Liberal Endeavour

Coalition to Continue Even with a Tory Majority?

2011-05-30T21:36:00.007+01:00

Not with me on board it won't. Rachel Sylvester in The Times (£) today has claimed that Cameron is keen for the coalition to continue even if his party wins an overall majority. Now I have to admit that I find this difficult to believe, it wouldn't surprise me if it was made up (After all only a Lib Dem would look to coalesce even when we could do it alone, painfully consensual politics?).

'For the Tory modernisers, the Lib Dems are the ideal weapon to ward off the enemy within. The news that some of the so-called “Tatler Tories” have been dumped from the list of prospective parliamentary candidates is evidence that the leadership does not think that the modernisation of the party is yet complete. The Prime Minister is pleased to have political cover for keeping the 50p top rate of tax, abandoning the “prison works” approach to crime, avoiding a return to grammar schools and retaining the ring-fence on aid — all policies that infuriate the rightwingers. “The traditionalists are just not on planet Earth,” says one Cameroon.'

While I can see that the party are making the government (slightly) different to the one that the Conservatives would have wished, I still believe that we are viewed by the Conservative party as a tool of convenience and they're currently doing rather well in damaging the party to the point where if there were a General Election tomorrow they would most probably pick up at least half a dozen seats from the Lib Dems across the country (the likes of Solihull, Torbay, St Austell & Newquay, Cheadle & Wells are amongst the most vulnerable), the party is holding onto hope that come 2015 this won't look quite so likely . The last thing that I would like to be is a tool of convenience for the modernisation of the Conservative Party because, frankly, that would end in one way. With a chunk of the party as members of Conservatives and a more sizeable section struggling to build the Social/Contemporary Liberal Party (Or Social Democrats Part(y) II). Perhaps a split could be seen as a positive thing - after all it would certainly make for a more cohesive bunch, with the current lot ranging from enthused free market libertarians (see Mark Littlewood/David Laws) to unrefined social liberals (see Charles Kennedy/Simon Hughes/Tim Farron)? However to arrive at this through an unforced coalition would make the latter look foolish and damage the successor party before it had begun.

Fortunately, I couldn't imagine a Liberal Democrat conference allowing such a coalition to come into existence - nevermind some of the MPs, that is, provided that they survive the election that follows this parliament. Also I would question whether the children of Thatcher are that keen to see their party take on a more cuddly side, regardless of whether the public would like it or not.

Hat tip to Harry Langford for pointing me to the subject

The Top Three. An Odd Mix

2010-10-08T21:27:00.002+01:00

Broadly speaking I think that the personnel in the new shadow cabinet are the correct ones, with some notable absences (Ben Bradshaw and Dianne Abbot perhaps the saddest and most surprising). It is hardly a break from the New Labour, however it is my profound belief that the party should make use of their brightest and best - although the change in policy may seem somewhat artificial coming from the old guard.

The top three seem to be the most confusing of the appointments.

Alan Johnson - Shadow Chancellor

Of course, Alan Johnson has been the headline all day. Mainly on the basis that he has no real practical nor academic experience of economics (save for a short spell as a PPS to the Treasury Minister). I suppose this was the same move that Cameron made in appointing George Osborne, it will certainly be interesting to see two politicians without in depth knowledge of the economy debating economics. Such a shame that Cameron wouldn't allow Ken Clarke or Vince Cable to take on the portfolio, both understand economics a damn site better than George and both hold more progressive (Keynesian) economic beliefs.

Ed Balls - Shadow Home Secretary

Well, to be quite honest I thought that Balls had spent the entire leadership campaign angling for economics portfolio, he didn't get it. However, I really am a little surprised that Ed Miliband (who actually mentioned civil liberties in his campaign/opening speech) would allow someone like Ed Balls near this portfolio - one only has to look his previous announcements on state snooping to see that he has no real interest in preserving the hard-won rights of our citizens.

Yvette Cooper - Shadow Foreign Secretary

So Mrs Ed Balls also has a high profile position - deservedly so, there is no doubt that she is a very intelligent and astute women. However, once again the brief appears to be somewhat confusing. Here because of the Iraq war. As Tim Farron was quick to point out "[Ed Miliband states] The invasion of Iraq was the worst foreign policy mistake for generations, yet Ed Miliband's new shadow foreign secretary was an enthusiastic supporter".

