Showing posts with label CONSERVATIVES. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CONSERVATIVES. Show all posts

Monday, 24 October 2011

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

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?

Thursday, 20 October 2011

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

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.

Saturday, 13 August 2011

POLICE HAVE A GO AT THE TORIES. SUPER DUPER!

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.

Thursday, 30 June 2011

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

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.

Saturday, 25 June 2011

ON THE BUSES, 21st CENTURY STYLE

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?

Monday, 23 May 2011

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

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.

Tuesday, 11 May 2010

IF YOU VOTED LIBERAL DEMOCRAT BE ASSURED THAT YOUR VOTE REALLY DID COUNT

If you supported me in the General Election and you are feeling uneasy with the news that the Liberal Democrats are considering whether to enter into a formal coalition with the Conservatives, may I reassure you that your vote in Henley was important and not wasted.

Firstly, your support contributed to the overall number of votes for Liberal Democrats across Britain being recorded as nearly 6.8m. That figure compares to 8.6m for Labour and 10.7m for the Conservatives. The next highest vote tally was 168,000 for the Democratic Unionists. Your support means that the Liberal Democrats have been taken more seriously this time than they have for decades.

Secondly, Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrat negotiating team have been involved in detailed talks with the Conservatives to ensure that they can deliver Liberal Democrat policies in government. That is no mean achievement for a party which has been in opposition since the 1920s. In the coming months and years, I hope we will see Liberal Democrat priorities coming about, not just being talked about.

Thirdly, your vote ensured that the Liberal Democrat remain the only challengers to the Conservatives in Henley. You can rest assured that Henley Liberal Democrats will continue to work for your support and to deliver Liberal Democrat success in south east Oxfordshire. We will still challenge the Conservatives locally and we will argue for Liberal Democrat principles and values at every level of government but we will respect the co-operation which I hope will be established nationally to provide an effective government.

Please be assured that the Liberal Democrats will fight every step of the way for our beliefs and values and we will seek to earn and retain your support throughout this fascinating and potentially challenging period in British politics. And at the next election we will robustly challenge all the other parties, outlining Liberal Democrat policies and fighting for your support to ensure that we can continue to work towards our fundamental goal of a fairer, more equal society.

HERE COMES THE HANGOVER

The mood music now seems to be hardening in favour of the Tories.

I have just googled 'abyss' as I wanted one to stare into but sadly Google let me down. I will just have to imagine one instead.

MURKIER THAN A TRAMP'S BATHWATER

John Reid is against it. David Blunkett is against it. Ian Dale is against it. Even 'Lib Dem' Mark Littlewood is against it. [For the 8.55 argument on the Today programme, Mark Littlewood was asked to speak for the Lib Dems. His Labour foil, Sunder Katwala, asked why and pointed out that he could understand why Littlewood was in favour of a Tory/LD coalition since he runs 'a Thatcherite Think Tank'. Well, quite.]

These are all compelling reasons to think that a coalition between the LDs and Labour could work and could deliver a significant amount which a LD/Tory coalition would be unlikely to do. As ever, Paddy Ashdown shone for us on Radio 4 and explained why a Labour/LD coalition could work, despite the needless blatherings of Naughtie and the attempted intrigues of Nick Robinson. Essentially, Paddy's point was that the nationalists and other smaller parties would never vote with a Tory opposition and they would support PR or AV so a LD/Labour government could work. Also, could a Tory opposition which has made much of its desire to cut the deficit - with little evidence of how they would do this - vote against a budget which addressed this, even if they bleated that it 'didn't go far enough'?

I found a Tory election leaflet from Henley last night. In it my opponent railed against a coalition with the Lib Dems, incredibly using the Lib Dems' position on the Lisbon Treaty as the reason for his opposition to any such deal. There seemed to be no irony intended and perhaps the lack of space on the leaflet was the reason he did not set out how David Cameron had performed a startling reverse ferret on this very issue, promising a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty as a 'cast-iron guarantee' and then deciding that a referendum would not be necessary. From this I conclude that he is against a coalition. How many of his colleagues are as well?

Who'd be Nick Clegg...?

