Day 6899: Now that the Turkeys have Voted for Christmas…

Thursday:

I don’t suppose anyone’s noticed, but there’s a General Election on.

Manifest

So let’s put it on record that this is a VERY STUPID PLAN.

A General Election is VERY HIGH RISK.

If we get a Lib Dem government, we CAN stop Brexit. But that’s a REALLY big “if”.

If Johnson wins a majority, he can have ANY BREXIT HE LIKES. Maybe his “deal”; maybe the self-styled Spartans of the ERG will blackmail him into No Deal. “Spartans” being an anagram of “AN SS PRAT”.

We should have taken every extra day we could get to look at Johnson's "deal", unpick it, show it for what it is. We should have hung him out to dry in a Parliament that would not let him legislate, show him up as weak, powerless and posturing.

Yet faced with 19 Labour MPs voting for the clown car’s Withdrawal Agreement Bill AND the sight of Jeremy Corbyn slipping into Number 10 for talks with the Government on how a timetable for debating the bill might be agreed… a last roll of dice seemed like the better option.

Remember, every day that we are still in the European Union is another day of winning, is another day closer to proving Brexit is impossible, and ending this nightmare.

So where do we stand:

With the odious Nigel Farrago having finally been swallowed by his own betrayal narrative – accepting a one-sided deal with the Tories to stand down half his company (they’re not a Party) in exchange for bugger all – the Brexit Party (not a Party) are now a spent force, excepting that their subversion of the Tories is now complete.

So in England, these are the THREE Parties and their strategies:
(Wales and Scotland have nationalist parties as well, who have their own agenda, particularly Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish Nasty Party, who are out for gaming ANY result to achieve a new independence referendum.)

CONSERVATORIES

The Tory strategy is to say only they can finish the mess they’ve made by getting us into the Brexit disaster. Yes, their pitch is they can make a COMPLETE MESS. And the evidence is that they CAN!

It’s a horribly short-termist tactic – within weeks of the election it will be clear that “get it done” means “you’ve been had”, as the country progresses to merely the next round of endless argument and fear of another no deal – but the cynical wiring into the nation’s exhaustion with the debate and division that THEY THEMSELVES caused appear to be working.

In a further divisive calculation, they’ve also decided that since most of the population believe politicians lie all the time, they might as well just lie. So thank you to all right-on comedians and commentators who’ve been fostering this for years and years by lazily telling us so over and over and sneering ‘They’re all the same’ (because that’s easier than actually explaining that most politicians try to tell the truth as they see it); congratulations, you’ve empowered a fascist takeover.

So, so far, what we’ve heard from the Tories has all been about costs of Labour’s manifesto (made up); consequences of a coalition between Labour and SNP (made up); and next to nothing about their own plans.

And it’s working.

With a few honourable exceptions, the media is failing us catastrophically by merely parroting the Tory line, rather than challenging the government who are SUPPOSED TO BE IN POWER over what they are actually doing.

HARD LABOUR

The Labour party strategy is the same as it always is: claim that the NHS is being privatised.

Oh yes, they’ve got a whole Scandi-style socialism smorgasbord of policies: nationalise everything so they can give away everything from free broadband to free tuition fees, and the price tag hardly matters because (a) the Tories are promising to spend money like it’s going out of fashion too (didn’t they used to want to “save the pound”?) so costings are largely fictional, but (b) they aren’t going to win anyway!

Labour’s big weakness (after their Leader) is their incoherence on Brexit.

We know that Labour would much rather Brexit was “done”… well not “done” as such (see above), but we all know too that Johnson and Jeremy can agree that passing the Withdrawal Agreement Bill means “done” because it suits their interests… And Labour want it “done” on a Tory watch, so that the Tories are to BLAME, and so that they can go back to campaigning in their comfort zone of “Vote For Us Or The Puppy Gets It” (where as usual “the puppy” means the NHS).

What Labour are doing very well is attacking the Liberal Democrats.

IF Labour’s real aim is to beat the Conservatories, then this is COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE. Most of the seats where Lib Dems are challenging, across the South-West, the south of Manchester and of course London, are seats that we can win (and have won!) but Labour cannot. To flip the Labour line, taking votes from the Lib Dems really does let the Tories in.

And yet as in 2017 and 2015, Labour are working hard to convince those voters that to choose Liberal is to let in the Tories, even though the reverse is true.

So why are Labour doing this. Firstly because it’s easier. Secondly, because it provokes US to attack them BACK, and that’s a look that works better for them then for us: “look! how shocking! the Lib Dems are attacking Labour! they must be Yellow Tories!” they do say. But thirdly because Labour actually PREFER a Tory government (with them in Opposition) which they can rail against in comfortable impotence. What truly terrifies them is a Liberal Democrat government that might actually change things for the better, suddenly revealing that the entire Labour movement has done NOTHING for decades.

And it’s working.

The “vote for us or you’re helping the Tories” message is playing on fear and shoring up the rather tattered remains of the alliance that voted for Corbyn in 2017, back before Labour decided that it could put up with antisemitism more than being anti-Brexit.

THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS

Lib Dem Fight Back

The Liberal Democrat plan in this Election – and any General Election that wasn’t 2015 – is to GET NOTICED. We have to offer HOPE and CHANGE. Change from the stale duopoly that just swaps one authoritarian power for another; hope that we can break out of the past to build a better future.

That’s not going well.

The Tory and Labour leaders have collaborated with ITV and BBC to lock Jo Swinson out of the debate to be Prime Minister. The “excuse” which they won’t say too loud is that “only Johnson or Corbyn can be Prime Minister”. They won’t say that too loud in case someone realises that that means there’s something WRONG with the election.

The Labservative framing of the Election is pushing people into the old choice of “who do you fear more?” Vote Labour to stop the Tories getting in; Vote Tory to keep Corbyn out. Don’t vote Lib Dem or you’ll let the others in!

We should be doing so much better than this.

When we campaigned in the Euro Elections on our VALUES, we WON.

It’s been a JOY to support Siobhan Benita’s campaign to be Mayor of London, because she’s been talking to people about our VALUES – and making speeches saying: “immigration is good” and “end the war on drugs”. Liberal solutions to crime, housing, clean air that liberal London needs.

And I have been BEGGING to stand for Parliament on a Liberal Values ticket, to say we can be radical and different. We NEED Liberal Voices to be there, so that the case for Liberalism is made. LOUDLY and OFTEN.

Instead we’ve positioned ourselves as safe and sensible. The moderate centrists rather than the extremist wingnuts of right and left. There are GOOD things in our manifesto. But also too much “don’t scare the horses”.

Well Liberal Democrats SHOULD scare the horses.

If the plan is to get noticed, then RADICAL GETS NOTICED. Soggy centrist mush does not.

Look at the alternatives:

Corbyn cannot make his mind up (or cannot ADMIT to making his mind up) on the biggest issue since the end of World War Part II. And cannot bring himself to clean house even in the face of overwhelming evidence of antisemitism riddling his Party.

But somehow WE’RE the bad guys for not standing down for any pro-Europe Labour MPs who – no matter how pro-Europe – will still trot happily behind putting an antisemitic Lexiter into Downing Street.

Johnson, by his own admission, should be looking out ditches to go lie in. His hope to bounce parliament and country into his “deal” without scrutiny has failed.

But the message that he’s a failure has been allowed to slip away, by letting him have the pre-Christmas election he was gagging for, making him look again like the master of the agenda, rather than the servant of chaos.

Why are we not cutting through against two appalling LOSERS?

Because we are campaigning in GREY when we should be campaigning in GOLD.

SO HOW DO WE GET TO LIB DEMS WINNING (from) HERE

We are letting the Tories get away with setting the agenda, THEIR agenda, defining Brexit as nearly done, rather than about to get a whole lot worse, and all the empty promises they can make from a dividend they will never deliver. We are letting Labour’s attacks pull us onto THEIR territory (you’re with us or you’re Tories). We’re NOT playing to our RADICAL strengths.

So we need to be LEADING THE FIGHT against the Tories more.

And we need to start LOVE BOMBING the Labour lot more.

In her leadership campaign, and in her victory speech, Jo talked about building a LIBERAL MOVEMENT, drawing on people from all traditions, Liberal, Green, Tory AND Labour.

We’ve gone all in to win over Tory remain voters – but at the risk of alienating the social democratic voters who we need too.

Labour voters think Labour are the GOODIES (they’re wrong, but you can’t tell ‘em that – it’s an emotional thing). To win them over, we need to be showing we are GOOD too (and BETTER!).

They GET the problem with Corbyn. Many of them SHARE it.

But seeming to attack Jeremy more than Johnson risks that. Yes, we say “no deals with Johnson or Corbyn”, but they HEAR “no deal with mwah mwah mwah Corbyn”. Well actually they HEAR “we hate Magic Grandpa!”

We have clear lines of attack on Labour: antisemitism, irresponsible spending, arrogant, out-of-touch leader and above all the dithering indecision over Brexit because Jeremy decided the EU was a bad thing when Tony Benn told him so in 1975 and he hasn’t changed his mind about a single thing since.

But beyond “Stop Brexit” what are our clear attack lines on the Tories? We have a route map to Zero Carbon Britain; they would rather back fracking. We would build a better economy based on a new green deal; they scrapped it. We would tackle the root causes of crime; they just want to lock more people up. Why aren’t we saying these things more. And loudly.

Sure, we should say Labour are WRONG: we think they have the wrong answers or no answers.

And with Labour attacking us, we are RIGHT to point out their hypocrisy.

They say austerity is a failed Tory ideology. Our plans to invest in education and health are BETTER than Labour’s.
They say there is a climate crisis. Our plans to achieve Zero Carbon Britain are BETTER than Labour’s.
They say crime is a blight on lives. Our plans to tackle knife crime, end the war on drugs, and work for and with young people are BETTER than Labour’s.

But we still need to be beating the Tories over the head with their Brexitopocalypse MORE.

