Time to Put a Stop to the Tories' Political Omnipotence

While Clegg dickers over NHS reforms, proposing to challenge the competition body, it appears the Tories are busy railroading other non-coalition agreement issues through.

We have the NHS and an attempt by Clegg to challenge the developments, but many feel his proposals will fall on deaf ears and that they are not addressing the entirity of the comments made at the Lib Dem conference earlier this year.

Now the Tories are on a replacement for Trident being approved immediately.

The Lib Dems are in a weak position in the Tory's eyes, and they seem intent on bullying the party, taking backbenchers comments as priorities over their coalition partners.

The threat, of course, is that if the Lib Dems were to stop these sideways attacks, the Conservatives could call an election, on the basis that the party performed so badly in local government elections this month that they would have a clear majority.

However, legislation on Fixed Term Parliaments will, in theory, prevent this.

Perhaps the Lib Dems should stand up to this blindsiding, and defend what they believe in. The self respect they would gain would be greatly beneficial and would challenge the Tories' infallibility claims. This would support them in the event the Conservatives did call an election.

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.

The Conservatives are Beginning to Unveil Their True Agenda

Chris Blackhurst argues in the Evening Standard that those pesky Lib Dems are attempting to divide and disrupt parliamentary proceedings and slow down addressing the financial deficit.

I would imagine he considers the cuts, the redundancies, the reductions in services and the hikes in fares not swift enough. Clearly not a Labour columnist then.

His concern is chiefly with political infighting distracting from the work that apparently 'needs' to be done.

He is, of course, making a subjective point based on a Conservative ideology. What he fails to appreciate is that it is not a Conservative Administration and the apparent pec-flexing of the Liberal Democrats is not , as he dictates, peers and MPs being pains in the arses but in fact their right as (a) politicians and (b) politicians in a coalition.

With a clear interest in economy, Blackhurst denounces Cable as 'too much of a social thinker to...champion commerce'. I would suggest that is exactly what we need in politics, people with a social and strategic nature inclined to see the bigger picture, not blinkered bankers out to make a profit and sod the people.

And above all it is strong Tories like this that make me so very glad the Lib Dems are involved to sand the corners off their worst and misanthropic policies in the name of preserving the pound.

During the Tory Autumn Conference, members interviewed said they didn't feel the cuts were severe or quick enough. And this is exactly the argument Blackhurst is making. With added Lib Dem squeeze like a cherry on top.

I fear we will see more and more of these style of articles as the Tories prepare to go for a majority government. They may as well stoke the fire.

I just hope there are enough sensible people out there to realise just how much worse a Tory majority would be than our coalition.

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.

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.

Carnage at the Polls

There was clearly a misunderstanding in the sheer weight of public loathing towards the Lib Dems in the UK.

The Lib Dems believed, some would say correctly, that their huge investment in community engagement, the time and energy they volunteer in making their wards and boroughs a better place, would mean the public could see beyond the politics and see the real people.

Grassroots has saved the Lib Dems in the past, and devoted local campaigners had no real insight that this election would be any different.

Some would say the loss of Sheffield City Council and other Northern Territories was inevitable given the MPs unpopularity, but to those who held minority oppositions, who were lib dems but much more; community wardens, forum chairs, trustees and other hardworking volunteers, did not expect a lateral effect from National opinion.

Price of Government

Perhaps this has not happened to the Lib Dems on such a grand scale because they have never held this sort of position in government.

All of a sudden, their local-level popularity is focused on more than just how many recycling boxes they can sort out and how many people they know by name. The "politics" of the situation has caught up with them and it has not been kind.

Government's Price

The question remaining, as Conservatives steam ahead in the polls and Lib Dems fall into third, fourth and fifth place, is what effect will the devastation on the grass roots have?

Some are calling for Clegg's blood, but this is unlikely, despite posturing by other MPs. The Lib Dems appear to be bound to the coalition with no chance of escape.

