The next person to mention in my presence: Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus, or the “insidious, surreptitious and relentless erosion of fundamental British freedoms,” is surely going to regret it. I have never been more heartily sick and tired of the whole “civil liberties” industry following last week’s events where, after an admittedly unwelcome measure was passed in the House of Commons, a Conservative frontbencher with whom we have virtually nothing in common went off on some vain flight of fancy, and it was somehow deemed inappropriate for Liberal Democrats to oppose him.

Starting from a position of puzzlement over the extent to which civil liberties seem to dominate political discourse, I have now come to see the whole charade as an excuse on the part of self-indulgent and out-of-touch politicians for not talking about the issues that really matter to the electorate. To the ordinary man and woman in the street, freedom is paramount – but it is a freedom which has nothing whatsoever to do with detention without charge, ID cards, CCTV, or any of the other oppressive instruments of the big-brother police state (which doesn’t exist by the way).

The sense in which many people find their freedoms curtailed on an everyday basis is that they are obliged to work long hours each day, maybe with a difficult or cynical employer. That higher food and fuel bills are starting to hurt their ability to hold body and soul together. That they increasingly find themselves facing impossible decisions balancing work, life, and family. What they are less concerned about, I would suggest, is the prospect of being arrested and imprisoned for 42 days without charge, especially if they have done nothing wrong. In fact if they saw a policeman on their patch at all, they might be pleasantly surprised.

But no, to a certain breed of dull-witted politician, Magna Carta is what it’s all about. The level of unthinking inertia is such that they forget – as they drone on about “hard-won freedoms” and “slippery slopes” – that today’s technological era hardly bears comparison with anything that happened in the previous century, never mind in another age altogether. And they don’t come much more unimaginative than the member for Haltemprice and Howden who has now embarked at considerable public expense upon a political stunt that, when the dust has settled, will prove precisely nothing.

Of all the lazy and incoherent things that have been said regarding the forthcoming contest, the most absurd is this notion that we may declare the by-election to be fought over the sole issue of 42 days detention without charge. Read more »

One Liberal Democrat policy area I can never get out of bed for is proportional representation. Don’t get me wrong; there is so much at fault with our present constitution – starting with the simple observation that we don’t really have one as such, through the farcical arrangements pertaining in the Commons and the Lords, and never forgetting the fact that, bizarrely, we still appear to be subjects of a Monarch ordained of God, named Betty Windsor.

However, though our democracy may be somewhat imperfect, it remains a democracy nonetheless; and the notion that we are labouring under some colossal electoral injustice is, I’m afraid, just another instance of Lib Dem whining we would do very well to drop. I’m quite sure that Liberal Democrat fortunes would rise a little under a system of PR, but hardly enough to justify making this a flagship issue. The rules of the game may be arcane, but we all know in advance what the rules are, and we all know how to vote tactically if needs be – thanks in no small part to a million bar charts which have probably outlived their useful purpose.

But, while the myriad options for systems of proportional representation have been gone over in tedious detail, there remains one topic of electoral reform which appears to be strictly off limits, and it is this: that maybe, just maybe, not all votes are equal. Or rather that, while all votes are clearly equal, some votes may be more equal than others. The purpose of this article is to address this rather glaring omission, propose my own suggestions for reform, and of course open up the floor for debate.

The first thing to say is that, up until now, what I am about to propose would not have been technically possible. Using only the prevailing piece of paper, pencil, and big black box technology, it is really quite infeasible to attach a value scale to the assembled collection of opinions. But the digital era is now firmly upon us and it is surely now time that we gave serious consideration to the possibilities opened up for us through the power of electronic voting.

So the first and very necessary and indeed urgent step, is to recreate the electoral register in the form of a large government database containing everyone’s personal information. The database would be backed up once a week onto a DVD and put somewhere safe. Voting would be as easy as clicking a mouse button. In fact, voting would be clicking a mouse button. Clever encryption technology would prevent any conceivable possibility of electoral fraud.

Now to where all this is leading: Once votes have been cast, they are then scaled (key point) according to some simple (or perhaps even rather complex) weighting function. The precise form of the weighting function would be determined by the Electoral Commission, ultimately under parliamentary control. Much fun is to be had from devising various options for reform but, purely to get the ball rolling, I have created an initial example of the sort of thing I have in mind.

