Miliband's Mission to Nowhere

Ed Miliband makes another speech on the Saturday which means the top of the newsreels, saying something of little consequence and seemingly with no meaning whatsoever

Even the BBC could not make head nor tail of his comments, entitling their article;

"Miliband urges Labour to inspire with national mission"

And where exactly is this mission going?

Miliband witters on about social divide, potentially a vote winner with disenfranchised to use, if they voted. However, he seemingly fails to address the enormous role that Labour played in the last 13 years in maintaining and further expanding that social divide.

He coins it the "new inequality". the soundbite I suspect will become as distasteful as "broken Britain" and "alarm clock Britain". Will Miliband next start calling about "Britain's new inequality"?

I would hasten to point out that there is nothing new about inequality. if inequality and social divide due to the rich and the poor was a phenomenon, I'm sure we would have noticed. Alternatively, the Chartist revolution might never have happened. Given that Ed Miliband listed one of his favourite books as the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, I would suggest he needs to go back and read it again.

It should also be observed that he is one of the super rich that he is so quick to criticise, I would suggest he needs to be upfront and honest about this when he is is preaching on social divide that was exacerbated in by his own government when they increased capital gains tax to 28%.

Arguably, Miliband does acknowledge that the Labour government significantly contributed towards the social divide, yet he completely failed to set out anyways challenge this or at any way in which his party would be different than it was just over a year ago.

Speeches go, it had to be the epitome of mediocre, full of platitudinous rhetoric and, as Tim Farran MP stated, ultimately vacuous.

As a result, the great Labour mission is clearly on route to nowhere.

Tories Strategically Winning the Next Election

In a move that appeared from nowhere, Cameron has practically guaranteed his next election with the Military Covenant proposals.

The duty of care for military personnel wounded in action has been an issue the RBLI and Help for Heroes have campaigned on for years.

It is a favourite bugbear of the tabloids, who embrace a dedication to troops fighting and the rightful entitlement to care in the event they are injured.

Therefore, in what appears to be a finite proposal from our PM, he has swept the tabloids this Sunday and promoted the status of the military forces.

It's not in the coalition agreement, but Lib Dems would be making an egregious move to object. Labour cannot criticise and it further errodes their reputation for not having a clear policy nor introducing a solid foundation for soldiers while they were in power.

Of course, the other side of the coin is that these soldiers wouldnt be injured were we not to invest troops in escalating civil wars on spurious foundations.

I have to say, I'm impressed.

Lib Dems Saving Britain from a Fate Worse than Greece

Courtesy of @Chrisjenkinson I thought I would add my comments to his post on Political Phrases I'd Rather Not Hear.

His political phrase in question is "We’re making tough decisions"

As Chris observes, the truth of the statement is;

We’re cutting project X because the country’s deficit is comparable to Greece’s. Because we’re cutting X, which Greece’s politicians didn’t do, we aren’t being bailed out by Germany and the IMF

For some reason, this point, that the Lib Dems are saving the UK from a fate worse than Greece, is not being reflected to the general public.

There seems to be two reasons for this. First, it is not on the media agenda to in anyway observe that (a) Britain is in a significant deficit and on the precipe of collapse if we do not address this, or (b) observe any contribution that the Lib Dems have made to the coalition in a positive light.

There is a smorgasboard of reasons for this, from media monopoly to media agenda. As I said in a previous post, the Lib Dems have the audacity to steal fire from the gods and are paying with their livers.

The second reason is that the message is not consistently being upheld by their Coalition Partners.

While the Conservatives are happy to pronounce the deficit as a result of reckless Labour Spending, they maintain their core centre-right voters and retain the majority of the floating voters the party worked hard to swing over in the Blair years.

Have you heard Cameron, Osbourne or Hague mention the significant UK Deficit and the risk of being bailed out by Europe? No.

The Conservatives have acheived their objective, to retain floating voters and continue to decimate Labour presence. Why would they need to add to the mix by indicating Britain is in a significantly stormy sea financially?

Further to this, it doesnt aid the Conservatives to mention Reckless Bankers, nor to support the good work the Lib Dems have done in the Coalition, or they would lose their flaoting voters to the Lib Dems very quickly.

It seems this backs their plan of sticking with the Lib Dems for 5 years then trouncing them in the General Election. Which, if the Locals are anything to go by, they are on course to achieve.

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

Now Who's the Nanny State Mr Cameron?

Another little soapbox incident...

Theresa May MP suggested a suitable way to address (falling) antisocial behaviour levels is to remove the offenders' iPods and other items.

I'm sorry? The Tories had the temerity to call Labour the creators of a nanny-state but are now proposing that the government take responsibility for punishing people through removal of personal items?!

Firstly, this measure is clearly aimed at young adults, who make up just 28% of antisocial behaviour offenders. The majority is adults aged 45-60 in neighbourhood disputes. I doubt they would be inclined towards their iPods being taken off them by teacher-like paternalism.

Secondly, and significantly, this is NOT the government's role. It is a knee jerk policy suggestion to appease middle class voters who's fear of crime far outweighs their actual experience of crime.

If anyone should be taking young adults' media devices away for bad behaviour, it should be their parents, not a politician elevated from all direct experience of ASB.

The legal jargon put forward by Judges to reject the policy talks of court seizure being proportionate. I would suggest if ASB has escalated to the extent the offender is in court under threat of ASBO, removing their IPod is going to do very little to reduce their bad behaviour.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Puppet Show Protests

The protests went as anticipated. The majority of people, many of whom will be redundant in 4 days, marched calmly through London surrounded by Union Officials, Police Officers and press.

The BBC has been quite good at maintaining the "majority were peaceful" line.

However, inevitably, the [violence] [anarchistic] {scuffles] [turmoil] or [tempest] as various journalists have referred to the less peaceful marches, have stolen many headlines.

I watched with discerning horror as various shots on BBC News depicted fights, broken windows, paint bombs, fireworks and other antisocial ranging through to criminal behaviour took place.

