Quick, someone wake up Julian Huppert before anyone notices

(h/t to Richard Taylor, @rtayloruk, for the spot)

Fixed term Parliaments: 12 months too long?

I came across this great article yesterday discussing how fixed 5 year parliaments had changed the rhythm of politics and it prompted me to ponder - is 5 years too long?

I well understand the logic of fixed term parliaments and endorse it - it provides stability, confidence, and it avoids leaders calling elections when it is politically expedient for them do so (as opposed to when it is in the best interests of the country). And the way our Fixed Term Parliament Act is framed means a call of no confidence can still bring a government down to an early end, should one or more of the partners in a coalition think it's the right thing to do.

But 5 years?

Firstly, let's not forget how we got to 5 years. In a rush, pretty much agreed in the post election coalition agreement negotiations. True, it was then passed as an Act and could have been amended - but as both parties had already agreed the length, the period went through with little debate. But it seems - well just too long.

True - of the  last 9 governments, 5 have been for 5 years (74, 87, 92, 2005, 2010) and 4 for 4 years (79, 83, 97, 2001), but each of the 5 years terms have been about political expediency to avoid losing a general election (and only successfully done in one case, '92). I don't think, whatever your politics, you would describe the governments of the 4 year terms as having failed to 'get stuff done' as their in built majorities enabled them to make policy happen. Historically, 4 year term governments have been more effective than 5 year governments.

Making fixed terms 5 years rather than 4 seems to automatically assume that the government in power will need an extra 18 months or so to get their political ducks in a row before any general election. And both ourselves and the Tories now seem set to embark on an 18 month process of telling the world how much we hate each other and how effective we are at stopping the other side doing things we don't like - which in it self doesn't seem the best for the country as a whole.

There's a great piece in this months Ad Lib magazine about the Lib Dem General Election team - and how  strong it sounds. How much better if it were now engaged on a drive towards a general election in 2014 rather than in 18 months time.

Ah, say some - the manifesto's not ready.

To which I say - well it would be ready if we had a 4 year fixed term; and besides, we have already acknowledged that we face at best being part of another coalition, outright victory seeming beyond us. So really what counts manifesto wise is more likely our 4 key priorities than the rest of the manifesto - as this is probably all we can guarantee to deliver in a coalition government. That's not to say that's all we WILL deliver - but in terms of election, ahem , pledges, that's where we are on safe ground. And 4 years in a strong coalition should be enough to deliver it.

Seems better than the 12 month phoney war we're about to embark on. Before the real things starts around this time next year....

Lib Dems pointing: a welcome return

Just catching up on this months Ad Lib and I see on page 10 a welcome return to an old favourite: Lib Dem's Pointing

More of this sort of thing please.

Is it just that the Anti HS2 side have better writers?

I have written before over my head and heart issues over HS2. I am beginning to wonder if part of my quandry is that the Pro HS2 team are just not very good at making their case...

Simon Jenkins wrote a very good good 'anti' case on Wednesday in the Guardian, so yesterday I was interested to see the other side had been given the opportunity to make the pro case. Paul Maynard is the Tory MP for Blackpool North and Cleveleys and a proponent of the scheme.

Unfortunately, his piece seemed - well, full of holes.

First off, he agrees with me up to now, the case hasn't really been made very well...

"I would be the first to accept that HS2 could have been sold better from the start"

 He then argues that the alternative would cause unacceptable disruption…

"I also welcome the increased focus on the non-viability of alternatives – the government is quite right to recall the delays and disruptions of the last west coast mainline upgrade. Trying to repeat that feat simultaneously on both main lines would effectively sunder the north of England from the south for a decade – hardly in anyone's interest?"

...but then a few paragraphs later seems to suggest that this will happen anyway thanks to the governments upgrade programme (which by the way I absolutely support)

"Arguing that the money could be better spent improving existing rail services in the north would be a powerful argument if the government didn't already have an ambitious set of plans for both mainline electrification and for the northern hub at Manchester, which will unlock much greater capacity".

He tells us that many of the criticisms of HS2 are based on things HS2 isn't about at all...

"The debate over HS2 has covered many things that HS2 isn't really about. Twenty minutes is neither here nor there when travelling inter-city, opponents have argued"

Um...the 'S' in HS2 stands for speed doesn't it; as I've said before, if its about capacity, they should rename it HC1

He goes on…

"and no one can really know what Heathrow's aviation demand will be by 2030, they (opponents) contend"

...but as Simon Jenkins pointed out the day before, when Theresa Villiers first kicked all this off, it was a direct alternative to the third runway at Heathrow. HS2 is all about Heathrow. 

He then makes a point I totally agree with..

"As to whether HS2 will end the north/south divide, the new line will be the enabler for that, but not the decider. Unless local councils start planning now, the line itself won't guarantee economic growth in the regions. For that, you need coherent economic development, planning and skills policies in place to take advantage of the opportunities the railway line will bring. For every city that feels neglected because the line doesn't stop there, they should be looking at how they can maximise benefits from the freed-up capacity on existing lines."

...but then sort of contradicts it in the next paragraph. Apparently if HS2 IS going to your town, you shouldn't make any plans at all...

"I listen to Labour MPs for Birmingham and Leeds arguing the money would be better spent on underground networks for their cities – which would no doubt be great for local residents. But I doubt such schemes would grow the economy as much as HS2 might, since they would merely move people around a metropolitan area, rather than make such areas easier to get to for those wishing to do business" 

Also see those 2 little words in the middle of that last paragraph. "I doubt" . In other words - he doesn't know. He's guessing. and on that guess he wants to spend £50bn. Blimey.

Now, once again, please don't imagine this means I'm anti HS2. I'm still on the fence. But as long as the case against is made eloquently and thoroughly, and as long as I can pick holes in every piece supporting it, it gets harder and harder to see why we should say yes?

