Hitchens lands one for Saddam

Welcome to this week's guest blogger, 'eejit' - a voice of reason on the blog comment page - 'eejit' is not pulling any punches with his review of the titanic struggle between good vs evil from Canada (where else?).  

Not so much the Rumble in the Jungle or the Thriller in Manila, the atheistic hammer blow of Christopher Hitchens met God’s representative on earth, Tony Blair, in a heavyweight title fight at the , er, Roy Thompson Hall, sponsored by Canadian businessman Peter Munk.  Yes, the Peter Munk.  The Lurch in the Church? The Feeble up the Steeple?  At stake was God himself. Or herself. The braying masses demanded to know whether “Religion is a force for good in the world.”


It says something about the nightlife in Toronto that this yawn fest was selling tickets at $60 a shot, with touts asking $500. (What?.... Canadian dollars? ...Oh, right). But as students of this blog site know, nothing gets under the skin like a good religious debate.  What Munk has to do with it is anyone’s guess, as apparently he hasn’t taken holy orders, though he is thought to be descended from a munkey.  At this point of Advent, dear reader, you may feel inclined to agree with Wittgenstein and decide that of which you cannot know, you will remain silent.  But let us keep bu*gering on as Churchill would have said.


Hitchens will be well known to many as the Ayatollah of the New Atheist Mujahadeen, a cabal that includes Richard Dawkins, Philip Pullman, Steven Hawking and darling of the middle brow, Stephen Fry.  Blair needs no introduction, the rumours of his going down on his knees in front of, sorry, with George dubbya tell their own story and in between harvesting cheques for his various companies, Blair has founded a faith based foundation for world domination - PEACE, PEACE, PEACE, it’s peace ok?  


Reports suggest that the gloves weren't  completely off, with mutual respect and a subdued atmosphere.  Hitchens is undergoing treatment for oesophageal cancer and Blair’s conciliatory admission of doubts may have contributed to the mood.  Blair looked at the title of the debate with the eyes of the lawyer he is, arguing that religion,  despite the evil it causes, does some good, therefore it is a force for good. Hitchens gamely set out the case for the prosecution – rationalism, God as despot etc etc.  But it was not much better than going through the motions of a school debate.

The problem was in part the question; Blair’s answer would have cut little ice with theologians.  Do we hold God to a balance sheet?  This does not really begin to address the presence or absence of God, merely leading to the sort of answer the Spitting Image David Owen/Steele puppet might come up with – not no good or all good but something in between.


Let’s assume that none of the audience were fanatics (it was Canada) and that they respect the honestly held views of other intelligent people.  The question of whether there is a God does not seem to be the most important (there is or there isn’t, end of debate).  Nor do the religious members of audience believe in the literal truth of every word written in the religious text they choose.  We are therefore in the realms of the relative, the ambiguous, social, historical and political context.  A more interesting question would be does God care? Or put another way, do we believe in a God who intervenes?

Want to go extra large with that?

A good doctor is hard to find

I have a confession to make. I probably should have shared it with you sooner but...well we seemed to be getting along so well and I didn't want to spoil it - but it is something I think you should know. You see, my wife is a...GP. Oh dear, please stop booing. I know it must be a shock to many of you. How can I maintain any sense of integrity when I share a house with someone who brazenly treats the sick in exchange for money?

Surely no other profession has seen such a sharp turnaround in its public image. After all we never really expected anything but a clutching self-interest from the City - but doctors and GPs, in particular, were like secular saints. We expected so much more. They did not merely do a job - it was a vocation to assist the sick and listen to the mildly whingey. From Scotland's Dr Findlay to Eastenders' Dr Legg, GP's were seen as a force for good and a reassuring presence in the trials of our lives.

Gillian McKeith

Thanks to Dr Shipman that perception was severely damaged and the subsequent GP contract settlement and ensuing publicity fuelled by the Blair government, sank them further in the public mind. If you are a regular listener to Radio 2,4 or 5 you can not help but notice that they are subject to a drip-fed vilification. Only Gillian McKeith and Nick Clegg are now held in equally low esteem. Meanwhile, my wife and I toil on with the guilt of her vast wealth, compromised values and the aching question always in the back my mind, 'why didn't she do something worthwhile - like professional football?'

