Higson's Log

My New Blog...

2011-06-22T13:39:00.002+01:00

...find it at My Continuing Adventures.

See you there.

The Strange Logic of Chris Matthews

2010-12-09T13:24:00.001Z

Chris Matthews is the host of MSNBC’s Hardball. I’m a big fan of the show and I listen to it every day at work. The show isn’t perfect, it focuses on the political process (the game of politics) pretty exclusively rather than the issues but then what part of the media doesn’t? As the title of show suggests, the questions come thick and fast and politicos often find it hard to get away with the usual baloney.

Plus Chris Matthews is a likeable guy. He has an endearing enthusiasm for life and its possibilities that belie his age. A product of the 60s, Matthews refers to the effect that time, with all its hope, aspirations and fundamental differences with what had come before, had on him. As the 60s recedes into his history, it’s a fascinating perspective on today’s politics.

There are occasions though on which Chris Matthews is absolutely maddening. Like most of the American media he gives Liberals a hard time and let’s Republicans get away with an awful lot. The outrageous and logically untenable positions that Republicans take are casually referred to but then are seemingly dismissed. The bar of credibility which Republicans have to meet is so low, it doesn’t exist. What brought me to write this post is his attack on any Democrats who questions the tax deal between Obama and the Republicans.

Matthews ask the disgruntled Democrats what else specifically the Republicans would have given in the deal and how does the Democrat know, beyond all doubt, that the Republicans would have conceded. Of course the Democrat doesn’t know absolutely the Republicans would have conceded.

The point is though that Obama went in to the negotiations wanting the tax cuts for those earning under $250,000 to stay and the tax cuts on those earning over $250,000 to lapse. Republicans wanted all the tax cuts to stay and were prepared to let them all go – even though the tax cuts for those earning under $250,000 are 98% of the population. Republicans were prepared to walk away from a deal. Obama wasn’t. So who won? The guys who were prepared to walk away from the negotiations.

You cannot negotiate unless at some point you are prepared to walk away. You have to have a bottom line.

The most maddening thing of all though is that Obama and the Democrats would have got the blame – for Republicans walking away!

My other blog

2010-05-09T18:28:00.001+01:00

Just a reminder, that my other blog is here at You Forgot to Bring the Funny.

A bad election, a bad system and two bad choices – Part 1

2010-05-08T14:34:00.005+01:00

The general election of 2010 is over. What a terrible campaign. The big issues of the day were hardly debated. Considering the wider economic issues at stake, the wrangling between the parties was confined to the fringes of the economy.

It’s easy to forget that the three parties are closer together on policy than they have ever been. That’s not to say that the differences are meaningless – they are not. For the elderly, the poor, the vulnerable, it matters who wins, it may be a case of life and death for some of them. But no one was saying we need to radically rethink our economic system, one that nearly collapsed, and still might do and bring the whole world with it. No one was saying that the bankers who caused the crisis should pay or perhaps the rich and the powerful should have to cough up. It seems already decided that the axe will fall on public services and on the benefits the needy rely on.

I’ll never vote Conservative or Labour for that matter. So my choices were the Greens or Lib Dems. I was going to vote Green as I agreed with there policies more than any other party, you might that would be a clincher, but I thought maybe this election is the one that’ll change things, maybe the Lib Dems will breakthrough this corrupt electoral system and things will finally change. Maybe the Lib Dems will need every vote they can get and who knows, maybe my Tory MP will be ousted as Labour voters tactically switched to the Lib Dems? Anything seemed possible. I was wrong as so many predictions about this election were.

It’s hard to fathom how some people can say that the Tories have suffered because of the electoral system. They got 36% of peoples vote and got something like 45% of the seats in the House of Commons. The reply comes, ‘but they got more votes than Tony Blair’s did in 2005 and he got a majority.’ Tony Blair got 35% of peoples vote in 2005 and didn’t deserve a majority. You cannot credibly say that because a corrupt system has not unfairly benefited you as much as it has others in the past that you are some how victims.

The Lib Dems got 20% of the vote and 10% of the seats. Because of the expected increase in seats didn’t happen, it’s been forgotten that Lib Dem voters are disenfranchised, at least 50% disenfranchised anyway. The Greens got 285,000 votes but at least this time, got one MP. They would have got a lot more if we had a fairer voting system, both votes and seats.

Part 2 soon.

Freedom to Worship, Not Run an Adoption Agency

2010-03-17T14:53:00.003Z

Catholic adoption agency wins right to discriminate

I really don't understand why people think Freedom of Religion applies to everything a religion does. If the Catholic Church wishes to discriminate against gay people in the course of their religious activity, such as their services, or prayers or employment practises for priests or bishops, I don't think you can stop them without interfering with their freedom to pray to God in any way they choose.

However religions can’t be exempt from all laws. If a Catholic adoption agency can discriminate against gay people, can it discriminate against anyone it chooses? Can it ignore planning regulations that it views conflict with the Bible? For that matter can any adoption agency discriminate against gay couples? No? Well what about on religious grounds?

What about a biscuit factory run by a religious organisation, are they free to fire a gay employee because of his or her sexuality. What laws do religions have to abide by and which can they ignore? I presume physical violence is still off-bounds.

Why We All Should Support the BA Strikers

2010-03-16T14:32:00.005Z

I’ve not finished this yet but I wanted to get it out. I just did it in my lunch hour!

Never is the clear bias in the mainstream media so obvious to see as when they are reporting on a strike. The right-wing press go bouncing off the walls in condemning the strikers and misrepresenting, if not just lying, about the facts of the dispute. With even more reasonable parts of the media though we can see the real problem; the situation is universally reported from the perspective of management; the tale of ordinary people like you and me, who find themselves with no option but to strike, is never told.

Strikers are represented as irresponsible, wanting to go on strike on spurious grounds. Their pay demands are unrealistic, or in the case of the BA cabin crews, the pay cut they have offered to take is too little. They have decided to go on strike when negotiations should continue, even when in this case it is the management of BA who walk away from the negotiating table. The most amazing way in which strikers are represented though is as though they are only going on strike as they wish to disrupt people lives. As though they are devoid of all reason and logic; they just wish to annoy people for no reason and/or get a few days off work. The very idea that they have legitimate grounds and that they are forced to use their last option, to stop working, because they have no other option unless they wish to accept redundancies, lower pay and longer hours. Or in the case of the BA strike; all three.

Workers are seen as irresponsible and unwilling to comprise and reach a deal. Even when in the BA dispute, a deal is initially offered by the company and then withdrawn for no other reason than workers might accept it. BA workers and the Union that represent them have offered to accept temporary changes to pay and working condition while BA is making a loss (they have made a profit each year from 2002 to 2008), but that’s not enough for those that run BA. Changes must be permanent, even when BA returns to making a profit. Loss must be offset by workers pay, but profits? Well they are for the shareholders.

Strikers are demonised. How did it become the case that BA cabin crews are all Militants intent on wrecking the airline industry? Airline cabin crews are all radical leftists? That seems a little unlikely. So dominant is the media with its power to shape the public mood, that the posties we saw every day and many of us know, suddenly became Militants who want nothing else but to disrupt the lives of the public!

With any strike comes some inconvenience but what is the alternative? To accept whatever the management decide? Some indeed believe that whatever the management decide workers should accept. So here we come to the crux of the issue; the complete ideological dominance of the free market and Conservatism. Bosses are not selfish; they are benevolent. They are not acting in their own interests; they are impartial referees. It seems they at least are worth every penny of the millions they receive. When companies are not making profits, it seems it is not the fault of the people who run those companies it’s the workers. Worker longer! And work for less!

With the BA dispute, it seems that as BA workers have better pay and better working conditions than workers in other companies they should immediately agree to reduce that better pay and those better working conditions to those of the lowest paid workers. The idea that the lowest paid workers should get paid more? That’s not even considered.

We may all be annoyed (very, very annoyed) by the bankers’ bonuses but we tacitly accept them. The three main political parties in Britain will do nothing to stop them and we raise not an eyelid. It’s okay to be annoyed but actual change is beyond the pale it seems. After the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, what financial regulations have we seen put in place? None.

Thatcher and Reagan really did change the world in the 80s. They crushed the left and the organisations that can resist them. But their real achievement was destroying the ideas that offered an alternative to the world they wanted and have created. Or perhaps it was this; they convinced people that those who get paid the least are greedy and that those who get paid the most, not only deserve it, but are always, always right.

2009-11-04T08:53:00.004Z

What an astonishingly low-grade mind, Kim Howell has.

"For the best part of seven years the British public appeared to accept the argument that, if we didn't deploy our troops to fight al-Qaida terrorists in Afghanistan, we might be forced to fight them on the streets of Britain."

No they didn't.

"Perhaps, like me, they are considering that there may be more effective alternatives to the deployment and wondering why there has been little discussion about them, save for the usual "if we are nice to violent jihadists they might be nice to us" variety."

Dismiss all those who have disagreed with the war in Afghanistan, er, like you do now.

I could go on but let's not.

Bob Ainsworth (Who?) says the war in Afghanistan is winnable: Big Deal

2009-08-17T16:54:00.001+01:00

As the 200th British soldier dies in Afghanistan, Bob Ainsworth, who is the third Secretary of Defence in the last 10 months, says the war in Afghanistan will be won and offers absolutely not a shred of evidence to support this belief. See here

"We will succeed, we must succeed." That’s all right then.

Katy Abrahams Says What?

2009-08-17T12:25:00.003+01:00

Katy Abrahams spoke at a town hall meeting held by Democratic Senator Arlen Specter. She has risen to prominence with the following statement;

"I don't believe this is just about health care. It's not about TARP. It's not about left and right. This is about the systematic dismantling of this country. I'm only 35 years-old. I've never been interested in politics. You have awakened the sleeping giant. We are tired of this. This is why everybody in this room is so ticked-off. I don't want this country turning into Russia, turning into a socialized country. What are you going to do to restore this country back to what our founders created, according to the Constitution?"

Pretty idiotic stuff but wait, Katy Abrahams want to restore the United States back to the way it was set up by the founding fathers according to the constitution?

I guess she'll have to give up her vote, along with all other women and get use to the return of slavery but on the plus side all the Indians will be brought back to life…

"The US shouldn’t have a healthcare system like the NHS; what would happen to people like Steven Hawking if they lived in the UK?"

2009-08-12T10:52:00.004+01:00

A debate about proposed wide range healthcare reform is currently taking place in the US. Some of those opposed are arguing planned changes will involve the creation of 'death panels' that will carry out enforced euthanasia. This nonsense has been combined with the vilification that is often heaped on the British National Health Service in the healthcare debate in the United States. This gem looks at what would happen to someone like Steven Hawking if they lived in the UK and had to use the NHS...

How House Bill Runs Over Grandma

Deleted from the original article;
"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."

Stephen Hawking lives in the UK of course and has used the NHS all of his life. While the above was deleted from the article, none of the other nonsense within the article was and we shouldn't expect the epic lies about the National Health Service that take place in American political debate to disappear any time soon.

Elderly will need private health insurance

2009-07-14T09:12:00.000+01:00

Another Labour attack on the welfare state.

Guardian tell a flat out lie about public 'support' for the war in Afghanistan

2009-07-13T13:36:00.002+01:00

Under the headline;

"Conservative leader condemns equipment for troops in Afghanistan as poll reveals public backs conflict"

In the story;
"Opposition to the war, at 47%, is just ahead of support, at 46%, according to the ICM poll for the Guardian and the BBC's Newsnight"

But since support has grown since a poll in 2006 the Guardian believes this is the only thing worth talking about and is in fact worth deliberately misleading people about.

Maybe the story should be about the fact that with no coverage in the media for the reasons why the war in Afghanistan is a disaster; 47% public are still against the war?

Why MPs won't vote for an elected House of Lords

2009-05-28T23:57:00.002+01:00

It's easier to get appointed

Give it a rest Cameron

2009-05-26T11:45:00.001+01:00

I‘m just watching David Cameron on Sky News delivering a speech. I can’t believe he just said that PR will give power to the elites not the man or woman on the street. It’s just not true and that he would lie so blatantly says a lot about him. First past the post gives power to a tiny number of people in swing marginals and the Tory and Labour Parties have a despicable agreement to keep it so only they will be in power – political elites anyone? How can it be right that 35% of the electorate can choose the government as they did in 2005?

