Recently in Politics Category

One of the side effects of not smoking is that I spend a lot of time in the gym. I have convinced myself that I will be less likely to start smoking again if I spend a lot of time running around, swimming and pushing weights. It's probably shoddy thinking. I'll only not smoke again if I don't have another cigarette. It's as simple as that. I'm a smoker like other people are alcoholics. There are no Twelve Step Programmes for smokers. I know that I'm only replacing one addiction with another but this one is much less likely to give me cancer.

I've lost half a stone since I started the Beginners' Running Club at the start of August. The trousers that I bought at the beginning of the year are now too large for me. I don't know whether I'm alone in not putting on weight after stopping smoking. I have more than compensated for the changes in my metabolic system by watching what I eat and taking lots more exercise. I feel more confident about my ability to run around the place now that I've been doing it for a few weeks.

I've noticed during my spells of public exercise that blokes come in all shapes and sizes. I know that's a daft thing to say but it hadn't really hit me before. You don't really think about other men's bodies, not when you're straight anyway unless they are really fat or exceptionally skinny. You see some poor bloke who is reduced to rolling around on a mobility scooter or the one whose Adam's apple seems to stick out of his pencil neck as far as his nose does from his face. Everybody other than them seems to be more or less the same. Judging from the state of the specimens in the locker room and pool however, I seem to be slimmer than most, a little shorter than most, with weedy little arms and a lot more hair. There are a number of mostly younger men who seem to be athletes in training but the rest of us are just trying not to die too quickly.

None of us look anything like the men on the covers of Men's Health or Men's Fitness. I used to get a glazed look on my face or harrumph when I heard feminists talk about body fascism, representations of women in the media and women's self-image. I understand more what they were on about now. I'm a forty-cough year old man. I'm never going to be an athlete or a sportsman of any kind. I have a diminishing paunch and the weedy little arms I mentioned earlier. I'm not broad-chested. My biceps don't bulge as much as my belly does. I've been looking at the two magazines mentioned above and not finding anything in either of them which remotely resembles me, my life, my body or my aspirations. I have the body of a Greek god. It's a small shame that god is Bacchus rather then Apollo but it's not too important. I'm bright enough to realise that, at least.

I worry about those of my brothers who aren't. Not my actual brothers. One is a former Army PT instructor, another has been working out since he was seventeen or so and the last is just too sensible. No, my figurative but stupid brothers who think they have to conform to the images that they see in magazines, pop videos and on advertising hoardings. I get annoyed by the ads for Just For Men hair dyes which suggest that a man with grey hair can't get laid or a new job. If you want to get laid, be nice to someone. If you want to get laid by the same person again, continue to be nice to them. If you want that job, do your interview prep properly and make sure you have relevant experience. It's not rocket science. Unless the job's at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, in which case it probably is rocket science. Oh, and a decent haircut is a better investment than some hair dye.

It's bad enough that cosmetic companies prey upon the insecurities of women. I don't want to see them do the same to the other half of the population just to increase the sales of their patent potions. And in case anyone thinks that's dismissive of women's insecurities, it's not. I'd rather that Laboratoires Garnier and their ilk ceased to exist altogether and we all went back to using Vosene. The scientists there could then go and get real jobs curing cancer or something. I don't like that insecurities are used to sell anything to anyone. It's a pernicious thing to do. It eats away at lives in the worst possible way, telling people that they are less than they are because they don't have This Wonderful Thing Which Will Complete Your Life. If only you looked like this, you too could be happy. Go on. You're worth it. Bollocks.

I wouldn't mind consumerism as much if we weren't treated like idiots. The acquisition of more stuff doesn't make our lives better. We don't feel better because we're slimmer, more muscly, less grey-haired or wrinkly. We feel better because of the relationships we have with one another and the peace of mind we have in ourselves. This post has strayed somewhat off the topic I had in mind when I started but what the hell.

James Cleverley seems to have misunderstood the nature of politics in a coalition. He calls Simon Hughes 'a dick' in this blog entry. The Lib Dem's deputy leader has called for back bench LibDems to have more of a say in the Coalition Government's policy decisions.

James thinks that this is the LibDem back bench demanding a veto. I'm not so sure. Simon is saying that the Front Bench should pay more attention to what he and his colleagues are saying on the back benches. The planned cuts in spending are more than anyone had expected or announced during the election campaign. The Conservative back benches are more comfortable with this situation than their colleagues just over the aisle. Having said that, Ian Liddel-Grainger, the Conservative member for Bridgewater mounted a very strong defence of the school building programme in his constituency. Nonetheless, it's always going to be the case that LibDems are going to find it more difficult to vote for the cuts than the Tories.

