You Won't Get People Interested In Politics By Berating Them

After finishing a full day's work and a 3 hour stint manning the phones for Children in Need I got in the car for the journey home tired but satisfied with a good day's hard labour. Unfortunately, for reasons beyond the understanding of us mere mortals, LBC was on the radio.

As there were 5 of us in the car we were all, at first, too polite to ask to have it turned over. And so we were forced to listen to some very miserable men discuss why so many people were not interested in politics and especially not interested in voting.

The consensus, it would seem, came to be that young people are awful citizens who are more interested in fun than in politics and that this was a crying shame. Ultimately, they felt, the elderly good citizens would die out leaving a rotten population of do-nothings. It was at this point I piped up and suggested we turn the radio over to be greeted with sighs of "Thank God, YES!"

How many generations do we need to get through before we realise that older people always think young people are interested in the wrong things and will never be as good as they are? I look around me today and find there are plenty of young people who don't remember "Trapdoor", "Fun House" nor even "Knightmare". It's the bloody end of civilisation as we know it, and no one seems to care.

The political class need to remember some important points.

1) Politics is not the "real world" to most people. We all have lives, interests, personal dramas and life goals that, in terms of personal importance, far outweigh the fleeting careers and promises of politicians.

2) The citizens of this country are not meant to serve politics. Our political system was not designed as a prison from which no one has the right to escape. Our political system is meant to serve the needs of the people.

3) None of the non-political folk in this world (for which read "most people") care one iota about the debates, policies or dramas that us political folk obsess over. I know people who don't even know equal marriage passed or even know about the income tax changes that have happened in this current Parliament. And that is just fine. It is not the end of the world. Our debates are often unconnected to reality anyway, just think about how often the Israel/Palestine issues are discussed over the far more damaging events that have been ongoing in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We're delusional and most people know it.

If you want to engage with people then criticising them for doing things that satisfy them or are important to them (like having fun or living their lives peacefully) is not going to win you many converts. How about, crazy idea, we accept politics is not the most important thing in the world and move from that position in thinking of ways to help improve this country and help those who need assistance?

The arrogance and the self-entitlement of the snobs who think politics is the be all and end all of life in this country is probably the many reason it isn't the be all and end all of life in this country.

Now I'll stop berating people and instead return to obsessing over the next episode of Doctor Who. The really important stuff in life.

Autumn #LDConf Leaves Me Feeling Better About Being A Lib Dem

For Lib Dems it has been a tough few years. That pretty much goes without saying. After the failure of Lords reform I became very disillusioned with the Lib Dems direction, and about the only thing that has kept me in is my own damn stubbornness in the face of the hate being flung at the party by the left. "If Labourites hate us that much, we must be doing something right" might not be correct but it sure feels right.

This conference has had moments that reminded me that the Lib Dems are the party for me. Tim Farron's speech was good (and I'm saying that from someone who isn't a great fan). The votes for nuclear power and fracking aren't ones I'd particular support but I think they are necessary and were best expressed in the "limited" way they were presented. The decision to provide school meals to all young children may not exactly play into my liberaltarian nature, but it is way better than most other things Government gets involved with. And the agreement on support for a reduced nuclear deterrent is very welcome.

Whilst I enjoyed Nick Clegg's speech, the stand out speech of the conference was, of course, on the topic of porn. Well not just porn. It was about the Government's extremely ill-advised web filter plans. And it was also about fanfic. I mean, this was a speech practically written for me! After some awful, scaremongering speeches from the likes of Floella Benjamin (who I still love anyway) and some good speeches against, this one truly reminded me of how being a Lib Dem can sometimes be truly bloody awesome. Enjoy!

My Disillusionment With Politics

My obsessions have always come in cycles. Politics has always stood apart from my bi-monthly obsession change, but it too is the subject of a similar if slightly longer cycle and right now we are heading towards the low-ebb point of my interest in politics.

The problem for me is, I believe in principles whereas politics is always about compromise. I find it an unpleasant business. Being honest is described as "negative". Being individual means you aren't "being part of the team". When I talk to someone and ask why they aren't standing up for the principles I know they believe in, they tell me how they are "quietly working behind the scenes to win some smaller concessions". I know logically that getting something is better than nothing, but that sort of sentiment still sticks in my craw.

And worse I feel like politics is so unambitious (yet full of far too ambitious people). Our world is changing in a way we've never seen before. Far distant countries are now mere hours away. We can communicate in ways we wouldn't have imagine just 20 years ago. We can print physical objects and problem solve on a massive basis. Yet our politics is still stuck in the 19th century.

Do not get me wrong. I'm not saying the everyday mundane stuff isn't extremely important. From benefits to healthcare and from dog poo to pot holes, some things will always be needed to be discussed, argued about and fixed. But there are so many ways to be innovative, to think about getting people more involved on a bigger scale. What things I hear you ask? Things along these lines.

