Category Archives: Op-eds

Opinion: The Clegg Enigma

Little do we know of the leaders we elect. “We don’t do God” said Alastair Campbell, in his most successful big lie ever. Thus it was that Britain voted for that cheerful scamp from the Ugly Rumours, who didn’t believe in anything much except doing “what works”. What we actually got was a religious fanatic, with a messianic self-belief which led him crusading into the morass of Iraq.

These reflections came to mind recently, when Lib Dem Voice readers recently suggested my comments on Nick Clegg must be due to personal conflict. I can only say that I don’t know Clegg well enough. Our paths did cross when he lived in my constituency, Rushcliffe, as East Midlands MEP 1999-2004. But I never saw that much of him, and can’t remember any clashes.

Others clearly knew him better. What was striking was the loyalty he inspired in close colleagues. He always seemed to take a nice line in self-deprecating humour, in almost deliberately struggling to put his sentences together, and in blurting out candid truths rather than trying to flannel an interviewer. It was an act that was easy to like. Whether it would always command respect was perhaps a different question. Very often, enough intelligence and sincerity shone through to ensure that it did.

Of course, Clegg was often away in Brussels, leaving his columns in the Guardian to tell us what our MEP was doing. Those columns revealed a questioning, independent mind, and a mixture of enthusiasm and irritation with the arcane processes of the European Parliament which he had to master. As time went on, there was less enthusiasm for the EU’s potential to do good, and more irritation at its rigidity and bureaucracy. A notable result was Clegg’s strong contribution to The Orange Book. This helpfully moved us away from starry-eyed Euro-idealism toward a more pragmatic, even sceptical, pro-European position. In hindsight, perhaps this was how a committed anti-statist was born.

Then Clegg changed horses for a Westminster seat, and the flurry of ideas died down. There was a somewhat self-effacing campaign in 2006 as a kind of John the Baptist to Ming Campbell. There were hints of flirtation with right-wing ideas, but little in print to lend substance to such rumours. Then Campbell resigned. The Press, who began by portraying Clegg versus Huhne as a clash of the clones, found to their surprise that there might be real differences.

Chris Huhne argued that:

(Clegg) has given journalists the impression that he is in favour of school vouchers. …. We do not know where he stands on the NHS because, in an interview with the Scotsman, he says will not rule out the question of continental health insurance models, and then he says he is happy with party policy. We cannot have uncertainty.”

The Press generally dismissed all this as the last gasp of a loser. Clegg smiled and joked his way to narrow victory.

Over a year on, we still have massive uncertainty. Clegg promised to “end state intervention in schools”, but without making clear what that means. He told us that the “people’s health service” means top-up payments. And he has spoken repeatedly in favour of “big permanent tax cuts”. While everyone else knows that taxes must soon rise, Clegg has perversely kept up this dog-whistle. It surely implies “big permanent cuts in state spending”. But what cuts, and to what ends?

Tagged | 68 Comments

Does anyone really think the Tories have changed?

There’s been much Westminster Village debate today surrounding Jenni Russell’s article in the Guardian arguing that there are only 10 genuine ‘Cameron progressives’ in the Tory party (Tim Montgomerie at ConservativeHome can only name 6) – both figures, by the way, include the Tory leader himself. This makes it all the more important, she argues, for all progressives to embrace the New Tories:

the most important political question we now face is how to influence the shape of the next Tory government, since it’s what we’re likely to be living under for five, or nine or even 14 years.

Fair …

Also posted in Parliament | Tagged , , , , , and | 4 Comments

Should liberals back Fair Trade: an LDV debate (Part 2)

We’re midway through Fairtrade Fortnight (23rd February – 8th March), and so Lib Dem Voice is running two articles asking the question, ‘Should liberals back Fair Trade?’, putting two opposing viewpoints to our readers. Yesterday, Lib Dem MP John Pugh made the case for fair trade. Today Lib Dem member Julian Harris takes a critical look.