Sunday, 9 May 2010

THE TORY MASK SLIPS A LITTLE FURTHER

You know, listening to another Tory MP on the BBC dismissively calling us 'the Liberals', then demanding that Nick Clegg acts in the national interest rather than narrow party political interest (perish the thought that Dave and his limited ranks might be doing this themselves) and then making the ugly point that the 'Liberals' can't afford to fight another election, I'm not exactly confident that Nick, for all his abilities, can make a deal with these [word deleted while discussions continue] - at least not one which Lib Dems could ever support.

The mask is slipping surprisingly quickly from the Tory face.

From a position of polite silence while my leader does his damnedest to cut a civilised deal, my position is hardening and its all thanks to the Conservatives, so I must thank them for giving me such increasing clarity as the hours tick by.

Friday, 7 May 2010

A POINT OF VIEW ON DAVID CAMERON'S OFFER

It's rather like a viper sidling up to you but the offer of co-operation from the Conservatives must be considered. The specific point I would like to see responded to robustly is on the proposed 'commission of enquiry' into electoral reform.

The plain answer should be reference to the last commission set up to look at this by another slippery customer in 1997, which reported back to propose a perfectly reasonable system called AV+, which would work with the existing constituency system and which would have a significant element of proportionality. It would be nice to see this as a deal breaker because this humble blogger thinks that if we go into any deal without getting a signature in blood on this issue it isn't going to happen.

Friday, 30 April 2010

IF YOU WANT REAL CHANGE THIS TIME, VOTE FOR IT

The tempo of the election is being raised daily but the drama of the leaders' debates is now over. The key outcome from those debates is the apparent certainty that the Labour Party is heading for oblivion, rather in the style of the Conservatives in 1997. The two party pendulum swings the other way - or so the Tories will be hoping. Happily (to continue with this analogy a few moments longer) the pendulum is no longer swinging back and forth but round and round thanks to Nick Clegg's performances. Where it stops on May 7th is up to you.

The simple truth is that it no longer has to be this way, no longer do we have to endure a two-party stitch up. Things can change. What we are left with now is a three party fight which will, I hope, focus increasingly on policies and plans to cut the deficit. The Liberal Democrats have been attacked over our policies but this must be taken as a compliment, for at least our critics are considering them seriously. Our policies to address the deficit in year one of a new government, for example, with a comprehensive spending review in June 2010 to identify further savings on top of the £29bn already outlined (the £19bn planned by Labour plus an additional £10bn set out in our manifesto), have been comprehensively picked apart yet no other party has come close to identifying clear, concrete areas for savings, such as scrapping ID cards, introducing fair taxes for plane travel and air freight, cancelling the Eurofighter and stopping the waste on the obsolete replacement for Trident. Where are those Tory savings going to come from? 'Efficiencies'? Do me a favour, this is Whitehall we're talking about!

Our policies on dealing with the problem of illegal immigrants are perfectly sensible, allowing them to earn citizenship after ten years of living here, rather than just talking tough before polling day and then quietly ignoring the problem after May 6th as no one actually knows where these people are. There's the lie at the heart of Tory and Labour attacks: 'we'll get tough on immigration' suggests (i) that they know how many illegal immigrants there are - they don't, (ii) they have the £10bn and huge resources required to find, round up and then deport the likely hundreds of thousands of people involved - they don't.

The Lib Dems are here, our policies are there for everyone to see - and criticise - but we stand by them - I stand by them in Henley - as a sensible programme for action this year. We're not going to disappear to allow the old parties to stitch things up for another 65 years. I hope you will look here at what we propose for our economy, our environment, our schools and our creaking political system and think about giving us your vote on May 6th.

If you want real change, vote for it.

Sunday, 25 April 2010

WHEN ED BALLS COSIES UP TO YOU ITS TIME TO RUN

I read in the papers this morning that Labour 'Trotsky to Gordon Brown's Lenin', Ed Balls, has said that the Lib Dems and Labour could work together to keep the Tories out of power.

I am finding the increased speculation from the two old parties on their futures amusing as they are clearly rattled, with Labour moving rapidly into meltdown and the Conservatives consolidating rather than moving forward but the notion that the tribal Ed Balls could be relied upon to keep to the terms of any agreement is quite laughable.

