Day 4898: Infinity Percent Better than Expected!

Friday:


In purely mathematical terms, it could have been worse. But not by much. The voters' ongoing desire to give the Liberal Democrats a pummelling for giving them what they voted for saw us losing another swathe of councillors and all but one of our Members of the European Parliament.

Unsurprisingly, there have been calls for Cap'n Clegg to step down, many from friends.

And, despite suspicious leaks from "usual suspects" in the Grauniad (who are NOT our friends), most of them have principled reasons for wanting him to go.

But I disagree with them. I still agree with Nick. And here's why:

Firstly, Cap'n Clegg is a Liberal.

The idea that he's a pseudo-Tory is absurd. In fact, he's one of those soggy, left-wing, interventionist Liberals – you can tell can he believes in the power of the State to make things better from the way he always, but always, puts education first: pupil premium, more apprenticeships, free school meals.

Could he be a BETTER Liberal? Who couldn't? He thinks first of the State as an agent of change for good, before remembering that it can be abused which is why he occasionally fumbles the pass on civil liberties issues (though to be fair, once he sits down and thinks about it, he comes to the right answer). He's against the establishment, but it's not his first instinct to tear it down. His first thought is usually how can we HELP people, rather than how can we got out of people's way.

Secondly, Cap'n Clegg is actually saying Liberal things.

The "Party of In" campaign was the right thing to do, it was the Party being unashamed of the policies and positions we are trying to sell. The debate around more draconian penalties for knife possession – not even knife CRIME – was a needed standing up to of the Home Office, while Labour and Tories continue to try and outflank each other to the right. Free School Meals – a policy based on EVIDENCE, supported by TRIALS – is absolutely the right sort of thing we should be doing. The economics of the Coalition – shifting tax away from the incomes of lower earners and onto wealth and green taxes is entirely Liberal.

Thirdly, he's by far the best we've got at communicating Liberal things.

Town Hall meetings, Call Clegg on LBS, TV debates: Cap'n Clegg is really very good at delivering the message. The case against him is that no one is listening. I would dispute that. No one who writes for the Grauniad is listening; no one who writes for the Tell-lies-o-graph is listening. But Pollyanna Toytown and Dan Hannan sticking their fingers in their ears going "lalalala" does not mean that everyone else is deaf to our appeal. But equally, it doesn't seem likely that they'll suddenly start giving a fair hearing to any other Liberal Democrat. We have always had to struggle to get our message past the gatekeepers of the meeja. I'd rather have someone who's good at doing that still on board.

Fourthly, the Coalition's policies look like they might just be starting to work.

There are signs that we are turning the economy around, benefiting people at last. Do we really want to derail that by letting the Tories take charge while we go into a tailspin? Which is more important: serving the public trust or serving the Party's re-election? Yes, I realise we will need to get re-elected to keep on serving the public, but we must never fall into the trap that Hard Labour has: existing ONLY to get themselves elected.

One of the few good things the press pack are willing to say about us is that we've held it together in the face of, well, them being pretty beastly to us. I'm sure our opponents would love it if we tossed that aside. ("Oh they betray everyone, and then themselves too in the end", they would say. You know they would.)

Fifthly, he does actually listen.

Nick's office is far more open and accessible to the membership than previous leaders (excepting, possibly, Paddy pre-Blair-love-in-bunker phase; don't worry, he got over it). Telephone conferences, video interviews, question and answer sessions at conference, interviews with bloggers… he's been very much more open to interacting with and responding to the members. I was part of the phone call that turned Party policy around on internet snooping. Did they get it wrong? Yes. Did they put it right? Absolutely.

But if – as the complaints go – the leader's office / Party headquarters are supposed to be "disconnected" and "not listening", why hasn't that been fixed? It takes two to tango. We've had two rounds of Federal Executive elections now where a slate of candidates promised to mend that relationship. So if it's still wrong, why haven't they? No one is saying the FE should be considering their own positions for their share of this supposed failure; but equally no one ON the FE is in any position to be calling for Nick to go either. (We've failed so he should go! Not very edifying, is it?)


I try to avoid the negativity of a small group of people commenting intemperately on Lib Dem Voice – or rather accusing anyone who voices disagreement with them, including Auntie Caron of all people, of being part of an "Orange Booker" conspiracy! – who leave the campaign to replace Nick appearing sadly tainted.

So I've stayed away from the purely pragmatic reasons for not dropping the leader at this stage. You know what they are: the timing isn't good; it damaged the "brand" when we dropped Charles (arguably that act cost us seats in 2010; not Cleggy's leadership); it did so again when Ming stepped down; there's no evidence that anyone else would get any fairer hearing than Nick does; why if you believe we're going down to inevitable defeat next year (which I don't), make someone else carry the can. Most importantly, why should we ditch the leader who took us into government on the say so of, frankly, a conspiracy in the pages of the Grauniad? (Reminder: they are NOT our friends!)


We DO need greater coherence – and a great deal more what is technically called… oomph! – to our message; we need to talk louder about tearing down the system that has herded people into voting UKIP; we need to earn back a reputation for fairness and honesty.

I don't see how stabbing Cap'n Clegg in the back helps with any of that.

We lose a lot by getting rid of him; we gain more by keeping him.

I think he should stay.

PS:

Yes, Daddy was there in the 'Eighties when Captain Paddy went from 0.0% to 0.4% and his Spitting Image puppet was appearing in a cross-wipe, neither in the previous sketch nor the next one but somewhere in between… He – Puppet Paddy, that is – promised us then that a similar increase at the next election would see him elected Emperor of the Universe… oh, those were the days to be a humiliated Liberal Democrat!

Day 4876: The Day Labour Admitted They Have Lost

Thursday:

Wednesday night's Partly Political Broadside from Hard Labour seems to have got a lot of people talking.

Dan Hodges thinks Hard Labour have gone insane.

Owen Jones thinks it's lacking in hope.

(and it takes some doing for Mr Milipede to look like a less mature grown-up than my fellow Stopfordian!)

While the New Statesman thinks it means Labour are going all out for a majority.

Personally, I think that that last analysis is 100% wrong.

Because self-indulgently playing to their CORE VOTE prejudices is a sure sign that Labour are now falling back on a CORE VOTE STRATEGY.

Sure, Hard Labour supporters may all be very tickled with the "LOLS". But guess what – they were going to vote Hard Labour anyway!

EVERYONE ELSE is going "Well, that's a bit SHI—, er, negative!" And if you want to ensure a majority, then it's EVERYONE ELSE you should be talking to.

You need to be reaching out to floating voters and your rivals' supporters. You know, like that thing that Captain Clegg has been doing with his "we're the Party of IN", building a – dare I say – coalition of people because they support our actual POLICY on Europe, even if they've made up their mind to blame the Captain for not having given him a majority Liberal Democrat government in 2010.

Of course, to do that you do have to have some actual POLICIES to sell them. And it turns out that Hard Labour are coming up empty. Sort of a Hard Up Labour, in fact.

OK, Mr Milipede did have ONE policy – that "energy price freeze" lark that touched the media's sweet spot last year. But that is looking SO 2013, now that the energy companies have hiked their prices and announced their own eighteen month "price freezes" – just like Mr Ed and everyone else said they would – and the meeja have decided La Farage is their new darling.

And – in an obvious effort to strike it lucky with the same card twice – they have now announced they're in favour of rent controls as part of a continuing effort to try to REINTRODUCE THE CORN LAWS: i.e. to artificially depress prices thus cutting off SUPPLY making everyone worse off, rather than trying to address the real need which is increases in DEMAND.

To underline their paucity of ideas we have Mr John Crude Ass Cruddas (trying to get the silly names right…) – Mr Milipede's "policy co-ordinator"; an easy job when they've only got two policies, I suspect – writing in the Grauniad that: "Labour will pioneer the post-industrial economy" off the back of a new "Digital Revolution". So that's "post-industrial" in the sense of no one having any jobs? Do they really believe we'll all be e-commerce entrepreneurs and app-store millionaires? That's quite an upskilling they're promising. Or is it just an acid flashback to the dot-com bubble of 1997? And how did that work out, can anyone remember?

But it's all very thin stuff, dressed up with an anti-Farrago fringe of "No we ARE against the Kippers REALLY!" I guess it's because Cap'n Clegg's been questioning why their leader is not standing up for Europe against UKIP. Not so much "Where's Wally?" as "Where's Milly?". It must have really hit a nerve.

Vague promises of "devolution to our cities and regions" and "renewing the bonds of trust" and "new ways of doing politics" though will give anyone with even a passing familiarity with Lib Dem policy a profound sense of déjà vu.

It seems WILFULLY PERVERSE to depict Nick Clegg as NAKED just as you are trying to steal his clothes!

Oh yes, back to the barely-coherent "plot" of that election broadcast that sees a not-very-Clegg-alike "shrinking" as his promises are undermined by a nasty pseudo-Mr Balloon. It attacks Nick with all the usual old catalogue of allegations while simultaneously depicting him as being forced to do it all by the evil Tories. Well, make your mind up, boys: is he victim or villain?

I even feel some sympathy for the Conservatories in this. Absolutely they've made some pretty poor choices and there has been much pain, often falling on people who should NOT have been let down. But the Tories – and we – didn't do it for "teh Evils"! It was because Labour left behind a situation that was damn near IMPOSSIBLE.

The sort of Cameron-caricature depicted in Hard Labour's ad is the sort of thing you expect from Tweenie Trots in fashionable student debating clubs. But it's not proper politics, is it.

If you want to reduce some really complicated economic factors and impossibly hard decisions to Dr Evil stereotyping, then expect to see LABOUR BROKE THE ECONOMY coming right back at you. That's what everyone believes anyway, no matter how many times you trot out "No, it was like that when we found it, it was the bankers, it's not FAIR!"

In some ways the worst of all is the sheer ARROGANCE of the ad's conclusion that the British people will just drop a Happy Ending into Hard Labour's lap without the Milipedes, Ballses or Crude-asses having to DO any actual "labour" at all.