As liberals, we are internationalist in our outlook. I didn’t join the party to moan about a neighbour’s roof extension, and I doubt you did either. If you’ll excuse the clichéd sanctimony—we want to make the world a better place.

Hence many among us instinctively support Fairtrade products, and have been gleefully purchasing them during the current Fairtrade Fortnight. It seems to make perfect sense: we believe that trade is good, and this is even better, giving a helping hand to the world’s poorest people.

This is a noble sentiment, but how about the facts—is Fairtrade really helping the most impoverished and vulnerable?

According to a 2008 report, just one country—Mexico—produces a quarter of all Fairtrade coffee, and has the largest number of Fairtrade producer organisations in the world (over fifty). Mexico’s GDP per capita is around $15,000. Compare this with many African countries where it is under $1,000, such as Ethiopia ($871) and Burundi ($371). Burundi has no Fairtrade-certified producers; Ethiopia has just four, in spite of being home to over 60 million people working in agriculture.

But isn’t Fairtrade at least in theory a good idea that could be expanded beyond middle-income countries, and into the poorest regions?

Economist Tim Harford calculated that only 10 per cent of the Fairtrade premium makes its way to producers, most of it eaten up by retailers. Further, according to the international Fairtrade organisation itself, only one fifth of crops produced on Fairtrade-certified farms actually get sold at Fairtrade rates. And even when this fraction of a fraction is passed on, it benefits only land-owning producers, and not the underprivileged manual labourers who work on farms.

The Fairtrade idea is largely based on price fixing, with a minimum price guaranteed for the producer signed up to the scheme. When farmers can only shift one fifth of their crops into this scheme, it makes sense for them to keep the best produce to sell on the free market, where there are incentives for better quality products. The shoddy produce will end up in the Fairtrade section, which partly explains the brand’s reputation for mediocre goods.

Tagged | 21 Comments

Should liberals back Fair Trade: an LDV debate

We’re midway through Fairtrade Fortnight (23rd February – 8th March), and so today and tomorrow Lib Dem Voice is running two articles asking the question, ‘Should liberals back Fair Trade?’, putting two opposing viewpoints to our readers. Today, Lib Dem MP John Pugh makes the case for fair trade.

Why Liberals Should Back Fair Trade

There is no such thing as free trade. All trade is conditioned and controlled by regulation, convention, norm and even tradition. It is a process of social exchange.

Historically, Liberals have seen little benefit in insisting that people buy goods only from a given nation or …

Tagged and | 23 Comments

Millennium’s Credit Crunch Diary… February: Launch the Lifeboats

During the financial crisis, Lib Dem blogger Millennium Dome, Elephant, has agreed to give LDV a glimpse of his Credit Crunch Diary. You can read Part One here.

Rescue packages for everyone* this month: from Mr Lord Mandelbrot’s car loan scheme to Bank Bailout II (this time it’s RBS) to the slightly surprising suggestion in the Grauniad that our beloved Prime Monster, Mr Frown, might be taking to his own little dingy dinghy.

But all these rescue packages have the same message: Mr Frown’s PLAN to save the World economy DOESN’T WORK.

With the Hard Labour Government’s opinion poll ratings on the slide … AGAIN, their “recovery” turned out to be just another “Frown Flounce” – a reverberation of the feline post-mortem variety** – and this triggered another bout of Musical Cabinet Chairs, with everyone*** desperate not to be left sitting in the Prime Monster’s seat when the General Election music stops.

Last month people were SCARED. But this month they are starting to get ANGRY.

Because if January saw people waking up and starting to see, though the blur of the post-Christmas hangovers, that the party was over and it was time to gingerly peel open the credit card bill and peek at the damage, then February was when they spotted all those bottles of Cristal on the statement and said: “Just a COTTON-PICKIN’ minute; WE didn’t order THAT!”