I know, I'm being all impractical and idealistic. "Things take time". etc. etc. I know I am being unreasonable but I'm at that point in the cycle and there you go.

This month I will, without any enthusiasm whatsoever, renew my membership of the Lib Dems. And that, I suspect, will be the most political I get this month.

Inspiring politicos sought to rekindle my enthusiasm!

Chris Bryant MP To Introduce Marriage Equality 10 Minute Rule Bill

Chris Bryant has announced on Twitter that he will introduce a bill under the Ten Minute Rule on the 30th October 2012 called The Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill.

Details are scarce on what will actually be proposed but it can only be a good positive way of getting marriage equality into the news rather the usual anti-equality hi-jinks. Even though Ten Minute Rule bills have next to no chance of success, I wish him luck in getting it on to the agenda. Let's hope it is also more wide-ranging than the Government proposals.

To avoid coming across as a total hypocrite, yes I do have an issue with Chris Bryant's previous stance on marriage equality. But one does have to let things go at some point, I suppose.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Losing Faith In The Libertarian Way

As you may know I'm a, often inconsistent, "liberaltarian". That is basically a libertarian who doesn't have the balls to go all the way and just say "Screw the Government". Perhaps calling myself a lightweight minarchist is the best way of describing my usual political stance on most issues.

Reading back through my personal blog (which is far older than this) I have often gone through periods of libertarianism. It is a running theme through the last decade or so. I have a strong belief that the Government should keep out of people's lives.

And yet, I'm a huge a fan of co-operatives (I know that is not mutually exclusive with being a libertarian!).  At the same time I'm a great idealist who loves big building projects, space exploration (for exploration's sake) and who just wants everyone to get along. Worse, at times in my past I've been very sympathetic to many of the aims of Communism (even if I believe that those who follow Marxism so strictly that it's become a religion are just as crazy as those who think L. Ron Hubbard discovered the solution to life's problems)

I have spent the last few years of my life working at a housing association and now a public utility. In both instances I've encountered a great deal of people suffering in poverty and even more who appear helpless without the assistance of others ("My tap is dripping, we're all going to die!") . I've often tried to blame this on their dependency on the state and argued in my head that if the state just got out of their lives they'd find deep within themselves the ability to stand on their own two feet and help themselves out.

I don't believe that any more.

I speak to so many people who either through illness/disability or sheer ignorance NEED guidance and assistance. Their family situations don't allow for the support they need from their family. I often wonder what their lives would be like in a libertarian world. Charities and individuals would help many I'm sure. But so many more would fall to even great depths of destitution than they are in now that it makes me wonder whether I personally could stomach their suffering for my freedom.

I know there are libertarian answers to this out there, but my experiences are starting to make me think that, just as we weren't cut out for a nearly 100% planned economy and an authoritarian state, humans just aren't made for libertarianism.

And other things rankle me. I love freedom of speech but my personal morality just cannot stand the idea of people abusing each other in the streets without retribution. I hate the selfishness of many individuals and I'm often distressed that they are allowed to get away with treating others like scum. I've bit my lip to try to keep consistent with my libertarian leanings but some things just shouldn't be allowed (in my opinion).

I'm certain I don't like how things are now under this weird corporate capitalist state where Government and business are far too close, to the detriment of both. PFIs and PPPs drive me crazy. I can't stand Government monitoring of our every move in the interests of some imaginary "security". But then I have a distaste for those who need assistance being denied it, I can't stand the idea of people suffering needlessly.

And I hate compromise. Which leaves me at a loss as to what I believe will be the best way forward for this country. I don't see the Tories, Labour or the Lib Dems offering a vision of the future that I like. So I'm in the process of trying to work out what I actually believe is right before I can decide if there is anyone I'd want to support. It will probably be a long process.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Marriage Equality Should Be Above One's Own Ego

As you all know, far too well I suspect, I've been moaning about and then campaigning for equal marriage for a number of years. You can't really call me partisan on the issue as I've been criticised in the past by Liberal Democrats for being "unfair" on the party when it still hadn't adopted marriage equality as policy and still when Lynne Featherstone announced what I considered (and still consider) to be inadequate plans for equal civil marriage. And I have in the past attempted to convince myself that I should be conciliatory towards those who have not been in favour of equal marriage until recently.  As we all know that is very much still a work in progress.

As someone who spent a great deal of time getting marriage equality into the news agenda and on to the agenda of the Labour party, it is extremely hard to see people who previously had no interest in the issue suddenly championing it. And I don't mean people who just kept quiet, I'm talking about people I approached directly and asked to support it years ago, especially in the Labour party, and who told me it was not an important issue and not one they cared about. Now suddenly they are begging others to come out in support of it under their own campaigns (Labour for Equal Marriage, for example). It really pains me, and makes me incredibly sad to see this sort of bandwagon jumping on an issue that, in my opinion, is a matter of human rights.