And in a way, they might. Because Labour's core vote strategy is to try and leverage the unfairness of the electoral system and scrape a majority out of the bare 35% of people who voted them in last time they were "elected", back under the old war-criminal Lord Blarimort.

Because it's quite clear now that they don't expect anyone else to vote for them. And why would they? There were no reasons to vote Labour here, no reaching out to the electorate, no "vision".

Their cartoon-Clegg might be naked on screen, but it's Hard Labour who look like the Emperor with No Clothes.

Day 4329: Hope. Again.

Wednesday:


If you're NOT exhausted by voting yet, you've still got an HOUR to vote in the Liberal Democrats Federal Elections: a last chance to give a first preference to Richard Flowers for the FPC!

Can we also say HUGE thank yous to everyone who has voted already, especially to those who gave a "Richard Flowers" first preference!

Meanwhile, thank Americaland and thank goodness, President Barry O has been re-elected.

We may not be too happy about him EXPLODING bits of Pakistan and Afghanistan with robot drones BUT... robot drones IS an accurate description of his opponent making a speech.

Running on a platform of "we NUKED the economy SO HARD that the other guy hasn't been able to fix it in four years... so give us another go!" never deserved to be rewarded with the Presidency (take note Hard Labour). And yet it seemed to be gaining BIZARRE traction. Ironically, it's all the FRUIT-BAT CULTURE WARS nonsense that he had to spout about abortion and gay daddies just so that the Tea Party faction would let him on the ticket that has cost him the election.

And it's NICE that he's united the young and the old, the women and the ethnic minorities all under one banner of "DEAR LORD, NOOOOOOOO!" Maybe next time get them on HIS side, though.

The Replutocrats tried to steel the Dumbocrats "change" clothing, but what we've seen is a vote to let Barry O FINISH THE JOB of change that only began in 2008.

So it's CONGRATULATIONS to Barry O who now returns to the White House and COMMISERATIONS to the Mitt-bot 5000 who will now be put back in his factory packaging and have his hard drive formatted.

And over in China...

Day 4142: Election Flop – Mr Balloon turns to Porn

Friday:

Top Secret Government Strategy (for Tories who have yet to get with the programme)

Step 1: Denude Westminster Government of as much power as possible – localise it, federalise it, devolve it, whatever.

Step 2: Install House of Lords Club with enough teeth and mandate to stop future government ever undoing this.

Step 3: Lose 2015 election, see Hard Labour stuck powerless in Whitehall taking the blame for a decade while we get back to what we're GOOD at – running local councils and actually making people's lives BETTER!

Seriously, though, the Liberal Democrats exist to BE IN POWER.

Locally or nationally, if we're going to liberate people from poverty, ignorance and conformity, we've got to be in power. Otherwise, like me, you're just BLOGGING.

And all the evidence shows that where we ARE in power, we deliver the services that people want AND value for money. So that's why it's disappointing when we take a drubbing.

This morning, Mr Paul Cornell, an otherwise noble writer of Doctor Who, tweeted:

"...How addicted are the Lib Dems to power, that they'll ride it until it kills them?"

Which I'm afraid merely serves as a reminder that Labour are TORIES with added SANCTIMONIOUS SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Hard Labour, of course, are the Party SO "addicted" to power that they installed a lying, warmongering megalomaniac with a god complex as Prime Monster. And then were so GRUBBY to keep their incompetent mitts on the levers of government that they let a cowardly bullying economic-illiterate with known telephone related tantrum issues take over without any input from the people.

(No, don't say you didn't know Lord Blairimort was EVIL – Daddy Alex was warning you of it on election night 1997, and frankly it was OBVIOUS from 1994 when he was willing to use the death of a little boy, Jamie Bulger, for political leverage. And don't say you didn't know Mr Frown wasn't up to the job – there isn't anyone in W1 who didn't hear the slanging matches through the walls of 10 and 11 Downing Street.)

Hard Labour THEMSELVES admit that they have to ask their supporters to wear a CLOTHES PEG to hide the STENCH and vote Labour in spite of it.

THAT'S what REALLY being addicted to power looks like. Liberal Democrats can remain PROUD of their Party's achievements and their Party's candidates!

As a GOOD CHRISTIAN, though, I am sure Mr Cornell is familiar with Matthew 7.5.


Hard Labour and their APOLOGISTS like to remind us that we had a CHOICE to go into power with the TORIES. And this is TRUE – we had a choice of the BLUE Tories or the RED Tories. (And the RED Tories were more interested in taking their ball away and having a leadership contest than attending to the GOOD OF THE COUNTRY.)

They love to GLOAT that entering the Coalition has lost us a third of our support because of our "treason" – as though it might have NOTHING to do with us having to deal with the fallout from what happened ON HARD LABOUR'S WATCH, namely the WORST ECONOMIC COLLAPSE since the Great Depression. (Gosh it's SO BORING that that just hasn't GONE AWAY, isn't it – except in Labour's FANTASY economics.)

As Mr Ed Davey said on the Newsnight Show last night: "It's been Ninety Years since we had any Mid-Tem Blues!" So let's ENJOY 'em while we CAN!

But before Hard Labour's supporters get TOO carried away with their total, brilliant success ((c) the "infamous minister of justice", Jack "Man 'O" Straw, er...), it's worth remembering that TURNOUT in these elections was an APPALLING 32%. (An INDICTMENT of us ALL! Go read Auntie Jennie for more.) So Hard Labour's 39% of the vote is actually only 12% of the POSSIBLE vote – and that's FEWER people turning out to support Mr Milipede than showed up to back Mr Frown when he was annihilated at the last general election.

If anything, this is a massive victory for... our voters not turning up.

(And you know, with a double-dip recession and string of Conservatory cock-up and corruption scandals, who can blame 'em. This is no endorsement of the Coalition, but Labour benefits from our ABSENCE not their own strength.)

Anyway, in an effort to move on from the FLACCID election results, Mr Balloon (do you remember when he was RE-LAUNCH KING? See for example, diaries here, here and here. Old habits die hard, it seems.) is going to a conference to look at PORN.

No! It's not what you think.

Apparently, he wants to make it HARDER for people. (To see it, that is!)

Daddy Alex wants to call this more Conservatory WILLY-WAVING. I give him a very firm stare!

Look, even if backdoor methods of banning things that are legal wasn't stupid, illiberal and very unlikely to work, does he REALLY think that this is going to stop the moderately determined horny teenager getting his – or even her – hands on anything on the Internet?

And THIS is why we need Liberal Democrats in GOVERNMENT. To SAY, "Hang on, Mr Balloon, this is STOOPID!"

PS:

May the Fourth Be With You!
.

Day 4140: Brian Paddick and the Liberal Democrats: A Vote You Can Be PROUD Of

Thursday:


What do you WANT in London?

A single policy of an unaffordable fare-cut bribe OR a shiny new million-pound bus?

Wouldn't you rather have a DELIVERABLE low fares policy AND a plan to turn all of London's buses and taxis ELECTRIC for greener, cleaner air!

Do you want a BRAGGING war over who can put more police on the street?

Wouldn't you rather have an EXPERIENCED leader who PIONEERED techniques rebuilding TRUST between public and police AND who pledges to CUT OUT the HARASSMENT of stop-and-search and END the scandal of the POLICE being WASTED on trivial cannabis arrests!

Do you more of the same old failure to invest in affordable housing (while granting planning permission for huge skyscrapers) OR more of the same old failure to invest in affordable housing (while granting planning permission for huge skyscrapers)?

Wouldn't you rather have a REAL commitment to working London-wide to restart PROPER council house building to replace the lost housing stock coupled with IMAGINATIVE plans to bring empty houses back into use AND finding new living space above shops and businesses.

Wouldn't you rather have a PLAN to make London not just an AFFORDABLE place to live but a BETTER place to live, with pedestrianized zones between Oxford Street and Trafalgar Square, with more spent on the PARKS across London and more SPORTS and more ARTS and MORE TREES everywhere!

Wouldn't you rather have someone who'll give young people have SOMEWHERE OF THEIR OWN to go so they don't have to hang about on the streets so they don't risk falling victim to GANG culture AND who'll invest in education and apprenticeships and advice to see that young people have a FUTURE.



Some people are thinking of voting for Bojo the Clown because they think he is HARMLESS. Or, as the Hitchhiker's Guide might have it, MOSTLY HARMLESS. Well, we can do a LOT BETTER than "harmless".

Some people are thinking of voting for Ken because... er... well, even Hard Labour admit that they're reduced to the old CLOTHES PEG strategy – you've got to vote Ken or else Mr Balloon won't understand that he's got to be punished for not having fixed the economic devastation that Labour wrought yet. Er, or something. Well, we can do a lot better than THAT too!

Some people are even thinking of voting for Jenny Jones because even though they think her policies are WOO they would rather feel WARM and FLUFFY than actually vote for what they want. People with an ACTUAL commitment to green policies (or even Green PARTY policies, which are not ALWAYS the same or as effective), good for you; but people protest-voting Green to spite Cap'n Clegg over tuition fees earn my fluffy contempt. (Pod Delusion, it is YOU I am looking at!)

If you think that the Liberal Democrats don't deliver for you – when the UNFAIR electoral system meant we got FEWER seats in Parliament, we STILL delivered ALL FOUR promises on the front of our manifesto.

If you think that we break our promises – we managed to turn Hard Labour's Student Loans into a Graduate Tax that was FAIRER and MORE GENEROUS than EITHER the Conservatories OR Hard Labour wanted or would have delivered. New graduates now pay LESS each month than they would have done under Hard Labour.

And if you think that we're "traitors" just because we backed the other Party that had the larger number of votes and the larger number of seats and the larger DEMOCRATIC MANDATE rather than support a Party that had just spent thirteen years trampling over EVERYTHING we believe in about CIVIL LIBERTIES and INTERNATIONAL LAW – then you should probably ADMIT you we're going to vote for the AUTHORITARIAN, ECONOMICALLY-ILLITERATE, WARMONGERING CRIMINALS anyway, weren't you.


