spamalot

Well it really takes the biscuit when Nats Jeff have to compare the knights heading up the respective Commission/Futures Trust on either side of the debate.

Jeff goes out of his way to disparage the achievement of Sir Kenneth Calman. Yes unlike Sir Angus Grossart he is not involved in the world of business or economics but that hardly means he is not qualified to pass a dispassionate eye over the future of our country. Sir Kenneth has been Chair of Cancer Research in Scotland, Chief Medical Officer both for the UK Dept of Health and here in Scotland as well as holding senior posts at both Durham and now Glasgow Universities. He's also currently President of the Boys Brigade.

Sir Angus is a lawyer turned merchant banker, now Vice Chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland. Has been Chairman of the National Gallaries of Scotland, as well as being Chairman of the Fine Arts Society and Lyon and Turnbill auctioneers.

Both seem able to carry out carry out cognitive function at the highest level, both have experience of leadership, both have shown a diversity in interests. I don't think it does anyone justice to accuse someone appointed to chair a review that they may not agree with of being an inferior product to the one that they do. Not when the evidence is there that both have strengths.

*I have to admit before writing and researching this piece fully I'd used this quote before reading here "[Sir Angus's] interest in architecture has taken him far afield, from Crusader castles in Syria to the Inca ruins at Machu Picchu in Peru" pure coincidence I assure you.

Causing a Stir Stateside

Well little old me has caused a little stir when I posted this little bit of research into Sarah Palin's vetoes. Of course a nice little push by Peter Black AM from what is currently the top outgoing link from Lib Dem blogs surely helps. Even so there is sharp spike in my web stats for the last 24 hours.

So I'll indulge myself in a little stat porn which I don't normally do. 70% of my hits overnight where from the USA. By writing my little bit on one attribute of Governor Lipsticked Pitbull's acceptance speech has thus far been read in (not that I've been keeping tabs obviously):

Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. I may have to add Kuwait and Puerto Rico to that list of potential American voters.

That's 22 States of the Union plus DC though not Alaska sadly but I reckon they already know what she's vetoed although I did find some further details of just what that entails. It includes chalkboards, wireless internet access and library book protection projects from schools. A few fire trucks one for the University fire service.

There was also a 50% reduction in a Catholic counselling and adoption service which considering both the Governor and the service, I assume, are pro-life and giving women the support they would need to go full term with what may be an unwanted pregnancy seems a bizarre line veto for her to make.

Update: Add Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island and South Caroline to make it 31 States. Actually I've noticed people are starting to link direct from email addresses so I may be on some email list doing the rounds now. Ooh the excitement. Even more excitement checking on some of the web searches that have surfed my I'm ahead of a story in the Washington Post regarding her line-item veto gulp.

If Martin Luther King had had a Spreadsheet: Where Next Tavish?

Yesterday Tavish Scott did win the nomination to be leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats with 59% of the vote. From where I was sitting he was advocating a great deal of continuity, had the backing of most, though not all, of the establishment of MPs and MSPs etc in Scotland. However, 41% a sizable minority, did still vote for the other two candidates who advocated some sort of change in approach. Ross Finnie said that the party had lost its narrative and Mike Rumbles went further to start to lay out where that narrative had started to take us and where it may lead.

One thing that did come out of the hustings I attended in Edinburgh and possibly in other elsewhere was a general sense of disappointment in the party leadership worrying too much about minutiae and forgetting to look at the big idea. Everybody still remembers the big Lib Dem idea about a penny on income tax for education which ran for a number of General Elections. In 2005 there was Freedom, Fairness and Trust the main thrust of which were a local tax passed on ability to pay, opposition to the war in Iraq, and spreading many of the Scottish implemented policies for students, pensioners and eye and dental checkups to the rest of the UK. All big ideas coming from a liberal heart and not from some spreadsheet costing what was achievable.

Imagine Martin Luther King's famous I have dream passage from his speech had been hit upon by guys with slide rules limiting his aims. See the following memo he might have received changes by the number crunchers in italics:

I have a dream that 2.75 of my four little children will for at least one day live in a nation where they will not 66% of the time be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that there will be one day ever week, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little 54% of black boys and 67.3% of black girls will be able to join hands with 62.3% of little white boys and 72.5% of white girls as sisters and brothers, 10.6% of all will still be ostracised due to sexual orientation but that's a different matter.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day every 83% of valleyies shall be exalted, and every
94% of hills and 76% of mountains shall be made low, the 62% of rough places will be made plain, and the 43% of crooked places* will be made straight less crooked**; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."

*need to set more realistic and achievable crime targets.
** can't use the word straight as it might offend a certain minority you know what we're saying.

You see it doesn't quite have the same impact as the original narrative. It's all fine an well know the numbers setting targets for achievability but they should not put a restriction on the goals you set out and the dreams you have of where you want to see our world go. In recent years both The Orange Book: Reclaiming Liberalism and Britain after Blair: A Liberal Agenda were books of ideas from our party's heavyweights.