The Hype

Aggrandized social networking had set the scene for a modern Punch and Judy, it was just ascertaining who would appropriate which role.

In the previous protests, students have been quick to cry foul over Police Brutality, accuse and actively engage violent behaviour.

Yet yesterday there was very litte evidence of Judy with her rolling pin. No police had riot shields, no weapons, and their regimentary lines to calm rampant protestors were standard calming proceedure.

In direct contrast, Punch had armed himself with a selection of premeditated weapons. Rather than the spade seen in student protests in September (who carries a spade with them on the off chance?!), protestors, menacing in black with balaclavas, were armed with lightbulbs full of amonia, spray cans, and anything else they saw fit to collect on their way.

With the twitterverse pounding with hashtags like #march26 #tarhirsq #trafalgursq #ukuncut #march26march et al, the drums were beating for drama.

And twas ever thus

While Milliband egotistically compared himself to Martin Luther King (there's a whole other blog post in this!), the BBC cameras panned to the menacing thugs attacking Topshop and swifting moving to Fortnum and Mason.

With bits of fence going through windows of banks, police officers being set on fire, the trite anarchy symbol being sprayed every where and continous soundbites from Labour, I was watching at home, glad I didnt attend.

Much criticism was put about Laurie Penny, the Independent writer, who felt the need to castigate the police and continue to encourage illegal and demonstrative violence through social media channels. A badly written (oh the irony) puts is quite well;

"For too long now she has been allowed to spread her vile and one side biased views of the protest and the whole events around them...[to satisfy] her own feeling of self importance"

But even without poisonous journalists encouraging violence to their own gains, the collective attacks on buildings which, to protestors, symbolised the extremeties of social divide were escalating.

Risks of Anonimoty

Good old UK Uncut, whom I think of as a modern day, twitter charged Robin Hood gang, have taken great risks by maintaining an air of mysteriousness.

While they decided to occupy Fortnum and Mason, who are charged with legal but ammoral tax avoidance by the young gangs, others descended on the store outside.

There is still dispute as to whether these youths, carrying Anarchy flags and wearing balaclavas, were in fact members of #UKUncut or not.

They adorned the outside of the building with UK Uncut slogans, claimed to be part of the (and I am loathe to call them but) movement, threw fireworks and flares at the police and actively prevented police from stopping other protestors from joining in, no doubt contributing to those injured, police and protestors alike.

I commented that I went to make a cup of tea and when I returned, UK Uncut had lost all of their credibility. Others have stated that it was not UK Uncut outside.

But that is the risk the UK Uncut take with their anonymity.

If they are serious about challenging society's norms and social divide, hiding behind badly written yet powerful articles simply gives others the opportunity to discredit them.

However, if the gang of trouble makers were not legitimate representatives of UK Uncut, then comments like this do not help to dispell the myth;

"Civil disobedience has a long tradition of driving forward progressive change and we are here to send a powerful message"

Disobedience is an interesting word.

–noun
"lack of obedience or refusal to comply; disregard or transgression"

There is something of an irony in this.

UK Uncut are demanding that the Government comply with them by changing tax legislation to more fairly redistribute wealth around the country.

To apply this lobby, they are the epitome of civil obedience, calming registering protests with the police, quietly occupying and proclaiming allegiance with Che Guevara and Ghandi. Neither of whom were demonstrative violent protestors.

Further illogical interpretation then, and I will refrain from comments on education necessary to enter university.

So if UK Uncut proclaim necessary civil disobedience, and deny active violence, how can one know what they stand for or who they are?

Trafalgur Square

Representative of political and social freedom, Trafalgar Square was the coda of the day, filled with what some referred to as a party.

Some party if it resulted in kettling.

Further damage and devestation was had, as young people failed yet again to get their message accross.

And the point of it all

Well, the meaning behind the violence is somehow lost in translation.

Protesting against cuts was the aim in the TUC march. This was a peaceful demonstration even if the leader of the Labour party felt he was a hero.

But what exactly was the aim in the UK Uncut and associated violences?

Rather like Punch and Judy, it seems it was just a sensationalised and futile exercise in entertainment.

Scathing Review on Labour's Policy and Campaigns

How sweet. Labour have nearly bankrupted themselves by;

(a)charging ludicrously cheap membership fees to convince themselves that people still want to join them after the state they left the country in; and

(b) spending all that money (really, over £650 billion a year on Public Services to implement a mediocracy?!)

As a result, they have attempted to market their severe lack of funds as a "Policy Forum"

This apparently is a way to discuss with party members the policies Labour should be promoting. That is, if they have any.

Judging by the comments I have seen on Labour Leaflets recently, they don't.

So what do Labour represent?

A lot of soundbites have been played today of Labour members complaining about their leadership campaign being about white, middleclass men from Oxbridge.

So if Labour are no longer Blairites, foolhardy opportunists singing to a tune of war and lowest common denominator service delivery, what are they?

Brownites are pretty dead in the water (although I think I liked them best)

So are we left with true socialism? The ragged trousered philosophers in their blue collar jobs?

Nope. Labour appears to be an uninspired, acrimonious bunch of moaners. Led by a man who conived his way to leader by leveraging union contacts, then stabbed them in the back when he got a chance.

And to top it all, they are so lacking in integrity that they have sunk so low as to make stories up when the impetus takes them.

Repugnant Campaigning

Labour appear have a coordinated national campaign to badmouth and effectively libel the Coalition. Which screams of a mature "name calling" response when they are licking their wounds.

Not only do I find their leaflets despicable (coming from a true blue county, I've had very little interaction with Labour Leaflets, that and the fact that "socialist" is a swearword around here), but I feel so angry at their relentless negative campaigning that is casting spurious, illogical and nefarious comments, I feel it necessary to point out a few untruths.

Now, I am sure I will be accused by the red tweeps and bloggers of simply returning the favour, but sometimes, one has to stand up for what they believe in.

