Out-gunned, out-played and out-manoeuvred.

This is a letter Sent to Barbara Slater, Head of BBC Sport, (barbara.slater@bbc.co.uk) concerning the announcement of changes to Formula One coverage plans. It has also been sent to the BBC Complaints Website. I will publish the response when I get it.

Dear Barbara,

I am writing to express my dismay and disappointment at the deal stuck by you together with F1 and BSkyB regarding the television rights for Formula One coverage.

Formula One has only been back on the BBC since 2009 and since then has won a Bafta television award and, with its world class production and commentary, drawn in more fans than ever. BBC1’s coverage of the Chinese GP in April averaged 3.275 million viewers between 7am and 10.15am, that’s over 40% audience share, peaking with 5.14 million at the climax of the race. The success of the sport in recent years is in no small part due to the brilliant coverage fans tune into see every race. This seems a reckless and confusing time in which to give up a blossoming part of BBC Sport coverage. Its value is self evident, Sky wouldn’t want it if it wasn’t popular with viewers.

I am disappointed with the way in which the BBC has given up half of the season’s races so willingly and seemingly, after reading Martin Brundle’s tweet, not telling the production staff until the very last minute, simply to save money. It is saddening that you and the BBC appear not to have viewers in mind, but instead, the money that they give you to maintain programming and services at a level they have come to expect.

It has long been rumoured that the BBC would have to choose between Wimbledon and Formula One coverage, however this deal has dire consequences for fans like myself, and the sport as a whole. Although Sky is the largest broadcasting company in the country, there will be many who will now be deprived of watching at least half of the races because of penny pinching and cash shuffling at BBC Sport. Many more will stop watching because of the recent allegations surrounding News International, part of News Corp, which owns a controlling stake in BSkyB.

Of course, this inadequate deal does not fall on your shoulders alone. Bernie Ecclestone must carry his share of the blame for divesting fans of their sport. This deal is not “super” for fans at all, but I suspect it will be rather good for his back pocket!  Just as we have been robbed before of Football, Cricket, Golf, Rugby League, the list goes on, how long will it be before the BBC says it will not or cannot broadcast Darts, Snooker, MotoGP and whatever other dregs have been left to it by a combination of poor governance and miss-management, disappointing negotiation, and runaway giants like Sky Sports and ESPN.

Many of us will be thanking our lucky stars for the Ofcom code on Sports, which fully or partially protects some events from BBC/free-to-air abandonment. Events such as the Football and Rugby and World Cup Finals, The Six Nations, the FA Cup Final, The Open, The Ashes, The Grand National, the Summer Olympics and of course Wimbledon.

The appearance if Wimbledon of the list demolishes the excuse of either/or with Formula One, because Wimbledon is protected and would not have been likely to cause a bidding war involving Sky in which, as in this case, you would be out-gunned, outplayed and outmanoeuvred.

I’m afraid this is another occasion that my disillusionment with the BBC has overrun my respect and pride in the institution. You will not get support for an increased licence fee, or defence from the government cuts from the public if you and other department heads continue to underperform, disappoint and let us down.

I can only hope the Formula One teams vote down this plan at their meeting this afternoon.

Regards,

Liam McKee,

Disappointed viewer and sports fan.

P.S. This letter will also be published on my blog.

More generosity, more tolerance, more democracy.

Norway experienced the worst violence since the Second World War on Friday, as a far right extremist detonated a bomb before going on to kill nearly 70 young Labour Party members at a summer camp.

No one expected it. Norway is not a country we expect to hear breaking news from, especially of this kind. First, reports came in that a bomb had exploded in Oslo at around half past three Norway time. The Prime Minister’s office had been targeted, and eight people had been killed. It later emerged the explosion had been caused by a car bomb. This alone was bad enough, but the carnage wasn’t over.

Unknown to anyone, the culprit was on his way to commit another terrible act.  A man boarded a ferry at around 5pm, dressed in police uniform, and saying he was there to “do research in connection to the bomb blasts” in Oslo. The ferry would take him to the island of Utoeya, where the ruling Labour Party was holding a summer camp for its youth organisation.

No-one could have predicted the horror that would unfold next. The gunman, later named as Anders Behring Breivik, began to shoot, killing teenagers and organisers, striking such terror into others that they jumped into the fjord, desperate to escape. He shot at them too. Some are still missing. For the next unbearable, terrifying hour the gunman carried on shooting. He later expressed, via his lawyer, his surprise that he’d even got to the island, never mind the time he’d had to commit his crimes. Surrender came quickly when the police surrounded the shooter. He still had ammunition left.

Rumours spread of an extremist Islamic terrorist attack for which there was no proof. The Sun dubbed the attack “Norway’s 9/11”. Maybe people will take more care not to make such reckless, and revealing, speculation in the future. Breivik is a far right xenophobic extremist, angry at immigration into Norway which he said was destroying the country and he blamed the Labour Party, who’s youth he shot at random at Utoeya. The hearing on Monday confirmed his motivations. He said he wanted to “send a clear message” and inflict the greatest harm he could on Labour. He had written a 1500 page manifesto, filled with details of how he would carry out his attack, and why.

Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg has been praised for his reaction to the attacks. Instead of pulling back, closing up, and cracking down, he has indicated Norway will not give up its open, transparent, democratic and tolerant society. I agree. To do that would be to let Breivik win. His far right views will have changed Norway for the worse. As a Labour Party member in Britain I have always believed we should be looking to the Nordic nation’s left wing parties for inspiration.

The Conservative Mayor of Oslo, Fabian Stang, also reiterated the belief that Norway’s characteristic values should not be affected. “We want to punish this murderer”, he said, “And our punishment shall be more generosity, more tolerance, and more democracy.” As I listened to the translator convey his words, my heart swelled and my eyes teared. How amazing for these people to have been so hurt by such a devastating event, and come out of it promising to be better people, better in their politics, better Norwegians than they already were.  I don’t know what I felt.  The immense sadness felt one day replaced by tremendous hope and respect and admiration.

But we must not ignore the warning this incident has given us. It is not just the threat of Islamic extremism we in the UK face, or a possible reawakening of Northern Ireland’s troubles, but the far right which over recent years has slowly built itself up compounded by economic downturn. Links between Breivik and the English Defence League have already been drawn despite denials by the group’s leader Stephen Lennon on Newsnight. He was recently convicted of leading a brawl at a football match.

Alarm bells have been rung, too, by Breivik’s claim that there are other cells in his organisation. It is imperative that Britain, and other European countries, especially where the far right is on the up (Finland, Denmark, France etc), open their eyes to the threat.

