The man, Nick Clegg, and his Party, the Liberal Democrats have already had a decisive impact on the on the 2010 General Election. So who is the man and what does his political Party stand for. Is the accusation of both David Cameron and Prime Minister Gordon Brown that although he won the first Leader’s debate on style there was no substance or that any substance was at best idealistic but also dangerous
Nick Clegg certainly has style and an amazing personal background, Age43, born 7th January, he is married to a beautiful Spanish daughter of a former member of the Spanish Senate‘s Popular Party. She is a leading lawyer, an expert in European Trade Law and they have three children, Antonio, Alberto, and Miguel, brought up Catholics by their mother, with Nick a declared agnostic.
Nicholas William Peter Clegg was born in Chalfont St Giles with a half Russian, half English father who was a banker and a trustee and former chairman of the Daiwa Anglo Japanese Foundation. His great grandfather was a Russian nobleman and Attorney General of Imperial Russia and his great aunt the writer Baroness Moura Budberg.
His Dutch mother Hermance van den Wall Bake was a teacher of children with special educational needs who had been interned as a girl with her family by the Japanese in Batavia) Jakarta in the Dutch East Indies. Nick was brought up bilingually in Dutch and English and also speaks French, German and Spanish.
Educated at Caldicott, a minor Preparatory school, among whose alumni is the England cricket Andrew Strauss. Nick went to the Westminster School, one of the most outstanding private (public) schools in the UK which a host of distinguished former pupils including six holders of the Victoria Cross. As a 16 year old exchange student in Munich, he and a German friend burned a collection of cacti belonging to a Professor and let to a sentence of community service.
He attended Robinson College Cambridge reading Archaeology and Anthropology having a gap year as a Ski Instructor in Austria and as an office Junior in a Helsinki bank. He is reported according to Wikipedia to have been active in student theatre, the college tennis team captain and a campaigner for the survival of indigenous people. It has been claimed that he was also a member of the University Conservative Association although he claims he has no recollection of this. He spent a year at the University of Minnesota writing about the Deep Green Movement which seems to be a mixture of radical environmentalism and anarcho-primitivism- a socio political concept (My art work is anarcho primitivism). He worked in New York for a left wing magazine and then to Brussels for the G24 coordination unit. He then took a second Master’s degree at the University of Europe in Bruges where he met his future wife.
The winner of the Financial Times David Thomas Prize, he went to Hungry writing about mass privatisation of industries in the former communist bloc. He then worked for European Commission for two years with a role on providing aid to central Asia and Russia and then worked for Trade Commissioner Leon Britain as a policy adviser and speech writer and headed an EC team negotiating on and Russian accession talks to the World Trade Organisation.
Nick therefore makes no pretence of having a common background or being a common man. This is suggested will spell more of a problem for David Cameron whose Eton, Oxbridge, Bullingdon boy background is anathema to the working class and democrats whereas Nick’s background will be regarded as interesting rather than patrician.
In 1999 he was selected as the lead European candidate for the Liberal Democrats and was tipped as a future leading politician by Paddy Ashdown. He was elected the first Liberal Politician at Parliamentary level since 1931 in the East Midlands. He converted a Conservative MEP to Liberal Party and supported his candidature to replace him in the European Parliament when he decided to switch to Westminster. Before departure he worked closely with the Greens and with others on broad environmental legislation and co founded a campaign for reform of the EEC, including on Expenses. However his expenses record at Westminster is questionable where it is said he claimed the maximums possible but was only required to repay a small sum of £80 in relation to some international phone calls.
Leaving his MEP post he took up consultancy work with the E.C and then a part time post at Sheffield University in politics where he was adopted as the Lib Dem candidate for Sheffield Hallam. Immediately on winning the seat he became Liberal Spokesman on Europe. A year later he was in the frame as replacement Party Leader for Charles Kennedy but supported the winner Sir Menzies Campbell and became the Home Affairs spokesman proposing a Freedom Bill following the hardening of the government’s approach to civil liberties because of the terrorist threat. Since becoming leader he has campaigned on civil liberties, environmental protection and devolution of power, especially within the public services.
Winning the leadership content in 2007 following the forced retirement of Sir Menzies, his championing of the role of the cross party popular Vincent Cable and asking his rival Chris Huhne to become front bench spokesman on home affairs created a formidable team which could now form the basis of a Liberal momentum if the surge became a political Tsunami which is not beyond all possibility because of anger at the expenses scandal and the speculators and bankers, fear of higher taxes, wages freezes and cuts in public services and wanting revenge on the Labour and Conservatives politicians who have held power since World War II.
Certainly such a movement would mark a dramatic change in British political life. Over the past three years the electoral fortunes of the Liberal Democrats have been mixed with some gains but also losses and despite one poll in 2008 local government elections placing his party above Labour they have remained third with 19 to 20%, thus retaining their sixty seats although in terms of votes they would obtain over 100 under proportional representation. No one including me, or I believe Mr Clegg and his party, anticipated the impact of his appearance in the first three leader TV show. The British tend to be Conservative in their political attitudes, going for the safe middle ground so a jump of 10 points from their recent average is extraordinary.
The approach of the Labour and Conservative political machines will be to claim that the Liberal manifesto is full of unrealistic ideals, only put forward to win votes but where the Party knows it will not be required to implement.
I anticipate that faced with policies which appeal to the public in addition to having the most human and likeable personality of the three main Party leaders, the back room spinners and black ops men will draw attention to the Catholicism, the pro Europeanism and the agnosticism, on the basis that there are strong anti Catholic, anti European and pro Christian feelings among large sections of the voting public.
Similarly having a non English wife and mixed nationality background will be mentioned in such a way to imply a lack of patriotism, something we have seen already with the Liberal Democrat commitment not to renew the Trident missile system and Sunday‘s Daily Mail. Politics can be ruthless and dirty and faced with an unexpected defeat the Tory dark side will now come to the fore.
