"The great blogger." (Nick Clegg MP) - "Stephen consistently combines good writing with interesting content and new technology." (Lynne Featherstone MP) - "The most under-rated political blog in the UK." (Iain Dale) - Lib Dem Blog of the Year 2006
Today Manchester won its bid to host the sole regional super-casino, and the Lib Dems’ Culture spokesman, Don Foster, issued a predictably eeyore-ish response, arguing the Government “must get their gambling addiction under control”.
It’s a shame he’s chosen to indulge in the easy sound-bite, as Mr Foster makes some valid points.
He’s right to point out that the gambling industry should do more to tackle the ills associated with ‘problem gamblers’ - just compare the £2.5m the gambling industry gave to the main body dealing with gambling addictions with the £200m a year the drinks industry spends tackling alcohol problems. If the gambling industry isn’t picking up the tab, it will be the tax-payer.
The Lib Dems were also right, when the Gambling Bill was going through Parliament, to stick up for the right of local councils, acting on behalf of their residents, to reject casino bids. Indeed, when the proposals were first unveiled the Lib Dems were fully in favour of what were then termed ‘destination casinos’, especially if located in seaside resorts.
And, as The Observer reported on Sunday, Blackpool was pinning its hopes on winning the bid:
The majority [of residents] are so desperate to have the casino that council leaders are willing to knock down the police station and the law courts to accommodate it. At the end of last year, the local newspaper, the Blackpool Gazette, asked its readers a simple question: 'Do you want a super-casino?' An overwhelming 91 per cent of respondents said they did.
Read today’s Blackpool Gazette, and you get a flavour of the disappointment at Manchester’s victory.
In the circumstances, you might have thought the Lib Dems would be sympathetic to allowing a town like Blackpool to host a super-casino. After all, Mr Foster did suggest in the House of Commons debate of 1st November, 2004, that “we still need measures that will control the proliferation of super-casinos, perhaps by allowing one or two per region to start with” [my emphasis].
However, that suggestion of “one or two per region” appears to have bitten the dust, with Mr Foster today arguing that: “Any further increase in the number of super-casinos, without a full study of the impact on Manchester, would be against the wishes of Parliament and the concerns of many local communities.”
Liberals are rarely full-blown libertarians: we accept the individual’s freedom has, of necessity, occasionally to be curbed by government for the greater good of society. But our pre-disposition must always be to allow individuals freedom of choice over their own lives; including, crucially, the freedom to make mistakes.
Yet, too often, the Lib Dems appear to be the party of party-poopers, reluctant to relinquish state power to the individual for fear they will mis-use it. Last year, we (take another bow, Don) carped about liberalising the alcohol licensing laws. Now, apparently, we are against super-casinos even when they are wanted by local communities.
The Lib Dems often invoke the two Fs as a slogan: freedom and fairness. Perhaps we should toss another F into the mix: fun. (Steady now, Lembit.) Because, on the basis of today’s statement, there’s no F in liberalism.
Tonight, and not before time, I’ve completed my tax return. Happily, and for the first time, it appears the Inland Revenue is in my debt.
As I’d girded my loins against the usual demand for a few hundred quid this makes me happy. It also makes me worried, since I’m now convinced I’ve made a mistake in my adding up. (Heck, I’m only the guy in charge of Oxford city’s finances.)
And credit where it’s due. The online self-assessment forms are well-designed and in plain language - indeed, plain to the point of sarcasm. For example, I was amused - and when I say amused, bear in mind this was during an evening devoted to my tax return - to see this snippy aside in the guidance on whether home-workers’ water bills are tax-deductible:
The amount of water used in actually performing office related duties is likely to be nil. We accept that the room(s) have to be kept clean, but the costs of doing so are likely to be small. The cost of an occasional bucket of water for cleaning purposes will not change that.
Much more of that kind of no-nonsense sarkiness, and I could start warming to the Inland Revenue.
