My thoughts on Nick Clegg's second year as leader

... can be seen in this guest article I have written for Lib Dem Voice published today.

The rest of us might as well pack up and go home then

The blogging Labour MP Tom Harris had a rather uncomplimentary piece about the Lib Dems yesterday entitled: "LibDems to retain meaningless promise". In it he claimed that the pledge to abolish tuition fees is meaningless:

“LibDems keep tuition fees pledge”? Now, technically, the headline is correct. The Liberals have decided to keep their tuition fees pledge in their party’s programme.

But away from the Liberals, back in the real world, the phrase about “keeping” a pledge would normally mean “honoured”. In other words, parties can “keep” their promises by enacting in government whatever promises they made before polling day.

Given that the Liberals will not win the 2010 general election, the headline would have been more accurate had it read: “LibDems to retain meaningless promise to scrap tuition fees”.

I hear/read this line of reasoning from members of the two main parties frequently. That any pledge from the Lib Dems is pointless because they are very unlikely to have enough seats to form a majority government after the next election.

Of course Tom is technically correct about the last point. We currently have 63 seats and we would need 326 after the next election to form a government on our own. Barring a political earthquake it is not going to happen. However he is being extremely dismissive and in fact contemptuous of our political system in this country.

Just a few months ago, the government reversed its decision on allowing the Gurkhas to remain resident in this country. It is unlikely that would have happened without the Lib Dems championing their cause both inside and outside parliament. Is it really very far fetched to think that if the tuition fees policy proved very popular and starting moving serious numbers of voters towards the Lib Dems that one (or perhaps both) of the two main parties would modify their own policies to counter that trend? It's not like it hasn't happened before.

Perhaps even more importantly though given some of the recent polls it is also not beyond the realms of possibility that there could be a minority (or even coalition) government after the next election. In that situation the Lib Dems could have even more influence and perhaps even some of the party's policies could find their way into a Queen's Speech. That possibility surely calls into question Tom's "meaningless" charge.

Of course if Tom is so dismissive of the Lib Dems as they are unlikely to form a government on their own any time soon then that must equally apply to all other political parties except Labour and the Tories. So by that reasoning, the Greens, UKIP and all the other UK-wide parties having policies is even more pointless.

Tom's message is clear. No matter how poorly the two main parties represent your views you should just pick the least worst one and vote for them. Never mind if you find yourself ideologically much closer to one of the other parties.

They are meaningless.

Rage Against Simon Cowell

I haven't paid much attention to the music charts for well over a decade now (I'm in my mid-thirties). Nevertheless I have been following the viral internet campaign to get "Killing in the Name" by Rage Against the Machine to No 1 for Christmas instead of the latest X Factor winner's single with interest.

I have read some comments pointing out that RATM's record label is also owned by Sony (which owns Syco, Cowell's label) and therefore it's ultimately just giving more money to the same massive company. There are also other comments that it would be better to give the 29p or 79p or whatever you spend on the song to charity. These points and others are fair and well made, however I hope that the campaign succeeds.

For the last 4 years, whoever wins the X Factor has gone to No 1 with the single released. In the past there was sometimes a genuine race to be the Christmas No 1 (most recently in 2003 when Gary Jules won with his cover version of "Mad World"). I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say that Simon Cowell has taken over the Christmas No 1. The more I read and hear as well, the more that the sense of entitlement from Cowell and his acolytes comes through. Have a look at this strop from X-Factor judge Cheryl Cole who mentored the eventual winner Joe McElderry:

I would be devastated to see Joe lose possibly the best thing that could happen to him in his life. Every aspiring pop star dreams of a number one record.

It is a beautiful song. He put his heart and soul into every single week of The X Factor and I cannot bear to see him lose out to a mean campaign that has nothing to do with his efforts.

If that song, or should I say campaign, by an American group is our Christmas number one I'll be gutted for him and our charts.

A "mean campaign that has nothing to do with his efforts"? "devastated"? "gutted for him and our charts"? Like the X Factor winner getting to Christmas No 1 has anything at all to do with "our charts". It's all to line Cowell's pockets and keep the X Factor bandwagon rolling. Also, as if a life beyond Joe's wildest dreams is not already awaiting him! And her attempt to rally us round by appealing to our sense of patriotism by referring to RATM as "an American group" is frankly pathetic. It makes me wonder what "line" she would have taken if the campaign single had been British which I am sure there would have been. That response has clearly been carefully planned.