That’s why people are now so cross about Ms Jacqui Spliff, the so-called Second-Home Secretary, apparently feathering her nest. And her OTHER nest. In less straitened times people (or at least journalists) might have been more inclined to overlook this sort of story, but now when a lot, and I mean a LOT, of people are facing up to the possibility of losing their ONE AND ONLY home, this looks like it is taking the Michael. (To rub salt in the wound, can anyone have been happy to hear the news that the Government’s scheme to try to help people in danger of repossession has been delayed until April while who knows how many more people are going to lose their homes in the meanwhile?)

Similarly, “apologies” from obscenely wealthy bankers and the slap-on-the-wrist of a trip to the Select Committee (rather than a trip to the woodshed, which many think warranted) do not cut much mustard. Particularly when within 24 hours the deputy-chief bank regulator (and former head of HBoS) resigns on the grounds that he is “completely innocent” of ignoring and then sacking the man who warned him (when he was head of HBoS) that HBoS was dangerously overexposed in the risky borrowing department. As it turns out, HBoS WAS dangerously overexposed in the risky borrowing department. But that doesn’t, apparently, prove anything.

And only two days after that, the new Super-bank, “Lloyds TSB HBoS Gobble Gobble” announced that they might be heading for the teeniest, tiniest largest second-largest**** loss in British Corporate History, approaching TEN BILLION pounds!

What we are starting to realise is this: big banks are BAD banks – you can’t regulate ’em, you can’t let ’em go bust, you can’t (it would seem) stop ’em paying out bonuses from the taxpayers’ money that you gave them to try and get the credit market going again.

Lloyds Super-bank’s problems come from buying Halifax Bank of Scotland at the very moment it became completely worthless because of all the sub-prime mortgage lending it had exposed itself to.

RBS’s problems come from buying Dutch bank ABM Amrose at the very moment it became completely worthless because of all the sub-prime mortgage lending it had exposed itself to.

And remember, if we DIDN’T pay them their bonuses, this sort of genius-level decision maker might take their skills elsewhere!

We could learn a lot from the rapid defenestration of the JAPANESE Finance Minister who was “completely innocent” of being drunk in charge of a press conference. He put it down to COUGH MIXTURE. I guess he should have read that label more closely:

“Caution: may cause drowsiness. Do not operate heavy machinery or a major world economy after use.”

Also posted in Humour | 1 Comment

Join the campaign to Shred John Prescott’s £1.5m Pension

Today the Government, in the person of Harriet Harman, announced it would legislate retrospectively to terminate Sir Fred Goodwin’s £650,000 a year pension, five months after Labour business minister Lord Myners agreed to the deal. I don’t always agree with the Telegraph’s Jeff Randall, but I think he’s bang-on-the-money with this judgement, written even before Ms Harman’s latest desperate attempts to extricate Labour from the hole into which they’ve dug themselves:

Once we set off down the road to annulling pension contracts, who knows where the journey will end. Nobody, to my knowledge, is claiming that Sir Fred had

Also posted in LDV campaigns and News | Tagged , and | 25 Comments

A look back at the polls: February 2009

We tend not to be too poll-obsessed here at LDV – of course we look at them, as do all other politico-geeks, but viewed in isolation no one poll will tell you very much beyond what you want to read into it. Looked at over a reasonable time-span and, if there are enough polls, you can see some trends.

Here, in chronological order, are the results of the seven polls published in February:

Tories 40%, Labour 28%, Lib Dems 22% – ICM/S. Telegraph (8th Feb 2009)
Tories 42%, Labour 28%, Lib Dems 18% – Populus/Times (10th Feb)
Tories 41%, Labour 25%, Lib Dems 22% – ComRes/S. Independent (15th Feb)
Tories 44%, Labour 32%, Lib Dems 14% – YouGov/S. Times (15th Feb)
Tories 48%, Labour 28%, Lib Dems 17% – Mori/unpublished (17th Nov)
Tories 42%, Labour 30%, Lib Dems 18% – ICM/Guardian (24th Nov)
Tories 41%, Labour 31%, Lib Dems 15% – YouGov/Telegraph (27th Nov)

Which gives us an average rating for the parties in February as follows, compared with January’s averages:

Tories 43% (n/c), Labour 29% (-3%), Lib Dems 18% (+2%)

What to make of this month’s polls, which paradoxically convey both stability and fluctuation? The Tories seem to be relatively stable, in the low 40s% – except for Mori which elevates them to 48%, touching the heights of New Labour before its landslide. Labour appear relatively stable, hovering just at or below 30% – except for ComRes which relegates them to 25%, only a margin of error’s breadth ahead of the Lib Dems. And the Lib Dems seem to be relatively stable in the 17-22% range – except for YouGov which sees the party stuck firmly at a pretty paltry 14-15%.