And I've got to get over it. Yes it hurts that in the future people might look back and think Stonewall and Labour were behind the marriage equality struggle. It hurts that campaigners like Peter Tatchell, organisations like Pink News/C4EM and the fact it was more Stonewall's uselessness that pushed the agenda than anything else will probably be forgotten. But you know what? If we get equal marriage, even if it's just civil marriage for now, then we'll just have to swallow our pride and be happy.

The worst part is, this is what Labour activists always tell me to do. Shut up and just be happy and forget about the truth. *sigh* Playing politics is such an unrelentingly shit game for unrelentingly shit people.

I just have to start looking forward to my marriage and move on....

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Admiration for German Pirate's Innovation

I've watched the rise of the German Pirate Party with fascination. From a tiny base, they have begun to really make large strides in terms of both electoral success and party development.

Personally I find their policies rather attractive, putting the radical back into politics whilst keeping away from the decrepit left/right structure of 20th century politics. But their innovation in party and policy development is what is really interesting about them.

Their emphasis on transparency really is something I can wholeheartedly support, and their request that any coalition talks be livestreamed online is in keeping completely with my previous notes of disillusion with the way the talks for our Coalition were carried out (and implemented). I've been asking for a grown up, open approach to coalitions and I think this really fits the bill.

Today Andy Emmerson brought another facet of their innovation to my attention: Liquid Feedback (based on a concept called liquid democracy). I've always found direct democracy to be at once terribly libertarian and yet stiflingly authoritarian. Direct democracy always seems good on paper but forcing people to vote one way or another on subjects they might not really understand either forces them to make a vote they may regret or not vote at all and allow their voice to be silenced. Representative democracy, on the other hand, does allow some "expertise" into the system and with our representatives paid to research things you'd hope for some reasoned and sensible votes. However, as we have seen over the Lib Dems vote on tuition fees, it also means your vote may not end up being used in the way you wanted it to be used.

Liquid democracy manages, quite cleverly, to mix these two systems with some extra failsafes into something that, on paper, seems brilliantly flexible and powerful. Now it may not work, it might only work in certain cultures and climates, it might end up creating the next dictator. But as a technical innovation in policy formulation it is fantastic.

It's something I'd love to see discussed within the Liberal Democrats and trialled if appropriate. Just as Spineless Liberal has, I have a great many concerns and questions over it's use and what it might lead to. But if we really are going to have a "New Politics" this is the sort of concepts we need to start exploring as a party, and as a country. The risks are great but the benefits might be even greater.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

The Invasion of the Falklands: An Ungentlemanly Act

30 years ago today, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands. I think sometimes we forget the actual event, focussing more upon the war that followed and it's aftermath. But there was plenty of heroics that day among the islanders, their Government and their defenders most of who tried to act with honour despite the overwealming odds against them.

Many people see the Falklands War as some sort of British imperial expedition, a throwback to a bygone era. But what it really was a reaction against a dishonourable, cruel and nasty act carried out against (nearly) defenceless civilians. With the current sabre-rattling in Beunos Aires I think many countries have completely forgotten what Argentina did and how unnecessary the deaths that followed (on both sides) were. The United Kingdom, in my opinion, acted correctly in seeking to liberate the islands from their invaders and acts correctly now in protecting the right of self-determination of the islanders.

907 people died because Argentina was unable to live in peace with her smallest neighbour. Let us ensure no more die needlessly again. Peace must be the aim because war carries far too heavy a price.

For a rather brilliant, and not too propaganda-ish, dramatisation of the events of 02 April 1982 take a look at An Ungentlemanly Act below.


 

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Marriage Equality: Both Sides Are Fighting Different Battles

Two rowdy armies are lined up and ready for a fight. Spears, shields and banners are waved in the air, great generals parade up and down in front of their troops giving them pep talks and revving them for the fight. Jeers and catcalls come from within their ranks, the noise is almost overwealming. They are ready for the fight of their lives. There's only one problem; each army stands in an otherwise empty field.  All their screaming and posturing is for nought.

That's the state of the marriage equality debate at the moment.

The churches have amassed a formidable army, through relentless promotion, at C4M. The marriage equality supporters have now, belatedly, begun to martial their forces too, at C4EM. But if you look at the arguments appearing beneath the line on newspaper website and on forums, you'll see that neither appear to be on the same page about what it is they are arguing about.

Take our believing friends. Many can't understand why the Government is going to force churches to marry same sex couples. It's such an overwealmingly obvious attack on religious freedom that they aghast that any Tory-led Government could contemplate such a thing.

That, in case any of you don't immediately realise, is all nuts. The Government is still going to force all churches NOT to marry same sex couples. The proposals on the table are, shamefully, only focussed on civil marriages. They are not even thinking about religious marriage, let alone plotting to force homosexuality into the churches! Hilariously the Government is proposing something of limited scope to avoid upsetting the devout, but didn't really realise just how deluded some of those same people can become when fed with a little misinformation.