Delivering to the public is an important part of political engagement. We call for legislation to make it easier for voters to be engaged by requiring all letter boxes to be:
Located at a clear height
Easy to post through
Designed to allow leaflets to be posted without destroying them
Designed to protect people's hands when posting
Dog proof
In addition we call for doors to have the number clearly displayed and doorbells to be easy to find (with defunct doorbell buttons removed).
Hat-tip to Tim Roll-Pickering for highlighting this often-overlooked issue. But will the politicians listen?
Compare and contrast the reaction of David Cameron to the two dominant news items of the last week:
On the silly furore surrounding Channel 4’s Celebrity Big Brother: “I completely abhor racism. Everyone has got a responsibility here. There's a great regulator called the off button and I think we should use it.”
On the gay adoption row: “…”
It’s unsurprising the Tory leader felt happy commenting on a reality game show. He was able to take his customary mouthful of waffle confident of offending no-one by accidentally coughing it up. Racism is bad; personal responsibility is good; further regulation is unnecessary. All true enough; all utterly unsurprising.
Personally, I don’t really care what our politicians think about Jade or Shilpa; but he was asked the question, so fair enough. And Mr Cameron at least avoided the ridiculous over-sensationalising of London’s pantomime Mayor, Ken Livingstone: “I think everyone is delighted that we got the result we did last night,” he ineffably pluralised after Jade’s eviction.
But Mr Cameron’s disinclination to comment publicly on the row about whether Roman Catholic adoption agencies should be excused from discriminating against gay couples is more instructive - worryingly so, both for friends and foes alike.
In today’s Telegraph, that most well-Torily-connected of columnists, Matthew d’Ancona, explains the reaction when he sought clarification on HM’s Official Opposition’s view on this most divisive of subjects:
I was told that David Cameron "sees the difficulty. Our position is: wait and see."
Such trenchant leadership! Such formidable gravitas! Such a rallying cry!
Mr Cameron takes regular delight in accusing the current, Chancellor, Gordon Brown, of burying his head in the sand when the going gets tough. To now act out that precise same charge smacks more than a little of hypocrisy.
Too harsh, you think? After all, it’s the job of governments to govern; of oppositions to hold them to account. Who can blame Mr Cameron for declining to distract the media from Labour-baiting by opening up himself and his party to attack?
And that is really the crunch - for Mr Cameron knows he cannot win this issue. The so-called ‘Christian right’ of the Tory party expects Mr Cameron to stick up for the Catholic Church’s exemption from anti-discrimination legislation. Yet Mr Cameron knows he cannot afford to concede his liberal-lite brand by appearing to side with those whose concept of Christian love elides so smoothly into judgemental condemnation. So, best keep it zipped, button it, stay schtum.
Which is fine if you’re at a Notting Hill dinner party, and anxious to avoid offending your Opus Dei hosts. It’s less fine when you’re offering yourself to the British public as our next Prime Minister.
After all, Mr Cameron believes his great mission is to engender a greater sense of social responsibility through this land; to show that there is a such a thing as society, it’s just not the same thing as the state; and to let a thousand voluntary agencies bloom.
Mr Cameron claims this is about setting a new national agenda in which government’s role is re-defined. At a cultural level, this means decrying chocolate oranges and opining about Big Brother; but not legislating against either. At a more structural level, it means allowing the state to shrink, to be replaced where practical by community organisations.
There is much in this which liberals can, potentially, welcome. However, an enabling government is not the same as an abstaining government.
If government is to hand over money to voluntary organisations to fulfil functions currently performed by the state - to become an investor rather than an owner - it is proper and reasonable for government to use that cash to achieve what, by the force of its democratic mandate, it believes to be a social good. In the case of adoption this means ensuring the best possible home is found for the child; and recognising that the best possible homes come in all different shapes and sizes.