All this statistical noise is, of course, ironed out by our monthly average, which sees Labour ceding ground to the Lib Dems. Indeed, it seems a lifetime ago, but just back in December Labour’s poll average was 35%: they have dropped 6% in the space of just a few weeks, with the spoils evenly shared between the Lib Dems and Tories.

Such has been Labour’s decline that it has prompted a brief effervescence of speculation that Gordon Brown might be tempted to resign if he thought it would assist his party’s fortunes. This prompted ICM to ask the question on behalf of The Guardian: ‘Putting aside your own political party preference for a moment do you think Labour will do better at the next general election with Gordon Brown in charge, or with another leader?’

Also posted in Polls | Tagged , , , , , , , and | 5 Comments

Opinion: Is the Fuhrerprinzip* the new basis for governing Britain?

The latest round in the Sir Fred Goodwin saga contains possibly the most astonishing statement yet to emerge from a senior Government Minister:

The prime minister has said that it is not acceptable and therefore it will not be accepted,”
Harriet Harman

This is part of the Government now talking about retrospectively changing the law to deprive Sir Fred Goodwin of his pension. The law, and acts legal at the time, will be subject to revision subject to the Prime Minister’s definition of acceptability.

Retrospective legislation is always dubious. Better historians than me may be able to correct me, but …

Tagged , and | 4 Comments

Opinion: Is Lord Ashdown the IT industry’s patsy?

Yesterday’s Guardian carried this story:

Privacy rights of innocent people will have to be sacrificed to give the security services access to a sweeping range of personal data, one of the architects of the government’s national security strategy has warned.

Sir David Omand, the former Whitehall security and intelligence co-ordinator, sets out a blueprint for the way the state will mine data – including travel information, phone records and emails – held by public and private bodies and admits: “Finding out other people’s secrets is going to involve breaking everyday moral rules.”

Omand’s frankly terrifying report has been published by …

22 Comments

Opinion: In praise of left and right

One of the interesting features of the debates provoked by last week’s analysis of Liberator’s latest assault on ‘the right’ of the party, and the Social Liberal Forum’s related critique, was the refrain in the comments of an old theme about how unhelpful the labels left and right can be in understanding the viewpoint of the person thus labelled. Indeed it’s a point of view that in part has defined Nick Clegg’s approach to answering questions on which way he is taking the party:

It’s not a matter of left versus right, but what is fair. – Independent, June 2008

There is some truth in this. In this party ‘right’ is often used as a catch-all pejorative meaning ‘they like liberal market economics, I don’t’, whereas ‘left’ occasionally gets the prefix ‘loony’ or ‘extreme’ to mean ‘they think they’re a liberal, I think they’re a socialist’. Externally any media analysis couched in the language of left and right is rarely intended to be helpful to the party, more a dog-whistle to put off supporters of the opposite point of view. The Tories call us ‘lefties’, the Labour party ‘right-wing Orange Tories’.

However in respect of giving some sense of where a Liberal Democrat commentator is coming from, whether their priorities lie more towards redistribution and social justice or towards aspiration and prosperity, these ‘inadequate’ labels are far more descriptive than most of the alternatives.

Take for example David Howarth’s thoughtful attempt to redefine social liberalism in Reinventing the State:

Sometime in the late nineteenth century, liberalism began to divide into two different streams. One stream, which came to be called ‘classical liberalism’… The other stream, which has come to be called ‘social liberalism’.