Will the network of community focused lib dems crawl away then? Will they, as Milliband prompts, give up on the phoenix and sign up to the rose? Or perhaps the centre-right will chose the scribble on a stick.

Or, as is more likely, the shattered parties will regroup after a defragment, and plan more effectively for the next one.

Shattered Ideologies

The analogy I used as the Lib Dems went from opposition to fourth place in our Council was to sculpt Mount Rushmore using only a toothpick. Sometimes it doesnt matter how much you enjoy something, if you are getting no-where, it is tempting to give up.

And indeed, some may.

But realistically, the Liberal Democrats are stronger than that. They have gone from being the ashes to being the phoenix, and like the phoenix, they can rise again.

If there is one redeeming feature in local grass roots - it is the dedication and loyalty to their values that prevails. The Lib Dems are not Labour, they are not Conservative and they are not Green. They are built on a structure of premises on Liberalism and Democracy, and, most keenly, they are tenacious. Or they would jump ship with ease.

Perseverance, tenacity and a dedication to core values will maintain the majority of the party in spite of casualties.

Greek Myths

I far prefer the image of the phoenix rising again, but it should be noted there is an alternative Greek Myth Analogy.

Prometheus stole fire from the Gods. In this comparison, the Lib Dems attempted to share power with the Tories. They lapped with the Gods and they have been punished like Gods. They may be bound to an eternal hell, with not a phoenix but an eagle pecking their liver on a daily basis, as punishment for their audacity.

Or perhaps, an even better, less bird-focused observation would be that of Sparta. Perhaps the Lib dems, with their dedication to value and grass roots, are like Spartacus rising up to challenge the rich and the noble over their oppression. And perhaps you have to lose a few battles before you win the war.

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

What are We Missing While the Coalition Allegedly Argues?

Media diversion tactics a-hoy.

The Liberal Democrats complain vigourously about misrepresentation of their coalition part in the press. Scathing attacks across all papers are damaging electoral prospects nationwide,while the Conservatives are portrayed as paragons of virtue by the right wing press.

RUmours started at the beginning of the month with Downing Street apparently being "discontent" with Lib Dem Press Strategies.

Then (good ol') Vince launched a vitriolic attack on Cameron's extremist inciting speech.

So called "cabinet tensions" play into delighted media who talk of coalition splits, bust-ups and dilemmmas.

Strategies

All in all, it's a very clever strategy for both parties.

They can be seen to disagree without offending their core votes too much.

This has never been clearer than today's rise to internships (see my post on this.

Clegg proclaims traditional Lib Dem Views of social liberalism, supporting social mobility, challenging social divide and still promoting the aspirational status of the middle classes. Ticks most left wing voters', free market or not, boxes.

Cameron announces his attitude is "relaxed" towards internships, maintaining conservative values of maintaining traditional values of networking, retaining class separation and hierachial institution. Ticking those bozes of entropic tradionalism and right wing establishmentarianism.

The fundemental differences between the parties is demonstrated, no one gets offended and no one gets (too) attacked.

Much better than when Andy Coulson was in charge.

Diversion Tactics

So while Parliament is in recess, we are presented with an image of a coalition in turmoil, each party straining to maintain their individuality to their voters in time for the local elections, and, indeed, for the electoral reform referendum.

But what are we missing?

Well, while parliament is in recess, we are sidelined into a debate about the strength and potential longevity of the coalition.

This neatly diverts us from anything Milliband (reserved to paragraphs 5 and 6 in most news articles now anyway) may have to say. Reducing any effect Labour may hope to have on parliamentary process, and, indeed, on the council elections.

It also, quietly, distracts us from the ongoing NHS saga.

The discourse over the future of the NHS has escalated to such a point the government has been forced to "take a pause". However, such a pause can be ignored, and legislation slowly progressed, when the press is occupied with far more pressing, and news worthy stories such as Kate Middleton's knickers and the coalition chances over the next four years.

