|
James Graham is the Organisational Vice Chair of the Green Liberal Democrats and a member of the Federal Executive of the Liberal Democrats. He has had several jobs in the Liberal Democrats and from 1998-2000 was the Sabbatical Communications Officer of the Liberal Democrat Youth and Students. James' commentary on comics and popular culture can now be found on The Other Quaequam Blog. James also occasionally updates Land Notes. DISCLAIMER The views on this website are personal and should not be assumed to reflect the policy of the Green Liberal Democrats, Liberal Democrats or even the Campus Crusade for Cthulhu. Please note that I reserve the right to publish any emails I receive with reference to this site (although I will not publish email addresses). If you would really prefer that I don't, please mention this explicitly in the message. And of course, be polite. |
Lib Dem Blogs
Other Political Blogs
- Kick-AAS
- Fistful of Euros
- Tom Watson
- Farringdon Street
- Natalie Solent
- Harry's Place
- Mike Oborski
- Anthony Wells
- Official Blog of the Not The Lib Dems Party
- Oliver Kamm - The Daddy
- Biased BBC
- Matthew Turner
- Truth Unvarnished
- au currant
Leamington Links
Archives
Politics and comics - one involves freakish cartoon characters getting into ridiculous situations that never happen in real life. And the other one is comics.
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Bags and tax
Mark Ramsden says some supportive things about my doomed bid to tweak the Lib Dem policy on a plastic bag levy. I'm glad I convinced someone! What I was proposing was that instead of using the money raised from the levy to spend of "environmental and recycling schemes", it should go towards subsidising municipal taxes. This was on the premise that people should not be forced to pay twice for things (essentially under the policy they would pay twice for the environmental cost of plastic bags - once at the shop counter, and once in their council tax), and that green taxation should not be presented as green taxation.
Unfortunately, the movers and a number of speakers seized on the fact that I was "opposing" environmental schemes (in fact I wasn't, but there you go) - a crime in Lib Dem circles akin to paedophilia and the amendment fell with about 95% of people opposed.
But I remain defiant. Hypothecation is a bloody stupid idea, doubly so in this case where the cost of waste disposal is being paid out of another tax. What for example would happen if the levy only reduced plastic bag use by 60%, rather than the 90% experienced in Ireland (the British are, after all, notoriously stubborn bastards) - would we spend all 4 billion on environmental schemes? Fair enough perhaps, but what if it reduced bag use by 95% - would we drastically have to cut spending on environmental schemes? And what if we extended this principle out to other forms of packaging - at what point would we carry on ploughing this revenue into "green" schemes?
An excellent example of this in action is Ken Livingstone's Congestion Charge. A success in that it has reduced traffic in the centre of London, but so much so that the revenue that was supposed to be raised to invest in public transport is coming up short. While the powers of the GLA are very limited, and it is entirely possible he didn't exactly have much choice in this, it shows how one strategy has been undermined by linking it to another.
In my view, controversial in Lib Dem circles, new taxs should be used to reduce existing ones, not to raise revenue (which is a different issue). After all, there are plenty of bad taxes - VAT, income tax and council tax to name but three. Spending on environmental schemes is a completely different question. The problem with hypothecation is that all too often the money just ends up being ploughed into general spending. When this happens, it is only reasonable for people to start complaining about tax by stealth. |
Mark Ramsden says some supportive things about my doomed bid to tweak the Lib Dem policy on a plastic bag levy. I'm glad I convinced someone! What I was proposing was that instead of using the money raised from the levy to spend of "environmental and recycling schemes", it should go towards subsidising municipal taxes. This was on the premise that people should not be forced to pay twice for things (essentially under the policy they would pay twice for the environmental cost of plastic bags - once at the shop counter, and once in their council tax), and that green taxation should not be presented as green taxation.
Unfortunately, the movers and a number of speakers seized on the fact that I was "opposing" environmental schemes (in fact I wasn't, but there you go) - a crime in Lib Dem circles akin to paedophilia and the amendment fell with about 95% of people opposed.
But I remain defiant. Hypothecation is a bloody stupid idea, doubly so in this case where the cost of waste disposal is being paid out of another tax. What for example would happen if the levy only reduced plastic bag use by 60%, rather than the 90% experienced in Ireland (the British are, after all, notoriously stubborn bastards) - would we spend all 4 billion on environmental schemes? Fair enough perhaps, but what if it reduced bag use by 95% - would we drastically have to cut spending on environmental schemes? And what if we extended this principle out to other forms of packaging - at what point would we carry on ploughing this revenue into "green" schemes?
An excellent example of this in action is Ken Livingstone's Congestion Charge. A success in that it has reduced traffic in the centre of London, but so much so that the revenue that was supposed to be raised to invest in public transport is coming up short. While the powers of the GLA are very limited, and it is entirely possible he didn't exactly have much choice in this, it shows how one strategy has been undermined by linking it to another.
In my view, controversial in Lib Dem circles, new taxs should be used to reduce existing ones, not to raise revenue (which is a different issue). After all, there are plenty of bad taxes - VAT, income tax and council tax to name but three. Spending on environmental schemes is a completely different question. The problem with hypothecation is that all too often the money just ends up being ploughed into general spending. When this happens, it is only reasonable for people to start complaining about tax by stealth. |
Alcohol rumour condemnation service
I hope Matthew Turner gets back soon. It looks like I'll be in need of his services now that Liberal Democrat Watch have deemed me to be objectively anti-Kennedy. |
I hope Matthew Turner gets back soon. It looks like I'll be in need of his services now that Liberal Democrat Watch have deemed me to be objectively anti-Kennedy. |
Friday, March 19, 2004
Village for sale - one careless owner
This story about a single landlord selling off half a village (which I have referenced on Land Notes "hilariously" as "Git is sham" - do you see what I did there? Eh? Eh?) left me wondering if we had ever left the Middle Ages.
The one line I really don't understand is the claim that the cost of maintaining the properties was becoming "very prohibitive".
Really? I'd love to see his accounts. It isn't as if he doesn't own the houses outright. We are to presume that a villager paying £900 a quarter to rent a cottage is costing Mr Marker around £900 a quarter to maintain. Oh yeah?
If this guy was earning a net £1 from these properties, it would still be a £1 he hasn't earned. As it is, he stands to make millions.
The other big joke is the claim that this is all about letting the village stand "on its own two feet". If that is the case, why not simply give the properties to the village (or at the very least, heavily discount them); set up a trust or a housing association - it isn't as if the Coombe Estate hasn't made money off its residents for literally hundreds of years. Replacing one absentee landlord with another one, is hardly a move away from feudalism.
