A Liberal Goes A Long Way

A new home

2009-10-30T14:38:00.002Z

If you've spent the last eight months wondering if this blog is dead, the answer is yes, sort of. I'm no longer blogging here, but you can find all my writings - whether from Lib Dem Voice, or elsewhere - over at my new site, stephentall.org: The Collected Stephen Tall. So go on, bookmark it: you know you want to.

Okay, okay, I admit defeat... here are my 25 random things

2009-02-05T23:15:00.003Z

I've succombed to what my mum always warned me against: peer pressure. I've resisted the 25 random things meme-craze sweeping across Facebook as long as possible. I attempted to deflect it by blogging 25 random things about the Lib Dems over at Liberal Democrat Voice, but tonight I finally put egotistical finger to self-obsessed keyboard and wrote up my own, personal 25 random things...

1. I have a double-barrelled surname (the only one in my family born with it - figure that out). I never use it.

2. The first album I bought was Kylie's first eponymous one.

3. I had attended five schools by the age 8. In Epsom, Bristol, Cardiff, and Liverpool.

4. In my first live TV apearance a lady fainted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5bl32COCy4

5. My favourite film of all time is Love Actually, actually. I've watched it more times than is healthy.

6. My video collection treasures include Bob Monkhouse Live (x3), a 3-hour compilation of party political broadcasts (thanks Iain Dale), and The Box of Delights.

7. I had never set foot in the Oxford city council ward I was to represent for eight years until 2 months before I first stood for election.

8. I can't drive (well I guess I might be able to, but I've never had a lesson and haven't got a licence). I have, however, bought a car and sat-nav.

9. I had never been on a plane or been abroad until I was 23. (I've made up for it since).

10. I would be happy only ever dressing in frock coats. Preferably made of velvet.

11. My greatest embarrassment is that I have tried and failed to learn Spanish for the past three years (despite my girlfriend being Spanish).

12. I am currently reading four books: Miss Smilla's Feeling for Snow by Peter Hoeg, Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell, The Ladies of Grace Adieu by Susanna Clarke, and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close by Jonathan Safran Foer.

13. From the age of 8 (til I was about 11) I wrote and designed my own daily newspaper, The World. I was a weird kid, tho - my favourite TV programme was Yes, Prime Minister.

14. I was the youngest deputy Lord Mayor of Oxford (probably, haven't actually checked, but I must've been).

15. I once stripped for a vlog: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoCH2MAMtL4

16. Though I enjoy editing Lib Dem Voice - www.libdemvoice.org - I much preferred writing my own blog, A Liberal Goes A Long Way - http://oxfordliberal.blogspot.com.

17. The last three DVDs I bought were: the Complete Cadfael, Complete Skins and Victoria Wood Live (1997).

18. I was once a Fellow of an Oxford college, but have never been an academic.

19. I have always had a phobia of dogs (tho I'm more or less okay around them now).

20. My ideal meal would be roast beef with all the trimmings, washed down with a bottle of Pouilly-Fuissé.

21. The last batch of CDs I bought were: The Killers, Pink, Will Young, Kaiser Chiefs, The Streets and Girld Aloud. Make of that what you will.

22. My perfect relaxation is a bath, glass of champagne, and the latest Economist.

23. I joined the Labour party, aged 16, have read all Tony Benn's Diaries, and voted for Tony Blair as leader. I resigned my membership in 1999 after Labour flunked Freedom of Information, reckoning if they couldn't get it right on such a minority-interest issue what hope was there of them getting it right on the big issues?

24. I got my first ever pet last month (thank you, Noa): a terrapin.

25. I hope that my first child will be an adoption.

One roast swan short of a Banquet

2008-06-23T21:28:00.001+01:00

I know that citing the Google searches that resulted in people accidentally stumbling across one’s blog is a bit clichéd, but... hey, trite-and-tested is my motto. And I did like the idea of someone keying in the phrase:

Tony Blairs Lord Mayor Blanket speech

It sounds like rather a good idea: forget the white tie and tails, just bring a sleeping bag.

Because criticism should be fair and factual

2008-06-23T18:17:00.005+01:00

That fearsome right-wing triumvirate – Robert Halfon for ConservativeHome, The Spectator’s Stephen Pollard and The Times’s Daniel Finkelstein – all repeat what they consider to be a terribly clever point about Gordon Brown’s tainting of David Cameron as a ‘shallow salesman’.

Here’s Mr Halfon:

Far from being used as a political insult in which Mr Brown can attack the Prime Minister [sic], salesmen should instead be celebrated for their hard work, entrepreneurial spirit and for providing services that many people could not do without. Mr Cameron should wear the salesmen badge with pride.

And here’s Mr Pollard:

I think it says a lot about the outlook of our wonderful PM that he should regard the word 'salesman' as an insult. … [he] appears to have an instinctive loathing of capitalism, and to regard it merely as something to be tolerated for the benefits it can bring.

(Mr Finkelstein confines himself to commending their "brilliant" insights).

But hang on a just a second. Gordon Brown didn’t condemn all salesmen. He condemned shallow salesmen, which is actually quite a big difference. Here’s a tip for Messrs Halfon, Pollard and Finkelstein: adjectives are usually quite handy clues to discerning what someone means.

I’m no apologist for the Prime Minister, as I suspect this article makes clear. But distortion for argument’s sake is just a little – how can I put it – shallow. And it’s as tedious from right-wing commentators as it is when left-wing agitators condemn money as the root of all evil (forgetting that it’s the love thereof which is responsible).

One thing I just don’t get about David Davis

2008-06-15T13:31:00.001+01:00

I don’t doubt for one moment the sincerity of David Davis on civil liberties. He has proven himself to be an articulate, passionate, resolute opponent of Labour’s unceasing efforts to subjugate the ordinary man and woman to ever more draconian laws for the greater good.

And yet he is also an advocate of the death penalty, saying in his first interview as the Tories’ shadow home secretary back in 2003:

“There is really no doubt, if you have got DNA evidence in multiple murders there will be absolutely no doubt," he told BBC's World this Weekend. "That is one of the great concerns historically about capital punishment, that there will be doubt about it.

"Secondly, that it is obviously pre-meditated. If somebody plans to carry out a series of murders, often against children or young women, or elderly people. These people pick their victims very cynically I'm afraid. Then this is obviously an evil and pre-meditated attack and in that case, there could be there a deterrent effect. We are talking about lives here."

For many in the Tory party they will see no ideological conflict in holding such views: it is partly what separates the libertarian wing of the Tories (who are generally also on the ‘social right’ of their party) from Liberal Democrats.

Yet for true liberals there can be no more terrifying prospect than that the state should hold the power over the life or death of its citizens. It is why the declaration of war – and the knowledge that young women and men will die at the behest of the state – is something which should only ever be contemplated in the most serious circumstances, and as a last resort on the basis of unimpeachable evidence.

That the state should consider aggrandising to itself the right to extinguish the breath from one of its citizens is the height of arrogance and hubris. No-one who truly believes in the rights of the individual, and in the limits of state power, could ever condone the re-introduction of the death penalty.

David Davis has many admirable qualities: but he is not and never will be a liberal.

Local paper in earth-shattering headline bid

2008-05-14T13:08:00.002+01:00

This was the leading headline on the Oxford Mail website this morning:

"No One Injured In Shed Fire"

A whole city breathes a collective sigh of relief.

The perils of choosing a Lib Dem Voice poll

2008-05-09T22:20:00.004+01:00

It’s an odd experience, sometimes, editing Lib Dem Voice. Last night, we were chided – quite rightly – for keeping up on the site an out-of-date poll. So, today, as I cycled into work I resolved to stick up a new poll for readers pretty damn smart.

The question was: what to ask? I toyed with ‘How long has Gordon Brown got?’, or ‘Who do you think will succeed him as Labour leader?’ But too many other folk are asking that. Besides, the truth is the Labour party is far too servile to sack their leader just because he’s not up to the job. They’ll hang on to Gordon simply because he’s there, and they hate to challenge authority.

So I settled on a more interesting (I thought) question: what do you think will be the result of the next general election? But what answers to offer? Obviously, the four most plausible choices – outright Labour/Tory victories, or minority Labour/Tory victories – and I briefly contemplated adding a ‘Lib Dems win’ choice, too.

And then I decided not. After all, the chances of a Lib Dem victory at the next general election are Posh Spice-slim, at best. It also occurred to me that loyal Lib Dem Voice readers, bless ‘em, might feel compelled to chose the ‘Lib Dem win’ option – which would render the poll pretty nonsensical, as I was more interested in finding out what fellow Lib Dems really think is the most likely eventuality, not what they dream of happening.

A couple of commenters on the thread have expressed their disgust at the exclusion of a ‘Lib Dem win’ option. Fair enough, they’re entitled to their opinion. But what intrigues me more is this question: would it actually be a good thing for the Lib Dems if we found ourselves the elected government in two years’ time?

My answer would be: absolutely not.

The idea that the Parliamentary party could grow overnight from 63 to 330 and provide a stable, sustainable liberal government is too far-fetched for me. Even if that quintupling in numbers were to occur, I find it hard to believe the party would be ready for the challenges of government. And that’s no criticism of the party, its prospective MPs or the leadership: simply the reality that gradual growth provides a stronger basis for future success than a meteoric rise without trace.

By all means be ambitious. But also let’s be realistic: for example, by doubling our number of MPs in the next seven years, as Nick Clegg has declared to be his aim. And let’s work for the party’s long-term success, not a short-term flash-in-the-pan.

The week after the eight years before

2008-05-09T20:41:00.004+01:00

So this is what it feels like to be a normal person again... After eight years, I am no more; I have ceased to be; I am an ex-councillor.

Chatting to two fellow councillors last week, I could sense a faint trace of pity in their looks, as if, by standing down, I was tossing away the holy grail. They asked why I was leaving, and consoled me that I could always (try and) get back on the Council soon enough.

Then conversation turned to the commitment involved: the incessant evening meetings, the weekends catching up with casework, the tensions it causes at home. My turn to give them a pitying look: “And you asked me why I’m quitting...?

I keep on waiting for an epiphany, a moment when I suddenly realise my life is my own again, and not shared with 4,000 residents. It hasn’t happened yet, and I doubt it will. Life has a habit of adjusting itself remarkably quickly to our changing rhythms.

Besides, last Saturday morning saw me cycling to the Town Hall to chair the Oxford Lib Dem group’s annual meeting, at which – I’m genuinely delighted to say – my former ward colleague, and fellow blogger, David Rundle was unanimously elected leader. He will now be the leader of the opposition to Labour’s minority administration, a task he will relish and for which he’s custom-made.

David’s already commented on the Oxford results here, and there’s little to add. For some bizarre reason, the local paper keeps referring to the party’s “miserable” election-night performance, despite the Lib Dems gaining a seat – pretty impressive for a group which has been in minority control for two years, and has had to grapple with a City Council only slowly recovering from Labour’s appalling quarter of a century running it down.

Yet there’s no denying Labour did better: they gained four seats, including one from us, bucking the dire national trend for their party. They will reap the benefits of a Council which is now on the mend and on the up. Fingers crossed they don’t screw it up... again.

For us, the results were more frustrating than anything else. The Tories trail a long way behind the Lib Dems in Oxford East – but they did just enough this time around to split the anti-Labour vote, and hand a lifeline to the Labour party. The message here is clear: vote blue, get Brown. The challenge for the Lib Dems is to make sure the public – determined to get rid of Labour at the next general election – understand the message, too.

Well, I guess I have a little more spare time now to lend a hand with that.

Is there a life after politics?

2008-04-10T21:30:00.002+01:00

So, today marked my last Council committee. Though, a la Frank Sinatra, I will have many more such ‘farewells’ in the 21 days which remain of my life as a councillor. (Last area committee, last civic occasion, last Full Council, etc.).

I took the decision a few months ago to stand down from Oxford City Council when my third term expires but have kept schtum about it – chiefly because I hated the idea of being a lame-duck councillor whose pleas to council officers were ignored because “he won’t be around for much longer”.

There’s lots of reasons for my retirement... a new house, a new job which deserves my full daytime attention, and a partner who deserves my non-work attention, a new niece... above all, a feeling that I don’t want to turn into one of those councillors who hangs around in the hope of one day becoming Lord Mayor, rather than because they have anything fresh or energetic to offer their residents. After eight years, and three election campaigns, it’s time for me to make way for a Lib Dem campaigner with the vim and vigour to tackle the issues I have been grappling with in my ward since 2000.

There are things I will miss – my Council colleagues, and, especially, the residents I’ve got to know so well – but, if I’m honest, more that I won’t. My pet hate is meetings of Full Council: five hours of torpor in which councillors grand-stand to no purpose in the unrequited hope of being quoted in the local paper.

Its an oddity of Oxford politics that most councillors rub along together pretty well, and can find more to agree on than disagree... until they sit in the Town Hall council chamber. At which point, some form of collective guilt takes over in which councillors fear they’ve betrayed their principles by cooperating with opponents, and decide to turn into mindless, partisan morons.

Never say never and all that – and I’ve not ruled out a return to the City Council at some point – but if I never attend another meeting of Full Council, it will be too soon.

But there are things I’ve achieved, a fair number, for my residents over the years; and I will miss not being able to achieve similar such things in the future. And there are things I’ve failed to achieve, more than I’d like, for my residents over the years; and I regret I won’t be in a position to try and put that right in the years ahead.

When I finally, finally finish – on 1st May – it will be distinctly odd. The Council has been so much a part of my life for eight years that I’m curious to find out how I’ll manage without it, as I re-discover a life beyond politics. I know this is the right time to leave. But I don’t regret a moment of it. Truly, it’s been a privilege.

This is how far A Liberal has gone

2008-04-07T21:31:00.012+01:00

“It’s a funny old world,” said a former PM. She was right. In my day job – the one that pays my mortgage, and keeps me well away from politics – I am responsible for fundraising for the University of Oxford’s libraries, including the Bodleian. Within which is located the Conservative Party Archive. For which I am now actively seeking money. Oh, the irony.

For the record (and in case my employers are watching) I should stress I have absolutely no philosophical problems with any of this. The Archive is an historical record, and a fascinating one at that. One part of it has made a splash today, with the online release of the Tory Party’s posters – the Daily Mail carried a dozen of the best in a double-page spread here.

But you don’t need to patronise the Mail’s website to enjoy a saunter through political advertising history. You can access the whole archive at the Bodleian’s website here. Which means you can also search the Archive by category, date, description or keyword. I typed in the search term ‘liberal’, which gave me the five posters, below. (Click on image to enlarge).

Interestingly - though I guess unsurprisingly - the Liberal party was deemed not to be worthy of an attack-by-name ad for three decades, between 1929 and 1959. And nothing since 1983 either. But, then, I suppose Tories are all liberal Conservatives now, aren't they?

1929:
(Posters 1929-10 and 1929-23)

1959:
(Poster 1959-03)

1964:
(Poster 1964-12)

1983:
(Poster 1983-12)

Should Chris Huhne really be leader?

2008-04-07T13:00:00.000+01:00

That’s the allegation by the Indy’s political editor, Jane Merrick:

According to one authoritative account of the leadership contest last December, Chris Huhne would be Lib Dem chief were it not for hundreds of ballot papers being held up by the Christmas post. Mr Clegg beat his rival by just 511 votes out of more than 41,000 party members in one of the closest-run races in political history.

Yet as many as 1,300 postal votes arrived after the deadline of 15 December – and an unofficial check of the papers showed that Mr Huhne had enough of a majority among them to hand him victory. The extraordinary claim could spark demands for a rerun from Mr Huhne's supporters.

I’ve not come across Jane Merrick’s journalism before, so I’ll take it on trust that she does bother to check her sources, even if she doesn’t feel the need to cite them. But I find the story barely plausible.

For sure, the gap between Nick and Chris was a wafer-thin 511. But for the result to have been overturned by ballot papers received after the closing date would mean that Chris would have had to have picked up 70% to Nick’s 30% of the final 1,300 ballot papers. Given how close both candidates were running throughout the contest, this stretches credulity.

Not impossible, then. But highly, highly unlikely. And you might have hoped the Indy would reflect this in its coverage. Hoped, but not expected. For British political journalism is rarely troubled by the need for facts to substantiate a story – just throw together a load of allegations, and see what sticks.

Dave, you're fired

2008-03-27T10:01:00.004Z

It's a delight to welcome back The Apprentice into my living room each week. Such a shame that David Cameron looky likey, Nicholas de Lacy-Brown, should be first man overboard. Still, I bet Dave would know you can't get lobster for £4.90 a throw.

Ed Balls-up: crisis, what crisis?

2008-03-13T20:52:00.005Z

Back in June 2007, when Ed Balls was appointed secretary of state for Children, Schools and Families, I did suggest he might come a cropper some day:

I’ll be interested to see how long it is before Balls’ tone-deaf touch lands the Government in hot water.

That day came on Wednesday, with his heckling of David Cameron’s budget response, when it is alleged he shouted “So what?” when the Tory leader argued this country’s tax burden has never been higher.

Such tone-deafness would be enormously embarrassing for Labour. Indeed, PoliticalBetting.com’s Mike Smithson today argued it might lose the party the next election.

But fortunately for Mr Balls, anarcho-blogger Guido Fawkes has proven himself to be Mr Balls' true friend, coming to his rescue by uploading to YouTube the House of Commons exchange.

Watch carefully – and impartially – and it can clearly be seen that M Balls does not bawl out, “So what?”. In fact what he says is just as is recorded in Hansard:

Mr. David Cameron (Witney) (Con): ..As this country enters troubled times, it could hardly be worse prepared. We have the highest tax burden in our history.
The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (Ed Balls): So weak!
Mr. Cameron: “So what?” says the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. I know he wants to be Chancellor so badly it hurts. I have to tell him that another Budget like the one we have just heard and he will not have to wait very long.”

But the damage is done for Mr Balls – and personally I’m with Lynne Featherstone: serves him right for indulging in such boorish behaviour in the first place.

Rather like Jim Callaghan – who famously never said, “Crisis? What crisis?” (it was The Sun’s paraphrasing) – or Peter Mandelson – who never mistook mushy peas for guacamole – or Gordon Brown – who never said he liked waking up to the Arctic Monkeys - I suspect “So what?” is a legendary remark which will stick to Mr Balls like dirt to a shoe.

Proof political journalists don’t understand opinion polls, No. 94

2008-03-10T22:04:00.003Z

Much scratching of heads tonight among some hacks confused by the latest Populus poll in The Times showing “the Tory poll lead shrinking fast”. Here’s Sky News’s Jon Craig:

Voting intentions, according to Populus, are now Conservatives 37 per cent (down three), Labour 34 (up three) and the Liberal Democrats 19 (up two, despite last week's Lisbon Treaty vote shambles). That's right, the same Populus poll on February 3 was Conservatives 40, Labour 31 and Lib Dems 17, a very different story. That was one of the bigger Tory leads in opinion polls this year.

Except it’s not necessarily “a very different story”. As any fule kno – or at least as any foolish hack should know – opinion polls are accurate only to within a margin of error, commonly +/-3%. Which means that it’s perfectly possible, and certainly statistically possible, there has been no change whatsoever in voting intentions in the last month.

But let’s allow for the possibility that there has been a significant change within the month... to what does Mr Craig ascribe this tightening of the political maths?

[Gordon Brown] has hired new staff in No 10 to beef up the Downing Street operation, he is performing better against David Cameron in Prime Minister's Questions and he appeared more relaxed when he spoke at Labour's spring conference in Birmingham 10 days ago.

Gordon’s backroom reshuffle, moderately better PMQs, and a conference speech. Apparently, according to Sky News, that’s what it takes to shrink a Tory poll lead. It says much (too much) about the claustrophobically introverted microcosm that political journos inhabit that any of these might seriously be put forward as reasons for the Tory downturn.

Sclerosis of the Liverpool

2008-03-08T09:20:00.002Z

What’s in a word? A lot, it seems, if the current debate on Nick Clegg’s use of the word ‘Sclerotic’ is anything to go by. Myself, I think the British public can handle learning a new word if they don’t know it already.

Perhaps I can refer those who are dubious to The West Wing, and a discussion about whether the word ‘torpor’ could be deployed in a political speech:

“It's not our job to appeal to the lowest common denominator. It's our job to raise it. If you're going to be the ‘Education President,’ it'd be nice not to hide that you have an education.”

Quite so.

Delayed blogging of Question Time Extra

2008-03-07T18:40:00.005Z

Okay, so this blog ~~stutters~~ carries on by popular(ish) demand. Many thanks for the appreciative comments left, and the handful of emails I've received. Really, I'm blushing.

For those who somehow contrived to miss my stellar appearance on BBC News 24's peak-time blockbuster hit, Question Time Extra, you can relive my 25 minutes of glory via the wonders of the web here. Rarely have I watched the whole of the main Question Time show with such dedicated concentration as last night, especially knowing that I was about to appear live on air to try and make sense of the Lib Dems' position this week on Europe. I gave it my best shot.

Actually the whole thing was made much easier by (i) Shirley Williams' barnstorming appearance to defend the Lib Dems' pro-European stance. When she wants to be she's an absolute star. And (ii) sharing the panel with ConservativeHome.com's Tim Montgomerie - I doubt there's a single issue we agree on, yet he's wonderfully polite and good company. (Tim - my mum thought you were excellent as well, by the way.)

A Liberal Goes A Long Way - R.I.P.?

2008-03-01T20:10:00.005Z

Been a bit quiet around here lately, hasn’t it? Four and a half months, to be precise since my last posting. I could make lots of excuses... I changed jobs at the start of the year... I’m house hunting... I have enough on my plate as a councillor... etc.