There are three major problems with his case. The first is that his definition of what social liberalism is, is so broad, that I can see no meaningful difference between it and plain liberalism, it doesn’t need the social tag. Indeed he is forced to develop ‘maximalist’ and ‘minimalist’ tags to show differences of emphasis between social social liberals and economic social liberals.

These all being hopelessly unhelpful and non-descript labels, what is wrong with simply using left and right to show emphasis and liberal to mean… liberal?

Tagged , , , , and | 45 Comments

In defence of Chris Grayling

No, not his views on policing. His expenses. Obviously, I’m far from Grayling’s biggest fan, but it’s the tabloids’ insistent foaming that gives one pause for thought. “If you thought Jacqui Smith was bad,” they have screamed for the last few mornings, “Look at THIS! With EXTRA ADDED OUTRAGE!” The latest “expose” from the Mirror is hopefully titled:

Fury as three more MPs rake in cash for second homes – Exclusive

The “exclusive” element appears to be the work experience kid looking up the addresses of various Tory and Labour MPs and measuring their distance from Westminster on Google Maps, then pinging off a couple of emails to the Land Registry. All the President’s Men this is not.

Tagged , , , and | 19 Comments

Opinion: Safe as houses

I agree with Vince Cable MP that cuts in interest rates have reached their limit and that we now need different policies to stimulate the economy .

Despite general support for Keynesian economics (cf the Paradox of Thrift), Vince spoke out in favour of the virtue of saving and pointed out that there are 7 times more savers than mortgage borrowers who are being penalised under the present climate.

The global recession was first brought about by the collapse of the sub-prime housing market in the US. Hence it is back to the US that I …

Tagged and | 6 Comments

Who’d be a Labour or Tory MP right now?

Here’s a short exercise for a Sunday afternoon: if you woke up today and were one of the following, how would you be feeling?

1) a Labour MP
2) a Tory MP

It’s not quite as straightforward as it seems. For sure, Labour MPs’ self-confidence is going to be fragile just now – for the second time in a year, their party’s poll ratings have crashed below the 30% level, conjuring up memories of the ignominy of Michael Foot’s 1983 election defeat. And yet desperate times can also be quite exciting, too. Just think back to the febrile state of John Major’s Tory …

Tagged and | 4 Comments

Opinion: We’re a diverse party, get over it already

You do have to wonder who writes the Liberator Magazine Editorial sometimes. In February’s issue, the Collective launch into a fabulously splenetic rant (even by this shy retiring organ’s own standards) against the “blues under the bed” who they demand “should accept (their) defeat and clear off”.

That the majority of Liberator’s editorial board dislike the classical-liberal or economic-liberal or (shudder) right-wing of the party has never been in doubt, but you do wonder if there will be a point, after over 30 years of publication, where this Hamas-like Commentariat will proclaim an acceptance of the rights of the other side to exist, even if they do not always agree with them.

I should note that away from the left-wing sermon that is their editorial and Radical Bulletin they do print a variety of articles and even tolerate token eco-lib Jonathan Calder on their committee; but he is funny and occasionally pretends to be a post-centennial peer, so presumably fulfills some exclusive acceptability criteria of being ‘a bit right’ but Bonkers, and thus in need of some kind of compassionate care in their community.

There has always been a ‘left’ and ‘right’ to this liberal party, and even if the centre of gravity has shifted in response to events, what unites them, internationalism, tolerance, a belief in human rights, the importance of caring for each other and the environment etc., has always been greater than what divides… more often than not tax, spending, and other economic policies.

It is surely evident though, even to Liberator’s most bilious wordsmiths, that their perennial hate figures… Nick Clegg, David Laws, Gavin Grant, Mark Littlewood et. al. have more in common with them than Norman Tebbit and George Galloway?

Their clinching ‘evidence’ to demand for a schism though is the bizarre argument that:

Tagged , , , , , and | 40 Comments

Our correspondents in Scotland

This is the first in a regular series of articles by Scottish-based bloggers giving their thoughts about developments in Scottish politics. Bernard Salmon is a Lib Dem activist based in Inverness and blogs at thesoundofgunfire.blogspot.com.