But to be entirely fair to the man, he isn't doing anything illegal, so who can really blame him? He has absolutely every legal right to do this. It is the law that needs changing, not for landlords to become nice.
Stories like this remind you that 90% of the UK is owned by 7% of the population. And they remind you that many people's way of life is entirely at the whim of their landlord. It is a corrupt state of affairs. |
This story about a single landlord selling off half a village (which I have referenced on Land Notes "hilariously" as "Git is sham" - do you see what I did there? Eh? Eh?) left me wondering if we had ever left the Middle Ages.
The one line I really don't understand is the claim that the cost of maintaining the properties was becoming "very prohibitive".
Really? I'd love to see his accounts. It isn't as if he doesn't own the houses outright. We are to presume that a villager paying £900 a quarter to rent a cottage is costing Mr Marker around £900 a quarter to maintain. Oh yeah?
If this guy was earning a net £1 from these properties, it would still be a £1 he hasn't earned. As it is, he stands to make millions.
The other big joke is the claim that this is all about letting the village stand "on its own two feet". If that is the case, why not simply give the properties to the village (or at the very least, heavily discount them); set up a trust or a housing association - it isn't as if the Coombe Estate hasn't made money off its residents for literally hundreds of years. Replacing one absentee landlord with another one, is hardly a move away from feudalism.
But to be entirely fair to the man, he isn't doing anything illegal, so who can really blame him? He has absolutely every legal right to do this. It is the law that needs changing, not for landlords to become nice.
Stories like this remind you that 90% of the UK is owned by 7% of the population. And they remind you that many people's way of life is entirely at the whim of their landlord. It is a corrupt state of affairs. |
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
Aide Memoire
The New Economics Foundation attracted some derision on this blog recently when I discussed the Local Communities Sustainability Bill. Well, no doubt the usual suspects will find this batch of news stories similarly outrageous.
I'll reserve my comments for later, although if anyone wants to use my comments box to rant about how disgraceful this all is, please do. I would however recommend that dear reader reads the actual report first though (say what you like about NEF, at least they let you read their publications for free, unlike all too many think tanks). |
The New Economics Foundation attracted some derision on this blog recently when I discussed the Local Communities Sustainability Bill. Well, no doubt the usual suspects will find this batch of news stories similarly outrageous.
I'll reserve my comments for later, although if anyone wants to use my comments box to rant about how disgraceful this all is, please do. I would however recommend that dear reader reads the actual report first though (say what you like about NEF, at least they let you read their publications for free, unlike all too many think tanks). |
Bloody Prejudice
Not-so-great minds, it would appear, think alike as well. My first thought on hearing John Reid announce that all recipients of blood tranfusions since 1981 should be banned from donating blood themselves was that they should allow gay men to do so to make up the shortfall. Then, switching on BBC News 24 this evening, a pundit said the same thing.
Of course the situation is more extreme than that. You don't just have to be gay, if you are a man you have to have never had "oral or anal sex" with a man. Ever. Even if you used a condom. And if you are a woman, you don't get off that easily either - if you've had sex with a man who has had a homosexual experience, you have to wait 12 months (because, you know, HIV always becomes active within the first 12 months of being infected with it - sound scientific fact).
This is nothing less than naked prejudice. Apart from anything else, who is really the greater risk: the out gay man who behaves responsibly, or the closet case in denial? There is of course good reason to exert reasonable caution over anyone who is sexually promiscuous, gay or straight. But that is not what the Blood Service is concerned about. One quick fumble a decade ago at university, and you might as well have a pink triangle tattooed on your forehead as far as they are concerned.
I have to admit, this subject doesn't come up in daily conversation and while it was an issue during my student days, I more or less assumed that the practice had ended until a friend mentioned it to me last month. It's amazing how this anachronism has been allowed to continue for so long.
So Dr Reid, are you going to use your famous head-banging skills to sort this mess out? |
Not-so-great minds, it would appear, think alike as well. My first thought on hearing John Reid announce that all recipients of blood tranfusions since 1981 should be banned from donating blood themselves was that they should allow gay men to do so to make up the shortfall. Then, switching on BBC News 24 this evening, a pundit said the same thing.
Of course the situation is more extreme than that. You don't just have to be gay, if you are a man you have to have never had "oral or anal sex" with a man. Ever. Even if you used a condom. And if you are a woman, you don't get off that easily either - if you've had sex with a man who has had a homosexual experience, you have to wait 12 months (because, you know, HIV always becomes active within the first 12 months of being infected with it - sound scientific fact).
This is nothing less than naked prejudice. Apart from anything else, who is really the greater risk: the out gay man who behaves responsibly, or the closet case in denial? There is of course good reason to exert reasonable caution over anyone who is sexually promiscuous, gay or straight. But that is not what the Blood Service is concerned about. One quick fumble a decade ago at university, and you might as well have a pink triangle tattooed on your forehead as far as they are concerned.
I have to admit, this subject doesn't come up in daily conversation and while it was an issue during my student days, I more or less assumed that the practice had ended until a friend mentioned it to me last month. It's amazing how this anachronism has been allowed to continue for so long.
So Dr Reid, are you going to use your famous head-banging skills to sort this mess out? |
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
Slugs, snails, puppydogs tails... the works
I recently referred to an essay by Jonathan Calder. Well, Jonathan has now started up a blog (in addition to the anecdotal serendib) and mentions some praise he has recently received for an article he wrote for Openmind on Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.
It's a good piece, and one that reinforces my paranoia that public policy is increasingly becoming anti-youth in deference to the Saga generation (coincidently, Jonathan refers to a Saga list of the "50 wisest Britons" - strangely, not one of the people mentioned is a blogger. How can this be???). It's funny how, on the eve of turning 30, these things are beginning to bother me in a way they haven't particularly for years.
In all fairness, it isn't all that simple. For every Michael "something of the night" Howard forcing children as young as 10 to stand trial in an adult court, there is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. But rhetorically, the case is far stronger - as Jonathan alludes, much of what is termed as "anti-social behaviour" these days was called "playing in the street" in the recent past. And as the baby boomers slide into retirement, the houses and wealth they accrued at the expense of their parents is increasingly being ringfenced off at the expense of their children. Add to that the sinister trend I referred to earlier of monitoring children and their parents "for their own good", and I think my case is beginning to grow.
