Are We Still in Coalition?!

The much anticipated speech by Cameron today highlighted he has very little intention of reforming the NHS bill. In addition to this we have significant failures to upkeep the Green Deal with nuclear energy funding and targets under scrutiny and a significant reduction in Lib Dem attention to House of Lords reform. If it weren't for the paternity leave proposals, I would be questioning the Lib Dem role in the coalition at all.

The NHS has never been so good

In spite of Cameron's speech demanding that the NHS is in dire need of reform, patient and public experience has never been higher.

He labours on about the cost, stating the NHS will need £130billion in 2015 to continue this way. What he is, in fact, saying is that Conservatives do not want to pick up the bill for the universal right to the public health service. He is unwilling to fund the NHS which has the best satisfaction records seen in decades.

Of course, Cameron and Lansley argue that current recovery, survival and treatment rates are lower than average in Europe. But Cameron has also stated that Britain funds less than the average EU country.If you pay less, you expect less. Cutting GP Consortia budgets will not exactly assist this.

In addition to creating an opaque layer of bureaucracy in GP Consortia that 94% of NHS Managers believe is irrelevant, Cameron wishes to cut all funding for defecits. "Need your broken leg fixed? Oh we can't this year as we'd be over budget".

And this is without addressing the significant conflicts of interest and private firms monopolising public services.

So, I am seeing very little in put from Lib Dems in spite of Clegg's dramatic attempt gesture in an attempt to retain a sense of leadership, it seems highly unlikely any of the 'pause' will have had the slightest effect. And while peers may fillibuster, their effort may indeed be wasted.

Nuclear Agenda

One of the biggest successes the Lib Dems had in the coalition agreement was to stop government funding of nuclear power, instead paving the way for serious sustainable green energy. Or so we thought.

It now seems that the Tories can circumvent this too, in order to keep their business buddies sweet, and provide loans to part subsidise.

With Green Agenda spokesman Chris Huhne caught up in a rift of marital and speeding proportions, this seems to be allowed to be happening with no Lib Dem objections at all.

Too focused on constitutional reform?

The Evening Standard reports, somewhat delightedly, that Clegg is taking a step back from House of Lords reform, and instead senior Tories, no doubt being mollified by their lack of ministerial responsibility, will take charge.

As just noted, the Tories are very cunning in the nuance of language, and were they to assault proposed reforms in the same way as they have the Green Agenda, we will be lucky to see the 80/20 proposal from Clegg enacted in this parliament.

While I appreciate Clegg could be seen to 'toxify' the debate, I am suspicious enough about Conservative motivation, especially as they have said they are anti the concept of elected Lords.

We cannot call our country a (liberal) democracy all the time we have 'cushtie' peerages for MPs and who ever is popular on TV (Sir Alan). This body represents a third of the country's executive and the 'old boys club' simply has to stop. Now.

On a Positive Note

Proposals on paternity leave being extended to 8 months will be a major step forward in gender equality and in tackling hegemonic matrimony head on. But with the tidal wave of loopholes the Tories are finding, it does feel like a patronising pat on the head from our coalition partners.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

I Object to Being Called a "Muscular Liberal" Mr Clegg

Clegg is trying to show a stern hand - by using a Tory Line.

Cameron recently used the term "muscular liberal" in his much aggravating speech on Multiculturalism. It was his way of reconciling the Right and Left opinions on immigration, terrorism and the EU. It was also a one dimensional, patronising and insulting comment to make as he bordered on racism, failed to address any issues and paid lip service to several groups at the same time, without, as usual, saying anything of any importance.

I would accuse Clegg of the latter in his ostentatious attempt to placate his battered and bruised party.

Liberal and Muscular

Liberalism is an ideology. I am not more a card-holding Lib Dem than I am an employee. I am a person with values and concepts.

Liberalism is a political ideology too. It is the belief in freedom and equal rights.

Neither of these things require one to be "muscular", which is as inappropriate as calling one's hair "rebellious" (this is a conditioner that has got on my nerves for a while!).

Muscular is defined as a physical attribute; and colloquially refers to "having or suggesting great forcefulness, especially at the expense of subtlety"

Now, there is something bullying and derrogatory about this understanding. It is rather like being called a bossy hippy. The two words together almost compound an oxymoron.

A blog entitled Muscular Liberal defines it's self differently;

A Muscular Liberal is someone who believes in liberal values and believes that those values must be defended and promoted.

That as a justification is far more explanatory than "muscular". But it goes on to define the antonym of Liberalism, stating "We think that because we tolerate difference we have to tolerate those who violently disagree with our way of life."

How exactly is this appreciating freedom and equality?

