Monday:
Today, former Energy and Climate Change Secretary and Duke of York, Mr Huhney-Monster, pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice when he got his former wife to accept points for speeding through Bosworth Field.
Maligned by Shakespeare as a twisted schemer, the Duke – famous for his war cry of "more horsepower more horsepower my kingdom for more horsepower" – also asked for two counts of Princes in the Tower to be taken into account.
His rival in the Wars of the Rosettes Mr Tudor Clegg was unavailable for comment due to an uncontrollable fit of hysterical giggling.
Senior Liberal Democrats – and St Simon of Hughes, the new archbishop of Canterbury – expect to have the Duke taken out and buried in a car park somewhere.
A Liberal elephant was quoted as saying: Bother!
Richard of York is five hundred and sixty-one.
Showing posts with label Mr Huhne. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mr Huhne. Show all posts
Monday, February 04, 2013
Saturday, April 02, 2011
Day 3743: More GOR'BLIMEY than GOEBBELS: But Baroness Warsi is still wrong on AV
Friday:
There's been un peut d'un spat between Mr Huhney-Monster and Baroness Insider Warsi over her scaremongering that AV will aid the British Nasty Party.
As you might EXPECT, Baroness Warsi has it all BACKWARDS. Let me explain.
Let's take a COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS example of share of the vote: e.g. the latest YouGov Poll:
Sickly Green 2% Scots/Plaid 4% Hard Labour 42% Liberal Democrat 10% Conservatory 35% UKPNuts 5% British Nasty Party 2%
Suppose you're a Conservatory: whose second preferences will you go after? The 7% of UKIP/BNP voters to your right? Or the 51% of voters to your Left?
That's not JUST the Liberal Democrats. Should the Union's dictate an even-more loony left manifesto, then the more Blairite backers of Mr Potato Ed's Party MIGHT be persuaded to give their number one to Mr Balloon to support that neo-liberal market they've so enjoyed, so long as you're not posing as the new Oswald Mosley.
On the other fluffy foot, if you DO start trying to appeal to the far right, you are going to ALIENATE far more voters than you stand to win – you will be fluffing off the very fluffy woolly liberal centrists whose votes you will NEED to cross the winning line. Not to mention the more CENTRIST of your own voters.
Conservatories who adopt a hard right agenda MIGHT convince some of those Cameroon Coalitionists to switch first preferences to the Liberal Democrats to keep the centre-right economically sound but socially just government that they like.
Or suppose you're from Hard Labour: you might THINK you're sitting pretty on 42% under First Pass the Port, but Liberal and Conservative votes combined CAN BEAT YOU. So do you appeal to your deep left core? Or do you reach out to the centre ground?
It might give you a warm fluffy feeling to, for example, address several hundred thousand marchers and liken yourself to Nelson Mandela, but that's NOT going to reach out to "White Van Man" or "Worcester Woman" who can't stand Mr Bob Crow turning off the tube at the drop of a hat and are quite frankly fed up with paying for Mr Mark Serwatka's gold plated salary and diamond encrusted pension.
(I'm really sorry to all the overworked and underpaid public servants out there, but the simple fact is we cannot afford to have twice as many people on the government's payroll as there are working in manufacturing to PAY the government's payroll.)
And frankly, governments can afford to IGNORE mass protests like that one precisely because they don't need to reach out to people. Lord Blairimort could ignore literally MILLIONS more marchers because he could get a working majority on 35% of the vote.
It ought to be a NO BRAINER: AV will encourage politicians towards the CENTRE and encourage them to listen to and engage with as many people as possible because they need to have 50% of the votes if they are going to WIN.
First Pass the Port, in contrast, actively encourages you to the extremes because you can consolidate a winning bloc that DOESN'T appeal to 50% of votes but is just LARGER than anyone else's.
If you don't believe me, just look at what happened in the politics of Northern Ireland after the Good Friday Agreement. As soon as artificial restrictions on Parties were removed, the moderate/centrist Parties collapsed and voters polarised to the more extreme Republican/Nationalist positions. Why? Because First Pass the Port REWARDS divide and conquer and PENALISES conciliation.
(As I've said before, "First Past the Post" more ACCURATELY describes AV – you only get a winner once someone gets to the 50% winning line and you stop counting when the first person to get there gets there. That is, the winner is the first person to get past the winning post. As it were. You'd be better off calling the current system something like "who gets nearest to the post" or to be completely accurate "who furthest from the starting line when the counting stops".)
The ONLY way for the BNP to win a seat under AV is if they can appeal to 50% of the electorate there. And if they can do that, they'd win under First Pass the Port ANYWAY.
There's a kind of secondary non-argument about results being decided on the preferences of extremists, or even extremists get a "second vote" when other people only get one.
Well in the first place, they ARE still Human Beans, all men created EQUAL, all girls together and all that, and they get to have their say the same as the rest of us. You can't deny people their democratic rights. You can't turn them into second class citizens just because of the colour of their… ROSETTES (after all, that's quite close to our PRINCIPAL complaint AGAINST the British Nasties!).
But let me just slap that "second vote" idiocy down.
If you're going to say THEY get a "second vote" then EVERYONE gets a "second" vote.
You voted first preference for the Conservatories? That vote was counted in the first round and in that round the British Nasties came LAST and were eliminated. Then you get your SECOND vote for the Conservatories again counted in the second round and any BNP voters who put a second preference gets their second vote, just the same as yours.
I say "any" because people pushed to vote for the British Nasty Party are probably least likely to express a second preference. Imagine your BNP voter thinking: "Well, I've voted for the racists, but I'll choose a multicultural party for my second preference." It doesn't make any sense does it?
Sure, the BNP have a few so-called strongholds, but almost everywhere else they get a derisory handful of votes. If those votes are the ones that tip a winning candidate over the 50% threshold, then that candidate was SO CLOSE to 50% already that they were pretty much bound to win anyway!
Look, I fully understand that Mr Huhney-Monster probably got a bit cross with the ZOMBIE ARGUMENTS that Baroness Warsi was using (you know Zombie arguments: you knock them down but they just keep on moving). But I'd rather he hadn't used the "G" word. Not only does it bring Godwin's Law into play, but it's the kind of hysterical language that, well, Ms Warsi was using. And she started it, isn't any excuse.
Besides, I do think we should try ever so hard NOT to use "hate" language against people we disagree with. We Liberal Democrats have been on the receiving end of QUITE A LOT of that sort of thing recently and it's not nice. So let's not dish it out either.
Finally, remember, REGARDLESS of the voting system we are moving into an era of multi-Party politics where the Red-Blue duopoly has been worn away by many more choices (UKPNuts and Sickly Greens as well as Liberal Democrats).
This means coalitions are MORE LIKELY (with or without AV). In which case, GOOD GOVERNMENT will NEED Parties that can work together – and because AV encourages the Parties to have manifestos that reach out for broad-based support that becomes easier.
After the last General Election, Hard Labour barely even TRIED to form a Coalition with the Liberal Democrats. First Pass the Port had convinced them that BUGGINS TURN meant the Conservatories would have a go this time, and that they would bounce back next.
We have an electoral system that makes politicians think first: "what is good for my Party"; AV would mean that they have to think about MORE than just their sectional vested interests, they would have to think "what is good for the majority".
Vote AV for the good of the country and leave the extremists OUT!
"If NONE of the Political Parties want AV it MUST be doing SOMETHING right! Take our politics back from the politicians: vote Yes2AV!"
There's been un peut d'un spat between Mr Huhney-Monster and Baroness Insider Warsi over her scaremongering that AV will aid the British Nasty Party.
