Liberal Vision

Smokers are now being attacked for being too good….

You really couldn’t make it up….

A “Research Study” (oh how I hate those words) in New Zealand has concluded that “The tobacco industry may be using websites such as YouTube to get around a ban on advertising cigarettes” (note the word “MAY” in that sentence).

How have they arrived at this conclusion? Well, the researchers searched for five tobacco brands on YouTube and analysed the first 20 pages of video clips containing any reference to the firms. They looked at 163 clips in total and concluded that “20 looked very professionally made” .

Evidence of well-made pro-tobacco videos onYouTube is, according to these people who really ought to get a proper job, “consistent with indirect marketing activity by tobacco companies or their proxies,”

How disappointed must they have been? All that time slaving over a hot pc looking at shed loads of evil…. and their smoking gun (excuse the pun) is …….that 20 pro-smoking videos on YouTube look great ?

Who is to say that these brilliant videos were NOT made by a number of motivated, gifted individuals, with a video camera and/or some editing equipment, sharing their passion with the wider world? Why is it that the quality/brilliance of the videos is taken to mean that they are bound to have been made by the tobacco giants or their ad agencies…. Have these people not checked out just how many brilliantly made, professional looking, videos are being put out there on YouTube these days?

Of course not,  they are too busy looking for problems relating to tobacco. Get a life people.

It is no surprise to find of course that this, frankly laughable, report was funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand, and that one or more of the authors of this report has several anti-tobacco “reports” under their belt. Well that explains the conclusions….

Conclusions Pro-tobacco videos have a significant presence on YouTube, consistent with indirect marketing activity by tobacco companies or their proxies. Since content may be removed from YouTube if it is found to breach copyright or if it contains offensive material, there is scope for the public and health organisations to request the removal of pro-tobacco content containing copyright or offensive material. Governments should also consider implementing Framework Convention on Tobacco Control requirements on the internet, to further reduce such pro-tobacco content.

Yep that’s it folks. A research study that proves nada - apart from the fact that a lot of people, passionate about smoking, make videos about their passion, and some are rather good at it shock horror - concludes that public health organisations should press YouTube to remove the videos on the grounds of copyright and/or offensiveness.

Copyright is the domain of the tobacco companies frankly. As for offensiveness… If it is genuinely offensive - oh I don’t know like forcing a puppy to smoke a cigarette for example - then I can see a reason for YouTube to remove it.. But if offensive is defined as those videos that  health quango’s don’t like - then I trust YouTube will tell them where to go.

But some good may come of this….. I am thinking of emailing the authors of the research study - Lucy Elkin’, knilu381@student.otago.ac.nz , Dr George Thomson george.thomson@otago.ac.nz, Dr Nick Wilson nick.wilson@otago.ac.nz - asking if they wouldn’t mind posting links to the 20 videos that looked “very professionally made” so that we cant put them up on LV.  Long live freedom of expression.

Tags: internet, New Zealand, smoking, tobacco, Youtube

Time for the party to grow up…

Back in May, all Lib Dem MP’s (bar one abstention) voted in favour of a coalition with the Conservatives.  The Conservatives gave away a lot to the Lib Dem’s to secure the deal (Simon Hughes was quoted just this week saying that he and others could not believe just how much was being offered).

Part of the ”quid pro quo” however was that the Lib Dems would accept Michael Gove’s plans for “free schools” - essentially allowing schools more independence from local councils and enabling parents to set up their own free schools. Something that a number of Tory councillors were none too happy with it should be said. 

At conference activists will however challenge the MP’s decision. A motion has been put forward that states (according to Newsnight as I have not seen conference papers as yet) “Local Authorities should retain strategic oversight of the provision of school places” and “continue to exercise their arms length support of state schools“. On free schools the motion calls on “all Liberal Democrats to urge people not to take up this option“.

Well we would have been living in la la land had we not expected some form of left wing gnashing of teeth at conference - and even more foolish to imagine that the Federal Conference Committee would not find a way to allow at least one motion to find its way onto the agenda.

Will there be a media scrum around it ? You betcha. Newsnight have already started - you can see it below - and it wont stop there. Will Liberal Vision find itself (again!) on the side of the leadership? (looks likely….. darn it!). Will the activists win? (Possibly). Will it make any difference to the short term? Unlikely. Even if the motion passes, frankly the Coalition deal out ranks a motion at conference - so it’s a gesture at best. Though one the Coalition can ill afford at such a tricky time in its life.

