Are the Liberal Democrats missing their chance?

With the news that the Liberal Democrats are initiating a review chaired by Menzies Campbell into Trident, it is important to ask whether the Lib Dems are missing a chance to show further their true commitment to change so that the world becomes a safer and more harmonious place. Instead of starting a review that will look into the alternatives to Trident, why not state a moral objection to Trident - which the party has advocated in the past.

This is our chance to help show to the public that our views on important issues such as nuclear weapons are fundamentally different to the other parties, as they are routed in moral justifications instead of pure economics. Of course economic implications are important, but to wholly ignore moral principles does little to help tackle the common assumption that politics and principles conflict significantly.

With a recent poll showing how 54% of those polled want nuclear disarmament, never mind Trident or any cheaper version being scrapped, it is time we stand up for what is right. We should lead the way in nuclear disarmament, as if we don't start now we never will...

A damming day for British democracy...

With the news that Gary McKinnon has lost his extradition appeal, this just further confirms that the UK has now become the fifty-first USA state. How is it right for someone who is a UK national to be trialed and imprisoned in a different country? If this is not a breach of our human rights, i do not know what else is.

As McKinnon's lawyer pointed out, the law was introduced in response to terrorism, not to arrest someone who was simply trying to find out about UFOs. It is extreme, especially given his medical condition. When things like this happen, it just further shows how out of touch our democracy is, and how everyday there seems to be a gradual erosion of our civil liberties.

Hopefully, Mckinnon will go to the Supreme Court, and hopefully we will see justice done for basic human rights and democracy.

A furious Feminist rant...

It strikes me as surprising that there is still such discontent towards women in politics, when our country strives itself on being as inclusive as possible. Even the attitude of some Liberal Democrat members is strikingly sexist and derogatory towards women, and conflicts so strongly with our central aims of fairness and equality for all groups in society.

The recent Guardian article points to how the Equality and Human Rights Commission is a good example of how politics needs to separate the needs and issues regarding disadvantaged groups in society more. Ethnicity, sexism and homophobia are separate and equally important issues, and need to have bodies wholly devoted to challenging the still endemic discriminatory attitudes towards them in society. Furthermore, there may be an ethnic minority who is sexist and homophobic, whilst championing equality and fairness against the discrimination that the ethnic group they come from face, for example. There needs to be more attention spent towards helping these individual groups and helping tackle the discrimination that one group may have towards another disadvantaged group, as otherwise, it is hypocritical to campaign for only more human rights for their own group, whilst ignoring the needs of other disadvantaged groups.

This links to a systemic failing within the Liberal Democrat party, as whilst we do have a more equality based aim than Labour and the Tories, at a local level I sometimes start to wonder why I am even bothering with politics. This represents politics at a national level, as the last I heard, women make up 17% of the House of Commons. This is shocking, when women make up more than half of the population, how the hell are we supposed to represent our needs when we are often locally denied the chance to get onto the ladder of politics. The leadership really need to address the obvious signs of discrimination that our party has within it, as it is not something that deserves to be in politics, never mind the Liberal Democrats. However, it hurts more when you hear and experience if from fellow Liberal Democrats, as I joined the party as I felt it offered something different, something that would help represent the disadvantaged groups such as women in society, not join in with the sexist attitudes towards women in society.

These sexist attitudes and the control men have in society over women feed into the poisonous industries such as porn that all contribute to the disadvantaged standing women often face. Men control women for their own sexual gain in the corrosive porn industry, this does little to help women's self confidence and belief in obtaining highly important jobs such as political office. This is worrying as it means women are shut out of many of the key decisions around education, welfare, health, work (links to recent pay gap increase).How are women supposed to stand up for themselves against these sexist views if they aren't provided the opportunity to get in a position to do that?

The Liberal Democrats need to take special attention to this, as this is not acceptable in a party that has on its membership card:

"...fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity."

Huhne leads the way on criticising Labour's "inhumane" asylum system...

With the news that Labour actually tax more on the poor than the rich, there is no surprise that they are intending to attack asylum seekers with cuts aimed at sorting out their big budget deficit. Not only does this show that Labour are liars as they are clearly cutting public services, it also shows the immorality that now surrounds the Labour party.

The cuts to the asylum seekers living allowance will put them in absolute poverty, or near it. They will definitely become below the level of subsistence, and just shows the lack of concern Labour have for the poorest and more disadvantaged people in society. The proposals will see some asylum seekers to have to live on as little as £5 a day.

Interestingly, the only comments on the cuts have come from Chris Huhne, who rightly comments on the immoral and disgraceful handling of immigrants by the government:

"Many asylum-seekers are already left destitute by the Government's incompetence and these penny-pinching cuts will make life harder still."

Chris Huhne also comments on how the government should allow the asylum seekers more leeway by providing them the ability to go into work, whilst they wait for a substantial period of time to hear about their claims:

"Britain's proud record of providing sanctuary to the oppressed is undermined by forcing people to get by on £35 a week. The easiest way to cut the asylum budget would be to let asylum-seekers work to support them. It is ridiculous that the Government will not even consider this for people who have waited months for a decision. Ministers have managed to create a system that is both inefficient and inhumane."

I do agree with Huhne, how can we pride ourselves on a country of equality when proposals such as this promote dire situations for some of the most disadvantaged in society?

As Huhne rightly says, the system needs to be looked at. This is just another policy by Labour that shows clearly how the social divisions in society have become more prominent whilst they have been in office. To help cut the debt that they have created in society, why don't they start looking at some of their wasteful projects, such as the ID scheme, and closing many of the loopholes that exist for the wealthy? Furthermore, it seems highly improper for bankers to continue to get their huge wages and bonuses when they are the reason we are in this mess, and the reason that people who are disadvantages such as the asylum seekers, have to pay more to try and rebalance the government's books.

More pounds and prestige value needed to tackle gender pay gap...

In a BBC article today, there are concerns about the gender pay gap's increase from 21.9% to 22.6% (Fawcett Society have it at 17%), but is important to recognise that these concerns have been around for at least 40 years. Whilst it is important to address the pay gap, acknowledge the report and that the government do have some useful ideas of how to tackle the gap, there has to be a recognition of the historical context of the occupations women are more likely to do, which the Fawcett Society highlight.

