Liberal Burblings

Archive for October, 2007

Only on Saturday night, Iain Dale wrote:

Brown to Spotlight Immigration in Bid to Woo Back Middle England

A reader tips me off that according to a government minister he spoke to tonight, Gordon Brown sees immigration as the issue which will set him back on the straight and narrow. He will be making a big speech on it in the next couple of weeks. Apparently he’s been on the phone to Michael Howard tonight asking to borrow his dog whistle.

It seems that David Cameron beat him to the dog whistle.

The Guardian:

David Cameron’s alleged off-the-cuff remarks about “one-legged Lithuanian lesbians” at a recent arts funding lunch have caused outrage in Lithuania, and a complaint from the country’s ambassador to the UK asking the Conservative leader to explain himself.

Thank you Will Howells for pointing this out. The BBC website says there are 286 English Labour MPs, plus 193 Tory, 47 LibDem and 2 other. That gives Labour a clear majority. That rather drives a coach and horses through Monsieur Robinson’s posting today, which was based on this question:

Wouldn’t (the English Grand Committee) proposal (if it were in operation now) mean that Gordon Brown had no Commons majority for Labour’s key priorities “schoolsnhospitals”?

Nick Robinson asks some very pithy questions about the Tory proposal for an English “Grand Committee” within the House of Commons:

Wouldn’t this proposal (if it were in operation now) mean that Gordon Brown had no Commons majority for Labour’s key priorities “schoolsnhospitals”?

• If I am right, would the new English “grand committee” with its Tory majority be able to impose Tory measures on Labour ministers?

• If so, wouldn’t Labour ministers refuse to implement what was passed or, in practice, seek to bypass MPs and make more and more changes by administrative fiat (more possible than you might think)?

• Is Sir Malcolm foreseeing a culture change in British politics whereby a Labour government could only pass those measures for which they could get Tory consent or build a coalition a little as Alex Salmond now has to do at Holyrood?

In fact, these questions highlight the absurdity of the current situation and suggest, to me, that it may be worth putting forward, for consideration by the populace, the idea of a proper English Assembly or Parliament, or proper directly elected English regional assemblies, as desired by the voters.

Once again, this debate highlights the stupidity of piecemeal tinkering with constitutional arrangements (although I acknowledge that the Rifkind proposal is part of a larger package). The only answer is to have a proper constitutional convention to tie up all the loose ends of the British constitution, not least our ridiculous First Past the Post system for Westminster. (LibDem Fave Rave #1 still available on 45 rpm disc).

Thank you Will Howells for pointing this out. The BBC website says there are 286 English Labour MPs, plus 193 Tory, 47 LibDem and 2 other. That gives Labour a clear majority. That rather drives a coach and horses through Monsieur Robinson’s posting today, which was based on this question:

Wouldn’t (the English Grand Committee) proposal (if it were in operation now) mean that Gordon Brown had no Commons majority for Labour’s key priorities “schoolsnhospitals”?

One of Gordon Brown’s proposals for constitutional reform set out on 2nd July this year was a “Commons committee for each English region”. (Indeed, the Liberal Democrats have long proposed a constitutional convention to sort out the “West Lothian question” amongst other points). That is not a million miles from the proposal today from the Conservatives for an English Grand Committee.

So I am a little baffled that the Conservatives are suddenly credited with a bright idea on this issue.

I am even more baffled as to why the government is dismissing the Tory idea and saying it would “break up the UK”.

Up until now the LibDem leadership contest could be called the “fag paper” election – it has been very difficult to put a fag paper between the two candidates on most issues and criteria.

Thank goodness we now have two major differences (one of emphasis) on matters of policy.

Duncan Borrowman points out that Chris Huhne (note please that I don’t call him “Chris”) has started putting real emphasis on the green agenda.

But the big difference which has emerged is on the totemic issue of Trident, as the Observer reports:

Liberal Democrat leadership contender Chris Huhne last night moved to seize the initiative from his front-running rival Nick Clegg by breaking with party policy on keeping Britain’s Trident nuclear missiles.

Huhne told The Observer it would be ‘ridiculous’ to spend up to £15bn updating the ageing submarine-based nuclear arsenal, describing it as a Cold War relic. He also argued this would risk further tying Britain to American policies, something he suggested should be avoided in the wake of the Iraq war.

The Mail on Sunday reports:

David Cameron was accused of a politically incorrect gaffe last night over a lighthearted remark he made about one-legged Lithuanians at a meeting with leading figures in the arts world.

Labour said the Tory leader was guilty of “crass insensitivity” after the comment, made at an Arts Council lunch on Tuesday, was leaked to The Mail on Sunday.

According to Arts Council sources, Mr Cameron told his hosts: “I hope you won’t be giving grants to too many one-legged Lithuanian lesbians,” prompting embarrassed looks all round.

It seems that Cameron may have borrowed Boris Johnson’s joke book.