Jack Straw has just come on after Cameron. Only people like Straw and Brown could make Cameron look like a credible choice for Prime Minister.

More an abusive relationship than a special relationship

2009-02-04T16:14:00.002Z

From todays papers;

Clinton praises special relationship

US threats mean evidence of British resident's Guantánamo torture must stay secret, judges rule

Says it all really.

14 time Olympic gold medallist, Michael Phelps, smokes weed...

2009-02-02T14:55:00.001Z

...maybe it isn't a dangerous drug and this story isn't a big deal?

The BBC's Refusal to Broadcast the Disasters Emergency Committee Appeal for Gaza is Nonsensical

2009-01-27T13:31:00.002Z

Mark Thompson, Director-General of the BBC, explains here the reasoning.

The first reason is concern that any aid would not be delivered. I think we can agree if no one donates money to buy aid then it certainly wouldn’t be delivered. If it’s difficult how about we try anyway? If it’s very, very difficult how about we try anyway!

The second, and real, reason is that the broadcasting of the appeal might affect the BBC’s ability to appear impartial about the rights and wrongs of the conflict in Gaza.

How stupid do they think the viewing public are?

There are people, including many children, dying right now in Gaza. This isn’t a matter of opinion or debate, it’s a fact and they need our help.

If the BBC don't change their minds I am going to cancel my TV licence for the rest of 2009 and donate the money to the Disaster Emergency Committee. I thought maybe this would be setting a dangerous principle, i.e. what if people did this every time they disagree with the BBC’s decision over anything. However to let this stand would be just wrong and we all have to do what we think is right and accept the consequences.

Drug Prohibition Continues: Cannabis Reclassified to Class B

2009-01-27T13:04:00.000Z

Yesterday cannabis was reclassified as a Class B drug.

In the link just featured arguments in favour of reclassification to Class B are the fact that a 14 year old smoked cannabis and that cannabis is getting stronger. How reclassification will help isn’t really explained. Perhaps cannabis wouldn’t be sold to minors or be ridiculously strong if it was sold legally and regulated?

The BBC and the Gaza Charity Appeal

2009-01-26T13:24:00.001Z

The refusal of the BBC to broadcast the charity appeal for those suffering in the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is beyond comprehension.

I’m giving the BBC a couple of more weeks and if they haven’t changed their minds I’m going to cancel my TV licence direct debit for the rest of the year and give the money to the Disasters Emergency Committee.

Complain to the BBC here.

Give to Gaza

The House of Lords Scandal: The Whole House of Lords is a Scandal

2009-01-26T13:09:00.000Z

So it seems that four members of the House of Lords are on the take.

Some pundit stated how the House of Lords needs to be brought in to the 21st century! Let's start with bringing it into the 19th Century and having it elected.

The real scandal is that half of parliament is unelected, 92 of whom were born in to the role and the rest appointed by the Prime Minister. The House of Lords is completely unaccountable to the British public.

Elect the Lords

Quote of the Day

2008-10-01T12:47:00.001+01:00

'You only need a few facts to tell people and give a sense of that you know what you are talking about. Then you speak with your heart. You don’t speak with your mind if you want to reach American people. That’s what makes a great candidate.'

Bay Buchanan, Republican Strategist
AC 360, CNN

Gordon Brown Promises to do ‘Whatever is Necessary, However it is Necessary’ to Rescue Economy

2008-10-01T10:42:00.001+01:00

From the Times and the BBC

‘Whatever is Necessary, However it is Necessary’. Really?

Maybe Gordon Brown could go back in time and be a better Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Quote of the Day

2008-09-30T15:05:00.000+01:00

Of Sarah Palin;

"It's not that she doesn't know the right answer. It’s that she clearly does not understand the question."

Fareed Zakaria, Host of Fareed Zakaria GPS, CNN

Good article on Salon here

Thank Goodness For John McCain! Bailout Act Passed! Wait a minute...

2008-09-30T13:13:00.004+01:00

So John McCain suspends his presidential campaign, rushes to Washington, D.C. and tells everybody that 'now is the time for leadership' to ensure the bailout efforts pass Congress.

Good work Senator McCain!

Live Coverage of the US House of Representatives Bail-out Vote – Painful to Watch

2008-09-30T10:33:00.001+01:00

Having recently bought a digital freeview box I am enjoying watching the two 24 hour news channels we have in Britian; BBC 24 and Sky News.

I’ve found Sky News interesting to watch. I suppose at the back of my mind I thought it was going to be ‘fox news lite’. Where as in fact it’s a refreshing change from the BBC style of coverage.

I did find both channels hard to stomach yesterday when they tried to explain to viewers about what was happening in the US House of Representatives. It was obvious that they had no idea of the procedural rules of the House and their efforts to bluff their way through were painful to watch.

Votes in the House normally last 15 minutes and House members can change their votes at any point. On very rare occasions the voting period is extended until the Speaker decides otherwise. Presenters and commentators obviously had no idea what was going on. I can only imagine someone was desperately looking on Wikipedia trying to figure it out.

It did occur to me that if they didn’t know what they were talking about on this occasion maybe they didn’t know what they were talking about on other occasions! Maybe this applies to the rest of the media and even to politics and economics!

Freedom Suspended in Republican Convention City

2008-09-03T08:36:00.002+01:00

Absolutely scandalous. Click here for the brilliant, as ever, Glenn Greenwald.

Why isn't this in the mainstream media?

Dark Knight - Get on your Horse and Clear Off

2008-08-19T23:56:00.005+01:00

I went to see The Dark Knight this evening and I was utterly disappointed. Its message about human nature was inconsistent and meaningless. Events towards the end left me in bewilderment - fiction of course requires that we suspend our disbelief - of facts and situations - not a character's reaction to those facts or situations.

There's a lot about the film that is okay. Perhaps my expectations were a little high after hearing people’s views and a film that is okay wasn't going to meet them.

Rating: 4/10

Channel 4 News Cheap Dig & McCain's $500 Shoes

2008-07-31T19:56:00.004+01:00

Just watched Channel 4 News which is usually better than most of the media. Not today though.

They refered to the Obama Campaign slamming McCain and his $500 shoes, saying the Obama Campaign wasn't above personal attacks. No mention of it being said because Obama had been labelled an 'elitist' by among others...McCain!

Why not give the whole story?

Obama Not Well Travelled? Not so much

2008-06-16T13:52:00.004+01:00

"For a politician of his stature, Obama, 46, is not well-travelled - though he has made a brief stopover in the UK before."

Obama grew up in Indonesia and has been to Africa, Europe and Iraq. How much travelling do they want from him?

What is a Republican to do on Oak Apple Day?

2008-05-13T14:01:00.002+01:00

When looking into attending the Cambridge Beer Festival I noticed they were celebrating Oak Apple Day which commemorates the restoration of the Monarchy in 1660 and the end of the 11 year long British Republic.

It seems the Cambridge Beer Festival may be a bit of a reactionary strong hold, I think I may have to get out my Roundhead costume and go cause a stir.

I was thinking of not drinking on Friday in protest at this attempt to revive the now gladly defunct day, but I think I may have a beer to commiserate that Britain has not been a republic for 348 years.

More soon. Possibly.

Resign Boris!

2008-05-12T14:11:00.000+01:00

Unless I have missed some vital piece of the puzzle, why hasn’t Boris Johnson, the new Tory Mayor of London resigned as MP for Henley?

The two roles are hardly compatible and the people of Henley and London, respectively, deserve a full time representative.

If it’s all a question of convenient timing for the Conservatives to have a by-election held then that’s pretty inexcusable.

Paxman Gives Minister Grilling

2008-05-08T10:40:00.004+01:00

Watch the video here.

I am not sure which is worse; the current government or the prospect of Britain being run by the Tories again.

New Labour was Always a House Made of Paper

2008-05-07T14:26:00.002+01:00

Labour member of the House of Lords, Meghnad Desai, said recently, ‘Gordon Brown was put on this earth to make Tony Blair look good’. Perhaps this line will never be as memorable or be as damaging as Vince Cable’s ‘Stalin to Mr. Bean’ quip, but it does tell us a lot more about the very wrong idea that it could do anything other then collapse. The foundations of the New Labour Project never existed, its collapse was inevitable.

This crumbling of support for Gordon Brown started with the idea of holding an early general election last autumn, soon abandoned after a few bad opinion polls and reached a new low with electoral destruction for the Labour party in the local elections of 2008. This speedy decline has obscured the fact that the popularity of New Labour had only lasted for 3 months or so after Brown became Prime Minister because just like in 1997, a much need change in government made us feel better. This could never last. Gordon Brown and Tony Blair both represent the New Labour Project.

Tony Blair was a deeply unpopular PM, out of ideas and credibility. He somehow managed a third term in 2005 with just 3.5 out of every 10 votes cast. The gargantuan incompetence and lacking ability of Gordon Brown seems to have made us forget just how much we had a problem with Blair. Let us think back to the political titans that Blair defeated – Major, Hague and Howard. For this Blair is declared the master politician of his generation? How could he have lost? Tony Blair never faced serious electoral opposition. In 2005 he led a Labour Party that won only 35 percent of the vote. Only a perverse and deeply undemocratic electoral system gave him a majority of seats in the House of Commons.

I don’t mean to say that Blair had no political skills, he did of course, and he appeared sincere and defied people’s expectations of what a politician was supposed to be. You looked at him and heard him speak and he sounded well, human. What dangerously low expectations we have of politicians.

The problem is not Gordon Brown or Tony Blair or their characteristics. Both are gifted politicians, albeit in different ways. The problem is the New Labour Project was always flawed. It was always on borrowed time.

New Labour was the creation of Tony Blair, one of a group of political leaders who arrogantly believed that they were beyond ideology. That they had left behind the divisions of left and right, that this new ‘third way’ was the only choice.

The first problem of such an idea is the obvious danger for our system of democratic government. If we have only one serious choice, then what’s the point of elections? However, New Labour had no real set of beliefs and principles, no coherent set of ideas (an ideology). It was a device to win power after Labour had spent so long in opposition and in 1997 it didn’t have to be very much beyond presenting Labour as the shiny and new change that Britain so desperately needed.

The problem with being nice and standing for common sense is that it doesn’t mean very much. Anyone can say it when you don’t have to say very much else. Just look at David Cameron. If he can get away with it, he will attempt to be nice and the voice of common sense for the next two years because he may not have to be anything more.

The New Labour project was nothing more than a marketing campaign for an inherently flawed and substandard product. It was a house made of paper.

The election of the Labour government in 1997 brought in a government that was not as unbelievably incompetent as its predecessor. Their successes were limited and should have came from any government that was not on the extreme political fringes and quite frankly just vaguely human – the minimum wage when some people were paid £1 per hour, a drive to wipe out child poverty and more money for then desperately cash starved schools and hospitals.

Perhaps the only achievement of New Labour was in replacing the Tories. Eighteen long, hard years were finally over. New Labour seemed a real and coherent alternative; in fact they were just flashy and new and had the decency, unlike the Tories, to care at least half the time about the poorest people in society. The rise of New Labour came because people wanted change and it seems that same factor, people wanting something, anything better, maybe responsible for its collapse.

The New Labour Project was always destined to fail – if Blair had remained PM they would still be in critical condition, at least with Brown there is the possibility, however theoretical, of Brown turning it around. Blair could never have won a fourth term. If Brown decides what he and the Labour Party stand for and if it’s more than controlling the news cycle and winning elections then they have a chance.

It is hard to image had John Smith, Blair’s predecessor, not passed away that he would have failed to win the subsequent general election and that we would have a Labour Party that stood for so very little as we do today.

Higson’s Log is back

2008-05-07T09:02:00.001+01:00

It’s not quite "Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in" but I think there’s quite a lot to say about British politics at the moment. Maybe I should just admit this is a form of the therapy to deal with the possibility of a Tory government and the everyday reality of a Labour one.

More very soon.

Blantant Lie on Washingtonpost.com

2008-01-26T02:28:00.000Z

How can this "two days after her husband, in dead seriousness, told a reporter "shame on you" for asking about politics)." be the same as this is from the daily show?