What should be done about it? Well, at least talk about it. It's funny how during the sixties and seventies, when the baby boomer generation began to benefit from a welfare state, free education and liberal social policy bequeathed by their parents, all they could do is complain. They didn't just have counter culture, through punk they had a counter-counter culture. Now, when all those rights are being slowly taken away again, there appears to be a collective shrugging of shoulders. The problem I suspect in part lies in the living example of our Prime Minister - a long, greasy-haired guitar-strumming drop out who bought a suit, cut his hair and now resembles a trendy vicar with a penchant for Mexican mud baths. No wonder rebellion is greeted with such apathy and cynicism. But it shouldn't. |
I recently referred to an essay by Jonathan Calder. Well, Jonathan has now started up a blog (in addition to the anecdotal serendib) and mentions some praise he has recently received for an article he wrote for Openmind on Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.
It's a good piece, and one that reinforces my paranoia that public policy is increasingly becoming anti-youth in deference to the Saga generation (coincidently, Jonathan refers to a Saga list of the "50 wisest Britons" - strangely, not one of the people mentioned is a blogger. How can this be???). It's funny how, on the eve of turning 30, these things are beginning to bother me in a way they haven't particularly for years.
In all fairness, it isn't all that simple. For every Michael "something of the night" Howard forcing children as young as 10 to stand trial in an adult court, there is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. But rhetorically, the case is far stronger - as Jonathan alludes, much of what is termed as "anti-social behaviour" these days was called "playing in the street" in the recent past. And as the baby boomers slide into retirement, the houses and wealth they accrued at the expense of their parents is increasingly being ringfenced off at the expense of their children. Add to that the sinister trend I referred to earlier of monitoring children and their parents "for their own good", and I think my case is beginning to grow.
What should be done about it? Well, at least talk about it. It's funny how during the sixties and seventies, when the baby boomer generation began to benefit from a welfare state, free education and liberal social policy bequeathed by their parents, all they could do is complain. They didn't just have counter culture, through punk they had a counter-counter culture. Now, when all those rights are being slowly taken away again, there appears to be a collective shrugging of shoulders. The problem I suspect in part lies in the living example of our Prime Minister - a long, greasy-haired guitar-strumming drop out who bought a suit, cut his hair and now resembles a trendy vicar with a penchant for Mexican mud baths. No wonder rebellion is greeted with such apathy and cynicism. But it shouldn't. |
Boneheaded BBC
Listening to NIMBY-fest You and Yours on Radio 4, one caller said "I believe that small is beautiful, just like Schumacher," to which the presenter laughed her head off thinking she was referring to the racing car driver.
Good. Grief. |
Listening to NIMBY-fest You and Yours on Radio 4, one caller said "I believe that small is beautiful, just like Schumacher," to which the presenter laughed her head off thinking she was referring to the racing car driver.
Good. Grief. |
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Just Us
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Steve Bell is a genius. |
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Steve Bell is a genius. |
SHOCK! HORROR! MAN BITES GOD!
Rowan Williams writes a fine review of His Dark Materials, the book and play, which both reminds me of the best aspects of Pullman's work and subtly subverts it to his own purposes (following in the grand Christian tradition of "if you can't beat 'em, co-opt 'em!"). The CofE have got a fine mind heading them, no wonder so many of them hate it.
Another thing to note about this review is the way the Guardian report it. Headline: "'A Near Miraculous Triumph' Archbishop Rowan Williams reveals how it felt to see religion savaged and God killed in His Dark Materials". Front page: "Unholy alliance: Archbishop praises author accused of blasphemy". This is silly, tabloid stuff, but it also betrays the media's - and in particular the media of the left's - tendency to report what things represent, rather than what actually happened/was said/etc.
So it was when the film Bend it Like Beckham was released, the Guardian was full of articles about multiculturalism, while the Sun reviewed it for what it was - a film about a girl who likes football. Similarly, when Parminder Nagra was doing the rounds following getting a part in ER, the Times reported it as "British girl on life in Hollywood", while the Guardian reported it as "Asian girl on life in white-dominated profession". I'm not convinced this struggle for deeper meaning all the time really does anything to promote understanding. |
Rowan Williams writes a fine review of His Dark Materials, the book and play, which both reminds me of the best aspects of Pullman's work and subtly subverts it to his own purposes (following in the grand Christian tradition of "if you can't beat 'em, co-opt 'em!"). The CofE have got a fine mind heading them, no wonder so many of them hate it.
Another thing to note about this review is the way the Guardian report it. Headline: "'A Near Miraculous Triumph' Archbishop Rowan Williams reveals how it felt to see religion savaged and God killed in His Dark Materials". Front page: "Unholy alliance: Archbishop praises author accused of blasphemy". This is silly, tabloid stuff, but it also betrays the media's - and in particular the media of the left's - tendency to report what things represent, rather than what actually happened/was said/etc.
So it was when the film Bend it Like Beckham was released, the Guardian was full of articles about multiculturalism, while the Sun reviewed it for what it was - a film about a girl who likes football. Similarly, when Parminder Nagra was doing the rounds following getting a part in ER, the Times reported it as "British girl on life in Hollywood", while the Guardian reported it as "Asian girl on life in white-dominated profession". I'm not convinced this struggle for deeper meaning all the time really does anything to promote understanding. |
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
First Blogging Warwick and Leamington PPC
Welcome on board Linda Forbes, Liberal Democrat PPC for Warwick and Leamington who has launched a campaign blog of her own. The first thing evident from this site, is how much work Linda actually does! Makes me feel guilty... |
Welcome on board Linda Forbes, Liberal Democrat PPC for Warwick and Leamington who has launched a campaign blog of her own. The first thing evident from this site, is how much work Linda actually does! Makes me feel guilty... |
BAF goes postal
My previous post provoked an unbelievable response from "Bloggers Against Fascism". For those who don't religiously follow my blog every second of every day, what I did was post a "BAF" graphic in my sidebar and hotlinked it to the New Economics Foundation's Local Communities Sustainability Bill. It was an undeniably cheeky thing to do, but I had a very serious point behind it - if you are really committed to tackling the BNP, then you should address the urban and social decay that is giving them oxygen.
The response? Organiser Paul the Postman denouncing "below the belt" tactics and "misdirection" in my comments section, while seperately emailing a colleague (and possibly others) making implied threats about legal action.
These are not the actions and words of someone wanting unity, a genuine debate on the rise of the BNP in the UK, or even truly doing something about it. These are the actions of someone more interested in finding people to denounce rather than to find common cause. To quote the wise and learned political philosopher GW Bush "You're either with us or against us."