A list of lies

#1 Libraries are closing nationwide
True the media have played a part in this. But in some areas, councils have retained all library services, AND, shock horror, EXTENDED the hours!

#2 People employed in the public sector are all losing their jobs
As a Union rep, I've attended many redundancy consultations, but I have yet to see any public sector institution make more than 10% redundancies in 2011.

#3 NHS Privatisation
Oh for goodness sake. The statement it's self is an oxymoron.

I could go on. But my ultimate point is please, please check the facts before you believe any of this nonsense!

Milliband's Deceptively Powerful Position

Ed Milliband has stated he would condem any Union striking on the day of the Royal Wedding.

Milliband is in a very powerful position.

He has managed to control his own election through Union sycophancy, putting him in charge of the new face of Labour.

To the common observer, it would seem foolish, therefore, for the wannabe Prime Minister to criticise the actions and public relations of Unite and Bob Crow.

However, Unite are rendered helpless to Labour, like a new baby dependant on their mother.

They cannot criticise Labour, because to do so would sever the political party link that gives them the power in the Left Wing field.

The Press would relish the break between Union and Party, using it to villify and crucify any union action. The Unions would lack authentication, their proposals of actions lacking any merit and they would die a sad death.

This would be a Conservative dream come true. The death of Unions? What larks, now everything can be privatised and no one can do anything about it. The Unions would be rendered nothing more than Ragged Trousered Philanthropists.

The ideal position for the Unions now would be another centre-left party to offer the Unions amnesty.

The transfer of power to a different political party would have significant repercussions on Labour and their mixed-message at the moment. Instead, Labour would be the ragged trouser philanthropists, with bankruptcy looming and no clear direction, they would flounder and drown in the new politics.

But there is no political party that can offer that amnesty. No bridge can be brokered with the Liberal Democrats, who, in coalition, are in a stranglehold and unable to consider such a position.

The Greens are too weak and not regarded as "serious politician".

The only opportunity that may arise would be that of UKIP, but such a partnership of extreme right wing politics would be unpalatable to the Unions.

In truth, if such a partnership was formed, the right outflanking the coalition, with the power of the Unions, Britain would be changed beyond recognition.

So Ed Milliband can say what he likes about Bob Crowe et al. He weilds a massive axe over the Union's heads, and one could suggest the Unions are reaping what they sow.

But for the common man who works in the public sector, or the manufacturer, these proposals are very frightening indeed. Unions represent our employment rights, the plebian's battle to stay employed and protected.

And the more Milliband jumps on the bandwagon and attacks the Unions, the more unhappy the people will become.

Championing #Candidvince

I've been late to catch up on the Vince Cable/BSky2B/Telegraph story today due to those definitions of obligations at Christmas.

But ultimately, people who feel that Murdoch owning 100% of BSky2B and the Sun and the rest of his socially manipulative empire is ok are missing some important moral questions.

We currently live in a country where the most read papers shape the opinions of the masses. Not so strange, you would think, if those opinions were not wrong.

Rather than rant, I will simply redirect you to The Daily Mash for a satirical take on the news that is sold via discriminative and perjorative images of naked ladies, obsessions with subtly nuanced racism towards ethnic minorities and slavish devotion to royalty.

I tend to think the Lib Dems are the most free thinking of the political parties, rejecting the majority view when that view is held simply because it is "the way it has always been".

Vince Cable validated my views today with his sacrificial and passionate denouncement of the Murdoch empire.

While those talk of parliamentary impartiality, they seem to ignore the fact we have an executive controlled by parliamentary parties, whips and adversarial politics. This is something that cannot be ignored when putting one minister in charge of a decision on the media.

TO have a Lib Dem make the decision would be subjective as Murdoch Press constantly critcize the party and squeeze them as much as possible. The same would apply to a Labour minister. To have a Tory minister would simply hold up the ethos of the ol' boys club us anticapitalist and left wing commentators have come to loathe.

Therefore, rather than passing the job to Jeremy Hunt, or letting Milliband leap on a bandwagon he would not support if he were in power, why not pass it to the courts, or better still, to the public?

I would rather have candid and honest ministers in power like Vince who deplore unfair advantage in major corporations, and are willing to sacrifice their politics in view of fairness, than "yes men" who adhere to whips and provide no real voice to democracy.

In a changing society, where students can challenge millionaire's tax payments and attract mainstream media, where we have a coalition for the first time in decades and where there is real opportunity for electoral reform, I support and champion Vince's attitude, we need more politicians like him.

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.

Labour Must Be Wishing they'd Elected David Milliband Right Now

Ed Milliband seems to have leapt from limp failure to even limper decay. Short of inspiration, he now seeks to redefine Labour's policies.

Policy Processes

Unable to develop his own conceptions of community engagement and cohesion, the BBC acknowledges that he is attempting to "take that term 'big society' back" from the Conservatives.

Or, the truth is, he is lacking in ideas, forethought and originality.

To debate about the party "losing its way" may seem like a good idea, but the truth is, it merely leaves the party still grasping for identity once again.

Talking about what went wrong is a long winded solution that will simply disempower the party and hinder any election chances it may have left (which are meagre to say the least).

Leaders that have ideas, direction and a strong concept of the party's morals are much more proficient in campaigning and in winning elections. Milliband is lacking all of these and his policy debates are not helping.

Milliband seems to be coming at this Politics game from completely the wrong direction. To look at how to "become a movement again" is a completely illogical approach. A movement starts from a collective of ideas and motivation. It is rather like wanting to go on Dragons Den without an invention.

If the labour party is no longer a "movement", they may as well disband and regroup in common ideas forums.

"Squeezed Middle" Mess

I was listening to his debacle as he attempted to define what he proclaimed loudly as the "Squeezed Middle". The roughly seven disparate definitions he provided were confusing at the very least.

Labour is once again caught in a a web of misidentity, with no concept of how to go forward.

