Off to sunny Blackpool for Lib Dem Conference tomorrow. I like Blackpool. It brings back memories of a) childhood holidays and b) the 15 NUS conferences I attended in my student days.
In fact there will be several of our new MPs making speeches this week who I first saw making speeches at NUS conferences in the Winter Gardens.
Conference for me is not about debates in the main hall and fringe meetings, but training sessions and meetings with constuency teams. And of course the chance to catch up with the many friends I have made over the years in different parts of the country.
As usual the conference the media is reporting bears little resemblance to the one Lib Dems are heading off to.
Media comment seems to revolve around the leadership of the party and whether we will be moving to the right or the left.
To Lib Dem activists the leadership is not in question. I guess the journalists are just so busy reporting on the various other parties' leadership wrangles (I see that even the tiny Plaid Cymru are joining in) that they expect us to have them to.
And Lib Dem simply do not see our party in terms of being on the left or right - we just get on an apply our liberal principles to the problems acing the country and try and come up with solution that will work.
This seems very simple to us and it is difficult to understand why the journos don't get it.
I am looking forward to getting to my hotel as it has been built underneath the Pepsi Max rollercoaster at the Pleasure Beach. I know what I'll be doing when conference gets boring!
Friday, September 16, 2005
Defending our basic freedoms
The main justification for the so-called 'war on terror' is that our Government is acting to defend our traditions, culture and values. Blair and Bush talk of 'defending democracy'.
On of the traditional freedoms that we have enjoyed for a few centuries in this country is freedom of expression. Freedom of expression - the right to put forward your views on an issue regardless - is one of the fundamental liberties that has set the UK, the US and most western democracies apart from communist, dictatorial and other tyrannical regimes.
Yet now, in the name of fighting terrorism, the Home Secretary is proposing that people should not be allowed to 'glorify' terrorism. This is a significantly broader restriction than not being allowed to 'incite' terrorism, which means actually encouraging people to go and commit terrorist acts. It would effectively prevent anyone from putting forward any argument that might be considered to justify terrorism.
On the face of it this might not seem to bad, surely, you might argue, it is wrong for anyone to argue in support of terrorism?
But there are two key reason why this approach is wrong.
Firstly, it is simply wrong for the state to restrict people's freedom to put forward an argument. However wrong you or I might think an argument to be, someone has the right to put it forward. To remove that right is to remove one of the very traditions that make democracy worth defending.
Secondly it is wrong on practical grounds. How do you define 'terrorism' and 'glorify' in a watertight way that only restricts the really nasty advocates of outright terror, rather than catching all sorts of completely harmless theorising? Who does the defining? How can we ensure that they are in some way objective rather than subjective?
To give one example: during the second world war was it wrong for people to publically support terrorist cells active in France? (Otherwise known as the French Resistance)
Under the legal definition of 'terrorism' such public comment would surely be against this proposed law.
Every time there is a major act of terrorism Blair and co. tell us that the terrorists will not be allowed to change our way of life. Yet by the look of these proposals they are allowing probably the most control crazy Government we have ever had to restrict our liberty more than has ever been the case in peacetime.
On of the traditional freedoms that we have enjoyed for a few centuries in this country is freedom of expression. Freedom of expression - the right to put forward your views on an issue regardless - is one of the fundamental liberties that has set the UK, the US and most western democracies apart from communist, dictatorial and other tyrannical regimes.
Yet now, in the name of fighting terrorism, the Home Secretary is proposing that people should not be allowed to 'glorify' terrorism. This is a significantly broader restriction than not being allowed to 'incite' terrorism, which means actually encouraging people to go and commit terrorist acts. It would effectively prevent anyone from putting forward any argument that might be considered to justify terrorism.
On the face of it this might not seem to bad, surely, you might argue, it is wrong for anyone to argue in support of terrorism?
But there are two key reason why this approach is wrong.
Firstly, it is simply wrong for the state to restrict people's freedom to put forward an argument. However wrong you or I might think an argument to be, someone has the right to put it forward. To remove that right is to remove one of the very traditions that make democracy worth defending.
Secondly it is wrong on practical grounds. How do you define 'terrorism' and 'glorify' in a watertight way that only restricts the really nasty advocates of outright terror, rather than catching all sorts of completely harmless theorising? Who does the defining? How can we ensure that they are in some way objective rather than subjective?
To give one example: during the second world war was it wrong for people to publically support terrorist cells active in France? (Otherwise known as the French Resistance)
Under the legal definition of 'terrorism' such public comment would surely be against this proposed law.