The blog asserts that Liberalism is a Western Value - and that cultural differences should be opposed. There is nothing liberal about definition by area, origin or etymology, nor is there anything liberal about disapproving of different cultural values.

So I am sorry Mr Clegg, I am not a muscular liberal.

I am a Liberal Democrat and I will defend that ideology happily. But I will not be compared to obstinate and unaccepting people with right wing conservatism.

The Whipping Frenzy of AV

A lot of people are predicting the end of Ed Milliband if the referendum on the alternative vote falls on Thursday.

It should be noted that out of the three main political parties, only Cameron has got his house in order.

Clegg is regarded by the discontented in the yellow camp of being a poor leader, due to his and his whips' inabiity to get a solid line from his party, on AV or anything else. The papers may not say it directly, but they circle him like vultures.

Milliband also prevails as unable to command his party. The 'old school' Labour MPs, the ones whose names are the most familiar, Prescott, Becket and Blunket, are not only demonstrating their discontent with AV, but also with their party's leader.

One wonders why such a revolt did not occur under Blair or Brown.

After all, Labour proposed AV in their '97 manifesto, and there were no platform disputes then.

However, it should be noted, the same Labour dinosaurs that were voting for Dave Milliband in the leadership contest, and were thwarted (ironically) by AV.

The Unions, then as well as now, hold the balance of power in AV. But there was less in-fighting in the Red camp then, and one wonders if Ed is any better at whipping the Unions than he is at whipping his MPs.

There is still everything to play for.

--
Sent from my mobile device

Why Do We Even Need Internships?

I'd never heard of internships until I graduated.

Now they seem to be in the news every other day.

When I was 15, we had work experience at school. My dad offered to have me work with him, but I declined, wanting to see what the school got me as it would be a different, more exciting world. It was, I got to work at a K'Nex factory where I basically played with stuff all day.

How did that set me up for life? Well, it didn't.

At fourteen, I was working in a riding stables mucking out, then I got my first paid job in a clothes shop for a tiny £2.50 per hour. I then did the usual rigmarol of waitressing, fast food, and other customer service to fund my room in a shared house so I could do my A-Levels.

Following that, I got a full time job in a wine merchants and put myself through my degree in the evenings.

At no point did I "need" to work for someone for free, nor could I afford to.

Social Mobility

So from a personal point of view, I disagree with both Clegg and Cameron.

I'm not relaxed about internships, I'm positively chippy. Why should people be granted a leg-up in any industry to succeed?

What is wrong with volunteering where your skills are needed?

We've seen the ludicrous furore over Clegg's comments, where most people ignored the fact that it was in spite of his own "leg-up", he was promoting active social mobility.

Now Cameron has jumped in and said he is "relaxed" about internships and social mobility.

This is a great news story. It addresses the differences between the parties without offending the membership of either party, and Downing Street ought to be very pleased with themselves. But more about distractions in the press another day.

Cameron thinks internships are great, having no issue with "giving work experience to personal acquaintances". But, as we know, Cameron thinks nothing of spending £600 on trimming his wisteria, while some of us spend that on a week's rent.

Clegg may think nothing of paying that for his wisteria, but at least he acknowledges the more humble of us with our Lidl shopping.

Do we need interns?

Ultimately, I do not understand why internships exist at all. They are an excuse to exploit those eager to learn, and will always be a luxury of people who can afford to do them without needing to work as well.

The only way addressing internships will affect social mobility is when the government, Blue, Red or Yellow, decides definitively that interns should be paid, at least minimum wage and have protected employment rights.

Anything else will always favour the rich, who do not have to worry about wisteria, and discriminate against the poor, who may not know what wisteria is.

Afterall, you do not see Apprenticeships being offered on a travel-to-work-allowance only.

Death of the Lib Dems?

There's a lot of blogging on the Lib Dems at the moment. Some are writing an epitaph and some are writing of metamorphasis after the sacrifice of Clegg.

The phoenix was an interesting choice for the Liberal Democrats to choose in 1983. Most understand the bird to represent rising from the ashes, and so the merging of the Social Democrats and the Liberal Party could be seen as a rejuvenation of their policies in a positive, casting off their daemons along the way.

But the image of the phoenix is even more poignant now.

For those with a love of classics, the phoenix lived a 500 year life, where at the end it would build a nest of riches and lay down and burst into flames. And from those ashes, a young bird would imerge, ready for another 500 year cycle.

The metaphors are wonderful. As Ovid observed;

"From the body of the parent bird, a young Phoenix issues forth, destined to live as long a life as its predecessor

And here the Lib Dems are apparently at their moment of resurrection, in their nest of rich and Tory laid principles, from where a new form of party could imerge, amongst the broken windows of the Treasury and the Supreme Court.

