Browse > Home /

| Subcribe via RSS



Drinking by numbers

By Editor
May 21st, 2015 at 4:42 pm | Comments Off on Drinking by numbers | Posted in Lifestyle Products

 

HAT TIP: In case you missed it, the brilliant Guido Fawkes website put this little infographic up on its site yesterday…

 

24-hour-drinking

It refers to a startling new report published by the Institute of Economic Affairs looking at the gloomy predictions about what the Licensing Act  (24 Hour Drinking) would do to the English nation. The graphic above pretty much says it all , but you can read a brief summary from the author (Christopher Snowdon) here. It has links to the fuller report on the IEA website.

Our thanks to Guido and co for the use of the image.

Tags: , , , , ,
'

Coalition,Cuts and Conservatives…post match report

By Angela Harbutt
September 21st, 2010 at 7:25 pm | 2 Comments | Posted in coalition, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats

“Coalition,Cuts and Conservatives” was, when I looked it up ahead of conference, reckoned to be the 5th most popular fringe at conference. And popular it certainly was. Apologies to the hundreds that were turned away as ‘ealth and safety forced us to close the doors.

We had a hairy moment or two in the preceding half hour..not least the fact that conference registration “opening hours” (or closing hours to be more precise) meant that one of our speakers – Lembit Opik – could not actually not get in to conference! Yes, the steward knew who Lembit was (even my mum knows who Lembit is!) and no he was not considered a security threat (though he sounded less certain of this to be honest), but Lembit could not be allowed entry without his pass. The computer said no. All was thankfully resolved when a brilliant conference organiser  re-opened the registration desk so that Lembit could indeed prove he was Lembit. Our thanks to the organisers for that, but how ironic (as the chairman remarked at the time) that the Lib Dems have only been in power a few weeks and have seemingly embraced ID cards so wholeheartedly.

So to the session. I have been asked to precis what was said by the many who could not get in. Always a tough task, and I have kept it to “top line” messages ..but here goes…..

Jeremy Browne MP kicked off. He asked the audience three questions – which (being a minister) he then answered.”Should we cut the deficit?” – Yes he said. He was completely signed up to the fiscal cuts of this government. The sooner  the better.”Should we go into coalition”– Yes he said. There was no other option. The Lib Dems found themselves immediately post election on a desert island with the Tories.  Labour were on a boat, going away from the island and sinking fast . It was NOT an option to sit on the sidelines with the economy teetering on the brink of disaster. “Where next”? Jeremy asked Lib Dems to “hold your nerve”.  Using a football analogy (is he a footie fan ?), we are, he said, in the 7th minute of a football game and there was no need for a change in formation, or start considering substitutes just yet. In a wrap up he made the point that it was important to keep the Lib Dem identity within the coalition – but stressed  that not all aspects of Lib Dems identity were good. E.g. he was eager to change the view that “Lib Dems were not capable of governing”..and the view that “hung parliaments equal chaos”. So, we should hold our nerve …the positive aspects of the Lib Dem’s identity will grow through this parliamentary session and we would NOT be seen as a glorified pressure group but a serious party capable of governing.

Professor Richard Grayson came up next, telling us of  his personal experiences campaigning on the doorstep at the last election and that  government spending cuts was far and away the biggest issue raised. He said that the Lib Dems had campaigned on  the same scale and timescale of cuts as Labour (the Tories deeper and sooner) which made it hard to explain the Lib Dem change within coalition. He did not accept that a Tory minority government was an impossible option at the time and suggested that is was an “ideological drift towards the centre right, by the top echelons of the party” that explained the decision to go with the Tories.  He considered it appropriate for Lib Dem MPs and ministers to voice dissent publicly with coalition government policy (mentioned Vince Cable’s interventions on immigration), saying it was helpful to illustrate to the electorate how coalitions work. People need to witness discussion/debate within the coalition to understand the value and role of the Lib Dems in that government.

