Liberal Vision

The Bishop’s Gambit

It’s not often I write to a bishop, let alone 26 bishops. But I was inspired by (not to mention encouraged by the easiness of) the Power2010 website’s call (and tool) to email all 26 Lords Spiritual and ask them to support a fully elected Upper House of Parliament.

Naturally, I didn’t just accept the words provided by Power2010. Firstly, I have a natural predisposition to disagree slightly with anybody else’s wording, especially on matters of politics. Secondly, I think that my email has a slightly higher chance of being read and receiving a tailored response if it is not the standard form letter. My letter reads as follows:

Dear Archbishop/Bishop,

I am writing to you as a member of the upper house of parliament to request your help in bringing about much-needed constitutional change in the UK.

As you will appreciate, recent events have highlighted the moribund and unrepresentative nature of our legislature. However, while this has been brought home to citizens of the United Kingdom in recent months, it is in fact a longstanding problem, and one that is increasingly alienating the public and leaving them feeling disempowered and cynical about the leadership of our country.

We need radical reform of the way our country is governed, including the introduction of a more representative voting system, making parliamentarians more accountable to the people, and giving individuals more power over their own lives. One key way that this could be brought about would be to make the upper house, which is currently entirely unelected, an fully elected chamber.

The current House of Lords is a strange admixture of ancient privilege, modern cronyism and bizarre corporatism. It is wrong that legislation should be made and revised by people who are in power as a result of lineage, patronage or the occupation of a particular office.

I am writing to request that you champion a radical reform of parliament, by committing to, and publically advocating the following:
1) That all people participate equally in public life through free debate, civic society and the democratic process;
2) That both houses of parliament be fully elected and publically accountable;
3) That members of both chambers commit to maximising the freedom of all individuals within society, ensuring that each person has the maximum freedom possible such that it does not directly detract from the freedom of others;
4) That the electoral system differ sufficiently between the two chambers that they produce sufficiently different and independent chambers;
5) That parliamentarians recognise that no mortal person is infallible and that parliamentarians should therefore proceed with humility and not assume that they know best.

I would be grateful if you would confirm your support for these principles and work with your fellow bishops, lords and parliamentarians to create a more democratic and accountable parliament.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Tom Papworth
Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate
Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner.

Yes, the correct term of address is “Dear Bishop/Archbishop”. I know!.

If you would like to send an email to all 26 bishops, you can visit the Power2010 website and do so.

Just don’t say anything that would reflect badly on Power2010, eh?

A hung Parliament and the value of the £. Discuss.

In response to emails asking to see the Newsnight piece (3rd March 2010) about the relationship between media headlines on the growing (?) possibility of a hung parliament and the value of the £ and specifically that reference to the Liberal Democrats being unable to enter “formal” coalition without the support of 75% of MPs and “top party brass”. Here it is…..

Tags: hung Parliament, Liberal Democrats, Newsnight, £sterling

Nick closes one can of worms. But has another one just opened up?

Nick Clegg is the media darling today. Following his interview with the Independent , everyone is speculating that the possibility of a Liberal coalition (with the party “with the  strongest mandate”) is back on….

Well, perhaps not quite… What he appears to say is that all options are open  “including a formal coalition with Liberal Democrats sitting in the Cabinet..”. That did not seem to be feeling coming from Lib Dem high command previously. So a subtle shift towards the possibility of coalition (taking into account the 4 steps to fairness)? Certainly looks like it.

Another interesting twist offered today - picked up on by many media commentators - is the possibility of a deal with either Tories or Labour. There was a time when a “deal” with this morally bankrupt disgraceful government looked impossible. But the polls suggest that Labour are not so down and out as they once were.  And several commentators see Nick’s statement today as win for Labour.

But what does Nick’s Interview really tell us?

Not that much in my view.

1. We still have not addressed the issue of whether Nick CAN go into formal coalition with either Labour or the Tories. Last weeks Newsnight (March 3rd) stated that for Lib Dems to go into formal coalition with any party, it required 75% of MPs and “top party brass” to agree to it. If correct, it’s  not his call to make. More on that later….

2. In his interview today, Nick launched an all out attack on the Tories. He described warnings by David Cameron, George Osborne and Kenneth Clarke about market instability in a hung parliament as “an act of economic vandalism and a political protection racket“. As I stated, some pundits have suggested that this is a hint that the Liberals are more inclined to do a deal with Labour. But this can just as easily be interpreted as Nick firing a warning shot across the bows of the Tories. Play dirty with me sunshine and you will know about it. It must surely strengthen his negotiating hand if he shows now that he wont be bullied by the Tories. Or indeed perhaps a way of keeping activists within the party at bay. Ruling out a deal with the Labour party a couple of days before Lib Dem Party conference would be interesting to say the least..

 3. Protocol. In the event of no outright majority being secured by any party, it is the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown who gets first dibs on convincing HRH that he can “command the majority of the House of Commons”  i.e. he gets to talk to the Liberals first. Brown’s move toward a new electoral system, and his obvious determination to remain PM what ever the cost, suggests that he WILL try to do a deal with the Liberals. BUT… Nick has committed that Liberals actions ”will be shaped by the mandate given by the voters”. As it seems most likely that the Conservatives will overtake Labour at the election, it is hard to see how Liberals can justify a deal with Labour to the public (as tempting as the promise of electoral reform might be).

So if Nick has to politely decline, and Gordon Brown cannot command the House, the Queen will send for someone else to form a government. In theory, that could be any politician, but in reality that will be David Cameron.

Cameron looks extremely unlikely to bow to the fourth of Nick Cleggs demands (a change the voting system). So the most likely outcome is that a deal, falling short of full coalition, will emerge. One that gives Nick enough such that the Liberals allow the Queens speech and the budget to pass but keeps the Liberals firmly on the opposition benches. Then Cameron will run to the country as soon as the polls look like he will secure an outright victory - 6 months/12 months in?

So it looks like Nick WONT BE ABLE to do a deal with Labour and the Tories WONT WANT TO do a deal with Nick (or indeed not actually need to if they election strategy returns disproportionate votes in the key seats).

What has come out of todays interview with the Independent is that Nick has shown himself to be a man not to be messed with and has set out the terms of a deal. He has subtley shifted the onus onto the other two party leaders to say what THEY will do in the event of a Hung Parliament. Or has he ?

The questions for Nick wont go away. With the tanatalising prospect that the Liberals might do the coalition thing, the media, Labour and Tory strategists and uncle Tom Cobley will now all be clamouring to find out in what circumstances Nick CAN do the coalition thing. Hacks up and down the country will discover a new found appetite for crusty old Lib Dem resolutions about who’s, the hows and the when’s the Liberals can go into formal coalition. The next bout of questions will be about “What are the internal protocols and rules concerning coalition?”, ” How long will it take to get 75% of MPs to support it - an hour, a day, a week?”, “Who exactly are the “top party brass”. And so it will go on…. cans of worms will just keep opening up.

Nevertheless this is a good day for Nick. Some in the party will roll their eyes and say he should not talk about it…. ever…keep talking policy and refuse to countenance any conversation on the “C” word. Those that work in the media know that is simply not an option. He has shown great leadership and subtlety in how he has managed the debate thus far. He now needs to hold his nerve and be ready for the next barrage of questions.

Tags: coalition, deal, hung Parliament, Independent, Nick Clegg

Lib Dem love-in IS on its way

Well, Well.. No sooner is my ink dry stating that a Cameron Mockumentary is on its way,  I am told that we are to get a Cleggfest too, courtesy of good old ITV. Having deployed Piers Morgan and Sir Trevor to cover the other party leaders, we must surely expect an interrogator of the fairer sex to cover Nick Clegg’s softer side (might as well tick gender balance while you are at it ITV). So will it be the uber sexy Katie Derham or Mary Nightingale perhaps? 

No tx date yet but watch this space….

(UPDATE: Word is its Mary )

Tags: ITV, Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg

Hardcore porn director stands as Lib Dem PPC

I couldn’t see this story elsewhere on LD blogs*, so thought it was worth a posting.

Reports local meeeja Kent Online:

“Britain’s first female director of hardcore porn films is aiming to become Gravesham’s MP. Anna Arrowsmith, 38, has been selected as the Liberal Democrat candidate … at the looming general election.”

Quoted by The Sun, Anna says:

“In this day and age people who live in a democratic society should be able to choose what they want to watch.”

“Personally the reason I have gone into politics is I was rather disgusted at the expense issues.

“I am not a professional politician. I have worked all my life to set up a successful business and I want to fight for the rights of people in Gravesend.”

Crikey - it gets better with every line.  The new PPC says she went into porn to make it more female friendly, and has always vehemently supported equal opportunities for women.

Gravesend Lib Dems, I approve of your selection.

* Sorry, update:  just seen that Jennie covered it first - CLICK for Jennie’s post.

Tags: Anna Arrowsmith, Anna Span, pornography

ITV’s inevitable cave-in to Tory pressure

aka “When Trev Met Dave”

Following on from the lucicrous Piers Morgan “interview” with Gordon Brown, Andy Coulson’s badgering of ITV (pre and post interview) has paid off.

This Sunday we get to see “ITV Fuck Up - Part II”, as Sir Trevor McDonald does his ITV duty and provides the Tories with a reciprocal “soft touch” mockumentary about Tory leader David Cameron.Word has it, its all Samantha telling us why Dave’s her man, and various lovies concurring that ”Dave’s the man”….with lots of “exclusive access” words all over it. Er yeah right.

Hmm….You see what happens when the Light Entertainment boys are let off their leash ? The rest of ITV are left picking up the pieces.Still, I bet Mr Coulson’s laughing. Gordon gets sleazy Morgan, Dave gets SIR Trev no less. Nice one.

So the only question remaining…… How effective were the media guys and gals at the Lib Dems at extracting their pound of media flesh? Who is the man at Cowley street beating down the door of Peter Fincham demanding their hour loved-upness  from ITV? Nick Clegg - multi-tasking, parent extraordinaire (in 5 languages no less) must be on its way, surely….

Tags: Andy Coulson, David Cameron, Gordon Brown, ITV, Nick Clegg, Piers Morgan, Sir Tevor McDonald

He’s not the Messiah, he’s the Lib Dem Shadow Home Secretary

(Update - for those emailers who did not get it - look at the name on screen…CHRIST Huhne…really?)

Tags: BBC, Chris Huhne

Bad Economics Fortnight

It’s “Fairtrade Fortnight” - apparently… Don’t get me wrong. The people behind the “Fairtrade” brand (which is a brand just like Coca Cola. It is a brand. Full stop.) have good intentions. But what they believe in is bad economics. They are ultimately out-of-touch and misinformed and rely on woolly rhetoric and guilt-inducing marketing.
I think this facebook group says it best:

Fairtrade is a cartel that favours farmers in relatively wealthy countries (eg Mexico), who can afford to sign on to the Fairtrade brand, at the expense of those in the poorest countries, who cannot. Fairtrade incentivises the growing of cash crops, like coffee, which encourages the overproduction of these crops and locks poor farmers into a dependence on Fairtrade for their income. According to Oxford University economist Paul Collier, Fairtrade ensures that poor farmers “get charity as long as they stay producing the crops that have locked them into poverty”, perpetuating the poverty trap that Fairtrade claims to work against. We also object to the bullying tactics used by the Fairtrade cartel to get exclusive access to universities, etc, by having their rivals banned. This is a coercive measure that limits freedom to choose between different products.The only way to help lift the poorest farmers out of poverty is by boycotting Fairtrade and buying goods from the poorest, non-Fairtrade countries. Our alternative: Buy products from poor countries and spend the amount you save on real charity that helps the neediest, not a privileged elite of Fairtrade-sponsored farmers.

A good video:

Quote: “we don’t have a view on mechanisation…”

Oh dear…

Some more articles here:

Not So Fair Trade

The Poverty Of Fairtrade Coffee

Unfair Trade

Coalition or chaos - it’s your call, Nick

So now its a real fight. Who do we choose? On my left I give you the bullying, bullshitting, bad tempered - bad man of politics - GORDON BROWN. He who wants to be judged on his moral compass yet surrounds himself with unpleasant characters who intimidate and smear his political opponents, from whatever party, at every turn. He who talked up “Prudence” whilst on the biggest spending binge ever, who raided pension funds, sold our gold at its lowest level for years and who invested more of his time and effort undermining the then Prime Minister, than he did keeping watch on the finances of this country. Hmmm.

On my right I give you the smiling snake oil salesman -the suave, the slick - DAVID CAMERON.Yes the one with the airbrushed photos and dyed hair who beams benignly and promises his party has changed but who cannot be pinned down on anything of any substance. Who talks about being liberal and wanting government with ” a lighter touch” but then brings the full force of his party heavyweights down on his own party regional offices if they dare defy him. The man who has talked such a lot - delivered polished speeches to perfection…and yet said so very little. A man who surrounds himself with friends in Notting Hill kitchens (Coulson, Ashcroft, Osborne and co) no matter how dubious their actions, history or levels of competence best that can be said of him is that he is not Brown - the worst that he is another Tony Blair. Been there done that.

Added to this we have seen what happens when one party wields total power - with a huge majority. The party whips rule; minsters all powerful; bright intelligent MPs sidelined because they challenge the leadership; loyal and dimwitted MPs more likely to end up in the cabinet; debate stifled; decisions taken behind closed doors with little or no scrutiny; laws rammed through.

Why would you want either of those leaders in power? Why would you want either party to win a landslide election when we have felt the pain that they bring, one too many times ? No wonder people are confused. No wonder the polls are erractic.  No wonder, people are talking …correction.. welcoming… the prospect of a hung parliament. None of the other checks and balances have worked. Maybe this one will.

BUT!  The prospect of a hung parliament - without a clear view about what that will mean for the finances of the country - is going to send the markets into tail spin. Why? Because they assume that we will end up with a fudged government with no power to make the cuts necessary, fighting day to day to get each tiny bit of legislation through, and almost certainly resulting in another election within twelve months. What the markets want is certainty and that is not what it looks like.

Of course at the moment we don’t have a single party willing to be honest with us about the economy - the severity of cuts necessary. We all know we are being lied to. And every day our debt gets bigger. So it could be argued that it is not clear that any party will do what is needed.

So we are standing on the brink of disaster. Nick, its time to bring some honesty and forthrightness to the debate. Specifically on (1) the economy and (2) what you will actually do if there is a hung parliament.

1. THE ECONOMY : Be honest about the level of the cuts necessary. Vince Cable is the most trusted politician there is on financial matters. He was the lone voice of caution in the boom years. Yes he was derided by both Tories and Labour (and the media) when he told us bust was waiting round the corner. But he was also proven right. So where is he now? We seem to be arguing about the small stuff . Is it green enough, are we too reliant on banks. Maybe, maybe. But can talk about that when we have an economy worth squabbling about? Where is that beacon of light - that honesty now when we need it ? Show us the real Vince. Show us the real plan - not the sanitised one.  

2. HUNG PARLIAMENT: If we were in “the boom years” Nick, you could fudge what the Liberals would do in the event of a hung parliament. If Britain had cash sloshing around in our coffers, if we had a strong £, if we had shrinking unemployment, if we had financial institutions that were lining up to invest in Britain, if our AAA rating was not hanging in the balance yes then Nick, you could get away with it. And it would probably be the right strategy. The dangers of speaking out are immense and caution might be wise.

But country is not in that position. This country is in dire financial straits. The £ is stuttering at the news of the possibility of a hung parliament. Don’t play politics with our lives and livelihoods.

This country needs a strong Lib Dem party to tell us where it stands. Not a sit on the fence - play it safe - we haven’t planned for hypothetical situations - Lib Dem party. (What ? you only make your plans AFTER the event?). We need a bold and brave - forget the past - lets start a new period of politics- tell it how it is - get the country out of this mess  Lib Dem party. 

At the moment no one is at all clear what “working with” the party with a “mandate from the voters” means. Not me. Not the voters. Not the markets. Stop talking Westminster speak and tell us what you mean. Coalition or not?  The Guardian says you are planning to rule out coalition “because aides and senior MPs argue it would be highly dangerous for the Liberal Democrats to become minority partners in a coalition government”.

That would seem to suggest that , in the event that no party gets an outright majority, you allow either party to pass a Queen’s speech if it makes some concessions to your four prioirities (fair tax, investment in education, a rebalanced economy, political reform).

But whispering tit bits to the Guardian is not the same as telling it straight. OK you’ve let the Queen’s speech go through… Will you abstain or vote through the budget ? Shove in loads of amendments to make it more to your liking? How will you vote the next week or the week after that? Will a weak minority Government lurch from one deal to another as you stand by mildly and meekly watching sterling plummet, and the stock market nosedive? Is Vince Cable destined to spend the next 12 months commentating on the news or making the news?

The country goes to the wall because some of your aides and MPs care more about their political careers than the state of the nation? Maybe they just dont like the idea of actually being in power.

Or perhaps it’s that you can’t go into coalition. With all the will in the world you dont have the power to make that decision? The BBC reports that you “would have to get a formal coalition deal past (your) members” . If true then change the rules at next week’s conference. Tell them you can’t run a party on that basis right now. 

Cowardly or castrated. Which is it ?

The madness is, from what I have seen, you are neither. You started slowly (not a bad thing) but it looks for all the world that you are just hitting your stride. Perfect timing. You have the honesty, integrity and personal belief to make a difference. To change politics. So what’s stoppping you?

You will be dogged by these questions and many others of a similar vein over the coming weeks. Constant reference to a 4 point plan is not going to cut it with the voters, with the media or with the markets. Come on Nick. Step up to plate. The Liberals have to piss or get off the pot. If we are not prepared to take up coalition - to take up the reins of power when the country needs it most (now) then we don’t deserve to be the third party. 

I think I am right in saying that both you and Vince have said publicly that the country’s plight is more important than petty party politics. Prove that you mean that. Give us some honesty. Show us your mettle. I think if you will do that, you will win the hearts and minds of this country. Hell, maybe even save it.

Tags: coalition, David Cameron, Gordon Brown, hung Parliament, Nick Clegg, Vince Cable

Early election darling?

Following on from Guido’s post, I have had confirmation from a couple of other news organsations that they too are on standby for an announcement this weekend.

Of course, we have heard this before. And being on “standby” does not mean that a decision HAS been made or WILL be made. But something is definitely going on.

Maybe they could not see eye to eye on the budget afterall…..

Tags: Early election, general election