According to The Observer, since 1980, average GP income has risen from £12,480 to £78,366, a 627% increase. This is comparable to the 526% rise that police officers have received over the same period and 583% that nurses have received. In the private sector a bank clerk has seen a only a 409% increase in pay. So it would appear that the critics are right to attack the flabby and overpaid public sector. That is until you note that the average CEO of a FTSE 100 company has gone up from £85,000 to £4.9 million representing an astonishing 5700% increase. Does the performance of companies warrant such a rise? At the same time only £1 in every £100 taken by the 'fat cats' goes to public sector employees.

London 2010

Professor Dorling has noted in his book, 'Injustice: Why Social Inequality persists?' that  top one percent of this country now earn 18% of the country's income. In 1980 it was 4%. The last 30 years has seen the distribution of income return to what it was in 1918! Our levels of inequality are very close to those of the USA. Is that the model of society we wish to follow? During the boom a doctor's salary was 0.20% of the rewards received by top bankers. The very top surgeons could only hope to earn 0.5% of these City salary and bonuses. Even accounting for a public sector ethos, sense of duty or vocational calling is it right that some of our brightest and best should lag so far behind the private sector?

Will Hutton

Will Hutton, who is currently writing a report for the government on how to achieve fair pay in the public sector, noted in The Observer yesterday that 'there is already a dangerous talent gap below the current leadership across the public sector' as young people are drawn to the bright lights and possible rewards in the private sector. Talent is slipping away and with it - the long-term hopes of improving those services.

I have already addressed aspects of this issue in two previous posts* so I won't recap those arguments accept to say that even free market organisations now recognise that extreme income inequality is damaging to societies and to prospects for growth. Self -interest can be served by the vast majority of the population narrowing that gap. It is in this context that policy-makers, such as Will Hutton, are discussing the possibility of introducing a 'living wage' (£7.85 per hour) and / or capping the maximum full-time pay ratio to 20:1 in the public sector.

Many would argue that the relative rewards don't matter. After all, we have all grown much richer. The problem is that the public sector is in competition for the 'brightest and the best'. It is a market place and our doctors and top public servants had a choice about what career to pursue. I spent most of my 20s hanging out at a medical school in London. Compared to myself and the other rather uninspiring vocational students at City University, I was impressed by many of the qualities I saw.

As well as the usual medical school antics, these were highly motivated and extremely bright people. More importantly, almost all of the medics I knew had skills and interests which demonstrated how easily they could have followed other walks of life. Given the 'relatively' low wages, decreasing autonomy and constant criticism how much longer will our brightest young people see such public service as an attractive offer?

The leg bone's connected to the ...

Both Hutton and Dorling agree that it is essential to address the level of rewards in the private sector if any progress is to be made. Dorling suggests that one mechanism would be for the public sector to create ethical contracts and not employ any private sector company that does not pay a living wage or breaks the 20:1 pay ratio. By reducing excessive CEO pay the 'brain surgeon' is relatively better rewarded without any further costs. The alternative is a continual surge in top public salaries - which we can't afford - or else we accept that people just won't want to do the job. The controversial GP pay rise was a response to a massive shortage of GPs across the country. The pay increase solved the problem.

I think we will always have young people who will train as doctors. I just hope that it doesn't become their reserve option when the job at McDonalds falls through. Do want to go extra large with that coronary heart disease sir?

*http://canthingsonlygetbetter.blogspot.com/2010/11/this-blog-might-change-your-life.html

http://canthingsonlygetbetter.blogspot.com/2010/11/are-they-us-or-are-they-them.html

Let them eat more cake?

Conservative Party Policy Committee

In a daring move the Tories have appointed Marie Antoinette to lead the government's new policies on children's health. Antoinette, ex-Queen of France and dead for over 200 years, is seen as a surprise choice by many to lead on the implementation of the much vaunted 'Big Society' but Sir Spalding Bombast, Tory elder-statesman and Chairman of the 'Committee to Re-introduce Serfdom' commented, "We're very lucky to get her. I have met her and I am pleased to say the she utterly out of touch. Her lack of any experience in the real world and her complete belief in the 'divine-right' to rule means she is perfectly qualified to lead on Tory policy.

Although shaken by the recent student riots, her influence was felt immediately at the Tory HQ, Millbank, by her decision to install her lover, Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen in her offices and by implementing radical reforms on child health policies. First to face the guillotine is the £162 million School Sports Partnership Funding which is to be replaced with a kick-about in the park on Sunday morning and a proposal that X-Factor be on TV more often. Working for free and giving up your time is no longer enough in Antoinette's version of the 'Big Society'. From now on the network of 200,000 volunteers that the SSPF created and supported will be forced to pay for all the equipment and transport costs if they want the activities to continue.

