Andy Crick

PARK THE 'ISMS', THERE'S A DEAR

2012-01-18T13:00:00.000-08:00

Coming into work yesterday morning I was gnashing my teeth at 'commentator' Neal Ascherson who called for the English to discover their nationalism and sense of identity. Oh dear, Neal, that's just what we don't need.

England is a settled country which is at ease with itself. It is big, diverse and, over many centuries, it has absorbed different cultures into its social make up, generally successfully, whatever some critics might say. The last thing we need is a homogeneous sense of identity. We need a shared pride in all the good things in England, not to mention a shared sense of anger at the things which do not work for us. Like devolution.

What we absolutely, categorically do not need is a sense of nationalism. Nationalism is divisive, aggressive and negative. It is a hatred of the 'other' and a statement of identity in response to the perception of a threat from that nebulous 'other'. [Philosophy lovers: this is Ernest Gellner's version of nationalism, which I subscribe to. Argue if you will but that would be tedious.]

What England needs - and has in buckets full in my experience - is patriotism, a sense of pride in itself and, crucially, a sense if its place in the union and the wider world. We have an infuriating football team, some of the world's finest athletes, THE world city - London - a landscape of sumptuous diversity, from the wealds of Kent to the mountains of the Lake District, history to gasp at, seaside to revel in, the best theatre in the world...you get the picture.

And of course we have the Olympics, which we won against the French. I say that because it matters. We have a rivalry with the French which extends to most levels - just look at the Prime Minister's disastrous recent foray into Europe. Our rivalry is intense and it can sometimes be personal, as it was at the European summit but to this humble blogger [that is an oxymoron, isn't it...] it is entirely acceptable and productive. We compete with the French but we also work closely with them and share much, such as energy and military intelligence, tactics and materiel. Over recent years I have visited France for family holidays and had a wonderful time. The French are almost all warm and welcoming to visitors and there is much to love about their country but that doesn't mean we can't both enjoy a productive rivalry. Both sides enjoy it and it is creative.

Identity does not need narrow SNP nationalism and the bizarre notion that standing alone on a smaller piece of rock is somehow going to enhance one’s nation. It simply needs the self-confident recognition of what the country and its people are. That doesn't take governments or borders, it just takes people. Scotland seems to do fine on its self-identity without the need for the impoverishment of its own government. If I were Scottish - and yes, like most people at the moment I can claim some heritage in that direction - I would be asking Pandora Salmond just what he hopes to achieve from his petty flag-waving apart from that.

We will all be diminished if the union breaks up but if it does I expect England to get along just fine without the pettiness of nationalism. We don't need it - and neither does Scotland. The union works. Let’s hope that nationalists like Pandora Salmond and Neal Ascherson eventually give up and scurry off to shout at passers-by, leaving the rest of us alone to get along with life and a celebration of who we are, not a hatred of others.

NASAL SPEECH ON POLICY OR ACTION ON FAIRNESS? TOUGH CHOICE

2012-01-16T04:54:00.001-08:00

Some brief examples of how the Lib Dems are achieving stuff in government:

Nick Clegg wants to see more employee ownership of businesses to make them fairer and to encourage workers to commit to them. It's an obvious call which only a Tory could object to so Nick will have a job on his hands getting it past George Osborne. I love the comment from Labour's Chuka Umunna that this represents Nick Clegg following Labour's lead. That might have been relevant if Labour had done anything to encourage employee ownership over those 13 wasted years.

Lib Dems are also seeking a commitment for a 'mansion tax', first mooted by Vince Cable and damned by everyone else but, like the prophet he is, now being embraced by more and more people. It won't be in the budget but Osborne has apparently acquiesced to a review. Only a madman would bet against Vince getting his way eventually.

Lib Dems are seeking to get the government to introduce a land value tax, a system which is infinitely fairer than the hated Tory Council Tax as it reflects the provision of local services far more. Liberals have been calling for this fairer tax since the Ark so it would be nice to see it make progress. Unfortunately that would mean the Tories admitting that the Council Tax is a disaster which penalises those on low incomes the most and Labour admitting that they did stuff all to change Council Tax over 13 wasted years in office.

Finally, the debate on Scottish independence is still looking for a champion on the unionist side. In Menzies Campbell and Charles Kennedy we have two excellent candidates with a national profile few other politicians have. Some have suggested Gordon Brown - seriously! - while truculent Alastair Darling is also in the frame. The counterpoint to Pandora Salmond needs to be someone who is confident, competent and able to speak to voters in Scotland and Charles Kennedy has all those abilities.

That pretty much encapsulates why the Lib Dems are essential for politics in this country. We are the only party which says and does stuff which is important and which hasn't just floated up from the musings of a focus group or interest group of rich donors.

We opposed the introduction of student fees, which both Labour and the Tories supported. If a Tory government had been elected the chances are that the cap on fees would have been completely removed. We performed an embarrassing u-turn on the issue but in the process we have engineered the introduction of a graduate tax, the least worst option. One day that will be recognised. Hopefully that day will come before 2015...

The truth about our success is out there. Regrettably it is hidden by a European crisis and the slow demise of Labour's latest leader. Without an opposition, Britain needs the Lib Dems more than ever.

IS IT ME OR IS THERE A THEME DEVELOPING?

2012-01-14T15:50:00.000-08:00

The poll to be published in the Telegraph today encapsulates this Englishman's attitude to the Scottish referendum. Making grand assumptions from the poll and using my own opinions as a reasonable guide (this is my blog, after all), the poll seems to show first that English people are generally - and genuinely - relaxed about the whole issue of Scottish nationalism as it is simply not relevant to England day to day. English people also believe that Scotland would be worse off if independent.

Perhaps most crucially in terms of the future arguments with the nationalists, English people would vote for Scottish independence if given the choice.

What all this tells me is that English people like and support the union and are against a break up but it seems to me that there is also very strong opposition to the slow ebb of powers to Scotland which will occur as the nationalists seek more and more baubies in return for staying in the union. To hideously misquote someone famous, if they be so like to go, let them do so and be quick about it. However, if they wish to stay, great but let's make sure we all get fair shares of power, responsibility and control over our respective countries within the union - and let's all get on with day to day life and leave the petty squabbles behind.

And there's still no word on Berwick-upon-Tweed from anyone...

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: ENGLAND

2012-01-13T15:09:00.000-08:00

There is a great piece in the Independent from Steve Richards about referendums and how they tend to reflect not the issue at hand but the politics surrounding them. If Scots get the vote in 2014 they will vote based on recent headlines and arguments, not over the perception of hundreds of years of manufactured grievance, regardless of what people will say.

My anger is increasing by the hour as the debate continues as, even someone with the political antennae of Steve Richards is ignoring the grey thing with a long nose standing behind the antagonists - what happens to England. England is uniquely disadvantaged in the UK already as the only entity with no separate representation, as well as the continued injustice of Scottish MPs in particular having power over England while English MPs have no reciprocal powers in many areas.

I have never been enthusiastic about an English parliament as England is pretty big and, frankly, the common ground between Carlisle and Dover is limited in many areas. Unfortunately the Scottish nationalists are thrusting a stick into the nest and it can only be a matter of time before there is a reaction.

And that's the crux of my problem with Scottish nationalism: not the desire of Scots to bake shortbread under their own flag but the fact that the corrosion of nationalism does not stop at Berwick upon Tweed (and that one's gonna be a mare to resolve...), it will spread far and wide, not only destroying Scotland's economy but also affecting ours. And that's why we need political equality and a say on this ticking bomb before it is too late.

Well done Pandora Salmond. Well done.

IT'S REALLY NOT ALL BAD

2012-01-12T05:01:00.000-08:00

One from the 'it's not all bad' folder, an article from the Independent which points out that if one takes out the public sector the British economy is set to grow and that it already has beyond 2007 levels. 'New' Labour pumped money into the public sector so a degree of retrenchment here is not really surprising.

The article also points out that the UK - assuming the self-destructive Scottish Nationalists don't get their way - will slump from being the fifth largest economy in the world this year to, er, the sixth largest in 2050. Well, hoard the bottled water and cans, Mabel, we're going under...

Things are grim at the moment and only a fool would deny that but a simple nod to somewhere like Haiti with its terrible post-earthquake problems or Greece with its economic crisis should be enough to encourage us all to count our still considerable blessings.

THE DANCE OF THE NATIONALISTS - A. SALMOND TO LEAD

2012-01-11T05:04:00.000-08:00

Dear Mr Cameron

In the light of efforts by opportunistic politicians in Scotland to break up the highly successful union between England and Scotland which has existed for over 300 years - benefiting both countries - as well as the continuation of the appalling constitutional settlement which has been foisted onto England by Labour since devolution, I would like to know when your government plans to enact legislation to ensure that all residents of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are given the chance to vote on the potential break up of the United Kingdom in advance of any such non-binding vote for Scottish voters alone. As this country is a union of nations it is only right that all citizens from Penzance to Belfast should be given the chance to have a say.

Such a UK-wide vote would ensure that the majority population of the UK can express a clear opinion - no doubt in favour of our country - and that British people are not held to ransom for years to come with increasing demands for powers for Scotland with no corresponding increase in powers for England or English regions in particular. The slow cancer of such calls on the body politic of a country can be clearly seen in the disruptive politics of Canada and Quebec over many decades or, closer to home, in Spain, which has for decades had to juggle the demands of various nationalist parties to the detriment of Spain as a whole.

A referendum on the question of Scottish independence from the UK would also be an opportunity for English voters to have a say on the continuing injustice of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland being able to govern themselves in many areas and of Scottish MPs in particular being able to vote on legislation affecting England and Wales while English and Welsh MPs do not have corresponding rights over numerous areas of Scottish administration.

I trust that, in advance of the referendum, British voters will be given clear information on the headline terms of any settlement arising from Scottish independence, including details of the payment the Scottish Government will make to secure control of the two banks in Scotland which the UK as a whole bailed out during the recent financial crisis and a percentage figure for the amount of UK debt the newly independent Scotland will be required to take on - reflecting the population of Scotland in relation to the UK as a whole.

I hope that British voters will also be reassured that, in the event of Scottish independence, the British government will make a cast-iron commitment that it will at no time in the future agree to any financial support for Scotland - the original catalyst for union in 1707, instead referring the newly independent country to the EU and the IMF as befits an independent state.

Please reassure me that any attempted power grab by the Scottish government in return for not seeking independence will only be agreed to after the establishment of an English Parliament with equivalent powers and a cast-iron commitment - enshrined in law - that Scottish MPs will be barred from involvement in any decisions which do not affect Scotland.

Finally, please use your good offices to encourage the FA and the Scottish FA to reinstate the oldest international football game of them all, England v. Scotland, to remind Mr Salmond and his petty nationalist ilk that the best way to resolve conflict remains on the football field over 90 entertaining minutes.

Your party is formally the Conservative and Unionist Party. Please act with urgency to ensure that this name remains relevant in future.

Yours sincerely
Andy Crick
Englishman and proud citizen of the UK, a successful, peaceful country largely at ease with itself - for now

(And this diatribe, dear reader, is why Alex Salmond is a fool as he seeks to rename himself Pandora and prise open the locked, sealed, vaulted box marked 'Nationalism: DO NOT OPEN'. And I'm a moderate Englishman. Wait until others really take hold of this debate)

IT'S ALL THE FAULT OF THE IMMIGRANTS. OH PANTS, NO IT ISN'T...

2012-01-10T04:22:00.000-08:00

There's a 'debate' going on today over immigration and the effect on jobs for young people in Britain. I use the inverted commas because one side of the debate is being led by Migration Watch, a right wing group which is viscerally opposed to any immigration.

On the other side is a proper report based on, er, research, from the National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR) which demonstrates that the rise in the number of immigrants from eastern European - measured by NI Number registrations in local areas - did not correlate with levels of youth unemployment at all. In fact, the report demonstrates, youth unemployment has risen massively since 2008, while at the same time the number of eastern European migrants has fallen.

Immigration is is a huge issue which I have come across rather too often on the doorsteps in recent years and it is reassuring to see that my response to such queries from residents was broadly on the money, namely that immigration benefits our country and does not disadvantage young people here.

The issue of youth unemployment is far bigger than a few Estonians arriving at Heathrow. It reflects disaffectation, education issues and the wider recession. I am reassured that the changes to education the Lib Dems are powering through the coalition, such as the pupil premium and wider choices at 16, are moving us in the right direction.

After all, isn't the answer to provide people with a decent start in life and choices when they need it, especially at 16 and 18? It's so blindingly simple you wonder why no one has thought of it before...

[Note for anti-fees readers. Yep, so am I but if you had a Tory-only government now you would probably have unlimited fees and a real two-tier system in higher education. With the Lib Dems in government we now have a graduate tax in all but name, the fairest possible option and one which does not rely on the low paid and pensioners to pay for Degrees. We still want a free education but Labour opened Pandora's Box with the introduction of fees and we've done our best to make it fair. If a Labour government had been re-elected in 2010, do you seriously believe they would not have raised fees? Think again.]

TORIES MOAN, LDs DO STUFF IN GOVERNMENT, THIS TIME OVER HOUSING

2011-12-13T05:36:00.000-08:00

Here's a good article from Andrew Stunell MP which shows how Lib Dems are actually doing stuff in government instead of picking petty fights with other countries. This article sets out how the Lib Dems are reducing the chronic problem of empty dwellings across the country after 13 years of Labour failure.

A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON EUROPE

2011-12-12T14:01:00.001-08:00

I'm pretty much decided on the whole Europe-Tories-Cock-Up-Debacle but there is a very interesting article from the BBC's Gavin Hewitt about the possibilities for the UK if it does disengage from the EU. It's a very good piece which offers a different perspective from the current arguments.

Crucially, this piece is about the possibilities for the UK of leading the agenda by offering a positive alternative to the French-dominated European 'vision' which is fundamentally anti-democratic.

SHOULD WE STAY OR SHOULD WE GO? IT'S REALLY NOT DIFFICULT

2011-12-12T04:02:00.000-08:00

[I have taken to writing a blog some hours before posting it so that I can review the language. This is a good discipline particularly when referring to our charming coalition 'partners'. You might say there's no 'f' in coalition...]

Ouch. The Independent today discusses whether the Lib Dems should stay in the coalition with the Tories or whether we should accept that we have nothing in common with their self-destructive approach to the world and pull out now, probably precipitating a new General Election. The answer is simple. We have to stick it out, however hard we must hold our noses.

We went into the coalition with the Tories because it was in the national interest. People attack Nick Clegg for changing his tune but he said this before, during and after the General Election campaign. He was absolutely, unequivocally clear that we would work with whichever party won the most votes. Thankfully, in this case it was the Tories for, let no one forget, Labour in 2010 was entirely washed up, with one of the most unpopular leaders ever, a Chancellor promising cuts pretty much along the lines of what we have now and absolutely no idea about what to do next. They were lost and they still are, as Ed Miliband demonstrated on Sunday when the best response he could come up with in response to the European debacle was to declare that he agreed with Nick. And this man has ambitions to be Prime Minister. Seriously.

By contrast, the Tories offered us a good deal. We have lost out in some areas like student fees and the referendum - call it political naivety - but in others we are doing well, such as cutting taxes for the lowest paid, investing in education for disadvantaged schoolchildren and wrestling with the nightmare of our energy policy. We are doing good Lib Dem stuff in government and that will all stop if we walk away. We are also working hard to deliver the stability which is so clearly lacking in much of Europe and which remains the touchstone of this government's success. It's hard, it is hurting but if it succeeds we will all benefit, even union leaders on £120,000 a year who seek to derail all these plans. [Note: the fiery anachronistic leader of UNISON gets this princely sum each year. I wonder how many of his poorly paid members know that...]

On a more inward-looking tack, if the Lib Dems do leave the coalition and an election is called, it's unlikely to be wine and roses for us. We have good arguments and a principled stance but Joe and Josephine Public haven't been sold on that yet. We need time to get the message across that we are holding the Tories in check and delivering on our promises. I don't know many people who dislike the Tories as much as I do and that is because I have seen close at hand how they operate. This government needs principles and clarity of purpose to survive and that isn't going to come from them. Lib Dems need to fight them all the way but do it from the inside.

So plaudits to Nick for what has become one of the best assaults of recent years on arrogance and ignorance in government and the abject failure of British diplomacy in Europe, for which David Cameron is 100% responsible. Forget the nuanced arguments of various pundits about why he did it - he failed to negotiate wisely for our interests in an international forum, he failed to engage with partners and he was comprehensively outflanked by the French - the French, goddamit!

I agree with Nick and I wish him well in what is going to be a Hell of a week for us and for our disastrously isolated country.

FOG IN CHANNEL, BRITAIN FLOATS OFF

2011-12-09T10:17:00.000-08:00

I struggle with Europe. I am a passionate European and I see only benefits in the European project. I have always supported Britain’s membership of the EU but that enthusiasm is tempered by my complete disdain for the EU as it is: a garbled, ill-thought out ‘camel’ of an institution with absurdities such as the Common Agricultural Policy, the Common Fish Abolition Policy and the farce of the European Parliament moving lock, stock and barrel from its headquarters in Brussels to Strasbourg once a month at a cost of millions of Euros to satisfy French egos.

Europe is a mess - a great idea but a terrible entity. It needs a counterweight to the French and their self-aggrandizing President. Angela Merkel is a star but her default setting, sadly, is to compromise, not to tell Sarko what's what. It needs a country like ours which, for all our myriad faults, is still relatively uncorrupt and which has been outward-facing for a good few centuries now. Sadly, we have mucked up our relationship with Europe for 70 years and it might just be the case that we can't 'do' Europe.

If you look back at the history of European integration it is obvious to even the most in-bred Tory that Britain has squandered what could have been a key role. When countries began talking about ‘Europe’ in London during the Second World War they were very keen for Britain to join. Britain was at the time important due to its wartime role. Reflect on that, Dave...Crucially, Britain was seen as an essential bulwark against French ambitions to use the European project to create a ‘greater France’.

