Do details matter?

I don't know. Am I being petty now? I think I probably am. 


But I do find it irritating when elected politicians choose to make public statements, and in doing do make mistakes that betray the fact that they don't know what they are talking about.


For example Louise Mensch tweeted this earlier...

...and of course, there isn't an interim Greek president. The President is the Head of State, he is currently called Karolos Papoulias, and it is he who has been trying to get the elected politicians to form a new government.

I think she almost certainly meant the interim Prime Minister, who is Panagiotis Pikrammenos.

This is a little like mixing up the Queen and David Cameron.

Does it really matter? Probably not. But if Louise Mensch really is going to go into government in the reshuffle, she ought to get that sort of thing correct. Especially if she ends up in the Foreign Office.

Like politicians who confuse 'debt' with 'deficit', it probably doesn't really matter, as long as they know what they mean.

But it is just a tad annoying...

Normal Service is being resumed now. And Border Controls.

Sorry: been away on Business. This is where I have been.

Do feel free to play 'Guess the City'

Now it is currently fashionable to mention 'how was the Border service?' when you re enter the country. I have to say ta Terminal 4 on Weds evening, the queue for EU citizens was not onerous (15 minutes) and the man at the desk was efficient.

But...I would have walked through the automatic chip recognition exits with no queue at all if it wasn't for the fact...

They were all shut :-)

Zac. I still think you're off to UKIP...

I know. I'm getting a  touch obsessive.

But I've blogged that I think Zac Goldsmith may be off to UKIP. and I tweeted the blog to him. And he didn't respond.

But that's just my humble blog. So then I referenced it in The News Statesman last week. and again, he hasn't denied it.

And now there's something more.

After the Queen's Speech on Wednesday, Zac tweeted this:

Whereas UKIP policy on recall is rather more, I would think, to Zac's taste...

· Introduce a right of recall whereby electors can challenge an errant MP and force a by-election in exceptional circumstances, such as abuse of expense

And here are some other tweets from Weds which also sound a bit, well, UKIP orientated

Take another look at that last one - here's the UKIP policy...

· Introduce ‘Direct Democracy’ whereby 5% of the national or local electorate can demand a binding referendum on any issue. At national level, people will have to sign up for the referendum within six months, at local level, within three months

Hmmm

Anyway, Zac, all you have to do is say it's not true, and I'll move on to something else...

A Conference Call with Great George Street that didn't involve any shouting

Weds night saw another conference call for bloggers concerning the Communications Capability Development Programme (CCDP, aka Online Snooping Charter), following the announcement of a draft bill in the Queens speech.


On the receiving end this time were Julian Huppert MP, member of the Home Affairs Committee and a SpAd who asked to remain unnamed and off the record, which of course I will respect.


In marked contrast to the last such call the tone this time was of understanding, of reassurance and very clear. Julian (and the SpAD) were  excellent and it seemed clear to me that all the concerns that so many of us have been raising about CCDP have been heard and understood. I do still have one major concern which I will address in a moment, but to summarise the main points Julian made:


1. The draft proposals have not only not been seen by Julian, he suspects they have not even been written, such is the extent to the revisions that are being made following the explosion of outrage when this news was first leaked.
2. Unless the legislation is brought to a stage that acceptable to the Lib Dems - and he is fully aware of the motion passed at Conference - then it will not pass. The whips are also realistic about this. I asked if he could guarantee that the conference motion would be adhered to in full - and he very honestly said that this would be his aim, but that he could not guarantee every dotted i and crossed t would be in the new legislation - but unless there was considerable overlap between LD policy and the legislation, it would not pass. I found this a convincing and honourable line to take - especially as Julian has yet to see any draft.
3. The consultation process will be detailed, open and thorough. Julian knows a lot about this area - but was frank enough to say numerous times that he wanted people with more expertise to feed into him what he needed to know. One slight concern was Julians willingness to take on board the advice of big internet giants like Facebook and Google - but to panic about this now would I think be jumping the gun.


One phrase I especially liked was 'crowdsourcing policy development' on this one - a phrase in keeping with both the subject matter of the legislation and spirit of the call.