If you'd like to get to know the Shadow Cabinet a little better, I'd suggest having a look at The Guardian's online feature!

This was originally posted on my main blog - Molehill Mountaineers please comment over there!

Free Schools - Premature in Statute. Premature in Delivery.

2010-10-01T11:32:00.002+01:00

As some readers will be aware when Gove's free schools were been rammed through parliament, I wasn't keen, neither was Ros Kayes whose campaign against them (aimed at Lib Dem MPs, given that conference had rejected such proposals at Harrogate in 2008) I supported.

The problems with the bill and the idea of free schools was heavily written on and blogged about at the time so I won't spend any time doing that; I would refer you to Ros's campaign should you have had your head in the sand during that period. Suffice to say that the speed of its passage was some what hypocritical given Sir George Young's assertion that 'The Government are very anxious for the Opposition to be able to hold us properly to account'. There was barely a debate before the bill was rammed into statute - how on earth did this allow scrutiny from the opposition (let alone that from the government benches).

The new problem appears to be the conversion of state schools into free schools at around the same speed as the bill without consultation with parents nor teachers (who found their contracts changed with little regard for their own feelings). I would regard the conversion of current state schools to free schools particularly problematic, especially given the strain on schools across the country, should parents not wish their children to attend an ordinary school (as opposed to their newly free school, with new curriculum etc.), this may not be a possible due to issues with spacing.

Free schools are go, in many cases they're go with considerable opposition from within and with paltry consultation with parents, pupils and teachers - surely this isn't the way to approach the education of the nation's children?

Premature in statute. Premature in delivery. Nice one Michael.

This was orginally posted on my main blogsite Molehill Mountaineers, you are welcome to comment on that version!

Throwing mud from the sidelines: the left shouldn't revert to dogma in opposition

2010-09-24T13:10:00.002+01:00

Whilst I can understand the desperation of the left to present itself as better than what we currently have (I make no bones about the fact I would have preferred a Lib/Lab alliance to what we have, unfortunately it just wasn't feasible), the constant flinging of mud in the early days of a government is just not the way to do so. I believe that a more nuanced and reasonable approach to opposition is one that should certainly be considered by the incoming leader of the Labour Party, and most certainly by the trade unions (who I consider to be acting irresponsibly in stating they will coordinate strikes in the event of large scale cuts, these cuts will happen either way, they would have under Labour, acting so petulantly could well bring about economic collapse (surely the trot fantasy that Vince Cable mentioned in his speechto the Lib Dem conference), which rather than benefiting their members will ensure their long term unemployment). I may not agree with the timing taken by this government (I would have supported a more Keynesian approach), I believe that there is a chance (albeit a smaller one than many had previously thought) that such an approach could bring about a second shrinkage of the economy.

I think I can already hear some voices shouting 'its awful though, what else can we do but shout at them'? There are two key steps that I feel should be taken in parliament to provide what I would consider to be goodopposition (which is a necessity in any strong democracy) - as there is no other cohesive group who has the opportunity to do so, given that aside from the single Green MP the remaining sitting MPs are nationalists which means that they're unlikely (if not unable) to offer a full critique of spending plans proposed by the government for the entirety of the United Kingdom - the onus must be on Labour to do this.

The first is to always pre-state an alternative; Labour had committed themselves in their manifesto to large scale cuts (on roughly the same level as the coalition). Given that the shadow chancellor has already stated that Labour were considering raising the level of VAT in 2011, obviously the new leader may have new ideas, but to stand on the sidelines moaning is not an adequate way to win the support of the public at large. If the Labour Party wantsto influence the policy of the coalition gaining popular support for specific policy would be the way to do so (particularly when you consider a number of government MPs are left of centre), if they don't, one would have to question what exactly they want?

The second would be to make a point of stating publicly when they're in agreement with the coalition. Believe it or not, there certainly shouldbe a number issues on which this is the case. For example, on the issue of the restoration of the pensions earning link. Here, Labour were not interested one iota in praising the carrying of such a necessary measure for our pensioners - rather focusing on other separate measures that could negate the positive effects of this alteration (without this measure, the VAT rise would have hit pensioners much worse, as it is I believe (as should all progressives) that this is extremely positive and is something that should have been introduced at some point during the boom years, when there would have been no mitigation of things such as the VAT rise). Of course there are plenty of areas where the Labour party do and should disagree with the policies of the coalition without the need to manufacture more, which strikes me as petty.