Sadly, the Tory government of the time (1957) could not see the bigger picture and decided to let the foreign Johnnies get on with it while we declined politely on the sidelines. Thus France got its way from day one and all the current problems of Europe to this day emerged: the CAP, the abject lack of democracy, the corrupt Commission system, the deals behind closed doors. How much better could Europe – and Britain – have been if we had been mixing it from the start, insisting on representative and effective institutions and a free trade area which could have brought countries together while not diminishing states and their democratic checks to the detriment of the people who live in them?

When Britain realised its mistake the government had to go cap in hand to the French, who drove a hard bargain and finally let Britain join in 1973 – just as the global economy sank into one of its perennial crises. Since then we have been in a state of confusion over Europe, not sure whether to be committed or sceptical.

Well Dave has made the decision for us, now. By walking out of one of the most crucial meetings in European history he has taken Britain’s influence with him for a generation. And he let the French win again, which just smarts. We have the Olympics, they have the future of Europe. Well played, Dave.He may be defended by Eurosceptics but the crux of this whole story is that a better politician would not have let himself be put in this position.

Having now comprehensively lost all credibility in Europe, perhaps this is the time for everyone here to reflect. Frankly, we just don’t get it. Perhaps we should admit that Britain cannot be part of the EU, not because it is not in our interests – it is, and the moment we leave, London goes down the tubes as global finance moves to Frankfurt and Shanghai – but because we haven’t escaped the curse of empire, the notion that we are somehow different and better than others. We are not, we are Europeans and we have been ever since people first arrived here many thousands of years ago from Europe and continued to trade and work with their neighbours ever since.

Maybe Europe is better off without us. Maybe the spirit of closed door deals and compromise is what is needed. Maybe the new powers of Poland and Germany can stand up to France better than we have. For the first time in my life I find myself strangely sympathetic to the imbecilic voices calling for us to leave the EU. I don't agree with them but it may just be that we have shot our collective bolt and now is the time to call it a day.

As for Nick, my God he's a cool one. I can imagine what he's been saying to Dave behind the scenes but his sang froid before the cameras is a sight to behold. I'd have preferred him to have called Dave every version of fool in the English language but he is playing the long game and he deserves credit for that.

CAN SOMEONE TELL ME WHAT WOULD BE WRONG WITH A MULTI-SPEED EUROPE (BUT NOT BEFORE THE TORIES HAVE FINISHED FIGHTING)?

2011-10-24T04:41:00.000-07:00

What a huge number of issues the planned Tory revolt throws up today. First it demonstrates that there is only a sticking plaster over the deep division within their party over Europe - and remember, dear reader, which party signed us up to Europe, signed us up to the Single European Act and signed us up to the Maastricht Treaty and, of course, which party has NEVER offered voters a say in a referendum on any aspect of our relationship with Europe. Aha, it was the Tories (harmonica riff here if you're a fan of Manfred Mann).

Second, it shows how foolish the Tories still are, offering their leader no support when he is arguing with other European leaders over the whole future of the continental system. If ever there was a time for closing ranks, this is it but Tories like Bill Cash and John Redwood, egged on by a new crop of petty grandstanders, cannot see beyond this issue. Third, it highlights the irrelevance of Labour as they are just as split over Europe as the Tories. Just look at the disarray on both sides over the Lisbon Treaty. Fourth, it shows that Parliament matters - a categorically good thing.

Perhaps most importantly for this utterly biased blog, it demonstrates that, whether you like the Lib Dems' views on Europe we are the only party which is consistent, clear and honest about our support for the union and for co-operation between European countries. It is, however, a disappointment that our leadership decided to 'whip' our MPs today.

Rising above the petty politics of today's debate and vote is a much larger issue, one which is considered in a very 'black and white' way. Almost all the commentaries raise the spectre of possible two- or three-speed Europes, with an inner core of Eurozone countries, an outer group of less economically committed countries and a periphery of sceptics, one of which would inevitably be Britain, since British governments have shown unfailing stupidity over Europe ever since the 1940s when the smaller countries urged us to join to counterbalance France and provide a more practical, less corrupt model for the continent than les Grenouilles managed to introduce. The notion of a multi-speed system is seen as A Bad Thing by almost everyone and a road to ruin for Britain and for Europe. Why? What evidence is there that flexibility leads to failure?

Putting aside the record of 70 years of crass stupidity and failure to lead when leadership was needed by Britain, what is wrong with a multi-speed Europe? Why should some countries not share a currency while others don't? Why shouldn't some countries retain their currencies until such time - if such time arrives - that they decide that their interests lie within a currency union? I favour membership of the EU but not on any terms so why not look at working with others to develop differently. Isn't that the gift Britain can bring to Europe? Not the narrow-minded 'in or out' argument but a more nuanced one about shared interests. Forcing countries together, as the French favour, causes discord, dissonance and a lack of buy-in by citizens of European countries. Isn't that old devil, democracy, meant to be about winning popular support for progress and competing ideas fighting for acceptance?

That's the trouble with the European debate in Britain: it isn't a debate, it's a shouting match. We're either in or out, we either have to love Europe or hate it. Can't we be mature and accept the pluses of European membership while decrying and seeking to improve on the problems, like the CAP and the farce of the Strasbourg Parliament?

Coo, with all this favouring debate, dialogue and flexibility, I'll never get anywhere in politics, will I?

TORIES ARGUE OVER EUROPE. BEARS STILL USE WOODLAND FOR RELIEF. RELIGIOUS LEADER STILL HAS FIRST FLOOR OUTSIDE EXTENSION...

2011-10-20T05:20:00.001-07:00

The debate on Europe palls a bit when contrasted with the momentous news that the Libyan dictator has been captured and may even have spluttered his last on this earth but it is still important for this country.

It's difficult as a Lib Dem to hide one's glee at the abject stupidity of Tories for reviving this particular corpse, not a failed dictator but a pointless, childish argument which never fails to put the Tories at each others' throats. Keep fighting, chaps and let's hope the political casualty rate in this spat is high.

While they bicker between themselves, it would be nice if we could have a clear, unequivocal statement from the Lib Dem leadership that:
1. we are 100% pro European
2. we are also highly critical of the mess that Europe is and want it reformed root and branch
3. we are the only party - yes, the only one - which supported a referendum on European membership at the last election
4. Lib Dem MPs will be given the freedom to vote as they choose in next week's debate

We're sitting pretty on this issue as the only party with a clear view and a commitment to giving voters a proper choice on membership and this is a golden opportunity to show people why we're different. I hope Nickers makes some political capital out of it rather than just being Mr Nice Guy. They stuffed you earlier this year, Nick. It's payback time now.

LET'S GET THOSE PESKY CYCLISTS

2011-10-19T04:02:00.000-07:00

Well, phew. I have just heard on the radio that, fresh from stopping all dangerous driving and near misses with cyclists across the county and having reduced road deaths in Oxfordshire to zero, Thames Valley Police are going to be clamping down on cyclists in Oxford without lights.

At least the police have their priorities right.

I tend to go out with more lights than a well-stocked Christmas tree, as well as a jacket visible from nearby planets it is so bright so I have no sympathy with these miscreants. Of course, I go to such lengths to avoid finding myself crushed beneath a car which thinks if it accelerates it can just get round me before the oncoming vehicle gets to us. My glowing presence may also help to reduce the incidences of car drivers finding it easier to skim past my handlebar rather than obeying those troublesome rules about giving cyclists at least a car's width when overtaking.

But it's the cyclists who are at fault! Oh yes. Good old Thames Valley Police and well done on getting your priorities right, lads and lasses.

A RANT ABOUT THE JOKE THAT IS CYCLING PROVISION IN ENGLAND

2011-10-18T13:02:00.000-07:00

I've become a zealot for cycling as I have discovered that it convenient, enjoyable and manageable by even the unfittest of people, i.e. me. What continues to amaze me is the apartheid which exists on our roads which forces cyclists to brave potholes, idiots and zero provision to participate in a healthy activity which could benefit everyone - yes, everyone, from car drivers with more space to pollute to future generations with a healthier population relying on less of their tax money.

I recently undertook a fundraising cycle ride, aiming to get from my part of Oxfordshire to Stoke-on-Trent for the recent - and ever excellent - beer festival there. As I cycle around 20 miles a few times a week to and from work I thought it would be a reasonable scaling up and if I gave myself enough time it would be possible to do in a day.

The journey itself was fantastic and filled with fabulous pleasures like the countryside of Warwickshire, Gloucestershire and Oxfordshire, the overwhelming friendliness of Birmingham and its environs and the boyish delight of a Vulcan bomber flying so low over me that I waved to the pilot. I got as far as Walsall, where time and my tired legs forced me to jump on a train for the last part of the journey, which allowed me to contrast the delights of cycling with the misery of an overcrowded Virgin Train - which I managed to board with my bike even though I was told I could not reserve one of the four places for bikes, putting the trip into doubt even though I had paid. Idiocy. The only pleasure on the train ride was the shared experience of others as we all protested in the English way, by sighing and raising our eyes to Heaven.

The ride gave me ample time to ponder the vagaries of cycle provision and to compare what is available around the country. For much of my journey I was able to enjoy country lanes, with few cars beyond the occasional oaf in an overlarge car offended by my presence. However, these country lanes tend to meander and thus to take longer. I was running behind schedule at one point so I turned onto the A3400 below Henley in Arden. For about twenty minutes I covered far more ground than I could have by more circuitous routes and the first realisation struck me: that cars have to go by 'route one' yet bikes are expected to go round the houses. I was fortunate that the road in question was quite lightly used and the journey wasn't too bad and, in consequence, I made up some time.

I then tried a canal path outside Stratford on Avon and this started well, with a good, flat path which was lovely. Then, about five miles outside Stratford, this 'national cycle route' (seriously) became a thin muddy strip next to the canal, good only for mountain bikes. Imagine if the M6 became a muddy track just beyond Coventry.

When I reached Birmingham I was in for a shock. I'm a former London cyclist so I'm comfortable in city traffic but apparently Birmingham hates bikes. Now Brummies, I rediscovered, tend to be extremely friendly and generally I was left alone on my bike by all but the occasional dunderhead. The problems I had were the traffic - fair play, it was approaching rush hour and there was an accident - and the complete lack of any cycle paths. I spent much of my time in Birmingham either walking to get around solid traffic or haring along dual carriageways, which were the only option available to me - not an enjoyable experience.

What I did discover was that the area does seem to have a lot of wide pavements and pedestrians and cycles do seem to share them quite happily but as a commuter route, for those times when you want to motor a bit, this would not do and would be dangerous for walkers.

I came across a new development below Birmingham with shiny new houses, shiny street furniture, a nwly manufactured village centre and lots of roundabouts in strange shaps with brick roads to slow cars down - and, of course, to make cycling that bit more uncomfortable. Not a hint of a cycle path anywhere.

I started to tire around Smethwick and decided to get a train a little further on but even this far outside Birmingham the only choices of roads for me were busy ones, including one major roundabout with roadworks with zero provision for pedestrians or cycles. That one was fun...

Cycling remains a wonderful pleasure for me and I would do the journey again - when I can feel my thighs again - but I would have to make different plans, such as steeling myself for main roads and hassle from cars, vans and lorries or I would need to give myself a couple of days to meander down lanes an along canal paths, which would be nice but not when you need to get somewhere.

It's almost laughable that the provision for cycling across the country is so woeful. What would be wrong with a few main routes to connect the main cities and towns? Sustrans is doing its best and I love to look at the pretty blue signs next to throbbing roads before I turn off to a more sensible route but seriously, is this the answer?

It would not be rocket science to start the process of adding cycle routes to new roads now or, to use some of the billions which are going to be paid to some lousy contractor to botch the HS2 over decades and charge the taxpayer many billions more than it should have cost, to install a path next to this new route.

The qustion forming in my mind is, what would the Lib Dems do and what plans has the coalition got to encourage cycling and make it a real, practical option for most people. Would any government dare, for example, to close some roads to make it safe for people to ride? Would any government promise to invest what would be a relatively small amount when compared to cost of the rescue of the banking system or the questionable cost of HS2, which will at least double by the time it is completed?

It wouldn't take much to change things and the benefits could be huge. It could also mean that I get to the beer festival in Stoke earlier. And that's got to be a reason to do it, surely.

ANOTHER QUANDARY FOR OUR 'GREEN' PM OVER LOCAL ROADS

2011-10-02T05:55:00.000-07:00

Fresh from this vital decision over our bins, David Cameron might usefully be asked a few interesting questions about a long discussed plan to build a new road in Witney which would devastate a local flood plain and park and which would brilliantly divert traffic from one bottleneck to another within the town, shifting a problem down the road rather than resolving it.

I had a rare day off work on Friday and I drove into Witney. The good weather had caused a bit of a glut of cars as everyone bought stuff for the weekend. On this particular day - at 12pm on a Friday - the roundabout onto which the new 'Cogges Link Road' would deposit hundreds of cars every hour was absolutely solid with traffic, as were most of the roads around the town. Despite the unseasonably good weather, this was a fairly average occurrence and, not surprisingly, around rush hours this road is even more congested.

David Cameron has previously declared his full support for the proposed new bottleneck - it made the front page of the local paper, the Witney Gazette. If his government is going to be 'the greenest ever' and if he is serious about both addressing pollution and the interests of his local residents, perhaps this is the time for a sharp turn about while there is still time. If the diggers are sent in to concrete over the Windrush and surrounding land our Prime Minister might find more local difficulties to range against the financial storm developing across the world.

Someone might remind the Prime Minister of the old truth that all politics is local.

TORIES LOOK ALL WAYS OVER BINS

2011-10-02T05:45:00.000-07:00

So the Tories' latest gimmick for their conference is Eric Pickles's wheeze to bribe councils to re-introduce weekly bin collections. In fairness, this does honour one of their pre-election pledges but in practice it's as daft as John Redwood after a litre of scrumpy.

Here in Tory West Oxfordshire, we have had fortnightly collections for about a year now and its all going fine. Our waste is collected every two weeks, our green waste the other week and our food waste every week and all is fine. In my village we have no overflowing bins, there is no evidence of fly-tipping and I have seen no signs of open rebellion on the streets of Witney on Chipping Norton. What is happening is that recycling is going through the roof and I for one am thinking a lot harder about what I throw away, perhaps using up that food in the fridge which is on the way out instead of simply chucking it out without a thought. I suspect others are doing similar.

As I cycle around the area I have seen no evidence of any problems anywhere. I don't get to every village hereabouts but I would guess that my neighbours are comfortable with the new scheme, including one D. Cameron esq. Now, he is different because I understand he now spends a lot of time in London but the challenge for him and for the normally sensible Eric Pickles is to say whether Mr Pickles is right or whether the local Tory Council is right. A clue might be gleaned from the response of the Tory Council leader wheeled out on the Today programme last week to dismiss the Pickles Bribe as nonsense.

So here's a challenge for the Prime Minister. Who is wrong on this issue: West Oxfordshire Tories or Eric Pickles? If he can't answer this one, god help him when it comes to the Palestine vote.

LEAVE HIM, BRITAIN. HE'S LIED BEFORE, HE'LL LIE AGAIN...

2011-09-26T04:35:00.000-07:00

Following on from David Miliband's little brother promising to cap tuition fees if he becomes Prime Minister, a friend sent me an interesting reminder about old 'New' Labour and their previous promises on this thorny issue, lest we forget how trustworthy the PFI-loving, banker-worshipping warmongers were:

1997 election manifesto: 'we will not introduce tuition fees'. The new government introduced them within 6 months. 'Things can only get better...' Tories supported fees, the Lib Dems opposed them.

2001 election manifesto: 'we will not introduce top up fees and will introduce legislation to rule them out'. The re-elected Labour government waited a little while on this before introducing top up fees in 2004. Tories supported top up fees, the Lib Dems opposed them.

2011: David Milliband's little brother announces that a future Labour government ('New, Improved Labour' perhaps?) would cap fees at £6,000. This is widely reported as news in the country's media, to the astonishment of the 27 people in the country with longer memories than last year.

2025: having been through several leaders, including the disastrous 'Balls-up' years, a Labour government struggles into power having ditched its remaining principles, headed by a public school lawyer who drops his 't's and pretends to like football. The new leader says 'sorry, we meant to say we won't increase fees by any more than £6000 so now there will be a graduate tax paid for over your lifetime'.

And yes, I know we didn't cover ourselves in glory on this one but we still believe in a free education and with any luck we'll get the chance to address this in due course. That said, the jury must still be out on the notion that cleaners should pay for graduates.

THE MOST INCREDIBLE USE OF TECHNOLOGY

2011-09-21T01:53:00.000-07:00

This is possibly the most amazing use of technology of the year: a virtually free way of providing light into the poorest housing using plastic bottles filled with water. Genius simply doesn't do it justice.

Sadly, I cannot add links at the moment for reasons unknown to me but here's a pastable link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14967535

LABOUR BLAMES THE TORIES FOR TRAIN DEBACLE. AND WHO WAS MINDING THE SHOP FOR 13 YEARS..?

2011-09-13T15:01:00.000-07:00

Tory Philip Hammond has said the railways are a rich man's transport. That much we all know. Then Labour says it is the fault of the government. I sometimes wonder if its just me who's left sane and the world has gone mad...

Let's be clear: the Tories bear the ultimate blame for the fiasco that is the privatisation of trains and the resultant chaos which has ensued, but Labour politicians have got some nerve blaming this government.

What were they doing for 13 years? Where was the plan for bringing the trains back under some kind of central control, slashing subsidies to private companies? Where was the improvement in services which such a plan could have delivered? Where was the rationalisation of fares to make them affordable for non-Tory ministers?

Seriously, if Labour is blaming the government for the trains disaster they are clearly demonstrating that they have light years to travel before they can seek re-election.

Do not, for a moment, think that I support the government on this, by the way. Privatised trains are a joke and always will be and unless any government 'fesses up to that obvious truth they are all culpable. I hope you're reading this, Norman...

OTTOMAN-MENT, WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH TURKEY?!

2011-09-13T03:19:00.000-07:00

(The headline is meant to be 'wait a moment' but it barely works...)

Now here's an interesting story which might not receive the coverage it deserves [I have tried to insert a link but it appears to not want to play today so check out the Independent for more on this]. It seems that Turkey is promoting itself as the leader of the Arab world.