4. Julian was clear that we will almost certainly not like the draft legislation - it will be RIPA plus. His advice was, when you see it, don't panic - fight it. They have to show their hand first. If, after modification the legislation isn't a tightening in RIPA powers, it shall not pass.




Others have raised some concerns with technical misunderstandings that Julian may have - but I prefer to accept that he is firmly on the side of the angels, and the fight is in good hands. 


(I couldn't make the Nick Clegg conference call today but reading twitter and some blogs suggests Nick may be less clear on the issues - which is a worry). 


So - my one concern.


When we saw the Brown proposals on tuition fees - we didn't like them. We compromised on a much better deal and in doing so were given 'ownership' of the legislation  - with disastrous results.


Ditto on Lansley NHS reforms. 


The process here - Tories launch draft legislation, we hate it, amend it, pass law that becomes 'owned' by the Lib Dems - is identical. And I do not want us to in any way own a #snooperscharter. 


I know the Spads think a lot about presentation. They might want to start thinking about this now. Thanks


But I don't want to sound mean spirited. It was a good call.

Has Zac Goldsmith been taken in by fake Lib Dem leaflets?

I think Zac Goldsmith may have been taken in by some fake Lib Dem literature.

On the night of the local elections last week, there was a by-election in North Richmond for a seat on the Council. In the last election the excellent Lib Dem candidate, Jane Dodds, lost by just 19 votes.

Jane, her agent Roger Hayes, and many local Lib Dems ran a fantastic campaign and worked very hard, plus of course helped the Lib Dem GLA candidate Munira Wilson with her campaign.  I too delivered a ton of stuff around Ham Common for Munira - so was surprised on election night to see this tweet from our local MP, Zac Goldsmith...

Certainly nothing I had delivered for Munira could remotely have caused a reaction like that

It was also clear that the Tories were very worried about the result...

...which is why I was very surprised to see later that not only had Jane lost - but the margin of losing was rather more than last time - 146 votes.

Now news has broken that a whole series of fake leaflets were being delivered in North Richmond, purporting to be from the Lib Dems but in fact, completely fake. The details have been published over at Lib Dem Voice and the matter is now in the hands of the police. Roger Hayes is convinced these leaflets made the difference between winning and losing.

Now, lets be 100% clear. I don't think for one second Zac Goldsmith had anything to do with those fake leaflets, nor do I believe that it is likely anyone connected to the major political parties would have done any such thing.

But if these were the leaflets that Zac refered to in his tweet, then he has - mistakenly - slurred the good name of Jane and Munira - and I think he should be big enough to apologise for that mistake.

Go on Zac. Do the right thing.

Update: 21:16

Someone who would know (ie not me) has been in touch to suggest...

'I think Zac's complaint was about us 'politicising' the issue of Osbourne and Cameron reopening the issue of Heathrow expansion. Apparently he thought it was underhand for us to campaign on an issue on which he felt so uncomfortable...!

I very much doubt he was referring to the fake leaflets'

In which case there is of course no need for him to apologise. Though if he thinks we shouldn't be politicising the third runway, he's got another thing coming...

And he might want to clarify which leaflets he's so hot under the collar about.

The Lords: How the Tories will fight us...

Thanks to the wondrous Helen Duffett I had the treat of appearing on Five News on Tuesday evening where i got to debate Lords Reform with Peter Bone MP. And what fun it was. And while I don't agree with a word that man says, its only fair to say that he was a courteous and good natured opponent.

What the debate did illustrate was some of the attack lines Tory opponents of Lords Reform are going to deploy - because he deployed them. So here a a few of them  - and my replies....

1. (The classic): 'The economy is what matters, we should be concentrating on this and nothing else'

Of course you're right - reducing the deficit is the governments priority above everything else, and the coalition document makes that clear. But governments are capable of doing more than one thing at a time - and no one honestly claim that our democratic institutions are working perfectly and with the full support of the people currently. Quite the opposite. 