It is a fool's game to make predictions about elections, particularly now this one has been blown so widely open by Nick Clegg's achievement of putting the Lib Dems at the forefront of the debate, allowing voters to find out about us. However I would speculate on one thing regarding both the old parties: their leaders will not last very long after the election.

If Cameron does not manage to win the election outright he is in serious trouble as the Conservatives do not like failure. Should the Tories claw their way to the most seats but not a majority, they are likely to oust Cameron - which would be unfair given that he has made them contenders again - and get a new leader to find some excuse to call an election as soon as possible. Voters won't like that.

As for Labour, unless something truly incredible happens over the coming ten days, Brown is finished. The images of him with an Elvis impersonator were excruciating and gave the impression of an ageing singer belting out standards in drinking clubs across the country. The sound you heard on your TV was Lord Mandelson weeping on the sidelines.

The only question is who replaces him. I have long had an imaginary wager on Harriet Harman, who has demonstrated her ability to cling on to the greasy pole when others are falling off around her, with no demonstrable talent to justify her position there. Having achieved the role of deputy leader she might be in a position to challenge both the Brownites, who will have very little power left, and the Miliband supporters who simply might not have enough support to gain power. Into the void between the two camps might step Harman purely becaue she is neither of the others.

One thing I can be sure of is that Nick Clegg is as secure as our leader as he could possibly be and he's got a united team around him. Now which party do you think would be best placed to weather the budget storm we are still being buffeted by? Would you prefer experience with endless squabbling and a disintegrating party behind him or a new face with a Chancellor, Vince Cable, with a proven ability to identify problems and outline solutions.

Thursday, 22 April 2010

WHY THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS ARE LIKE AN EXCELLENT ENGLISH ALE

The backlash against Nick Clegg has begun today with Tory papers printing stories attempting to smear Nick Clegg and an intriguing story on the Radio 4 Today programme this morning about James 'Sky & the Sun' Murdoch and Rebekah 'Sky' Wade turning up at the offices of the Independent to have a 'discussion' with the editor in chief, Simon Kelner. The inference drawn by that programme was that News International might be unhappy at having nailed its colours to the losing team at this election.

There is now no question that there is now blind panic among Conservative campaigners and supporters.

As a Lib Dem candidate I have received excellent support from our headquarters, including advice to not get too excited and, crucially, to keep on selling our policies to voters, not our personalities, because we are in this campaign to cut taxes, cut the deficit, improve our schools and get our economy working again on sustainable grounds. We know very well that this is not a beauty contest.

That I hope will be the key to this election. When all the fuss and hype over Nick dies down, like the froth on a good pint of English beer, you are still left with something tasty, interesting and enjoyable to the last drop. We have substance, while - to continue the analogy - the others are mere alcopops: fizzy, nice to enjoy but fundamentally devoid of character, taste and lasting impact beyond a sore head the next day.

Wednesday, 21 April 2010

SCOTCHING MYTHS PART 2: THE EURO

The opposition parties, especially the Conservatives, are likely to target us on this issue in coming days as the leaders focus on foreign affairs in the leaders' debate on Thursday. Setting aside my advice to any Tory leader to avoid reopening the European wound that still gapes in the Tory side, let me quote what the Lib Dem manifesto (page 67) says:

'We believe that it is in Britain's long-term interest to be part of the Euro. But Britain should only join when the economic conditions are right, and in the present economic situation, they are not. Britain should join the euro only if that decision were supported by the people of Britain in a referendum.'

Now that commitment will not be popular to many people but it is a clear, unequivocal statement of where we stand. Two key points must be made, in bold, below:

1. We do not plan to do this any time soon. It is NOT a manifesto commitment, merely a statement of our beliefs.

2. We have clearly promised a referendum on this or any other major change to our relationship with Europe.


Can the Conservatives in particular be this clear?

For those of you still reading, as this is not a topic of major interest to most voters who have given it a second's thought, allow me to remind you that the Conservatives took us into Europe without a referendum, the Conservatives signed the Single European Act - committing us to joining a single currency in the future - without a referendum and the Conservatives signed the Maastricht Treaty establishing the larger European Union without a referendum.