Turkey is of course the home of the former Ottoman Empire and has managed to reinvent itself as a moderate, democratic state - not without much difficulty but still with considerable success. The fact that Turkey is not in the EU has been a source of disappointment to many but it may turn out to have been a good decision all along if this country can develop its role in the region. Turkey is an obvious choice as regional leader and the country's potential new role puts the lie to the idiocies of people like the 'Middle East Peace Envoy' - may his apples rot on the tree - who insist that we must fear Islam and the millions of terrorists it is supposed to produce.

This possible new approach of leadership and active support is not to ignore Turkey's less than perfect human rights record or the continued but ever more muted rumblings from the military. Turkey is no paragon but the country is ideally suited for this role in terms of its location, its proximity to Europe, its history and its previously strong relationship with Israel.

Comes the hour, comes the country which has been through all this aggravation and could be just what is needed to guide Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Syria to stability, peace and democracy.

I am having one of my dreams again, the futile ones which rely on common sense rather than realpolitik. In my dream, the USA will butt out and leave Turkey to gently develop this role, recognising that it could transform the region and usher in a period of democratic change across a number of states the like of which we have never seen. In my dream European countries - most notably Germany but also Britain and France - fully support Turkey and accept the country's leadership role, offering financial support as required and rewarding Turkey with greater economic engagement in Europe, benefiting both sides. In my dream Israel will recognise that its position is untenable as long as it seeks to challenge and confront its neighbours and that the only long term future for the country is through active, positive engagement now, which includes an end to illegal colony building as well as an acceptance that Turkey has for years been a solid ally of Israel and it can now be the conduit for this rapprochement between Israel and other countries.

It is an amazing thought that we might look forward to a democratic, economically engaged Middle East region within a relatively short period of time - a region which has transformed itself, rather than being changed from without by clever politicians with little understanding of the complexities involved.

Some dream, huh?

WHEN WILL THE WEST STOP THIS BABBLING MADMAN?

2011-09-10T06:01:00.001-07:00

It is quite remarkable that a single utterance from the 'Middle East Peace Envoy' is enough to double my blood pressure. His latest pronouncements on the region are little short of laughable - or at least they would be if they weren't so dangerous.

Blair said today that it was 'deeply naive' to believe the response of the 'West' to the 9/11 attacks had radicalised muslim extremists. Is he lying, mad or just stupid?

If you pound a country - Iraq - into submission because of a tissue of lies about weapons of mass destruction, if you continue to resist a just settlement between Israel and Palestine - favouring one side over the other, if you support dictators across the region in the name of stability and if you continue a desperate war against all things Islamic on the back of the actions of a few hundred madmen who are as representative of Islam as loon Midwest American Christian fundamentalists are of Christianity, what is going to happen other than resistance - resistance from the madmen as well as resistance from muslims who are frankly fed up at the lies and repression and who just want to live their lives without being branded by people like Blair as extremists or a threat to the 'West'.

The revolution in Egypt had nothing to do with the bearded weirdos of al Qaeda, nor did the revolutions in Tunisia or Libya. The struggle against the regime in Syria is also completely free of religion. It is being led by people who just want freedom, not a theocracy. Why doesn't Blair acknowledge this and celebrate the coming of freedom to these countries? Why doesn't he accept his terrible role in the wars, fear, hate and increasing denial of our civil liberties which have scarred the last decade in Britain?

Blair is an embarrassment to this country and our government should seek his removal from his laughable position as 'peace' envoy. He makes me ashamed to be British.

HERE COME THE LIB DEMS - FINALLY

2011-09-01T03:40:00.000-07:00

It's starting to get a whole lot more encouraging in London - or more precisely, Tottenham. Having endured around 14 months of Hell at the hands of the grubby media, this could be the moment Nick Clegg begins his rehabilitation as he steps into the limelight and confirms his role as the Minister for Doing the Right Thing.

His support for Vince and their joint call for banking reform to happen now, not when Dave and George's chums in the City want it, is what we fought the last election for and what the prophetic Vince has been demanding for an embarrassing (for the other parties) number of years. Nick's firm backing for Vince is what we want to hear and he needs to square up to Dave and make sure the Tory leader doesn't weasel out of this. Any compromise on this fundamental issue should be met by loud Lib Dem condemnation. Banking reform is solid gold, not blue...

His return to Tottenham yesterday to reaffirm the government's commitment to helping the area after the looting is also good, a clear sign that the Lib Dems don't just move on to the next story. Nick's visit appears to have been welcomed by people in Tottenham and even by the local Labour MP.

Nick has done more for his reputation in this one day than in the past 14 months of coalition government. I called yesterday's brief comment 'reasons to be cheerful' and for one of the few times since we went into coalition with the Tories, I am smiling. As I've said before, I don't envy our Lib Dem MPs their job of working with the Tories but I do admire them for it.

Lots of people - usually on the left- have bleated about the Lib Dems in coalition, some asking what the Lib Dems are for and praying for some kind of revival of their fortunes as we decline. Well, it has been a difficult time for us but the answer to that existential question is here. This is what the Lib Dems are for: doing stuff, delivering on our promises, keeping the Tories in check, reforming the banks, sorting out the mess left by Labour.

In three years' time we can go to voters and show them that we have actually done stuff in government. I'm no expert but I reckon people will quite like that.

REASONS TO BE CHEERFUL

2011-08-31T02:07:00.000-07:00

The Independent headline today is 'Osborne and Cable at war over bank reform'. Why does this make me smile broadly before I have read a single word of the article?

MY GAS BILL - A LITTLE VICTORY

2011-08-23T06:24:00.000-07:00

With the inexorable rise in fuel bills, I'd like to record a minor victory against one of the chief culprits, British Gas. I received a message yesterday telling me that my latest bill was ready, showing me in credit by a small amount. I was also advised that my monthly Direct Debit would increase by a whopping £14 a month, or £168 a year.

I immediately looked out my 'Disgusted of Oxfordshire' hat, set it at a suitably aggressive angle and typed a truculent message to the huge profit-making multinational to point out that I was in credit and that this hike was outlandish. They replied to advise me that my Direct Debit would now only increase by a considerable £8 a month.

I leapt off my seat like a scalded cat and put on my most officious trousers and replied to them with alacrity that this would not do as I was in credit to them, i.e. they owed me money. At such time as I actually owed them any money they had my permission to increase my Direct Debit. Until then, forget it - or some such formalese. The reply I received confirmed that my Direct Debit would remain unchanged and it would in future simply be laughable rather than stupendously absurd.

I am therefore able to advise that it does pay to make a fuss with large companies whose billing is dictated by computers, with no recourse to the 'Common Sense Czar' that all such companies - and the government - should be required to employ to point out occasions when they are just being daft.

I will now help myself to a celebratory biscuit and cuppa.

CYCLING IS GOOD FOR BRITAIN - OFFICIAL

2011-08-22T02:00:00.000-07:00

The BBC has a report today from the LSE which demonstrates the benefits of cycling to the whole economy in terms of jobs created, manufacturing, taxes paid and perhaps most crucially in the health benefits cycling brings.

I have started cycling to work regularly, though not every day and it remains a bit of a trial at some parts as most motor vehicles retain the view that they own the road. If this is you, have a look at this report and consider that more cycles means fewer cars, so more space for you. More bikes also means less pollution, a healthier population - so lower costs for the NHS and care for older people, fewer road accidents - a possible reduction in the startling statistic of two children on average killed on our roads every single day - and, an esoteric one here, more fun on journeys, from the trip to the local shop for a pint of milk to the commute to work.

And if you thing cycling is not for you, trust me, I'm no Sir Chris Hoy, yet I am currently doing 20 miles most days in relative comfort and with a smile on my face. The beauty of cycling is that it genuinely benefits everyone, including motorists. The problem is that millions of car, van and lorry users refuse to acknowledge this simple truth.

How about a bit of government money for cycling? How about the odd properly built and laid out cycle lane, rather than a wavy white line next to an A road which helpfully points cyclists through every hole and manhole in the road? How about pressure on rail companies to provide proper cycling provision on local routes, rather than treating cyclists as a problem? How about a significant part of the driving test devoted to cycling and the rights of cyclists. How about everyone taking a driving test being required to do an hour's cycle around a local town or city? And how about one of those natty ad campaigns which seek to make cycling normal and acceptable for everyone.

Sheesh, what an idealist...

GOVERNMENT IN 'DOING SOMETHING' SHOCK

2011-08-16T03:42:00.000-07:00

Proving that I am not just a moaning minnie when it comes to our Beloved Leader, the speech today was good. He said a lot of good stuff, including damning Ed Milispoons for his desperate gambit in calling for an inquiry of judges to harrumph for a year before publishing a 900 page report which no one will read. Instead the government proposal involves people affected by the rioting, which sounds like a great plan.

He also made clear than those convicted will be made to repair damage in the communities they attacked and that prisoners will be 'met at the prison gate' by people to support them into work. This is all good stuff, squarely in the Lib Dem ball park of actually doing something for once instead of simply locking people away for a few months, only to let them out to re-offend.

Contrast this approach with calls for the army or boot camps (Boris came out with that one) or water cannon. And of course there's the old saw about 'prison working', an interesting comment in the light of the revelation that fully 60% of the people being prosecuted over the violence were previous offenders. Oh yes, prison works a treat...

Prison doesn't work but restorative justice might. Getting people to clear up the mess they made, to repay debts to those they stole from and to speak to their victims is a lot more useful than putting someone in a cell for 23 hours a day to do nothing.

So well done Nickers and let's hope we hear more of the same from the Lib Dems in government.

DAVE AND ED HAVE BLATHERED. CAN NICK DO BETTER?

2011-08-15T12:47:00.000-07:00

And so the riots cease and the politics begins. The two old tribes climb cheerfully into their respective trenches and pick up their armouries, one side calling for stronger families and communities, the other blaming society and the example of others, including bankers and the same politicians. There's no need to distinguish between them - it's business as usual and, frankly, it doesn't matter.

Dave wants to rebuild our broken society, Ed wants an enquiry - a favourite 'New' Labour tactic to spend a few tens of millions, kick a subject into the long grass and avoid any hint at a serious consideration of the issue. Don't believe me? Consider Iraq and the Labour enquiries on that gaping wound in their collective principles and the record of the Labour governments from 2001-2010. What, precisely, did they achieve, when the chief culprit remains unchallenged, unpunished and - stretching absurdity to its limit - touring the Middle East as a 'peace' envoy?!

Today we got a hint - just a hint - of what the Lib Dems could do to enliven this debate. The doughty Simon Hughes joined the fray to warn against the usual kneejerk policies that, once again, 'New' Labour loved so much. Someone dropped a crisp packet? Ban crisp packets.

Nick Clegg will speak tomorrow and he has a choice. He can either be a good Deputy Prime Minister and bemoan the problems we saw last week, condemn the rioters, compliment the police and call for 'unity', 'rebuilding', a 'greater sense of purpose' [I'm putting anything down because it would all be froth that no one will listen to]. Or he can choose to speak as a Liberal Democrat leader and an independent member of a coalition government, not just a supporter of the government.

He can decry the knee-jerk calls for repression which members of both the old parties came out with over the past week, which the police did not want and which would not have worked. He can acknowledge that the police did a good job and that instead of criticising them, politicians might show a bit more understanding and even contrition. He can damn the looters as criminals and he can recognise - as Lib Dems have done for years - that there are deep-seated problems, none of which excuse the violence and crime but all of which must be addressed to help to avoid a repeat of the trouble. He can raise the battered flag of liberty and give us all something to cheer about: the kind of independence of thought and voice that the Lib Dems have been known for for years and which membership of a coalition does NOT stop him declaring loudly and without apology.

We are better than them and our leader should state that loud and clear and damn the consequences. That is what being the leader of an independent party means and that, I would humbly submit, is what our members and supporters want and expect.

POLICE HAVE A GO AT THE TORIES. SUPER DUPER!

2011-08-13T11:32:00.000-07:00

The Independent has a story today quoting senior police officers in criticising the Tories for seeking to take credit for the police response to the looting of recent days. One senior officer is reported to have described Dave as 'idiotic' and the report states that he had to be 'talked down' from putting the army onto the streets. Thank God for that.

The report also considers the role of the new adviser to Dave, Bill Bratton, formerly of Los Angeles in the USA, where he is credited with achieving much in the wake of riots there. This seems to be another role for the 'Common Sense Czar', my fantasy government adviser who is given the role of sitting down with Cabinet Ministers and the Prime Minister and considering all their ideas from the perspective of the world outside a few narrow streets in Westminster. In this case, the Czar would doubtless point out to Dave and to Mr Bratton that London is not LA and that whatever the problems in London, they are dwarfed by the violence and racial tension in the USA, a country which proudly allows its citizens and police to bear arms and which is thus the scene of hundreds of shootings daily.

The Tories always set great store beside their commitment to law and order and they have failed miserably in recent days. A rift with police must be like drinking hemlock to the average Tory.

This of course does not acquit the Lib Dems of responsibility and I have made clear my deep disappointment at the lack of any senior Lib Dems decrying the Tory approach to unrest. My wait continues and the longer it does the more we seem to be in agreement with the Tories on this matter, which I trust we are not. I just wish this was being demonstrated loudly and publicly.

That does not mean that Nickers needs to walk out of the Cabinet or slag off Dave but there is surely no harm in him as the leader of his own political party setting out our view on the looting and our disdain for the violent tactics which other politicians have advocated, against the wishes of the police and anyone who doesn't read the Sun. What's the point of being a Lib Dem if you can't speak out at a time like this.

NICK, WHERE THE HELL WERE YOU YESTERDAY?

2011-08-12T01:56:00.001-07:00

Dear Nick, sorry I missed you during the debate in Parliament yesterday. I waited for a long time and looked out for your distinctive input, supporting the police, identifying those responsible as criminals and calling for tough punishments but also decrying ludicrous calls for baton rounds and water cannon as unnecessary, unwanted by the police, useless for recent events and potentially inflammatory. I tapped my fingers while I waited for your dismissal of calls for the army to patrol our streets. I listened out for your dismissal of calls for a curfew as nonsense in 21st century peacetime Britain.

I hung around to hear your expression of reservations about new laws, something 'New' Labour used to do as a knee-jerk reaction to any problems and something that in the good old days Liberal Democrats used to ridicule as bad law making. I waited to hear you set out very clearly that the police have enough powers and they have the ability to do their job without the interference of politicians. I craned my ear to the radio to listen to your recognition that politicians have a strategic role in supporting, advising and criticising the police where necessary and setting out the policy framework in which they operate but NOT getting involved in day to day decision making, as the Tories claim to be doing.

Thinking about your current role, I thought you might not be able to do this so I listened out for a deputy, like the ever-prescient Vince, to make the point, or even the reliably left field Charlie Kennedy but sadly they must have been stuck with you wherever you were holed up.

I waited a long time, Nick. I'm still waiting but I can't wait forever. Give me a call and tell me where on earth you are or I might be forced to carry on without you.

By the way, you may not remember me but I was a LD candidate for Henley in 2010. I stood firm to the party line. I spent a lot of my own money on the campaign. I made promises on tuition fees which I subsequently had to apologise for breaking. I did a lot to support a fellow candidate in what turned out to be an unsuccessful campaign. Put simply, I did my bit and I fought for Liberal Democrat values. I still do. I know you did too and I applaud your efforts on behalf of us all but this is the time when the Lib Dems stand apart as the sole voice of reason as the two old parties veer further to the right.

Where were you?

PERSPECTIVE - AND HOPEFULLY ONE OR TWO REASONS TO BE CHEERFUL

2011-08-11T15:38:00.000-07:00

Question Time on the BBC was a good one this time around, with a heavyweight panel offering some good comments and some very lively and informative audience participation. Even John Prescott managed to make sense and Brian Paddick rocked, as a policeman who has worked in some tough parts of London and who can speak with authority on such matters. It is frustrating that all debate on the criminal looting will not be this interesting or useful.

As it ended I was reminded of the recent comments from countries including Libya, Iran, Russia and China on the looting, condemning the British system and government and calling for wholesale change.

Well, let's analyse that in microcosm. Which of the above countries would bring together five lively and informed commentators from different political perspectives to debate recent traumatic events in their countries? For that matter, which of the above countries has a viable and active opposition which, for all its myriad faults (Eds Milispoons and Balls for starters), I would defend to the death as an essential element of our democracy? Which of the above countries would allow such free debate - much of it quite rightly critical of the government - among its citizenry on mainstream television?

The past week has shown that England has problems a-plenty and that we are by no means perfect but seriously folks, Iran a paragon of free speech? A country where the police force democracy protesters to drink excrement? Libya a standard bearer for human rights, where citizens who disagree with the lunatic General clinging on to power are tortured or killed, along with their families. Russia, struggling to enter the 21st century and good luck to them but seriously, give up the lectures to us on freedom, tovarisch. China, an emerging global power which is so strong and successful that it allows no dissent from the rantings of a 200 year old German and a murdering dictator.

We have much to think about in Britain after recent events but this Englishman would not trade troubled but free, democratic and relatively prosperous Britain with any one of the above countries for all the tea in, well, China.

STAND UP LIB DEM MPs. TELL THEM THEY'RE A BUNCH OF NUTTERS!

2011-08-11T04:42:00.001-07:00

I think the phrase is OMG and for once it is appropriate. Reading the comments made by Tory and Labour MPs in the Parliamentary debate on the criminal looting, you would think that we were at war. Loony Nadine Dorries wants water cannon now, not in 24 hours, David Davies (a different one, apparently) wants the use of baton rounds, Labour and Plaid Cymru MPs blame the economy for criminals. It is a shocking day when Diane Abbott is the voice of reason, cautioning against the use of the army.

Where is the LD voice of reason? Where are London MPs Sarah Teather and Simon Hughes when you need them? Where is Nickers proudly standing up to distance himself from the Prime Minister's mindless sabre-rattling. The time is now, Nick. This is not what we are.

MORE POLICE, LESS CRIME. SIMPLES, NO?

2011-08-11T03:53:00.000-07:00

No.

Here come Labour, chuntering on about policing cuts in the absence of any acceptance of responsibility for the recent criminal activities - some of whose participants were born and grew up under a Labour government. Same old Labour: trite responses to a hugely complex issue. Well, here's a response to Labour.