Many women choose to do the so called ‘five c’s’ (caring, cashiering, clerical, cleaning and catering) and are not pushed by external pressure. As the Fawcett Society advocates, the issue is not women going into stereotyped jobs per se, but instead, it is the actual lack of value and money attached to the jobs women are more likely to do. Therefore, the main way in which the gender gap can be tackled is for the wages of jobs that women are more likely to do to see an increase, as they are crucial jobs for our economy. For example, many women provide influential care work for our society, there is no reason for women to be pushed out of these types of jobs, and they should just be rewarded more in terms of wages.

As well as paying women more for the jobs they do, there also needs to be a consideration around a more comprehensive childcare scheme, and more equality in terms of paternity leave. This is one of the many reasons for why I am a Liberal Democrat, as these are fundamental to our overall policy direction, as shown by this link.

Whilst I believe the report should have had a different focus in terms of responding to the pay gap, it is also important to consider how stereotyping may lead to women believing less in their self in respect to their preferred career. I often find that the dominant male attitude that surrounds politics puts me off ever trying to be in politics. Therefore, discrimination and stereotyping in relation to what are seen as women and men ‘typical’ jobs needs to be addressed. However, with this, we have to recognise that women need to be paid more for the jobs that they are more likely to do, and that they also should have the same money as men for doing the same jobs, as more often than not the women who do make it into them top jobs actually get even less than women who are in poorer sectors in comparisons to men.

The localised dream, riddled with contradiction...

There now seems to be a dominant discourse in British Politics that wants to see the rebalancing of power from central to local control. However, this discourse has a central theme of contradiction running through it, which sees a disjuncture between rhetoric and policies regarding localisation. It is true to say that, the Tories do fair the worst in regards to this contradiction, however, all three parties have examples of this inconsistency within the discourse.

The Tories have a low level of democratic decision making in terms of their policy ideas, with their polices being largely determined by think tanks and the leadership. Indeed, there have been comments and concerns by Tories themselves of the problem around the Osborne and Cameron relationship, which is seen to exclude important people from key decisions. This is one of the many examples that show that despite the Tory rhetoric of localisation there is a running practice of centralisation. You only have to look at a recent speech by Cameron regarding localisation, democracy and power, where Cameron said we need a "massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power", to see the Tory rhetoric stance on these issues.

Whilst the discourse of localisation has become more prominent now, it has always been around, fuelled with the contradictions that seem to be inherent within it. For example, Thatcher wanted to see people gain more power and control over their life, shown by the council house sales - however, again, once looked at closer, her line of approach is riddled with contradictions. For example, look at the 1988 National Curriculum introduction, or the ability for schools to drop out of local governmental control. There is also the issue around the Greater London Council, where Thatcher wanted to centralise the decisions around what she seemed to be moral issues even further after the body (rightly) promoted the minority groups' needs in society.

Labour on the other hand, has a long history of wanting strong state control, where many of the key issues are centralised. However, now the mantra for all parties is that localisation is needed to achieve democracy, which I do agree with. However, Labour are again a beaming example of the contradiction inherent within their new approach, maybe the conflict of their long history of centralisation makes this worse, but you only have to look at law and order polices to be shown the problems with their localisation approach. The polices that they actually try to demonstrate their localisation dream actually are just little more than tokenism and do little to help solve the problems they are intended to tackle.

For example, they brought in a scheme that allowed the local people to decide if they wanted those doing community service to wear orange jackets. This only serves as a stigmatisation policy, and does little to help direct the criminals away from a road full of crime. There is also the ability of local people to choice the punishments they want for criminals, again, this is just little more than a gimmick, and shows how whilst they promise localisation, the way in which they give the power is contradicting, as it does little to actually help improve democracy. The Labour government is riddled by centralisation, as shown by the plans and implementation of big brother databases, Brown's 'ladette culture', and Blair's 'sofa government' and disregard of Iraq war protests.

Whilst the Liberal Democrats have been ahead in many of the issues regarding localisation, the events around the 'aspirations' controversy last week shows that, we are not above the inherent contradictions within the localisation discourse. Even though we do have arguably the most democratic structure for deciding policy, the Leadership was shown to override the FPC and the general view of the members over key polices such as tuition fees and call them little more than 'aspirations'. This shows how the centralised ways of our leadership have taken key decisions into their own hands, even though they know this goes against the wishes of the people who have elected them.

Whilst the discourse of localisation is needed and quite rightly promoted, there needs to be considerations around the inherent contradictions that all three parties face when using it. The Tories arguably are the worst in regard to the contradictions as they have a long history of ideologically committing to a position regarding limited state control but are shown to be increasingly centralised in their decision making process. Labour's change from wanting less state intervention contradicts with their long-standing strands of centralisation, and so when localisation is carried out it is often tokenism. Whereas the Liberal Democrats are the most localised in their approach, and have the most democracy within decision-makings, however, recent events show how we are not immune to the contradictions within the discourse of localisation.

Elderly people let down by all parties this week...

With news today that the UK have the fourth highest level of poverty for the over 65's, above countries such as Romania, it really does show how unequal society has become under successive Labour and Tory governments.

The government’s response:

"The Department for Work and Pensions said even the poorest pensioners in the UK were better off than those living in other countries."

This is true. However, relatively speaking (as the report used the relative poverty definition), they are still worse off; as if you compare it to the average living standards in the UK the over 65's are in considerable disadvantage.

It is comparable to the disastrous level of child poverty after the Thatcher era, it was not as bad as some countries, but despicable given we are in the G8.

Age Concern rightly point to the problems around the stigmatisation of means tested benefits for elderly people who may find them hard to fill in or may not even be aware of their existence. This is what the charity attributes partly to the high level of poverty amongst the elderly. Things like the low level of interest rates and fuel poverty will not help either.

Rightly, Vince Cable outlined yesterday ways in which older people can be brought back into helping the economy, which will help us out of the recession, but also will help lower the level of poverty for over 65's that the report highlights. These include, removing the discriminating compulsory retirement age, which will help tackle the problems that are being caused by the ageing population.

This is a wakeup call for the government, but will most likely be just 'looked at'. There are real areas of concern around elderly people and poverty, and to see Nick Clegg calling key polices of the Lib Dem's that could be used to tackle over 65 year olds poverty as 'aspirations' is concerning.