Who's REALLY on your side these days? Let's look at the EVIDENCE.

Times are tough for everyone, but LOCALLY it's only Liberal Democrat councils that have kept open SURE START schemes and LIBRARIES.: unlike those Conservatory vandals' and Hard Labour hypocrites' councils, not one Lib Dem-run council has closed a library. And NATIONALLY it's the Liberal Democrats who have CUT TAXES for the lowest earners and focussed the PUPIL PREMIUM on a better start for the least well off.


I don't care how much tax Ken's been avoiding; I don't care how much Bojo earns moonlighting for the Tell-lies-o-graph. But THEY care or they wouldn't have tried to keep it HIDDEN from you.

There's a BETTER WAY than that.

Hard Labour and the Conservatories are JUST LIKE EACH OTHER, telling you you must vote for them so that the other feller doesn't get in. Well you know what, you don't have to vote for EITHER of them – vote for the REAL alternative and then NEITHER of the other fellers will get in!

I don't want to vote for a clown OR a caricature.

And I don't have to.

I can vote for Brian Paddick and the Liberal Democrats. And I can be PROUD of it.
.

Day 3604: To FPC or not to FPC, that is the Election

Saturday:

And now for a word from Daddy Richard…

So, I stood for the FPC…

That might come as a surprise*, because I've not mentioned it on Millennium's diary, but the rules of the election said I couldn't use the Internet so I kept quiet.

So, I stood for the FPC and didn't get elected.

But I'm not downhearted.

It was (obviously) STV, and I was eliminated at stage 47; but Alex assures me that means I came "23rd" out of 63! Or seven short of elected!

And that's better than a slapped face, so I'll stand again in 2012.

After all, it took five tries to win Blogger of the Year, didn't it?

So, what are the lessons learned?

Firstly, I think I had good reasons for standing: we need a policy committee that can hold us to Liberal policies even as our ministers are being dragged to the right by the Conservatives.

I think I'm qualified to do that because: (a) I have a good grasp of economics, thanks to a background in mathematics and accounting, and I think that's vital in the current circumstances; (b) I have a good grasp of core Liberal Philosophy, thanks to years of teaching from my beloved Alex, who learned everything there was to learn (that he didn't know already) all from Sainted Conrad Russell of blessed memory; and (c) I've interviewed Nick Clegg several times and I think, think I could stand up to him if I had to.


It's easy to exceed expectations when you're expecting something fairly humiliating, but the result was (at least in my head) modestly respectable.

Even without the ability to flash Millennium's award-winning Very Fluffy Diary around, I got nineteen first preference votes (and thank you to each and every one of you) and after transfers that went up to 37.17 (and thank you as well to everyone who gave me transfers).

In both cases, looking at the figures, I reckon that's almost halfway to what I would need to get elected. Which is a decent start.

It's an STV election, so looking at the effect of transfers, on first prefs alone I started in joint 29th but finished six places higher. In fact only Gareth (who jumped up twelve places to get elected) and David Hall-Matthews (who climbed eleven places, probably with a lot of Social Liberal Forum transfers) did better from transfers. Which I think shows I have a certain amount of cross-over appeal.

So lesson number one is probably: actually I might be in with a chance if I work at this.

But looking at who actually got elected, of the fifteen people with most first preferences, all but one got on.

So lesson number two has to be: get more first preferences.

That means putting my face about more, getting more involved at a regional and conference level and (horror of horrors) making some speeches(!). But also, encouraging some people who might have voted for me had they been Conference Reps to take the step and be Conference Reps.

It also means doing a bit of what might be called "campaigning" were there an election on. Not spending money – that would be silly – but exchanging e-mails with people to see if I can get some support.

The thing is. I have to do this now, after the election because, as I said, the rules don't allow it while the election is on.

Those rules said I must not use the Internet, or specifically: "use e-mail, e-groups, cix conferencing or websites during these elections to promote [my] candidacy".

(Although oddly, the rule against using websites appears not to have been enforced for some people using the Twitter website, nor certain others.)

So I buttoned it for the course of the election.

In fact, I felt constrained from even mentioning it in any form of written electronic communication, even personal e-mails. I didn't feel able to submit questions to other candidates, in case this was seen as self-promotion. And I didn't bat any ideas around online on e-mail lists with people who might have voted for me anyway, just in case.

Which is a shame because I do a lot of my communicating by e-mail. I'm a writer: I feel more comfortable, more eloquent if I can put my ideas down in writing and hone my words. (Judge for yourself if that's successful, of course, but it's the way I feel.) And of course it's cheaper than a lot of phone calls.

I'd like to say "cheaper" may (once) have been the point. It does seem likely that in fact the rule against using the net is historical (archaic, even), rooted in the notion that it would give an unfair advantage to the well-off, those rich enough to be able to afford to make websites.

There'd be an irony there, that in the last five to ten years with the rise of free blogging sites, and Facebook and Twitter, the absolute reverse is true. The Internet provides a hugely democratic and virtually free platform: giving any candidate the ability to lay out positions on all areas of policy, without the constraints of having to squeeze everything in to a single side of A5, and with a great deal more interactivity for the voter (you can post replies and comments or e-mail the author or hyperlink to other views). Ironic, but an innocent irony.

So I'd like to say that, but a little bird tells me that actually these rules are all quite new, just introduced in the last half-dozen years (not, say, dozen or more).

When we have the Federal Executive making the rules for their own election, there's a great danger that they appear to neither like nor understand the opportunities for participation that modern technology continues to unfold. And that they can get elected very nicely on the old rules, thank you very much.

We seem to be actively ruling out the greatest form of democratic access of our age. And when one candidate is able to say "look for my column in the Guardian", that's really not a level playing field. (And that's really not to have a go at Evan, who is a much loved and unjustly-defenestrated former MP, but come on…)

The rules aren't even consistent: candidates for the Peers' panel were permitted electronic campaigning, and to set up websites; candidates for FE and FPC and so on were not.

It's all grown up organically, which is lovely and very Liberal, but it's a hotchpotch, a mess.

It's like the changes to the Presidential election rules, expecting a much larger number of nominations to be gathered in the same small window (which is what, apparently, kept Jennie out of the race, I think unfairly): it favours the people with power and access (and who are tipped the wink) over those at the bottom starting from scratch. And that's not very Liberal at all.

People have been looking to see if there's an "alphabetical bias" (i.e. do you do better if your name is at the top of the list) and with such huge lists it's easy to see how that can happen, particularly if – like me – you filled in preferences all the way down. Those difficult middle rankings are where it's all too easy to just list one or two people in the order they appear on the paper. I imagine.

But surely it's clear that there is a bias: a bias in favour of "the great and the good" (and a bit of a regional bias too). And that's a problem, because MPs already have representation on the FPC, and Peers already have representation on the FPC and the regions already have representation on the FPC.

Fully one third of the elected members are accounted for by two former MPs, a nearly MP, a Peer and a former leader in the Welsh Assembly. All of them decent people, but we need these committees to be cracking open the establishment, not acting as consolation prizes for the establishment.

So we need to regularise the rules so everyone plays by the same rules, and open things up much more to the grassroots members by allowing much greater use of the Internet. I'm not alone in this: Mat and Jennie have said similar things and I've already got one or two others working along similar lines: keep an eye out for more pieces on Lib Dem Voice and other blogs. And I notice today that the lovely Honourable Lady Mark has also added a voice of authority along the same lines.


At the very least, Internet-based campaigning would crack down on some of the inanities of the manifesto booklet.

My third place pet peeve for the manifestos is people – some of whom are lovely – standing for, and getting on, multiple committees, reducing their own effectiveness and reducing opportunities for other people. Show a little heart for those of us who can't even get on one, guys!

My number two peeve is the "I'll be a strong voice for… (name your compass point)" line. It seems bizarre to me, and yet it's clearly successful, that people can bypass policy discussion by appealing to regional solidarity. It concerns me that it is possibly code: either code for policy positions – perhaps opposition to fishing quotas or support for shipbuilding or affordable rural housing; it's not like there aren't policies that would be of greater significance to one region than others and that should be voiced… but then voice them! – or and I think this would be worse, code for "we're not those London elite".

Besides, I'm all for some geographical diversity, but (e.g.) "The North" could mean anywhere from Manchester to Orkney. Some people think it means Islington! Someone standing up to say "I'm a proud Yorkshireman, and I believe in greater diversity, youth engagement, and pies" gets my vote; someone saying "I am the voice of the Angel of the North" goes straight to the bottom of the list, thank you.

But running some way ahead, I must admit, my number one peeve is the tendency to write up "my faaabulous CV" rather than anything suggesting why you should or could do the job you're applying for. If places on these committees are not consolation prizes, they certainly shouldn't be long service awards, either – I don't care how many Focus you've delivered since joining the party as a foetus, if you're standing for the FPC what will you contribute to policy?! Sorry…


Aaaaanyway, does any of this mean that I think that the FPC will not do its job?

Not necessarily; there are good people on there. But I am concerned that there is a strong "establishment" presence, accidentally shored up by the system, and that the voices of the grassroots members may end up marginalised as "wacky".

These next two years, this new FPC have the opportunity – and obligation – to set the groundwork for how we are going to be distinct from the Tories at the next election.

So what should they be doing?

Well, here are some key areas for starters, for a bit of joined-up Lib Dem thinking:

Economy+Energy+Apprenticeships:

As a country we're already falling behind in the green revolution, when we have nothing but opportunities and this should be looking to be the manufacturing growth area of the Twenty-First Century. We already have the suggestion to use old shipyards as the new wind turbine factories, but we should go further and look to the next generation of North Sea rigs not prospecting for oil, but using wind-generated electricity to crack hydrogen from sea water. Hydrogen, like oil, can be used in fuel cells or in zero-emission cars, to make energy when we need it, not at the whim of nature and is the logical next step in renewable technologies. Those next-generation rigs can be a whole new start for manufacturing, from the shipbuilding areas of the North East and Scotland to new electric car plants in the Midlands, and we can repay some of our debt to the next generation by supporting engineering and manufacturing apprenticeships in those new industries.