I ought to stress that this is just a back-of-an-envelope job, with a view to instigating a lively discussion. If you don’t like my graphs, then the obvious thing is to produce your own improved recommendations. But, broadly speaking, you can see that the proposed scheme gives little weighting to votes from the very young and inexperienced. The weighting then ramps up with age, before tailing off again later in life. Eventually, when one reaches the point where most of one’s life lies in the past, the weighting diminishes once again to bugger all.

A key advantage is the ability to engage voters at a young age. I must admit that I have never quite recovered from Paul Walter informing me that his eight-year-old daughter voted for Sir Menzies Campbell in 2006, something she will probably regret should we ever meet. But with my scheme, we can sensibly open up the vote to anyone capable of firing up the computer unaided. Of course, their votes would count for precious little at that stage but, crucially, they will be actively engaged in the process.

More controversially perhaps, the scheme discriminates between the sexes. My thinking here is a bit vague, but is broadly based upon the fact that men are notoriously more inclined towards violence than women. I’m thinking that maybe if we were to give women a greater priority earlier in life, then we might not find ourselves fighting quite so many disastrous and un-winnable wars around the world. However, in order to preserve gender equality, their weighting must dip below that of men at the last.

The problem we currently face is that, without such technical arrangements in place, the electoral system is a very blunt tool which can be hopelessly unresponsive to pressing problems. It’s a bit like trying to fix the economy when one only has access to the crudest levers of power, or like trying to cure an illness with only the most primitive drugs. In such situations, one may certainly make a difference – a big difference even – but there are likely to be some rather unpleasant side effects.

It is only a highly and skilfully tuned scheme that has the power to reach the parts that other electoral systems simply cannot reach. Rather than fuss over PR, is it not time that Liberal Democrats embraced some truly radical proposals for electoral reform that can really do the business? You may not like my graphs, indeed I would not be surprised to learn that they might be flawed in one or two minor respects. But can anyone seriously suggest that even my initial proposal is not a huge improvement over our present, crude, and wholly unscientific arrangements?

* Laurence Boyce is a Liberal Democrat member, and well aware of what day it is.

Recently, James Graham has called me a bigot on Lib Dem Voice. (gasp!) As James is a blogger whom I admire and respect – blogger of the year no less – I have been stung into writing a riposte to this scurrilous charge. It was in the context of yet another debate on religion and the problem of Islam, that James essentially accused me of tarring all religious believers with the same brush. According to the big man, “religions are ultimately what you make of them.” When pressed as to whether Marxism, say, is also ultimately what you make of it, James replied, “I would have thought that is self-evident.” Excuse me?

Let us get one thing straight: Marxism is not simply what you might choose to make of it. While the task of nailing down the principles of Marxism might not be entirely trivial, we can nevertheless be clear in the main about what Marxism does and does not entail. For instance, it is surely uncontroversial to assert that Marxism comprises a belief in the common ownership of property and the means of production (a terrible idea by the way). Now I suppose there is nothing to stop somebody from saying, “I’m a Marxist, though I don’t believe in the common ownership of property and the means of production.” But on the whole, I prefer the simpler, “I’m not a Marxist.” It’s brief and to the point, and has the compelling advantage of not stretching the meaning of words beyond the bounds of reason.

Likewise, we can be clear about what religious belief entails, and what its consequences might be. And yet whenever I assert that the claims of religion are false, I know that I am bound to be met with the stunning insight that there is no homogenous object called “religion,” that religion comprises many different strands and styles of belief (no shit Sherlock!), and that I am therefore making a sweeping, and indeed bigoted, generalisation. I am not. Having been raised a Catholic, and having observed religion in its many forms, I think I know roughly what the deal is, and it is this: That there exists a supernatural deity who exerts a causal influence upon the natural world though scripture, prophets, prayer, and miracles. He wishes us to praise him, obey him, and love him unceasingly. Essentially, this life is a test. If we get it right, then he will reward us in Heaven. Otherwise… you know what to expect.

This, I submit, is a reasonable definition of monotheistic religion which pretty much covers the faiths that are causing all the trouble at the present moment. Too broad a definition to be useful maybe? Not at all. Already we see some disturbing elements: Why, for instance, does God require constant praise and worship, more reminiscent of Stalin than of a “loving father”? Then there is the obvious scope for abuse when one is claiming to be in possession of a divine and unalterable revelation. Finally, there is the belief in an afterlife – the killer doctrine that, whichever way you cut it, has the effect of utterly diminishing the value of life on earth. And yet for some reason we continue to allow these simple tenets of faith, now largely debunked by science and philosophy, to impose their terrible burden upon humanity.