Breivik has admitted to the gruesome acts, but pleaded not guilty to the charges at his arraignment yesterday. He believes he was “saving” Norway and Western Europe from Islamification.  He has been remanded in custody for eight weeks, four of which he is to be held in solitary confinement. He is also reportedly on suicide watch, although I think the possibility of that is unlikely. Breivik wants his day in court, he wants to grandstand, and he wants attention. He knows suicide will get him nowhere.

The maximum sentence in Norway is 21 years, even for mass murder. However Norwegian prosecutors are now considering charging him with crimes against humanity. Apt, considering his crimes against a very humane, peaceful society.

Norway has lost some of its brightest young lights, and the small country, and indeed the world, will be the poorer without them. But as one Norwegian interviewed by BBC News said, “He may have been stronger at Utoeya, but he will not win. Our ideas are stronger than his, our ideas are better”.

My heart is with the people of Norway as they try to come to terms with their loss. The King and Queen cried at the memorial service as the Prime Minister delivered  a speech with shaking voice. He knew some of the dead, he is mourning personally, as well as for his comrades and countrymen. Norway is grieving. But as an old Norwegian proverb says, “Bak skyene er himmelen alltid blå”, behind the clouds, the sky is blue.

The next leader of the IMF must be talented and, for now, European.

The sensational story of Dominique Strauss Kahn exploded onto our new channels and papers last weekend. The leader of the International Monetary Fund since 2007, favourite for Socialist candidate for the French Presidency, and well-respected and admired economist was accused of the attempted rape of a chambermaid at the Sofitel New York hotel in which he was staying at the time.

I will not discuss the charges here, justice must take its course, there can be no place for reckless speculation. However the incident has thrown the IMF and the world of global political finance into turmoil. It is one of the biggest scandals many of us has ever seen, and it includes the head of an extremely important global financial institution at a time of global financial commotion.

Since his arrest, there have been calls from economic and political leaders for him to step down from his position as MD of the IMF. Today, Strauss Kahn bowed to that pressure, releasing a statement speaking of his wish to “devote all my strength, all my time, and all my energy to proving my innocence”

His resignation has in one instance saved the IMF from its broad paralysis of the past two days, but on the other thrown the world into a rush to find a new leader as quickly as possible. But who?

One question to answer first is that of whether the next MD will be a European, or come from a developing nation such as the BRICS or one of the Asian economies. Europeans seem to be pressing hard to keep in place the unwritten rule allowing Europe to choose the IMF leader and the US to select the head of the World Bank. Chancellor Merkel has stated her preference for a European given that the IMF is heavily involved in helping eurozone economies such as Greece, Ireland and now Portugal. Her preferred candidate is Axel Weber, a former President of the German BundesBank .

Other European nations seem to agree with Merkel, and Christine Lagarde, the French Economy and Finance minster has emerged as the front-runner to replace her fellow Frenchman, despite her questionable connection to the Bernard Tapie affair. For me, this appointment is unwise. Lagarde is known for her enthusiastic pro reform agenda in France. I would shudder to think what she was dream of given the chance to shape European and world economies as head of the IMF.

Gordon Brown is another outside candidate for the job. The former UK chancellor, Prime Minister and head of the IMF’s International Monetary and Financial Committee. He is widely respected around the world for his role in stabilising the world economic system after the financial crash, however the Cameron has already expressed his aversion to a Brown led IMF.

But hat of farther afield? Developing nations such as Thailand, South Africa and Brazil have expressed their wish that the next MD not come from Europe or the US, however Brazil has said it will not push the issue. China has stated that the next candidate must be selected by a by merit in a transparent way for their “ability, morality and diligence” in what could be seen as a reference to the charges against DSK. Either way, they are unlikely to be able to act quickly enough together to agree on a single candidate.

Turkey’s former economy minister Kemal Dervis has emerged as a front-runner from outside Europe, but one which Europe may accept as a compromise given close ties, prospective membership of the EU down the line, and developments in the Middle East. He is currently the director of the global economy unit at the Brookings institute in Washington, and through that has made many US connections. The growing pressure on the IMF to appoint a non-European head could mean Dervis taking the position with wide support.

In my own view, the next leader should for now come from Europe. Problems in the eurozone economies mean it is essential that someone who understands the complex political landscape here take charge. An American is out of the question, and they know it. In any case, it is the G7 countries which hold the most votes, and European countries (35.6%) which hold more than the US (16.8% ). The problem is, can Europe unite around a single candidate, or will it split? Cameron will not vote for Brown, which makes it extremely unlikely for him to win the position. Brown’s office has also made clear that they are not working on a campaign to get him there. Vince Cable has suggested Britain will give their votes to a developing economy, in clear disagreement with Angela Merkel. Sarkozy may not want to lose a talented and high-profile ally, however neither would he object to another French MD, this time from his own party.

The pandemonium surrounding the job may carry on for a couple of days yet, but members of the IMF must act quickly if they are to stop this turning into a soap opera style tug of war. The institution cannot and should not remain without a permanent head for long. It is also imperative they chose the right person, or risk fracturing international opinion on the issue, which will lead to a diminishing of the institutions power.

Afterwards though, we must look to serious change. The IMF and World Bank were created more than half a century ago, for a world very different to the one we live in today. The gentleman’s agreement between Europe and the US must end, and we must all recognise the growing importance and economic strength of emerging markets in Asia, Africa and South America. Only radical reform of the international financial architecture can achieve this. The global financial crash has shown us why it needs to happen, and at the same time, given us the perfect opportunity to do it.

Blue Labour; More like pritt stick than super glue.

The new blue fad isn’t the future, just a quick fix for the Labour’s “New” past. 

A blue wave is sweeping over the Labour party, slowly taking over the debate on the Party’s policy renewal and future direction after a crushing election defeat. But we must not be fooled by a quick fix which promises to make Labour electable again, to retrieve the droves of working class voters lost during thirteen years of power, and once again put a Labour Leader back in Downing Street.

By no means I am rejecting the ideas of Maurice Glasman out of hand, but Blue Labour is just one side of the debate, and it shouldn’t be allowed to run roughshod over what many believe has to be a genuine, and thorough introspection into Labour’s past failings and triumphs, and our next steps.

However in investigating this recent, and it seems increasingly significant idea, I have found it to be more of a quick fix, a patch job to make Labour seem electable again, than an authentic cry for change. Don’t get me wrong, I think Blue Labour has got some points right on the mistakes of the past, but it does not look to the future enough to form a coherent vision.