Milliband waffled about the poor, and he waffled about the squeezed middle, but none of his phrasings or stutterings were profound or significant enough for anyone to identify with. He is lacking a clear message and his party knows it.

Milliband rallied his troups today with;

"Join us on this journey which makes us once again the people's party, the party of people's hopes and aspirations, back on people's side, back in power making for the fairer, the more equal, the more just country we believe in."

But the truth is, he doesnt know who his "people" are.

Origins and Originality

The party has divided roots, those which start in Unions, those that start in Conservative animosity and those that started with Blair. Or anti Blair. And that's a wide range of opinion he has to win and develop.

It takes a dedicated and passionate person to enter politics. But it also requires originality and Milliband seems to be lacking this.

He took the Union route to win the leadership election, persuading Unite et al to promote him. But now he seeks to win the Blairite voters, that middle class of disillusioned Tories.

And he seeks to steal the "progressive left" from the Liberal Democrats.

He can't do both, and keep the Unions sweet.

I would imagine there are already grumblings of discontent in Labour quarters about how much more decisive and determined a certain brother would have been in the same position.

The Silent Truth in Harman's Scathing Attacks

Someone that has to resort to personal attacks is a sign of someone with nothing left to say.

Harriet Harman has shocked the country at the Scottish Labour Conference by launching vociferous and malignant remarks at the Liberal Democrats.

Stooping as low as to mention the seventh diversity strand, ginger, she proclaimed;

"Now, many of us in the Labour Party are conservationists - and we all love the red squirrel,"
"But there is one ginger rodent which we never want to see again - Danny Alexander."

The remarks read like an opinionated red top tabloid column.

However, the real message Harman is giving out is that the new face of the Labour Party have no real arguments left.

Last night's BBC Radio 4's Any Questions indicated as much, as Baroness Warsi managed to silence both Jack Dromley MP and Mail Columnist Peter Hitchins by pointing out that the coalition have increased the tax threshold, have introduced a bankers' levy and are clearing up the mess the Labour Government left behind.

In another of Bromley's pseudo-UKIP diatribes, Warsi interrupted to defend Europe and the UK's involvement to applause.

Yet all Labour can raise in defence is petty insults, abusive language and behaviour that more than hints at grasping at straws.

There's Small Choice in Rotten Apples

I wanted to find an appropriate quote for the Labour Leadership Contest with "Ed" or similar in it. I failed.

However;

"Oh, yeah. Now for the secret of schmoozing, the rapture of rap, the snap, crackle, pop of cool. Hire a secretary, boys. Now this-"
... This will be a day you'll never forget."

Ed, Edd and Eddy

Struck me as poignant.

The other that immediately came to mind is

"There is no benefit in the gifts of a bad man.

What greater grief than the loss of one's native land."

Medea,Euripides

or

"There's small choice in rotten apples"

Taming of the Shrew

The leadership battle was tight, and the media is already squeezing the leader with comments thinly veiled as challenges that Ed Milliband will face.

However, as the media were keen to point out throughout the last few months, neither Milliband reflects what one would call a "core" Labour vote.

Ed may represent the chipped shoulder middle classes, as indeed, we Libdems are accused of many a time, but to manual working, Union representative, grass roots campaigning, he is not paticularly inspiring.

Elected on the basis that he would bring new blood to the party, removes the negative publicity from the Brown/Blair era and go back to key Labour roots seem to have been lost in his leadership campaign message.

Appealing to Soft Lib Dems

Ed Milliband's key policies to campaign on again the scrapping of student fees and demanding a review of the cost of Trident.

Hang on a second. Aren't these key Lib Dem policies?

And yet Labour ministers are showing no support for the coalition's review of Trident or Vince Cable's reviews in student fees.

This appears to be a particularly tough one that the Whips will have to crack.

Spin, Photoshopping and No Straight Answers

What can I say? I couldn't resist. Have a look at the original and you will see what I mean!

Oh wait, do I mean here?

An Exercise in Labour Spin

Labour has published a list of 50 things they've achieved in the last 13 years.

1.A rising National Minimum Wage - the annual uprating benefits around 1 million people a year.
I'm sorry? Wasn't the National Minimum Wage a requirement of being a member of the European Union? Therefore no matter which government was in power National Minimum Wage would have been put in place.

2.The shortest waiting times since NHS records began.
This is primarily because of the introduction of bureaucracy. If you have a medical complaint, you now “see” the consultants for five minutes within 30 days of diagnosis. You then have to wait an additional six months before anyone examines you. This means the target box is ticked but you are not getting the treatment any quicker.

3.Three million more operations carried out each year than in 1997, with more than double the number of heart operations.
With 3 million more people In the UK, 3 million more operations is rather frightening. The first thing you can ask is how many of those operations were necessary? For example, surely more thn double the number of heart operations indicates our health service is failing earlier on to result in such an increase. Or take the number of gastric and surgery is performed on the NHS, to which the patient has to lose weight prior to surgery which implies they did lose the weight without the surgery at all.

4.Over 44,000 more doctors.
According to National statistics, 44,000 doctors is an increase of less than 0.8%. Given that the population in the UK has increased by 1% since 1997, We do not have more doctors, and in fact we have less doctors respective to the increase of people in the UK.

5.Over 89,000 more nurses
However, in order to qualify as a nurse you now require a degree. Those degrees are funded by the NHS. Therefore what we have an awful lot of nurses in training, that training is funded entirely by money that should be going towards healthcare and the training could be covered by apprenticeships.

6.Over three quarters of GP practices now offer extended opening hours for at least one evening or weekend session a week.
Well at least this means that with all of the sensationalism in the Daily Mail, all of the “epidemics” that we may be suffering from, which in fact turn out to be minor ailments that wasted our Gp's time, People can actively wasted Gp's time outside their working hours.