Then check out this little tirade from the man himself recently:

If there's a campaign, and I think the campaign's aimed directly at me, it's stupid. Me having a No 1 record at Christmas is not going to change my life particularly. I think it's quite a cynical campaign geared at me that is actually going to spoil the party for these three (the X Factor finalists).

The thing is, I bet Cowell is really, really annoyed about this. The fact that he is making statements about it and getting his employees to do so shows that he is rattled. He has good cause to be too. His comment about the record not getting to No 1 not particularly changing his life is disingenuous. The "guaranteed" Christmas No 1 has become part of the X Factor "package". It has become expected and feeds into the whole supremacy narrative that Cowell has built up for himself during this decade. If Rage Against The Machine get to No 1 instead of Joe's single then that supremacy and most importantly the momentum is damaged. It will affect Simon Cowell and although I expect X Factor to be around for a good while yet we may well find that when it eventually dies, this was the first cut. Cowell is shrewd enough to understand this intuitively.

Now I know there are much more important things going on in the world at the moment and that in the grand scheme of things this is a silly little spat. Notwithstanding that, I bought a copy of the RATM single this week. I am happy to be part of a campaign to send a message to Cowell that the charts are not his to do with what he wants.

Oh, and aside from all of that I have very fond memories of "Killing in the Name". It was one of the songs of my university years and I spent many a happy 4 minutes in clubs thrashing around on the dancefloor to it. Irrespective of anything else I would love to see it at No 1 anyway.

#RATM4Xmas

Taxation without representation

Harriet Harman stood in for Gordon Brown during PMQs today. There was one point where she decided to turn a question from Vince Cable about tax evasion into a jibe against the Tories' non-dom problems regarding tax and Michael Ashcroft. Here is what she said (taken from Hansard):

We have been determined to take measures to stop tax avoidance, and we think it important that an example be set not only in this House, but in the House of Lords. According to an old saying, there should be no taxation without representation. What about no representation without taxation? We will introduce legislation to ensure that people are domiciled, resident and ordinarily resident in order to sit in this House or in the House of Lords.

Now I don't disagree with her point here (although she made it at the expense of avoiding answering Vince Cable's question) but she needs to be very careful how she makes this point. Let's just examine part of what she said again:

According to an old saying, there should be no taxation without representation.

She then goes on to talk about the House of Lords. That would be the unelected House of Lords. The one that Labour have had nearly 13 years now to reform and make elected. The House of Lords that in spite of some loosely observed conventions still often legislates on and amends legislation relating to finance and taxation. So in other words an example of taxation without representation in a chamber just across from the Commons where Harriet was standing that is her government's responsibility.

Perhaps Ms Harman should try to use a different form of words next time she wants to attack the opposition for fear of drawing attention to her own government's manifest failings.

Tory Rascal on House of Comments Podcast - Episode 7

The latest "House of Comments" podcast with myself and Stuart Sharpe of the Sharpe's Opinion political blog is now live. The website for the podcasts is here and the eighth episode which we recorded on Monday 14th Dec is available to download via this page here (raw mp3 file here if you prefer). You can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes here.

The format is to invite one or two other political bloggers each week and discuss a few of the stories that are making waves in the blogosphere.

This week we were joined by Tory Rascal and covered defence spending cuts, general election timing, sympathy for Gordon Brown, Blair's recent Iraq comments, the poll gap, Cameron legislating for parliamentarians to be domiciled in the UK for tax and some silly season stories including a new system of maths...

The podcast will return in January. If you are a political blogger and would like to participate in the future, please drop me an e-mail (address in the sidebar near the top of this blog).

Gary McKinnon protest report (Guest post)

This is a guest post from Judy and Kalvis Jansons

On the cold but dry afternoon of Tuesday, 15 December, a protest against the proposed extradition of Gary McKinnon by the US government was held outside the Home Office in London by Janis Sharp, Gary's mother, and other supporters. The protest lasted from 12:00 until 14:00 and when we arrived at 12:30, there were about 50 people present. Most of the people were enclosed in a kind of pen on one side of the Home Office, and two police officers stood behind this enclosure throughout most of the protest.

