A VIEW FROM HAM COMMON

Toby Young. Laurie Penny. Melanie Philips. & me.

2012-02-25T12:46:00.000Z

No. It's not the worst line up ever conceived on Question Time.

It's four of the 226 people who have entered the 2012 Orwell Prize for Blogging.

Important I should add that the sole criteria for getting on this list is the ability to throw all modesty aside and enter yourself. No wonder I'm on it!

However, the entry list is a good summary of many (though not all) the interesting political blogs out there right now. Including a fine selection from the Lib Dem blogging fraternity like George Potter, Caron Lindsay, Nicola Prigg, Alex Marsh, Andrew Page, David Allen Green and LibDemChild. Apologies to all I've omitted.

There are also lots of other brilliant blogs on there from the whole politial spectrum - so its worth a pleasant hour to get a good view of the whole political blogosphere.

Have fun!

New Lib Dem PBB - on air tomorrow.

2012-02-21T12:52:00.002Z

Tim Farron's just sent this around.

And isn't it great that the members get to see this stuff first. Hats off @helenduffett!!

Don't let the Tories take the credit for killing the NHS Bill

2012-02-10T11:37:00.005Z

I have no issue with the piece Tim Montgomerie has written on Conservative Home this morning about the NHS bill. It's a well balanced and fair report on the history of the bill, the pressures that have played out to change it, and the excellent arguments for dropping it now.

However, I am perturbed by a more general theme that seems to be emerging. That it is the Tories who are going to kill the bill. That is the Tory's who are then going to run through some sensible and reasonable changes. And David Cameron will have saved the NHS.

You can see it already in the 'seeding' of the mentions of 3 key cabinet ministers who have set themselves against the bill. And look at the main headline on The Guardian right now...

So let's not forget that it was the Lib Dem grass roots who set the pace on getting this bill changed. That it was a barnstoming speech by Shirley Williams that set the tone for the debate (see her hand written speech notes here). That it was the Social Liberal Forum that led much of that debate. And that it is Lib Dem Grass Roots who are keeping the pressure firmly on.

Of course, it's not all just us. every professional medical body seems to have turned their face against the changes as well. But one things for certain. It is the Tories who have led this charge and and it is they who are culpable for this whole mess.

Let's not let them take the credit for saving the NHS.

Ed Davey's first message to the grass roots

2012-02-09T18:55:00.002Z

Fair play to Ed, he's been in the cabinet for less than a week and already he's written to everybody. And here's what he had to say...

Dear Richard,

Some things in politics are symbolic. For dyed-in-the-wool environmentalists like the Liberal Democrats, solar power is one of these things – indisputably clean, green and cutting edge technology. The sort of thing Liberal Democrats in a government that aims to be the greenest ever should be unequivocally behind.

Our commitment to the environment was why I joined the party in the first place. That’s why I want solar power to be as widely available as possible.

As it stands, the Feed in Tariffs scheme that helps people to install solar panels in their homes or businesses reaches too few people. By lowering the tariff we can extend it to more people – making clean, green, renewable energy available to the many, not the few.

That’s why I am announcing a consultation to look at exactly how we reform the tariff to make sure as many people as possible take advantage of it.

I want more solar panels installed and more carbon emissions saved than under the old scheme.

I want the returns you get from solar power to be predictable, sustainable and attractive.

And I want to give a real boost to micro-combined heat and power, which allows people produce clean, green electricity in their homes.

I am proud of the big, ambitious green measures the Liberal Democrats in the Coalition Government have undertaken:

The Green Deal which will lead an energy efficiency revolution in our homes
The Green Investment Bank to kickstart green businesses and green jobs
The most ambitious climate change targets a country has ever set
And real progress at Cancun to get international agreement on climate change

I don’t believe that fighting climate change and rebuilding our economy are mutually exclusive. I believe green jobs are the key to our recovery.

And I don’t believe going green means hitting people in the pocket. Energy efficiency, our reforms of the energy market and giving consumers more information will help bring down bills.

I am determined that this will be the greenest government ever. I’m up for that challenge and I’m sure all Liberal Democrats feel the same.

A longer version of this message is available at Liberal Democrat Voice.

Yours,

Ed Davey MP
Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change

You remember how smug I was when the Iowa GOP result changed. Let me tell you about Florida...

2012-02-08T12:18:00.002Z

Just as with Iowa, where everyone moved on after the caucus and forgot that they hadn't actually counted the votes yet, everyone has moved on to the latest polls, and forgotten that Florida is not yet a done deal.

While no one is disputing the result, the 'winner takes all' allocation of convention delegates does seem to be open to appeal as it directly contravenes GOP rules. So the share of votes in Florida could change quite fundamentally.

After last nights amazing results for Santorum, if Florida changes - and this will be decided fairly quickly -then the race is not only wide open, its a three way race again.

Here's the current state of the candidates, pre any change to Florida.

Don't go to my talk. It's been cancelled

2012-02-07T18:24:00.003Z

Yes. Heart breaking I know. But UCL have had a room crisis and had to postpone my talk tonight until some later date.

How will you fill your evening...

The Lib Dems family feud on welfare

2012-02-07T14:24:00.000Z

From me in the New Statesman yesterday. Do have a gander, comment, or see what others have been saying over on the New Statesman site.

An awful lot of the Lib Dem grassroots spent last week feeling the pain of the betrayed spouse. And it's nothing to do with Chris Huhne

Two weeks ago it was all chocolates and flowers from those on high with the promise of the raising of tax thresholds, and all the arguments and flirtations with other party's policies seemed like another life. We wandered around starry eyed...

...until last Wednesday, when we walked into the smack of firm government, as our MPs - with some very notable exceptions - undid all the good work of so many members of the House of Lords on the Welfare Reform Bill. And it's left a lot of members of the party feeling bruised, bloodied and ignored.

They're not taking it lying down. And it's not just the usual suspects - right across the party, folk are asking our Parliamentarians just what were you thinking?

And what's really riled the troops this time - over and above the fact that they fundamentally disagree with lots of the Bill - is that, particularly where Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) is concerned, it flies in the face of party policy. A policy agreed not in some far distant conference in the long years of opposition, but last September, in Birmingham. And when they get answers - and it's to their credit that our MP's do front up - they don't like them much.

In other parties, policy is generally decided by a small elite. For example, in the Tories, it's pretty much one man, one vote, that man currently being called David. There are plenty in Labour who wish they could say exactly the same.

In the Lib Dems, it's meant to be different. In all those long years of opposition, the final decision on policy has rested with the members through conference. Which apparently worked fine then, but less well now we're in government - because our MPs appear to find themselves conflicted.

Should they represent the views of the party, their own opinion , or the will of the people -like it or not, the welfare reforms are hugely popular with the electorate at large. And to be fair, it's a conundrum Lib Dem backbenchers struggle with over and over again. Every single backbencher in the parliamentary party has rebelled against the government at least once since May 2010, bar one (step forward David Laws).

Nevertheless, there are a lot of disgruntled Lib Dem activists sitting at home right now seething about the WRB. And questioning the way we agree - and execute - policy as a party. There's going to be a right old barney about it, and we'll do well to keep much of it behind closed doors. But I hope we do.

Letting family feuds spiral into the public domain seldom ends well for anyone involved, does it....

The State of the Party. The Future of the Liberal Democrats. And the Coalition.

2012-02-06T13:43:00.000Z

Yes

That really is the topic I've been asked to speak to tomorrow at UCL (Main building, Gower Street, Roberts 106, 7 pm.) to their Economics and Finance Society

Do come along. If only to shout 'rubbish' and are you mad?

Here's a link to the details.

Someone better tell Nick and Tim....

What links Daniel Radcliffe and too many of our MP's?

2012-02-06T13:36:00.002Z

I saw this Tweet earlier, following the Daniel Radcliffe interview in the Independent...

....and it struck me that when voting in the Welfare Reform Bill, too many of our MPs appeared to do the complete opposite.

Which is a shame.

Caption Competition - Results

2012-02-04T12:27:00.000Z

And the winner is...George Potter

"Oh my god, I think he's trying to grow a mohican."

George, DM me an address via @richardmorrisuk and I'll send you some sort of prize. I have no idea what. :-)

And by the way - brilliant blogging this week George too.

Thanks for all the entries

I've been blahing on , via the Telly box....

2012-02-03T17:18:00.002Z

So, I was sitting in the BBC News Channel Millbank, ahem, 'Studio' (broom cabinet) this morning as the Huhne news broke. As you can see, I was filling while everyone waited for Nick, Olly et al to walk from a door and get in a car.

I was asked my views on what the Lib Dem Grassroots were thinking. So here's what I said you were thinking (I am paraphrasing). Do feel free to yell if it's not true, as I'll be doing the same with 5 Live tomorrow morning...

Q. Are we sad to see Chris go?

A. Yes. He's a talented Minister, doing an effective job, and he will be a loss to the country. He was also one of our best Ministers at keeping the Tories in check, so he's a loss for the party as well. So he will be missed

Q. He had to go though, didn't he?

A. Innocent til proven guilty - so the party at large feel very uncomfortable about this resignation. Politically and practically he probably had to resign - but that doesn't make it alright per se.

However, unfair though it would be, if there was no prosecution, the 'no smoke without fire' calls would have gone on endlessly. This way Chris gets to completely clear his name - or not. So at least the issue is resolved.

Q. Ed Davey - any good?

Yes. He will be an excellent addition to the cabinet. (I went on a bit at this point, I'll save you the details).

Q. Will the Tories be glad to see Huhne go?

A.

I should have played the 'how about a not-white-middle-class-man card' in the cabinet but it eluded me. I will do so tomorrow....

Michael Gove is sending out the Kings James bible. Mark Pack has just gone for 'Good News'

2012-02-02T14:19:00.001Z

Mark Pack has made a brilliantly brave commitment to upload a piece of Lib Dem Good News every single day. This is where you can find it . Hats off I say and do take a daily gander. It makes you feel better about all sorts of things...

If tuition fees work, but keep us out of government for 80 years, is that a price worth paying?

2012-02-01T15:51:00.001Z

Here’s what I’m pondering.

The application figures for Universitiesare out and you can make the tuition fee ‘effect’ argument either way.

You can say that applications are downoverall 8 %, nearly 9% in England. In contrast, in Scotland where there are notuition fees, applications are down just 1.7%. Applications from mature students are down even more – and ofcourse, students applying for an ‘equivalent’ degree to one they already ownhave to pay up front under the new regime. So the trebling of tuition fees has clearlyput people off.

Or you can make the opposite argument. Youcan say that comparing applications to the last 2 years is a false premise becausethey were record years, and when you compare applications to a more normalyear, like 2009, applications overall are actually up. What’s more, applicationsfrom students in the poorest 20% of household income are pretty flat, whileapplications in the highest 20% are down far more. So actually the new regime is not only keeping poor studentsapplying, but is actually promoting social mobility. Great work from Stephen Tall on this.

So let’s ask ourselves, a differentquestion. Let’s presume for a moment that the new tuition fees regimehas had a positive effect rather than a negative effect.

If that were to be the case, does thatjustify the shredding of our reputation and our current standing in the polls,in order to promote social mobility. If the price of devising a better schemethan existed before, which allows a better mix of society to benefit fromtertiary education, is to belabeled as liars who can’t be trusted– then is that a price worth paying?

The top line, off the cuff answer isprobably yes.

But then think about it.

Supposing we never get the credit for thosereforms, suffering only the reputation hit, saying one thing to get elected andanother as soon as we’re in power.

Supposing we get hit in the elections. ThatLib Dem councilors lose their posts all over the country, and we see Tory costscutters or incompetent Labour spendthrifts making people’s lives worse, notbetter.

Supposing we lose badly in Europe and seethe Eurosceptic right take our seats in Brussels

Supposing we get hammered at the nextgeneral election – hit so badly that we don’t form another coalition butinstead find ourselves once again on the margins of politics for a generation.No more Lib Dem policies in government for another 80 years.

All because we agreed to treble tuitionfees instead of devising a graduate tax.

I'm not saying that it will happen. But if there was a general election tomorrow - well, that could well happen.

Is that then, a price worth paying?

It’s a bit of a thought. Isn’t it?

Oh Mitt. He's done it again

2012-02-01T14:35:00.002Z

"I'm not concerned with the very poor."

Combined with this lot and this... well, Obama must be rubbing his hands with glee.