Despicable Dispatches

2008-01-21T20:59:00.000Z

What a biased pile of crap this exposé of Ken Livingstone was. It felt like being back in the 80’s with dubious tabloid stories about local government.

The scary music and shadow graphics were laughable. Have the makers of this program ever seen Brass Eye?

Presented by Martin Bright, the Political Editor of the New Statesman, a vocal critic of the Mayor, accusations included;

Ken was a socialist. Well I don’t like that either but that’s the reason if I was a Londoner I wouldn’t vote for him. The people of London however did and I’m pretty sure people knew he was a socialist.
His plans for a communist revolution are self evidently moronic, however the programme tried to seriously suggest that Livingstone was trying to create a city state. Now some would say effective government for London. Without being backed up by hard facts this is linguistic matter of opinion.
The transport advisor to the Mayor advised the Mayor and did not represent him to transport bodies.
He had an ‘ideologically driven agenda’. What other kind of agenda would he have? The makers of this programme obviously have their own ideological agendas and if they were elected by people to run London they would claim they have an electoral mandate, but when someone else does this they ‘..are imposing their beliefs on London.’ Linguistics shenanigans form the entirety of the programme.

The critique of Livingstone amounted to him having opinions and trying to achieve things.
He has a ‘presidential style of government’. What like an executive style of government, like a Mayor would have?
Promoting London to foreign countries. The Mayor of London promoting trade and tourism abroad? No, in fact he was to create foreign policy independent of the national government.
There are no checks on balances on the Mayor. Except that his budget can be overturned by the London Assembly and what are they called…yeah, elections that’s it....

There is nothing wrong with opinion driven programmes but where is the counter balance view point on Channel 4? The programme had a bunch of people who disagreed with Livingstone and that’s about it. Now that’s fine but it shouldn’t be presented as an objective documentary.

Undoubtedly there were some valid points but they really got lost amid the overwhelming nonsense of this programme.

I hope Brian Paddock, the Liberal Democrat candidate, wins the coming mayoral election but failing that I see one huge reason to vote for Ken, and that is that his election would seriously annoy these idiots.

Liberal Democrats Should Back a Referendum

2008-01-21T14:01:00.000Z

In 2004 the introduction of top-up fees was passed by parliament. Just as in 1998 with tuition fees, this happened despite the fact that all three of Britain’s major political parties, representing over 90% of all voters, had made manifesto commitments that they would oppose their respective introductions.

William Hague, not someone I agree with on most issues, commented on the damage to people’s perceptions of politics that top-up fees could be introduced despite all parties’ opposition at the preceding election to such a move. What can it mean for democracy when the clearly expressed will of the people is so blatantly ignored?

Of course only the Labour Party and a few Tory MPs broke their promise to the electorate. The Liberal Democrats were steadfast in the opposition to the destruction of free education that all parties had promised to the people to protect.

With the new European Treaty, we see legislation of unparalleled importance. All three parties promised a referendum on the now dead European Constitution. Its replacement, the Treaty of Lisbon is essentially the same document. Any claim that it is not, is a lie and beyond contempt.

In this brief article you will not find any argument in favour or against the new treaty, nor of the European Union. Such arguments are irrelevant; the people were promised a referendum and they should have one. Such arguments can be made in the referendum campaign.

I do not believe that vast majority of the legions of Tories calling for a referendum are doing so because of their deeply held democratic conventions; they are doing so because they oppose the treaty and think they can win a national vote. Liberal Democrats believe the treaty of vital importance to the European Union and that the European Union is of vital importance to the peoples of Europe and so our promise of a referendum and our deeply held belief in the sovereignty of the people are cast aside. We think we would lose a vote of the people and so Liberal Democrats Leader Nick Clegg will call on Lib Dem MPs to abstain on an amendment in parliament. Abstain? That there is not even the courage to vote against people having a referendum, this attempt to wash our hands of it, is pathetic.

The Liberal Democrats are the only party in Britain to believe in such democratic basics as a written constitution, elected second chamber and a bill of rights. We not only believe in democracy in principle but in process too; we are the only party to have a one member, one vote election (in this day and age; can there really be any other kind?) for our leader.

We are often accused of being just like the other parties in the lack of democratic principle and if we were ever in government, some say, it would be clear to see. I have always rejected that and will continue to do so. These principles are part of our philosophy, of our very view of the world and if we so lacked in principle why not be a member of one of the two parties?

The decision not to keep our promise and back a referendum worries me though. The thing about principles is of course, you stick them to them in the tough times; that’s what makes a principle a principle.

We have abandoned a promise because of convenience, because we think we can not win a public vote and the EU, and Britain’s place in it, is too important to suffer such a setback. That may be the case, but nothing is more important than democratic government. If the Liberal Democrats don’t stand up for democracy then there is simply no one in British politics that will.

Answer the Question!

2008-01-16T13:27:00.001Z

I know politicians don’t often answer questions that are asked of them but Gordon Brown is taking to annoying extremes. He can get away with it though when the questions asked of him are deeply partisan or have some not very convincing anger/passion tacked on at the end.

I thought Cameroon did really well this week because he didn’t make the mistake that he did in the last PMQs before Christmas when he made multiple cheap shots. The Tory leader asked serious, probing and worthwhile questions until his final one and then he lost his way a bit.

Time after time, the PM refused to answer simple questions and instead asked Cameron questions. Gordon Brown looked more like a leader of opposition and David Cameroon, gulp, looked more like a Prime Minister.

Clegg did well with his questions about repossessions, Brown made a reply that went down well in the Commons by quoting from the ‘Calamity Clegg’ document. If this is bad as it gets then he’s doing very well.

I really don’t know why MPs don’t ask more worthwhile questions and force the PM to actually answer the questions (he simply couldn’t get away with avoiding every question, though he would try).

Also, why where no questions asked about the activities of the Russian government in intimidating Britain?

Cameroon: 8/10
Clegg: 7/10
Brown: 3/10
MPs: 2/10

The Best Blog on America Politics

2008-01-15T14:07:00.000Z

Once again Glenn Greenwald hits it on the head and exposes right wing big mouths as not knowing what the hell they are talking about.

Blair Back? No Thanks

2008-01-13T10:22:00.000Z

With Gordon Brown as Prime Minister, even Tony Blair, just for a second, looks good.

After reading his recent speech though, I'm glad he's gone.

'Europe is not a question of left or right, but a question of the future or the past, of strength or weakness' and 'It's about today versus yesterday. Less about politics and more about a state of mind; open as opposed to closed'.

So you can join Blair and be about the future and strength, be about today and be open minded or if you disagree you can be about the past and weak and be about yesterday and closed minded.

This idea that we are beyond politics is absolutley meaningless.

Why is Blair trying to become EU President? What about peace in the middle east?

I Finally have a Liberal Democrat MP!

2008-01-11T14:52:00.001Z

In February, in my 27th year on this big old world of ours, I now finally live in a Constituency that has elected a Lib Dem MP; Mr. David Howarth, MP for Cambridge!

For the record, my MPs have been (that sounds rather odd);

1980-1997 - David Young (Labour)
1997-2002 - Brian Iddon (Labour)
2002-2007 - Charles Clarke (Labour)
2007-2008 Andrew Lansley (Conservative)
2008 - David Howarth (Liberal Democrat)

Clinton v. Kucinich

2008-01-11T14:41:00.000Z

No matter what ups and downs may come in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Higson’s Log and it’s vast army of readers have always stood square behind Kucinich*.

In Michigan this coming Tuesday only Hillary Clinton and Dennis Kucinich are standing in Michigan. ‘Uncommitted’ is an option, so Kucinich could finish third, but it as an opportunity to finish second and pick up some delegates (see my brokered convention scenario below).

*Yes, I am serious. Kucinich voted against the war and against funding it, is for universal health care and much, much more. Call me crazy, I just vote for the guy I agree with!

Nuclear Nonsense

2008-01-11T14:06:00.000Z

So you the taxpayer will be protected from the costs of the new nuclear plants including dealing with nuclear waste – no matter what apparently…

…so if the companies went bankrupt or had other difficulties, then we are just going to leave the waste in a field somewhere.

There are so many holes in the government's announcement of a new generation of nuclear power plants and the lack of serious questioning shows how useless Parliament and the media are.

More on this soon.

EDIT - Thankyou, Polly Toynbee.

The Tory ‘Campaign for Fairer Seats’ is Hypocrisy Beyond Words

2008-01-10T13:51:00.000Z

I don’t normally talk about activity in the rest of blogland but the so called ‘Campaign for Fairer Seats’ from conservativehome has absolutely enraged me.

The current electoral system is without doubt unfair giving inadequate representation to smaller parties that their share of the vote would see them deserve.

Results from the 2005 General Election;

As you can see, Labour do very well, while every other party gets a lesser percentage of the seats of the House of Commons than their percentage of the national vote. The Tories with 198 seats should have 11 more. However the Liberal Democrats with 62 seats are under represented by a mammoth 81 seats! It gets even worse for UKIP and the Green Party, with over half a million voters and a quarter of a million voters respectively, getting absolutely no representation in Parliament.

So are the Tories complaining about this? No, their problem is;

“If Labour and the Conservatives had the same vote share [at the 2005 General Election] Labour would still have won 111 more seats. If the Conservatives had the same lead over Labour as Labour did over the Conservatives, Labour would still have had 57 more seats. Only a Conservative lead of 6.4% would have resulted in equality of seats and the Conservatives would have required a lead of 11.8% before gaining an overall majority."

So it’s not that the system is unfair that is the Tories problem it is that the system is unfair TO THEM.

They are complaining that they suffer from the current system and think it is irrelevant if other parties are punished even more!

It is nothing to do with fairness or principal or what is right - it is pure self interest.

Perhaps the scariest thing is that these people really think this and see no hypocrisy at all. They think a two party system is part of the constitution and that they possess some kind of a right to power.

This drivel is playground politics and beyond contempt.

EDIT - Reading this I didn't make it clear that the proposed solution to the current 'unfairness' only does something to address the problems the Tories face at the moment.

A Brokered Convention?

2008-01-10T00:15:00.000Z

With 2 states down and 48 to go, the American presidential elections are starting to look like they belong in TV Drama The West Wing.

Expect to hear this term sooner or later in the media; ‘a brokered convention’. Just as American voters don’t directly vote for the president in November (but through the Electoral College), the Democratic and Republican nominees are elected indirectly through their respective parties conventions.

At the end of August in Denver, Colorado, 2,025 delegates (just over 50%) will be the magic number Democratic candidates will need to achieve in order to gain their party’s nomination. The Republican field will be in St. Paul, Minnesota and one of them will need 1,191 of the delegates. The vast majority of delegates are elected through the caucuses and primaries that started with Iowa and will end with South Dakota on June 3rd.

Normally the winner is clear months before the conventions and not necessarily because they have a majority of delegates but as such an eventuality is seen as unstoppable and other candidates withdraw for a show of unity heading into the general election.

No matter what happens between now and Super-Duper Tuesday on February 5th, none of the candidates are dropping out* however these contests in Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina and Florida could certainly affect the results on Super-Duper Tuesday.

(EDIT - * Perhaps rather 'should not' than 'will not'. For there to be a chance of a brokered convention there will have to be three candidates in each race. Candidates who have dropped out may kick themselves come convention time. Edwards and Kucinich are unlikely to drop out. If Romney can win Michigan he is likely to stay in until Super-Duper Tuesday. McCain, Huckabee, Giuliani and Ron Paul will all stay in until Feb 5th.)

So why is this Tuesday so super-duper? Over 20 states will vote including big population (and thus big delegate) states like California, New York and Illinois. Almost half of all delegates will be decided on this day and a decisive victory for a candidate would probably see them clinch the nomination but if the different states go for different candidates, then candidates will continue to battle for enough delegates to take them over the top in the states that remain. If Super-Duper Tuesday not see one candidate sweep up the delegates then it almost impossible for any candidate to have over 50% of delegates. A brokered convention is dependent on no clear winner on February 5th.