International athlete Ronald McDonald

Since 2005, when the funding was introduced, the number of children doing more than two hours of sport a week has risen from about 25% to more than 90% and one million more children are now playing competitive sport than in 1997. However, in the Commons, Antoinette's courtiers, Old Etonian, David Cameron and the Comte de Unctuous, Michael Gove, were on the attack. Cameron highlighted the numbers participating in the Eton wall-game, real tennis and beagling had actually declined during this period. He made it perfectly clear that he was not prepared to stand by and continue a successful initiative implemented under Labour. Meanwhile Gove promised the nation a return to tradition Tory values "emphasising competitive team sports". He promised that "every child will get the physical education they deserve." Given the Tories previous record on selling off school playing fields - 5000 between 1981 and 1997 - can we assume that we'll see a rise in tiddlywinks in the state sector?

The genius and 'joined-up thinking' of Antoinette's influence, however, can be seen by her decision to allow Pepsi, KFC and McDonalds to decide government health policy. One in five children start their school life overweight or obese and for the first time Marks and Spencer has launched a range of out-sized schoolwear to cater for them. Such children face an increased risk of health problems such as type 2 diabetes, cancer, heart disease, joint and foot problems, as well as psychological problems. In the circumstances it is a natural choice to get these highly respectable companies who caused the problem to tell us how to solve the problem.

Smoking is good for you

The cuts in sport for schools and the input of fast-food on health can mean only one thing. In these austere times we are all living too long and costing the state far too much as we grow old. The logical conclusion is that a large proportion of us should die younger. Perhaps only Antoinette - with a complete indifference to the quality of her subject's lives would have the insight and political bravery to push forward such bold proposals. There is a level of spin of which even Alastair Campbell would be proud. When the Tories say 'Big Society' - what they really mean is a much smaller one.

Thank goodness we have a Prime Minister, who like King Herod, does not mind another slaughter of the innocents.

Archbishop of Canterbury and Elvis

What is happening to the Church of England? Last week, I went along to Bath Abbey to listen to my first carol service of the year. It was a celebration by local primary schools to coincide with the annual 'Christmas' market in Bath. I managed to avoid the lightening bolts, but what did strike me was the fact that it was only 25th November. I live in a world where my local hotel gets a Christmas tree in the window in October and where the major supermarkets start getting the yuletide logs on the shelf in September, but the dear old C of E overturning tradition for the sake of commercial interests took me back a little. It wasn't even Advent.

"I don't mind a bit of God in my Christmas celebrations." I was on the back foot and defending the very religious advent calender I had bought for the children. "I thought it was rather pretty and when you put a light behind it there is a stained glass effect." Sounds terrible doesn't it? It's the Catholic in me and Catholics love kitsch. Lourdes makes Elvis's 'jungle room' at Graceland look positively restrained. Meanwhile my wife accepted my position with typical grace, her shoulders barely sagging under the weight of another one of my philosophical positions. Still, the unspoken refrain echoed around the dinner table, "WHERE'S THE CHOCOLATE, DAD?"

Now, in my book, and this might come as a shock to many of you, Christmas is not just about chocolate. "What's Christmas about?" I asked my nine year old daughter.  "Christmas is about presents, making people happy, but not God (she volunteered without any prompting), unless it is to go to Church to get one of those orange things and see our friends." I think she meant the Christingle orange that all the children receive at the Christmas Eve service we attend. The candle and attached sweets are a great attraction to small children. I brushed aside a proud humanist tear.

My Christmas present

So why Church? Each year I have visions of friends and family singing carols around the piano and the children satisfied with one of my old football socks stuffed with a tangerine and some walnuts. Then I remember that I'm not Bob Cratchit, but instead, a rather self-indulgent 40 year old who likes a present or two himself - I'm still holding out for a yacht. However, more than the gifts, what makes Christmas special for most of us, I suspect, is we all have a variety of routines and family traditions providing a sense of reassurance that, quite simply, we are not alone.

Church and carol services are a pretty important part of the Christmas experience. For most, it will be the only visit to Church all year, but, there is no doubt that Christmas would not be the same for us and many friends, without carols, possibly a moment of collective reflection, followed by a beer and some laughter. We might not believe in God, but Church still provides one of the rare occasions when the community comes together. Perhaps, that is why despite losing my religious faith many years ago, I have maintained a great belief in acts of collective worship.