Oh, that's what The Telegraph is getting all excited about...

2012-02-01T11:08:00.004Z

...and why everyone's sabre rattling about The Falklands. This has happened.

Slightly mixed messages on The Falklands from the Daily Telegraph

2012-01-31T14:10:00.002Z

29th January. We couldn't defend the Falklands if we tried...

31 January. We can destroy every fighter aircraft in South America, let alone Argentina

It's like The Telegraph has hired Ed Miliband's speechwriter with all these u turns...

Caption Competition

2012-01-31T10:20:00.001Z

On the off chance everyone's bored and wondering how to fill their day - what is this woman looking at David Cameron thinking?

(Picture from the Telegraph)

Taxing US Presidents...

2012-01-30T18:04:00.000Z

Here's a brilliant graphic showing what tax rate various US Presidents - and Presidential candidates - paid in tax compared to Mitt Romney.And also how much they earn. Blimey. No paupers there...

Here's a link to the full article . Hat tip to @245 days for the link.

I shall be posting a run down of my own less than satisfactory HMRC experience this year at some point shortly...

Birthday Blog

2012-01-28T18:00:00.000Z

This blog is one today. Can hardly believe it. What a year it's been - a win at the LVD awards for best new blog, an interview with Nick Clegg, and a regular slot on The Staggers in the New Statesman. And of course I'm most proud of the campaign to have Mohamed al Bouazizi named as 'Person the Year' in time Magazine - which resulted in 'The Protestor' winning, with Mohammad featured very heavily.

So here are a few highlights from the last 12 months

1. My first proper post

(was actually the second post, but this one didn't count...)

2. My most read post

3. My favourite and most discussed headline

4. Probably my favourite post

5. My best story

Thanks to everyone who has visited the blog, commented, and for all the support and encouragement. Here's to Year two...

I will be pontificating...

2012-01-28T12:00:00.000Z

....at the University College, London Economics and Finance Society at 7pm on the 7th Feb. If you fancy it.

Here's how they are billing me.

Makes you wonder who this person is on the following night...

It's probably Charlotte Henry...

One of those headlines that you simply couldn't make up

2012-01-27T18:32:00.000Z

"Clear Yellow Water". Me in the New Statesman yesterday

2012-01-27T09:20:00.002Z

Do click here to read the piece and the fairly strident comments that followed! Or if you can't be bothered to click on the link, here's the piece on its own...

I'd be the first to admit that it's not the best catch phrase ever invented. It may be the worst. But clear yellow water is what the party grass roots has been begging for ever since we entered government. And it's a lot better than the sentiment of "not a cigarette paper between us" that we all so disliked for the first 12 months of coalition government.

And while there have been tentative steps in that direction for a while, today it's been delivered. The Lib Dems find themselves standing on the high ground of tax reform for the lowest paid and middle income families. Today is the best day since May 2010 to be a Lib Dem.

Nick Clegg's speech today is being painted as a gamble. "If Osborne says no, Clegg looks impotent", goes the mantra. That's simply not right. If Osborne says no, the Tories look like right wing zealots hammering the poor while letting their mates in the City get away with millions in bonuses. Go on George, I dare you...

However, I wonder who has the real political problem today?

It is something of a paradox that we have ended up differentiating ourselves from the Tories by advocating tax cuts that they are not keen on. The irony of a Conservative chancellor not acquiescing to a request to cut taxes will not be lost on the electorate.

But surely more ironic is the lengths Labour have gone to in the last ten days to demonstrate fiscal prudence -- the iron fist keeping the cuts, freezing the pay for the public sector -- only to see the Lib Dems step into the void they have left and champion the poor. Oh Mr Miliband, where to now? Are you going to say these tax cuts would be too far and too fast?

Before you know it we'll be ditching the second worst political catch phrase ever invented ("Alarm Clock Britain" -- give it up, Nick) and start talking about the squeezed middle...

While the Tories now have a short term political quandary to solve, it's Labour who find themselves standing in a great pool of clear yellow water.

Let's start with an apology to @charlotteahenry...

2012-01-26T09:55:00.000Z

...who thinks the Lib Dem blogosphere has been slightly too 'ra ra party policy' and not enough ' are you mad?' in recent weeks. And she's probably right. What's the point of being an unelected foot soldier pushing endless focus envelopes through doors if you can't point the finger at the leadership and say 'oi' every now and again?

So sorry Charlotte. Because for me, today is the best day to be a Lib Dem since May 2010, with Nick's speech today marking out a clear, unequivocal and just plain right stand on tax policy, and a drive to taking the poorest paid workers out of income tax sooner rather than later.

So I'm saying hip hip hooray, and shamelessly posting our approach to tax that I've nicked off the party website.

Sorry Charlotte :-)

Thu, 26 Jan 2012

The Liberal Democrats believe you should keep more money that you earn. That is why we believe the tax-free threshold should raise to £10,000, saving working people £700 a year and making sure millions of the lowest paid workers don’t have to pay any income tax at all.

Between now and the Budget, Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats in Government will be arguing for faster tax cuts for hard-working families, promoting work and growth, and rewarding innovation, paid for by increasing the amount paid by the richest.

And the Liberal Democrats in Coalition are already making the difference:

More than 800,000 working people no longer paying income tax
23 million working people have been given a £200 tax cut
In April this year every worker will be given a further income tax cut of £130
And by the local elections in May this year, 1.1 million of the lowest paid workers, will no longer be burdened by income tax

Imagine a mum who works 3 days a week as a teaching assistant - earning £10,000 a year or just over £190 a week. Under Labour she paid more than £1,000 in income tax and national insurance. Although she wanted to work more days a week she knew it was not financially worth it. Under Labour; once tax, tax credits and housing benefit has been deducted, for every extra pound she earned she was able to keep just 10.5p.
Under our plan she would see her income tax bill cut to zero making her £700 a year better off.

The Liberal Democrats are committed to delivering a fairer economy, turning our tax promise into cash in your pocket. It was on the front page of our manifesto and is being implemented because of Liberal Democrats in Government.

As part of this Coalition, Liberal Democrats are calling time on our unfair and out-of-whack tax system.

We’ve clamped down on tax avoiders – targeting an extra £7bn every year
We’re taxing the banks by an extra £2.5bn every year
We’ve stopped inheritance tax cuts for millionaires
We’ve put up Capital Gains Tax
We’re ending the scandal, under Labour, of a hedge-fund manager paying less tax on their shares than their cleaner paid on their wages
We’ve reduced tax breaks on pension funds for the super-rich
We have retained the 50p rate
And our overall priority is freeing the lowest-paid from income tax altogether and cutting income tax for millions of ordinary workers

State of the Union Address

2012-01-25T13:55:00.004Z

For some reason The Guardian won't let you embed their highlights of the State of the Union but you can link to it here.

I have three observations.

1. The moment Obama meets Gifford's is genuinely moving.
2. The claiming of the removal of Gadaffi and the strong threat to Iran is genuinely chilling.
3. What is a suntanned Liam Fox doing sitting right behind Obama's left shoulder (our right) :-)

Everything that's wrong with The City in one sentence...

2012-01-25T13:15:00.000Z

Here's the opening sentence of the Telegraph story on the proposed bonus for Stephen Hester, CEO of state owned, loss making RBS

Gobsmacking.

I also don't quite understand how MP's have such a huge problem giving themselves any sort of payrise on the grounds that it looks bad, yet seem powerless to stop all this. I know the arguments - it's an independent pay committee who decide blah blah blah. I just happen to think, it's nonsense.

It's good to know that some people will never forget Ed Miliband

2012-01-21T16:20:00.000Z

Yes. It is another funny Ed Miliband picture.

Yes. That is a commemorative mug of his wedding to Justine Thornton.

No. I don't understand either...

h/t to @sarahbrown1984 (no, not that Sarah Brown...)

UPDATE

IT"S REAL!!

Just in case you missed the Telegraph apology to Chris Huhne today...

2012-01-21T15:48:00.001Z

...I thought that I'd try and make sure everyone knew that they'd printed it. As it's not exactly prominent...

Hung Parliament in 2015? What are the chances...

2012-01-20T09:00:00.001Z

H/T to @duncanstott for tweeting the brilliant infographic below, showing how Political Betting see the chances of a hung parliament emerging in 2015.

(Click to enlarge)

Its a fascinating ponder, as is the great commentary they've added.

It's all poised very delicately...

I told you the Iowa result could change..

2012-01-19T14:41:00.000Z

...because they were still counting votes. Here's my piece saying so

AND LOOK. MASSIVE SMUG FACE. IT'S CHANGED.

(click to enlarge)

So, one win for Santorum, one for Romney, if S. Carolina goes to Gingrich then it's all to play for again. And suddenly the dullest primary race I can remember is off and running...

Update - 21 Jan

Now apparently it's officially confirmed.

Blimey. Labour members really really really wanted the other Miliband to win...

2012-01-19T09:28:00.001Z

As this rather brilliant picture of which candidate won the most votes in the leadership election demonstrates...

Just click to enlarge.

Hat tip to Edward Mayes (@eljmayes) for the link

Wohoo - Tim Farron comes out fighting...

2012-01-18T14:32:00.001Z

Am I very shallow for rather loving Tim Farron's latest missive to the troops? Here it is...

Dear Richard,Are two Eds better than one? I’m not sure - but the two Eds said something very interesting over the weekend: apparently they don’t have a ‘Plan B’ for the economy after all.

You’ll have heard Simon Hughes and I over the weekend rightly calling on the two Eds to apologise. We want them to apologise to the British public for deceiving them for 18 months. However, there is one apology we didn’t call for publicly, but which they still should make – that’s an apology to you.

Last May across the country, from Lancaster to Sheffield and Manchester to Newcastle, many of you lost your council seats to undeserving Labour candidates who were fighting their elections on a false platform with dishonest messages. They stood on a platform that the Eds now admit was wrong. Shame on them – but I’m proud of you.

In addition, Nick Clegg deserves an apology. Nick has been berated and abused by the Labour leadership for having the guts to stand up and work as part of the Coalition in the best interest of the country. Now Labour have admitted that their attacks were inaccurate - but there’s no hint of apology.

They have gone from being in the wrong place, to all over the place.That leaves the Liberal Democrats as the only political party with the backbone to tackle the country’s problems, but with the heart to do everything to ensure that fairness, compassion and justice are written through everything we do.

As this article from The Times recognises, the Liberal Democrats are a progressive force in Government. We are the Party delivering tax cuts for working people, we are the party investing in the poorest school pupils, we are the party delivering the largest ever state pension rise and importantly, we are the party prepared to take the tough decisions needed to get this country back on track.

So don’t hold your breath waiting for an apology from Labour – but rest assured you are most definitely owed one!I have written more about this on Lib Dem Voice, and you can see my full article here.

Best wishes,

Tim Farron

President of the Liberal Democrats

Ed Miliband's position is perfectly clear. What's the big problem?

2012-01-18T09:33:00.001Z

Having watched 3 Ed Miliband interviews last night, Labour's economic policy seems perfectly coherent, logical and straight forward to me. So as a public service for the greater good, let me clarify, for example, the Miliband position on public sector pay.I am paraphrasing his words here...

"The public sector pay freeze is an assault on the worthiest and often most poorly paid sectors of society, driven not by economic necessity but by political philosophy and general spite. It is nothing less than a disgrace.I have therefore decided to embrace it for the good of the economy and the nation. For by freezing pay, I safeguard jobs and that is my priority.But be clear. I am only supporting this freeze because it represents a 1% rise in pay. This rise is the minimum freeze we can accept.My own council in Doncaster has actually started to cut pay amongst local public sector employees and I am convinced they are right to do so. They have my total support. And so would any other council who thinks cutting pay is the right alternative to the 1% rise (or 'payfreeze') being introduced elsewhere."

There now. How much clearer can he be?

Ed Miliband C4 Interview tonight.

2012-01-17T20:33:00.000Z

Oh dear. He wouldn't make a great PM would he? And according to @mshapland, he even gets the share of funding Labour receives from the Unions wrong. Crumbs

This doesn't sound like it went too well either...

Louise Mensch: you need to read this

2012-01-17T20:14:00.001Z

After I highlighted Louise Mensch's ill judged dismissal of every female leader in the world bar lady Thatcher, the New Statesman has helpfully today published a full list of the 18 current female world leaders.

I trust Louise finds it a useful and informative read...

Don't underestimate Ed Balls...