The Republicans with four real possibilities (McCain, Huckabee, Romney and Giuliani) for the nomination are the most likely to see such a protracted contest, even Ron Paul in fifth place is polling 10% in some states meaning he will get 10% of the delegates. This is where the minor candidates could really come into play. In New Hampshire both Clinton (39%) and Obama (37%) got 9 delegates each based on their share of the vote, Kucinich got 1 delegate. Kucinich is certainly more popular in states like California and New York who have many, many more delegates on offer and could go into the convention with a number of delegates under his belt, Bill Richardson will probably have even more if he stays in the race and Edwards certainly will have a substantial number of delegates.

2008 sees a real possibility for both parties not knowing who their nominee is until the end of their conventions. Delegates will vote in ballot after ballot until a majority of delegates pluck for one of the candidates. It has been half a century since the two parties saw a brokered convention and no one is sure what would happen now. The pressure, tension and stakes for all would certainly be enormous. With the leadership of the free world at stake, what would be offered to candidates and the leaders of state delegations in return for their support? Quite a lot - all the way to perhaps the Vice-Presidency itself? How would party leaders try and get a deal, and a nominee, agreed? President Bush would have a fascinating role in the Republican convetntion.

A nominee could arise that had not stood in any primary. If the Democrats have ballot after ballot with no consensus perhaps Al Gore will be president yet…

We are a long way from brokered conventions yet but I’m sure some strategists and one or two candidates have thought about it. As an America politics junkie I can’t wait.

Here is the current tally of the Democratic candidates delegate totals and here is the Republican tally.

Clinton Wins New Hampshire

2008-01-09T14:08:00.000Z

Defying the pollsters, pundits and several Fleet Street front pages (and my prediction) Hilary Clinton has won the New Hampshire Primary.

It was a genuine surprise and Clintons win has been exaggerated because Obama (and the media of course) was so confident and Clinton so downcast. Independents in New Hampshire can vote in either the Republican OR Democratic Primary, did Obama's predicted success mean independents thought their vote might be not needed (and so wasted) and so voted for McCain in the Republican Primary?

However Clinton only won by 2% percentage points and with Nevada, South Carolina before super-duper Tuesday nothing has really been decided.

More this evening from me on where all the candidates now stand.

EDIT - Ha ha - So Clinton and Obama got the same number of delegates from New Hampshire, you won't see that reported much.

Brown Offers Public Sector Workers 3 Year Pay Deal that Will Give Certainty – of Having No Money

2008-01-09T13:52:00.000Z

The Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Chancellor Alistair Darling want three year pay deals for public sector workers such as nurses, teachers and police officers.

How stupid do Brown and Darling think people are? The deal for each year will be less than the rate of inflation, probably at about 2% or less. What do workers have to gain from this deal?

The government of course has lots to gain; not giving much money away for the next three years and more importantly not having to worry about damaging headlines about ripping off nurses and police officers until AFTER the next general election.

Surely the Trade Unions (police excepted) won’t give in? Will they?…

Nick Clegg’s First PMQs

2008-01-09T13:34:00.000Z

...and the first Prime Ministers Question Time of 2008.

A solid performance from Clegg. He avoided going for a cheap shot and wisely did not decide to try and make a funny with such Vince Cable size shoes to fit in. Went down well in the House of Commons and I’m sure even better in the rest of the country. For the rest of the country to know about his performance of course he has to get publicity. However will it get much publicity outside the politics programmes and newspaper pages though? I am not sure. Clegg doesn’t have to achieve that every week of course and it his first week. As said, a good and solid start.

As for Cameron and Brown, Cameron didn’t have it all his one way but he certainly outperformed Brown. The Tory Leader didn’t make the same mistake he did in the last PMQ’s before Christmas and take cheap, cheap shots. He hammered at Brown, who duly took a hammering. Answer the question for goodness sake!

Funniest line was Brown saying, ‘The purpose of ID cards is to protect people’s identities…’ So as well as your photo, biometrics, fingerprints and about 50 other bits of information it also has a device that destroys government incompetence and restores parliamentary scrutiny and accountability!

Clegg: 8/10
Cameroon: 8/10
Brown: 5/10

You can watch it here until midday Thursday.

China to Ban Plastic Bags

2008-01-09T08:36:00.001Z

China is banning the use of plastic bags, where over 3 billion are used every day.

Come to think of it if say 'freedom' is banned, a ban on plastic bags is quite inconsequential.

Credit where credit is due though, China has taken a step in the right environmental direction.

When will Britain follow?

New Hampshire Primary Prediction

2008-01-08T19:15:00.000Z

Well I got all but the third place finisher in the Republican contest right for Iowa (even then by less 0.5%).

Here are my predictions for the New Hampshire Primary;

Democrats:

1. Obama
2. Clinton
3. Edwards

Republicans:

1. McCain
2. Romney
3. Huckabee

By and large, pretty obvious I think.

The Right to Strike?

2008-01-08T14:15:00.000Z

Jack Straw, government buffoon-in-chief, has decided that prison officers should not have the right to strike. However these hard working people who protect the general public from criminals, criminals from other criminals and work day-to-day with, well, criminals are not abusing their position and holding a gun to the nations head.

If officers decide to strike because of poor working conditions, poor conditions for prisoners or low pay, rather than solve those problems the government thinks it should ban prison officers from striking. It’s like ignoring the disease and instead disguising the symptoms.

I imagine prison officers are not over the moon by the way police officers recently got shafted. police officers of course cannot strike; in return an independent body sets their annual pay increase. Except this year the government just ignored it and decided to give them less than 2%.

What is this heredity nonsense?

2008-01-08T12:20:00.000Z

I listened this morning to a press conference held by Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, the son of Benazir Bhutto. What is this 19 year old doing in charge of a political party? Because his mother was? It’s crazy.

Yet most of the sickening press conference treated him as some ‘Boy-King’ asking him such things as how has he grown and how was he feeling.

When the alternative to Mushariff’s undemocratic Pakistan is the undemocratic dynasty of the 'Pakistani Peoples Party' it really does undermine the case for democracy.

Brown’s Vision for 2008

2008-01-07T14:53:00.000Z

In Sunday’s Observer the headline was ‘Brown sets out a vision for his toughest fight’. After a bad end to 2007 it seems over the next few days Brown and the Labour government will try and set the political agenda and this is the first salvo.

Oh goody, more about Brown’s bloody vision. What is it with this guy? Pages and pages and now it seems year after year about his vision and no one knows what it is.

Warning for everyone clicking on the link: there is more waffle in there than in the Birds Eye World Waffle Factory a week before Waffling Day. Example; QUESTION: ID cards are seen as a tool for dealing with terrorism but there is a debate about whether they are an encroachment on civil liberties. Are you still committed to pressing ahead with them? Brown: I think this debate has to be one where people can see where there's agreement as well as where there's been a debate that's led to disagreement…

In fact I was going to go over what he said, but I can’t face it, I don’t have a shovel big enough to cut through this shit.*

*I am wondering whether my New Years Resolution of giving up cigarettes is affecting my patience, temper and concentration.

Monday Check-in

2008-01-07T14:15:00.000Z

I thought I would check-in every Monday and report how many times I have seen Nick Clegg or the Lib Dems generally in the media (Blogland excepted) with my own two eyes.

I have a little notepad and will jot anything on TV, radio or newspapers. In the case of TV and radio I will not include any appearence in politics programmes such as the Daily Politics Show.

In the last seven days: 0.

Well I hope the majority of Lib Dems haven't got it wrong (again) with their choice of leader and that Clegg learned the lessons of a timid campaign.

To be fair, it is the new year, I was travelling and the media was preoccupied with other things at this time of the year.

Let's see what happens next week.

The Great Chicken Backlash

2008-01-07T14:07:00.001Z

Following my post on Mary Ridell’s column yesterday and listening to BBC Radio 5 Live it seems we have the Great Chicken Backlash.

I hate backlashes – they always seem to be reactionary – ha ha! But seriously, why can’t there be backlashes against reactionary movements and ideas?

The Channel 4 chefs, Jamie Oliver, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall and Gordon Ramsey are trying to get the truly horrific conditions that chickens are reared in improved.

An increase of 20p to £1 could vastly increase conditions or who knows - maybe the supermarkets could take a cut in profits?

Apparently any increase would destroy some people’s food budgets. I don’t dismiss the struggle that people have to live week-to-week. As a kid I was certainly aware of it and now in my late 20s my food budget is not extravagant by any means. I can’t accept that if animal welfare can be vastly improved by a negligible amount of money that we should do so.

The question is should the final cost of the chicken be the only factor that effects how it is treated? ‘Forget animal welfare, hell let’s forget taste, treat it however barbarically as long as it’s cheap’, it seems is a number of peoples opinion.

What I really can’t understand are not people who disagree with a position – however unreasonable or selfish but people who have a problem with those trying to change something for the better.

Yet again, we see the ‘Super-Apathetics’, apathy going beyond itself and out the other side – not only are people apathetic but such people actually get annoyed when other people aren’t apathetic. People are campaigning for apathy.

One man complained this morning about Jamie Oliver’s campaign for better school dinners and that they are so much more expensive now! Yeh, but on the upside - your kids aren’t eating shit!

'Brown warns MP's Over Pay Rise': Oh please!

2008-01-06T21:53:00.001Z

What tripe is this?

As we all know PM Brown uses the yearly wage increases of public service workers as an inflation cutting tool.

The BBC give Brown a great headline, Brown warns MPs over pay increase, as he tells MPs that they should obey the same rules as nurses and policeman. Thanks Gordon, all those MPs had stuffed public service workers, oh wait a minute that was you, and were going to give themselves a big pay rise untill you told 'em where to go.

By the way Gordon, maybe you could use your influence as say, Prime Minister and Leader of the Labour Party, and tell Labour MPs (as you do on everything else) to vote for the same pay rise that public service workers will receive?

Rather than this false row, my problem with MP's is propping up this government instead of calling a general election.

Browsing the Sunday Papers

2008-01-06T18:44:00.000Z

In Mary Riddell's column in today's Observer, Riddell says it would be wrong to riducule the fight to reduce cruelty to chickens while nevertheless ridiculing it. Why care about chickens when people in prison suffer so?

Well Mary, I have a big mind that can focus on lots of different things at once. By Riddell's logic why do anything about the state of British prisons until we do something about far worse prisons around the world that often have children as inmates?

Such lazy logic is used far too often;

Why help people abroad when people need help at home?

Give money to the RSPCA? What about the RSPCC?

Free education at University? What about primary schools?

It's always used to fudge the issue and the debate. There will always be priorities of course but there is more money, charity and focus than some people would like you to believe.

Iowa Caucuses Predictions

2008-01-03T23:40:00.000Z

Apologies for the meagre number of posts of late. I won't bore you with the reasons.

Here are my predictions for the sham of democracy event that is the Iowa Caucuses.

Democratic
1. Obama
2. Edwards
3. Clinton

Republican
1. Huckabee
2. Romney
3. McCain

Edit - Get in!!

Happy Christmas Everyone

2007-12-25T06:48:00.000Z

www.charitychoice.co.uk

The Liberal Democrats Should Say No to a Coalition

2007-12-23T10:29:00.000Z

With a new leader for the Liberal Democrats and a New Year for us all, over the Christmas period I will be looking at the future of British Politics.

People say that politics in Britain has moved on from the ‘left or right model’ of the past. I don’t accept that (and think it is quite convenient for politicians who believe in nothing) however politics needs to move on from the Labour-Conservative orthodoxy that dominates every aspect of political debate today. This orthodoxy is reinforced by an unthinking and reactionary MSM (main stream media).

People in the Liberal Democrats (and other parties including the ‘Big Two’) far too often accept the ‘rules’ of British politics. What to do in the event of a coalition government is no different.

So often when a question is asked of a politician they repeat a mantra that has been decided is the only thing that can be said. When a Liberal Democrat is asked what their party would or should do in the result of a hung parliament they furiously assert the right of the Lib Dems to be a considered a full and autonomous politically party and they further demand why the Tories and Labour aren’t asked the same question. Now there is nothing wrong with that answer per se, or the umpteen variations of it.

I think however a much more positive way to put it or even qualify it is that we are in politics to win because this country is crying out for a decent government that will make the changes this country so desperately needs and we are the only party and government that will and can do it; we are asking the electorate for a majority in the House of Commons and however difficult that may be to obtain, it is the voters that decide who wins the election. Neither the Tory Party nor the Labour Party are preordained to finish in the top two after every general election.