And how very Lib Dem to have a motion that calls on its members to “urge” others to do, or not do, something. Why we need to pass a motion in order to “urge” is a little beyond me. 

Does it highlight that it is time that the Lib Dems grew up? Definitely. The truth is that the media will portray us as a bunch of loons who prefer permanent opposition to power. And they might be right. About part of the party at least.

But surely it’s about time policies and motions are voted on by the WHOLE party (as I have argued before)…not just a tiny minority of members, with a score to settle, willing and able to make the journey to Beetle land. Come on Nick, Simon or whoever is in charge of the party right now - time bring the Lib Dems kicking and screaming into the 21st century - and get some real democracy (we are so keen to bang on about to others) into this party. Let people have their debate at conference by all means - then put it to the vote of all members. That way we can be sure our policies reflect those of the 60,000 not just the disgruntled few hundred.

In the mean time be prepared for a rocky ride and a media frenzy in Liverpool.

Oh…well said Julian Harris on Newsnight.

Tags: Huntingdon Lib Dem motion, Julian Harris, Michael Gove, Newsnight, Party Conference

Catch us on Newsnight…..

Julian Harris (Director of our very own LV) has been interviewed for tonight’s Newsnight, looking at the Lib Dems conference agenda and what it means for our role in the Coalition. Goodness only knows what that means …or indeed what he has said…..fingers crossed!

The civil servant rich list…

I noted with interest today the Government’s ”outing” of the ”172 civil servants that earn more than the Prime Minister”…. A bit of a curious benchmark to choose I think. After all David Cameron gets a couple of houses thrown in, cars a-plenty, a rather nice pension and goodness knows how many millions when he finally quites on the USA lecture circuit etc etc.

If you ask me, I think a little longer in the compiling, a tad more thought in the publication  (and a little less of the “them vs Dave”) would have gone down better… and looked less like “a cheap shot”.

I do seriously hope we dont have another government that is so gung ho on “being seen to do stuff” that they dont end up like the last lot,…shoving out poorly thought through pronouncements for the sake of a catchy media hit. Rather than doing less “stuff”, but well.

But, charitably, as we saw from last Thursdays Question Time fiasco  -the media team are still on a very steep learning curve. Lets hope they catch up fast…

Turning to the content of the announcement - and just who earns what - I was interested to note which heads of department seem to be getting what.

And tell me is there generally an inverse relationship between the salary earned and the total incompetence of the department concerned..or is that just my imagination?

I note that  2 of the top ten are “in charge of” the highly efficient, world-beating NHS (irony folks, pure irony) . That’s Sir David Nicholson NHS chief executive who is reported to earn £255,000-£259,999 and Clare Chapman director-general of workforce, Department of Health £220,000-£224,999). About 10 or 11 in total from the Dept of health are in the “civil servants rich list”. Go figure.

There’s Joe Harley IT director-general & chief information officer of Department for Work and Pensions £245,000-£249,999. (Didn’t they not only lose tonnes of data but send out tax statements to the wrong people?)

Let’s not forget Sir Jock Stirrup Chief of the Defence Staff £240,000-£244,999 ..oh and laughably there’s another 20 or so “senior officials or generals” at the Ministry of Defence who “earn more than the Prime Minister” (haven’t they struggled to provide sufficient funding for troops,and made a total horlicks of procurement or did I dream that one?).

And my favourite.. the director-general of the Government’s Olympic Executive, earning “ up to £229,999″. (Well it’s only slightly over budget… but that’s OK because there was a “contigency fund”)

I could go on… But you see the point about these guys is (according to the trade union spokesman today) they need these kind of salaries (that’s minus their rather handsome pensions mind) because these departments need the best. Nice theory - not entirely sure it worked out that way in practice actually.

Tags: civil servants, Prime Minister, salaries

David Laws - Your country needs you

As much as David Laws may hate me expanding on Andy’s timely but short post I cannot let this matter pass without adding my own views.

David Laws’ resignation is nothing short of a disaster for this country.

It was his vision, his fine mind, his sheer brilliance that brought such a shine to the coalition. It will be a much poorer Government for his leaving it.

I am confident that the Parliamentary Standards Commission will find that the definition of “partner” was indeed ambiguous and open to interpretation - and David Laws will get a clean bill of health. Why?