MPs from all political parties joined the protest. Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, was already there when we arrived speaking to the press, and later joined us in the pen. Keith Vaz, Labour MP for Leicester East, also came along to show his support, and spoke with a number of the protestors. He told us that this kind of demonstration really does help to send the message, and thought that there was a glimmer of hope for Gary. Kate Hoey, Labour MP for Vauxhall, and David Burrowes, Conservative MP for Enfield, Southgate were also present. Representatives from Liberty were at the protest too.

Many of the people attending the protest had heard about it and been interacting with each other on Twitter, and while the protest was going on, some people were tweeting on their mobiles. People held posters with slogans on such as "Fair UK trial for Gary McKinnon", "UK

law for UK citizens", "No extradition for Gary McKinnon". Janis Sharp led chanting, which everyone joined in with, of "UK trial or no trial", "No way to the USA" and others and this was continued by other people when she became hoarse.

We had written a letter to the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, which we wanted to hand in to the Home Office while we were at the protest. This proved to be much more complicated than just delivering it to the Home Office reception desk. One of the police officers arranged for

some Home Office officials to come out to the front of the building and receive the letter from us to give to Alan Johnson.

Janis Sharp made a very good effort to speak to protestors individually and thank them for their support, and everyone present conducted themselves impeccably throughout the protest. This includes the two policemen present, who were courteous and helpful in the way

that people used to expect of police officers.

None of the people that we spoke to would condone criminality of any kind but merely wished to protect a vulnerable man without any ill intent from a disproportionate response to things that he foolishly did driven by his Asperger's Syndrome. The Americans are fortunate that the person who got into their military computer systems was such a person as Gary McKinnon, someone who had no malicious intent, but was simply following an interest too obsessively. The protestors, quite reasonably, simply request a fair trial in the UK for this vulnerable person and for due consideration to be given to the extraordinary stress that he has been under for so many years.

Gary McKinnon has become a pawn in a political game which is played by people with no compassion for one of their more vulnerable countrymen. As Nick Clegg says, "It is the basic duty of a Government to protect its citizens." And the common sentiment expressed by so many of the protestors is that the Home Secretary has taken away any pride that we

could have had in this country. We think that Britain should stand for more than this. Very few countries would betray their citizens in the way that Gary McKinnon has been betrayed by ours, and the USA certainly would not. So how did this country become part of such an asymmetrical extradition treaty?

We know from his mother that Gary is in an extraordinarily stressed out state, and what he has been subjected to is an extreme form of mental torture. Our personal feeling is that if a British court actually looked at what Gary McKinnon really did, and gave due consideration for his medical condition and the extent to which he and his family have already suffered, they would surely think that this suffering has already been far too great a punishment and would hopefully conclude that no further action against him was necessary.

If Gary McKinnon's diagnosis with Asperger's Syndrome had occurred earlier, his family would have known to look out for possibly obsessive behaviour and avoided this current situation. So Gary McKinnon has been failed by this country in many ways over a long period.

Surely it is time for Gary McKinnon's nightmare to end.

We finish by wishing Gary the best of luck and we pray that the Home Secretary remembers who he is there to serve.

Judy and Kalvis Jansons

Do you have to be well off to be a parliamentary candidate?

There is a bit of a hullabaloo at the moment regarding the revelation that Zac Goldsmith has contributed £260,000 out of his own pocket since 2007 to his attempt to win Richmond Park from the Lib Dems at the next election.

This got me doing a bit of reading around though and I came across a very interesting article on ConservativeHome from August 2006 entitled "The costs of being a candidate". It focused on the experiences of Conservatives trying to get selected/elected (17 A-listers and 20 other candidates) and analysed the amount of expenditure to incurred in trying to become a candidate and then win a seat. They also looked at lost earnings and opportunity costs and tried to factor those in too. The information was then analysed and averages were taken. Here are some of the headline figures:

• Total costs for winning candidates (including lost earnings): £41,550
• Total costs for losing candidates (including lost earnings): £34,392
• Direct costs for winning candidates: £22,020
• Direct costs for losing candidates: £16,070

The article itself is well worth a read to see some of the experiences of the candidates involved.

It is not totally clear over what exact time-frame these costs were incurred (perhaps I missed it in the article) but I am assuming it is over say 2 or 3 years in the run up to the 2005 election. Now firstly I should just say that this is a snapshot of the specific experiences of Conservative candidates and the sample may to an extent be self selecting (ConHome asked for candidates to come forward to discuss how much it cost and it may be the ones who spent the most felt most motivated to come forward). It is also not clear how much of the expenditure would apply to candidates for other parties.