I would find all this a little easier to take if it wasn't from someone who, according to his blog, believes that individual postal workers should have the freedom to refuse to deliver political literature if they happen to disagree with it. This is not a campaign by people serious about addressing what the BNP represent in this country, but a hard left faction content to ban things.
The statement that supporters of United Against Fascism quotes Burke (uncredited) at the top: "For evil to triumph all that is necessary is that good people do nothing". Bloggers who believe that "doing something" involves putting an icon on their website are sadly mistaken.
And for the record - and contrary to Postal Paul's assertions - aside from being a supporter I have absolutely no involvement in the campaign for a Local Sustainability Communities Bill. I do challenge anyone who has put a BAF icon on their website over the past few days to read about it and either support it or say why not. MPs can even sign EDM 169 to show their support (Richard Allan and Austin Mitchell to their credit already have). |
My previous post provoked an unbelievable response from "Bloggers Against Fascism". For those who don't religiously follow my blog every second of every day, what I did was post a "BAF" graphic in my sidebar and hotlinked it to the New Economics Foundation's Local Communities Sustainability Bill. It was an undeniably cheeky thing to do, but I had a very serious point behind it - if you are really committed to tackling the BNP, then you should address the urban and social decay that is giving them oxygen.
The response? Organiser Paul the Postman denouncing "below the belt" tactics and "misdirection" in my comments section, while seperately emailing a colleague (and possibly others) making implied threats about legal action.
These are not the actions and words of someone wanting unity, a genuine debate on the rise of the BNP in the UK, or even truly doing something about it. These are the actions of someone more interested in finding people to denounce rather than to find common cause. To quote the wise and learned political philosopher GW Bush "You're either with us or against us."
I would find all this a little easier to take if it wasn't from someone who, according to his blog, believes that individual postal workers should have the freedom to refuse to deliver political literature if they happen to disagree with it. This is not a campaign by people serious about addressing what the BNP represent in this country, but a hard left faction content to ban things.
The statement that supporters of United Against Fascism quotes Burke (uncredited) at the top: "For evil to triumph all that is necessary is that good people do nothing". Bloggers who believe that "doing something" involves putting an icon on their website are sadly mistaken.
And for the record - and contrary to Postal Paul's assertions - aside from being a supporter I have absolutely no involvement in the campaign for a Local Sustainability Communities Bill. I do challenge anyone who has put a BAF icon on their website over the past few days to read about it and either support it or say why not. MPs can even sign EDM 169 to show their support (Richard Allan and Austin Mitchell to their credit already have). |
Monday, March 08, 2004
Facile about fascism?
I hate to sound like a party pooper, but while I appreciate the aims of "United Against Fascism" what will it actually achieve? Since when did me-tooism make a real difference?
I submit that 99.9% of the population who consider voting BNP do not read political weblogs - they either don't have internet access or wouldn't have any interest if they did. A lot of them aren't even voting for racist or anti-immigration reasons, but as a protest vote and a feeling of complete and utter exclusion. By all means expose the BNP for the bunch of lying, neo-nazi criminal thugs they are, but don't kid yourself that you are really doing much to solve the problem when you do.
People vote BNP because they are sick of being ignored - indeed, much racism (and indeed all hate) comes from a sense of disempowerment. It is also sourced by the endless talking up by politicians of all parties on the threat of crime and immigration. I'm not at all convinced that tackling people who deal in hate and fear with hate and fear about them, actually solves the problem. Instead, we should be tackling that hate and fear at source.
The first time I hear a front bench spokesperson from any political party announce that the fear many elderly people experience of going out in their neighbourhood is utterly irrational and entirely counter-productive, is the first time I hear a politician truly take this issue seriously (it will also, unfortunately, be quite possibly the last time we ever hear from him or her as the other parties and press will tear them limb from limb). Until then, we will be caught in a cycle.
I would suggest that if you are truly interested in fighting fascism, you sign up to the campaign to introduce the Local Communities Sustainability Bill.
UPDATE: It would appear that there is genuine cross party consensus growing on this issue - against uniting against fascism. On this point, Peter C and myself are as one (although I suspect he won't agree with me when it comes to fear and loathing).
UPDATE 2: I've managed to wind the usual suspects up in a fantastically short space of time this time - it's fascinating how simply disagreeing with this issue appears to inspire such simple minded abuse (not that I have ever been high minded about abuse, but then I'm not the one purporting to be interested in building "unity"). Tom Watson sniffs "your response is not out of character" which one of the brains behind the campaign Paul the Postman describes as "the best put down i have seen in a while". He's right. I'm devastated.
Meanwhile Peter C suggests that "For all he wrote a big post attacking the whole idea, I notice he does now have a big 'Unite Against Fascism' graphic on his sidebar. There's Lib Dem consistency for you." You might want to try clicking on that graphic Peter (graphic now removed - see above). |
I hate to sound like a party pooper, but while I appreciate the aims of "United Against Fascism" what will it actually achieve? Since when did me-tooism make a real difference?
I submit that 99.9% of the population who consider voting BNP do not read political weblogs - they either don't have internet access or wouldn't have any interest if they did. A lot of them aren't even voting for racist or anti-immigration reasons, but as a protest vote and a feeling of complete and utter exclusion. By all means expose the BNP for the bunch of lying, neo-nazi criminal thugs they are, but don't kid yourself that you are really doing much to solve the problem when you do.
People vote BNP because they are sick of being ignored - indeed, much racism (and indeed all hate) comes from a sense of disempowerment. It is also sourced by the endless talking up by politicians of all parties on the threat of crime and immigration. I'm not at all convinced that tackling people who deal in hate and fear with hate and fear about them, actually solves the problem. Instead, we should be tackling that hate and fear at source.
The first time I hear a front bench spokesperson from any political party announce that the fear many elderly people experience of going out in their neighbourhood is utterly irrational and entirely counter-productive, is the first time I hear a politician truly take this issue seriously (it will also, unfortunately, be quite possibly the last time we ever hear from him or her as the other parties and press will tear them limb from limb). Until then, we will be caught in a cycle.
I would suggest that if you are truly interested in fighting fascism, you sign up to the campaign to introduce the Local Communities Sustainability Bill.
UPDATE: It would appear that there is genuine cross party consensus growing on this issue - against uniting against fascism. On this point, Peter C and myself are as one (although I suspect he won't agree with me when it comes to fear and loathing).