Crime+Economy+Health:

We need a structured plan to withdraw from wasting lives and billions of pounds in cash on the "War on Drugs". In Afghanistan alone we make the situation impossible by fighting both the Taliban and the peasants who grow poppies, when we would be better off buying the crop ourselves and, for example, considering more reasonably the medical use of opiates in alleviating terminal pain. And even while remaining mindful of the dangers of schizophrenia, particularly in young black men, the case for looking again at cannabis is surely now unanswerable. Speaking as someone whose flat was nearly blown up by an illegal cannabis farm on our estate, I'd much rather see some licensed (tax-paying) farms, perhaps in the South-West of England where the economy could do with the lift.

Defence+Europe+Economy:

We should not be wasting money on Trident; we should not be wasting lives in Afghanistan; and a Strategic Defence Review based on the premise that we need to "project power" globally is a joke. Instead we should be looking to bring Germany and Italy and Poland (for starters) into the defence pact recently signed with the French.

Economy+Pensions+Housing+Youth:

More than anything, we have got to begin the work of addressing the intergenerational divide that sees more assets held by and more resources tied up supporting an ageing generation of baby boomers at the expense of overworked, under-rewarded young people. We as Liberal Democrats are going to get a kicking for breaking our pledge on tuition fees. And we deserve it. We need to break with Labour's prescriptive target of 50% university entrance – academia isn't for everyone anyway – and offer genuine alternatives, like the apprenticeships mentioned above, like support for City and Guilds, like more overseas service. We can't honestly say that it's essential to cut the country's debt and at the same time pile debt onto graduates. It may be better than Labour's scheme but it looks absurd. And in the long term, we have got to start figuring out how to say "no" to the grey vote before the situation slips from unfair to impossible.






*Of course, it might come as a surprise because you only think of me as the "larger" gentleman who wanders around conference with a big stuffed toy and what's he doing standing for a serious Party committee… in which case you've probably not read much of the blog… and didn't get a chance to in the election, for reasons stated above.

.

Day 3490: Popping the Question

Thursday:


"Do you want the United Kingdom to adopt the 'alternative vote' system instead of the current 'first past the post' system for electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons?"

Yes!

By which I mean: No! Not really. I want STV (Single Trunk Voting) not AV (Awful Voting). But that's not on the cards and this is a change at least vaguely in the right direction and better than a poke in the button eye, the like of which cannot be said of First Pass the Port, so grudgingly and grumblingly, oh all right then.

Next!

Day 3320: Are we AV-ing a laff? Or: What would a REAL New Economic Model look like?

Tuesday:


First thing, Mr Frown is going to ram voting reform through the Cabinet today and force it down Parliament's throat next week. But being Hard Labour his idea for "fair votes" is actually LESS fair.

Second thing, Master Gideon says he'll be bench-pressing the UK into a "new economic model" which looks suspiciously like the OLD economic model of "free-market capitalism with a hint of Government intervention".

Third thing, an e-mail from the POWER2010 people pops up saying that their 25,000th contributor has posted his vote for "None of the Above".

Funny thing: all these things are TOTALLY interconnected.


This urge to REJECT the entire political establishment, to vote "None of the Above", arises out of the perception that "all the parties are the same".

But that perception is driven by exactly the sort of language that Master Oboe uses today: dancing on the head of a pin so that he can say that HIS policies are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to those of Hard Labour which in turn are completely different to those of the Liberal Democrats, when in fact everyone – yes even us – are offering relatively unimaginative VARIATIONS ON THE SAME THEME.

But that in turn is because those policies are driven by the choices of the electorate, or rather a very small sub-section of the electorate whose opinions are HUGELY MAGNIFIED by the DISTORTED calculus of the electoral system. Anyone who wants to get elected is FORCED into a very narrow range of options to satisfy a very narrow range of people: in short, swing voters in marginals.

And that, ultimately, is why we NEED a reform of the voting system that opens up politics to HUGE change.



Now, saying we want to vote for "None of the Above" is a SYMPTOM of people's disaffection, but as a solution it's nowhere NEAR good enough. In fact, I'd say it was both MEANINGLESS and it's LAZY.

Meaningless, in part, because it doesn't tell us WHY none of the above satisfy the voter. Did they want a candidate who was more socialist or more capitalist? Or more liberal or more authoritarian? Or more female or more male? Or more local? Or more famous?

"None of the Above" adds together all of the splinters of people not satisfied with what's on offer and artificially adds them together. And it would STILL probably be fewer than the votes cast for real candidates because it's not the lack of a "none of the above" box that causes people to NOT BOTHER TO VOTE.

People don't vote through a combination of "they don't think they can change things" and "they don't think things need to change (because they ain't that bad, really)".

But much more than that "None of the Above" is meaningless because what actual EFFECT is it supposed to have on the election?

It's just an "I turned up but didn't vote" box. Now, a "Re-open Nonimations" box, that comes with REAL power – i.e. if "RON" is elected they HAVE to re-run the election with new candidates – that maybe has some merit. Some. Maybe. But just giving people a chance to stick two fingers up at the candidates seems totally pointless.

And it's also LAZY because it's saying "I see a problem here and I refuse to try and solve it"; it is expecting someone ELSE to come along and present you with another option. Well, why SHOULD anyone be bothered if YOU can't be, eh?

And it's not like people AREN'T presenting you with other options.

IThere already ARE lots of choices beyond " the Above", because I'm assuming that by "the Above" what you really mean is "the three nationwide parties (oh all right, four, if you MUST count UKPnuts just because Mr Bob "elected-as-a-Conservatory" Stink sits for them these days… and in Scotland and Wales add a smattering of nationalists) who have representation in the House of Commons".

From Anarcho-Communists to Anti-Abortionists to Sickly Greens to British Nasties to Vanity Candidates to Respect the Leotard Gorgeous Pussycat George Supporters to Monster Raving Loonies… you have got a lot of choices.

But, comes the protest, they don't get elected.

That's partly because they don't have the support and partly because of the system. And those two things do feed off each other too. Our current system biases the results in favour of very large Parties or very concentrated-in-one-place Parties and completely ignores Parties with support spread out across the whole country. Under first-pass-the-port, you can of course get 49% in every seat in the country and still get no MPs at all.

In fact, it's the very geographical POLARITY of the two red-blue Parties – one in the urban strongholds of the industrial and post-industrial North, one in the Home County retreats of the moneyed South-East; neither can really be called broad based anymore, and both suffer from nasty inflammations of the Core Vote Strategy – that contributes to their unhealthy stranglehold on the Government and, more cogently, the DISTORTED importance of those few seats where swing voters can pick which of them will win.

So either organise a revolution and change the system or get involved with the Liberal Democrats and change the system. Or you can always start your OWN political movement to try and capitalise on that big wave of we-reject-all-the-other-parties that you think is out there. And see how far you get.

Anything less is just WHINGEING.

Which, quite naturally, brings me to Master Oboe.

His idea for a "new economic model" includes his eight-step programme of:

• Ensure the whole country shares in rising prosperity – by raising the private sector's share of the economy in all regions of the country, especially outside London and the South East (as thought the Government can actually DO this… does he mean he'll actually REDUCE the public sector in areas where private investment isn't matching London?)

• Get Britain working (well who doesn't want that?)

• Ensure macro-economic stability (well who doesn't want that?)

• Make Britain open for business (well who doesn't want that?)

• Reform public services to deliver better value-for-money (like EVERYONE says they'll do)

• Create a safer banking system that serves the needs of the economy (no, do you think?)

• Build a greener economy (gee, an original thought… when everyone else had it five years ago)

And

• Create a more balanced economy – presumably with both more motherhood AND more apple pie.

So, basically it's a recipe for BUSINESS as USUAL.

The Government (Hard Labour OR Conservatory… or even Liberal, if you credit the idea we could win) will raise most of its money from a not-very-graduated income tax and a regressive sales tax and then spend a third of it on pensions and benefits, and another third on the health service and schools and the army, and the rest will go on lots and lots of little things that are all important to SOMEONE.

(And remember, this system benefits a relatively narrow range of people, i.e: people on slightly better than moderate incomes who want their health care and pension paid for don't want the unemployed actually to starve but don't want to pay more tax to see them "dossing about" and would quite like various things, from the Arts Council to continuous supply of electrical power, to continue without them being bothered about the details, or more succinctly, voters in marginals again.)

Saying you want a Britain built on "savings, enterprise and exports" is saying you want them exactly as they are… but a bit better. It's really NOT a new economic model.


A GENUINE, but still MODERATE, change would involve actually addressing some of the things that the Government DOES.

For example, the NHS. Make it a separate corporation, like the BBC, paid for by a health insurance that would not be much dissimilar to the licence fee or a subscription. But oh yes, that's the great HOLY COW of British Politics and tinkering with it is as unthinkable as GOOSING Mrs the Queen!

Or the benefit system. Pay every UK Citizen over the age of 16 a Citizen's Income of £100 per week, paid for by an income tax rate of, say, 45% on all other earnings (abolishing employee's National Insurance), and abolish all other benefits. Depending on how much Employer's NI generates, it even raises money for the Treasury. And there would be a bit less bureaucracy. In theory EVERYONE on benefits is quite a bit better off and NO ONE has to be humiliated with means tests or medical exams ever again. But it's crazily difficult to work out how it impacts people on tax credits and of course everyone earning over about sixteen grand is going to be slightly worse off. That's not even average national earnings, so you'd never get THAT past those marginal voters!

Of course REAL change to our economic model means looking at the factors that are limiting our freedom and doing something about them. The BIG limiting factor is ENERGY. If we can greatly increase the supply of energy we can actually increase people's freedom too. This happened in the Industrial Revolution when we moved from person-power to machine-power, unfortunately fuelled by, well, fossil fuel.

("Unfortunately", because not only is it running out, and not only are we as a country increasingly having to import our energy supply but of course we now know that we are seriously damaging the planet that we happen to be STANDING ON!)