Glasman, a prominent academic and community organiser, along with other notable leaders such as Marc Stears, the Oxford political historian who lead IPPR’s policy response to the big society, and John Cruddas the Labour backbencher, all recognised the 2010 General Election as a “moment of reckoning” for the Party, and rightly so. Some dismissed the defeat, seeking to brush it off as a recovery from a position a year earlier of certain trouncing.

Thankfully many seem to have rejected this indolent and inadequate excuse for what was a crushing defeat. Now most members and top party big wigs are engaging in a policy renewal, recognising and accepting past mistakes. This is a triumph for Blue Labour and, indeed, the leadership of Ed Miliband. We cannot win in the future without properly recognising why we lost in the past.

Blue Labour has also recognised one of the main problems of New Labour was not to stand up for ordinary people against market forces. Too many times globalisation was used as an excuse to explain away problems and justify its acceptance of free market capitalism, bad regulation, the widening of the gap between rich and poor. However, as Glasman says, Blair focussed too much on globalisation as a financial phenomenon and not much else.

Glasman and co, in their swing against the New Labour model of capitalist acceptance and has suggested a revival of mutuals, co-operatives and friendly societies, more local banks instead of huge high street chains. Better worker representation on company boards like that in Germany. I welcome all of this. As Gordon Brown and Ed Balls have already accepted, bad regulation proved to be the nail in the coffin when the global financial structure came down, and Blue Labour aims to put that right.

Their economic aims are radical, progressive, and a colossal improvement on a system New Labour had accepted, and which had helped create financial chaos. Many have talked post crisis of disaster capitalism and the shock doctrine. Blue Labour instead aims to use the financial crisis as a spring board to change the way we do things, which can only be a good thing.

As we know, Glasman has also campaigned for a living wage in the past, something which I am immensely passionate about. As well as better “relational” attitudes in politics and everyday life. A system which re-distributes power as well as wealth, and which promotes more localism to combat the “remote, bossy and managerial” model we saw most recently in Blair’s technocratic, top down administration.

However this is also where Blue Labour, for me, goes wrong. Glasman and Stears criticise the model of Labour post 1945. He believes that the welfare state broke the British way of life which had prevailed before, and handed over responsibility we had previously and motivation to look after each other to the state. Marc Stears as said,

“We have gone for many years now in a state driven, redistribution driven, equality driven Labour tradition that comes straight out of 1945”

I don’t see a problem with this. Glasman and Stears see a state which takes too much care of its citizens, provides them with too much, and promotes fairness and equality where it shouldn’t. I see a state which still does not take care of its most vulnerable enough, and even that is being threatened by the Coalition’s cuts. I see a state that does promote fairness and equality, and I am proud of that, but more could be done. I don’t consider that it is the welfare state which has caused “generation after generation of the same family” to languish on benefits, instead I blame a benefits system which is in need of a comprehensive, but considerate and careful, overhaul. Not just so we don’t leave families on the scrap heap, but so we can better serve those who deserve our help.

Blue Labour should be more cautious on embracing the kind of standards we see in the Mail and the Sun in their determination to scapegoat “benefit scroungers” and immigrants. The real way to fight lingering racism in working class communities and hatred of the welfare state on working class “spongers” and “chavs” is not to embrace it by out flanking the Tories on the right, but to convince people immigrants aren’t flooding in and that money lost to benefit cheats is a drop in the ocean compared to tax avoiding and evasion.

It should also be more careful in demonizing the state. In doing so, they play into the hands of the free market they are trying to escape, and they must remember it was the state, and Gordon Brown, and not a good society which saved us from economic oblivion.

I would like to make it clear; I don’t like the idea of social conservatism dominating future Labour policy, or any kind of flirtation with “Faith, Flag and Family,” and I will fight against it tooth and nail. Using localism as an invite to private firms in the public sector is also a no-no. Blue Labour must also refrain from being so nostalgic, looking back as Roy Hattersley put it to an “Arcadian England when we all loved each other”. The Welfare state is essential and must be protected, not blamed for the ills of society.

Finally, I am afraid I am losing my party. We must not emulate the cracked Conservative’s Thatcher left behind after the she was ousted, but instead come together to reform ourselves, and answer difficult questions about past letdowns and future challenges. The right must meet the left, and not hold the rest hostage, dictating the future by holding ransom their loyalty. What is clear to us all is that we must win next time, propose a radically different economic plan, and swing our full weight behind robust (some could say even muscular…) social justice.

Laws walks away Scot-free

Yesterday it was leaked that David Laws, the Senior Liberal Democrat who had to resign from his brief role as Chief Secretary to the Treasury last year amid an expenses row, had been found to have broken six expenses rules. It was officially announced today by the Committee on Standards in Public Life n their website. The full report can be found here. There is now an investigation into the leak underway.

The first rule broken was using the Second Home allowance to pay for a residence in London after 2005, when his primary residence was in London by that time. He could have used his the Second Home allowance to pay for his constituency residence/accommodation…but he didn’t.

Secondly, he claimed £2,249, also from the second home allowance, to pay for phone calls. This is not allowed. He could have claimed from his office allowance, but he didn’t, and in any case what he had in his office account would not have covered this staggeringly high sum.

Thirdly, he claimed £2000 for building work, not allowed.

Fourthly, Laws claimed a higher rate of rent for his London accommodation (which he rented from his partner) than was allowed in reflection of the terms of the let (he was paying higher than market value), and in light of the relationship between himself and Mr. Lundie.

Fifthly, even before 2006, when the rules surrounding the dis-allowance of renting from a relative, partner/spouse or person treated as such came in, Laws submitted documents which gave a false impression of his relationship with his Landlord, Mr. Lundie.

And of course finally, Laws wrongly claimed allowance to pay rent to Mr. Lundie, who appeared before the Telegraph investigation to simply be the landlord of the London apartments. This is because in 2006 a new expenses law was brought in which expressly disallowed claiming allowance to pay rent to a relative, partner/spouse or someone treated as such.

All in all, David Laws has so far repaid a massive £56,592, the total of the second home allowance he claimed from 2006 to 2009. In addition, the Committee on Standards in Public life has also suspended Laws from the House of Commons for seven days and require him to make full apology by way of a statement to the commons.

Throughout yesterday and this morning I have been astounded at going on. This MP wrongly claimed over fifty thousand pounds at the expense of the taxpayer, knowingly, dishonestly and for a significant period of time.  Yet his punishment is a week off work, an apology, and repayment of misappropriated money. Unbelievable.