Their destination depends on the party itself, the only party to be guided by democratic principles that govern each level of importance. Unlike the current parliament.

The Lib Dems have acehived a lot in coalition, although the voters aren't getting the message.

What ever your position on tuition fees, it was the Lib Dems who insisted on a cap, while the Tories wanted it to be unlimited. Imagine the social divide then. We'd be looking at an American Style system where those with money got degrees.

The limits on nuclear energy and the increased investment in renewable energy sources are one of Chris Huhne's biggest sucesses, the Green Deal, as it so quaintly called. But this deal will significantly improve the environment, having impact on ours and our children's future, as well as embracing better mentalities towards energy saving and reducing carbon footprint.

The introduction of a higher tax threshold in April 2011 will ensure that those experiencing benefit cuts are better off, and help to ensure it is more productive to work than take benefits.

The bankers levvy, so demanded by the public, has been introduced as part of the coalition strategy.

And that is just the beginning.

Perhaps the Liberal Democrats havent had enough experience of the media and how to spin their successes. Or at least competing with the agendas of other political parties in the midst of a spin war.

Even ConHome was advertising Nick Clegg as a liar this week, taking their pound of salt but not accepting any of the blame for recent insurrections by students and activists.

So yes, a strategic opportunity is here for the Liberal Democrats. To reassert their party politics, play their own trumpet and push, aggressively, to get a differnt identity from both Tories and Labour.

The ultimate mission is still the AV Referendum.

Anyone who has been made redundant, anyone who has demonstrated at unfair tuition fees, anyone who is unhappy about the cuts to child benefit, are posed with the opportunity to change politics in the UK for good.

We are currently governed by a man who received just 25% of the country's votes in 2010.

Our own MPs are generally elected on less than 50% of the population.

Why would anyone be content to stay with this system of complete unfairness?

The change would allow people to vote for their genuine choices, no tactics, and change how the country is ruled for good. If you don't like Clegg, this is your opportunity to out him. Far more so than ignoring the vote.

To ignore the AV Referendum would ensure a future of Old Boys Club, a future of people who have never received benefits deciding benefits payments, of people who dont need to worry about university fees raising them for the rest of us.

But with Labour contesting the referendum (after all, it was good enough for them to elect a leader, but not for the country), and the Tories wanting to maintain the status quo, it will be the Lib Dems championing the campaign.

And there in lies their opportunity, a remodel and a review of identity with a new political system in the UK.

Leaks on Fees is a Nasty Piece of Spin

The Guardian published this article this evening to the disconcertion of Twitterati and Social Media Lib Dems alike.

The article misleadingly implies that Clegg and the Lib Dems intended to "abandon their pledge".

This is utter rubbish.

When drawing up negotiation documents, the issue of Fees was discussed.

But even the Guardian states;

"Clegg also joined all other Lib Dem MPs in signing an NUS pledge to "vote against any increase in fees". The leaked document showed that during the preparations for a hung parliament the Lib Dems still intended to fulfil that commitment."

However, this comes in the seventh paragraph. Something like 70% of people read the headline, 60% the first paragraph, 50% the second and so on and so forth until around 5% only read the entire article.

Therefore, Lib Dems, especially the already disenchanted, please be aware the article is written from text by a Tory Minister, which holds the Conservatives on a pedestal far out of their league, and the Guardian has used deliberate spin to disenchant you further.

This is one of the down sides of being in semi power. We are subject to more attack.

Have faith in your convictions and read the full story before heading twitter et al

A Few Digressions; Modernity, Choice and Lib Dem Conference

After a devestating start (my blackberry was nicked/lost/dissipated into thin air yesterday), I think the whole day picked up greatly.

I want to, and will, digress on modernity.

I recall a time, twelve years ago, when I didn't have a mobile phone. And I didn't miss it. This morning, when I woke and could not tell the time, I was thrown into complete disarray.

All of a sudden, I was at a major city, at a major political event, and I felt completely isolated. Yet why would such a loss make me feel isolated? Surely, the isolation would only occur if I required such a presence of the internet, contact and reaffirment of the indicative survellance structure?

I would be inclined to say, most people feel they choose to communicate with the internet world, the modernity world of social networking and constant awareness. However, I now realise my dependancy on a postmodern concept of reassurance and support that perhaps I had not considered before.

Without the fundemental, and it is to me, internet contact, I feel I cannot identify support and flock mentality. Yet prior to losing it, I didn't realise it was this!

It is ultimately the choice that I am concerned and analysing. Such is the power of the one dimensional man, that we are convinced our purchases into society through modernity are choice of sorts. We chose to engage with social networking, we do not depend on social net working.