I don't think that is as hypocritical as it sounds. Ritual is pretty important to human-beings. All known societies have practised rituals and although they serve a variety of purposes, spiritual, emotional or contemplative - they almost always strengthen social bonds between people. Not long ago that was vital to survival but in our individualistic age perhaps it is more important to our psychological well-being. Communal activity is intrinsically satisfying. Whether it is chanting at a football match or singing at a carol service we feel better for it.

Can that justify the Abbey holding a carol service in November? Please follow me over the pond. While Christianity has been in steady decline in Europe, the USA has seen a blossoming of Christian Churches. Research strongly suggests that one of the reasons for this success has been their willingness to embrace market forces. That means that instead of a limited number of denominations being tied to rigid teachings like in Europe, a huge variety of Churches have emerged in the US to cater for the wide range of tastes and attitudes. In other words, if you want to express a form of Christian spirituality then there is a flavour to suit you. It's the perfect market.

The market mechanism can extend into the service. I have been told by a preacher in Memphis that if I gave his Church $10 then he would pray and something good would happen to me but if I gave him $100 then something really good would happen to me. I stuck with the $10 and had a very nice meal that night. In these market driven times that might be the sort of deal that would attract more people to Church. It seems that people aren't prepared to pay tax these days unless they receive an obvious and tangible benefit to themselves, so perhaps the Reverend Al Green's Church in Memphis is showing our old 'stuck in the mud' C of E the light. Hallelujah brothers and sisters!

So instead of driving the money lenders out of the Temple, perhaps the Archbishop of Canterbury is slowly welcoming them back in. Those packed churches must be both joyful and rather melancholy occasions for the hard-working Vicars as they see their audience ebb away for another year. What price would they pay to have full Churches? If only it could be Christmas every week. Well in Bath they have started the process. Carols in November, what a great way to improve attendances. Why stop there? October, September...

After all, in 1747, when Bishop Johannes de Watteville invented the Christingle orange, did he really think the children would be more interested in the symbolism than the attached treats? I don't think so. He was just trying to boost his congregation.

Should Michael Gove be given detention?

Welcome to the guest blog for this week. Teresa is a teacher and ferocious critic on the blog. Let's hear her views on the proposed education reforms... 

 

Education reforms! Hurrah! Smartly dressed students, taught by good teachers, in schools that have independence from local authorities (granted to them by central government), well grounded in “proper” subjects and going through an education system which will echo those of the leading countries in the world. All supervised by talented teachers who have increased powers over their students! Happy days... or are they?

Many of the proposed changes will seem like music to the ears of many. Although the previous government invested heavily in new schools and did transform the vocational qualification sector, it failed to improve educational standards.  Worse still the gap between rich and poor widened.

Secretary of State for
Education Michael Gove

Well, a new building does not make for a better school and re-arranging catchment areas does not cause deprived children to evaporate. Also, so much of the new curriculum was an attempt at figure massaging ( one particular ICT course which was equivalent to 5 GCSEs!). In addition, the assessment of many of the vocational subjects is portfolio based, which means that being able to file bits of paper does not mean you understand what is written on them.


Recruitment into the teaching profession brought much young talent but lets keep in mind that these new teachers survive on average for 5 years. The fact is that many teachers get trapped in a job they no longer want to do and after a few years they are too expensive to move sideways, so they leave teaching altogether. Many teachers are disgusted by the way in which this most noble of professions is being defined and shaped by market forces. Sentimentality set aside for a moment, how can any government or any society expect to shape their young with the help of a work force that sees teaching as a stepping stone to their next career? Of course the students can’t possibly benefit from such a high turnover of teachers and being constantly educated by the inexperienced and the trainee.

The cause for this loss of talent is largely owed to the poor behaviour of students and of course the loss of power teachers have suffered. When corporal punishment ceased it was replaced with ..... nothing! This is better known as a power vacuum and it needs to be addressed urgently. Tweaking the detention system is not going to be enough. If I had been confronted in my difficult teens by someone I knew was powerless to punish me in any way and if I thought I could cause them more trouble than they could cause me.... then I really don’t what I would have done!

One of the issues not mentioned in the white paper is the middle and upper management increase. Teaching has been flooded by the creation of what I would describe as “office” jobs. People in charge of Special Needs, Attendance, Gifted and Talented etc etc. The list is long. Often these posts come with very big salaries but little time in the classroom. This pressure has led, of course, to heavier timetables for classroom teachers. There is no point giving an average of adult to student ratio, when this is not the case in the classroom, where adult presence really matters, not in office far away.