Since the Telegraph broke the expenses scandal nearly two years ago 4 Mp’s and a Lord have been charged with false accounting. David Chaytor was found to have stolen £20,000, Eric Illsley £16,000 and Jim Devine £8000. All have been sent to prison for period ranging from fourteen to eighteen months. Ellliot Morley who has pleaded guilty to stealing £30,000 is yet to be sentenced and the Conservative Peer Lord Hanninfield has as yet only been subject to a pre-trial hearing.

False accounting is defined as,

“An indictable offence under the Theft Act 1968. Where a person destroys, conceals, or falsifies an account; or dishonestly provides information which is false, misleading or deceptive with a view to cause loss to another, they commit the offence.”

Those above have either been found guilty, or have pleaded guilty to the office except Lord Hanninfield. There are plenty of others who seem to have gotten away with as much as a slap on the wrist and a waggled index finger. However there are few who have mis-claimed such a high some, including those who are now serving jail sentenced.

I completely understand David Laws’ motivations in trying to retain his secret, as I have previously written , however this does not in any way negate the wrongness of his knowingly rule breaking actions.

I also recognise that David Laws’ was not acting to enrich himself, by all accounts, he was rich enough and not even the likes of the ever sanctimonious Olly Grender who wrote in her Staggers column “Laws is guilty of poor judgement, not avarice” that we should all leave poor David alone now.  He’s a nice guy really, he wasn’t being greedy. He’s just a humble public servant, a fallen angel if you will, a rich City big man who has come down to earth to help the saintly Liberal Democrats for a pittance of what he could be earning. Oh please Olly, save your pleading, spurious hyperbole, we have to need for it. Neither do we need half-cocked defences such as that of Paddy Ashdown, who was one the first one to Laws’ aid last year, pointing out that if Law’ had stayed in the City he could be earning far more, and even if Law’s had claimed correctly he could have claimed much more. Also…he’s decent. Oh well, brilliant, thanks for that Paddy, now we know he is decent lets all ignore the whole thing. Conservative Home’s Tim Montgomerie has even written a short piece which basically says the same as Grender’s, but frames it as all so terribly, terribly sad. Not surprising that he has been praised by Cameron, Clegg and even Gove already today, who all left the Cabinet room door very much ajar.

It isn’t that we don’t empathise with Laws’ aim of privacy. It’s not that we cannot comprehend that he didn’t cheat the system to make a quick buck. But what others who have ridden to his defence don’t grasp is that £50,000 is a lot of money to a lot of people who don’t care how or why, but simply that he falsely claimed it. Dishonestly, with no intention to give it back later, and with apparent complete understanding that what he was doing was wrong.

This is what makes people like me, and apparently half of twitter, angry. That an MP can knowingly break the rules, be investigated for breaking the rules, be found guilty of 6 counts of breaking the rules, and be given the punishment of an apology and seven days suspension.

It is a farce, a travesty, a shambles and another example that after two years of the expenses scandal rumbling on, Parliament is still being made a mockery of. David Laws’, and he’s not the only one, has gotten away scot-free, the most serious consequence of his action being the loss of a cabinet seat which he seems to be on the brink of regaining.

AV or FPTP: Please, decide on merit, not on dodgy campaign tactics

Yesterday (11^th April) the first Referendum broadcast was aired for the No to AV camp. The Vote Yes in May campaign have today’s evening slot to air their first advertisement asking us, the British Public, to vote the way they want us to on the 5^th of May. I’d anticipated these broadcasts with some trepidation. Here’s why.

I have not yet made my mind up about which way to vote. This is not because I am particularly attached to FPTP; far from it…it is an outdated, ineffective, and hugely unfair way to elect our Parliamentarians in the 21^st century. It gives an unfair advantage to larger parties, traditionally the Conservatives and Labour, of which I am a member, while unfairly suppressing the vote of smaller parties. It makes it more likely that MP’s can be voted into Parliament on a minority of their constituency electorate and/or with just one more vote that their nearest rival*. It is inherently undemocratic and no longer works with the far less cut and dried voting behaviour of the present compared to days gone by.

You may think then that I should be voting for AV? The thing is my dislike for FPTP doesn’t necessarily translate into support for AV, and electoral system which has been bandied about here and there since 1997, but no-one really wants. It is uncommon in the world, it doesn’t fix all the problems of FPTP, even though it does ensure that, if used properly, an MP must garner 50% of support from their constituency electorate, either straight away on the first count, or in second, third and fourth rounds. It would force the MP to campaign outside of their traditional core vote and reach out to non-traditional voters, but would this mean a “watering down” of conviction and an even further march to the dangerous blandness of centrism?

So I settled down…and waited patiently for No to AV to tell me why I should vote to keep FPTP. Within the first minute my head was in my hands and I was groaning in disgust. First it implied that AV would make for a whole load of ‘B’Stard’ Mp’s (if you catch my drift…subtle isn’t it…). And then that these MP’s would make wild promises of which they could keep none, no tuition fees being an example (sounds horrendous doesn’t it, MP’s not keeping promises!?). I was vaguely amused that the whole thing made a mockery of the current Tory Led coalition and their line of the “national interest”, down to even Mr. B’Stard entering Number Ten with a faceless yellow tied lapdog with the voice over telling us that coalitions lie, and that neither party has to carry out a single election manifesto promise.  Next we were treated to a pitiful use of Horse racing analogy to make us all think about how unfair it all is, quickly followed to the most disingenuous garbled ‘lesson’ on how AV works. At one point a clever little line is inserted which implants a complete mistruth, “Even though the majority vote for one person, the loser could still win”, LIE! At that point I sank back into the armchair in despair, but it wasn’t over yet. As if to top it all off, we were then treated to a minute of NO to AV demonstrating how stupid the British public are…and how difficult it would be under anything other than FPTP.

I was baffled. Not by AV, but by the advert which told me that AV would result in more coalitions, prompt MP’s to lie to us, that it would mean the loser winning, and that it would be so complicated that the average Joe Thicko on the street would have to have to be a brain surgeon to understand it. What a load.

I then consoled myself with the fact that I should have known it wasn’t going to be anything else other than what it had been, a pack of lies. I mean I’d seen the rest of their advertising, billboards which pitted a new voting system against a dying baby or a brave soldier.