What we need in order to achieve a step-change is to invest in a new and more abundant energy source… if we can FIND one. (The obvious candidates would be hydrogen fusion – if it can be made to work like it hasn't for fifty years – or solar power – probably based on orbital platforms, which requires not just a lot of engineering but a lot of international co-operation too – or something from the exploitation of Outer Space – so we'd better not cancel the Moon Base… oh dear.)

The truth is, though, that GAME-CHANGING revolutionary developments like that tend to be EXTERNAL to the Government. To an extent, the best you can hope for is to LIMIT how much Government HOLDS BACK innovation – which certainly means stopping Lord Mandelbrot intervening to decide what universities should be studying! Because Government tends to be a conservative force even when the Conservatories AREN'T in power.

ALL Government is based on COMPROMISE – not just democracies, though there it becomes obvious, but even dictators have different power blocs to balance – and ANY compromise between change and status quo will take the edge off the radical, blunting it, even turning it back.

Ironically, the so-called "strong governments" generated by our first-pass-the-port system are in fact MORE compromised, more small-c conservative, more, in fact, WEAK, because there is a NARROWER number of people to whom they owe their majority.

That is why we have had conservative government for the last THIRTY YEARS, preserving the status quo for large business interests in the City at the expense of real progress; that is why Hard Labour turned themselves into rouge Conservatories; that is why when they said "things could only get better" things DIDN'T.

That's why everything comes back to electoral reform. And it's why Mr Frown's proposals don't go nearly far enough.

The Liberal Democrats favour STV, or Single Trunk Voting, because it gives most power to the VOTER – you get to choose between parties AND between members OF those Parties, so you can choose Orange Booker or Soggy Liberal, local candidate or high flyer, man or woman whichever you want. And we think it should promote MORE diversity because Parties will naturally favour MIXED slates leading to more women and minority candidates getting elected.

The AV system that Mr Frown proposes is really kind of like first-pass-the-port only MORE SO. The Parties RETAIN control over the candidates standing in each constituency, rather than giving the voter the chance to express a preference, and it REINFORCES the effect of local polarity, with a chance of making safe seats SAFER.


On the one fluffy foot, AV IS pretty similar to STV with single member constituencies. And once you've convinced people of the benefits of ranking the candidates – as opposed to systems with LISTS where the candidates are just RANK – then the move to multi-member constituencies is as simple as of grouping them by fives. Your five constituencies still have five MPs; you just have a better chance of having one you voted first preference for. You might even be able to use the results of the AV election to map out what an STV election "might have done", to show people how easily things could be different.

But, on the other fluffy foot, it's not always the BEST idea to accept compromise as your "first step". I mean look just at the House of Lords Club… we took the first step to reform in 1911 and compromised and STILL the buffers hang on!

And you know, even STV isn't some magical solution. It's not ENOUGH.

What we have at the moment is a BIZARRE system, where our representatives talk to THEMSELVES to make decisions. One where the lobbyists and the vested interests are all hidden behind the scenes and all we get to see is a weekly pantomime at Prime Monster's Questions. What we NEED is a system where the MPs SHUT UP and listen to US.

We need a Parliament that is open to EVERYONE to ADDRESS. We should not have to sit quietly in the Visitors' Gallery like good little children lest someone cry "I spy strangers"! WE should be the ones making the speeches, for and against. We're the ones it matters to! Raise a petition, get enough support and you should be able to take it to Parliament and have them vote on it. We shouldn't be beholden to the Great and the Good – more often the Mediocre and the Malicious – to decide what laws are good for us. WE should be in CHARGE.

We can't just TINKER round the edges. We need to EXPLODE our politics – that's in a METAPHORICAL sense, dear MI5 reader, no ACTUAL explosions – so that we let in the daylight so that everyone can see and let in new ideas so that everything can change.


.

Day 3173: Duncan Dunk'd; Farrago Farragone

Tuesday:


What IS it about the new Mr Speaker, Mr John Cashcow, that makes swivel-eyed right-wingers pop their upper head-gaskets?

First there's the news that Mr Nigel Farrago (supported by Mr Tim Montgomery of the Conservatory Continuity IDS) will be quitting as leader of the UKPnuts Party in order to spend more time abusing his expenses allowance* campaigning to get Mr Speaker Cashcow's job as MP for Buckingham.


Now we hear that Mr Balloon has replaced Shadow Loss-Leader of the House Mr Alan Duncan-Donuts with a duffer who very much campaigned to get Mr Speaker Cashcow's job as Speaker, Mr Sir George Old.


Now, I'm NOT one of those people who are saying "this shows the true face of the Conservatories" – mainly because I do not think Mr Balloon would know a TRUE face if someone punched him in it – and I don't mean to be a CONSPIRACY THEORIST, but it does look like Mr Cashcow is being surrounded on two flanks, i.e. the right and the FAR-RIGHT.

Things look quite TIGHT for him, electorally.

At the last election, the Conservatories scored 27,748 votes and UKPnuts a grand 1,432. So if it is TRUE that the Conservatory vote might split 64:25 in a Farrago:Cashcow contest, then (in the unrealistic world of no other changes) that could become 21,386 for the Europhobes and (if you add in the 9,619 Labour voters and 9,508 Liberal Democrat voters) 26,921 not.

That LOOKS like a possible narrow victory for the Mr Speaker. But while Liberal Democrat voters might be persuadable to vote for a reforming Mr Speaker, Hard Labour voters have a habit of staying at home and sitting on their fluffy feet if their man isn't up for election. Would YOU want to rely on them?

It would certainly suit Mr Balloon to get rid of a semi-detached free thinker like Mr Cashcow and replace him with a tame Conservatory – and since Hard Labour went and broke the convention of Mr Speaker being picked from the opposition, he'd have no trouble getting away with it.

In fact, it doesn't half look as though he's lining up Mr Sir George Old to slip into the role should it – entirely tragically – fall vacant due to the election of the MEP for Innsmouth. Mr Balloon has spoken in praise of his "great talent, depth and experience" or AGE as we say in English. In fact, Mr Sir George is so old that he was alive when the Conservatories were last in charge of running the country into the ground, and his "experience" amounts to being a minister for Mr Major Minor and the man who oversaw the aftermath of the Conservatories smashing the railways into tiny little pieces.

Conservatory transport being SO successful (or possibly because of a drunk driving conviction) he obviously travelled everywhere by bicycle, earning himself the nickname "the bicycling baronet", so that is something else he shares with Mr Balloon. Though there is no mention of how his SHOES travelled.

Mind you, Mr Sir George's fluffy feet are hardly CLEAN in the matter of the EXPENSES row. In fact, they are covered in black marker pen because he was the one doing all the redacting! In the last two years he claimed the maximum second home allowance of £23,000 a year on his London home which is within walking distance of the House of Commons. He also employs his daughter Ms Camilla as office manager, paid (salary undisclosed) from his taxpayer-funded expenses.

So OBVIOUSLY he's just the right sort of person to turn GAMEKEEPER for the House. You know: a POACHER.


Does anyone remember those HEADY days of summer when all these REVELATIONS were going to lead to REFORM?

Oh look, NOW Mr Balloon is going to make MPs pay more for SALAD. Give me STRENGTH!



*Of COURSE, Mr Farrago is using his communications allowance for communicating with his constituents. Or, strictly speaking, the very tiny proportion of his constituents who live in the Buckingham constituency.



.

Day 2677: GO TO THE POLLS!

Thursday:


This is NOT about all the migrant plumbers who are now all heading home because the weak pound means it is no longer worth their while putting up with our grey weather, high cost of living, poor provision of services and generally snippy attitude, especially when they can get a warmer reception in warmer parts of Europe where the Euro is holding its value thank you very much. Obviously this means the British economy will collapse from lack of willing labour… bet you're feeling VERY smart now, UKIP!

No, this is a call to go out there and VOTE, vote for your local Liberal Democrats and especially go and vote for Mr Brian in London. Even if you don’t live in London, come and cheer him on!

All of the Party Leaders have been out on the campaign trail, showing off their TIES.

Mr Frown's is PURPLE, the colour of Mr Mayor Ken's campaign… and, judging by the manifesto booklet, almost everyone else's. Perhaps it is LUCKY. Mr Balloon has a sombre RED tie, in keeping with his new Labour Conservatory personality, no doubt. While Mr Clogg's is bright shiny blue, meaning either blue skies of freedom and fresh new ideas… or that he's not afraid of people thinking he's a Conservatory!

People are saying that a win for Suicide Boris will be a NAIL in the COFFIN of Mr Frown; while a win for Mr Ken will DERAIL the SUNSHINE-EXPRESS of Mr Balloon.

It is IRONIC that the one election in the country where you GET to show who you think is second best and the media has conspired to make it a TWO-HORSE RACE: one OLD NAG versus an ASS.

Personally, I know I want Mr Brian in preference to either of them… and I do not think that Daddy will be able to bring himself to give a second preference.

If there IS one thing that might drive my Daddy back into giving a second preference to Mr Ken, then it's the BRAYING and BOASTING of the Conservatory hunting pack on Politicallybarking.com, foaming at the mouths over the prospect of the latest and last opinion poll.

London has seen a perfectly DREADFUL campaign… not from ANY of the political parties, but from the London Evening Standard, from the Daily Hate Mail stable, which has backed Suicide Boris to the hilt as part of their VENDETTA against Mr Mayor Ken.

(And we all know that if Bozza had IMPLODED they would have backed Mr Brian instead without a blink of hesitation.)

They've used YouGov polls to try and drive a pro-Boris agenda, pushing the suggestion that he has unstoppable momentum. I'm already PRETTY dubious about YouGov's methodology, mainly from the way that they CONSISTENTLY give Liberal Democrats lower and Conservatories higher ratings right up to election campaigns where they MYSTERIOUSLY converge with other pollsters so no one can point at the outcome and say "well, obviously YouGov were MILES out"! But we also KNOW that these polls have asked people OUTSIDE of London (who wouldn't have to cope with the consequences of a "FUNNY" Boris Mayorship) to take part. I am sure that that can't be QUITE right!