Being Liberal Democrats of course not everybody agreed with every vision set out in both books but this was blue sky thinking laid out there. People searching for ways to move the Liberal narrative forward. Numbers, finance restrictions etc weren't the thinking in these narratives they were merely setting the goals. Today ASwaS does mockingly look back at the hours of PE in schools disaster of 2006 but he's right in a way. The idea was great, the execution of the minutiae taking centre stage was a disaster.

Tavish needs to formulate and articulate our narrative much in the way that both the American Presidential candidates or Alex Salmond have done successfully. Our vision, our ideals are relevant to Scotland possibly more so now than ever before, as others attempt to imitate, we need to get that out there fresh, move it forward to the next stage not get bogged down to much in our presentation in the details of how we'll achieve it. But empower the electorate with our dream for a liberal, democratic and forward looking, moving and thinking Scotland.

Glasgow East Where Next?

Jeff had accused me of sour grapes* even masking my true feelings in humour about last night's result in Glasgow East because I posted this. Well all I can say it is easy to be a winner, not so easy to be a good winner (last night we didn't see one IMHO), but hardest of all is to be totally blown away by things going far worse than you anticipated. However, what I have done all day has been reflected on what other bloggers have said (yes I even painfully read my regular Nats) and looking to see just what happened. To do that takes time both to compose and, as it turns out, to write so bear with me.

I'll start with Scottish Tory Boy who if anyone had reason to gloat over some of my comments in recent days it was he. However, all he said was, "Yesterday I posted this suggesting that the Lib Dems would finish fourth and it seems that I was spot on with my prediction but I certainly didn’t envisage them losing their deposit but that is exactly what happened." Magnanimous in the small victory he had and greated appreciated for that. I still think that Ian Robertson was a stronger candidate that Davena Rankin however she was very cleverly packaged by a smart Conservative team. I can't recall whether it was two or three times that I saw her drag poor Annabelle Goldie off to some gym or other. End result she did appear to have more clips on TV news buletins than Ian seemed to manage; even last night in the clip of me talking to him, I have since been informed, he wasn't even in the frame.

Kezia Dugdale and the Two Doctors both offered congratulations to the new MP for Glasgow East. Although Kez's picture of John Mason makes him look like the Peter Pan of Parliament (that is a joke btw). She says it is time for reflection for the Labour party as indeed is the sinking to fourth and lost deposit for us Liberal Democrats.

Ideas of Civilisation sums things up thus:

"It's striking that the Tories moved from fourth to third in the Glasgow East election (albeit with a slight reduction in their voting share); this could suggest that people are growing more comfortable about voting for them again. Of course it could also focus minds that the next UK election will be between Labour and the Tories and not Labour and the SNP, meaning Labour would gain from this. An alternative view is that the Lib Dems were the recipients of protest votes against Labour, which have now transferred to the SNP."

It's that summation of us that draws my attention most and you'll forgive me if I don't quote any of the partisan Nat bloggers. I think, indeed hope, that the Lib Dems have grown up in the 20 years that we have existed and indeed the 20 years I've been associated with them, off and on, to no longer be seen as purely a party of protest. The party has a core direction, message and ethos that many people come to not out of protest but principle. Sadly in the world at large we are still seen as the great by election machine of protest, that may well have been the way we won Dunfermline and West Fife in 2006 with Willie Rennie but wasn't how we went on to take the Dunfermline West seat in 2007 for Jim Tolson that was because we'd made a change.

Now a lot was made of the fact that yesterday was the tale of two Parliaments. The Lib Dems are fully aware of how to utilise that line, for eight years we were able to highlight the differences we had made in Scotland to the Scots and were offering the same changes to the English and Welsh. So the Nats of course emphasised the things they had so far achieved in their first 14 months of power. However, like Labour in Westminster and every government before them there will come a time when then can't deliver on something and the electorate will remember them for it and tire of them, that's life in democracies.

Dunfermline of course we won without a leader in Westminster this time we did not have a leader in Scotland. Now I'm not blaming our result of Nicol Stephen but his almost ever presence in Dunfermline was a mighty effect, sure Nick Clegg was up on a number of occasions but unlike Nicol he wasn't almost always around, even if us foot soldiers didn't see him all the time. The enthusiasm that the Scottish leader gave last time was infectious maybe because it was holiday season, and many had already booked to be away, and because t was sort election we never seemed to pick up momentum in the same way. Myself I was unable to take weekdays off at all through this campaign as I was covering for one or other of my colleagues for the duration.