Notwithstanding all that, I still think this is a fascinating piece of research and one that should give pause for thought. Can it really be right that we are expecting candidates seeking election to become an MP to spend tens of thousands of pounds of their own money whilst seeking to do so? Surely that will mean that some (perhaps quite a lot of) people will be excluded from the process altogether. Well off people will not need to worry too much about this but for anyone on say average salary (c£25,000 - take home much less than that) you could be looking at spending up to two years worth of take-home annual salary just to be in with a shout.

I know from discussions I have had of people who currently cannot consider trying to become an MP purely for the financial cost and these sorts of figures could be an indication of why.

All of this can only mean that some people who would make great MPs are being filtered out of the process before they even get to try and be a candidate.

The ConHome article does suggest a few measures that might help:

• A reduction in the cost of attending a Parliamentary Assessment Board (candidate approval process).

• An emergency access fund run by a small committee – including an MP and candidate - that can release money to a struggling candidate in particularly pressed circumstances. One candidate who replied to the ConservativeHome survey literally ran out of money ten days before the 2001 polling day. They maxed out their credit card and were afraid to ask local Conservative officials for help. The Conservatives introduced an access fund system at the same time as they introduced student loans in the early 1990s.

• The appointment of a ‘candidates’ protector’ in every Association. The protector would be jointly appointed by the candidate and Association Executive and would be, for example, responsible for prioritising the Conservative functions that the candidate attended so that he/ she had more time for campaigning. Just having such a role should improve activists’ understanding of the costs of being a candidate. CCHQ or the Candidates’ Association might like to consider preparing a briefing paper for Conservative Association executives to alert them to the cost pressures facing candidates.

I'm not sure how many of these suggestions have been taken up by the Conservative Party and even if they have been, how much difference they have made.

I would be interested to hear about the experience of candidates from other parties, how much cost they have incurred and how this compares with the Conservative figures.

Anyone who wants to contact me about this can at the e-mail address in the sidebar near the top of this blog. I will treat anything sent to me on this with discretion.

Perhaps Lib Dem Voice and/or LabourList might want to think about doing something similar?

Gary McKinnon protest tomorrow

I have blogged about the Gary McKinnon case before and support the campaign to get him tried in the UK.

There is a protest outside the Home Office tomorrow from midday organised by the "Free Gary" campaign which is seeking to have him tried in this country. The more people who attend this, the more the government is likely to sit up and take notice of how lots of people in this country feel about this case.

"Vetting and Barring" scheme modified slightly

There is a post from Iain Roberts on LDV today which explains how the Vetting and Barring scheme (which I have blogged about previously here and here) has been modified slightly. Iain describes it as the government "backing down". I am afraid I cannot really agree. Iain quotes from a Telegraph report:

It will now be a much more common-sense regime.

Under the new scheme, the definitions for whether or not an adult must register have been loosened.

Any activity that brings an adult into contact with children for four or more days a month, or involves any overnight contact, will be branded “intensive” rather than at least three days under the original plan.

Similarly the test for “frequency” will now mean an activity taking place at least once every week. Previously, the category included adults in contact with children only once a month. Both “frequent” and “intensive” categories require registration.

This is not backing down, it is merely tinkering at the edges. The fundamental problems with the scheme still remain and I suspect the “unintended consequences” will still remain as before. I put that in quotes because I am tired of giving the government the benefit of the doubt for things which many people warn them about long in advance and I can only really assume that they are actually intended or at least considered a price worth paying. These measures will still cause many people for one reason or another to not volunteer for things. Also, if it ends up like the CRB checks then organisations will end up insisting on V&B checks just to be on the safe side as they would not want to fall foul of the law.

Measures like this foster the feeling of suspicion within our society and force a wedge between children and the adult population, giving the perception that the only adults to be trusted are those predetermined as worthy of this trust by the state.

I've been interviewed by Matt Wardman

Back in September, I was interviewed by Matt Wardman of the Wardman Wire blog over the phone. It has taken a little while but Matt put the interview online in audio form on Friday. You can access it here.

We discussed various subjects but the main focus was on getting wider coverage (including mainstream media) for blogs and what can happen to nuance when blogposts get mainstream coverage.