UPDATE 2: I've managed to wind the usual suspects up in a fantastically short space of time this time - it's fascinating how simply disagreeing with this issue appears to inspire such simple minded abuse (not that I have ever been high minded about abuse, but then I'm not the one purporting to be interested in building "unity"). Tom Watson sniffs "your response is not out of character" which one of the brains behind the campaign Paul the Postman describes as "the best put down i have seen in a while". He's right. I'm devastated.
Meanwhile Peter C suggests that "For all he wrote a big post attacking the whole idea, I notice he does now have a big 'Unite Against Fascism' graphic on his sidebar. There's Lib Dem consistency for you." You might want to try clicking on that graphic Peter (graphic now removed - see above). |
Terror: A New Weapon in the War on Terror
One of these days I will get around to writing a proper post about the current global situation and Iraq, but not today. Reading Blair's speech on Friday does rather provoke me into making some short comments however.
Firstly, and I'm sure this is something my newfound ally the Tendentious D won't agree with me on, but there is a common thread running between this thread and Margaret Hodge's scary proposals for her Children's Bill. That common thread is fear, control and a (whisper it!) disproportionate response to a serious threat. The strength in opposition to such things is not as strong as it should perhaps be because objectors hold themselves open to the charge that they are "soft" on terrorism or child molestors. This is about killing debate - instilling fear of the unknown into the general public and emasculating dissent. When politicians use fear, it is about expanding their power base and I am genuinely worried that the authoritarian streak that has always been evident within Labour is increasingly taking a turn for the nasty (I managed to get through that entire paragraph without using the phrase "crypto fascist" once - aren't I clever?).
I will criticise anyone who claims that, for example, suicide bombing is caused by a "cycle of violence" and downplays its deeply ideological roots. But similarly, I think it is reasonable to apply an equal degree of scepticism over anyone who claims that the Patriot Act, Terrorism Act, Guantanamo Bay and the like are caused by the west being forced to respond to global terror and not in any way rooted in an ideological contempt for civil liberties.
Secondly, I suspect that Blair has a Fox Mulder-esque "I want to believe" poster up in his office these days. His selectivity is amazing. This whole strategy is based on intelligence reports that are anecdotal in nature and of dubious accuracy at best. Meanwhile, when serious scientists press him on the immediate and serious threat of climate change, backed up with increasingly conclusive evidence, his response can best be summed up by Tim Ireland:
Yet, once again, when the scientific community comes up with extremely mixed evidence and botches an important field trial, Blair is quite happy to press ahead with GM regardless.
Suspend your personal feelings on all these issues for a moment (before certain people get too excited, while wary, I'm not personally as anti-GM as many other self-defined tree huggers). My point is simply that Blair is all over the place when it comes to exercising judgement. With such a strong case for climate change, I find it hard to take a man seriously who dismisses it while demanding I take him seriously over global terrorism.
Indeed, far from having abandoned his populist roots, contrasting his approaches to global terrorism and climate change reveals that he has done anything but. Suggest tearing up civil liberties because of the invisible threat terrorism (or child molestors), and half the media will applaud while the other half will at least appreciate you are being "strong". Suggest putting tax on petrol up by a penny, and half the media will accuse you of being an insane, authoritarian attacker of civil liberties. Be in no doubt: Blair chooses to take one threat seriously and not the other because it is easy to do so. He does so because terrorism involves a human, tangible enemy, while climate change is faceless and therefore more difficult to comprehend. He does so because, frankly, the US is committed to tackling one and not the other. It is convenient.
Tony Blair constantly betrays an ambition to be remembered in the history books. I have some bad news for him. No prevented terrorist act ever made it into a history book, so his successes will not be remembered. Yet by sitting on his hands over global warming, he risks being remembered as a scaremonger who fiddled while civilisation burned. "This is not a time to err on the side of caution"? I should coco. |
One of these days I will get around to writing a proper post about the current global situation and Iraq, but not today. Reading Blair's speech on Friday does rather provoke me into making some short comments however.
Firstly, and I'm sure this is something my newfound ally the Tendentious D won't agree with me on, but there is a common thread running between this thread and Margaret Hodge's scary proposals for her Children's Bill. That common thread is fear, control and a (whisper it!) disproportionate response to a serious threat. The strength in opposition to such things is not as strong as it should perhaps be because objectors hold themselves open to the charge that they are "soft" on terrorism or child molestors. This is about killing debate - instilling fear of the unknown into the general public and emasculating dissent. When politicians use fear, it is about expanding their power base and I am genuinely worried that the authoritarian streak that has always been evident within Labour is increasingly taking a turn for the nasty (I managed to get through that entire paragraph without using the phrase "crypto fascist" once - aren't I clever?).
I will criticise anyone who claims that, for example, suicide bombing is caused by a "cycle of violence" and downplays its deeply ideological roots. But similarly, I think it is reasonable to apply an equal degree of scepticism over anyone who claims that the Patriot Act, Terrorism Act, Guantanamo Bay and the like are caused by the west being forced to respond to global terror and not in any way rooted in an ideological contempt for civil liberties.
Secondly, I suspect that Blair has a Fox Mulder-esque "I want to believe" poster up in his office these days. His selectivity is amazing. This whole strategy is based on intelligence reports that are anecdotal in nature and of dubious accuracy at best. Meanwhile, when serious scientists press him on the immediate and serious threat of climate change, backed up with increasingly conclusive evidence, his response can best be summed up by Tim Ireland:
Yet, once again, when the scientific community comes up with extremely mixed evidence and botches an important field trial, Blair is quite happy to press ahead with GM regardless.
Suspend your personal feelings on all these issues for a moment (before certain people get too excited, while wary, I'm not personally as anti-GM as many other self-defined tree huggers). My point is simply that Blair is all over the place when it comes to exercising judgement. With such a strong case for climate change, I find it hard to take a man seriously who dismisses it while demanding I take him seriously over global terrorism.
Indeed, far from having abandoned his populist roots, contrasting his approaches to global terrorism and climate change reveals that he has done anything but. Suggest tearing up civil liberties because of the invisible threat terrorism (or child molestors), and half the media will applaud while the other half will at least appreciate you are being "strong". Suggest putting tax on petrol up by a penny, and half the media will accuse you of being an insane, authoritarian attacker of civil liberties. Be in no doubt: Blair chooses to take one threat seriously and not the other because it is easy to do so. He does so because terrorism involves a human, tangible enemy, while climate change is faceless and therefore more difficult to comprehend. He does so because, frankly, the US is committed to tackling one and not the other. It is convenient.