In following these steps the left will seem more reasonable and, perhaps be viewed as a viable alternative to the government. As it is they seem to be taking steps that only serveto strengthen the coalitions stance on issues, even where the wider public should be easily persuaded.

This post was originally posted on my main blog Molehill Mountaineers, all blog posts are now posted there first

2015 - The Challenge. Should Clegg lead the Liberal Democrats into the next General Election?

2010-09-21T12:25:00.008+01:00

Although I am by no means an eager fan of the coalition government's programme, in fact I find some of the measures taken nauseating; I do remain of the belief that entering into government with the Conservative Party was the right thing to do (albeit due to the lack of options available to the party at the time, heaven forbid an unfettered Tory government). In the long term, however, I do have some reservations about how the Liberal Democrats proceed into the next general election.

Presumably (well, I sincerely hope), the reason that we have heard so much about how Clegg agrees with a range of coalition policies (including what I perceive to be an attack on the poor), is because he is keen to stress that the Liberal Democrats are having an influence on everything that is coming out of this government - of course this is not true, that is the nature of compromise (put in more eloquent terms by former Newbury MP, David Rendel). However, I would argue that in taking such a stance Mr Clegg is not only driving a wedge between himself and the wider party (the vast majority of whom consider themselves to be to the left of centre), he is also failing to retain the party's unique image in the eyes of the public (unless it is negatively reported by the Daily Mail, who of course are keen to rubbish some of the more positive concessions in the coalition).

Given these actions I, as a member (and potentially a candidate) am concerned as to how Nick can possibly lead the Liberal Democrats into the 2015 election as a party distinct of the Conservatives? In the immediate future, the party has a batch of local elections early next year, where there may be some indication of the public perception of the party (any losses would hurt the grass roots as a party that pride ourselves on our local work, certainly more so than Labour and the Conservatives who I believe regard themselves essentially as Westminster parties). Should we see large scale losses in council elections over the next two years the party will urgently need to consider their approach to the next general election or face the prospect of losing the vast majority of our parliamentarians - which would all but negate some of the good things that have come from the coalition (I cannot imagine Labour or the Tories maintaining some of the strides we have made in civil liberties in this short time, particularly without a distinctive Liberal element in opposition, or once more in government).

What is the answer? I can see two options to this solve this conundrum:

First, would be the resignation of Nick Clegg as leader of the party. Should this happen, Clegg can be proud of some of the things that he has achieved in government - the restoration of civil liberties, the raising of the personal allowance, the closing of tax loopholes (maybe?), helping to deliver the greenest government yet (perhaps?) and of course constitutional reform. Whether he would remembered fondly by the party faithful would be something that only time would tell. His replacement? Well that is a path that would have to be crossed at the time, I should think that the candidate would have to be a figure outside of government - Of those that have voiced their discontent, the obvious one for me would be Tim Farron (who will, almost inevitably, be the next President of the Liberal Democrats - a position that Charlie Kennedy held before his elevation to leader).

The other option would be a tactical withdrawal from government, led by Clegg before the end of the term. Arguably, this is a more risky strategy, particularly from a party that openly supports PR and as a consequence coalitions. Should this happen it would have to happen over a particularly large issue - otherwise the party and Clegg look petulant and could further suffer.

One thing is for sure, there is no easy answer to how to approach the next election. Paddy Ashdown wrote in his diary'A hung parliament would not be a dream. It would be a nightmare' - electorally I tend to agree with him. Practically, it isn't half as bad as it might have been!

This post was originally posted on my main blog - Molehill Mountaineers, as all future postings will be.

The Rampant Hypocrisy of the Parliamentary Labour Party (and indeed some of it's supporters)...

2010-07-07T10:06:00.001+01:00

Right, as you will have gathered from my previous post and the events that followed it, I'm not totally enamoured by everything the coalition is doing (on some things I am actually rather annoyed!), however I find the rampant hypocrisy of the PLP (and particularly leadership contenders) really hard to stomach! To them it would appear that the Liberal Democrats are little more than a Labour tribute act who have left them (and sold out on our principles), we're not (and we haven't)... and didn't your mothers ever tell you not to throw stones from glass houses?