It will be more problematic for the Labour Party who presently can expect the Lib Dem poll surge to adversely affect the Tory Party more than Labour, however should the surge develop momentum then Labour could begin to fear melt down. The main use of playing on prejudices will come from the extreme right although the Conservatives will hope to also be the beneficiaries of any fall away of the Lib Dem Momentum.
Having planned to begin with a close at the Conservative Manifesto this week before that of the Government, I will instead cover the 2010 Manifesto of the Liberal Democratic party. But first a political health warning. The idea that the bulk of the British electorate reads the manifestos and this makes a difference to the final result is not borne out by past facts. People go for change in the narrow sense of liking or disliking someone. They are also in a mood for revenge on the Labour and Conservative Parties
The headline address of Mr Clegg argues it is time for something different and something better. This is my first question mark. Do we need something fundamental different to the basic British political system which ran an Empire and since World War II has enabled the UK to punch significantly above its weight in International affairs and developing and maintaining a leading economy despite the dramatic changes in manufacturing production worldwide with the loss of shipbuilding and coal excavation and the radical reduction in steel production. We have achieved this remarkable repositioning by embracing capitalism, making London a centre for money, with strong governments, and a solid a political civil service.
This is not say that major changes are not needed. There is need to create a more democratic second chamber predominantly elected but allowing for direct appointments to bring in key people and specialists into government and opposition. There is also considerable value in having so called cross benchers, those here to make a contribution to the national welfare rather than to represent a political party. A second chamber cannot just be the mirror of the first but a place with less emphasis on the party politics and more on knowledge, expertise, experience and the broad national interest.
I would go further than eliminating hereditary peerage from the House of Lords, and abolish those who wish to maintain their titles from holding any form of public funded office. Similarly it is time to abolish the Orders of British Empire and other outdate awards for simply doing a job well over a long period, but I remain in favour of recognising service and exceptional effort.
I would also love to break down the international capitalist system which effectively has controlled British governments since the first Thatcher administration but on this I am not a unilateralist, and there would have to be a world wide movement among the major economic powers if the UK is not quickly TO slide from our position of comparative wealth into a dependent poor relation with mass unemployment which would only lead to increasing crime and corruption and further inroads to civil privileges. I am therefore in favour of change, but it has to be evolutionary, carefully considered, planned, and its implementation closely monitored and evaluated.
Everyone would like to do better, the main objective of the Liberal Democratic Party but one does not want geographic lotteries by breaking down attempts to set standards, levels and access to services and in opportunities across the UK, and in England in particular, id Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales want to set their own, ensuring these do not fall below a certain level and attempting to raise them for everyone. This is more of an art than a science where the need for some uniformity has to be balanced with flexibility to meet individual circumstances, and the need for openness and accurate reporting has to be balanced with avoiding excessive form filling and negative bureaucracies.
The Tory party and tended to veer towards dangerous deregulation and the Labour Party excessive control and monitory so a Liberal Democratic balance could be a good thing.
The nature of government in the complex interacting and interdependent planet earth world of today is such that. There will always be mistake and decisions, policies, and legislation which does not work out as intended, because of individual and local variations in practice, changed circumstances and new knowledge.
The core accusation against the Labour Administration is that it has allowed the richer to increase their wealth at a faster rate than general improvements in living standards for the rest of us and failed to impact on the underclass, despite concentrating on services for pre-school children, widening higher education, major improvements in aspects of the national health service and introducing a range of support measures for the elderly in general and older sick and disabled as well as attempt to remove children from living in poverty. However all politicians who seeking instant solutions and results within the electoral time table have failed to address the long term deep rooted issues such as petty crime, addictions, single teenage pregnancies, and disrespect for those in positions of authority which require the concentration of disproportionate resources over prolonged periods. The public behaviour of politicians and those holding public office, tax avoidance, excessive remunerations in cash and kind have contributed to this situation which continues to manifest itself in various forms from bullying at school and work, violence and terrorism associated with some sports, primarily football, a knife and gun culture on some housing estates and areas. The white middle and upper class male supported slavery, was strongly anti feminist, racists, anti child care and ignorant and at times perverted on sexual matters, all of which tends to have an increasing negative social impact down the social order and has become particularly obnoxious among white trash although no politician would use such a term without being specific
The Liberal Manifesto concentrates on four main proposals during the life of a first Lib Dem administration. The first appeals to the financial pockets of the majority. A change in the way income tax presently operates would remove substantially more people than usual from paying any income tax and most people would pay £700 less a year. The lost revenue to be replaced by direct action to stop the rich avoiding their taxation duties. This is excellent basic socialism discarded by the Labour Party when it comprehensively embraced international capitalism in 1997. The question is could a Liberal administration deliver on such a redistribution or would it be a case of giving with one hand while taking in another, involving damaging cuts in existing services or increases in VAT?
The second core proposal is to cut class sizes, especially in low performance schools and to give more freedom to schools. In my experience these are two incompatible objectives. The only way to ensure minimum standards while encouraging good performance is through standard setting, inspections and close monitoring and penalties for failures. Good standards are more related to good teachers and this is about the quality of selection and training, public respects and recognition. If you dismantle the controls and monitoring and delegate too much power locally you will see a widening gulf in standards, including an increase in those misusing position, fraud and corruption. Everyone should learn from the deregulation of banking.
Under a Fair future there are proposals to break up the banks, which gets my vote as well as concentrating on investment in green growth and jobs. In relation to honesty about tough choices needed to cut the deficit I say amen, except that everything should be done to make those who caused the problem to pay most. Labour has failed in this respect and it is difficult to take Tory proposals seriously.
The final area is the clean up of politics giving public in a constituency the right to sack their Member of Parliament in specific circumstances. Good. A Freedom Bill to protect long establish civil privileges. I am cautious about using the word Rights but the development of digital technology and surveillance has enabled significant misuses and untended controls which have undermined valued social privileges.
I am also cautious when politicians talk about party values and moral issues because it is difficulty to apply them when in government, Take the concept of fairness. To be fair to someone or some group usually means unfairness to someone else or group, One cannot be fair without being unfair.