That doesn't mean that those members who voice concerns should be told to leave their party and join another by someone from yet a third. A Liberal Democrat would be no more comfortable on the Labour benches these days than they are sitting with the Government. Labour's disarray and navel gazing continues and their ability to mount a concerted and principled opposition is diminished while the leadership campaign continues. Most of the Labour front bench is far more interested in who will lead the party in the Autumn than in who will challenge the Government now. There is no reasonable Opposition.

While that situation obtains, the Government is pressing ahead with its cuts programme and the only effective voices of criticism are those sitting on the Government back benches. They have more immediate access to the ministers taking the decision than opposition MPs or outside lobby groups. That's why James Cleverly has misunderstood the situation and that's why he really needs to think a little bit harder before telling Simon Hughes to shut up or bugger off.

I woke up this morning and it turned out that the world hadn't ended. Dave and Nick did the deal and sold it to their Parliamentary parties. Nobody got anybody else drunk after the feast and slit anybody's throat. Not even slightly.

I was listening to The Today Programme on the way up to Bradford this morning and I was quite cheered by the sound of William Hague. I like him and I haven't the least idea why. Ideologically, he's venomous. I don't like his stand on Europe in particular but because he is such amusing company I'm prepared to put that on one side. I've blogged before about liking politicians for their comedy value and William Hague is the premier example of comedy politicians.

I had just about reconciled myself to supporting a government with David Cameron in charge when I heard that Theresa May had been appointed as Home Secretary and then the God-awful reality of the next five years hit me round the back of the head. Putting Theresa May in charge of the Home Office is like giving Cruella De Ville the keys to a puppy farm. She's not out on the lunatic fringe with Bill Cash but she is much, much more annoying.

I have a problem though. Do I dislike Theresa May not because she's a Tory but because she's a woman? Her attitude to things isn't that far removed from William Hague but I put up with him because I think he'd be a good bloke to go out for a pint with. We could have a robust exchange of views over a couple of pints and maybe a curry afterwards. I can't imagine that admittedly very unlikely scenario ever happening with Theresa May. Hague is a bloke so I can with reluctance give him a chance but because May is a woman, I can't contemplate  her in office at all?

I don't think of myself as in the least misogynistic. I believe absolutely in equality of opportunity in gender, race, religion, sexual orientation and everything else even if you're French or Welsh but apparently not if you're Theresa May.

Gordon Brown announced his resignation late this afternoon and dropped a spanner in the works of the Tories' coalition talks with the LibDems. I haven't stopped laughing since. I know it's hardly a fitting response to what the right wing press is undoubtedly going to call The End of Democracy and Gordon Brown Spitting In The Face Of The British People but I can't help it.

I would be laughing less if the likes of Adam Boulton were handling the situation better. The video of the good bit is here. There is nothing quite so amusing as watching someone lose it when really they shouldn't especially when it's live on air. Okay, Alistair Campbell can be a bit of a shitbag but I'm going to forgive him quite a lot for creating that. Thanks, Al. You've really cheered me up.

Now that Gordon has announced his intention to go, it has cleared the way for more substantive talks between the Labour party and the LibDems on forming an administration. The trouble is that Nick's people and Dave's people are still talking. Or at least they were. William Hague said that it was possible to create a workable agreement with the LibDems on most subjects. Gordon's resignation has even managed to get the Tories to offer a referendum on electoral form, the Holy Grail of the Liberal Democrats. I don't think there's much chance of any Conservative campaigning on behalf of electoral reform. It's a bit like telling a child you'll get them a puppy knowing all the while that you can't because Mummy has an allergy to dog hair. What's more, the child knows that Mummy has the allergy and gets Daddy to promise them a puppy anyway. There will be tears before bedtime.

It's likely that any government formed by a coalition of the LibDems and Labour would be constantly undermined by media which loathes everything they - the media in question - say they stand for. Get ready for all the usual nonsense about immigration, the deficit, crime, defence from the usual suspects. I can't wait. If you think the last 13 years have been hyperbolic, if the LibDems and Labour party pull off this one then you'll see them at their foam-at-the-mouth, rabid funniest.

There is also the slight problem that LibDems and Labour politicians don't get on. You have all the usual party political arguments compounded by personal rivalries which will not have arisen until now. A further problem is that the LibDems are the Millwall of local politics: nobody likes them. I have a friend who served on Hull City Council a few years ago. He was a Labour councillor. He had few problems with the Tory members of the council but lots with the LibDems. He said that they fought the dirtiest campaigns. I've heard similar things from other parts of the country but I have no personal evidence.

One of the criticisms which would be levelled at a Labour LibDem coalition is that it would lack a mandate. If you take the share of the national vote as your reference, then you'll see that Labour and the Liberal Democrats together got 52% of the vote to the Conservatives' 39%. I'd call that a mandate.