The country has just been through one of the worst recessions ever. We are poorer than we were in 2008 and the economy is flatlining. Despite the Labour spin, any party which had emerged from the election in 2010 in control would have had to make swingeing cuts along the lines of those which have been made. If you doubt this, just google 'Alastair Darling and cuts', to see what the bushy-eyebrowed 'Laurel' was saying before the election as the then Prime Minister, 'Hardy' Brown tried desperately to stop him. The cuts have been made across the board and have included every public service, including the police. That it not pleasant or easy but it is fair. People demanding that planned cuts in policing budgets are stopped to avoid a repeat of the recent problems in future are being too simplistic. Their response is understandable but it ignores a number of facts.

Firstly, recent events were unprecedented and could not have been planned for even with double the number of police. Police numbers in themselves are not the problem; the issue of recent days appears to have been the response by the police and the attitude of the communities involved, which in many cases has been to criticise the police for failing to hold back huge mobs without recognising all our involvement in building and maintaining a civilised society.

Secondly, the police service has shown a quite impressive ability to respond in force to the problem after the initial shock, suggesting not that police numbers are the problem but that police intelligence was at fault.

Thirdly, what kind of message does it send to the criminals involved in the recent looting and destruction that we have to abandon essential economic plans to rescue the country - that's all of us with bank accounts, mortgages, loans, savings, shares, investments - to stop a few hundred people from being animals? Isn't this the cliched 'holding the country to ransom' which so many politicians would normally decry?

The answer to the recent problems is not a crude numbers game. Flooding England with police will not stop crime but it will diminish all our civil liberties. The problem is far wider and deeper and it touches on everyone. The police are not the controlling, oppressive force found in other countries - thank God - they are part of society and for that we all share a burden.

Wake up Miliband and Harman and recognise that 13 years of oppressive and intrusive government did not solve deep-seated problems in our country. When you do that, feel free to consider solutions other than more uniforms. Until then, go home and read a book or de-flea the cat.

IT'S JUST CRIME AND THE SOLUTION IS LOCAL

2011-08-10T04:26:00.000-07:00

There was a key quote on the BBC website from someone in Liverpool pointing out that around 200 people have caused disturbances in a city of 480,000. He was keen to ensure that the reputation of Liverpool does not suffer as a result of the latest crimes. As an occasional visitor to Liverpool, I agree. Its a great place which happens to have its share of problems, as does everywhere else. This comment by a proud Liverpudlian is well made and it illustrates that the current lunacy is not the breakdown of society, just crime pure and simple.

The fact that such a small number of people can cause such disruption should not come as a surprise, despite the increasingly rabid media frenzy which is surrounding it (BBC News 24 cannot help but be excited at actually having some news to report for once). We live in a complex society with only the thinnest veneer of civilisation over the top of an ever-present potential for chaos, as all the desperate calls for soldiers and water cannons illustrates. As long as we stick to the simple truth that this is criminal activity and nothing more, we can start to look beyond what is at first shocking to see that most people are safe and going about their lives, while a very small number - mostly business people trying to improve their lives and those of colleagues and employees - experience terrible loss which will hopefully be addressed as soon as possible.

I am surprised at how little there has been from the serious commentators beyond the tired 'bring in the army/water cannon/baton rounds'. Calls for the police to use water cannon continue with absolutely no reference to the utility of this resource or the desire of the police to use it. The police in England do not have water cannons and their spokesman has said they do not want to use them even if they could get them. Dave has now jumped on to this bandwagon with his 'dog whistle' speech, claiming that we could have water cannons within 24 hours. That's it, Dave, lose the plot, why don't you...

What has been instructive has been listening to Radio 5 Live over the past couple of days and hearing a range of comments, surprisingly few of which have been of the 'hang 'em and flog 'em' variety. Lots of people have sought to blame the current criminal activity on the coalition government, completely ignoring the culture of instant gratification, corruption and consumerism which preceded 2010 in the guise of 'new' Labour (How ironic the moniker 'new' seems these days...). With Ed Miliband desperately trying to sound tough (difficult with that voice), Ken Livingstone blaming bus fares for crime, Diane Abbott calling for a curfew and Alastair Campbell blaming the current unrest on the removal of the Educational Maintenance Allowance, we may have to wait some time for a coherent Labour response. Perhaps the hilarious Ed Balls will think up a line of attack - he usually does, in the absence of anyone else to do so - but I'm not holding my breath. Until Labour issue a mea culpa for their failings in the previous 13 years they really aren't on particularly solid ground.

[If your question is 'what failings', well, spending more than the government earned in every one of the 13 years of Labour government; throwing money at the NHS with little demonstrable improvement in productivity but a massive hike in the bill we all pay; persuading more people to go to university despite the fact that graduate jobs are not numerous enough to satisfy demand and that this push demeans those who choose not to go to university; paying people to go to college, rather than motivating them with a sense of wanting to achieve; climbing up the fundament of media moguls in the interests of re-election rather than challenging the sleaze and obsession with celebrity they produced as an attack on a civilised society; failing (like every government since the 1960s) to change the education system; ignoring the needs of local authorities to be able to raise taxes fairly and spend them on local priorities, instead introducing a raft of needless targets...I'll stop there, without mentioning the illegal war, the destruction and loss of reputation it caused and the abject failure to plan financially for the future during a period of relative economic prosperity. The essential point is that Labour hasn't got a leg to stand on...Or a credible leader, for that matter.]

But I digress...Many people on the radio and other media have pointed to the need for better parenting and greater power for teachers in schools. One's mind immediately drifts to Sure Start centres, a Labour initiative admittedly which attempted to address deeper social ills among a small number of families. It's nice to recall that no Sure Start centres have been closed down by Lib Dem authorities. The trouble is that there is no evidence that they actually work. The principle is good and is one only a Tory could disagree with but some idea about what they do is needed.

Maybe this is where the idea of localism and the 'big society' (I know, I'm chuckling too...) come into their own. Perhaps we can just ignore the latter one and focus on localism, which could be the answer. Local powers to intervene in families and schools, coupled with local budgets for authorities from taxes raised locally (there's a scary thought for Whitehall) could offer solutions and, crucially, if a number of competing local systems were introduced we could see what works and what doesn't. Get all the parties to sign up to a ten year plan to invest in this way (although finding who is in charge at Labour HQ to agree to anything will be a challenge) and to agree to leave the trials alone for that period, followed by an all-party review, might shine some light on the problems which have arisen.

People moan about politicians but now is the time for politicians to listen, consider and act - in short, to do their job. Will they do this on Thursday? No. They will argue, score points, try to out-tough each other and leave having shed little light on the issue at hand. Or at least the two old parties will. Listen to the debate and you will hear Lib Dems discussing the problem, not the politics.

SEND IN THE ARMY! - AND ABANDON ANY PRETENCE AT A FREE SOCIETY

2011-08-09T02:35:00.001-07:00

It's depressingly familiar to hear the cries of many for troops to be used to patrol the troubled streets of London this morning as the criminal looting subsides long enough for the thieves to have their Coco Pops. The oh-so-reasonable voice of Tory Patrick Mercer called for this in a measured way and his call was echoed by a military officer with experience of Iraq, who said that 'fire' should be fought with 'fire'. I can respect the views of the soldier but he is not a policeman and he has no experience of policing this country which, as is often repeated - but never too often - is by consent, not force.

The police have been challenged and stretched to breaking point and they will be blamed completely erroneously for the violence and crime which has occurred. The unpleasant commentator Darcus Howe did just this on the radio this morning, citing the killing of a young man on Saturday as the reason looters destroyed Debenhams in Clapham Junction and a jeweller's in Birmingham. This is, of course, utter rubbish as anyone with an ounce of intelligence realises. A man was killed and a riot ensued in protest at that event but the subsequent chaos has nothing - not one jot - to do with that tragic event, which must be dealt with by the normal inquiry and resultant action. The later chaos is not linked and the death in Tottenham is an excuse.

Despite all the terrible events which have occurred and the destruction which has been wrought we cannot go down the route of soldiers patrolling the streets or curfews. It just isn't British. We rely on the police to sort out problems and to deal with trouble and then we moan at them when they are outnumbered 100-1. What about heaping praise on to them for standing their ground across the city, putting themselves in harm's way and trying to sort things out?

The problem is at once smaller and greater than is being said. It is smaller because these events are at heart just crime and those responsible need to be rounded up, tried and hopefully banged up for a few years. It is greater because there is a shared responsibility among us all (i) to support the police instead of carping about them when they turn out not to be miracle workers or Robocops (ii) to recognise that they are part of any society, not separate from it, and to act towards - and with - them accordingly.

If vocal Tories and right-wingers get their way, we surrender any notion that we are better than the numerous countries we seek to influence and change, like Syria, Egypt and Tunisia. What would the lunatic Gaddafi make of British troops patrolling British streets? How would the fanatical weirdos of al Qaeda react to such images? Also, what a devastating, catastrophic impact such images would have on the London Olympics.

Despite all the restrictions on our liberty imposed by the Labour government in the name of 'security' (well, this is still a political blog...), to be British is still to be free and to avoid the need for armed soldiers patrolling our towns and cities. The police will restore order, politicians will argue, businesses will be restored, though regrettably some will not be able to and the country we should all love for that freedom will return to normal. These events are horrible but they are not reason to abandon freedom.

It's hard to be a liberal in such circumstances but I know it is still the right choice.

LONDON RIOTS: KEN LIVINGSTONE SAYS IT'S BECAUSE THE FARES ARE TOO HIGH

2011-08-08T15:15:00.000-07:00

What to say about the London riots..? I know: what a nasty, despicable oaf Ken Livingstone is. He is currently touring the BBC telling all and sundry that the cuts are responsible for the violence in London and that the riots reflect 'anger'. He has just said that the reason people are breaking into shops and stealing TVs is because fares are too high. Words fail me...or at least non-Anglo Saxon words.

I am proud to say that I have always hated Livingstone, a disreputable, no-mark nothing and his latest statements reinforce this view of him with knobs on. The violence in London is criminal looting, nothing else. Sure, there are all sorts of problems in our cities and across the country. In my small village some people struggle with joblessness and poverty but they aren't breaking the windows of our local shop to steal the cheese.

The limitations of this blog stop me from saying what I really think of idiotic Livingstone and his ilk but I would love to come across this failed politician to tell him to his face what I think of his excusing crime. If he stands for election in future I hope the majority of Londoners who aren't involved in this insanity let him know what they think of him.

With apologies for the tenor of this blog but I was born and grew up in London and my old home is in turmoil. I should also note that this is in no way an endorsement of the current ludicrous London Mayor.

LOCAL ELECTIONS - WHERE DOES THE BUCK STOP...?

2011-07-24T05:59:00.000-07:00

I had a chance to catch up with the news that matters - the Oxford Times - and I read about the problems of the elections in the Vale of White Horse and in South Oxfordshire. The Returning Officer has been less than clear in his acceptance of his responsibility, which is unfortunate.

As a candidate who lost by 92 votes I don't want to be a sore loser but I do want to ensure that in future every one who wants to is able to vote. The Lib Dems lost the election and that would probably have happened anyway -especially given some of the desperate tactics of the Tories - but some of the results would almost certainly have been different. In my case this is clearly unlikely as there were two others ahead of me.

We have to have confidence in our electoral system and most people in the Vale won't after what happened in May. Let's hope that responsibility is acknowledged soon and that changes are made.

OH LOOK! THE FUTURE OF ENERGY SUPPLY - AND NOT A NUCLEAR ANYTHING IN SIGHT

2011-07-22T02:26:00.001-07:00

Good old Japanese. Here's a pointer to the next stage of energy generation, reducing the need for grids and huge power stations and looking forward to a time when - once again - energy can be created, stored and used within a home or business. To coin a tired old old phrase, it isn't rocket science, just common sense to do everything locally.

I'm reading more and more about climate change and the looming problems but also about the thousands of people researching solutions, such as this. The future's not bleak.

NEWS CORP: STOP, MY SIDES ARE HURTING!

2011-07-14T03:00:00.000-07:00

If it seems odd that this opinionated fool has not commented on the NewsCorp story, its not because I'm not interested. The issue is that it is moving too fast to comment sensibly.

Perhaps the best thing to suggest is that this is the moment when everything changes in the print media, with the Guardian on its uppers, the Independent going free and possibly providing a new model and the Times being dragged deeper into the NewsCorp sewer where it has existed for the past 30 years.

With so many electronic sources now available to read these papers, this is probably the end of the print media as we know it, which will be a shame but it will also be a huge benefit in terms of paper use, carbon use as the various bits of tree are driven around the country and hopefully in our exposure to information as we potentially have the choice of not one but thousands of information sources.

I'll miss my paper - currently the brilliant 'i' from the Independent stable - but the world turns and its a fool (or a Tory. Whoops, same thing...) why tries to fight against it.

Back to NewsCorp, it is difficult to form a sensible opinion with a grin this size on one's face. When the mighty fall, the crash can be heard across continents and this one's shaken the earth.

And one other thing: how is Vince right every time?!

WITHOUT WISHING TO BADGER ANYONE, CAN'T WE JUST SHOOT FOXES AS WELL?

2011-07-12T02:48:00.001-07:00

Here's an interesting quandary for proponents of dressing in daft outfits and chasing small furry animals across the countryside in packs in the interests of 'sport' and 'control' of the pest that foxes undoubtedly are: the government is planning to shoot itself in the foot once more with a cull of badgers in the interests of controlling bovine TB in cattle, a plan which is contentious in the extreme and one which I cannot claim any expertise on.

However, always one to venture an opinion, if the government is advocating shooting badgers to control them, why can't the same be done to control foxes, instead of the farce of the 'Jeremy', to take the Culture Secretary's name in vain?

Historical note: foxes are not native to Britain. They were introduced for hunting.

NUCLEAR POWER - A NEW PERSPECTIVE

2011-07-11T05:14:00.000-07:00

For anyone who believes (i) that markets know best and (ii) that nuclear power is the best option for a carbon free future, check out this article on the BBC News website which explains how an imperfect design for nuclear power generation has been favoured over potentially better and safer designs because of government pressure and a monopoly situation within that particular industry.

I cannot begin to go into details on this as my technical knowledge is at the level of a cave man when it comes to nuclear power so I recommend you read the article in which someone with the ability to explain the many possibilities for nuclear power generation is able to better enlighten you.

I'm negative towards nuclear power as it is so flawed but this article opens up the prospect that there are much better solutions within that particular area which should be considered. However, while a few large players dominate the deeply troubled nuclear market we will be left with a divide between the pro and anti lobbies. I remain anti but this article is highly intriguing.

NO, ED, WRONG AGAIN

2011-07-08T02:03:00.001-07:00

What a pointless wretch Ed Miliband is. Faced with the biggest scandal to hit the media in this country since, well, the last one (David Kelly, Diana, yadayadayada), this is a golden opportunity for the leader of the opposition to actually get some coverage, yet his best throw of the dice has been to call for Dave to apologise for hiring Andy Coulson.

Now, I won't defend Dave and clearly his decision to hire an ex News of the World hack was a poor one but seriously, is this the best our opposition can do? Is there nothing to be said about the Murdoch empire? Or the hateful Rebekah Brooks? Or the pretty lamentable record of the News of the World for years, which can just be discerned through the crocodile tears over its closure?

The country needs robust opposition and that opposition needs intelligent leadership which is both critical and forward looking. And we have Eds Miliband and Balls - one showing ineptitude worthy of the John Major government, the other possibly the most cynical and unlikeable politician of his generation, tarnished by his association with last disastrous government.

Thank God Nickers has again come out against the Tories and their visceral hatred of Europe today. We may be in the government but we're still a better opposition than Labour.

IT'S TIME TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY - BoJo's GETTING SERIOUS

2011-07-07T01:28:00.001-07:00

On the Today programme this morning I heard a sound that chilled the blood in my body. Boris Johnson, bumbling Mayor of London and supposed secret mastermind of Tory futures, was the latest 'rent-a-quote' lined up to lambast the News of the World and its deceitful leadership. During his self-righteous pronouncements Johnson used the trick beloved of public school educated leadership hopefuls in both the Tories and Labour - he dropped a few 't's at the end of words.

This practice, made famous by working class socialist Tony Blair, has been tried by David Miliband, Ed Miliband, Dave and countless other 'hopefuls' and it seems that Johnson is the latest in a short and undistinguished line of the desperate posh.

Its time to stock up on water, pasta, torches and candles. If BoJo becomes Tory leader - and potentially PM - we may as well all give up.

COMMON SENSE, MR DILNOT? PISH AND TUSH!

2011-07-04T03:21:00.000-07:00

The publication of the report by economist Andrew Dilnot on social care which proposes a cap on contributions by older people is very welcome in bringing to the fore a huge issue which is ignored by most of us, quite reasonably because it doesn't affect us but which will be something we will all have to face in the future.

Doubtless Ed Milispoons will say the government is not going far enough and Ed Balls will say that this is what Labour planned all along. Tories will say we can't afford this. Lib Dems will hopefully welcome the report and say its a good starting point for discussions. The hope is that this does not become a political issue.

And I paused there to hoot with laughter and wipe away the tears running down my face...

We're generally getting older, we are mostly healthier for longer and the costs of social care have ballooned in the past two decades. The answer seems obvious to me

The pension age of 65 for men was set at a time when most men died well before this age. The social security system devised by the brilliant William Beveridge was meant to be supported by contributions from all of us. We've all just got to face up to working longer and expect the politicians to devise a system which can support us all in the future - a system which doesn't rely on private equity or offshore banks or PFI deals but a sensible, sustainable system which ignores the chaotic sophistry of private finance and relies on the common sense of, say, mutual principles or building societies, none of which failed during the financial crash.

If those politicians can't or won't, they should perhaps step aside and allow others to do it. And I'm not thinking about the hopeless Milispoons or the failed Balls. I rather like the idea of a committee of experts, perhaps elected for, say, 15 years to what we could call a 'second chamber' where they can set aside political ambition to allow them to do some thinking for a change and hopefully come up with a few answers to huge problems like social care.

I really don't live in the real world, do I?