But actually the real reason is both more practical and philosophical than that.

First, the practical bit. Acting as commissioning editor of Liberal Democrat Voice is a darn sight more time-consuming than I thought it would be, or, I suspect, than it looks. The theory is great. As LDV has, I guess, by some little way the largest readership among the Lib Dem blogs – over 20,000 unique visitors a month, and growing – you might imagine we’d get a steady stream of submissions from activists and MPs alike.

But it doesn’t quite work like that. What tends to happen is that we get a spurt of articles, which sometimes end up buried on top of each other, and then fallow periods, when no-one writes a sausage. Moreover – as any Editor knows – it’s one thing to commission pieces; quite another to receive them back by the deadline. The ratio of articles requested to articles published is probably something like 7:1.

Let’s turn to the philosophical bit. When I first took over at Lib Dem Voice from Rob Fenwick, back last summer, it felt a bit like I was house-sitting: it was a nice place to stay, but it didn’t seem right to make any changes, or put my own personal stamp on it. So I happily kept up both this blog, and LDV, in tandem: this place for my personal political reflections, and LDV for the more tribal party political stuff. In truth, I felt both sites suffered from my split affections.

In that sense, the leadership contest gave me the excuse I was looking for to rest this blog and focus 100% on Lib Dem Voice – which is what I’ve done since October. I’m pleased with what LDV has achieved during that time, in particular that we successfully covered the leadership contest in a neutral but not bland way, and that readership has grown even since the result was announced (I thought there would be a sharp dip). This is thanks, I should emphasise, to the whole ‘Collective’ which runs LDV, and, of course, to the many contributors to it.

But which do I enjoy more? That’s a different, and difficult, question. Lib Dem Voice has a bigger reach, within and beyond the party, than this blog would ever achieve. It’s also fun to be in e-mail correspondence with various folk, inside and outside the Lib Dems, and to invite them to submit articles on a wider variety of topics.

Those are the upsides. The downsides are that it’s not ‘mine’ – I feel more of a responsibility to the Lib Dem Voice readership than I ever did for those readers who turned up here. This is my blog, my gaff, my rules: if you don’t like it, don’t read it. You can’t have that mindset when you’re a member of a team website which is the unofficially official/independent party members’ website. Also, I write less than I used to, and with a narrower remit. This blog covered all sorts of topics – political, social, cultural - most days of the week. The content I generate for LDV is pretty much exclusively political, and usually to do with the Lib Dems. Sometimes I find that frustratingly constrained.

The question remains... what should I do with this blog? Do I officially admit defeat and shut it down? Or do I write very occasional pieces for it to keep up some pretence that it remains a ‘live’ blog?

Well, you’re my readers (if I have any left) – what do you reckon?

Standing easy

2007-10-16T08:32:00.000+01:00

I’m giving this blog a rest for a short while. With the Lib Dem leadership race about to get underway, my role as commissioning editor for Liberal Democrat Voice is going to keep me quite busy enough (while also holding down a full-time job and being a councillor).

Doubtless I’ll be back at some stage, though it’s unlikely this time I will declare for any particular candidate.

I recorded a short interview for BBC Radio 5Live’s Pods and Blogs show, reflecting on Ming’s departure, which was broadcast at 2am this morning. If for some reason you weren’t finding yourself insomniac, you can listen to it here (I’m on pretty much at the beginning).

For Ming, with thanks

2007-10-16T08:27:00.000+01:00

Yesterday was a sad day for the Liberal Democrats; but in particular for Ming Campbell, a good, decent, honourable man, and someone who - if politics and life were fairer - could have proved to be a highly effective leader. But, in truth, he never looked comfortable in the job. For a gent whose attire is always immaculately tailored, the suit of leadership hung awkwardly on his frame.

The early comparisons being made are with Iain Duncan Smith; but that is to underestimate Ming’s contribution, which was more akin to Michael Howard - a man who professionalized his party’s operation, and steadied the ship at a difficult time. Both men are perhaps too shy to find it easy either to give or receive warmth. But they earned the deep respect, if not always affection, of their parties.

It would be unnatural if Ming did not reflect with some bitterness on the mauling he has been subjected to by the gutter press (which is pretty much all of it these days); and perhaps also with the party which listened too closely to that press. In the circumstances, Ming had little option but to resign if he wished to preserve his dignity. His swift decision was, nonetheless, a brave one: to admit failure is the hardest thing in life. But it is entirely in keeping with his outlook on life that it was not one he shirked.

Public life is the poorer for his departure.

How should we respond to the media speculation?

2007-10-12T14:28:00.000+01:00

For the conspiracy theorists among you, the fact that Lib Dem Voice has crashed on the same day as it is cited by both The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph as fuelling the pressure faced by party leader, Ming Campbell, might be just too much.

I have my own theory: the LDV servers have revolted at the misnaming of the website by both those august journals as Liberal Voice. I would have thought both the name and the url of the website would be enough for even the most slapdash and obtuse of journalists to be able to get it right. Which is a ripe lesson for me never to underestimate their incapacity.

It might also be of course that the servers have - if you believe the Torygraph report, which has since been shamelessly plagiarised by the Grauniad - become overloaded thanks to Lib Dem members “swamping” the site with anti-Ming Campbell comments:

unease has spread to the party's grassroots who have swamped Liberal Voice, the most popular supporters' website, with messages demanding the resignation of Sir Menzies.

The Torygraph’s facile Andrew Pierce is clearly reading a different website to the one I help edit. Yes, there have been messages calling on Ming to resign. They are, I would estimate (and with the site down I can’t currently check), in a clear minority and number no more than half a dozen. This may count as “swamping” if you’re writing in a Tory paper to stir up a bit of political excitement now a general election is off the agenda.

Still, at least Pierce came up with an original story. Factually flimsy, but still. The Guardian’s Hélène Mulholland doesn’t even have that excuse. Not only does she flagrantly rip-off the Torygraph piece, Hélène then has the bare-faced cheek to write:

Chatter about Sir Menzies's leadership overshadowed last month's annual conference in Brighton.

Wrong, Hélène. The only chatter about Sir Menzies’s leadership I heard was along the lines, “Why won’t the press report what’s happening here instead of banging on about Ming’s leadership all the time?”

In short, the press is talking rubbish with such casual concern for the facts that it scarcely counts as journalism at all.

And yet, and yet… As I posted on Lib Dem Voice this week, for Lib Dems to complain about the media’s pathetic press coverage is, at the moment, beside the point. The media has made up its mind: Ming must go. They will refuse point-blank to be interested in any other story, unless the party’s (and Ming’s) poll ratings perk up, and quickly.

We can moan about this all we like, and yes, it’s unfair. But that’s the situation and we’ve got to work out our response to it, or else endure another 18 months (or whatever) of the only occasions we gain any national media exposure being when the press reports speculation about Ming’s future.

It is no longer enough for Ming, or anyone else, simply to try and deflect the question, and state that Ming’s the elected leader, and he’s here to stay up to and beyond the next election. That the question is being asked is inflicting damage on the party, and becomes self-perpetuating: if the only times the public hears about the Lib Dems is because the press is reporting a leadership crisis is in itself a problem.

We cannot be a captive of the media agenda: I do not believe Ming’s leadership should be ended because the press is playing silly buggers. Journalists are already self-important enough in their belief that they can make the political weather without the Lib Dems offering them a sacrificial lamb in the hope they might actually bother to do their job and report on the state of the party fairly and objectively.

But, equally, it is no good closing our eyes and ears, and pretending all this nonsense will just go away if we ignore it. The vultures of the Fourth Estate are circling. For the good of the party, the uncertainty cannot be allowed to continue. The onus is on our MPs, I think. A letter signed by all 62 of Ming’s Commons’ colleagues expressing full support for Ming as leader is the very least that's needed. If they’re not prepared to do that, they have to work out what they are prepared to do.

Meltdown in meltdown shocker

2007-10-09T20:43:00.000+01:00

Just nine days ago (seems a lifetime) it was Cameron who was in ‘meltdown’ (The Observer). Today it’s Team Gordon who are in ‘meltdown’ (ConHome).

Other current ‘meltdown’ news items include:

the hunt for Madeleine McCann (The Sun),
the US subprime collapse (Daily Telegraph),
Amy Winehouse (Showbizspy.com),
Royal Mail deliveries in Coventry (icCoventry.co.uk), and
Northern Rock (FTAdviser).

To name but a few.

Please can lazy sub-editors borrow a thesaurus, and try out a new cliché?

Is Gordon Brown really all that?

2007-10-08T22:12:00.000+01:00

Talk about a week being a long time in politics. If Gordon Brown had the courage to match his opportunism today would mark the beginning of the second week of an autumn ’07 general election campaign.

Phew, say Lib Dems and Tories

And both the Lib Dems and Tories would be more than a bit worried for a very good reason: neither party is yet ready to face an election. Why should they be? After all, we’re just half-way through the full Parliamentary term.

Of course, party politics being the Neverland it is, both Ming Campbell and David Cameron have felt compelled to declare resoundingly, ‘Bring it on’, in order to avoid the charge of unmanly cowardice. What does it say about the political health of a nation when we expect politicians to tell untruths?

It would have been declared a major gaffe, or be pounced on as running scared if either Ming or Dave had told it as it is: “Look, we’re just not ready yet. The manifesto’s only half-written, and we’ve still got to find candidates for some potentially winnable seats (let alone all the others). Give us another year, then we’ll be good to go.”

But Gordon, rather kindly, chose not to put us on the spot. As is often the case in politics, the right decision was taken for entirely the wrong reasons. Gordon wasn’t bothered that springing a snap poll on the public while the main opposition parties are under-prepared was in any way a tardy way to behave in a supposedly mature democracy. He was concerned that he might not win. Something tells me that concern is one he needs to get used to.

Gordon - from zero to hero and back again?

I only caught a glimpse of Gordon’s press conference today, via The Guardian website. Given that this extract, focusing on the reason for delaying an election, is one the Prime Minister will have practised, it is dreadful stuff - waffly, insincere and dull. True blue Tory Danny Finkelstein has drafted the text Gordon should have used, and made a much better job of sounding both statesmanlike and believable - here’s how it begins:

Yes, I considered calling an election. And here's why. There are two options for a new Prime Minister. Asking voters for their trust in advance, or waiting until new policies have had a chance to work. I have been thinking about both these possibilities.
The polls were a large part of this. They have shown that people are enthusiastic, keen to back my vision for change. And that made me think hard about the idea of winning a fresh mandate which might make it easier to get Parliamentary backing for some of our most controversial ideas, ideas like reform of the Lords.
But the polls have also been volatile. They show that, quite understandably, the enthusiasm is accompanied by uncertainty. That uncertainty reflects the fact that people want to hear the arguments and see the change before they vote.

Gordon’s recent performance has recalled to my mind an article I wrote on this blog last year, looking at the often-forgotten part of the Gordon biography, the years 1992-94, when he went from being the obvious successor to John Smith to obvious bridesmaid to Tony Blair:

For all the controversy of the so-called ‘Granita Pact’, when Mr Blair and Mr Brown are supposed to have reached concord that Mr Blair would be the modernising candidate, there is one simple reason why Mr Brown sat on his hands: Mr Blair would have beaten him.

To understand why this was so, let me quote from Nicholas Jones’s excellent 1996 tome, Soundbites & Spin Doctors:
Aware of criticism that his delivery could be stilted and that he sometimes had a wooden appearance, Brown went to inordinate lengths to inject vitality into his answers. During a hectic round of interviews in the week of the 1992 autumn spending statement, a television studio technician observed the care with which he practised what was obviously the key sentence of his reply, repeating it a dozen times before deciding which words should get more emphasis. Such assiduity had its disadvantages: once he had memorised a soundbite, Brown had a tendency to keep repeating it whatever the subsequent questions. Some programme editors grew reluctant to accept his contributions, claiming they were predictable and repetitive. For a time, producers on the BBC’s One o‘Clock News were told to do their utmost to find other Labour voices: Brown was considered to have become over-exposed.
The appointment of Charlie Whelan as his press officer in January 1994 curbed the worst of Mr Brown’s media obsession. But John Smith’s untimely death triggered a leadership contest at the worst possible time for Mr Brown. As Mr Jones records:
… although [Mr Whelan] had gone some way towards repairing the damage to the shadow Chancellor’s reputation, the leadership contest reopened the debate about Brown’s addiction to soundbites. As the party started assessing the value of the likely contenders, there were powerful voices in the Labour hierarchy who said Brown was too lightweight to become leader.
A lightweight leader addicted to soundbites, eh? Up with that, Labour would never put.

Matthew Parris put his finger on it (as so often) last month when Gordon was riding high:

I keep saying this – but the man hasn’t got the ghost of a plan. Not an idea in his head. Anyone with ears to hear could guess as much from his speech and media interviews on Monday. “Citizens’ juries” across the country to advise the Government on policy? Spare us. Why doesn’t he advise the Government? He’s the Prime Minister.
What leaps from Mr Brown’s interviews is not the intellectual colossus that some of my Fleet Street colleagues describe, but an ambitious school bursar with a powerful ego, a good head for figures and a big gap in his brain where a creative political imagination ought to be. Mr Brown interviews like a frightened man, desperate to bore and bulldoze his way through 15 minutes without saying anything.

The Tories made the critical mistake in the summer of underestimating Gordon Brown’s tactical shrewdness. Until last week, he had inflicted grievous punishment on them for their complacency.

Labour has made the critical mistake of believing the hype about Gordon, imagining he can carry all before him on the assumption the country is as docile as the party. The last week has exposed the limits of Gordon’s prowess.

The expectations' see-sore

2007-10-03T21:16:00.000+01:00

It all changes so, so quickly.

Five months ago, David Cameron was riding high, following some pretty decent local election results. Tony Blair, New Labour’s election talisman was soon to depart, and be replaced by the ever-grumpy, and supposedly vote-haemmorhaging, Gordon Brown.

And then Mr Brown took over, and confounded the Tories’ worst hopes.

Though most people would be hard-pressed to name anything significant that he’s achieved as Prime Minister - I’m afraid I don’t count being on watch during crises over which you have little or no control (foot-and-mouth), or for which you are partly responsible for (Northern Rock) - he has successfully managed not to be Mr Blair. And, frankly, that’s all the country wanted, just as Margaret Thatcher’s replacement with John Major lifted the Tories almost 17 years ago.

The media has, as is their wont, over-interpreted this mood of relief, and ascribed to it more significance than it deserves. The ‘Brown bounce’ is likely prove to be just that: a temporary and limited surge in Labour’s popularity which owes much to the Prime Minister’s current novelty value.

However, the media’s exuberance appears also to have gripped New New Labour’s high command, which has refused to kill off speculation that a snap election will be announced in a matter of days. As a result, serious politics has taken a back-seat while the parties take pot-shots at each other during this phoney war.

Perhaps Mr Brown was hoping the Tory party conference in Blackpool this week, should it prove a disaster, would help make up his mind. If so, he’ll have been sadly disappointed - whatever you think of the Tories, it’s clear they’ve had a good enough week.

By which I mean, they haven’t fallen into their usual traps of publicly displaying either chronic disloyalty to their leader, or self-indulgent rants from barking mad regiments of retired colonel-types taking their prejudices for a walk. Even if they did make the mistake of letting Liam Fox remind everyone exactly why all Lib Dem and Labour supporters would just love him to become Tory leader.

The Tories have, therefore, successfully achieved just what Mr Brown did in the summer: they have countered the low expectations set for them by the media, such as the risible headline The Observer splashed on its front page, Cameron faces poll meltdown. (If editors of the supposedly more serious newspapers are ever kept awake by their falling circulations, and wonder why the public chooses to shun their product, they would do well to ponder the dumbed-down, hyped-up sensationalism of their front pages.)

All of which leaves Mr Brown in a quandary: damned if he does call an election, and damned if he doesn’t.

Because, make no mistake, to go to the polls now is a huge gamble. How will the public react to being forced to endure a month’s politicking followed by a trip to the polling station in cold, damp, miserable weather?

Some polls suggest the electorate is up for it, ready, willing and able to bound down to their nearest polling station, and mark their cross. Well, perhaps. But Mr Brown should know better than to trust polls which ask hypothetical questions: after all, if they were at all a useful predictor, he wouldn’t now be enjoying his currently high popularity ratings.

I won’t be foolish enough to predict the result of a November election, if one happens - but I will predict that turnout would be down, which in itself would scarcely amount to a ringing endorsement of Mr Brown’s mandate to govern.

Even if he wins, he must win big enough - at least a majority of 40, or his credibility will take a real bashing (and he will find himself at the mercy of the left-wing Campaign Group of Labour MPs). It will only take the smallest of swings away from Labour to see Mr Brown’s majority vanish, and with it his authority and grip on his premiership.

And as for the ignominious prospect of defeat, joining the ranks of the shortest-serving Prime Ministers of this country… well, that thought is the one which is doubtless paralysing Mr Brown even now. To squander a majority of 69 for the sake of the personal hubristic vanity of winning an election in your own right - suddenly all the warnings which the Blairites had whispered in the years leading up to Mr Brown’s accession would seem eerily prophetic.

Which is why Mr Brown might still decide to flunk it, to decide against calling an election, and ride his luck at least until the spring. The whispers I’m hearing from Team Brown is that they have yet finally to make up their mind. The current favoured option is 8th November, announced next week. But who knows?

There would be lots of good reasons for Mr Brown to postpone. Yet it would be seen as a climb-down, an humiliating admission, rooted in careful calculation, that he can’t win at the moment. In an instant, political momentum would swing away from Mr Brown, and towards his opponents.

At which point, the media and the public might just begin to think: for a country-before-party, ‘big tent’-loving statesman, Mr Brown doesn’t half seem to devote an unseemly amount of time to promoting his own personal political interests.

Losing our Marples

2007-10-01T19:23:00.000+01:00

Say what you like about ITV1’s updated Marple - and many have - the cast list is OTT-ly stellar. I’m especially intrigued by their decision to work their way through the entire cast list of Green Wing.

Last week it was Stephen Mangan (Dr Guillaume 'Guy' Valerie Secretan in GW; Inspector Bird in Marple), and Mark Heap (Dr Alan Statham; Mr Humfries). Last night it was the turn of Julian Rhind-Tutt (Dr 'Mac' Macartney; Dr Calgary) and Pippa Haywood (Joanna Clore; Mrs Price).

In his review last year, Jonathan Calder lauded the BBC’s Joan Hickson version of Miss Marple: “an impeccable performance set off by a frequently immaculate supporting cast and sensetive direction. And Geraldine McEwan's is a lesser performance which is often hindered by the setting in which it has been placed.”

I cannot disagree with him about Joan Hickson’s portrayal: she is Miss Marple. Which is, of course, why ITV was quite right not to try and replicate what had gone before. Where I do part company with Jonathan is about the production values of the BBC adaptations, which are very much of their time, and therefore (whisper it gently) rather dull.

Having absolutely loved the Hickson Marples as a child, I was distressed to catch a couple of them recently, and discover quite how torturously ponderous the script and direction is. By comparison, the ITV versions are slick, pacy and glowing with irony.

Which might not be to your taste, of course. But, just as theatrical productions of timeless pieces can vary, I don’t see why telly shouldn’t feel free to update itself for a new generation.

Bloglash (n.)

2007-10-01T19:15:00.000+01:00

Last week’s publication of Iain Dale’s list of the top 500 UK political blogs has sparked some criticism - the funniest is here at mediocracy (hat-tip: Tim Worstall), the most acute is here at Stumbling and Mumbling:

… there's something nasty about the very notion that blogs can be ranked on a simple single ordering. The overwhelming virtue of the blogosphere is its diversity. And the many things that make a good blog are to some extent incompatible; originality versus consistency; passion versus intellectual rigour; number of posts versus quality of individual posts; brevity versus weight of evidence; wit versus gravitas, and so on.

These trade-offs mean the quality of blogs is just incommensurable - we can't rank them. … And even if we can each rank our own preferences, what meaning is there to an aggregate ranking? To pretend there is one is to commit the error that libertarians have often accused utilitarians of making - of believing preferences can be easily aggregated when they cannot be. It's symptomatic of the intellectual decline of the Conservative party that one of its cheerleaders should make this error.

Stephen Tall is 55th.

Tease shirt

2007-10-01T18:59:00.000+01:00

A quick plug for Progresswear.com, who have just despatched my latest item of clothing - a T-shirt with this legend...

That’s one to wear on 18 Doughty Street next time I appear.

Iain's little list

2007-09-25T19:55:00.000+01:00

Iain Dale has now published the official list of the top 100 Lib Dem blogs, and I’m runner-up - and I can think of few bloggers against whom I’m more happy to run up than Jonathan Calder’s Liberal England. He is indeed the Lib Dem blogfather.

Here’s what Iain wrote about me, myself and I:

Stephen Tall has emerged in the last twelve months as a key player in the Liberal Democrat blogosphere. His own A Liberal Goes a Long Way blog won last year’s Liberal Democrat blog of the year, awarded by the Libdems at their party conference, and he has become a familiar face as the LibDem blogger who most appears on the media. Recently he has taken over as commissioning editor of LibDem Voice, which, it is to be hoped, does not see a decline in his own blog. Stephen is not one to write short snappy posts. He has an erudite, if sometimes academic, style, which means that his posts have a clear beginning, middleand end. He’s a blogger who makes the reader think about their own position on an issue, and you can hardly pay a higher compliment than that.

It is of course more than possible that my involvement with Lib Dem Voice has seen a decline in the quality of both blogs.