Good news for the Lib Dems...

We are the only party to have seen an increase in the polls, with us appearing to steal 2% from the Tories.

Here is the link.

Long may it continue...

Motorists' trust eroded further by Tory proposals...

So, regarding the recent comments on how the government's road taxation have lead to motorists not trusting why they are being taxed as the money is said to be used for everything from green taxes to helping congestion, Theresa Villiers for the Conservatives said:

"This report is further evidence of the mess Labour have made of motoring taxes.

Their attempts at disguising retrospective car tax hikes as green taxes has backfired. Dressing up revenue raisers designed to plug the enormous black hole in Gordon Brown's public finances as green taxes fools no one and leaves road users aggrieved."

The Telegraph has announced that the Tories are planning on introducing road tolls for newly built roads to help cut public spending.

So, what is the difference?

This totally contradicts what Villers said. It further adds to the discontent that motorists will have with the money that they have to pay for driving on the roads in the UK, and is being used to cut the "enormous black hole in Gordon Brown's public finances".

It is interesting to consider again how Tory rhetoric and actual polices have a clear disjuncture, they are definitely the party of headlines and soundbites as much as Labour have been.

Because talking down the economy does not help...

Ok, we are coming out of a precedented global recession, however, this week there have been signs that things are starting to improve. However, in a desperate way to help the economy to continue to recover, The Independent run with a headline that suggests that there is a 'new recession', just because their poll shows how we have seen business leaders support for the idea of 'Green Shoots' drop from 37% to 33%.

A little exaggerated if I do say so myself...

Ok, I am not an expert on the economy, there may well be a 'W' shaped recession instead of the government's predicted 'V' shape, but to say that there is a 'new recession' mainly on the basis of this poll is evidence of the media exaggerations around the economy.

If we look at the evidence for the economy starting to show sings of recovery, we only need to look at the stories this week showing how retail sales have rose far beyond expert expectation, for example.

However, whilst at the time I did not agree with the VAT cut, the fact that Darling is going to go contrary to expert opinion and restore VAT to its normal price on the 1st of January, may actually ironically fund the talks around a 'new recession'. It is possibly the worst day of the year to bring it back in, and only the Labour government would not continue with a scheme they introduced when people actually want them to. Whether we will see a u-turn in this area of governmental policy as cabinet divisions strengthen over it, remains to be seen.

I am not being naive and saying that there is no chance that we are not out of the worst of the recession, but to start headlines like 'new recession' in leading newspapers will prove unhelpful for confidence in the economy. We will have to watch the developments of the economy, however, unfortunately whilst I do not agree with leading headlines such as 'new recession', there could well be a 'W' shaped recovery, if Darling cannot secure better loans to small businesses today, if the VAT cut is reversed on the 1st of January, for example. But we need to focus more on the positive signs that are occurring and work from there.

Are we going to miss the chance for proper reform?...

The expenses scandal has quite rightly hung around parliament like a bad smell since the Telegraph first exposed many MPs' horrendous claims. However, there was one good thing that has come out of the scandal, and that is the more renowned recognition of the need for change.

Our political system has an extensive democratic deficit, and before the scandal, the two main parties seemed to be able to resist any fundamental change without any harm being done to them in the opinion polls. However, when you consider the safe seats, as a very good article in the Guardian today showed, there are only about 100,000 people who truly decide who is the governing party with the biased first past the post system.

The article highlights well the opportunity that Brown has to make a real lasting change to parliament. To try to regain some respect after his shabby dealings of reform after the scandal, there should be a referendum on the voting system av+ recommended by the Jenkins report, which Labour conveniently ignored. I know that the Liberal Democrats want STV, but now, I think that as the Make My Vote Count campaign rightly recognises, any change to the system that makes it slightly more proportional is worth voting for.

The fact is that if Cameron is elected he will not even consider changing the voting system, why would he when Thatcher herself admitted that doing this would mean a Tory government would never be elected. Therefore, Brown should show a bit of leadership for a change and call a referendum on the voting system.

However, I do tend to disagree with the article and agree with Clegg on when the referendum should be. I feel that Clegg is right to say that if it was held on the same day as the general election people would confuse the issues and arguably, this could benefit the Tories obvious opposition to the proposed changes to the electoral system.

The Tories are right to point to Brown's opportunism if he does call for it, as this is something they could have changed 10 years ago; however, they will only be arguing this from their own self-interested position.

I feel however, that if something like this is not done then we are dangerously leaning towards losing the momentum that the scandal produced for change. We already saw half hearted reforms rushed through this week, seeing the House of Lords as usual resist reform, where instead we should have seen this ironically even longer holiday than usual reduced to allow Parliament to debate the changes that are desperately needed to reinstate much needed trust into our political system.

Will we see Brown bite the bullet and push for this referendum, or will we see him once again squander the chance for proper reform, reform that the Liberal Democrat's have been calling for well before the expense scandal?

Abolish educational elitist institutions to promote social equality?

There is a really interesting article in The Independent by Tim Lott, who debates the possibility of abolishing private schools. As he recognises, in reality the middle class/upper class families who send their children to these elitist institutions would not support it, but there is a weight behind his view that it would help reduce social inequality.

It would help level out the playing field (not completely). He rightly points to how Labour are too wrapped up in the representation of disabled, women and ethnic minorities - which is right to promote, but where is the concern with the limited working class background representation? Michael Martin was teased for being from a working class background, as most of the MPs are from middle class backgrounds that usually involves a stint at a private school and Oxbridge.

Yes, many remark on the Tories educational experiences, especially Cameron, Osborne and Johnson. However, it is important to remember that our own leader, Nick Clegg, is privately educated and has a privileged public school/Cambridge background. Maybe this is one of the reasons he has moved his stance on tuition fees to being a mere ‘aspiration’, because like Cameron, he has not experienced any educational hardship himself.

If private schools were to be abolished, this would lead to middle class families who have more resources to be more proactive with their children’s education (research shows that working class parents are not less interested in their children's education, but have less means to do anything about it), would help drive up the standards of comprehensive schools.