As you might EXPECT, Baroness Warsi has it all BACKWARDS. Let me explain.
Let's take a COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS example of share of the vote: e.g. the latest YouGov Poll:
Sickly Green 2% Scots/Plaid 4% Hard Labour 42% Liberal Democrat 10% Conservatory 35% UKPNuts 5% British Nasty Party 2%
Suppose you're a Conservatory: whose second preferences will you go after? The 7% of UKIP/BNP voters to your right? Or the 51% of voters to your Left?
That's not JUST the Liberal Democrats. Should the Union's dictate an even-more loony left manifesto, then the more Blairite backers of Mr Potato Ed's Party MIGHT be persuaded to give their number one to Mr Balloon to support that neo-liberal market they've so enjoyed, so long as you're not posing as the new Oswald Mosley.
On the other fluffy foot, if you DO start trying to appeal to the far right, you are going to ALIENATE far more voters than you stand to win – you will be fluffing off the very fluffy woolly liberal centrists whose votes you will NEED to cross the winning line. Not to mention the more CENTRIST of your own voters.
Conservatories who adopt a hard right agenda MIGHT convince some of those Cameroon Coalitionists to switch first preferences to the Liberal Democrats to keep the centre-right economically sound but socially just government that they like.
Or suppose you're from Hard Labour: you might THINK you're sitting pretty on 42% under First Pass the Port, but Liberal and Conservative votes combined CAN BEAT YOU. So do you appeal to your deep left core? Or do you reach out to the centre ground?
It might give you a warm fluffy feeling to, for example, address several hundred thousand marchers and liken yourself to Nelson Mandela, but that's NOT going to reach out to "White Van Man" or "Worcester Woman" who can't stand Mr Bob Crow turning off the tube at the drop of a hat and are quite frankly fed up with paying for Mr Mark Serwatka's gold plated salary and diamond encrusted pension.
(I'm really sorry to all the overworked and underpaid public servants out there, but the simple fact is we cannot afford to have twice as many people on the government's payroll as there are working in manufacturing to PAY the government's payroll.)
And frankly, governments can afford to IGNORE mass protests like that one precisely because they don't need to reach out to people. Lord Blairimort could ignore literally MILLIONS more marchers because he could get a working majority on 35% of the vote.
It ought to be a NO BRAINER: AV will encourage politicians towards the CENTRE and encourage them to listen to and engage with as many people as possible because they need to have 50% of the votes if they are going to WIN.
First Pass the Port, in contrast, actively encourages you to the extremes because you can consolidate a winning bloc that DOESN'T appeal to 50% of votes but is just LARGER than anyone else's.
If you don't believe me, just look at what happened in the politics of Northern Ireland after the Good Friday Agreement. As soon as artificial restrictions on Parties were removed, the moderate/centrist Parties collapsed and voters polarised to the more extreme Republican/Nationalist positions. Why? Because First Pass the Port REWARDS divide and conquer and PENALISES conciliation.
(As I've said before, "First Past the Post" more ACCURATELY describes AV – you only get a winner once someone gets to the 50% winning line and you stop counting when the first person to get there gets there. That is, the winner is the first person to get past the winning post. As it were. You'd be better off calling the current system something like "who gets nearest to the post" or to be completely accurate "who furthest from the starting line when the counting stops".)
The ONLY way for the BNP to win a seat under AV is if they can appeal to 50% of the electorate there. And if they can do that, they'd win under First Pass the Port ANYWAY.
There's a kind of secondary non-argument about results being decided on the preferences of extremists, or even extremists get a "second vote" when other people only get one.
Well in the first place, they ARE still Human Beans, all men created EQUAL, all girls together and all that, and they get to have their say the same as the rest of us. You can't deny people their democratic rights. You can't turn them into second class citizens just because of the colour of their… ROSETTES (after all, that's quite close to our PRINCIPAL complaint AGAINST the British Nasties!).
But let me just slap that "second vote" idiocy down.
If you're going to say THEY get a "second vote" then EVERYONE gets a "second" vote.
You voted first preference for the Conservatories? That vote was counted in the first round and in that round the British Nasties came LAST and were eliminated. Then you get your SECOND vote for the Conservatories again counted in the second round and any BNP voters who put a second preference gets their second vote, just the same as yours.
I say "any" because people pushed to vote for the British Nasty Party are probably least likely to express a second preference. Imagine your BNP voter thinking: "Well, I've voted for the racists, but I'll choose a multicultural party for my second preference." It doesn't make any sense does it?
Sure, the BNP have a few so-called strongholds, but almost everywhere else they get a derisory handful of votes. If those votes are the ones that tip a winning candidate over the 50% threshold, then that candidate was SO CLOSE to 50% already that they were pretty much bound to win anyway!
Look, I fully understand that Mr Huhney-Monster probably got a bit cross with the ZOMBIE ARGUMENTS that Baroness Warsi was using (you know Zombie arguments: you knock them down but they just keep on moving). But I'd rather he hadn't used the "G" word. Not only does it bring Godwin's Law into play, but it's the kind of hysterical language that, well, Ms Warsi was using. And she started it, isn't any excuse.
Besides, I do think we should try ever so hard NOT to use "hate" language against people we disagree with. We Liberal Democrats have been on the receiving end of QUITE A LOT of that sort of thing recently and it's not nice. So let's not dish it out either.
Finally, remember, REGARDLESS of the voting system we are moving into an era of multi-Party politics where the Red-Blue duopoly has been worn away by many more choices (UKPNuts and Sickly Greens as well as Liberal Democrats).
This means coalitions are MORE LIKELY (with or without AV). In which case, GOOD GOVERNMENT will NEED Parties that can work together – and because AV encourages the Parties to have manifestos that reach out for broad-based support that becomes easier.
After the last General Election, Hard Labour barely even TRIED to form a Coalition with the Liberal Democrats. First Pass the Port had convinced them that BUGGINS TURN meant the Conservatories would have a go this time, and that they would bounce back next.
We have an electoral system that makes politicians think first: "what is good for my Party"; AV would mean that they have to think about MORE than just their sectional vested interests, they would have to think "what is good for the majority".
Vote AV for the good of the country and leave the extremists OUT!
PS
No2AV also seem to be using "None of the Parties want AV" as a reason to vote No; I'm surprised Yes2AV aren't using this as one of the strongest arguments for a "Yes":"If NONE of the Political Parties want AV it MUST be doing SOMETHING right! Take our politics back from the politicians: vote Yes2AV!"
Monday, December 13, 2010
Day 3632: THIS is why we are in the Coalition, part 1 – Saving the World
Saturday:
After the disappointment of the Copenhagen Summit last year, when even President Barry O and Prime Monster Mr Frown could not wrangle a deal from the World Leaders… against pretty much ALL expectations that ANY progress could be made this year… the Climate Change Summit in Cancun has achieved a (moderate) success!
And Liberal Democrat Climate Change Secretary Mr Chris Huhney-Monster was right at the heart of the process.
Mr Huhney-Monster was proved RIGHT in his decision that it was more important to STAY and try and agree a deal than to come home to vote on Tuition Fees, in spite of Hard Labour's decision to deny him a pair for the evening of the vote. That he ending up with a pair ANYWAY was only down to another LIBERAL DEMOCRAT, and no thanks to Labour playing what can only be described as student politics.
