A Surfeit of Riches

Also available in Earl, Marquis and Duke

Blogging has been light for the last couple of weeks as real, though much less enjoyable work, as well as a surfeit of opportunities to consume alcohol in convivial surroundings have intervened. It's not come at the best of all possible times as wave after wave of opportunities to lay into a struggling government have come and gone.

The media has also had the occasional tale of the bizarre that I've had to pass on too. I thought nobody was going to comment on the man bites/is bitten bymarries dog story of the week, but fortunately Thunder Dragon picked it up in time to stop me making some tasteless reference to Blair (Mk. I).

Other than the Home Office's daily blunder, most of the serious debate has focused, naturally enough on the subjects of the Queen's speech debates. Overall it is a truly abysmal programme of legislation that is proposed, one that if it shows any vision whatsoever, it is a terrifying one. I guess for myself the most repellent items on the agenda will be the European Communities (Stuff the People) to ratify the EU reform treaty and the Terrorism (Unwitting Promotion of) Bills, but the Political Funding (Preferential Treatment for Labour) Bill runs both of these very close.

The unequal treatment proposed, that uniquely benefits one party and the likely further dipping into the taxpayer's purse is pretty a pretty vile blend of greed and corruption. One thing that has been rather interesting in the opening forays over this piece of forthcoming legislation is the relatively emollient tone of the Lib Dems over it, as they prefer to make facile attacks on Team Cameron. Might they fantasise that with one more lurch to the left, some of the less dogmatic unions might choose to buy a little influence with a third party that may hold sway in the far from unlikly scenario of a hung parliament?

I know the passage of this piece of legislation will frustrate me intensely, but that will be more over the principle of it. On a practical level, I hardly think that the attempts of a governing party to pass one of the most self-serving pieces of law in recent times will endear it to the public, and there have been a number of analyses that suggest that the impact on those not blessed by special treatment in any act should, while doubtlessly unwelcome, would not be as disastrous as the baying hoards on the government back benches may hope.

There is though, perhaps one additional precaution the Conservatives could consider taking. Members of the House of Lords, let's be honest, get the tarry end of the stick when it comes to pay and conditions, compared to the Commons trough diners. Surely, it is time for these downtrodden masses to unite.

It is time for the Union of Conservative Peers. If some if its members should opt in, following all of the correct laws, to paying into that union's properly constituted political fund, for disbursement to political parties whose aims they support, who are we to complain?

Mind the Gap

Next sucker for punishment

Having got used to a lifetime of nuanced meanings of statements by political parties it is easy to become somewhat of a cynic.

I don't have the instinctive distrust that many natural Conservatives have of the Lib Dems.

True they do have their beard and sandal brigade, but to be honest I'm not sure they exist in any greater number than Bufton-Tufton hanging and flogging Tories. They have some ridiculous policies on taxation but they will never get to implement them so they don't scare me. They have a naievety on matters European that beggars belief, other than in the European Parliament where naievety gives way disingenuity but that is hardly a problem unique to the Lib Dems. Their "we like to talk positivly not just slag off the opposition unlike the other two sets of pricks" line is clearly internally hypocritical, but on the scale of political hypocrisies it is small beer. Their ability to sell wholy incompatible story lines in different local situations is annoying, but I guess there has to be some kind of edge to being small to the point of irrelavancy.

The real role for Lib Dems

Electorally, of course, they must fought as the 'NuLab Lite' they are, but for all that I value those times they make an occasional return to classically liberal, small state values. I've no idea how they square this with much of their stated policy objectives, but they do sometimes act as the Jiminy Cricket of the political establishment, sitting on the shoulder of those of our elected representitives, reminding them that just because the state, on occasion, can do does not automatically mean that by implication the state should do.

It is the espousal of these values, consistantly and unambiguously in recent years, by the Conservatives of David Cameron that has made me start to dabble with the idea of rejoining the party. I reject utterly the whining of some Lib Dems that it is some sort of marriage of convenience. To a modern conservative these values are as natural as breathing.

I'll admit that on occasion the Lib Dems do fall on the side of the angels first, but anyone who has listened to the likes of David Davies on ID cards cannot in their hearts truly believe that their opposition to most of the autoritarian claptrap that has emerged from the Labour government in the last decade is anything other than sincere and heartfelt. In fact, sensible Lib Dems should really be considering whether, in the very likely situation that the next general election results in a hung Parliament, their instinctive anti-Tory bile may leave them having to defend the indefensible.

It is then, to reciprocate the general spirit of the Lib Dem's attitude to Conservative pronouncements in this arena, that I comment on Nick Cleggs comments to the Guardian yesterday:

The Liberal Democrats today condemned the policy of holding children's DNA profiles "often without parental consent", as government figures showed almost 150,000 under-16s were on the national database.

The Lib Dem shadow home affairs spokesman, Nick Clegg, described the policy as "disturbing".

"Thousands of these children will have been found guilty of no crime, yet samples of their DNA will remain on file for life.

"The disturbing and illiberal policy of adding a child's most personal information to a massive government computer system, simply on the grounds of an accusation, must stop immediately.

Source: The Guardian

I take it therefore that Lib Dem policy is that it is perfectly fine to harvest the DNA of innocent adults then?

So Close, Yet Miles Apart

Bertie...up to the challenge

It was hardly worth tuning in to listen to Brown's pathetic attempts to justify the unjustifiable in his statement today on the Lisbon summit. It was all so predictable, especially the endless gibberish on red lines. What Brown seems to have conveniently forgotten that the in the manifesto commitment to a referendum, it was assumed that exactly the same red lines would be in place in any EU Constitution text that was put to the people.

All it leaves the Prime Minister with, in defending the line that the document is fundamentally different, are the fact that the document has been rewritten to maximise incomprehensibility whilst preserving the intent of its predecessor, and that references to flags, anthems and mottos were dropped. The former speaks volumes on how much our politicians want us to understand their project, the latter I never gave that much of a toss about one way other, given that these symbols will continue de facto to be used in the same way they always have been.

One little self justificatory line he did try to use was that nobody else was having a referendum, apart from the Irish, who, he tried to imply, were only having one reluctantly as a matter of constitutional necessity. Leaving aside what everyone is told as a child about 'everyone else is(n't) doing it' excuse, his line on the Irish position was comprehensively being crushed even as he was speaking.

According to EU Observer:

As the only country so far to definitely have a referendum on the newly-formed EU treaty, Ireland has said other member states should not be "afraid" of taking the same path.

"I think it's a bit upsetting ... to see so many countries running away from giving their people an opportunity," Irish prime minister Bertie Ahern said on Sunday (21 October), according to the Irish Independent.

"If you believe in something ... why not let your people have a say in it. I think the Irish people should take the opportunity to show the rest of Europe that they believe in the cause, and perhaps others shouldn't be so much afraid of it," he added.

Source: EU Observer

I don't think there can be too much doubt about which particular member state, with a leader whose cowardice is now legendary, he is accusing of being "afraid".

It was truly appalling to see the usual supposed supporters of the EU lining up to demand that the people should not speak and thereby ensure that public hostility to the organisation can only grow. Most worthless of all in recent days have been the Lib Dem leadership contenders who have also shown the same yellow streak as their departed leader on the issue; a bad dose of MRSA on both your houses.

It looks likely that the status quo will be maintained. In the UK the EU will remain a distrusted plaything of the political classes while just over the Irish sea it will be a project the people are part of. I suspect that if I had grown up in Eire, and that if suitable provision was made in Irish law to ensure that the self-amending elements of the treaty did not make the vote next year the referendum to end all referenda, that I would probably be inclined to vote in favour of what is on the table.

Bertie Ahern has more than his fair share of scandal and sleaze clinging to him, but on this matter, in terms of integrity and principle he outclasses our vile troll. The sensible side of the pro-EU debate must realise that those that engage with their people positively and willingly are their real allies, while those like Brown are the worst of false friends.

Finding a Purpose

Time for a new challenge?

Yes, the title could apply equally to the Lib Dems in general, as well as their latest ex-leader, but I thought it was time to do the obligatory Ming piece (no rhyming slang intended).

In one sense I'm a bit disappointed to see the departure of Ming, and not from the standpoint of someone who is broadly a Conservative supporter and has liked the poll numbers, but as someone, who, as I have posted earlier, I felt brought a lot a certain dignity to party leadership, something Brown will never have, but perhaps Cameron can learn. That said, he really had to go, and while it hasn't been exactly pretty it could have been a lot worse. A media narrative had become unstoppable, while most people know other issue were in play, I will give a lot of credence to Ming's claim that these were a major issue in his decision.