I would also say that we need an abolition of grammar schools, as they also form part of what is seen as a favoured educational background, and is a big reason for why kids from middle class backgrounds are so much more likely to get into top professional jobs such as being a judge or an MP.

There needs to be a radical consideration of proposals that could help tackle the marked social inequality that the Milburn report has further highlighted. However, there have been reports after reports commissioned under Labour's tenure that show the same thing - that there has been little change to the social inequality in the education system and beyond in respect to class - and that in fact it has worsened. If we want to make parliament amongst other institutions, more representation, we have to look more closely and radically at the institutions that foster the elitism that the professional occupations desire.

Possible Labour Leadership Contenders...

With talks around Brown's leadership after the disappointing, but not as bad as it could have been, Norwich North by-election result for Labour, it is interesting to consider some of the potential successors to Brown:

David Milliband

He did not want to be a Heseltine, and be the one with the shotgun. Instead, he may be carefully waiting until after the general election to formalise his leadership campaign. His intentions are clear, but polls suggest that Labour would fair no better under his leadership than Brown's. Maybe, his dishonesty is the reason for this, if he did not go writing articles all the time about how he may want to be the leader, people may feel what he says is more candid than it appears.

Harriet Harman

I think she would be a very unpopular change of leadership, and would do little to help improve Labour’s appearance. Even though she is one of the few possible women contenders, she seems to be on enough programmes as it is, without her having the leadership to aid that. It seems as though she will stand for leadership, but I feel her attempt would be thankfully for Labour, unsuccessful.

James Purnell

A year ago, this may have seemed a bit of an odd choice out of the possible contenders. However, with his recent resignation and open criticism of Brown, to then go on to join a left wing think tank, it is interesting to question his own intentions. It appears as though he wants to try to attempt to redefine the party as Smith/Blair did, but many Labour supporters have commented on this and appear to see through Purnell's interests. How someone who introduced the type of welfare polices he did when Welfare minister, and is a clear Blarite, can redefine the left, is beyond me.

Ed Balls

Brown's blue eyed boy, seems today to be a possible contender for the Leadership, as he is shown to criticise the way Purnell has acted in what he deems a mid life crisis. This is quite interesting development; maybe Ball’s would offer the change that is needed for Labour, maybe not as the Blarite Vs. Brownite infighting continues. Watch this space I think.

Alan Johnson

The dark house of the competition, he seems to have a fair few followers, but whether he would represent the change that Labour need is another thing. Maybe, like Milliband, accepting the Home Secretary position is a bid to allow Brown to take the brunt for the failures of the government, to only attempt to take over after the election. We will have to see.

Peter Mandelson

With possible reforms to the House of Lords, allowing life peers to resign and stand in the House of Commons this is now an interesting question to ask. Would Mandelson seek the leadership? He appears to be well respected in a variety of social circles, and could provide the charisma that Labour need. An article in the Telegraph draws on that today, when saying:

You can be sure that Peter Mandelson is asking these questions. He also knows that Labour's greatest minus is Mr Brown and the Tories' greatest plus is Mr Cameron. He can do something about the former and not the latter. He may see an assassin's logic here, and act with incredible speed to save the party, which, in his weird way, he loves. I wish I could be sure that the Tories were ready.

However, a very interesting article in the Telegraph raises some good points of objection to Mandelson being the next leader.

I recognise that there are others included in this debate, but I just wanted to give a brief viewpoint regarding the main contenders.

Signs of Cameron's opportunism shinning through?....

A recent poll by PoliticsHome, shows how Cameron is not trusted by the majority of polled to implement his planned reforms as radically as he makes out. Hopefully, with the news of a Channel 4 documentary to be shortly aired showing several Tory cabinet members' (including Cameron) time in the Bullingdon dinning club at Oxford, this may be a sign that people are starting to see through the Cameron charm.

Disappointingly but expected, the Tories won the by election in Norwich North, but if looked at closely, they failed to gain a convincing victory in terms of increasing the number of actual votes. The big swing that they forced is more due to a collapse of the Labour vote, which is worrying for the Liberal Democrats, as they are failing to capitalise on the lost Labour supporters, but that is another story. This arguably could point to evidence for the poll, that even though the Tories are winning the elections that are taking place, there lacks the euphoria that surrounded the Blair era.

If you look at some of my earlier blogs, I comment on some of the recent proposals that the Tories have outlined, such as how they want to introduce a 3 month 'cool off' period for married couples, or how they want to take mobile phones off 'anti-social' behaving kids. As stated in those blogs, these proposals show the disjuncture between Tory policy and rhetoric that there would be a route and branch change of power from the centre to local people. The few policies that have been outlined by the Tories support the assertion of the poll, that the Tories would fail to implement the radical policy changes that they promise.

The poll may provide a glimmer of hope, that not all is lost and that maybe the general public may come to see more clearly through the facade of Cameron and the Tories.

Berlusconi as a Feminist?...

There must be something wrong when Berlusconi, the sex mad Italian Prime Minister, is called a Feminist. Believe it or not, Peter Popham in his article around the recent sex allegations regarding Berlusconi, does just that.

Granted, it appears to be tongue in cheek. However, there is still a level of seriousness around the comments. Popham seems to think that Berlusconi is helping lift the women's careers by providing them with opportunities such as in the media empire he controls, or his government. On the contrary, as much the same as too much positive discrimination can act as a patronising reinforcement of women's oppression in society, the way Berlusconi treats women can also be seen as a form of oppression.

He is not providing the women the opportunities because he feels that they deserve it on merit of talent. Instead, the women are provided these opportunities on mere bribery so that they fulfil his own desires. This type of attitude will only seek to make women appear even more like the sex objects that the cultural attitude and the porn industry create.

It is very much up to Berlusconi in how he pursues his personal life, but to call him a Feminist is in my opinion, ludicrous.

Why does no one ever talk about the moral dimension surrounding Trident?

The renewal of Trident, which the government is set on, is for one thing a total waste of money. Disappointingly, the Liberal Democrat's attitude towards Trident is similar to the Tories, as shown by today's FT article with David Davis.

Again, we fail to properly set our polices aside to the Tories as they too advocate the view that we should not see a renewal of Trident. Instead, like us, the Tories believe that we should have a cheaper alternative to Trident due to the economic mess that we are in now. However, what I argue is that the Liberal Democrats should demonstrate a fundamentally different view to the Tories and Labour, full stop.