Mr Mayor Ken is BAD, but Mr Boris is a TOOL… a tool of someone MUCH MORE BAD, a newspaper using its effective monopoly and unaccountable power to manipulate the election.

So go and vote, but REMEMBER you can vote with your HEART first… 'cos you've got that BACK-UP vote as well, and if you BELIEVE that it's a two horse race you can use THAT to pick the one who least gets your BACK UP.

Use your FIRST PREFERENCE to prove YouGov WRONG: send the Evening Standard a proper message: a message that London is DIVERSE and BROAD-MINDED and has LOTS and LOTS of opinions and WON'T be dictated to by them!

PS:

And if you think that pigs will fly before the Liberal Democrats win in London, just you remember… pigs CAN fly!

Remember… a Boris is for life not just for Christmas Panto; Mr Ken is not regulated by Lee Jasper, your investment can go down the drain as well as up in smoke.

Day 2618: Where's the Rush(ia)

Sunday:


President Count Vlad of Transylvania Russia has agreed to step aside constitutionally, and pass on his throne to his anointed successor, Mr Dmitry Mediocre.

Mr Mediocre has sworn to continue the Count's Mr Vlad's work even though election monitors have suggested that the former President's heavy hints that anyone who did not vote as they were told could expect to be on the next train to SIBERIA might have influenced the outcome just SLIGHTLY.

Meanwhile, the Count will retire to the office of Prime Monster for a quiet life of contemplation and controlling Mr Mediocre like a puppet… er…


Mr Mediocre is described as a modern pragmatic liberal. This means that he does exactly what Count Vlad tells him. Recruited by the Count in 2000 from St Petersburg (formerly Putingrad), his most widely known talent is as being "the one who makes the coffee" for Kremlin meetings.

He is said to be highly computer literate, claiming that he looks at the Internet TWICE a day... to see if anyone else in Russia will be allowed to read it.

The elections in Russia are a bit like those in Great Britain except no one is allowed to know about any of the other parties than the government. (In this country that only applies BETWEEN elections!) Apparently this is good for STABILITY. As is having most of the other candidates rounded up and arrested as traitors.

So, under the circumstances, we might as well be thankful that the election managed to be as contested as it was! The communists' candidate did surprisingly well, polling almost 18% and still breathing. Which you have to say is an achievement.

European observers – the few who were actually able to be there observing – described it as "not fair" and "a denial of the 'democratic potential' of the country's voters"… which is actually a lot BETTER than the report that everyone was expecting!

Democracy takes time, and it relies upon a sound economy and reliable laws before people are able to start exchanging ideas and challenging each other. When every day is a struggle to survive, letting Mr Strong take charge often seems a better choice than having to MAKE choices of your own.

And you have to be honest and say that a lot of Russian really DO like Count Vlad. His no nonsense approach of stripping to the waist and destroying all enemies of Mother Russia have won their hearts. Also, they're quite fond of his not getting drunk on cheap vodka and dancing on tanks while the rapacious American money men compete with the Mafia to make off with large chunks of the nation.

Funny people, the Russians.

Day 2485: Poll of Poles

Sunday:


Bye bye "Law and Justice" in Poland.

Of course it is NOT "Anarchy in Poland", as Mr Balloon might say, but the election of a new Polish Government following the collapse of the right-wing coalition that has been in power and generally scaring everybody for the last two years.

In Polish, "Law and Justice" is "Prawo i Sprawiedliwość" or "PiS" for short, and who could take the... Mickey out of THAT?

Despite having roots in the Solidarity Trade Union from the Communist era, (or perhaps BECAUSE of their roots in the Solidarity) PiS policies are based heavily on CATHOLIC TEACHINGS and ANTI-COMMUNISM.

You might say that "Law and Justice" are about unjust laws. They are not just right-wing (which the new lot are, too), they are bullying, illiberal and authoritarian. And religious bigots to boot.

In fact, their agenda of cutting taxes whilst, increasing prison sentences, and blaming Europe for everything that has gone wrong sounds EERILY FAMILIAR from somewhere.

Of course, the main difference from Mr Balloon's Conservatories is in their attitude to GAY DADDIES – the PiS still say what they think; Mr Balloon likes to keep his lip buttoned about his voting record these days. As it happens, the logo of the PiS is an eagle with a crown on; while the logo of Mr Balloon is a TWO-FACED SNAKE-IN-THE-GRASS! [R: surely, mighty English Oak?!]

Polish soon-to-be-ex-Prime Monster Mr Jarosław Kaczyński has said:

"The affirmation of gay daddies will lead to the downfall of civilization. We can't agree to it!"

And if you think HE'S a fruit-loop, you should see his allies in the minority off-the-scale right-wing "League of Polish Families" party! Their youth movement the Hitler All-Polish Youth attended the Warsaw Gay Pride… in order to throw eggs and stones and bottles. The Warsaw Gay Prides was of course banned in 2005 by the then Mayor, none other than… Mr Coleslaw Kaczyński.

(I am not sure that linking the Polish Government to the Hitler Youth will go down TOO WELL – since Krazy Mr Coleslaw has also TASTEFULLY demanded extra votes in the EU because of all the Poles who were killed by the Germans in the World War part two.)

The big winners in the election were "Civic Platform" with 40% of the votes, compared to 32% for PiS.

"Civic Platform" aka "Platforma Obywatelska" or "PO" is a centre-right Telytubby party whose policies include flat taxes, Trade Union reform and privatisations, but also improved higher education, decentralisation to local government and independence for the Bank of Poland. Bizarrely they also want to swap a fair votes system for a "First Pass the Port" one.

Which looks a lot like what Mr Balloon would write if he was asked to write a manifesto for the Liberal Democrats. You know: nuts!


You may prefer the Democratic Party (PD) who are members of the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party. Their policies include flat taxes too, but also a concentration on improving education and job opportunities and expanding health care without privatisation.

On the other fluffy foot, they can only muster a tiny percentage of the popular vote; they contested the 2007 election as part of the "Left and Democrats" (Lewica i Demokraci) coalition, the grouping that came third, but will probably still be confined to opposition as the Civc Platform with 209 seats will only need the 31 seats of the Christian Democratic Polish Peoples Party to form a majority in parliament.


The European Union may decide to welcome this result as they will be relieved and grateful not to have to cope with an ARGUMENTATIVE and OBSTRUCTIONIST Prime Monster, demanding special treatment and exemptions in every treaty and threatening to use the veto. At least, not ANOTHER one.

Day 2315: Scotland and Wales – Just Say NO!

Friday:


Sometimes, “No” is the hardest word.

In Scotland, the new Parliament has been chosen and… it’s a bit of a mix. But most obviously, the Labour have LOST seats and the Scottish Nasty Party has gained them – gained quite a LOT of them actually. Although it does not seem to be being reported that the Greens have actually lost MORE seats than the Labour!

If there is “no moral case” for putting the Labour into government because they have lost seats, then it is TRICKY to see the moral case for putting in the GREENS who have lost MORE seats!

Our own share of the vote held up, though because of a quirk of the almost-but-not-quite-proportional system we have still lost one seat. This is still rather disappointing – only a year or so ago we were doing really, really well and hoping to advance, but since then there has been a huge SURGE in the Nasties…

Anyway, now we have to do the difficult thing of deciding who will run Scotland for the Scottish people. And more important for us, will we join in.

The Labour have clearly lost, and a majority of people in Scotland have clearly rejected them as the government. What is more we are increasingly opposed to the Labour on a Britain-wide basis. Lord Blairimort may soon be gone but Mr Frown will hardly be a change of tune, and this may be a good time to be DISTANCING ourselves from them before they ALL disappear right down the plug hole.

I think that it would, on the whole, be better for us to say “thank you but no thank you” if they come asking for a coalition.

On the other fluffy foot, it would not be the most STABLE of governments if we went in with the Scottish Nasty Party either.

In the last parliament, we were able to form a coalition with the Labour because between us we had a majority with seats in hand.

OH, a small note for the BBC people – a “majority” means that you control more seats than all the others put together: in today’s parliament, the Scottish Nasty Party does NOT have a “majority” of one over the Labour. The word you are looking for is LEAD!

The point though is that even if we and the Nasties get together AND add in the Greens we will only have a majority of ONE. The first hint of a row, or if one MSP has a prior engagement or even if someone just steps out to the TOILET then the government falls over!

We know that we have BIGGER problems with the Nasties than with the Labour (not that there weren’t enough problems there!), and we would have great big blazing rows. Not good if your majority is WAFFER THIN!

Plus, we were part of that government that has just been rejected. We should be honest enough to put our fluffy feet up to that too.

So it might be best all around if we were to say: “okay, we aren’t going to join a coalition with EITHER of you. But we won’t deliberately undermine either of you either. If you can make a coalition with the Conservatories and the Greens – or with each other! – then we won’t FAFF ABOUT bringing you down every time someone takes a COMFORT BREAK.”




In Wales, the BBC lady doing the reporting kept saying over and over and over how the Labour will have to form a coalition “probably with the Liberal Democrats”. It cannot be GOOD if everyone just assumes we are a total PUSH OVER.

Whatever happens, our negotiating position should not be “TAKE ME, I am YOURS!”


Mr Black Peter, the Prince of Wales, has already made his bid to be new leader case for not joining a coalition.

Of course, we run the risk of giving Mr Balloon the KUDOS of saying: “look, Conservatories are now back in government in Scotland and Wales!” On the other fluffy foot, we get the advantage of being able to say “LOOK the Conservatories are now back in government in Scotland and Wales!”

The Conservatories are of course busily turning themselves into the ENGLISH NASTY PARTY anyway, so NO ONE should be surprised if they would rather jump into bed with the Nasties than have any principles.

Mind you, the REAL natural coalition is between the Thatcherite Party and the OTHER Thatcherite Party – but does anyone speculate about a Labour Conservatory coalition?

We are NOT an adjunct to the other parties; we are not just the “me too” party. We are the alternative. And perhaps it is time we were seen to be OPPOSING.