Another figure I think is worthy of some defense is his deputy, Vince Cable. He seems to figure prominently in most people's lists of likely knife-wielders, but as one of the few MPs I've ever met personally, albeit briefly, it doesn't seem to fit. Sure, he made a rather damaging statement on the leadership, but I've got a feeling he would have been in the loop, rather than leading the pack.

On one side you could argue that he was a big loser from Ming's bizarre attack on people who's incomes, by his own constituents standards would be very modest, but while he may put his hat in the ring, most likely outcomes from the latest Lib Dem upheaval will be not positive for Cable. At heart, he's never seemed much of a politician, in the prejudicial sense of the word, and I think the role attributed to him in recent events seem most unlikely.

As for Ming, I can't imagine that beyond the natural bluster about staying at the heart of politics, that the Commons will hold much appeal to him for any great length of time. I can't help feeling there is a role for someone of his ilk, who seems to have a very genuine commitment to public service, beyond being an occasional voice in the upper house. Even as someone who is, too all extents and purposes, a Conservative, I would more than happy to see him step in to one of those roles in national life where neutrality is essential, and political controversy a certainty.

The historical example of chairman of the BBC governors isn't around, but something of that nature would seem ideal, just like Ashdown's role in the Balkans. He's a good man and deserves something meaningful, and although disagreeing with him on many things political I know there are roles I would be delighted to see him in, if and when they become available.

Best wishes Sir Menzies. Now for the Lib Dem donkey derby.

End of Season Review

All over, including the shouting...for now

I've been working at home quite a lot recently so I've had the dubious pleasure of being able to catch a lot of the conference season. It's not that that I'm that much of a political anorak, but when the other option was the "make me rich from crap in the attic with cooking stars in their own eyes" stuff that passes as 'quality' daytime broadcasting on the main channels, there really was no contest.

Probably the last time I caught anything other than news highlights of the conferences was when I was a student, so I have to be honest and say the style of all of the major party conferences was quite a surprise, albeit, in general a pleasant one, when my abiding memory was still one of cliff-face platforms with the seating positions of dour-faced front-benchers in their massed ranks at the cliff top being the main subject of debate amongst the commentators.

I'm not really going to be able to avoid a personal bias entirely, but for me these were the highlights and lowlights, the hero's and villains of the few weeks:

Best Moment (Liberal Democrat)
The succession of speakers from the floor, setting out principled arguments against the surveillance society and the ridiculous 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' arguments from those who would give away their entire liberty and they grandparents too for a little illusory safety.

Best Moment (Labour)
Dennis Skinner chuntering away to himself during Quentin Davies speech inviting other Conservatives to abandon their principles for a little personal gain and join him in the Supreme Leader's big tent of all the talentless. I must learn to lip read before next year.

A nicer one? There is something about Harriet Harman's delivery that I can't help liking even though much of what she says drives me up the wall.

Best Moment (Conservative)
This is a tough call for me with so many good front bench performances. For me Liam Fox just about edged his boss, Duncan-Smith, Hague and Letwin. I still think he would have been a pretty disastrous leader for the party, but the passion on a subject that he clearly cares so much shone through and I actually found myself warming to him for the first time.

Leaders Keynote Speeches

Cameron - 8/10
Very solid and impressive delivery. I'm not sure about winding up on the National Citizen Service, as I still can't quite envisage sixteen year olds buying into the concept. Perhaps I was hoping for a bit more of a barnstorming performance towards the end, but the personal note played pretty well.

Campbell - 7/10
As I explained in another post I still think Ming could have done better, but solid nonetheless.

Brown - 4*/10
Average and not especially inspiring even before it emerged that the good bits were the work of somebody else.

* Brown deducted two points for plagiarism

Slickest Presentation
I have to go for the Liberal Democrats for this one. The other parties made impressive efforts but they pulled off a couple of cock-ups to blot their copybook. Labour needed someone better qualified to operate a 'kill' switch for the microphone at times and the amount of procedural nonsense that seemed only to be able to be dealt with from the chair was excessive. The Conservatives had widely reported sound problems of the opposite variety to kick off proceedings and didn't always segue always that well between a series of start acts.

Best Non-Party Contribution
This is probably the least fair call of all as timing-wise I missed, I understand, the best efforts at the Lib Dems' and Labour conferences. I was though impressed (and ashamed not to be able to remember his name) by the bloke at the Conservative's conference who ran some kind of mentoring project in Liverpool. His delivery might have woken a few elderly delegates from their slumbers, but it was full of passion, personal commitment and common sense, and it says much for what Cameron has done that his Conservative party can engage with people like this.

Feel Good Moment
I might have enjoyed Liam Fox's speech more but the enthusiastic reception acclaim for Iain Duncan-Smith's performance represented a well deserved rehabilitation of a decent man in the eyes of a once harshly judgmental party. In some ways his contribution may actually have been of greater value at a party level as he was preaching to the not uniformly converted.

Best Blog Coverage
No individual awards here, but I'll go for some the main Labour Bloggers overall, though I will also admit that it may be because of some of those less comfortable with the party line.

The Lib Dem contributions were well written, but just a bit too loyal and predictable for my taste.

The Conservative bloggers, Guido apart, were entertaining, but perhaps a bit too much tittle-tattle focused at times. This isn't much of a criticism as I know I'd be exactly the same if I ever went to an event like that. Iain Dale did much better from the platform, with quite a moving speech on Rwanda, even if it will be better remembered for his introduction as a 'foremost political blagger'.

Winners and Losers
Probably for me it has to be Ming, as the consequences of a bad performance could have been very swift and very serious. I actually think David Cameron had a better speech and his party a better conference, but I was never convinced that the immediate threat to him was as bad as some of the press made it out to be, and the chance of a sub-par performance causing fallout was much lower.

Gordon Brown for all his opinion poll lead has to be the loser of the conference season looked at in microcosm, especially after he compounded his problems over his speech with a political stunt that seems to have left a bad taste in the mouths of friend and foe alike.

I'm sure Brown wants to beat Blair in every respect, but I think he would rather that the fact that this includes outdoing him in spin and dishonesty is something he would prefer was kept a little more quiet.

Too Merciless on Ming?

I didn't have much time to get online yesterday, but courtesy of the wonders of the Blackberry I did get a couple of e-mails questioning whether I had actually listened to Menzies Campbell's address to the Liberal Democrat conference.

Having a browse through some of the blogs I respect I did appear to be in a minority of one in my description of the performance as lacklustre, with commentators such as Shane Greer, at the time stand-in diarist for Iain Dale, lavishing praise on Ming's performance.

Well yes I did listen to the speech live, and concerned that I might have just been in a foul mood at the time I went and listened to it again, and I have to say I remain largely unmoved.

I suspect the difference in attitude comes down to expectation management. I've never been that convinced that Ming is such a terrible leader for the Lib Dems. It is true that some of his policy announcements of late have left me disappointed at best and pretty speechless at worst. This is hardly surprising coming from a very different political persuasion from the particular wing of Liberal Democrat that Ming represents, and is a wholly different issue from that of the fitness to lead.

I actually think Ming has shown a great deal of dignity in his leadership of the party, especially in view of the circumstance in which in inherited it. Some of the media labelling of him as being somehow older than his years is, in my opinion, just lazy journalism, reporting sheep like a consensus viewpoint that is just as insubstantial as the column inches of David Cameron's supposed lack of substance.

I expected nothing less from Ming's speech than a confidently delivered, often witty and, to the party faithful, inspiring effort. In my opinion that's what we got, but under the circumstances, both personal and for the party as a whole I was expecting something more, which for me simply was not there. Perhaps as is often the case for myself, when listening to Liberal Democrat leaders, the inability to link the generally admirable philosophy of liberalism to policies that always seem to militate towards an ever larger state consuming more of the countries resources.

Perhaps lacklustre was a little harsh, but I guess from my own standpoint there has always been something of a hole in the logic of the type of liberalism represented by the Liberal Democrats, and as such many of their great set piece speeches will always seem to be lacking something.