Instead of looking for cheaper alternatives, stop buying into nuclear weapons completely. We have enough as it is, and we should focus on achieving global disarmament, instead of trying to appease the Sun newspaper. This is a fundamental moral issue, which many people miss. Why does everything seem to be about the economic implications? Can we not have one policy that is purely doing what is best for the world, and lead the way in creating a safer and peaceful world.

I have heard similar Liberal Democrats, expressing concerns about the way the leadership talk about Trident. We do not need a cheaper alternative; instead use the £20bn we save from not renewing it to make sure that we do not cut our key proposals, such as scrapping tuition fees.

We are never going to lead the way in disarmament if we do not start somewhere, or is this just another aspiration?

We often forget that MPs are humans too...

After watching The Thick of It, it reminded me of Alistair Campbell and his struggles with depression, and how he has promoted more equality for mentally ill people in politics.

His struggles with mental health really make you remember that MPs and those that work within parliament are real people. I was happy to hear that Brown was taking five weeks off, as the stress that he must have been under recently must have been unbelievable.

This interestingly relates to the expense scandal, as even though the coverage it has received and the anger that the public have felt towards politics as a result is just, we often forget the effects on MPs health of the 24/7 intense media coverage. Andrew George was featured in a recent BBC article and expressed the stress that him and his family were under due to the media coverage, and how they were not provided a platform to defend themselves. Even though I am not sticking up for those MPs that have broken the law, we do sometimes have to just stop and think that they are human beings with emotions, and some of them may very well have mental health problems that make the recent events even more unbearable.

This is something Campbell has tried to address, as he wants to try to reduce the stigmatisation around mental health. This is particularly true for parliament, as there is a culture of secrecy around these issues, such as the current law that leads to MPs losing their seats if they are sectioned under the Mental Health Act. In a recent article,Campbell rightly points to how this reinforces the silence around mental health in parliament and needs to be addressed by government to help tackle the discrimination that forms around mental health problems.

The commitment that the Liberal Democrats have towards mental health is one of the reasons that I joined the party, and I hope that we can be a beacon for advocating a reduction in the stigmatisation around mental health that occurs in parliament amongst other institutions, as Alistair Campbell has.

Do we want an ex-Bullingdon bully to run the country?...

The Mirror have rightly commented on how out of touch David Cameron is with the public. John Bercow was right in saying that Cameron can never really connect with the ordinary person on the street, as he has never had to go through a day of hardship himself, as so many other people have.

The Etonian is one of several amongst the shadow cabinet who have been privately educated and gone to Oxbridge. How can they truly represent the everyday person is beyond me. It links to a point I made in my blog "Misguided view of social inequality and higher education", of how state education will suffer from the lack of firsthand experience if the Tories were ever elected.

The Mirror also report that there is to be a Channel 4 documentary exposing the truth behind Cameron's days in the Bullingdon dinning club at Oxford university. This documentary will further help show how out of touch Cameron is with the general public, as not many people could go around trashing restaurants in a drunken state to then chuck money at the owner because 'daddy' was paying for it.

It is important to stress that I am not against every person who has had a private funded education and gone to Oxbridge being involved in the government, but to have an shadow cabinet full of these types of people is a little too far.

Stories and documentaries such as this need to be advertised well so that those who seem to have been fooled by the Tories rhetoric realise that they will fail to attend to the needs of the everyday person if they came into power.

P.s I wanted to attach the famous image of Cameron, Osborne and Johnson in their posh Bullingdon uniform that costs £3,000, but thought twice after the Tories seem to have got a little cross for the media using the image, I can't really think why that would be the case...

Update 23rd July: There is a really good article in the Mail today about the Bulligdon club, have a look...

A misguided view of social inequality and higher education...

Alan Milburn's social mobility report has prompted numerous articles and comments regarding Labour’s record in government in terms of their inability to have helped tackle the engrained inequalities in our education system. Rightly, many point to how Labour have made the social inequalities in society worse.

However, one article I came across in the Telegraph by Simon Heffer seemed to have totally missed the point. Whilst I agree with him in that the Labour target of having 50% of people in higher education is unrealistic and actually unhelpful, I disagree with him in that people should be denied university because of the standard of education. Instead, there should not be an attempt of achieving this target as it reinforces the dominant academic culture, which pressurises students into thinking that they are a failure if they do not go to university. We should be encouraging the varieties of talents people have, instead of pushing down their throats the view that university is the only desirable path for success.

He is wrong to say that those who go to lower standard education systems should be denied chances at university. Obviously, they will be disadvantaged, but it is not their fault, it is the state's inadequacy in improving the educational system. Many MPs, especially the Tories, send their children to private school, so arguably spend less attention on the comprehensive schools. However, fortunately Nick Clegg whilst rightly saying he puts his kids’ interests before politics has not turned his back on the state sector.

The article suggests that opening up more grammar schools is the way to tackle the inequality. In my view, this is misguided, and will only seek to reinforce the inequalities in the education system. Instead, as stated above, there needs to be more attention paid to improving the level of education within the comprehensive schools.

Worryingly, the article also calls on the government to allow universities to charge what they like for tuition fees. Again, this is another misguided view of the ways in which social inequality can be reduced. Providing universities the reign to do this, will see the elite universities such as Oxbridge charging what they like. To put it plainly, they will not care if they do not get students from poorer backgrounds; after all, they are only trying to address this issue due to the pressures around equality.

Even Nick Clegg has said today that removing tuition fees has changed to an 'aspiration'. Whilst it is important to set out where the money would come from to fund our polices in this touch economic time, this is a key policy that promoted fairness, and surely when looking at the totality of wasteful schemes that the government have introduced and are planning to introduce we could find the money somewhere to tackle one of the many aspects in the education system that reproduce inequalities.

Overall, it seems to have been a day of disappointment for the hope of equality in our education system.

Yet another insight into Mandelson's sphere of influence...

It has just been uncovered that Peter Mandelson sits on 35 of the 43 committees, and quite rightly Paul Waugh comments on how this clearly shows where the power lies.