2012-01-17T20:09:00.000Z

My piece from the New Statesman yesterday (click on the link to see the comments, which seem strangely obsessed with Ed Balls degree...)

Here's the piece:

It's seldom a good idea to underestimate your opponent, so when I'd stopped hugging myself at what Twitter was telling me Ed Balls was saying over the weekend, I reasoned he isn't a fool and so there must be method to his apparent madness. Which of course, there is.

And so picture if you will the shadow chancellor luxuriating in a large armchair and stroking a white cat as I take you through his dastardly scheme...

There has of course been some misrepresentation of the facts. Ed Ball's speech actually positions him as the irritating local, replying to a request for directions with a lopsided grin and a sarcastic "I wouldn't have started from here'. This promise to map out a course from wherever he finds himself in 2015 conveniently saves him coming up with any solutions of his own for a while and at the same time allowing him all the wriggle room he needs over coming months.

And it's a trick he's seen pulled off before. It's from the Gordon Brown school of 'how to demonstrate economic competence if you're Labour' that played so well pre the 1997 election. Accept Osborne's sums, say you'll spend the money they leave you more wisely - spending is an area the electorate believes Labour does know something about -and you win. It's worked once before...

And it needs to work again. Because for all the distinctiveness of the shadow chancellor's Keynesian approach, the country seems more inclined to support the notion of belt tightening and austerity to dig us out of the economic mess we find ourselves mired in

There are also tactical advantages to all this. It's been Balls over the last few months who's been leading the doe-eyed flirting with us Lib Dems. What better way to lay the groundwork for a future potential pact, than to accept that all that has gone before cannot be undone? It's like the shadow chancellor is gearing himself up to come over, give us a big hug and say 'what's past is past'.

Of course, some people within the Labour movement are going to be upset by all this - especially the unions when they read about accepting the need for public sector pay freezes. But the unions weren't exactly supportive of Ed Balls during the leadership campaign were they? So not much to lose there. The only one who's going to suffer in that camp is poor Ed Miliband. As some idiot pointed out on Friday, Miliband is safe enough in the leadership while he's seen as playing the game by the rules of the party - but as soon as he starts going anywhere near the centre, the gloves are off, and he's in trouble. And that opens all sorts of doors.

Of course, I hear you cry, the man wielding the knife never gets to lead - Balls wouldn't be so obvious. Except of course, in the Balls household, it's not Ed's turn to go for the leadership - and Yvette is untouched by all this. Isn't it better when you sort out these potential family disputes about whose turn it is to be leader in a mature fashion behind closed doors? If only everyone took the same approach.

So all in all, the latest front in the battle for the economic high ground opens up all sorts of interesting possibilities for the Balls camp.

He's not stupid, is he....

Liberal Voice of the Year - Mark Littlewood

2012-01-16T13:59:00.000Z

Many congratulations to Mark Littlewood, a very clear winner of the Liberal Voice of the Year over at Lib Dem Voice.

This website championed Mohamed al Bouazizi who didn't quite make the top of the list - but many thanks to all who supported him.

Andrew Emmerson has pointed out that the vote was of course run on First Past the Post - and is running preferential vote as a trial to see if that changes things - so do pop over and see at his blog.

But no bad grace - Mark Littlewood was a clear and worthy winner so many congrats to him.

America will never make a man who straps his dog to the roof of his car, President.

2012-01-16T13:47:00.000Z

Further to my earlier post on reasons Mitt Romney will lose in November, I missed this...

I would say that's probably that for Mitt....

Hmm. Have I been just a bit too kind to Labour?

2012-01-13T16:20:00.000Z

My latest piece on the New Statesman has just gone up - and I wonder if I've been just a bit too kind to the Labour party and their unswerving support for what they regard as the 'right' sort of leaders...

Anyway, make your own minds up and let me know

Cheers

If Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination he will most likely lose. Here are a few reasons why...

2012-01-13T15:11:00.000Z

A slightly unfortunate photo that's been released of Mitt hard it it on the campaign trail...

The latest Newt Gingrich attack ad. Ouchio (probably worth saying I don't agree with much of it - but it will be a huge problem for Romney...)

An early promotional photo from Bain...

And of course, this:

He's almost making it too easy...

Blimey. Now that's a political ad and a half.

2012-01-11T16:41:00.001Z

I've blogged before how about how I think we need, as a party, to get better at understanding the 30 sec political ad. Because like it or not, that's where a lot of great campaigning is going to head to

Today I was sent this ad.

I don't agree with it's message.

I wouldn't vote for the candidate.

But you know who it's for.

You know what he believes

You know what he's going to do if he wins.

And if you're in any way inclined to support him - this will probably push you into the polling station on the day.

All in 30 seconds

Ron Paul knows a hell of a lot about communications.

We should take note.

h/t to @stuartbonar for sending me the ad.

UPDATE

Goodness. My friend Chris (@cmlowe_NYC )just sent me this ad. That Ron Paul really doesn't pull his punches does he?

HS2. Right Idea. Wrong project

2012-01-11T14:03:00.000Z

The always entertaining Rory Sutherlandgave a Ted Talk in 2009 about his concerns over the £6 billion being spent onthe High Speed upgrade between London and The Tunnel (or HS1 as we must nowcall it). As he said at the time…

“It strikes me as a slightly unimaginativeway of improving a train journey, merely to make it shorter. What you should infact do is employ all of the world’s top male and female supermodels and getthem to walk the length of the train handing out free Chateau Petrus for theentire duration of the journey. You’ll still have £3billion in change andpeople will ask for the trains to be slowed down…”

And that’s what makes me uneasy about HS2.It’s solving the wrong problem.

I’m a big fan of capital projects when theymove on the human experience. I don’t care if the actual Channel Tunnel (asopposed to HS1) will never pay for itself in capital outlay, it’s a testamentto human achievement, it makes access to the continent easier for all, it’sgreener than flying – I think the world’s a better place for its existence.

Knocking 20 minutes of the journey time toBirmingham doesn’t improve the human condition. Free wi-fi for all, roomiercarriages, more trains, guaranteeing everyone a seat – they’d all make thejourney better and more productive than 20 minutes less travel. You’ll probablyget lots of those with the new line – but you could have it anyway, withoutploughing a new furrow…

While the argument will continue to rageover whether HS2 is an economic investment that will make the country billionsor an engineering white elephant that will lose money hand over fist, I preferto think of it in human terms – will people’s lives be most enhanced byspending £33 billion on this, or something else?

Polling. It does take the fun out of elections, doesn't it...

2012-01-11T11:07:00.000Z

Yesterday I published the final poll of polls for the New Hampshire Primary. Here's what it said:

Mitt Romney 38%
Ron Paul 18%
Jon Huntsman 14%
Rick Santorum 11%
Newt Gingrich 10%

And here's the result (as it stands)

Some variation from the prediction - Romney did slightly better, Paul broke through the 20% 'barrier', marginal shift between Gingrich and Santorum. But in a nutshell - just what everyone predicted.

Oh, for a surprise in an election...

The Long View of Democracy

2012-01-10T19:35:00.005Z

'The Long View' on Radio 4 today discussed how different the world is in 2012 to the last time we celebrated the Diamond Jubilee of a monarch, in 1897.

Jonathan Freedland pointed out in a tweet that last time, the Queen ruled over 25% of the world's total population.

This reminded me of a similar tweet from a couple of weeks ago, which I've copied below.

When I followed the link I found a wonderful piece about the number and type of elections going on around the world in 2012 - perhaps best illustrated by the quote below:

59 countries will be tallying up votes - local, state or national. There are 193 countries in the world so that's about a third of the world's nations. 26 of these may see a change in national leadership. Together, these changes could affect 53% of the world's population, representing half of the world's GDP. And a lot of the change is concentrated in the world's most powerful countries.

Quite a change from the days of Empire ( and the 53% figure is even more amazing than the 25% figure I'd misremembered originally :-).)

The result of the New Hampshire primary is...

2012-01-10T17:45:00.000Z

...going to be as follows, according to According to the RealClearPolitics average poll of polls in the Guardian:

Mitt Romney 38%
Ron Paul 18%
Jon Huntsman 14%
Rick Santorum 11%
Newt Gingrich 10%

Which will be a slightly dull result (and might finish Newt off. Perry by the way is skipping NH).Still - at least we've now got a reference point for when we wake up tomorrow to see if the polls got it right.

New piece on Mohamed Al Bouazizi for Liberal Voice of the Year 2011

2012-01-09T19:05:00.002Z

The good folk at Liberal Democrat Voice have been kind enough to post a piece by yours truly explaining why we should name Mohammad al Bouazizi as the 'Liberal Voice of the Year' for 2011.

If you have 30 seconds to pop over there, read the piece and them vote for Mohamed - you'd have my thanks!

Much appreciated.

Iowa: they're still counting votes....

2012-01-08T07:59:00.004Z

After the Iowa caucus last month resulted in a win for Mitt Romney by just 8 votes, the world has moved on to New Hampshire and what happens next.

But it's probably worth remembering that the results of the Iowa caucus are not finalised until some 2 weeks after the polls close. And they are still finding errors in the count. Which, with a majority of 8, could make a difference.

It won't change the number of Iowa delegates Romney and Santorum take to the convention, when the GOP pick their candidate. But if it turns out Romney has the Iowa win taken away - them it could make a big change to the momentum of the campaign generally.

Quite a thought....

Trigger Happy?

2012-01-06T13:36:00.009Z

Hmm

I have been having a think...

I wonder if I'm a bit trigger happy on the old 'he/she should be sacked/resign' malarky?

First off, I have been interested to see the reaction to the Diane Abbott furore. I thought that she should resign - on the basis that if a white politician made the same remark about a different ethnic group it would be completely unacceptable, so why shouldn't the reverse be true?

But while everyone agrees (including Diane) that the tweet was wrong - it strikes me that the majority of people think an apology was enough, and we should all move on - including lots of people I really respect like Caron Lindsay. Indeed, David Allen Green even had me in the 'idiot' camp...

...though to be fair (to him and me) I wasn't really outraged - just thought that Diane had really overstepped the mark this time (whereas in the past, I have observed she can be spot on).

Anyway, House of Twits on line survey similarly came down on the side of 'not a resigning offence'

So while there is a case for calling on her to resign - that doesn't seem to be the majority view.

Which makes me wonder if I don't resort to the 'resign' solution a bit too often.

In the past year I have called on one other person to resign (Jane Collins), wished 1 other had resigned (Sharon Shoesmith), endorsed the resignation of 2 others (Rebekah Brooks and Sir Paul Stephenson) and wondered why Aidan Burley doesn't think he should go.

I haven't changed my mind at all, about Collins, Brooks and Shoesmith. And I applauded Paul Stephenson as doing the honourable thing - and thus set the bar a little lower for when others might think resigning is the honourable thing to do.

But as for the others - I wonder if I shouldn't be more forgiving? Or at least ponder a little more in the future, before I pull the trigger...

Update

Since posting this, I have read this article from Stephen Baxter. And on the whole, he's probably right...so I'll hold my hand up

I've also read this by Sunny Hundal. Which is about as wrongheaded as you can get. He doesn't even know what the expression 'Jumps the shark' actually means...

One last Update

Can Ed Miliband do nothing right this week (click to enlarge)?

Top 100

2012-01-06T13:23:00.002Z

Thanks to everyone who has visited the blog, which has finally crawled into the Wikio Top 100 political blogs for the first time. Very excited to be in such illustrious company.

Here's what their analysis looks like - and hopefully I'll continue to climb ever upward...

Meantime, I do need to work out how to make the wikio icon on the right update...

Diane Abbott. You can't generalise about people's views according to their skin colour.

2012-01-05T13:04:00.012Z

I quite like Diane Abbott - plain speaking and I think generally straightforward, you know what she thinks. I've found her a touch hypocritical on the subject of private vs. state education, but still...

Which is why, when she's said stupid things on Twitter in the past, I've called on her to amend the tweet - but not to resign.

However, this time, this tweet (now deleted from her time line) does seem to have gone too far.

Firstly, you can't generalise about a persons views according to their skin colour. As Toby Young (Lordy, I'm agreeing with Toby Young now) has pointed out in the Telegraph...

According to the OED, racism is defined as "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races". By that definition, Abbott was being racist. She was attributing a characteristic – loving to play divide and rule – to a race – white people – and it's plainly an unattractive quality, i.e. intended to distinguish the race in question as morally inferior to the people they're guilty of oppressing.