Right, Ed Miliband (one of the leadership candidates I think could do a good job), who I think has focussed his campaign more on attacking Liberal Democrats than on what he would do for Labour:

The Liberal Democratic Party and its values have been sold out for the sake of a handful of ministerial cars

Couple of things:

Firstly, can you not remember Ed, the cars are gone. Secondly, and on a more serious note; we're in a coalition, regrettably sacrifices are made... However, there are some very positive things that have come out of the coalition already (things that probably make all the leadership contenders, save Dianne Abbott, squirm), the announcement of a freedom bill, an AV referendum, an enquiry into torture allegations and a rise in the personal allowance. Now, I'm not saying it's perfect, far from it... However, from what I understand the PLP flat out refused to work with the Lib Dems (they wouldn't even remove ID cards and essentially told the party to go swivel, we've been backed into an uncomfortable corner!). Honestly, I have no problem with a critique of policy on a case by case basis, there is plenty of that from within the party, the amendment tabled by Andrew George for example... However, to attack the Liberal Democrats as somehow the anti-Christ, is petty and quite frankly, a bit rich.

Let us consider the Labour Party's movement over the past fifteen years... A movement that meant that they have leaked over a hundred thousand members in the period, which is pretty damning of how at ease they are with their membership (conversely Lib Dem membership has increased since the coalition)... The main reason for this loss is the fact that Labour presided over thirteen years of government pushing an agenda of Thatcherism with a friendly face:

The movement towards this 'New' Labour party started with the amendment of Clause 4, which talked of 'common ownership of the means of production' was moved, taking with it the 'old' nationalising (socialist) Labour party and moving to something much more sinister, furthermore policy making powers were taken away from the party members, instead becoming increasingly vested within the party leadership of Blair and Brown.

Furthermore, the party began a movement to a neo-liberal approach to the economy, similar to that taken by Thatcher - and Kampfner argues that this movement was taken faster and further than Thatcher had ever imagined, Robert Peston describes New Labour as being "a triumph of the super-rich"... Who could forget the banking crisis, this was brought on by a soft touch, Thatcherist approach to the economy, one that was championed by Blair and Brown - they seemed to know no better and had, along with their parliamentary colleagues abandoned the very essence of the Labour Party, and yes Ed, you did it for ministerial cars!

This movement is summed up brilliantly in 'Lost Labours: Where now for the Liberal left':

They were indistinguishable. One might reasonably argue that the reason so many in New Labour acted in a thuggish manner is because their passion was based not in the desire to engineer change, but in one all-consuming purpose: re-election. Since 1997, their every working day was based around the task of prolonging their term of office. It filled in the ideological hollow.

So, when we hear the increasingly tired accusation that the Liberal Democrats have sold up on our principles for power the easy response is to merely ask whether they remember Labour before the 'New' bit... Do the two really share similar principles/goals? If they did there is a chance that I may have fallen that way, as it stands no amount of petty insults will be driving me to the Labour party, jog on Ed.

Why I'm still uneasy with this coalition malarky

2010-06-21T00:28:00.000+01:00

It has been more than a month since I said to my nearest Lib Dem MP: 'When you see David Laws give him a high five, because this really is unreasonable'. I was of course referring to the coalition agreement. As the weeks have worn on I have, however, become increasingly uneasy at the direction the government is headed, as, a huge proportion of its policy and movement are away from the principles I hold dear as a Social Liberal kind of Lib Dem.

I will really depart from what is perhaps the most defining phrase for me, and for the party at large:

"The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity."

Preamble to the federal constitution

By this definition, I am a Liberal Democrat, and I know the same is true of our brilliant MPs. It's just that the coalition agreement appears to be tying our hands far too tightly for my liking. I mean how are we meant to go about the our very meaning if we're complicit in some of things that are happening now and happening with our name next to them.

The first of these is the idea of free schools. You see, the problem here is that if children are to be split apart (selectively may I add) and taught aside from the national curriculum that risks the chance of the development of two tier system (particularly when state-controlled schools are left with limited pupils and therefore less money to ensure the best possible education, whilst 'free' schools gain both the same state support alongside any money invested by their administration/owners/trustees), which could confine those undesirables (not 'chosen' by free schools) to an inferior education in a poorly funded school. Surely this flies in the face of the fundamental principle of equality? And community for that matter? Whilst I can understand Liberal Democrats fighting for a less prescriptive curriculum, after all a prescriptive curriculum is extremely conformist - free schools is a step too far and one that I hope the likes of Simon Hughes will be standing up against in his role as deputy leader.