2. This is a Lib Dem policy and no one else in the country wants it

Lords Reform is a Lib Dem policy. But it was also in the manifestos of the Tories, Labour, The Greens - and yes, even UKIP (this gave Peter a moments thought!). In fact 95% of people who voted in the last general election voted for a party who supported it. And the other 5% were mainly nationalist party's with a different constitutional fish to fry (for example the SNP support reform - but want Independence from Westminster rather more!).

It is not a Lib Dem policy. It is a universal policy. Which incidentally means it should have universal support between the parties...

3. Why should a party polling the same as UKIP have any sort of policy initiative?

In the local elections last week we got around 15% of the vote - UKIP got 5-6%. So that's just not true.

And also irrelevant - it's the last general election that counts.

But it's also an odd argument for a Tory to make - because essentially it's saying your influence should be directly linked to the size of your support - which sounds like an argument for proportional representation to me...

4. It's an unnescary reform - the system isn't broken.

Isn't it? In the local elections here turnout was around 30%. In the French Presidential Election, turn out was 80%+. I'd say there was a problem with our system - and it needs fixing. We people to be re engaged with politics - and Lords Reform is a small step in that direction

I'd like to vote for Brian Paddick twice, although I'd like to...

My piece from yesterday's New Statesman. Proving quite popular. Do pop over to see the comments... And all the very best to all our candidates today, especially my local GLA candidate Munira Wilson, Leader of the Lib Dems on Richmond Council Stephen Knight (second on the GLA party list) and Jane Norman in the North Richmond ward By-election.

I love the ceremony of voting. I like the stroll down Lock Road to the polling station, the good natured hello’s to the party folk, friend and foe, at the door, the hushed librarian tones of the officials, the crispness of the blank ballot papers, the stubby pencils, the lot.

But I will enjoy it less than usual this time. Because I don’t know, with a day to go, who to vote for.

Don’t get me wrong. I will be voting Lib Dem. I shall happily support our local GLA candidate Munira Wilson, confident she will do a wonderful job. I will cross fingers as I vote Lib Dem in the party lists, hoping this time our local leader, Stephen Knight, gets over the line, as well as the inspirational Caroline Pidgeon. And I will happily put a great big cross against Brian Paddick’s name, who has run a brilliant campaign and shown a better grasp of core issues like housing or policing than any of the other candidates.

But at that point the misery kicks in. Because in the London Mayoral election I have the chance to express a second preference, on the off chance Brian doesn’t make it over the line. And for me and all Lib Dems, it’s a rotten choice.

Lots of fellow party members have been making warm noises about the independent candidate Siobhan Benita – but she’s pro-third runway, which is a red line issue for me and the good folk of Ham Common. The UK Independence Party are anti-third runway (it’s one of the reasons I’ve been tipping Zac Goldsmith as a potential Tory defector in their direction – been a couple of weeks now, he’s still not denying it). However , ‘no-third-runway’ is just about the only policy I have in common with Ukip, so they’re a no. When I answer blind policy questions to tell me who to vote for, I find I have much in common with the Green Party. But I’m voting for a Mayor, and do I want Jenny Jones to be the leader of this great city? Sorry Jenny, but no, I don’t. And anyway, everyone tells me that if a second preference is to count, I have to select either Ken or Boris.

My problem with Boris is not that he isn’t a likeable character – but I struggle to think of what he’s done. There’s the bikes – but that wasn’t his idea in the first place. There’s the new buses. Which look lovely but don’t seem to have been the most brilliant way of spending gazillions of pounds.  And that’s pretty much it. After 4 years I have no sense of radicalism, of excitement, of a crusade to make Londoners lives better.

Which to be fair to Ken, I do have.  But can I really vote for a candidate who is clearly making all sorts of promises that I just don’t believe he can keep – like the return of the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA). And who half of his own party wishes they hadn’t selected  (and no, I don’t just mean Dan Hodges).

So, a loveable rogue who doesn’t inspire me or the candidate Labour wishes they hadn’t chosen in the first place.

It’s not much of a choice is it? And this is to elect a politician with the largest electoral mandate in the country?

I shall probably find myself banging my head in frustration on the table on the voting booth.

I wish I could vote for Brian Paddick twice.