Cancun has seen us contribute to REAL PROGRESS on IMPORTANT ISSUES for developed AND developing countries:
We've established a HUNDRED BILLION DOLLAR Green Climate Fund to help developing countries go low carbon and adapt to climate impacts. PLUS we've set up the mechanisms to help developing countries access low carbon technology, and adapt to climate change
We've agreed a deal on chopping down TREES, to slow, halt and reverse destruction of forests and to agree the rules for delivering it and for monitoring progress.
We've agreed a system for MEASURING, REPORTING and VERIFICATION – if that sounds dull just think how actually it's so important that we know how countries are living up to their promises to take action on emissions.
And ,perhaps most important, we've agreed the OBJECTIVE: to stop emissions from increasing and to limit global temperature rises to an overall target of 2 degrees.
On top of all that, Mr Huhney-Monster was personally responsible for negotiating an agreed way to continue the Kyoto Protocols for controlling CO2 emissions (give or take a couple of FUDGES to keep Russia and Japan on side).
This isn't a world-saving deal YET, but it shows the way and it shows that people can work together and WILL work together.
This last week has been dominated by arguments about how to pay for our kids' FUTURES, but with THIS DEAL we've taken BIG STRIDES towards ensuring that they have a future AT ALL.
And it's another LIBERAL DEMOCRAT policy DELIVERED.
.
After the disappointment of the Copenhagen Summit last year, when even President Barry O and Prime Monster Mr Frown could not wrangle a deal from the World Leaders… against pretty much ALL expectations that ANY progress could be made this year… the Climate Change Summit in Cancun has achieved a (moderate) success!
And Liberal Democrat Climate Change Secretary Mr Chris Huhney-Monster was right at the heart of the process.
Mr Huhney-Monster was proved RIGHT in his decision that it was more important to STAY and try and agree a deal than to come home to vote on Tuition Fees, in spite of Hard Labour's decision to deny him a pair for the evening of the vote. That he ending up with a pair ANYWAY was only down to another LIBERAL DEMOCRAT, and no thanks to Labour playing what can only be described as student politics.
Cancun has seen us contribute to REAL PROGRESS on IMPORTANT ISSUES for developed AND developing countries:
We've established a HUNDRED BILLION DOLLAR Green Climate Fund to help developing countries go low carbon and adapt to climate impacts. PLUS we've set up the mechanisms to help developing countries access low carbon technology, and adapt to climate change
We've agreed a deal on chopping down TREES, to slow, halt and reverse destruction of forests and to agree the rules for delivering it and for monitoring progress.
We've agreed a system for MEASURING, REPORTING and VERIFICATION – if that sounds dull just think how actually it's so important that we know how countries are living up to their promises to take action on emissions.
And ,perhaps most important, we've agreed the OBJECTIVE: to stop emissions from increasing and to limit global temperature rises to an overall target of 2 degrees.
On top of all that, Mr Huhney-Monster was personally responsible for negotiating an agreed way to continue the Kyoto Protocols for controlling CO2 emissions (give or take a couple of FUDGES to keep Russia and Japan on side).
This isn't a world-saving deal YET, but it shows the way and it shows that people can work together and WILL work together.
This last week has been dominated by arguments about how to pay for our kids' FUTURES, but with THIS DEAL we've taken BIG STRIDES towards ensuring that they have a future AT ALL.
And it's another LIBERAL DEMOCRAT policy DELIVERED.
.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Day 3569: A Change of Tack – Chris Huhne has it right on the Economy
Saturday:
I've said this before and I'll say it again: the British economy skates across the thin ice between TWO great dangers.
On the one fluffy foot: DEflationary recession caused by insufficient demand (i.e. the economy losing oomph because there's not enough money being spent).
On the other fluffy foot: collapse in market confidence leading to spiralling interest rates leading to INflationary recession (i.e. the economy losing oomph because the money is spent on higher costs and interest instead of growth).
ONE solution needs MORE Government SPENDING funded by borrowing; the OTHER needs LESS Government BORROWING achieved by less spending.
Obviously, I mean really OBVIOUSLY, these are the OPPOSITE of each other so you can't do BOTH.
But if you are SERIOUS about doing the best for the economy, as I hope most politicians are, then you DON'T just pick ONE and stick to it regardless. You make a judgement call about which risk seems to you to be greater and you watch the outcome LIKE A HAWK, so that if the risks change YOU CAN SWITCH to the other policy.
THIS is what we mean when we say we are being PRAGMATIC.
THIS is what Mr Huhney-Monster is saying in his interview in the Tell-lie-o-graph.
As of the start of May, when the world markets turned on Greece and looked like they might turn on other European countries soon after, we have made the judgement that the risk of market panic was the greater.
That is why we supported Master Gideon's budget saying he was going to borrow less, even though that meant harsher spending cuts.
And it appears to be working. The markets have calmed a little, the IMF has given its approval and we have retained our Triple-A credit rating.
That does NOT mean we go "tick, V.G. Economy sorted". It means we CONTINUE to watch the OUTCOMES and try to adjust our plans accordingly.
The signs are that our economy is RECOVERING but that growth remains FRAGILE, with Great Britain, Europe and Americaland all looking at expected growth figures of around 1.7% for the year. But while that is BETTER news than Europe was expecting, it is WORSE than Americaland thought they were doing, and with American unemployment remaining high and their dollar continuing to weaken there is the underlying WORRY that Americaland is falling back into another recession. And if America goes down, the rest of us could well be carried with her.
All summer long, Mr Bully Balls was rather over-fond of quoting famous economist Mr Milton Keynes.
"If the circumstances change, I change my mind."
Well that's pretty much EXACTLY MR Huhney-Monster's line.
If anything, people ought to be MASSIVELY REASSURED that the Government aren't just flinging themselves at cuts, but are taking an informed decision AND that they are OPEN to CHANGING THEIR MINDS.
But no.
Hard Labour's Angela Eagle aka Angela Engels, newly appointed to Shadow Mr Danny Alexander, described this as "letting the cat-monster out of the bag", claiming the risk lay in coalition policy (which shows she's either politicking or she's startlingly lacking in economic understanding – maybe she could borrow Mr Johnson and Johnson's "Economics For Dummies" once he's finished reading it).
Meanwhile, her new boss, Mr Potato Ed, was on the tellybox simultaneously condemning the rise in VAT while promising no increases in personal taxation. Well, HELLO Mr Ed, but WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM? Or is he saying the deficit should be brought down with 100% spending cuts? No, because he was then on to defending benefit payments to millionaires. And he has the temerity to call Coalition policy "shambolic"!
HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THESE PEOPLE?
If we stick to Coalition policy we're being "ideological"; if we say we're open to the evidence, we're "letting the cat-monster out of the bag". I'm sorry but it's VERY difficult to have a rational discussion for the benefit of the nation with people who reply to anything you say with: "heads we win, tails you smell".
Personally, I'm just GLAD that there's SOMEONE on the Coalition side standing up and SAYING this is EVIDENCE-BASED policy. Three cheers for Mr Huhney-Monster.
.
I've said this before and I'll say it again: the British economy skates across the thin ice between TWO great dangers.
On the one fluffy foot: DEflationary recession caused by insufficient demand (i.e. the economy losing oomph because there's not enough money being spent).
On the other fluffy foot: collapse in market confidence leading to spiralling interest rates leading to INflationary recession (i.e. the economy losing oomph because the money is spent on higher costs and interest instead of growth).
ONE solution needs MORE Government SPENDING funded by borrowing; the OTHER needs LESS Government BORROWING achieved by less spending.
Obviously, I mean really OBVIOUSLY, these are the OPPOSITE of each other so you can't do BOTH.