So, after various twitter discussions, I reminded myself that the Yes in May broadcast was still to come. I have now watched the pro AV campaign’s broadcast, which will be shown tonight (12^th April), and to be quite honest, I wasn’t much more impressed. The segment includes members of the public (with pro AV rosettes on) shouting down megaphones at MP’s (with anti-AV rosettes on) who attempt to avoid them. It begins with the constituent telling us that after any election “Nothing ever seems to change, for us”. It tells us that MP’s will have to work for 50% of the vote, instead of “sneaking” in with less. Not strictly true, but that is the broad idea. You have to give it to Yes in May, their broadcast is a whole lot simpler and to the point. The next constituent is telling their MP that their safe seat won’t be so safe, and that they, the MP, will have to work a bit harder. Again, a bit of a leap from the truth. AV won’t get rid of all safe seats, and the public mustn’t be conned into the belief that a seat that has always been Labour, or Conservative, will suddenly be up for grabs. The safest seats will remain exactly that, and it isn’t like MP’s across the commons will be fretting about “working harder” either. From what I can see, they may work a bit harder at election time, but once the election is over again, they will fall into the same comfortable unthreatened smugness as before, and that is because there isn’t an election for another 5 years, not because the of the voting system. The broadcast also rightly points out that AV is the same system used in internal party elections, why is it fair there, but not fair for the general public? Probably the most insincere part of the short broadcast is the tenuous link made between FPTP and the MP’s expenses scandal. It is untruthful and devious to associate expenses and a “cushy lifestyle” with FPTP, AV won’t “put an end” to that at all, only thorough and comprehensive political reform (of the non electoral system kind) would.

Both of the propaganda videos disappoint me. Both use dishonest imagery, make untruthful claims, and both are less than straightforward in their way of going about capturing votes. But this hardly matters. We must make our own minds up about the merits of AV and FPTP. We must weigh up what kind of political system each of us wants. We must all factor in whether to vote Yes because AV is fairer and/or a stepping stone to better reform, or No because we think FPTP is better or AV is not the right reform. But what we mustn’t do, as I have see so many times in the build up already, is to let the campaigns of either side make our minds up for us with mudslinging and misinformation.

So Please, decide on merit, not on  dodgy campaign tactics.

* For example, Candidate A could get 10,000 votes. Candidate B 9999, and  Candidate C 9000. In this scenario Candidate A would win, with a negligible majority of 1 over the runner up, however while 10,000 people voted for the winner, 18,999 did not.

 

Budget 2011: A budget for failure

As Osborne continues on his reckless back of Ricardian equivalence economics, most of us realise that this budget is not one for growth, but instead will follow in the footsteps of his first one as a failure.

In Boy George’s Thatcherite mind he is still faithful to the idea that what this fiscal situation we find ourselves in needs small government. Small government spends less tax. And by some miracle, this will create a balanced economy which prospers. The public, freed from the shackles of high taxes is supposed to take a renewed zeal to their spending, which will create more productive private sector jobs in favour of the less productive ones shed in the public sector. Just one problem with the plan though, George, it isn’t working, and nor will it while the country is still struggling to throw off a credit crisis and recession, both of which are still far too fresh in the minds of consumers for them to go out and start throwing money around again.

The Coalition has rightly been criticised from all quarters, including the Labour party and respected economists, since it embarked on its reckless gamble with our economy about the neglect it was showing toward the issue of growth. In her 2009 re-election campaign, Chancellor Merkel of Germany famously spelled it out. “The answer is we need growth”, she said in a speech to party delegates. She warned that tax cuts to promote this might have to be paid for using “money we don’t have”, but she stress there was no other alternative other than “to keep our hands in our laps”. She qualifies her remarks and reminded her party that she wasn’t advocating massive deficit spending with no end by saying “of course we will have to come back to a situation where we don’t spend more than we earn. But in order to get there, we need to do two things: we must invest in the future, that is education and the environment”

Now, let it be known that I am not always a fan of Chancellor Merkel, but at least she understands that to drag a country out of the dark and into the light again, growth and investment for the future is key. Osborne however seems to disagree, not only with her, but with a broad opposition around the globe to the idea of expansionary fiscal contraction. It seems to be only the Tories and their Liberal bedfellows that still believe that £83BN can be taken out of the economy in four years and this will drive substantial private sector driven growth.

But, Hark! What is this, Osborne announcing his “Budget for Growth”.  Wait a minute. Does this mean George has listened, and understood, to the chorus of voices calling for growth, and admitted in the process that he has been unwisely ignoring it up to now? Well, in short, No.

The outlook for Osbornomics looks bad. Instead of “Bringing Britain back from the brink” the national finances now look worse than they did twelve months ago.  The deficit increased by £11.8BN in February. That’s nearly double what the market expected. Core inflation is at 3.4%, while the CPI measure of inflation is at 4.4% and the RPI a percentage point higher. This increases pressure on the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee to raise interest rates, which would in turn further depress growth.

And what of Consumer Confidence. The vision George has of us all running out to the shops and spending all they money that his “lower” taxes have given us? What a load. The Nationwide Consumer Confidence index fell by 10 points in February, hitting its lowest since it began. The fall was driven by the public’s pessimistic expectation of what the economy will look like in six months.

The budget has given no hope to many, and a little to the few. The most noteworthy in this budget of nothingness, is that the government will remove Labour’s fuel escalator, knocking a penny off the price of a litre of fuel which went up by three pence when Osborne bumped VAT up t0 20% (which they promised not to do remember). The effect is that motorist will be happy for about ten seconds, then realise they’ve been duped and be angry, the oil firms will be angry as they will have to inevitably pay for it, and environmentalists will feel increasingly betrayed by the “Greenest government ever” presenting, in George Monbiot’s terms, the “blackest budget in living memory”.  The Green investment bank will be neither green, or an investment bank. Planning laws will go through the biggest relaxing exercise ever, and gives the go ahead for the aviation industry to keep swelling.

The biggest story of the budget however was one we saw coming, Osborne himself downgrading his own growth figures in the budget for growth. Amazing I know, but read on to see the true consequences of this. The most optimistic by far of the figures is the Bank of England’s MPC which puts growth at 2% for 2011 and 2.7% in 2012. The CBI estimates 1.8% and 2.3%, the Consensus of Private Forecasters 1.8% and 2.1%. The National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR) was probably the most pessimistic with 1.5% and 1.8% respectively. The OECD was minimally more positive (1.5% and 2%) with Osborne’s (OBR) own predictions a bit more optimistic at 1.7% and 2.5% (revised down from 2.1% and 2.6%).

In response to the downgrading of growth and the discovery that borrowing will be nearly £45BN higher than expected Moody’s the credit rating agency issued a warning on Britain’s AAA rating. “We believe that slower growth with weaker than expected fiscal consolidation could cause the UK’s debt metrics to deteriorate to a point that would be inconsistent with a AAA rating.”