Others are concerned that if marriage equality becomes a reality their freedom of speech, to say same sex couples can't get married, will be compromised. Given the recent history of "hate speech" laws going a little over the top, this is not completely without merit. But opposing marriage equality on these grounds before any law has even been put forward for review is a little premature and I think it unlikely that such an outlandish suggestion is going to come to pass.

My favourite comments have been those suggesting homosexuality will become mandatory, a typically OTT reaction that one can only ever find below the line. Brilliant stuff.

On a more serious level the believers debate is about language, about technicalities and "tradition" (the tradition they like of course, not the ones they don't!).

On the opposing side are people talking about love, equality and freedom. But there are also people talking about paedophile priests, dredging up anti-Catholic and anti-Christian bigotry, declaring the country would be a better place if it was free of all these meddling priests and believing sheep. This sort of stuff isn't helpful. Cardinal O'Brien is self-evidently not a very nice person. But let's attack him for his arguments, or lack thereof, instead of for the crimes of his Church or simply for his beliefs.

Right now it's hard to debate because neither side is on the same page. I'm hopeful that the imminent consultation on marriage equality might help show what is really at stake and perhaps allow the fight to commence in a more direct and honest way. The falsehoods from both sides (although my bias definitely sees far more of that from the Campaign Against Marriage) might at least become a little less.

Rest assured I'm in this fight until marriage equality's victory, however long and hard the road may be.



If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Will #HackGate lead to real change or just more of the same?

I'd love to believe that the revelations about what the News of the World did lead to more significant changes than the closure of that one paper. We all know News International is not the only organisation tainted by the historically common dodgy practices of the media. It's just unfortunately the one bearing the weight of the scandal. Wouldn't it be wonderful for all the dirty laundry to be aired now so perhaps our media can move on to improving the way they work, what they report and the very nature of their business?

But alas I, being ever-increasingly cynical, believe that all that will happen is the politicians and media will bore quickly of the subject and move on to their next "bee-in-a-bonnet" issue. We only need to see what happened with the expenses scandal: a lot of MPs standing down at the 2010 election, a few scalps taken by criminal trials and... then we all forgot about it.

Do you remember how everyone in the country was said to be so angry about at all the expenses scandals? There was almost a feel of revolution in some of the media reports, as if the citizenry might rise up at any moment and overthrow the political class. Of course what was really the case was that whilst the chattering classes (including people like me) were all aghast, most people seemed to just shrug their shoulders, announced that all politicians were corrupt anyway and got on with their lives. Whilst the Coalition that followed the 2010 election was quite unique, the actual votes cast on the day hardly showed any huge backlash against the traditional power structure.

The same appears to be happening with Hackgate. Whilst the politically aware are arguing over Government interference in the media industry and the morals of hacking private individuals phones, the vast majority of the country has expressed a typically British mild disapproval along the lines of "Well that's just not on" and carried on buying their regular newspaper.

Whilst, like the expenses scandal, I expect this to have effects on individuals as well as particular newspapers and organisations, I really cannot believe based on past evidence and an almost universal lack of public anger that this story will change anything in the long term for the industry as a whole. In my opinion this will be just another storm in a teacup, dancing round the edges of a much larger issue.

I hope I'm wrong, and that this spirals into an earthshatteringly pivotal moment in the history of the media, British politics and our country where the way things are done gets better.  But I seriously doubt this will result in anything beyond cosmetic changes such as the News of the World being replaced by a seven day Sun newspaper.

Nothing to see here.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

So... Folkestone Labour; What Is The Alternative?

A couple of weeks ago I received a piece of paper from the Folkestone Labour Party (and there I was thinking they were some sort of mythical beast...).

Shall we take a look?

Despite: rising food and fuel prices, cuts in wages and benefits and despite escalating unemployment...

What a way to start, going straight for the apocalyptic angle...

"Tory Shepway Council increases rents by a whopping 6.47%"

Hmm... that does sound bad, I wonder why this is and what Labour proposes to do about it...

"In the words of former Lib Dem now Tory Councillor Sue Wallace "I cannot see there is going to be a problem with people finding the money to pay this extra

Give the Tories the problem. Throw them out on the 5th May

Labour is Folkestone's Alternative Vote

Join our fight against the increase
Sign up to Folkestone Labour Party"

So... erm... what is the alternative? What's the plan? Could it be Folkestone Labour Party haven't got that far yet? Opposition is great. But opposition without an alternative is just plain tilting at windmills.

The next side is much the same. Repeating figures and issues without offering a "real alternative" despite their claims.

I want to ask again: what is Labour's alternative? When will they tell us? Is this Labour's cunning plan to not to repeat the Lib Dems tuition fees mistake by not promising us anything at all??