Neither have I found her excuse particularly credible - that she was talking about 19th century white colonials - because she quite clearly wasn't. Here's the tweet from before the offensive missive:

I'm glad Labour have given her a strong rebuke (here's the moment on Sky news when Ed Miliband called her live to tell her what she did was wrong...)

But I do wonder if it was enough. Because if a white MP made a remark about another ethnic group, they'd be fired. Or at the very least, they should be.

As I say, I like Diane Abbott - and I don't think she's a racist. But I think she has written something racist. So, while it gives me no pleasure to say it - I think she should go.

Iowa: A totally amazing infographic, 2 totally amazing facts, and how the convention delegates get split.

2012-01-04T17:35:00.007Z

1. New York Times has an amazing graphic of the vehicles and personnel used by each candidate in Iowa. Full graphic can be found here, but for a taster, compare the rather different resources of the two 'winners'...(click to enlarge)

(H/t to @sunny_hundal who tweeted this out earlier).

2. The two candidates spent very different sums as well...

...but as my good friend @tommorton pointed out earlier - the Iowa election overall makes us all look like electoral paupers...

3. While Iowa operates a proportional system for dividing delegates to the electoral convention, things are not exactly straightforward from here on in....

Here's what happens next (h/t to the Huffington post here)

The results of the caucus voting, however, do not directly determine which candidate will win the support of Iowa's voters for the presidential nomination. In fact, the caucuses are just first step in the process. Each caucus selects delegates to send to each of the 99 county conventions, which are held in March. At the county conventions, Democrats select delegates to district conventions where delegates to the state convention are chosen. Republicans bypass the district convention stage, choosing delegates to their state convention at the county conventions. Both party's state conventions are held in June. Only then, when state convention delegates cast their votes for delegates to the national party conventions, that Iowa's preferred presidential candidate's in each major party will be determined.

Clear? Excellent....

My most commented post on New Statesman ever. And what comments. Blimey

2012-01-04T14:08:00.004Z

Yesterday's post on The New Statesman has already proved the most commented on I've ever achieved, and the comments are coming thick and fast. Do click on the link above and go and see the fun for yourself. Also, do feel free to add a comment there (good or bad) , here, and (if you are so inclined) click the 'like' post at the bottom of the piece on the NS site.

Thanks for all the supportive comments from within the party, both on the article and directly on Twitter - much appreciated, as I wrote the piece with a little trepidation. But, it is what I think so...

I will be posting a reply to comments at a later date. Meantime, if you can't be bothered to nip over to the NS to see the comments but want to read the article anyway, here goes...

There is a great (though sadly, totally erroneous) quote attributed to Catherine the Great, which says:

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly, but f*ck one horse and you will be a horse f*cker for all eternity.

It strikes me that there's a lesson in there for us Lib Dems.

There's an increasing tendency within the party to accept that our languishing in the polls is a natural price for being in government, especially during the worst economic maelstrom for 80 years. In such circumstances you do all sorts of unpopular things you'd rather not do -- and no-one likes the person administering the nasty medicine.

To adopt such an attitude ignores the fact that the other party in government is riding high in the polls regardless of the treatment they're doling out, while the Prime Minster remains the only national party leader with positive approval ratings.

So how come David Cameron gets to play the role of beloved tyrant, while Nick Clegg...?

It is because the nasty medicine is not at the forefront of people's minds when they think of the Liberal Democrats. It is lack of trust. Betrayal. An inability to keep a promise. It is still tuition fees.

Most people in the party are pretty bored talking about this now -- which is fine. But the country isn't. Is there a pantomime in the land that didn't feature a "Nick Clegg breaking a promise" joke this Christmas? I suspect not.

We can write a long list of positive, liberal achievements in government -- the pupil premium, lifting nearly a million low paid workers out of income tax, restoring the pensions to earnings link. Next year there'll be a load more -- like the Green Investment Bank.

But no-one will really be listening or giving us any credit. Because we still haven't put the original sin to rights yet. We could stand on a street corner throwing out £50 notes to strangers, and everyone would look at us quizzically before holding them up to the light to see if they're fake.

Of course, we must still carry on delivering on our manifesto and championing liberal causes in government. But we shouldn't expect the polls to change one iota when we do -- just as they didn't change last year. Because we'll get no credit for anything unless we resolve the tuition fees debacle.

Nick needs to say sorry. And sort it. Because until then, everyone has us marked down as horse f*ckers.

Mohamed Al Bouazizi nominated as 'Liberal Voice of the Year 2011' Please vote!

2012-01-03T13:12:00.004Z

Lib Dem Voice are running their annual poll to find their 'Liberal Voice of the Year 2011' and (in an eclectic field) have nominated Mohamed Al Bouazizi.

Here is the full list....

If you click on the link you can find the full list (voting buttons can be found on the right of the page) and a few reasons why each has been nominated - and of course I'm actively encouraging a vote for Mohamed Al Bouaizi.

Here you can read about Mohamed And below you can find a short video from C4 news as to why he has been so influential.

Thanks for voting.

Olympic Numbers Infographics - beautiful AND geeky...

2012-01-03T13:04:00.003Z

Just found this video on The Guardian website. Everything you could want to know, numbers wise, about The 2012 Olympics. In beautiful animated infographics. Lovely.

Mohamed Al Bouazizi voted person who most changed the world in Channel Four News poll

2012-01-02T15:41:00.004Z

Thank you so much to everyone who voted. Full details can be found on the C4 News website here, including a quote from me.

Thanks Everyone. It's good to know Mohamed Al Bouazizi is not forgotten.

Update

Here's a video of why Mohammed Al Bouazizi has been so influential from C4

Most popular blog posts, 2011, on 'A View from Ham Common.

2012-01-01T11:59:00.000Z

Here are my top 10, most popular first. The one on spanking didn't make it...

Many thanks to everyone who has visited, commented and linked to the blog in it's first year - it's been a blast!

1. Time Magazine 'Person of the Year'. Please read this and then nominate Mohammad Al Bouazizi. It will take 2 minutes.

2. Libya, Tunisia, Egypt et al - uprisings all started by a fruit seller in Sidi Bouzid.

3. Nick Clegg bashing by the Press is getting ludicrous now.

4. I've just asked Nick Clegg how many seats he wants to win at the next election. Here's his answer.

5. If Nadine Dorries took a penalty kick, this is what would happen.

6. 3 ways to restore Nicks popularity. One he should do, one he won't, one that will turn your stomach but would work overnight.

7. Help Me Persuade Time Magazine to make a Tunisian fruit seller called Muhammad Al Bouazizi their 'Person of the Year 2011'.

8. What do Nick Clegg and I have in common? Well, for one thing, we're both hypocrites...

9. How Ed Miliband could be PM by Christmas. ish.

10. Nick Clegg's letter to members who responded on the hacking question.

I hope you all have a fantastic 2012.

Happy New Year Everybody

2011-12-31T20:00:00.000Z

Sir Paul Ruddock, Tory donor and newly enobled knight of the realm, has a website. Check it out.

2011-12-31T13:54:00.001Z

Hmm. So a multi millionnaire Tory donor who made a fortune short selling Northern Rock shares shortly before it crashed, has been given a knighthood for his philanathropic contribution to the arts.

Having read the headlines, I thought it sounded a bit of classic cash-for-honours type scenario. But I thought I'd do the decent thing and find out just what Sir Paul had done.

Helpfully, he has his own website, containing all his contributions in one place. This must have made it much easier for the honours committee to make their judgement. How thoughtful of him to provide it.

Do take a look. You can draw your own conclusions as to whether his work deserves a knighthood. I'd make a few observations mind...

1. He is chair of the V&A and spends (I quote) at least 10 hours a week working for them. This seems a relatively small amount of time in exchange for a knighthood.
2. He is a trustee of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. This is in America. Therefore, in my mind, doesn't count, Knighthood wise
3. He donates to the Walters Art Museum. Doesn't say how much. But anyway - this is based in America - doesn't count in my book for a UK honour.
4. He is the major donor to the new performing arts centre at King Edwards School in Birmingham. This is a private school. Worthy - but for a public honour, shouldn't count. If only he'd built the arts centre for his local academy, eh...you know, benefitting the kids on the local estate.
5. He got a First at Mansfield. This is listed on his philanthropy page, but I can't quite see why that's a philanthropic gesture. Certainly in the 'why I deserve a Knighthood' stakes - doesn't count..

Finally, Sir Paul does donate regularly to Afrikids, a charity working for African children. This does seem an entirely worthwhile cause and I take my hat off to him. Unfortunately, the knighthood hadn't been given for charity work - its for philanthropy to the arts. So for the purposes of making a judgement on how worthy Sir Paul is of his new honour - doesn't count.

So basically, I think he's been given a Knighthood for doing 500 hours a year at the V&A

I quite fancy that myself. Where do I apply?

Nick Clegg's New Year Message on Video

2011-12-31T13:30:00.002Z

Or you can read the written version here

For 2012, I'd like Lib Dem backbenchers to start using some new words. Like 'Lickspittle'.

2011-12-31T09:10:00.004Z

Over the last year, the Parliamentary Party has understood better that if we are to stand any chance electorally going forward, we have to be seen as principled, distinctive - and liberal.

Hence we have moved away from the idea of coalition government meaning ourselves and the Tories speaking as one on all issues - which was always a nonsense. We have adopted a new approach - with a modicum of success, at least in Tory eyes - of being seen as a break on the worst excesses of the Tories. And it is now rumoured that we will go even further in the differentiation strategy. - check out this piece in The New Statesman. I so hope this is true.

And as part of that, I'd like to see our backbenchers saying what they think rather more assertively.

A classic example of this was the pre Christmas statement on Europe (the one Nick didn't turn up for - which I still think was a huge mistake - he should have been there, shaking his head vigorously). In that session Jo Swinson did receive plaudits for her measured and sensible questionning of the PM, and got some coverage to boot. But the headlines went to the considerably more aggressive attacks from the Tory right on the backbenches - the Nadine Dorries and Philip Davies types (the latter calling us lickspittles).

We still, I think, as a party in parliament cling to a notion that we're all in this together. We still wrestle with the principles of collective responsibility in cabinet - an idea that I think should be often redundant in a coalition government anyway. But there's certainly no reason why we shouldn't be altogether more straightforward in expressing our views about the Tories from the backbenches.

It's not like we're brothers or anything.

I may have got it wrong about Mary Portas

2011-12-29T10:00:00.000Z

The end of the year is always a good time to right a few wrongs...so can I say 'sorry' to Mary Portas?

I was mega critical of the decision to commission her to rejuvinate our High Streets earlier this year - and said so on here.

But since then I've seen David Mitchell put his hands up and say he may have got this wrong...

Ans since then her report has come out, making numerous sensible and progressive suggestions, to general applause all round.

While she may not have all the answers, she has produced a detailed, well thought through and excellent report.

So sorry Mary.

Going back to my original article however, I still don't want Graham Norton to do a review of the arts

Nick Clegg's New Year Message (slightly less cheerier than Tim Farron's...).

2011-12-28T10:05:00.003Z

Dear Richard,

This time last year I spoke about how the most important job for Liberal Democrats was dealing with the economic problems we inherited. 12 months on, that task remains the number one priority for our party and the Coalition.

We have had to make some very difficult decisions, but they've been the right ones for the long term good of our country.

But that economic rescue mission is not over yet. That's why, thanks to the Liberal Democrats, the Coalition has been helping people get through these difficult times with measures to make life fairer and easier.

2011 was the year we lifted nearly a million low paid workers out of paying income tax altogether and cut taxes for 23m people - because I believe putting money back into peoples pockets makes all the difference.

It was the year more than a million children got a fairer start in life, with extra support at school through our Pupil Premium and free early years education for toddlers - because I believe that helping the youngest take their first steps in life makes all the difference.

It was the year we guaranteed pensioners a decent increase in their pension - because I believe dignity in retirement makes all the difference.

Throughout, we have taken big long-term decisions that will change the way our economy works for the better - rebalancing it away from the City of London towards stronger, more sustainable growth.

And next year we will do more. The world's first Green Investment Bank putting millions into green jobs and growth; our youth contract to get every young person out of work earning or learning; more apprenticeships than this country has ever had before; and we will take further steps to make our tax system fairer too.