But, and it’s quite a big but, there is a very likely chance that this the next general election will see a hung parliament. Labour, surely, can only go down and I don’t see how the Tories can pick up over 160 seats which they would need to get a majority in the House of Commons. A hung parliament is not inevitable of course, even less so when you throw 3 party politics into the mix and the chaos (swing wise) that could ensure. Even so, a hung parliament is now more likely than at any time since the mid 1970’s…

…and it is not unreasonable of the electorate to ask what the Liberal Democrats will do in such an event. There! I said it! Surprising as it may seem some Liberal Democrats would get very upset at that idea. But let us be very clear that with out some genuine and credible response as to what we will do in the event of a hung parliament; we look ridiculous and it can only harm us.

So this is what we should say; we will NOT form a coalition form after the next General Election. A hung parliament will only reflect the decision of the voters time after time for the last 50 years – no party has got a majority of public support and often no where near so. No party has got the 60-70% of a vote that their 60-70% of the seats in the House of Commons should be based on. Thatcher never got more than 44% and in 2005 Blair got 35%; just over in one three of Britons voted for our government. A hung parliament is the only democratic result there can be after the next election!

A (reasonable) criticism of a hung parliament or a fairer voting system is that the third party of a number of smaller parties decide who the government is by who they form a coalition with. Also that the party or parties in the middle are always in government no matter how the electorate vote. So how about this - if there is no party that can gain a majority of support from the electorate - the largest minority party is the elected government.

We should fully respect the decision of the electorate and support the decision in the next General Election and if the largest party in the House of Commons is not us then we will support the right of the leader of the largest party to form a minority government. However in good conscious we could not maintain a minority government with our support that was not committed to a democratic system of government.

This would include;

A referendum on a fairer voting system
The chance for the opposition political parties that represent 50%+ of the electorate to have time and opportunity to propose, debate and have votes take on bills.
A commitment to fixed term parliaments – with an early general election taking place if a majority of the House of Commons votes to or the government loses a vote of no confidence
An elected second chamber – it is the 21st century

And what a fantastic House of Commons we would have. There would be real debate and scrutiny over bills. The government would face real scrutiny over its actions and be held accountable. The life blood of democracy and politics would be injected into our body politic – comprise and negotiation. Bills of parliament would be amended and be better for it before they came acts of law.

Of course in exceptional circumstances we may have to vote for a new general election to take place or against the government in a vote of no confidence (including if they try and ram a bill through the House on the back of a vote of no confidence i.e. 'back us on this or be responsible for a general election' – wholly irresponsible in itself). But we will respect the electorate and maintain the government and be responsible when it comes to the possibility of a general election before the new four year parliamentary term expires.

It would be great to go into a general election and let people know exactly where we stand – that they still get to decide who the government is. Plus, we will not get dragged down by a coalition that links us with the faults and flaws of another party. Under a fairer voting system the electorate are free are of course to vote for a majority government (i.e. one that has the support of 50% +1) but if a majority of people do not agree on which one party should govern, a fair, transparent and still democratic plan for what happens is vital.

WARNING: YOUNG WORKING CLASS MEN HAVE MONEY

2007-12-22T20:10:00.001Z

The perils of young working class men having large amounts of money has become apparent. They rampage through the streets molesting women.

After the Rugby World Cup, the England team went on a well deserved night out and had quite a few drinks. Who can blame them? They did extremely well and defied all exceptions. Just for beating Australia I will happily buy any of them a drink if I ever see one in the same pub as I. The reaction of the press was; what a bunch of crazy jokers, what are they like? I think rightly so. However, imagine the reaction if footballs did the same thing? They are castigated for being irresponsible and poor role models. Their actions are described are as depravities in the most lurid details.

Why the double standard? The class system that suffocates every facet, nook and cranny of this country strikes again. Every chance to slap down uppity working class successful footballers is taken up glee with by the press.

The media have leapt on the back of rape allegations facing Manchester United player Johnny Evans. I have no idea what so ever has to his innocent or guilt and any serious allegations of rape or sexual abuse should of course be investigated with the up most urgency. I will not certainly belittle a crime that is far more prevalent and goes often unpunished than many of us would like to admit.

If anyone has an allegation or proof of a crime being committed then they should go to the police immediately. But most of this is innuendo and smear.

The Guardian today reveals detail about young, attractive women being invited to parties by footballers or their friends. Young athletic famous and wealthy men inviting attractive women to their parties? OH MY GOD!! WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO??? If actors, rock stars or aristocrats do this, it’s fine of course, but how dare working class people do this? It’s even given a term; ‘harvesting’. Reminds one a bit of ‘grooming’ doesn’t it?

I have no idea what crap is being written by the tabloids but I’m saddened the Guardian has taken up this nonsense.

Perhaps we should go to the days when footballers earned 5 shillings a week and more importantly - knew their place.

Democratically Elected Councillor Removed from Office by Standards Board

2007-12-22T12:40:00.001Z

From Lib Dem Voice

So a ‘Standards Board’ has sacked a democratically elected councillor in Cheam.

The removal of an elected official is a very serious act and no elected individual should be above the law and immune from accountability. Every body must have some mechanism for removing members; often it is by a two-thirds vote of the whole membership. In the case of Local Councils a three-quarters vote might be safer as one party could less likely abuse super majorities against opposition councillors.

I am note sure who sits on these boards and how they are appointed but the final decision on removing a councillor must be made the whole of council not some unelected and unaccountable quango. Even a mandated sub-committee of the council should only be allowed to recommend sanctions.

In no circumstances, perhaps apart from being convicted of a criminal offence in a court of law, should a removed councillor be banned from standing for the vacant seat in the subsequent by-election; what rationale can there be for not allowing the electorate to make their decision about the councillor's actions?

Arguments contrary to my viewpoint I’m sure would say we need a sensible way of holding councillors accountable and tackling incompetence and corruption. But the standards board method is not very sensible nor effective. A strong and vibrant democratic process acting in the full glare of open public view is the only sensible or effective way of holding elected officials to account. The effect of these secretive boards on quashing dissent and questioning must be a worry for us all. The idea that setting up some committee with draconian powers can cure local government of all or many ills is tripe.

The peculiars of this case and ones opinion of this councillor are not that important. Rather we should be concerned about the sleepwalking of this country to authoritarianism and such utter contempt for democratic values.

How Would it Stop the Trafficking?

2007-12-20T15:01:00.000Z

The government is considering make it illegal to pay for sex – a surprise to people who already thought it was illegal. In fact related activities such as kerb crawling and pimping are illegal not the payment itself. You can run a knocking shop from your front room (or rather bedroom) and you or your punter would not be committing a crime.

You name it and I probably think we should legalise it; people not liking something is not a good enough reason for prohibition and when something is dangerous for the individual and/or society, giving criminals a financial incentive to promote whatever it is and sell it is moronic beyond belief and wait for it - doesn't work. People still take drugs and often in ways that are far more dangerous.

I have never thought prostitution was like recreational drugs for example. Almost no one chooses to be a prostitute. The idea that young women genuinely make a career choice to become a prostitute is nonsense. Childhood abuse, drugs and desperate circumstances are the reason why women become prostitutes. Liberals who think Liberalism is akin to a mathematical formula that the real world has no role interfering with and put ideology above people, often say there is nothing wrong with prostitution and even if there was it wouldn’t matter. All the ‘fundamentalist liberals’ I have met have never grown up in area with prostitutution and I am sure they would not be so blasé if any women they knew was a prostitute.

However does making it illegal benefit women stuck in prostitution? I fail to see how it does. Recently in Ipswich following the murders there of 5 prostitutes, a real effort was made to get these women (and girls) off the street. Advice and support was given to these young women about drugs and getting jobs or benefits and a crackdown on curb crawling meant just two women were on the streets and involved in prostitution.

Sex trafficking is truly horrific and the stories can make you barmy at the lack of humanity that some people hold and their willingness to commit such cruelty on fellow human beings.

How does kicking prostitutes out of brothels and on to the street make them any safer? No where I have read is there any mention of how the criminalisation of paying for sex will prevent women being kidnapped and brought to this country or make prostitutes in brothels any safer.

Why the Low Turn Out?

2007-12-19T15:02:00.001Z

Liberal Democrat Leadership Result

Nick Clegg: 20,988 - 50.6%
Chris Huhne: 20,477 - 49.4%
Margin of victory: 511
Total votes cast: 41,465 – 64%

Not quite forgotten because of the tightness of Clegg’s victory is the amazingly low turnout for the contest. Having talked about compulsory voting previously, it has occurred to me why there was such a low turnout? There are around 10,000 less votes than last time when the turnout was 72%. Perhaps it was the fact there were only two candidates, despite having an alternative vote system. I though Huhne was clearly the best candidate but both Clegg and Huhne are not really a million miles apart from on the positions. Policy wise, it is an indication of how worried I was about Clegg that I became so enthusiastic about Huhne (I did think Huhne is a big hitter and performer than anyone else in the party).

It would have been good to have some one from the left of the party run and engage the many Lib Dem voters (and the wider public of course) who saw little difference between the two contenders. This time I can’t blame it on the right of the party, it was the lefts’ fault for not putting up anyone. If some like Hughes or Webb would have stood, turnout would have been greater and we would have had a more credible result. God forbid the Liberal Democrats end up in a coalition with the Tories or change our name to the Orange Book Party – but we only have ourselves to blame.

Time for Compulsory Voting?

2007-12-19T14:42:00.000Z

I have always been against compulsory voting, I don’t like the idea of being told I have to do anything and it doesn’t solve the problem of why people don’t vote but I am starting to change my mind on the issue. Just 64% of Liberal Democrats voted in the leadership election; 1 in 3 of the most political people in the country couldn’t be bothered! If the small number of people who are members of political parties don’t vote than what hope is there convincing the rest of society?

Voting is important to the maintenance and survival of democracy and the people as a whole have every right to protect our democracy by ensuring people do vote and get engaged – as long as there is ‘none of the above’ option – you can’t force people to vote a particular way.

I have not made my mind up yet but I am leaning towards the compulsory voting path AKA the path to dark side.

Serious About Conservation? EU Can Forget It.

2007-12-19T14:26:00.000Z

A new deal on fishing quotas has been agreed between European Union countries. The new quotas disregard scientific evidence that show a cut of 50% on current permitted levels of commercial fishing is necessary to save fish stocks. Fishing reductions will be around 25%; half of what is needed. In some areas the amount of fishing permitted will actually increase. The amount of Cod that can be caught has increased by 11% because of an ‘increase’ in levels despite the levels being a fraction of the levels that existed in the 1970s.

The evidence is out there, yet it is ignored by politicians. Rather than bite the bullet to save species for future generations the decision has been delayed again. Perhaps the decision to get serious about conservation will never be taken. Future generations will damn the politicians of today – and us to for letting them get away with it.

Clegg Wins Leadership Contest

2007-12-18T14:43:00.001Z

Nick Clegg has won the Liberal Democrat leadership contest. I supported Huhne and am honestly gutted, the narrowness of the 511 vote margin (20,988 to 20,477) is almost worse than a bigger defeat would have been.

I think Clegg is far superior to either Brown or Cameron and he will grow into the role. I think we have missed a chance with not electing Huhne but hopefully I'm wrong.

The party elite thought this would be a Clegg Coronation and I hope they took notice of the closeness of the result - I doubt it though.

Don’t Believe the Bali Hype

2007-12-17T14:31:00.001Z

Today’s must read story is by George Monbiot, We've been suckered again by the US. So far the Bali deal is worse than Kyoto

The United States made it look as though no deal would be agreed, so the last minute deal that was rescued from the Bali Summit on tackling global warming was greeted with far more enthusiasm than it deserved.

From Monbiot’s column; 'After the Kyoto protocol was agreed, the then British environment secretary, John Prescott, announced: "This is a truly historic deal which will help curb the problems of climate change. For the first time it commits developed countries to make legally binding cuts in their emissions." Ten years later, the current environment secretary, Hilary Benn, told us that "this is an historic breakthrough and a huge step forward. For the first time ever, all the world's nations have agreed to negotiate on a deal to tackle dangerous climate change.'