One of the chapters which appears in Iain’s eponymous Guide To Political Blogging In The UK is written by me, and focuses on the state of Lib Dem blogging. Or, perhaps more accurately, looks at the state of blogging through a Lib Dem prism. (Sorry, Iain - are references to geometric shapes too academic?)

Anyway, if you want to buy it, you can do so by clicking on this Amazon link - in which case you’ll earn the Lib Dems some commission, an irony I’m sure Iain will enjoy.

***

The state of Lib Dem blogging in the UK

Anyone still harbouring the hackneyed view that Liberal Democrats are a bunch of equivocating well-on-the-one-hand-but-on-the-other nicebodies, who wouldn’t say boo to an organic free-range goose, should visit www.libdemblogs.co.uk.

There you will find aggregated each day for your reading pleasure the opinionated postings of over 130 Lib Dems, displaying a frenetic range of topic, content and style. Punchy op-ed commentary on the big national and international issues of the day nestles alongside tales of potholes, pedestrian crossings and planning applications in Coketown.

It is emblematic of Lib Dem thinking that this should be so: the local and global are too intrinsically intertwined for it not to be. Indeed, the Lib Dem blogs ‘Aggregator’ is itself a signature of liberalism: diverse individual thinking finding strengthened expression through a collective community venture.

A year ago, at our 2006 conference in Brighton, the Lib Dems became the first national party to recognise the blogging fraternity - and it is a fraternity; the scarcity of women unhealthily skews the blogosphere - launching an inaugural ‘Blog of the Year’ award, which earned national media coverage.

But, in fact, it was eight months earlier that Lib Dem blogs first made their mark, during the leadership contest sparked by Charles Kennedy’s resignation. The momentum and profile of initial-outsider Chris Huhne’s campaign was boosted by declarations of support from some leading Lib Dem bloggers, inspiring a ‘Bloggers for Huhne’ section on his campaign website. Ever since, the party has taken increasing time and effort to reach out to bloggers - not simply through the awards ceremony, but also by giving access to press conferences, and interviews with senior MPs, such as Ed Davey and Ming Campbell.

Does this present a danger to those of us who blog? Should we be concerned that, as the party seeks to embrace us, we’ll become smothered? Clearly that’s a risk, but then any new phenomenon is laden with risks. Bloggers who compromise themselves, who sacrifice their authentic independence for the vicarious thrill of being among the favoured élite, lose their credibility - as those who read, and post to, their blogs will be swift to point out.

Besides, the Lib Dems are not that kind of party. I recall the media office phoning to say they had suggested Sky News contact me for a vox pop following a controversial conference vote. “Is there a particular line the party wants to get across?” I asked. (I wasn’t offering to be their patsy, but I thought I’d find out just the same.) “It’s entirely up to you; they want to hear from someone a bit independent,” came the reply. So much for Svengalian spin-doctors: Peter Mandelson would have been turning in his Euro-gravy.

In any case, those of us who sit at a computer should beware of turning into Mr Pooter. It is easy to exaggerate the importance of blogs, their novelty perhaps obscuring the fact that they remain a niche. Even the über-blogs, like Iain Dale’s and Guido Fawkes’, attract around 250,000 unique visitors each month. Yes, it’s impressive… but that’s the same number as pay for their copy of The Independent, the UK’s lowest circulation national newspaper, each and every day. (The nearest comparison for my blog is probably the Biggleswade Chronicle.)

Perhaps the biggest function which blogs perform is the influence they are beginning to exert on the mainstream media. Blogging is prime retail for journalists: it is an easy and unending source of news stories and diary snippets. To politicians, this can spell either manna from heaven, or gaffes from hell.

In the former camp, resides Lynne Featherstone, the Lib Dem MP for Hornsey and Wood Green, who ousted the Labour incumbent at the 2005 general election with a huge 14.6 per cent swing. Alongside the usual hard slog of ‘pavement politics’, and a formidably well-organised campaign, her profile was pepped up by her sparky, feisty blog. The outspoken blog of Welsh Assembly member Peter Black has earned him copious media coverage, especially in the febrile weeks after May’s inconclusive election results, as he chronicled the twists and turns of the coalition negotiations.

But it doesn’t always work to the good. When Jody Dunn, the Lib Dem candidate in the 2004 Hartlepool by-election, blogged that she had canvassing a street whose residents were “either drunk, flanked by an ugly dog, or undressed”, Labour made the most of her quip, and clung on to the seat.

Perhaps it is because the rewards do not yet outweigh the risks that few Lib Dem Parliamentarians are bloggers. In addition to Lynne, only three MPs have so far been taken by the blogging muse - John Hemming, Adrian Sanders and Steve Webb [and now Sandra Gidley has resumed her blog, too, making four] – as well as two MEPs, Sajjad Karim and Graham Watson, and one peer, Lord Eric Avebury.

Yet alongside this understandable caution, there may be at least as much prioritisation. Elected representatives, at local or national level, may well ponder if blogging is the best use of their campaigning time - compared, say, to producing regular newsletters delivered through every door, or holding surgeries for residents, or simply ensuring they’re keeping on top of their casework. After all, it’s likely your blog will be read chiefly by the cognoscenti in your patch, both your supporters and your opponents. If you’re serious about winning votes you need to be in touch with precisely those people who are least likely casually to surf their way to your blog, and even less likely to read your latest, learned disquisitions on the EU treaty referendum, or the need for electoral reform.

The lesson is simple (the best lessons usually are): blog if you want to, not because you feel you have to. If you find it a chore, and resent the time it takes, your apathy will seep through the screen. It is the enthusiasm of the top bloggers - their drive to connect with their readers - which makes them work.

And if you have that passion, your blog can become a powerful campaigning tool; or it can simply be your space to re-cast your half-formed thoughts into something semi-coherent for public consumption. Either way, fasten your seatbelts, prepare for take-off, and welcome to the Lib Dem blogosphere.

***

Brighton photo diary, Day 3

2007-09-19T20:58:00.000+01:00

One of the things non-party members (who usually go by the name, ‘normal people’) are most curious about is what those of us who go actually do at a Lib Dem party conference.

Usually it’s a heady mix of full-on policy debates (so much more exciting if there’s a knife-edge vote which could defeat the leadership), fringe meetings (which the more ambitious MPs will attend half a dozen or more), and enjoying the company of folk you meet perhaps just once a year.

This year, there was an extra treat: a candidates’ hust for the three Lib Dems who are vying to be the party’s choice to take on Ken and Boris in the ’08 London mayoral election.

In a jam-packed lecture theatre at lunch-time today, Chamali Fernando, Fiyaz Mughal and Brian Paddick (in order of appearance) strutted their funky stuff, giving a 5-minute speech, before being quizzed by chair, Susan Kramer, herself an erstwhile Lib Dem mayoral candidate back in 2000.

Chamali fired off an absolutely cracking speech, fizzing with dynamic vigour; Fiyaz displayed an easy and commanding grasp of policies, communicated with real confidence; while Brian brimmed over with liberal camaraderie and humour, wooing an audience more than willing to be wooed with a beguiling mix of charm and calm (I guess he’s had to face tougher crowds in his life).

Like everyone else, I’m assuming Brian is a shoo-in for the Lib Dem nomination. In which case on the basis of today’s performance he will - win or lose (and he could win, you know) - do the party proud. But both Chamali and Fiyaz will do themselves and their future career prospects a power of good by continuing to make such a good contest of it.

I’m writing this on my way back from Brighton… work calls tomorrow, so this is my final photo diary direct from the front-line:

Brighton photo diary, Day 2

2007-09-18T13:14:00.000+01:00

There’s a slightly odd mood surrounding the conference.

It’s a combination, I guess, of the ‘will he, won’t he’ general election speculation that Gordon Brown has allowed his spin-doctors to fuel, which inevitably makes for nervous excitement - only partly quelled by most people’s best guess that he won’t.

And also a sense of frustration, to which we Lib Dems have had to become accustomed, with the media for focusing on Ming Campbell’s leadership, and pretending that’s what the delegates are discussing.

The vast, vast majority are happy/reconciled to Ming leading the party through the next general election; a small minority, including a couple of our peers who should know much better, are happy to feed the media beast in return for having their tummies tickled.

Anyway, if you want to keep pace with what is actually happening in Brighton, check out the Lib Dem blogs Aggregator, and Lib Dem Voice.

Meanwhile, here are some pretty pictures from the conference hall, including yesterday's Q&A between Ming and Sandi Toksvig, and the speech by European Commission President, Jose Manuel Barroso:

Brighton Photo Diary, Day 1

2007-09-17T14:31:00.000+01:00

Sorry, too busy to be erudite right now. Here, instead, are a couple of photos taken at last night’s conference rally, Human rights and civil liberties: home and abroad, where Ming made a good, passionate speech. (Even if no-one was too sure for a couple of seconds that he’d actually finished.)

If you’ve ever wondered what the view of conference is like from the back of the hall, here it is:

And, then, last night I had the very great pleasure of hosting the second annual Lib Dem Blog of the Year awards, run by Lib Dem Voice in conjunction with the national party.

Some very good winners, and some just as good runners-up.

The overall Best Lib Dem blog trophy went to James Graham’s robust but eminently sane creation, Quaequam Blog!.

I snatched an interview with him at lunch-time, which you can watch here:

London Brighton calling

2007-09-16T15:19:00.000+01:00

Time was, a trip to London on the Oxford Tube (actually a bus) meant 1.5 hours of seclusion from the internet, time to sit back and read, think or just zone out. No longer. It’s wifi-ed up, and I’m clinically incapable, it appears, of leaving my laptop be.

I’m en route to Brighton for the Lib Dem conference. Last year, I was a first-time rookie, and had carefully planned ahead exactly which conference debates and fringe meetings to attend. This year, I’m a two-time old-hander. Which means that I’m going to wing it, and see where I end up.

I may update this blog with my thoughts from Brighton. But chances are my time will be fully occupied by Liberal Democrat Voice, keeping pace both with the latest conference news and gossip, and the increasing number of submissions party members are sending in.

So, in the interim, are my two personal highs and lows from Brighton 2006, courtesy of YouTube:

Erm, thanks, I think

2007-09-13T22:32:00.000+01:00

I’ve gone two better than Jonathan Calder, it seems - A Liberal Goes A Long Way is, according to Tory uber-blogger, Iain Dale, the most under-rated political blog in the UK. Which is either a rather sweet accolade, or a bit of a back-handed compliment, depending on how you look at it.

Iain suggests - and who am I to disagree? - that my gaff, and the other nine he lists “should be in the top echelons of any blogging list due to their consistently high quality of output, but don't get the attention they deserve.”

It’s true I certainly don’t have anything like the readership of Iain, Guido, Tim, Da Fink et al. Partly that’s because Lib Dem and liberal-leaning blogs have a smaller readership to begin with; it’s also, I suspect, because I don’t abide by the blogging maxim: a little and often. (Ironically enough, that was also my mum’s advice to us when we felt too ill to eat anything.)

I’m a fairly regular blogger, but my output is nowhere near as frenetic as my party colleagues, Nich, Paul or Jonathan himself. All the more so since I became commissioning editor at Lib Dem Voice, and started dividing my blogging time between the two.

It is, to an extent, a conscious decision. I love writing, but I only want to write about what I want to write about - I don’t ever want to feel compelled to write because of others’ expectations. Blogging should never become a tyranny.

And the trouble with building up a large readership is that your obligations start subtly to change. No longer are you thinking, “What do I want to get off my chest?” You start asking instead, “What will my readers be expecting from me?” Not my cup of tea, I’m afraid.

None of which is a dig at Iain. I’ve met him, I like him, I respect him. He has also been generous to me and other Lib Dem bloggers in promoting our endeavours to his massed army of readers (even if half of them are green-ink-smeared, right-wing weirdos).

That said, I was surprised when he was nominated as ‘political commentator of the year’ in the prestigious House Magazine / Sky News Parliamentary Awards earlier this year. Because Iain is not an objective analyst of the political world: he’s a partisan Tory who occasionally criticises his own party, and even more occasionally praises other parties. Nothing wrong with that. But let’s not confuse political commentary with campaigning agitprop.

I have a lot of admiration - genuinely - for those bloggers who respond instantly to the latest news stories with their visceral, gut reactions. But it isn’t for me (and here I add the word beloved by wriggling lawyers - normally). Just as I accept the need for rolling news coverage, but prefer to watch Newsnight.

This self-indulgent navel-gazing posting is, perhaps, emblematic of a Lib Dem mindset: the wish to stay aloof, exclusive, pure, rather than be bespoiled by the grubby compromises of mass popularity and responsibility. Or perhaps I’m just too lazy to commit to penning a minimum of three posts a day, and to the drudgery of adding reciprocal links across the blogosphere.

At any rate, I guess I’d rather be under-rated than over-rated. So thanks, Iain.

Oh, Ming - you could have said it so much better

2007-09-12T23:08:00.000+01:00

You have to choose your words so carefully in politics. But, sometimes, you can choose them too carefully.

Ming Campbell went firmly on the record today to affirm his view that a referendum on the EU reform treaty was - in his words - “not necessary”. It was entirely the wrong way to make a perfectly valid point.

Why was he wrong?

Words matter. “Not necessary”. Jars a bit, doesn’t it? It’s an altogether too lawyerly phrase - because, of course, a referendum on the EU reform treaty isn’t necessary, any more than it was necessary to have a referendum on the Maastricht treaty... But, back in 1992, the Lib Dems campaigned for such a referendum just the same. It’s also - how can I put this? - a little bit patrician. Ming didn’t actually say, “Don’t worry your little heads about it, the grown-ups will sort this out,” but, frankly, he might as well have done.

Why was he right?

He’s got a point. A referendum would be a complete red herring, a painless way for the electorate to kick the EU in the shins without actually squaring up for the big fight - do we want in, or out? If the electorate said yes to the treaty - a slim possibility - it might quell the Tory right’s xenophobia for a short while; but it wouldn’t be long before they found another pretext for kicking up rough.

If the electorate said no… well, then what? Any bright ideas? Anyone got a clue what precisely it was we said no to? Of course not. All it would prove is that the British people are a bit narked with the EU at the minute. I think we can all work out that for ourselves without the need for a referendum.

What he should have said:

Ming was close. He actually had a good answer, concealed within his legalese: “if we were to have a referendum, then it is worth considering a more fundamental referendum, in a sense of being in or out.” I agree. But, oh, the vagueness! Oh, the conditional clauses! “If”, “worth considering”, “in a sense” - it was like Charlie Kennedy’s Second Coming.

He could have said it so much better:

“Those who call for a referendum on the EU reform treaty are disingenuous. It’s a complete red herring to pretend that such a limited vote would settle, once and for all, Britain’s position within Europe.

“Let’s be honest with ourselves: we’re reaching a crunch point. The EEC the British people voted to join has changed almost beyond recognition in the last 30 years. The politicians should wake up to that fact, and recognise why the public feels so left out of the debate.

“I am a passionate internationalist and pro-European. But I believe we must take the British people - indeed, all the peoples of Europe - with us on this journey. I don’t want a vote on a treaty which tinkers round the edges. It’s time for a new referendum, time to give a new generation the opportunity to debate what my generation debated back in 1975.

“Does Britain want to play a full part in the European Union as it is today; or do we want to sit on the sidelines? That’s the key to this whole debate.

“Labour prefers to ignore the issue, hopes it will simply go away. It won’t. The Tories are desperate to paper over the cracks in their party’s unity, clinging to a referendum like a drowning man clings to driftwood. They’re missing the point.

“Only the Lib Dems are prepared to say it like it is: it’s time for a national debate, time once again for the British people to make up their minds, and decide the ultimate question: do we want to be in the EU or not?”

Voyeurism populi

2007-09-10T23:52:00.000+01:00

I know practically nothing about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, something I have in common with the rest of Britain, in spite of and also because of the sick-makingly voyeuristic media coverage this case has attracted.

Like the rest of Britain I plead guilty to having followed this case with a horrified, saddened and sometimes prurient fascination. I have moved between judging the parents, and anger at those who judge them without knowing the full facts. And I have watched with helpless indignation the obscene and unthinking xenophobia which engulfs Brits, exemplified by the press at all levels, when something Bad happens Abroad.

And then, just as I have despaired of any sense of common decency emerging from this tragedy, at last (some of) the public rebels against the hysterical slaverings of the media:

Listeners outraged by a BBC Radio Five Live debate on Madeleine McCann forced the station to change a phone-vote on her disappearance. Victoria Derbyshire's morning phone-in today asked listeners to vote on whether they still had sympathy for Madeleine's parents Gerry and Kate after they were officially made suspects in the case by Portuguese police on Friday.

Dozens of listeners contacted the programme to say they did not think it was a suitable subject for debate while the legal process was still ongoing. ... The weight of the negative reaction was such that producers were forced to change the vote to whether the station should be discussing the case at all - and listeners voted by 68% to 32% that it should not be.

It’s coming to something when the BBC - the BBC - has to ask its own listeners if it should exercise any editorial restraint when speculating live on air about an ongoing criminal investigation about which its journalists and listeners will know next to nothing beyond recycled tittle-tattle and their own prejudices.

Oxford's Labour group: out of their depth

2007-09-06T23:43:00.000+01:00

I suppose I could admire the Labour group in Oxford for its sheer effrontery. But sometimes political hypocrisy can be a little too blatant to be effective.

But a double helping of hypocrisy was on the table at this week’s meeting of Oxford city’s Full Council, when Labour proposed keeping open the Peers Sports Centre and swimming pool in Littlemore. Fair enough, you might say. But there are two problems with the Labour party’s position.

The first problem is that the Labour group, each and every single member of it, voted to pull the plug on the pool back in February during the City Council’s budget-setting. And so, for that matter, did the Lib Dems, and every other party on the Council.

The reason? It’s pretty expensive, and needs an estimated £200k refurbishment - more importantly, it doesn’t fit with the Council’s ambition of having two excellent pools serving East Oxford, one of competition standard at Temple Cowley, and a family-friendly one at Blackbird Leys. Pulling out of running the pool (which is owned by the County Council) will save the City Council £100k in the current financial year - a saving Labour happily banked without so much as a murmur of protest just six months ago when presenting their budget.

But there’s a second problem. The pool and sports centre are located at Peers Technology College - set to be the site for Oxford’s first academy. When the school becomes an academy - and it’s a when, not an if - its current buildings will be replaced thanks to the government ~~bribes~~ funding tied to such status. Oxfordshire County Council, as the local education authority, and the Diocese of Oxford have both already made clear they won’t rebuild the pool or sports centre as part of the new academy site.

Now last month, the City Council debated a motion on Peers academy plans. Guess what happened? Yes, that’s right: every single Labour councillor present voted in favour of them, even though they knew it would mean the inevitable closure of Peers pool and sport centre.

So, on two separate occasions - in February and in August - Labour had the chance to try and save the leisure facilities at Peers. On both occasions, they chose instead to vote for policies they knew would lead to their closure.

Of course, none of this has stopped Labour and their two Littlemore ward councillors from mounting a campaign to save the pool. A campaign they know full well is utterly doomed from the start, not least thanks to their party’s policies, which they fully support!

And then we wonder why the public is cynical about politics…

Mark Oaten has a point

2007-09-06T19:56:00.000+01:00

Of course, there’s lots to disagree with in today’s article by Mark Oaten in The Times arguing in favour of a Lib Dem / Tory coalition - for example:

Many people may be surprised by how much shared agenda there is between the two parties. On the environment, civil liberties and localism the two parties share some common ground.

“Surprised” doesn’t come anywhere near it, Mark. The Tory commitment to such values is about as firm as a meringue.

However, he does have at least half a point about the need for the party to shift its position what the Lib Dems would do in the event of a Hung Parliament. Simply to keep repeating our maxim, “Maximum votes, maximum seats”, will be seen as dodging the question - altogether too lawyerly - in the fevered maelstrom of a general election campaign.

Instead Mark urges:

Ming needs to come out now and state that, in the event of a hung Parliament, the Liberal Democrats will work with whichever party has the most MPs.

Well, I’m not sure whether it should be with whichever party has the most MPs… we are, after all, supposed to be a party committed to a fairer electoral system. But exchange the words “MPs” for “votes”, and I’m with him all the way.

Such an answer avoids the party getting dragged into the dead-end debate the media loves about whether the party is closer to the Tories or closer to Labour. (In reality, of course, they’re much closer to each other than we are to either one of them.) And yet it is a principled stance which promises the Liberal Democrats will respect the wishes of the public.

A double whammy, in fact.

More combing and why's OR The post what I wrote

2007-09-05T23:09:00.000+01:00

Earlier this week, I compiled the Top Lib Dem Media Tarts of the Year over at Lib Dem Voice. It doesn’t take that long to comb the Lexis-Nexis database on which it’s based, but, still, I need something to occupy my mind while I tally numbers.

Fortunately, the BBC recently released this Morecambe and Wise dvd, keeping me happily occupied. Which is all the excuse I need to post this clip:

A lurch to the right? More like drift into desperation

2007-09-04T21:34:00.000+01:00

Has David Cameron fallen into his last three predecessors’ trap - start off promising to be a fluffy moderniser, end up losing as a shrill reactionary? That’s the charge from both the Lib Dems and Labour in the wake of Mr Cameron’s recent focus on the so-called core-vote issues of crime, Europe and immigration.

In some ways, it’s a fair point. But I think it underestimates the partial success of Mr Cameron’s 18-month re-branding exercise, at least in ensuring most voters give the Tory leader a fair hearing. I’m not sure the public will stigmatise him all that quickly simply for re-hashing Middle England’s cri de coeur that there are too many yobs, the EU’s gone too far, and immigration is “too high”.