What we're doing as a party, and as a Coalition, it's not easy, but it's right. We are putting the interests of the country first, and we have taken the first steps towards building a fairer, greener and more liberal country.

The next year will be one that poses many great challenges for everyone in Britain, but I know we must continue to do what's right for our country.

And with that, I wish you all a very happy New Year.

Nick Clegg MP
Leader of the Liberal Democrats and Deputy Prime Minister

Please Vote one more time in the Channel Four News poll for 'who changed the world in 2011'

2011-12-27T13:39:00.002Z

Mohammad Al Bouazizi has now featured heavily in 2 "Person of the Year' awards - through Time Magazine and the Financial Times.

Channel Four News will announce the results if their poll of who changed the world the most in 2011 - please read here why Mohamed Al Bouazizi should win this poll, and then vote for him here

Thanks

More Praise for Mohamed Al Bouazizi - this time in The Financial Times

2011-12-27T13:29:00.004Z

Many thanks to @robblackie who let me know that the Financial Times 'Person of the Year' is the angry Arab protestor, led by Mohamed Al Bouazizi.

The FT paywall prevents me making the link directly, but if you are a subscriber, do pay them a visit to read the excellent piece.

Happy Christmas Everyone

2011-12-24T11:59:00.000Z

Louise Mensch - Oh dear.

2011-12-23T12:40:00.008Z

I know it's Christmas so I should resist...but Louise Mensch. Honestly.

I guess we shouldn't be at all surprised that she is cheerleading for Lady Thatcher to get a State Funeral. And there is a case she should, as our first Woman Prime Minister - though I subscribe rather more to the Peter Oborne stance on this, that she is too divisive a character to get the honour. So I can forgive this first tweet (though I don't think anyone who thinks differently is the idiot Louise Mensch says they are..)

But then, she follows it up with this corker...

Now, I suspect the whole world immediately tweeted back 'Angela Merkel'. And you'd think she'd hold her hand up, say 'whoops' and we'd all move on..

Not Louise Mensch though....

So Angela Merkel doesn't count!!

Others have been suggested - and similarly dismissed. Here's a shocking reply...

I myself have suggested Helen Thorning-Schmidt, current PM (technically Minister of State) of Denmark, Iveta Radicva, President of Slovakia, Christine Fernandez de Kerchner, President of Argentina and Dilma Rousseff, President of Brazil. I forgot Dalia Grybauskaite, President of Lithuania (apologies Dalia).

I suspect Lousie Mensch dismissed them all...either not Western enough or not elected with an absolute majority..which apparently makes them losers...

Or else, La Mensch is subscribing to the Hermain Cain school of foreign policy thinking..

"When they ask me who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan I'm going to say you know, I don't know. Do you know?"

Right, that's enough about Louise Mensch. It's Christmas.

Tim Farron's Christmas message to Lib Dem members has just landed in my in box..

2011-12-23T12:35:00.000Z

Dear Richard,

Well that was quite a year, wasn’t it? It was a good one too!

I know, I know, after the referendum and the horrible results in May you’d be forgiven for believing we were sinking faster than Blackburn Rovers (how it pains me to write that), but you know what, it’s not true.

This year we did some amazing things, things you and I have wanted to do for years but never had the power to actually get done.

For one, we put an end to the horrific practice of locking up innocent kids behind bars for months on end in immigration removal centres.

Alex Cole-Hamilton, one of our brilliant MSP candidates who missed out on a seat in May, said that if his loss was in some way a down-payment on ending child detention then “I accept it with all my heart”.

But that was just one of many ways Liberal Democrats in the Coalition put our principles into practice this year.

We took nearly a million of the poorest workers out of paying tax altogether and gave a £200 tax cut not to the rich but to 23m working people.

We gave children extra support to stop them falling behind in school.

We gave pensioners the first meaningful rise in the state pension since Thatcher abolished the earnings link.

Nick Clegg stood up to defend human rights after the riots and for Europe against the Tory right-wingers.

You stood up for the NHS and forced real change.

Would all of that have happened if we let the Tories run the country on their own? I hardly need to answer that.

And we’ve really turned a corner in council by-elections in the last six months, with seven gains, eight holds and just three losses.

So I’m proud of our year and I hope you are too.

Next year will be hard too. We need to carry on doing difficult things and we need to work with our traditional opponents to clear up Labour’s mess and put the country back on track. As Nick said at conference, it’s not easy, but it is right.

So 2012 is a big year for us. A very big year. But our prospects are better than Blackburn Rovers’!

Happy Christmas.

Tim Farron

Liberal Democrat Party President

Infographics fun for Lib Dems geeks everywhere. Thanks Mark Pack!

2011-12-23T09:00:00.001Z

I'll hold my hand up. I love info graphics. If you do too you should spend some quality time on this website....

But if you're both an infographics geek AND a Lib Dem, it really doesn't get any better than this.

(Click the image to enlarge).

Thanks Mark. (who put it together).

3195 reasons why Aidan Burley won't be sacked by the Tories.

2011-12-22T12:47:00.006Z

It's been reported that the French authorities have now launched a criminal investigation into Conservative MP Aidan Burley and fellow guests who attended that notorious Stag Night in Val Thorens with all its Nazi overtones.

You'd like to think if he was truly sorry, Aidan Burley would now resign. But I bet he won't.

And if the Conservatives were truly sorry - they'd sack him. But I bet they won't.

Why not?

Because Cannock Chase is...a Tory marginal. Here's the results from the last general election:

(The vote share change in 2010 comes from the notional, not actual, 2005 results because of the boundary change (loss of Huntington).)

What's more - this was a switch from Labour to the Tories - who had held the seat fairly comfortably until last year:

(source: Wikipedia)

So much as I'd like to think in the era of 'a new kind of politics' the Tories would put the inherent dangers of a marginal by election to one side for doing the right thing - the realist in me is pretty certain they won't. I guess if Burley is charged and prosecuted - then this may become moot anyway...

Economists get it wrong again. Then explain how it's not their fault. Yawn.

2011-12-22T10:54:00.003Z

So, in the third quarter, the UK economy grew slightly faster than economists were predicting. They predicted 0.5%, it actually grew at 0.6%. So they were out by 20%.

Cue lots of quotes from City Economists about how this was entirely predicatable and easily explained - even though they neither predicted it, nor apparently were away of the reasons why this would happen at 09.29 this morning. Here's a typical example I've lifted from the Telegraph.

I must get round to writing a longer post at some point about the madness by which the bankers and economists are clearly not in control of events - yet are being put in charge of countries (Italy, Greece) and the Euro Zone as a whole (ECB) - as they are 'the best people to sort this out.

But in the meantime, I'm just going to bang my head on the desk for a while...

Puts smug face on. Says 'I told you so'....

2011-12-21T10:17:00.004Z

12th December. 13.14

I write in the New Statesman that Labour are angling for a coalition right now with the Lib Dems.

12th December. A bit later...

Douglas Alexander makes a big open offer to the Lib Dems

14th December, 13.13

I note that it s all part of a grand plan...

14th December. Later that day

Blog post gets short shrift from left...for example....

22nd December

Labour invites us to form a government with them. Now.

'Puts feet up. Pats crystal ball approvingly...'

Ed Miliband Spilling Tea

2011-12-19T16:47:00.002Z

I know, I know, I said I'd stop doing this...but it's TOO good not to.

H?T to Ryan Farrell, @LittleMarxist on twitter

Anyway, I do feel like I've let myself down :-)

I still don’t feel that sense of urgency…

2011-12-19T12:08:00.004Z

Back in March, after the Barnsley By Election and after reading a series of tweets and blog posts about the disastrous result, telling me not to panic and things were not that bad, I wrote a blog post espousing the notion that actually they were every bit as bad as they looked.

I think I was right. And I think the May local election results (more than the AV referendum) indicated that I got that spot on. And there has definitely, since May, been a sense of shifting strategy and attempting to differentiate ourselves a little more. But it’s not exactly been a runaway train, has it.

Since then, there have been two more by election results. And similar reactions from the party. Some of it has been eminently sensible and reasoned. Mark Pack has written a great piece suggesting that Feltham was the by election in which nothing happened…and I read it and nodded along to every word. And yet….

Looking at the by election results this year, Oldham – which seemed so disappointing at the time – looks like a miracle.

Oldham: second, +0.3 increased Share of Vote (SOV)
Barnsley: sixth, -13.1 drop in SOV
Leicester South :second, -4.4 drop in SOV
Feltham: third, -7.8 drop in SOV

And Feltham was a narrow squeak for third to boot.

Now, I am detecting more signs of a shift in tone and strategy again – Rafael Behr has a piece in The New Statesman today suggesting the differentiation strategy is about to be dialled up.

But – you know something. I don’t really feel that there is enough wailing, shouting, renting of clothes, gnashing of teeth and dead eyed fury about the situation we find ourselves in.

So I ask the question in all humilty.

When do we press the panic button?

There’s a great ‘Yes Prime Minster sketch (I’ll load it below) when Hacker gets asked what the nuclear deterrent is for – when would he press the button?

And I kind of feel we’re in the same place - aren’t we? When would we press the button?

PS: Obviously, not advocating conscription.....:-)

The BBC have written to me...

2011-12-15T16:27:00.004Z

This is the BBC's response to my complaint about the Sports Personality of the Year all male shortlist. Click on the image to enlarge.

I suppose I'm quite impressed they replied so promptly. But I sense the volume of complaints led them to develop a set response....

Anyway, when you click on the first link, here's what BARBARA SLATER (yes, it's a woman in charge of this debacle) has to say. The 'why Nuts and not a woman's magazine' section is particularly weak...

But make your own minds up.

Complaint

We received complaints about the lack of women nominated for the BBC Sports Personality of the Year 2011.

Our response

We recognise that the all-male line-up has created much debate amongst viewers of the programme, sports-lovers in general and those that champion the cause of Women’s sport in this country. We have had many different points made in the reaction we receive which informs our editorial discussions and we do value it. We have reported all this feedback widely across the BBC and in order to ensure we use the licence fee as efficiently as possible we are sending this response to the issues from our Director of Sport, Barbara Slater to everyone who has contacted us which addresses as many of the detailed points raised by everyone as we are able to:

"The shortlist comprises some of the finest sports stars on the planet. Everyone is rightly proud of their achievements over the last year, the role they play in inspiring younger generations and the credit they deliver back for the UK. I share the disappointment that the independently determined shortlist does not include any British Sportswomen. There were some worthy female candidates and I should recap how the selection process works.

"The shortlist of the ten British sports stars is determined by the combined votes of a panel of industry experts based on their assessment of relative sporting achievements during the year. The panel consists of the sport editors of the national newspapers, selected regionals and magazines. These are chosen because of their expertise in the area, their coverage of a wide range of sports throughout the year and the extent of their readership. In total, we received 27 responses from the 35 invitations that were issued this year. The panel included publications such as the Sunday Times, the Daily Mail, the Irish News, the Mirror, the Daily Telegraph, Sport Magazine and the Herald. It is worth noting that most of the publications did include at least one sportswoman in their shortlist.

"The inclusion of publications such as Nuts and Zoo in the shortlisting panel is for a variety of reasons. These magazines have a dedicated sports section which every week covers a range of sports including Women's sport and minority sports. They also have a readership profile which reaches younger audiences and helps contribute to a balanced panel which is representative of all the BBC's audiences. There are very few other widely-read publications that cover such a breadth of sporting news, features and reports on a regular basis. We do not include specialist sporting publications given their potential inherent bias to one particular sport nor do we canvas the views of non-sporting publications.

"The current system was introduced in 2006 and at least two women have always previously been shortlisted for the main award. Having considered a wide range of alternative mechanisms, we remain convinced that the current system is fair, independent and robust. Previous top 10 candidates included in 2010 Jessica Ennis (3rd) and Amy Williams whilst 2009 saw Jessica Ennis (3rd) and Beth Tweddle. In 2008 Rebecca Adlington (3rd), Nicole Cooke, Christine Ohuruogu and Rebecca Romero all made the Top 10 as did Paula Radcliffe and Christine Ohuruogu in 2007. In 2006 Nicole Cooke, Beth Tweddle and Zara Phillips were nominated with Zara winning the award. This is therefore the first time there has been no female representation since the current system was put in place five years ago. The ultimate winner of the award is determined solely by a public telephone vote during the show itself.