FRANCIS MAULED

2011-06-30T03:19:00.001-07:00

This morning's Today programme was instructive, with Francis Maude, normally a reliable Tory operator, up against Mark Serwotka, unelected leader of the PCS, the main union behind today's strike action. Pretty simple for Maude to be the voice of reason, you might think. But no.

Serwotka's straightforward questions about the government's alleged refusal to discuss key issues with the unions were simply not answered by Maude, who blathered and made a series of counter-claims which highlighted how difficult his position was. Maude was outflanked comprehensively by the union leader, supported by an increasingly exasperated Evan Davies.

I have never had any time for Mark Serwotka since his approach to his job is a throwback to the bad old days of unions squaring up to the government but credit to him, he destroyed Francis Maude. What a shame he can't bring these skills to the negotiating table to avoid an unwinnable strike which will simply harden government resolve. On this issue the unions have a good case. It is just a shame their leaders consistently let them down.

NB: I am a public sector pension holder.

EUROPE, THE TICKING BOMB IN THE FOUNDATIONS OF DAVE'S 'NEW' TORIES

2011-06-30T03:05:00.000-07:00

Its always nice to learn that the Tories are the same old lags they always were, even if we're all supposed to be pally with them. Switching channels last night, I happened on Newsnight, which I try to avoid as the presenter is a pompous oaf lacking the wit to spot a news story even if it were 12 feet tall and painted purple, with 'this is a serious news story' tattooed on its forehead.

But I digress...The reassuring sight was a Tory backbencher - name of no consequence - arguing with an eloquent Dutch MP about the merits of the European Union. Yes, Dave, it hasn't gone away for your party, regardless of how much whitewash you splash over the issue. Faced with the absurdly reasonable approach of the Dutch MP, pointing out the many areas where combined action at a European level, such as investing in green technology and setting up a single office for the EU countries in Benghazi as opposed to 27 (sic.) separate missions, benefits us all and saves us money, the Tory simply blathered about how these things should not be done at a European level.

This is a shame as there is a serious discussion needed about the ludicrous French-inspired European model, the waste within that bureaucracy, the shocking scandal of unchecked expenses for MEPs, the disaster of the monthly trudge to Strasbourg to soothe French egos [the capital of Europe is Brussels, now get over it, mes amis] and the crime that is the copper-bottomed pensions for former Eurocrats like Lord Kinnock of Gravytrain.

The problem is that Blimpish Tories fail utterly to engage with these real problems, with their ostrich-like denial that there is anything good about Europe. There is: co-operation, a blissful lack of war since 1945, the promotion of democracy across the globe, the opportunity to be heard in international forums as a group of 28 countries and to make big decisions in the world over issues like supporting Arab democracies, which is good for everyone. Europe is a 'good' in principle but a failure in practice. The British government should be working to change it and make it successful, something bleating Tories will never do.

Good on Nickers and the LD MPs for their continued support of the coalition. We are playing with a straight bat but, my word, how glad I am that I don't have to cosy up to that lot.

A LITTLE MOAN ABOUT TRAINS

2011-06-25T15:07:00.000-07:00

On the subject of public transport - a bugbear of mine as I try to reduce my car use but realise that the numbers simply don't add up even with petrol at an all time high price - we had a bit of a mishap today as we returned from a lovely day out to Kew Gardens.

Simply put, the issue was that our first train from Richmond to Reading was delayed by 16 minutes and our connecting train from Reading was due to leave 14 minutes after we were meant to arrive at Reading. So that's 14-16, which equals -2. Not good for catching the train.

What annoyed us was that we piled off the train - two adults, two small, tired children - and hurtled to the next door platform to try to catch our connection and we watched with dismay as the doors locked and it slowly moved away.

Now you could say that this is just one of those things and stuff happens. The problem is that the two trains are operated by different companies and they just didn't speak to each other, allowing the second train to hang on for 30 seconds. The very helpful station supervisor at Reading explained that his station is busy, it's a bottleneck and they can't afford delays and that's fine but I can't help thinking that if they were the same company - called, say, British Rail - someone, somewhere could have picked up the radio and called ahead to ask for a little help.

Youy may say I'm a dreamer but I grew up at Clapham Junction and I used to get the train everywhere and when there were problems we often came across something quite remarkable - flexibility - normally bad-tempered but still offered on the basis that the people involved were providing a 'service'. These concepts are obviously mind-boggling in this modern age of 'companies', service standards and all sorts of gobbledegook which not only doesn't work but costs us more to boot - both in taxes and fares.

It is so blindingly obvious to even the biggest Tory that the privatised rail system is a ludicrous, expensive joke that it beggars belief that no one, not even the estimable Norman Baker, will even mention the idea of providing a service first and foremost and then worrying about shareholders.

I must be fair and finish on a positive note: the supervisor at Reading called ahead to Oxford to arrange a cab, put us on the next train and we ended our journey being driven home by a very nice taxi driver who even lent my son his PSP - not something I'd do...So plaudits and thanks to the very nice people from First Great Western who went that extra mile but endless frustration that the Tories' private rail system is just abject, stupid nonsense.

ON THE BUSES, 21st CENTURY STYLE

2011-06-25T15:02:00.001-07:00

Good news in Oxford, where the Conservative County Council has agreed a deal with the bus companies in the city for shared ticketing. Great. Something the Lib Dems have called for for a while now.

The problem I have is that this agreement comes about 17 years after a Conservative government decided that buses should be 'deregulated', allowing any old crook or wide boy with an old transit to run a bus service, charge what they want and generally deliver a worse service than we had before.

So a reasonably good, reasonably affordable local was withdrawn by the Tories, a worse service was delivered and now the Tories are taking credit for bringing that original service back in all but name - and for a much higher price for passengers than we previously had.

Isn't progress marvellous?

DISLOYALTY

2011-06-23T07:56:00.000-07:00

How many coalition ministers does it take to change a lightbulb?

Three. One to decide to change the bulb, one to launch the consultation and one to announce the u-turn.

LABOUR'S LAUGHABLE LORDS LACUNA

2011-06-23T05:04:00.001-07:00

Labour opposes reform of the House of Lords, saying it wants a fully elected Chamber.

Seriously? This is the Labour Party which promised House of Lords reform in its manifesto of 1997, its manifesto of 2001 and its manifesto of 2005. And look at how those promises were honoured.

Pygmies.

NUCLEAR POWER? ARE WE MAD?

2011-06-23T04:49:00.001-07:00

Yay, the government has announced 8 new sites for nuclear power stations, all to be built without subsidies, apparently.

What astonished me recently was discovering how basic the principles behind nuclear power are. Coal and gas power stations heat water to make steam to turn turbines to generate electricity. Nuclear power stations, er, heat water to make steam to turn turbines to generate electricity. So much for new technology.

Given that no new nuclear power station has been completed in decades due to myriad problems and that no new nuclear power station has been built - or is being built - without subsidies and that the minor issue of the growing waste stockpile which no one can do anything with for 500,000 years and that work to develop nuclear fusion - a sustainable source of power - is proceeding apace - oh, and given that a nuclear power station in Japan nearly melted down with disastrous consequences, forcing the government of Japan to set out an exclusion zone stretching tens of kilometres from the stricken nuclear plant, what on earth are Lib Dems doing promoting this outdated, inefficient and no less carbon-costly source of power - once you factor in build costs, massive decommissioning and waste storage costs, which can't simply be ignored?

As gas prices rocket and petrol becomes dearer than platinum, we surely need the government to focus minds on future technology now, rather than an expensive stopgap based on 70 year old principles - and we surely need Lib Dems to be stating this case clearly and unequivocally, lest senseless Tories have their hands clasped too tightly over their ears to hear the truth.

Would you rather have Chris Huhne parroting failed Labour government policy or standing up firmly for Lib Dem principles of investment and innovation for the long term future, regardless of the cost to coalition unity? Tough choice, huh?

ALL WATCHED OVER BY MACHINES OF LOVING GRACE

2011-05-23T14:14:00.000-07:00

The BBC2 documentary 'All watched over by loving grace' chilled the blood with its description of the clear link between a 1940s philosophy of individualism and US economic policy in the 1990s and 2000s, as directed by Alan Greenspan.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories but the writer's description of this link, as well as the connection between the Asian economic boom and bust in the 1990s and the 2008 bust in the 'West' was quite surprising. I'll reserve judgement as I plough through the rather weighty book I am reading on the great Keynes and I want to revisit Vince's masterly description of the 2008 crisis but the programme was certainly food for thought.

This is why the BBC is pre-eminent in the world, without equal. I wonder if such a programme would have been produced by, say, a satellite broadcaster reliant on consumerism.

Food for the brain.

THE TORIES DON'T CHANGE - GRAB IT ALL AND HOLD ON TO IT AND DAMN THE REST

2011-05-23T06:21:00.000-07:00

Dave's a nice bloke, really he is but he's not a miracle worker and that's what it would take to change the image of the Tories. Here's another example of what the real Tories are like, from just down the road from Dave's constituency in Abingdon.

Little more needs to be said. The picture of the new Mayor of Abingdon tells its own story, as do his graceless comments. I understand that the comments below this article had to be removed from the Abingdon Herald's website. Why could that be...?

You can't trust the Tories and their commitment to common sense, tradition and democracy is clearly only skin deep. Extrapolate that out to the national level and you begin to get an understanding of how the coalition works.

Good luck, Nick: this is what you are dealing with.

UPDATE: it seems the website has relented in the face of possible visits from young children and has removed the photo of the new Mayor of Abingdon.

TOWARDS A 'JEWISH' SPRING...YES, I'M A DREAMER

2011-05-21T01:12:00.000-07:00

This is getting uncomfortable: I find myself once again agreeing with Benjamin Netanyanu, Israel's Ian Paisley. Mr Netanyahu has said that a 'peace based on illusions will crash eventually on the rocks of Middle Eastern reality'. Yes, Mr Netanyahu, it will.

So perhaps a tiny state surrounded by at best truculent, at worst hostile countries, supported by the USA to the tune of billions of dollars a year and with equivalent areas of someone else's land under occupation by Israeli troops and heavily armed and zealous 'settlers', to use the term preferred over 'occupiers' holding the high ground might consider its long term situation illusional.

Israel needs a 'Jewish Spring' of youth like in so many of the Arab neighbours it likes to dismiss as undemocratic, with younger, less dogmatic people who can see the future and can spot an opportunity for a real lasting peace with countries like Egypt, which has started along what will be a rocky path towards genuine freedom and which could probably do without the aggravation of continued Palestinian oppression on its doorstep to give Egyptian hardliners and (the minority of) religious nutters in Egypt that we in the 'West' are so scared of something to latch on to as they oppose democracy.

But sadly, we can expect old timers like the brilliant Israeli government storyteller, Mark Regev, not to mention Mr Netanyahu, to explain how Israel is striving for peace with its oppression, its denial of human, economic and water rights to Palestinians, its continued colonisation of Palestine etc etc ad nauseaum for decades to come. Barack Obama will face AIPAC this weekend and he will backtrack in the face of the most efficient lobbying machine in the world. And we will be back to square one.

Come on Israelis: wake up and smell the coffee. If you try hard enough, it smells of peace - real peace, not armed, oppressive peace. The ludicrous Yasser Arafat talked of a 'peace of the brave'. What about a 'peace of the sensible democrats' instead?

PALESTINE-ISRAEL: STILL THE SHOUTING GOES ON

2011-05-20T01:58:00.000-07:00

With apologies for the move away from political navel gazing, I find myself in the curious position of agreeing with arch schemer, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, over the speech by US President Obama. Mr Netanyahu has said that the 1967 ceasefire borders between Israel and Palestinian territories then controlled by Egypt and Jordan are indefensible and that a peace agreement made on this basis is unworkable.

Well, if he thinks this, he must come up with a viable alternative which recognises all the grievances of the Palestinians, such as the status of Jerusalem, the right of return of Palestinian refugees, the issue of illegal settlements across the West Bank and the intolerable treatment by Israel of over 1m people in Gaza.

He won't because it is not possible for an Israeli Politician to address these issues under current circumstances. Israel feels embattled and under threat and the policy of the Israeli government for decades to hit them before they hit us has patently failed.

There is a solution, which will be achieved at some time in the future, although it is almost certain that it will be many years - and thousands of lives wasted - down the line. In 1947 a plan was proposed by the new - and still idealistic - United Nations for a single state shared between Arabs and Jews, with Jerusalem as an 'international' city, with a shared country and demilitarisation. Most Israelis would howl in horror at the suggestion that this could work as it would mean the end of a state built on a religion - itself an ugly concept in a plural world. (I can think of only Pakistan as another state based on faith - and look how successful that has been)

What it could mean is a unique opportunity to get the fulsome support of the Arab regimes which are undergoing their own massive upheavals, the opportunity for Israelis to enjoy peace for the first time ever, the complete neutering of Hezbollah in Lebanon if it does not have a cause to fight for and the gratitude of millions of people around the world as a major cause for the artificial divide between the invented camps of 'The West' and 'Islam' is removed.

That's my problem: I'm a dreamer. Perhaps my grandchildren will be able to travel in peace around the eastern Mediterranean to view the sites: the old crusader castles, the great mosques, the eternal city of Jerusalem, the absurd wall which divided people for no reason.

Perhaps.

THE SOLUTION TO HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM: THREE CHAMBERS

2011-05-17T00:06:00.000-07:00

There is a sense of marching slowly towards the enemy with rifles at our waists with the proposals for House of Lords reform but it is a long held belief so fingers crossed that this one gets past the Luddites and Tories. I just hope that Nick now walks around with 'you can't trust the Tories' written on the back of his hand...

Those who defend the idea of sleazy patronage as a means for making laws in our country always point to the expertise in the House of Lords, which is true. However, there is little to be said against the idea of an elected second Chamber beyond the last refuge of a scoundrel - 'tradition'.

Hmm. Perhaps we should revive bear-baiting as that's traditional. What about ducking witches in village ponds? That's traditional, too.

Perhaps the answer could be a classic British fudge: keep the House of Lords as a consultative Chamber, with a formal role in legislation of a complex or technical variety or legislation which is referred to it but replace its role as the second Chamber with a democratically elected one - elected proportionally, of course.

That way we keep the 'expertise', we give a nod to 'tradition' and we get a slightly updated political system. Then all we will need to do is move everyone out of the museum in Westminster...

Too much too soon?

WE'VE HAD THE GRIEF, NOW LET'S GET UP AND PUT OUR FISTS UP

2011-05-08T01:58:00.000-07:00

Having lost the election in North Hinksey and Wytham I do now have the advantage of being able to speak freely about the results which have come in in the Vale and across the country. It's been a torrid few days and the most obvious conclusion to be drawn is that you simply can't trust the Tories.

I was deeply depressed when we went into coalition with them last year but I considered the various comments and plans over the following days and concluded that it was probably the best thing for the Lib Dems to do to demonstrate that we are a serious party and not a party of protest. That remains valid. We were also being offered nothing from Labour beyond supporting more of the same. It cannot be repeated enough that Labour was planning cuts of almost exactly the same severity had they won the election so we would have been damned for shoring up a failed government if we had sided with them.

So to the coalition and the first year has been interesting. I genuinely support the approach of localism, which seeks to give more powers to local areas, including local health providers. That doesn't mean a complete endorsement of the NHS plans, for example but I did see much to support in the idea of letting people who do health actually deliver it, rather than the cult of the manager which was introduced under the Tories and enthusiastically promoted by 'New' Labour, resulting in 6 managers for every nurse by the time Labour lost.

I even grew to trust David Cameron after many years of deep suspicion. His managerial rather than directorial approach was refreshing after the chaos of John Major and the control freakery of Blair and Brown. He seemed to be a conciliator rather than a leader, which I like. Sadly, his despicable performance in the AV referendum has alienated me completely so that if he comes to my local pub again (which he did a few weeks ago to celebrate its reopening) I might need to leave to avoid a difficult conversation with Special Branch. [Since we no longer live in a free country, for any obsessive security bods out there, I mean I'd like to give him a piece of my mind, nothing more].

As for Nick, well, I can't deny that I'm angry with him. He seems to have bought the coalition hook, line and sinker and, fatally for a politician, he seems to have put away his political antennae for the duration, failing to read the deep malaise across the country with the Lib Dems and our reputation. That doesn't mean I am aligning myself with the bleaters calling for him to resign - I hate that kind of defeatist talk - but I want him to come out with sleeves rolled up and gloves off. I want Cameron and his ilk to squirm because Lib Dems are taking them head on about fairness, health reforms, banking reforms - and how about going back to student fees?

How blissful to hear the voice of Vince once more ringing out in condemnation of the Tories. Let's never forget that Vince roared into leadership for three months and stunned the political world with his activities in that brief time. Chris Huhne is also taking the fight to the enemy - let's no longer mince words - and God bless him for doing so. I will always be a loyalist but Nick needs to up his game significantly.

Let's project forward to the approaching anniversary of the coalition. Apparently Cameron and Clegg plan a joint speech session. Well, Nick, why don't you go off on your own and give me a speech to stiffen my sinews, not one to make Tory hearts glad? Speak to your heartlands, all us mugs with aching feet and ink-stained fingers after this campaign.

And as for calls from Tories like Bernard Jenkin for Lib Dems to move closer to the Tories, wake up and smell the coffee. There is more chance of Blue winning Eurovision than of Lib Dem rank and file members treating your lot with anything other than contempt after this election.

I appear to have moved from grief to anger. I want to see my party do so as well (Go, Vince and Chris!). Rally round the flag, friends -the Gold one, not the one stained with blue. I also want no red in the Lib Dem colours - but that's an argument for another time.

THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT

2011-05-06T15:59:00.000-07:00

We had a mixed day in North Hinksey and Wytham, with Debby Hallett elected for the Lib Dems, along with a Tory. I was unsuccessful and I must be philosophical about that.

I've had a great experience working in the ward and I've enjoyed meeting many voters. My thanks go to everyone who supported me and Debby and I wish Debby every success on the Vale.

Sadly the Lib Dems lost the Vale to the Tories after 16 years of running the council very well. If the experience of the Tory county council is anything to go by, residents in and around Botley will need to face up to higher Council Tax, less contact with their new Tory councillor and a renewed threat to the library. Let's see if Tory pledges over the library survive the machinations at County Hall as they seek savings to stem the huge holes in their budget.