With recent commentators debating about the likelihood of Mandelson using the proposed reforms that allow life peers to resign and stand for the House of Commons, this is clearly news that the government have tried to sneak out at the break of the recess. Mandelson is all but in name the Deputy Prime Minister, and is clearly holding the government together. He is being rewarded with committee positions that see him have a major sphere of influence across the board of governmental departments.

When one person has so much power, especially someone who is a Lord so not democratically elected, it is quite worrying. Is this really going to allow the government to be properly held to account?

Yet another insight into the declining workability of Brown and his premiership...

It really is just 'business as usual'...

The Tories are once again shown to be out of step with the wishes of those that matter, as the FT cast doubt on their proposals to dismantle the tripartite system. Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats rightly point out the problems around this, too. However, where the Liberal Democrats and Labour differ, is that Vince Cable has gone to the heart of the problem, in outlining how there needs to be a fundamental change in the way regulation operates, instead of a tinkering around the edges to prevent those greedy bankers and the like from hopping ship to another country.

It is disappointing when looking through the coverage of the Tories and Lib Dems' regulatory proposals that the Tories once again receive disproportionately more coverage. The biased media coverage is clearly shown in the David Prosser article in The Independent. Whilst expected, it is interesting to take note of the praise he is attributing to the Tories proposals, which when looked at closer are like Cable says, little more than "moving around bureaucratic furniture". The article praises the Tories for showing substance in their white paper on banking reform, but I feel this praise is shone a little too kindly. Yes, they talk about looking at separating the retail and investment banking, however, only after considering international development. Instead, Cable proposes more forcefully reforms that would see these two types of banking rightly separated and other measures such as publishing details of all those who work in banks and earn over £200,000, showing how Cable is the leader of the pack once again.

What this boils down to is that it is simply 'business as usual'. There is an interesting article in the Guardian, which highlights the lack of radicalness in the Tories and Labour proposals of banking reform. They are too worried about offending the City, but also have an ideological disposition that can lead to failure being rewarded with their extreme importance placed on competition and risk. Whilst competition and risk are necessary, we need to see restraint, especially when the City would have most likely gone under if it had not been saved by the taxpayer. There is partial praise of Cable in the article, who is again recognised for having the more radical and effective ideas.

What we need is a radical change to the banking system, not a few quangos set up here and there to look like something is being done, nor do we need the huge bonuses that are still continuing. Cable advocated this in the recent Liberal Democrat newspaper, when discussing the lack of gratitude and morality the Goldman Sachs execs have as they have just pocketed £4.1bn in pay and bonuses in the second quarter of this year. That is simply disgusting, and it just shows how Cable's calls for radical restructuring of the banking sector are needed desperately.

What is clear from the three main party’s proposals on banking reform is that if the Tories or Labour are elected, it simply will be 'business as usual'. Neither wants to offend the City and are just finding different ways of trying to make their proposals look as though they are fundamentally changing the way the system works, and that they will prevent another global catastrophe in the financial market. The simple fact of the matter is that their proposals do not go far enough, and that only a Liberal Democrat government would go to the heart of the problem.

As Cable says:

“My approach to the City is not one of hostility, or of obsequiousness. I recognise its importance. But it needs ‘tough love’, not the freedom to run amok.”

Gordon Brown - A Man of Many Talents...

This is a video I made that is very pro Liberal Democrat, and anti Gordon Brown.

Enjoy

Taking Liberties...

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/taking-liberties/4od#2928978

The link above shows a depressing but true video, clearly illustrating the rapid decline of civil liberties under the New Labour government. I strongly recommend the video, as it helps show how the foundations of our civilised and humanistic society are being eroded every day and in every way. The video makes a good point in highlighting how it is not the terrorists per se that are changing our way of life, which is often the justification used by the government for laws such as the attempted 90 day detention and subsequent 42 day attempt. Instead, the anti-terrorist laws themselves, thus the government, are actually the reason behind our way of life changing and the decline of our civil liberties.

There is an interesting comparison made in the video between the Panoptican prison design by Jeremy Bentham and the way the state has become under the New Labour government. This view is certainly justified when looking at policies such as the ID cards, that whilst seeing a partial u-turn of late, the scheme is continuing, albeit in a fractured way. The big brother state has become an absolute joke, for example, the video reports how a girl was told by the police to take off a top that said "Bolloxs to Blair". However, rightly so, these sorts of incidents have the opposite effect to what the police and government intend, as there was a rapid increase in the number of t-shirts sold following this event, for example.

Everyone knows what a disaster and mistake the Iraq war was, but only the Liberal Democrats out of the three main parties in the UK stood against the invasion. This is something as a party we can proudly look back at; however, this is little consolation for the destruction that the war has done to so many innocent families. It is rather insulting that the Nobel Peace Prize of 2002 went to Blair and Bush, when they can be said to have caused as Clegg rightly said, the worst foreign policy disaster since Suez. The video shows how Blair was warned by a confidential report that invading Iraq would actually lead to an increase of terrorism. He did not listen, as usual, and sadly the report was vindicated with the 7/7 bombings. Iraq war shows how strong the Bush-Blair partnership was, and also how dangerous it proved to be. The Extradition law that is discussed in the video is an example of this, as the video rightly points out that the UK almost becomes another state of the US.

The video shows how legislation that has been brought in to help the so called 'war on terror', has conflicted significantly with the European Convention on Human Rights. For example, there has been the induction of laws that allows the Home Office to outlaw any area they want as a place of protest. This interestingly relates to a story today regarding David Cameron's promise to remove Brian Law, a peace campaigner outside of Parliament, even though he is only exercising his democratic right of free speech. This worryingly shows that if we were hoping for the Tories to carry out a process of democratic renewal if elected, which is what they promise, they once again show that their rhetoric around saving civil liberties conflicts with their actual actions.

I am going to end with a quote from the video that I believe sums up how unaccountable Blair and the New Labour government is, and how we have seen a rapid decline in our civil liberties...

"A woman asked me when we were told the war was going to start what we should do, shall we write a letter to Tony Blair? I said, write a letter to Tony Blair wrap it around a stone and throw it through his window!"

Blair-Mandelson Relationship Re-kindled

I think this is a really good article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/william_rees_mogg/article6719695.ece

It is a really interesting read, and poses some interesting questions of the implications of possible ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and the ability for life peers to resign and stand in the House of Commons. It explores the possibility of Blair becoming the President of Europe, and Mandelson becoming the leader of the Labour party simultaneously.