Before I put my cross in a box I'd like to know what exactly the party has planned for Shepway. Sweet nothing?

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

The Facts Of The Matter: My Political New Year's Resolution

The Cleggmania of the 2010 general election gave some of us hopes of an end to partisan bickering and of a more constructive debate on the future of our country. Of course this was never to be the case, only a naive idealist like me could even pretend to hope for such a situation, and the fallout from that election lead to some of the most ridiculously illogical partisan posturing I've ever seen. Liberal Democrats defending Tory policies just to show we are better than Labour. Labour supporters taking mad positions on Phil Woolas, immigration, civil liberties and other such things just because that was the party line (or the Blairite line or the Brownite line or the... etc.)

It's depressed me, saddened me and made me more sure of what I want to stand up for. If 2010 saw me embrace liberalism properly rather than just seeing the Lib Dems as some anti-Tory single issue vehicle, then I want 2011 to be the year I embrace consensus, evidence based politics.

I'm a skeptic (an open minded skeptic, I'll admit) and I believe in evidence based science, education and medicine. So why not evidence based politics?

My New Year's resolution is this: I want to start basing my political opinions on fact not on what makes me feel good. Of course you'll need to keep me honest, but please don't bother with more opinion. Let's talk about facts, statistics and evidence not presumption, ideological blindness and partisan point scoring. We're all guilty of it, but I say "No more!".

Why not join me? Socialism, capitalism, left, right... these are all labels that help blind us to what might work. Throw them off and start looking at things more logically. We might achieve great things. Or we might become more terrifying than the Nazi's. Who knows? I'm willing to give it a go... it's got to be better than how things are working now.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Time For The Coalition (And It's Haters) To Grow Up

I've been asking for an open and honest Coalition since the start. The way Nick Clegg decided to go (to embrace every facet of the Coalition) was one I felt was not reflective of his "big idea" of the "new politics". I wanted the Tories and Lib Dems to be clear that they believed different things and were simply working together on a joint platform in the country's interests.

I know, I'm a naive idealist whose hopes would have been dashed against the rocks of a cynical population, a deceitful opposition and an idiotic media.

But now is the time for the Tories and Lib Dems to stop the "love-in" and remember we are individual parties who care enough about the future of our country to work alongside each other.

As a Liberal Democrat, NOTHING that has been revealed in the last few days by the Daily Telegraph's "sting" has been news to me at all. Did the media really fall for Labour's narrative about the Lib Dems being "yellow Tories"? Did Labour really believe it too? Why is it so shocking that Lib Dem Ministers have Lib Dem beliefs (and don't really like Tories)?

It's time for us to treat the population like grown ups and show there IS division in Government (no more than the not so secret internal war between Blairites and Brownites that we had for years under Labour) and that is actually part of our strength.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

I Agree With Nick

Nothing turns my stomach more than seeing Lib Dem MPs turn against a personal pledge (rather than a manifesto promise) and vote with the Government on tuition fees. Whilst I may now be persuaded by the economic and political arguments about the need for tuition fees, I still cannot understand such a flagrant disregard for a personal promise.

Perhaps I'm just old fashioned and believe an oath to be binding. A pledge of loyalty to a cause should not be broken so easily. And that's why, in a really messed up way, I still agree with Nick.

During the heady days of Cleggmania (remember those happy times?) I stood there at rallies in Watford and Blackheath and supported Nick Clegg's revival of our party. After the Coalition was formed I had reservations, though I was initially supportive, and then declared neutrality. My criticisms then still stand. But that doesn't mean I don't support what Nick Clegg is trying to do. He is trying to make this "brave experiment" of Coalition work. Our party has been in opposition (in various forms) for nearly a century. Clegg has rolled the dice. The worst that can happen is we remain an irrelevancy. The best is that he can prove liberal values, are good values. That we are above petty left-right squabbling and can work with other parties for the benefit of the country. That's a goal worth risking our necks for.

I must say I do find it amusing when Labour supporters scream "You're going to be out of Government for decades, an irrelevant footnote of history!". Have they not been paying attention? That's what we've always been. I know power for the sake of power is important to the Tories and Labour, but the loss of power is not likely to send Lib Dem activists into a collective depression! Perhaps this time, things can be different.

The preamble to our party Constitution states:

"The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which noone shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives."

I still agree with that. And I still agree with Nick.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Penny Wong: The Return.

Back in July Australian Labor Senator Penny Wong backed her new leader's position on marriage equality with these words:

"On the issue of marriage I think the reality is there is a cultural, religious, historical view around that which we have to respect. The party's position is very clear that this is an institution that is between a man and a woman."

She did not say "This is the party's view and I respect that. However, I hold a different view." No she said nothing about believing in equality here did she? Perhaps she didn't want to rock the boat.