I hope Debby and the other Lib Dems can work to soften the impact of Tory inaction in Botley and to continue to support you during the next four years.

Thanks to everyone who voted for me and Debby. Your support was tremendous and I am sorry it was not sufficient to keep the Vale in good hands.

TORIES TELL STORIES, LIB DEMS DELIVER IN THE VALE

2011-05-04T02:49:00.000-07:00

It is a long established tradition in Oxfordshire - and I assume, more widely - that the Tories will put out a nasty leaflet in the last few days of a campaign. These leaflets, if held in the threatened Botley Library, would be filed under 'fiction' since they always play fast and loose with the truth. Indeed, that seems to be the approach of the Tories to the elections this year, as the 'No to AV' campaign demonstrates. Be assured that there is no coalition here in Oxfordshire.

In North Hinksey, we have a humdinger of a leaflet which bears little relation to the real world, much in tune with Tory pronouncements generally. Let's make a few points about the 'story' so far.

1. I understand that the Tories pledge to safeguard the library. Does this mean they disagree with Tories in Oxford who threaten to close it? Why don't they talk about the County Council cuts which have threatened the library in the first place, I wonder. If you want to secure the library, the Lib Dems are the only party which can issue a cast iron pledge to oppose Tory library cuts.

2. The Tories pledge to 'safeguard the Green Belt'. Great. The Lib Dems have done this for years and we even introduced a Local Plan which absolutely, categorically said that the Green Belt would not be built on - and we have stuck to it. Tories like to forget that (i) their leader at the time merrily discussed building all over the Green Belt (ii) the Tories did not support this planning document which specifically, unequivocally protected the Green Belt around Oxford.

Are you getting a theme? Perhaps I might suggest one of 'we'll say anything to get your vote'...

3. I have been attacked for living beyond Witney. Not quite but I do live near Witney, about 15 miles from North Hinksey. I work in Botley, which is why I want to be your councillor. Working in Botley for Oxford Brookes University means that I have a specific interest in the area which others might not. I probably spend more time in the area - walking the roads, using the shops, visiting the library - than many people like me in North Hinksey who commute to other places to work. Should they be denied a vote since they don't eat, sleep and live every moment here? Lib Dems don't like personal attacks so I will not mention the two Tory candidates in Farmoor and Cumnor who hail from Faringdon and one of whom is standing because their relative, the Tory leader, clearly press-ganged them into it in the absence of anyone else...but as I said, we don't do personal attacks so please forget that last point.

4. The Tories say the Lib Dems plan to build on the site of the baptist church, to knock down Seacourt Hall and to demolish the library. Now this is either wrong or it is a lie. The Vale is considering plans for the future of Botley - with the Baptist Church, among other landowners - but there are no firm, agreed plans to do anything. Let me repeat this: there are no such plans so an intelligent person might conclude that the Tories are lying to you in their leaflet. As an intelligent voter I leave it to you to decide.

5. The Tories want to review the Vale's housing plans. Oh dear, this is one area where we will always disagree with NIMBY Tories. The Lib Dems have built thousands of affordable homes in very high quality developments in Abingdon and Grove in particular, creating mixed communities to improve our district. The Lib Dems realise that people must live somewhere and cannot simply be parcelled off to other, poorer areas, so for 16 years we have worked on town centre developments which improve the viability of local businesses, cut the need to travel and provide new amenities like schools, play equipment and new, much needed roads in areas like Wantage and Grove. The Tories have opposed almost all such plans and they continue to do so. If you have children or if you are a young adult starting out in work, or if you are older and wish to move into a smaller property and stay in Oxfordshire, you might wish to ask if we can cope with the existing number of dwellings we have in the Vale or if more development might just occasionally be a good thing for everyone. And let me reiterate the clear, unequivocal pledge that the Lib Dems are the only local party which has been 100% committed to safeguarding the Oxford Green Belt in its entirety for over 16 years, against Tory opposition.

6. Tories pledged to freeze Council Tax. Well, fabulous. This will help residents in Oxfordshire who are already stung by one of the highest County Council Taxes in England - imposed by those same Tories. By contrast, the Vale levies one of the lowest District Council Tax charges in England. And, Lib Dems have campaigned for years to abolish this hated tax which penalises people on low and average salaries and favours the richest in the country. The Tories show their true colours in supporting the Council Tax, which hurts the poorest the most. Contrast that with Lib Dems in government cutting incomer tax for the lowest paid, allowing them to help themselves.

I hope you will read the Tory leaflet and I hope you will recognise the true colours of the Tories. I hope you will then endorse the good work the Lib Dems have done for 16 years in North Hinksey and Wytham and support me and Debby Hallett to tell you the truth, to keep you informed and to work for you all year round, not for narrow political advantage but for everyone in North Hinksey and Wytham.

Thank you to everyone who is supporting us.

TORY SMEARS OVER AV CAMPAIGN BATTED OFF THE PITCH

2011-05-03T05:28:00.000-07:00

I've have just had the pleasure of being able to appear on BBC Berkshire to dismiss allegations by desperate Tories accusing the Lib Dems in Henley of distributing 'Conservative Yes to AV' leaflets. The claim has no foundation in truth and ignores the fact that there is indeed a Conservative 'Yes' campaign which is probably responsible - check Google for more about this. Unfortunately, the Conservatives can brook no internal dissent so they accuse their opponents instead. Weak.

The claim was based on the fact that a LD leaflet was delivered on the same day as a Conservative 'yes' leaflet. Well, as I mentioned below, I received a Tory leaflet at exactly the same time - and in the same distinctive manner - as a 'No to AV' leaflet. Does that mean the Tories are running the No campaign? David Cameron says no. Do Henley Tories think their leader is mistaken or even possibly lying? If they don't, they must withdraw this accusation against Henley LDs and apologise.

The 'No to AV' campaign shows itself more and more to be a desperate attempt by vested interests to cling on to an unfair system and this latest attempt to spread untruths is more of the same. If you think politics is fine in our country, vote no. If you think it needs radical overhaul, perhaps you should vote yes.

NB: the Tory MP for Henley was elected by 33% of voters in the constituency. I wonder why he supports First Past the Post.

IF YOU'RE HAPPY WITH THE SYSTEM VOTE NO TO AV. IF NOT, PERHAPS YOU NEED TO VOTE YES

2011-05-03T03:43:00.000-07:00

The BBC once again has led in the coverage of the AV debate with a great page outlining 5 reasons for and against AV. The page can be found here.

The best comment is the most obvious: if you're happy with business as usual at Westminster, vote No. If you want to change politics for the better, vote Yes.

WYTHAM IS TOO NARROW FOR HUGE LORRIES

2011-04-30T02:10:00.000-07:00

According to Tory Transport spokesman at the County Council, quoted in this week's Oxford Times, it is perfectly easy to drive a large lorry through the narrow roads of Wytham to get to Wolvercote when restrictions are placed on access to Wolvercote from Oxford for planned bridge repairs.

The Councillor justifies this remark by noting that he used to drive lorries and has been through Wytham. I wonder if that is any time in the last 30 years, when the use of vehicles on our crowded roads has increased dramatically, when people are far more aware of the need to restrict large vehicles from small villages with tight bends in their centres and where road safety improvements have delivered huge reductions on deaths and serious injuries on the roads.

It is often a problem with the Tories that they are living in a bygone, cloistered world, with warm beer, cricket on the green and obliging country dwellers moving their carts to one side for the Tory juggernaut to pass through with scant regard for their wellbeing. Thankfully, the Lib Dems who actually represent both Wytham and Wolvercote have dismissed this suggestion and pointed out the potential for huge disruption and accidents. Wouldn't it be nice if Tories went to Wytham to look at it? Wouldn't it be nice if they then acknowledged that they are wrong and recognise that Wytham doesn't need to reflect Wacky Races for a few months.

DAVID CAMERON WOULD NOT BE TORY LEADER UNDER AV

2011-04-29T14:13:00.000-07:00

A lovely AV related anomaly was highlighted on the TV this evening: David Cameron won the leadership of the Tories under AV and David Davis won the first round. Therefore, under the Tories' preferred system, David Davis should be the Tory leader.

This delightful anomaly also applies to the Labour Leader, Ed Miliband, who only won in the fourth round of that election, with his brother David leading in each of the preceding rounds.

Now wouldn't it be nice for the 'No' campaign to address these issues...

STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN SECURITY AND FREEDOM

2011-04-27T04:17:00.000-07:00

'I' reports today that police in London have been rounding up 'known troublemakers' in advance of the Royal Wedding on Friday. They have also been visiting known protesters to warn them not to cause any disruption. Is this appropriate activity in a free country?

The police have a huge task to ensure that everything proceeds according to plan but should they be adopting tactics used in China, for example, in advance of the arrival of some foreign dignitaries? Has the delicate balance between security and freedom - including the right to protest in a free society - shifted too far?

Friday's event will be watched by millions around the world, almost all of whom will wish the couple well and want everything to go as planned. Frankly, anyone considering disrupting the event must be mad as they will be torn to pieces by Union Flag-clad crowds the moment they say or do anything to disrupt proceedings.

AV, ANOTHER 'NO' PILLAR SHAKES

2011-04-27T04:16:00.001-07:00

The Lib Dems and Labour both confirmed today that AV does not require expensive machines, which knocks £130m off the supposed £250m cost of introducing AV. Slowly the 'no' campaign crumbles.

AV - MORE WEAKNESSES WITH THE 'NO' CAMPAIGN

2011-04-26T14:54:00.000-07:00

Good debate on Newsnight about AV, with John Denham making the very useful point that there is absolutely no evidence that AV leads to coalitions. In fact, countries which use AV have had fewer coalitions than the many we had in the 20th century under First Past the Post.

If you add that to the lie that AV requires machines - Australia has used the system since 1918 with not a single machine - and you reflect on the desperation of the 'no' campaign requiring David Cameron to step in, the arguments against AV show themselves up as pretty weak.

I must also reiterate that AV is not complex. As I have said before, if you can count to five, you will understand AV.

I hope people will be given facts on which to base their decision on Thursday 5th.

THE CAMPAIGN CONTINUES

2011-04-26T13:19:00.000-07:00

The speaking engagement in Henley was followed by a full day's campaigning in North Hinksey, meeting with our wonderful deliverers - all of whom are crucial to the campaign, a bit of delivering for me then finishing with canvassing, which is always a challenge but which provides regular rewards, whether it is the lady who stopped my introduction to tell me that of course she would vote for me, or the man who asked me for a poster to display, to add to the growing forest of stakes and posters in the ward.

It's encouraging to find so many people willing to keep faith with us, in many cases despite their concerns over the coalition, and it's nice to have the opportunity to explain just a little of what the coalition is doing. Above all, I have to keep reminding residents that we need everyone to support us on May 5th - or with their postal votes - to guarantee that we can keep on with the good work of the last 16 years in the Vale. No amount of opposition claims can take away the fact that the Vale is a well-run, low tax authority.

Please use your vote on May 5th to help us build on those 16 years of success.

VOTES AT 16? CERTAINLY, FOR FREE THINKERS EVERYWHERE

2011-04-26T13:10:00.001-07:00

Today proved to be a fascinating one. I was asked to speak to school children in Henley along with representatives of the Tories and Labour. As usual the questions from the students were of a high quality and really challenged us. Not surprisingly they rather laid into me as the Lib Dem representative, which I fully expected.

If they heeded what the Tory leader of South Oxfordshire District Council told them, the Lib Dems are responsible for all the ills of the coalition, while the Tories agree with everything the students say. I hope those present saw through that approach. My job was to explain a bit more clearly and fairly the policies that they are rightly concerned about, including student fees and the changes to the educational maintenance allowance.

The event gave me the opportunity to explain our role in the coalition, which will hopefully have made some of the students pause for thought, even if it will take some time to regain their confidence. One step at a time...

The overriding impression we all took away was the maturity of the questions and the challenge we received from the students. The future's fine, folks.

NICK CLEGG COMES TO THE VALE - SEE THE NEWS TONIGHT

2011-04-20T03:50:00.000-07:00

According to the Independent, Nick Clegg has set an example to MPs still profiting from the old rules on expenses. He sold his Sheffield home for £325,000 and gave the £38,750 profit to the taxpayer, although he did not need to. Mr Clegg lives in London but rents a home in Sheffield. A rule allowing MPs claim for mortgage payments on second homes has been scrapped.

I wonder how many MPs from other parties will follow suit.

Nick Clegg came to the Vale yesterday and spoke to candidates and friends in a pub in Abingdon. He's a good speaker, even if he does fall over his words too much as he speaks with passion. He has a sense of humour as well - luckily. The Vale's most outspoken Councillor asked him a somewhat difficult question about the perception of the Lib Dems at the moment and he responded with the quip that he knew which clip the watching BBC crew would be showing this evening. Sure enough, Nick Robinson, the BBC's correspondent, held up his crib sheet to confirm this. So look out for the doughty Jenny Hannaby giving the Deputy Prime Minister a hard time on the BBC News at 10 tonight. She's a great councillor but she doesn't always keep her counsel...

Nick Clegg also enjoyed a pint in the pub. I remember images of former Prime Ministers sipping at halves. As a strong supporter of pubs and British beer (in moderation) I applaud the gesture. He clearly enjoyed a good Oxfordshire pint, too.

Nick's a nice guy and he gave a boost to the Lib Dem campaign in the Vale.

REASONS TO BE SUSPICIOUS ABOUT THE 'NO TO AV' CAMPAIGN

2011-04-20T03:49:00.000-07:00

According to silver-tongued Lib Dem Cabinet minister Chris Huhne, the Conservatives were in power for about two-thirds of the 20th century under first-past-the-post, even though they won more than 50 per cent of the votes on only two occasions. He noted that they did not want to see that dominance threatened in the 21st century.

He also pointed out that, despite the Prime Minister's denial of Conservative involvement, 'all the moving parts' of the 'No' campaign are linked to the Conservative Party. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

LIBRARY CUTS ARE LOCAL NOT NATIONAL

2011-04-18T03:56:00.001-07:00

I was asked a good question on the doorstep last night. A Labour voter, who has very kindly agreed to support me and Debby Hallett, nevertheless gave me a good 10 minute grilling about the government cuts. The particular issue he raised was about the 'hypocrisy' of local council candidates being photographed in front of Botley Library when it is under threat due to 'Coalition cuts'. A good question and my response was as follows - with apologies that it is a bit long-winded, but pity the poor man who asked me the question and then had to listen to this on his doorstep...

The threatened cuts to libraries across Oxfordshire are 100% the responsibility of the County Council. The coalition government has made cuts across the board and local government has been included. That's because the country is poorer than we were in 2008 and savings have to be made, so the pain is being shared as widely as possible. Local councils have been given clear advice about their budgets for coming years and they therefore have the freedom to make decisions about how to save money - a freedom denied under the previous government, which was far more prescriptive about how councils could spend their grant funding.

In the Lib Dem Vale, senior management has been cut and some staff reductions have been made, making savings of several hundred thousand pounds each year in perpetuity. The County Council has decided that it would rather cut frontline services like libraries. The Vale's decisions have not been easy but they have safeguarded services. The Vale still has one of the lowest Council Taxes in the country and it is one of the best performing councils in England. That's the result of hard work, committed staff and sensible budgeting.

I'm not being a hypocrite by having my picture taken outside Botley library or by joining the library campaign. I am a regular library user and I want to see all our libraries kept open. That will require the kind of tough decision-making Lib Dems have had to do at the Vale. I will continue to support the library campaign to ensure that as much pressure is put on the County Council to think again about threats to important frontline services like libraries, which have benefits far beyond their role as simple lenders of books. That's not hypocritical: it's a clear, unequivocal commitment to North Hinksey and Wytham.

I'm grateful for the pledge of support I received from the voter last night and I hope you will consider supporting Debby and me on May 5th.

NHS REFORMS - GOVERNMENT TOLD TO RETHINK BY NICK

2011-04-17T01:45:00.000-07:00

Way to go, Nick! Following our recent party conference (the Lib Dems are the only truly democratic party in the country) which told the leadership most members were not happy with plans for NHS reform, Nick Clegg has today called for major changes to the plans which guarantee that the moves under the previous government to privatise services in the NHS are stopped.

Nick has confirmed that 'there will never be privatisation of the health service on our watch'.

We're still the good guys.

IF YOU CAN COUNT TO FIVE YOU CAN UNDERSTAND AV

2011-04-16T15:50:00.000-07:00

My wife received a communication from the No to AV campaign today. I'm not sure why I didn't but she very kindly let me read hers and its a shocker. The essence of their argument is that AV is bad because Nick Clegg likes it and he's bad so that's that.

However, they were clearly concerned that this wasn't enough so they included a picture of an attractive female doctor and made up a figure for the potential cost of AV which relies on the lie that it requires machines and a lengthy education campaign for people if it is introduced. Utter nonsense.

To dismiss the second point in a phrase, if you can count to 5 you will understand AV. Simple.

Here's a digression: I have two children and we used cotton nappies for both of them with no problems at all. I remember a campaign by the makers of disposable nappies 'proving' that cotton nappies are just as expensive and harmful for the environment as disposable nappies, millions of which are disposed of in landfills every day. The research was based on the presumption that people who used cotton nappies washed them at 90 degrees, dried them and then ironed them. Well, I must be a bad parent because we washed them quite well at 60 degrees, dried them on a clothes line and forced our children to wear un-ironed nappies. I still feel the shame.

But this is a digression. Back to the AV campaign and back to some facts which the 'no' people cannot admit:

1. An AV election does not require any machines or computers at all. It could use them but then so could a First Past the Post election.
2. As I have said, if you can count to 5, you'll get AV.
3. It has been said that an AV election would require more people to organise it and would cost local authorities more. Well, my experience of working for local authorities and attending far too many election counts which have used a range of systems for European and London elections, to name two, has demonstrated to me that the same number of long-suffering staff were present at all of them and they were paid for a day's work, however long it took.
3. In an AV election the person who gets the most votes in the first round can win. If you look at their shocker of a leaflet, it seems this never happens. Well, that's kind of the point behind AV. It gives people the chance to vote tactically and it forces politicians to work for every single vote, considering the views of a far wider range of people. Essentially, the person who does most to get their message across should win. Is that bad? Do some politicians fear having to explain themselves once every four or five years?