I don’t like the credit rating agencies much for obvious reasons. They are undemocratic, arbitrary, and can bring down a government with a good days work of speculating on its ability to pay back its loans. In short, they are the devil incarnate, however unfortunately, the powers that be do, and seem to listen to them an awful lot (blame the market, I do). The fact remains however, that if Moody’s wanted to, it could make life a lot harder for the Government, and us. The statement of Moody’s was meant to urge the Chancellor to make more, not less, swinging cuts at a time when the UK is already putting in to practice the deepest austerity package in the developed world.

The fact is, that this budget was hardly worth the hype, and it is a failure at doing what it purports to do. The Chancellor is playing a reckless game with the economy with little regard for the wider public, and the pain they are already suffering at the hands of his treasury axe. Even the markets distrust him, during the budget speech the market and Sterling plunged, and only recovered once he’s shut up and sat down!

The UK economy is in sire straights, and here’s one for the books, it’s not because of Labour. When Labour left office they left an economy recovering from one of the deepest recessions we’ve ever seen, a crippling credit crunch and a bailout which saved the country’s banks from going to the wall. Now unemployment is up, inflation is up, borrowing is up, national debt is up, bankers bonuses are up, and growth is down.

As Will Straw said in his Comment Is Free piece today, “For growth, we need smart government”. Well this government is not smart. It is gambling with a fragile recovery, it is turning its back on the environment, it’s ignoring signs to turn back and advice to change course.  It takes a big man to admit he is wrong, George, and at the minute, I’m worried that you’re too small to see the scale of your mistake.

Prisoner votes is a hot issue…but it needn’t be.

This month the long standing issue of prisoner votes in the UK has again reared its head. The European court of Human Rights ruled in the 2005 case Hirst v. The United Kingdom (no2) against the UK’s long standing ban on prisoner voting. The Court held that “A blanket denial of voting rights to prisoners cannot satisfy the proportionality requirement” inherent in Article 3 of the First Protocol of the Convention:

“The High Contracting Parties (Signatory Countries) undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.”

Although the court appreciated that such rules should be left as much as possible to national policy makers, it agreed unanimously that such a “blanket” ban was unacceptable. The court also mentioned the concept of proportionality, and the failure of the UK legislature to at any point weigh up the proportionality of the ban, however 5 judges of the Court dissented on this, pointing out that it is not for the ECHR to direct national legislatures on how to deliberate law making.

The Court also rejected the UK’s use of comparative law to support its case. It held that the Canadian example could not be considered, as the Canadian decision was rendered on such a narrow margin (5-4 majority), and furthermore, the South African example could not be presented because of the different kinds of obstacles to voting presented in comparison with the UK.

The UK government also stressed that across the Convention Signatory Countries (or High Contracting Parties) there was little or no consensus on how to handle prisoner voting. (13 countries don’t allow it). The Court responded to this, holding that a minority of Signatory States had similar laws to that of the UK, and regardless, the absence of consensus on an issue is not determinative on the Court not to make a decision.

The important finale of the Court is to hold that a “general, automotive and indiscriminate restriction on a vitally important Convention right must be seen as falling outside any acceptable margin of appreciation, however wide that margin might be, and as being incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol no. 1”.

This week, 5 years, 2 Prime Ministers, and 1 General election later, the European Court of Human Rights has warned the UK that unless it acts to insert the judgement in law, the Court will begin to award compensation to prisoners.

Let us not beat around the bush in political attack and defence. While Conservative members of the House come under attack for giving prisoners the vote, they point across the dispatch box towards the Labour members who “Didn’t do anything about it”. As a party, Labour must admit, that despite the endless consultations, proposals, meetings and talking shops about how it could be done, delaying tactics were most definitely employed. However, while the Coalition may be justified in saying Labour didn’t do it for 5 years, they cannot run away (and yes, Nick Clegg did try) from the fact that they have to do it now.

The UK is signed up to the European Convention of Human Rights and so we are bound by the decision of its Court. The problem is most people in the country don’t want to be forced to give convicted criminals suffrage, a right many see as one of the ones a person forgoes if they commit a crime, in the same way as freedom is limited. Furthermore, the politicians obviously don’t want to be forced to lift the ban on prisoner voting, but are being forced to debate, discuss and plan doing it in Parliament.

Parliament, the symbol of our democracy, the stalwart figure of representation of the people in the UK, the place where our MP’s debate our laws, the source of our government, is being forced to enact a law, pertaining to our democracy, within the bounds of our borders, which it doesn’t want to.

I may be wrong, but the situation strikes me as just slightly odd….

It is easily understandable that in signing up to the ECHR, just as in signing up to the EU, the United Kingdom succeeded some of its own sovereignty and gave it over to a collective obligation together with other countries to observe a pre agreed set of rules. However, I fail to understand why the Court, which normally takes a hesitant attitude to meddling in the largely internal affairs of countries,  has found itself obliged to protect the rights of the prisoner from a long standing and generally agreed national law.

What is more, the reasoning of the court seems to be extremely weak. The Convention requires High Contracting parties to hold free and fair elections, and this is the provision which the court has used in overturning the UK’s ban on prisoner voting. It reasons that elections in the UK are not free and fair as long as there is still a blanket ban on a particular section of society. The fact that this section of society is the criminal outcast group seems not to factor into the court’s decision.

However, regardless of my objections it is happening. The perturbing thing is the government could make this change much quieter, with much less aggravation, and with less jubilation from a certain Champagne drinking prisoner, but did not.

But how?

As I have already said above, other countries, in and out of the ECHR, have similar restrictions. In Canada all who are sentenced to two years or over are barred from voting.  In the US voting rights vary with elections and states, but generally convicts are barred. In countries such as Australia, Spain, France, and Greece there are voting restrictions such as a ban for “lifers” and judges in a sentencing court having the choice to remove suffrage with others.

It would be a simple provision to install this last method (similar to that of France). It simply changed the blanket ban to giving judges the right to include revoking the vote in the sentence for those who serve over a set number of years, or including revocation of the vote in the lawful punishment of crimes.

The other issue which has been raised is that of “mass voting” of prisoners. Rightly, it is a considerable worry of canvassing, campaigning, courting the prisoner vote etc, and of a prison population, because of its confined nature, voting similarly. The salve to this problem is another victory for comparative law. Countries such as Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Israel have no barring of votes for prisoners. In Ireland the Electoral (amendment) Act 2006 gives prisoners the right to a postal vote. Previously, prisoners had always had the right to vote, but not the right to access to a ballot box or postal vote, therefore could only vote if they were on temporary release and in the electoral division they would normally vote in if not imprisoned. The 2006 Act provided that prisoners must register for a postal vote, which will be counted in their home constituency, if they want to vote.