Next up was Professor Stephen Haseler (founder member of the Social Democratic Party). He opened by raising concern that the coalition premise to get out of this economic crisis was growth- but that with banks lending much less and the collapse of the global economy meaning little prospect of exports how could there be growth? When there is no growth in the private sector he believed that it was aggravating the situation by cutting public spending. The consequence of this would be economic hardship and unemployment. The coalition government was going to become very unpopular and the Lib Dems would take the brunt of the criticism – we the Lib Dems will be blamed for the crisis. His view  was that it would have been better to have gone down the route of supporting  the Conservative government on a policy by policy basis – that WAS an option – and that the Lib Dem leadership chose power instead and they would have to live with it.

Guido (Paul Staines) came next. Gleefully (and he really did look very happy – though that might have just have been unbounded joy at being at Lib Dem conference) he told us that it had been a 20 year ambition of his to see a Lib/Con coalition and that he (and the chair Mark Littlewood)  had been two of the most prominent people calling for just that during those mad meeting-filled days, post election. Turning to the future, he said that if there was not a double dip (and pointed out that  UK growth was certainly evident currently), we could enjoy an economic bounce in 2013/2014 that would get the Lib Dems re-elected. He expressed a desire for the the Lib Dems to become the second largest party in the country and believed that was attainable – and, controversially for the assembled audience, he thought that some form of electoral pact with the Conservatives would be necessary (oh how the audience hissed at this). He finished by saying that the prize of keeping the Labour party out of power was worth fighting for.

Julian Harris (Liberal Vision) followed Guido.  He started by quoting Hislop…. that the good thing about coalition was that it kept out (or at least at bay) the loonies of bothparties. He believed the coalition was a good thing but that the Tories he had spoken to (and urged us to believe that they are really not as bad as you think) were  NOT happy with the coalition and expected it to end. His analysis was that this was because Conservatives by their very nature do not believe in coalition. They just want to be in power. That is why they don’t like AV. Looking forward he said that the challenge for the Liberals was to ensure that liberalism was a guiding influence on government. He too called for liberals to keep their identity and push the things they believe in (eg localism) . He finished by saying that in order to reduce the deficit we need to REFORM the state not just trim it a bit and he preferred to have liberals involved in that process, rather than sitting on the sidelines.

As Lembit had yet to break through the ring of steel, the chairman (Mark Littlewood) asked Jeremy Browne (who was being so efficient he was quitting our session early to squeeze in another fringe event) whether it was possible for ministers in a coalition government to get out their own distinct liberal message?  Jeremy has obviously honed his interviewing technique across the summer and in true ministerial style chose to address another issue. He stated very boldly that forming a coalition with the Conservatives had been a fantastic achievement. He said he had grown very tired of sitting on the sidelines seeing the Lib Dems be proved right time and again to no avail. This was an opportunity to show that the Lib Dems should be in power – that Lib Dems CAN do government. He also pointed out that had we gone down the “minority Conservative government route” and Osborne had been voted down on his deficit-cutting package we would now be facing another general election. We would have demonstrated that we could not step up to the plate when needed and would have been punished at the next election with fewer MPs returned. What had we got out of this election? he asked….More than any other election in his lifetime. On that note he left to fulsome applause.

Lembit had by now battled his way through the security cordon and was (also to warm applause) invited to take Jeremy’s seat. How cool was this he said..a few weeks in coalition and he was being invited to take the seat of a minister… Turning to the topic in hand he kicked off by asking what on earthwas the point of being in the business of winning elections and then running away from power when it was offered? He reminded us all that he had in fact lost his seat to a Conservative and that people might assume that he was against a Lib/Con coalition (yep I assumed he was)..But no! he said that the ONLY numerical option was to go with the Tories. He believed that there was no alternative; that this was a test of courage – and had demonstrated that we do care more about the country that the selfish short term interests of the party. He finished by saying we should hold our nerve and be proud of the decision to take the brave and correct option.

Mark Littlewood (chair) then took a straw poll – “Were liberals right to join in coalition with the Conservatives?”. I was surprised to see that the overwhelming majority put their hands up (I was at the back of the room but estimate 95% put up their hands. Just a handful (and I mean a very small handful – one, maybe two?) raised their hands to the counter question of whether this was a bad thing.