Every time there is a major act of terrorism Blair and co. tell us that the terrorists will not be allowed to change our way of life. Yet by the look of these proposals they are allowing probably the most control crazy Government we have ever had to restrict our liberty more than has ever been the case in peacetime.
Friday, September 02, 2005
Marillion - nice chaps
I enjoyed seeing a slimmed down Marillion at the Oxford Zodiac last night - just Steve Hogarth, Pete Trewavas and Steve Rothery. It was a warm up gig for a short tour they are about to do in the States. Mostly hardcore fans and there were plenty of mistakes, humour etc.
And after being a fan of the band for 22 years I actually got to meet them after the gig.
I never quite know what to say when I meet people I am a big fan of, but muttered something along the lines of 'thank you for the music'. Very friendly they were too.
And after being a fan of the band for 22 years I actually got to meet them after the gig.
I never quite know what to say when I meet people I am a big fan of, but muttered something along the lines of 'thank you for the music'. Very friendly they were too.
Who would have guessed?
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article309681.ece
Apparantly Blair has a tendency to rush out ill-thought through policy statements in order to win media coverage.
Who would have guessed?
Apparantly Blair has a tendency to rush out ill-thought through policy statements in order to win media coverage.
Who would have guessed?
Friday, August 05, 2005
ID Cards set to solve problem that doesn't currently exist
The pro ID card arguments get sillier by the day.
According to a Home Office spokesman:
Instead, the scheme would provide people with a more convenient way of showing their identity - something already needed to access public services, he said.
Strangely I've never had much of problem accessing public services so far. But it's always nice to know that yet another non-existent problem might be solved by ID cards.
According to a Home Office spokesman:
Instead, the scheme would provide people with a more convenient way of showing their identity - something already needed to access public services, he said.
Strangely I've never had much of problem accessing public services so far. But it's always nice to know that yet another non-existent problem might be solved by ID cards.
Saturday, July 30, 2005
More centralisation
According to this report in the Guardian
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,11032,1539302,00.html
local libraries may be nationalised.
This is a compltely backward step and once again flies in the face of the Government's claim to believe in decentralisation.
Local authorities are perfectly capabalbe of running their local libraries, and local input should play a big role in a successful local library which should be a community asset.
What they do need is investment. For the past few years local authorities have received no money at all to improve library buildings. Imagine how much could have been achieved if all th money that was wasted on the Dome had been invested across the country in local libraries and museums instead.
Until recently I was responsible for libraries in Oxfordshire. We made a lot of improvemenst despite the lack of capital. A key part in that success was because we encourage local librarians to use their initiative and respond to local need.
If the Government goes down the route proposed in their consultant's report it will be a further diminishment of local democracy and our local liberaries will be poorer for it.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,11032,1539302,00.html
local libraries may be nationalised.
This is a compltely backward step and once again flies in the face of the Government's claim to believe in decentralisation.
Local authorities are perfectly capabalbe of running their local libraries, and local input should play a big role in a successful local library which should be a community asset.
What they do need is investment. For the past few years local authorities have received no money at all to improve library buildings. Imagine how much could have been achieved if all th money that was wasted on the Dome had been invested across the country in local libraries and museums instead.
Until recently I was responsible for libraries in Oxfordshire. We made a lot of improvemenst despite the lack of capital. A key part in that success was because we encourage local librarians to use their initiative and respond to local need.
If the Government goes down the route proposed in their consultant's report it will be a further diminishment of local democracy and our local liberaries will be poorer for it.
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Shoot to kill?
Before coming to the main point I want to make it clear that I have not read all the facts about yesterday's shooting and I am not making assumtpions about the rights and wrongs of this particular incident.
However I was struck by these comments reported in The Times:
Pc Norman Brennan, a campaigner for the victims of crime who has called for all officers to be routinely armed, said the shooting was an unfortunate consequence of being "at war". He said: "The long and the short of it is that this country is at war with terrorists and in war there are casualties. Normally in the majority of cases it is the enemy but innocent people will suffer. I am afraid it is tragic but that is part of any battle.
I am sure the family and friends of those wrongly shot by the Police and armed forces as a result of the 'war' will be delighted to know that they are an 'unfortunate consequence'.
It is utterly counter-productive for the security services to take anything other than the utmost caution in their use of force. Allowing the security services to drop their standards when it comes to use of force will simply exacerbate tensions with minority communities and provide those recruiting terrorists one more message to use.
It is just as wrong for an innocent person to be killed or injured by the security services as it is for them to be killed or injured by terrorists. The only justification for using potentially lethal force is if it is clear that there is an imminent threat to life, and one which cannot be stopped in any other way. Anything less and it is inevitable that the security services will join the terrorists in killing innocent people.