Moving on from one unfairly criticised from being to old, to one often unfairly criticised as being too young, it is great to see that the aforementioned Mr Greer has started his own blog. Always one of the more considered presenters on 18 Doughty Street, and seeming less focused on the minutiae of internal party politics than some, I'm sure it will be a great read. I might criticise some of his willingness sometimes to accept the argument of state necessity as justification for interference with personal freedoms, but overall I agree with much more of what he says than that which I take issue with.

Fighting the Real Enemy?

One Redeeming Feature

If I was to be completely objective about what I've taken away from this weeks activities at the Liberal Democrats party conference, I'd be either full of a mixture of derision and disgust, or alternatively, considering the instincts of the Lib Dem voters who I know, just disheartened at the way the party is steering a course away from these very reasonable and principled people.

Obviously, I was never going to lavish praise on this weeks proceedings. At Westminster elections I have always voted Conservative, or not voted at all. For some time though I have paid close attention to Lib Dem positions as they were coming close to something that I could bring myself to bring myself, albeit half-heartedly, to support.

Orange book economics were not ideal, but could hardly be called lunacy, were better than those offered to us by our current lords and masters, and with one more step would at least be competitive with current Conservative thinking. More recently younger and more progressive voices in the party seemed to be in the ascendancy on matters European too. I'm sure their blind faith in the EU remained undimmed, but at least the understanding of the need for some form of consent from the people seemed to be emerging.

Sadly Ming's one real act of dynamism in his tenure at the head have the party seems to have been a dramatic handbrake turn on these issues, asserting an old and tired form of so-called libralism over those who seem to understand the changes that his party need to make. These changes will almost certainly be temporary however I cannot see them as a positive force in British policies as long these attitudes hold sway.

For all that though, I still have a strong respect for many in the party and those who support it so I will finish on a high note, in contrast to how their own proceedings wound up.

The debate preceding Mings lacklustre address on the broader issues of individual liberties was wonderful. Speaker after speaker, young and old, MP and activist, rose in intelligent, if sometimes nervous, denunciation of the casual disrespect for individual freedoms demonstrated by the administrations of both Brown and Blair.

Their contributions were not simply a regurgitation of the very true, but somewhat overused arguments against prevailing stupidy over DNA profiles, ID cards and the whole apparatus of the surveilance society. Each had a new insight, often a very personal one, and in some way mined a new seam of rational argument against the mindless arguments for those in favour of limitless extensions of these technologies.

This is an area where I have always admired Lib Dem attitudes completely, utterly and without reservation, and much as I may shake my head in bewilderment at some of the rest of their agenda.

It was a shame that Ming chose to hark back to the ancient history that Michael Howard once briefly toyed with the idea of an ID card scheme to claim the moral high ground. On these issues, whether it is politicaly comfortable or not for the Lib Dems, I get a strong feeling, albeit from outside the party that these issues are becoming key articles of faith reflecting as they do an assertion that the rights of the individual must, where possible, prevail over those of the state.

To a generally Conservative voter of my age, these are values that I believe are part of the core credo of modern Conservatism just as much as they have been, much to Liberalism's credit, always been part of their's.

These are not issues to split hairs over. These are issues where active concerted opposition to the government of the day is needed.

In or Out?

Sorry No Offensive Images

In the shadow of Ming's suicidal tax policy of punishing the greedy rich, such as those with a combined household income of over £70,000, the remainder of the Lib Dem conference has been a relatively staid affair culminating in a very staid performance by Sir Menzies in his keynote address.

There was even one session that I am full of praise for, but I think that deserves a post of its own that shall follow anon. This therefore will be the final bit of Lib Dem bashing for their week in the spotlight.

It comes courtesy of their Scottish Liberal Democrats leader, Nicol Stephen from the BBC yesterday:

Scotland should be given a greater role in hosting events for the London 2012 Olympics, the Lib Dems have claimed.

…

[Mr Stephen said] "Also, Scotland needs to get wider benefits from the Olympics than are currently planned.

"Great opportunities in terms of tourism, business and sport, but at present they are simply not being delivered."

Source: BBC News

The report goes on to highlight that the only direct involvement that Scotland will have in the hosting of the games is the playing of a few games of the Soccer tournament at Hampden Park.

I've commented on Scottish issues several times on this blog and I don't think anyone could accuse me of having an anti-Scottish bias, I couldn't if I wanted anyway, as my Scottish mother still has a good right hook for her age.

I'm actually on balance a supporter of the 2012 games being in London too.

Yes, the costs are huge and I'm sure the ability of the current Government to break records in mismanagement of major projects will push them higher still. My low-tax, small state instincts baulk at this but for all that I'm still looking forward to the chance to live through the experience of living in an Olympic host city.

Yes, the logo is repellent and doesn't seem to be 'growing on' anyone yet, but I'll still be very proud to see the Queen and Mayor Johnson opening a games. I'm sorry that Rugby Sevens didn't get its chance to take its amazing successes at Commonwealth games levels to even greater heights, but I've also got every confidence as a country we can stage a truly memorable event. Memo to RFU…perhaps a little tinkering with the scheduling of the Twickenham round of the IRB sevens circuit could be arranged to demonstrate to the IOC the error of their ways?

Nicol Stephen,
Selective Memories?

Despite my general support of many Scottish positions and of the London 2012, I have little time for Mr Stephen's position. Is this the same Scotland which is refusing to take part, along with the Welsh, in a British team for the Olympic soccer tournament, thereby possibly jeopardising public support for the host nation's own team at their own tournament? The home of the SFA whose justification of their stance is based on what, according to both FIFA and UEFA is a completely baseless assertion that their voting rights within both these organisations may be compromised if they ever played in a combined British team.

A survey suggested that two thirds of Scottish football supporters supported the idea of Scottish players taking part in the British Olympic team, yet the Scottish Football Association refused even to attend meetings at which the football assocations of the Home Nations were to discuss the possibility. As is so often the case both in sport and politics it appears that lions are once again being led by donkeys.

Under the circumstances some Scottish politicians and SFA should be making it clear that they understand it is no longer appropriate for even their limited role in hosting events, especially in the soccer tournament, to continue. They should really be voluntarily waiving their rights to stage games at Hampden, rather than demanding more.

Mr Stephen went on to criticise the way that so much lottery funding was being directed towards London 2012. In this, I have at least a little sympathy with him. It is certainly true that the current government has twisted and politicised the way lottery funding is used to such an extent that many of its original worthy aims are just a distant memory.

If, however, we consider the lottery as it now is, just another form of state funding, then Mr Stephen is on less firm ground. For years we have listened to, and at least in my case have understood, the need for unequal distribution of state funds, very often in Scotland's favour, on the grounds of special needs and situations. Now we have a case where the special need pertains to a situation in the south east of England.

There is certainly a case that less state money should go to the Olympics in total, but given that some would be required in even the most ideal of situations, the concept that the nation as a whole contributing to an events affecting just one region applies just as strongly to London as it does to Edinburgh. I'm sure there was significant central government funding when Edinburgh won the rights to host the Commonwealth games, and I don't recall any special local taxes being raised as is the case with London 2012, and it is only right that equal treatment be offered south of the border.

Perhaps the most glaring hole in Stephen's contribution though is the one fact he forgets to mention. These arrangements for hosting events were not made in the last year or so. They would have been made under the last Scottish government. As much as Mr Stephen and his colleagues may wish to pretend it was otherwise on so many matters, that Scottish government was a coalition of the Labour party and Mr Stephen's own Liberal Democrats.

Perhaps a little note of regret from Nicol Stephen on his own party's involvement in the settlement that he now criticises may have been appropriate, since I don't recall any real dissent over the actions of his own government's sports ministers at the time.

The Slowest Man On Earth?

66 years old is fine, returning
to the politics of the 70s isn't

First of all I must apologise for to the many very decent Lib Dem supporters I know both personally and on-line because this being conference season I fear it will be your party that shall be attracting the bulk of my ire over the next few days, and, if I'm honest I do think there are signs of things going very wrong with the Lib Dems that go far beyond questions of leadership.

I was very disappointed to be working today at a site where nearly all on-line media access is banned, as I had hoped to catch up on some blood letting at the Lib Dem conference.

I have to admit to having some small sympathy for Menzies. Yes he is relatively elderly by the standards of recent party leaders, but that is no bar to high office. I don't think any have really claimed it is, but some of the cheap shots both in the mainstream media, and the online alternatives have left a bad taste in the mouth. It may even be true that his restrained, measured approach appeals to some segment of the electorate. It clearly didn't work for Iain Duncan-Smith and the polling data suggests it isn't working for him either, but it isn't, in of itself, a ridiculous proposition to put to the electorate.

It is in his attempts recently to raise his profile that my sympathy has started to dry up. His position on a referendum on the European report treaty stood in stark contrast to his ridiculous parroting of the 'real party of opposition line' on TV on Sunday, aping the government's discredited line poodle-fashion.

The Sunday attacks on the government had little substance and those against the Conservative party had none, being little more than ad hominem attacks on David Cameron. It was rather ironic to hear the standard 'lacking substance' line being trotted out against someone who is involved in a very substantial policy debate within one party, by a man who appears to be making his own parties policy up on the hoof.

I shall be kind about his suggestion for a referendum on the whole issue of the UK's continuing participation in the EU. Yes it is possible that it was just another knee-jerk, badly media managed response to the negative reaction to his earlier referendum position. Yes it is possible that he believes deep down that it was a safe line knowing that, as is allegedly the case with Blair on the same topic that, be it because of pressure from Brussels or the British Civil Service, that no such poll will ever take place anytime soon.

For all of that, it is now his position, on the record, period and he deserves the benefit of the doubt, and the assumption that he indeed does understand the need of the electorate to be consulted if we are ever to treat the open sore of our relationship with the EU.

Whatever credit that brought him though, must surely be wiped out entirely by his new idea that any household with a combined income of over £70,000 must be taxed until the pips squeak, as they have, apparently done 'rather too well' of late. In this we see the ravages of adult-onset leftism on the mind at their very worst. As ever, the hate and envy shone through first before any suggestion was made of what might be done with this new levy on hard working people, and what might be achieved by stripping them of yet more financial independence.

A rearguard attempt to wipe up the mess was made by an official spokesman, who pointed to a majority saying in a poll that they would support more taxes on the rich. Well, yes, but even leaving aside the fact that such polls always suffer from the 'Do you like clubbing baby seals?' syndrome, the one in question asked about those individuals earning more than £100,000, not say a middle ranking teacher married to a nurse who could easily fall in to Sir Menzies' definition of those who have done 'rather too well'.

It looks on the surface that Campbell has embarked on the writing of a suicide note to rival Neil Kinnock's in length. The key beneficiaries should by right be the Conservatives, but to harvest this windfall they will have to do a lot better job than in the past, of making plain at election time, the links between genial, reasonable sounding local Lib Dem candidates and disastrously wrong-headed national policy.

I have a Lib Dem front bencher for my local MP, he seems to be a genuinely nice man, and by all accounts a good local MP for all his party duties. If he should stand again and the current Campbell agenda becomes manifesto policy, I'm sorry but he must be tarred with it, for all that he may personally be of a different, and in my opinion truer, strand of liberalism.

The Lib Dems can put forward any policies they wish to the electorate, but they must expect their opponents to fight their chimeric presentation on the doorstep more strongly than ever before.

Spreading the Bad Word

True pan-European
Prat, Andrew Duff MEP

As many will know, the situation in the Netherlands apropos the method of ratification of the proposed European Reform Treaty (constitution) is somewhat up in the air at the moment. The position, or rather lack of one, on whether the proposed European Reform Treaty should be the subject of a popular vote, is one where confusion reigns to a degree that even the Lib Dems would find embarrassing.

Unlike President Sarkozy in France, who sought, and was given a clear mandate to approve the treaty in parliament, nobody it would seem, has a strong enough mandate to do anything. It seems even as though the Dutch parliament could split on the issue, where conventional wisdom forecasts a strong possibility of a pro-referendum vote in the lower house, being blocked by the differently composed upper house. At the executive level the lack of anything approaching a decision points to splits within the Dutch cabinet.

What is needed is a strong voice and leadership, and today it would seem they have got the first of these. Loud, persistent and annoying may be more apposite adjectives though as the voice in question is that of none other than that tireless campaigner to keep the people out of any decision involving the European Union, British Lib Dem democracy hating MEP Andrew Duff.

The EU Observer reports today on Duffs's ill-judged and inappropriate intervention into the internal affairs of another sovereign nation:

UK liberal MEP Andrew Duff last week released a statement on the Dutch Council of State report saying "The Treaty certainly deserves careful and informed scrutiny by the Dutch parliament, but I hope that the Dutch government and parliament now confirms that there will be no referendum in the Netherlands.

"This is not the first time in their history that the Dutch have taught the British a good constitutional lesson."

Source: EU Observer

I suppose I should really welcome his input. Most interventions by overseas politicians in purely domestic matters of another nation do have a bit of a habit of being spectacularly counter-productive.

I hope that those few Dutch voters who hear and give a damn about what Duff and his cronies like the equally unpleasant Mr Watson think about how they should run their affairs give him a swift language lesson in the meaning of 'Ga kots drinken ranzige smegmakegel'.

I suppose that it is largely the pompous arrogance and self-importance of Lib Dem MEPs that irks me so much, being just moderately large fish in the relativly small and very stagnant pond that is the ALDE group in the European parliament. These are not terms I would apply to the majority of Lib Dem supporters and MPs that I have seen, who I have generally found to be very pleasant people who simply hold different political views to myself, but their Brussels contingent really do show the institution they support at its very worst.

Mr Duff should really consider the strength of his own democratic mandate before lecturing others on how they should tread their own democratic path. Considering the general antipathy of the people of many of the people who he represents to the EU, does he really think that under any other electoral system than the appalling party-lists, that he would have even the chance of a very small snow ball in an especially fiery hell of ever holding elected office again were his personal positions to come under public scrutiny?

I've tried to lay off the EU, but with tossers like Duff around campaigning for ever less involvement of people across the continent in how they are governed it's just to big an ask.

A Mixed Bag of Results

Winners?

No, not a Rugby World Cup reference, where the gulf of relative performances between England and those of key opponents have brought ever more gloom to those who ride the roller coaster of supporting the men in white, as has every medical bulletin. Rather, I refer to the contrasting pronouncements of the TUC and leader of the ironically named Liberal Democrats, Sir Menzies Campbell, on the subject of the upcoming EU treaty.

Today the TUC did indeed vote to demand a vote on the EU treaty today. I will also say, in their favour that the initial coverage did contain a significant amount of comment from union leaders on the fundamental dishonesty of the government's volte face on the issue.

Over the last few hours however most of the comment I've read makes it sound, much as I had feared, that it may be merely a bargaining position, and that the opposition would evaporate were Broon to give way on his 'Red Line' on the status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and through that back door, bring in the increased union powers that the Labour movement know they cannot sell to the British electorate.

BBC News quotes the GMB general secretary, Paul Kenny:

"If we get a referendum and the terms haven't change, it's going to be very difficult to persuade workers to vote for it [the treaty]."

Source: BBC News

Most of the union comment I have read has come from traditionally left of centre sources like the Guardian and the BBC, who probably have similar misguided sympathy for the the Charter, so it's hard to guess what motivates the majority in the union movement. That being the case, I personally give the TUC the benefit of the doubt and welcome their position, and just have to trust that the Prime Minister has the wit to know that to give way on one of his increasingly thin red lines would reduce his credibility from virtually to absolute zero.

Definite Loser

In any case, I suppose that to do the right thing, even for the wrong reason is better to than to do the wrong thing for the wrong reason. Once again this seems to be what the hapless Sir Menzies Campbell has done.

Having supported a referendum on the proposed Constitution at the last election, and suggested that he may be amenable to one on the reform treaty, he has caved in completely and declared it unnecessary. Nor, this time, was it a return to what may be a relatively principled position on the role of referenda in a representative democracy, the line that the Lib Dems have usually have adopted to ensure that the EU continues to get its way in the face of public disapproval.

As Shane Greer, currently persona pro Iain Dale, and Thunder Dragon have both spotted, Menzies has instead decided to stick rigidly to the party line; that is to say the Labour party line.

Sir Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat leader, on Tuesday took the heat off Gordon Brown over the revised European Union constitution, arguing that a referendum on the new treaty was “not necessary”.

...

[Sir Menzies] told the Financial Times the new EU reform treaty was “sufficiently different” from the original constitution to avoid the need for a plebiscite. He said the only case for a public vote would be on a much broader “in or out” question about Britain’s membership of the EU, to prompt a serious national debate on Europe.

Source: The Financial Times

Fortunately it seems to be younger more forward looking Lib Dems who seem to be backing a referendum, as opposed to Campbell, once again pretty much marginalised in the broader debate, who once again has felt the need to follow the old failed approaches to resolving the agonies this country puts itself through over its relations with the EU.

The real beneficiary of Campbell's intervention I suspect may be David Cameron, not Broon, by leaving the Conservatives as the only mainstream party whose leadership backs a public say on the referendum. When you consider how closely he has parroted the Prime Minister's line, after a prolonged period of dithering, it's likely that many will draw their own conclusions over the Lib Dem position, should they ever get the chance to hold the balance in power in Parliament.

As for being the 'real party of opposition'...Sorry Menzies, that has probably just taken a fatal beating.

I've done far too many EU posts of late, so I'm going to place a short ban on the subject here for a while, unless someone suggests something really stupid and insensitive like putting the ring of stars on British passports.

Be Careful What You Wish For – Part II

ConstitutionalAmending Treaty
Name change, a chance missed?

Conveniently enough towards the end of drafting the first part of this miniseries the Prime Minister appeared before the commons liaison committee and outlined his so called 'red lines' in negotiating any replacement for the EU Constitutional Treaty. These days when it comes to Blair negotiating EU arrangements I don't have the slightest faith that these will be stuck to, but of course the purpose of this posting and the previous instalment was to try and remember the days when I was a moderately pro-EU individual to understand why I would, even with that mindset, have been very uncomfortable with the way things are going in terms with our relationship with Brussels. That being the case I guess I can suspend my disbelief a little further and widen the scope of my hypothetical naivety to encompass believing Blair will be able to secure each and every one of them.

The result of a successful agreement from the PM's perspective would still, when I look at my list of issues with the original Constitutional Treaty, been a deeply unsatisfactory document, that I would still, given the chance, vote against. At least he's had the sense to realise, as I'd hope anyone with the interests of the EU at heart would, that ending the criminal justice veto would be a recipe for disaster. Blair at least has heeded the warning from very recent history that the proposed Swastika ban contained, that we have the national state's national traditions in these matters remain far too varied to risk the folly of centralised diktat would represent, with the inevitable increased contempt towards the EU in many states.

As for the remainder of the issues, well, I guess I'd never have really imagined that they would have been addressed, so I'd have been disappointed with the outcome were such arrangements adopted, but probably still not yet in the anti-EU camp, still hoping for a more enlightened approach the next time around. I'd also very rightly fear the additional negative reaction from what would, and will, inevitably be a strengthened anti-EU movement.

Even the historical pro-EU me would have some sympathy with the antis. I may, in times past, have been prepared to stand up and defend much of the intent of what was being proposed even if I struggled to justify the detail and the mechanisms of the legal arrangements. I know for certain though, that I would have had complete sympathy, even from a pro-EU perspective with the means by which the political elites are attempting to bring the mechanisms into force. I can be so certain of this because I had the same misgivings over the same points with Maastricht, a treaty which though I was unhappy with some aspects of, I felt generally supportive of in its early days. In both cases, even when I was within the camp, the broader pro-EU movement has appeared at its very worst, and have wittingly or otherwise caused immense damage to the organisation they claim to champion.

There are a hundred and one flaws that could be pointed to dating right back to the farcical convention which drafted the original Constitutional Treaty, or rather the convention which was ignored by Giscard and the British civil servant whose name I forget as they drafted the constitution; even the most passionate UK Europhile must have drawn breath when both the Conservative and the Labour delegates to the convention effectively associated themselves with a minority opinion on the document.

These flaws continued all the way through the supercilious attitudes of the elites that played a part, I am sure at least in the case of the Netherlands, of electorates fed up of being taken for granted rejecting the demands of their elders and betters. Some of the arrogant reaction from the treaty's midwives I'm sure beggared the belief of today's moderate EU supporters, as much as it did me regardless of which mindset I choose to consider. Then there was the Margot Wallström inspired DDD, where Democracy, Dialogue and Debate were quickly replaced by Deceit, Demagoguery and Disdain. The same vested interests had been consulted on the original document were re-questioned with a view to finding a way round the objections of the electorate with no serious suggestion of actually addressing the objections themselves, meanwhile the provisions of the treaty began to be acted on without any legal basis. A few new faces, usually with existing deep attachment to the EU project to represent 'the people' in a facile attempt to understand the objections of those that disagreed with them. The real people had, by and large to settle for a web discussion forum that the Commission, who ran it, could safely ignore, overrun as it quickly became by the ranting of freaks at both extremes of view on the EU as well an anti-Semitic conspiracy and a number of militant Esperantists who were rightly loathed by both sides of the debate and the extremely tiny centre.

From a UK perspective much of this was pretty small beer though. I suspect the fears for the image of the EU when I supported its aims would simply have been a mirror of the increased distain for the organisation I actually did feel. The pro-EU me would probably still have arrived where we were a week or two ago still supporting the organisation. From the standpoint of the UK only one question really matters that of the referendum, or rather the two questions of the referendum. Should one have been offered in the first place, and should, the commitment having been made, should that it be honoured in light of the changed circumstances? Once again I don't think the pro-EU me of the nineties would have disagreed that strongly with the anti-EU me of this decade.

Let's take the latter question first. The sequence events is completely clear:

• Constitutional Treaty agreed


• Blair says there shall be Parliamentary approval only


• The outcry causes Blair to fear revolts both in Parliament, and at the forthcoming general election, and so agrees to a referendum


• France and the Netherlands reject the treaty, but Blair commits to the referendum in his manifesto to neutralise it as an electoral issue


• Blair is re-elected on this platform


• An attempt is made to resurrect the treaty in, so far as is possible, such away to bring into force the provisions of the original simply through different mechanisms


• Blair decides on criteria of his own choosing that the commitment to the referendum is not binding, and subject to a few negotiating points being agreed to, will not take place

Barroso: Back to Maoist Roots
"I care what you think less than this"

The time for debating the merits or otherwise of referenda vis-à-vis representative democracy, is in answer to the first question posed, but we are past that point and these arguments are utterly irrelevant. The decision to remove approval of the treaty from the scope of normal representative democracy and subject to it to direct approval by the people had already been taken, a mandate had been sought from and given by the people with this decision part of the package. In years gone by I would still have felt that the behaviour of the Prime Minster was utterly unforgivable in this, and moreover the enthusiastic support for the approach from the likes of Barroso would have sickened me to the stomach to see the attitude of the Commission to the will of the people expressed so clearly. I feel less rage now from an anti-EU standpoint, it's up there with the religious orientation of the Pope and defecatory behaviour of bears; actually it's a real godsend. Behind every EUrealist commentary on the matter I can sense a delight at the self-inflicted damage the nation's EU supporters are about to inflict on themselves once again because I feel it so well myself now, and I know I would have felt those cuts myself a decade ago.

But should have Blair have ever given into the demands for a plebiscite in the first case? This is where the pro-EU me would have come into conflict with the mainstream of EU supporting opinion, however I wouldn't have been completely alone.

I do understand some people's issues with referenda in general. It is true that there is a tradition of representative democracy in this country, that sometimes referenda become a popularity poll on the government of the day or a vehicle to express an opinion on something other than that which is on the ballot paper through lack of education. When my instincts were more favourable to the EU I still though wanted a referendum to be held on both the Maastricht treaty, and I know I would have also wanted one to be held over the Constitutional Treaty or whatever successor document emerges over the next few months.

As to the general arguments against referenda in principle, it has been fairly clear that there is a substantial body of opinion in this country strongly at odds with the range of options on the EU offered by parties with a cat in hell's chance of getting seats at Westminster so we are already in a situation where representative democracy is creating tensions and fault lines. If held on schedule the argument about the referendum becoming an opportunity to kick the government would have been null and void, as it would have been sufficiently proximate to a general election that would have acted as a lightning rod for those instincts. As for informing the people, what could have been a better opportunity to debate with the people on the merits, as I then saw them, of the EU.

More than that though I felt that over Maastricht, and would hypothetically felt over the Constitutional Treaty or successor document, that a referendum was one of the few ways to turn round the seemingly unstoppable tide of hostility to the EU project. It would be a risky strategy of course, but there would be such potential to kill at a stroke the feeling that the EU is something 'done to' this country, rather than something we were a willing part of.

I've always wondered about the differences in attitude between the UK and Eire to the EU. Even now I'm not cynical enough to believe that the healthy case flows into the Republic are the sole, or even the major factors in the differences in outlook. There seems little prospect of the Irish turning EUrealist the moment the tide of public cash ebbs the other way according to most poll evidence, and even now I actually don't find the amount of money we pay into Brussels all that big a factor in my hostility today.

I suspect a bigger factor is the instinct of a relatively small country to immerse itself within a larger organisation where it can, and does, punch above its weight on the international stage play a bigger part, especially if this arrangement dilutes the influence of a larger neighbour, with which it has had a fractious relationship.

I think there is another easily overlooked factor though. Due to provisions of the Irish Constitution the consent of the people has been sought at every stage, and the people always had the confidence that it would be. Sure they knocked Nice back, but after some pretty minor revisions that caused nobody any real plan they endorsed the treaty at the second attempt with little difficulty. If anything this probably in the longer term will prove to have strengthened support for the organisation.

An opportunity for the EU's diehard fans

Could it have been the same in the UK? I actually think it could. What would have happened in years past? I genuinely believe that if, going into the Maastricht negotiations, we had known up front there were going to be substantial implications in terms of Sovereignty, but that the benefits were going to be explained, and we would have a chance to have our say, the hostility would never have reached the same heights. When the final deal was presented to the people I think we would have, erm, rejected it. I think though, with a few clarifications and a little broadening and more concrete wording of some of the opt-outs and so forth, just like Eire after Nice, we would have felt a degree of ownership of the project and I think a second vote could well have been a 'Yes'. It would have become 'our' project too, not just one of the political elite. The Constitutional Treaty would in all probability have been a comparatively easy sell tackled in the same way.

Yes there would have been, and now would be political risk over this approach. Regardless of which side of the fence I try to look at it from though it’s a damn site better than the casual acceptance of the fact that our enthusiasm for, and trust in, the EU bumbles along the bottom of EU league tables. This fact doesn't seem to register with some of the more extreme proponents of 'the project', they believe it's an acceptable price for having the type of EU they want and that the situation can last for ever; these people are imbeciles who seem to have learned not a single lesson from history. They prefer to spout forth 'inevitability' rather than make their case and ask for the people to back them; if they are not careful their dream will go the same way of many other 'inevitabilities'.

There is, I am glad to say, some awakening to this fact among some EU supporters. I could be cynical and say they are only prepared to advance the argument now that a referendum looks unlikely, but I won't…their arguments are not that dissimilar to the pro-EU me, so I'd be arguing against myself.

A blog I found via Iain Dale, Norfolk Blogger advances a somewhat similar argument from a LibDem perspective, while on Dan Hannan's blog, Chris Sherwood, a well known EU attack dog, has a similar ethos his comments. I've seen Mr Sherwood comment in many forums and there is an unproven allegation that he authors some of the more intelligent pro-EU comments under a pseudonym on Margot Wallström's blog. He writes well, even if I disagree with him strongly these days, and nobody who reads him thoroughly should doubt the sincerity of his considered enthusiasm for the project. It is encouraging that some people like him do have thoughts on these lines.

My cynicism is not strong enough to see this as the possible emergence a positive line of thought amongst EU advocates as a bad thing. It's not universal, with usual suspects like LibDem MEPs still trying to dictate that the people must continue to be scorned, but it's a hopeful sign nonetheless.

To be honest, now for someone who has come to believe that, for some rather complex reasons that the EU is not good for this country, those with my outlook would be somewhat weakened by such a positive step by EU supporters. For all that though from the standpoint of openness, engagement, and the general health of politics in this country I would welcome the debate, even if there is a chance that I would be on the loosing side. EU supporters should realise that this chance diminishes with every new treaty; every power taken without consultation and every year nobody cares whether or not the people as a whole want this transformation.

The Berlin Wall
A monument to the impermenence of "inevitability"

It really should be they, not I who are demanding a referendum. Let them make their positive case for Europe, let the people choose. Until they do so the so-called supporters of the project will continue to be the greatest asset of the cause against the EU. At the moment too many seem blind to the damage they make to their own cause by their attitude to public opinion. The current situation cannot continue for ever; if they try I suspect the outcome can only be cataclysmic one day, from their perspective. Look to the fall of the Berlin Wall all EU acolytes, and not as some success that you have a very dubious claim to have a part in. I'm not making one of those facile comparisons between the EU and the former communist systems of Eastern Europe, because I don't believe in that crap. Look to it though in 1989, as an example of how a system can seem 'inevitable' one day despite public disapprobation and can be gone the next.

If it happens to the UK's relationship with the EU, don't blame UKIP, the print media, even The Sun 'wot won it'; it will be you 'wot lost it'.

Update 21/6: It appears I misunderstood the meaning of a reference to NorfolkBlogger's position on the EU, which I read elsewhere. Apologies to all.

Back in the Fold

Murrayfield rejoins the
international rugby community

I might be only half Scottish and live in London, but the SNP is really beginning to grow on me. It's not even just the fact that Alex Salmond seems vaguely human by politician standards and some of their supporters post great campaign songs on YouTube. It's early days, but they really do seem to be setting the Scottish nation free and seem in no great rush to turn the country in to the hard left hell hole'paradise' that some of their erstwhile policies suggested they might. They even seem to be more concerned with getting on with governing Scotland than making cheap shots at their southern neighbours.

Their latest act is to announce that it might once again be allowed to have a beer during rugby games at Murrayfield. Kenny MacAskill, the SNP justice secretary announced:

"There is a world of difference between people drinking a bottle of cheap cider in a park to get drunk and enjoying a pint of beer at half-time of a rugby match.

"We've listened to representations from fans, Scottish Rugby and the police.

"The fans can't understand why they can have a drink at Twickenham and at Millennium Stadium and at some rugby games and not others.

"They want to be able to enjoy a civilised drink during international matches at Murrayfield."

Quite right Mr MacAskill. Flint and Hewitt please note this is not 'Blue Skys Thinking' this is what normal people call 'Common Sense', that part of higher brain function whose absence is a prerequisite for high office in the NuLab ranks. Sadly I can only imagine the low hum of excitement that would go round the Department of Health if someone got it into their minds that there was half a chance of getting away with banning alcohol in the whole of TW1 on match days.

It's true that Murrayfield will still need permission from Edinburgh Council, but after the recent elections this should hopefully not be too much of an issue. ScotNuLab lost half its seats, losing overall control, the Nats went from 1 to 12 seats, and the Lib Dems gained 3 to 17. The Lib Dems are now the largest party, but they've done an almost complete Pontius Pilate act on the actions of the last Holyrood government, of which they were part, so this should be no obstacle. It shouldn't be forgotten though that the 'Liberal' Democrats were part of Jack 'Best Wee Numpty in the World' McConnell's government, which could have done what the Nats have now done, but instead saw fit to some introduce Nanny State legislation that would make Westminister NuLab's busybodies blushfeel green with envy.

The ban was introduced after an old firm clash in the 1980 Scottish Cup final which saw an on pitch battle between Rangers fans, their Celtic opponents and the police. It was not originally intended to cover Murrayfield, but was extended to cover all major venues after representations from the police, demonstrating once again their regrettable tendency to seek ridiculous new powers off the back of sensible attempts to tackle a real problem.

I'm not going to have a pop at kevball this time around. To be honest from the little I know on the subject most of the clubs seem to have improved immeasurably in recent years and this seems to have been accompanied a gradual slackening off of alcohol restrictions. The only time I've been to a football match I enjoyed my beer both at the Emirates Stadium and in the first pub we came to outside the dispersal zone after the match, despite what was apparently substandard Arsenal performance. Even the remaining restrictions on having alcohol within sight of the pitch seemed slightly absurd, with various shutters and blinds having to be closed at half time to allow us to consume our free beer while staying within the letter of the law.

The key thing is that while there were a few ill considered knee-jerk reactions to the problems in the English game, over time pragmatism has prevailed. Local solutions have to local problems has taken the place of sweeping catch-all national diktat. The clubs and authorities played their own part in proving they deserved such pragmatism by taking responsibility for the problems, and taking their own initiatives to deal with them. In areas like this, national legislation should constrain itself to setting basic minimum standards, while giving legal basis for further more draconian action where it is warranted on a local level, with a clear presumption that such action should only be taken where circumstance demonstrably prove it to be necessary.

Having said all that there is still a bit of pride in me every time I see the "No Alcohol Beyond This Point During Football Matches" signs at Vicarage Road when I go to watch Saracens. Also, having praised the Nats, it should be noted that there may be a little self-interest in play. According to BBC,

'Mr MacAskill was arrested on suspicion of being drunk and disorderly before the England versus Scotland Euro 2000 play-off at Wembley stadium.

'He had intended on going to the game but spent the night in police cells. He was not charged or cautioned and later claimed his arrest was due to a misunderstanding.'
BBC News

I'll put it down to enlightened self-interest, not that it really matters anyway. Even if it wasn't a misunderstanding, it is history, and anyway, it's outcomes that count, and this can only be a good outcome for Edinburgh. I suppose that in this case, in the words of Blur "I'm a professional cynic but my heart's not in it". I've been to the Calcutta Cup game at Murrayfield, had a great time, and the alcohol ban, while not an especially big deal, was just plain silly. There were thousands drinking into the early hours afterwards, without any incidents I could see that wouldn't happen in any city centre on any Saturday night.

Despite now living in one of the 'World Cities' I find the 'Burgh something special. For me it was a place where as a young boy, heading up to visit grandparents, you'd emerge from the strange semi-subterranean world of Waverley station to be confronted with everything to a child’s eye that a city should be. It was often near Christmas so the imposing and garishly illuminated shop façades of Princess Street to the right tended to catch the eye first of all, as they were designed to, followed by the soaring buildings that seemed to cling improbably some kind of mountain to the left, and, best of all, a real castle dominating the skyline at its summit. Work now takes me up there from time to time and even as an adult there’s something I love about the place. Some of it is a nostalgia I suppose, but there are also great people, great bars, pubs and eating spots, all mingled together with the great historical sites and the places where the modern business of the city takes place.

Lets hope that, come the next internationals, we'll hear Auld Reekie say nae mair pish to this particular bit of Nanny State nonsense.

Update 10th June: Oh dear the SNP seem to making worrying noises on retaining DNA samples from the innocent...I'm going to have to come back to that one.

The Lowest of the Low

Power for the Sake of Power

I've got a healthy disrespect for most politicians, but have to reluctantly admit that many are driven by the best of motives and often articulate issues with which I fundamentally disagree in an intelligent, challenging way. There is however, one group to whom I have never been able to apply these caveats, British Liberal Democrat MEPs. It's an old cliché, but it must be emphasised at every available opportunity that they are not liberal, and display on many occasions a breathtaking contempt for democracy. They will tend to dress it up in voter friendly wrapping such as care for the environment but, when you see a Lib Dem heavily involved in something at the European Parliament, you can be almost certain that it will concern an increase in power of the EU over national parliaments, or over the freedom of individuals to run their lives as they see fit.

Their latest assault is being lead by MEP Chris Davies, who is the rapporteur to the parliament for a draft bill that is trying to outlaw cars in the EU with a top speed in excess of 101mph, allegedly as part of the fight against climate change.

According to the BBC Mr Davies has said,

"101mph is 25% more than the top speed limit in most EU states."

Well, yes that is probably true, but the thing is Mr Davies, for a thousand and one reasons of physics and engineering that are far beyond the capabilities of your peanut sized brain to understand, machines do not tend to operate at their optimal efficiency at the extreme ends of their performance range. It is far beyond the realms of impossibility that a car with a top speed of 101mph might well be less efficient at 80mph than one with a top speed of 121mph. It's not always the case, but certainly looking at top speed of a vehicle is unlikely to be an especially good way of predicting what its likely emissions will be.

No More Ferraris?

The truly pathetic thing is that there is actually, and I'm loathed to say it, sensible EU action in this area. Manufacturers are being obliged to meet targets for new vehicles framed in terms of the grams of carbon dioxide emitted per kilometer driven. I have my doubts about some of the science behind climate change, but tend towards the view that there is enough of a possibility that it is real that it is worth taking sensible steps to reduce emissions. Setting manufacturers targets in terms of grams per kilometers is obviously the most sensible way to go about it, though it would be better if it factored in an amount to reflect the impact of the manufacturing and maintenance processes of the vehicle over its working life.

I suspect there may several motives behind the new proposal that Mr Davies is championing, none of them good ones:

• The eternal desire of politicians to be seen to be 'doing something, especially MEPs whose own leaders earlier this year admitted there was a lack of things to legislate on.


• The 'if the EU does it, it must be good' attitude of the Lib Dems - lets face it they'd back the slaughter of the first-born if it was a commission proposal.


• Good old fashioned envy of the rich who will own the fastest cars.

The most powerful motivation of all though, I suspect, is that the targets under existing proposals look likely to be met with only a little pain by the manufacturers as they were heading in the right direction anyway, and with no conscious impact on the public at large. In other words it lacked the hair shirt aspect which idiots like Mr Davies tend to believe is at the heart of all good environmental policy.

I could also properly attack the fact that his report

"...suggests that a fifth of car advertisements should be devoted to cars' fuel consumption and CO2 emissions."

...but it's so laughable I can't take it seriously enough. Mr Davies, we don't read what's printed already, and we don't listen to it when we hear it on TV. Yes we might look in to this stuff if we come to buy a car, but that's something we don't do very often, so to pollute our magazines and screens with sanctimonious garbage like you suggest is a waste of time. It will be ignored in the same way health warning on cigarette packets are, and Caroline Flint's retarded alcohol labeling scheme will be. Only someone interested in the basest kind of tokenism would ever suggest it.

No More Maseratis?

As it happens, I'm no great lover of the EU and since I live in London where a care is just a liability it won't effect me anyway. If I was being selfish I'd love to see the law pass to see this ridiculous organisation's public image take another good kicking. Damn, being a libertarian can be hard some times.

Actually, no, I could never back action like this. I'm no petrolhead, but I do think the engineering that goes into Ferarris, Maseratis, Porches and all the other performance cars that Europe is so good at manufacturing, is a thing of beauty and says much for the ingenuity, imagination and creativity that is the best side of the human mind. I'll never own one but, unlike Mr Davies, I'm not riddled with the prejudices and jealousies that lie behind much of the worst side of human nature.

Good Causes

Fighting Back Against
Big Brother

I've just added a new feature in the sidebar which (if my JavaScript is good enough should be slide-showing some of the Internet based campaigns that are around at the moment and which I am strongly inclined to support.

Some of these campaigns have produced results in the past so I'm pleased to add my minuscule little bit to support them. I've included three initially.

First and foremost is the NO2ID campaign. This is the only one of the three I have had any personal contact with and it's an issue very close to my heart. I've met some of the people behind NO2ID and it's impossible not to be impressed with the hard work they do and the results they achieve, on a shoestring budget, against the might of the Home Office's spin machine. Their media penetration belies their limited size and they are clearly winning the battle for hearts and minds in the war against NuLab's Big Brother.

Second up, and loathed though I am to support anything from the Lib Dems, they seem to be the only people trying to garner public support for the fight against the Freedom of Information (Keep Parliament Secret) bill. I can't really say I could bring myself to hand over hard cash to the Lib Dem coffers, but their MP's performances in the Commons in fighting this insidious little bill have been impressive and must be commended.

Felicity Jane Lowde

Finally there is a campaign that has been highlighted on many of the blogs that are daily must-reads for me, looking for help in tracking down a fugitive serial stalker. I must admit other than a brief 'due diligence' scan of the underlying stories I still don't know the whole tale behind this particular saga. That said, it's amazing the number of people I know, especially women, who have fallen victim to this very disturbing type of behaviour, and as most of the reports come from sources that as far as I am concerned are pretty reliable I'm glad to do my little bit of promotion of the cause.

Liberty's Requiem Miscellany No. 1

True Acts of Leadership

The first in what, considering the charisma bypasss most of our polititians seem to have undergone to achieve high office, is likely to be a very occasional series.

Many know that behind the grey, in all senses of the word, image of Sir Menzies Campbell lies a colourful sporting past. As unlikely as it may seem, he was once a fine athlete, holding the British 100 meter record for over six years, captaining Scotland in what is now the Commonwealth (don't mention the E-word) Games and representing Britain at the 1964 Olympic games. The problem is that it all seems so unlikley now in the face of the Menzies we know on the political stage that I don't think they can make use of this once dynamic side of Ming.

The hero of the latest bit of political trivia I stumbled across is the former Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke. As someone who is far more in tune with the ideas of John Howard, the current incumbent of the post, and who I consider a bit of a role model for sensible, progressive (in the real sense of the word) centre right leadership, it pains me to say that I am impressed with this little factoid,

'His academic achievements were possibly outweighed by the notoriety he achieved as the holder of a world record for the fastest consumption of beer: a yard glass (approximately 3 imperial pints or 1.7 litres) in eleven seconds.

In his memoirs, Hawke suggested that this single feat may have contributed to his political success more than any other, by endearing him to a voting population with a strong beer culture.'

Source: Wikipedia

Listen and learn Mr Cameron, perhaps those days of the Bullingdon Club could actually pay off. Stuff calling for debates on the BBC where, if they happened, Ming, the dour one and yourself would just p*** everyone off by parroting the usual lines.

Challenge them to a proper drinking contest and the Child of the Manse would stand no chance whatsoever. Ming could be a risk but age is on your side. It looks like a dead cert to me.

A Lucky Escape?

Coalition Talks Collapse in Wales

Talks to form a 'rainbow coalition' government in the Welsh assembly, consisting of Conservative, Plaid Cymru and Lib Dem AMs appear to have run into the sand. As someone who is no longer a member of the Conservative party but is hoping with some degree of enthusiasm that they displace the current shower as soon as possible, I can't believe this is anything but good news.

I should say firstly that I think Wales is a fantastic place and I've no real desire to see anyone suffer more years of NuLab misery than they need to. On the other hand, with the relatively limited (though growing) powers of the Assembly and the difficulties NuLab will face in getting anything even vaguely damaging through, my thoughts turn unavoidably to the bigger picture.

It might be political naivety, but I really cannot see any benefit to the Conservatives in getting involved in a setup like this. Even if you accept the dubious proposition that such a rickety construction could have survived the mildest of political storms without collapsing in acrimony, it could only ultimately be bad news for the Conservative cause. There is no need to speculate, you just need to look at the last term of the Scottish Parliament. Every success was down to the Lib Dems, every failure was Labour's, at least in the general public consciousness. I'm not even sure you can say that it was the Lib Dems position as the junior partner in the coalition, their particular policy initiatives or clever marketing by them that led to this perception. For a long time the Conservative and Labour parties have been the big beasts of government and I think it's almost inevitable that, in any government in which they are a partner, the tendency will be to lay the blame for failures at their door. Smaller parties, like the Lib Dems, not having held solo power at anything other than local government level, are somehow awarded some form of political virginity that seems to render them above reproach for the same failures in the minds of many.

The even better news from the end of the 'rainbow coalition' talks is that it was the Lib Dems who ultimately blocked it, so there can be no suggestion of the Conservatives (or Plaid Cymru by the same token) ducking the responsibility of real government. Moreover, while it isn't explicitly stated on any of the on-line coverage, there was enough coverage of 'No deals with the Tories, ever' attitudes of many Lib Dem activists in recent months to make it clear what the sticking point was likely to have been. At the next general election it is essential that this rarely voiced shibboleth of Lib Dem though is brought to the fore, that a Lib Dem/Conservative coalition is unlikely to be the way that the reins of power are seized from NuLab's hands.

A Labour Saving Device
An old joke (like their leader), but still true today

There is a part of what the Lib Dems stand for that I personally endorse wholeheartedly, but once you move beyond the libertarian part of their philosophy they are as bad as, if not worse, than NuLab and even their libertarian instincts are often compromised. The point I am trying to make is not in the least new or original, but moments like today need to be seized to underline what the consequences of voting for the Liberal Democrats really are.

It's true that there are issues like grammar schools and PFI where there is a disconnect, in the Conservative and Labour parties respectively, between the leadership and some of their activists, and more importantly their natural voters. It always seems to me though, that these disconnects are vastly more numerous and wider when it comes to the Liberal Democrats, especially between their activists and their casual supporters.

I am sure that there are areas where this is less true, but not where I live in the south-western yellow/orange splodge on the political map of London. Here Labour simply does not exist; they have been wiped off the face of my borough council, and don't even bother standing in my ward at most elections. Elections are basically fought over a group of voters who drift from the right of the Lib Dem standpoint to the left of the Conservative one but would never dream of voting for the Labour party. The result for me locally was a very able Liberal Democrat MP, who I, and many others here of a Conservative inclination, would actually hate to see lose his seat should he stand at the next general election. What is at stake though is too important for sentiment. The message has to rammed home, that in areas such as this, and every other Conservative / Lib Dem battleground, a vote for the Lib Dems, as nice as they may be, is functionally a vote to keep NuLab in power. Their activists would not allow it to be any other way, even if the party leadership was to move away from its, now rather explicit, 'No deal with Tories' stance.

Update 6:47PM
It looks like the Lib Dems have cottoned on to the fact that they are coming out badly from the way things have worked out according to the BBC. They are going to have another look on Saturday at whether they really can pass up on the chance to f*** up in government at the Conservatives expense. They'd be out of their tiny warped minds if they didn't. It would be like the multi-cultural, vegan turkey collective not voting for the abolition of Christmas.

Update 7:04PM
18DS had another take on the whole affair on Up Front, from a slightly different angle, pointing out the intrinsic limitations and internal contradictions of the Lib Dems which was pretty amusing. The only worry I have is that the Conservatives would even contemplate coalition with these muppets.

Update 1:30AM, 25th May
It seems, if you believe the BBC, which I don't usually, but they are grinding a new axe so I'll give them some leeway, it's pretty much all over bar the next few years of shouting. I hope they are right for once. The BBC only mentions the Conservative involvement once in its summary of the f***ed up situation.

We have the Dhimmies being largely blamed from left and right for the lack of a meaningful government for Wales. This is due mainly to their actions in recent days, but let's be honest the situation only arose because of the ironically named system of 'proportional representation' (and their inability to organise a piss-up in their own family brewery), just about the only policy you can get two of their party activists to agree on once you get their nose out of their tofu biriani. It's stunning...their preferred voting system produces a mess, so they go and have a meeting to resolve the mess and not only end up with a tied result but did't even have the foresight to plan for a way of breaking the ties that will inevitably result when you get a couple of dozen people voting on contentious issues. Some of our recent Home Secretaries have had more foresight.

Labour has raised a solitary finger to the electorate by trying to cling desperately to power when any sensible party would have called it a day and let some other grouping take the flak. Anything bad that happens in Wales will be their fault, and their fault alone in the mind of the electorate at least. Fine by me.

I only really have sympathy for Ieuan Wyn Jones and Plaid, unfortunately I've got a feeling they will be unfairly tarred with the Dhimmie brush. Like the nats from the land of my mother they generally seem like decent, driven people even if I don't like a lot of the specifics.

By a country mile though, the best comment on the whole thing though is from Glyn Davies (via the talented Mr Dale). It's one of those off-beat commentaries that will stick in your mind long after the specifics of the situation that inspired it have gone forever.

Once again, I'm sorry that this creates a mess for Wales. The Lib Dems had to be exposed somewhere and sometime. I'm glad it's now, and yes I'm glad it wasn't where I live, but it really needed to happen.

Liberal Democrat MP Demands Radical Change or Withdrawal from Europe

According to Radio 4's PM programme this evening, Richard Younger-Ross, Liberal Democrat MP for Teignbridge, has strongly criticised the politicised nature of European voting systems which allow organised regional blocs to force their choices on Europe as a whole. According to the BBC he has called for the United Kingdom to demand radical change and, if this is not forthcoming, to withdraw entirely.

Unfortunately it transpires that this does not represent a damascene conversion on matters European for the Liberal Democrats, nor even a brief return to Planet Earth for Mr Younger-Ross, as the only democratic deficit which seems to concern him is that involved with the Eurovision Song Contest. He would do better to apply himself with the same vigour to the flawed or absent democratic processes by which decisions are made in the European Union that actually matter to this country. Perhaps then the LibDems might take one small step along a path back to a relevance they have lacked for more than a century. Maybe the inexcusably politicised malapportionment of seats in the European Parliament (with or without the provisions of the Constitutional Treaty in place) might be a place to start, even if he doesn't have the guts to go for the big issues like the illegitimacy of the Commission.

I wouldn't hold my breath though, I strongly suspect at heart he is at one with many fellow LibDem's, like the appalling Graham Watson MEP, in their intolerant views on the EU, their crusade to stifle any serious debate about the UK's place in Europe and explicit wish to kill off any chance for the people to make their own choices in the matter.