If Mr Cameron truly wishes to usher in a new age of social responsibility, he will need to do more than ‘wait and see’. He will need to do what he accuses Mr Brown of ducking - by putting his head above the parapet, and saying what he actually thinks. Is he a liberal Conservative, or is he a Conservative to the core of his being?
With every passing month in which the Tory leader prefers to keep his powder dry the suspicion grows that he hopes he can keep dodging this question for ever. He cannot. Better to decide now, while you’re ahead in the polls, than to imagine you can continue to retain the support of both ConservativeHome and the Guardian’s leader-writers through a general election.
The two Jonathans’ (Calder and Wallace) postings on replacing Trident reminded me of the interview I heard this week on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme with Professor Richard Garwin, former chair of the US government's science advisory committee and consultant to the nuclear weapons programme.
Only five minutes long, it’s well worth listening to here (it’s available online for another four days). A few extracts from what he said, below:
The question is whether we make the decision now to build new submarines to be operating in 2024 as a direct replacement for the Vanguard-class that would carry the Trident D5 missiles of which the UK has rights to about 58, and those missiles would last for the life of the new submarines.
To my mind, it’s entirely premature to make that decision now because I believe, and I think colleagues believe, that the life of the Trident submarines Vanguard-class can be extended by 15 years or so, as have been the life of the American Trident submarines, and that would give us more time to decide what we need to do in this new era.
The problem is - the opportunity is - that the Cold War is over, we don’t need 12 warheads on each of these big missiles, we don’t need the big missiles at all. Technology has changed, so it’s likely that an optimum replacement, even if one needs nuclear weapons 30-50 years from now, would be small intercontinental range ballistic missiles on new submarines that would be a lot smaller and cheaper and would have single warheads on the missiles. …
The real problem now is the Government says the submarines can have their life extended by only five years to 30 years. We believe the submarines were not designed for a 25-year life; they were designed for a 25 year minimum life. If the steam generators, part of the nuclear plant, show leaks they can be fixed, and they can be replaced, which is routine. … The submarines will be just as effective with their life extension and refurbishment programme. It would be better to delay this decision confident we can do so at reasonable cost. …
It’s routine for project managers and governments to hurry the decision in order not to have these things in question. They often argue it’s too soon to object to because we’re not spending any money; and then you’re too late to object because it’s too late to stop this programme, and to not go through with it. The solution is to discuss these things on the facts up-front.
Shrewd observers will notice the similarities between Professor Garwin’s comments, and those advocated by the Lib Dems’ Trident Policy Working Group, and endorsed by Ming Campbell, last month:
It would be unwise at this time for Britain to abandon its nuclear weapons altogether. But a deterrent of approximately half the current size, and extending the life of the current submarine system, would be sufficient to provide for Britain’s ultimate security until we have more certainty about proliferation.
As the Defence Select Committee has concluded we can delay making the final decision without wasting billions in the meantime. A nuclear weapon-free world is highly desirable. Cutting our stockpile in half would send a strong signal that nuclear disarmament is back on the international agenda and that Britain is prepared to act first.
When Ming suggested this to the House of Commons, this was the reaction he received, according to thegrauniad:
The Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, was loudly jeered by Tory MPs and some Labour members for suggesting a delay on taking a decision until 2014. The Speaker had to intervene to scold Tory MPs.
As Jonathan Calder noted at the time: “the performance of the Conservative benches in the Commons today showed that the party has learnt nothing from its error over the Iraq war.”
In 2003, you may recall, Lib Dem MPs were shouted down by an alliance of Tory and Labour MPs for daring to suggest the UN weapons inspectors be given more time to determine if Iraq really did possess weapons of mass destruction.
The Tories are very quick to see hypocrisy in Mr Blair’s dealings. I’m surprised they can see it for the mote in their own eyes.
Under normal circumstances, I’d have some sympathy for anybody subjected to the typically moronic front page abuse meted out by the 'Soaraway Sun' today.
I am, though, prepared to make an exception for John Reid.