It does nothing for the families and friends of victims of terrorist attacks to know that more innocent people have been killed.
There is a real irony in the description of PC Norman Brennan as 'a campagner for the victims of crime'. He doesn't seem to be campaigning for the victim in this case.
However I was struck by these comments reported in The Times:
Pc Norman Brennan, a campaigner for the victims of crime who has called for all officers to be routinely armed, said the shooting was an unfortunate consequence of being "at war". He said: "The long and the short of it is that this country is at war with terrorists and in war there are casualties. Normally in the majority of cases it is the enemy but innocent people will suffer. I am afraid it is tragic but that is part of any battle.
I am sure the family and friends of those wrongly shot by the Police and armed forces as a result of the 'war' will be delighted to know that they are an 'unfortunate consequence'.
It is utterly counter-productive for the security services to take anything other than the utmost caution in their use of force. Allowing the security services to drop their standards when it comes to use of force will simply exacerbate tensions with minority communities and provide those recruiting terrorists one more message to use.
It is just as wrong for an innocent person to be killed or injured by the security services as it is for them to be killed or injured by terrorists. The only justification for using potentially lethal force is if it is clear that there is an imminent threat to life, and one which cannot be stopped in any other way. Anything less and it is inevitable that the security services will join the terrorists in killing innocent people.
It does nothing for the families and friends of victims of terrorist attacks to know that more innocent people have been killed.
There is a real irony in the description of PC Norman Brennan as 'a campagner for the victims of crime'. He doesn't seem to be campaigning for the victim in this case.
Friday, July 15, 2005
A moving moment today
I happened to be at Buckingham Palace today when the two minutes silence was held.
It was a very moving moment as everybody and everything stopped and many heads were bowed.
I thought about those who had died a week ago and their relatives who have lost them, I also thought about the many thousands who have lost thier lives and loved ones in Iraq, Afghanistan and so many other places because of mindless violence.
I thought about the people I have met and worked with in East Africa, the Balkans and the Baltic and the courage they have shown in coming through such conflict and working for peace, liberty and democracy.
It is a moment I will remember.
And then they changed the guard, which I have never watched before. It was very colourful and cheerful and demonstrated, I thought, that life in London goes on.
It was a very moving moment as everybody and everything stopped and many heads were bowed.
I thought about those who had died a week ago and their relatives who have lost them, I also thought about the many thousands who have lost thier lives and loved ones in Iraq, Afghanistan and so many other places because of mindless violence.
I thought about the people I have met and worked with in East Africa, the Balkans and the Baltic and the courage they have shown in coming through such conflict and working for peace, liberty and democracy.
It is a moment I will remember.
And then they changed the guard, which I have never watched before. It was very colourful and cheerful and demonstrated, I thought, that life in London goes on.
Well done Mark Hunter
Just heard the excellent result from Cheadle.
Well done to Mark Hunter and the brilliant Lib Dem by-election team.
The Tories ran a very nasty campaign, even by their usual standards, and it is a very good thing that the electors of Cheadle saw right through it.
Well done to Mark Hunter and the brilliant Lib Dem by-election team.
The Tories ran a very nasty campaign, even by their usual standards, and it is a very good thing that the electors of Cheadle saw right through it.
Sunday, July 10, 2005
Very good article on the Times website by Simon Jenkins about the linkage between the decision to bomb Iraq with the bombings in London. I often disagree with Jenkins about issues but he has been spot on on this issue.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-1688040,00.html
I have found listening to a lot of the statements by Blair, Bush and co. quite staggering. It really doesn't seem to occur to them that the pain and suffereing caused to each British or US family killed by a bombing is exactly the same as the pain and suffering caused to so many more families in Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-1688040,00.html
I have found listening to a lot of the statements by Blair, Bush and co. quite staggering. It really doesn't seem to occur to them that the pain and suffereing caused to each British or US family killed by a bombing is exactly the same as the pain and suffering caused to so many more families in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
First Arnie, now John Major ...
A very honest and convincing piece from John Major in today's Guardian:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1522118,00.html
What is the world coming to?!
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1522118,00.html
What is the world coming to?!
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Even Arnie gets it
If you had told me five years ago that I would picking up my Independent on Sunday to read a choerent article on the importance of tackling climate change written by Arnold Schwarzeneger I wouldn't have believed you.
But it happened. And he is not alone, several US states and more than 400 town and city mayors have already started work to tackle pollution and emmissions.
Republicans in the Senate even voted against the Bush line.
Surely it is now only a matter of time before Bush has to see sense?
But it happened. And he is not alone, several US states and more than 400 town and city mayors have already started work to tackle pollution and emmissions.
Republicans in the Senate even voted against the Bush line.