1)It is very clear to any that worked in and around the Lib Dems that David Laws DID NOT share a social life with Mr Lundie. 2)David Laws has said that they have separate financial arrangements. 3)They had not undertaken any ceremony of any sort celebrating their “union”.

From what I can see, therefore David Laws has a very strong case that the rule was badly phrased and open to interpretation. In David Laws view, Mr Lundie was not his partner as laid down in the rules. I cannot see how David Laws is anything other than “technically” correct - on this matter.

In these “whiter than white days” . We also have to ask however did he flout the “spirit” of the rules?

Here I say Yes perhaps he did - but with huge mitigating circumstances.

1. The rule about renting from (rather feebly defined) “partners” only came into effect in 2006. So the figure of £40,000 is almost certainly wrong.

2) I understand that he claimed considerably less than he was entitled to claim.

3) Most importantly we should consider the motivation of the man. This was a man - not seeking to personally enrich himself - he did that in the city many moons ago. This was a man seeking to keep his private life - private.

Between 2001 and 2006 his claim was entirely legitimate. And he claimed.  When the rules changed in 2006 had he suddenly ceased to claim rent from Mr Lundie - any low grade idiot would have put two and two together and drawn the inevitable conclusion about the nature of his relationship with Mr Lundie. The idea that David Laws could have “confidentially”asked for clarification from the claims office ( as some have suggested he should have done) is to show ignorance of the system. Be in no doubt that had he ceased his claims in 2006 when the change of rules occurred -( or indeed even raised it with the wrong person “confidentially”)  the rumour mill of Westminster would have been in overdrive. He would, in old-fashioned terms, “been outed” there and then. So he almost certainly maintained the status quo on his claims to protect his privacy.

This is not a typical “expenses scandal”. He claimed less than he could and sits sat in cabinet amongst many who had committed much worse “errors of judgement” over their expenses and got re-elected by their constituents.

This is about a man’s decision on how to manage his privacy.

I say again. I think it is a disaster that he has resigned. I hope this has not caused him to turn his back on public life. I trust he will return to this position as soon as he has been cleared by the PCS. I pray that his return is not too late. And I fear that even a few weeks or months away , may be too long.

David Laws. Your country needs you.

Tags: David Laws, resignation

Tim Farron would get my vote..

…If I could vote that is!

With Vince stepping down from the job as deputy leader of the Lib Dems, no sooner are we out of one election, we find ourselves facing another. This one however really only concerns 57 individuals. Which is a blessing in many ways - as I think many of us are “electioned-out”. 

I am a bit disappointed that only two MPs have come forward so far…. Though I understand that several of the obvious choices (Norman Lamb is the obvious name that comes to mind)may feel that their roles in Government prevent them from stepping forward… But I, for one, am very pleased that Tim Farron has put his name forward.

He has proved himself to be an excellent MP, impressive campaigner, a great team player and all round nice guy (with seemingly impossible levels of energy!). I am sure that we dont see exactly eye to eye on some areas of policy- but there is no doubting his outright abilities.

Back on June 14th 2009, Liberal Vision asked the question “Is Tim Farron the Lib Dems best campaigner”. Yes we certainly thought he was. Mark Littlewood wrote on this very blog….. 

“Tim Farron may not be a household name yet, but keep a close eye on the 39 year old MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale. Having ended nearly a century of Tory dominance at the last General Election with a majority of less than 500,  you’d expect his seat to be categorised as ”ultra-marginal”. And no doubt Tim Farron is wisely treating it as such.

But some of the psephological info emerging from the Lake District is so amazing that computer programs would probably reject it as being too ridiculous. …..

……If Tim Farron converts Westmorland into being a rock-solid seat at the General Election, watch his national profile soar in the next Parliament.”

 

Well - he certainly delivered on his own constituency - in spades, and I think has the necessary attitude and drive for the job . I also think he deserves to take the next step in his own political career. So, for what it’s worth I hope he gets the job. Good luck Tim.

Tags: Deputy leadership, Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron

Has the coalition ruined my Thursday nights?

Did tonight show us the future of UK television political coverage? I sincerely hope not.

First I watched Question Time. No Government minister on the programme..because, the BBC say, Downing Street said it would put up a minister but only if the Labour spokesperson was a serving Labour MP not Alistair Campbell… The BBC told the Government to sod off and it was up to them who they invited onto the show. First signs of BBC/government tensions? It was frankly silly of the Government to big up Campbell like that…but even sillier of the BBC to choose Alistair Campbell in the first place.