Tony Blair constantly betrays an ambition to be remembered in the history books. I have some bad news for him. No prevented terrorist act ever made it into a history book, so his successes will not be remembered. Yet by sitting on his hands over global warming, he risks being remembered as a scaremonger who fiddled while civilisation burned. "This is not a time to err on the side of caution"? I should coco. |
Friday, March 05, 2004
Kerry or Chimp?
Curiously, Peter Cuthbertson chooses to use the argument "which one looks like more of a tosser?" to decide on the vexing issue of "Bush or Kerry?"
Come off it Peter. You know that when it comes to cheap, childish potshots, the left have you beat hands down.
I expected more of you, to be honest. Tut!
My faith in modern conservativism has been destroyed. |
Curiously, Peter Cuthbertson chooses to use the argument "which one looks like more of a tosser?" to decide on the vexing issue of "Bush or Kerry?"
Come off it Peter. You know that when it comes to cheap, childish potshots, the left have you beat hands down.
I expected more of you, to be honest. Tut!
My faith in modern conservativism has been destroyed. |
Unca Martin, the comeback king
One wonders what the author of Martin Bell's 1997 manifesto makes of his decision to stand in the European elections this year? It does all rather smell of "what bandwagon do I jump on this election?"
To be fair, I have some considerable sympathy for Bell's issue here. But given that the current government is looking to extend closed party lists into the House of Lords, I wouldn't hold out too much hope. And if he's deluding himself that would be more democratic to go back to a system where most votes were completely wasted, pluralism was frowned upon and minority voices were completely denied, he has another thing coming.
The Electoral Reform Society membership form is in the post Martin (well it will be if Alex Folkes sends it!). |
One wonders what the author of Martin Bell's 1997 manifesto makes of his decision to stand in the European elections this year? It does all rather smell of "what bandwagon do I jump on this election?"
To be fair, I have some considerable sympathy for Bell's issue here. But given that the current government is looking to extend closed party lists into the House of Lords, I wouldn't hold out too much hope. And if he's deluding himself that would be more democratic to go back to a system where most votes were completely wasted, pluralism was frowned upon and minority voices were completely denied, he has another thing coming.
The Electoral Reform Society membership form is in the post Martin (well it will be if Alex Folkes sends it!). |
Cradle to grave surveillance - a bleeding heart liberal writes rants
Er, doesn't this worry you? Just a teensy bit?
What speaks volumes to me are the quotes from Margaret Hodge:
"If, for example, a GP is worried about a low birth weight, they will be able to log their concern on the record. Then, if, say, a nursery nurse becomes worried that the child is withdrawn or anxious, they would be able to log their concern and the two professionals could talk about it."
Indeed they could - and come to horribly wrong conclusions. It wouldn't be the first time that "professionals" wound each other up into seeing child abuse that was never there. Indeed, leaving aside the fact that this latest appeal was lost, Hodge's proposals are coming at a time when a whole slew of child abuse cases are being reviewed (Angela Cannings and Trupti Patel's experiences were, in all likelihood, just the tip of the iceberg). And need I remind people of the whole Satanic Ritual Abuse scandal?
No-one is denying that the Victoria Climbie incident or the Soham murders weren't appalling. But one of the simple facts of life is that bad things happen; that there are bad people out there. The role of government is not to remove risk at the expense of all else, but to take proportionate steps to manage risk. The question is therefore, is this response proportionate?
The blogosphere knows Jonathan Calder only as the author of the interesting serendib. Most Lib Dems know him as the diarist of Lord Bonkers, and LDYS members remember him fondly as someone who was once incredibly rude about Matthew Platts (Heh. Bit of an in-joke there, sorry). But in print (Liberator Pub's Passports to Liberty No. 5 to be precise) he has written passionately about the quite worrying Big Brother mindset behind much of Labour's child protection strategy. In doing so, he has quoted Terri Dowty of Action on Rights for Children in Education. They have this to say to the Government on the Children's Bill:
We are deeply insulted by your suggestions that parents don't care about their children, and that unless we are watched, we will inevitably abuse and neglect them. We are appalled that nearly 3% of children are on the 'at-risk' register, but that means 97% of children are not. Most parents love their children and do a fantastic job, even in the face of poverty, inadequate services and bad housing.
And they are absolutely right. The fact is, only a tiny proportion of children are genuinely at risk. All this money (taxpayer's, natch) is being spent to catch a very few guilty individuals. It won't provide peace of mind but it will cause people to believe the problem is greater than it really is. It will spread fear and suspicion where it is wholly unwarranted. And if you think too many people are getting wrongfully accused now, just think how bad it will get once the "professionals" get together and start comparing notes.
Chris Morris, condemned in 2000 for his Brass Eye Paedophile Special, couldn't have satirised this.
Indeed, one of the first flaws in the system I thought of was how do you know, really know, that the child in front of you is really Client #154335? If you follow the line of inquiry the Government has been going down, the only conclusion is to chip children as soon as they are born. I wonder what Mr Watson, scourge of RFID tags, would make of that?
An unfair exaggeration? I really don't think so. Not when you consider how disproportionate the Government's existing proposals are to the problem. If you really buy into the argument behind the Children Bill, if you really believe the state should be given such a degree of surveillance into private family life - regardless of consent - then why not take that one small baby step further? After all, chipping babies would be pointless if there wasn't any legislation to enable agencies to make use of it - and that legislation is now before us.
And that brings us to a pretty fundamental point. We live in a world of CCTV cameras and powerful databases, yet this is not the Oceania of Orwell's 1984. The reason is that legislation has not followed suit. Media hype aside, the technology alone is not a problem and in many respects can be a tool for good. Yet combine that technology with bad law and you have something very oppressive indeed.
In fact, the one thing these latest proposals do tell me is that civil libertarians in the main - and I certainly include myself in this respect - have been sleeping on this issue for far too long. While we agonise about the implications of ID cards, our children are being "pushed, filed, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered" under our very noses. It's time to take a stand.
The final word to ARCH again:
If you've ever heard of a game called 'Mornington Crescent' then you'll know that the idea is that as soon as someone can say 'Mornington Crescent' they have won the game. 'Child Protection' is rather like that at the moment. It is clever to use it as a means of introducing a different agenda because objectors risk hysterical accusations of not caring about children, of colluding with child-molesters - and worse. |
Er, doesn't this worry you? Just a teensy bit?
What speaks volumes to me are the quotes from Margaret Hodge:
"If, for example, a GP is worried about a low birth weight, they will be able to log their concern on the record. Then, if, say, a nursery nurse becomes worried that the child is withdrawn or anxious, they would be able to log their concern and the two professionals could talk about it."