Surely it is now only a matter of time before Bush has to see sense?
Live 8 - will it make a difference?
I sat and watched Live 8 pretty much all the way through yesterday (other than spending a bit of time ferrying boxes of envelopes around to local Lib Dem helpers).
20 years ago I sat and watched Live Aid with a group of my teenage mates. This time it was with the missus and small children - quitea contrast!
What didn't change for me was the effect. Live Aid was one of the events that motivated me to get involved in politics 20 years ago. I watched the coverage and read the papers and decided that I could not see any reason why so many people should live in abject poverty on a planet where so many others are so rich.
I remember the tears rolling when they played that memorable footage over 'Who's gonna drive you home' by The Cars and the tears were rolling again yesterday when Bob Geldof introduced Birhan Woldu, one of the starving children featured in that film.
There has been a lot of questioning about the effectiveness of Live 8. Isn't Bob Geldof on an ego trip? Why should we listen to rock stars anyway? Will it make a difference?
In my view it is not Live 8 we should be questioning. It is politics and politicians. We should be asking how it is that G8 leaders can possibly fail to take serious action. Why is it that western governments will spend more money this year subsidising their own farmers than the entire total of African debt.
As far as I am concerned Live 8 has already worked. It has got millions of people listening to the arguments and issues. It will energise tens of thousands of people into actively campaigning. And it certainly can't have reduced the chances of the G8 summit achieving something.
And if the issue is important enough to persuade Roger Waters to step on stage with Dave Gilmour after their 24 year grudge, surely a few billion isn't asking too much?
20 years ago I sat and watched Live Aid with a group of my teenage mates. This time it was with the missus and small children - quitea contrast!
What didn't change for me was the effect. Live Aid was one of the events that motivated me to get involved in politics 20 years ago. I watched the coverage and read the papers and decided that I could not see any reason why so many people should live in abject poverty on a planet where so many others are so rich.
I remember the tears rolling when they played that memorable footage over 'Who's gonna drive you home' by The Cars and the tears were rolling again yesterday when Bob Geldof introduced Birhan Woldu, one of the starving children featured in that film.
There has been a lot of questioning about the effectiveness of Live 8. Isn't Bob Geldof on an ego trip? Why should we listen to rock stars anyway? Will it make a difference?
In my view it is not Live 8 we should be questioning. It is politics and politicians. We should be asking how it is that G8 leaders can possibly fail to take serious action. Why is it that western governments will spend more money this year subsidising their own farmers than the entire total of African debt.
As far as I am concerned Live 8 has already worked. It has got millions of people listening to the arguments and issues. It will energise tens of thousands of people into actively campaigning. And it certainly can't have reduced the chances of the G8 summit achieving something.
And if the issue is important enough to persuade Roger Waters to step on stage with Dave Gilmour after their 24 year grudge, surely a few billion isn't asking too much?
Sunday, April 17, 2005
Aliens in London
The new Doctor Who continues to impress as does their amusing use of the internet to promote the show.
http://www.whoisdoctorwho.co.uk/
has it's own amusing take on the Ed Matts photo controversy.
http://www.whoisdoctorwho.co.uk/
has it's own amusing take on the Ed Matts photo controversy.
Tory tactics
The Tories seem to be making a bit of habit of getting into trouble in the campaign so far.
First dear Michael got his crime figures wrong:
http://www.thisisoxfordshire.co.uk/oxfordshire/archive/2005/03/22/TOPNEWS0ZM.html
Then the Winchester Tory candidate got into trouble over a website:
http://www.thisiswinchester.co.uk/hampshire/echowinchester/news/ECHOWINCHESTER_NEWS_NEWS5.html
And the Tory campaign in Guildford is accused of racism:
http://www.surreyad.co.uk/news/index.html?article15090
And Ed Matts (an amusing chap - I remember him telling me how he wa definitely winning Oxford West & Abingdon and that my County seat was a gonner at the last election) is in hot water in Dorset:
http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?story=628733&host=3&dir=62
And then it's back to dear Michael again - and this time it's MRSA figures that he is exagerating:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4449681.stm
I suppose you can't criticise these hapless PPCs - they are clearly just following the leadership line;-)
(And this is the guy who says Blair can't be trusted!)