I have argued throughout most of my adult life that there are five issues upon which all governments should be judge in an order of my preferences and priority which I appreciate others will not share. The first is national security. Everything should be done to prevent citizens being attacked going about their daily lives whether by other governments, or individual home or externally based. I have not problem with governments matching and exceeding the tactics, methods and intelligence of those posing actual threats and this includes the provision of appropriate military and other defence services. War is bloody and democratic governments have a duty to be even bloodier back although always aware that the means can become the end and that if you use methods blow previously acceptable standards you increasing become more like your enemy. Included in this priority is stopping home grown terrorism whether bullying in schools, youth gang crime on estates and manslaughter through dangerous driving
Secondly and thirdly, it is the responsibility of all governments to give priority to the provision of adequate food and shelter. I am concerned about our increasing dependence on other nations for food and energy and our failure to ensure that everyone has accommodation above the minimum level.
Fourthly, everyone should have the opportunity to provide for themselves rather than be dependent on the state. However I not in favour of slave labour in any of its forms.
The fifth is best described as freedom to, rather than freedom from. The ability of everyone to have the opportunity to live as they would like as long as this does not adversely affect the ability of anyone else to do so similarly.
I am not democratic or a socialist in the sense of everyone being and having the same as everyone else or everyone being involved in the organisation and running of the societies in which I live. You can decide things and run things for me as long as I can do my thing my way.
Now the details of the Liberal Democratic Party 100 page document. I make no attempt to summary or provide a comprehensive or balance view. I state what I like and what I don’t and what interests me
Under the section - Your money I agree it is wrong that the poorest fifth, pay a greater proportion of their income in tax than the richest fifth when the emphasis should be the other way round. This is being unfair to the rich, I want to be unfair to the rich.
I also agree that if air travel is the worst cause of air pollution it should be taxed greater than other forms of travel until the balance can be achieved offsetting any pollution.
I am also in favour of restoring the link between pensions and earnings in terms of annual increases because usually those on fixed incomes find that their increases does not match the increase in inflation.
I am concerned about people having to sell homes they have mortgaged to buy to pay for care and the same applies for those who have worked hard to develop business which employ people using their own capital having to be sold to cover death duties.
In the short term the rich must pay a greater proportion of their capital and income to achieve a greater balancing of national income and national expenditure including national debt. I do not accept that this approach will automatically discourage business and other initiatives but this is a factor which requires proper examination to avoid the Lord giveth with one hand and taketh with the other.
I like proposal of a mansion tax at values over £2million, There is a small industry working out how to offset all tax evasion and avoidance measures which needs to be stopped. However there has to be renewed confidence that taxes are well used in the interests of the majority. I do not to understand why the proposal to limit non domiciled tax to after seven years. Why not three or one?
The Manifesto explains that that the Party has identified £15 billions of reductions of which an additional expenditure of £5 billion is to be used on new developments. This leaves about £30 billion to be found from 2011 2012
Nine immediate political decisions are listen to achieve the £15billion which includes a ceiling on public sector pay rises. However this is unacceptable to me without a similar ceiling on the private sector for to do otherwise is unfair making those working in the public sector second class citizens. Similarly the statement cutting back on burdensome regulations of local authorities should not mean any reduction in inspection, monitoring or minimum standard setting.
I am fully in favour of the proposal to stop like for like replacement of Trident at an estimated saving of £100 billion. This is important beyond financial savings.
I am concerned about proposals for yet another attack on the pension scheme for public sector workers, although I am favour of an equalizing scheme which would bring public sector pay and pensions on the same footing as those in the private sector, like for like. I like the idea of extending the Winter Fuel payments to all severely disabled people of adult age offset by raising the age limit to 65 except for those 60-65 who are recipients of the Pension credit. This is been mistakenly interpreted at restricting the payment to only those on Pension Credit above 65.
I also like the proposals the proposals to give priority to creating and sustaining jobs in a green based economy. It is natural to distrust Conservative intentions to reform and control the banking system and to point out the failure of the Labour administration to date, in part because it and any government need to maintain the British financial system and standing which is such a vital part of our economy. The Labour emphasis on demanding an international approach is understandable to a point but there is a risk that it is a cop out in confronting those who lead the banks in the UK. Sometimes a unilateral approach gives others the confidence to follow.
The Lib Dem proposal is to create 100000 additional carbon neutral jobs at a cost of £3.1billion . £400 million is to refurbish shipyards in North England and Scotland to build off shore wind turbines and other renewable marine equipment is very interesting. There are also proposals to bring 250000 empty properties into use with energy friendly renovation grants if the home is for social use and for education establishments to become more energy efficient, plus £140 million for replacing old high pollution buses with new accessible low carbon ones.
I am also impressed with the proposal to develop Cooperatives, Mutuals and other Social Enterprises with legislation to bring the law up to-date, to turn Northern Rock back to a Building Society and to provide a future for the Royal Mail and the Post office. One other proposal which attracted was the protection of Government advisers from inappropriate political pressure.
There are also proposals to create work placement and apprenticeship schemes. There is also a raft of proposals to assist businesses but also ensuring they business meets its environmental and social duties, and makes them public through the annual reporting system. I have no means to evaluate a number of the proposals and it will be interesting to learn the reaction of both small and large businesses.
Proposals related to working conditions are unlikely to be supported by employers because of their emphasis on extending protection, fairness, flexibility and non discriminations, I like the requirement for all remunerations to the value of £200000 to be published in full, and hopefully this should include benefits in kind.
The section your life includes the proposal already mentioned in relation to class sizes and a raft of other measures all of which sound good but many are difficult to impossible for government policy or action to achieve such as the improvement of discipline in schools and more action in relation to bullying. These are problems arising from the hardening of the underclass, the understandable but regrettable changes in public attitudes towards those in authority who have found too many men, a few women to be made of straw.
I am interested in the proposal for a fully independent Educational Standards Authority to overseas standards inspections and examinations systems and replace existing bodies including Offsted. Sounds good but my experience is that completely new things often take longer than anticipated to begin to be effective and rarely better than what when on before if they rely too much on the same staff and do not have a new specialist, well trained and hand picked leadership management team.