Tories CHOSE the austerity, and kept it going way past the point it might have been working.

Tories abandoned all the GOOD GREEN investments that Lib Dems began in the Coalition, throwing green businesses under the bus.

Tories cut the police and knife crime got worse under Boris Johnson as Mayor of London. He HID from the riots and cannot face a crisis.

And Brexit makes austerity worse, makes it harder to tackle the climate crisis working alone not with Europe, has triggered an eruption of hate attacks that have pushed fear of crime way up.

With all of the defections – and in spite of the wonderful Luciana Berger and fantastic Chuka Umunna being ex-Labour (but Blairites so – to the Corbyn Cult – “Tories” anyway) – making us look more like a Tory Lifeboat for the soft liberal wing of the Conservatories, or worse the Continuity Cameron/Clegg Party, we need to be DISTINCTIVELY LIBERAL. Not “I’m Tory Plan B”.

The Tories have RUINED this Country. Liberalism WOULD DO BETTER.
Labour have LET the Tories RUIN this Country. Liberalism WOULD DO BETTER.

I love Jo. And I think she IS distinctive. Her interview on ITV was positive and upbeat, especially after the slapstick debacle of Johnson and Jeremy going at each other, but not listening to anyone for an hour. But we need more.

If we are going to Stop Brexit and Build a Better Future… we are going to need to Build a Better Liberal Democrats.

Day 6742: Constitutional Outrage

Monday:


No one should expect to just GET to be Prime Monster!

Liberal Democrats should call for a Vote of Confidence in Parliament before ANYONE can be appointed Prime Minister, and we should demand that the Fixed Term Parliament Act be updated to make this explicit in law.

Boris Johnson looks very likely to win the contest to become leader of the Conservatory Party, already framed as “the race to be Britain’s Next PM”. And, given that he keeps dodging any questions, he could win with remarkably little scrutiny from either his fellow MPs or the public.

That’s an OUTRAGE!

AND there’s the little question of whether he can “command the confidence of the House of Commons” as the saying goes.

The rules governing how you get to become Prime Monster are written down in the Cabinet Manual, last updated at the start of the Coalition, by GOD (that is THE god, Mr Sir Gus O’Donnell, not the deity).

That’s where it says, in big letters at the start of Chapter 2:

“A government holds office by virtue of its ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons, chosen by the electorate in a general election.”

It would be shockingly unconstitutional – but I think also HIGHLY PLAUSIBLE – for Bojo to park his clowncar in Downing Street, installed as PM on the say-so of Theresa Maybe Not with NO opportunity for Parliament to test that he CAN command a majority.

Chapter 2 of the Manual gives us all the details of how a government is made.

(First a mummy government and a daddy government who love each other very much… er, no.)

So what happens when the Prime Monster changes?

The Prime Monster is the Prime Monster until they choose to resign (s2.08).

The Prime Monster MUST resign IF they lose a General Election and someone else has an overall majority (s2.11).

The Prime Monster MUST resign (because of the Fixed Term Parliament Act) IF they lose a Vote of No Confidence and are unable to pass a Vote of Confidence within 14 days (or if someone else IS) (s.2.19).

IF the administration has an overall majority, then the Party or Parties in government get to choose the new Prime Monster (s.2.18).

But what about when there ISN’T an overall majority? Remembering that the Conservatories do NOT have a majority and the Conservatories and DUP are NOT a coalition.

2.20 Where a range of different administrations could be formed, discussions may take place between political parties on who should form the next government. In these circumstances the processes and considerations described in paragraphs 2.12–2.17 would apply.

s2.12 to s2.20 are the “what to do after an election results in a hung parliament” bit.

Firstly, the incumbent government (TMPM) is entitled to wait until Parliament has met to see if it can command a majority (but is expected to resign if it’s clear that it won’t) (s.2.12)

Eventually, the resigning Prime Monster has to go to Mrs the Queen and tell her who the next Prime Monster will be. (s2.13)

[s.2.14 just says the Civil Service can help. S.2.15 says that’s what they did in 2010]

S2.16 is IMPORTANT because it says that the government can ONLY operate on RESTRICTED POWERS for as long as there is doubt over whether it can command a majority.

Finally s2.17 says what kinds of government can be formed: a minority government, winging it from vote to vote, like Hard Labour in the Winter of Discontent; a confidence and supply agreement, like we have now; a formal coalition.

But EVEN acting together, the Conservatories and the DUP can only call on 322 votes (313 Conservatories less 1 deputy speaker plus 10 DUPes); on the other side there are at most 317 votes (with Mr Speaker, 2 Labour deputy speakers and 7 Sinn Fein MPs not voting). That is a “working majority” of 5. Pretty flimsy, and why TMPM kept losing.
Worse, if the Conservatories were to lose 1 by-election to, say, the Liberal Democrats, that would be a majority of just 3. And if just 2 Conservatories were to vote against their own government, it would fall.

Reader, two Conservatories HAVE said they would vote against their own government to stop Boris Johnson and prevent no deal.