Blogging's not dead

There have been quite a few pieces written about why Blogging is not dead in response to Stephen's article at Lib Dem Voice

One of them is from... Stephen Tall; and it's a very fair assessment of what's been written. And you have to admire Stephen's use of the Paul Dacre defence :-)

Others include...

Why you have to love blogging by @flipchartRick. Loved this

The demise of LibCon and the future of political blogging by Alex Marsh.

A Place for Amateurs by Chris Dillow

All reaffirm my faith in the power of blogging

The demise of LibCon and the future of political blogging (Alex Marsh)
Farewell, Liberal Conspriracy, I for one will miss you. (Richard Morris)
A place for amateurs (Chris Dillow)
- See more at: http://stephentall.org/2013/10/28/death-of-the-amateur-blogger-replies/#sthash.sbgJZ1nM.dpuf

The demise of LibCon and the future of political blogging (Alex Marsh)
Farewell, Liberal Conspriracy, I for one will miss you. (Richard Morris)
A place for amateurs (Chris Dillow)
- See more at: http://stephentall.org/2013/10/28/death-of-the-amateur-blogger-replies/#sthash.sbgJZ1nM.dpuf

Standing firm on Green Taxes

My latest post on New Statesman

Since I wrote it is has emerged that if green taxes are cut from energy bills, the costs will be passed on in general taxation, most likely by bringing more people into the 40% tax band by lowering the threshold, an amazingly progressive move.

If Nick and co can get a Tory Chancellor to bring in a progressive tax move to support the environment (shall we call it the #huskytax) I will take my hat off...

ConservativeHome thinks the Lib Dems are going to cave in to the Prime Minister after his rash policy-on-the-hoof announcement at PMQs yesterday – and start taking the green costs out of energy bills.

To quote the Tory blogger Mark Wallace, "they [the Lib Dems] know their position as the people preventing energy bills from being cut will not be tenable for long."

I think Mr Wallace is wrong.

Firstly, he forgets that this isn’t 2010 or even 2011. We’ve now crossed the rubicon and the differentiation strategy, so long promised, is in full swing. Hence the reversal on secret courts, clarification on Free Schools, the lists of Tory 'initiatives' we’ve stopped (the 'racist vans' campaign being the latest). That process is going to accelerate and the chance to expose the paucity of thinking from the Tories on energy is too good to miss. When David Cameron encouraged everyone to hug a husky, I had no idea he was actually outlining his whole energy policy.

Secondly, 75% of folk don’t blame green taxes for their energy bills. I suspect the 25% of people who do already vote Tory or have fled to UKIP. This doesn’t seem like much of a Lib Dem vote winner, so the politics don’t work. And thirdly, its a bad idea anyway. Around half the money raised in green energy taxes goes on schemes to help those in fuel poverty to minimise waste. I’d have said that making the poorest in society choose between heating or eating was a rather more "untenable policy position".

But that’s not really why the Lib Dems won’t be rolling over to get the Prime Minister out of a hole. It’s because just 36 days ago, Lib Dem conference was told:

"And if there’s one area where we’ve had to put our foot down more than any other, have a guess. Yep, the environment.

"It’s an endless battle; we’ve had to fight tooth and nail; it was the same just this week with the decision to introduce a small levy to help Britain radically cut down on plastic bags.

"They wanted to scrap Natural England, hold back green energy. They even wanted geography teachers to stop teaching children about how we can tackle climate change. No, no and no – the Liberal Democrats will keep this government green."

Nick Clegg’s words. No U-turning from there.

Mr Cameron, it might be time to pull on an extra hoodie. It’s the only energy policy you’ve got left.

Farewell, Liberal Conspriracy, I for one will miss you.

Sunny Hundal announced on Friday that Liberal Conspiracy will come to an end in its present form with immediate effect.

I, for one, was sorry to hear this news. Whatever you think of Liberal Conspiracy's politics, Sunny was a passionate blogger, an innovator in the field of blogging (as he points out himself, when it launched You Tube didn't even exist) and got some remarkable stories as exclusives. Plus he afforded a great platform for aspiring bloggers who wanted to get their message out. Like me

I wish Sunny all the best in his future endeavours.

Stephen Tall has attributed the demise of Liberal Conspiracy largely to the success of other multi author platforms like the Guardian's 'Comment is Free' The New Statesman's 'The Staggers' and the Spectators 'Coffee House' (and interest to declare here, I write a weekly piece for The Staggers). It is certainly true that these sites are offering the chance for amateur bloggers like me to reach a much wider audience than perhaps our own sites could reach, and they are getting some amazing readership figures.

However I don't believe that the death of Liberal Conspracy heralds the death of the independent blogger, as Stephen suggests.

Or at least, I think it depends on your motivation to blog.

 I started blogging because I wanted to express my thoughts and be part of the political debate.

Sure I love seeing my stats grow ( this blog get over 10k hits a month now), enjoy seeing what's popular and what's not, and love  it when things I write either get referenced or linked to by the more mainstream blogs and newspapers.

But it's the act of writing, of thinking things to write, of having an outlet to disagree with views I see expressed that I think are incorrect (like the predicted death of amateur blogging) that I like best.

I also like that on my blog I can write a thousand words on a serious policy issue, or 10 words on a cartoon I like, and each is equally valid. I can't do that on The Staggers.

And of course, I am my own editor here. My blog, my rules.

Sure, the blogosphere is getting bigger and the people leading the growth may well be the blogs run by the mainstream press. and sure, small independent blogs fall by the wayside all the time as people get bored, move on, choose to do something different or even just run out of time.

But we'll always be here.

And as Jennie Rigg points out there's one other reason to keep doing it.