The bigger danger for Mr Cameron is this charge, levelled by Andrew Rawnsley in his column in the Observer last Sunday:

What might seem like balance to a Tory strategist can come over as just confusing to voters. If it is not a lurch to the right, then it is a lurch all over the place. This is partly because, as Mr Cameron's various policy commissions report, they are producing contradictory and sometimes diametrically opposed recommendations. The environment group wants a freeze on all airport building and higher taxes on flying; only the other week, the John Redwood policy group was arguing for a massive expansion in airports. David Cameron had better decide - and quickly - how he wants to be defined in the public mind.

Ironically, a similar example of Tory muddle-think appeared the same day, penned by Mr Cameron himself in the Sunday Telegraph. The Tory leader was setting out what he sees as the party’s principles for education policy. See if you can spot the join:

[Look at] Labour's methods: obsessive micro-management and rigid attachment to old-fashioned ideas has entrenched deprivation, shut doors and closed minds. … We will make sure that children are taught using the right methods, so they get the basics in place from the start, develop a passion for learning and are able to grapple with tougher subjects. That is why we campaigned so hard for the re-introduction of synthetic phonics as the best way of teaching reading. And to ensure we stretch the brightest pupils and support those who need extra help, we want to see teaching by ability in every school. We will also look carefully at our policy group's idea of giving pupils who are falling behind at the age of 11 the chance to catch up and reach the right standard in the basics.

Yes, that’s right! Mr Cameron is so opposed to political meddling, and so keen on parental choice that he’s confining his involvement to prescribing from Whitehall the methods by which kids are taught; the groups in which they’re taught; and whether kids can repeat a year. Heaven help us if he starts feeling didactic. Of course, all the ideas he floats have merit. But such matters of detailed policy should be left to parents and schools to sort out.

And that exemplifies the real problem for Mr Cameron and his party. The so-called ‘lurch to the right’ is irrelevant, except presentationally. After all, the Tory party hasn’t changed one jot in the last two years - they’re still in exactly the same place they’ve always been: hostile to foreigners, minorities, reform, progress and nuance.

For a while - when the going was good, and the polls were high - Mr Cameron was allowed to orbit the party, to reach for the skies, and to let sunshine have its day. But now darkness has set in, and the Tories are fed up with their leader mooning around, being totally eclipsed by the Prime Minister.

So what is Mr Cameron left to do? The only thing he can do - spout some right-wing rhetoric for his party’s benefit while producing unimaginative and confused policies he hopes no-one will notice too much. And then rely on the public being so bored with Labour’s grip on power they’ll vote out Gordon Brown regardless.

But it won’t work. Tory members have seen what Tony Blair did to the Labour party, and they don’t want it to happen to their party: sure, there were three election victories, but the soul of the party was ripped inside out in the process. Quite simply, they don’t trust their ‘heir to Blair’ not to sideline the right-wing just as Mr Blair neutered his party’s left-wing. They would prefer pure defeat to sullied triumph.

This fear - that Mr Cameron will sacrifice Tory ideology in puruit of a Tory victory - was the driving force behind Michael Ancram’s rather extraordinarily-timed attack on his leadership in today’s Telegraph, which, the former deputy leader of the Tory party (2001-05) alleged, lacks “an overall sense of vision and direction and a clear projection of what it stands for”.

Mr Ancram’s article is a rather delicious throwback - “We believe above all in the resolute defence of our sovereignty and our realm” - descending into the customary obsessive rant about Europe, and “this wretched treaty”. The 13th Marquess of Lothian will, I suspect, have earned few friends among his Parliamentary colleagues for once again putting undisciplined Tory feuding centre-stage. But what he’s said is as true a statement of what he and most Tory party members truly care about as you could wish to read.

It’s the kind of statement which loses elections, as Mr Cameron knows full well. But, really, it’s the only message the Tory party wants to hear. And nothing Mr Cameron’s done since he became leader has done anything to alter that fact.

The Tory leader’s only option in the circumstances is to muddle through as best he can. But if the Tories are this divided in opposition, just imagine what would happen if they found themselves in government, and actually had to exercise some responsibility?

Cameron's leadership deficit

2007-09-04T13:08:00.000+01:00

Two quick questions, prompted by a couple of the results from Ipsos-Mori’s latest survey of political opinion, published yesterday:

Which of the three main party leaders has the lowest overall satisfaction rating with the general public?
Which of the three main party leaders has the lowest overall satisfaction rating among his own party’s supporters?

If you read the Telegraph (and indeed some of the comments on Lib Dem Voice) you’d assume the answer to be the Lib Dem leader, Ming Campbell.

You would be wrong. The answer is Tory leader David Cameron.

Here comes the science:

The question was the same for each leader: Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way Brown/Cameron/Campbell is doing his job as leader of the Labour/Conservative/Liberal Democrat Party?

Among all voters:

Gordon Brown: 43% satisfied, 23% dissatisfied; 34% don’t know = Overall +20%
David Cameron: 29% satisfied; 39% dissatisfied; 32% don’t know = Overall -10%
Menzies Campbell: 23% satisfied; 32% dissatisfied; 46% don’t know = Overall -9%

Among party supporters*:

Gordon Brown: 63% satisfied; 7% dissatisfied; 29% don’t know = Overall +56%
David Cameron: 52% satisfied; 32% dissatisfied; 15% don’t know = Overall +20%
Menzies Campbell: 53% satisfied; 24% dissatisfied; 23% don’t know = Overall +29%

(* This comes with an even larger health warning than most opinion polls should more prominently carry, as the sample sizes were pretty small.)

None of this means that we as Lib Dems, or indeed Ming Campbell himself, should be complacently happy with this state of affairs. Overall Ming has a negative satisfaction rating among the public, which cannot be a good thing.

Yet the poll’s finding that almost half the electorate has yet to make up its mind about his leadership suggesting the ball remains in his court - he has time to convince the public he’s got what it takes. And the vast majority of party supporters - 53% - appear to want him to have that chance.

That, combined with the mandate he secured in a democratic leadership contest just 18 months ago, should mean an end to the public backbiting that achieves nothing except to undermine party activists’ hard work.

The really bad news is for the Tories and Mr Cameron.

It is clear that despite the metropolitan media’s love affair with David Cameron, the wider public is much more sceptical. Mr Cameron is not the talismanic, moonshine-touched vote-winner the Tory party thought it was voting for - and that is beginning to feed through into high levels of dissatisfaction among Tory voters.

A decade to forget

2007-08-31T18:36:00.000+01:00

It’s 10 years since we woke up to the news Diana, Princess of Wales had died. I suspect that, apart from the dwindling necro-band of Daily Express readers, many of us are somewhat fatigued by the wall-to-wall media coverage of an event which, though located firmly in the past, seems still to have a visceral presence.

Last year, when speculating how Diana’s death might have been covered differently in an age of the Internet and blogging, I gave my own perspective:

No sentient being could have been unmoved by the cruel despatch of a glamorous young woman in her prime; nor by the sad prospect of two young boys destined to grow up with ever-fading memories of a loving mother.

And those of us with any empathetic sensibilities will have also appreciated quite what a mixture of conflicted emotions must have intermingled in the hearts and minds of Prince Charles, the Queen and Prince Phillip. To lose someone you love is hard enough; to lose someone you used to love can be even harder.

At such times, you need space and privacy for your family to try and make sense of it all. What you absolutely do not need is a baying press demanding you expose your guilty grief to the masses to satisfy some mediaeval pain-lust which has momentarily taken grip of a minority, and been projected in real-time onto the soul of the nation.

In the claustrophobic week which smothered us all between Diana’s death and her funeral there was scant space for such reflections. Media coverage was driven not by those, like me, who spared a thought or prayer for her and her family, and then moved on; but by those who queued to exhibit their ersatz anguish in full view, to assert their über-humanity, and show the rest of us how grief ought to be done.

An alternative take is provided here by the comedian Eddie Izzard, who lost his own mother, aged six:

This diversity of perspective simply goes to prove that journalism’s lazy, glib and clichéd short-hand of assuming a nation will find itself united either by grief (at the death of a public figure) or joy (when a sporting team wins a trophy) is far from the truth. The complex swirl of human emotions cannot be so easily condensed and distilled into such neatly-labelled bottles.

It was a point made by a BBC documentary, The People’s Princess (1998), which filmed 68 hours of public reaction to Diana’s death in the immediate aftermath. The reporters, such as Adam Alexander, discovered, unsurprisingly, that “there were many motives for joining the crowd and a wide array of emotions at play”:

What was there was not simple. People wept, applauded and threw flowers at the hearse. But there were also people who took snapshots and enjoyed the day out, socialising in the pubs, arguing and expressing many different opinions.

"It was a fantastic weekend. I'd pay double to do it again. I've got history on tape," said one woman. A drinker in a pub in Bedminster, a working class Bristol suburb, did not agree. "I didn't expect to see it on in this pub," he said, stabbing a finger towards the television screen in the corner. "I came here to get away from the f******* funeral."

While many people evidently and genuinely wanted to pay their last respects, many others were tourists enjoying a great event, or were people who wanted to see and be part of a bit of history, or were just plain curious. …

One thing is certain. The way the media covered the event was far from representative. For a short while we forgot to question. Instead we latched on to a very one-dimensional reaction to the tragedy of Diana's death.

We don't live in a country where we all have to think and feel the same thing. So it's surely about time we acknowledge the fact, as one viewer does in the film Even Diana Doesn't Matter to Everybody.

It says much about the amazing pressure exerted on, and by, the media to conform to the settled view of the time that it took a year for the documentary - which after all was simply reflecting back to the public what the public had said to the film-makers - to be broadcast.

When Private Eye published its famous front cover pointing out the dual hypocrisy of the media and public, it provoked a storm of outrage, and the typically supine WH Smith banned it (while happily continuing to stock porn mags).

A decade on such a heavy-handed response seems bizarrely misplaced and reactionary.

Indeed the claustrophobic conformity which engulfed us is itself deeply ironic, given that the week of mourning following Diana’s death, has been hailed as a progressive catharsis, even by such a normally sane commentator as Andrew Marr: “we are a more relaxed and more emotionally healthy people than we used to be, and the ‘Diana moment,’ for all its weirdness and excess, marked this change.”

For myself, I think this week’s Economist gets much closer to the real truth:

With hindsight, the public seems to have lamented Diana as much because she was one of the royals as because she was estranged from them. At a distance, the masses look less insurrectionist than conservative—and were quickly salved when the queen walked amongst them. (Only a traditional people could have got quite so worked up about how high a flag flew over a palace.) Seeming to challenge the status quo, the moment ultimately reinforced it.

Maybe next year, and in the years to come, we can leave it simply to Diana's family and friends to remember her; and the rest of us can let it go.

The EU Treaty: should we play the Yes/No game?

2007-08-29T22:46:00.000+01:00

I’m not much of a one for havering on the big issues of the day, and still less for then writing about my havering. But the rights and wrongs of whether the Lib Dems should back Tory and Labour-rebel calls for a referendum on the EU reform treaty - the mini-me successor to the defunct EU constitution - leaves my precariously perched on the fence.

A large part of me yearns for the direct democracy of the Landsgemeinde of a handful of the Swiss cantons. There is something rather glorious about the notion of citizens openly debating and voting on the issues that will directly affect them, and national referendums are an über-expression of that ideal.

There is also - and it shouldn’t be lightly dismissed - the issue of Realpolitik for the Liberal Democrats. We are, by collective instinct, an internationalist party, perhaps the only one left in the British political mainstream. Labour’s reputation lies in tatters thanks to its support of the invasion of Iraq without a UN mandate, while the Tories have always tended towards isolationist gut-nationalism. This has led the Lib Dems, at least post-merger and the split from the extant Liberal party, to be seen to be enthusiastically pro-European.

Unfortunately, the public (and, too often, the party itself) has assumed our embrace of Europeanism to mean we are married to the European Union. Though the Lib Dems, and especially Vince Cable, have been critical of the arcane protectionism of the EU - in particular it’s scandalous preservation of the CAP boondoggle which helps keep the Third World in poverty - we have never dared to shout too loud lest we are perceived to be undermining the European ideal.

Our identification as a ‘pro-Brussels’ party by our right-wing opponents in politics and the media might be considered by us to be unfair - we are, after all, the most decentralising and localist party - but we shouldn’t be too surprised that the label has stuck.

It was partly to distance ourselves from this taint of ‘Euro-fanaticism’ that the Lib Dems - alone among the political parties - called for a referendum to settle the UK’s view of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992.

Political opponents might call this opportunism - and perhaps there’s a sliver of truth in that. But let’s not forget that the Lib Dems also took the brave decision (once our call for a referendum had been voted down by the Tories and Labour) consistently to support the treaty, even while John Smith’s Labour Party was hypocritically using it as Parliamentary knock-about to score cheap partisan points to embarrass John Major.

Which begs the question: why not now support a referendum on the EU treaty? If it were good enough for Maastricht, why not for this? Especially when it will get the Lib Dems off the hook: we can call for a referendum to give the public their say - in itself a Good Thing - and then campaign for a Yes vote, underscoring our pro-European credentials. Why am I havering, even for a second?

It’s the tokenism of it which troubles me. If this country regularly held referendums - whether on constitutional matters, such as Europe, or other non-party issues - it would be less of a problem: this poll would be simply another one, and the public would view it in that light, judging the issue on its own merits.

But this would be only the second national referendum in this country’s history. It would be a Big Thing (though the turnout would likely be pitiful), which would imbue the verdict with significance.

And, here, it’s only fair to ask: what would we, the public, be voting about? Few of us - any of us? - really know. We would, of course, be a lot wiser as a result of the focus which a referendum would bring to bear on the Treaty issues. Referendums certainly have educational value (a good reason for holding more of them). But what would it actually settle?

If there were a Yes vote - unlikely, but possible - it would, I guess, at least temporarily silence those obsessive nut-jobs so prevalent in right-wing circles who regard Europe as the root of all evil. I might gain some small satisfaction from that… but not much. Because it would be that pleasurable prospect which would ultimately have determined my vote in favour of the Treaty, regardless of what I actually think about it. And that isn’t something of which to be proud, nor does it make for good, rational decision-making.

And if there were a No vote? What would that achieve? Well, it would stymie the Treaty, causing the EU wheels to grind to a halt yet again, which may or may not be a good thing. But would it mean the nation had achieved closure? Absolutely not. The gander of the anti-Europeans would be priapically up, but they would have little to show for it: one treaty down, but the one that counts - the Treaty of Rome - would remain in force. It would simply spur them on to demand another referendum, this time to re-decide whether the UK should be in or out of the EU.

My havering done, I remain undecided.

In principle - and so long as it is seen to set a precedent that future constitutional changes should also be tested by the will of the people - I see little harm in holding a referendum on this latest Treaty.

But I suspect it would simply be regarded as a cipher for the question it resolutely won’t determine: should the UK continue to be a full participant in the European Union?

So why not put that question to the vote, instead?

Liberal Drinks hits Oxford

2007-08-29T19:46:00.000+01:00

Yes, one month today the inaugural Oxford Liberal Drinks event takes place in my adopted hometown, the city of ~~spying dreamers~~ dreaming spires.

Details are: 26th September, 2007, from 7.00 pm, at The Mitre, High Street, Oxford. (Naturally the event has its own Flock Together page, which you can visit here.)

If you live in the OX environs, or happen to be passing through, or simply fancy an excuse to visit, do drop by. Hope to see you there.

More blogging lists, and the ultimate Lib Dem Golden Dozen headline

2007-08-27T13:22:00.000+01:00

Even in the three weeks I was away, the lust for lists continued unabated:

James Graham, over at the essential-reading Quaequam Blog!, has been totting up which Lib Dem bloggers appear most regularly in Lib Dem Voice’s top-of-the-blogs Golden Dozen feature (I came second) - to which I shall return;
and my fellow Oxford city councillor Richard Huzzey (who has, frankly, done too good a job of keeping my Lib Dem Voice Golden Dozen seat warm in my absence - a little more mediocrity would have been, y’know, polite, Richard) has compiled a comprehensive list of all elected Lib Dem bloggers in preparation for the second Lib Dem blogging awards in September.

So here’s my list. Like a lot of people I’m registered with Bloglines, which alerts me when new posts appear on blogs to which I subscribe. I didn’t check it while I was away, and here are the top five most frenetic bloggers during that period:

Tim Worstall - 200
Comment Central (Daniel Finkelstein & co.) - 105
Dizzy Thinks (Phil Hendren) - 96
Liberal Democrat Voice (Mark Pack & co.) - 88
Iain Dale’s Diary - 72

(I don’t subscribe to many Lib Dem blogs, as we have the Aggregator for that… so apologies to Jonathan Calder, Paul Walter or Nich Starling - the most ubiquitous Lib Dem bloggers - if you’ve missed out as a result.)

Returning to James’s post... this gives me an opportunity to confess a couple of misgivings I have about the Golden Dozen.

When I started it, I deliberately split the dozen into two unequal halves. The first seven postings are always the most popular stories of the week, according to click-throughs from the Lib Dem Blogs Aggregator. (And as the list is compiled at the weekend, this generally means the best day to post something is Tuesday or Wednesday. A brilliant, popular post which goes up on Friday or Saturday is unlikely to attract enough hits to make it into the Golden Dozen.)

The second half of five postings is my personal choice, which was my attempt (i) to make compiling the list more enjoyable for me; and (ii) to highlight articles which might have slipped under the radar, or which - owing to the vagaries of the ratings system - wouldn’t otherwise have made the top seven. I’ve also tried, not always as well as I would have liked, to introduce new blogs to a wider readership pour encourager les autres.

But the most important reason for balancing the Top 7 with My 5 is that those stories which are most popular in the Lib Dem blogosphere tend to be more introspective, even cliquey.

This is not a criticism: it’s inevitable that the stories which rise to the top of the Aggregator, with its primarily Lib Dem readership, will tend to be about Lib Dem concerns - whether that’s party personalities, internal rows, or barracking our opponents.

There are seven stories pretty much guaranteed to catapult any Lib Dem blog posting to the top of the ratings:

Attacking Ming Campbell’s performance as party leader
Defending Ming Campbell’s performance as party leader;
A defection to/from the Lib Dems;
Any party selection infighting;
Taking the piss out of David Cameron;
An opinion poll, good or bad;
Any mention of top Tory blogger, Iain Dale.

If we feed all this into my interweb scrambulator, we get the ultimate Lib Dem blog headline, guaranteed to top the Golden Dozen:

Ming Campbell should resign and force leadership contest, as new poll shows David Cameron’s defection to Lib Dems will send our ratings plummeting - what will Iain Dale say??!!

A bit long, and it lacks something in the scansion, I admit.

Terror firma

2007-08-27T12:24:00.000+01:00

I would apologise for my three-week absence from this gaff, but I would be knowingly perjuring myself.

I had worried that such a long time away from my laptop would provoke cold-turkey withdrawal symptoms; that I might awake in the night sweating with fear that I had deprived the world of my essential thoughts on gun crime, NHS closures and the latest shenanigans from the ~~goldfish bowl of~~ world of Facebook.

But, no, I acclimatised pretty quickly - logged on a couple of times from foreign climes, and was happy to leave it at that.

I promise (with my fingers firmly crossed) not to bore you with any excruciating ‘what I did on my holidays’ back-to-school essays. So here’s a few snaps instead (in order, depending on in what order the Blogger template spews them out):

- rooftop view of the Koutoubia minaret in Marrakech, Morocco, at sunset;
- panoramic of Marrakech's, erm, vibrant Jemaa El Fna square;
- Jemaa El Fna by night;
- posing as an Englishman abroad in the ruins of the El Badi palace;
- on top of the world in our riad;
- the Marrakech souks (we did a lot of haggling);
- the Ouzoud waterfalls, in the Grand Atlas village of Tanaghmeilt;
- and, finally, two beaches in the Pontevedra region of Galicia a province/principality in the north-east of Spain. (Or an independent country to many of its citizens, still understandably bitter at local boy General Franco's decades of brutal, centralist repression).

Lovin’ summer

2007-08-06T21:43:00.000+01:00

Hague, Dawkins or Campbell? Not for me.

And on that note, and on the high of doing a number two over at the redoubtable Norfolk Blogger’s blog, see you all again soon…

'Nuff respect. Not

2007-08-06T21:42:00.000+01:00

Ron Brown - who served the people of Leith as their MP for 13 years, until 1992 - died last week of liver disease, aged 69.

BBC Online chose to headline his death, Former MP 'Red' Ron Brown dies. Quite why they felt it necessary to repeat his nickname so prominently even beyond death is a little beyond me. To me, its refusal of dignity shows a casual lack of respect.

Even the most anti-BBC right-wing bloggers might accept that Auntie would be pretty unlikely to come up with equivalent obituary headlines for the Tory dear-departed come the time: ‘Former MP Norman ‘Polecat’ Tebbit dies’ or ‘Former PM Thatcher ‘The Milk-Snatcher’ dies’.

And I suspect most people would find it just a little tasteless if Geoffrey Howe’s departure were to be memorialised as ‘‘Dead Sheep’ Howe dies’. (The same applies of course to David ‘Dr Death’ Owen.)

Everyone deserves a bit of respect in death.

The law is an ass, No. 93

2007-08-06T21:40:00.000+01:00

So I’m buying a new set of cutlery, when the sales assistant tells me there’s a problem: he can’t serve me. Erm, why not, I ask: I’ve brought money with me and everything.

