Liberal Vision

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…..

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.

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 )

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.

Past,present,future of the Liberals..

Here’s a 5 minute film put together by BBC’s The One Show looking at the past, present and, most importantly, the possible future of the Liberal Democrats. Timely questions.

You can see the whole programme on iplayer.

LibDems Are Officially The Most Kinky

It’s what we’ve always suspected…

Still, it’s nice to have a poll we come top in for a change (!)

A masterclass in risk-taking from the New Orleans Saints

Big occassions need big men. Men that will rise to the challenge, galvanise their team and take some big risks - when it really counts. When history is in the making you dont want Mr Timid knocking at the door. Opportunity rewards the bold and the brave. So it was with sheer delight that I watched the underdogs - the New Orleans Saints- scoop the biggest prize of all - the Superbowl.

If you did not watch the game, this may mean nothing to you - go watch it. But Sean Payton (the Saints coach) proved himself to be one of  the gutsiest coaches ever to come to a Superbowl game.

The Colts came into the game clear favourites. The first quarter went  as expected. It was all Colts; at one point they were leading 10-0 and many thought, I am sure, that it was game over. The Saints seemed to be taking too many risks - like going for a touchdown when a field goal could have been banked.  But by the end of the second quarter the Saints had fought their way back into the game not by changing their game plan - but by staying true to it. By half time it looked clear to me that the Saints could only win if they DID take those risks - and by jove that is what they were doing . With the score standing at 10-6 to the Colts (and much of the money on the Colts) I put my money on the Saints.

Coming out at the opening of the second half - Sean Payton did the unthinkable - he took another, huge, risk calling for an onside kick to keep posession with the Saints. Yes it was risky but it proved to be as brilliant as it was unexpected. From there on in the Saints never really looked like losing. Nor did they lose their willingness to take risks - going for a two point conversion, with all the risks that entailed (and challenging the call when it was ruled foul). These boys were going for it. They kept the brilliant (arguably the best ever ) Colts quarterback Peyton Manning out of the game for over an hour and that probably proved decisive. When he did get onto the field they kept the pressure up - eventually winning that well deserved (and brilliantly taken) turnover. Actually I think the Colts were technically the better team on the night but they had no answer for the passion, the risk-taking and team spirit of the Saints. The Saints won 31-17.

So what has this to do with politics or the Liberal Democrats ? I think that Nick Clegg can learn a great deal from the Saints coach Sean Payton. And I urge all Liberal Democrats to go watch the game. It is a masterclass in leadership - of stepping up to the plate when the big game is on - of taking risks - of having faith in your team and your team having faith in you - giving them the belief and the tools to win - and win when it mattered.

After 43 years of mediocrity these first time finalists had not fared too well in recent years. They had been the also rans for too many years. So when opportunity came knocking, boy were they hungry for it. Second was not enough.

Offensive tackle Jon Stinchcomb said “You know you’re going to be competing to win, ” …. “..You want to know that Coach backs you, he has faith in our group, and he’s going to put us in situations to be successful.” ….”So those aggressive points -(risks!) - he’s putting the ball in our court, saying, ‘Go make a play, guys. I’ve got faith in you. Go make me right.’ That’s exactly what you want.”

Linebacker Scott Fujita agreed “(The coach) came in playing to win this game….You like that… He’s got a certain swagger about him, it carries over to the offense….Now you’ve got a lot of guys playing aggressive, playing confident”

Thats what we want to see from Nick, (ok not the swagger but) but  leader of men that says “go for it” . We will take risks, because playing it safe is not good enough - and the prize is worth winning. This is the best chance we have had in a very long time so lets not have regrets later about where we should have been bolder. Lets be brave.

Ok we can’t win the Superbowl (can you imagine Vince in shoulder pads?) . We can’t win the election. But we can make history. We can change politics forever - and thats our Superbowl. I am not sure who our quarterback is, but Nick needs to be our Sean Payton. Please go watch the game Nick.

Lib Dem AM Mick Bates “cannot remember” punching paramedic

Oh dear - the Beeb is reporting that Mick Bates, Lib Dem AM for Montgomeryshire, is being accused of assaulting a paramedic who had been called to help him during a night out last month.

Bates was apparently kicked out of a restaurant, before allegedly verbally and physically assaulting the paramedic. He was then “kept under observation by security” at A&E.

LD head Kirsty Williams has seemingly claimed that he was knocked unconscious, a claim refuted by the paramedic. The relevance of this is that Mick Bates says he “cannot remember” what happened during the incident. It has previously been understood that he will stand down from the assembly next year (irrespective of these allegations).

The case continues.

Update: Steph Ashley got in there first, with her take on the incident (and timing of the report) over at Dib Lemming.

