Office of the Ministry of the Department

The Clegg has been stating (what once might have been accepted as) the obvious recently. (Some of the responses there are cringeworthy. P.S especially that one)

Otherwise, there are some familiar stories knocking about, that set Keir onto Google, wracking his brains for where he had seen it before. The excellent Political Scrapbook outlined at the end of August the issues facing Nick Clegg's office, with reports from the Standard and the Gruniad that Nick Clegg's team was 'frazzled' by being in office, and unclear of its role and purview in government. (Unsurprising really since they've not had much practice at it)

This tittle tattle was confirmed yesterday in slightly more professional and delicate terms by a report from the Institute for Government: "Clegg must be better resourced, or else the sheer overload of information will overwhelm him."

And it seems the reports advice on assisting Clegg and other Lib Dem govenrment ministers while increasing their influence and 'watchdog' role in government is simple. More SpAds. Oh, whats that, another Lib Dem cherished principle being dropped. Put that [slightly less significant] one with tuition fees and Trident.

So, other than being the second tick in a single tick system, (hands up who really thinks the Clegg has a true veto?) what exactly is it that Nick Clegg does that is making his team so frazzled? Spend all his time redrawing constituencies? (Apolitically of course)

Iain Martin at the Wall Street Journal has an interesting idea about his future at least.

In Defence Of FibDems (A Bit)

Keir, like many, disagrees wholeheartedly with the Liberal Democrats decision to ally with the Conservatives to form the new Government. This isn't because they chose the Tories over Labour, but rather that going into coalition with a party so drastically opposed to your own ideology is just plain wrong. On the one hand they were right in a democratic sense to have talks with the biggest party first. However, also in a democratic sense, they were wrong to go into coalition with a party that most of their voters do not identify with in any way.

But in light of today's polls showing LibDem support plummeting, I do think that it's worth pointing out that there is an argument that could stand when trying to justify their decision. It was expressed by Vince Cable recently (in an article that I can't find to link to) and has been quietly uttered by some LibDems from time to time, but not loud enough in my opinion. Part of me can understand that they saw this opportunity to influence policy even to a small degree despite only holding any power because their seats held sway in creating an effective majority. They have wielded a lot more power than they warrant with their seat proportion. Though the much maligned Tory "gerrymandering" will tarnish it, the referendum on AV would never have been a thought to Tories had they won a majority. Nor would some of the economic policies such as the proposed graduate tax. These ideas wouldn't have seen the light of day; even if the Tories may end up throwing them out eventually.

The likes of Simon Hughes and Vince Cable are at least trying. Granted, I don't like Cable and still think he's a perennial turncoat, but he's clearly exerting influence way beyond his party's mandate from the electorate.

My real problem comes with the new Tories: Mr. Anti-Nuclear Chris Huhne, thief David Laws, tax-dodger Danny Alexander and, most of all, Deputy Dawg himself. These men have sold out their principles. Either that, or they were basically Tories all along but just wanted to be different in University and it's just stuck. Huhne has sold out on nuclear, Laws on economics and, well, principles, Alexander on...erm...economics and principles, and Clegg on basically everything.

That said, I'm glad their poll results are diabolical and I do think they have totally sold out. They should have left a Tory minority government to rot. So, basically, this was a pretty pointless post. Just a mini-rant.

Something more productive next time.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Tick...Tock...Tick...Tock

Keir always thought this government would last no more than two years. The signs are ominous/promising, however you want to look at it.

Simon Hughes' open discontent regarding David Cameron's housing proposals today is a meaningful moment. Hughes has always been held in high regard by liberals and progressives, and with good reason. A member of the Beveridge Group, Hughes' views have always been compatible with progressives in this country. And today he showed he isn't afraid to speak out against a government he knows is doing wrong. Unlike his peers Nick Clegg and Vince Cable, Hughes doesn't seem too fussed about power and doesn't want to sell out his principles. Sadly for him, his party did that on his behalf. Even the things he has said regarding the coalition have been sensible and far-removed from the brown-nosing "I thought this was a good idea all along" attitude of Deputy Dawg. Hughes is right, of course. He is right when he says that the point of social housing is to provide security. Being in social housing means, as he said:

"You know you can have affordable housing for the rest of your life and for people in many walks of life – out of work, retired, on low incomes – that's fundamentally important."

That is the view of the progressive. And it is diametrically opposed to the view of the Conservative. The Tories are intransigent on issues like this; especially now during a time when they are being smokescreened by the view that all of these cuts are necessary.

In addition to today's disaffection, Hughes also passed comment on Michael Gove's mental free schools plan last month. "A nonsense" is what Hughes said it would be to spend money on free schools that could have been spent improving existing school buildings. And God knows what Hughes thinks of Theresa May's decision to scrap plans to ban domestic abusers from the homes of the victims. I'd forgive him if he was still sitting at home squinting at his screen, wondering whether he is actually reading that story correctly. I'm still confused now as to what is going on inside May's head.