Turns out he’s 17, and so cannot sell a knife to me. Even knives whose power of serration will scarcely trouble poached salmon. He calls over a colleague, who keys in her number to his till, and he then sells me my new set of cutlery.

Thank goodness for the protections afford by that law. Imagine the chaos that might rein if 17 year-olds were freely able to sell cutlery?

He’s old enough to join the army and die for his country, mind.

My top 100 Lib Dem blogs

2007-08-04T09:02:00.000+01:00

Have you got any salt handy? Okay, take a pinch, take two - hell, get a wheelbarrow.

A few weeks ago, Iain Dale e-mailed me and a handful of other Lib Dem bloggers asking us to rate and rank the Lib Dem blogs in preparation for the 2007 Guide to Political Blogging in the UK, to be published by Harriaman House. After a bit of umming and ah-ing, I chose to do it, if only to avoid the repeat of the superb Millennium Elephant Diary trailing in 77th, as it did in 2006.

And, actually, I’m pretty damn glad I did it, as I discovered a number of terrific blogs, which, though I might have glanced at previously , had scarcely taken the time and trouble to read properly. Almost without exception I found it well worth the effort.

But I still want to enter a number of massive caveats for what follows.

First, any attempt to rank blogs is utterly doomed - taste is so subjective, and I have no doubt that, given I ranked the Lib Dem blogs over several days, my ratings were subtly different each time. Second caveat: there are miniscule differences between the blogs: my top-rated blog, Lib Dem Voice - of which I am commissioning editor - scored 85 (out of 100); the 50th placed blog scored only 20 fewer, at 65%. Unsurprisingly, a load of blogs tied, for which I make no apology.

Thirdly, I marked according to the 10 categories Iain gave me: design, frequency of posting, writing style, personality , humour, commentary, popularity, independence of thought, range of posts, and interaction with readers.

Some of my favourite blogs were ranked lower, overall, than I would have anticipated because they scored poorly according to one or two of these measures: for example, some of those bloggers whose posts are essential-reading (eg, Alex Wilcock, Iain Sharpe, Joe Otten) post sporadically. Tom Papworth’s blog, one of the best around, is currently unavailable. Others say what they want to say terrifically, but have poorly designed blogs, or don’t attract many comments. Et cetera, et cetera. (I ranked my own - it seemed equally silly to do so, or not to do so. On this ocasion, I followed my ego...)

As you’ll have gathered from this post’s undue length, I’m slightly trying to postpone the moment when I lay out my top 100 (though I realise you’ll already have scrolled down), precisely because I realise quite how imperfect it is, and quite how unfair I might have been. Whatever, I’ve already sent it to Iain Dale, so it seems only fair to post it here.

Genuinely, if you feel I’ve cocked-up dreadfully, over-looked your blog (or someone else’s), or been too harsh/favourable, please do let me know.

1. Lib Dem Voice http://www.libdemvoice.org
2. Quaequam Blog! James Graham http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/
3. Liberal England Jonathan Calder http://liberalengland.blogspot.com/
4. Liberal Burblings Paul Walter http://paulwalter.blogspot.com/
=5. Peter Black AM http://peterblack.blogspot.com/
=5. Millennium Dome, Elephant http://millenniumelephant.blogspot.com/
=7. Norfolk Blogger Nich Starling http://norfolkblogger.blogspot.com/
=7. Jock Coats http://www.jockcoats.org.uk
9. A Liberal Goes A Long Way Stephen Tall http://oxfordliberal.blogspot.com/
10. Love and Liberty Alex Wilcock http://loveandliberty.blogspot.com/
=11. Hot, Ginger & Dynamite Paul Evans http://gingeranddynamite.blogspot.com/
=11. The Posh Sounding Northumbrian Rob Fenwick http://www.northumbrian.org.uk/
13. Jonathan Fryer http://jonathanfryer.wordpress.com/
14. Andy Mayer http://andymayer.blogspot.com/
=15. Ed Maxfield http://owersby.wordpress.com/
=15. Niles's Blog Alex Foster http://www.alexfoster.me.uk/
=17. Jonathan Wallace http://jonathanwallace.blogspot.com/
=17. Liberal Legend II Toby Philpott http://www.liberallegend2.blogspot.com/
=17. Matt Davies http://mattdaviesharingey.blogspot.com/
=17. Liberal (Not so) Alone Tristan Mills http://www.eridu.org.uk/blog/
=17. Jonny Wright http://hugahoodie.blogspot.com/
=17. Cicero's Songs James Oates http://cicerossongs.blogspot.com/
23. No Geek Is An Island Will Howells http://www.willhowells.org.uk/blog//
=24. Mike Barker http://www.cllrmikebarker.blogspot.com/
=24. Lynne Featherstone MP http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/blog.htm
=24. Duncan Borrowman http://duncanborrowman.blogspot.com/
=24. The Diary of Chris K. Chris Keating http://clickeral.blogspot.com/
=28. Liberal Bureaucracy Mark Valladares http://liberalbureaucracy.blogspot.com/
=28. All Along the Watchtower Stephen Morgan http://strmrgn.livejournal.com/
=28. Greengauge Stephen Gauge http://stevengauge.wordpress.com/
=28. Liberal Mafia Don Liberali http://liberalimafia.blogspot.com/
=28. David Nikel http://davidnikel.wordpress.com/
=28. Adrian Sanders MP http://blog.myspace.com/adriansandersmp
=34. Lindyloo's Muze Linda Jack http://lindyloosmuze.blogspot.com/
=34. Jeremy Hargreaves http://www.jeremyhargreaves.org/blog/
=34. Republic of Hyde Park David Morton http://republicofhydepark.blogspot.com/
=34. Liberal Leslie Christopher Leslie http://www.liberalleslie.blog.co.uk/
=34. Agent Mancuso http://agentmancuso.wordpress.com/
=34. What You Can Get Away With Nick Barlow http://www.nickbarlow.com/blog/
=34. Mary Reid http://www.maryreid.org.uk/
=41. The Webb Log Steve Webb MP http://webbsteve.blogspot.com/
=41. Young British & Liberal http://youngbritishandliberal.wordpress.com/
=41. Whiskey Priest Gavin Whenman http://oberon2001.blogspot.com/
=41. Hunting for Witches Leo Watkins http://huntingforwitches.blogspot.com/
=41. Bernard Woolley http://www.cttlom.blogspot.com/
=41. Anders Hanson http://andershanson.wordpress.com/
=41. Forceful & Moderate http://forcefulandmoderate.blogspot.com/
=41. Stodge Salim Fadhley http://blog.stodge.org/
49. Hapless Band of Staff and Regulars Ryan Cullen http://blog.artesea.co.uk/
=50. Liberal Review Apollo Blog http://www.liberalreview.com/blogs/apollo
=50. Paula Keaveney http://www.paulakeaveney.blogspot.com/
=50. de moribus liberalibus David Rundle http://liberalibus.blogspot.com/
=53. A Radical Writes John Dixon http://aradicalwrites.blogspot.com/
=53. Process Guy Andy Strange http://processguy.blogspot.com/
=53. Long Despairing Young Something Gareth Aubrey http://auberius.blogspot.com/
=53. Disgruntled Radical David Grace http://disgruntledradical.blogspot.com/
=53. Brian Sloan http://sloanerf1.livejournal.com/
=58. Rick's St Mary's Diary Richard Baum http://richardbaum.blogspot.com/
=58. Letters from Letterman Carl Qulliam http://www.fromletterman.blogspot.com/
=58. Barcharters Anonymous http://barcharter.blogspot.com/
=58. Blunt & Disorderly http://paswonky.blogspot.com/
=62. The Yorkshire Guidon Stewart Arnold http://theyorkshireguidon.wordpress.com/
=62. Moonlight over Essex Chris Black http://essexmoonlight.blogspot.com/
=62. Colin Ross http://www.colin-ross.org.uk/
=62. Mindrobber Andrew Hinton http://mindrobber.blogspot.com/
=62. Caron Lindsay http://carons-musings.blogspot.com/
=62. And Then He Said Andy Darley http://www.andthenhesaid.com/blog/
=62. Sajjad Karim MEP http://sajjadkarimmep.blogspot.com/
=69. Mike Bell http://mikebell.wordpress.com/
=69. Eaten by Missionaries Iain Sharpe http://eatenbymissionaries.blogspot.com/
=69. Joe Otten http://joeotten.blogspot.com/
=69. On Liberty Online Joe Taylor http://onlibertyonline.blogspot.com/
=69. Free Think Centre Forum http://www.freethink.org/blog/
=69. Arwen Folkes http://arwenfolkes.blogspot.com/
=69. The 3 P's Dave Radcliffe http://radders73.blogspot.com/
=69. Belsize Lib Dems http://www.belsizelibdems.org.uk/
=69. Simon Jeram http://blog.biscit.me.uk/
=69. Chris & Glynis Abbott http://www.chrisandglynisabbott.blogspot.com/
=79. A Liberal Dose Neil Fawcett http://liberalneil.blogspot.com/
=79. Ming Campbell MP Ming Campbell MP http://www.mingcampbell.org.uk/
=79. The Sandals are Off Steve Guy http://www.sguy.net/
=79. 5tracks Ryan Morrison http://www.5tracks.eu/
=79. Pink Dog http://pinkdogster.blogspot.com/
=79. Progressive Politics Barrie Wood http://leftleaningpolitics.blogspot.com/
=79. Combe Down Ward Roger Symonds http://www.combedown.blogspot.com/
=79. David Watts http://cllrdavidwatts.blogspot.com/
=79. My tale of me Chris Jenkinson http://mytaleofme.blogspot.com/
=88. Justine McGuinness http://justinemcguinness.blogspot.com/
=88. Jo Hayes http://johayes-wire.blogspot.com/
=88. Jo Christie-Smith http://www.jochristiesmith.blogspot.com/
=88. Graham Watson MEP http://www.grahamwatsonmep.org/pages/blog.html
=88. Ballots, Balls & Bikes Tony Ferguson http://ballotsballsandbikes.blogspot.com/
=88. Anything Caron Can Do Iain Dale http://anything-caron-can-do.blogspot.com/
=88. Weblog of a liberal George Beevor http://georgebeevor.typepad.co.uk/
=88. Richard Allan Richard Allan http://www.richardallan.org.uk/
=96. Politically Restricted Southwark Lib Dem Group http://politicallyrestricted.blogspot.com/
=96. Richard Stevens http://www.richardstevens.blogspot.com/
=96. PoliticalDom Dominic Tristram http://politicaldom.blogspot.com/
=99. Bart Ricketts Bart Ricketts http://www.bartricketts.co.uk/
=99. Liberal Action Austin Rathe http://liberalaction.typepad.com/liberal_action/

UPDATE: Paul Evans' excellent Ginger & Dynamite blog got relegated owing to an Excel error on my part; he's been restored top his rightful position, joint 11th. With sincere apologies to him (and to everyone below 11th who finds themselves relegated one place!).

Coup de grace

2007-08-04T08:34:00.000+01:00

It’s almost 20 years since A Very British Coup was first shown on Channel 4, and a quarter of a century since the book from which it was adapted, by Labour MP Chris Mullin, was published.

In some ways it is unbelievably dated. It portrays the election of a socialist Labour government, and the battles of its charismatic Sheffield ex-steel-worker leader, Harry Perkins - fantastically played by Ray McAnally - to implement a left-wing manifesto of nationalisation, huge public spending increases, and nuclear disarmament against the machinations of the right-wing establishment. Somewhat ironically, it is set in 1989, the year of the collapse of Communism.

If you’ve seen Defence of the Realm (with the excellent Gabriel Byrne) or Edge of Darkness (with the superb Bob Peck) you’ll know the drill - the little, honest man must face down the big, evil forces of conservatism. But it doesn’t make it any less compelling.

Scripted by Alan Plater, AVBC zips along at a whip-crack pace quite unusual among 80s’ dramas (so many of which luxuriate in their own somnambulance, with lengthy tracking shots and huge tracts of expository dialogue). It is also more than a little scary to see an oh-so-young Keith Allen appear as the PM’s press secretary, playing John the Baptist to Alastair Campbell.

You can buy it (or rent it) at Amazon, and doubtless many other retail outlets. If you want a flavour of the treat you have in store, here’s the opening few minutes of the film, courtesy of YouTube. There’s some smokin’ dialogue to relish, and watch out in particular for some fantastically ‘80s electronica graphics about 4½ minutes in.

Oh, so this is how you boost your blog stats

2007-08-01T19:55:00.000+01:00

There was me naively thinking it had something to do with posting regularly, and writing the occasional bit of intelligent political commentary.

Well, I'll let you in to a secret... Actually, all you need to do, it seems, is write an article about the gay subtext in the Harry Potter books - here are just a few of the search terms which led folk to my gaff today:

sirius remus subtext
harry potter gay character
gay characters in harry potter
harry potter gay character
harry potter subtext
coded gay remus lupin
harry potter lupin and tonks

Oh, and to the person who arrived at this blog via the search term “i love stephen tall”, can I just say: thank you.

So, how many Lib Dems did the BBC phone to get an anti-Ming quote?

2007-08-01T19:33:00.000+01:00

On BBC Radio 4’s The World at One this lunch-time, the programme featured an end-of-term report on the Lib Dems - how the party’s doing, how Ming Campbell’s doing. And, in particular, if the Lib Dems would do better under a new leader.

I knew it was happening because I received an e-mail this morning from one of the BBC’s WatO producers asking to speak to me. Other Lib Dem bloggers got the same e-mail. Then the BBC phoned me, and asked me some questions to gauge my perceptions of the party’s fortunes at the moment.

I answered, giving - I hope - a reasonably fair-minded picture. Yes, a few Lib Dems are distinctly unimpressed by Ming’s leadership, though the Ealing Southall and Sedgefield by-elections have settled some nerves. But I don’t detect any mood among the vast majority of activists or members in favour of a second defenestration in as many years. Most of us (I think) would regard that as (i) destructively counter-productive; and (ii) a pointless distraction.

I suspect those sentiments kaiboshed my hopes of appearing on WatO. What they wanted was a Lib Dem activist who would be content to go on the record calling for Ming to go. (I guess they knew they wouldn’t find an MP, a tribute at least to Ming’s leadership of the Parliamentary party.) Lib Dem blogger and Federal Policy Committee member, Linda Jack, stepped up to the plate.

No reason why she shouldn’t, and Linda has staunchly defended her decision to do so on Lib Dem Voice here. She’s just as entitled to call for a new leader - and she did it in the nicest possible way, I should add - as I am to view the prospect with a queasily sinking stomach.

But, equally, it’s only fair to ask: how many Lib Dems did the BBC speak to, and how many agreed with Linda’s assessment? Was her view one the BBC felt, having spoken to a number of us, best represented the membership; or was it that her view best fitted the BBC’s pre-ordained agenda?

Because this gets to the heart of journalistic balance, of real impartiality. Was the BBC’s aim truly to take the temperature of the party, or was it simply to whip up a mini-storm-in-a-teacup? Call me a cynic, but I suspect the latter.

Yesterday, I posted an article to Lib Dem Voice attacking the media’s obsession with personality politics, in part a response to the depressingly juvenile reporting of David Cameron’s recent woes: “Mr Cameron needn’t worry so much,” I wrote, “next month it’ll be someone else’s turn.”

For “next month” read “next day”.

I went on to argue that the media’s fixation on the personal-cult of leadership, as opposed to the hard-graft of policy-making and the tough choices of decision-taking, is the public’s fault; that we prefer the froth of soap opera to the steel of current affairs. In their comments, Paul Walter and Leo Watkins more optimistically suggested the British public is more high-minded than I gave credit for. I’d like to believe they were right.

But when I come to compile the Lib Dems’ Top of the Blogs Golden Dozen this weekend, I can make a pretty shrewd guess which will have been the most popular postings on the Lib Dem blogs Aggregator - those focusing on whether Ming might be for the chop.

If only they could talk

2007-07-29T20:48:00.001+01:00

When I became Deputy Lord Mayor, my principal motivation was the privileged opportunity I knew it would give me to glimpse aspects of community life in Oxford and the rest of the county of which otherwise I’d be ignorant.

One such event took place this afternoon, when I attended the annual blessing service at the Oxfordshire animal sanctuary in Stadhampton.

I’m scarcely a zoophile, but it would take a heart of stone not to be moved by the work that is done there.

In the past year, the sanctuary has taken in almost 500 dogs, cats, rabbits and guinea pigs, and re-homed over 400 of them. Impressive stuff.

Here’s me displaying my oh-so-natural affinity for furry pets with one of the friendliest I met today. After a bit of a mutual suspicion stand-off we got on just fine.

Sunflowering Infernal

2007-07-27T22:13:00.001+01:00

I don’t pretend to be much of a gardener - bit difficult, really, if you don’t have a garden. But never let it be said I don’t try.

Last year, rather bizarrely, Oxford City Council gave all councillors (and I assume quite a few residents) packets of sunflower seeds to promote The Oxford Solar Initiative - “working with you for lower energy bills and warmer, healthier homes”.

As a result of which I am now the pleased as punch owner and grower of four thriving sunflowers. My pride and joy, now over four feet high, and just in bloom this week, is pictured here.

Behind me you can see the glamorous Cowley Road backdrop to the balcony of my flat - the County Council’s social services offices.

And not a flood in sight.

The Harry Potter subtext debate

2007-07-26T09:57:00.000+01:00

There’s a fascinating debate raging among Lib Dem bloggers (where else?) regarding the seeming absence of gay characters in the Harry Potter books; and whether it matters a damn.

It was prompted by the Clowns to the Left of Me blog posting, ‘Why aren’t there any gay characters in Harry Potter?’ (I assume the question refers to the book, rather than to the character, or else I missed a scandalous passage.) This question was then somewhat unfairly scorned by the Norfolk Blogger, before being further analysed at Hunting for Witches.

Alex Wilcock has pointed out in a comment, correctly, that there is a gay character in the Harry Potter series: Remus Lupin is clearly portrayed as gay in the third book, Prisoner of Azkaban - which is why, at the end, he has to leave Hogwarts, when the school’s parents discover his secret.

The trait was picked up by the film adaptation in which David Thewlis’s Lupin is shown indulging his love of musicals. And if you think I’m over-exaggerating the homoerotic overtones, watch this, and you’ll see I’m not the only one:

So, why didn’t JK follow through this line of characterisation? Two possibilities occur:

(i) she was totally oblivious, and I (and others) have read way too much subtext; or

(ii) she (or her publisher) decided it was too risque for such a popular kids' book.

There's also another possibility. That Lupin is ‘different’ is clearly part of the book. However, there’s an uncomfortable analogy which JK may have decided, on reflection, she was better not pursuing: Lupin is ‘different’ because, against his wishes, he is turned into a werewolf having been preyed on by a predator. He then finds himself unable to control his own actions when he becomes a werewolf, and is a threat to others, even his closest friends. Indeed, he has to be confined when the moon is full. JK may have felt that drawing comparisons between Lupin’s latent homosexuality and his werewolf status would simply have re-inforced negative stereotypes. As it is, JK's heart doesn't really seem to be in it when she marries off Lupin and Tonks, a union which always appeared mis-matched.

This is even more reason if you consider the evil Fenric Greyback, another werewolf, who makes it his life’s mission deliberately to go round infecting healthy wizards to turn them into werewolves. (Greyback/Bareback, anyone?)

By the way, any female reader of Harry Potter would be far more likely to dwell on the lack of positive powerful female role models. There’s Hermione, but she’s a swot. Other than that, the major characters - Harry, Voldemort, Dumbledore and Snape - are all male. An argument can be made for McGonagall, but she is always Dumbledore’s deputy, his support, who defers to him. Mrs Weasley is the archetypal Mother Earth figure. And the two great wizard houses of Hogwarts founders are Gryffindor and Slytherin, again both male. Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff, the two female founders’ houses, are also-rans. The wizarding world, it seems, is just as male-dominated as the real world.

Who said these books were fantasy?

HP Source

2007-07-24T20:39:00.000+01:00

** WATCH OUT, SOME SPOILERS AHEAD. DON’T READ ON, UNLESS YOU’RE THE KIND OF PERSON WHO READS THE LAST CHAPTER FIRST. **

Phew, it’s finished! I devoured the final Harry Potter book over the weekend, having deliberately avoided much of the pre-launch hype for fear of tripping over an accidental spoiler.

(There was a worrying moment when, eating lunch on Sunday at a local café, while only two-thirds of the way through, a near-by couple started discussing the book a bit too loudly. I almost had to cast aside my natural English reserve, and ask them to desist. Fortunately, a louder French couple came and sat ‘twixt them and me, drowning out their gossip, and the crisis was averted.)

For a long time - in fact until I was dragged along to see the first film - I adopted the simple cynicism of those joyless ~~muggles~~ critics who dismiss JK Rowling’s creation (without having read it) as just so much marketing hype, before noting, with well-practised hauteur, that there are much better written children’s books.

Of course, they are right: the books are over-hyped, and JK’s style is often cumbersome. The thing is, I don’t care: I love 'em.

There were times when I lost the faith, I admit - around about the same time JK lost the plot. I refer to the The Volume Which Must Not Be Named, The Order of the Phoenix (book five of the septet). Though it contains moments of genius - the viciously girly-sweet character of Dolores Umbridge; Harry’s punishment of writing lines which become gouged in his own blood on the back of his hands; the Weasley twins’ escape from Hogwarts - overall it’s a lazy, morose, confusing, repetitive, sloppily-edited mess.

But its successor, The Half-Blood Prince, marked a return to form; and the latest book, The Deathly Hallows, is perhaps her best yet. (Which is enough to make me yearn for JK to re-write Order of the Phoenix, and get it right this time.)