Fast forward a few months:

''There has been some commentary which has confused my position of not commenting publicly on this issue with my position on the actual issue itself,'' she said. ''I have had the opportunity to advocate for equality at the highest level of our party and within our party's processes as I do today. And I will do so again at the next national conference.''

Oh, I see. You've been quietly working for equality behind the scenes but were just too modest to be upfront about your beliefs? Perhaps the real reason is that you believe less in equality and more in Labor's continued electoral success and didn't wish to advocate publicly for your countrymen's freedom because it might embarrass your backwards leader. Yes, Penny Wong puts partisan victory ahead of her actual political beliefs.

Senator Wong criticised the Greens for seeking change by "shouting about it", rather than sensibly advocating for it.

"Sensibly", here means "Shh... don't rock the boat, we'll get there one day if we all just shut up and do as our heterosexual overlords say". Screw that Penny Wong. The Greens, and the Democrats, have the balls to stand up for something they believe in. It might not be politically astute, but at least it's honest and upfront.

Penny Wong remains very, very wrong.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

A Royal Wedding And An Inconvenient Truth

So, full disclosure as always, I'm a royalist. I know, it's mad. I've tried being a republican! I've gone through my political beliefs and found there is no sensible reason for me to be a royalist. I've told myself this in the sternest of words. But I just can't help myself. I have an irrational loyalty to Her Majesty. This reluctant royalism does mean I'm very sympathetic to republicans. I agree with you on the political, constitutional and democratic arguments. You win.


However after the (wonderful) news of Prince William's engagement to Kate Middleton yesterday I saw so much stupid on Twitter that I feel compelled to correct some extremely loose understandings of this country's constitutional arrangements with regards to the Royal family's finances.


Don't think of this as some royalist argument in favour of keeping the Royal family, it's not. This is simply a post to put some facts straight. After you've read this, you can have no excuse for continuing to spread these lies.


Why are we paying for an over the top Royal wedding during this time of austerity?


Simple answer: we're not. As this article states (although ignore the bit at the end it's very misleading and I'll show why later), it's likely this money will come from the Civil List, Her Majesty's "reserve fund" (savings from previous Civil List payments) and/or Her Majesty's personal wealth. After the 1990s media disasters, the Palace has learnt it's lessons. It is unlikely to ask the Commons to approve any further spending during an austerity drive, as it has from time to time in the past.


What if it does and doesn't the Civil List get paid from our tax money? Why are we propping up these rich, unelected toffs?? 


This is a false presumption. I know, it's commonly said the Royal family "cost" every person in the country 50p (or more precisely now, 69p). This is not true. Certainly the "costs" that the Government pays are about £40 million. These come from grants for maintenance and from the Civil List. However, these costs don't come from our taxes! When George III ascended to the throne, it was decided that, in return for surrendering the Crown Estates to the Government, the Government would pay his personal living expenses through the Civil List. The profits the Government makes far exceed the amounts given in grants, through the Civil List and through security costs. So the Royal family is actually a profitable venture for us and they can, on the accession of a new monarch, change those arrangements. So it might be best we keep them on side during this age of cuts! 


But hasn't the Civil List been stopped?


Yes. To make the historic arrangement more explicit, the Government will, from 2013,no longer be paying the Civil List or grants but instead pay a yearly one-off payment called the Sovereign Support Grant specifically from the profits of the Crown Estate. In the meantime, the Royal finances have been reduced greatly. 


So. Please stop carping on about the costs of the monarchy. If you want to get rid of them, not only will we have to pay the costs of a President but we'd also lose our profits from the Crown Estate. We'd be looking at a couple of hundred million pounds lost to the Treasury. So remember that and stick to making sensible democratic arguments against the monarchy. Financial arguments make you look ridiculous.


No more "Stop the wedding, build a hospital instead" type tweets please. Deal?

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

NUS Decapitation Plan Flawed (In So Many Ways)

If you're looking to express all your anti-Coalition anger at Lib Dem MPs sometime in the next few years, then the NUS Decapitation plan could (almost) be called sensible. Revenge is a dish served cold they say, and it'll be freezing by the time this succeeds.

If however you're looking to fight the cuts now and trying to avoid a rise in tuition fees then you're pretty much buggered if you'd set your sights on the leadership of the NUS.

Firstly their plan to use the right to recall, which is still not even available for use right now, is flawed in that the right of recall is for use in cases of serious Phil Woolas type breaches of trust between an MP and their constituents (if not it makes the idea of a representative democracy sort of defunct, and we head into delegate territory). It's not going to be useful for getting every politician who votes a different way to the one promised during the election, otherwise every single politician will need to be recalled (and regularly).

Secondly, what does this plan achieve?

i) it's not going to stop the rise in tuition fees from going through. Only lobbying and building as broad a, dare I say it, coalition as possible MIGHT achieve that.
ii) it's unlikely to succeed, as the stringent requirements for a recall will probably not be met
iii) if it did succeed and the Lib Dem MP was removed, what's the best scenario? A Tory MP who will happily screw over students or a New Labour MP who will not care either way, it'll just depend on which way the political wind blows at the time. This progresses the cause of students, how?