Why is it so hard for us to speak plainly about the absurdity of religious belief? Why is Nick Clegg already brown-nosing faith groups when he is barely out of the traps? Why is it quite beyond any of our politicians to draw a connection between belief in the “afterlife” and the practice of suicide bombing? Why, when the terrorists are patiently articulating their theology on homemade videos, do we search desperately for the “root causes” in order to exonerate the role of faith? Why are we constantly being assured that “Islam is a religion of peace,” when a cursory inspection of the Koran tells a completely different story? Why do we stay silent when millions of women worldwide suffer under the yoke of clerical oppression? Why are we still fiddling while the Middle East burns?

Read more »

Following on from my previous article having a go at Nick Clegg over DNA databases, it is now time to turn to Christopher Huhne and some disappointing remarks concerning GM crops. He says, “Ministers should not give any go-ahead for commercial planting until they can state confidently that GM varieties would not contaminate non-GM foods and that they are safe.” Oh dear. You would have thought that after several years’ worth of GM food trials yielding precious little by way of cause for concern, the onus might at last be upon the tree-huggers to prove the alleged dangers of this particular genetic technology. But apparently not, so it looks like I’m just going to have to explain it all over again. Sigh.

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt over genetic modification often finds its root in the fallacy of the “noble savage.” This common misconception (which frequently afflicts the debate on climate change) would have it that the world in its natural state is perfectly fluffy, peaceful, and harmonious – or at least it was before mankind turned up with his corrosive concept of “civilisation.” Jean-Jacques Rousseau expressed this idea succinctly when he said in 1762, “Tout est bien sortant des mains de l’Auteur des choses; tout dégénère entre les mains de l’homme.” More recently, no less an intellect than Prince Charles echoed this sentiment when he declared, “I happen to believe that genetic modification takes mankind into realms that belong to God, and to God alone.” (Which just goes to show how little progress you can make in 200 years if you really put your mind to it.)

In reality, tout n’est pas bien with the natural order of the world. Far from being the handiwork of a benevolent Creator, nature displays all the cruelty and pitiless indifference which one might expect had it been designed by, say, the blind forces of evolution through natural selection. But while animals have been bitterly fighting it out for millions of years, the plants have not been sleeping either. Over the ages, plants have developed an impressive set of defence mechanisms of their own. These range from the familiar thorns and prickles, to the less visible toxins and irritants which are now responsible for the common food allergies suffered by many. And in addition to being cruel, nature is also inherently wasteful. For instance, plants typically grow much taller than necessary, thereby squandering valuable energy on a hardy stem which happens to be of little or no nutritional value.

The plain truth of the matter is that there is no fundamental difference between genetic modification, and the selective breeding and hybridisation which has been going on for millennia – save maybe that “natural” methods are way slower and less reliable than their hi-tech counterparts. The advantages of GM crops are legion. Pest-resistant crops make redundant the harmful pesticides which, ironically, so upset the eco-warriors of a generation ago. We now find ourselves in a position to breed out the harmful allergens, while simultaneously breeding in essential life-saving nutrients for the developing world. It would be nothing short of criminal to allow progress in this field to be retarded by the medieval superstitions of Prince Charles and his entourage. And as Tom Papworth pointed out, Chris Huhne is treading on dangerous territory should he wish to encourage a scepticism of genetic science, but not of climate science.

In summary, there are substantial benefits to be had from the related technologies of DNA profiling and genetic modification. Nobody is saying that there are no associated risks or drawbacks, but it is somewhat unfortunate if both Chris and Nick appear to be framing these debates as if the smallest fly in the ointment were sufficient to put the kibosh on the whole project. We are not a left-wing pressure group; we are a mainstream political party – and as such, Liberal Democrats should be endeavouring to produce practical solutions to real problems, not dancing to the ideological tunes of Liberty or Friends of the Earth. Neither should we be indulging in populist scaremongering on these vital issues – an irresponsible pastime which we might just leave to the fourth estate, seeing as they do it so well.

I thought that liberalism was supposed to draw its inspiration from the Enlightenment values of philosophical and scientific rationalism. Yet I detect little by the way of a balanced and reasoned argument on these policy positions. Nor do I detect any great mastery of the hard science so crucial to the process of their formulation. As a matter of interest, who is the chief scientific adviser to the Liberal Democrats? What? You mean we don’t have one? Now that explains a lot!