7.All prescriptions are now free for people being treated for cancer or the effects of cancer, and teenage girls are offered a vaccination against cervical cancer.
However, the vaccination against cervical cancer only resolve cervical cancer in 60 to 70% of cases, so it is in fact a vaccination for HPV and not in fact a vaccination against cervical cancer. This in turn has led to a decrease use a condoms and is likely to see a rise in other sexually transmitted infections in the next generation.

8.The NHS can now guarantee that you will see a cancer specialist within two weeks if your GP suspects you may have cancer. Whatever your condition, you will not have to wait more than 18 weeks from GP referral to the start of hospital treatment – and most waits are much shorter than this.


9.Over a 100 new hospital building schemes completed.
100 new hospitals is not enough given a 1% increase in population in the last 13 years. Certainly in my own area we have seen departments across the County close, from A&E to cancer treatment and a least three proposed hospital plans being cancelled. That's one county. That means that we could work it out as 144 proposed hospital plans being cancelled and only 100 being built. Incidentally, how many of these hospitals where NHS?

10.12 million pensioners benefiting from increased Winter Fuel Payments.
While 12 million pensioners may benefit from increased winter fuel payments, An average of 32,000 pensioners die from the cold a year. In addition to this 40% of pensioners live below the poverty line. This government has concluded that there was no need to raise the basic state pension in spite of this information.

11.900,000 pensioners lifted out of poverty.
See above. In spite of this, 40% of pensioners still live below the poverty line.

12.500,000 children lifted out of relative poverty and measures already being put in place will lift around a further 500,000 children out of poverty.
I'm sorry? They have only managed to lift 500,000 children of relative poverty in 13 years? One third of children were living in relative poverty in 1997. There has been an average of 3.4 million children in the UK every year since Labour came to power. 500,000 children doesn't look that great now does it?

13.Free TV licences for over-75s.
And yet those who are blind, disabled, or live in care homes below the age of 75, still have to contribute 50% towards Jonathan Ross's outlandish salary

14.The New Deal has helped over 2.2 million people into work.
And yet employment has fallen to 72.2%. So while the New Deal has helped 33% of people get in to work, and there is still 38% out of work.

15.Over 4.8 million Child Trust Funds have been started.
While 40% of pensioners live in poverty, just under 3 million children live in poverty and there are no jobs, Labour is giving children £250 each. Where is the justification in that?

16.3,500 Sure Start Children’s Centres opened, reaching 2 million children and their families.
From this you can estimate the Sure Start is only reaching half of children in the UK.

17.Over 42,000 more teachers and 212,000 more support staff, including 123,000 more teaching assistants, than in 1997.
This is mainly because there are 50% of people under 30 with a degree and there are no jobs for them other than teaching. In spite of this, more children are leaving school illiterate and innumerate

18.There have been around 3,700 rebuilt and significantly refurbished schools; including new and improved classrooms, laboratories and kitchens.
There are around 21,000 schools in the UK, this implies that 16,300 require refurbishment. Or 83%.

19.A free nursery place for every 3 and 4 year old - extended to 15 hours per week this year and we are beginning to provide 10 hours a week to the most deprived 2 year olds.
15 hours a week of nursery care is simply horrific in this unequal society where parents may want to work but cannot because of the resources that are not available to them.

20.Doubled the number of registered childcare places to more than 1.3 million, one for every four children under eight years old.
And double the amount of bureaucracy by introducing “registered childcare” which have to be monitored by local councils and education partnerships.

21.More young people attending university than ever before.
And significantly, there are no jobs for them to go to. There is a number of “futile” degrees which do not aid people, and there is a lack of industry in the UK for these people to go into when they do graduate.

22.More than doubled the number of apprenticeships starts, with figures for 2008/9 showing 240,000 started an apprenticeship this year compared to 75,000 in 1997.
And in spite of this there is over 9% Not in Education, Employment, or Training (NEETs). When you add into the mix that out of 16 to 17-year-olds, 29% are not employed, this figure looks very weak.

23.In 1997 more than half of all schools saw less that 30 per cent of their pupils fail to get 5 good GCSEs including English and Maths. Now only 247 schools – less than one in twelve - fail this benchmark and we are guaranteeing that no school should fail this mark after 2011.
And in spite of this target, 90% of GCSE students in public schools achieve 11 or more A grade GCSEs. Therefore in direct comparison, the government run education systems in the UK are dire in comparison to those that are paid for and it is indicative of a high social divide.

24.We have increased school funding to support the delivery of higher standards. Between 1997-98 and 2009-10, total funding per pupil has more than doubled from £3,030 in 1997-98 to £6,350 in 2009-10 in real terms, an increase of 110 per cent.
Again this is due to the severe increase in bureaucracy. While the Every Child Matters policy has good intentions, it is also created a smorgasbord of agencies that work with schoolchildren, from Education Support Workers, Home Visitors and Learning Support Assistants.

25.The Northern Ireland peace process.
The failure to reach a decision on devolution has dominated the news that the last three months. The necessity for the Prime Minister to leave the country to attend Stormont peace talks this year is not what I would consider a success.

26.The car scrappage scheme, where owners scrapping an old car receive £2,000 off the price of a new car, has assisted with over 380,000 orders being placed, keeping the automotive industry and its supply chain on its feet
And targeted people who had a nearly new car did not help get the rust buckets of street nor did it help people without cars purchased one.

27.The UK is now smokefree, with no smoking in most enclosed public places.
That would be another European Union enforcement then wouldn't it. Give yourself a pat on the back for that one Labour.

28.The UK’s greenhouse gas emissions are now 21 per cent below 1990 levels, beating our Kyoto target.
The National Average of carbon emissions is 6000-9000 kg. Tony Blair, the Labour Prime minister 10 years, emits an average of 700 times this amount.

29.Over £20 billion invested in bringing social housing to decent standards.
But there is still not enough social housing. With one in 12 people on a list from an average of two years, perhaps more money needs to be invested still.

30.Rough sleeping has dropped by two thirds and homelessness is at its lowest level since the early 1980s.
And the definition of Homelessness has been redefined in order to meet government targets.