Whether such a move will ever happen is debatable, but it is a debate worthy of contemplation. I recommend that you read the article.

A snapshot of a future Tory health service...

It is quite frightening to see recent proposals from a centre-right think tank, The Social Market Foundation, which could see the majority of patients paying £20.00 to see their GP. Is this the type of society we want to live in, when the basic social right to have access to health care becomes like the private sector, in that those who have the most money who are less likely to have suffered from the stress of deprivation and poverty that leads to more health problems, will be the ones who are more likely to have access to health care?

If the Tories ever formally endorse these controversial proposals, it would be a worrying development. Even if they do not win the next election, they are obviously going to have considerable influence, so to see think tanks that influence the Tories’ policies proposing this divisive and immoral fee for seeing your local GP is distressing.

There have been reports of how the NHS faces a budget crisis in 2011, and how there needs to be efficiency savings now to prevent this. But, how charging patients who may already feel as though they are wasting their doctors time is going to help is beyond me. The government have rightly said they would not endorse a programme like this. If such a scheme was introduced it would cast a greater light on the pay of the NHS bureaucrats and how instead of employing several people to do the same job, we need more money directed to actually helping the NHS become more efficient with taxpayers money.

Personally, I believe the NHS is too politically sensitive for such a policy to be introduced. But there again, we have seen similar measures implemented in dentistry and prescriptions, and if the Tories obtain office, then it is quite possible these insensitive proposals may turn into fabrication.

For the sake of the long standing values of fairness that the NHS tries to achieve (but frequently fails e.g. postcode lottery), I really hope that this was just a suggestion. Hopefully, the power of this suggestion will not be enough to tempt the pro-private sector, anti-public sector Tories to implement them if they came into power. However, it is another policy insight that provides the public with a greater idea of what the public sector and society in general would look like under a Tory government - chaos.

The Tories cannot sugar this pill...

So, the Conservatives condemn Alan Sugar and his new role as the enterprise tsar, but it is perfectly ok for Boris Johnson to appear on Eastenders. The BBC reports it as a bit of gossip, but when considering the implications of this further, it shows how hypocritical the Tories are.

Yes, as the Tory backing twitter account "Keeprightonline" rightly argued that Johnson on Eastenders will be a one off event, and Sugar will feature in several episodes near the general election - the principle is still there; you cannot write a letter of complaint to the BBC trust about their need for partiality and then preside over the Mayor of London going on one of the most popular soap dramas around.

I do not believe that either Sugar or Johnson should be involved with programmes of this kind on the BBC whilst having intimate connections with political parties. The Tories cannot complain about Sugar one minute, and then allow Johnson to try to appear in touch with the everyday person on the street, especially after his insulting comment of how his £250,000 a year for weekly columns in the Daily Telegraph is 'chicken feed'. Not only will Johnson be highlighting the Tories hypocrisy, he will be increasing his 'chicken feed'.

It is important to refer back to the brief comment I made above about the nature of the report by the BBC. There seems to be no consideration of the political partiality problems concerning his appearance, and again, touches on comments I have made in previous blogs about the problems around BBC reporting.

I may be overreacting to this story, but after recent events around the Sugar incident, who is not even seen as a proper member of the Labour government, it is hard not to feel slightly vexed of the Tories attitude. It will be interesting to see whether Labour retaliates here, and rightly point to the hypocrisy of the Conservatives.

The Bercow bounce, and possible fall...

The new Speaker, John Bercow, has made a great start. I frequently tweet on Bercow's performance in PMQ's, as he is constantly reflecting popular opinion. A PoliticsHome poll shows how Bercow is strongly liked amongst the public for his reformist attitudes, which include rightly calming the house down and removing the traditional dress of Speaker's.

However, the poll shows how the support for the Speaker comes more from the Labour and Liberal Democrat sides, and that the Tories are less positive. This is clearly reflected in PMQ's, such as in the last PMQ's this side of the recess, David Cameron hit back at the Speaker when he and Brown were asked to be shorter with questions and answers to allow backbenches to have more of a say. Whilst the poll has not asked the public about their views of the Speaker's requirement for shorter comments, there seemed to be renowned support by the backbenches. Furthermore, I also agree with him, as this is one of the few times the backbenches can ask questions that the public will more likely be able to hear.

It is becoming clearer that the popular view that the Tories, if they win, will attempt to remove Bercow is not without foundation. The Tories were hardly rejoicing when the news of the new speaker broke, as his New Labour links frighten them. However, if they do find a reason to try and oust him, with polls and news stories showing how he has provided a more positive image towards parliament for the public (but is far from restoring the image), then this will just show how out of touch the Tories are. They will discount popular opinion for the sake of political capital, and will show their distrust in the convention of partiality of the Speaker. Instead, they should show that they support the democratic process and election of the Speaker, and trust that he is being equal to all political parties.

Whether or not the Tories will remain with Bercow, if they are elected, is uncertain. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise the improvements Bercow has made to the house and how he has captured popular attention with his more modern and down to earth approach. Whether the Tories will further demonstrate their outdated and mistrusted attitude towards the public, is an important question that remains to be answered.

You wouldn't think women make up more than half of the population...

The Speaker's Conference committee has importantly drawn attention to the unique opportunity that has been provided for parliament and politics. With the great efflux of MPs leaving the House of Commons come the next election, mainly over the expenses scandal, there is a great chance for change.

Even the Liberal Democrats are pretty poor in terms of representation of minority groups. However, as the Liberal Democrats were the cleanest party in terms of expenses, the ability to improve representation and take advantage of the efflux is reduced.

It is unsettling whilst watching Prime Minister's Questions, to see a Tory bench largely consisting of middle age, white men, whilst claiming to have modernised. What is modern about leaving the European People's Party, to form the European Conservatives and Reformists Group with a bunch of right wing extremists, beats me. The Labour front bench has also come in for criticism of late, with Flint accusing Brown of using women for little more than female window dressing. A recent programme called "Gordon's Women" that was aired on BBC Radio 4, featured several senior female Labour MPs expressing their concern around the Downing Street's culture and attitude towards women under Brown.