For it was in the almost-as-bad Daily Mirror that Dr Reid delivered his infamously strutting boast, “I'll f****** well work 18 hours a day to sort this out. I'll do whatever it takes to make the public feel safe and confident in the system.”
It is precisely this kind of macho posturing - of which Tony Blair is the master, albeit in a less sweary way - which constantly lands this Labour Government in hot water. The Prime Minister and his Home Secretary delight in implying that - through their sheer force of personality, the grace of their omniscience, and the indispensability of their insight - they can spread their personal Midas touch throughout the land. They are deluded and delusional.
The more tightly clasped to their chests government ministers insist on holding all policy decisions the more they can expect to be hauled over the coals for each and every service difficulty which will inevitably arise.
Is it fair for John Reid to be held directly accountable for all problems in a department whose brief he acquired eight months ago? Of course not. But has Dr Reid taken any steps to ensure the law and order of this country is not perceived to rest solely upon his personal authority? Of course not.
If he’s learned nothing else from this week, I hope Dr Reid might have realized that there’s more to a fit-for-purpose criminal justice system than working f****** 126-hour weeks.
There are two explanations for the news that Gordon Brown has - apparently - been voted the 97th sexiest man by readers of NW (New Woman) magazine.
Either: it’s actually quite hard to name up to 100 famous men who could in any way fit the description.
Or: the magazine’s editors have found an easy way of conning the BBC into running some free advertising, just as they did last year with David Cameron’s first appearance in the poll.
And as regular readers of this blog will know, I take a dim view of any attempt to boost readership through such cheap ploys as polls about sexy politicians.
Having posted a pretty jaundiced article here following the wrist-slitting tedium that goes by the name of Full Council on Monday, it’s only fair to say that Tuesday was indeed another day.
A three-hour area planning meeting may sound like most normal people’s idea of a living hell, but it focused on just one issue, of huge interest and concern to many of my residents in Headington and the wider city.
The Council’s planning officers gave clear presentations which neither patronised nor waffled; objectors and the applicants presented robust, measured arguments; councillors asked pertinent questions and restricted themselves to brief, to-the-point comments; and we consensually agreed a sensible way forward.* Now how often does all that happen in one meeting?
To cap it all, I’ve just received this appreciative e-mail:
I listened to your arguments last night and found them persuasive both by reason of logic and inherent good sense. It was reassuring to know that you are in touch with the deeply held and felt views of the local communities.
Indeed, like many residents, having been somewhat disheartened of late, I was impressed by the quality and understanding of the Councillors present last night. Whatever the outcome … I think that the quality of the local democracy, so much in evidence last night, was very reassuring, especially so when politics is viewed rather cynically by many.
Enough to make you feel all warm inside on an otherwise chilly day.
* I’ve assumed most blog readers will have little interest in the specific planning applications, which related to the Warneford Meadow in Oxford. But if you do, I’ve explained my views in full here.
One of the aspects of Ming Campbell’s character I noticed from the leadership hustings was that his undoubted passion is slow-burning. Though he unfailingly ignites, he doesn’t get angry easily, and doesn’t have Tony Blair or David Cameron’s, erm, talent for faking it on demand.
This has its disadvantages in today’s tell-me-quick sound-bite age, and Ming has been criticized for lacking the necessary fire in his belly when it comes to tackling the Prime Minister in the bear-pit of the House of Commons. This has never really bothered me - leadership is about cool, calm decision-making, rather than over-rehearsed smart-arse quips best confined to students’ unions.
The clear advantage of Ming’s serious and sober demeanour is that, when he does do angry, you sure as hell know he means it. And today was one such day. As the BBC’s Nick Assinder relates:
Sir Menzies Campbell once again confounded his critics by displaying genuine fire and passion over Iraq. Ming, as he is known, repeated his call for a timetable for British troop withdrawals by October and, when he got the expected prime ministerial put down that such a deadline would play into the hands of the enemies in Iraq, he sprung his trap.
