Liberal Burblings

Archive for October, 2009

There’s an excellent article on Afghanistan in today’s Independent from Paddy Ashdown.

I have also been impressed by the wisdom of US Vice-President Joe Biden as described in Newsweek:

Joe Biden had a question. During a long Sunday meeting with President Obama and top national-security advisers on Sept. 13, the VP interjected, “Can I just clarify a factual point? How much will we spend this year on Afghanistan?” Someone provided the figure: $65 billion. “And how much will we spend on Pakistan?” Another figure was supplied: $2.25 billion. “Well, by my calculations that’s a 30-to-1 ratio in favor of Afghanistan. So I have a question. Al Qaeda is almost all in Pakistan, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. And yet for every dollar we’re spending in Pakistan, we’re spending $30 in Afghanistan. Does that make strategic sense?” The White House Situation Room fell silent. But the questions had their desired effect: those gathered began putting more thought into Pakistan as the key theater in the region.

I am personally very happy for Chris Rennard on the news that the Clerk of the Palriaments (presumably someone who wears stockings to work) has cleared him of any wrong-doing over his expenses/allowances. Chris didn’t deserve this cloud hanging over him.

Looking at the Lords situation generally, however, it appears that the expenses/allowances rules are/were even vaguer than those in the Commons. That really is saying something….

As regards the Liberal Democrat party, I think Stephen Tall is right in his LDV piece: “Rennard’s expenses clearance: Party needs to learn some lessons in transparency“. The silence of the Fedex was deafening. The party seemed to be just keeping schtum and hoping the problem would go away.

I thought the Fedex commissioned some sort of independent audit of the LibDem Lords’ expenses, didn’t they? In which case what happened to that?

All this has convinced me that no expenses or allowances should be paid to any parliamentarians apart from the normal travel expenses and hotel expenses that would be paid to most employees in business.

We need to completely wipe clean the House of Lords, in terms of membership, and start with an entirely fresh set of senators. A Senate! Crikey! That’s revolutionary isn’t it?!!!! How on earth will the country survive the shock!!!!!!!! Noone’s ever done that before have they????!!! No wigs! How awful! It’s just not British! [Stamps little foot]

Those Senators should be elected under the understanding that they will only receive travel and hotel expenses on the production of receipts and that they will not receive allowances. If they don’t like it then they shouldn’t stand for election.

Ditto the Commons. Any accomodation for MPs in London should either be hotel stays reimbursed with the production of a receipt or state-owned accomodation with state-owned furniture. If MPs don’t like it then they can sod off and get another job.

It really is the time to stop faffing around and get on with properly reforming our system pdq.

I’ve complained twice to the PCC about the Jan Moir article, and complained to the Daily Mail editor. I also strongly believe that now is the time for the PCC to become much more independent. Imagine my shock when I discovered that the person I was complaining to at the Daily Mail – the editor in chief, Paul Dacre – is also chairman of the PCC’s Code of Conduct committee! That can’t be right. Surely it is not rocket science to have some independent press experts on PCC panels, is it? They don’t have to be currently engaged with vested interests in particular newspapers. It’s ridiculous.

Having said all that, I do think a couple of things ought to be said to put the Jan Moir article in context; vile and disgusting though it was.

Firstly, I really think that articles in newspapers should be seen in the context of the regular readership of those newspapers. I have no idea how many regular Daily Mail or Mail Online readers complained to the PCC about the article. However, I suspect it was a relatively small proportion of the 25,000 complainants. Why does that matter? Well, regular readers do actually read other articles in the paper over time. The output of a newspaper should not be judged by one article alone (and, yes, I realise that the whole output of the Daily Mail is regularly offensive, but also bear in mind that the vast majority of the Daily Mail’s output is actually benign tosh about celebrities and sport. Fred Basset, anyone?)