But if you are SERIOUS about doing the best for the economy, as I hope most politicians are, then you DON'T just pick ONE and stick to it regardless. You make a judgement call about which risk seems to you to be greater and you watch the outcome LIKE A HAWK, so that if the risks change YOU CAN SWITCH to the other policy.
THIS is what we mean when we say we are being PRAGMATIC.
THIS is what Mr Huhney-Monster is saying in his interview in the Tell-lie-o-graph.
As of the start of May, when the world markets turned on Greece and looked like they might turn on other European countries soon after, we have made the judgement that the risk of market panic was the greater.
That is why we supported Master Gideon's budget saying he was going to borrow less, even though that meant harsher spending cuts.
And it appears to be working. The markets have calmed a little, the IMF has given its approval and we have retained our Triple-A credit rating.
That does NOT mean we go "tick, V.G. Economy sorted". It means we CONTINUE to watch the OUTCOMES and try to adjust our plans accordingly.
The signs are that our economy is RECOVERING but that growth remains FRAGILE, with Great Britain, Europe and Americaland all looking at expected growth figures of around 1.7% for the year. But while that is BETTER news than Europe was expecting, it is WORSE than Americaland thought they were doing, and with American unemployment remaining high and their dollar continuing to weaken there is the underlying WORRY that Americaland is falling back into another recession. And if America goes down, the rest of us could well be carried with her.
All summer long, Mr Bully Balls was rather over-fond of quoting famous economist Mr Milton Keynes.
"If the circumstances change, I change my mind."
Well that's pretty much EXACTLY MR Huhney-Monster's line.
If anything, people ought to be MASSIVELY REASSURED that the Government aren't just flinging themselves at cuts, but are taking an informed decision AND that they are OPEN to CHANGING THEIR MINDS.
But no.
Hard Labour's Angela Eagle aka Angela Engels, newly appointed to Shadow Mr Danny Alexander, described this as "letting the cat-monster out of the bag", claiming the risk lay in coalition policy (which shows she's either politicking or she's startlingly lacking in economic understanding – maybe she could borrow Mr Johnson and Johnson's "Economics For Dummies" once he's finished reading it).
Meanwhile, her new boss, Mr Potato Ed, was on the tellybox simultaneously condemning the rise in VAT while promising no increases in personal taxation. Well, HELLO Mr Ed, but WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM? Or is he saying the deficit should be brought down with 100% spending cuts? No, because he was then on to defending benefit payments to millionaires. And he has the temerity to call Coalition policy "shambolic"!
HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THESE PEOPLE?
If we stick to Coalition policy we're being "ideological"; if we say we're open to the evidence, we're "letting the cat-monster out of the bag". I'm sorry but it's VERY difficult to have a rational discussion for the benefit of the nation with people who reply to anything you say with: "heads we win, tails you smell".
Personally, I'm just GLAD that there's SOMEONE on the Coalition side standing up and SAYING this is EVIDENCE-BASED policy. Three cheers for Mr Huhney-Monster.
.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Day 3033: Millennium Elephant discovers the Dark Secret inside the Office of Mr Chris Huhne MP
Tuesday:
It is the tub of chocolates that we left for his research staff. He is on a diet – do not tell him, anyone!
Slimming Team
Along with Mr Lord Bonkers and Auntie Helen and Special Agent George, I have been along to interview nearly-but-not-quite Liberal Leader Mr Chris Huhney-Monster in his office in Parliament.
Mr Chris was very generous with his time and we had a terrific and wide ranging interview, covering: the budget and being maybe only half-way into the recession; how the Conservatories are now neither Keynesians not Monetarists nor any other known form of economic theory-ists; electric cars and other toys-for-the-boys; and who is the best Doctor Woo (the Internet demands to know!).
More seriously, Mr Chris was APPALLED by the decision of Mayor of London Bojo the Clown to break his election promise and cancel the opening of three vital Rape Crisis Centres.
"Probably the most worrying aspect in the entire criminal justice system is the failure to prosecute and convict for rape."
JUST 16.9% of complaints lead to a prosecution, and the conviction rate is even worse at a MERE 6%, far lower than in other countries.
"This is an area of appalling violence against half the population," said Mr Chris. "And it is just completely unacceptable."
We talked extensively about policing, about the way that the G20 demonstrations were handled, why there HAS to be an independent judicial inquiry and what lessons need to be learned. How does a senior police officer's stated policy come to be at odds with practice on the ground? And do the Territorial Support Group share "DNA" with the Special Patrol Group disbanded in the 1980s?
We learned that it is NOT illegal to photograph a police officer… except when it is: possibly one at a railway station or an airport or a power station because the law, muddy and badly drafted, is about not assisting terrorist PLANNING.
And we talked more broadly about the need for MORE police but also BETTER police strategy, the need to police with CONSENT – and how travelling in pairs like Chinese diplomats might mean you talk to each other instead of members of the community.
We asked whether he had any regrets about the Geert Wilders business. He said that he had come to his decision honestly that the "Fitna" film DID incite violence and he stuck by that. But with hindsight, he thought that it might have been better to just ignore the man.
Though, in his defence, he added that by the time he was asked, the Home Secretary had already banned Mr Wilders from the country.
Speaking of the "Second Home" Secretary, I also asked about MPs expenses. A little while ago, Mr Clogg published his ideas on reforming the expenses system. Today a rather-less-consultative Mr Frown issued a Prime Monsterial dictat that MPs expenses WOULD be reformed. Spot the difference, I asked.
The difference, said Mr Chris, is that Mr Frown is setting up an attendance allowance with no need for receipts or bills to prove you've actually incurred an expense. It's basically free money. "It won't do at all."
And we also heaped PRAISE on Mr Chris's Freedom Bill and – by wireless digital laser satellite link-up – Award-winning Auntie Alix asked that Mr Chris update the site to incorporate all the good ideas that have been posted as comments. He said that that was definitely the plan, and that we want to develop the CONVERSATION through the website over the next year so we can use the Freedom Bill very much as our CALLING CARD in the General Election.
Anyway, then Lord Bonkers had to hurry off to the Sky Newswagon of EVIL to do an interview, and we hurried home in time to catch him use at least TWO of the things that Mr Chris had said to us. (And Auntie Helen do a walk-past behind the man who was pretending to be in another studio. Hehe!)
All in all, a terrific interview. Thank you, Mr Chris!
.
It is the tub of chocolates that we left for his research staff. He is on a diet – do not tell him, anyone!
Slimming Team
Along with Mr Lord Bonkers and Auntie Helen and Special Agent George, I have been along to interview nearly-but-not-quite Liberal Leader Mr Chris Huhney-Monster in his office in Parliament.
Mr Chris was very generous with his time and we had a terrific and wide ranging interview, covering: the budget and being maybe only half-way into the recession; how the Conservatories are now neither Keynesians not Monetarists nor any other known form of economic theory-ists; electric cars and other toys-for-the-boys; and who is the best Doctor Woo (the Internet demands to know!).
More seriously, Mr Chris was APPALLED by the decision of Mayor of London Bojo the Clown to break his election promise and cancel the opening of three vital Rape Crisis Centres.
"Probably the most worrying aspect in the entire criminal justice system is the failure to prosecute and convict for rape."
JUST 16.9% of complaints lead to a prosecution, and the conviction rate is even worse at a MERE 6%, far lower than in other countries.
"This is an area of appalling violence against half the population," said Mr Chris. "And it is just completely unacceptable."