Similarly there are some good sound proposals to encourage and enhance the best schools and the best teachers to ensure they keep going, which from my experience is not the primary issue for them, as in any activity. The problem is to help the less successful to improve and sustain the average on whom the service for everyone is dependent. This does mean good management and leadership within schools.
I will highlight a proposal to deal with the issue of tuition fees for first time degrees and abolish them over a period of six years, scrapping hose for the final year of a first degree. I also like the proposal to create a more flexible National Bursary scheme. The immediate job creation proposals in relation to of the job costs of adult apprenticeships and additional Foundation Degree courses is also welcome.
I also welcome radical proposals to reduce the size of the Department of Health, to abolish Strategic Health Authorities and bring the salary structure to more realistic levels.
I an fully behind the proposal for full integration of health and social care for adults. I also fully behind the proposal to create all party approach to establishing a long tern plan for the care of the elderly as long as the emphasis is on care in the community. The proposal to give greater support to careers and to give individuals and their carers greater control over budgets and care solution is also commendable. There are also good moves to further improve relationships, choices, roles and services provided by General Practitioners
The is good attention towards government involvement in sports and leisure where it is anticipated there will major reduction, especially after the 2012 Olympics.
In relation to the family the main emphasise is on the immediate change to income tax with maintaining the present level of child care. I also liked giving parents the option of how they use maternity and paternity leave between them. support arrangements with the long term intention of providing every child over 18 months with 20 hours a week of free child care. The party also shares with other Parties support for various measures to end child poverty in the UK, support international agreement of the rights of children, on reducing child maltreatment, including detention of children for emigration purposes. I also like the proposal to make it a right for both parents to have the actual care of a child if there is no threat to the safety of a child.
There are no immediate major changes to the position of the elderly other than the application of the new income tax scheme and the link between pensions and national increases in average earnings. I have question marks about the retention of the free TV licneces for over 75‘s the national cocnessary travel scheme and the Winter Fuel allowances which are all vulnerable when the government of the day face up to reducing the national debt.
An important proposal is to make energy supplies that the first band of energy use is always the chepest. Also the fixing of a maximum interest rates on credit and store cards. They also plan a reduction in rail fares and require airlines to be honest about the actual cost of the fares charged. There is a commitment to regulate car parking and stop private sector wheel clamping. They will end testing household products on animals although this falls short of those would like to see an end of the use of aniamls in the testing for any products and purposes other than in finding new solutions to improve theri welfare.
The Party rejects a new generation of nuclear power stations about which I have an open mid. The party gives priority to working with the EU to develop international agreements to deal with the adverse effects of climate change.
There appears to been a down play of the Lib Dem approach in matters of International relations other than on meeting the effects of clinmate change. My personal view is the UK should only get involvd with other nations to protect and further its domestic and trading relationships.
The proposal to add another 3000 police officers on the beat sounds good but the police need to be targeted towards prevention and detection of crimes more than addressing the fear of crime. I like the idea of direct election of police authorities and the stop on request of night buses along their routes. On penal matters the proposals to move drug addicts and mentally ill criminals into more appropriate secure accommodation and reduce short term imprisonment are also welcome I have an open mind about restorartive justice measures. I have always felt the the maxim - the punishment should fit the crime is a partial truth, There is need for for better screening of convicted people to ensure they get the right sentence. Some need to be locked up and away from the rest of society for as long as possible, with some indefinitely, and need close monitoring if released. Others should not be sent to some forms of contemporary imprisonment unless there are the resources for the provision of education, training and effective prepration for release and after care.
I support the Liberal Dem approach to immigration issues with the need for an effective National Force who provide effective exit as well as entry controls. I like the idea of an indepednent agency for dealing with asylum applications. In my view the proposal to increase the number of branch lines and local services is better than putting funds into high speed links unless there is funding to do both. The development of local tram and metro systems such as in Croydon, Nottingham and Tyne and Wear should be extended. I like the proposal to restrict the growth of aviation and the present halt on flights because of the Iceland Volcano eruptiosn could be a blessing in disguise. The expansion of British Airports should be postponed and the cheap package holiday flights should be discouraged. There are excellent measures in relation to use of the countryside, water management and I noted the proposal to stop new property building in major flood risk areas. The proposal to put obstacles on the purchase of second homes in rural communities is good. I would like to see a British Governments to fight harder to protect British agriculture and fishing for with an increasing population we need to ensure we are not dependent on non British sources for food and energy.
In my view The English in particular have become quite content with letting those who wish to do to run democracy by standing for election and participating in party political system, as long as they can do their thing their way and those who do the job act responsible and maintain the same standards and laws they require the rest of us to follow. They are not all frustrated at their lack of individual involvement until doing things their way is affected in some adverse way.
The main constitutional change proposed by the Lib Dems is the introduction of proportional representation which some commentators and pollsters claim would lead no Political party having a majority of seats and to frequent changes of government because of the inability to get legislation through Parliament. I am not sure that this would be bad thing even if such a situation were to develop. The objections are in fact misguided and borne of the two main parties who feared this would lead to the Liberal Democrats gaining seats to reflect the votes cast for them nationally. I supported the proposal of the rime Minister to move to a system which ensure that every elected member of the House of Commons commanded over 50% of those voting. I am also in favour of fixed term Parliaments and a written constitution although this might take more than one Parliament to reach agreement. I am particularly in favour of extended Freedom of information to Private companies delivering monopoly public services such as British Rail. I have reservations about lowering the voting age to sixteen in general although I would immediately extend to those joining the armed and emergency public services.
Having said that I do not feel strongly about being given more power to run things or having more of a direct through referendums and such like I am fully in favour of elected boards for the NHS and Police service. I am totally opposed to the scrapping of Government inspection units on local authorities. I also like the concept of a Freedom Bill and wait to see the details. I remain in favour of identity cards.
The Liberal Democratic Manifesto also sets out the projected costs and savings of their programme.