Greg Mulholland shows his liberal credentials

Having given Greg Mulholland a bit of a hard time recently, it’s only fair that I highlight this Early Day Motion (EDM) - also from Greg. Great stuff. This particular EDM concerns the Sec state for health “considering” an extension of the smoking ban to include beer gardens and the outside of pubs. I did not agree with every word in the EDM and would have liked some reference to some of the other measures (such as the possible move to enforce plain-packaging on all cigarette packs) but I did approve of his point that  ”there needs to be a reasonable balance between protecting the rights of non-smokers and the rights of adults who smoke”. Nice one Greg. 

It should be noted that NO OTHER MP signed this motion. Not one. I am not sure quite how an MP goes about getting signatures- but, assuming there was not some clerical cock up of some description, where or where are the Liberal Democrat MPs signatures?

You can read the EDM here…

EDM 785: EXTENSION OF THE SMOKING BAN 03.02.2010 ” That this House is concerned over the Secretary of State for Health’s review of the current smoking ban legislation and its possible extension to include beer gardens, outside pubs and designated smoking areas; notes that pubs, bars and other similar venues have already had to make considerable alterations to their premises in order to adapt to the smoking ban; further notes that pubs have already suffered serious economic repercussions since the introduction of the smoking ban by way of lost revenue and the costs incurred by building smoking shelters; observes that smoking has serious health implications and supports measures to discourage it; however believes that there needs to be a reasonable balance between protecting the rights of non-smokers and the rights of adults who smoke; deems that this balance would not be maintained if smoking in an open air beer garden or legal smoking shelter were banned; further believes that pubs play a hugely important function in the communities they serve; fears that if pubs are required to place further draconian restrictions on smoking then people will choose to stay at home and pubs will no longer be able to perform an important function at the heart of the community; and is concerned that if people are forced to stay at home and smoke this may have health implications on family members and visitors, including young children, due to the dangers of passive smoking”

 Update: Simon Clark over at ”Taking Liberties”  has echoed our nod to Greg Mulholland. He says.. “Obviously I don’t agree with every single word - the dangers of passive smoking on “family members and visitors” has been greatly exaggerated - but beggars can’t be choosers so congratulations to Greg Mulholland for making a stand on this issue”

Now we want to ban the word “regular” in coffee shops!

Like all bad habits, it started as a occassional indulgence and has grown into something approaching an obsession. Reading Early Day Motions that is. I wonder if there is a Govt dept that can help me with this addiction?

I do however commend this activity to you. It provides an interesting insight into MP’s real concerns and motivations. It also throws up some shockers.

Take this one from Greg Mulholland, Lib Dem MP for Leeds Northwest. EDM 620

“That this House supports the Plain English Campaign on its attempts to prohibit the use of the word regular in coffee shops and cafés; notes that this term is a meaningless description creating confusion; regrets the Americanisation of the English language in this country; commends the Plain English Campaign for its efforts to promote clear language in public life; and calls on all coffee shops and similar establishments to use English terms and one standardised and universally understood system of measurement, such as small, medium and large.”

PROHIBIT the use of the word “REGULAR” in coffee shops?

Oh come on Greg. What is that all about? The word “regular” is confusing? Just do what the rest of us do and ask to see what size cup you get for a regular, or ask for your coffee in “one of those big fat mugs” or point at a cup and say “that sort of size”. And to say that coffee shops should be forced to use “English terms” - whatever that means - is frankly worrying.

Supposing its an Italian or French cafe? And even if it isn’t, so what if its a pretentious American cafe that prefers the word “Venti” to big or huge? A Starbuck’s venti is, in actual fact a twenty ounce coffee drink (about a pint) - from the Italian word for twenty (at least that’s what they told me when I asked many moons ago). Strikes me thats far more descriptive than “large”, which means (to the common man at least) “bigger than average” . How does that help anyone?

In any event I dont think its my place, and certainly not an elected MP’s place to start telling businesses what to call their products - no matter how silly. If customers dont like the word “regular” they will soon let them know. 

Putting this mini rant into context, only 14 others joined Greg in signing this motion -  7 Labour MPs and 4 Lib Dems (only 1 tory). Hmmmm. And we are supposed to be the home of liberalism? This sounds more like a sketch from Little Britain.

To be fair, Greg did redeem himself to some extent a couple of days later (20th Jan) with EDM 666 calling for the House to support the second reading of the Live Music bill (which will create an exemption from licences for small venues such as pubs).  Getting rid of bureacracy and needless red tape..that’s more like it.

Overall however, could do better.

UPDATE: In response to an email - the Lib Dem MPs that signed the banning of the word “regular” in coffee shops were: Mark Hunter, Mike Hancock, John Leach and Stephen Williams.