31.Free off-peak travel on buses anywhere in England for over-60s and disabled people.
its leaves are aExcept, in order to qualify as a disabled person travelling on public transport, you need to have the highest level of mobility under the DLA which means you have to have a carer travel with you. That carer is entitled to NO discounts.

32.Since 1997 overall crime is down 36 per cent; domestic burglary is down 54 per cent; vehicle related crime is down 57 per cent; and violent crime is down 41 per cent.
Now this, I will let you have as a triumph. In despite of tabloid newspapers proclaiming that crime is on the increase, There has been a significant drop in crime. And this is in spite of the Labour Government creating an additional 3000 offences in 13 years.

33.A new flexible Australian-style points-based system for immigration to ensure only those economic migrants who have the skills our economy needs can come to work in the UK.
The key word here is “flexible”.

34.Police numbers up by almost 17,000 since 1997, alongside more than 16,000 Police Community Support Officers.
There are 145,000 police officers in the UK. An increase of 17,000 Is an increase of merely 11%. And yet fear of crime is at an all-time high. Despite spending 20% of Police budget on public affairs.


35.Every community now has its own dedicated neighbourhood police team, easily contactable by the people who live in that community and working with them to agree local priorities and deal with people’s concerns.
Define community. In Ashford in Kent we have a population of 58,936. Our Neighbourhood Police Community Safety Unit is staffed by 5 officers and 9 PCSOs. Four-team police staff does not seem like a lot of people to deal with nearly 59,000 people.


36.Equalised the age of consent and repealed Section 28.
Yet failing to tackle homophobia within faith institutions.

37.Through the introduction of civil partnerships, Labour has for the first time given legal recognition to same-sex partners. Gay couples now have the same inheritance, pension and next-of-kin rights as married couples.
But not the same rights as married couples, identifying a severe inequality.

38.Tripled Britain’s overseas aid budget. UK aid helps lift an estimated 3 million people out of poverty every year.
While this International aid budget has been increased, 40% of pensioners live below the poverty line. In addition to this Brown “claws back taxes” In other departments. Therefore the budget has not been increased but simply offset.

39.Cancelled up to 100 per cent of debt for the world’s poorest countries.
But not with the 40% of pensioners living below the poverty line.

40.Britain now has more offshore wind capacity than any country in the world. Wind last year provided enough electricity to power 2 million homes.
Only 66 million homes to go then.

41.Embarked on the biggest program of council house building for twenty years.
Which isn't really saying much is it?

42.Launched the Swimming Challenge Fund to support free swimming for over 60s and under 16s.
Which is good, given that one third of under 16s live in poverty and so do 40% of pensioners, the least they can go swimming

43.Banned fox hunting.
Because that's an effective and well crafted piece of legislation isn't it?

44.Led the campaign to win the 2012 Olympics for London. Today the programme remains on time and on budget with over 40 per cent of the construction programme completed and all major venues under construction.
Including a budget allocated to ludicrous building designs that will have no impact on Britain's Sporting Achievement whatsoever. Meanwhile, did I mention that 40% of pensioners living below the poverty line? Or how about the 2.2 million people unemployed?

45.Free admission to our national museums and galleries.
Yet across the country, museums are closing Becausethe councils can no longer afford to budget to keep them open for free.

46.Devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, an elected Mayor and Assembly for London and directly-elected mayors for those cities that want them.
How exactly would a city go about getting a directly elected mayor? They would need to have a party or the council that supported directly elected mayor in which case the mayor would be representative of the party running the council. There does appear to be far more important things at the Labour Government could have tackled.

47.Created a new right of pedestrian access to the English coast, so that every family has the opportunity to enjoy the length and breadth of our coastline.
Which will allow every family the opportunity to enjoy the breadth of the litter on British beaches.

48.In Europe we signed the Social Chapter and introduced measures including: four weeks’ paid holiday; a right to parental leave; extended maternity leave; a new right to request flexible working; and the same protection for part-time workers as full-time workers.
We may also have signed the Social Charter. Another triumph of the European union I think, not for Labour.

49.Led efforts to agree a new international convention banning all cluster munitions and made Britain one of the first countries to ratify a convention to ban anti-personnel landmines
While this is superb, we cannot afford the right equipment for our soldiers on the battlefield.

50.Introduced the first ever British Armed Forces and Veterans Day to honour the achievements of our Armed Forces – both past and present.
This is presumably to stop the disaster last year when Britain failed to organise attendance of the veterans day.

Illogic Social Proposals from the Labservative Party

The Tories call it "co-operatives".

Labour call it "mutualisation".

Is anyone else reeling from over- jarganisation?

Both proposals, one of those wonderful examples ofLabservativism, seemed to work on the principle that they will woo voters by giving them the opportunity to own public services.

Now, theoretically people have the right to "own" companies floated on the stock market. they just buy the shares.

However, the practicalities of the situation of far from being the simple.

Companies are run by the people and the most shares, generally very large, very rich, very middle-class corporations who sit as directors on a vast array of boards and do little for the benefit of the company except, for example, sell Cadburys to Kraft
when it benefits them.

The majority of shareholders would have had very very little input on what actually happened to Cadburys, and we can infer from this that the Labservative proposals would end up exactly the same way.

Another great analogy is that of the "Academy". If a group of people wish to run the school, then they must submit their plans to the local council and have assessed. Rather like tendering for the contract, the people that run is on the least money and cause the least disruption are likely to be awarded the contract.

And rather like my great bugbear, out-contracted services will continue to grow and public services will stop being about people, stopped being accountable and transparent and be run by upper-middle-class corporations that scrimp on expenses and quality of services.

Whatever happened to public services being run by public services for the public?"

Big Society Rip Off

Cameron's latest announcement of Conservative Policy can also come under the heading of “Faeces by any other name”

The plans for a “Big Society” reads like a sycophantic Blairite view pre-1997.