The guests were in fact all FORMER SOMETHINGs…. Alistair Campbell (former Labour spin doctor) looking very smug, Piers Morgan (former newspaper editor - and a big Labour supporter), Max Hastings (another former newspaper editor), Susan Kramer (former Lib Dem MP), and John Redwood (former cabinet minister)….Even if some of them have columns,books, or entertainment TV shows on the go these days.

Being brutally honest who cares what a load of former somethings think… It was dull,dull,dull especially when Campbell droned on like a broken record about why Blair took us into Iraq (yawn). The highlight, frankly, was when Susan Kramer described Ming Campbell as the John Redwood of the Lib Dems..(I doubt she meant it to come out quite the way it did).

It is early days of course - so let’s hope they sort out their spat with NO10 and find some panellists who are somewhat more relevant to the issues at hand or at least have something  to say.

I am now watching Andrew Neal’s THIS WEEK as I write. This too has gone a tad off- piste and is NOT working. Although I have always thought Diane Abbott a tad mad, there is undoubtedly a chemistry between the sharp-as-knife Michael Portillo and his giggling sidekick.

Diane Abbott has been replaced by Hazel Blears because, as Abbott is running in the Labour leadership election, the BBC was concerned her continued appearance as a pundit would breach its editorial independence guidelines. (Though rumour has it that Ms Abbott will feature on next week’s Question Time??).

Hazel Blears is deemed a suitable replacement. She is, let’s remember, one of the worst  home flippers there is..which begs the question that of all the MPs to choose to replace Abbott …why her? What can she possibly bring to the piece other than as an expert on tax avoidance?

Hazel Blears and David Davis (their replacements) are pale immitations of the real thing and just too painful to watch -  Ms Blears squeaking and wriggling her way through the show whilst David Davis (Portillo’s replacement) manouvers himself  tight into the corner, as far away from her as he possibly can on such a small piece of furniture. David Davis is not doing a bad job actually- but even he can’t carry the feeble efforts of the mighty midget. I have had to switch off.

I now live in hope that Ms Abbott can return to This Week’s love seat once she fails to get 33 Labour MPs to nominate her for the Leadership election - I never thought I would be writing that particular line ! (Dont even mention Ms Abbott and London Mayoral elections)

When the coaltion was finally agreed , I did wonder whether this would see the end of three-way politics on TV, with the Lib Dems squeezed out of the debate entirely …I never thought it would result in yawn TV. Perhaps the BBC have just been caught on the hop.. and it will get better (it surely can’t get worse) or may be the most radical and exciting government in decades really does make for crap TV. Has the coalition really ruined my Thursday nights? I hope not.

Tags: Alistair Campbell, Andrew Neal, BBC, John Redwood, Piers Morgan, Question Time, Susan Kramer, This Week

Quangos-a-go-go

So the coalition have settled in, and our very own David Laws has got his chainsaw out. Well, NO actually, it’s a scalpel we are told. 

(I am hoping that like most good gory video games he’ll reach level 5 and swap that ”scalpel” for something that’s more appropriate for the task - like a chainsaw gun at the very least, but anyway…)

Wielding his trusty “scalpel”, Laws is stating that  the government will find £600million from Quangos. That’s really not very much when you consider what we spend on them. According to the (previous) government’s own figures, “in 2008/09, total expenditure by Executive NDPBs (Non Departmental Government bodies),   was around £46.5bn. Of this, around £38.4bn was funded directly by Government”. And that’s excluding charities and pressure groups that get direct Government money (e.g. ASH that gets direct funding from the Health Department).

Well, if they are not going to do drastic - can they at least do fun? After all there’s not going to be much to laugh about in the coming months (except England failing to reach the quarter finals of course).

Following on from the rip-roaring success of the TV Leaders debates, I rather like the idea of reviewing Quango’s publicly. I am thinking a hybrid Saturday night TV show along the lines of “Britain’s Got Talent” with a splash of retro “Noels House Party” thrown in. “Quangos-a-go-go” has a nice Saturday night feel to it.