Thirdly, it spells out to every sensible person that the NUS isn't interested in students or tuition fees (it's policy on a graduate tax is less progressive than what most students actually want!) but is acting as an offshoot of the Labour party. It risks losing the support of the sympathetic non-student population, like my Mum, who dislikes the Coalition, hates tuition fees BUT who remains firmly unconvinced about Labour following the last 13 years.

For the sake of the fight against tuition fees, the NUS needs to make a stand now fighting against EVERYONE in Parliament who has allowed this policy to exist be they Labour, Tory or Lib Dem. Otherwise it's about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

Don't be fooled AGAIN students.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

No More Apologies - The Return Of The Cleggist Uprising

Remember the euphoria among Liberal Democrats in the lead up to the General Election this year? The excitement, the hope and the expectation would be dashed as the results came in showing an increase in vote but a loss of seats (typical FPTP result!). And to be honest we've been on the back foot since then. Every move we've made has been criticised from the left (TRAITORS!) and the right (OPPORTUNISTS!). And being the nice people we are, many of us have taken these attacks to heart, tried to make excuses, and ended up attacking our leadership to prove our "progressive" credentials.

I say no more! I've decided it's time for us to stop making excuses and apologising for things we're doing, to remember exactly what sort of people are making these attacks and start defending our record. The Liberal Democrats aren't just here to defend the policies of the Coalition, we're here as a real alternative to Labour and the Tories and as a party that is now ready for Government.

Remembering who we are up against is sometimes difficult. The bleeding hearts of Labour supporters seem so genuine that sometimes you really can feel like the bad guy. The claims of Lib Dem attacks on the poor and the needy hurt, because that is not what our party is about. But Labour's holier than thou attitude is betrayed by their record. Just look at the current furore over "forced labour for those on Jobseekers Allowance" (something I have my own concerns about and will blog about separately once the full policy is released on Thursday). You'd think the Coalition was reintroducing slavery given how manic some on the left have been about it. Where were these people when Labour introduced almost exactly the same policy two years ago?? Did these people betray and attack the poor and needy by voting for Labour at the last election based on this record? I'd say so.

Our policy to raise the income tax threshold has been adopted and during every year of the Coalition Government it shall be increased. That will help increase the take home pay of the lowest paid and help make work pay. We've restored the earnings link to pensions. We've introduced the pupil premium. Of course there have been things the Coalition has done that harms the most needy in our society. But when did Labour ever think about them as they poured our money into PFI schemes (that increased the costs to us and helped give massive profits to private companies)? When did Labour care about the students they now claim to represent when they introduced the tuition fees (that helped keep people like me out of university)? When did Labour care for the asylum seeker and the migrant when they were locking up their children, denying them appeals, sending them back to homophobic regimes if they were gay and sending out nasty leaflets attacking other races and religions???

By all means express unhappiness at some of the things the Coalition is doing, but remember not to let Labour forget their own part in backing business over people and pandering to bigots over keeping to their supposed values. Some in the Labour party have recognised this and called for change, but as an outsider looking in this call seems not be heard by most.

So we must remind people that Labour cannot be trusted. We've made compromises because we didn't win the election. We've only been able to stop the worst excesses of Tory ideology because we are the smaller partner in the Coalition. What excuse did Labour have when it lorded it over us all with large majorities? We've not broken promises because we DID NOT WIN nor does our party form a Government on it's own. Has Labour apologised yet for all it's broken promises, on electoral reform, on tuition fees and all the rest? No, and it's time to remind the electorate of that. Labour cannot be trusted.

And then we have the Tories. Our Coalition partners have been rather chummy of late haven't they? That's because they hope (and thanks to Labour and the left wing media they are succeeding) to pin all the blame and pain for their cuts on us! It's a typical tactic of the larger Coalition partner in coalitions across Europe. Don't let them get away with it. Whilst we're happy to support cuts where they are necessary, the Tories have embarked upon slashing and burning the state with a terrible glee. The bad stuff in the Coalition agreement isn't Liberal Democrat policy. It's Tory! We need to remember that we aren't the ones calling for benefit cuts for the disabled or forced labour for the unemployed. It's the Tories! That illiberal cap on immigration? It's not us! Remember our policy on immigration at the election, far more liberal and fair than Labour could even dream of. Of course we didn't want to impose this cap.