Indeed they could - and come to horribly wrong conclusions. It wouldn't be the first time that "professionals" wound each other up into seeing child abuse that was never there. Indeed, leaving aside the fact that this latest appeal was lost, Hodge's proposals are coming at a time when a whole slew of child abuse cases are being reviewed (Angela Cannings and Trupti Patel's experiences were, in all likelihood, just the tip of the iceberg). And need I remind people of the whole Satanic Ritual Abuse scandal?
No-one is denying that the Victoria Climbie incident or the Soham murders weren't appalling. But one of the simple facts of life is that bad things happen; that there are bad people out there. The role of government is not to remove risk at the expense of all else, but to take proportionate steps to manage risk. The question is therefore, is this response proportionate?
The blogosphere knows Jonathan Calder only as the author of the interesting serendib. Most Lib Dems know him as the diarist of Lord Bonkers, and LDYS members remember him fondly as someone who was once incredibly rude about Matthew Platts (Heh. Bit of an in-joke there, sorry). But in print (Liberator Pub's Passports to Liberty No. 5 to be precise) he has written passionately about the quite worrying Big Brother mindset behind much of Labour's child protection strategy. In doing so, he has quoted Terri Dowty of Action on Rights for Children in Education. They have this to say to the Government on the Children's Bill:
We are deeply insulted by your suggestions that parents don't care about their children, and that unless we are watched, we will inevitably abuse and neglect them. We are appalled that nearly 3% of children are on the 'at-risk' register, but that means 97% of children are not. Most parents love their children and do a fantastic job, even in the face of poverty, inadequate services and bad housing.
And they are absolutely right. The fact is, only a tiny proportion of children are genuinely at risk. All this money (taxpayer's, natch) is being spent to catch a very few guilty individuals. It won't provide peace of mind but it will cause people to believe the problem is greater than it really is. It will spread fear and suspicion where it is wholly unwarranted. And if you think too many people are getting wrongfully accused now, just think how bad it will get once the "professionals" get together and start comparing notes.
Chris Morris, condemned in 2000 for his Brass Eye Paedophile Special, couldn't have satirised this.
Indeed, one of the first flaws in the system I thought of was how do you know, really know, that the child in front of you is really Client #154335? If you follow the line of inquiry the Government has been going down, the only conclusion is to chip children as soon as they are born. I wonder what Mr Watson, scourge of RFID tags, would make of that?
An unfair exaggeration? I really don't think so. Not when you consider how disproportionate the Government's existing proposals are to the problem. If you really buy into the argument behind the Children Bill, if you really believe the state should be given such a degree of surveillance into private family life - regardless of consent - then why not take that one small baby step further? After all, chipping babies would be pointless if there wasn't any legislation to enable agencies to make use of it - and that legislation is now before us.
And that brings us to a pretty fundamental point. We live in a world of CCTV cameras and powerful databases, yet this is not the Oceania of Orwell's 1984. The reason is that legislation has not followed suit. Media hype aside, the technology alone is not a problem and in many respects can be a tool for good. Yet combine that technology with bad law and you have something very oppressive indeed.
In fact, the one thing these latest proposals do tell me is that civil libertarians in the main - and I certainly include myself in this respect - have been sleeping on this issue for far too long. While we agonise about the implications of ID cards, our children are being "pushed, filed, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered" under our very noses. It's time to take a stand.
The final word to ARCH again:
If you've ever heard of a game called 'Mornington Crescent' then you'll know that the idea is that as soon as someone can say 'Mornington Crescent' they have won the game. 'Child Protection' is rather like that at the moment. It is clever to use it as a means of introducing a different agenda because objectors risk hysterical accusations of not caring about children, of colluding with child-molesters - and worse. |
Thursday, March 04, 2004
Scrap Council Tax - who says?
Time for me to be off message again. Sorry Mr Davey, but the CIPFA does not (exactly) say that "Council Tax Can be Scrapped". Indeed, it considers two options - to replace or to supplement Council Tax (my emphasis):
Replacement involves a significant shift in the tax base from property to personal incomes. So there would be winners and losers with all of the potential for controversy which that implies.
Supplementing the council tax is a different proposition. In this case, LIT could be implemented with matching reductions in national income tax rates. The loss of income to the national exchequer could then logically be offset by scaling down the grants payable to councils. As taxpayers, we would feel that we were paying the same amount of tax, assessed on the same basis, but to two different levels of government. In that sense it would be a lower risk approach.
So yes, it does say nice things about a local income tax. But not the abolition of council tax. Indeed, by having a mixed approach, many of the real perversities of council tax (certainly the problem whereby a 1% shortfall in income automatically leads to a 4% rise in CT) would be ameliorated. But it does not support your (sigh - correction - our) policy. Because of this absolutist approach, what should be a vindication comes across as a setback, and how long do you think it will be before our opponents cotton on to this?
Far be it for me to sound like an apologist of council tax - it has deep flaws. I would love to reform it to the point that it became unrecognisable to what it is now. But there are good - excellent - reasons for having a tax that is at least partially based on land values, and switching the burden wholesale onto a tax on jobs does nothing except harm decent hardworking - and for the most part young - people.
UPDATE: I should point out - before anyone else does - that the CIPFA does acknowledge that there are significant savings to be made by replacing CT with LIT (indeed their figures are quoted in today's Alternative Budget), and that a mixed system would cost approximately half a billion more than a pure LIT system. But the cost of doing so is a massive tax shock to those in the firing line - the cash rich, resource poor. And not a single penny of this extra tax will be spent on public services or helping the poor, but on subsidising the lifestyles of people sitting in expensive houses. |
Time for me to be off message again. Sorry Mr Davey, but the CIPFA does not (exactly) say that "Council Tax Can be Scrapped". Indeed, it considers two options - to replace or to supplement Council Tax (my emphasis):
Replacement involves a significant shift in the tax base from property to personal incomes. So there would be winners and losers with all of the potential for controversy which that implies.
Supplementing the council tax is a different proposition. In this case, LIT could be implemented with matching reductions in national income tax rates. The loss of income to the national exchequer could then logically be offset by scaling down the grants payable to councils. As taxpayers, we would feel that we were paying the same amount of tax, assessed on the same basis, but to two different levels of government. In that sense it would be a lower risk approach.