Second is the likely increase in VAT that we're likely to be seeing in this weeks budget. VAT is a sneaky, backhanded and hugely regressive taxation that we should be seeking to reduce if anything. It is a horribly dishonest way of taxation, one that people will not notice from purchase to purchase, but one that stands to hit the average person to the tune of £389 a year (source: Lib Dem election poster!). Which is OK if you're earning loadsamoney (when you may possibly be able to do a nifty tax return to claim a fair bit back), but if you are a low earner or a student, this increase will hit you hard. The poverty line is a thin one, it is such disproportionate measures that can tip the balance for the thousands of individuals and families that are struggling to make ends meet. A far more honest way of approaching these matters would be to increase income tax for higher earners, it's progressive, it's honest... But as it is printed on your payslip you'd notice and so it has not even been mentioned by the Conservatives, unfortunately the same goes for our parliamentarians (nor Labour's as well (although what can you expect from the folks that abolished the 10p tax rate?)). Not to mention the fact that this increase in VAT would do far more to halt our fragile recovery (as will all of the cuts :() than the so called 'tax on jobs'.

Finally I have a bit of a gripe with the bits of the coalition that say that the Liberal Democrats can abstain. As far as I'm concerned, where this is the case voting for clearly goes against our values - therefore by abstaining our MPs are effectively cheating their values and the values of those that elect/select them. I take solace in the fact that I believe there will be an informal whipping of rebellion among our non-ministerial MPs - as among them we have some fantastically principled folk.

My advice to our parliamentarians is this. There are things that you may not like in this coalition, some of which are bearable, but where they are not make it clear in the most uncertain terms that you are not Tory lobby fodder, stand up, speak up and vote accordingly. Otherwise it's going to hurt your membership, your voters and ultimately your jobs. Oh, and if it gets too hot in there: run away, and bring the leadership with you... your principles are worth more than this opportunity at government!

Even The Guardian and Observer want us now

2010-05-01T20:12:00.000+01:00

Well, over the last two days the Liberal Democrats have had unequivocal support coming from two papers that have in recent memory, unequivocally supported the Labour party - and it is of no surprise! Like The Guardian/Observer, I'm a bit of lefty, so supporting Labour could come ever so easy... There is a but though, and it is a rather big but. As well as being a lefty, I'm a liberal, with a rather ideological view of the way that things SHOULD be done, regardless of circumstance. So, I feel really rather let down by the last thirteen years (whilst accepting that things, in many respects have indeed, only got better), Labour have effectively wasted these last thirteen years assuming that for people like myself there was no alternative. There was, and is... and today that alternative appears to be standing somewhat stronger than the Labour Party itself.

The Lib Dems have very effectively, aided greatly by Labour, established a niche as a home for the Liberal left, a home of responsible foreign policy and a more tolerant view to society, one that doesn't blindly promote things because they are seen to be tough. It's time to have a government that promotes policy upon reasoned debate, evidence and more than simply populism, this is something that I believe only the Liberal Democrats are truly offering at election, so to The Guardian, I tip my hat and congratulate you for taking a truly principled stance, where it would have been oh so easy to push for an extension of a government you stopped believing in shortly after their re-election in 2001. Thank you for choosing a party that believes in progress alongside a moral obligation to the world and our own citizens. Thank you for choosing Liberal Democracy!

So it's time to turn things upside down!

Oh and as for the Tories, The Observer, in it's endorsement puts 'some' of my feelings about call me Dave's party in much more eloquent terms than I could ever hope to:

The Conservatives have spent much energy campaigning against that outcome. They have publicised their irritation that voters could depriveDavid Cameron of a majority much better than they have explained why he deserves one in the first place.
Mr Cameron warns portentously that a coalition might lead to instability, economic jeopardy and "more of the old politics". Perversely, he also rejects the need to change the current voting system, which has, he says, the merit of delivering clear results. Except this time it might not. What then? Mr Cameron's view is that the system would work fine, if only everyone voted Conservative. This is sophistry draped in hypocrisy. He backs first past the post, while agitating against one of the outcomes that is hard-wired into it. He is campaigning against the voters instead of pitching for their support. He defines change in politics as the old system preserved – but run by the Tories.

More scrutiny of our policies? BRING IT ON!