Here’s Ming’s stinging rebuke to the Prime Minister:
“If he feels so strongly, he should come to debate these issues. What could possibly be more important than that the Prime Minister should be here to debate the issue of Iraq at a time when British forces are at risk every day in respect of their lives? Isn't that the kind of leadership we are entitled to?”
PS: I would link directly to the BBC Parliament video of PMQs, but (i) it’s almost impossible to find on the BBC website since their whizz-bang audio/video upgrade; and (ii) they’re still showing last week’s (but without any helpful date reference in the title to indicate this).
“Unpaid Christmas bills, nasty weather, and failed New Year's resolutions combine to make January 22 the gloomiest in the calendar.”
They forgot to add: attending a meeting of Full Council.
And I was lucky today - owing to a clashing work meeting, I missed half of it. I don’t think I’ve ever yet enjoyed a meeting of Full Council. The curious thing is that, though there are rarely any genuine members of the public there, councillors can’t resist playing to the (empty) gallery. Cheap, posturing tribalism rules the day.
I love being a councillor, still get a real buzz out of it, even as I approach my eighth year representing the good folk of Headington. I like to spend the time I can devote to local politics working for their benefit. Five-hour meetings of Full Council knacker me, and do next-to-nothing for my residents.
I know I should have sat inside today, watching Ming on Sunday AM, and leafing through the papers in search of blogging inspiration. Instead, I opted for a bracing walk in gorgeously wintry sunshine besides Port Meadow. At 440 acres, it's the largest area of common land in Oxford (even if much of it was under water today). So, no erudite opinionating from me today, I'm afraid.
It’s awfully kind of Lib Dem News to correct their story last week - highlighting the results of that poll - which accidentally re-christened me John Tall.
LDN even reprint the web-address of my blog to help drive traffic here. It’s a shame they’ve got it wrong - www.oxfordliberal.blogshot.com won’t help you much unless you’re looking for airline tickets, hot lingerie or big booty. (Which, as it’s a Friday night, you very well may be.) But, still, it’s the thought that counts.
Incidentally, my dad tried to post a comment to my blog last week, expressing his faux-outrage at LDN’s making merry with his name… then lost his nerve. But he did e-mail it to me, so here’s a - genuine - extract:
As for using the names Rachel Elizabeth as an intended “toughening up” regime for our son, Stephen, I remind him (or perhaps I’ve not broached the matter before, in which case I’ll tell him) that, just as in his younger days his clothes were often hand-me-downs from his two older brothers, the same process applied to these names. Never say his parents were anything other than consistent.
Now that he’s (almost) reached his fourth decade, we can’t help but note that he’s emulating our one-time parsimony over clothing by himself choosing to dress with becoming sartorial elegance in the current high fashion of holes and tears in faded jeans. That’s not to mention his willingness occasionally to divest himself entirely of all (visible) clothes – and all in the cause of party politics. Can self-sacrifice go further?
(I've a feeling I may have to turn comment moderation on soon.)
Following the news that British Airways is changing its uniform policy to allow religious symbols to be worn openly, is it time the English National Ballet also allowed its employees openly to declare their affiliations? Y'know, just something subtle that nobody would even notice.
Last month those who care about these things - which seemed to be most of the British media - were greatly exercised by the governance proposals put forward by the University of Oxford’s Vice-Chancellor, John Hood. Dr Hood’s plan to try and drag the University kicking and screaming into the modern world was defeated by the University’s Congregation, the so-called ‘Parliament of dons’.
Those of us who supported his reforms (the ‘Hoodies’) argued they were the best way in which the University could maintain and enhance its independence from government, and retain its position as a top 10 global university in the increasingly competitive world of higher education.
The joyless conservatives who prefer Oxford to stick in the mud seem to think the University has no reason to be accountable to the outside world - even though the government (and, therefore, the British tax-payer) is the biggest single investor, and even though the University’s charitable status confers on it huge tax advantages. They were warned that unless Oxford proved itself capable of reforming itself from within, it risked having reform imposed from outside.