I am struck by how little I disagree with compared to what I agree with. I have not yet read the Labour or Conservative Manifesto’s
Nick Clegg certainly has style and an amazing personal background, Age43, born 7th January, he is married to a beautiful Spanish daughter of a former member of the Spanish Senate‘s Popular Party. She is a leading lawyer, an expert in European Trade Law and they have three children, Antonio, Alberto, and Miguel, brought up Catholics by their mother, with Nick a declared agnostic.
Nicholas William Peter Clegg was born in Chalfont St Giles with a half Russian, half English father who was a banker and a trustee and former chairman of the Daiwa Anglo Japanese Foundation. His great grandfather was a Russian nobleman and Attorney General of Imperial Russia and his great aunt the writer Baroness Moura Budberg.
His Dutch mother Hermance van den Wall Bake was a teacher of children with special educational needs who had been interned as a girl with her family by the Japanese in Batavia) Jakarta in the Dutch East Indies. Nick was brought up bilingually in Dutch and English and also speaks French, German and Spanish.
Educated at Caldicott, a minor Preparatory school, among whose alumni is the England cricket Andrew Strauss. Nick went to the Westminster School, one of the most outstanding private (public) schools in the UK which a host of distinguished former pupils including six holders of the Victoria Cross. As a 16 year old exchange student in Munich, he and a German friend burned a collection of cacti belonging to a Professor and let to a sentence of community service.
He attended Robinson College Cambridge reading Archaeology and Anthropology having a gap year as a Ski Instructor in Austria and as an office Junior in a Helsinki bank. He is reported according to Wikipedia to have been active in student theatre, the college tennis team captain and a campaigner for the survival of indigenous people. It has been claimed that he was also a member of the University Conservative Association although he claims he has no recollection of this. He spent a year at the University of Minnesota writing about the Deep Green Movement which seems to be a mixture of radical environmentalism and anarcho-primitivism- a socio political concept (My art work is anarcho primitivism). He worked in New York for a left wing magazine and then to Brussels for the G24 coordination unit. He then took a second Master’s degree at the University of Europe in Bruges where he met his future wife.
The winner of the Financial Times David Thomas Prize, he went to Hungry writing about mass privatisation of industries in the former communist bloc. He then worked for European Commission for two years with a role on providing aid to central Asia and Russia and then worked for Trade Commissioner Leon Britain as a policy adviser and speech writer and headed an EC team negotiating on and Russian accession talks to the World Trade Organisation.
Nick therefore makes no pretence of having a common background or being a common man. This is suggested will spell more of a problem for David Cameron whose Eton, Oxbridge, Bullingdon boy background is anathema to the working class and democrats whereas Nick’s background will be regarded as interesting rather than patrician.
In 1999 he was selected as the lead European candidate for the Liberal Democrats and was tipped as a future leading politician by Paddy Ashdown. He was elected the first Liberal Politician at Parliamentary level since 1931 in the East Midlands. He converted a Conservative MEP to Liberal Party and supported his candidature to replace him in the European Parliament when he decided to switch to Westminster. Before departure he worked closely with the Greens and with others on broad environmental legislation and co founded a campaign for reform of the EEC, including on Expenses. However his expenses record at Westminster is questionable where it is said he claimed the maximums possible but was only required to repay a small sum of £80 in relation to some international phone calls.
Leaving his MEP post he took up consultancy work with the E.C and then a part time post at Sheffield University in politics where he was adopted as the Lib Dem candidate for Sheffield Hallam. Immediately on winning the seat he became Liberal Spokesman on Europe. A year later he was in the frame as replacement Party Leader for Charles Kennedy but supported the winner Sir Menzies Campbell and became the Home Affairs spokesman proposing a Freedom Bill following the hardening of the government’s approach to civil liberties because of the terrorist threat. Since becoming leader he has campaigned on civil liberties, environmental protection and devolution of power, especially within the public services.
Winning the leadership content in 2007 following the forced retirement of Sir Menzies, his championing of the role of the cross party popular Vincent Cable and asking his rival Chris Huhne to become front bench spokesman on home affairs created a formidable team which could now form the basis of a Liberal momentum if the surge became a political Tsunami which is not beyond all possibility because of anger at the expenses scandal and the speculators and bankers, fear of higher taxes, wages freezes and cuts in public services and wanting revenge on the Labour and Conservatives politicians who have held power since World War II.
Certainly such a movement would mark a dramatic change in British political life. Over the past three years the electoral fortunes of the Liberal Democrats have been mixed with some gains but also losses and despite one poll in 2008 local government elections placing his party above Labour they have remained third with 19 to 20%, thus retaining their sixty seats although in terms of votes they would obtain over 100 under proportional representation. No one including me, or I believe Mr Clegg and his party, anticipated the impact of his appearance in the first three leader TV show. The British tend to be Conservative in their political attitudes, going for the safe middle ground so a jump of 10 points from their recent average is extraordinary.
The approach of the Labour and Conservative political machines will be to claim that the Liberal manifesto is full of unrealistic ideals, only put forward to win votes but where the Party knows it will not be required to implement.
I anticipate that faced with policies which appeal to the public in addition to having the most human and likeable personality of the three main Party leaders, the back room spinners and black ops men will draw attention to the Catholicism, the pro Europeanism and the agnosticism, on the basis that there are strong anti Catholic, anti European and pro Christian feelings among large sections of the voting public.
Similarly having a non English wife and mixed nationality background will be mentioned in such a way to imply a lack of patriotism, something we have seen already with the Liberal Democrat commitment not to renew the Trident missile system and Sunday‘s Daily Mail. Politics can be ruthless and dirty and faced with an unexpected defeat the Tory dark side will now come to the fore.
It will be more problematic for the Labour Party who presently can expect the Lib Dem poll surge to adversely affect the Tory Party more than Labour, however should the surge develop momentum then Labour could begin to fear melt down. The main use of playing on prejudices will come from the extreme right although the Conservatives will hope to also be the beneficiaries of any fall away of the Lib Dem Momentum.