We talked extensively about policing, about the way that the G20 demonstrations were handled, why there HAS to be an independent judicial inquiry and what lessons need to be learned. How does a senior police officer's stated policy come to be at odds with practice on the ground? And do the Territorial Support Group share "DNA" with the Special Patrol Group disbanded in the 1980s?
We learned that it is NOT illegal to photograph a police officer… except when it is: possibly one at a railway station or an airport or a power station because the law, muddy and badly drafted, is about not assisting terrorist PLANNING.
And we talked more broadly about the need for MORE police but also BETTER police strategy, the need to police with CONSENT – and how travelling in pairs like Chinese diplomats might mean you talk to each other instead of members of the community.
We asked whether he had any regrets about the Geert Wilders business. He said that he had come to his decision honestly that the "Fitna" film DID incite violence and he stuck by that. But with hindsight, he thought that it might have been better to just ignore the man.
Though, in his defence, he added that by the time he was asked, the Home Secretary had already banned Mr Wilders from the country.
Speaking of the "Second Home" Secretary, I also asked about MPs expenses. A little while ago, Mr Clogg published his ideas on reforming the expenses system. Today a rather-less-consultative Mr Frown issued a Prime Monsterial dictat that MPs expenses WOULD be reformed. Spot the difference, I asked.
The difference, said Mr Chris, is that Mr Frown is setting up an attendance allowance with no need for receipts or bills to prove you've actually incurred an expense. It's basically free money. "It won't do at all."
And we also heaped PRAISE on Mr Chris's Freedom Bill and – by wireless digital laser satellite link-up – Award-winning Auntie Alix asked that Mr Chris update the site to incorporate all the good ideas that have been posted as comments. He said that that was definitely the plan, and that we want to develop the CONVERSATION through the website over the next year so we can use the Freedom Bill very much as our CALLING CARD in the General Election.
Anyway, then Lord Bonkers had to hurry off to the Sky Newswagon of EVIL to do an interview, and we hurried home in time to catch him use at least TWO of the things that Mr Chris had said to us. (And Auntie Helen do a walk-past behind the man who was pretending to be in another studio. Hehe!)
All in all, a terrific interview. Thank you, Mr Chris!
.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Day 2501: The Leadership Interview… Chris Huhne meets Millennium (and some other people)
Tuesday:
Both candidates for the Leadership of the Liberal Democrats have kindly agreed to an interview with a panel of Liberal Democrat diarists*.
Today, first up was Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment and MP for Eastleigh, Mr Chris Huhney-Monster and naturally, as a TOP Liberal Democrat, I was there!
Top Liberal Democrat... and friends
The first thing that strikes about Mr Huhney-Monster is his enthusiasm and energy and keenness to get his message across.
He is a MAN with a PLAN, big ambitions for the Liberal Democrats and a strategy to stop the other parties IGNORING us. He wants the Liberal Democrats, over the next two general elections, to get to a position where NEITHER party can form a government without us. That means working to a plan, like a business plan, where you start by defining where you want to be, and work out what are the target seats you need to support, who are the candidates you need to develop, what is the training you need to give them, how much is the money that you need to spend.
He certainly has the ELBOWS to be Party Leader, and he recognises that we need to USE them – we have to be more aggressive in going out there to sell our story.
As I suggested to him, the party sometimes has a habit of waiting for the publicity to come to us – that certainly does not seem to be the case with Mr Huhney-Monster; he is hungry for every opportunity to put across his ideas. (He's been on Any Questionables, GM TV and PoliticalBetting and that's just over the last weekend! Oh and there he was on the Newsnight Show tonight doing the response to Mrs the Queen's speech.)
If we are to win in the "air war" then his time in journalism has taught him that we have got to beat the "So what?" factor.
The propaganda of politics is about repetition, repetition, repetition. We need to have our KEY POLICIES – and it is obvious that he is passionate that the environment should be one of them – and press them hard.
Mr Jonny cut to the heart of the issue, asking: "In one line: why should I vote Liberal Democrat?"
And to be FAIR, Mr Huhney-Monster HAD an answer:
"Because we want a country that is freer, greener, fairer and where people are in charge."
Yes, it's on his manifesto, but isn't that the POINT?
He speaks eloquently and intelligently: perhaps too intelligently was the suggestion that Mr Paul Burblings put to him. "Sometimes you're said to speak a little sotto voce. In fact, you're the sort of person who uses words like 'sotto voce', words like 'Gaderene', or 'amanuensis'…" (THAT'S how you spell it, Mr James!) "…don't we need a person who is able to communicate with the people in ordinary language?"
But look at the evidence, was his reply. We now have a clear polling lead on the policy of the environment – six points ahead of the Labour or the Conservatories, in spite of all the Hug-a-Huskie stunts and government targets. This is IMPORTANT because sooner or later, and probably sooner, the environment is going to register with the public, as it has in Canada and Australia, and it will go rocketing up the tables of "important issues". And that lead has grown in the time that Mr Huhney-Monster has held the environment brief. That's got to be a measure of success in communication.
But this question of communication, of image, of STORY is obviously central.
Mr James returned to it later, putting it like this: "I can see the way that journalists will write the story: 'oh, those perfidious Lib Dems: they had the chance to elect the MESSIAH and instead they picked this greying accountant' – how do we escape from that story?"
There is, Mr Chris told us, usually a self-balancing mechanism within the press. Even if one story is being pushed there is usually someone who will look at it, think about it and say "but that's rubbish".
Ms Jackie Ashley in the Grauniad on Monday is a case in point, (SHE was saying our first choice shouldn't always be the pretty boys).
Do we want someone who is just young and telegenic, or would we rather have someone actually capable of running a country?
Remember, SUPERFICIALLY Lord Blairimort had ALL of the characteristics of the PERFECT politician: charm, wit, poise,peerages to sell, er. But Mr Chris pointed out that he could talk a good talk but didn’t walk the walk.
(So crooked he couldn't walk in a straight line, if you ask me, but that is another story!)
Mr Chris said no such thing, of course. He just pointed us to Lord Blairimort's speech to the United Nations where he called Climate Change the greatest challenge of our time. And then he flew home to a collection of ministries that were totally all over the place on the issues of practical delivery: abolishing the fuel escalator, expanding road building, and railroading though new nuclear power. All while Lord Blairimort was supposed to be overseeing them from the Cabinet.
So much for telegenic!
My Daddy Alex followed up Mr James point with another question of "narrative": "You say in your manifesto we need to revive our anti-establishment edge. You're the rich guy, the journalist, the politician, and the man from Brussels. If our leader needs to be anti-establishment, how is that you?"
Being a radical is a STATE OF MIND, said Mr Chris. Are you, he asked, on the outside of the establishment, rocking the boat, challenging the statue quo and championing the underdog? That's what the Liberal Democrats need to be doing, and that is where he wants to lead us.
Daddy Alex asked about the question of LEADERSHIP: Sir Mr the Merciless, said Daddy, sharpened up our policy, improved party organisation and by all accounts was better at marshalling the MPs. None of that did him any good – so what IS a leader FOR?
The most important attribute for a leader, replied Mr Chris – and he reminded us that he has lead teams of journalists and economists (the latter are easier to lead; the former are like herding cats) – the MOST important attribute is the ability to know his own strengths and weaknesses and build a TEAM around him that will best compliment those.
But add to that, this: the leader, he said, must be the one to represent the party to people at the highest level. And he has to be someone that the people would TRUST to hold the highest office, someone who looks like a Prime Monster, said Mr Huhney-Monster.
Where, asked Mr James Graham, on the cat herding scale are MPs between journalists and economists?
"I don't know," admitted Mr Chris, "I'll tell you when I've done the job."