Questions (and one or two rather long speeches) followed. I had writers cramp by then and gave up note-taking at that point – apologies.

The chairman did run a couple of other straw polls across the Q&A that I did note. “Who believes that MP’s were honest during the election about spending cuts?” (few hands)… “Who believed that there was obfuscation?” (vast majority raised their hands…no shit!). Hmm said Mr Littlewood this is a stored up problem for the coalition. You betcha. 

The final straw poll… “Will the coalition last a full five years?” Yes was the resounding majority reply.

And that was that. It was then off for food, wine and cigarettes (in varying proportions) and talking into the the wee small hours.

Our grateful thanks to our co-organisers IEA  (Insitute of Economic Affairs) and ASI (Adam Smith Institute), the chairman Mark Littlewood, our brilliant speakers, a truly marvelous organiser who got Lembit through the men in black, and of course the audience which participated so enthusiastically  (apologies not recording your comments/questions) and tolerated a superheated room without complaint.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lib Dem Conference Event: Lembit Opik, Guido Fawkes, Jeremy Browne, Richard Grayson, Stephen Haseler…

By Julian Harris
September 15th, 2010 at 11:55 am | 1 Comment | Posted in coalition, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats

guidoSo…

This is the week we’ve all been waiting for. Waiting, patiently. Silently. Waiting.

Then waiting some more.

Yet suddenly HARK! IT STARTS!

Yes, that’s right – the Liberal Democrat Conference 2010 begins this Saturday. I can almost feel your auricles fluttering from here.

If you’re going to conference, come to this:

“Coalition, Cuts and Conservatives: an attractive agenda for the Lib Dems?”

It features:

  • GUIDO FAWKES!
  • JEREMY BROWNE MP!
  • LEMBIT OPIK!
  • PROFESSOR RICHARD GRAYSON!
  • STEPHEN HASELER!

And me.

Mark Littlewood, now head of the IEA, chairs the event.

It’s on Sunday 19th September, 8pm – 9:15pm.

Location: ACC Liverpool, Hall 11C

It’s free, but get there early to avoid disappointment. It’s inside the venue, so you need a conference pass.

Also, if you would like to HELP Liberal Vision during the conference, drop me an e-mail with “Help! You need somebody (me)” in the subject line. I know, I know. I have my coat and am heading for the door. I can only apologise.

And finally… young Liberal Democrat Niklas Smith has been doing valuable work critiquing the free schools motion. You can read his excellent evidence-check against the motion here: http://ldv.org.uk/20890

But for now adios, and we’ll see you in Liverpool.

Tags: , , , , ,

Toothless media gum to death a blogger?

By Angela Harbutt
September 9th, 2010 at 4:26 pm | 7 Comments | Posted in Opinion

Why is it, I wonder, that the apparently toothless media – which has largely been pathetic at holding the government to account in recent years  (with the obvious exception of the expenses scandal which was sold to them)  – and has always been happy to hitch a ride on the back of the blogosphere whenever it can – has turned so violently on one Guido Fawkes?  (Well turned on him – not sure about the “violently“).

Across the last week or so a story has emerged of a cabinet minister sharing a bedroom with a junior aide, then appointing that aide to the position of Special Adviser (breaking his own PM’s rules on the number of advisers into the bargain) without any shred of evidence that this aide has any qualifications or experience that would make him a “must have” in the department. At a time of austerity and declared self-restraint from the Government this is surely a strange appointment?

To any journalist worth their salt this would raise certain questions…why did the Minister break the rule of only two advisers (when swingeing cuts are promised across Whitehall surely this is hypocrisy?)…why was a millionaire sharing a room with a junior aide ( this is unusual behaviour at the very least?)…why was someone with so few qualifications appointed to the post of Special Adviser –  one of the most influential jobs in the land?(this is our money being spent folks and we should expect our politicians to appoint the best qualified – not give “jobs to the boys” like some old- fashioned favour system).