In the last 13 years we have seen far too many “not-for-profit companies” that are in fact securely funded, and therefore managed, by government grants, masquerade under the name of charity and with extortionate fees of “project managers” and consultancy. All this plan seems to illustrate to me is a brilliant example of this happening again.

Perhaps we can also compare a rather tragic implementation of the “plastic policemen”, also known as Police Community Support officers. Subsidised by Community Wardens and supported by teams of of civil servants

As I have reiterated in previous blog posts, the Conservatives seem to assert that we have a big government and that the government ought to withdraw completely from control of the state.

However, it is in fact the big government that has no influence at all over local government that is creating problems.

In my own community, Councils plan to build thousands and thousands of houses, but they are not obliged to build alongside those houses, any local jobs, any resources such as schools or shops nor are they required to support the infrastructure of medical care that is so necessary to rapidly expanding community.

The Neighbourhood Army

The “Neighbourhood Army appears to be another ploy in getting people off the job market by getting them doing something that local councils will be doing already. By calling them “professional” community organisers, the Conservatives can therefore justify all of these people getting meaningless degrees.

Also note that the policy states that these Community Organisers will not actually be leading the communities, merely “help people start their own neighbourhood groups”. As anyone who has worked within a unitary authority knows, Community Forums are a cheap excuse for councillors not doing their jobs, not to mention a council not doing their jobs.

Following it up with reference to the United States is a piece of horrendous spin which is the equivalent of prefixing a design with the word Nasa and expecting everyone to jump up and down like five-year-old boys.

The satirist in me compares it to J G. Ballard “Kingdom Come” where society is managed by armies of “chavs” while councillors receive backhanders and stay out of issues such as ethnic cleansing of neighbourhoods. This metaphor is not least influenced by the words “army”.

A Big Society Bank

This appears to be a direct plagiarism of the Liberal Democrat policy on restoring Post Offices as a stable banking force within communities.

Neatly interwoven is the presumption that the Conservatives will have a banker's charge. Yet they only emerge with this idea in recent weeks, following the premise of global support for this motion. Unlike the Liberal Democrats, who have been pushing for a tax levy on banks to repay the money that they have been loaned since a banking crisis occurred.

One even wonders if this “bank” will be the function of the bank given that the Tory blog indicates it is in fact to provide something we currently know as grants, where charities and community groups can apply for funding.

It can be inferred from this, that they intend to move all local councils to a style of unitary authority where all public services are out-contracted to such bodies. Therefore the actual core function of this bank may in fact be where all of our council tax goes.

Neighbourhood Grants

So this is a direct copy of the current Labour policy of pouring money into areas of regeneration then?

The Civic Service

Notice there is absolutely no details of this. What exactly comprises of “community service”? If it is a fundamental core that has to be interwoven to appraisals, then it is simply a tick box target.

“Can you, Mr Joe Bloggs, demonstrate that in your work as the civil service manager of the managers of customer services who manage the outbound communications with society demonstrate your commitment to community service?

Oh wait, Sorry, you actually have nothing to do with the community.”


Big Society Day

So this would be another national bank holiday, as we have been ordered to acquire by the European Union because we have the lowest number of bank holidays of any country within Europe. Because that will be popular with employers..


Social Entrepreneurs

Calling a business in “social enterprise” does not stop it being a business. Providing new funding sources sounds just like the current Labour government initiative for Business Link.

Nothing Really New Then?

Well done Cameron. You have succinctly managed to rip off Blair, Brown and Liberal Democrat policies as well as making it look like The European Union's insistence is in fact comprised of your own ideas.

The only really new idea here is the “Civic Service” which in fact consists of more bureaucracy than currently in position.

A Superb Show That We will Reap Little Benefit from

In spite of what was considered on Twitter, The Guardian and Channel 4 opinion polls as a resounding success for Vince Cable, the BBC has seized control of the agenda once again by almost completely ignoring the Liberal Democrats.

I am watching Newsnight at the moment, and the generally stated that there are only a few occasions during the Ask The Chancellors Debate that the audience came to life, and showed the only clip where the audience came to life over something that Alistair Darling said as opposed to the other four times the audience burst into rounds of applause when Vince Cable spoke.

They are now showing clips of the bickering between Darling and Osborne.

Finally 10 minutes in, the BBC stated that Cable gained the most audience popularity.

An Analysis of the Transcribe

Cable's opening statement was a clear win for the Liberal Democrats, as he correctly identified the Liberal Democrats warned about the financial collapse and introduced the larger audience to the Liberal Democrats plan to increase the basic tax rate to £10,000.

The first question made me think that Cilla Black was about to emerge from behind a screen and start shrilly proclaiming to the audience what a wonderful evening tonight would be.

"What personal qualities do you have that would make you a better chancellor than your counterparts?"

Again Cable came out as the dominating force, identifying that he'd predicted the economic crash and illustrating how his policies have been embraced by the government to try and improve things.

In sharp comparison, Osborne could not provide any practical examples. From a Human Resources point of view, he immediately had lost points on the "interview". As one canny tweeter observed, "His only experience is managing his family Trust Fund".

Question two is a straightforward "what needs to be cut".

As per the dominating headlines, Darling talks about cutting the debt while Osborne informs us that he's told us what they going to come (even though they haven't). Again, in sharp comparison, Vince Cable is able to identify £50 million worth cuts including Triton and ID cards.

The show begins to get going here, with a little of the bickering going on between Darling and Osborne, then Cable interjects with a cutting remark that the Tory cuts announced today are entirely fictional.

Questioned three is with regards to the NHS, which many activists will know is the number one topic when campaigning.

Osborne immediately launches into a political farce of not answering the question, instead buffering himself with "David Cameron's pledge" to protect the NHS.

Darling then seems to follow Osborne's cue, failing to answer the question and stating that the Labour Party have also pledged to protect NHS funding.

Cable then makes them both appear to be completely amateur, stating "it would be "totally irresponsible" for any of them to give cast-iron guarantees about the NHS".