Such insidious behaviour could have come from a Yes Minister sketch, where by bad news is hidden behind bigger headlines.

As the joke goes, the best day to announce a tax increase is on the anniversary of Princess Diana's death.

Convinient distraction is one thing, but diversion tactics that remove a democratic process in one of the country's institutions is quite another.

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.

Grassroots Campaigning at it's Best #wherewepointwewin

If there is one thing Lib Dems know how to do well, it's grass roots campaigning.

Recent chats on Twitter identified a habit of photographic evidence of pointing and frowning at various ubiquitous images of public discontent, from graffitti to potholes.

So we jumped into the fun, and appropriated a domain name to collate a range of these photographs, embracing the hegemonic grassroots photograph as a symbol of Lib Dems winning here.

Up and down the UK, LibDem’s are busy hunting down the things that irritate their residents the most. Whether they are councillors, candidates or campaigners, they seek out the greatest irritants and submit them for the ultimate humuliation and first step in their permanent eradication.

They point at them (and frown) and publish their photographs.

Are you a LibDem who points? Have you found the ultimate evil miscreant pothole, tree root, pile of snow, patch of graffiti or pile of litter? If so, we want to know about it and help you in your battle to name and shame it.

Come along and join us!

Some Thoughts on Cameron's Spring Conference Speech and the Coalition

I'm trying to understand David Cameron's speech. I'm sorry but I'm failing completely.

I cannot get the mindset that sale of arms is in any way justified no matter how much of an "entrepreneur" you are.

Lateral Application of Ideas

I think that the Conservatives are very good at cost-benefit analysis, but completely useless are applying this to any of the system outside of economic. One has to measure up the social responsibility and the social economics of selling arms.

As recently demonstrated in Libya, sale of arms without any thought to the consequences of doing so in a country that is dominated by a dictator is likely to come back to bite you.

The familiar joke during the great Iraq war was that Blair knew that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction because he'd sold them to him.

There is something very unsavoury about a political party that seems to function purely on economic is and with very little reflection on society, community or lateral applications as a whole.

I do hope of the coalition that the Liberal Democrats provide some elements of social responsibility to the financial cut and thrust of the Conservative party. One could argue that the insistence of a pupil premium within Michael Gove's great academy scheme demonstrates this.

One could also argue that the Liberal Democrat refusal to allow funding of more nuclear power stations utilising government and public funds is another strong example.

However, it seems that with arms sales and negotiations, the Liberal Democrats have influenced not a jot

Flawed Argument

Of course, there is great merit in enterprise, however, as the New statesman points out, David Cameron started his speech detailing the enemies of enterprise and declaring war on enterprise before actively promoting it in a "budget growth".

It is one thing to be narrowminded and blinkered when attempting to resolve the economic deficit without looking at the subsequent effects, but it is another thing entirely to be completely contradictory when you're running the country. Perhaps Cameron, in all his Thatcherite glory, misunderstood her quoting St Francis of Assisi and thought she stated "where there is harmony, let us bring discord"

The Mythical Beast

what amazes me is the presentation of ideas the provide great scope to social responsibility and socio-economic factors when applying policy. The Big Society and the Localism Bill could be understood to be empowering people, engaging the public in politics and providing a collective social responsibility for the development of society, community and culture within Britain.

However, it does seem that The Big Society is down to personal interpretation, and David Cameron must be completely sick of talking about it!

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.

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.

Pension Investment and Short-term Returns

With the baby boomers coming to retirement age in 2012 and people aged 50 and over set to increase to roughly 50% of UK population, Pensions are a key issue in politics today.

The National Federation of Pensioners hosted a fringe event at the Liberal Democrat Conference with Stephen Webb MP and Norman Lamb MP which gave me the perfect opportunity to question the Coalition policies.

The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition proposed radical reforms for the pension systems in the UK. this included restoring earning links with pensions and establishing an independent body to review the system.