It is breathless stuff right from the off, with no let-up in the pace - a stark contrast to the pleasantly meanderingly earlier volumes which saunter, episodically, through the traditional school year. By the half-way stage, readers could be forgiven for being absolutely knackered.

But what elevates this book above its predecessors is JK’s interleaving of action-packed, death-defying escapades with thinly-veiled allegorical and historical parallels. ‘Grindelwald’s mark’ or ‘the sign of the Deathly Hallows’ is - like the swastika - either a symbol of evil adopted by an evil dictator, or a harmless, faintly mystical, cipher. In the middle, deliberately dark, section, JK becomes almost Biblical, casting Harry into the wilderness to test his faith, while Ron’s faithfulness is sorely tested by Voldemort’s devilish temptation to act on his worst impulses.

Fortunately JK’s dialogue retains, indeed improves on, its customary lightness of touch, coaxing laughter out of the reader at the most tense moments. “Always the tone of surprise” remark both Hermione and Ron at different times, each gently rebuking the other in touching symmetry.

We must also genuflect in the direction of JK’s deft, tight, spot-on plotting. Doubtless there are nerdy Potter-heads all over the country currently dissecting the plot, scrutinising it for flaws or inconsistencies. But The Deathly Hallows is a triumph of forward planning.

All kinds of loose ends are neatly tied-up: what Dumbledore saw when he looked into the Mirror of Erised; the purpose of the two-way mirror left to Harry by Sirius; why Dumbledore never became Minister of Magic; how Wormtail would redeem his debt of honour to Harry; how come Harry was so wealthy; what Dumbledore saw when he drained the fatal potion in the cave; and why Snape hated Harry and killed Dumbledore.

Personally, I could have done without the four-page epilogue which fast-forwards 19 years to wrap up the protagonists’ lives. And ‘All was well’ is not a final sentence which will achieve immortality. But, then, I’m a grown man reading a children’s book, so - really - I should just get over it.

And, anyway, what I probably dislike about it most is the sinking realisation there definitely won’t be an eight book. Unless JK suddenly finds she needs the money…

What do I make of yesterday’s by-elections?

2007-07-20T15:34:00.000+01:00

Well, you’re spoiled for choice, as you can read one assessment over at Lib Dem Voice, and a second assessment over at The Guardian’s Comment Is Free blog (under a title not of my choosing).

I might also point you to the predictions I made last Wednesday. Looking at what I wrote, I think it’s fair to conclude:

Labour will be relieved, but not ecstatic;
The Lib Dems will be satisfied, but not ecstatic; and
The Tories will be dejected, and with good reason.

Identity drift

2007-07-19T23:15:00.000+01:00

An interesting post by Phil Hendren at his Dizzy Thinks blog, arguing ‘No one should be obligated to expose their identity’. It’s well worth reading, no matter that I am going to take it to task.

Let’s demolish immediately the ‘aunt sally’ Phil implies: there are no proposals of which I know to force either bloggers, or those who comment on their blogs, to expose their identities. Tim O’Reilly’s doubtless well-intentioned, but seriously flawed suggestion that there should be a voluntary code of conduct observed by bloggers disappeared as swiftly as it was dreamt up. The internet is, and I’ve no doubt shall remain, an anarchic haven for free expression - which is what makes it such a twistedly genius invention.

The substantial point Phil makes is more interesting, even philosophical:

the Internet [sic] biggest strength is its cathartic nature for people to explore parts of themselves that would otherwise go uncharted. For example, the strength and belief I have in my own political views came as a result of arguing online from positions that I fundamentally did not agree with. If the Internet is to be a free network it's fundamental that people - if they choose - be able to run websites, post comments, or whatever in a totally anonymous manner.

Let me state once again to avoid any risk of being misinterpreted: it is of course right that anybody can write what they want on the Internet using as many different identities as they wish.

The real question is this: why would they want to?

Clearly there are those who blog anonymously owing to the nature of their sites: if their identities were revealed it might cause them either personal or professional embarrassment. I think we can all understand that clearly defined rationale.

But Phil suggests more psychological factors are at play with those who indulge in schizoid identities:

Being anonymous online, or posting under a pseudonym allows users to explore parts of their personality and character that might otherwise leave hidden. They may be someone who has internal rage and seeks outlet in WRITING IN CAPITAL LETTERS. They could be a male who wants to be a female and wants to role play that life out. Second Life is the alter-ego born into graphics, it is a window into the psyche of the masses in some respect, because the avatar presented to you is what that person wants to be, and rarely what they actually are.

I’ve no doubt he’s right, at least to an extent. Though I suspect the vast majority of those who switch between different alter-egos do so not to live out their alternate universes, but because they’re feeling bored, silly or vindictive and want to distance themselves from such juvenilia. To fake your identity in such circumstances is not, as Phil claims, “cathartic” - it is an abdication of responsibility for your own actions.

Now if an anonymous posting is simply a rude joke you’d rather your boss or mum didn’t happen upon - well, fair enough, I guess. But if it’s unpleasantly maligning people you don’t know and are unlikely ever to meet - see the comments threads passim on Guido Fawkes’ blog - it no longer strikes me as the healthy catharsis in which Phil believes.

And, no, I don’t want to ban it. I just don’t like it. It is, quite simply, bad manners.

Why, anyway, do folk feel that the only way they can express different emotions is to adopt different personas? I don’t dispute Phil that some undoubtedly do - but is it really such a good thing that the only way someone feels able to express anger in a public forum is to fake a persona and SHOUT WITH CAPS LOCK ON? Is it not possible - even healthier - for an individual to be comfortable expressing a range of emotions in their own voice?

Finally, let’s remember the other half of the equation - a group Phil doesn’t consider: the readers. Any writer who posts their thoughts on the internet is, presumably, wanting others to read their utterings (otherwise they might as well just keep a diary). And they are of course entirely within their rights, as Phil points out, to adopt whatever persona they choose. The reader does not, in any sense, have any rights.

But the interpretation that Phil places upon writing as an alter ego appears depressingly reductive - its only point seems to be a selfish one: to make the writer feel better. My definition of writing is broader. Yes, I write it because I enjoy it - but I also write because I want to communicate to other people in an honest way.

Otherwise, what’s the point?

What to make of the by-elections?

2007-07-18T14:49:00.000+01:00

I’m not the greatest fan of Parliamentary by-elections. They provide, almost invariably, an unedifying political spectacle in which fairness, objectivity and the public become by-standers to the main event. That turnout is usually low - despite the avalanche of leaflets, and babble of mob-handed canvassers - highlights the gulf between the amped-up interest of we politicos, and the damped-down disinterest of the voters.

However, they remain significant events - serious tests not only of the popularity of political parties, but also of their campaigning effectiveness. To disregard them would be even more foolish than to over-egg their wider significance. What, then, is at stake for the three main parties at Ealing Southall and Sedgefield?

Labour

In a perverse way, Labour can afford to be most relaxed about these by-elections. Why? Because they have a ready-made excuse - all governments suffer mid-term setbacks. It’s a tired, clichéd, and not wholly accurate excuse. But there is enough of a grain of truth in it to get Labour off-the-hook. Unless, that is, their doomsday scenario occurs, and they were to lose both by-elections… in which case it’s a disaster which will flatten the ‘Brown bounce’. More likely, Labour will hold one or perhaps both, albeit with slashed majorities. They can live with that - though that they feel able to should give them serious pause for thought.

Lib Dem

As the acknowledged by-election specialists, the Lib Dems are probably most tense for two reasons. First, because expectations of our performance are commensurately higher. In one sense this is healthy - it shows party activists are still enthused enough to mount a vigorous campaign, and that the media must acknowledge (however much it pains them) that the Lib Dems are not going to disappear simply so that lazy hacks can indulge their love of old-school two-party politics.

And, secondly, because our performance is being viewed through the prism of Ming Campbell’s leadership. Anything that falls short of expectations - however high and unreasonable those expectations might be - may be portrayed as a disappointment, and increase still further the media speculation which has plagued Ming’s 18-month tenure.

A victory in either/both Ealing Southall and/or Sedgefield should be more than sufficient to calm any party nerves, and to shore up Ming’s position. (Though given the commentariat appears to have made up their mind about Ming it’s doubtful that they would accept any evidence to the contrary.) A good result would be the Lib Dems running Labour close in Ealing Southall, and getting a substantial swing in Sedgefield to leap-frog the Tories into second. A poor result would be if the Lib Dems slip back into third in Ealing Southall, and cannot progress in Sedgefield.

The Tories

They, too, will be tense - they have thrown a hell of a lot of resources at Ealing Southall in particular, and anything less than a good second place will be a disappointment. David Cameron’s position is, of course, secure for the moment - he is, after all, more popular than his party. However, a failure to make real progress in this seat will trigger a few concerns, even among loyal Cameroons, that the party is still in no fit state for a general election campaign. And among the not-so-loyal-Cameroons, we might expect to hear some mutterings that Mr Cameron’s personal choice of candidate - famously photographed beaming alongside Tony Blair only last month, and a Tory member for only a few weeks - exemplifies the style-over-substance trait which risks becoming his defining characteristic in the public mind.

Clearly if the Tories win Ealing Southall it shows they’re back in business, at least in the south of England. They could be satisfied with a second place, leap-frogging the Lib Dems. If they remain in third place, it will be a poor investment on their effort.

Their expectations for Sedgefield appear much lower - they would, I suspect, be ecstatic if they held onto second place. If they slip to third, behind the Lib Dems, they will shrug it off. That in itself says much about the national ambitions of the Tory party today.

Look at the calendar

2007-07-13T17:50:00.000+01:00

If you have a strong constitution, and seven minutes to spare, then you too can watch all 160 killings from the Friday the 13th films, one after the other. Cheery viewing, and fun for all the family.

For the superstitious among you, rest reassured there's another 11 months til the next Friday 13th.

Haven't they got anything useful to do?

2007-07-11T20:03:00.000+01:00

Sometimes I despair of MPs.

Today, the Culture, Media and Sport select committee published a highly self-serving report accusing the Press Complaints Commission of failing to protect Kate Middleton (Prince William’s current/former girl-friend, M’Lud) from harassment by paparazzi photographers:

The Press Complaints Commission took too long to act to protect Kate Middleton from clear and persistent harassment.

Let me make it clear from the start - I have a lot of sympathy with Ms Middleton. Living your life in the public eye simply because you rather fancy the heir-to-the-throne-but-one cannot be much fun, and has doubtless put a huge strain on their relationship. The tabloid press - which clearly includes snide, gossipy titles like the Mail and Times - deliberately makes the lives of many of those in the public eye a needless misery. Their muck-spreading soils us all.

But the PCC is underpinned by an important principle - that it acts solely on the basis of a complaint made by the individual or their representative. It does not accept third party complaints, nor does it intervene of its own volition. This has to be the right and proper way. It is certainly the only practical way.

However, this is not enough for the select committee’s band of something-must-be-done worthies, who assert:

The PCC appears to have waited for a complaint to materialise: it could and should have intervened sooner.

Are our MPs seriously suggesting the PCC should have made an exception to their published code of practice for Ms Middleton? (Whose interests, it should be added, have been well-represented by a firm of solicitors, Harbottle and Lewis.)

Do our MPs seriously expect the PCC to intervene each time they somehow divine an individual is feeling harassed, even though they haven’t yet made a complaint? If they do, perhaps they could draw up the criteria by which the PCC can objectively decide in which cases to intervene, and in which to wait for a complaint.

Of course, the MPs who wrote the report understand only too well that what they are demanding is utterly unworkable. Their concluding two sentences are the most pusillanimous on-the-one-hand-but-on-the-other cop-out imaginable:

The Commission should be readier to depart from its usual practice of issuing a desist notice only in response to a request. However, we recognise the force of the argument that an individual who seeks the protection of the PCC should make a formal complaint.

But that doesn’t matter to those MPs responsible. They got a cheap headline, which is what they wanted - their job is done, their work complete.

I’m sure they won’t fully appreciate the irony that the only point of their report into press intrusion has been to quench their own lust for media aggrandisement.

A little less tribalism, a lot more conversation, please

2007-07-10T21:18:00.000+01:00

First days back at work are always a little bewildering - endless e-mails, voice-mails and post to sift through, while trying to maintain the after-effects of the energy boost gained. I’ve also plunged headlong back into the political ‘blogosphere’ after a week hermetically sealed away (a little damply) in Devon. And it is clear the imminent by-elections in Ealing & Southall and Sedgefield are exercising fellow bloggers quite considerably.

And, I will add - hastily - exercising them quite understandably. By-elections: you either love ‘em or hate ‘em. Lib Dems are camped well and truly in the former field - it is a real test of our faith in activist-based pavement politics, and a rare chance for media exposure as the press is suddenly forced to remember that the age of two-party politics is dying. I certainly plan to do my bit to help the party in the next fortnight.

But let’s admit - if only to ourselves in the privacy of our blogs - that by-elections rarely show party politics in a good light. In fact, they show us, all of us, at our tribal worst.

Let’s take today’s exclusive story on Lib Dem Voice - that Tory campaign guru, Grant Shapps MP, has been seemingly caught impersonating a Lib Dem activist ‘admitting’ that the party can’t win in Ealing in a comment posted to YouTube.

First up, full credit to regular LDV contributor Mark Pack for spotting Mr Shapps’ clanger, a story which has now been picked up by both Tim Ireland at Bloggerheads and Paul Staines at Guido Fawkes. They both dismiss Mr Shapps’ defence - that his YouTube account was hacked, perhaps by nefarious political opponents - as chronically weak. (And who’d have thought they’d agree about something?) Mr Shapps’ honour is defended by Iain Dale, who breezily ascribes it to cock-up not conspiracy.

To me, it looks like a pretty clear case of caught-red-handed-bang-to-rights-guv for Mr Shapps. But then, that’s my point. Mandy Rice-Davies's singular catechism applies: I would say that, wouldn’t I? I’m less likely to give the benefit of the doubt to Mr Shapps than I would if the shoe were on the other foot. Just as Iain is much happier believing Mr Shapps - whether he’s inventing an over-contrived excuse for pretending to be a demoralised Lib Dem member on the internet, or spreading unsubstantiated rumours of supposed Lib Dem campaigning skulduggery - than accepting what we in the Lib Dems might have to say.

This latest episode - Shappstick comedy, anyone? - won’t even achieve the status of Westminster village hothouse gossip. Today’s phosphorescent blog-wars will soon flame out, unnoticed by almost any members of the public.

But it is simply an exemplum of the distraction personality politics which rages during full-tilt by-election campaigns. Any issues that are discussed in the Ealing or Sedgefield campaigns will be painted in stark, clichéd, black-and-white, right-or-wrong terms. Real political debate (or any thought of more high-minded civic discourse) can go hang until the close of polls. ‘Get out the vote’ is what matters to all parties.

And it’s not just what the voters make of all this which bothers me - it’s why we, 'the politicos', continue to damage ourselves and the political process with our rampant tribalism.

Joining me on the beach this year...

2007-07-02T18:33:00.000+01:00

My alter ego over at Lib Dem Voice has compiled a list of some Lib Dem MPs’ summer reading suggestions. Feeling rather left out, I’m publishing mine here:

Michael Tolliver Lives by Armistead Maupin - we’re told this is most assuredly not the seventh instalment of his superb Tales of the City series. Whatever, Maupin has perhaps the most acutely empathetic ear for dialogue of any living writer.

The Battle for Spain by Antony Beevor - I don’t generally ‘do’ military history, but I’ll make an exception for this work, especially as I’m returning again to Spain in August.

The Diana Chronicles by Tina Brown - I idly picked this up in Borders bookshop the other week. As a non-Royalist, I was surprisingly gripped by Tina’s friskily witty and judicious account.

Indian Summer: The Secret History of the End of an Empire by Alex von Tunzellman - as is traditional in such lists, I’m including one by a friend. But, seriously folks, the reviews are fantastic, and Alex is a scarily talented writer. Plus it’s only a tenner from Amazon.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows by J.K. Rowling - I’m more excited than is seemly for a mature adult about the publication of the final Potter book. 21st July is blocked out in my diary as a reading day.

Dalziel & Pascoe - I’ve bulk-ordered the six novels I’ve not yet read in this fantastic detective series. Please don’t judge them by the appallingly hoky TV series (which not even Warren Clarke’s and Colin Buchanan’s fantastic performances can redeem) - these are intelligent, witty, deeply literary novels. I love ‘em.

Oh, and I guess I’ll give in and buy The Blair Years by Alastair Campbell, too.

Reshuffle predictions - how did I do?

2007-06-29T15:53:00.000+01:00

Well, not too bad. Five ‘direct hits’ (right person, right job) and 12 ‘indirect hits’ (in the cabinet, but in a different job).

Caroline Flint, Hilary Armstrong, Lord Kinnock and Liam Byrne were the ones I tipped for the top who didn’t make it.

Prime Minister: Gordon Brown
~~Deputy PM: Jack Straw~~ No-one appointed (though is Straw de facto)
Chancellor: Alastair Darling
Home Secretary: ~~Alan Johnson~~ Jacqui Smith (well, no-one else saw that one coming either)
Justice Minister: Jack Straw
Foreign Secretary: David Miliband
Health Secretary: ~~Caroline Flint~~ Alan Johnson (a safe choice)
Education Secretary: ~~Hilary Benn~~ Ed Balls (children and skills) and John Denham (university and skills) - I’ll be interested to see how long it is before Balls’ tone-deaf touch lands the Government in hot water.
Work & Pensions: ~~James Purnell~~ Peter Hain
Culture Secretary: ~~Hazel Blears~~ James Purnell
Defence Secretary: ~~Peter Hain~~ Des Browne (a lucky survivor)
Environment Secretary: ~~Douglas Alexander~~ Hilary Benn
International Development: ~~John Denham~~ Douglas Alexander (who will combine running Labour’s election campaign with promoting the interests of the Third World. Hmmm.)
Trade & Industry Secretary: ~~Hilary Armstrong~~ John Hutton
Leader of the Lords: ~~Lord Kinnock~~ Baroness Ashton (shame, it would have been fun to see Neil back in the thick of things).
Communities & Local Government: ~~Hazel Blears~~ Ruth Kelly
Devolved regions: ~~Jacqui Smith~~ Des Browne, Peter Hain, Shaun Woodward (A mistake, I thought, not to bring these roles together.)
Transport: ~~John Hutton~~ Hazel Blears
Commons Leader: Harriet Harman
Chief Secretary to the Treasury: ~~Ed Balls~~ Andy Burnham
Chief Whip: ~~Andy Burnham~~ Geoff Hoon
Duchy of Lancaster: Ed Miliband
~~Without portfolio: Liam Byrne~~

When opinion polls go bad

2007-06-25T23:07:00.000+01:00

For the last few months, no opinion poll of voting intentions worthy of the name has been complete without the inevitable tagged-on question, ‘And how would you vote if Gordon Brown were Labour leader?’ To which the answer of Labour-inclined voters has invariably been: less likely than if Tony Blair were still Labour leader.

Anthony Wells, at the indispensable Polling Report website, has recorded the figures of the pollsters’ beloved anticipatory question. None of the 26 polls conducted since David Cameron became Tory leader have projected a Labour lead on the presumption that Mr Brown succeeds Mr Blair. The average Tory lead in the nine polls conducted in 2007 would suggest Mr Cameron should be some 10.5% ahead the moment Mr Brown formally moves into No. 10.

This has led to all sorts of silly speculation in the media that Mr Brown is a vote loser for Labour. And it has sparked an amusingly unmerited degree of triumphalism among Tories, who somehow imagine they will cruise to a general election victory merely by virtue of having elected a leader who manages, in contrast to most of his colleagues, to look and sound relatively normal.

Yesterday’s opinion poll in The Observer, showing a 3% Labour lead just as Mr Brown accedes to the premiership, has poured a bucket of cold water over the heads of those who, rather foolishly, had taken too much to heart the pollsters’ misleading findings.

As opinion pollsters will be the first to point out, their findings present only a snapshot of public opinion. Moreover, the question they ask to solicit the public’s views is a hypothetical one: how would you vote if there were a general election tomorrow.

Those who are asked the question (1) know there isn’t actually a general election tomorrow; and (2) have not been subjected to a month-long election campaign which will, in many cases, alter their voting intentions before they finally cast the only ballot that actually counts. This inevitably distorts the findings in quite unquantifiable ways.

To add, as the newspapers who commission the polls insist the pollsters do, an extra layer of hypothesis - how do you believe you will vote in an imaginary general election when a man who is not yet Prime Minister becomes Prime Minister - is a step too far.

The public which answers this question knows full well that what they are really being asked is: what do you think of Gordon Brown? And those who are sceptical about him will take the pain-free opportunity to voice their objections in their answer. This, too, distorts the findings in quite unquantifiable ways.

Finally, you must factor in the statistical fact that opinions polls can only predict with 95% probability to within a margin of error of +/-3% the headline figures which the newspapers will brandish on their front pages with cast-iron certainty. So the Observer poll which I’ve used as evidence in this article may just as well point to a Tory lead of 3% as it does a Labour lead of 3%. Or it could be one of the 5% of opinion polls which is ~~complete bollocks~~ outside the margin of error. You pays your money, you takes your choice...

Like many observers of the British political scene, I expect Mr Brown to enjoy a poll bounce over the summer, and that Labour will continue to be tied with, or build a small lead over, the Tories. How long this lasts will, rightly, depend on the success or failure of Mr Brown’s government.