Public sector pensions, a bit of a "Daily Fail" topic, forms the fourth question.

The Tory proposal of a £50,000 a year pension the senior public sector employees is hilarious when you consider the pension and "golden handshake" payoffs given to members of parliament not to mention peerages!

Darling commits an equivalent faux pas by, as Osborne points out, discussing the future as though his party had not held office for 13 years.

As the two major parties descend into secondary school bickering, Cable makes sensible remarks, commenting on the need to reform, the scandalous current situation and the need for cross-party consensus.

Discussing projected rises on income tax and national insurance, the petty bickering continues while Cable states the Lib Dems would cut income tax for many people.

Question six seemed so cleverly interwoven, that one cannot imagine that these questions were selected at random, and targets the the risks of people leaving the country if taxes change.

While the Tory and Labour parties quote their usual rhetoric, Cable received a round of applause for stating;

"Britain is being "held to ransom" by bankers threatenign to flee to Switzerland. In the 1970s Britain was held to ransom by Arthur Scargill. Now we have got these "pin-striped Scargills"."

Leading smoothly into question seven about bankers' bonuses, Cable states that the Liberal Democrats had always supported a bank tax, where is the two other parties had originally ruled this out. Why?

The final question, about students being unable to find jobs and buy houses turned into a fairly heated debate between Osborne and Darling and there is no opportunity for Cable to identify so many of the key policies that the Liberal Democrats hold in this field.

The Tragic Overreaching Conclusions

I know that I'm going to be slightly biased towards Vince Cable, I openly admit to being a liberal. But I cannot comprehend how anyone could watch the same programme that I watched and see anything good in what George Osborne presented, and although Alistair Darling projected a fairly comprehensive argument, it seemed very evident that Vince Cable was the overall winner.

And yet as I type this (or, yes, dictate this, if you want to be picky), there is a furore on Twitter about Michael Crick MP fervently insisting that George Osborne was a clear-cut winner within the Ask The Chancellors Debate.

And all of a sudden all of those united liberal dreams of the Party Leader Debates to come in May doing the Liberal Democrat party fantastic good, come crashing down around my ears.

The ultimate cause of all this appears to be the media. With the BBC Radio 4 Today Program establishing an agenda from which the majority of political software tools draw from on a daily basis and Newsnight deliberating whatever it chooses to hear, the battle to get the Liberal Democrat voice heard in the public domain seems a futile.

But on a positive note, we can continue to do what we do best. Which is making the most of volunteers and loyal supporters, continuously spreading the word on the anyways we can find, from leaflet drops to tweeting and blogging, and hope that one day message gets through.

Paliamentary Priveledge is Incomprehensible and Reduced to Satire.

It may be because I spend too much time reading satirical takes on the news, but this BBC article on the Parliamentary Priveledge Affair reads just like something by the Daily Mash.

A few choice quotes include:

Mr Johnson told the BBC people wanted to see MPs treated like everyone else.

Implicitely interwoven in this is the presumption MPs are not, of course, like everyone else.

"They are entitled to a fair trial and the public... would be aghast if they thought there was some special get out of jail card for Parliamentarians."

When, of course, there is.

"The Bill of Rights was intended to secure freedom of speech, the freedom of speech of members of parliament to speak freely rather than be at threat from an over-powerful monarch at the time."

Perhaps this reporter has a sense of humour?

There is, of course, an additional irony in Cameron lambasting Brown over the row

He is quick to jump on the bandwagon of public outrage over expenses when it suits him, yet he woulld not consider the grave issues within his own party on non domiciles or donations.

One has to wonder if he would be on the band wagon so quick if it had been a majority of his own MPs that were charged with fraud.

Aggressive and robust enquiries continue into Lord Ashcroft's donations and yet we are still without a complete answer.

The Russians have an idiom for corruption;

"The fish rots from the head down"

This is a wonderful way to describe it, and sadly, it does not only apply to the Conservative Party but to a vast amount of business and public holdings accross the country. But that's another story.

Covert Politics to Reform Voting System

Slipped in the back door is the only way to describe the Election Reform Referendum.

The proposed "AV" scheme will create a convoluted process of prioritising candidates that is likely to confuse voters and create more difficulties for those working as Tellers and reporters on election day.

Not to mention it is not anywhere near as comprehensive as proportional representation system.

Naturally, the Tories are opposed to the scheme, alleging the "first past the post" system, saying it results in stable governments.

The only thing stable about the current system is the monopoly it provides the two major parties.

Why, in a country dominated by fair trading regulations, is it legitimate for the Conservative and Labour Parties to effectively eliminate competition by effectively handing each other a carte blanc on control of the country at every election?

As the Liberal Democrat campaign group "Vote for A Change" observes, we are facing a democracy in crisis.

The word "Democracy" has a certain ambiguity about it but the ultimate concept is participation of all residents with the opportunity for any resident to hold parliamentary office.

Where a FPTP system exists, the party with the most votes is the overall winner, rather than being a representative majority of the population.

However, a proportional representative system would drag the UK out of the archaic notion that a country can be ruled by singular authority and into the more sensible and fairer system of governments formed of representatives of the people who have to agree.

Personally, I am in favour of a system like the Netherlands. Where voting is cast on proportional representation, the public are invited to vote the cabinet according to role and party.

Therefore, if you are a fan of the Tory policy on Marriage, you can vote for the cabinet minister for Families to be Tory, while you may prefer Liberal Democrat policy on Policing and so you vote Lib Dem for the Justice Secretary. This creates a cabinet of ministers with an element of expertise in their subject and objectives linked to their party's policy. As a result, the cabinet consists of all political parties and they have to work together for the greater good.

The British Public have been gagged by the bafflement of politics for too long and need to challenge how their government is ruled and maintained, not sit back and moan quietly about what they "reckon" on the capricious politics of the day.

But a furtive referendum inserted by Brown at the last minute will not ease the growing discontent in this country about who their representatives are and what they control.