Well, HEFCE (the Higher Education Funding Council for England) has now fired the first warning shot across the University’s bows. A letter from its Chief Executive, Professor David Eastwood, to Dr Hood makes clear HEFCE’s disappointment with Oxford’s backward-looking rejection of the Vice-Chancellor’s governance reforms:
As you know, HEFCE is the single biggest investor in the University and we assume the lead regulatory role on behalf of all your public sector funders. We set the accountability framework for the HE sector, and within that framework it is a condition of grant that the University has a sound system of governance. We look to the University, its Council, and its Audit and Scrutiny Committee to provide assurance about the system of governance.
Under the recently-rejected proposal the membership of Council would have fallen from 25 to 15 with seven internal members and seven lay, plus a lay chair. The adoption of this arrangement would have given the Council a lay majority for the first time. There is, we believe, a broad consensus across all sectors that corporate governance is enhanced by the external membership and, more particularly, by the discipline and advocacy that non-executives and externals bring to the corporate life and governance of a university.
This has been reflected in reports over the years, including those from Dearing in HE and Turnbull in the private sector. The sentiment is embedded in the Lambert Report and embodied in the good practice guidance to universities published by the Committee of University Chairmen.
The University has accepted that its Council is its single governing body responsible for academic and strategic matters (albeit that Congregation remains the supreme legislative assembly) but has rejected a particular proposal that would have delivered a lay majority. HEFCE takes the view that its investment of public funds must be subject to effective governance oversight, and that this oversight needs to be largely external and demonstrably free from potential conflicts of interest.
I, of course, recognise the academic excellence of Oxford and the effectiveness of many of its operations. I also understand that opponents of reform associate success with the University's governance tradition and consider that fundamental governance changes would undermine continuing success. I consider that argument unproven, and note the performance and progress of some of your competitors who have more modem governance arrangements. I would also remind you that the University's accountability failed as recently as 2003-04 when the accounts were audited and finalised many months after the deadline.
In March of 2006 the HEFCE Assurance Service issued its report on risk management control and governance at the University. We will be following up this report by April 1, and will be seeking assurance about governance arrangements. It would be helpful if you could give this letter your attention before that time.
There will be some who argue that this is ‘government bullying’, that HEFCE has no right to try to meddle in how Oxford University runs itself. They are wrong. For as long as the University is publicly funded, those bodies which dish out taxpayers’ cash have every right to be assured that their money is being well-spent in the wider public interest. I have no doubt Oxford can prove that, in spades; but, by refusing to account for itself in the way every other charitable institution is expected to, it has weakened its position.
There is, of course, an alternative open to Oxford. It could refuse to take the public money HEFCE distributes, and set its own tuition fees at the market rate. Then the University would be free to ignore outside interference (though would still be answerable to the Charity Commission). Many of those who were most passionately agin the Vice-Chancellor’s reforms advocate precisely this.
However, if they think the University could continue to operate as it does - elevating academic self-government above business reality - in the ‘real world’ of tough global markets, without any state subsidy, they are deluding themselves. A private university would be far less tolerant of loss-making academic subjects than a publicly-funded university is able to be. Independence is not the silver bullet for Oxford as it is sometimes portrayed.
The conundrum is clear. Accept state money, and you accept the state’s right to have a say in how you are managed. Reject state money, and you accept the university must manage itself in a far tougher, leaner way.
The Vice-Chancellor saw this dilemma clearly. He proposed governance reforms which would have allowed Oxford to keep its public money, retain its academic self-government, while satisfying HEFCE that Oxford was serious about becoming more open and accountable. It would have also strengthened the University’s decision-making processes, making it easier for Oxford to become increasingly self-reliant, and less dependent on state hand-outs.
Dr Hood’s opponents are delighted at their victory. Their delight may prove short-lived, and they will have only themselves to blame.