It provides a false sense of intimacy that appeases the ego. That generates a validation of social interraction that is integral to gregarious human nature. And yet it is a facade that is facilitated by and perpetuated by modernity and requires technology to maintain. And we consider the technology to be a "choice".

On choice;

Last week I drove passed a cat dead in the road. So when I came back and it was still there, I stopped the car, collected the cat in a carrier bag and attemtped to find it's owner.

To no avail.

Therefore I was left with a dead cat in a carrier bag.

There is a moral there somewhere. Or a metaphor.

On Conference

Delighted to be demonstrated against. One view; I would have done a better job! Home printed A4 banners in black and white. Really, Labour?

I'm genuinely shocked by The Independent Article> This was not the feel I got from the conference at all.

I do wish members would realise we represent 1/6 of the coalition and focus on positive promotion of what we have acheived; Nuclear Power, AV Referendum, Basic Tax Allowance, Free Schools.

There is a need for the party to promote positively what they have acheived not what they want to. And I think we need to start now, not in the future. Carpe Diem

PS I'm not drunk, just tired and introspective, anyone know what the cat thing means?!

... Bleak House

At journalists, party members and the political classes watched the new coalition with bated breath, it seems that there are far more important dangers we should be anticipating than the fall of David laws.

The great debate over Capital Gains Tax has created a significant rift between the harmonious wedding of Clegg and Cameron.

In spite of great demonstrations by the Conservatives, they propose to increase National Insurance.

So, it seems, that the economy is the poisoned chalice after all.

The terrifying prospect of being "broken, bankrupt and bust" may be used as a stick with which to beat the middle classes, not to mention civil servants.

Quite simply, £6 billion of cuts is not enough to stop us from descending into the anarchy seen by Greece, let alone the potential failing of the Euro and the effect it will have on our exports.

No wonder David Cameron is so keen to implement a country of Entrepreneurs.

Freedom of Speech

I cannot be the only person that is completely fed up with the BBC's politically biased reporting in every situation.

As an aside quip, in the last week during the Liberal Democrats Conference it seems that Nick Clegg has become the fox to the BBC's hounds.

While I appreciate that reporters must be tenacious, aggressive and able to question every argument, the complete disregard for any policies and proclamations that are not Labour or Tory helps sustain the two horse race that is politics in this country, and not to the good of its citizens.

Given that police officers, civil servants and the variety of other professional public service employees are prevented from having political allegiance while employed by the government, one would think that the same rules would apply to the BBC. I certainly think that they should

In fact, given that, they should also apply to the banks!

1,000,000 Children with Criminal Convictions

27/8/09

Nick Clegg commented today that 1,000,000 children undeer the labour government have criminal convictions.

Discussion on the post range from aggressive deterence mindsets to challenge offending rates to the injustice of prosecuting children.

While we can accuse Labour of nurturing a disenfranchised generation, it is important to note that these figures MAY reflect higher policing success or a detrimental society of maladpative families.

On Asbos

50% of ASBOs given to young persons (below 25) are breached within 3 years

The majority of ASBOs issued are given to men aged between 42 and 65, generally for neighbourhood dispute (University of Kent Criminology PhD Research).

Finally getting an ASBO is not being convicted of a criminal offence It is the equivilent of a
penalty fine.

Therefore the report that 1ml children have been convicted is children that have gone thru the youth court system. Perhaps it also identifies a police force catching youth criminals. Or perhaps it represents a society that is lacking respect and conditioning, morality and civilised behaviour.


On Punishment

Conviction of child criminals results in poorer sanction which does not act as a deterent, due to the changes to the Children and Young Persons Act, following the introduction of the Youth Justice system.
Rehabilitation in Youth Institutions is one of the most productive systems for reforming social malaise in young people BUT ... Read moreLabour decided the funding wasn't worth it (although it had a 4% reoffence rate as opposed to normal youth institutions 95% reoffence rate).

Some youths are prosecuted 15 times before they face custodial sentence.

Further to this, because of afore mentioned Act, as soon as a child criminal turns 16 their record is abolished, intending to give them a clean start but IN FACT allowing them to build up further indictable offences with lower sanctions for first offences.

On the injustice of prosecuting children

The law defines a child as below the age of 10 years. These cannot be prosecuted. The two boys who stabbed Damiola Taylor had 169 offences between them.

The law IS lenient on children/youth offenders - this is why the Jamie Bulger Killers were released in 2004 and given new identities after abducting, sexually abusing and murdering a three year old. These cases and a million others identify why we need stringer sanctions against "children" and their parents.