2010-04-18T20:37:00.000+01:00

Following on from Nick's fantastic performance in the leader's debates there has been a tough line coming from CCHQ, well, actually there have been two, which kind of contradict each other:

1. Michael Gove in the backdrop of the debates said: 'Nick Clegg, I think, benefits from being the new kid on the block. With novelty comes curiosity, but also with novelty will come, now, increased scrutiny'

2. Cameron claiming that "In the end the choice will still come down to 'do you want five more years with Gordon Brown or change with the Conservatives?'

So on one hand, they're claiming that the Liberal Democrats aren't a threat and it is still a straight two-horse race between the two old parties. Whilst with the other hand sensing a threat and considering how on earth they can deal with it, you see, the thing is, Liberal Democrats have absolutely NOTHING to worry about!

In response to Mr Gove I will say this... When the Liberal Democrat policies are created, publicised and scrutinised the public like what they see, that is why twice a year at conference we get an immediate bounce. Furthermore, Liberal Democrats generally feel the need to go further when it comes to outlining our policies so that they CAN stand up to scrutiny, our manifesto consequently has a list of saving/spending commitments that the Institute for Fiscal Studies is unable to dismiss (which lets face it is as good as an endorsement!)... Granted this doesn't by any means cover the entirety of the necessary deficit reduction, but the fact that is there in black and white should give some confidence in the Liberal Democrats that you don't get with the other two parties - we have plans. We are serious about government and have laid out a manifesto that makes this crystal clear (unlike the Green Party who appear to have copy and pasted our manifesto whilst adding some unrealistic spending commitments!). So, I look forward to scrutiny, because lets face it you really aren't going to be able to lay much of a hand on Lib Dem policy without taking a rather large blow in return.

And to David Cameron I say this, we are a threat and we will continue to be over the next two weeks, yes we might not take government, but you can guarantee that in terms of the polls we will no longer be the party lingering under 20%, we're right up there... Wouldn't it feel so sickly sweet if our involvement prevented you government and finally caused your party to support proportional representation? Don't count your chickens before the eggs have hatched because there are plenty more twists and turns left in this campaign...

Oh and just for fun, tomorrow's YouGov/Sun Poll:

Liberal Democrats 33%

Conservatives 32%

Labour 26%

A good day to be a Liberal Democrat

2010-04-14T22:36:00.001+01:00

Well, the title is pretty self explanatory, today was an absolutely wonderful day to be a Liberal Democrat. I felt proud, and I will carry this feeling forwards as I knock on doors throughout Cornwall safe in the knowledge that my party is THE party that has any aspiration of delivering for ordinary people. Obviously, this is something that I knew on the day that I joined but to see this re-crystallised into a manifesto that shines above 'the invitation to join... oh dear' and Labour's attempt at tying to reinstate previous manifesto promises.

It's not just me that thinks this though! Even the press are saying the same thing:

New Statesman says:

The Liberal Democrats, who launched their manifesto this morning, are having an undeniably good week. … Nick Clegg, who held his own against Jeremy Paxman this week, has undoubtedly matured as leader, just in time for an election in which his party is looking a formidable force again. … with Clegg’s own openness on tax aimed at taking 3.4m of the poorest out of paying it altogether, his shadow chancellor who reaches to otherwise alienated voters and his clear message of “fairness”, this interesting party is very much back in the game.

The Guardian goes as far as saying that

By far the best undertakings on liberty come in the Liberal Democrat manifesto, which is hardly surprising, given that it has been stalwart in its defence of liberty under all three of its leaders since the last election

With The Times mentioning our manifesto in regards to science

A Labour science manifesto is due out soon, and perhaps the Tories will flesh out their plans too, so the it's too early to say that the Lib Dems deserve the science vote where candidates' credentials are equal. But they've certainly made the strongest pitch for it so far.

Of course, as you would rather expect having laid the figure out there were attacks claiming that 'the numbers do not add up', however these attacks came from the likes of The Daily (hate) Mail, who, lets face it weren't going to like it, they claim it is a manifesto built on attacking there precious middle classes, it isn't! It is a manifesto aimed at not only their readership but to people who work hard for little reward, a manifesto to encourage people back into work, yes if you're at the top you will pay more, but lets face facts these people are the people that should be paying their fair share. Yes, these people play an important role in society but to gain disproportionally in terms of tax avoidance is neither right nor fair... The Liberal Democrats recognise this (so do many of the people that fit into that bracket) and are willing to do something about it. So when you think about your vote ask not what a party can do for you, but ask what it can do for wider society. And, I think that you may find that the party that will benefit the many, is not Labour, not the Conservatives but the Liberal Democrats. Now, are morals not in the main drawn from a utilitarian perspective? Yes? Are you thinking what I'm thinking....