In part, this will be because Labour has, contrary to all the pundits’ predictions (including my own), accomplished a bloodless transfer of power. It will also be because the media, believing their own rogue polls, and the Tories, believing their own anti-Brown propaganda, have so far lowered expectations of our PM-to-be that he cannot help but clear the low hurdles he has been set.

Indeed, so successful has this ‘dampening down’ strategy been, it’s almost tempting to believe that Mr Brown, a man of native political cunning, may secretly have commissioned some of those polls himself.

Wheelie bin wars, 'live' on YouTube

2007-06-24T18:30:00.000+01:00

Of course, the real reason why the Lib Dem city council distributed wheelie bins throughout Oxford was as part of our ‘recycling revolution’. But the people of Headington are an inventive and subversive lot, as befits this Arezzo to Oxford city’s Florence.

So it was wholly in character that one of the highlights of yesterday’s Highfield Residents’ Association should be that newest of traditions, the wheelie bin tag-team race. Happy viewing:

The second highlight, at least for me, was the unveiling of the latest community notice-board by that most distinguished of personages, Oxford’s deputy lord mayor. Though I successfully lowered the tone by joining in the rain-sodden limbo dance.

All captured here:

Reshuffling the decks on the Titanic

2007-06-24T12:45:00.001+01:00

Everyone else is playing the 'who's up, who's down' game ahead of Gordon announcing the new membership of Team Brown... so I thought I'd join in:

Prime Minister: Gordon Brown
Deputy PM: Jack Straw
Chancellor: Alastair Darling
Home Secretary: Alan Johnson
Justice Minister: Jack Straw
Foreign Secretary: David Miliband
Health Secretary: Caroline Flint
Education Secretary: Hilary Benn
Work & Pensions: James Purnell
Culture Secretary: Hazel Blears
Defence Secretary: Peter Hain
Environment Secretary: Douglas Alexander
International Development: John Denham
Trade & Industry Secretary: Hilary Armstrong
Leader of the Lords: Lord Kinnock
Communities & Local Government: Yvette Cooper
Devolved regions: Jacqui Smith
Transport: John Hutton
Commons Leader: Harriet Harman
Chief Secretary to the Treasury: Ed Balls
Chief Whip: Andy Burnham
Duchy of Lancaster: Ed Miliband
Without portfolio: Liam Byrne

Can an Independent win the US Presidency?

2007-06-21T21:09:00.000+01:00

In years to come, many books and theses will come to be written about the2008 US Presidential election, the most open in 80 years, since neither the serving President nor Vice-President is contesting the position.

For those of us living through it, and especially for the political geeks among us who can enjoy watching an election without being directly involved, it’s a fascinating spectacle.

Six months ago, I made the (what then seemed risky) prediction that then Republican favourite Senator John McCain would fail to secure his party’s nomination. Unless he can perform a pretty remarkable turnaround, his last chance to become President is fast slipping through his fingers.

It just goes to show how those who lead the field at an early stage need to watch their step, as the photo (right) attests.

I have a small wager on Mitt Romney, former Republican governor in liberal Massachusetts. Though he currently trails in national polls, behind both Sen. McCain and Rudy Giuliani, he is ahead in the three states which vote first in the primaries, Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, and has been consistently raising more money than either.

But the man who might upset all calculations is New York’s Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, who has just renounced his Republican affiliation, and seems set for a crack at the White House as an independent.

This will place my New York friends, mainly Democrat-sympathising, in a quandary, as Mayor Bloomberg is highly rated by them as one of the greatest mayors the city has know - a social liberal with great business acumen who runs the city on a pragmatically consensual basis. That he won re-election as a Republican in New York with a 20% majority attests to his bipartisan appeal.

Might 2008 be the election when both Republicans and Democrats find themselves having to sit it out for (at least) four years?

How now Brown cowed

2007-06-21T20:33:00.000+01:00

So, who did leak the story of Gordon Brown’s approach to the Lib Dems? Iain Dale reckons it was Paddy Ashdown who spilled the beans to Guardian editor Alan Rushbridger:

The interesting thing here is that the whole thing is Paddy Ashdown's fault. If he hadn't leaked the offer to Alan Rusbridger on Tuesday evening, the whole sorry series of events might never have come to light.

Fellow blogger (and former lobby journalist) Paul Linford repeats the allegation here. These are the only two places where I’ve seen this rumour spread, and in neither case do they substantiate why they believe it was Paddy wot leaked it.

To me (and, come to that, the BBC’s Nick Robinson) it seems pretty clear the only person with something to gain from leaking this news was Team Gordon. So why heap the blame on Paddy?

What should Ming have done?

2007-06-21T12:05:00.000+01:00

I have to admit my first reaction to yesterday’s Guardian story - reporting that Gordon Brown and Ming Campbell had discussed Lib Dems taking up cabinet positions in Mr Brown’s first cabinet - was horror. Nor was I as convinced as fellow Lib Dem bloggers appeared to be that the story was nonsense peddled by shit-stirring Guardianistas.

As further details have seeped out - like a stranded oil-tanker leaching effluence - I’ve reflected a little more on the chain of events, at least as far I can trace them from the press reports, and thought: what would I have done if I were in Ming’s shoes?

Apparently, Ming and Gordon met on Monday, following a letter sent by the Lib Dem leader to explore further what our Prime Minister-in-waiting intends for his proposed constitutional convention. The party leaders do meet from time to time - as is quite proper - to discuss such matters behind closed doors. It was, let’s remember, following Ming’s meeting with David Cameron that the silly suggestion that Greg Dyke run for Mayor of London on a joint Lib Dem / Conservative-sponsored independent, anti-Ken ticket was first broached.

At their Monday meeting, Gordon raised with Ming the possibility of some senior Lib Dem peers - Lords Carlisle, Lester and Baroness Neuberger, for instance - taking junior ministerial roles. Now I guess Ming could have dismissed this out-of-hand, said it was absolutely impossible, no-go, no way. Perhaps, and with hindsight, it would have been cannier.

But it doesn’t strike me as that unreasonable for the party leader to want to think it over, to take soundings from others in the Lib Dems. This, it appears, is what Ming did.

And those soundings left him in no doubt that the Lib Dems would not contemplate any kind of approach from Gordon, which in any way smacked of ‘coalition’ - at least not until there’s a deal on the table which sees considerable progress towards achieving key Lib Dem policies.

It is characteristic of the love of hyperbole of Nick Robinson, the BBC’s political editor, that he could describe these shenanigans on BBC Radio 4’s Today as “breaking the mould of politics in this country”. Nonsense. Ad hominem (or ad feminam) changes are inevitably temporary. Structural change - to our political institutions, our voting system, and so - is an essential pre-condition of any attempt to transform Britain’s political torpor.

The question then remains: who leaked these discussions to the press? I think it’s pretty clear it wasn’t the Lib Dems, as the party (including senior figures, like Vince Cable and Nick Clegg) were clearly caught on the hop.

So it was a henchman in Team Brown. This could be someone who wanted to kaibosh the deal. Or it could be a mischief-maker, keen to show-off Gordon’s ‘big tent’, and willingness to stretch out a bi-partisan hand - only for his endeavours to be snubbed by those petty partisan Lib Dems. Either way, it shows Gordon and his acolytes in a poor light, willing to sacrifice serious discussion of important issues in order to win a day’s headlines.

The lesson that should be drawn from this is quite clear: Ming cannot trust Gordon (or at least Gordon’s friends) to keep private discussions private. Which means any chance of a post-election deal between Labour and the Lib Dems is now an even more remote possibility than it was before.

Gordon may have scraped a battle victory by firing on the Lib Dems while our backs were turned. But he may not be smiling after the next election when he’s lost his majority.

Sterling-eating surrender monkeys

2007-06-18T09:30:00.000+01:00

Tim Hames’ rather silly column in today’s Times - exculpating Tony Blair from the cataclysmic disaster that has been the Labour/Tory Iraq policy - deserves to be fisked. Here’s hoping someone has the time. I’ll restrict my wonderment to this staggering statement:

Not to have supported the United States in [Iraq] would have been seismic. It would have entailed a complete reversal of British foreign policy and a dash to become more deeply enmeshed in the EU. This would have necessitated, at a minimum, euro membership that British voters would rightly not have tolerated.

This is the first time I’ve seen the Murdoch press explicitly link opposition to the Iraq war without a UN mandate with a desire to join a single currency. But perhaps I’ve just not been looking hard enough.

That Broon meme

2007-06-14T14:08:00.000+01:00

With thanks to James Graham for 'tagging' me (why is the 'blogosphere' so afflicted with such infantilising terms?):

2 things of which Gordon Brown should be proud.

Giving independence to the Bank of England.
Having been on watch during a broadly benign economic cycle.

2 things for which he should apologise.

Bank-rolling the Iraq war without a murmur of dissent.
An obsession with centralization, targets and complexity which has undermined public services and made the lives of the poor much harder.

2 things that he should do immediately when he becomes PM.

Introduce fair votes for all local and national elections in the UK.
Scrap ID Cards, and strengthen Freedom of Information.

2 things he should do while he is PM.

Oversee a comprehensive decentralization to local communities of power over public services and the taxation necessary to pay for them.
Vigorously oppose protectionist interests wherever they exist, and unashamedly press for free and fair world trade as the best means of lifting the poorest out of poverty.

My turn to tag: Jonathan Calder, Cicero, Alex Wilcock, Andy Mayer, David Rundle, and Liberal Review.

Thank goodness for…

2007-06-13T00:10:00.000+01:00

… the letters pages of the local press.

A correspondent from Abingdon, who finds himself bemused by which bin is collected when these days, has devised the perfect system by which to remember, and has kindly passed on his plan to readers of the Oxford Times.

Get a small container and in it put one card for each collection for a fortnight. In our area that means two green cards, two ordinary cards and one brown card. Write on the top of each card the type of collection, the day for collection (and the evening before to put it out in case the collection comes early). Then put each card in order, one on top of the other, and when the waste bin for the top card has been dealt with, put that card at the bottom of the pile. This leaves the next collection, with its appropriate day, signalled clearly on the top.

We leave the cards in their container on a shelf by the kitchen door. It's a very simple idea, but for me it works.

Obviously the basic idea has many modifications; the cards could be put on rings and just flicked over; the cards could contain any relevant details of the type of waste that is, and is not, appropriate for that particular collection; the container could even hold details of Bank Holiday changes etc.

Now why didn’t I think of that?

The letter is headlined, 'Recycling cracked'. I think we can all guess what the sub-editor was implying.

The truth about recycling, according to the Economist

2007-06-12T23:42:00.000+01:00

One of the questions that’s - quite reasonably - asked by recycling-sceptics is: prove it’s more environmentally friendly to recycle than to throw away, given the respective consumption of energy in both processes.

So I was particularly interested in a long feature in this week’s Economist, The truth about recycling. It’s worth reading in full, but I thought I’d fillet it a bit… First, here comes the science:

… the Technical University of Denmark and the Danish Topic Centre on Waste conduct[ed] a review of 55 life-cycle analyses, all of which were selected because of their rigorous methodology. The researchers then looked at more than 200 scenarios, comparing the impact of recycling with that of burying or burning particular types of waste material. They found that in 83% of all scenarios that included recycling, it was indeed better for the environment.

Based on this study, WRAP [the Waste & Resources Action Programme, a non-profit British recycling company] calculated that Britain's recycling efforts reduce its carbon-dioxide emissions by 10m-15m tonnes per year. That is equivalent to a 10% reduction in Britain's annual carbon-dioxide emissions from transport, or roughly equivalent to taking 3.5m cars off the roads.

The question then to be asked is: if it’s worthwhile doing, is this something which can be supported by the market? (Ie, is there a profit which will enable a company to benefit society while benefiting its shareholders.) The answer appears to be: no.

… most kerbside recycling programmes are not financially self-sustaining. The cost of collecting, transporting and sorting materials generally exceeds the revenues generated by selling the recyclables, and is also greater than the disposal costs. Exceptions do exist … largely near ports in dense urban areas that charge high fees for landfill disposal and enjoy good market conditions for the sale of recyclables.

So, we have here a system which reduces Britain’s carbon dioxide emissions, but which cannot turn a profit - something I guess most of us would regard as market failure, and, therefore, a candidate for government action.

Then there’s the question of China - does all our hard recycling work simply end up in Chinese landfill? This seems harder to assess. On the one hand,

Pieter van Beukering, an economist who has studied the trade of waste paper to India and waste plastics to China: “as soon as somebody is paying for the material, you bet it will be recycled.” In fact, Dr van Beukering argues that by importing waste materials, recycling firms in developing countries are able to build larger factories and achieve economies of scale, recycling materials more efficiently and at lower environmental cost. He has witnessed as much in India, he says, where dozens of inefficient, polluting paper mills near Mumbai were transformed into a smaller number of far more productive and environmentally friendly factories within a few years.

But:

… factories in developing nations may be less tightly regulated, and the recycling industry is no exception. China especially has been plagued by countless illegal-waste imports, many of which are processed by poor migrants in China's coastal regions. They dismantle and recycle anything from plastic to electronic waste without any protection for themselves or the environment. The Chinese government has banned such practices, but migrant workers have spawned a mobile cottage industry that is difficult to wipe out … Because this type of industry operates largely under the radar, it is difficult to assess its overall impact. But it is clear that processing plastic and electronic waste in a crude manner releases toxic chemicals, harming people and the environment—the opposite of what recycling is supposed to achieve.

And, finally, there is a sting in the tail for the UK. Perhaps the first product many of us got used to recycling, usually at the local supermarket before kerbside collections took over, was the green bottle - this country is, after all, the biggest importer in the world of wine (1 billion litres a year):

But with only a tiny wine industry of its own, there is little demand for the resulting glass. Instead what is needed is clear glass, which is turned into bottles for spirits, and often exported to other countries. As a result, says Andy Dawe, WRAP's glass-technology manager, Britain is in the “peculiar situation” of having more green glass than it has production capacity for. Britain's bottle-makers already use as much recycled green glass as they can in their furnaces to produce new bottles. So some of the surplus glass is down-cycled into construction aggregates or sand for filtration systems. But WRAP's own analysis reveals that the energy savings for both appear to be “marginal or even disadvantageous”.

But as the success of recycling in this country is measured by the Government not by the energy saved but by the total tonnage of recylables collected there is a perverse incentive for local councils to continue to invest in bottle recycling!

Fisking Tony Blair

2007-06-12T23:02:00.000+01:00

I’m usually a fan of Tony Blair’s speeches. They combine rhetorical, oratorical oomph with persuasive, linear logic.

So his speech today to the Reuters Institute on ‘public life’ was a disappointment. It’s not that what he said was wrong, it’s that much of it has already been said before by many media commentators:

“The media world - like everything else - is becoming more fragmented, more diverse and transformed by technology.”
“… the forms of communication are merging and interchanging.”
“The news schedule is now 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.”

Yawn. All this is true, and the acceleration of blanket media coverage is certainly changing the world we live in, and not always for the better. ‘Twas ever thus.

But Mr Blair’s analysis is just that - a cross-section of how things currently operate, with no conclusion, no proposal for how either the media or politicians can or should change things in the future.

There is a brief round-up of regulatory measures, either current or forthcoming - a vague (albeit quite correct) plea to the media “to re-assert their own selling point: the distinction between news and comment” - and that was it.

I was left thinking - is that really all you’ve learned about the interaction of the media and politics after a decade as Prime Minister? I’ve gleaned most of that just from browsing MediaGuardian.

There was one paragraph of the speech, though, which I’d like to highlight for being utter bilge. It’s classic Blair-speak, the invitation to his audience that he is taking them into his confidence, combined with the suggestion that he is being almost recklessly dishonest. In reality, it is totally disingenuous:

I am going to say something that few people in public life will say, but most know is absolutely true: a vast aspect of our jobs today - outside of the really major decisions, as big as anything else - is coping with the media, its sheer scale, weight and constant hyperactivity.

What on earth is he talking about? This isn't a secret. It is a truth universally acknowledged that media management is a huge issue across all professions - show me an organisation or institution that doesn’t have someone whose job is concerned with communications. An hour after Mr Blair concluded his talk, an e-mail pinged into my inbox inviting me to a conference:

Planning for and Reacting to the Worst: From student binge drinking deaths and athletic scandals to campus violence and natural disasters, campus crises seem to be in the national news each week. To be prepared for the inevitable, your institution should have a comprehensive plan that is tested and ready for execution at the most inopportune times.

Two points where I do agree with Mr Blair, and which, even if not original, are worth re-emphasising:

1. The Independent is a juvenile pile of toss, a travesty of its founders’ intentions. Its self-consciously screaming, preaching, preening front pages are a lamentable development in a supposedly quality paper, and one which has been curiously imitated by its more popular rivals. By selecting just one news item to lead the front page - and always SHOUTING about it - the supposedly serious press is increasingly giving up on showing the range of urgent and important news items which daily compete for our attention, and making a choice for us lest our delicate brains be confused by the arrray of stories on offer. It is a peculiarly British trait, and deeply unattractive.

2. “… it is rare today to find balance in the media. Things, people, issues, stories, are all black and white. Life's usual grey is almost entirely absent. ‘Some good, some bad’; ‘some things going right, some going wrong’: these are concepts alien to today's reporting. It's a triumph or a disaster. A problem is ‘a crisis’. A setback is a policy ‘in tatters’. A criticism, ‘a savage attack’ NGOs and pundits know that unless they are prepared to go over the top, they shouldn't venture out at all.” No journalist should lightly dismiss these words. Mr Blair is 100% right, and the trend he describes is a deplorable one for the quality of discourse in public life today.

Update: my boss, Tim Gardam, has written an in-depth analysis of Mr Blair's speech here. Well worth reading. (And, no, I'm not paid to say that.)

Elsewhere

2007-06-10T20:44:00.000+01:00

In case you think this blog's been comparatively quiet of late, here are two of my recent Lib Dem Voice offerings:

Top of the Blogs: the 'Golden Dozen' #16
A stench that starts at the very top

As previously mentioned, I'm taking my foot off the throttle of this blog just now - though I doubt I'll be able to resist posting here from time to time.

The Lives of Others

2007-06-10T20:42:00.000+01:00

I’m by no means an anti-intellectual, inverted-snob - still, I won’t pretend that I was wholly enthusiastic about popping to the cinema to watch a German-language film on a Saturday night. A subtitled political drama about censorship in pre-Wall East Germany sounded like a little too much hard work.

Dummkopf.

The Lives of Others (2006, Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck) is a stupendously good film - so strong I can now comprehend why the Academy gave it the Oscar for that absurd lumpencategory, Best Foreign Language Film, even over and above Guillermo del Toro’s truly remarkable Pan’s Labyrinth.

The multi-layered themes build to a cracking finale. Is it about the power of art to transform? Or of power to corrupt? Or is it simply a tragic love story? Whatever, it’s scorchingly well-written, with stellar performances from inter alia Ulrich Muhe and Sebastian Koch.

So forget those Terrible Threes, Pirates of the Caribbean and Spiderman, and try something brilliantly constructed, plotted, written and acted instead. Even if it is from ‘Foreign’.

Ok, so there are bigger niggles in life

2007-06-06T21:08:00.001+01:00

But two questions are bugging me right now, as I try to live life as a cyclist who doesn't arrive in work soaked from a sudden downpour:

1) why is it impossible to buy an item of stylish rain-wear... y'know, something that doesn't look like it was rejected by Gyles Brandreth for being unutterably unfashionable; and

2) even if I accept I must of necessity compromise my designer trendiness, and meekly submit to doudy dryness, why do rain-ponchos only come with short sleeves? Is it too much to ask that, having sacrificed all street-cred for the sake of practical comfort, my forearms should still get wet?

If only I could get a chauffeur to drive behind me with a change of clothes, life would be so much easier.

Easy as Qwerty

2007-06-06T20:55:00.000+01:00

A quick but public thanks to the Lib Dems' innovations team for helping make online campaigning so much easier.

A particular local issue has arisen in my ward - a proposal by the County Council to close a popular underpass. Within 20 minutes, thanks to some techno-wizardry available to any Lib Dem party member, I was able to create from scratch a dedicated web presence and online petition, Headington SOS. You can too, here.

Within an hour, 17 people have signed up... It's no substitute for door-knocking and leaflet delivery, but it's a handy alternative if you're working late at the office anyway.

Channel 4: an apology

2007-06-05T20:54:00.000+01:00

I have in the past few weeks been rather unkind about Channel 4. In particular, I suggested its recent Dispatches programme abandoned objective reporting in favour of sensationalist editorialising.

May I therefore take this opportunity to commend Channel 4’s decision not to pull tomorrow’s documentary, Diana: The Witnesses In The Tunnel.

I do not fully understand why Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton, the private secretary of Princes William and Harry, has chosen to pick a fight, and to do it in such an emotionally-charged manner. His maudlin attempts to emotionally blackmail Channel 4 are simply tasteless:

Put simply, if it were your or my mother dying in that tunnel would we want the scene broadcast to the nation? Indeed, would the nation so want it?

Congratulations to C4’s director of television and content, Kevin Lygo, for standing by the programme and its makers, and for withstanding the typical inaccuracies and hypocrisy of the tabloid press. He points out that Mr Lowther-Pinkerton’s demands, if they set a precedent, would hamper serious documentaries investigating (for example) terrorist outrages, such as 9/11 or 7/7:

where there is the entirely responsible use of archive stills or footage depicting the immediate aftermath of the tragedy but where the dead or dying are, quite rightly and in accordance with regulatory provisions, not shown or identified. This is in our view a legitimate media analysis of events which, whilst inevitably personally distressing, concerns matters of immense public interest which have been (and are likely to continue to be) the subject of on-going and extensive world wide reports and comment over a significant period.