* Laurence Boyce is a Lib Dem member, and occasional contributor to Lib Dem Voice.

Some days it’s great to be a Liberal Democrat. Tuesday, October 30 was just such a day – the day when one person alone was conspicuous by his absence from a state banquet hosted in the sumptuous surroundings of the Buckingham Palace ballroom. Yes, the only politician to take such a principled stand, eschewed the fillet of sole with salmon mousse, noisettes of venison with stuffed tomatoes and braised lettuce, and raspberry shortbread tartlet, all washed down with Puligny-Montrachet, Pichon Lalande, and Bollinger Grande Année 1996 – such was the determination of our very own Vincent Cable not to be seen consorting with a wholly unelected, unaccountable, and profligate royal head of state, (not to mention her curious companion, the Saudi dictator).

But not every day is quite so good as that. So in the first of two articles taking their cue from recent statements made by the leadership contenders, I would like to begin by considering the remarks of Nick Clegg concerning the shocking revelation that some 150,000 children might have found their way onto the national DNA database. “The disturbing and illiberal policy of adding a child’s most personal information to a massive government computer system, simply on the grounds of an accusation, must stop immediately,” says Nick. Well there’s no disagreeing with that I suppose. Storing a DNA profile “simply on the grounds of an accusation” is indeed barmy. No, I tend to think that Lord Justice Sedley had it exactly right when he suggested that the time has come to create a universal DNA database comprising the profiles of every man, woman, and child in Britain.

Answer me this: why is it that when contemplating the prospect of a national DNA database, we are more likely to find Liberal Democrats wringing their hands over “civil liberties,” than we are to hear them extolling the virtues of the most devastating forensic tool ever to be placed in the hands of the police? Only this week, Ronald Castree was finally sent down for the murder of Lesley Molseed, a conviction which sadly came far too late for Stefan Kiszko who died a broken man not long after emerging from sixteen years of wrongful imprisonment. But Castree was only required to supply a sample following his recent arrest on an unrelated charge, later dropped. Under the terms which Nick Clegg and others would like to see in force, whereby the DNA of innocents is never retained, Castree would literally have got away with murder.

Yet examples such as this appear to make little impression upon those who routinely concoct the lamest excuses imaginable for not rolling out this technology to its fullest extent. Typically we are told that DNA evidence is not 100% reliable, or that there is a risk of contamination at the crime scene, as if these were profound or novel insights. Well contamination is always a possibility with any kind of forensic evidence, something which the police are perfectly well aware of. And while the reliability of DNA profiling is already superb, the technology can only improve dramatically over time – because that’s what technology always does. The overall impression conveyed by these objections is that of a neo-Luddite refusal to keep pace with the march of scientific progress.

Extrapolating into the future, Richard Dawkins has estimated that by the year 2050, the cost of sequencing the full set of human DNA will be less than £100 per person. That’s an entire Human Genome Project (present cost around $3 billion) for each and every one of us. So why might we want to do that? The promise is that, one day, treatments and prescriptions will be uniquely tailored to the individual, and that the scope of preventative medicine will be expanded beyond our present imagination. Make no mistake, the technology is on its way and before too long will be hitting us like a train. Notwithstanding the combined exertions of all the tedious civil libertarians in the world, the result could be nothing less than a total transformation in global healthcare.

Liberal Democrats ought to be highlighting the genuine hazards and ethical dilemmas brought about by the genetic revolution, not appearing to act merely as an obstacle to human progress – progress which, in the fields of forensic and medical science, is coming our way whether we like it or not. Unless we engage constructively in the debate, we may simply find ourselves excluded altogether while others take all the key decisions. So please could we hear a little more enthusiasm for the amazing power of this extraordinary molecule? And please join me again shortly, when I shall be giving Chris Huhne a hard time over GM crops!

* Laurence Boyce is a Lib Dem member, and occasional contributor to Lib Dem Voice.

“In my business, asking people to risk their lives is part of the job, but doing so without giving them the chance to understand that there is a life after death is something of a betrayal … inspiration best comes from a personal relationship with Jesus Christ … the example of his life, the purpose of his death and the hope that comes from his resurrection brings that special dimension to leadership and to life itself.” Isn’t it reassuring to know that the commander in chief of the British Army is more than just a few of rounds short of a full ammunition belt?