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond proved himself to be a wee sleekit cowerin’ tim’rous beastie last week.

His betrayal of the SNP pledge to abolish the council tax and replace with a so-called ‘local’ income tax (in reality a nationally-set tax of 3p in the pound) was supposedly motivated by the fact that the parliamentary arithmetic was against him. Although the Scottish Lib Dems supported …

Also posted in Scotland | Tagged , , , , and | 2 Comments

Opinion: Fitna

What is the matter with Chris Huhne? On the great freedom-of-speech versus right-to-offend argument, he has always struck just about the right note – for instance, on Holocaust denial and the Danish Cartoons. But now his judgement appears to have deserted him when last week he backed the decision of the British government to exclude a Dutch politician for the unforgivable crime of saying something nasty about Islam. Coming on the twentieth anniversary of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the timing could hardly be worse.

There’s really nothing quite like a religious question to upend our political and moral intuitions and reduce any sort of reasoned argument to rubble. So it was that Chris declared Fitna to be “definitely inciting people to violence,” on the Today programme. Definitely inciting people to violence? It is true that the 17 minute film does contain endless incitements to violence. The trouble is that all the incitement is coming from the mouths of Muslim clerics. It is also true that these images are interleaved with some fairly offensive written statements. But they are mostly quotations from the Koran. Could it be that Chris got a bit confused?

Jo Swinson fared a little better on Any Questions by distancing herself from Chris and acknowledging that Fitna did not in her view incite violence. But then she drifted off into some fairly banal platitude. “Any text can be twisted,” she said. “If you want to pick and choose, you can actually create something horrific out of any text that you like.” Any text, Jo? I’d love to see a version of Fitna based on the Liberal Democrat constitution. You could juxtapose a statement about freeing people from poverty, ignorance and conformity, with some beard and sandals imagery maybe. Enough to incite anyone to violence, I’m sure you’d agree. Could it just be that some texts are in fact nastier than others?

It’s a common objection of course – that the offending quotations have been “taken out of context.” But what I’d like to know is precisely what context would make all the misogyny, homophobia, and violence contained in our various sacred texts acceptable? If we wish to read either the Bible or the Koran “in context,” then it might first help to understand who wrote them – to wit, primitive men who would be completely outshone in knowledge and understanding by a modern twelve-year-old with access to Wikipedia. No, the people who are truly taking the holy books out of context are called Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. who claim that these writings are the “word of God” – whether it be that they believe this literally or in some ambiguous manner.

I don’t think I much care for Geert Wilders. His political hero is Margaret Thatcher – that is rarely a good sign. His perfectly reasonable desire to move freely between nations is undermined to some extent by his own anti-immigration politics. He should know that you can’t defeat an ideology by erecting physical barriers and pulling up the drawbridge. Calling for the Koran to be banned is totally daft. It would be quite impossible, even assuming such a thing were desirable which it isn’t. But I do share one thing in common with Wilders, namely that I am not prepared to read the Koran and pretend that it means the exact opposite of what it says, for the sake of some political expediency.

Tagged , , and | 122 Comments

Opinion: The only way to solve the credit crisis is to fully nationalise Lloyds, HBOS and RBS

Everyone is blaming greedy bankers for the credit crunch – unless they’re Tories, in which case they’re pinning all the blame on the Government. But who is really to blame? And more important, what can be done about it?

I decided to do some research on this and I have come to the conclusion that investment bankers, although greedy and irresponsible, are not at the root of the crisis. That particular honour in fact goes to one man who has barely got a mention in the debate so far: Bill Clinton. Allow me to explain.

In 1933, the US Government, …

Tagged , , and | 5 Comments

Actually, energy efficiency begins in Nottingham

Yesterday brought us a story about green campaigners who have not necessarily put their own homes in order.

The slebs who have been charged with hypocrisy include Simon Hughes, whose walls leak heat, BOJO the clown mayor, who lives in a conservation area, and Gwynneth Paltrow who was unavailable for comment.