Governments do now believe that they need to be seen to be doing something about global warming; hopefully soon they will believe they need to actually do something about global warming.

Are people trying to ban Christmas?

2007-12-13T14:52:00.000Z

No.

Move along please, nothing to see here.

Great article here from Salon.com in 2005.

The Women Of Iraq

2007-12-13T14:09:00.000Z

Click here for an article about life for women in Iraq today.

I usually get angry about the failed invasion of Iraq, the lies to justify why it took place and the lies to justify it now. Words fail me when I read about how life for women in Iraq is now.

Great Myths, # 1: GM Crops Means People Won't Starve

2007-12-07T14:24:00.000Z

The planet already produces enough food for everybody to eat, its economics and politics not agriculture that is responsible for starvation.

Government Bashes Immigrants to Distract from Sleaze Headlines

2007-12-07T14:10:00.000Z

The government thinks that leaflets shouldn't be published in the languages of recent immigrants and that instead the money should be spent on English lessons.

The Labour Government are desperate to get in some 'positive' headlines and stop the continuing relevations that they are even a bigger bunch of crooks than was previously though out of the papers.

To pick on the some of the most vunerable, excluded and bashed around members of society is sickening. It's even worse when the driving force behind it is because the Government has been uncovered as crooks and sleaze merchants.

No one can, I hope, oppose the provision of English learns for Immigrants. However the lessons that would replace leaflets is a red herring. To shout that they can learn english of p*** off back home is appaling. What if you work all day long or are far away from somewhere you can learn English. What if it takes a few months to learn English or you have just arrived? No leaflets and information for essential public services?

How far the Labour Party has fallen.

Labour and money, Tories and sex…

2007-11-30T12:54:00.001Z

With the scandalous incompetence/criminal activities that have been uncovered this week, it seems money is to Labour what sex is to Tories.

Why is this? Perhaps if you start telling people what/how/if they should be doing with something then karma comes into play.

Or maybe it’s something to do with not being very good with it…

The Monthly Political Performance Index

2007-11-30T09:22:00.000Z

I have no doubt that this will have no effects outside the political blogosphere but will provide lots of fun to political junkies everywhere.

Fill in The Monthly Political Performance Index

Surely Vince Cable will come out on top, though as it has been started by Iain Dale, I think there is a good chance it will be dominated by Tories.

The Freedom that Dare Not Speak its Name – No Platform in Students’ Unions.

2007-11-29T17:08:00.001Z

I was sad to learn that members of the Union of UEA Students, of which I was a proud member for five years, voted to get rid of its no platform policy for fascists.and by quite a margin.

I always got quite a lot of flak in the Lib Dems in my student days for my support of no platform policy in Students’ Union and the NUS. I didn’t see any conflict with the principle of freedom of speech because of another freedom hardly any mentioned in this debate, freedom of association. People have a right to form and be in an organisation and decide its own rules. If the members of a Students’ Union decide that for the protection and safety of its members it does not wish to have its premises and other facilities used by fascists, they have every right to do so. There is also the fact that the views of fascists are wholly contradictory to the aims and goals of a students union.

Some people hold the view that students are essentially public bodies but if this was the case then they should adopt no political positions whatsoever (which some people do believe).

Imagine walking into a Students’ Union building and see a poster for the BNP Student Society with a talk on why immigrants/black people/gays are responsible for crime/social ills/ the collapse of everything we know. Is that what a Students’ Union is for?

The argument is that the only way to beat fascists is by exposing their ridiculous and evil arguments; this is of course sometimes the case. However I think sometimes you can beat fascists by telling them to piss off as they aren’t welcome here.

As I said, freedom of association is barely mentioned in this debate. Those supporting No Platform seem not to be really bothered that they may be restricting freedom of speech and those supporting are often very quite when it comes to freedoms that are inconvenient to their views.

I spent a lot of time and much enjoyment battling the reactionaries in the Students’ Union at UEA. I was always puzzled at their motivation. Why work so hard to get a fascist the right to speak in a Students’ Union? Do you not have something more worthwhile to work for? Other battles the reactionaries of UEA chose to fight, and win, were to ensure that an interview panel rather students chose the editor of the student and newspaper and to make it mandatory for the Union to hold a disco every year with the following themes, Chav Night, Playboy Night and Pimps and Ho’s Night, respectively. It’s not exactly fighting Apartheid is it? Progressive Students’ Unions are to them what water is to witches.

The reactionaries have actually gone beyond apathy and through the other side.

The reactionaries have actually gone through apathy and through the other side. Their agenda is to oppose anything progressive. I remember feeling uncomfortable when Ann Widdecombe answered the question of why she got into politics by saying ‘because I hate socialism’; there is nothing wrong with that in itself (!) but to only be against things and not for anything is a little odd.

Higson's Elf

2007-11-29T14:01:00.000Z

I’m starting to get that Christmas feeling.

Elf yourself at www.elfyourself.com

Freedom of Speech, Fascists and the Oxford Union – Both Sides Should Shut Up

2007-11-28T14:40:00.000Z

I think both sides of the argument about whether BNP leader Nick Griffin and holocaust denier David Irving should have spoken at the Oxford Union missed some important points.

The number of times that those opposed to the debate said something along the lines of 'I believe in freedom of speech but…', No you don't. You believe in freedom of speech or you don’t. The idea that exempting fascists or similar undesirables from freedom of speech is the same in principle as exempting the protections of freedom of speech to say, someone shouting fire in a crowd theatre is nonsense. Freedom of speech does not give some the right to commit a crime or conspire to do so. Limiting the freedom of speech of fascists, that may be justified, but it is disingenuous to suggest it is anything other than limiting freedom of speech.

The tactics adopted by those opposing Griffin and Irving speak have to be questioned. Rather than attacking them speaking surely it would have been more effective to attack what they have said and continue to do. This is not a pedantic point. Instead of publicising the racist and other disgusting opinions held by the two men we are having a debate about freedom of speech and letting Griffin and Irving pose as martyrs (though I think with little credibility but then my vote was never at risk going to the BNP).

I could invite Nick Griffin and David Irving to speak in my house but I have no desire to do, I am not sure why the Oxford Union have.

The Oxford Union organisers are right that they should be able to have anyone they want to speak at their debates but just because they can doesn't mean they should. I could invite Nick Griffin and David Irving to speak in my house but I have no desire to do so, I am not sure why the Oxford Union decided to. Did the two really have something to say vital to a debate about freedom of speech? Also, if you have a bunch of fascists around your house don't be suprised when people come around and have a protest..they are bloody fascists!

Edit - As a proud former member of UEA Debating Society, why is the Oxford Union, sans fascists and holocaust deniers, considered so bloody important?

Benefit Scroungers

2007-11-27T05:30:00.000Z

I briefly watched Monarchy: the Royal Family at Work on the BBC last night. I find such utterly sycophantic portrayals of the Royal Family quite stomach churning. The nearest the show came to acknowledging that the Windsors are Britain’s No. 1 benefit scrounging family was to mention that some people wondered if the Queen’s style of monarchy was as relevant as it could be in this day and age (before making it quite obvious for us all that it was). Some people of course think that the idea of monarchy is not relevant in this day and age. However there was not a mention of Republicanism and there never is on TV. I am always surprised it is still a political and media taboo in the 21st Century to advocate an elected head of state.

Republic – The Campaign for an Elected Head of State

The craziest blog on the internet

Huhne Wins by a Nose

2007-11-20T00:07:00.000Z

Here is Part 2 of my take on the debate between the two contenders in the Liberal Democrat leadership election that took place on Question Time.

Click Here to see it.

Question: Is the President of Pakistan the leader of a rouge state?

Huhne is a little bit woolly here; ‘General Masharif is certainly someone who is overstaying his welcome very substantially’? Chris Huhne does give a good answer but it’s just good, not great. Clegg I think for the first time out performs Huhne, if only just, with his comments on Putin’s Russia.

Question: How you would appeal to voters who want tax cuts?

I’d become a Tory? Only kidding…

Chris Huhne gives a good response about easing the tax burden on lower income earners. David Dimbleby cuts this topic off before Nick Clegg can get in to his stride when they both agree that there really is no difference between either of the contenders on tax.

A sad fact is that when candidates for the same post agree on issues they are seen as boring and when they disagree it is typically described as ‘squabbling’ or ‘in-fighting’. The level of political debate in this country is set at a pathetically low bar, even in the Liberal Democrats; it is virtually none existent elsewhere.

Question: How can we tell which of you is which?

Nick Clegg has some good things to say but he gets knocked around by David Dimbleby. It’s all very nice but that’s it.

I am starting to think both candidates fail to grasp what the questioner is looking for, who even responds to David Dimbley ‘…I think conviction is attractive, what it appears that the choice is at the moment is between which pretty face you have on a set of policies that are agreed on elsewhere.’ The man wants to know your convictions, your beliefs, why you are standing in this election; why do you want to be leader or is this all some glorified beauty contest about who can pass the Mr. Media Congeniality task?

I absolutely screamed at the telly when Huhne made a not very wise wisecrack and then listed his bloody CV! Perhaps I’m being a little harsh but only a little. If I was angry with Huhne I was bloody furious at Clegg but then lo! Suddenly he starts to talk about what makes him angry and why he is in politics and I think for the first time I am seeing what other Liberal Democrats have said they see in him. Huhne realises Clegg has smashed him on this question and does his best to get his convictions across and pulls back a little. The good news for Clegg is that he clearly answers a question better than Huhne for the first time and shows perhaps why he has so often been tipped in the past for the leadership; the bad news is that we are two thirds of the way through the programme.

Question: I’d like to know where the candidates stand on the subject of having a National Health Service, rather than the current situation where we have these primary care trusts, as they are called?

The reason I have been unsure about Clegg is his Orange Booker reputation and he doesn’t reassure me here but to be fair to him I doubt he could have as I think during election campaigns even Liberal Democrats tell people what they want to hear. That aside, a great answer from Clegg.

Chris Huhne tries to query Clegg about Clegg’s previous positions and thank goodness Huhne has tried to bring this up. This is exactly what leadership contests should be about and I think the idea that these differences are just being created doesn’t wash at all. Some Clegg supporters want people to think that ‘there are no real differences between the two men so why not vote for Clegg’ is a bit pathetic and is about has far as you can get from leadership.

With Huhne’s response I have realised he can be a bit (policy) wonkish. On the other hand, I am not a massive fan of Clegg’s ‘I’m a cool teacher impression’ or his puzzled look when people question his past stances.

The next question concerns how the candidates’ children are educated (public or private) and about whether the school leaving age should be raised to 18.

I like Huhne saying we need more than the governments current 'aspiration' to equalise funding for private and public education and actually 'do it' – is this the first go at Brown we have heard this evening? I would like to have heard a little bit more criticism of Brown and not just Cameron this evening and in this contest – I know they don’t want to look ‘nasty’ but criticising the other political parties is okay I think.

Both Clegg and Huhne give good answers on whether to raise the school leaving age to 18 but they could have a lot snappier.

Question: How would you engage more young people in politics and do you support lowering the voting age to 16?

Both perform well and thank goodness really, it’s an easy question. I would have loved it if one of them had of said, ‘How would I engage more young people in politics? Well I am an MP, I’m standing for the leadership of the party so that’s a start and I will treat younger votes as I treat everyone; as grown adults.’

Question: Has David Cameron already cornered the market in young but inexperienced political leadership?

Nick Clegg says ‘Why are you looking at me, David? Mmm. Yeh, I wonder why Nick? Anyhow I am sure Clegg rehearsed this answer but it was nevertheless impressive.

Question: What are the best qualities of your opponent?

They are the second best potential leader? They might give me a job if I lose? They actually stood in this bloody election? Anyway, that’s quite enough.

So I am backing Huhne after he performed better than Clegg in this debate. I am (still) a little uncomfortable with Clegg’s previous positions on certain issues and his refusal to own up to them. Huhne just seems to be the better performer so far and the one I agree with on most of the issues. Nick Clegg had one or two moments that I would like to see more of, but perhaps it’s too late. I will post tomorrow about what I thought about the Politics Show debate between the two men. This Wednesday there will be a debate live, if that’s the right word, right here in Cambridge. Despite what the Nick Clegg fan club may say, I have plenty of reasons to vote for Huhne and none so far as to why I should back Clegg.