Liberal Democrats are clear and open about our commitment to Europe. Are others?

NO DEALS WITH FAILING LABOUR OR SAME OLD TORIES

I am delighted to read in today's Independent that Nick Clegg is as opposed to any deal with Gordon Brown's Labour Party as I am. As Nick said, a vote for the Liberal Democrats is just that, a vote for the Liberal Democrats.

A separate article from Matthew Norman, which I haven't linked to as it is rather bad-tempered, interestingly points out how David Cameron has failed to present a modern agenda for change, instead focusing on old arguments like supporting First Past the Post, a system which might see him do well in terms of votes but poorly in terms of seats, or in defending a weapons system for a past war rather as French Generals backed the Maginot Line which invading German forces simply went around.

Labour have run out of steam, the Conservatives haven't changed. If you want real change, please vote for it on May 6th.

Monday, 19 April 2010

NO COALITION WITH TWO FAILED PARTIES

Here we go again, Lord Mandelson has spoken publicly of the possibility of a coalition with the Lib Dems, mentioning the need for constitutional reform again. The answer to this is quite simple: not on my watch, mate.

To repeat what I have said several times before but it bears repeating: I will not support a coalition with either party as I do not believe they can be trusted to do what is best for the country. I am fighting the Henley election to win, so that I can implement Lib Dem policies: lower taxes for almost everyone, a higher state pension, the abolition of Council Tax, action this year to cut the deficit, more police on the streets paid for by scrapping ID cards.

Would either the Tories or Labour allow us to honour these pledges?

Sunday, 18 April 2010

CONSERVATIVES ON EUROPE - LIKE TURKEYS VOTING FOR CHRISTMAS

Can I first apologise for the length of this post but the detail is crucial to destroying the latest Conservative attack on Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats.

The election campaign has a hard but enjoyable slog but it was still nice to have something to genuinely laugh about this morning as I heard on the radio that the Conservatives have attacked us over our stance on Europe. We must remember that this is the issue which effectively destroyed the Conservatives in the 1990s and from which they are only just emerging.

Liberal Democrats, building on a long tradition of internationalism, are of course pro European but we are also highly critical of a creaking institution which - let no one forget - the Conservatives took us into without a referendum.

Let's review that proposition for a moment. Britain joined the 'Common Market' in 1973 under Tory Prime Minister Edward Heath and he certainly didn't allow voters a real say on this major issue. A referendum on membership was only held in 1975 under the new Labour government.

The embarrassment doesn't end there for the Tories. In 1986 Margaret Thatcher's government signed up to the Single European Act - once again without a referendum. The Tories will tell you that this Act improved the efficiency of Europe and was thus a major step towards the 'trading bloc' which they profess to favour. However, one detail they won't own up to is that the Single European Act also signed Britain up to joining a single currency.

Let me repeat that: the Thatcher government signed Britain up to a single European currency without a referendum in 1986.

The embarrassment for the Tories continues when we jump forward to 1992 when the next Conservative government signed us up to the Maastricht Treaty - without a referendum - which created the new 'European Union', among whose innovations was a common foreign and security policy and greater powers for the European Parliament. Effectively, you could say that 'Europe' as a self-supporting entity came into existence in 1992 and the COnservatives signd up to it.

As many people will be aware the aftermath of the Maastricht Treaty was the near-extinction of Conservatives over years of in-fighting and argument, culminating in the 1997 Labour election victory.

Now the policy detail. As I mentioned, Liberal Democrats are completely committed to the European Union but we also want to make significant changes which the other parties have ducked for decades:

* We want to stop the pointless and hugely expensive monthly movement of MEPs and their entire offices between Brussels and Strasbourg purely to satisfy the French. Why haven't the Tories or Labour done this before?
* We want to remove trade barriers to help create green jobs, benefiting British businesses and helping to address climate change across the Union.
* We will stop the 'gold plating' of European directives, whereby British Civil Servants add extra aspects to European laws, making them more onerous and putting the blame on to Brussels.
* We will use the European Union to work for stricter international regulation of financial services and banking.
* We will keep the pressure up for reform of the outlandish agricultural subsidies to give farmers, consumers and taxpayers a fair deal.
We will seek continuing reform of the EU budget to make sure your money is only spent on things the EU really needs to do.