For those were the reported comments of General Sir Richard Dannatt, who managed to take time off from fighting two wars, in order to address a recent conference for evangelical Christians in Swanwick, Derbyshire. To my ears, it would have been scarcely less bizarre had he been extolling the virtues of the goddess Aphrodite, discussing his private conversations with Elvis, or perhaps suggesting that every soldier be equipped with a voodoo doll of Osama bin Laden as a key weapon in the war against terror. And yet, with one notable exception, the General’s remarks produced barely a murmur in the press; while our politicians, fearful as ever of losing the God vote, maintained a strict radio silence – such is the absurd degree of respect we routinely afford those who would order their lives (and indeed everyone else’s given half a chance) around the delusions of one or other of the ancient mythologies.

But what makes this latest public display of deranged thinking at once astonishing and deeply disturbing, is Sir Richard’s explicit invocation of a metaphysics of life after death. Failing to explain to our brave soldiers that this life is but a trivial prelude to the eternal life to come, would in his words amount to a “betrayal.” Has he forgotten so soon the apocalyptic events (if you pardon the expression) which brought on our disastrous misadventures in the Middle East? When the 9/11 hijackers ploughed into the World Trade Center in 2001, they did so with a huge grin on their faces. For they believed with chilling certainty that they were merely seconds away from entering a paradise flowing with milk and honey, scented wine and delicious fruits, and never forgetting of course the seventy-two dark-eyed rechargeable virgins (or whatever it is that devout Muslims actually believe). So it was that 16 acres of Lower Manhattan were duly demolished in the name of the “religion of peace.”

Yet now we learn that Sir Richard himself holds beliefs which, though arising from Christian culture, are qualitatively no different to those held by the 19 gentlemen who managed six years ago to upend our world in such spectacular fashion. So, whilst it seems most unlikely that the General will soon be perpetrating a terrorist atrocity of his own, do we really think that he is a fit person to be commanding the British Army?

Read more »

Notwithstanding the somewhat tenuous connection between peace and the weather, I was more than happy to see Al Gore scoop this year’s Nobel prize for his tireless efforts to raise awareness of the threat posed by global warming to the future of life on Earth. But, in my view, his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth is totally unsuitable for viewing in schools, and it puzzles me that anyone ever thought otherwise. It’s got nothing to do with last week’s court ruling. While it is certainly unfortunate if the film contains “nine scientific errors,” they are unlikely to register strongly in the minds of children. Most people, while accepting the judge’s clarifications, will see them as essentially nit-picking. No, the problem with An Inconvenient Truth in the context of schooling, is that it is so clearly and overtly political in character.

The first of many side-swipes at the Bush administration comes seven minutes into the film. Then, after about half an hour, we are treated to a reprise of the farcical 2000 presidential election. We see Gore making his final concession speech – “While I strongly disagree with the [Supreme] Court’s decision, I accept it.” The clear implication is that he was robbed. Further on, we see clips of Ronald Reagan and George Bush senior, indulging in a spot of climate change denial. Republican Senator James Inhofe suggests that the threat of global warming might be, “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” These guys are the baddies, make no mistake about it. The Philip Cooney affair – where scientific research papers were doctored by a White House official connected to the oil industry – is covered in some detail, again placing the administration in a very poor light.

Read more »

Last week’s unveiling of a nine foot bronze statue of Nelson Mandela in Parliament Square was a nice way to round off the British summer (such as it was) – a happy occasion to unite black and white, left and right, in honour of the man who emerged with the utmost humility after 27 years imprisonment, to lead South Africa out of the shocking injustice that was the Apartheid era.

Fulsome tributes were paid by Lord Attenborough, Wendy Woods, and the Mayor of London. “The most inspiring and greatest leader of our generation,” said the Prime Minister, “and one of the most courageous and best-loved men of all time.” And everyone cheered and clapped their hands raw. Well, everyone except for Donal Blaney.

In a tired and predictable throwback to Conservative attitudes of the 1980s, Blaney decided that this was a fitting moment to remind us all of a darker side to Mandela. “One must not forget,” he intoned, “that he raised funds for the ANC’s armed wing, arranged paramilitary training, and led an armed struggle against Apartheid. He was no Gandhi.”