But it wasn't all MEDIA PUFF!
Ms Mary (HELLO to ETHELRED!) brought an INVALUABLE alternative perspective, concentrating on the importance of LOCAL GOVERNMENT, a too often over-looked part of our national debate.
Looking to local government, the Labour have picked up much of our language of empowerment so – she asked – how do we craft a unique Liberal Democrat message and get or councils to do things in a uniquely Liberal Democrat way?
Mr Chris answered in two parts.
First, he said, we UNDERSTAND localism in a way that the Labour NEVER will. They talk about devolving power, but what they ACTUALLY mean is devolving managerial responsibility. The DECISIONS are still all taken by Mr Frown from a desk in Whitehall.
Taking away the powers of local councillors is knocking out the fist rung of the democratic ladder. We know that councillors need to be a POWERFUL first port of call for people seeking help from their representatives.
But, secondly, we ourselves need reminding of the principles of local action. We teach ourselves to go out and deliver Focus and we will get elected. But the POINT ought to be to EMPOWER local people, harnessing our skills to THEIR needs. We must remind ourselves that Liberalism is a PHILOSOPHY and use it.
We do need to give real power back to people, he said, recommending the model devised by the public services commission (chair: Mr C. Huhney-Monster). And he told us how SUSPICIOUS he was of ANY centrally imposed solutions – including "market" solutions. We should have the COURAGE to trust people and let them make their own solutions – and, yes, their own mistakes – and come up with different and local answers, not some scheme from the centre.
Ms Mary's other question was that it seems that a lot of the "star treatment" goes to the MPs – how should we increase recognition for leading councillors within the party?
The first thing to say was that properly devolving power to local councils would automatically raise their profiles.
But you are right, said Mr Chris, we SHOULD celebrate our councillors, and he spoke with pride of the councillors who have leant him their support in the Leadership campaign. Councillors, he recognised, are ESSENTIAL to our ongoing success – there isn't anywhere where we have won PARLIAMENTARY seats without first taking COUNCIL seats.
Turning to questions of POLICY, Daddy Alex had the TOPICAL question. "Today was Mrs the Queen's Speech: your manifesto talks about the House of Lords Club being out of date and bad, and how we need a more fair society – would you get rid of the monarchy?"
Mr Chris's answer was: no. But it was an interesting no, because he said that, as a radical, you have to choose cleverly the fights that you get into: pick the ones that are IMPORTANT. By implication, the Monarchy is not a brilliant idea, but it sort of works and we don't have a President… actually we DO have a President, but at least there are still a few things to stop him getting too much of a NAPOLEON COMPLEX!
Clearly, radicalism tinged with PRAGMATISM was to be our watchword.
Similarly, Mr Huhney-Monster's answers were CAREFUL when Mr Jonny raised the issue of drugs: "Your manifesto says we should have the courage of our convictions on drugs policy – what would a Chris Huhne Liberal Democrat drugs policy actually look like?"
He was clear that he wanted to DE-POLITICISE the question of categorisation – insisting it should be based in the SCIENCE and not the opinion columns of the newspapers. And the treatment of addicts should be MEDICINAL. That is, I think, that doctors should be able to prescribe the drugs that people need – as a part of a programme to get them UN-addicted! – rather than having them turn to CRIME to feed their habit.
But he also made clear that he was NOT in favour of a Libertarian legalisation and licensing approach. Citing the "harm" principle of Mr John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor, he said that drugs DO do harm to other people, the families and communities of the people who become addicted.
Mr Jonny came back at him straight away: "Isn't that also an argument for banning alcohol?"
Mr Chris reminded us of our Liberal Party forebears' roots in the Temperance Movement – and we should remember that the harm caused by alcohol in the Nineteenth Century, all "gin palaces" and Mother's Ruin, was if anything as bad as the current problems with drugs. But alcohol is different because it is already socially acceptable.
I am not sure that I completely agree. I think that if people are up to making up their own minds about the dangers of alcohol, they are probably able to make up their own minds about the dangers of cannabis or ecstasy.
On the other fluffy foot, Mr Chris RESPECTED that position and I can respect HIS.
Following up on his reminder that "it's the economy, stupid", I wanted to know if it wasn't time to start talking about talking less tax.
It would be COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE was Mr Huhney-Monster's answer, and he explained why. For forty years, the Labour Conservatory battle has been one of "more tax and spend" "less tax and spend" and yet CURIOUSLY the amount taken in tax and spent by the government has remained pretty consistently about 40% of Gross Domestos Product, more or less. A little bit here or their either way that makes not a very big difference, really. The REAL question ought to be about ACCOUNTABILITY.
Millions and billions of pounds are spent with little or no way for the public to have any say in the matter. Take the NHS, said Mr Chris: the front-line elected official in the NHS is the SECRETARY OF STATE; that's got to be ridiculous – how can the Secretary of State know what are the problems in a hospital in Eastleigh or Sheffield or Tower Hamlets?
Mr Paul went to the question of Europe. When the Reform treaty comes to Parliament we will, he presumed, attach an amendment for a treaty on Europe in or out, which will then be defeated. The Tories will then attach an amendment for a referendum on the treaty. Would we then vote with them?
No, said Mr Huhney-Monster. Because the Reform Treaty actually includes within it, for the first time ever, a clause that would allow the SECESSION of a State from the Union. Once that is on the statute book, we can USE that to make sure that we get the referendum on the REAL ISSUE, the referendum that would SUMMARISE all of the referendums that we SHOULD HAVE HAD since the Seventies, the referendums that the Conservatories never gave us into the Single European Act or the Maastricht Treaty or all the others.
(Incidentally, my daddies and I had a THOUGHT about this on the way home and realised that it might actually depend on the ORDER that the amendments are taken. If the CONSERVATORIES' is taken FIRST, then we can vote against with heads held high, knowing our BETTER amendment is still to come; then Mr Balloon faces the VERY TRICKY choice of either voting WITH US, or denying his own Europhobes the very referendum that they REALLY want, or worst option, abstaining, chickening out of giving them that referendum, letting the Government off the hook and being known forever after as Bottler Balloon!)
The Conservatories, as Mr Chris says, are the ones with the REAL problem on Europe, and Mr Balloon must be very afraid of an ACTUAL referendum turning up and exposing his party as SPLIT from top to bottom.
We Liberal Democrats are NOT split, and we all agree with Mr Chris when he said that he would campaign strongly for us to stay IN the Union.
Daddy Alex jumped in with another follow up, referring to Mr Huhney-Monster's "people's veto" proposal. "If one and a half million people signed a petition for a referendum would you agree to support a referendum on the treaty?"
If the people's veto had been on the statute books, then yes he said that it could certainly be used to trigger a referendum. And it was his hope that this would lead to better considered legislation and so more stability, and less of the sort of nonsense where the Home Office adds another crime to the statute every ten seconds.
But, pressed Daddy Alex, what about THIS treaty, if there were a large swell of public support, wouldn’t you be MORALLY obliged to support calls for a referendum. Mr Chris admitted that he would not. (Mr Paxo has NOTHING on my Daddy's HARD STARE!)
As is TRADITIONAL from Questionable Time, we finished with a COMEDY last question – this can be trickier than you think, as it requires the ability to think on your feet and deal with the unexpected and off the wall with humour as well as political nowse.
I asked: do you think that it is time to replace the BIRD of Freedom with the ELEPHANT of Freedom.
Mr Chris was politely positive about me, but reminded me of the EVIL Elephants of America who have sided with the Replutocratic Party. Everyone laughed, but I was PROPERLY ASHAMED!