Britain is a small island off the coast of Europe. The so-called 'special relationship' is so one-sided that it is not a real relationship at all. We are a very successful international actor in most forums across the world but this is increasingly because of our cooperation with our European partners. Britain is a European country and has been for all but about 150 years of its existence, when it looked outwards towards the empire.

We must work towards a better, reformed Europe which serves our interests and those of our partners. We won't achieve anything if we cut ourselves off from the debate. I hope the Conservatives think long and hard about this attack on the Liberal Democrats. To say they have left a flank open is an understatement of continental proportions...If they do wish to pursue this I trust Nick will show them no quarter.

Thursday, 15 April 2010

MORE ON THE LEADERS' DEBATE

The Telegraph headline on their website is 'Clegg 'wins' Election Debate'.

The Times says 'Nick Clegg seizes his moment in historic TV debate'

These papers are not natural supporters of the Lib Dems. The Telegraph has been described as the Conservative Party's in house journal. I think I am justified in feeling extremely pleased tonight with my leader, my party and my ability to be the only candidate for Henley who can argue for a clear, costed programme for the next government. Well done, Nick.

I hope residents in Henley will consider this when they cast their vote on May 6th. The Tories sound reassuring but what are they actually saying. For many years on a less moderate blog I have pondered the simple, six word question to be raised with any Conservative candidate: yes, but what will you do?

Their leader, David Cameron, was found wanting this evening. I feel their party will be in the weeks to come.

Tuesday, 13 April 2010

CHOICE IN EDUCATION? YES, BUT ONLY WITH THE STATE TO STEP IN WHEN THINGS INEVITABLY GO WRONG

The Conservatives have launched a manifesto pledging to give parents the power to open their own schools if they are disappointed with local provision. The Conservatives promise that the process will be made easy for these parents but it won't be easy, will it?

Setting up a school will inevitably be a bureaucratic nightmare as the state will need to ensure that the appropriate checks are made on staff, that staff are qualified to do their jobs, that buildings are found or built and that they meet the required standard for access, size and local services. If the Tories really plan to 'free up' parents to do this, they face two outcomes:

* either these proposed new schools will be set up exclusively in areas where more affluent families can devote the time and resources to do this, leaving areas of families who don't have the time to commit to new schools with the same choice of one school;
* or the plans for parents to set up schools will be made so easy that the new schools will in effect be local authority schools anyway in which parents have a titular role, making the organisation of local provision by education authorities much more difficult and increasing costs for everyone.

There will be no revolution in schools provision, instead there will simply be patchy examples with one or two winners and a lot of losers.

I live in a village with a plethora of volunteer groups, including a community shop which I am involved in. These community groups tend to attract the same small groups of people who do most of the volunteering, leaving the great majority of people to enjoy the clubs and services provided with little or no input. That is normal and entirely reasonable for a community wood society, a toddler group and an 'evergreens' club for older people but it will not be sufficient for a school. That's my fear with the Tory plans: the idea will be welcomed with acclaim in a local community. Residents will come together and organise meetings and plan and slowly, over several months, the numbers of people involved will dwindle, leaving fewer people to run what will be a huge undertaking. This is normal for voluntary groups and most are quite comfortable with such a consolidation but for a school - a key part of the life of local children and families for years - will this be sufficient or will local authorities be asked increasingly to step in and take over schools set up in haste, having played no part in the planning of local education.

Instead of this bureaucratic and divisive nightmare, what about simply pledging to improve existing schools by investing £2.5bn in the education of the least well off pupils AND giving more control back to existing schools and local communities to manage their own affairs, since they know a lot more than Whitehall what their priorities are. Would you support a party which proposed that straightforward solution to problems in our education system? If you would, please vote Liberal Democrat on May 6th.

On the other hand, if you want yet more experimentation with our education system with inevitably varied results across the country, vote for the Tories.