This sudden conversion to pacifism will undoubtedly come as a shock to many who are more familiar with Blaney as the last man in Britain who still thinks that the Iraq invasion was a good idea. In a reference to the practice of “necklacing”, a gruesome method of retribution which tragically spread through the townships during the late ’80s, Blaney proposed that, “instead of laying a garland at the feet of Mr Mandela’s statue or about his neck, maybe someone should be placing a rubber tire there instead.” A bit politically incorrect is young Donal – not to mention cynical, ungracious, and crass.

Read more »

Try as hard as I might, I can never manage to get myself worked up over the whole civil liberties agenda. So, following Sir Ming’s recommendation, I took myself off to a viewing of Taking Liberties at the Cambridge Arts Picturehouse.

Naturally I approached the cinema with great caution, checking that no-one was on my tail, and paid cash to ensure that I could not be traced in any way. What I settled down to watch turned out to comprise two quite distinct narratives rolled into one – an indictment of our disastrous misadventures in the Middle East, mixed into a bubbling cauldron of pure libertarian paranoia.

Read more »

The exquisite arrogance and ignorance of our religious leaders was once again on full display last week in the form of His Eminence the Cardinal Archbishop of Saint Andrews and Edinburgh, Keith O’Brien.

In a deeply political intervention, which Lynne Featherstone described succinctly as “diabolical,” the Cardinal made an outspoken attack on what he termed the “evil trade” and “unspeakable crime” of abortion. “In Scotland we kill the equivalent of a classroom full of school children every day,” he said, later likening this to “two Dunblane massacres a day.”

The Cardinal is no stranger to political controversy incidentally. Six months prior to the Scottish parliamentary elections, he stated that he would be happy to see an independent Scotland, to the delight of the SNP. In 2005, he caused consternation by suggesting that proposed gay adoption legislation would place children “in peril,” prompting Peter Tatchell to call him “a very sad, sick man.” The previous year, he spoke out against sex education proposals for Scottish schools. Getting a little carried away, he declared that the situation would be tantamount to “state sponsored sexual abuse of minors,” apparently without so much as a trace of irony.

But on this occasion, the Cardinal went much further than simply sharing his ill-informed opinions with the rest of us. His sermon included a veiled threat of excommunication for Westminster and Holyrood elected representatives who adopt a liberal stance on abortion. The Cardinal’s sidekick, Simon Dames, spelled out the message more bluntly: “If you claim to be Catholic, when it comes to the abortion issue, do not promote it, do not support it, and if you do then we’re talking about refusing the Eucharist.” By what authority does His Eminence believe that he may subvert the democratic process in this manner?

Who elected Keith O’Brien? To the best of my knowledge, he does not represent the Scottish people in any shape or form. Doubtless he will consider himself to represent Scotland’s 750,000 Catholics in some way, though in truth I cannot recall the result of any ballot that led to his elevation. In fact so far as I can see, the good Cardinal really only represents one person (or is it three?) – God, a somewhat elusive character who rarely puts in a public appearance, and indeed whose very existence is increasingly being called into question. Why did Alex Salmond even agree to meet him last week?

Of course none of us should be complacent about abortion figures which in Scotland last year reached 13,081 – a number which does indeed sound too high for comfort. But our consequent response should be firmly grounded in reason coupled with modern scientific and ethical insights, not dubious interpretations of ancient scriptures. Rather than shed any light on the matter, the religious perspective routinely obscures the argument and compromises the debate. So in the unlikely event that the Cardinal actually had something useful to say about abortion or sexual health in general, who would listen to him anyway?

I think that Liberal Democrats are missing a trick here. Under new Labour and our deeply religious outgoing Prime Minister, we have seen faith encroach ever further into public life; while at the other end of the scale, the Church of England has not unfairly been characterised as the Conservative party at prayer. I believe that the need has never been greater for an explicitly secular political party in Britain. Secularism does not mean bashing religion (though I am not above indulging in that particular pastime), but it does entail a complete separation of church and state. We should be seeking to drive the influence of religion out of the legislature, our schools, and the public square in general.

In my view, a radical secular platform could prove highly attractive to believers and non-believers alike at the next election; and the Liberal Democrats are perfectly placed from a political, philosophical, and historical perspective, to occupy this position in the electoral landscape. The country is ready for it; the time is right. Let us seize the opportunity.

A tragedy of epic proportions has been unfolding before our eyes. A national treasure has been lost - a glorious piece of our maritime history - the ““Concorde of the waves” no less. A majestic ship, which for years ruled the South China Sea, as she conveyed to the nation that most essential of commodities - a nice cup of tea. But at the risk of becoming the most reviled person in the country, I have to say that I was not in the least bit upset to learn on Monday morning that the Cutty Sark had been burnt to a cinder.