"We stand by the current voting process but have committed to take on board what has happened this year and we will review the shortlisting process for next year's show. It is too early to say what, if any changes will be made to the process but please rest assured that we will seek the opinions of people both within and outside of the BBC before deciding on the appropriate methodology for 2012.

"The current focus on the shortlist for the Sports Personality of the Year Award has shone a bright light on the wider issues surrounding the media coverage and profile of Women's sport in the UK. As I'm sure you are aware, the BBC is committed to covering a broad range of sports and events and this includes a significant commitment to Women's sport. The BBC is proud to have followed the achievements of many successful sportswomen through our coverage of events such as the Olympics, the Commonwealth Games, Wimbledon and the Women's Football World Cup.

"I trust that I have addressed your questions satisfactorily and made clear the BBC's commitment to a fair selection process. This year's shortlist for the main award represents six very different sports and has candidates from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is disappointing that the independent process did not result in the shortlisting of a female candidate; but we believe it does not detract from the incredible array of British talent that will compete for the 58th Sports Personality of the Year Award.“

Barbara Slater, Director of Sport

The 1 Billion Pound Bargain

2011-12-15T12:14:00.004Z

Hidden away at the end of the Telegraph story today, speculating that Sir Fred Goodwin could end up facing criminal charges, is this little gem.

Peter Sands, Chief Executive of Standard Chartered, was up before the Treasury Select committee yesterday. In his evidence he was asked about new rules governing bank regulation. To quote The Telegraph..

Mr Sands also warned that the bank faces a $500m (£323m) a year cost from the "avalanche" of new rules. Speaking later, Bob Diamond of Barclays said new regulations could cost the bank "north of £1bn"

Apparently for the sector as a whole, regulation could cost £7billion. Which sounds like a lot. Until you take a look at the risk the British Taxpayer was exposed to in bailing out the financial services sector not so long ago. Here's 'fact check' from The Guardian...

• Since 2007 the UK has committed to spending £1.162 trillion at various points on bailing out the banks. This figure has however fluctuated wildly during the period and by March 2011 it was £456.33bn. That total outstanding support was equivalent to 31% of GDP in March.

• The £456.33bn figure breaks down into £123.93bn in loan or share purchases, which required a cash injection from the government to the banks, and £332.4bn in guarantees and indemnities which haven't actually been paid, but were offered to shore up the failing bank system.

• Of the £123.93bn, the Royal Bank of Scotland received £45.80bn, Lloyds £20.54bn, Northern Rock a total of £22.99bn, Bradford and Bingley £8.55bn and a further £26.05bn went on "loans to support deposit".

Now there are lots of other ways of assessing both the costs and the risks. But at the end of the day the exposure is enormous.

Not to mention the costs in human terms. 2.64m unemployed for example

Which makes £323m, £1billion or even £7billion sound like peanuts to me.

Fantastic News. 'The Protestor', personified by Mohammad Al Bouazizi is Time 'Person of the Year" We did it

2011-12-14T13:52:00.007Z

Of course its not all down to this blogs campaign - we'll have had a marginal effect - but the petition, the letters, the Facebook page and the endless Tweets all seem to have made a difference.

Here's the full story.

And here's an interview Mohammad's mother in Time and a review of his actions, again from Time

Thank you to everyone who has helped, including MPs from all parties, friends and contacts from Twitter and Facebook, The New Statesman, Lib Dem Voice and even Michael Winner. It's fantastic news - a true tribute to the man who in 2011 really did change the world.

Mohammad Al Bouazizi

How Ed Miliband could be PM by Christmas. ish.

2011-12-14T13:13:00.005Z

Lots of quotes from Nick last night at the Parliamentary meeting - including this notable one (which I've taken from the Telegraph):

"The Deputy Prime Minister told a private meeting of more than 100 MPs and peers that he would not play "Russian roulette" with the Conservatives over David Cameron's rejection of a new European treaty.

He said: "I don't want to be the last leader of the Liberal Democrats by provoking a general election today." His speech, which was applauded by the meeting, came as a poll put the Lib Dems on just 12 per cent, just ahead of the UK Independence Party".

In other words, Nick believes that by withdrawing from the coalition, a General Election would be called.

This is not what the Fixed Term Parliament Act (sponsored incidentally, by Nick) says at all - as Mark Pack pointed out on Monday.

If we were to withdraw, the most likely course of events is that a Vote of No Confidence would be called. Should this be lost, - as would happen if Labour, our good selves, the SNP and the Alliance all voted against - then in fact, The Queen would invite Ed Miliband to try and form a government. And who knows - maybe he could...

Which, as I've written in the New Statesman, is why Ed Miliband was making overtures to us on Sunday. And why a couple of hours after I posted my piece, Douglas Alexander made 'one of those' offers to us...

And it's been coming for a while. Everyone seems to have missed this quote from Ed Balls last month...

"The only coalition which actually could sort out our economic problems at the moment is a coalition between the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, because we are the only ones who understand together what needs to be done.".

Hang on to your hats folks.

I'm not saying any of this is the right thing to do. But it's being talked about...

7% Interest on 10 year Bonds = Economic Meltdown. It wasn't always the case you know...

2011-12-13T18:53:00.005Z

And another thing on the Vicky Pryce graph...

For lots of good reasons, it is now generally accepted that if the markets want you to pay more then 7% interest on 10 year sovereign bonds when you try and sell them, you're screwed. Hence the point of no return when Ireland and Portugal asked for bail outs, and the panic ensuing since Italy hovered around that mark (which it still is by the way...)

But as this chart shows (click to enlarge) - pre the 2008 recession, all the countries of The Eurozone were paying more than that - even Germany.

Of course a lot else has changed since. But shows the danger of thinking a 'golden rule' is always, and always will be, a'golden rule'...

Maths can be fun

2011-12-13T18:36:00.004Z

Well, I bet that title's killed this blog post. So lets add a few other words that might tempt you in. Vicky Pryce (formerly Mrs Huhne), the BBC, Eurogeddon.

Look at this screen grab - it shows Vicky Pryce's selection as the best graph of the year 2011. And you must admit - it's a wowser!! (click to enlarge)

There are several more corkers on this BBC story, where they have asked top economists to choose their 'charts of the year'

You see Maths and economic global meltdown really CAN be fun!!

PS if you like this sort of stuff, do try and get hold of 'Information is Beautiful' by David McCandless. It's terrific.

And if you like that - check out this brilliant website.

May 2010 - all over again

2011-12-13T13:01:00.000Z

Full text from yesterday's piece in The New Statesman. As ever, would welcome comments here or on The NS comments thread.

It appears to be May 2010 all over again.

A Labour leader is throwing come hither looks at the Nick Clegg. And after celebrating what looked like a victory in the small hours of a Friday morning, one long weekend later and Tory MPs are realising that there may be an orange obstacle preventing them doing anything and everything they want.

Meanwhile, a quirk in the coalition agreement -- that everyone bar Ed Miliband seems to have missed -- is about to take effect.

Let's deal with the Tories first. A certain amount of self-indulgent giggling on Friday at Cameron's "coup" has turned into sorrowful headshaking now that the Lib Dems have (belatedly) called foul.

"Do they understand the concept of collective responsibility?" was the question 18 months ago and is being asked again now. To which the answer is yes, it's a two way street, it applies to governments who have won an outright majority (the Tories didn't), and anyway withdrawing to the margins of Europe isn't in the coalition agreement. This last point gives the Lib Dems carte blanche on the issue of Europe.

For any Tory Eurosceptics reading this, "carte blanche" is a French phrase, which roughly translates as "stuff you".

So what does Cameron do about this? Tories keen to push on from Friday's, ahem, "victory", think he should dissolve the coalition, ditch us pesky coalition non-partners (how quickly they forget) and start repatriating powers from Brussels pronto. They are happy for Cameron to call a general election if he needs to -- no British politician has ever lost out by sticking up two fingers to the French, have they?

Unfortunately for those Eurosceptics, David Cameron can't do that. And what's stopping him? Well, amusingly, it's the Queen. For on 15 September 2011, Her Majesty graciously gave royal assent to the Parliament Act (sponsor: N. Clegg).

This means there can only be a General Election before May 2015 under two circumstances. Either at least two thirds of the entire House of Commons have to agree that it's a jolly good idea, which is unlikely. Or the government has to lose a vote of no confidence.

Now, that could happen. I'm not sure David Cameron would want to call such a vote and end up having to vote against himself in order to bring down his own government, but the option is there for him. Or for Labour.

But that doesn't trigger an election. First Parliament must as examine if an alternative government can be formed from the existing make up of the House...

Hence we hear the clarion call of "I agree with Nick".

There will be plenty who say that won't happen. That it would make the Lib Dems look duplicitous to turn on their Tory partners and the electorate would never forgive them. Ah well, Plus ca change (translation - see above).

Ed Miliband knows that a vote of no confidence from Labour, Lib Dems, Green SNP and Alliance would end with him being Prime Minister without the need for a general election. Support of Plaid and others would make him more secure. The maths couldn't be made to work 18 months ago. But now the Tories have had time to annoy everyone - suddenly it looks a little more likely.

Like I said. It feels like May 2010 all over again...

It's May 2010 all over again

2011-12-12T14:46:00.004Z

My latest post in the New Statesman was published at lunchtime today.

Then 3 hours later Douglas Alexander made it true

They even nicked my picture caption and gave it to him.

What fun!!

Selfish, selfish, selfish

2011-12-12T10:31:00.004Z

This EU business. The general reaction from these shores seems to be all about me, me, me. Or rather us, us, us.

For example, Cameron hasn’t signed the treaty because it’s not 'in Britain’s interests'. And there seems to be a general view from the right that with impending Eurozone disaster on the horizon, thank goodness we’re retiring to a safe distance to rubberneck at the accident. Or as Michael Portillo has put it:

“The euro is a burning building with locked doors, and it seems to be a pretty good idea to be out of that.”

But to me, that’s the real problem.

When your neighbour’s house is on fire, you don’t shrug and say ’thank goodness I live in a large detached house some way from the inferno’. You fight tooth and nail to get into the house to help save them, and then you do everything you can to put the fire out

Isn’t that the right thing to do? Won’t that mean they are more likely to reciprocate next time you find yourself in similar circumstances?

(And as David Cameron himself was pointing out not so long ago, that seems a pretty good way of making sure the fire doesn’t spread next door. I rather think he’s forgotten that).

And this seems to me to be the main problem with the narrative, not just over the last few hours and days, but weeks and months.

It’s all about what’s in my interests or our interests. And not what’s in everyone’s interests.

I’m not saying the Eurozone are any better. I don’t suppose the Frankfurt Group have lost many hours sleep wondering how they can make Britain’s life easier.

But at the end of the day, the European project is about making sure we do all we can for those members of the group who most need it, when they need it.

If I see the Titanic going down – I hope I send my life rafts in its direction. And not just thank God that I missed the boat

A Handy 5 minute video guide to Europe in the last 24 hours

2011-12-09T17:45:00.001Z

An excellent analysis of what's happened, why it's happened and what it means domestically, from the Guardian. This one will run and run...

Matt, as ever, appears to have caught the mood in just 8 words.

2011-11-30T09:35:00.001Z

It's here

BBC Sports Personality of the Year. Here's how to find out who voted - and who they voted for

2011-11-29T12:50:00.001Z

Much has been made, and quite rightly, of the outstanding lunacy that has led to the shortlist for Sports Personality of the Year containing the names of 10 men - and not one woman. Simply gobsmacking.

The reason why this debacle has occurred is probably revealed when you realise how the shortlist is assembled. It is put together by asking Sports Editors for newspapers and magazines who should be on the list.

Clare Balding has tweeted that she believes every single one is Male

And it's also worth pointing out that such homes of excellence in sports writing as Zoo and Nuts magazines have been given a vote. Amazing. Needless to say, no female targeted magazines were consulted.

But of course overall it underlines how the mainstream media undervalues and under reports womens sport overall.

Here's the list of who voted for whom (from the BBC).

Why not drop the BBC a line to tell them just what you think.

UPDATE

Here's a brilliant Guardian article listing 10 women who should have been on the list. The first - Sarah Stevenson - seems especially worthy.

I'm not flavour of the month with New Statesman readers...

2011-11-29T09:52:00.002Z

If you fancy reading a lot of abuse ained at yours truly, do pop over and read the comments section of this piece. My use of the phrase 'clear yellow water' has proved particularly ill judged...

If you can't be bothered, here's what's got them all so riled.