Day 2314: May the Fourth Be With You!

Thursday:


It was a dark time for the Liberal Alliance [No, no, no, no, noooooo]…

Oh bobbins! It seems like the EVIL EMPIRE have been using their ULTIMATE WEAPON – the BALLOON STAR – to explode several of our planets. There is only one thing for it, we must use the HIDDEN WEAKNESS by finding the SECRET PLANS… ah, now I realise why Mr Balloon HAS no plans!


It has been a bit of a HORRID night, all in all. I am sorry to have to say that, but it is TRUE.

Mr James was not impressed either, although Mr Jonny thinks that it is a PARADOX, with mixed messages for all parties.

As a FLUFFY ELEPHANT, I had very much hoped we Liberal Democrats could hold our own, maintaining our overall share of the vote. And if we maybe lost some council seats to the rising tide of the Conservatories I had hoped that we would cancel those out by making gains off of the Labour.

But it seems that the Labour's voters have decided to hold onto the hope that WHOEVER comes next (it will be Mr Frown) cannot be as bad as Lord Blairimort (he can!).

So although we have in fact managed to keep our end up in Wales and Scotland, we have clearly lost a couple of hundred councillors; and although our share of the vote at 26% is in fact barely changed from last year we have suffered the PSYCHOLOGICAL blow of seeing the Labour slip back ahead of us. Just barely.

I suspect that the reason for this may ACTUALLY be because the Liberal Democrats are now doing much BETTER. Yes, I know this sounds WONKY! But if you think about it, we are now coming under fire from BOTH of the other big parties as increasingly they retreat onto their home turf. In the south, where there is barely a councillor from the Labour to be seen, we have to stand against the Conservatories; but in the north where – significantly – the "Balloon Effect" has yet to fly, we are the ONLY opposition standing up to the Labour.

This leads to the BIZARRE situation of Mr Paxo accusing us of being "tarts" for trying to represent the WHOLE of the country!

(Mr Vince "Captain Power" Cable did NOT answer this question very well! He should have asked Mr Paxo if he would prefer it if we we're like the other parties and did not BOTHER with large chunks of the country. Mind you, at least Mr Vince pulled himself together again after that – Auntie Maude had disintegrated completely!)

We need to learn TWO important lessons, I am afraid.

Firstly, we need to learn to DEFEND ourselves much better. Holding a council is much harder work than taking one – because all of your good activists are now busy BEING councillors. And we need to work out a plan to stop ourselves getting all the blame for the mess left behind when Conservatories and Labour get kicked out. Otherwise, like weeds, they just come back.

We can pull in workers from surrounding areas to try to have enough numbers to keep delivering and campaigning but… well, aren't we rather good at doing this already? And if the areas where we do well are surrounded by others areas where we do well, well where do the spare people come from?

So we advance, but we get washed back. Which is disappointing.

On the other fluffy foot, Mr Councillor Stephen points out that many of our losses to the Conservatories were in places where the Conservatories were already strong, while in our own areas we were the ones taking seats. If Mr Balloon is consolidating and not advancing then he may find our MPs harder to dislodge than he boasts.

Secondly, we need to learn a new technique for ATTACKING, because we are no longer at the cutting edge, and in the main we are targeting against the Labour now rather than the Conservatories. The Labour are a very different kettle of fish, much more inclined to be TRIBAL. Yes, I know you don't get TRIBES of FISH.

Speaking of TRIBAL, personally I think that we made a MISTAKE in Scotland by campaigning so strongly against the Scottish Nasty Party's idea of a REFERENDUM. I think that it would have been better to say:

"Well, that's really a question for any negotiations after the election. We don't see the need for one, we think that there are more important things to get on and do for Scotland, and if one happened obviously we would campaign very strongly to keep the Union. We're a Liberal Party, a listening party and if that's the will of the Scottish people, then it wouldn't hurt us to hear their views. But it sounds like a huge waste of time and money so let me tell you what our priorities are instead…"

Insisting that we were against the referendum was just campaigning on the Scottish Nasties' territory. Why give them the free publicity?

We have plenty of things to talk about without having to talk about the Nasties' manifesto.

Because one thing that is GOOD is that we are sharpening up our POLICY OFFERING and PRESENTATION. I think it is widely recognised that we are MILES ahead of the Conservatories on this. If there is a crumb of comfort then it is that Mr Balloon's rise without trace was slightly blunted because he doesn't have ANY policies.

We need to remind ourselves that our top team now plays VERY WELL in the media. Sir Mr the Merciless himself is actually POPULAR, and particularly with younger voters who form the bedrock of our support. He talks about the things that matter to them and they respect him.

And to be fair he is not just a ONE-MAN-BAND the way that Captain Paddy and CK1 used to appear to be.

Mr Clogg has done very well in breaking thorough into the media world as well, with many appearances on the news in order to respond to the latest hilarity from the Home Office. Mr Ed has made his mark doing all the pundit shows and staying up all night with Mr Dimbledonkey. And our old friend Mr Hewn gets out a lot, too… (doing rather well on the Newsnight Show as I type!)

But we need to see more of our TALENT out there. We have GOT so many MPs now, we should USE them!

Our election broadcast about CRIME was quite good, but it was a CRIME that we did not see any of our lady MPs in our broadcasts. Ms Susan Kramer-vs-Kramer, Ms Julia Golds-Worth-her-weight-in, Queen of Bloggers Ms Featherweight, the amazing little Ms Jo and LOVELY SARAH TEATHER! Any one of them worth more than all fifteen OLD ETONIANS on Mr Balloon's front bench. Where were they all?

It wouldn't hurt to see more of Mr Tim or Mr Danny either – and let's have a lot more BIGGING UP of Mr Norman the Baker, defender of Freedom of Information!

We're never going to win an election by coverage in the national media alone – not in a world where we vanish from the front pages every time Mr Balloon drops his trousers. Campaigning on the ground, street by street, climbing EVERY STAIRCASE just to find that voter has always been our way.

But it is nice to know that we might get a little bit of support from the airwaves.


I think we should also thank the people who are taking us into CYBERSPACE, people like Mr Rob with his Lib Dem Voice, and Dr Pax and Mr Will sending results by TEXT from their electric broom-cupboard under the Cowley Street stairs!

It may not be Dale Winton on Certificate 18 Doubtful Street, but it's not Mr Millipede's robot-written blog either. It's the future. It should come with Garlic Bread.

So where do we go from here? Well, have a good sob into your nearest cuddly elephant if you need it, but then pick yourself up, dust yourself down and get ready to start all over again. Some of us have taken a drubbing, but we're still capable of winning – remember Hull! How's that for a battle cry!

And remember too, in four years time the Conservatories are going to have to try and defend these council seats while Mr Balloon will still have no policies and will be desperately trying to run the country from an unpopular minority government because a quarter of his party defected to UKIP the day after the next general election!

Day 2313: Mayday! Mayday! Prime Monster in Distress!

Wednesday:


Just GO already!

And so the PROTRACTED demise of Lord Blairimort continues and, like in HAMLET, the entire COURT has been wiped out but the death scene STILL goes on FAR TOO LONG.

As ever, the Labour seek to use their spin machine to try to cover up what is really going on. Rather than face up to the peoples' decisions in Scotland and Wales and the local elections, the Labour – just like in the Hartlepool by-election, when Lord Blairimort first got himself into this mess – are PRE-EMPTING the results and trying to BURY any BAD NEWS.

This week saw Lord Blairimort celebrate a DECADE in POWER. Or, more accurately, two years of doing exactly what the Conservatories had said they would do and eight years of doing exactly what the Monkey-in-Chief said he should do.

Looking back on this time, Sir Mr the Merciless gave the Prime Monster a very generous 4 out of 10.

Lord Blairimort has read this report. He quoted from it extensively at Prime Monster's TV Quiz, listing the things Liberal Democrats say he has got right: an "ethical foreign policy" (terms and conditions apply), economic stability, Scottish and Welsh devolution and increased investment in public services.

Strangely, he did NOT read out the bits that say where he has gone WRONG. Increases in personal debt; widening of the gap between rich and poor; 2% rise in Carbon emissions when the Labour promised to cut them; more deficits in the NHS; failure to meet their pledge on class sizes; increased violent crime; and above all the worst foreign policy decision since Suez, the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Mr Jonny has draws lesson for us from this.

But Lord Blairimort is ALWAYS like this: he is only interested in PRESENTATION and only interested in THINGS THAT MAKE HIM LOOK GOOD.

"He has squeezed the VALUES out of British politics," Sir Mr the Merciless told the BBC, "That's why there's a real opportunity for a party of principle like ours."

Lord Blairimort's PARTISAN BLINKERS might get him some cheap laughs in the House of Commons, but really they just HURT the country. He believes that he can do no wrong – so he just sticks his fingers in his ears and goes "lalalalala" rather than listen to any criticism. And THAT is why he makes such DISASTROUS mistakes.

Which reminds me: Mr Balloon also joined the celebration.

"Tony Blair's time started with great hope but has ended with disappointment," said Mr Balloon, reminding everyone just how much HE wants to be like Lord Blairimort.


It is no longer the case – if it ever was in the first place – that the BLAME for whatever happens on Thursday can be placed on Lord Blairimort's shoulders and he will depart leaving a new and innocent Mr Frown in charge. Certainly that was never going to be Lord Blairimort's plan! And now, even Mr Frown is being forced to admit that he may perhaps have had some small hand in running the country for the last ten years.

But by rolling out an ongoing Lord Blairimort SAGA of will he/won't he be announcing his walking of the ceremonial plank, the Labour hope to distract the news media into covering that story more than any actual democratic process that might be going on. Leaking that the announcement might come BEFORE the elections on Thursday has enabled them to keep it going through several "news cycles" and focus the spotlight firmly on themselves – one way or another – for the whole election week. And they will keep control of the news agenda after the election by tantalising the press with hints of the moment when Lord B ACTUALLY resigns.