Which brings me to my second point. They were perhaps closing the stable door after the horse had bolted, but at least the Mail did feature an article yesterday from another of its regular columnists, Janet Street-Porter, who at least provides a small progressive voice within the paper’s output. Her article on the Jan Moir article, the Stephen Gately death and “gay bashing” incidents in general is well worth reading. It’s called “Being gay killed a man last week – and he wasn’t Stephen Gately“:

I was astonished to read in Jan Moir’s column last Friday that his death ‘strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships’, and ‘under the carapace of glittering hedonistic celebrity, the ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see’.

What exactly was bothering Jan? The fact Stephen was gay, the fact he was in a civil partnership, or the fact that he or his partner might have enjoyed sex with someone they had just met?

I don’t think that gay men all behave in the same way – there are as many varieties of relationships within the gay community as there are in the straight one.

Civil Partnerships are just that – they are not marriages. And let’s not forget, whether Jan likes it or not, they have been enshrined in law by our democratically elected parliament.

If Stephen and his partner went to a nightclub and returned to their flat with another man, is it really any of our business?

Fact – Stephen Gately died of natural causes, not from guilt. It’s not as if extra-marital sex is unusual in our society.

Yesterday I was privileged to give a lift to a former Royal Marine called Dave from Leicestershire. It all happened in a strange way. Starting on a journey “oop nawth” I was seized with guilt as to when my next MOT is due. So I stopped in a parking lay-by on the A34 to get out the handbook to check on it (typically for me, I was being over-panicky – it’s not due until next April). As I drew up to the lay-by I noticed what I thought was a tramp walking along the verge behind (who else walks along the verge?). However, as I went to leave the lay-by I noticed that the fellow was waving one of those trade registration plates and looked clean-cut, so I thought “What the hell?” and gave him a lift.

It turned out that he had got a lift with some people who, on discovering that he had served in the armed forces, had started strongly haranguing him. He then suggested that they drop him at the next junction. However, they then abruptly stopped the car and dropped him unceremoniously on the verge in the middle of nowhere. So I felt a warm feeling on finding out that I had helped this fellow out when he was in quite a predicament.

Anyway, this former Marine Dave did his bit by keeping me alert with a remarkably fascinating commentary on wars, famous figures including Churchill (hero) and Blair (zero – both Ian and Tony). He was particularly passionate and engaging about the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting.

Suffice it to say that I have rarely met such a fair-minded person with such a passion for tolerance and doing things the “right way”. He had particular disgust for indiscriminate killings in wars and lies told by politicians.

The reason for regaling my reader with this tale is that Dave’s views brought home to me how it is quite wrong to try to generalise the views of the armed forces and therefore both ridiculous and disgusting for the BNP to try to hijack images of the armed forces for its campaigns.

It is even more ridiculous for them to use images of Winston Churchill. – Someone who joined the army in Queen Victoria’s reign and who has been dead for 44 years. And they, the BNP, say that he would support them if he was alive today.

They must be desperate.

Put simply, Nick Griffin isn’t fit to polish the boots of Winston Churchill.

The first Briton to succeed another Briton as Formula 1 World Champion! After all these years struggling down the grid!

From the BBC:

1836: Button takes both hands off the wheel and punches the air in abandoned delight. “Get in there Jenson, well done, awesome job,” comes the message from Brawn. The response begins with a song: “We are the champions my friends… Woo-hoo-hoo-hoo. We are world champions. WORLD CHAMPIONS. Woo!”

1836: JENSON BUTTON IS THE 2009 WORLD CHAMPION

A goal scored by a beach ball (which was loose on the pitch) for Sunderland against Liverpool yesterday. It’s certainly a first. It seems unbelievable that the referee allowed it. The Guardian comments:

Under the laws of the game the beachball, which bore a Liverpool crest, should have been considered an outside agent, which, whether an errant inflatable, plastic bag or yorkshire terrier, should bring a drop-ball if struck by the match ball. The referee, Mike Jones, despite seemingly having a clear view of the incident, allowed the goal to stand, however.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7Qu7FjxUQ8&hl=en&fs=1&]