Mr Huhney-Monster impressed us all, and we were all – I think I can say – a lot more enthusiastic about the Leadership contest after our interview with him. I was particularly happy that the interview avoided unnecessary comparison and focused very much on Mr Chris and HIS qualities, of which there are many. He has, at the very least, once again set the bar VERY HIGH for the other candidate, and Mr Clogg will have a lot of work to do to impress us as much when we meet him later this month.
*This may all seem a bit ELITIST, but do not forget the ONLINE HUSTINGS which will give EVERY Member the chance to put questions to the candidates.
The invited diarists were the five people short-listed in the Liberal Democrat Blogger of the Year together with Mr Jonny, Winner of the Best New Blog award and double winner Ms Mary Reid whose diary was both Best Blog by an Elected Liberal Democrat and Best Designed Blog. (Though Most Humorous Blog, Don Liberali, was – MYSTERIOUSLY – not to be found!) So we were (at least a bit) selected by our peers as top bloggers!
We hope that this format will bring a contrasting and complimentary approach to examining the candidates, and wish them BOTH the very best of luck.
Both candidates for the Leadership of the Liberal Democrats have kindly agreed to an interview with a panel of Liberal Democrat diarists*.
Today, first up was Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment and MP for Eastleigh, Mr Chris Huhney-Monster and naturally, as a TOP Liberal Democrat, I was there!
Top Liberal Democrat... and friends
The first thing that strikes about Mr Huhney-Monster is his enthusiasm and energy and keenness to get his message across.
He is a MAN with a PLAN, big ambitions for the Liberal Democrats and a strategy to stop the other parties IGNORING us. He wants the Liberal Democrats, over the next two general elections, to get to a position where NEITHER party can form a government without us. That means working to a plan, like a business plan, where you start by defining where you want to be, and work out what are the target seats you need to support, who are the candidates you need to develop, what is the training you need to give them, how much is the money that you need to spend.
He certainly has the ELBOWS to be Party Leader, and he recognises that we need to USE them – we have to be more aggressive in going out there to sell our story.
As I suggested to him, the party sometimes has a habit of waiting for the publicity to come to us – that certainly does not seem to be the case with Mr Huhney-Monster; he is hungry for every opportunity to put across his ideas. (He's been on Any Questionables, GM TV and PoliticalBetting and that's just over the last weekend! Oh and there he was on the Newsnight Show tonight doing the response to Mrs the Queen's speech.)
If we are to win in the "air war" then his time in journalism has taught him that we have got to beat the "So what?" factor.
The propaganda of politics is about repetition, repetition, repetition. We need to have our KEY POLICIES – and it is obvious that he is passionate that the environment should be one of them – and press them hard.
Mr Jonny cut to the heart of the issue, asking: "In one line: why should I vote Liberal Democrat?"
And to be FAIR, Mr Huhney-Monster HAD an answer:
"Because we want a country that is freer, greener, fairer and where people are in charge."
Yes, it's on his manifesto, but isn't that the POINT?
He speaks eloquently and intelligently: perhaps too intelligently was the suggestion that Mr Paul Burblings put to him. "Sometimes you're said to speak a little sotto voce. In fact, you're the sort of person who uses words like 'sotto voce', words like 'Gaderene', or 'amanuensis'…" (THAT'S how you spell it, Mr James!) "…don't we need a person who is able to communicate with the people in ordinary language?"
But look at the evidence, was his reply. We now have a clear polling lead on the policy of the environment – six points ahead of the Labour or the Conservatories, in spite of all the Hug-a-Huskie stunts and government targets. This is IMPORTANT because sooner or later, and probably sooner, the environment is going to register with the public, as it has in Canada and Australia, and it will go rocketing up the tables of "important issues". And that lead has grown in the time that Mr Huhney-Monster has held the environment brief. That's got to be a measure of success in communication.
But this question of communication, of image, of STORY is obviously central.
Mr James returned to it later, putting it like this: "I can see the way that journalists will write the story: 'oh, those perfidious Lib Dems: they had the chance to elect the MESSIAH and instead they picked this greying accountant' – how do we escape from that story?"
There is, Mr Chris told us, usually a self-balancing mechanism within the press. Even if one story is being pushed there is usually someone who will look at it, think about it and say "but that's rubbish".
Ms Jackie Ashley in the Grauniad on Monday is a case in point, (SHE was saying our first choice shouldn't always be the pretty boys).
Do we want someone who is just young and telegenic, or would we rather have someone actually capable of running a country?
Remember, SUPERFICIALLY Lord Blairimort had ALL of the characteristics of the PERFECT politician: charm, wit, poise,
(So crooked he couldn't walk in a straight line, if you ask me, but that is another story!)
Mr Chris said no such thing, of course. He just pointed us to Lord Blairimort's speech to the United Nations where he called Climate Change the greatest challenge of our time. And then he flew home to a collection of ministries that were totally all over the place on the issues of practical delivery: abolishing the fuel escalator, expanding road building, and railroading though new nuclear power. All while Lord Blairimort was supposed to be overseeing them from the Cabinet.
So much for telegenic!
My Daddy Alex followed up Mr James point with another question of "narrative": "You say in your manifesto we need to revive our anti-establishment edge. You're the rich guy, the journalist, the politician, and the man from Brussels. If our leader needs to be anti-establishment, how is that you?"
Being a radical is a STATE OF MIND, said Mr Chris. Are you, he asked, on the outside of the establishment, rocking the boat, challenging the statue quo and championing the underdog? That's what the Liberal Democrats need to be doing, and that is where he wants to lead us.
Daddy Alex asked about the question of LEADERSHIP: Sir Mr the Merciless, said Daddy, sharpened up our policy, improved party organisation and by all accounts was better at marshalling the MPs. None of that did him any good – so what IS a leader FOR?
The most important attribute for a leader, replied Mr Chris – and he reminded us that he has lead teams of journalists and economists (the latter are easier to lead; the former are like herding cats) – the MOST important attribute is the ability to know his own strengths and weaknesses and build a TEAM around him that will best compliment those.
But add to that, this: the leader, he said, must be the one to represent the party to people at the highest level. And he has to be someone that the people would TRUST to hold the highest office, someone who looks like a Prime Monster, said Mr Huhney-Monster.
Where, asked Mr James Graham, on the cat herding scale are MPs between journalists and economists?
"I don't know," admitted Mr Chris, "I'll tell you when I've done the job."
But it wasn't all MEDIA PUFF!
Ms Mary (HELLO to ETHELRED!) brought an INVALUABLE alternative perspective, concentrating on the importance of LOCAL GOVERNMENT, a too often over-looked part of our national debate.
Looking to local government, the Labour have picked up much of our language of empowerment so – she asked – how do we craft a unique Liberal Democrat message and get or councils to do things in a uniquely Liberal Democrat way?
Mr Chris answered in two parts.
First, he said, we UNDERSTAND localism in a way that the Labour NEVER will. They talk about devolving power, but what they ACTUALLY mean is devolving managerial responsibility. The DECISIONS are still all taken by Mr Frown from a desk in Whitehall.
Taking away the powers of local councillors is knocking out the fist rung of the democratic ladder. We know that councillors need to be a POWERFUL first port of call for people seeking help from their representatives.
But, secondly, we ourselves need reminding of the principles of local action. We teach ourselves to go out and deliver Focus and we will get elected. But the POINT ought to be to EMPOWER local people, harnessing our skills to THEIR needs. We must remind ourselves that Liberalism is a PHILOSOPHY and use it.