So yes, it does say nice things about a local income tax. But not the abolition of council tax. Indeed, by having a mixed approach, many of the real perversities of council tax (certainly the problem whereby a 1% shortfall in income automatically leads to a 4% rise in CT) would be ameliorated. But it does not support your (sigh - correction - our) policy. Because of this absolutist approach, what should be a vindication comes across as a setback, and how long do you think it will be before our opponents cotton on to this?
Far be it for me to sound like an apologist of council tax - it has deep flaws. I would love to reform it to the point that it became unrecognisable to what it is now. But there are good - excellent - reasons for having a tax that is at least partially based on land values, and switching the burden wholesale onto a tax on jobs does nothing except harm decent hardworking - and for the most part young - people.
UPDATE: I should point out - before anyone else does - that the CIPFA does acknowledge that there are significant savings to be made by replacing CT with LIT (indeed their figures are quoted in today's Alternative Budget), and that a mixed system would cost approximately half a billion more than a pure LIT system. But the cost of doing so is a massive tax shock to those in the firing line - the cash rich, resource poor. And not a single penny of this extra tax will be spent on public services or helping the poor, but on subsidising the lifestyles of people sitting in expensive houses. |
(Whisper it) Your Party are going cold on the idea of being, ahem, your party
Have a look at this survey and draw your own conclusions.
Provide details on other politicians and governmental bodies? Create a think tank? A "set of tools" to enable "grass roots campaigning"? All perfectly honorable, and all being done by other people without all this shouty nonsense about creating new political parties. We already have iCan. We already have the Public Whip, Faxyourmp, Downingstreetsays, et al. God knows we already have more than enough think tanks. This isn't what Your Party set out to do and their February launch never happened. My sense is that sanity is slowly beginning to sink in, even if the egos are resisting. |
Have a look at this survey and draw your own conclusions.
Provide details on other politicians and governmental bodies? Create a think tank? A "set of tools" to enable "grass roots campaigning"? All perfectly honorable, and all being done by other people without all this shouty nonsense about creating new political parties. We already have iCan. We already have the Public Whip, Faxyourmp, Downingstreetsays, et al. God knows we already have more than enough think tanks. This isn't what Your Party set out to do and their February launch never happened. My sense is that sanity is slowly beginning to sink in, even if the egos are resisting. |
Only Simon Hughes can beat Ken Livingstone
This being the second in an occasional series to answer Lib Dem Watch's question "Who says?".
The latest answer is William Hill.
(Another answer is Peter Oborne - that well known admirer of the Liberal Democrats - writing in the London Evening Standard on Monday, but I can't seem to find a copy of his column online and foolishly left my copy on the train). |
This being the second in an occasional series to answer Lib Dem Watch's question "Who says?".
The latest answer is William Hill.
(Another answer is Peter Oborne - that well known admirer of the Liberal Democrats - writing in the London Evening Standard on Monday, but I can't seem to find a copy of his column online and foolishly left my copy on the train). |
It's the budget, stupid!
Liberal Democrat Watch are at is again. Apparently, today is the day the Lib Dems "publish their spending plans for the next General Election".
Er... no. An "Alternative Budget" is not a set of spending plans for the next General Election. It is a list of spending priorities for the next financial year. A manifesto contains (or should contain) a set of spending priorities for the duration of a parliament. The two are very different things.
The fact that LDW and the Labour front bench don't understand this is beginning to turn to the Lib Dems favour. After all, as Mark Ramsden has pointed out, the big line of attack last week was that our policies are "uncosted" (on the basis that a draft of a draft of a draft of a draft of a draft of a draft of a draft of our manifesto had been inadvertantly leaked). Now, they apparently don't add up - or at least they don't if you factor in the cost of every single policy the Lib Dems have ever had.
I was quite delighted to see that Labour had decided to publish a list of Lib Dem policies on their website today. This line of attack isn't doing us any harm at all, except give us a greater platform in the media. A great many of these of course won't make it to the final manifesto and when they don't, Labour will look exceedingly silly having honed a line of attack that was based on the assumption that they would. And then there's all this nonsense about bees and cod liver oil, which nobody takes seriously and just makes it appear that they are scrabbling to come up with anything substantial to attack.
It would of course be very helpful for the government if we never developed policy outside of general elections, merely unveiling a fully formed manifesto as if by magic every four/five years - if that were the case we'd have to stick to the previous manifesto commitments, regardless of any change in circumstance. But of course we don't. Ultimately, these objections boil down to the fact that we have a policy development process and a profound misunderstanding that everything that if policy would be a Lib Dem government's priority.
If in the meantime the importance of bees to our ecology is given some prominence, who am I to object? |
Liberal Democrat Watch are at is again. Apparently, today is the day the Lib Dems "publish their spending plans for the next General Election".
Er... no. An "Alternative Budget" is not a set of spending plans for the next General Election. It is a list of spending priorities for the next financial year. A manifesto contains (or should contain) a set of spending priorities for the duration of a parliament. The two are very different things.
The fact that LDW and the Labour front bench don't understand this is beginning to turn to the Lib Dems favour. After all, as Mark Ramsden has pointed out, the big line of attack last week was that our policies are "uncosted" (on the basis that a draft of a draft of a draft of a draft of a draft of a draft of a draft of our manifesto had been inadvertantly leaked). Now, they apparently don't add up - or at least they don't if you factor in the cost of every single policy the Lib Dems have ever had.
I was quite delighted to see that Labour had decided to publish a list of Lib Dem policies on their website today. This line of attack isn't doing us any harm at all, except give us a greater platform in the media. A great many of these of course won't make it to the final manifesto and when they don't, Labour will look exceedingly silly having honed a line of attack that was based on the assumption that they would. And then there's all this nonsense about bees and cod liver oil, which nobody takes seriously and just makes it appear that they are scrabbling to come up with anything substantial to attack.
It would of course be very helpful for the government if we never developed policy outside of general elections, merely unveiling a fully formed manifesto as if by magic every four/five years - if that were the case we'd have to stick to the previous manifesto commitments, regardless of any change in circumstance. But of course we don't. Ultimately, these objections boil down to the fact that we have a policy development process and a profound misunderstanding that everything that if policy would be a Lib Dem government's priority.
If in the meantime the importance of bees to our ecology is given some prominence, who am I to object? |
Answers on a postcard please...
...or even better via comments. Is anyone else having trouble accessing the Guardian website recently? I've not been able to read it since Tuesday. |
«
Liberal Blogs
»
...or even better via comments. Is anyone else having trouble accessing the Guardian website recently? I've not been able to read it since Tuesday. |