I am still waiting to see some real guts and glory, some fire and belief from either possible leader, though I have seen a vague glimmer of it. It is not that I think they should always be like that but I want to know they have some conviction and, excuse me for saying, but that they give a shit.

Can it be that the shallow emptiness that fills every nook and cranny of British politics has finally made its way into the Liberal Democrats?

I have seen the beginnings of quite good leaders in both candidates but I still have concerns. Still, the General Election is two years away and I somewhat surer now that either man could well grow in to the role.

Tomorrow – The two candidates have a ‘bust up’ on the Politics Show and thank goodness for it!

Telemarketing Murderer

2007-11-18T21:12:00.000Z

Absolute genius.

Question Time Liberal Democrat Leadership Hustings – Chris Huhne Wins

2007-11-18T17:57:00.000Z

Here is my take on the first TV debate between the two contenders. Click Here to see it. I am undecided as to who I’ll be voting for, let’s see if this helps me decide. I thought about giving the two an easy time for this post but that way surely leads to madness. We shouldn’t be afraid of real debate because it may be used against us later by our opponents – we are a democratic party and we should act like it. I am interested to see Nick Clegg in action as I haven’t seen more than clips of him until now.

David Dimbleby introduces Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne, I had entirely forgot that both men had only entered Parliament in 2005 - just 2 and a half years ago. It is strange to have a leadership contest with MPs who have not been in Parliament for very long.

Anyway here we go - Ding Ding.

Question: Has the way in which the previous two leaders left office had a negative effect on how the voters see the party?

I am surprised at how Nick Clegg really waffles in answering this question and Chris Huhne clearly wins this round. Chris Huhne is not rattled by David Dimbleby asking him about a previous statement regarding whether ‘a Cameron-clone’ is a reference to Nick Clegg. Clegg is absolutely hammered by David Dimbleby when Clegg is asked about referring to Chris Huhne as opportunistic in the past. Surely you should stand by it, reject that was what you said or admit you were wrong? Nick Clegg is all over the place. David Dimbleby gets a few laughs; I fear he may be the only one to do so this evening.

Chris Huhne gets the first applause of the evening by stating he is against renewing Trident.

It appears that Chris Huhne is a big fan of previous leaders, Charles Kennedy and Ming Campbell, while Nick Clegg is a really, really big fan of Charles Kennedy and Ming Campbell. Chris Huhne at least gives some details about why the two men resigned the leadership. Am surprised at how wishy-washy Clegg is. His refusal to take any responsibility for effectively sacking (with other Lib Dem MPs) Kennedy and backing Ming to replace him until that proved disastrous is very annoying.

Through out the debate both Huhne and Clegg try and get in their wider vision for the party but while Huhne appears very natural doing so Clegg seems as though he just isn't answering the question.

Question: In a hung parliament which party would you be prepared to form a collation with?

I think both candidates fluffed this one. I know the point Chris Huhne was trying to make about the Labour Party and the Tories being far more similar to each other than the Lib Dems are to either of them but it came out a bit nonsensical when he used the example of a Labour – Tory coalition. While Chris Huhne was bad Nick Clegg was even worse.

Note to candidates – How about this next time: I’m not trying to be in a coalition government. I’m fighting for as many Lib Dem MP’s as possible and a Lib Dem Government! The Liberal Democrats are the only party that will make the changes that this country so desperately needs. If there is a hung parliament, then all the parties will talk with each other and as leader of the Liberal Democrats I will make a decision based on what is in the best interests of the country – a priority for me of any coalition government will be ensuring as much as possible of our manifesto – which people voted for us on the basis of – is put into action.

I think both candidates tried to get their answers to any rebuttals in straight away and it didn’t work at all – they both sound very politician-like and not in a good way. Chris Huhne does rally somewhat at the end.

Just over a third of the way through and Huhne is clearly winning the debate. Over the years fellow Lib Dems have been so enthusiastic about Clegg he’s had messiah like attributes surrounding him – it is hard to see what the fuss is about.

Question: Is Trident really the answer to securing a safer planet?

WARNING: CANDIDATES DISAGREE ON POLICY… WARNING: CANDIDATES DISAGREE ON POLICY… WARNING: CANDIDATES DISAGREE ON POLICY…

Nick Clegg gives an absolutely woeful response. His position is that he is against renewing Trident but Britain shouldn’t take that position until global talks take place in 2010 and Britain should use getting rid of Trident and Britain’s nuclear weapons as a negotiating chip to secure other countries not developing/getting rid of current nukes… although he just said he wants to get rid of them??

Does he think foreign governments don’t watch TV or read newspapers? Getting rid of Trident only works as a negotiating chip if there is a possibility that we would in fact keep it. So with Nick Clegg as Prime Minister we might keep Trident – apparently not, so why not just say so? The only answer can be that we may keep trident or have a ridiculous negotiating position.

Chris Huhne rips the guts out of Nick Cleggs response to this question and then states his position is that he doesn’t want Trident and £20 Billion wasted and 50 years of being tied to the United States.

Nick Clegg digs a bigger hole by saying ‘This debate is not about getting rid of Trident, we all want to do that, it’s about how you do it best.’ Mmm, I don’t think the best way of getting Trident is by possibly keeping it.

Nick Clegg makes a good point about the scandal of Prime Minister Brown signing Britain up to the American ballistic defensive system by way of a letter to the House of Commons Library but then says that that is far more important than getting rid of Trident. I think they are both pretty important Nick.

So half way through and Nick Clegg is recovering from a woeful start but Chris Huhne is clearly winning the debate – and my vote.

PART 2 will be on Higson’s Log on Monday Evening.

Stitch Up Job on The Politics Show

2007-11-18T12:11:00.000Z

Mark Littlewood, former head of the Liberal Democrat press department, was again on the BBC with a quasi-independent report which discussed the future of the Liberal Democrat Party and suggested that a radical future was needed AKA a swerve to the right and cut taxes (and stuff the public services)! Ordinary members of the public said perhaps a radical distintive approach was what the Liberal Democrats needed AKA a swerve to the right and cut taxes (and stuff the public services)! Even Tory Iain Dale was asked what the Liberal Democrats should do and he reluctantly let slip that Liberals should be Liberals AKA a swerve to the right and cut taxes (and stuff the public services)!

It's amazing that all the people Mark Littlewood approaches have the same views, which he also shares! Can the BBC not find a Liberal Democrat with another view?

Man ‘Found Guilty’ of having Sex with Bike

2007-11-15T13:41:00.000Z

While having sex with a bike is not for many of us, indeed before today I was not aware it was for any of us, should it be a crime? Robert Stewart, "admitted a sexually aggravated breach of the peace by conducting himself in a disorderly manner and simulating sex".

The man was given three years prohibition and put on the sex offenders register! The sex offenders register!!?? It’s a bloody bike! I am not sure how this can even be considered a crime. While it may be considered, let's say, odd, surely what you do in the privacy of your house or in this case, hostel room, is your own business?

Media and Politicians ask ‘why do Brits get so drunk?’

2007-11-13T19:35:00.000Z

I am not sure why young people do get drunk and in such quantities, Personally, I think a good chunk of my weekly unit intake is down to the effect that politicians and the media have on me. Gordon Brown is Prime Minister ! –glug, glug. ITV News is on!! – glug, glug, glug. Gordon Brown is on ITN News!!! – glug, glug, glug, glug, glug.

As I said I have no idea why people binge drink and why so many kids drink. I am not sure going on about ‘Britain’s culture’ and the need to change it is particularly helpful – what does that actually mean? It is a sign however of an unhealthy society but is legislation the answer? I am sure that even more tax (Britain has the second highest in Europe) on alcohol is not the answer, with tax so steep already can it be that that is the problem – it’s too cheap? Punishing poorer people cannot be right either.

Andrew Neil made a good point (I know!) on the Politics Show today, why not enforce existing laws? Punish people that are drunk and violent and throw the book at anyone who sells alcohol to kids. Perhaps instead of further legislation we should take a look at what Britain is like and why alcohol fills a void that so obviously exists.

Monkey Rampage Madness

2007-11-13T10:07:00.000Z

Great story here about monkeys in Delhi.

Lib Dem Leadership Hustings Online

2007-11-13T08:24:00.000Z

Great idea here. As soon as I can find the cable to connect my phone to my laptop I will put my probing and cunning question here.

Am being a little bit random here - The current presidential election campaign in the United States is a good indication of what the next general election will be like. There has already been a debate for Democrats and Republicans respectively, hosted by CNN and Youtube were people could video in their questions.

Blog of the Week

2007-11-12T10:01:00.000Z

There is nothing like meeting an absolute and committed monarchist to reassure me of my republican beliefs.

Here at the Monarchist Blog we have the online equivalent of people who have their entire houses clad in royal memorabilia.
.
I really don’t know what to think of the fact that contributors to the blog have given themselves pseudonyms such as Churchill, Horatio Nelson and er, Baden-Powell. I suppose they are paying some kind of tribute but I can’t help feel it’s a little creepy and maybe even arrogant to give yourself the name Winston Churchill; your posts had better be pretty good and say, help win a world war.

The State Opening of Parliament – A pantomime without any laughs

2007-11-11T13:34:00.000Z

When I get stuck in a debate on the monarchy, royalists seem astonished and even angry that I suggest getting rid of the Royal Family or even that I’m in favour of the most mild reforms to our constitution.

Responses are invariably platitudes such as, ‘if ain’t broke then don’t fix it (it’s broke), it makes Britain what it is (it really doesn’t) and do you want a President Blair then? (well I didn’t want a Prime Minister Blair and that’s why I didn’t vote for him). I really would like monarchists to see the whole of the State Opening of Parliament and see if they can look me in me the eye and say ‘this is what makes Britain great.’

This Tuesday I watched the State Opening of Parliament (which has its ‘highlight’ the Queen’s Speech) for the first time in quite a few years. The BBC news team led by Hugh Edwards really got to use their pocket thesauruses; majestic, magnificent, glorious, splendid and on and on and on (and on).

In fact the whole spectacle looked a bit silly and dare I say it, (I do) tacky. Before the ‘main event’ there are a whole lot of goings on with the crown , the sword of state, the cap of maintenance (isn’t that from Harry Potter?) and the spear of destiny and Exalibur(I think).

Now the argument for all this is that ‘it’s tradition’. I always though that was quite a poor piece of thinking. Maybe this is where Conservatives and Liberals diverge. Conservatives in fact believe unless it is really, really broken, in fact completely and utterly vaporised, then don’t fix it. Liberals think you have to justify something to keep it going, that it should be useful and have some kind of purpose.

I don’t think the whole event is wonderful pomp and circumstance, though it is quite possible I have never thought anything was wonderful pomp and circumstance. A lot of the participants seemed not to know when to bow or where to turn, it was almost a comedy sketch (sans humour). I have no problem with white old men, in fact one day I will be one but did there have to be so many? Some women or ethnic minorities would have been good; in fact ANY would have been good. I said it before and I will say it again those kids holding the Queen’s robes should have been in school and receiving an education (the kids of course weren’t white old men, they were white young boys! Hello diversity 2007).

When the Queen has arrived and is seated in the House of Lords, Black Rod is sent off to summon the House of Commons and gets the doors of the Common shut in his face. Of course, this is all very symbolic of the right of the House of Commons to engage in meaningless gestures (I think that’s right).

The two events of the day that I have some regard for now take place. Dennis Skinner hurls abuse at Black Rod and some members stay behind as being elected representatives they won’t be summoned by anybody apart from the people.

More pathetic members of the House saunter of to the House of Lords (again more meaningless gesture; we will come but we won’t hurry).

Then when the whole of parliament is there (the Queen, the House of Lords and about the 30 MP’s that can get a view) we have the lowlight of the day, the Queen’s Speech. The speech is written by the Government and read out by the Queen and it sets out the Government’s legislative programme for the year.