I think it’s pretty clear that things ARE in doubt whether ANY new Conservatory Prime Monster, and certainly Mr Johnson, could do the commanding of a majority.

But who is going to tell Mrs the Queen? Let’s ask the Manual…

2.09 “In modern times the convention has been that the Sovereign should not be drawn into party politics, and if there is doubt it is the responsibility of those involved in the political process, and in particular the parties represented in Parliament, to seek to determine and communicate clearly to the Sovereign who is best placed to be able to command the confidence of the House of Commons.”
And that’s the big big problem because you and I both know that this government is going to say “there isn’t any doubt”.

This government or probably ANY government, but this one already has a track record of never doing anything by the rules unless someone loads up the Supreme Court and points it at their heads.

Ask Ms Gina Miller. Ask Mr Sir Kier Stammerer. Ask Mr Sir Oily Letwin.

This government tried to cut Parliament out of the Article 50 Process. This government had to be forced with “humble addresses” to deliver the reports that Davis David had promised them. This government tried to let us leave the EU by default until the backbenches seized control of the timetable.

On EVERY occasion, this government has taken “TAKE BACK CONTROL” to mean “SEIZE POWER FOR US!”

This government more than any other has shown repeatedly that you cannot trust it to let Parliament – the representatives of the people – have their proper say.

So what makes you think they will stick to a convention that says “if there is doubt” they have to talk to Parliament?

The Manual continues…

“As the Crown’s principal adviser this responsibility falls especially on the incumbent Prime Minister, who at the time of his or her resignation may also be asked by the Sovereign for a recommendation on who can best command the confidence of the House of Commons in his or her place.”

…but the current Prime Monster in Name Only, Theresa Maybe Not, is NOT a person who is as good as their word. Far from it, she promised many times that she would not hold a snap election… then held a snap election. She promised many times that we would leave the EU on March 29th … and then didn’t leave the EU on March the 29th.

More to the point, the story goes that when she lost the Conservatory majority in 2017, she allegedly lied to Mrs the Queen saying straight-up that she had the support of the DUP when in fact the billion-pound deal was only secured a week later. The Palace, it is said, were furious.

But again there’s your problem, right there. No action has been taken.

In order not to be SEEN to be political, the Palace lets fibbing in the dark go unpunished. There’s no one to bring them into the light of day.

Take also the case of the Sun’s “Queen Backs Brexit” headline, which was more than a little calculated to turn a few votes in the Referendum. Their source was a Cabinet Minister, widely believed to be Michael Gove, then leader of the Leave campaign. Surely a clear case of drawing the Crown in to politics.

If the convention had ANY teeth, the Referendum would have been voided there and then. The Sun would have been fined the full cost of mounting the process. Michael Gove, if indeed it was he, would have been summarily dismissed as an MP and never allowed to stand again. None of this happened.

It is transparently safe for the wicked to flout convention.

To paraphrase Sir Desmond Glazebrook, of Yes Minister, the whole system relies on good chaps behaving as good chaps, and a good chap can never accuse another good chap of not being a good chap because that’s not the behaviour of a good chap, and well, that’s where it all falls over.


I think this government, and with a new PM in charge the next government, will try to carry on as though it has 100% of the power, even though it has none of the right.

Remember those RESTRICTIONS on what government can do when the ability to command a majority is in doubt?

Those restrictions start with:

2.27 While the government retains its responsibility to govern and ministers remain in charge of their departments, governments are expected by convention to observe discretion in initiating any new action of a continuing or long-term character in the period immediately preceding an election, immediately afterwards if the result is unclear, and following the loss of a vote of confidence. In all three circumstances essential business must be allowed to continue.

And I think that means that until Boris or whoever is confirmed as the new PM by a Vote of Confidence, they should not be allowed to make a major change of policy like leaving the EU with no deal (in contravention of everything the current incarnation of this government has tried and failed to do, and against the repeated expressed will of Parliament).

But short of yet another date with the SUPREMES in Court, who is going to ENFORCE this?



So, here’s what I say:

An aspiring Prime Minister should be OBLIGED to bring a Motion of Confidence to the House of Commons, laying out their plan for government, so that it can be debated and voted on, BEFORE they can become PM.

Whether their Party is in a majority (when they shouldn’t have a problem with that), or planning to run a coalition (and their coalition partners would probably like to know), or trying to run a minority government (as is the current case), then Parliament should be able to pin them down and hold them to account.

The policy statement wouldn’t be enforceable, as such, but breaking it in some way – like saying you will try to do a new deal with the EU and then going for a “no deal” crash out – would obviously be grounds for a No Confidence vote.

And it needs to be in an Act of Parliament, because then people will NOTICE it, and especially JOURNALISTS will notice it, and EXPECT IT TO BE DONE.

Think this is unnecessary? Ask yourself: how many people are considering this Constitutional nicety right now? Answer: NONE. Everyone EXPECTS that whoever wins the Tory Leadership WILL BE Prime Monster.

It is so much easier to dodge these bits of the Constitution that only exist in papers, conventions and precedents. Look how this government HAS DONE THAT.

We are Liberals. It is OUR JOB to stop people just GRABBING power. We should not accept this. And we need to say so.

Day 5168: An Elephant's Eye on the Election

Tuesday:

You may not have noticed that there's an election coming. They've been keeping rather quiet about it.

A number of people have said that this year's election is "too close to call" or "too complicated" but I think that, even this far out, the results are pretty obvious.

The Liberal Democrats will come fourth in vote share with probably about 16% and win two-hundred and nine five-way marginals. Nick Clegg will become Leader of the Opposition as Al Murray is swept into Downing Street, made Prime Minister as leader of the Stop Farrago Alliance of Labour, Tory and SNP.

Okay, maybe it won't QUITE happen like that. It might be two-hundred and EIGHT – get down to Hornsey and Wood Green because we CAN win there and help keep Lynne Featherstone as MP for Awesome.

Okay, okay, maybe not two-hundred and eight either. But there are reasons for OPTIMISM. Maybe not quite as much optimism as Auntie Caron managed to muster in telling the Westminster Hour we could hold all fifty-seven of our current seats, though you've got to admire her for saying it with a straight face.

I think we can hold at least half, probably somewhere in the mid-thirties, and maybe a gain or two as well.

The reasons for this are, of course, complicated, but come down to the weakness of Mr Milipede's Hard Labour and the split vote on the right.

LABSERVATIVES

We only HAVE about 15 seats facing challengers from Hard Labour or Nasty Nationalists – well, we have a couple more than that, but no one is taking Charlie Kennedy or Alistair Carmichael's seat without Viking Longboats. Most of our seats are a fight with our so-called partners in Coalition the Conservatories.

In order to counter the PERCEIVED threat from the Party they REALLY want to be in bed with, the Kippers, Mr Balloon has been not so much tacking to the right as galloping for the starboard flank as fast as Master Gideon's little legs and Theresa May's kitten heels can carry him. Policies like deep cuts in benefits, targeted at the young and the fatshamed; the obsession with cutting spending deeper and harder than necessary – while promising vast and unfunded give-away tax cuts, not to mention remaining highly dubious in their attitude to possible tax evasion especially by their rich supporters; their increasing security paranoia, with Civil Liberties infringements verging back towards New Labour era; above all the frothing venom over Europe and immigration… all these are painting them as the Nastier-than-Ever Party.

It makes it all the more desperately important than ever that Liberal Democrats hold the centre ground, not because we're wishy-washy and moderate, but because we're the Party with a radical social conscience and grounded, practical, old-fashioned British COMMON SENSE.

Fortunately for Britain (not to mention us!), Mr Milipede's cohorts appear to have decided that he's already lost. They have wasted the last five years conspicuously failing to come up with an alternative plan to Osborneomics-lite while ostentatiously avoiding any engagement with apology for the catastrophe that overwhelmed them in office. In much the same way as Mr Vague's disastrous 2001 election odyssey descended into "Save the Pound! Save My Job!", they are reduced to pitiful wails of "Save the NHS! Save the Milipede!"

It isn't that they don't have any policies. It's just that they don't have any policies that would make anything BETTER.

Take the latest mini-spat over TUITION FEES. It's clearly ALL about the POSITIONING. They want to be able to play the Nick Clegg card AGAIN, so they want to wave a policy that LOOKS totemic (but isn't) so that they can wave Lib Dem pledge cards around (please no one notice Labour pledges). Except first it means pissing two-billion quid up the wall and Mr Balls can't find the cash, and second, more importantly, it's a give-away to the RICHEST students, and doesn't actually HELP people who need it. Whereas the as-good-as Graduate Tax that the Liberal Democrats negotiated has ACTUALLY helped a huge increase in the numbers of people from the least well off backgrounds making it to University.

(The man responsible, Tristram Hunt – surely that's a silly nickname? – is clearly a total liability, whether it's announcing that he's PRIVATISING SURE START – which I remain astounded has not received more coverage; though not at the total lack of synthetic outrage from Pollyanna Toytown – or insulting all NUNS. That's no doubt why he's convinced himself he's got a shot at Mr Milipede's job.

Though to get it, he'll have to get past Mr Woodchuck Umunna, whose face can currently be found next to the Wikipedia definition of "ambition".)

Meanwhile Mr Balls, while remaining the man who most people blame for the crash, has recently managed to forget the names of Labour's business backers and suggest that every window-cleaner needs a paper audit trail. Bill Somebody and get a Receipt, you might say. Mr Ball's position is, er, erratic to say the least, oscillating between occasional adherence to the terrifying splurges of Modern Money Theory (or Magic Money Tree economics) and back to flat out austerity and refusing any of his colleagues the cash to fund their endless lists of not-quite-pledges.

So the rest of the Shadow Cabinet are all "on manoeuvres" rather than campaigning to win. They expected to inherit the Coalition's position on the green benches, but if they can't do that they'll settle for inheriting Milipede's seat instead.

That's where the Liberal Democrats need to press hard that we remain the ONLY Party that stands between the country and a terrifying Tory majority. Hard Labour just aren't up to the job. The last five years have shown that Liberal Democrat ministers and back-benchers have got the guts and determination to hold the line against the Tories.

SICKLY GREENS

One response to Mr Milipede's shambles has been the Green Surge. No, I don't mean BARFING.

The Greens would be more admirable if their one MP hadn't been more loyal to the Labour Line than many of Mr Milipede's own alleged colleagues. (Apparently the Green Party's own slang is "Watermelon" – Green on the Outside, Red on the Inside – but this is probably RACIST to watermelons.) Seeking to capitalise on Labour's weakness and to outflank them on the left they are standing as a Syriza-like anti-austerity ticket, though that might not play out so well now that the real Syriza have apparently capitulated to European Union demands to stick with the austerity programme.

(Thus probably saving Greece, but SELFISHLY denying us the service of demonstrating the Farrago Folly by proving that dropping out of the Euro actually COULD make things extremely very much WORSE.)

What I REALLY object to, though, is how much of an Ed Balls Up the Greens are making of selling the policy of a Citizens' Income, a policy that apparently I, a stuffed elephant, understand better than the Green Leader Ms Notaclue Bennett.

There are many positives to be gained from providing a basic flat rate cash stipend to every single person in the country, potentially saving a lot of bureaucracy, protecting people from abusive employers, rewarding carers and housewives/husbands for their contribution, and greatly simplifying and maybe even SAVING some people's lives. But it's neither cheap nor simple to get there and it needs a good, strong PLAN that you can lay out to get to all the upsides. What you absolutely cannot do is KEEP going on the radio and the tellybox and waving your fluffy feet in the air saying "read the website, I don't remember this bit!"

NASTY NATS

The OTHER response to the Great Miliflop is the rise of the tide of nationalist parties. "Blame-the-other-people" parties always do well in difficult times, and the economic times we've been through have hardly been difficulter.

And after five solid years of Labour supporters screaming blue murder about the Liberal Democrats for working with the Conservatories, it is quite a BITTER IRONY that they find the exact same tactic being turned upon them by the Scots Nats for supporting the Conservatories and other pro-Union Parties in the Referendum Campaign.

There could hardly be a better demonstration of the FLAWS of our First Pass the Port electoral rules (and how STUPID our journalists are) than what is happening in Scotland. The press appear ASTONISHED that the LOSING side in the referendum seems to be doing so well in the prospects for Parliament. But it's simple MATHS.

Under ANY system of alternative voting, the pro-Union votes transfer to block the minority Nasties. Which is what happened in the Referendum.

But under First Pass the Port, the LARGEST LOSER WINS.

Because there are SEVERAL Parties that want to keep the United Kingdom, the winning side is DIVIDED; because the Scots Nasties are ISOLATED, they hoover up all the anti-votes. Ironically, this is the tactic of MARGARET THATCHER, who they hate.

Hilarious as it is that the Nasties are probably going to deprive Mr Milipede of any chance of an outright majority, the worse outlook is that they might ALSO deprive him of enough seats to form a Coalition with the remaining Liberal Democrats.

KIPPERS

Channel Four's mockumentary "UKIP: The First 100 Days" has received record numbers of complaints. Mainly because that's what Kippers do best: complain. In fact, it's difficult to know if they do anything else. Except make on-camera racist remarks.

Though also, it was RUBBISH.

There was almost no sting to the satire, no ring of dangerous truth to the warnings. Police snatch-squads and brutalisation of innocent minorities were treated much more DAD'S ARMY than SECRET ARMY. Economic implosion didn't seem to affect anyone's standard of living, in spite of all the factories closing. And the nice lady UKIP parliamentarian turned out to be nice in the end, so that was all right. We didn't get to see the follow-up scene where it's explained that she's "had a breakdown" and she's carted off to Broadmoor in one of those coats that ties up the back while her family are on a one-way flight to Karachi.

No, if anyone should be complaining it's the OTHER PARTIES for this far too nice portrayal, that seems to imply we could get away with electing a bunch of RACISTS without it all going Nuremberg on us.

Of course, the last thing Farrago wants is to actually WIN. Winning means having to do something other than complain. Worse, it means being the one who is complained ABOUT. No, he likes his nice cushy Euro-job where he gets paid a fortune and doesn't have to show any results. Or even show up!

Still, lucky for Nigel our electoral system is so horlicksed that he probably won't have to face his nightmare scenario of being everyone else's nightmare scenario.

LIBERAL DEMOCRAT GOVERNMENT

The PLAN for the Liberal Democrats has always been to show that Coalition WORKS, and that we can be TRUSTED in Government. We've certainly shown that a Coalition CAN last five years. Remember, almost EVERY SINGLE commentator in 2010 expected a second election within six months. We've proven them wrong once already. Whether we can be TRUSTED is… a slightly other matter, unfortunately.

It's difficult to see how we can continue in Coalition with the Tories. We've largely used up the areas of policy overlap, not to mention the GOODWILL, between our Parties. Equally though, many people have suggested that a period in Opposition, licking our wounds, might serve the Party well.

Maybe it would, but would it serve our Country well?

I still believe that the purpose of political parties is to be in Government, getting things done.

(Not the Labour Party's urgent desire to be in Government just to be in Government; not the Conservatories belief that they are entitled to be in Government because they are entitled.)

A Labour/Liberal Coalition, with Vince Cable as Chancellor (finally!), would be a better outcome for the Country (AND demonstrate that Coalition can remain stable even if the larger partner transitions) than a feeble minority Labour administration, with Scots Nats and Green demonstrating the real meaning of "propping up" (where they can take ALL the blame and get no policies at all enacted). And another Liberal/Tory Coalition, could one be bodged together in the wake of the election tearing strips out of each other (probably around an agreement that WE will run the country while Mr Balloon plays Euro-referendum) would STILL be better than letting the nutters run the asylum on their own (with the Farragistas not so much propping up as pushing to topple over).

But the real choice belongs, quite rightly to the British people.

And we've only just begun.

Day 3416: Captain Clegg and the Path to the Dark Side

Monday:


It seems that a lot of people may have voted for Liberal Democrats to "keep the Conservatories Out!" and are now a bit miffed that we might let them in.

Well, sorry, but we never promised to keep the Conservatories out – we only promised that you'd never have to vote tactically again if we could at all help it.

It's our BROKEN, WINNER-TAKES-ALL system that makes us HATE and FEAR other Parties, and in many ways that's WORSE than all the other ways that it poisons our politics.

Seriously, this is what the "New Politics" was ALWAYS going to look like: we WANT people to TALK, and to NEGOTIATE and COMPROMISE.

People HATE and FEAR the Conservatories because of what they did with UNTRAMMELLED power during the reign of Queen Maggie.

Nowadays, almost everyone agrees that SOME changes did have to be made, but equally that the Conservatories were way too harsh in the way that they made them. Could they have been as BRUTAL if they hadn't had a monopoly on power with only a minority of support?

If Queen Maggie had had to negotiate and explain, to listen and to compromise perhaps not only would it have been better for everyone else BUT ALSO everyone else would not have ended up with paranoid terror of the Conservatories ever coming back.

FEAR, as the thousand-year-old Fozzie Bear once said, is the path to the DARK SIDE. FEAR leads to HATE, HATE leads to ANGER, ANGER leads to thirteen years of police powers and terrorism acts. Wokka wokka wokka, he added.

What we've seen this last weekend is that people CAN behave like GROWN-UPs when they HAVE to. Wouldn't it be nice if they have to behave like grown-ups ALL THE TIME?

That is why it is so important, SO important that we reform our electoral system. And THAT is why it is so important that we make these negotiations with the Conservatories work. I KNOW we hate and fear them – we've got to do BETTER than that.

Two points:

First, a BIG part of the Conservatories case for the winner-takes-all first pass the port electoral system is that coalitions are WEAK. If we make this work, it proves them WRONG.

Second, if we do reach an agreement with the Conservatories it proves that we CAN reach a deal with the Conservatories. Because otherwise we will ALWAYS get the "Lib-Lab Pact" thrown in our faces and be told – not least by Hard Labour – that we can only ever be a junior partner to the forces of the LEFT.

(And I am SO tired of being told, by Hard Labour or their stooges, that I am part of the "left-liberal consensus". As Mr Harry Wilcock once said about I.D.iot cards – "left-liberal consensus"? I am a Liberal and I don't approve of that sort of thing!)

Look, even at the heights of "Cleggmania" we were NEVER expecting the Liberal Democrats to poll more than 50% (even if 49% was pretty darn close), so if we really, truly BELIEVE in trusting the people's vote, then we would ALWAYS have had to negotiate a partnership with one or other Labservative.

We're NOT in this to sit on the sidelines heckling; we're here to make a DIFFERENCE. And that means doing politics DIFFERENTLY.


So that's what's in it for us, but what's in it for the Conservatories?

Well, how about the chance of REAL GREATNESS.

Lord Blairimort's biggest problem – apart from being a psychotic monomaniac with a messiah complex, of course – was that he was great at ACHIEVING power and never had a clue what he wanted to DO with it. He was swept in on a great wave of "time for change" and revulsion at the old Conservatory sleaze, but didn't really know HOW he was going to make sure "things could only get better". This meant that his first term was wasted making everyone very cross by following Conservatory spending plans and his second term was wasted making every very cross by following Replutocrat INVASION plans.

Lord Blairimort wanted to go down in HISTORY – which of course he WILL, but not in a GOOD way – but even he sensed in himself the lack of true VOCATION. He wanted to be a "great reforming Prime Monster", like Mr Lloyd George or Mr Atlee or, er, Mrs Queen Maggie.

The reason that he WON'T be remembered as a great reformer is because his vision didn't extend beyond getting elected and then re-elected.

Now Mr Balloon has arrived, with a campaign straight out of the New Labour playbook, swept into power on a great wave of "time for change" and revulsion at the old Labour sleaze and what's he going to do now? His manifesto is less a platform more a collection of sound bites and idea bubbles – "hug a hoodie", "vote blue go green", "big tent society", "save my job"… no, that one was slipped in by Mr Vague.

Mr Balloon, self-styled heir-to-Blair, has always showed every danger sign of being another election-friendly policy vacuum.

But we could save him from himself.

The Conservatories will be negotiating saying "we got 307 seats; you only got 57" and we will be going in saying "I think you'll find that we got 23% of the vote and you got 36%, so we'll be splitting the power 40:60 if you don't mind".

But think about what we REALLY offer the Conservatories: a programme for government that is consistent, thought-through and ready to roll.

A Great Reforming Parliament: the Great Tax Reform Bill, to make the tax system fairer; the Freedom Bill, to roll back the intrusive state powers that Hard Labour have seized; and a new Great Reform Act, to empower a citizens convention and really, really usher in a politics for the New Millennium: the politics of fairness and consensus and individual freedom and empowerment

If you were Mr Balloon with THAT on the table, could you really, REALLY turn down the chance to be remembered in one breath with Churchill or Queen Maggie just because your resident wingnuts were unhappy with changing a system that was really only brought in by Labour less than a hundred years ago with the abolition of multi-member seats?

For goodness sake, STV is even known as BRITISH Proportional Representation. You know, like calling the EMULSIFIED HIGH-FAT OFFAL TUBE the British Sausage, it may just be all in a NAME if you want to get people to swallow something.


I have seen Hard Labour twitterers tweeting and bleating that to deal with the Conservatories is to do a deal with the devil. "If you handle dirt with clean gloves," they say, "it's not the dirt that gets cleaner."

Well maybe that's true, but if NO ONE handles the dirt then we all DROWN in it.

Hate and Fear are the path to the Dark Side. We have to have a BETTER answer.


.

Day 3413: Bloodied But Unbowed, the Battle Goes on - update Have Your Say

Friday:


First let's get this out of our system:

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Right… HUG Daddy, and…

NOW is time that our Four Principles were prepared for.

Captain Clegg has stuck to his word and made clear that the Party with more votes and more seats - that's the Conservatories - should have first TRY at forming a Government.

The Liberal Democrats should NOT go into a Lib/Con coalition. But we should seek to negotiate a "comfort and supply" deal on the following conditions:

1. Fair Taxes

There should IMMEDIATELY be formed an all-Party economy committee to conduct a full spending review.

NO budget until after we all know what the position really is. That puts a PAUSE on OUR tax cuts plans and THEIR spending cuts plans. Sorry. But we must put the National interest first.

Internal Conservatory feuding over who is to "blame" for their election campaign may cost Master Oboe his political head. Let's just say we shouldn't stand in the way of that.

2. Fair Jobs

We need to get the banks lending again. We should be able to agree on THAT.

3. Fair Start in Education

Mr David Laws and Mr Michael Borogrove to agree to work together in principle to develop a new settlement for schools that will try to combine the best elephants elements of the Liberal Democrats' pupil premium and the Conservatories' policy of giving more power back to parents. Both Parties look to the Swedish model, so differences may - MAY - be bridgeable.

4. Fair Politics

Agreement for government time for a Liberal Democrat sponsored Bill, which the Conservatories will be free to oppose in Parliament, to reform Parliament and elections.

Even the Conservatories must admit that our political system is BROKEN. All we can ask is that they let us put the CASE, first to Parliament, and then to the people in a referendum.

We always said we would have to make our case to the people of Great Britain; if the Conservatories are so sure of the case for the status quo, then they should have no FEAR of letting us ask the question.

I would REALLY REALLY REALLY rather that the case for Fair Votes had not had to be made by the Liberal Democrats GAINING in votes and STILL losing in seats, and losing so many good - no, so many GREAT - MPs.

But nevertheless, with people queuing to vote, being DENIED the vote, crying out for change and SEEING the system THWART that, it is now undeniable that this question MUST be put.

Update:

What should the party do next? Have your say by 2pm on Saturday

On Saturday afternoon the party's Federal Executive is meeting to discuss how the party should handle the Parliamentary situation. There's no pre-set, universally supported answer to this so the FE's discussion is going to be meaningful and important - which means that if you want to influence what the party does, now is the time to let the FE know.

Because many members of the Federal Executive are scattered around the country - sleeping, travelling back from election counts, making their way to London and so on - the FE members may be hard to get hold of and many will not necessarily be checking their emails frequently.

Therefore, in order to ensure that people have a chance to send in a view that will be read before the meeting, we've agreed with the Party President Ros Scott a special email address - balancedparliament@libdemvoice.org which can be used to email in your
views. A member of staff will collate all the messages and make sure that they are drawn to the attention of Ros and also reported to the members of the FE in time for their discussion.

A few tips when emailing this address:

- Given the pressures of time, short and concise messages are likely to be more effective than 12 pages essays

- As with letter writing or lobbying more generally, saying in full who you are and where you're from is likely to add to the impact of the message

- Please send your message as soon as possible

.