For a fair critique of the numbers in our manifesto, consult The Guardian... Who think there is a bit of give and take, but its certainly not as far out as other publications have suggested. It was a brave move to publish the numbers - one that showed confidence, style and responsibility and I very much doubt it will be one that comes back to bite the party.

Oh and there was also the excellent PPB driving home those four key manifesto and campaign pledges, whilst bringing into question 65 years of broken promises under the Labservatives

Which I think is also rather good!

So all in all a rather fantastic day for Liberal Democrats...

Complaining to the BBC

2010-02-05T14:53:00.001+01:00

After the BBC broadcast Question Time without a Lib Dem representative, despite discussing the Iraq War I have taken it on myself to write to the BBC complaining about what I perceive as political bias. I would urge those that agree to do the same

Here's the transcript of my letter:

I am writing to formally complain about what I see as political bias against the Liberal Democrats on Question Time (broadcast last night 4th February).

As I'm sure the BBC are aware the Liberal Democrats voting percentage since its formation remained at above 15% of the national vote (a sizeable proportion of the population in itself) so it would seem only fair that the Liberal Democrats should receive a fair hearing on political broadcasts such as the one last night.

However, seemingly this wasn't to be the case... Even on the week of the Iraq enquiry, which if my memory serves me correctly was an invasion that only the Lib Dems formally opposed in parliament, so why on this week of all weeks should the supposedly neutral BBC seek to nullify the word of the party, on (mainly) an issue where the party had a clearly distinct stance from Labour and the Conservatives. It seems particularly wrong when one considers the panel as a whole:

George Galloway- Respect MP opposed the Iraq war. However, at the same time Galloway is a former Labour MP (including under Blair's premiership) so it would seem likely that he would have nothing unique to offer to other questions.

Claire Short- Again a Labour affiliated MP who was in the cabinet during much of Tony Blair's premiership so one would think that despite her opinions on the war in Iraq she once again would hold generally the same views as the other Labour panellists.

Lord Faulkner- official Labour representative, I have no objection to Faulkner's place on the panel asides from the fact that he is one of three Labour/former Labour politicians sat on the panel

Theresa May- Again I have no objection to May's inclusion on the panel, it is only right that the Conservatives get their voice hear (no more important than that of the Liberal Democrats though really)

Melanie Phillips- I despise this woman and everything that she seemingly stands for both in her writing and her contribution to shows such as this one, her views are outdated, racist and hold no real place in modern Britain... I honestly wouldn't give her the time of day, but again a (supposedly) impartial commentator is agreeable to have on the show (even a woman who spouts as much bile as Phillips)

I would ask the BBC to think very clearly about its conduct in the future as, although perhaps unintentional, it is seemingly stepping into a very grey area which is potentially damaging for British democracy, and as such the general public.

I look forward to your response and improved conduct on future BBC programming

Yours,

Dale Cox

We don't do Bull.#.

2010-02-03T18:32:00.000+01:00

Today in the aftermath of Falmouth and Exeter Student Union's Town takeover radio presenters were wondering around trying to gather perspectives from different students about the tuition fee issue, obviously being there with the Liberal Democrats we were supporting the party's current pledge to scrap tuition fees, against the probable increase that both Labour and Conservatives are avoiding talking about.

The discussion, somewhat predictably, with a selection of students and activists from both the Lib Dems and the Conservatives was really rather heated (and dare I say it rarely on topic?!)... So whilst putting forward the party position and mentioning some of the ways that the Lib Dems hope to fund the pledge I was shocked to hear the Conservative Future president say in front of microphones that the one thing that the Conservatives 'don't do is bullshit', to that I say bullshit. Granted all political parties do have an occasional tendency to occasionally drift into this mythical land, but on recent showings the Conservatives seem to be taking a lead role in the production of bullshit in British politics.

For example in the last week the Conseratives have:

-Proved Diserali correct, indeed there are 'Lies, damned lies and statistics'

-Flip flopped over 'swingeing' cuts

-Got confused over marriage tax (leaving Joe Public bemused)

If this isn't bullshit, I'd like to know exactly what kind of shit it is....