I am not QUITE sure how good an idea it is to campaign on the slogan "I'm out'a here; don't blame the lot I'm leaving behind". It is as likely to remind voters that this is their last chance to give Lord Blairimort a good KICKING in the BALLOTS as it is to make them think "ah, we are renewed with Mr Frown!"

Mind you, you'd probably have to be drinking DRAIN-O to wake up thinking "ah, we are renewed with Mr Frown!"

Even at this stage, Lord Blairimort has to GRIT his teeth in order to spit out an endorsement of his Chancellor, still unable to name his successor by name:

"In all probability a Scot will become prime minister of the United Kingdom," he said at a gathering of those party workers still loyal to him. Both of them.

Does he STILL think that Nice Mr Dr John Reid could have a go at dethroning the prince in waiting and waiting and waiting?

Actually, it has been a fairly TYPICAL week at the Home Office when even though they might have been TRUMPETING a good result with several nasty terrorist banged, er not in this context, locked up, they STILL manage to make a mess of it by accidentally letting on that they've been covering up for MI5's having probably made a cock-up over the July 7th terrorists.

"WE never knew who they were, nice Master; thought they were nasty thieving fraudsters, we did, Master, but not terroristses, oh no," said nice Mr Dr Reid.

He added: "of course we knew who they were, my precious; we followed them home and took lots of snapses with the cameras, Gollum."

Actually, catching terrorists is REALLY QUITE DIFFICULT, and we cannot expect our secret agents to get it right every single time. They have to make choices about who to target and which contacts to follow, and sometimes they are going to get it wrong.

It IS horrible when they get it wrong, but it is also quite rare. Remember, they missed one lot of terrorists because they were concentrating on another lot, who they went on to catch.

As usual, though, it is the COVERING UP afterwards that is the serious problem – how can we learn from mistakes if we are too busy pretending that they never happened? How can MI5 be accountable to Parliament if they only give Parliament the EDITED HIGHLIGHTS?

Funnily enough, this came up at Prime Monster's TV Quiz too. It was all VERY predictable. Or as Daddy Alex said: "So it has come to this, a PMQT Clips Show".

Mr Balloon called for an inquiry

Lord Blairimort said no.

Sir Mr the Merciless asked if anyone would take responsibility for the mistakes made in Iraq.

Lord Blairimort said no.

Sir Mr the Merciless told the house who was responsible: the Monkey-in-Chief took the decision, Lord Blairimort made the case, Mr Frown signed the cheques and the Conservatories voted it through.

Lord Blairimort (knowing Sir M was out of questions) said that Liberal Democrats would have let Mr Saddam stay in power. (Unlike Lord Blairimort who actually told the House of Commons that, er, he would let Mr Saddam stay in power.)

Mr Balloon asked if Lord Blairimort would say anything nice about his successor.

Lord Blairimort rattled off his prepared thousand-page list.

Mr Balloon sat down looking embarrassed.

We have seen it all before.

At least Lord Blairimort didn't say: "I'm enjoying this!"

Daddy watched it all with me on the Daily Politics with the voter-o-meters: it was interesting to see that Sir Mr the Merciless got very strong positives with his question – worth remembering for those thinking the Iraq debacle is now "old news" – and Sir M's support is strongest among younger voters. Lord Blairimort, on the other fluffy foot, got only lukewarm support for his answers and in particular, when he was being partisan, it polarised the voters along partisan lines too – meaning he can no longer convince anyone other than the few remaining people who are going to vote for the Labour anyway.

I wonder how Mr Frown will do.

The Newsnight Show has run a poll saying that 73% of voters would like to get rid of him straight away give him his own mandate with a snap election after Lord Blairimort goes.

They should be so lucky!

In fact, there is NO NEED for a general election: we elect our MPs and not our PMs. Mr Frown will be able to command a majority of the House of Commons – probably – and that means he gets to be Prime Monster. Just like Mr Minor did for the Conservatories or Mr Call-again did for the Labour last time.

Mr Frown should be allowed to have his two or three years in charge. Then everyone will see that he is just the same as Lord Blairimort.

Of course, a snap BY-ELECTION in SEDGEFIELD would be an entirely other question!


GOOD LUCK to everyone in the local and devolved elections!


Condensed version: "just GO already!"

Day 2284: Sir Mr the Merciless' Baptism of Fire

Tuesday:


"Reject the Labour and all its works, and all its empty promises!" urged Sir Mr the Merciless today, at the launch of the Liberal Democrat campaign for the local elections in England.

This year, the Liberal Democrats are the ONLY party to be fighting to represent EVERY part of the United Kingdom, from leafy suburbs in the South to the urban landscapes of the North, from the Valleys of Wales to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.

Everywhere, people are saying that they have HAD ENOUGH of Lord Blairimort and his dreadful, centralising authoritarian government. In the South, many councils no longer have ANY Labour representative AT ALL!

And yet, Mr Balloon's GYMKHANA-LAND Conservatory Party remains in full retreat to its heartland and has given up on even being the opposition in large parts of the country.

So for people in the North, ONLY the Liberal Democrats offer them a chance of change, and a real hope for a better way, protecting the environment and protecting people from crime.

While in the South people have to decide between a TRULY LIBERAL party that will oppose the government's heavy hand just as much as they will oppose crime, and a wishy-washy "us too" Conservatory opposition that most of the time does not even seem to oppose Lord Blairimort!

This will be our real test: can we hold out against Mr Balloon's promise-anything Conservatories when they are riding high, and at the same time take the fight to the Labour in their rotten-borough strongholds?

The polls are predicting big gains for Mr Balloon, and with the dog end of Lord Blairimort's premiership still hanging around like a nasty smell, we have to say that anything less than 500 gain for the Conservatories would be a BAD NIGHT – anything over 1000 and they are really flying.

Similarly for the Labour: if their losses are contained to less that 500 then they can be hopeful of some recovery. Much worse than that and we can expect Mr Frown to be barricading himself into Number Ten until 2010 at the earliest.

AND US? can we do better than coming out holding on to as many seats as when we went in?

Our aim has got to be to get as many seats for as many Liberal Democrats as we possibly can. Even if the polls are predicting a net loss of over a hundred for us now, we have got to come back with more councillors.


Meanwhile in Scotland, where they have PROPER elections[*], the Liberal Democrats will be encouraged to hear that the latest poll has them gaining ground – and SEATS!

Of course, it is only one poll, but it is GOOD NEWS to get them off to an ENTHUSIASTIC start to their campaign for a BRIGHTER FUTURE.


[*]using FAIR VOTES – what did you THINK I meant?

PS

Later we watched the Newsnight Show with their three BRASS MONKEYS: Mr Danny Idont-Finkso of the Conservatories, Ms Olly Organ-Grinder for the Liberal Democrats and a Sharp Suit for the Labour.

First, they played some clips of the campaign launches. Mr Frown and Lord Blairimort, together again, one oozing fake bonhomie the other looking like he would rather be at his own funeral – which in some ways, of course he was. Then Mr Balloon launching his latest search for a policy “What are we going to do about the Police Force, with Graham Norton” surrounded by some very dubious looking policepeople and an even more dubious looking Mr Davis David, in fact looking like there was a VERY BAD SMELL coming from… well, almost exactly where Mr Balloon was stood. Finally Sir Mr the Merciless speaking with honesty and passion about finding a better approach to policing, one that solved problems, protected people and tried to reform criminals. I know that I am BIASED but I really think he had the BEST clip.

Turning to their spin doctors, Mr Paxo asked what they thought. Obviously ALL of them were SPINNING; it was interesting what their spin WAS, though.

Both Mr Finkso and the suit dismissed Sir Mr the Merciless out of fluffy foot:

“Too old!” they chorused

“Well look,” said Ms Organ-Grinder, “after Lord Blairimort and the war and now Mr Frown and these pensions decisions, people are looking for some trust and one thing that is obvious about Sir Mr the Merciless is that he says what he means.”

“Too old!” chorused Mr Fink and the suit. “La la la we’re not listening!” they added.

I have to say I was SURPRISED at how DESPERATE they were to spin against Sir M like this. Are they really so afraid of him?

The ONLY person who can decide when Sir Mr the Merciless is “too old” is Sir Mr the Merciless himself. Anyone else is just being AGEIST!

Mr Balloon got almost as short a shrift.

“No policies!” said Ms Organ-Grinder and the suit.

“He HAS got policies!” squeeked Mr Fink. “He had some policies there… or at least he will have! Anyway, looking nice is much more important!”

“Oh shut up,” said Mr Paxo.

But they spent most time discussing the would-be man of the moment: Mr Frown. Mr Fink had a GOOD piece of SPIN – which had the advantage of also being TRUE. Mr Frown’s dilemma is that he can be seen as CONTINUITY or CHANGE. What he needs to be is CHANGE, but he keeps on being MORE OF THE SAME. And being seen with Lord Blairimort is only going to reinforce that message of MORE OF THE SAME.

Ms Organ-Grinder was also trying out some spin against MR Frown: that after the pensions trick in his first budget and the tax-cut-that-wasn’t in his last budget, he is just too TWISTY-TURNY clever by half. This seemed to get some traction with the audience… so long as you remember that the audience was Mr Paxo.

Most astonishing, though, was the spin from the suit. He was clearly a BLAIRITE, because he would go through a sentence staying on message, staying on message, staying on message… and then suddenly veer off and suggest something BONKERS like Mr Frown should face a challenge from his own campaign manager, Mr Man O’ Straw. It was as though, after so long in power, the Labour can no longer even be bothered to rein in all the internal hatreds and jealousies.

All of the QUALITY people from the Labour’s early cabinet have been FALLEN BY THE WAYSIDE over the years, and now they really only have two actual ASSETS left: Lord Blairimort himself, of course – even though there are increasing numbers of people who start throwing things the moment he appears – and of course Mr Frown too.

And yet, such is the depth of the BITTERNESS that has grown over all these years, that EVEN the Labour themselves cannot bring themselves to see that Mr Frown is obviously the best thing they have left. Twisty-turny and TAINTED as he is.