We must remind people that the Tories aren't "liberals". They don't believe in a "small state". They believe in a "no state" free for all , where the religious and the rich can dictate terms to the poor and the secular. They don't like Europe, they don't like immigration, they don't like individual freedom to defy social norms. They wish to use the poor, not to help them. We have, very successfully, kept most of these tendencies under control by being part of the Coalition and we should celebrate that. Imagine what the Tories would've done without us. It's time for us to stand up and remind people that if they don't like what the Coalition is doing, there is another way: vote Liberal Democrat next time! Labour will say all the right things in Opposition but their past record shows how they will not do anything different to the Tories, they'll just package measures more nicely. And the Tories on their own will just do more of the same. Much more.

We need to stop hiding in the dark pretending the Coalition isn't happening. We need to stand up and remind people that things can be different. If you are an Orange Booker or a Social Lib, you know the Tories and Labour are both wrong. We must present our policies once more and show people we are the progressive, sensible choice for our country. And we must stop apologising and start shouting from the rooftops: Vote Liberal Democrat. Be proud of what we've achieved in the Coalition and remember that there is much more we could achieve if only people would give us the chance.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

On Easy Terms: Bright House Comes To Folkestone

Some have suggested the opening of a new shop in the old Dixon’s store on Folkestone High Street is a much needed boost to the local jobs market and the struggling High Street. Sadly, I think this might be far too optimistic an assessment because that new store is Bright House, a company that most certainly giveth but also, even more certainly, taketh away.

Bright House sells various household items (be they white goods, furniture or computer game consoles) and was opened with loud music and costumed mascots who welcomed crowds of people through the doors. Excitable people were sat all around the store, on their comfy display sofas, signing up for easy credit and weekly payment plans.

Like most stores, you can buy their goods outright with cash, but the sale price is very high. You’d be better off buying from one of the other shops in town or, better yet for those on a tight budget, buying online. But of course, they don’t expect anyone to buy products from them like that, that price just helps inflate their profit margin that little bit more. What they are really about is offering credit. You can buy your sofa or your kids Christmas present and spread the payments over three years. The interest helps increases the already over-the-top price by another 30% and, if you include their Service Cover, that price increases to almost double.

I’m sure they’d argue that they are offering those who cannot afford to buy things up front, and who have credit difficulties, an easy and convenient way of getting white goods, furniture and the nicest electronic goods. That’s a worthy aim, but is this method really the best one? And can that really be justified given the extortionate pricing policies?

Credit is debt. Debt is not something we should be encouraging those on low incomes (or no income) to take on. We have a town which has hit hard times. Our jobs market is limited and our population poor. We need to be helping those in need to help themselves. We need not for profit Christmas savings schemes, more accessible credit unions, and companies encouraged to set up here who have a more secure job structure. We need to offer ways of enabling people to save and encouraging them to understand the retail sector to allow them to find the best deals out there.

We now have a Money Shop, a Bright House and a brand new pawnbrokers in the town centre. These companies thrive on destitution and help create and continue the debt cycle in the lives of the most desperate and helpless. They will exploit our consumerist lifestyles to line their pockets without compunction, and we need to fight them every step of the way.

Folkestone deserves a better class of capitalist.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

In Defence Of Iain Duncan Smith? *shudder*

The anti-Coalition folks (I'm slowing moving back to supporting the Coalition mainly because of the partisan attacks against it)  have got their panties in a twist again, this time over benefit cheats. Work and Pensions (the department headed by my least favourite Tory leader ever, Iain Duncan Smith) are planning to outsource finding benefit cheats to some credit firms. Let's face it, this can only be a good thing. Benefit cheats are inflating the cost of the welfare state and making the right-wing arguments against benefits more convincing. If we can root them out as thoroughly as possible, we are in a much more secure position to argue for a decent support structure for those in real need.

Sure I'm a little sceptical of the use of private enterprise to solve public sector problems, but I'm generally supportive of the concept of rooting out those who abuse our benefits system and give a bad name to those on benefits legitimately.

Is there anyone out there willing to argue that benefit cheats should be left to get on with what they are doing?

Of course, the left, generally see attacks on benefit cheats (i.e. liars) as an attack on benefits in general which is a little bit like saying arresting criminals is an attack on citizens in general. There are also those that state those who commit benefit fraud are desperate and worthy of our sympathy. Of course some of them will be! But that doesn't excuse their actions any more than those who steal to feed their drug habit.

The left have gotten grumpy today as they want more tax loopholes to be closed, quite rightly, to stop the very wealthy taking their profits from this country without paying their "fair share" in taxes. I wholeheartedly support this. But what they seem to be suggesting is we mustn't attack benefit cheats until we've attacked tax cheats.

I say: we should do both. Last time I checked (please correct me if I'm wrong) the Department of Work and Pensions does not generally deal with tax cheats. Isn't that the job of HM Revenue and Customs? You can't seriously attack the DWPs suggestions because they don't include something that another department looks after.

By all means criticise the means (i.e. using credit firms) and keep up the pressure on the Government to close the tax loopholes. But let's not criticise a policy that makes sense to us moderates who want a cost-effective benefit system that truly helps those who need it.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist