Browse > Home / Archive: November 2010

| Subcribe via RSS

Great website…

By Angela Harbutt
November 13th, 2010 at 5:45 pm | 5 Comments | Posted in Personal Freedom, Weird and Wonderful

One of the joys of writing a blog is occassionally you get people you don’t know dropping you a line and introducing you to something, weird, wacky or just plain wonderful. Today I got just one of those and it sits well and truly in the “wonderful” category.

findasmokerA dating site for smokers. Yep that’s right.

 A dating site where you can find your perfect partner and be assured of your mutual love of tobacco. No more dates when you are sitting there thinking things could not be more perfect..then you light up and suddenly it all goes south and they curl up their oh so attractive nose and bidyou an early goodnight.

Nope..this is a guaranteed copper-bottomed promise that they are going to love the stuff just as much as you .. Now all you need to do is get all the minor details sorted (you know personality,values, sexual chemistry….). How joyous is that?

Now don’t all you singles out there go rushing to the site all at once. We don’t want it crashing on us …


That Guardian article and my ask of Tim Farron…

By Angela Harbutt
November 13th, 2010 at 3:59 pm | 14 Comments | Posted in Liberal Democrats

Today’s Guardian has the most alarming headline…”Revealed: Secret documents show Liberal Democrats drew up plans to drop flagship student pledge before election”.

Hmmm. Whatever happened to standards over at the Guardian? The fact that the Liberals did a U-turn on tuition fees is not news. Welcome to the world of coalition politics…you stand firm on some stuff and have to give way on other stuff. And if we are being accurate, the Liberals drew up some contingency plans in the unlikely event of a hung parliament..but lets not let the facts stand in the way of a sexy headline.

Just for the record, had the Liberals managed, by some miracle, to be majority party, all the evidence points to the fact that they would have honoured the pledge to students  (having the option to scrap other areas of spend (eg Trident) to pay for it). Indeed the Guardian main story actually has a line buried in the article that states.. “The leaked document showed that during the preparations for a hung parliament the Lib Dems still intended to fulfil that commitment.” and  reiterates this point it in the Wintour and Watt piece   The Alexander document made clear the party was determined to maintain that pledge.”  

What this story reveals is the unexpected, and highly impressive, foresight of the leadership. They recognised that, in the unlikely event of a hung parliament they would need to negotiate, stand firm on some issues (eg electoral reform) and be prepared to give ground on others. And so they dedicated valuable election-strategy time to plan for that unlikely scenario- a hung parliament. Come the day, they had a well crafted plan (and thank goodness they did, given the furore that surrounded those few days of post election negotiations) . As for deciding that tuition fees would be one of those areas where they would give ground, well why be surprised they gave way? Given the Tory party and Labour party commitment to tuition fees we would very likely have seen coalition negotiations go on for weeks had the party chosen to draw the line in the sand on this particular issue. 

And to be honest u-turns in tuition fees is hardly new (witness the Labout party u-turn when it was the majority government). It seems a little rich to then condemn the Liberals for doing something similar in a coalition.

So,the story is not “Lib Dems planned to drop student pledge” they didn’t. Nor is it “Lib Dems do u-turn on tuition fees” thats not news..It’s not even “Lib Dems  show mature approach to politics shock” ..well that’s a bit more of a story to be honest.

So what is the story if indeed there is one?

To my mind the story is “Lib Dems must grow up fast” .

But given that the leadership show every sign of having done that, what else should be done?  Well (and here I address our new president directly)..for a start we must now change the undemocratic and frankly ludicrous system of allowing a few hundred activists at conference to determine Lib Dem policy – regardless of what the leadership want or believe – or wider party membership views . Firstly it makes the job of leader of the Lib Dems an almost impossible task  – constantly second guessing “what conference wants” and engaging in compromise and deal-making behind the scenes to shape the policies he wants. It is a handicap too far. Secondly, this out-dated policy making process is absurd. How can the Liberals argue so vociferously to the nation for AV because it s a fairer more democratic system than FPTP, I wonder, yet exclude 90% of their own members from having a vote in the formation of Liberal policy?

It’s time to modernise. Give Nick the power to put forward his proposed policies to the membership- and invite the whole of  the membership to take a vote on them. A modern system would not prohibit conference discussion ahead of the wider membership vote. It would not prevent other points of view being put to the membership. But it would give the party – and especially those facing Paxman et al on a daily basis – clarity.

As an ordinary party member, the idea that you have to suffer the vagaries of the local party system, curry favour with the local chairmen and their cohorts, deliver x number of focus leaflets and generally making sure “your face fits”  just to get a “conference voting pass”  (which you must have to have a vote on policy) is just plain mad. Is this an old boys network or a viable political party?

In case our President has not managed to meet the many thousands of members who don’t have a right to vote at conference, he should know that many (though certainly by no means all) local party hierachies hand these passes out like treats – and usually to those of like-minded views. Over time this has meant that conference voting views have fallen out of kilter with the wider Lib Dem member  (who largely take their cue on what they see, hear read from the likes of Clegg, Cable Huhne etc on TV, radio and newspapers). We have a blockage in the system between the face of the Liberal Party (the MPs) and its members. And that blockage is conference.

Maybe that did not matter when we were the permanent third party with no hope of actually implementing our policies. But times have changed. And so must we. We need a more realistic, modern and (because we love this word) “fairer” way of making policy. One that engages the wider party and unfetters Nick from back room deals with his own party to avoid humiliating defeats from the peculiar conference collective.

Untie the hands of Nick and we would not see him feeling the need to engage in silly unsustainable election stunts. The reason why the Guardian story has any legs at all is because off the over-the-top pledge made by the MP’s on tuition fees. And why was that stunt undertaken?..because of deals made with certain people around certain conference votes.  Plain and simple.

More generally allow the whole party to be involved in the decision making process and you may well find more people becoming engaged and get better policy as a result. And by the way, if we can democratise our own party and may be we stand a chance of convincing the electorate that our stand on AV is a principled one. 

It’s not the only change we need. But it would be a start.

Tags: , , , ,

Congrats to Tim Farron

By Angela Harbutt
November 13th, 2010 at 1:52 pm | 2 Comments | Posted in Uncategorized

Many congrats to Tim Farron on becoming Lib Dem President. It was a close result  Tim Farron: 14,593 votes , Susan Kramer: 12,950 votes. (40% of party voted).  Tim takes up the post on January 1st.

Binge-drinking Britain or the New Temperance Movement

By Tom Papworth
November 12th, 2010 at 7:20 am | 3 Comments | Posted in Uncategorized

Rowdy behaviour; fights with police officers; urinating and vomiting in the street. It’s just another day in binge-drinking Britain.

Except that binge-drinking Britain appears to be a myth, according to a recent Harris poll conducted for the Metro.

The poll of 1,029 adults, conducted between 7 and 14 September, found that only one in ten drank more than 15 units of alcohol a week (over the recommended limit for women – men are recommended to drink no more than 21), while almost one in three drank no alcohol at all and almost as many drank a mere one to four units.

According to the Metro, This is not the first study to question dire warnings about an escalation in alcohol abuse in Britain. Earlier this month, the British Beer and Pub Association said the amount of alcohol knocked back by Britons fell at its sharpest rate in 62 years in 2009.

So what explains the disparity between the media obsession with “Binge-drinking” and the recent decline in drinking and apparent moderation amongst our population?

Well, of course we have to be cautious about the findings of one poll. And as the BBPA’s noted, alcohol consumption may have fallen recently (which may be either a return to, or a temporary shift from, trend). We also need to be aware that it is these days very easy to send a film crew down to a town centre and film a few dozen people behaving badly, and extrapolate this to the wider country. There may very well be scores of towns with scores of people passing out or becoming aggressive, but in a population of 60 million that is still a tiny minority.

However, we have also to be conscious of the many and varied groups that benefit from spreading health-scares. From quangocrats and the health establishment to politicians and anti-drink charities, there is a new temperance movement on the march, many of which are gaining wealth and power by attacking individual liberty.

Lest there be any doubt about the extent to which these people despise and patronise the general public, let us quote Don Shenker, of Alcohol Concern, who said that the Metro figures could be explained by the fact that “most people find it hard to remember how much they’ve drunk…” In other words, he would rather assume that the respondents must have had alcohol-induced memory-loss than accept that the Harris poll challenged his negative view of British society.

The new temperance movement is just part of a drift away from a tolerant and free society to one where powerful elites use legislation to dictate how the masses behave, all in the name of our own good and the good of the public finances. One can only hope that the new coalition government has more faith in, and respect for, the general public than their Labour predecessors.

This is important not only for our free society, but also for the Lib Dems future electoral prospects. When the Liberal Party was thrashed by the Tories in the 1874 General Election, William Gladstone blamed the Victorian drinks industry for its campaign against his government’s licensing restrictions. “We have been drowned in a torrent of gin and beer,” he lamented. Perhaps what actually washed his government away was the voters’ resentment at the Liberals’ attempt to interfere in their private lives.

"Come on! Get up. It's last orders!"

"Come on! Get up. It's last orders!"

Help! Police! Tory MP in distress!!

By Tom Papworth
November 11th, 2010 at 3:35 pm | 5 Comments | Posted in Uncategorized

During one episode of The New Statesman (the funny one, not the silly one), Conservative MP Alan B’Stard’s car alarm goes off while he is in a building. Rushing to the window, he sees youths beside his car. Immediately pulling out his (excellently 80s) mobile phone, he dials 999 and says “Help! Police! Tory MP in distress!!”

I was put in mind of this today as I read The Guardian’s account of yesterday’s student riot at the Conservative headquarters at 30 Millbank. According to the Guardian

While Tory headquarters suffered the brunt of the violence, Liberal Democrat headquarters in nearby Cowley Street were not targeted. “This is not what we pay the Met commissioner to do,” one senior Conservative told the Guardian. “It looks like they put heavy security around Lib Dem HQ but completely forgot about our party HQ.”

Of course, the relationship between the police and the Conservatives has always been close, but I don’t think that the Metropolitan Police are paid to protect the Conservative Party.