Hughes lives in a flat, and so may not have control over the fabric of his building. Personally, I have argued in planning committees that apartment buildings need to be built as energy efficient as possible since it is much harder for leaseholders and tenants to retrofit green technologies …

4 Comments

Riso Monkey Diary… Have you MET the public?

Another email drops into the inbox of The Voice from A Liberal Democrat Organiser Who Wishes To Remain Anonymous. You can catch up with the cheeky chappy’s earlier offerings by clicking here.

The phone rings, as it has a habit of doing when I have my hand wedged deep inside the stuffing machine to retrieve a mangled envelope. I snatch it up, and a voice at the other end says, “Hello, is that the Liberal Democrats?”

“Yes,” I say, personifying the entire party for a moment.

“I’ve got something I want to talk to you about. I think your stance on Gaza …

Also posted in Humour | 8 Comments

David Howarth MP writes… My top priorities as Lib Dem shadow secretary of state for justice

The main responsibilities of the Ministry of Justice are the criminal justice system, including prisons and probation, and constitutional reform. Crime has not been seen as a political strength for us in the past, but I believe that it could be, because we have very distinctive things to say. Constitutional reform is one of our traditional strengths, but the task there is to make it relevant to current politics.

There is a crisis in the criminal justice system of staggering proportions. The prison population is at a record high, and is eating up £ billions in public expenditure. 70% of …

Tagged , , , and | 5 Comments

Opinion: Wilders’ Contradictions

The proclamation by Geert Wilders, as he was being detained awaiting deportation yesterday, that he was being denied his inalienable right of freedom of speech as a citizen has unfortunately provoked many members of the Liberal grass roots to his defence. I say unfortunately because Wilders’ freedom of speech is nothing more than a rhetorical trojan horse to allow him to propagate an ideology that runs so contrary to anything that may be called liberal or free.

Wilders himself is certainly no believer in freedom of speech. A 2007 article for the Volkskrant, a Dutch daily paper, called for a …

25 Comments

Opinion: We must fight the Tories’ plans to privatise the education system

I couldn’t help but to raise an eyebrow at the Telegraph’s recent front page splash, in which David Cameron unveiled his education plan for the future: “a new generation of comprehensive schools.”

Say what? Has he at last morphed into Tony Blair, grin and all? Well, no. The truth behind the headline (as usual with the Tories) is more sinister – and a glimpse of this truth could be found in the Telegraph’s leader on the story. It says:

Charities, private companies and parents’ groups will also be allowed to set up schools – competing with existing primaries

Tagged , , , , , , , and | 43 Comments

Millennium’s Credit Crunch Diary… January: So is it our Winter of Discontent now?

January was a GOOD NEWS / BAD NEWS / MORE BAD NEWS kind of a month.

The GOOD news was that no one shot new President Barry O at his inauguration (unless you count the Chief Justice helping him shoot himself in the foot); the BAD news, dominating the first half of the month, was the hand-grenade of heavy-handed retaliation that Israel chose to lob though the window of opportunity presented while the Monkey-in-Chief was still in the Oval Office; the MORE BAD news was the continuing financial apocalypse, now officially a recession. (Like we didn’t know!)

Economic crisis, businesses failing, …

Also posted in Humour | Tagged and | 3 Comments

Back our campaign to get an elected House of Lords

Over the last few weeks our newspapers have been filled with headlines about alleged corruption in the House of Lords. The accusations of peers amending laws in exchange for cash are deeply shocking, and this case points to the urgent need to reform our Parliament and revive British democracy.

The truth is, it’s high time we drag our political system into the 21st century. For millions of people across the UK our Parliament feels remote and out of touch and nowhere more so than the House of Lords, where power still rests on privilege. Labour has failed to live up to …

Also posted in News and Parliament | Tagged and | 20 Comments

Ambulance-chasing, Colin Rosentiel, the Standards Board, and our loss of civic pride

Some may feel I’m asking for trouble by highlighting for a second day running the case of Colin Rosentiel, the Lib Dem Cambridge city councillor who allegedly blocked an ambulance on an emergency call to protect some common land. But, having reported the story here yesterday, it prompts a wider question than the rights and wrongs of an individual councillor.