Too many holidays?Do we want 
teachers roaming our streets?

I want to believe that these changes will improve the situation. However, the government need to think twice about any change at all. This has been part of the problem for teachers, the constant change! New curriculum, new methods, old OFSTED, new OFSTED, NVQs, one “initiative” after another. The landscape is unrecognisable and constantly changing. No one in their right mind would fight change if it was for the best. But every single government seems to have an opinion of education and they all shamelessly use these superimposed changes to gain votes from the middle classes.

As a country, we cannot afford to waste talent and we can’t afford to allow a whole class of people to under perform and underachieve. An old fashioned saying I admit, “the devil makes work for idle hands”. These are the facts of the English education system. The half term, a British institution that serves no other purpose other than create a poor work ethic among our young and create a childminding nightmare for hard working parents. Another fact, progression from one class to another is guaranteed, regardless of performance! Most detentions are given for bad behaviour not for lack of work or poor quality work. Another fact, some parents and pupils are united by one single educational ambition, to sack a teacher. Tweaking is not going to be enough to reverse these trends.

We need our talented headteachers to finally start representing their staff and listening to them instead of “managing” them. We need politics to be kept out of the classroom and sent back to Westminster.

David Beckham and the inelastic demand curve

Football's probably not 'coming home' and I, for one, am relieved. Thanks to the allegations made against three senior FIFA representatives on BBC's Panorama programme, we will not have to suffer the mismanagement, overwhelming nationalism, ridiculous expectations and inevitable failure of England to get beyond the quarter-finals of a World Cup at home. Unless there is a last minute postponement, there seems little opportunity for the England attack of Cameron, Beckham and Prince William to prize open the bidding committee's defence and repair the damage.

Panorama claimed that Nicolas Leoz, Issa Hayatou and Ricardo Teixeira took bribes from International Sport and Leisure (ISL) who gained exclusive rights to market World Cup tournaments. It is alleged that ISL made 175 payments totalling about $100m (£64m) during the 1990s. Nicolas Leoz, of Paraguay, the head of South America's football confederation, Ricardo Teixeira, head of the Brazilian Football Confederation which is responsible for staging the 2014 World Cup and Issa Hayatou, the FIFA vice-president representing football in African nation are all part of the committee to vote on the 2018 and 2022 World Cup bids.


The BBC allegations follow the Sunday Times secretly videotaping two other executive committee members allegedly agreeing to accept bribes for their votes. They also taped four former members talking about the culture of taking bribes. Last week, Dagbladet, a Norwegian newspaper published a story that showed that Trinidad and Tobago's Jack Warner, one of the organisation's vice-presidents, also named by the BBC, had tried to sell $84,000 worth of 2010 World Cup tickets. It means that FIFA has six members (or 25%), of the original 24 members of the committee taking the biggest decision in sport, facing allegations of corruption.

In May Lord Triesman had to resign as FA and World Cup 2018 bid chairman following a story in the 'Mail on Sunday' where he suggested that Spain would end its bid to host the tournament in support of rival bidders Russia if they helped to bribe referees at this Summer's World Cup. England's bid had long been wracked by in-fighting and Premier League Chairman, Dave Richards, resigned in November 2009 saying he had no confidence in the FA bid committee. The bid for 2018 follows the shambolic bid for the 2006 tournament when England made a last minute bid after reneging on a deal to back Germany who had supported England's Euro 96 bid.

In response to the earlier allegation FIFA President, Sepp Blatter, stated that accusations would be investigated "should it be knowledgeable to us, by official means, or by official channels, then naturally we would have to look at that." Unfortunately when a journalist asked FIFA's media office what he meant by "official channels", they replied: "We have no idea." It's not a pretty picture is it? But what do you expect from a morally bankrupt sport. Football has never been squeaky clean but these latest allegations are yet another demonstration that football is rotten to the core. 

Gazza in his glory days at Boston Utd

The problems infect game from top to bottom. In 2002 my home club, Boston Utd, rose to the previously unheard of heights of Division 2 (after years of being non-league giants). The glory days were short-lived. united have subsequently been relegated twice in the last few years due to 'financial irregularities' by the Chairman and manager. They were then left on the brink of extinction by property developers who are still involved at other clubs. It is a familiar story to many clubs in the lower reaches of the football pyramid. In Boston's case two local businessmen stepped in to save the club after an emotional public meeting. They have brought back some integrity to the finances and have agreed to hand over control to the Boston United Supporters' Trust through a fundraising for shares deal. 