The committee have importantly highlighted the need for change, as at the moment the government, and parliament as a whole, simply does not represent the population. This falls under the need for greater democratic renewal in general, which includes tackling the unfair first past the post electoral process, which with the bias media reporting helps promote the adversarial system that leads amongst many things, to an executive that has limited accountability to parliament and the public.

The representation of minority groups such as women, ethnic minorities and disabled people has improved over recent years, it would be wrong to deny that. However, there is a desire for further improvement in this area of democracy, as people are calling out for action, instead of empty words and promises.

Controlling Conservatives, once again out of touch with the general public...

Preaching that we "would go to the heart of what matters to a Nokia generation of young people", Chris Grayling uncovered further Tory proposals that demonstrate how out of touch the Conservatives are with the everyday person in the street. These proposals want to provide authorities the ability to confiscate mobile phones from those who are deemed acting anti socially.

How they believe these proposals will make gang activity reduce is beyond me. Surely, those who have their phones taken off them will either buy a new one, or even seek revenge and steal a new one. These proposals just add to the stigmatisation that ASBO's already create, and instead, attention needs to be driven towards dealing with the issues that cause anti-social behaviour. Taking phones off people, making the state almost like parents (once again showing how the Tories' promise/rhetoric of reducing state control fails to match the few proposals they outline), will further add to the isolation that those who commit gang crime are more likely to face.

Once again, the Tories show the public that they are out of touch with the real issues in society, and that treating people like children, with gimmicks such as this, will only perpetuate the problems and instead we need to see more comprehensive proposals that focus on the prevention of crime, that are outlined by the Liberal Democrat's in the A Life Away From Crime: A new approach to youth justice paper. These proposals are positive attempts to help tackle the root causes of crime, and focus more on what works instead of what grabs the headlines of the Sun.

Because, there is only so much screaming you can do at the news...

We all know that certain media, especially newspapers, are bias, with reporters, editors and the like promoting their own viewpoint. However, there is a requirement for institutions such as the BBC to remain politically neutral, but in fairness, this is often breached. As a Liberal Democrat, I frequently find myself very angry at their coverage of the news.

The basis for this blog, as the issue of bias media is not a new one, is the recent reporting of Iraq and opposition political leaders calling for an increase in helicopters. Nick Clegg raised the problems caused by helicopter shortages first, however, on most of the news reporting I have heard - it has been David Cameron who has been associated with raising the issue. Furthermore, if you cast your mind back to the Ghurkhas, David Cameron was also seen to receive more media coverage than I believe he should have, given that the Liberal Democrat's had been fighting for their right to settlement for many months, and that as a party, were the ones to call for the motion to be debated.

The bias reporting of the media is subtle, but does damage to the Liberal Democrat's standings. It reinforces the unfair adversarial system, making out that the race is only really between the two main political parties. What needs to occur within institutions such as the BBC, which needs to aim at being political neutral, is an attempt at providing the Liberal Democrats a more serious voice, and provide them with more credit for the many key debates that we often lead.

The Tories' "Broken Society" Fallacy...

Once again, the Tories rhetoric fails to match the few policies they outline. A Conservative think tank headed by Ian Duncan Smith, has suggested a 'three-month' cooling off period for those who want to get divorced in the report, Every Family Matters.

Not only is this actually increasing the high level of control the government have over people, which the Tories rhetoric would make you believe would be reduced under a Tory government - there is also a need to consider the specific reasons why people will be coming out of a marriage. I have not read into the details of the proposals, but from what I have read it appears to apply to all marriages. There is a real danger for women, or even men, who are in dangerous and violent relationships, that the 'cooling period', which would consist of counselling (but this is not made compulsory, yet) and obviously attempts to make the couple stay together to meet the Tories' misconception of an 'ideal family', will lead to more violence and many victims of abuse feeling divorce is too hard to obtain.

Nick Clegg, expressed more clearly the problems with the Conservatives' views of what an 'ideal family' should look like, in his 3rd Annual Lecture. Whilst recognising that there are social trends that are very worrying, Clegg is right to point to how the Tories' view of marriage being the cornerstone to society is wrong, and that all relationships should be seen within an equal value:

"This is both bizarre and patronising. Do they really imagine people will take the lifelong commitment of marriage - or the awful decision of divorce - because of £20 a week? Do they really think that people’s relationships can be kept alive by legal tricks to keep them officially married? Tax bribes and legal barriers may sustain a few more marriages, but they won’t sustain a single extra happy relationship.

And it’s relationships that matter, not signatures on a piece of paper. Good marriages are best for children, not bad ones. Keeping the bad ones going, on paper alone, will do nothing to help couples, their children, or society."

Clegg rightly points to how relationships are not necessary 'good' relationships just because they are joint in law, it is how the couple feel about each other that matter, and simply extending the time the couple have to stay together to talk and 'work things out', is just a controlling and misguided way for the Tories' to promote their 'broken society' fallacy.

Proposals like this, show how the Tories are inadequate to deal with the current social trends and that their proposals will only seek to exploit the most vulnerable in society at the expense of them trying to obtain what they believe constitutes the 'good society'.

Feminists' have a point...

I have always held the view that watching porn just reinforces the subordination of women in society. Whilst it is important to recognise that changes are happening, women are still bombarded with images of what they should look like 'ideally', and this social construction is so emotionally and physically damaging for women of all ages and sizes.

I had the urge to write this blog after reading an article about Jacqui Smith, who resigned from being the home secretary after a series of damaging revelations. She has just admitted that one of the main reasons for her resignation was because of the problems caused by her husband claiming porn films under expenses. At the time, when the story was broken, I felt really sorry for Smith, as people did not really take into consideration how she must have felt. Smith points to her feminist routes, and in how this made the allegations even harder to adjust to.

What I am not arguing for is a complete banning of pornography, as I am aware of how it is so engrained in our culture, and most men (and some women), do watch and enjoy porn. However, I do not support the industry. Viewers fail to see past the body, to see the person for who they are - and with this comes an unrealistic expectation of women. This effects both women and men's perception of relationships and the like, and can be very damaging to society as a whole, in my view.

I felt like having a rant about pornography, as it has been one of my long-standing vices.
The article, if you want to read it, is at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8145935.stm