Mr Lygo then lists the various media outlets - including The Sun, The Sunday Times and BBC’s Panorama - which have previously reproduced the images which C4 intends to show without remonstrance from Mr Lowther-Pinkerton.

To answer Mr Lowther-Pinkerton’s question directly - no, if it were my dying mother I doubt I would want such scenes to be broadcast. Which is why the decision of whether they can be broadcast should not rest with me.

Don Foster: an apology

2007-06-05T20:52:00.000+01:00

I have in the past been rather unkind about the Lib Dems’ culture spokesman, Don Foster. In particular, I suggested his knee-jerk opposition to super-casinos pandered to illiberal populism.

May I therefore take this opportunity to commend his support of Channel 4’s decision not to pull tomorrow’s documentary, Diana: The Witnesses In The Tunnel:

"While any programme about Diana’s death will cause distress to some members of the Royal Family, there is a legitimate public interest in the event, especially from a programme which provides new insights.

"Most commentators who have actually seen the programme praise it for the sensitive way it deals with a very delicate issue.

"Editorial decisions should not be made by ill-informed media hysteria but in the public interest and within existing broadcasting codes."

Off at a blogging tangent

2007-05-31T14:20:00.000+01:00

As you may have seen over at Lib Dem Voice, I’m one of the team to whom the editorial baton is being passed by LDV’s founder, Rob Fenwick, who has (to mix my metaphors) chosen to let the curtain fall on his time as editor, and leave the stage.

I’m going to take on the somewhat poncy soubriquet of ‘commissioning editor’, trying to ensure that LDV's content reflects the diversity of opinion within the party, and ensuring balanced coverage is maintained.

Rob made a fair point in the comments of his post announcing (prematurely, as it subsequently transpired) LDV’s demise:

A relatively small number of bloggers provide the majority of content in the Lib Dem blogosphere - I’m thinking of the likes of Nich Starling, James Graham, Stephen Tall, Paul Walter, Jonathan Calder, Peter Black and the ever fluffy Millennium Elephant [links to them all in my ‘Gold Top Blogs’ sidebar, right]. If they abandoned their own blogs and instead ran a collaborative effort, I believe they’d not only massively grow their own audiences, but also the audience for debating liberal politics online. Collectively, they could produce a fabulously compelling site.

Liberals are individuals and individualistic, and this is well reflected in the party ‘blogosphere’. But there is a danger that these talents can be fragmented, smaller than the sum of our parts. LDV has been a terrific corrective to this tendency, and I hope can continue as a must-read first-stop for Lib Dems and the liberal-inclined wherever in the world they are.

This site, my blog, will doubtless continue - though in what form and with what frequency we’ll see.

What would a Lib Dem reshuffle bring?

2007-05-30T15:01:00.000+01:00

In less than a month, there will be a new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who will re-cast the Cabinet to reflect his ambitions. The posts of chancellor and of home secretary will, we know, become simultaneously vacant.

It seems likely, too, that the current incumbents at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (Margaret Beckett) and the new Ministry of Justice (Lord Falconer) will be leaving the stage. We are, as yet, in the dark about whether John Prescott’s hole as outgoing deputy PM will be filled.

In sum, it’s a major overhaul of a serving government unparalleled in modern political times. This poses challenges to the opposition parties, and we know (which is to say, I’ve read it in the papers) that David Cameron is currently preparing to re-shuffle the Tory shadow cabinet in readiness for a Brown Government.

What of Ming Campbell and the Lib Dem shadow cabinet?*

To date, speculation about the Lib Dems has centred on the party leader himself. But, despite a few mutterings, there seems little prospect of a forced exit, least of all from the members of the parliamentary party whose jobs are, ultimately, on the line. Most appear content that the much-vaunted-but-little-seen behind-the-scenes organisational changes Ming has instituted will begin to bear fruit - if we can avoid another destructive bout of public panicking.

So will Ming re-shuffle his team?

Or will he choose to leave things be?

After all, the Lib Dems’ problem is the opposite to that of the Government. The key difficulty Mr Brown needs to surmount is that Labour looks so dreadfully tired (as well as appallingly incompetent, but let’s leave that to one side). For us the third party, our key spokespeople are still too-little-known. Where familiarity has bred contempt for Labour, we rely on it breeding contentment for the Lib Dems.

Nor does Ming have much scope to re-shuffle. Vince Cable might make way for fresh blood in the form of Chris Huhne (or David Laws). But Vince has made huge strides in establishing some semblance of credibility for the Lib Dems’ economic policies - no mean job when the party hasn’t been in power for 80 years. Last year, I suggested he could be given a strategic policy co-ordination role, which would have suited both his considerable talents, and his second job as deputy party leader. But, with Steve Webb heading up the writing of the next manifesto, that role is now taken. So Vince, I guess, will be staying put.

Nick Clegg is a prolific shadow home secretary who is regularly sought by the media, while Michael Moore is still trying to get noticed as shadow foreign secretary (a tricky task given the media always makes a beeline for Ming the moment Iran, Korea or the Middle East hit the headlines).

In the chief public service departments - Health, Education, Transport and Environment - the party has yet to score big against Labour or the Tories. (Though at least in Chris Huhne’s environment portfolio this cannot be ascribed to either lack of industry, or the absence of a comprehensive policy agenda.)

We can, of course, blame the media for their disinterest in public policy compared with their febrile who’s-hot-or-not personality obsession. But, truthfully, who among us could give a quick (and accurate) summary of how the Lib Dems would transform for the better our hospitals, schools or railways?

This is not to pin the blame on those shadow spokespeople in those four hot seats. It comes back to that over-used touchstone, ‘narrative’, hotly debated in the Lib Dem blogosphere of late: how do we explain to people, simply and clearly, how the Lib Dems will help them, and improve society.

‘Free, fair and green’ is a good start (and, come to that, a pretty good slogan). But how many of our policies - across the board - actually fulfil those criteria? And if I as an engaged party member am asking that question, is it any wonder that the wider public is uncertain?

I suspect any changes Ming might make to the Lib Dem shadow cabinet in the next few weeks will be marginal. And that’s fine by me - unlike the Tories, we are not a party which looks to the bloke at the top of the party to explain what our long-cherished principles are this week.

But a reshuffle is as good an opportunity as any to ask how far we are translating our liberal principles into liberal policies. And how good a job our shadow cabinet is doing at explaining either or both to the electorate.

* If you’re a Tory about to complain the Lib Dems have no ‘right’ to call their front bench a shadow cabinet, please spare yourself the hassle. The Tories are, de jure, HM The Queen’s Official Opposition. That does not give them exclusive rights to the term ‘shadow cabinet’. Get over it.

Sun chance

2007-05-29T09:37:00.000+01:00

And, as if to prove Murphy's Law, here's the bright view from my office the day after the Bank Holiday...

Rain stopped play

2007-05-28T15:59:00.001+01:00

You can tell it’s a Bank Holiday… here’s the grim view from my flat today.

School vouchers revisited

2007-05-28T15:53:00.000+01:00

An interesting idea courtesy Kenneth Baker in yesterday’s Torygraph:

We should introduce an education credit equivalent to the amount the state pays for a primary education place, £3,150, and a secondary school place, £4,070, to those parents whose children attend a school that is designated by the Department for Education and Skills as failing, and who are dissatisfied with the education provided for their children. The parents of pupils in such schools would have the cash to purchase better education for their children, either in a local state school or at an independent school. This would achieve greater social mobility than undermining the grammar schools. Education at independent schools costs more than this, but such a change would encourage the start-up of new schools, particularly at the primary level, geared to that level of funding.

I have argued before in favour of school vouchers; with some misgivings, as I’m not sure their introduction would usher in a problem-free panacea. Lord Baker’s proposal does at least side-step the usual first argument against vouchers: that they will simply subsidise those parents who already pay for their kids to have a private education. I suspect, though, that introducing such a partial scheme would simply shift the inequalities between different catchment areas within a locality.

However, it does at least attempt to grapple with the key educational problem facing us today: how to offer equality of opportunity to young people in a society which segregates according to who can afford to buy a house near a good school. Those who oppose school vouchers need to suggest a practical solution to remedy this very real problem.

PS: as an aside, are ‘staff inset training days’ still known as ‘Baker Days’, as they were way back in my day?

ConHome sticks boot in Conway

2007-05-28T15:51:00.000+01:00

Tory MP Derek Conway has faced a barrage of criticism for employing his undergraduate son as his parliamentary assistant at a cost to the taxpayer of £981 a month. What surprised me most, though, was where this incident was prominently displayed - as the lead headline on the Conservative Home website.

Admittedly ConHome is fiercely independent of the official party, and is the self-styled voice of the grassroots - but why make this your main story, I wondered? Why not leave that kind of thing to your political opponents?

Then, I remembered that Derek Conway was the first MP to write to the Whips office to trigger a vote of no confidence in the then Tory leader, the hapless Iain Duncan Smith. The editor of ConHome is (the very nice) Tim Montgomerie, who was IDS’s ultra-loyal political secretary in his final two months - hence the site’s sometime nickname, ContinuityIDS.

I guess some enemies are easier to forgive than others…

14 not out

2007-05-28T15:50:00.000+01:00

The Golden Dozen outpourings from the Lib Dem blogosphere are available for your reading delight over at Lib Dem Voice.

Lessons in liberalism (courtesy The West Wing)

2007-05-25T17:40:00.000+01:00

Over at CommentCentral, Daniel Finkelstein invites folks to relax on a Friday evening with a classic West Wing clip courtesy of YouTube. It’s an excerpt from the electric Ritchie-Bartlett presidential debate where Jed shows he’s not going to do an Uncle Fluffy.

But it’s not my favourite… Here’s Bruno Gianelli, the political strategist’s political strategist, demanding a bit of kick-ass liberalism. (Ironically, the actor who played Bruno, Ron Silver, switched from the Democrats to the Republicans in the wake of 9/11.)

And finally… here’s one of the best distillations of the conflicting (and often conflicted) philosophies between ‘big government’ Democrats and ‘small government’ Republicans. Take it away Ainsley Hayes and Sam Seaborn:

Henry Campbell-Bannerman - can you help?

2007-05-24T22:41:00.000+01:00

An unusual request arrived today in my e-mail inbox:

Do you know where I can find (on-line) copies of photographs of this man's younger years and relatives? Thank you very much.

I'm stumped... If you can assist, please leave a comment, or mail me here.

Channel 4 - what a load of rubbish

2007-05-24T22:34:00.000+01:00

This isn’t yet another post about ~~fortnightly~~ alternate weekly waste collections. Honest. However, I accidentally found myself tonight watching Channel 4’s Dispatches programme, ‘Bin Wars’, in which Oxford heavily featured.

Regardless of your views - whether you think 160+ councils have taken leave of their senses, or that increased recycling rates are well worth the extra effort - what struck me most (on today of all days) was the programme’s polemical style. I recall Dispatches being a programme which took an objective and balanced view of the issues it put under the microscope, dealing with them sensibly and soberly.

Not any more. This was shoddy, shoddy journalism - so bad it could almost have been on ITV.

C4 will doubtless defend the show’s balance on the grounds that both sides had their say. True, kind of. But what you in fact got was a handful of residents opposed to the scheme, counterpointed with a Council official (or councillor) putting their perspective.

The C4 agenda was clear: this was a programme about politicians versus the people.

And yet - as the local newspaper, the Oxford Mail, has discovered - knock on people’s doors in this city and the vast majority of residents are quite content with our 'recycling revolution'. But was their view represented by C4? No.

I’m very happy to go round my Headington ward with a Dispatches film crew and talk directly to my residents about the scheme, and let C4 hear it for themselves. But, then, as evidenced by Ofcom today, could I really trust C4 to edit the programme properly?

This once-proud not-for-profit's factual programming is rapidly becoming The Independent of television - fun to flick through, but would you really trust it to present the facts, rather than filter them?

Much more of this, and they’ll have me thinking the BBC ~~poll tax~~ licence fee is a good idea.

Ofcom: interfering busybodies or upholding standards?

2007-05-24T13:56:00.000+01:00

Even before Big Brother 8 starts, its shallow spin-off Celebrity Big Brother is again hitting the headlines, following media regulator Ofcom’s decision to order Channel 4 to apologise three times for showing footage of Bollywood star Shilpa Shetty being taunted by fellow contestants Jade Goody, Jack Tweedy and Jo O’Meara.

My first reaction was one of concern - why should a regulator force a channel to apologise for screening individuals showing themselves in their true (and unattractive) colours? Jade telling Shilpa to “Fuck off home” was racist and deeply unpleasant - but that Jade felt this was an acceptable insult to hurl provided an insight into her character and standards, which is surely the point of a reality show like Big Brother.

The public reaction - over-hyped by the media, who typically glorified in lambasting C4 while gleefully repeating the offensive remarks - demonstrated far better than any Ofcom ruling the contempt in which views such as Jade’s are widely regarded by substantial numbers of the liberal, tolerant viewing public.

However, I then read Ofcom’s ruling - and it shows that what they took umbrage with C4 for was not the channel’s decision to show some D-listers proving their tawdry ignorance, but that the show’s producers had not seen all the relevant footage when they made the decision to broadcast Jade & co’s remarks.

Specifically, this included untransmitted footage of the racist trio’s doubtless side-splitting attempts to work the word ‘Paki’ into a limerick. In Ofcom’s judgement, C4 needed to be aware of this wider context before broadcasting incidents such as Jade’s “Shilpa poppadom” comment, so that it could be placed in its full context. As Ofcom notes:

The audience’s understanding of the events in the House and, in particular, the alleged racist bullying, was changing as the series developed and therefore comments which may in other circumstances have been interpreted as “borderline” in terms of offence became much more offensive given what was happening in the House, as well as beyond the House, in the outside world.

Seen in this light, Ofcom’s ruling seems to me entirely sensible, even commendable. As viewers, we rely on C4 editing shows - whether entertainment reality like Big Brother, or serious documentaries like Dispatches - in a responsible, fair and balanced way. This requires producers and editors to be in possession of the full facts, so that the highlights package can be properly filtered and contextualised.

This clearly didn’t happen in the case of the latest Celebrity Big Brother, and there was the potential for viewers to be misled - to view Jade’s racist remarks as isolated incidents erupting in the heat of the moment, rather than as exempla of the casual, careless but systematic bullying they in fact were.

Lucky, lucky Gordon?

2007-05-23T22:56:00.000+01:00

Our current Prime Minister has long revelled in the soubriquet, ‘Lucky Tony’. The BBC’s political editor, Nick Robinson, today suggests that this mantle has now been passed to his successor, Gordon Brown.

His rationale is simple: this week’s latest shambolic performance by the Labour Government could have happened in seven weeks’ time, getting the new Premier’s tenure off to the shakiest of all possible starts.

Well, perhaps. I think Mr Robinson rather underestimates the incapacity of this Cabinet, and their potential for conjuring future folie des grandeurs.

For while it’s a tad tricky to feel sympathetic towards health secretary, Patricia Hewitt - who would happily climb a step-ladder on the peak of Everest all the better to talk down to us - the rather hapless Ruth Kelly is perhaps a little more deserving of pity. Handed the poisoned chalice of making Home Improvement Plans work, she is being forced to sup long and hard no matter the taste is bitter.

Meanwhile, the Government minister actually responsible for the HIPs fiasco, Yvette Cooper, is tipped for a big promotion in Mr Brown’s first cabinet, together with her husband, Ed Balls, a man who manages to make Ms Hewitt seem human.

Lucky Gordon? Really?

He is fortunate in one regard, however - Prime Minister Brown will have an unparalleled opportunity to re-mould his ministerial team as he wishes. Labour party leaders are usually hemmed in by two constraints when assembling their cabinet.

First, the need to reward political rivals in order to show their magnanimity and to unite the party. But Mr Brown has no rivals - enemies, you betcha, but not rivals.

And, secondly, Labour leaders have to construct their first cabinet from those elected by the Parliamentary Party to the shadow cabinet. Look at Team Tony c.1997 - how many of those would have been there from Mr Blair’s personal choice? However, this party rule, rather quaintly, applies only to the first cabinet. After that, the leader can do as she or he wishes.

So Mr Brown has a free hand, made even freer by the voluntary redundancies of those other two clunking fists, the Two Johns, Prescott and Reid.

Of course, this is itself a double-edged sword - his allies will expect their reward, but he cannot possibly avoid disappointing some of the 308 Labour MPs who coronated him.

And yet, as has become painfully obvious these last few months, there are precious few Labour MPs of real standing, who are also cabinet material. That Mr Brown is the sole leadership candidate after 10 years as Chancellor is a very real tribute to his talent and resilience. It is also a damning indictment of the paucity of quality within this Government. The lack of a viable alternative has assisted him in making it to the top of his party; conversely, it might not help him to stay there.

He’s going to need all the luck he can get.

A dose of sunshine for Lib Dems everywhere

2007-05-22T14:12:00.000+01:00

It’s a sunny day, and I’m nicely rested after a few days’ holiday - so let’s celebrate some positive stories.

First up - Ming Campbell’s challenge to Prime Minister-select Gordon Brown to a televised debate was a cute way of (i) giving the Lib Dems a fresh angle on a stale story at a time when our bipolar media traditionally eschews giving the party any air-time; and (ii) highlighting just how little we know (or expect) of the Labour Party’s newly-minted leader’s views across the whole gamut of national and international issues he will be leading this country on.

It was also a real advance on Ming’s previous attempt to grab a headline, when he rather lamentably called for a snap general election, having apparently confused the UK’s parliamentary system with a presidential system - as noted by Lib Dem blogger Jonny Wright here.

Secondly, it’s good to see the Lib Dems taking a lead in the campaign to stop the Labour/Tory alliance in the House of Commons from watering down Freedom of Information legislation, with a new petition today launched to defend the public’s right to know what our Parliamentarians are up to. James Oates’s Cicero’s Songs blog has the full roll-call of dishonour of those 96 Labour and Tory MPs who are happy to create one law for our legislators and another for the rest of us.

This rather squalid episode has cast a revealing light on the mindsets of those MPs who clearly feel they have something to hide, and that their affairs exist on a higher plane than everyone else’s. It’s times like this we can, and should, feel proud to be members of our party, the only one which truly understands how destructive sectional interests - whether of class, wealth, ethnicity or nationality - are to society.

Finally, last week saw a bit of negative publicity among some sections of the media about Ming Campbell’s leadership of the Lib Dems. Clearly now Gordon Brown has been acclaimed leader by his own party, the media is anxious to have another personality-fuelled tussle to fixate on - anything to avoid actually having to report the dull daily grind of politics. Sorry, but it bores me: it’s Heat-style journalism for Guardian readers.

But I did see some poll figures which did intrigue me. They were by Communicate Research for Newsnight - and clearly they did not fit the programme’s agenda at the time, or else were too complicated for them to feel able to report.

What they show is that the Lib Dems have become a much more credible political force in the eyes of the public since 2002 in virtually every regard. In particular, it is fascinating to see the Lib Dems are apparently the party most people see as being trustworthy on immigration. Which suggests there is a liberal vote out there into which the Lib Dems need to tap more loudly than we have in the past. It’s only fair to note that the party’s rises are paralleled by the Tories’ recovery - but forgive me for sticking to the good news for the Lib Dems on this blog.

What is also interesting is that the Labour Party’s figures, while dipping, have not collapsed. This appears to back up what has been found in the last few years’ local elections - each time a rout has been predicted for Labour, each time they have (just about) avoided imploding. Their support has proved - in the circumstances - to be pretty resilient.

So, there you have it - a dose of optimism for a Tuesday afternoon.

Mea culpa

2007-05-22T12:16:00.000+01:00

An occasional series of blog entries in which my dad takes me to task for what I’ve written. Here, verbatim, is his latest missive to me, subject heading 'Timetable priorities':

Mon 21 May Stephen Tall returns to Britain from Spain.
9.27pm Stephen Tall posts his latest blog saying he's returned to Britain.
10.55pm Stephen Tall phones his parents to let them know he's returned.

12 midnight one of Stephen Tall's parents emails Stephen Tall to say, "Oh, well, it's good to know we figure somewhere on our son's list of things to do on returning."

Mea maxima culpa.

Yawn.

2007-05-21T21:27:00.000+01:00

I go away for a few days, return to Blighty, only to discover it’s the same old, same old…

Tony Blair is still Prime Minister, despite having announced his resignation three times (and counting… ooh, I can’t wait for the tear-wrenching speech he’s got lined up for us on the 27th June), while Gordon Brown broods testily in the wings having clocked up 13 years as a bitter understudy.
Two of my former Lib Dem city council colleagues in Oxford have, finally - as predicted here, here, here, here and here - decided to place their talents at the disposal of the Tory Party, following their brief sojourns as Independents. Defections are sometimes hailed as signifying political watersheds, even at the parochial level of local government. More usually, they are about clashing personalities and over-hyped egos. As a party member whose time and money has helped give them the platform to become yesterday’s proverbial fish ‘n’ chip wrappers (though I assume H&S legislation nowadays disqualifies the Oxford Mail’s pages from actually being bespoiled in this way), I have scant time for their to-be-short-lived grand-standing. Still, I’m sure they’ll have fun defending the views of the party they have joined to the Oxford residents who rejected those views at the ballot box when last they had the chance.
An unholy alliance of 96 Labour and Tory MPs has ganged up - again - to force anti-Freedom of Information Act legislation through the House of Commons, exempting Parliamentarians from its reach. The words ‘self-serving’ and ‘hypocrites’ spring to mind.

Still - good to be back…