The word ‘shameful’ has become dulled by its too-frequent repetition. But there is no other word to describe the Labour Government’s decision to order the Serious Fraud office to drop its investigation into alleged bribes paid by defence firm BAE Systems to Saudi Arabia to secure lucrative contracts.
Had such a decision been taken under John Major’s Tory Government, you can bet your bottom oil-soaked dollar that Tony Blair would have led the condemnation. And he would have been right to do so.
Power really does tend to corrupt; which is why we must be on our guard against New Labour’s efforts to create absolute power for the state.
When Mr Blair mounted his defence in December, when the decision was first announced, he did so on two grounds.
First, that Saudi Arabia’s assistance in the fight against Al-Qaeda hinged on the British Government not treading on their diplomatic toes. One might, of course, ask why Mr Blair allowed himself to be blackmailed by a supposed ally, which - according to our Prime Minister - appears happy to place British lives in jeopardy by refusing to co-operate with the authorities unless its business dealings are held to be above the law.
But this weak plea of mitigation appears now to have been holed beneath the waterline, according to reports in today’s Grauniad:
John Scarlett, the head of MI6, has now refused to sign up to a government dossier which says MI6 endorses this view. … MI6 and MI5 possessed no intelligence that the Saudis intended to sever security links. The intelligence agencies had been merely asked whether it would be damaging to UK national security if such a breach did happen. They replied that naturally it would.
This exposure of the Prime Minister’s craven defence was put to Mr Blair at his monthly press conference today. He made no attempt to deny the substance of the Grauniad’s report beyond a couple of cheap and irrelevant side-swipes at its political stance. This is what he did say:
“I can absolutely assure you that there is no doubt whatever in my mind - and I think in those of any of the people who have looked at this issue - that, having proceeded with this, the result would have been devastating for our relationship with an important country with whom we cooperate closely on terrorism, on security, on the Middle East peace process.”
To put it another way (as he was doubtless thinking): “Trust me, I’m Tony Blair.” His messianic conviction that his assertions and objective reality must always tally has, it seems, been untroubled by the abject humiliation of his failed foreign policy in Iraq, and the half-truths he told Parliament and the British people.
But there was a second ground of defence laid by Mr Blair, and this was the clear deal-breaker: jobs. He knows he can’t say that this was the true reason, and so is very careful to indulge in nudge-nudge innuendo to make plain his own views - as he noted today,
“That is leaving aside the thousands of jobs which would have been lost, which is not the consideration in this case, but I just point it out.”
Not a consideration, you understand - he just felt it needed pointing out. And fair comment, some might say. Easy for me to have a pop at the Prime Minister; my job isn’t connected to the defence industry; not my livelihood at stake. Some of which may be true. But it is absolutely not fair comment.
Economic success requires the rule of law not only to be obeyed; it has to be respected, trusted. Last month’s Economist leader got it bang-on:
… jobs are not worth having at any price, and here the cost is considerable. People in countries where backhanders are a way of life see resources squandered and become disillusioned with public institutions. In developed countries, people may come to think that there is one rule for big firms doing big deals with big oil-rich countries and another for everyone else. … The ditching of the SFO inquiry will feed the cynicism already widespread in Britain.
You may wonder what the opposition parties have said about all this. The Tories have been silent on the issue, as recently highlighted by Liberal Review. Fortunately, there has been an opposition party willing to hold the Government to account for its disgraceful actions. As the Lib Dem leader Ming Campbell said today:
"If these reports are true, they seriously undermine the government's case for ending the investigation into allegations of corruption involving BAE and Saudi Arabia. In particular they undermine the reliability and credibility of the prime minister who publicly took responsibility for the decision and publicly sought to justify it."
I’m well aware it is easier to be an opposition than a government; that certain compromises are required of those in power. But some decisions are plain wrong: the wrong motives, the wrong reasons, the wrong outcomes. And when that happens there is only one word that will do.