The idea is that each week we are offered a selection of quango’s that are each given two minutes to present “their case”. If the judges panel - David Laws, George Osborne and Tessa Munt (got to have a gorgeous blond!) hit their “reject” button before the two minutes are up, a vat of custard is dropped on the quango-istas from a great height (the custard , not the vat) and they are sent duly packing.

If they survive the full two minutes, the TV audience gets to vote by phone for how much money they get. We keep being told that “we are all in this together” so why not involve the public in the decision? And we may just raise enough number from the phone calls to pay for some of them.

Which should we see up first on the show ? (ignoring the obvious ones like Regional Development agencies, BECTA, Standards Board for England etc)….

Sustainable Development Commission

Call it what you will, this is nothing more than a  Government sponsored campaign for increases in environmental policy. It is just madness to fund an organisation to lobby yourself. Definite custard bath time.

National Policing Improvement Agency

Supposedly created to remove layers of bureaucracy from policing. Ha! that worked. More seriously, any organisation that says its purpose in life is “to make a unique contribution to improving public safety” and then singularly fails to explain exactly HOW they are going to do it, deserves all the custard it can get. And when you read phrases like“ten year strategic framework“..”High potential development scheme“..”simplified competency framework” and “talent management“…You just know its time to put on your wellies.  They spend an eye-watering £535 million (mostly on spin by the looks). Definite custard bath.

National College for School Leadership

This was set up to improve the quality of head-teachers. If you want better head teachers, pay them more. The £105million it spends would go some way towards it. Worringly this particular group has quango-creep. It now calls itself  ”The National College for Leadership of Schools and Childrens Services”. STOP right now! One thing that might just save it from the custard… On the front page of its website it says, rather endearingly.. “A New UK Government took office on 11 May (no shit!). As a result the content on this site may not reflect current government policy.” Hmm that might be why Laws/Osborne gang have already chopped £16million of its budget.

Commission for Rural Communities

This organisation grandly pronounces that its “statutory purpose is promote awareness of the social and economic needs of people living and working in rural communities“. The “rural community” may have needed its own commission under Labour - but surely the Tories love the countryside? Can’t see us needing this anymore.  And let not forget that they were the folks that appointed the”Rural Advocate” to to put the case for rural people . That’s just downright insulting to us country folks. Custard.

 Finally, and this is my favourite (and was not my spot - but came from a friend of a friend..)

The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board

Firstly any quango with “development” in its title should go. Secondly, it likes to be known as the “AHDB” - That’s not a good sign when you WANT to sound like a menacing bug lurking in the corners of the local NHS hospital. But otherwise this sounds worthwhile enough. Until you realise that our money actually goes on nutty things like “The Potato Council” - whose most successful campaign in 2009 was National Chip Week (promoted by Keith Chegwin - did we really pay him money for this?). Apparently the campaign managed to increase the sale of frozen chips by 11%. (Best not tell the department of Health that). They also have a whole raft of mini websites www.lovepotatoes.co.uk, www.potatoesforcaterers.co.uk, www.potatoesforschools.org.uk www.lovechips.co.uk, www.potatoposters.co.uk. It’s a monster gone mad. Definite candidate for the custard bath.

I could go on,  but for now I will let Andy return to the more important stuff at hand…Unless of course you have your own favourite quango you would like to see in the custard bath. If so please leave us a comment.

Tags: Britain's got talent, David Laws, George Osborne, quangos, £600million cuts

Achieving coalition with the Tories is a triumph for the so-called Orange Book tendency…

Recommended …. 

Telegraph article written by Mark Littlewood… (yes you know..once of this parish, now DG of the IEA)

In his article (which I wish I had penned btw) he basically argues that the formation of a Conservative-Liberal coalition government finally blows apart the idea that the Liberals are natural bedfellows of the Labour Party or some fictious centre-left “progressive alliance”.

Mark also identifies - as did we - the importance of David Laws in the formation of this coalition…. “From the Liberal Democrat perspective, achieving coalition with the Tories is a triumph for the party’s so-called Orange Book tendency of classical, market-orientated liberals. David Laws, who played a central role in the negotiations with the Conservatives, personifies this wing of the party“.

Hear hear.

Tags: coalition, Conservatives, IEA, Liberal Democrats, Mark Littlewood, orange book

David Laws-political genius!

Word has it that a 24 page document will be released later today containing the Lib-Con deal. Private word also has it that this will be largely the work of one man- David Laws.

Tags: 24 page document, coalition, coalition deal, David Laws, Liberal Democrats