Having planned to begin with a close at the Conservative Manifesto this week before that of the Government, I will instead cover the 2010 Manifesto of the Liberal Democratic party. But first a political health warning. The idea that the bulk of the British electorate reads the manifestos and this makes a difference to the final result is not borne out by past facts. People go for change in the narrow sense of liking or disliking someone. They are also in a mood for revenge on the Labour and Conservative Parties
The headline address of Mr Clegg argues it is time for something different and something better. This is my first question mark. Do we need something fundamental different to the basic British political system which ran an Empire and since World War II has enabled the UK to punch significantly above its weight in International affairs and developing and maintaining a leading economy despite the dramatic changes in manufacturing production worldwide with the loss of shipbuilding and coal excavation and the radical reduction in steel production. We have achieved this remarkable repositioning by embracing capitalism, making London a centre for money, with strong governments, and a solid a political civil service.
This is not say that major changes are not needed. There is need to create a more democratic second chamber predominantly elected but allowing for direct appointments to bring in key people and specialists into government and opposition. There is also considerable value in having so called cross benchers, those here to make a contribution to the national welfare rather than to represent a political party. A second chamber cannot just be the mirror of the first but a place with less emphasis on the party politics and more on knowledge, expertise, experience and the broad national interest.
I would go further than eliminating hereditary peerage from the House of Lords, and abolish those who wish to maintain their titles from holding any form of public funded office. Similarly it is time to abolish the Orders of British Empire and other outdate awards for simply doing a job well over a long period, but I remain in favour of recognising service and exceptional effort.
I would also love to break down the international capitalist system which effectively has controlled British governments since the first Thatcher administration but on this I am not a unilateralist, and there would have to be a world wide movement among the major economic powers if the UK is not quickly TO slide from our position of comparative wealth into a dependent poor relation with mass unemployment which would only lead to increasing crime and corruption and further inroads to civil privileges. I am therefore in favour of change, but it has to be evolutionary, carefully considered, planned, and its implementation closely monitored and evaluated.
Everyone would like to do better, the main objective of the Liberal Democratic Party but one does not want geographic lotteries by breaking down attempts to set standards, levels and access to services and in opportunities across the UK, and in England in particular, id Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales want to set their own, ensuring these do not fall below a certain level and attempting to raise them for everyone. This is more of an art than a science where the need for some uniformity has to be balanced with flexibility to meet individual circumstances, and the need for openness and accurate reporting has to be balanced with avoiding excessive form filling and negative bureaucracies.
The Tory party and tended to veer towards dangerous deregulation and the Labour Party excessive control and monitory so a Liberal Democratic balance could be a good thing.
The nature of government in the complex interacting and interdependent planet earth world of today is such that. There will always be mistake and decisions, policies, and legislation which does not work out as intended, because of individual and local variations in practice, changed circumstances and new knowledge.
The core accusation against the Labour Administration is that it has allowed the richer to increase their wealth at a faster rate than general improvements in living standards for the rest of us and failed to impact on the underclass, despite concentrating on services for pre-school children, widening higher education, major improvements in aspects of the national health service and introducing a range of support measures for the elderly in general and older sick and disabled as well as attempt to remove children from living in poverty. However all politicians who seeking instant solutions and results within the electoral time table have failed to address the long term deep rooted issues such as petty crime, addictions, single teenage pregnancies, and disrespect for those in positions of authority which require the concentration of disproportionate resources over prolonged periods. The public behaviour of politicians and those holding public office, tax avoidance, excessive remunerations in cash and kind have contributed to this situation which continues to manifest itself in various forms from bullying at school and work, violence and terrorism associated with some sports, primarily football, a knife and gun culture on some housing estates and areas. The white middle and upper class male supported slavery, was strongly anti feminist, racists, anti child care and ignorant and at times perverted on sexual matters, all of which tends to have an increasing negative social impact down the social order and has become particularly obnoxious among white trash although no politician would use such a term without being specific
The Liberal Manifesto concentrates on four main proposals during the life of a first Lib Dem administration. The first appeals to the financial pockets of the majority. A change in the way income tax presently operates would remove substantially more people than usual from paying any income tax and most people would pay £700 less a year. The lost revenue to be replaced by direct action to stop the rich avoiding their taxation duties. This is excellent basic socialism discarded by the Labour Party when it comprehensively embraced international capitalism in 1997. The question is could a Liberal administration deliver on such a redistribution or would it be a case of giving with one hand while taking in another, involving damaging cuts in existing services or increases in VAT?
The second core proposal is to cut class sizes, especially in low performance schools and to give more freedom to schools. In my experience these are two incompatible objectives. The only way to ensure minimum standards while encouraging good performance is through standard setting, inspections and close monitoring and penalties for failures. Good standards are more related to good teachers and this is about the quality of selection and training, public respects and recognition. If you dismantle the controls and monitoring and delegate too much power locally you will see a widening gulf in standards, including an increase in those misusing position, fraud and corruption. Everyone should learn from the deregulation of banking.
Under a Fair future there are proposals to break up the banks, which gets my vote as well as concentrating on investment in green growth and jobs. In relation to honesty about tough choices needed to cut the deficit I say amen, except that everything should be done to make those who caused the problem to pay most. Labour has failed in this respect and it is difficult to take Tory proposals seriously.
The final area is the clean up of politics giving public in a constituency the right to sack their Member of Parliament in specific circumstances. Good. A Freedom Bill to protect long establish civil privileges. I am cautious about using the word Rights but the development of digital technology and surveillance has enabled significant misuses and untended controls which have undermined valued social privileges.
I am also cautious when politicians talk about party values and moral issues because it is difficulty to apply them when in government, Take the concept of fairness. To be fair to someone or some group usually means unfairness to someone else or group, One cannot be fair without being unfair.