All this is idle and barely-informed speculation on my part. I have nothing better to do tonight. I still think that the Tories will get some kind of deal done with the LibDems which will allow David Cameron to command a majority in the Commons. If he blows it, his party will never forgive him. It would be the last chance the Tories have of ever forming a government. It would also give me something to laugh about for years and years to come.

Nigel Rees reported a piece of graffiti in one of his very many graffiti collections of the 1980s. It went more or less like this -

             Henry Kissinger should be bloody well hung

Underneath, in an attractive hand was written -

             He is, my dear. He is.
             Mrs Kissinger

It's an old joke. I'm not all that sure it's a good joke but I like to preserve these things.

I've been thinking about hung parliaments and coalition governments. I like it when politics is exciting and unpredictable and that's what you get in times like these. I'm sure that the City and markets aren't so keen but given the shit they've dropped us all in over the past couple of years, I don't give a toss about them.

The reason we have a hung Parliament and these indecisive and uncertain times is that no one party managed to convince enough of the electorate in enough of the country to give them a mandate. It's an infrequent by-product of the first past the post voting system. If you can persuade enough people in enough constituencies across the country to vote for your party, you can get a working majority in the House of Commons. Occasionally - very occasionally - that doesn't happen and no single party can command a majority.

I don't know what's going to come of the negotiations between the Tories and the LibDems over the weekend. I'd like to see Vince Cable in the Treasury, preferably as Chancellor but I don't think that the Tories would allow that. I heard some Tory donor on PM last night saying that perhaps LibDems could have minor ministerial positions in culture or sport but that anything else was completely unacceptable. He also wouldn't countenance any form of electoral reform and electoral reform has been a long-standing policy goal of the Liberal Democrats and the Liberals before them. The statesman-like thing for Nick Clegg to do would be to allow the Tories to form a government and get their Budget through but press them hard on every vote in the Chamber for policy concessions on key points of principle. He would then be free to work with whomever he chose on electoral reform now that the Labour leadership is so keen on it and not be tied to or identified with unpopular Conservative policies, particulary the swinging spending cuts that George Osborne is undoubtedly even now writing into his emergency Budget.

How's that - an entire post about a hung Parliament and not a single joke about stringing a politician up from the lamp posts in College Green? D'oh!

For the first time in ages, I thought about not voting LibDem. There is a very good independent candidate standing in Cambridgeshire South East called Geoffrey Woollard and I'm an independent-minded chap. The thing is that there is a slim chance that a bit of tactical voting could return the Liberal Democrat candidate in what has been a Conservative seat for the last little while.

The Labour Party candidate was suspended from his party following some rather lurid allegations about his conduct in the Sunday Telegraph. John Cowan had been thrown out of the Liberal Democrats and tried to join the Conservatives before joining the Labour Party. His suspension came after the deadline for nominations to the election so Labour supporters have no official candidate. His name remains on the ballot paper as the Labour Party candidate but the party has disowned him. If Labour supporters were to switch their allegiance en masse to the Lib Dem candidate then it's just possible that Jonathan Chatfield would be our MP in place of James Plaice.

It's for that reason that I voted for the Lib Dems in the end. I'm a long-term Lib Dem supporter so it's probably no surprise to anyone but I was truly torn. Geoffrey is an excellent candidate in many ways but the chances to unseat the Conservative in this constituency don't come around all that often and that's why I gave my vote to the Liberal Democrat.

I read this article on the very fine ePolitix.com website. I blogged a few months ago on another blog about the Damian Green Thingie as I like to call it. I don't do Affairs or Gates. The Damian Green Affair seems a bit more risque than I would like. I know he's a Tory MP, but they can't all be at it all the time. Green Gate sounds a bit like an Edwardian country house. So for me it's the Damian Green Thingie.

I have some concerns over this report by the House of Commons Privilege Committee. The MPs say "We consider that the failure by any police officer expressly to advise the Serjeant at Arms of the right to refuse consent was symptomatic of the sloppy approach of the police in this case.

"It is true that failure to do so does not necessarily make a subsequent search unlawful but there was no excuse not to observe proper procedure."

It's unlikely that a police officer who turns up to effect a search without a warrant is going to be all that happy to inform the person being searched that they don't have to be searched if they don't want to, especially if the search is still legal without the warrant. The House of Commons Privileges Committee is always going to choose to protect the privileges of Members of the House over outsiders but the search was not illegal.

It may have been a disproportionate response to leaks from the Home Office. Just to remind those of you who don't have an obsessive interest in the farce that is the Home Office, Mr Green received information from a worker at the Home Office called Christopher Galley. Officials at the Home Office had a threw a bit of a paddy at what was just one in a series of leaks of information to the press and opposition politicians and decided to throw the book at the MP and his informant. Mr Galley was dismissed but the Crown Prosecution Service prosecuted neither him nor Mr Green.