When the Special Adviser then resigns -and the minister in question issues one of the most bizarre press statements witnessed in a very long time – totally unforced and widely considered ill-advised…one has to conclude that something is not right. And this is potentially very serious indeed. One of the most important portfolios in the country –Defence Foreign Office – is acting oddly. Should not the journalists smelt a whiff off something? Should they at least consider the possibility that this is a matter of serious concern? Should we not all be concerned?  Has the minister behaved inappropriately?  Has there been blackmail? Has the office been infiltrated by a terrorist network?…OK I grant you that this is probably not likely given the checks that people have to go through to get appointments approved. But then who would have thought that a Government would sex up a document , lie to us and then take us into an illegal war? A weapons inspector may have been murdered and the incident covered up by Government officials. Let’s be right “unlikely” stuff can happen.

So given the importance/sensitivity/security issues surrounding the department in question, the curious circumstances of the appointment and then resignation of the adviser and the frankly odd behaviour of the minister in question you would have thought that the national media would be all over this story like a rash?

Yet what we have witnessed from the established news media, is almost incomprehensible. First they ignore the story. Then they seem to have  put  the man, who placed the information in the public domain, on public trial …reporting the story, with a sort of shrugged embarrassment, that “this” blogger is asserting “that”. Well sorry…but the BBC alone employs scores of political journalists, has vast resources at its beck and call, spends hundreds of thousands on so-called “political-reporting” and yet the best it can do is invite the blogger in question onto a radio talk show for HIM to explain to the BBC why HE thinks it’s a story… What on earth has happened to the BBC that it cant see a story when it slaps them round the chops , let alone be the ones uncovering it in the first place?

For the record I do not know Guido Fawkes that well. I have no personal axe to grind here. But I do read his website. This man shows no signs of being homophobic as has been suggested elsewhere.  He shows every sign of being one of the last men standing in the country who has an ounce of journalistic instinct – and the courage of his convictions.

It is inconceivable that the Government has “lent” on the whole of the national media to put a stop on this story gaining traction. So what can explain the reluctance of the national media to treat this with the seriousness it deserves?

 Is Guido Fawkes so far off the mark on this one that they are only reluctantly reporting at the fringes because they “know” that he is just plain wrong on this? If so why not say it?

 Have the national media truly got too cosy to those that they are supposed to be reporting on that they can’t see beyond getting the next “exclusive interview” with some important bigwig in Government? 

Have they been shown up one too many times by Mr Fawkes (this is not the first time that the blogger has been the one to break the story) and are down on their knees praying he his wrong. Because to conceive that  he has been first (and right) again would be simply too shameful for words?

Is it, afterall,  a sign of  the inevitable growth of the blogger and the inevitable decline of “traditional” political reporting?

Well time will tell … the truth will out eventually. In the mean time I hope that the so-called established media get their act together. Because whether Guido is right or wrong on this (and I do really hope he is wrong)  his instincts to ask the questions must surely be correct?

Tags: , ,

Will Snoutgate lead to full blown constitutional reform?

By Mark Littlewood
May 20th, 2009 at 2:24 pm | 3 Comments | Posted in UK Politics

As Westminster takes its first, tentative steps towards a reform of MPs’ expenses, could full blown constitutional reform now be leveraged onto the agenda?

That’s the big challenge for Nick Clegg and the LibDems. Although modernising and democratising Britain has been a high priority for the party for decades – particularly securing electoral reform for the House of Commons – it has not been a major communications priority in recent years. The orthodox thinking has been that banging on about STV just does not resonate with the voters.

Has the zeitgeist just changed? Radio 5 this morning had an hour long phone-in on the topic. Hearing members of the public sounding genuinely impassioned about PR was bizarre – but encouraging. The Tories appear to have nothing to say on the matter – once the expenses regime is changed, and they are on  the government benches, they seem to think that the system is ‘fixed’.

The best case I’ve seen so far, linking the expenses scandal to our electoral system, was a wizard piece of research on Mark Reckons’ blog – he’s already been referenced by both Polly Toynbee and Guido Fawkes – an impressive straddle of the political divide.

Can the party come up with the same sort of elegant arguments to help make reform a major issue, rather than one seen as the particular preserve of ‘saddo’ LibDems?

Tags: , ,