Finally, a point about my long-suffering leader. Nick Clegg, who is being pilloried at the moment, quite unreasonably, for all sorts of ills. He's taking it on the chin and sticking to the LD agreement to work with the Tories for the good of the country. If the best the AV campaign can do is to snipe about Nick Clegg and the coalition, it reveals a lot about the strength of the 'No to AV' campaign.

I hope you will consider the pros and cons of AV carefully and I hope you will vote on May 5th according to your view. I hope that your view is in favour of a positive development for our political system. I trust that most people will not be taken in by the nonsense the 'no' campaign is peddling.

NB: for a clear explanation of the relative merits of AV and First Past the Post, don't trust me, trust the BBC and the Electoral Reform Society. There is good information out there.

UPDATE: the Independent clearly reads my blog too, for it has provided a more detailed rebuttal of some of the nonsense surrounding the AV campaign here.

STREET STALL IN BOTLEY

2011-04-16T14:33:00.000-07:00

We had a good morning in Botley shopping centre this morning, with the combined candidates from Cumnor and North Hinksey & Wytham offering ourselves up to be grilled by the Saturday morning shoppers. We gave out copies of our manifesto, currently being delivered across the Vale by a wonderful group of members and supporters.

We also spent much time promoting the AV campaign as well as answering the inevitable questions about the coalition. There is often not much time to tell people about the 16 years of LD control of the Vale, with the low taxes, high quality services and focus on key issues such as a massive increase in recycling and one of the best records on building affordable housing in the country.

I hope we've managed to convince a few more voters to help us continue our work on the Vale and forgo the needless complaining of some opposition candidates.

INSTEAD OF COMPLAINING, TELL US WHAT YOU WOULD DO

2011-04-13T03:07:00.000-07:00

I understand that some other candidates for the election in May have commented that the West Way Shopping Centre is 'shabby', which I disagree with. I use the shopping centre several times a week and, while it is not Bluewater or the Orchard Centre in Didcot, it is an excellent local centre, with all the essential services people need, including the much loved library. The West Way shopping centre is not perfect but it has the beautiful parade of shops in front and fairly functional and 'green' precinct at the back. Most importantly it 'works' and it is popular and well-used.

Rather than constantly complaining about problems, what I would like candidates in local elections to do is to tell us what they would do. Its time for cards to be laid on the table and for residents to make their minds up. If you have nothing positive to offer, stand aside because the Lib Dems most certainly have.

Simply put, we offer low taxes, good services, year-round engagement with residents and a focus on our local communities across the Vale. Beat that - if you can.

COULD LIVERPOOL COUNCILLOR WARREN BRADLEY THINK A LITTLE BEFORE GOING PUBLIC?

2011-04-12T02:16:00.000-07:00

Former Liverpool City Council leader, Warren Bradley, is worried about the coalition and concerned that our principles are being damaged by the coalition. He thinks we face meltdown at the election.

Well, Cllr Bradley, I'm worried about the coalition as well but I am also clear that it is the right thing to do. When I was fighting the General Election in 2010 in Henley - not exactly the easiest terrain to be a Lib Dem - I was clear about Nick's message that he would work with whichever party won the most votes, which is precisely what he did and precisely why, despite my abhorrence of that party, I'm prepared to hold my nose in the interests of the country.

Its also why I'm prepared to go on to the doorsteps of Oxfordshire - not full of rich academics, you might be surprised to hear, but made up of the ordinary folk who form the backbone of our country - to argue the case for the Lib Dems in government and for our proud record of running the Vale of White Horse District Council in Oxfordshire since 1995 very well, with low taxes, good services and a listening council.

Not surprisingly, I have found the response on the doorsteps here to be a mixture of disappointment mixed with understanding and acceptance that Nick is actually playing with a straight bat. I also find that when I tell people about - for example - the lower taxes for the lowest paid, the higher pensions, the halting of the wasteful and pointless Trident programme, the reason why student fees could not be scrapped this time round, plus the removal of many of the unnecessary restrictions on our civil liberties Tony Blair imposed upon people - they tend to understand that we haven't changed and that our MPs have simply done what every politician must do, which is to sit down and talk to our political foes to find the best way forward for our country.

That's not selling out our principles, that's politics. In fact you might argue that it is politics at its very best: the willingness to work with ideological enemies in the wider interest of the country.

I'm finding the experience on the doorsteps of Oxfordshire to be challenging but also very encouraging as most people are willing to listen and usually to accept that we are still the good guys, even if, like me, they can't stand the Tories.

I'm out to win in May. I'd like to think that Cllr Bradley is as well but sadly he's gone and made the job that little bit more difficult for his colleagues in Liverpool and for people like them across the country. I hope he will reflect on that and, instead of asking Nick to consider his position, perhaps Cllr Bradley might reflect on his own.

WORKING FOR NORTH HINKSEY AND WYTHAM

2011-04-11T14:11:00.000-07:00

I have been chosen as the candidate for North Hinksey and Wytham in the forthcoming district council elections, together with Debby Hallett. This is a brief biography to introuce myself.

I worked for the Vale of White Horse District Council between 2002 and 2009 and I currently work for Oxford Brookes University in Botley, focusing on local government improvement and development.

I have been involved in local government since 1994, I have been a parish councillor and parish clerk and I am a founding and continuing member of a committee running a very successful community shop. I am a keen - if infrequent - cyclist and I try to use and support public transport, although my job doesn't always allow for this. Working in Botley, I am a regular user of Botley library and all the local services in the town centre.

Together with our team, Debby and me are trying to get round as many homes as possible during April to introduce ourselves and to seek your support so that we can work with colleagues to continue the successful work of Liberal Democrats on the Vale, a council we have run since 1995.

TRUTHS TO CLING TO IN TROUBLED TIMES, No. 1: DAVID OWEN IS STILL A FOOL

2011-02-23T00:24:00.000-08:00

Discussing the crisis in Libya with diplomat Sir Jeremy Greenstock on Radio Four this morning, the ever gung ho 'Lord' Owen was calling for foreign air strikes on Libya and foreign intervention in that country. Libya is apparently 'ringed with NATO airfields'.

Owen was always a Tory, wasn't he...

I know he reads my blog so the thing is, David, the amazing and inspiring revolutions and uprisings which have taken place across the region have been led by the educated young people of these countries taking control of their destinies. These revolutions have been blissfully free of the religious nutters that are supposed to infest every Arab country. Well, we've seen very clearly that they don't and that Arabs are perfectly capable of doing it for themselves. Libya is a terrible disaster at the moment but we must let Libyans free themselves from this dictator, as it seems the east of the country already has.

Send in a few thousand US and British troops or air strikes to help and bingo, you've got yourself a conflict with the West, whatever the motive and however careful the operation. As any fule kno, war is chaos and it would be a matter of hours before the wrong target was destroyed. Gaddafi is a madman and he would not hesitate to hide in a school or a hospital.

As Owen's disastrous and impotent intervention in Bosnia demonstrates (doubt me? Check out the ludicrous Vance-Owen Plan), he simply doesn't get grown up foreign policy. He is like a child with a set of soldiers. If this fool had ever got control of the newly formed Social and Liberal Democrats all would have been lost, which is why I remain a huge fan of Saint Paddy, not to mention the honourable Robert McLennan, who saved us from a fate worse than David.

UPDATE: I changed the heading from 'idiot' to 'fool' because, like a good Lib Dem I find it hard to be nasty even to the man who very nearly killed the party at birth because of his own selfish ambition.

THE TORIES HAVEN'T CHANGED, PART 94

2011-02-17T04:13:00.000-08:00

I was stunned into inaction this morning during the normal rush to deposit two children at school (i) dressed (ii) fed and watered (iii) provisioned for the exertions of the coming day with bags, lunch, coats etc. Stunned because of the return of perhaps the most oleaginous and disreputable politician of the late 20th century*, David Mellor. And if you think about the competition, that's saying something

This duplicitous wretch was on the Today programme (how many people had they rung before they settled on him, I wonder) defending - yep, defending - the King of Bahrain as a good friend of Britain and thus diminishing the importance of the crackdown which occurred early this morning in which at least 2 people were killed by the inappropriately named 'security forces'. His tone and his complete assurance had the ring of a 19th century nabob defending the local tribal chieftain for the massacre of a neighbouring village because it was good for Britain.

I was lucky enough to be in Wandsworth Town Hall in May 1997 when Mellor lost his Putney seat. It was a night of rare theatre and the thought remains that it couldn't have happened to a more deserving person.

I like David Cameron more and more as I think he's playing it straight but I think he still has the sheerest of mountains to climb in his ambitions to change the Tory Party when there remain individuals with the attitude of the hated Mellor within his ranks.

This must be time to repeat my regular assurance to anyone who will listen (shades of the drunk in the bus station, but who cares) that this Lib Dem will never enter into any formal electoral or other agreement with the Tories. I don't think Nickers will either but if he has a weak moment, I'm an independent from that moment.

*Editor's note: Tony Blair is of course utterly disreputable for his decision over the illegal and devastating Iraq war but that complete breakdown of the man's judgement and morality occurred in the 21st century.

HERE'S TO EGYPT

2011-02-11T12:05:00.000-08:00

What a wonderful moment in Egypt and what a strange situation, with people celebrating a military takeover. Its a supremely optimistic moment which ranks alongside Europe in 1989. Let's hope the promise of the last 18 days can be sustained. This is a famous victory for people power in the most important country in the Middle East. There are a few moments when all the cards are thrown up in the air and this is one of them. As a student of international relations, I'm utterly enthralled.

For dictators in Libya, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and across the region this is a wake up call. The lesson is that you can't keep people down forever, even with the most vile repression. Let's hope there's more to come and let's cross everything that any further popular movements are as dignified and controlled as the Egyptian uprising was.

The big risk now comes from outside interference. Egyptians have shown themselves to be organised, peaceable, intelligent and perfectly able to change their country. Let's hope their 'friends' in powerful countries don't decide to 'help' them too much. Let's hope those friends do what the best friends do: leave them alone to sort themselves out with as much guidance and support as they ask for and no more.

And as for the inevitable blathering about an Islamic takeover, let's hope the bigots grow up and look at the individual country and the protesters, not just wikipedia. Egyptians aren't the bearded cave-dwelling maniacs who give Islam a bad name, they're people with jobs and families and bills to pay who want to get on with their lives, not conquer Europe in the name of a religion.

Finally, we must all hope that the innumerable commentators take home one simple fact: this has nothing to do with Israel. Nothing. It is a popular uprising in Egypt.

If I had a hat I'd take it off to the millions of Egyptians who have achieved an immense victory today.

GREAT HEADLINES OF THE INTERNET

2011-02-04T13:48:00.000-08:00

I do like a good headline, regardless of the story beneath it and this one from the BBC website is a gem of the highest order:

'Malawi row over whether new law bans farting'

What's not to like?

EGYPT: LESSONS FROM HISTORY, RECENT AND ANCIENT

2011-02-01T07:00:00.000-08:00

Steve Richards in the Independent offers a useful consideration of the Iraq Inquiry and the lessons it might hold for the situation in Egypt.

Most importantly, he concludes with a note about 'imperialist swagger', the assumption clearly held by one of our recent Prime Ministers that one can go in and change a country for the better by bombing its citizens to freedom.

The situation in Egypt is fascinating so far because this is a developed country with a long history and quite simply no one knows what is going to happen. Even the legendary Robert Fisk was wrong when he said he thought the whole revolution - let's call it that out of a cherished hope that it will turn out to be so - would fail because of Mubarak's power. Fisk wrote a weighty tome on the Middle East - 1300 pages of doom and gloom which I waded through a few years ago. His conclusion was stark, simple and it should be written on the moon for every leader to see every night as they go to bed. To paraphrase the great journo rather crudely, the lesson is that foreigners should butt out and let the Egyptians, Algerians, Tunisians - whoever - deal with their own problems.

There will be trouble, there will be bloodshed, there will be problems but it is a fair bet that those problems will be less than a couple of hundred thousand tons of American ordnance and a slapdash, shamefully unplanned occupation can offer.

Egypt is on the edge but it is for Egyptians to decide what happens. They've done brilliantly so far. I want my government to stand on one side and offer support to the decision made by Egyptians, not empire builders in countries with pretty abysmal recent records in intervention.

The other startling conclusion Fisk made in his book was that pretty much every international trouble spot across the world has its origin in a single year: 1918. The end of the First World War and the start of a conference at which European 'statesmen' decided the fate of the world. Well, let's reflect on how that turned out for Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Ireland, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, even Germany, for whom the settlement led directly to the rise of a madman who plunged the world into darkness.

Just as Tony Blair's gravestone should bear the single, damning word - 'Iraq', so politicians minded to 'help' the Egyptians should have a single date handed to them on a piece of paper - 1918.

Egypt goes back thousands of years. How many other countries can say that? Let's trust them to make the right decisions for themselves.

[NB: Fiskophile pedants who shared a similar trawl through those 1300 pages, please don't pick my simplistic summation apart. Go for a walk or de-scale the kettle: it will be more rewarding.]

THE CONTROL ORDER IS DEAD, LONG LIVE, ER, THE CONTROL ORDER

2011-01-27T04:38:00.001-08:00

There are many cliches in politics but sometimes a cliche is what is needed. Government plans for reforming control orders mean the end of curfews and their replacement with 'overnight residence requirements'. They will also no longer be unlimited, instead they will have a two year duration. So that's all right then. The new rules will be similar to the old control orders in that they continue to ride roughshod over existing legal standards in this country, like the right to trial, the presumption that someone is innocent until proven guilty and, dare I say it in my humble lay position, even habeas corpus (with apologies if that is misspelt).

I realise Nick's in an impossible position on this, so why not just say so. And here's that cliche: if it looks like a repressive throwback to the bad old days of Labour's assault on civil liberties and sounds like a a repressive throwback to the bad old days of Labour's assault on civil liberties, its a repressive throwback to the bad old days of Labour's assault on civil liberties.

Come on Lib Dems, this is a cornerstone of our beliefs being assailed here. Must do better on such a fundamental issue.

NOT DOING ANYTHING IN GOVERNMENT, HUH?

2011-01-11T03:23:00.001-08:00

So you think the Lib Dems have lost their way? The Independent reports today that the government will announce plans to reform the daft control orders and that it will cut the time terror suspects can be kept in custody without charge from 28 to 14 days.

Before the bluster starts about woolly minded Liberalism, in the so-called 'Land of the Free' (where guns don't killl people, people kill people - but that's another story...) terror suspects have to be charged within 24 hours - unless, of course, they are hauled off to Cuba to ensure they are beyond the USA's very strict constitution.

The plain fact which demolishes Labour's anti-freedom policies assembled in the wake of the so-called 'war on terror' is that if the police or the security series suspect someone of wrongdoing they must assemble evidence and charge them. This is still a free society, after all and that's the way the law works.

What is often forgotten is that freedom isn't easy: its a daily struggle but reducing freedom doesn't protect it. Comedian Patrick Kielty made the point very well when he contrasted the scare tactics of the previous government with 30 years of living with almost daily violence in Northern Ireland. He dismissed the current fear - not by saying there wasn't a problem but by making it clear that life must go on. Shopping must be done, kids must go to school, meals must be cooked and if something dreadful happens it must be dealt with but life cannot stop and everyone can't be locked up for their own safety. That isn't freedom.

Is it just my fervent prayer that Tony Blair is one day forced to atone for his crimes against us all..?

If you've made it this far, my apologies that this has become a bit of a rant but this announcement is at the heart of what the Lib Dems are for. Lib Dems in government are making a difference and they are working to improve your lives. If you don't believe me, drown your sorrows in April with the extra £200 in tax you will receive over the coming year.

COME ON NICKERS!

2011-01-10T10:31:00.001-08:00

Nickers was on the radio this morning and he's finding his stride more and more. What is encouraging is that the media has reduced its bleating ('Politician "unpopular" shock') and is increasingly listening to his measured comments about where we are. Headlines included the very pertinent point that we came third in the last election so of course we can't call the shots but we can achieve a lot in coalition.

On tuition fees, Nickers made the once again excellent points that Labour introduced them and Labour commissioned the Browne Report which recommended unlimited fees. I haven't heard the Labour leader giving his view on these facts. Nickers could also have pointed out that Labour introduced upfront fees for students - opposed by the Lib Dems, not the Tories - putting a tax at the front door of higher education. They also never removed the upfront requirement to pay fees for part-time students, which these new proposals do.

If you're a student reading this, remember that you would have been paying substantially higher fees under Labour and if they say otherwise they are lying. What the coalition has done is to be honest with you and make it clear that students have to pay for their education these days and this is the least painful way to do it. There is no question that a bill of £27,000+ is a horrible thing to start work but that is unfortunately the world we live in.

I hope the next LD manifesto outlines plans to cut or reduce these fees, as the last one did - uniquely for any party. I'd love to see a LD government elected so that it could reduce or abolish fees. If you think that's a daft idea, remember that a vote for the Tories or Labour is categorically a vote for fees. A vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for a party which wants to abolish fees and which hopefully will in future, even if we couldn't this time round.

WAY TO GO, ENGLAND

2011-01-07T01:58:00.000-08:00

Here's to England's cricketers who stuffed the Aussies in the Ashes. Our cricketers played with style and passion and smashed Australia with three innings defeats.

What do you call an Australian with a bottle of Champagne?
A waiter.

SERIOUSLY, IT'S NOT SO BAD

2011-01-05T02:00:00.001-08:00

So Lib Dem support is down to 11 per cent. That's what you get from going into coalition with a 'marmite' party which divides people between slavish loyalty and outright hatred. I know what my view is...That's also what you get when you start to do stuff in government, rather than spending 90 years carping on the sidelines.

This rating is apparently the lowest it has ever been for the LDs but my mildly ossifying brain can recall a rating back in the bad old days of the 1980s of just 2% - surely the political equivalent of flatlining. This is the reason many of us still idolise St Paddy, because he was the one to pick us up out of the gutter we had been wrestled into by the execrable and utterly selfish David Owen (pauses to spit on the ground) and set us off on the long path to where we are now.