We do need to give real power back to people, he said, recommending the model devised by the public services commission (chair: Mr C. Huhney-Monster). And he told us how SUSPICIOUS he was of ANY centrally imposed solutions – including "market" solutions. We should have the COURAGE to trust people and let them make their own solutions – and, yes, their own mistakes – and come up with different and local answers, not some scheme from the centre.
Ms Mary's other question was that it seems that a lot of the "star treatment" goes to the MPs – how should we increase recognition for leading councillors within the party?
The first thing to say was that properly devolving power to local councils would automatically raise their profiles.
But you are right, said Mr Chris, we SHOULD celebrate our councillors, and he spoke with pride of the councillors who have leant him their support in the Leadership campaign. Councillors, he recognised, are ESSENTIAL to our ongoing success – there isn't anywhere where we have won PARLIAMENTARY seats without first taking COUNCIL seats.
Turning to questions of POLICY, Daddy Alex had the TOPICAL question. "Today was Mrs the Queen's Speech: your manifesto talks about the House of Lords Club being out of date and bad, and how we need a more fair society – would you get rid of the monarchy?"
Mr Chris's answer was: no. But it was an interesting no, because he said that, as a radical, you have to choose cleverly the fights that you get into: pick the ones that are IMPORTANT. By implication, the Monarchy is not a brilliant idea, but it sort of works and we don't have a President… actually we DO have a President, but at least there are still a few things to stop him getting too much of a NAPOLEON COMPLEX!
Clearly, radicalism tinged with PRAGMATISM was to be our watchword.
Similarly, Mr Huhney-Monster's answers were CAREFUL when Mr Jonny raised the issue of drugs: "Your manifesto says we should have the courage of our convictions on drugs policy – what would a Chris Huhne Liberal Democrat drugs policy actually look like?"
He was clear that he wanted to DE-POLITICISE the question of categorisation – insisting it should be based in the SCIENCE and not the opinion columns of the newspapers. And the treatment of addicts should be MEDICINAL. That is, I think, that doctors should be able to prescribe the drugs that people need – as a part of a programme to get them UN-addicted! – rather than having them turn to CRIME to feed their habit.
But he also made clear that he was NOT in favour of a Libertarian legalisation and licensing approach. Citing the "harm" principle of Mr John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor, he said that drugs DO do harm to other people, the families and communities of the people who become addicted.
Mr Jonny came back at him straight away: "Isn't that also an argument for banning alcohol?"
Mr Chris reminded us of our Liberal Party forebears' roots in the Temperance Movement – and we should remember that the harm caused by alcohol in the Nineteenth Century, all "gin palaces" and Mother's Ruin, was if anything as bad as the current problems with drugs. But alcohol is different because it is already socially acceptable.
I am not sure that I completely agree. I think that if people are up to making up their own minds about the dangers of alcohol, they are probably able to make up their own minds about the dangers of cannabis or ecstasy.
On the other fluffy foot, Mr Chris RESPECTED that position and I can respect HIS.
Following up on his reminder that "it's the economy, stupid", I wanted to know if it wasn't time to start talking about talking less tax.
It would be COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE was Mr Huhney-Monster's answer, and he explained why. For forty years, the Labour Conservatory battle has been one of "more tax and spend" "less tax and spend" and yet CURIOUSLY the amount taken in tax and spent by the government has remained pretty consistently about 40% of Gross Domestos Product, more or less. A little bit here or their either way that makes not a very big difference, really. The REAL question ought to be about ACCOUNTABILITY.
Millions and billions of pounds are spent with little or no way for the public to have any say in the matter. Take the NHS, said Mr Chris: the front-line elected official in the NHS is the SECRETARY OF STATE; that's got to be ridiculous – how can the Secretary of State know what are the problems in a hospital in Eastleigh or Sheffield or Tower Hamlets?
Mr Paul went to the question of Europe. When the Reform treaty comes to Parliament we will, he presumed, attach an amendment for a treaty on Europe in or out, which will then be defeated. The Tories will then attach an amendment for a referendum on the treaty. Would we then vote with them?
No, said Mr Huhney-Monster. Because the Reform Treaty actually includes within it, for the first time ever, a clause that would allow the SECESSION of a State from the Union. Once that is on the statute book, we can USE that to make sure that we get the referendum on the REAL ISSUE, the referendum that would SUMMARISE all of the referendums that we SHOULD HAVE HAD since the Seventies, the referendums that the Conservatories never gave us into the Single European Act or the Maastricht Treaty or all the others.
(Incidentally, my daddies and I had a THOUGHT about this on the way home and realised that it might actually depend on the ORDER that the amendments are taken. If the CONSERVATORIES' is taken FIRST, then we can vote against with heads held high, knowing our BETTER amendment is still to come; then Mr Balloon faces the VERY TRICKY choice of either voting WITH US, or denying his own Europhobes the very referendum that they REALLY want, or worst option, abstaining, chickening out of giving them that referendum, letting the Government off the hook and being known forever after as Bottler Balloon!)
The Conservatories, as Mr Chris says, are the ones with the REAL problem on Europe, and Mr Balloon must be very afraid of an ACTUAL referendum turning up and exposing his party as SPLIT from top to bottom.
We Liberal Democrats are NOT split, and we all agree with Mr Chris when he said that he would campaign strongly for us to stay IN the Union.
Daddy Alex jumped in with another follow up, referring to Mr Huhney-Monster's "people's veto" proposal. "If one and a half million people signed a petition for a referendum would you agree to support a referendum on the treaty?"
If the people's veto had been on the statute books, then yes he said that it could certainly be used to trigger a referendum. And it was his hope that this would lead to better considered legislation and so more stability, and less of the sort of nonsense where the Home Office adds another crime to the statute every ten seconds.
But, pressed Daddy Alex, what about THIS treaty, if there were a large swell of public support, wouldn’t you be MORALLY obliged to support calls for a referendum. Mr Chris admitted that he would not. (Mr Paxo has NOTHING on my Daddy's HARD STARE!)
As is TRADITIONAL from Questionable Time, we finished with a COMEDY last question – this can be trickier than you think, as it requires the ability to think on your feet and deal with the unexpected and off the wall with humour as well as political nowse.
I asked: do you think that it is time to replace the BIRD of Freedom with the ELEPHANT of Freedom.
Mr Chris was politely positive about me, but reminded me of the EVIL Elephants of America who have sided with the Replutocratic Party. Everyone laughed, but I was PROPERLY ASHAMED!
Mr Huhney-Monster impressed us all, and we were all – I think I can say – a lot more enthusiastic about the Leadership contest after our interview with him. I was particularly happy that the interview avoided unnecessary comparison and focused very much on Mr Chris and HIS qualities, of which there are many. He has, at the very least, once again set the bar VERY HIGH for the other candidate, and Mr Clogg will have a lot of work to do to impress us as much when we meet him later this month.
*This may all seem a bit ELITIST, but do not forget the ONLINE HUSTINGS which will give EVERY Member the chance to put questions to the candidates.
The invited diarists were the five people short-listed in the Liberal Democrat Blogger of the Year together with Mr Jonny, Winner of the Best New Blog award and double winner Ms Mary Reid whose diary was both Best Blog by an Elected Liberal Democrat and Best Designed Blog. (Though Most Humorous Blog, Don Liberali, was – MYSTERIOUSLY – not to be found!) So we were (at least a bit) selected by our peers as top bloggers!
We hope that this format will bring a contrasting and complimentary approach to examining the candidates, and wish them BOTH the very best of luck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)