I have argued throughout most of my adult life that there are five issues upon which all governments should be judge in an order of my preferences and priority which I appreciate others will not share. The first is national security. Everything should be done to prevent citizens being attacked going about their daily lives whether by other governments, or individual home or externally based. I have not problem with governments matching and exceeding the tactics, methods and intelligence of those posing actual threats and this includes the provision of appropriate military and other defence services. War is bloody and democratic governments have a duty to be even bloodier back although always aware that the means can become the end and that if you use methods blow previously acceptable standards you increasing become more like your enemy. Included in this priority is stopping home grown terrorism whether bullying in schools, youth gang crime on estates and manslaughter through dangerous driving
Secondly and thirdly, it is the responsibility of all governments to give priority to the provision of adequate food and shelter. I am concerned about our increasing dependence on other nations for food and energy and our failure to ensure that everyone has accommodation above the minimum level.
Fourthly, everyone should have the opportunity to provide for themselves rather than be dependent on the state. However I not in favour of slave labour in any of its forms.
The fifth is best described as freedom to, rather than freedom from. The ability of everyone to have the opportunity to live as they would like as long as this does not adversely affect the ability of anyone else to do so similarly.
I am not democratic or a socialist in the sense of everyone being and having the same as everyone else or everyone being involved in the organisation and running of the societies in which I live. You can decide things and run things for me as long as I can do my thing my way.
Now the details of the Liberal Democratic Party 100 page document. I make no attempt to summary or provide a comprehensive or balance view. I state what I like and what I don’t and what interests me
Under the section - Your money I agree it is wrong that the poorest fifth, pay a greater proportion of their income in tax than the richest fifth when the emphasis should be the other way round. This is being unfair to the rich, I want to be unfair to the rich.
I also agree that if air travel is the worst cause of air pollution it should be taxed greater than other forms of travel until the balance can be achieved offsetting any pollution.
I am also in favour of restoring the link between pensions and earnings in terms of annual increases because usually those on fixed incomes find that their increases does not match the increase in inflation.
I am concerned about people having to sell homes they have mortgaged to buy to pay for care and the same applies for those who have worked hard to develop business which employ people using their own capital having to be sold to cover death duties.
In the short term the rich must pay a greater proportion of their capital and income to achieve a greater balancing of national income and national expenditure including national debt. I do not accept that this approach will automatically discourage business and other initiatives but this is a factor which requires proper examination to avoid the Lord giveth with one hand and taketh with the other.
I like proposal of a mansion tax at values over £2million, There is a small industry working out how to offset all tax evasion and avoidance measures which needs to be stopped. However there has to be renewed confidence that taxes are well used in the interests of the majority. I do not to understand why the proposal to limit non domiciled tax to after seven years. Why not three or one?
The Manifesto explains that that the Party has identified £15 billions of reductions of which an additional expenditure of £5 billion is to be used on new developments. This leaves about £30 billion to be found from 2011 2012
Nine immediate political decisions are listen to achieve the £15billion which includes a ceiling on public sector pay rises. However this is unacceptable to me without a similar ceiling on the private sector for to do otherwise is unfair making those working in the public sector second class citizens. Similarly the statement cutting back on burdensome regulations of local authorities should not mean any reduction in inspection, monitoring or minimum standard setting.
I am fully in favour of the proposal to stop like for like replacement of Trident at an estimated saving of £100 billion. This is important beyond financial savings.
I am concerned about proposals for yet another attack on the pension scheme for public sector workers, although I am favour of an equalizing scheme which would bring public sector pay and pensions on the same footing as those in the private sector, like for like. I like the idea of extending the Winter Fuel payments to all severely disabled people of adult age offset by raising the age limit to 65 except for those 60-65 who are recipients of the Pension credit. This is been mistakenly interpreted at restricting the payment to only those on Pension Credit above 65.
I also like the proposals the proposals to give priority to creating and sustaining jobs in a green based economy. It is natural to distrust Conservative intentions to reform and control the banking system and to point out the failure of the Labour administration to date, in part because it and any government need to maintain the British financial system and standing which is such a vital part of our economy. The Labour emphasis on demanding an international approach is understandable to a point but there is a risk that it is a cop out in confronting those who lead the banks in the UK. Sometimes a unilateral approach gives others the confidence to follow.
The Lib Dem proposal is to create 100000 additional carbon neutral jobs at a cost of £3.1billion . £400 million is to refurbish shipyards in North England and Scotland to build off shore wind turbines and other renewable marine equipment is very interesting. There are also proposals to bring 250000 empty properties into use with energy friendly renovation grants if the home is for social use and for education establishments to become more energy efficient, plus £140 million for replacing old high pollution buses with new accessible low carbon ones.
I am also impressed with the proposal to develop Cooperatives, Mutuals and other Social Enterprises with legislation to bring the law up to-date, to turn Northern Rock back to a Building Society and to provide a future for the Royal Mail and the Post office. One other proposal which attracted was the protection of Government advisers from inappropriate political pressure.
There are also proposals to create work placement and apprenticeship schemes. There is also a raft of proposals to assist businesses but also ensuring they business meets its environmental and social duties, and makes them public through the annual reporting system. I have no means to evaluate a number of the proposals and it will be interesting to learn the reaction of both small and large businesses.
Proposals related to working conditions are unlikely to be supported by employers because of their emphasis on extending protection, fairness, flexibility and non discriminations, I like the requirement for all remunerations to the value of £200000 to be published in full, and hopefully this should include benefits in kind.
The section your life includes the proposal already mentioned in relation to class sizes and a raft of other measures all of which sound good but many are difficult to impossible for government policy or action to achieve such as the improvement of discipline in schools and more action in relation to bullying. These are problems arising from the hardening of the underclass, the understandable but regrettable changes in public attitudes towards those in authority who have found too many men, a few women to be made of straw.
I am interested in the proposal for a fully independent Educational Standards Authority to overseas standards inspections and examinations systems and replace existing bodies including Offsted. Sounds good but my experience is that completely new things often take longer than anticipated to begin to be effective and rarely better than what when on before if they rely too much on the same staff and do not have a new specialist, well trained and hand picked leadership management team.