I don’t often pay that much attention to my website stats. But when you notice that you’ve attracted tens of thousands of hits in one day* (a couple more than usual) you wonder why. Did I write something indiscreet, controversial, bad?
None of these things, it seems.
No, what happened is that my other gaff was linked to by a website which goes by the name Tottyland. I’ll give you the link, but it does what it says on the tin, so don’tclick here if easily offended. (And absolutely don’t click on it if you’re my parents.)
One positive thing - setting to one side my embarrassed-but-flattered ego - is their highlighting of the Lib Dems’ ‘Help Stop Homophobic Bullying’ campaign. If you’ve not yet added your name to the petition, you can do so here, now.
* hits, of course, not unique visitors (I know the distinction is being hotly debated).
The ‘they just don’t get it’ tendencies of this Government are becoming quite frightening.
The latest intimation of their wish to turn the make believe of Minority Report into a reality is demonstrated by the news that Labour is planning ‘behaviour orders’ for people thought to be “at risk” of committing a violent crime.
We’re well used now to New Labour’s contempt for the judicial process. But, even so, it genuinely shocked me to read the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer - responsible for the efficient functioning and independence of the courts - applaud the move on the grounds that:
“If there's evidence that you could commit a violent offence in the future, proper evidence of that proved in a court, then why shouldn't you be restrained from committing that violent offence?”
Perhaps, m’Lord, because if there’s proper evidence capable of standing up in a court of law it should be tested by due process. We might even give that process a name - how about ‘a fair trial’?
The Guardian carries one of those rather tired ‘Whither radio comedy?’ articles today. Y’know, the kind of article which appear every couple of years, citing past gems from the archives, and finds today’s current crop wanting:
This Thursday Radio 4 is pointing out just how significant its role has been, giving over most of the night to Radio Ha Ha - a combination of features, archive programmes and studio chat with comedians, producers and agents.
The show debates how well the station has done so far and, more importantly, what it should do next. Curiously, there is a nervous element to the proceedings. For one thing, the comedy industry and critics alike have been complaining rather loudly recently.
"The problem is that Radio 4 hasn't developed a really huge zeitgeisty show since Little Britain," says radio critic Will Hogkinson.
Omitted from the article is any mention of That Mitchell and Webb Sound, as it might not have fitted the pre-ordained argument.
Incidentally, the BBC is running a poll to find out which Radio 4 comedy programme it should play at the conclusion of its Ha Ha special. My message is simple: vote for The Day Today On The Hour. You know it makes sense.
As Paul Walters, David Rundle and Iain Dale have all been kind enough to note, I almost get a starring mention on the back page of this week’s Lib Dem News. Almost, but not quite.
For, in reporting the results of that poll, the good folk at LDN have re-christened me John Tall. Fortunately my dad, whose first name is John, doesn’t subscribe to LDN, as I’m not too sure he would care to have his name sullied by association with an article on ‘sexy Lib Dems’. He might not feel it would fit too comfortably with being a man of the cloth.
(And, yes, for the record that does make me a son of a preacher-man. Believe me, I’ve heard all the jokes.)
Had I been born a girl, my parents inform me I would have been called Rachel Elizabeth. Thankfully - and pace Johnny Cash’s advice - they decided not to toughen me up in that way.
What they did do was give my two brothers and me middle names beginning with ‘J’ - I got Joseph, a long-standing family name. Though co-incidentally (and something I only found out this week-end) my birthday, 19th March, is also the Feast Day of St Joseph. Wikipedia describes him - in perhaps the most untheologically PC way imaginable - as the ‘foster-father’ of Jesus.
Apparently St Joseph lived to the ripe old age of 111, a fate I don’t intend to emulate - dying standing on one leg is just way too undignified.
I’ve been Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice – the #1 independent website for the Lib Dems – since 2007. I combine this with my professional life as Development Director for the Education Endowment Foundation.