Coalitions collapse over things like this. We all saw what happened in Holland over disagreements on Afghanistan troop numbers. And Belgium's coalition government collapsed over what I think can be deemed an even smaller matter than the housing issue; although the cultural factors in that particular case were complex. Then there was Romania's coalition catastrophe. In all of these cases, the splits were arguably between parties much more closely aligned by ideology than our current coalition.

Though I admire Hughes' defiance, I will wait for him to start voting against things until passing full judgement. He has a lot of respect throughout the party, as shown with his election to Deputy Leader, and therefore should have a lot more influence over the left-wing MPs than Messrs. Clegg, Cable, Alexander and Laws. If he feels this strongly, he could lead a revolt. But I get the feeling that he also wants to be sensible and try to make this odd coalition work.

Still, the possibility is there. It shows how fragile this Government is and it can collapse. What's the relevance? Labour must be ready to fight on the ground whenever the moment comes. Keir still feels this will be before the end of 2012. We need to begin mobilising now. And as soon as our leader is in place, we need to unite and begin the fight; whoever that leader is. Let's be clear though: that leader has to be the Member for South Shields in order to give us the greatest chance of winning.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

On Forgemasters and political reform

So the Coalition government abandoned the planned £80m loan agreement with Sheffield Forgemasters, with which they would have bought new machines to make nuclear reactor components, even though both coalition partners spoke about the need to rebuild this countries manufacturing base in their manifestos.

Deputy Dawg has announced a referendum on alternative vote: the apex of ultimate deception over expenses: 'a new voting system will fix EVERYTHING'. This referendum will cost...£80m.

Glad that Clegg sees a few more Lib Dem MPs as more important than 100s of jobs in Sheffield.

Governing in the national interest.

Consistency

“There are MPs who flipped one property to the next, buying property, paid by you, the taxpayer, and then they would do the properties up, paid for by you, and pocket the difference in personal profit.’’

Nicholas, son of Nicholas, Liberal Democrat leader and Deputy Dawg to Prime Minister Cameron, Party Leaders' Debate, April 2010

"Last night Mr [Danny] Alexander [New Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary to the Treasury] admitted that he took advantage of a loophole to legally avoid paying CGT on the sale of the south London property in June 2007."

The Daily Telegraph, May 31st, 2010

I take it Her Majesty's Government, on behalf of us, the people, will be accepting Mr. Alexander's resignation very soon?

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Gareth Keenan

So Vince Cable resigned as Deputy-Leader of the Lib Dems last night.

Already the markets favourite to be the first Government Minister to pack it in, when a friend text Keir he was kicking himself that he hadn't put money on. But lo, St. Vince is only stepping down as Deputy Leader.

Many in the right wing blogosphere (with the Libs in it now it seems a bit odd to refer to it as that: maybe 'government blogosphere' would be better?) are of the view that maybe it is too much work? Keir doubts that. Keir thinks that St. Vince is distancing himself from Clegg, keeping his head down and getting down to the task at hand; because when the Coalition falls apart, its most vocal cheerleaders are going to get stabbed in the back quicker than you can say dissolution.

Vince' I was just following orders' Cable will be nowhere near as tarnished as Clegg or David Laws...

That or he realised that like Gareth Keenan, he was now only Assistant to the Regional Manager, I mean, Assistant to the Deputy Prime Minister.

Nicky C's public profile has shot up rather dramatically, Cable is no longer the public face of the Liberal Democrats...

Nightmare On Downing Street

Is there something of the Lee Harvey Oswald about the Liberal Democrats?

I think the analogy fits. You know how the theory goes. Triangulated cross-fire: various teams of shooters home in on the target, and one sacrificial lamb. “I’m just a patsy!” as Oswald put it. The gunmen could have been anywhere; the County Records building, the grassy knoll, the Texas School Book Depository. It doesn’t matter. All that matters is that the attention is diverted to the patsy.

And so we have it. The Conservative Party fixed on their target which is, essentially, us. The shots come in from everywhere: Gideon from the Treasury, Cameron from Number 10. Clarke, May and Gove send in their bullets too, attacking all that we have built in the education system and in our advances in equality. If one misses, just like the bullet that missed on Dealey Plaza back in 1963, you can be sure the others will strike us right in the neck or, worse, pretty much decapitate us. If the abolition of the Future Jobs Fund doesn’t impact you, the abolition of the Child Trust Fund will. Or even the Whitehall and public sector cuts may take your job from you.

But how do they get away with it? How will the public’s attention be diverted?

Cue: the patsy. “But Clegg sold out on voting reform”... “Cable sold out on his economic policies”.