Ironically, the old vessel was undergoing a “restoration” effort worth some £25 million, which seems like rather a lot of money to spend on a ship which was last sold for a mere £3,750 in 1922. Of the £25 million, £13 million came from the Heritage Lottery Fund or HLF. Since 1994, the HLF has awarded over £3.6 billion to more than 22,500 projects across Britain. Well I suppose that nobody is forcing anyone to buy a lottery ticket, but even so I thought it might be worth checking out a few items of expenditure.

Transport projects in general are well favoured by the HLF. More than £58 million has been awarded for over 70 old boats of various descriptions, including the Cutty Sark. More millions have gone on a variety of trams, trolley buses, and trains. But when I say trains, I mean more Thomas the Tank Engine rather than anything which is likely to convey you to a useful destination. Historic buildings have also been well endowed. For instance, £447,500 was awarded to conserve the Harrogate Turkish Baths - the perfect setting to unwind after a tense day at conference, I’m sure you’ll agree.

Read more »

There is a well known political maxim (or at least there ought to be) which states that, “the party faithful are the last people who should be consulted upon their choice of leader” - the point being that it is to crucial swing voters that the leader must appeal, not to committed party members. Of course the membership may attempt this calculation themselves, but the result often comes out a little skewed. So it was that the Conservatives made a whole series of amusing blunders and misjudgements regarding the leadership, largely on account of an internal obsession over Europe, before finally settling on the undeniable charms of the boy Cameron.

And so it was that Sir Menzies Campbell was duly elected last year, polling an initial 45% of the vote on a turnout of 72% (a worryingly low figure incidentally which suggests to me that at least a quarter of the membership might be dead). What followed has been a frankly embarrassing succession of glib and hollow performances, wholly lacking in flair, imagination, or lightness of touch. The unvarying sombre and humourless intonation, perfectly suited no doubt to his former role of commenting upon unfolding catastrophe in the Middle East, now simply fails to inspire. In short, he has become an electoral liability.

Without doubt, the biggest single disappointment has been at Prime Minister’s Questions. Ever since he rose in January 2006 to enquire why one in five schools are without a permanent head teacher, Sir Ming’s performances have been irredeemably lame. He should silence the house when he rises to speak; instead the members typically groan and snigger, and not without reason. While Cameron hits the target on a regular basis, Ming routinely causes the Prime Minister no difficulty whatsoever. Even John Prescott is a more effective performer in his own inimitable way.

Take last week’s effort, on the day before the elections. “The President made the decisions, the Prime Minister argued the case, the Chancellor signed the cheques, and the Tories voted it through.” Was that supposed to be the killer blow intended to deliver the goods last Thursday? Leaving to one side the questionable relevance of Iraq to a nation with rubbish collection uppermost on its mind, the delivery was weak and unconvincing, and it wasn’t even framed as a question - just a regurgitated line from the Harrogate conference speech. Blair swatted him away easily as he does every time.

Read more »

A dismal tale of betrayal and failure in our education system has been penned by Francis Beckett in recent times. In The Great City Academy Fraud, Beckett exposes the con which lies at the heart of what is nothing more than the Conservative’s old City Technology Colleges scheme, rehashed and reheated by New Labour. The present facts are these: that that a sponsor willing to put up £2 million may effectively control and run a City Academy, towards which the taxpayer will have paid a vastly greater sum, not to mention running costs and salaries in perpetuity.

In fact Beckett shows that even the £2 million is not all that it appears, frequently comprising “payment in kind” - pretend money in the form of consultancy services and the like - as the government has been forced to water down its funding requirements in a desperate bid to attract new sponsors. And yet for the sake of this moth-eaten contribution from the private sector, unenthusiastic parents and local authorities are encumbered with a school which need form no part of a local education strategy, and which is entirely exempt from the body of education law built up since 1944.

While Academies were supposed to replace failing schools, Beckett reports how they have all too often disrupted the life of well loved schools against local wishes, with the aid of bullying tactics which emanate straight from the top. Of course parents may object to a proposed Academy, and sometimes they even get their way, but they are then made to feel as though they have deprived their patch of millions in education investment, which in a sense they have. The deal is that they can either have the school which the government and sponsor wish to impose on them, or they can go to hell.

Read more »