The other thing about the timing of this election is that it appears that the leadership of our party is seeking to reappraise our message. Which makes it harder to get your message across as you not quite sure where it is going to lead yourself. Now Ian was a good communication in the two debates he came across really well, as well as on Newsnight, but he can only be as good as the tools and narrative he is provided with. Recently I was discussing this issue of where we're heading with fellow Lib Dems and one thing we seemed to agree on is where are our few key policies that the electorate can hang their coat on. Those few key things that make the Lib Dems stand out, not as a party of protest but a party of progress. Some of the ones we, indeed I, have stood on in the past are under review and may no longer be out identifiers. Some of the things I've spoken with passion on doorsteps, in this blog, at hustings about may be taken from under me, we need to be careful just what we replace them with, if indeed we do replace them.

As Kezia said Labour have to go away and reflect, the Lib Dems had already started to do that before this by election was called, maybe from reflecting it was hard to refocus on just what we were trying to say at this point. One thing we do have is our gut of what it means to be a Liberal Democrat, therefore I trust that if a major refurbishment of that narrative is going to take place that we will get it right, make it clear and stand out distinctive in the way we promise to enact it. We need to, we owe it to those who have come to us in the past and who still want the things we have promised to deliver in the past.

Legal Ramifications for SNP Primary Class Size Reductions

Now I'm all for the reduction in class sizes for our younger children, it is one of those policies on which the SNP and Lib Dems have largely agreed on the theory. So therefore you can imagine my shock when the Lib Dem/SNP led Edinburgh council pointed out that the SNP target of 18 for primaries 1 through 3 may actually be illegal to implement.

The problem is the conflict between the single outcome agreement for delivery of key services by councils and the policy. Edinburgh Council believes it cannot use class size reductions as a defence against parental challenges against not being allowed to place their children at a certain school. There is no legal power in place for a local authority to place a restriction on the size of any primary class.

It's a shame that after years of opposition and planning such a benchmark policy should have such a nagging flaw in it, of course this sort of thing may not have been obvious until the implementers who know all current, relevant legislation started to look at practical implementation. So hopefully this is a hiccup that can be overcome rather straightforwardly to help improve the early education of our children.

Beware of the Leopard

Can the Tory Leopard really change it's spots? And more to the point is now the time that redecoration of the polka dots going to achieve it?

Iain Dale, recently returned from being civil partnered, led me to an article by Tim Montgomerie in today's Telegraph. Not since Lady Thatcher visited factory floors while looking to get elected in Dartford have the Tories appeared so keen to woo the hard-working classes. Fee Fi Fife glum their leopard smells the blood of a minister's son.

Tim talks about taking working class families out of tax because:

"Income tax is taken from many poor families, churned through an expensive bureaucracy and then returned in benefits."

and that

a clear majority of voters are ready for a refund from a political class that has squandered their money [to fund better public services].

He advocates this policy as being as radical and just and the aforementioned Lady Thatcher's sale of council homes. It will cost he says £44bn to take 14m people out of the tax system altogether. Fourteen Million!!! now I have to say that is radical! I'm all for removing people who can't afford it from their tax burden however is it just? Is it some pie in the sky figure? Is it achievable and what are the costs and benefits of it?

He advocates freezing public spending rather than keeping up with the £12 billion a year increase that Labour have been producing to make up for this shortfall. How is that going to be achieved? Ok £$7.7bn of that is what the increase to cover the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is costing extra. So we still need to find £4.3 billion per annum, that's before taking into account potential world driven inflation, fuel poverty pay outs of the elderly having to meet an up to 40% increase, which surely would need to be found from somewhere to make up for the shortfall from less income.

So where is the public spending savings going to come from? And how? Tim did mention the reason for the taxes was allegedly to fund better public services. But that a lot of this has been lost in bureaucracy. Now obviously sorting out the level of waste through that bureaucracy which would led to some savings. But what about the rest? A lot of the funding has been going to improve infrastructure hospitals and schools. Will that programme be cut back.

Both my primary and secondary school had insufficient capacity while I was there. Both have finally had their refurbishment and improvement schemes funded since 1997. Before that there had been 18 years of Conservative control of Education funding and what happened, more upon more 'temporary' classrooms. At least the current lab technicians never have to do what I did in my brief spell back at my old school carry supplies out through the rain to the temporary science labs.

Yes the plan to take that many people out of taxation is radical. It is headline stuff. But what about the small print.

We saw 18 years of the Tories selling off the family silver. We now face many people in potential housing crisis and not enough social housing to catch all, thanks to Mrs T's radical scheme. We have bigger more centralise hospital services these days, people still need to be got there and the specialist posts filled by qualified consultants and specialists who need training. Our schools need to keep up with technology to empower our future generations to be ready for the world at large books and pens are no longer enough.

Let's not forget that while Labour have lost the way many of us remember why we gave them a chance in the first place. The Tories had forgotten about social structure, welfare, the people. They will still need looking after even after many of the lowest paid are taken out of tax. Is this a black hole on the horizon?