And there you have it. The media goes wild. “Don’t be stupid”, they’ll say when you speak up about the cuts, “they need to happen.” And then their focus turns to Clegg the sell-out. They show us, sinisterly, how Clegg, Cable and Laws went back on their previous stance. And in ‘63? The focus was on Oswald: his background, pictures of him holding the gun, stories of his defection to the Soviet Union. And the conspiracy theorists, like those of us who bemoan the politically-motivated cuts, are called lunatics, naive and lacking in knowledge.

There are two losers on each side of the analogy. In 1963, John F. Kennedy was one of them; taken away in a coffin along with the hopes of millions of Americans and even millions of people around the world. And Oswald was the other. Oswald was charged, tried and sentenced the minute he was dragged out of a cinema, pleading ignorance and innocence and ended up being shot in cold blood. His demise preceded any chance he had to defend himself. In 2010, we are Kennedy and the Liberal Democrats take up the role of Oswald. We are the ones battered by the cuts and with our futures thrown into uncertainty. The Liberals are hung out to dry with their reputation in tatters. The patsies, the sacrificial lambs, slaughtered by the Conservative Party so that they can get away with their crime. Just like Oswald, they are pictured with their offending weapon: their previous political stance.

They too, will surely be shot down.

Luckily, I think the analogy ends when we consider when the true criminals will be able to be held to account. The final wave of JFK assassination documents are to be released in 2017, some 54 years after the event. I am sure that we can rely on our public at large and the rejuvenated Labour Party to hold the real criminals to account in far less than a tenth of that time.

We can tell the public now that getting rid of the Future Jobs Fund is a politically-motivated attack on people's chances of finding a job in this tumultuous economic climate. And we can ask them how they can fund a Border Police Force but not a Child Trust Fund scheme. We can tell them now that "free schools" is a policy that will only benefit the rich and that socially deprived areas where education does need to improve are not brimming with people who have enough spare time on their hands to start and run a new school; they need the state to provide them with the basic right of a good education. And we can also tell them now that any affronts to our democracy in the form of the proposed 55% rule will not reach the statute book.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Ol' Blue Hands

Hail: Nicholas William Peter Clegg. His name will rank in the annals of History alongside the forces of progress like William Wilberforce, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Abraham Lincoln.

For Nicholas, son of Nicholas, has declared the most ambitious proposals for political reform since the Great Reform Act of 1832. Students of history will recall the Act as groundbreaking, nay earth-shattering, in its implications on the future of democracy in this ancient land. The platform was laid for future reform that empowered the people of this country. In the Act, the franchise was extended from the nobility to some of the under-represented townsfolk.

And now, 178 years after this revolution in our democracy, Clegg of Sheffield Hallam has put forward similarly groundbreaking proposals for reform....

BOOM! A bonfire of unnecessary laws

POW! Regulation of Closed Circuit Television

WALLOP! Parental permission requirements to take schoolchildren’s fingerprints

CRASH! Scrapping of the ID card scheme.

Quiver, O Establishment.

Pathetic. These proposals are less Wilberforce, more Duncan-Smith. Clegg’s inflated impression of his importance is now right up there with Iain Dale’s. I do not want to turn this into an History lesson but, digging into my brain, I’d suggest 2 things since 1832 that have happened to our politics:

The 1928 Representation of the People Act

The 1911 Parliament Act

There are probably plenty more and some are probably even more important, so excuse anything that didn't come to mind whilst writing this in anger. But I would say that the end of the veto of the House of Lords over Bills originating in the Commons is slightly more important than the regulation of CCTV. Establishing the primacy of the House of Commons, now a fundamental element of our constitutional arrangement, is probably more of an important reform than the “reviewing of libel laws”. I’d even say that Tony Blair’s moves to increase the amount of women in the Commons were more important than Clegg’s earth-moving proposals. And what of devolution? Another Labour move, another Blair move, another move more important than “a block on pointless new criminal offences”.

Clegg has been convinced that he has a role in this government by the Conservatives, despite the revelation yesterday that 90% of the budget allocation would be controlled by Conservative ministers. In addition, this declaration of his place in the history of the progressive reform of our democracy is somewhat odd considering that he supports the new 55% rule proposed by the Tories as a move that would ensure stability. We’re all “missing the point”, he reckons. This conniving slight on our democratic process would be a massively regressive move for our constitution, making Clegg’s claims to be a champion of progress utterly ridiculous.

In addition to his vile declaration of self-importance, sickening were Clegg’s comments about his latest revelation. “What I’m discovering”, said former-Europhile-and-former-Tory-hater Clegg, “is we’ve been using different words for a long time – it actually means the same thing. Liberalism; Big Society.” So, for 3 years, either Clegg hasn’t realised that different words can mean the same thing, he’s talking total bollocks or, as our picture shows, he's turning blue. Either way, they are not characteristics we want of anyone in Government, let alone the deputy PM.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.