If you are in your 20s, ambitious and zealous about Lib Demmery, don't lose heart. In politics a long view can be very reassuring. There's a by-election next week, which is our game on our terms.

DON'T PANIC, NADINE: I WILL ALWAYS DISLIKE YOU

2010-12-15T04:19:00.000-08:00

To Tories like the intellectually limited Nadine Dorries who are worried about a 'non-aggression pact' between their party and the Lib Dems at the next election, or concerned about the prospect of a longer-term period of co-operation, let me reassure you: I - and thousands of Lib Dems like me - have absolutely no intention of reducing our aggressive dislike of you and your ilk and opposing you in almost every arena possible, or of toning down our desire to increase fairness and democracy in our country.

I pledge that I will always oppose the Tories wherever I find them, which does not mean not working with you where it is necessary or beneficial for the country or a local area but it does mean that Hell will be sending out the gritters before I seek anything closer than we currently have. The coalition is working, let's be thankful but let's not get ahead of ourselves. Then, in 2015, as agreed, we'll go for your jugular and no doubt you'll do the same.

If not, I'll be looking for a new party. Calm down, Ed, it will never be the Labour Party. It would need to be a party which fought for civil liberties, for better education, for fairer local services and the abolition of the hated and utterly unfair Council Tax, which opposed illegal wars, which promoted democracy and fairness at all levels of society. That list kind of summarises where the Lib Dems still are and neither of the other two parties even come close to those ambitions.

So there's the conclusion: if you're a Tory I'll always dislike you but I'll work with you; if you're Labour, you've got a long way to go to redress the shameful errors of the past 13 years before I'll even talk to you; if you're a Lib Dem I'd suggest you keep the faith and see how things turn out. These are difficult times but, by Jiminy, the alternatives are not appealing at all.

NO, ED, I WOULDN'T GO THERE IF I WERE YOU

2010-12-09T05:36:00.000-08:00

Ed Miliband said today of the student fees debate: "Before the election, they promised families and young people that they would oppose any increase in tuition fees"

That's true Ed, but then before the 1997 election Labour said there would be a vote on a fairer electoral system. They won that election and failed to do this.

Before the 1997 election Labour said they would abolish the House of Lords. They won that election and failed to do this.

After the 1997 election John Prescott pledged to reduce road transport dramatically and he failed utterly and miserably. His only achievement was his magic trick of turning his minsterial car into a bus, perhaps to encourage greener transport...

Before the 2001 election Labour said they would not introduce tuition fees, then they did.

It wasn't a concrete pledge but I doubt a single Labour voter supported that party in 2001 in the hope that they would drag this country into a disastrous, oil-fuelled war of revenge the consequences of which will continue to reverberate for decades to come.

Before the 2010 election Labour supported a referendum on a fairer voting system, now they oppose this because it doesn't favour them.

Before the 2010 election, Labour Chancellor Alastair Darling pledged to address the deficit through swingeing cuts equivalent in severity to what the coalition has implemented. Now Labour politicians decry any suggestion of this.

Do you really want to talk about broken pledges? If you do, we've got 13 years to consider. Labour broke countless pledges over that time but perhaps the biggest crime of all is how little they did when they had the power to do so much.

Before 1994 Labour had some principles. I didn't like them but at least they were there to be seen.

IN HERTFORD, HEREFORD AND HACKNEY...

2010-12-08T08:45:00.001-08:00

Ay yi yi! The Prime Minister - he of the expensive private and Oxford education - was defending student fee changes today and he said of them: "We want more people to go to university, not less".

Its 'fewer', Dave. It's 'fewer'.

If Dave is planning to take us all to Hell in a handcart, you'd think he could at least condemn us grammatically correctly as we slide to our collective doom. No doubt these days Hell is spelt with a 'Haitch'...which, if you think about it, would be entirely appropriate.

SUPPORT FOR THE TUITION FEES CHANGES

2010-12-08T04:44:00.001-08:00

I have struggled with the student fees issue more than any other but its important to be able to decide so here goes.

I fought the election having agreed the pledge to oppose a rise in tuition fees: the LDs didn't win the election, we came third. I work for a university, albeit not in a teaching area. I had a free education - but no support grant and the first year of loans to deal with. I did a Masters which was paid for by my parents - thanks Dad. I have never quite lifted myself from the debt ridden state that university put me in, despite nearly 20 years of work so I know about paying for an education, I know about debt and I know about hardship.

I have been faced with a barrage of information about the proposed cuts to university funding and over the inequities of the proposals. Under the current system of fees which Labour introduced - let's call them 'Labour fees' for short - you are saddled with upfront debts as soon as you start university. You can apply for grants and other support but for most people its pay upfront or get a job. If you're part-time you pay your Labour fees upfront and in full, so that's the low-paid stuffed good and proper by the supposed 'people's party'.

The new system being proposed by the coalition will mean much higher fees. This will cover much more of the cost of the courses at universities, putting their finances onto a fairer footing. The crucial difference is that these higher fees will only need to be paid back once people leave university and once they are earning over £21,000 - thanks to the LDs - a figure very close to the average income in this country and one which can reasonably be called a 'living wage'. (If anyone wants to argue about low pay, I've got a lifetime of experience on that front so bring it on...)

Education is a right and it should be free. In the 1950s when a few tens of thousands of people went to university this was a wonderful dream and one anyone could support. Why shouldn't rich people be educated at the expense of the rest of us? In the modern world hundreds of thousands of people go to university, which is a major achievement and a widening of opportunity - but its expensive and the money has to be found somehow. For sure the majority of people going to university will earn higher than average salaries but many will not. Is it reasonable for that stalwart of the tabloids, a single mum bringing up her kids with part-time work, to support them? It is surely far better to ask people to pay for their choice in higher education when they have finished it and when they have a job which is paying them enough to allow them to do so reasonably.

Remember that the country is broke, there is no money for most services, Labour has layered on PFI debt across the land and spent any money left over on grandiose schemes before the election. Carrying on regardless is not an option and if you think otherwise, pop across to Dublin for the weekend - they could do with the cash.

For me the Damascene moment in all this is thinking about what universities are and how they have changed out of all recognition from those halcyon days of Kingsley Amis and jolly japes in the quad. I work for a modern one and I went to a polytechnic - by choice because I knew I would get a better education there. Both institutions have embraced modern learning, including part-time and vocationally focused learning alongside traditional academic subjects. Education has to map on to the economy, not at the expense of more academic pursuits but complementary to them. Two year Degrees have been touted, to cries of horror from traditionalists. Why? Surely the bottom line in all this is choice and if someone wants to do a two year Degree so that they can start to work, why shouldn't they be able to. Higher education must evolve, just like every other sector. Shall we mention ivory towers here or do you get the picture?

My prediction is that we will have roughly the same number of universities in 10 years, with some less well performing ones having closed or merged. Some will have to face up to the fact that they were never viable. The vast majority of universities which remain will have more students, including more from poorer backgrounds. They will have more minority students - the story today of 21 Oxford colleges having no black students at all is frankly disgusting and shows starkly how appalling the 'old' sector is generally - and more part-time students. Most will be more vocationally focused and all will offer a range of course models. People whose blood is boiling at this point might reflect on the runaway success of the utterly flexible Open University since its creation with the aim of making university accessible.

And yes, students will pay for their education. Never forget that Labour introduced fees in the first place, all we are seeking to do is to make the system fairer, which this policy does. The alternative is upfront Labour fees, students saddled with debts from day one of their courses, less well off people put off education altogether and more of the same. So after much deliberation, I'll say it once, I'll say it loud, the proposals on student fees are the right thing to do here and now.

BREAKING NEWS: IT'S OKAY TO NOT AGREE WITH THE TORIES. IN FACT IT'S BLOOMING MARVELLOUS

2010-12-02T05:44:00.001-08:00

The wonderful thing about the Tories is that their true character is just beneath the surface and it only needs a scratch to expose it. Thus the comments of the Tory leader of Oxfordshire County Council in response to students daring to step into his fiefdom in central Oxford - a public building owned by Council taxpayers to which students, as citizens, are entitled to enter, although not to disrupt - are entirely within the bounds of this negative, fearful, backward-looking party.

Describing them as badly dressed and 'ugly', the good Tory later decried them on the radio, saying of the demonstration: 'this is a dangerous infection in our country which needs to be stamped on'. And that's Conservatism. The cuddly Cameronites dropping their 't's and hugging huskies are a thin veneer over the old-fashioned, reactionary forces which pervade our councils and constituencies across the country. The 'our' in that sentence is important because we need to challenge the execrable Tory idea that we should be humble subjects to which services are provided. No. We pay their allowances so we should have far more of a say over what is done to us. That's something LDs are working hard to achieve in the coalition and I am sure it puts the willies up many people who might be affected.

For the benefit of clarity, of course I don't support the students in disrupting the work of the County Council and I don't support any illegal activity. However, I do recognise the right of people to demonstrate peacefully and I accept that that some young people involved in this demonstration may have been carried along by the usual rent-a-mob wasters who spoil all such protests by their idiotic actions in the name of some '-ism' or other, before they slope off to mummy on the weekend with their washing. That doesn't mean that the majority of the demonstration was an illegal anarchist attempt to take over Oxfordshire or that the majority of the people involved are necessarily 'ugly' or 'badly dressed'. (When you break these comments down they sound increasingly absurd.)

I wish David Cameron well and I applaud his efforts to modernise his party but I fear that his hard work to drag them into the 20th century (one century at a time, folks) will ultimately fail at the first sign of trouble as the 'old' Tories will drag him down under the weight of their own hubris. The leader of Oxfordshire County Council cried 'god help us' as these students are the future of our country. Well we should all thank god that some people are increasingly rooted in the past and pray that they will eventually become an irrelevance.

If you don't like free speech, councillor, leave the country. Please.

THE ROAD TO HAPPINESS IN OXFORDSHIRE

2010-11-30T03:30:00.000-08:00

The end of our road was repaired yesterday. This is a good thing, is it not? Well, not exactly.

The road is two miles long and connects my village with the outside world. It is the main road which is gritted - or not if you go back to last January - and, for our humble community, it is important. The problem is that the county council has deemed it sensible to repair the damage from the last freeze in the middle of a new freeze.

This is despite their pronouncements in January that it would be madness to repair roads in freezing conditions because the ice gets in below the repair and breaks it once more. This is also, note, ten months since the road sustained damage.

Now I shouldn't complain. Here in Tory Oxfordshire we should be grateful that the council repairs our roads, shouldn't we? After all, the county council has very little money - so little that it must close libraries - or at lest threaten their communities with closure to encourage the peasants to run them independently. The county is also likely to threaten our schools with myriad cuts, all once more aimed at sharing the pain a little.

Quite so, quite so, which is why I welcome the cut to councillors' allowances, to the leaders' allowance and, of course, to the Chief Executive's rather generous pay settlement. I assume these will be announced any time soon, along with the withdrawal of the free food and wine for councillors which accompanies their meetings. We must all share the pain.

So I shall go off to Witney today to purchase a cap which I can doff as the largesse of the council is spread beyond us poor people and I shall keep it in the cupboard ready to brandish in a suitably 'umble manner when they come to repair the newly damaged road next winter.

I am just thankful the electronic road signs remain in place to keep us informed about the slow drift of Oxford towards Moscow.

CAN NO ONE SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING TO OXFORD?!

2010-11-24T03:58:00.001-08:00

Woah! Really getting scary now. The shiny, expensive electronic road sign on the A40 this morning told me that it would be 20 minutes to the Oxford Park and Ride, up from 11 last week.

Forget the Koreas. Forget William and Kate. Oxford is moving east!

Thank God the county council invested in these expensive white elephants. Otherwise I would never have known this.

INFORMATION WON'T HURT, IT WILL SIMPLY BORE US ALL

2010-11-22T02:16:00.000-08:00

A report on the BBC website noted that the leader of Oxfordshire County Council - his picture rather appropriately resembling a painting by Munch - has said that the government's plans for Councils to publish all their expenditure will cost money. I read on, interested, then discovered that there was actually no story here. I discovered simply that Conservatives at Oxfordshire's County Hall simply revert to type when pushed and insist that the patrician approach to politics is always best, i.e. people don't need to know too much, they should be cared for, patted on the head and given a job at the local mill.

Rather nicely, the government disagrees and has established a principle that providing people with information about where their money is spent is, er, democratic. The Tory leader in Oxfordshire said dramatically on the BBC yesterday that they spend £1bn a year - which is precisely the point. That £1bn is partly my money and I want to see it being spent wisely. Oxfordshire does quite well in terms of sound finances so I would suggest to the good Tory that he has nothing to fear from providing this information.

There will be an additional cost to the Council and there will be a cohort of tedious people with nothing better to do than quibble over tiny details - I used to work for a Council and we knew ours by name - but that's democracy. Messy, troublesome, difficult, annoying, energising, illuminating, pluralising, liberating democracy. Surely the Tories in Oxfordshire support democracy.

By the way, this morning I learned that it would take me 14 minutes to get to the Oxford Park and Ride, up from 11 minutes last week. I learnt this thanks to the invaluable electronic signs on the A40. Worth every penny, I say, although it is strangely troubling that Oxford, like a city in a Philip Reeve novel, appears to be moving further away every day.

OXFORDSHIRE - WHERE TECHNOLOGY COUNTS

2010-11-19T01:50:00.000-08:00

Thank heavens for the Oxfordshire County Council electronic road signs, which prove ever more invaluable by the day. Today I discovered that it would take me 12 minutes to get to the Park and Ride, whereas yesterday it was 11 minutes.

I must say I was mightily relieved to have this information to hand as it greatly aided my journey. Who needs staff at County Hall to provide social care and education when there's up-to-the-minute hardware like this? Well done the Tories!

LORD YOUNG IN 'SAME AS EVER' SHOCK

2010-11-19T01:46:00.000-08:00

Another non-story doing the rounds this morning: Lord Young puts his foot in his mouth.

Well, hold my coat, I'm going to faint. An oafish, Thatcherite Tory tells us how lucky we all should be to be poor, now buck up and don't slack. He was tactless in the 1980s and it seems little has changed.

Where's the real news? Is there any royal news? It seems we've heard nothing from them for ages. How's that nice young lad doing with his girlfriend, for example? Wilberforce, wasn't it? Wilton? Something like that.

UPDATE: Crikey, I never knew my blog was so powerful. Will Dave become a follower? Only time will tell.

Tomorrow I shall address the Israel/Palestine issue to see if we can get that resolved here. Stay tuned.

WE ALL PAT JAMES BLUNT

2010-11-15T04:04:00.001-08:00

I do like a good headline and I think this particular art form has reached its apogee on the BBC news website with this gem among gems:

James Blunt 'stopped World War Three'

I will be amazed if this can ever be beaten but I look forward to future attempts.

WELFARE REFORM. WELL, WHY NOT?

2010-11-11T04:32:00.000-08:00

Its fascinating to see the ideas from Ian Duncan-Smith about welfare reforms. Generally they're a good idea and its amazing that the shiny new Labour Party of Ed Miliband can't even rouse itself to oppose the changes, having failed so utterly to reform benefits for 13 years, instead presiding over a burgeoning bill throughout that period.

It really is remarkable to consider what Labour didn't do in 13 years: they didn't abolish the hated Council Tax and replace it with fair local taxation; they didn't reform benefits, instead hobbling us with the ridiculously bureaucratic tax credits system; they failed to raise pensions by anything like a reasonable amount; they did nothing to make education affordable, instead introducing and then raising student fees; they didn't change our democracy by abolishing the unelected House of Lords and introducing fair votes, as they promised in 1997, 2001 and 2005; they failed to address our desperate transport system, keeping the Tory joke that is rail and bus privatisation; oh, and they singularly failed to regulate banks, dropping us into the clarts up to our eyeballs in 2008.

But I digress. There can't be many people who disagree with the notion that the benefits system should be based on the presumption that most people can work and should be helped to do so. I had a period of unemployment last year and I found the Jobcentre experience rather helpful. I was demoralised and very worried during that period and having a two weekly appointment at the Jobcentre to keep me on my toes helped me to retain a clear focus. Luckily I found work but it must be difficult for many people who have not yet done so. These welfare reforms will hopefully create a more positive approach to the very difficult task of finding work.

However, I struggle with the need for a 'three strikes and out' system, threatening people with no benefits for three years if they turn down three offers of paid or community work. Sanctions are necessary if people refuse employment but why three years? What are people going to do if they find themselves in this situation, with no right of appeal? It would surely be far more sensible to have a rolling system of stopping benefits for a limited, increasing period of perhaps up to 26 weeks to encourage [and lets be honest, coerce] people to work without the threat of a whole three years without any income whatsoever. I'm not defending someone who won't work but what happens to their family? What happens to their children if they have any? Who will pick up the costs of people losing homes and children potentially ending up in far worse situations. I fear that this specific aspect of Duncan-Smith's intelligent thinking is a rather 'old-Tory' sledgehammer to crack what is admittedly a considerable nut.

Forgive me for waving the party flag but St Paddy of Ashdown in the 1990s espoused the idea of cutting benefits progressively for people who refused to work, without removing them entirely - and Paddy was never a soft touch.

I like benefits reform, I support it but it must be sensible, deliverable and it must face up to the difficult fact that there will always be some people who won't play ball. Minimising their number and the consequences for society must be borne in mind. I look forward to Lib Dems in Parliament pointing this out.

For the moment, two cheers for Duncan-Smith, an intelligent man who suffers from being such a Tory stereotype that his work in this area is often overlooked.

WHY NOT SACK THE CHAIRMAN OF RBS

2010-11-10T02:14:00.001-08:00

Given that we own 83% of RBS, can the government not simply sack the Chairman when he starts bleating about paying full UK tax on his absurdly huge bonuses and threatening to move to Shanghai?

He won't, most of his overpaid colleagues won't and most of the banks won't move out of London, which remains one of the most attractive trading environments in the world.

So George, Vince, whichever of you packed the big stick, wield it, why don't you, and hear the joyous cries of approval ringing across the UK.