Will Straw, straw men, possibly other hay related jokes

So, asks Will Straw, newly selected Labour PPC for Rossendale and Darwen…

“if the Lib Dems are so keen to reinstate the 50p tax, why did they stand by and let Osborne cut it?”

 Oh dear.

It seems to have eluded Mr Straw that we are in a coalition.

That cutting the band from 50p to 45p was the quid pro quo we demanded for taking 2.7m people out of tax altogether, and reducing taxes for a further 24m.

That Labour could have done the same but in fact chose to abolish the 10p tax band, thus increasing the tax burden on the poorest.

That the Labour party had 13 years to introduce the 50p tax band; they managed it for just the last 6 weeks they were in power.

That the current top rate of tax is 5p in the £ more than the top rate under Labour for 12 years and 8 months of their tenure.

That having an aspiration to continue to tax the wealthiest, not the poorest, is something you might expect Labour to laud.

And that Labour actually seems quite keen on other Lib Dem tax policies. The Mansion Tax springs to mind.

Sure, Will Straw is just politicking.

But he’ll have to do better than that.

I don't write the headlines....

My latest in the New Statesman. On Secret Courts. We are - once again - against. Come home Jo Shaw!

One of the best things about being a member of the Lib Dems is that twice a year you get to have a blazing row with your leadership about why they don’t know their arse from their elbow and that time is shortly upon us once again. Yes folks, conference season starts next week.

 

And as per normal there’s no shortage of rows on the horizon as the leadership suggests the party faithful back Osbornomics, ask us to agree that they were right all  along about tuition fees, and invite us to keep Trident. Oh, it’s going to be a corker this year…

 

But one of the other nicest things about being a member of the Lib Dems is that from time to time, the leadership listens, holds its hand up, accepts it go it wrong – and changes stuff. And one of those occasions will also happen next week. It seems the leadership has accepted that the party faithful may have had a point over what was THE row of Spring Conference 2013 and is prepared to reverse the legislation on Secret Courts.

 

You’ll have to hunt hard for proof of this, but fortunately I know a man with both a magnifying glass and the inside track. And in the penultimate debate of conference, a motion is being proposed by David Laws and seconded by Duncan Brack (each representing, I think it's fair to say, opposite ends of the party) inviting conference to endorse the manifesto themes paper.

 

With a foreword by Nick Clegg, hidden away on Page 22, it says:

 

 "We will find practical alternatives to the use of closed material proceedings within the justice system, including the provisions of the Justice and Security Act 2013, with the aim of restoring the principle of open justice".

 

Now, while the party will argue endlessly with itself over various aspects of policy on health, education, defence or the economy, give it a civil liberties issue and it will unite in a moment. Because that’s the main reason why most people join the Liberal Democrats. And as a result Secret Courts is probably the thing that’s happened in government that makes folk unhappiest.

 

And joy of joy – Nick’s held his hand up and concurred. Hats off.

 

Now, there’s a way to go yet. Conference has to vote for it, the full manifesto has to be written – and we’ve got  to be part of the next government to repeal the current legislation. There’s a way to go yet.

 

But at least we’re on the right road.

Who is in the G20 then?

As all the world is talking about the G20, it's a sobering thought to wonder how many people can actually name all 20 members. At least there are 20 members (unlike the G8 - which has 9). But can you name them.  Have a go - the scroll down for the list.

For what its worth - I got a humbling 18.... Partly mind because I wrote down China twice. There, I've even given you one...




























1. Argentina
2. Australia
3. Brazil
4. Canada
5. China
6. European Union
7. France
8. Germany
9. India
10. Indonesia
11. Italy
12. Japan
13. Mexico
14. Russia
15. Saudi Arabia
16. South Africa
17. South Korea
18. Turkey
19. United Kingdom
20. USA

How did I do?

How did I do?

I wrote this early last Weds morning; before the (watered down) Syria motion was published (when I wrote it everyone expected the motion to permit military action immediately).  Before Ed M started putting down conditions for his support; when everyone thought the bombing would start around Friday. and of course, before the vote.

 How did I do?

The media is full of folk pontificating that 'something must be done about' Syria. There’s an implication in the fact that Miliband was called into Downing Street yesterday, that it’s been decided that the 'something' involves flying cruise missiles into buildings where we suspect bad things happen. Parliament’s recalled and we all look forward to seeing if we’re going to be presented with a dodgy dossier and a refusal to publish the Attorney General’s legal advice (ring any bells?).

Yet in the midst of all this, my lot are strangely silent. Nick’s identikit statement to Cameron’s aside, there’s been almost nothing said, in the mainstream media or on social media, by anyone in the Lib Dems since it was announced that there’s going to be a vote. I can hazard a guess why.

Last time Parliament was asked to support military advice, there was a UN resolution already in place, and the remit of the military was clear – they were to protect civilians. Not too hard to support that. But this time it’s rather different.

Firstly, there’s no UN resolution in place. As the House of Commons Defence Committee Report on the Libyan conflict made clear: "we are concerned that the abstentions of five Council members, particularly the veto wielding countries of Russia and China, may make obtaining United Nations support more difficult for similar situations in the future".

They had that right.

Secondly, there’s apparently no mandate here to defend civilians, nor any pretence of such. This is about punishment. Setting down a marker. Letting other chemical weapon-hording dictators know that there’s a red line you just don’t cross. You can almost hear advisers whispering in Cameron’s ear that "there’s only one language these people understand". 

Thirdly, when Lib Dem MPs voted to 'defend civilians', I suspect most expected it not to extend far beyond enforcing the no-fly zone requested by some members of the Arab League. I wonder how many of those trooping through the lobby realised they were voting for regime change by military intervention (recall that the NATO operation was shut down just 11 days after the death of Gadaffi). What wording will they be asked to support this time – and what lies behind those words?

These are difficult issues for all MPs. But for the Lib Dems, with our proud record of opposing the Iraq war, it’s especially hard. Of course Iraq-is-not-Libya-is-not-Syria. But until there’s a UN resolution, and clear proof of who used chemical weapons on whom, it’s hard to see how Lib Dems can support military action. And sure the Prime Minister can tell us he’s seen that proof. But we’ve been there before, haven’t we?

I suspect Lib Dem MPs are under severe pressure to do what the political glitterati are telling them is their, ahem, moral duty, but in their heart of hearts they know the evidence hasn’t yet been presented to them to make that case. And while they are leaving the door open - hence their silence - the wider political leadership is going to have to work a lot harder to get them on side.

At least I hope so.

Julian Assange; How he fills his day now.

Sorry: been away and busy at work. But am now back,and what better way to say hello than this film showing what Julian Assange has been up to recently. Scroll to 3.44 on the off chance you can't be bothered to watch the whole thing.


 

H/t to (have a sit down) @louisemensch

An open letter to the new Lib Dem Peers. 'Well done. Now abolish yourselves'

My latest in the New Statesman. Many thanks for all the lovely comments; much appreciated - especially Olly's!

Dear Olly, Brian, Zahida et al

Firstly, many congratulations to your elevation to the House of Lords as Lib Dem Peers. I have no doubt that this honour is a reflection of the days, months and years of public service you have given and you have been chosen because it is believed you will strengthen our legislature and make our country a better place to live. 

And now, on behalf of a grateful party, can I ask you to work tirelessly to remove yourself from the House.

I know this is hard. You’re probably still flushed with delight at the news, wondering when you’re having the robe fitting and ordering new stationary. And I don’t blame you in any way for accepting the honour – I would certainly have done the same. But you are  Lib Dem peers, tasked with delivering party policy, and party policy very clearly states that  ‘We will reform the House of Lords and replace it with an elected second chamber ’. And that is what you must now fight to do. You are the enemy within.

If you need some inspiration, you could do worse that spend 15 minuteslistening to Lord Ashdown doing exactly that in the House – but in case you haven’t got time (those robes won’t fit themselves you know), here’s a handy extract.

“I just ask my noble colleagues in this place, whether they find it acceptable, at a time when people are dying for democracy, that we should have in This Place, somewhere that fundamentally infringes the fundamental principles of a democratic state. Which is that the peoples laws are made by the peoples representatives”.

We know the peers in the House of Lords do good work. But the best work they could do would be to abolish themselves and replace the structure with representatives chosen, not by patronage, but by votes.

For what its worth – I’d vote for someone who delivered that.

Into the lions den, armed with only a Capped Graduate Tax...

Well, I blogged at the New Statesman on tuition fees.

The inevitable happened

Ho hum

Enjoy

Unlike the Independent, I’ve not been privy to the 'Learning and Life' paperthat is apparently being presented to Lib Dem conference in September, which suggests we should go into the next election without making any, um, pledges, on how tertiary education should be funded. Just a bit of a vague promise to take a look at it when we’re in government  - by all accounts:

"…we have thoroughly examined the current system and the alternatives – a graduate tax and lowering fees – and concluded that we should stick with the current system and review it once it has been given a proper chance to bed in "

Now, I know us foot soldiers are all meant to be on our best behaviour and act like grown ups right now , so I will be considered and patient and wait until I read the paper before throwing all my toys out of the pram and shouting 'this is madness isn’t it?'; but can I make one small suggestion to the good folk in the working group? We could just rename 'tuition fees' as a 'capped graduate tax' and everyone would immediately feel a whole lot better.

I’ve suggested this before and I willingly admit that there’s more than a tad of the snake oil salesman about it. But there’s no doubt that while the phrase 'tuition fees' is like a red rag to a student bull, a capped graduate tax is not.

Renaming an unpopular fee as a more acceptable 'tax' is effectively just behavioural economics, beloved by the No 10 Nudge Unit and, indeed, popular with the PM himself. It would have been a neat solution to avoiding a lot a lot of unpleasantness for the Lib Dems right from the start.

I’ve never been able to understand why we didn’t go down this road. When I originally asked the question, I was told it was because ministers had been advised by civil servants that they couldn’t do it. So I put in a freedom of information request to see this advice; this revealed that not only were ministers not advised that they couldn’t just call tuition fees a 'graduate tax' - in fact they were given the opposite advice:

"in some respects, the loan repayment is equivalent to a capped graduate tax (and presentationally there is an advantage in describing it as such)"

So why don’t we do it?

Now, is this what I want to happen? No. I’d like a full on debate on tertiary education funding at conference and actual implementation of our current policy. But apparently the leadership isn’t so keen on that. Not good for the cameras. And not very grown up.

So this seems a fairly good compromise, delivering what the Lib Dem working party want (the status quo), the grassroots would buy (no more tuition fees), and be better for tertiary education to boot (because more people would buy into it).

Any takers?