In conclusion, it is clear to see that the case in the Strasbourg Court is far from a stable judgement. The UK’s sovereignty has been so infringed that it seems internal regulations on prisoners and voting has been taken out of Parliament’s hands. However, the options I have stated above are simple and reasonable steps to make, and would be successful in keeping the vote out of the hands of criminals, especially those who have killed, or grievously harmed  another member of society.

Ed Miliband: Leading Labour into the Future

Ed Miliband writes in his mail shot to party members this week, “The future of our party will depend of the outcome of this leadership election”. He is of course correct. The new leader, to be announced in September, will greatly affect the direction our party takes over the duration of this Coalition governments grasp on power. He or She will determine how we fight the threat of the coalition cuts, how we fight the next election, and what form a new Labour government will take when we win it (Yes, when not if). Every labour member should be acutely aware of these facts, as they will be are a large determining factor in which candidate they vote for or is chosen to lead the Labour Party. I have chosen Ed Miliband.

Ed’s approach, vigour, commitment and policies have struck me since even before the General Election. While his brother David blazed a trail in Cabinet, and then internationally when he became Foreign Secretary, Ed, who came into Parliament an election after David, has slowly mastered his briefs, first at the Cabinet Office, and then as the Secretary of State of Energy and Climate Change.  One of the high points of his career, and indeed why so many first took notice of him, was  his trip to Copenhagen as Britain’s representative in the negotiation of a successor treaty to Kyoto. He displayed zeal, determination, and true statesmanship in his efforts to secure an agreement on climate change action and rising global emissions. He called for major reform of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), voicing his outrage that some countries were nearly allowed to block deals. He criticised China’s well know intransigence specifically.

He has also led Labour initiatives for a greener Britain while in the role, calling for a Green Investment Bank (which the Tories are now abandoning), and adopting a more intervening stance for Labour as the only way to bring meaningful environmental change. I am a passionate environmentalist, so all of this means a great deal to me, the future of our party, future generations and  the future of our country. Any suggestion that Ed is a one trick pony, however, should be rejected.

One of Ed’s leading polices is the campaign for a living wage,  a successor to Labour previous game changer  the minimum wage. This would give hard-working people the level of pay they need to live, and incentivise work over benefits. He also pledges more support for industry and skilled jobs in response to the Tories abolition of capital allowances for Britain’s struggling manufacturing sector.

Ed also rejects the Tory mantra “Private – good, Public – bad”, with his campaign for a renewed and stronger approach to public services, now under attack by the coalition, such as the NHS, Schools, and local government. This support is desperately needed now more than ever, and should be  the heart of Labour’s efforts to oppose the Tory-Lib Dem coalition.

Ed wasn’t in Parliament for the vote on the Iraq War, and in fact advocated extending the time for the weapons inspectors to do their job. This ethos is carried through to his approach to foreign policy, making sure our relations abroad are based on our values, not our alliances.  On Crime Ed promises to support things which work, such as CCTV, which I personally have always seen the benefits of, and ending things which don’t, such as ID cards and stop and search, again mirroring my own personal thoughts.

His approach to politics is also refreshing, invigorating and exciting. We were promised “new politics” by the coalition, and after 100 days, they have failed to deliver it. However Ed is honest and straightforward, and opposes the coalition’s plan to gerrymander constituencies. He also promises a new relationship between the party leadership and members, with members having more of a say in policy and championing a greater role for local campaigning. He also supports proposals for a fully elected party Chair.

My support for Ed is not to say that I don’t admire the other candidates and their campaigns. David has done superbly in championing his Movement for Change idea, which train more local champions and builds a future generation of community organisers. Ed Balls has shown the Labour still have teeth, and is passionate and defiant in our defence of children, the poor and the vulnerable, including the public services they rely upon. Andy Burnham also has shown his steely determination, passion, and intellect in his attack on a terrible Conservative NHS White Paper which proposes to begin dismantling much of our beloved Health Service. Finally Diane Abbott has surprised us all with her passion and drive, her unshakable principles and commitment to the people on the ground, one of the reasons why we all support Labour.

But for me – Ed is the man to lead the party into the future. He has the driving force, ability, support and inspiring ideas we need to move forward. He is right when he says that the future of our movement is in the balance. We must move forward by reasserting ourselves as the party of the left and centre. The party which fights for the many, not the few. The party which defends the poor and vulnerable, instead of rewarding the rich. The party which supports our industry and business, while also standing up for the workers. The party of progression, not regression. The party of the future, not the past. The party of social justice and cohesion, not division. The party of equality, fairness and equal opportunity. The party committed to green ideals and environmentalism. The party of the People.

Ed Miliband wants that too. Ed Miliband is the man who can deliver it. That is why I support Ed Miliband to lead Labour into the future.

The Great Betrayal

This past week has been an interesting one. The coalition remains intact, and largely quiet, regardless of internal issues over a new hastily thought up Tory social housing policy. Rumblings in the Ministry of Defence on the treasury’s plan to include the nuclear deterrent in the MoD budget for the first time continue. The prolonged absence of the ‘Invisible Man’ we all used to know as the Leader of the Liberal Democrats is even more prolonged. Vince Cables misgivings about a double dip recession have shattered the view that all is well inside the Tory-Liberal alliance. David Cameron has dramatically rejected the suggestion of an end to infant milk provision in schools. The news that Conservative support in Scotland is at an all time low has shocked us all.  The controversial visit to the UK by the President of Pakistan, Mr Zardari, during a crisis of massive proportion for his country has drawn to a close. And it has all been topped off, for me, by the sudden, but no doubt expected, backlash of Lib Dem supporters after their terrible slump in the polls.

I have mentioned how Labour should approach the Liberal Democrat Party in previous posts. In one sentence, dismissively, and with the intention of giving them as much credit as their new status as Tory poodles allow. The facts are clear. The Lib Dems have betrayed their voters and membership in making this deal with the Conservatives. It is easy enough to say that a new government will renege on promises made during the election, every government does.

But we, as voters, are not naive enough to believe everything that happens to tumble from a politicians mouth. We also knew of the probability of a hung parliament, and therefore the choices between a) One party minority government; b) a re-run of the election; c) a confidence and supply agreement; or d) a multi-party coalition government. We know this because we were battered around the head with it by the media during the campaign. However, we were also under the impression that coalition meant compromise, even if the “junior partner” was a great deal weaker seat wise than the “senior partner”.  As a Labour supporter I, along with my fellow campaigners, was faced with the prospect of either a Tory minority government which may have a confidence agreement with the Liberal Democrats, or a Conservative-Liberal coalition, if my own party failed at the election.