Similarly there are some good sound proposals to encourage and enhance the best schools and the best teachers to ensure they keep going, which from my experience is not the primary issue for them, as in any activity. The problem is to help the less successful to improve and sustain the average on whom the service for everyone is dependent. This does mean good management and leadership within schools.
I will highlight a proposal to deal with the issue of tuition fees for first time degrees and abolish them over a period of six years, scrapping hose for the final year of a first degree. I also like the proposal to create a more flexible National Bursary scheme. The immediate job creation proposals in relation to of the job costs of adult apprenticeships and additional Foundation Degree courses is also welcome.
I also welcome radical proposals to reduce the size of the Department of Health, to abolish Strategic Health Authorities and bring the salary structure to more realistic levels.
I an fully behind the proposal for full integration of health and social care for adults. I also fully behind the proposal to create all party approach to establishing a long tern plan for the care of the elderly as long as the emphasis is on care in the community. The proposal to give greater support to careers and to give individuals and their carers greater control over budgets and care solution is also commendable. There are also good moves to further improve relationships, choices, roles and services provided by General Practitioners
The is good attention towards government involvement in sports and leisure where it is anticipated there will major reduction, especially after the 2012 Olympics.
In relation to the family the main emphasise is on the immediate change to income tax with maintaining the present level of child care. I also liked giving parents the option of how they use maternity and paternity leave between them. support arrangements with the long term intention of providing every child over 18 months with 20 hours a week of free child care. The party also shares with other Parties support for various measures to end child poverty in the UK, support international agreement of the rights of children, on reducing child maltreatment, including detention of children for emigration purposes. I also like the proposal to make it a right for both parents to have the actual care of a child if there is no threat to the safety of a child.
There are no immediate major changes to the position of the elderly other than the application of the new income tax scheme and the link between pensions and national increases in average earnings. I have question marks about the retention of the free TV licneces for over 75‘s the national cocnessary travel scheme and the Winter Fuel allowances which are all vulnerable when the government of the day face up to reducing the national debt.
An important proposal is to make energy supplies that the first band of energy use is always the chepest. Also the fixing of a maximum interest rates on credit and store cards. They also plan a reduction in rail fares and require airlines to be honest about the actual cost of the fares charged. There is a commitment to regulate car parking and stop private sector wheel clamping. They will end testing household products on animals although this falls short of those would like to see an end of the use of aniamls in the testing for any products and purposes other than in finding new solutions to improve theri welfare.
The Party rejects a new generation of nuclear power stations about which I have an open mid. The party gives priority to working with the EU to develop international agreements to deal with the adverse effects of climate change.
There appears to been a down play of the Lib Dem approach in matters of International relations other than on meeting the effects of clinmate change. My personal view is the UK should only get involvd with other nations to protect and further its domestic and trading relationships.
The proposal to add another 3000 police officers on the beat sounds good but the police need to be targeted towards prevention and detection of crimes more than addressing the fear of crime. I like the idea of direct election of police authorities and the stop on request of night buses along their routes. On penal matters the proposals to move drug addicts and mentally ill criminals into more appropriate secure accommodation and reduce short term imprisonment are also welcome I have an open mind about restorartive justice measures. I have always felt the the maxim - the punishment should fit the crime is a partial truth, There is need for for better screening of convicted people to ensure they get the right sentence. Some need to be locked up and away from the rest of society for as long as possible, with some indefinitely, and need close monitoring if released. Others should not be sent to some forms of contemporary imprisonment unless there are the resources for the provision of education, training and effective prepration for release and after care.
I support the Liberal Dem approach to immigration issues with the need for an effective National Force who provide effective exit as well as entry controls. I like the idea of an indepednent agency for dealing with asylum applications. In my view the proposal to increase the number of branch lines and local services is better than putting funds into high speed links unless there is funding to do both. The development of local tram and metro systems such as in Croydon, Nottingham and Tyne and Wear should be extended. I like the proposal to restrict the growth of aviation and the present halt on flights because of the Iceland Volcano eruptiosn could be a blessing in disguise. The expansion of British Airports should be postponed and the cheap package holiday flights should be discouraged. There are excellent measures in relation to use of the countryside, water management and I noted the proposal to stop new property building in major flood risk areas. The proposal to put obstacles on the purchase of second homes in rural communities is good. I would like to see a British Governments to fight harder to protect British agriculture and fishing for with an increasing population we need to ensure we are not dependent on non British sources for food and energy.
In my view The English in particular have become quite content with letting those who wish to do to run democracy by standing for election and participating in party political system, as long as they can do their thing their way and those who do the job act responsible and maintain the same standards and laws they require the rest of us to follow. They are not all frustrated at their lack of individual involvement until doing things their way is affected in some adverse way.
The main constitutional change proposed by the Lib Dems is the introduction of proportional representation which some commentators and pollsters claim would lead no Political party having a majority of seats and to frequent changes of government because of the inability to get legislation through Parliament. I am not sure that this would be bad thing even if such a situation were to develop. The objections are in fact misguided and borne of the two main parties who feared this would lead to the Liberal Democrats gaining seats to reflect the votes cast for them nationally. I supported the proposal of the rime Minister to move to a system which ensure that every elected member of the House of Commons commanded over 50% of those voting. I am also in favour of fixed term Parliaments and a written constitution although this might take more than one Parliament to reach agreement. I am particularly in favour of extended Freedom of information to Private companies delivering monopoly public services such as British Rail. I have reservations about lowering the voting age to sixteen in general although I would immediately extend to those joining the armed and emergency public services.
Having said that I do not feel strongly about being given more power to run things or having more of a direct through referendums and such like I am fully in favour of elected boards for the NHS and Police service. I am totally opposed to the scrapping of Government inspection units on local authorities. I also like the concept of a Freedom Bill and wait to see the details. I remain in favour of identity cards.
The Liberal Democratic Manifesto also sets out the projected costs and savings of their programme.
I am struck by how little I disagree with compared to what I agree with. I have not yet read the Labour or Conservative Manifesto’s
No comments:
Post a Comment