First dear Michael got his crime figures wrong:
http://www.thisisoxfordshire.co.uk/oxfordshire/archive/2005/03/22/TOPNEWS0ZM.html
Then the Winchester Tory candidate got into trouble over a website:
http://www.thisiswinchester.co.uk/hampshire/echowinchester/news/ECHOWINCHESTER_NEWS_NEWS5.html
And the Tory campaign in Guildford is accused of racism:
http://www.surreyad.co.uk/news/index.html?article15090
And Ed Matts (an amusing chap - I remember him telling me how he wa definitely winning Oxford West & Abingdon and that my County seat was a gonner at the last election) is in hot water in Dorset:
http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?story=628733&host=3&dir=62
And then it's back to dear Michael again - and this time it's MRSA figures that he is exagerating:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4449681.stm
I suppose you can't criticise these hapless PPCs - they are clearly just following the leadership line;-)
(And this is the guy who says Blair can't be trusted!)
From the blogs
A particularly hard-hitting clip on Tim Ireland's excellent Backing Blair site:
http://www.backingblair.co.uk/the_line/
It does contain some disturbing images so please don't view it if you are easily offended.
On a more humerous note:
http://www.gbjab.com/
is very amusing.
http://www.backingblair.co.uk/the_line/
It does contain some disturbing images so please don't view it if you are easily offended.
On a more humerous note:
http://www.gbjab.com/
is very amusing.
The campaign so far ...
I had intended to post regularly on the election campaign so far, but have been too busy. So this a brief round-up.
In the past week or so I have visited several seat we hope to win on May 5th, and overall the mood is very positive.
The highlight for me was visiting Folkestone & Hythe last week where we are running a very strong campaign to unseat Tory Leader Michael Howard. I drove into the seat from the west - through Romney Marsh - traditionally the weaker end of the seat for us. But even here I was greeted by a large number of Peter Carroll' stakeboards. In Folkestone itself the display was very impressive. There were hardly any Howard posters. Our candidate Peter Carroll is getting a lot of help from several Gurkhas - and boy can they deliver leaflets fast!
We are also doing well in seats where we are fighting Labour. The team in Watford are really boyant. It looks like many former Tory voters there have realised that the Lib Dems are the real challengers this time and are switching in droves. A brief visit to Brent East was also very positive - there are already more Sarah Teather boards up than we had by the end of the by-election. She has worked really hard since the by-election and the voters seem to be recognising this.
Another seat we are doing really well in is New Forest East. Again I was met with a very impressive poster display, and the campaign HQ is being deluged with requests for posters, offers of help etc.
Overall the feel is very positive with the Lib Dem vote solid and enthusiastic and voters coming across from both the other parties for poltiical and tactical reasons.
In the past week or so I have visited several seat we hope to win on May 5th, and overall the mood is very positive.
The highlight for me was visiting Folkestone & Hythe last week where we are running a very strong campaign to unseat Tory Leader Michael Howard. I drove into the seat from the west - through Romney Marsh - traditionally the weaker end of the seat for us. But even here I was greeted by a large number of Peter Carroll' stakeboards. In Folkestone itself the display was very impressive. There were hardly any Howard posters. Our candidate Peter Carroll is getting a lot of help from several Gurkhas - and boy can they deliver leaflets fast!
We are also doing well in seats where we are fighting Labour. The team in Watford are really boyant. It looks like many former Tory voters there have realised that the Lib Dems are the real challengers this time and are switching in droves. A brief visit to Brent East was also very positive - there are already more Sarah Teather boards up than we had by the end of the by-election. She has worked really hard since the by-election and the voters seem to be recognising this.
Another seat we are doing really well in is New Forest East. Again I was met with a very impressive poster display, and the campaign HQ is being deluged with requests for posters, offers of help etc.
Overall the feel is very positive with the Lib Dem vote solid and enthusiastic and voters coming across from both the other parties for poltiical and tactical reasons.
Sunday, March 27, 2005
More Who
I'm still feeling very impressed with the new Doctor Who. The reviews seem to be pretty good generally. Even Sara Cox was singing its praises today on Radio One.
Nick Barlow's review says it all:
http://www.nickbarlow.com/blog/index.php?p=296
Nick Barlow's review says it all:
http://www.nickbarlow.com/blog/index.php?p=296
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Anne Milton: Nurse. Mother. Dipstick.
Is the excellent Tim Ireland website which analyses the Conservative Campaign in Guildford, Anne Milton being the Tory candidate there.
The Tories seem to be willing to stoop pretty low to try and win the seat back.
You can find the site at http://www.bloggerheads.com/anne_milton/
I helped the excellent Sue Doughty a lot in the last election and have seen how hard she has worked since. Ms Milton will have to be pretty lucky to win this one.
The Tories seem to be willing to stoop pretty low to try and win the seat back.
You can find the site at http://www.bloggerheads.com/anne_milton/
I helped the excellent Sue Doughty a lot in the last election and have seen how hard she has worked since. Ms Milton will have to be pretty lucky to win this one.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)