The fact that a hung parliament was on the horizon, for me, was a relief at the time. Just a year previously I was resigned to an incoming Tory government. But by the time of the dissolution of Parliament I was convinced a Tory majority would not be a possibility,. Instead I believed the betting was either on a continued Labour government or some kind of Coalition of Lib Dem choosing, as they would hold the balance (as the media constantly ranted on, Clegg would be the King maker). Either way, I was either happy that Labour would retain power, hold power with the Lib Dems, even if they were led by the insufferable Clegg (I’ve never liked him, this isn’t new), or a Tory-Lib Dem coalition where, thankfully, the Lib Dems could reign in, temper, control, slow down and, if need be, stop the Conservative onslaught.

As we all now know, that was a fantasy, and quiet a different scenario to the betrayal of the Lib Dems. Nick Clegg was always pre-disposed to a Tory deal, as was one of his right hand men, David Laws, who many assumed to be a secret Tory. Clegg didn’t get on with Brown, and in the end demanded his head as the price of a pact with Labour. As soon as this news leaked out, I resigned myself to the fact that Labour were out of Government. I was against any deal which would see one of the party leaders replaced, and most of all, the removal of a Prime Minister and installation of a new Labour Leader in his place. After the unnecessary fuss caused by the Lib Dems and the Conservatives about Brown taking over from Blair, to have a Prime Minister resign after less than a year in the post after leading the party through the election would have been a farce.

So, all that remained was for the Lib Dems to make a deal with Cameron. What came out of the cabinet office negotiating room, however, was a remarkable fix which stunned everyone. The Tories I know were overwhelmed with how much of their own policy they had maintained in the coalition agreement. They were smug, but maintained a dignified defence of the parity of the agreement simply because they knew it flabbergasted me. My Lib Dem friends did the same, but were, in reality, more than disappointed with the lack of their own policies in the agreement. My Labour friends, like me, had never had their flabber so gasted at the final coalition document. The Tories had gotten their way on almost everything, apart from the Constitutional and Poltical reform. This was slapped on the table by the Conservatives when they found out Gordon was willing to resign to prevent Cameron getting in to Downing Street. Even that has now become a bastard of the intention of the Lib Dems to over haul the system, and the Tories desires to prevent such action.

The Tories had gotten their way on Education. The pupil premium which the Lib Dems rave about was an intention of the Conservatives anyway. But the “free schools” plan, nothing more than the beginning of the disassembly of  state education as we know it, would provide the main plank of policy in Michael Gove’s new department. The mistakes he made with the BSF announcements were later shown up by the skill and force of Ed Balls, and the Lib Dems were required to sit quietly on the Government benches, all feeling the way Vince Cable looked. Disgusted and ashamed of what they were supporting. Vince Cable was later forced to announce the first private university for thirty years and of course, an ultimately doomed, and ill planned form of graduate tax.

Lansley in the Health Department also got his way to implement new Tory policy on the NHS. I have blogged about this so will not go into it in detail here. Again, the Lib Dems had been pushed out of another main policy, and now have to watch as the Conservatives slowly dismantle state health provision in the form of the NHS, and replace it with private companies and a massive cut back on government funding.

Similar ground was given in the Home office with the reform of the Police Force. On the nuclear power issue. (Lets not mention Trident, it’s a touchy subject). On Europe. On immigration. On communities and housing. On benefits and work provision. On a whole host, in fact, a large majority of issues, the Lib Dems gave up and let Tory policy be brought forward. The argument is that they agreed on a lot in the first place, and so this isn’t ceding ground, more agreement on common ground. This is a lie.

On no issue was this betrayal more obvious of course, than on the economy. Nick Clegg  fought the election on the basis that he wanted a similar approach as the one offered by Labour in dealing with the recession, and shoring up the recovery. He warned that the Tory approach to slash and cut the economy would put the recovery at risk, and endanger the country with the threat of a double dip recession. He launched a campaign in Liverpool against a “Secret Tory Plot” to put VAT up to 20%. It was later discovered that Alistair Darling had suggested such a move to Gordon Brown in Cabinet and was quickly slapped down. Gordon knew that putting up VAT would hurt the less well off and go against the grain of Labour ideals. After complaining to the electorate of secret Tory plots and the terrible plans the Conservatives would enact if they got into power, he then made sure that they did get into power, and could enact their policies with the help of his own Party. He later made excuses. The Greek Crisis could apparently happen in the UK. That is a fantasy. Mervyn King had persuaded Clegg that the situation was worse than he thought. This is a statement which has been uncovered for what it is, a lie. There is no getting away from it. He lied to the public about his intentions for the economy if he got into government, and then lied again about why he had lied in the first place.

Voters up and down the country had switched to Lib Dem and Labour tactically in order to keep the Tories out. They were betrayed. People voted for the Lib Dems on the back of their anti Tory campaign. They were Betrayed. The people of Sheffield and the workers of Sheffield Forge masters whom Clegg had pledged to protect. They were betrayed. University Students who had voted Lib Dem because of their pledge of support and an end to tuition fees. They were betrayed. They elderly, the vulnerable, the young, the less well off, all who will now suffer because of this Tory government, propped up and protected by none other than the Liberal Democrats. They. Were. Betrayed.

Now the Lib Dems are attempting to fight back. The plummeting polls have woken them. They now see what their party has done, and what their leaders have done to their party. But instead of lobbying their party to fight back. Instead of asking the MP’s to stand up for themselves, to properly assert the Liberal Democrat voice in government, to stand up and be counted, they have turned viscously on their critics. This party which purports so much to back compromise and coalition is ignoring all comers while Tories whisper in their ear. They cannot see that to say “I support the coalition” and “I will not change my mind” together in the same sentence is contradictory. I have been told by Liberal Democrats of the benefits of bipartisan-ism. The brilliance of not stubbornly sticking to one issue, never allowing yourself to be persuaded, to see the other side. Yet now, in the same breath as preaching compromise, is bitter opposition to another opinion, a different idea, an alternative suggestion.

I have seen the faults of a Labour Government. I have, in the past, been persuaded by friends from other parties of new ideas. I am a progressive. But a large proportion of Liberal Democrat supporters seem to have abandoned that premise. The premise of progression, listening, of looking to the future by which they were marked before the election. Instead, their first foray into government ever has turned them into defensive, party political animals, plainly refusing another view whilst pointing to the past in order to negate the present. This is what I expect from hardened Tories. Maybe I should give up hope that the Lib Dems will ever regain their sense of self, and resign myself to the present truth. The coalition and its supporters are one, and the Liberal Democrats are slowly but surely melting away.