In the Autumn Statement, a Tory Chancellor will announce a set of Liberal Democrat policy initiatives, and, all things considered, be congratulated on his foresight and wisdom by his Labour Shadow.

I'll let you all chew that over for a moment. OK? Right then, onward...

Up until May 2010, the easiest way to poke a Lib Dem into fury was to announce, "I often ask myself, what is the point of the Lib Dems?". I seem to recall Anne Leslie was especially good at putting a lot of vitriol into it. I've no idea what was said next, as I was too busy shouting at the TV by then.

Since the last general election, everyone has found it rather too easy to answer that question.

If you're on the left, then the Lib Dems are a bunch of never to be trusted pseudo Conservatives determined to shove a right wing regressive agenda on an unsuspecting public.

If you're a Tory, then we're a crowd of yellow livered wets stopping them thrust a fiscally driven tidal wave of horrid tasting medicine down the throats of Britain.

In truth we are neither of these things. But we did leave a bit of a vacuum -- so we've no one to blame but ourselves.

For 12 months, pursuing a line of "not a cigarette paper between us" did indeed make us look like we were interested in pursuing nothing but a Tory agenda. This was not true and the grassroots hated it. But a narrative was set.

Fortunately, since the nadir of May 2011 -- and our own dose of electoral medicine -- we've started pointing out the opposite is true. Now we get credit all over the place for stopping the Conservatives doing all they want - from the Conservatives. Here for example, is the delightful Nadine Dorries

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Democrats make up 7 per cent of this parliament, and yet they seem to be influencing our free school policy, health -- many issues -- immigration and abortion. Does the prime minister think it's about time he told the deputy prime minister who is the boss?

Hmmm...

Anyway, while we've delighted in playing the role of Tory handbrake, going forward it does beg the old question of what we're "for" once again. Because we can't just be seen to be playing defensive to the Tory bouncers. We need to get on the front foot -- and remind people what we're actually about.

So how lovely it is that we've started setting the agenda.

Last week, Martin Bright (once of this Parish) wrote a good summation of the Youth Contract entitled "So this is what the Lib Dems are for".
And now we'll see George Osborne announcing a whole heap of other initiatives -- infrastructure investment, raising the bank levy, extra school places, cheaper borrowing for businesses -- that have Lib Dem stamped all the way through them. And which Ed Balls, to his credit, has welcomed as the right things to do.

No doubt there will be a ton of measures announced by George Osborne tomorrow that grassroots Lib Dems will find difficult -- any freeze on tax credits, for example, will be especially hard to swallow.

But at least there is clear yellow water between plan A and Plan A+, with A+ combining fiscal accountability with social responsibility.

Which is what the Lib Dems are for, by the way.

My new piece is up at the New Statesman & will upset lots of people.

2011-11-28T17:16:00.002Z

It's already upset Charlotte H.

:-(

Here's the link

New CEO for Party Announced.

2011-11-28T15:23:00.003Z

He's called Tim Gordon. This letter is from Tim Farron. There may be a new rule for senior Party officials I know nothing about. Tim Clegg anyone?

Anyway, here's the note...

TIM GORDON APPOINTED NEW LIBERAL DEMOCRAT CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Dear Richard,

It is with great pleasure that I can today announce the appointment of Tim Gordon as the Party’s new Chief Executive.

Tim will take up this position on 9 January 2012.

Tim Gordon brings to the role a lifetime of commitment to the Party, as a volunteer, campaigner and candidate, but also a strong commercial background and clearly demonstrated leadership qualities.

Tim Gordon has been a Party activist since his teens, when he first volunteered for the SDP “Yes to Unity” campaign, and has since campaigned in every major election. He stood as parliamentary candidate in Rotherham in 2005. He worked as a researcher for David Steel when he was Foreign Affairs spokesperson, and has been a member of several policy working groups over the years. He is currently an active member in Islington.

Tim Gordon’s professional career has been shaped in the world of strategic business management. He started at the Financial Times, before working at The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) and most recently as Group Development Director at European Directories, a large European media company. Through this career Tim has demonstrated strategic thinking, use of online technology to deliver change, fundraising ability, an understanding of internal organisation dynamics and experience of building alignment around common priorities.

Tim takes over from Chris Fox, who leaves us on Wednesday to take up a new role as Director of Group Communications at a FTSE100 engineering company.

During the five week interim period, the Federal Executive-appointed recruitment panel have asked Hilary Stephenson, the current Director of Elections and Skills, to serve as Acting Chief Executive. Having known Hilary for many years I know that she will very ably hold the fort for this time and I am delighted that she has agreed to take on this challenge.

Best wishes,

Tim Farron
President of the Liberal Democrats

Swearing at the police. Still a really bad idea.

2011-11-26T09:00:00.002Z

Two things.

First off. All those reports that you can swear at police officers now with impunity? Quite wrong. And, as this rather excellent post explains, not what the judge ruled at all. It's a fascinating read. H/t to @davidallengreen for pointing me in that direction.

Secondly. Swearing generally. The police really don't like it.

My Mum and Dad are fairly quiet souls and are both in their 70's. The other week they were parked in their local Tesco car park when another car backed in to them.

The other driver leapt out and was immediately very aggressive. Point blank refused to give any of her details. And swore at my parents - over and over again.

So they took her number plate, drove home and called the police (Cambridgeshire)

Who were brilliant.

And do you know what the police were most irate about?

The driving without due care and attention?
The refusing to exchange details?
Nope. The swearing. Which they said was completely unacceptable.

Visits to the other driver ensued, dire warnings given, apologies extracted. Mum says the police couldn't gave been more concerned.

So it's nice to be able to say a big thanks to the Cambridgeshire constabulary for looking after my parents.

And to warn everyone - don't swear at the police. They REALLY don't like it.

PS. Would love to have seen the drivers face when they told her she'd been volleying endless abuse at a retired vicar...

Nick's letter announcing the new Youth Contract

2011-11-25T14:37:00.002Z

This just arrived: I think it says everything you'd want it to say. More of this please!!

Dear Richard,

Today I have launched the Youth Contract, a £1bn programme to get every unemployed young person earning or learning again before long-term damage is done.

We cannot afford to lose the skills and talent of our young people – right when we need them most. We need the next generation to help us build a new economy.

Across the UK, youth unemployment has risen to 21.9% and in Richmond upon Thames, there are currently 415 young people claiming Job Seekers Allowance. We owe it to them to make sure that even in tough economic times, we will do everything we can to find them a job, training or education.

That is why today I have committed the Coalition to investing £1bn to tackle youth unemployment. You can read more about the contract here, but it includes:

A work experience place for every unemployed 18 to 24 year old who wants one

410,000 new work places over the next three years

20,000 more incentive payments to encourage employers to take on young apprentices

250,000 new work experience placements

And because we know businesses are struggling to take young people on, we will pay half their basic wage for six months

Young people have been hit particularly hard in the recession, but even in the boom years, Labour failed to tackle the issue. During Labour’s 13 years, youth unemployment rose by 40%. With Liberal Democrats in Government, we won’t allow the children brought up in the boom to bear the brunt of the bust. The next generation must not pay the price for my generation’s mistakes. So the Coalition Government won’t sit on our hands and let a generation fall behind.

Nick Clegg MP
Leader of the Liberal Democrats and Deputy Prime Minister

Youth Jobs. I'm spending the whole weekend worrying....

2011-11-25T13:29:00.011Z

Ok. We're all over the news. With good news.

1. There's a new scheme to help solve the terrible problem of Youth Unemployment.

2. Nick has taken ownership of the initiative

3. Everyone - in principle - seems to think that it's a good thing (here's an example from a source who doesn't generally back the Lib Dems...).

What's more - Labour's alternative would create just 100 000 new jobs (compared to the 400 000 this scheme will create) and David Cameron (let's be generous here team, he made a great observation in PMQ's on Weds) pointed out that Labour's funding for the scheme - bankers bonuses - looked a bit flaky. Here's the Sky news report:

Mr Cameron rejected the Labour leader's claim that a bankers' bonus tax could be used to create more jobs for young people.

"We've just heard a new use for the bonus tax - there have been nine already," he told cheering and jeering MPs.

He said the Opposition had already suggested it pay for more tax credits, cutting the deficit, public services, the Regional Growth Fund, turning empty shops into community centres and higher capital spending.

Mocking Ed Balls' tendency to make a hand gesture at the Prime Minister, a wave intended to reflect a flatlining economy, Mr Cameron added: "This is the bank tax that likes to say yes!

So far so good.

Then I read this piece in today's New Statesman entitled 'Clegg comes unstuck on jobs scheme'.

The article suggests that the scheme will be funded by freezing tax credits - thus helping one group by hitting another who need all the assistance they can get.

'That's not right', I thought. 'We've had a fist fight with The Treasury and agreed to raise benefits by 5.2% across the board. Its a Lib Dem victory.'

Anyway, before I fired off a strident rebuttal on the comments section I just thought I'd check via the Lib Dem blogosphere - and it seems things are not clear cut.

Tax credits are a Gordon Brown invention as Chancellor, and were firmly under his control - and therefore are managed by The Treasury, not the Department of Work and Pensions and not included in the 5.2% rise.

The actual truth is - no one knows where the money is coming from until we hear George Osborne give the Autumn Statement, and it won't come from a single source.

But if tax credits are frozen on Tuesday, then we know the line that will be taken - hitting the poor to help the young.

Please don't let it be true.

Update and Cheerier news.

Just dug this off the Telegraph website. Quotes from Nick. Doesn't sound like freeze on tax credits to me...

"We will do everything we can to make sure the poorest are protected. We will not balance the books of this country on the backs of the poorest".

Mr Clegg added: "Over the last year and a half we've increased capital gains tax, we've slapped on a big bank levy, we've made sure that the loopholes that the wealthy enjoy are closed and we will have more of this kind of thing to make sure that the people with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share"

As a public service I present a ten word description of 'The Grapes of Wrath' to save you reading it.

2011-11-25T13:06:00.006Z

There's a lot of talk about 'The Grapes of Wrath' right now. I think the BBC4 are having a bit of a season. Anyway, I keep hearing people are reading it...

Call me shallow - I know you will - but I can't stand 'The Grapes of Wrath' and always describe it as my least favourite book. Ever.

I am not denying its fine writing. Its important themes. Its interesting analogies with today, in its depiction of greedy immoral bankers crushing the poor underfoot. You can find out all the reaons why its a great book in Melvyn Bragg's piece over at The Guardian

But I found reading it a totally unsatisfying experience. So here - in rather fewer words than Melvyn - is a summation of why I don't enjoy The Grapes of Wrath.

It is:

Depressing
Traumatic
Unrelenting
Savage*
Drudgery
Miserable
Cruel
Painful
Morbid
Horrifying

*shamelessly nicked off Melvyn

If that's your cup of tea and if your idea of a storming night out at the pictures is 'We need to talk about Kevin' then nip onto Amazon now and get a copy; otherwise - my advice? Life's too short...

Sorry and all that

PS Why not read 'The Road to Wigan Pier' instead. Same sentiment, much better

'Famous person replies to blog' shock. I had to have a lie down.

2011-11-20T21:42:00.006Z

When I wrote to Prof.Anita Hill asking her to use her influence at Time Magazine to help make Mohammad Al Bouazizi their 'Person of the Year', following their panel event that she appeared on a couple of weeks ago. I didn't really expect her to actually reply.

But she's dropped me a line.

It seems that the panellists were just being asked their opinion about who should be 'Person of the Year' and the decision lies entirely with the Editorial team at Time. So...back to plan A.

If you would like to help make Mohammad Al Bouazizi Time's 'Person of the Year', then please:

1. Write to Richard Stengel, Managing Editor of Time, by clicking here.

2. Sign our petition by clicking here

3. Visit and 'like' our Facebook page by clicking here

and if you need to remind yourself WHY Mohammad should win this award, please click here.

Thanks all!

"Give me a Tobin Tax and fiscal continence. But not yet"

2011-11-19T11:57:00.003Z

Hmm. Here's my latest piece from The New Statesman, about the Tobin Tax. It's caused a bit of angst with one commentator saying it reads like a UKIP leaflet. Which is unfortunate as:

A) I'm a Pro Europe
B) I'm pro Tobin Tax
C) The piece reflects Lib Dem policy pretty much precisely
D) It also reflects the views of The Robin Hood campaign ( see this article in today's New Statesman, paragraph 8).