Why oh why does this take place at 11am in the morning as opposed to in the evening when people could watch it? Because this is not done for or in the name of the people of Britain; it’s about tradition and monarchy and not about effective, open and working government. The State of the Union address in the United States is made by the President, the head of government to the elected legislature. Where there are not vague generalities but specific proposals with justifications and explanations.

Government should not, primarily at least, be about pomp (though I think something like the American State of the Union Address has far more gravitas and is held with far more respect than our State Opening of Parliament). Government is a tool, a device there to do a job. Why not have an address by our head of government, the Prime Minister to the elected House of Commons with his legislative programme. Make that the State Opening of Parliament. Make that a national event when people listen to what our Government and Parliament plans to do with our Country.

As for the speech itself, the speech started out by talking about the rising aspirations of the British people, have our aspirations really risen? Do we want even better education or even lower levels of crime than in the past? Did we not really care much a few years ago?

I think the only aspiration I have had increase recently is for a General Election to get rid of this useless government and among my many, many grievances, stop its abuse of the English language.

It really is hard to disagree with any specifics because by and large there aren’t any.

My Government wants all children to have the best possible start in life.

Okay, I’m with you on that Gordon.

Republic

State Opening of Parliament

Condoleezza Rice as Vice-President?

2007-11-10T12:37:00.001Z

Write down ‘Higson’s Log’ and the time and date that you read this. Any of the likely Republican nominees for President, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson and now Mike Huckabee (and Ron Paul?), could not choose anyone to make them more electable than Condoleezza Rice.

When the Republicans could well be facing a woman or black man (unless John Edwards can grab the nomination) at the top of the Democratic ticket and with the American public largely looking for change, Rice could add some dynamism that the Republican nominee would desperately need. It is not just that she would help the Republican ticket be more viable in challenging for women’s votes and Black Americans voters (perhaps even more so with black women) but she has an incredible life story and she is not your typical Republican i.e. a mean old white guy.

Electoral maths and the possibility of a brokered convention could deny her the VP spot on the ticket. While Condoleezza may get some votes across the country other choices (most likely Republican Governors) for the ticket could bring in specific actual states and even regions. We have also seen there are now SIX realistic possibilities for the Republican nomination and the possibility of no candidate having a majority of delegates is more likely than it has been for DECADES. Added with the unknown effects of the new calendar of primary and caucus dates we could see a situation in which a candidate with a large number of delegates makes a deal with one of his opponents for the support of their delegate in return for the no. 2 spot on the ticket.

There is also ideological balance to consider, the eventual nominee (perhaps apart from Mike Huckabee) will to have reassure the Republican base and that may mean they have to choose a cast iron Conservative (with a big, big ‘C’) and that is not Rice.

The nominee will probably run away from President Bush and his record apart from on the Iraq war, the one area that Rice is locked in with Bush. Though while the nominee may not run away from the Iraq war, they may not want to shove it down everyone’s throats.

Hollyoaks' Drug Lies

2007-11-08T18:58:00.000Z

Accidently (honestly) I tuned in to channel 4 soap opera Hollyoaks to see a drugs storyline with some nonsense suggested about marijuana. One thing that should be obvious is the only sensible approach to drugs is giving young and older adults all the facts and letting people make their own minds ups. If you tell teenagers that there heads will explode if they have a joint, they will stop listening pretty fast. Higson's Log will be monitoring Hollyoaks and their anti-drug lies (Probably not).

State Opening of Parliament

2007-11-06T11:55:00.000Z

More to come later but some quick thoughts;

1. What is Jack Straw? The new Lord Chancellor looked ridiculous, as a real (i.e. elected) politician dressed in his tights and all, but to REINSTATE the tradition of walking backwards from the Queen after Derry Irvine modernised the whole event by about 1 millimetre. Radical Jack, President of the NUS back in 1968 is dead. Hello establishment chief sucker-upper.

2. Why weren't those kids holding the Queen's robe in school?

3. Thank goodness for Dennis Skinner exposing the event for the circus that it is.

4. Well done to those MPs who continued to sit in the Parliament after being 'summoned' by the Queen. Nobody orders the representatives of the people about except the people themselves. If only...

Happy Guy Fawkes Day

2007-11-05T08:28:00.000Z

Happy Guy Fawkes day to you all.

There will be a drink or two this evening to his memory.

It's Huhne v. Clegg

2007-10-18T20:37:00.001+01:00

So Stephen Webb has decided not to run and it appears that only Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne will be running for the leadership.

I am off to get drunk and this is nothing to do with the Liberal Democrats now being the Orange Book party.

King Kennedy

2007-10-17T19:35:00.000+01:00

Here is the enviable post about should/would/will/can Charles Kennedy stand, and win, for the Liberal Democrat leadership.

While an obvious choice there are important reasons why Charles Kennedy is a strong contender for the leadership of his party.

1. His huge popularity and name recognition with the general public.

2. He was the most successful leader in 80 years.

3. He managed to successfully keep both wings of the party together in the same big yellow tent.

Reasons that Charles Kennedy might stand:

1. The next leader will probably stay leader for at least the next two general elections. Despite the aftermath of the coup two years, will he be in a better position to become leader again, ever again?

2. HUGELY popular with the party membership – if not the MPs.

3. To prove a point – Kennedy’s back and he’s kickin ass (or something like that).

4. The next election is the most likely to produce a hung parliament in a generation. What Lib Dem wouldn’t want to be leader?

Reasons against:

1. After two years ago who could blame him for never wanting anything to do with it again?

2. Bigger priorities – being with his young family and battling his addiction.

3. Stuff 'em. Could he really want to work with ‘back stabbers’.

He still hasn’t ruled himself out. If he did run, to paraphrase ‘Bad Boys 2’, this thing would blow wide open.

The Poles are Up for Grabs

2007-10-17T07:19:00.000+01:00

So Britain is to claim more than 1million sq km of the South Pole.

Listening to Today on Radio 4 yesterday, a scientist informed us that essentially all experts predict that there will be no ice at the North Pole in summers what so ever by as soon as 2023 and as late as around 100 years from now. This will be for the first time in thousands of years.

Those that still claim global warm has not been proven really need to look at the fact that governments and corporations are planning on the basis that the ice caps will vastly reduce in size (as well as say - all scientists).

Of course now most climate change deniers have moved on to just denying that global warming is caused by human activity.

A Move to the Right WILL Cost the Lib Dems Seats

2007-10-16T20:02:00.000+01:00

So it is being said by all that Nick Clegg is the favourite to win the Lib Dem leadership contest followed closely by Chris Huhne and this could mean a shift to the right (perhaps less so if Huhne was to win) for the Liberal Democrats and this will undoubtedly cost them seats at the next general election.

The Lib Dems won a number of former Tory seats by appealing to and winning one time Labour voters. There won’t be many who voted Tory in 2005 who would switch to the Lib Dems now (if they voted Tory with Michael Howard as leader in 2005, I’d say they were Tory for good).

So while there are many Tory ‘marginals’ where the Lib Dems are second, there are in reality only a handful of Tory seats that are real targets at the next election. However a whole swathe of Labour Seats in 2005 came within touching distant of the Lib Dems for the first time and a move to make the Lib Dems the third party on the right of British Politics would mean they would have no chance of winning those seats. These Labour seats have not been really contested for years and have soft Labour majorities, while there will many Tories who would love to get rid of Labour we also must target Labour voters. Such targets have never received much funding from the Lib Dems and they could be real opportunities for electoral success.

If the Lib Dems are to win seats at the election then the big urban Labour dominated centres of northern England have to be a main target. Having running Liverpool City Council for years, Lib Dems have still not taken a parliamentary seat though they came close last time, Manchester, Yorkshire and Newcastle all offer good opportunities as well. Of course the Lib Dems need to keep seats being targeted by the Tories but many Tory leaning voters, voted Lib Dem in 2005 without a lurch to the right and in seats where Labour have NO chance of winning a right-wing swing would mean there is no way they would back us.

Finally, can three centre right parties be a good thing for democracy in Britain?

Bloggers 4 Steve Webb-site

2007-10-16T18:59:00.000+01:00

A blog for supporters of Steve Webb has been set up here.

EDIT - Here is the Steve Webb for Leader Facebook Group.

Hughes and Cable on Newsnight

2007-10-16T07:41:00.000+01:00

Watched Newsnight last night. I thought Vince Cable and Simon Hughes did quite well.

It was good to see when criticised for saying that the leadership was '...under discussion', that he was stating the bleeding obvious. In a similar vein, Hughes said that he was asked after saying that the party needed to do better, did that apply to the leader as well, what else was he suppose to say apart from yes?

Typical sensationalism crap from the press instead of real newsworthy stories.

Hail Ming

2007-10-15T19:26:00.001+01:00

Ming Campbell Resigns

Get ready for all the platitudes that will be said about Ming Campbell from the people that have laid in to him for last few days or among some Lib Dem critics much, much longer.

I think they way in which he has stepped down shows what kind of a man he is, he wasn’t dragged out, he decided that his time was up and credit to him, he put his party, and perhaps his country as well, before his own career – hard for most politicians. I said before how different he was to Cameron and Brown and can’t we see how clearly today.

I didn’t support Ming for the leadership but I think he was a decent leader and I think he would have made a great Prime Minister. Those that got supported Ming only to turn on him should take a long look in the mirror.

One of Ming’s problems (or rather our country’s problem) was the ageism that we can see is so prevalent in Britain. 66 and you are considered on the scrapheap. Look at the United States and that 68 year old John McCain’s age is hardly mentioned.

The Beginning of the End for Labour - Perhaps

2007-10-15T15:14:00.000+01:00

The election chaos of the last fortnight has made some Tories think that this is a significant watershed moment in British Politics and they have a point - to an extent. I don’t think that this moment signals Tory victory or the end for the Labour Government but perhaps it is the 'beginning of the end'. It is a fact that Labour will not stay in power forever; it is arguably the first time since 1997 that it is really being considered when that day will come.

It is not the non-election in itself that I think is crucial but the reaction of some Labour MPs to Brown’s performance. The eagerness to (publically) criticise is not something I have ever seen from anything but those on the left of the Labour Party. It reminded me of the Tories in the 1990s. While the Blairites have had the sense to hold back, it seemed to take all their effort to do so. I think they are starting to do what all governments in power do after a time; they take their status as the party of government for granted. The Tories after 10 years out of power and no chance of getting it seem to have finally have grasped that they will have to change to have any chance of winning. I think Cameron is more right-wing than he lets on (he was the author of the 2005 Tory manifesto), I may think he's wrong about say, everything, but he’s no idiot; he won’t take the party to the right no matter how much the Norman Tebbits of the world want him to.

In British politics, it seems a party needs a sense of discipline. I don’t think this is a good thing, it limits discussion and debate, but it remains the case. That discipline comes as a result of a thirst to win. Labour are losing it, the Tories are gaining it and as for the Lib Dems, I am not sure, they don’t follow the same rules as the two main parties and that’s rather the point of the Lib Dems. Lib Dems can decide to insist that they will never abandon open debate and discussion even if others label it disunity but they need to get that deep desire to win and soon, while they still have the chance.

A bit of detour here but after considering that Labour will one day not be sitting on the government benches, an interesting question is; Will the long periods of one party dominating continue? If the Tories were to win this election (unlikely) or the one after, I don’t see them being in power for as long as 18 years (Tories: 1979-97) or 12/16 years (1997-2009/2014). The Lib Dems mix it up even more. If the Tories and Lib Dems combined take over 33 seats directly from Labour (hardly unimaginable), that’s it – hung parliament.

I can’t see Lib Dems doing a deal on a full coalition government, but if it was to happen I think it would be foolish on the part of the Lib Dems. Labour or the Tories would be more or less evenly divided in terms of popular support and we would lose support among some Lib Dems which ever of the two parties we formed a coalition (I wouldn't be happy with either the Labour or Tory Party).

Better to support the largest party as the government in votes of confidence unless they are really incompetent and an election is obviously inevitable OR (if or if not we get fixed term for parliaments) 4 years after the election. Lib Dems could demand changes in the way in which Parliament operates. There would be real scrutiny of bills in the House and in Committees. Opposition parties would have the opportunity to put forward bills. You better believe there would more scrutiny of the executive branch of government. It would be like having a real parliament…