A couple of folk linked in the comments thread to the report of Cambridge city council’s monitoring officer to its standards committee – you can read it in full here. And I mean in full – it’s …

Also posted in Local government | Tagged , , , , , and | 11 Comments

Reflections on Morecambe Bay

Today is the 5th anniversary of the tragedy at Morecambe Bay. Many are surprised to learn that 5 years have passed already. Perhaps it is because shock and sorrow have a way of lingering on after a death… or 23 deaths in this case.

You may recall that there were a number of casualties. In addition to the cockle pickers from the Fujian Province of China who drowned in Lancashire, there was the Tory MP, Ann Winterton. The latter was suspended by Michael Howard, then leader of the Tories, for a month for an offensive and insensitive …

Tagged and | Leave a comment

Opinion: British jobs for good workers

Go to a restaurant, or a hotel. Look around. You’ll notice a distinct lack of something.

Employees? No. Quality Service? Hopefully not?

The answer is British people. The man carrying your luggage probably hails from Eastern Europe. The sommelier has come from Turkey. The lady cleaning the toilet in your room may well be from Brazil. So why is no-one striking for them?

One of the most British things imaginable, horse racing, employs a significant number of Poles, Arabs, etc. Not too many British people. So why aren’t people on the streets for them?

Why does no-one care that, in …

12 Comments

Opinion: The Elephant In The Room

There is something very wrong with the House of Lords- but it is nothing compared to the consequences of a botched attempt at reform under our ‘flexible’ constitution.

The recent outbreak of the ‘Peers-for-Hire’ scandal has led to renewed calls for ‘reform’ of the House of Lords – and from all sides of the political spectrum. Labour members would love to see a fully elected House of Lords, while Conservative members, despite their reservations, are now slowly heading in that direction. Both parties, however, seem to completely miss the point. And we as Liberal Democrats – as much as it seems …

Also posted in Parliament | Tagged and | 9 Comments

Opinion: Angry Union Men – whose fault are the Lincolnshire strikes?

As Britain stares down a 1970s-style Spring of Discontent, with the Credit Crunch now being supplemented by industrial strife and wildcat strikes, who is to blame for the crisis on the Humber, and how can it be resolved?

First of all, these workers have every right to feel angry. We all do. Like the rest of the country, they were told that ‘Things Can Only Get Better’, they were even promised ‘British Jobs for British Workers’, and yet here they are again, back to picketing and strikes. Now, that isn’t to say that companies like Total shouldn’t be able …

Tagged , and | 11 Comments

Opinion: Civil liberties in a modern context

What does an innocent person have to fear?” That’s one of the most common arguments rolled out time and time again to justify chipping away at our freedoms. If you’re innocent why should you be worried if the government can do X, knows Y or stops Z?

The counter-arguments tend to be a mix of principle and pragmatism. Principled arguments around issues such as rights that we have as humans and the restrictions there should be on what governments can do. Pragmatic arguments such as the costs (e.g. spend money on ID cards or on police?), practicalities (e.g. what odds that …

Tagged , , and | 2 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Kevin Hawkins
    I have frequently commented on Lib Dem Voice that we should not take one week’s by-election results (or even several week’s results) seriously. We have goo...
  • Dan Falchikov
    Well said: "David Howarth’s Being Liberal explores the Liberal disposition: open-minded, suspicious of abuses of power, uncomfortable with hierarchy, treatin...
  • Pawel Urbanski
    This is the clearest statement of the case I have read in a while, and "competence is not a destination" is the line worth repeating. One worked example from ...
  • Simon McGrath
    @jennie "“Liberals have always been suspicious of too much power in too few hands.” *looks at direction of travel of internal party mechanisms the last fiv...
  • Jack Nicholls
    Roz, I can't think of anything you ever write that I don't heartily agree with, frequently in letter and always in spirit. We've started (literally just started...