My criticism rests not with the police who were faced with investigating a complaint in as thorough a fashion as possible in a very sensitive situation nor with the House of Commons authorities but with the Home Office who must have known that no good could possibly come of this in the long term. They must have known that an MP was never going to face prosecution over receiving information from anyone in connection to his work.

The Privileges Committee saves its heaviest boots for the former Speaker. "Mr Speaker Martin failed to exercise the ultimate responsibility, which was his alone, to take control and not merely to expect to be kept informed." He had advice from the Clerk of the House and from the Serjeant at Arms, presumably that they should co-operate with the police in their inquiries and had to rely on it. When it all blew up in his face, he insisted that in future no search of an MP's offices would be permitted without a search warrant signed by a judge. It was too late to save either his position or his reputation.

I have little sympathy for him. He was ineffective as defender of the rights of Members of the House of Commons and failed to act strongly or quickly enough when public disquiet at MP's expenses began to build. Nevertheless, the Privileges Committee has been too strong in its criticism of the police and the former Speaker. The ultimate cause of the problem is the Home Office. Again.

Yesterday Prof David Nutt launched his new Independent Council on Drug Harms. The BBC account of the story is here. The amusingly named Nuttsack Affair did much to lower my esteem of the Home Secretary when he asked for Prof Nutt's resignation late last year. Twitter went a little loopy over it - again - and at the time I thought Alan Johnson handled the whole affair rather poorly. His finger-pointing, aggressive performance on the BBC News were a particular low point.

The trouble is that I'm not at all sure that Prof Nutt handled things much better. He is a man of high moral character who from all accounts took his role as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs very seriously. His scientific knowledge of the relative harms of different drugs is the basis of the advice he provides to government. I haven't had time yet to read and digest all of the Eve Saville Lecture he gave last year and which was published in a briefing by King's College London's Centre for Crime and Justice Studies in October last year. In it, Prof Nutt states "We [the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs] provide one arm of the policy formulating perspective. In addition, there are a number of other agencies, organisations and individuals who contribute to policy formation." Presumably, and I can't be stating other than the obvious here, some of the others who contribute to the policy formulation process are political advisors in the Home Office, the Department of Health and other interested parties.

Politicians make political decisions. They may take advice from experts such as the ACMD which have been specifically set up to provide such advice but they are not bound to act on it. They then have to justify that decision to the electorate, to the press and to the parties affected by their decisions. At all times, they have to bear in mind the effect that their policy decisions will have on their electoral chances.

Jack of Kent's post on evidence-based policy making is an interesting read here. He correctly states that "the prejudices and assumptions of politicians or indeed voters do not constitute an evidence base." He goes on to say "If a policy is unacceptable to an electorate, then the policy may simply not be sustainable, whatever its other merits." The political judgment is deciding what will and what will not be electorally sustainable.

What Prof Nutt failed to appreciate during Nuttsack was that while he was providing excellent advice, the decision on whether to act on that advice was not his to make. I wish him well with the Independent Council on Drug Harms and hope that the Home Office and other government departments which are responsible for drugs policy seek his advice. A rational person would also hope that the government take his advice. A realistic person sees that sometimes they won't.

I like to think I'm an intelligent man so this article in the Independent depressed me just a little. One of the small joys of being a political junkie is that at election time you get to assess policies for yourself. Political parties being what they are, they deny us even that. The spin doctors have returned from their Christmas hols reinvigorated and as full of bile and cunning as I was of mince pies and port. We have charge and counter-charge and more rebuttals than any sane person can easily cope with and it's only the 5th of January. What's it going to be like by the middle of April?

I'd like to make a small request. It will likely be ignored. May we have an election this year which doesn't treat the electorate as idiots incapable of assessing evidence put in front of us? Some of us can do that. Really we can. I don't want spin. I don't want lies or accusations of lies. I'd like each party to make its own case and not spend any time at all trashing one another. Turnout in the General Election is likely to be low enough as it is without the parties turning off sectors of the electorate by acting like a chimpanzee's tea party. Each party's core voters will continue to vote they way they have whatever happens and they're not going to engage those who don't intend to vote acting like this. The rest of us want to be treated like adults. We can pick out the information from each campaign which is important to us without prestidigitation from the politicoes.

While I'm on the subject, I don't think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be giving any attention at all on the Conservatives' election promises. That's not his job. It's his job to sort out the fiscal pickle he's got us all into. He has an entire party machine to take care of the politics for him. Unless, of course, he doesn't trust the Party to get the job done.

In yesterday's blog I said that I didn't couldn't remember what Chris Huhn looks like. That's true. I can't. It's worse than that. I couldn't remember who the leader of the Liberal Democrats is. It is of course Nick Clegg and no, I haven't the least idea what he looks like either. We're so fucked at the next election, so very badly fucked.