In addition to this, the mandatory NEST Pension Scheme is set to be introduced in 2012 over a gradual period for all people to ensure that such a pension deficit does not rise again.

What is not clear, is whether the NEST Pension Scheme will also be run in the same form of "Ponzi" fraud has been seen in the last hundred years in the UK.

This form of investment scheme can only fail, where money is taken from one person to invest in simply given to the next as an alleged payout of that investment. We are currently in a position in the UK where, with such a significant amount of people set to retire, we do not have enough people of working age paying pensions to be able to supply the current pensions.

However, when questioned, Stephen Webb MP asserted that it would not be a Ponzi scheme, instead referring to how the NEST Scheme would prevent the deficit in the future. However, I don't feel that my question on the investment was fully answered.

I would suggest that there are no guarantees and unless I am confident that my own money is going to come directly back to me at the end of my working life, I would be loath to invest in such a scheme.

Short-term returns are not a viable investment, the current financial deficit should identify that if nothing else. I would prefer to see far more sustainable pension policy before I entered into any such NEST-egg.

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?!

Rather Engaged

Just a note to apologise for my lack of bloggery.

The election has kept me more than busy, and the ongoing debates between Lib Dems and other parties is something of a touchy subject.

However, on top of that, I'm doing something rather shocking and conventional, getting married. On Saturday 15th May 2010.

I do intend to blog on the length and brevity of the election, liberally littered with philosophising on what exciting times these are, just not today!

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.

Whole-hearted Support for Internet Motion

It's fairly big news when a motion at conference is supported almost unanimously.

When it is another ground breaking moment for Liberal Democrats, I am keen to promote it all the more.

As a fairly geeky campaigner (I know my CSS from my CMS and my IRC from my Twitter) I was keen to support the motion on the Digital Economy Bill.

For your reference, if you are aware of internet usage, piracy, copyright and other ongoing issues with our IPs, ID et al;

The Text of the Motion

Conference notes with concern amendment 120a to the Digital Economy Bill which facilitates website-blocking for alleged copyright infringement and which was passed on 3 March 2010.

Conference however welcomes the stand of Liberal Democrat MEPs against website-blocking and the secrecy of the international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations, condemned by the European Data Protection Supervisor for endangering internet users’ fundamental rights.

Conference believes that this amendment to the Digital Economy Bill

a)would alter UK copyright law in a way which would permit courts to order the blocking of websites following legal action by rights-holders

b)would be open to widespread anti-competitive and civil liberties abuses, as the experience with the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act illustrates

c)could have a chilling effect on the internet, freedom of expression, competition and innovation as Internet Service Providers take down and/or block websites to avoid facing the costs of legal action

d)may be illegal under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and other EU law

Conference condemns

a)website-blocking and disconnecting internet connections as a response to copyright infringement

b)the threat to the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals and businesses from the monitoring of their internet activity, the potential blocking of their websites and the potential termination of their internet connections, which could lead to the closure of internet hotspots and open wifi operated by small businesses, local councils, universities, libraries and others

c)the Digital Economy Bill for focusing on illegal filesharing rather than on nurturing creativity and innovative business models

Conference supports

a)the principle of net neutrality, through which all content, sites and platforms are treated equally by user access networks participating in the Internet

b)the rights of creators and performers to be rewarded for their work in a way that is fair, proportionate and appropriate to the medium

Conference therefore opposes excessive regulatory attempts to monitor, control and limit internet access or internet publication, whether at local, national, European or global level.

Conference calls on the Federal Policy Committee to commission a new policy working group to draw up a full policy paper on Information Technology and related aspects of intellectual property which should, in particular, consider:

1.Reform of copyright legislation to allow fair use and to release from copyright protection works which are no longer available legally or whose authors cannot be identified (orphan works).

2.The ‘common carrier’ concept, under which internet service providers would not be liable for material that they may carry unknowingly on their networks.

3.The creation of a level playing field between the traditional, copyright-based business model and alternative business models which may rely on personal copying and legal filesharing.