That same article has a right go at Vince Cable, who it accuses of having done an about turn on the Tobin Tax, now saying no when it was a manifesto commitment in 2010. In fact, the Lib Dem position is unchanged - the manifesto promise was to work towards a global FTT, not a European one.

Anyway, here's the piece that's caused all the trouble. Do let me know if it reads like I've become Nigel Farage, because that really wasn't what I was trying to say...

Sometime today, in a conference room in Berlin, David Cameron will indulge in a certain amount of spleen venting. No doubt a little tapping pointedly on the table will take place. Who knows, maybe he'll even advise his interlocutor to "listen to the Doctor dear".
And then with a bit of luck, Angela Merkel, bedecked in Lincoln Green, will lean over the table, and whisper "But David. I thought we were all in this together?"
What will have brought all this unpleasantness to pass? Why it's that new favourite wheeze of German and French politicians: the Tobin Tax.
Now, the Tobin tax is that strangest of beasts, a popular levy. One that the public would welcome with open arms. So how come we have the German Chancellor offering to take from the rich to give to the poor, while Cameron, Osborne, Balls and Cable all scramble to play the Sheriff of Nottingham, shouting "no, no, no"?
When all three major parties pass up the opportunity of a populist open goal, you know there must be more to this than meets the eye. And there is.
Firstly - and it would be easy to miss this -- the Lib Dems, Tories and Labour are all actually in favour of the Tobin tax. Everyone thinks it's a grand plan. Just not right now. And not in the form the Merkozy axis has proposed.
"Give me a Tobin tax and fiscal continence. But not yet," they are saying, in a St-Augustine-sort-of-a way.
So what's the problem?
Well the financial implications to London have been extensively written about already.
But there's another issue: French farmers.
No, really.
Of course, it's not just Normandy cheesemakers and the like. It's every other thing the EU spends money on -- though with large parts of the total EU budget going on the Common Agricultural Policy, French farmers are set fair to do well out of an EU wide Tobin tax.
How come? Because as things stand, revenue raised from The City of London would go, not to the Treasury, but to Brussels. You can write your own Daily Mail headlines, can't you? I expect Paul Dacre already has.
And that's the nub of the problem. With 70 per cent of its potential revenue coming from the UK, even the most pro-European British politicians fear that the Tobin tax, excellent idea though it is, may prove rather less popular with the British public when they see what the money is being spent on.
Because given the state of the Eurozone, Angela Merkel knows we're all in this together. But some of us are in it rather more than others.

Sorry to say, I think Brodie Clark may be a bit stuffed....

2011-11-15T18:13:00.002Z

According to most commentators, Brodie Clark's case all hangs on whether his account of his conversation with his boss Rob Whiteman is accurate. To quote The Guardian:

Clark's version of events directly clashed with that given repeatedly by the home secretary to the Commons over the past 10 days. But it is impossible to judge the competing claims unless the paperwork to back them up is published

I worry that the paperwork will be published - but it won't be able to back up Brodie Clark's claims. This video show's why...

Never a truer word spoken than in jest, I'm afraid

Blimey

2011-11-14T18:24:00.002Z

The long trailer for 'The Iron Lady' is out....

A reply to a couple of comments on my New Statesman piece from earlier.

2011-11-14T17:42:00.006Z

A couple of comments from my latest post on The Staggers over at The New Statesman have questioned the accuracy of my assertion that what it is going on in Italy isn't very democratic.

Here's Carlo Turco:

I think that your opinion is somewhat ill founded and rather misleading. No doubt the financial crisis etc. are at the root of Mr. Berlusconi having been fired. But this has been accomplished within the Italian Constitution rules framework. It's the Italian Parliament that would have not granted Mr. Berlusconi the required votes majority and Mr. B. has liked better to resign than facing a negative vote. Mr. Monti has been appointed by the Republic's President and will have to submit to the Parliament's vote - should not he receive a majority vote he will have to resign and new elections will be called. Democratic rules are being fully adhered to, in Italy, where a Parliament - not a Government head - is being elected by the people and where deputies are granted the right to change opinions and majorities. Where would democratic rules have been violated or imperiled?

Jacob Lester has made a similar point.

So, let me be clear.

I am not saying that the moves afoot in Italy are either unconstitutional or indeed illegal. I have no doubt proper due process is being observed and indeed the parliamentarians of both the Upper and Lower house have to approve the formation of the new government (although of course there are numerous unelected Senators for Life in the Italian parliament who will be approving the government - as undemocratic a position as our own House of Lords. Don't get me started...).

What I am saying is that I do not believe the formation of this government to be particularly democratic. This is not just the case that a new Prime Minister is being chosen. This is an unelected official who effectively has been elevated into parliament to execute a manifesto that has not been held to scrutiny by the Italian electorate.

This is quite different from say, the situation where John Major and Gordon Brown became Prime Minister. Both had been sent to Parliament after an election, both were members of the party that had an absolute majority in the main legislative assembly, and both pursued a manifesto led agenda approved by the British people.

None of these things is true in Italy. Hence I find the process profoundly undemocratic - even if it is constitutionally sound.

Jacob Lester makes an additional point:

There are no unified "markets" who decide anything. There's only politicians who make bad decisions and are exposed to the pressure that their irresponsibility has led to.

Of course, in the sense that there's not a big meeting where every banker in the world gets together, has a group hug and then sticks pins in models of leaders they want shot of, Jacob's quite right.

But none the less, the markets do act in unison according to how subjectively 'confident' they feel - and expect politicians and non politicians alike to act accordingly. To quote the BBC over the weekend:

Mr. Monti, a well respected economist, is exactly the sort of man that the markets would like to see take charge at this time of crisis, says the BBC's Alan Johnston in Rome, and he has support in many quarters. But there is significant opposition to him within the country, and a feeling that Italy's troubles are just too deep for a mere change of government to make any rapid, significant difference.

Maybe the BBC is right. Maybe they are wrong. Only one way to find out - ask the people. Except this seems very out of step with how the real power brokers at play, the Group de Frankfurt, want things to operate. To quote The Guardian:

Here's how things work. The real decisions in Europe are now taken by the Frankfurt Group, an unelected cabal made of up eight people: Lagarde; Merkel; Sarkozy; Mario Draghi, the new president of the ECB; José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission; Jean-Claude Juncker, chairman of the Eurogroup; Herman van Rompuy, the president of the European Council; and Olli Rehn, Europe's economic and monetary affairs commissioner.

This group, which is accountable to no one, calls the shots in Europe. The cabal decides whether Greece should be allowed to hold a referendum and if and when Athens should get the next tranche of its bailout cash. What matters to this group is what the financial markets think not what voters might want. To the extent that governments had any power, it has been removed and placed in the hands of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the IMF. It is as if the democratic clock has been turned back to the days when France was ruled by the Bourbons.

Or if that's not your cup of tea - the Telegraph:

In Italy, the European Central Bank has engineered the downfall of Silvio Berlusconi by playing the bond markets, switching purchases on and off to enforce compliance with its written dictates ("La Lettera"), and ultimately allowing 10-year yields to spike to 7.45pc to drive him out.

Europe’s president Herman Van Rompuy swooped in to Rome to clinch the Putsch. "Italy needs reforms not elections," he said.

That last line says it all really. Don't you think?

Oh Please FIFA. You saying sport and politics don't mix is just laughable...

2011-11-14T08:45:00.000Z

Putting aside the issue of whether the England football team should or shouldn't have worn poppies on their shirts yesterday, it has given rise to that old canard that sport has nothing to do with politics. Indeed to quote FIFA on Friday...

Jim Boyce, a vice-president of Fifa, said: "I'm glad that a compromise has been reached [and] I'm delighted that Fifa has now said to the FA that players can have black armbands on Saturday with the poppy on the black armbands. Let me also say that I can understand why Fifa do have this rule. Football and politics should not mix and, if you do give in to someone, it can create problems further down the line".

Now, I've blogged on how sports and politics are intertwined before. But as FIFA appear to have forgotten, here's a picture of how they apprently are quite happy to have them mix.

(Picture from the Sultan of Snow Blog, via Flikr)

So, lets not have any more of that old nonsense.

Mohammad Al Bouazizi makes top 10 in list for 'Person of the Year"

2011-11-11T17:27:00.010Z

Please click on this link to the Huff Post story to see who else is in the list and then add your comment asking for Mohammad Al Bouazizi to be named as Person of the year. Thanks

Here's another quick reminder of all you can do to help get Mohammad named as the overall winner

Thanks everyone.

Finally, here's the panel debate where Mohammad Al Bouazizi is nominated

Time Magazine 'Person of the Year'. Please read this and then nominate Mohammad Al Bouazizi. It will take 2 minutes.

2011-11-09T18:13:00.011Z

Yep. It's now time. I need your help.

Click on the links in the box on the right of this post or follow the links here to write to Rick Stengel, Managing Editor of Time, sign the petition, or visit our Facebook page - or ideally, all three!!

Please visit this story at Time Magazine now and nominate Mohammad Al Bouazizi as their 'Person of the Year' by either liking my own comment, or adding a comment of your own - or doing both!!

Now - why should you do all this?

Time Magazine gives the title 'Person of the Year' to the individual who 'for better or for worse...has done the most to influence the events of the year'.

They are clear that the title should not in itself be a prize, but an acknowledgement of influence on world events. Recent winners include Mark Zuckerberg, Ben Bernanke and Barack Obama.

I think in 2011 that title should be given to a Tunisian street vendor called Muhammad Al Bouazizi. It would be a fitting tribute to one man who has clearly already influenced the world in ways he could never have imagined.

For those who don't know, and you can read much fuller accounts here and here, (and from Time Magazine itself here), Mr Bouazizi was a fruit seller in a small provincial town called Sidi Bouzid. Following a confrontation with a local government inspector on Dec 17, and several attempts at getting anyone in authority to listen to his complaints, Mr Bouazizi set fire to himself in protest at his treatment and the treatment of millions like him, in front of the gates of the Governors office.

He died on Jan 4th from his injuries. In the intervening time, rioting, sparked by Mr Bouazizi's act, had started in cities across the country. Before he died he was visited in hospital by President Zine el-Abidine Ben, and 10 days after his death, the President fled the country.

As we now know, this is nowhere near the end of it. A second dictatorship has fallen in Egypt (the world watches to see how the military will make handle the transition to, hopefully, full democracy) and now Libya has gained freedom also. Meantime, protest movements continue across the Middle East.

Of course, he could not have known where his protest could lead. But that is not the point. One man's selfless act has changed the Middle East more than decades of diplomacy have managed. And I think his influence and memory must be marked.

In addition to visiting the piece at Time and commenting, I have sent the following note to the Managing Editor of Time Magazine, Richard Stengel. If you feel you would like to send a similar note, please feel free to copy the note and forward it to Time by clicking here. Also please sign the on line petition by clicking here

Dear Mr Stengel

Before he is forgotten, I would like to nominate Tunisian market trader Muhammad Al Bouazizi as your Person of the Year for 2011.

Your criteria is 'the person who has done most to influence events of the year'. Already we have seen his selfless protest leading to the collapse of dictatorships, and popular uprisings across the Middle East as the people demand democracy and influence over their own destiny. It is hard to imagine any individual who could do more in the coming months to change the course of an entire region, if not the global political map itself.

It would be all too easy to forget, as events unfold on a daily basis, that all this started thanks to the actions of a single man, selling fruit on a street, in a small provinicial Tunisian town.

The 'Time' award is of course not a prize; but it should be a marker for the world to acknowledge the acts of others. And Mr Bouazizi, in a single act, has done more than Presidents, Prime Minsters, Diplomats and opinion leaders have achieved in 30 years in the Middle East.

Please, over coming months, don't forget him, and make him your Person of the Year

Yours sincerely

Richard Morris

Behavioural Economics: Some light relief

2011-11-09T16:02:00.000Z

Here are two brilliant Ted Talks presentations explaining some of the value of Behavioural Economics, which as I've blogged previously could probably solve all the issues around funding tertiary education at a stroke (for once, quite apposite, given events in London today). Have no fear, they are entertaining as well as illuminating and don't require a PhD to follow them

The first is from Rory Sutherland, erstwhile President of the IPA. I'm betting he's not a Lib Dem - but boy can he present.

The second is from Dan Ariely - who I didn't know, so thanks to once again to Nicola Prigg for the lead.

Enjoy!!