Anyone who has studied economics would recognise the demand curve for football fans as an addiction. This can have benefits in cases like a Supporters' Trust working tirelessly to save their football club but, more often than not, it just allows the chairman to fleece them. A few years ago, Freddy Shepherd, Newcastle Chairman at the time, was caught in a News of the World sting, mocking the club's own supporters for spending extortionate amounts of money on merchandise and calling female supporters “dogs” - all while frequenting a brothel. Utter contempt.

One fan avoids getting ripped off

So what is the answer? Well, over the last few years I have lost patience with the 'beautiful game.' A pyramid where most of top clubs have become the play things of foreign owners with no interest in the national team, history or locality. Best league in the world? Who cares? Most of the players have no loyalty and will be off at the first jingle of gold coins whilst, at the bottom, the fans are forced to pay the bill.


Is there any way to get some integrity back in the game? It seems a forlorn hope but these allegations could be a start. I have to agree with ex-Tory minister and Chelsea fan (a double reason to not agree with him usually) David Mellor, the former chairman of the Football Task Force in Tony Blair's government. He commented, "I can't help feeling it would be a better role for England to actually be insisting on the reform of Fifa, making Fifa transparent, making Fifa accountable instead of kowtowing to Fifa in order to get the World Cup finals.”

As for the fans. Well, until we realise that 'fan' is just a more expensive form of 'customer' the Freddy Shepherds of this world will continue to do to us what he wanted to do to the ladies at the brothel.

Change for real, Change for good?

As temperatures plummet across the country things are hotting up at 4 Coward Street SW1, Liberal Democrat Headquarters, where the Parliamentary Lib Dems are under fire from their constituencies over tuition fees. 104 Lib Dem candidates, who did not win seats at the last election, have called on all 57 Lib Dem MPs to demonstrate some integrity and vote against the increase in fees.  

  

Nick Clegg's decision to back increases in tuition fees has brought about the first real test to the Coalition. During the election campaign every one of the 57 Lib Dem MPs signed a pledge to axe tuition fees. Of these, 15 are now ministers and so will not be able to rebel without losing their jobs. So far no ministers/whips have threatened to resign over the matter, although 13 backbenchers including ex-leaders Charles Kennedy, and Ming 'the merciful' Campbell have said they will vote against.

Derek Deedman

Four Tories also supported the pledge but with a government majority of 82, the rebels are a long way short of the 41 MPs required to defeat the proposal. The petition has been organised by a 19 year old student with the support of Arundel Lib Dem, Derek Deedman. They argue that the Liberal Democrat candidates made an unconditional pledge to vote against any increase in fees and they believe that promise must be kept. They also argue that the party's integrity is at risk and it could face "many more years back in the political wilderness". Well, Derek, I think you have been a bit slow on the uptake. 

The petition argues that, "There is one thing that sets the Liberal Democrats apart from other political parties; this is that when we say we will do something during election campaigns we then do it in government.” Student protesters have targeted the offices of Lib Dem MPs whilst according to the BBC, Nick Clegg has personally been persuading MPs to abstain rather than vote against the measure and he believed they becoming "comfortable" with the policy as they studied the details. The details of the wine list? 

It is has been reported that the  coalition agreement allows the Lib Dems to abstain in any parliamentary vote on fees. This is not true. As the Guardian recently noted, 'The wording of the coalition agreement is: "If the response of the government to Lord Browne's report is one that Liberal Democrats cannot accept, then arrangements will be made to enable Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain in any vote". However, since Lib Dem ministers have given their full support to the measures and , indeed, stressed their own part in forming the policy, it seems abstaining should not be an option. By offering the MPs the right to abstain Clegg is breaking the Coalition agreement. I'm sure the Tories will turn a blind eye if they win the vote but the cracks are opening up.

"What we stand for" - from the official party website

Is this how the Liberal Democrats are different? I'm afraid that the 'hope' lasted right up to the moment when they got a sniff of power. Could anyone have guessed that 'a fresh start' meant becoming Tories? After all those years of appearing to be like the good-natured but eccentric and bearded relations of politics - it is rather sad to see that Uncle Clegg and Auntie Cable are just as bad as all the others. Broken pledges, coercion of MPs and the relentless pursuit of personal ambition. Haven't we seen it all before?

Someone should send Clegg a copy of Faust. At least he can read it in the original German.  Unfortunately for the Lib Dems, the only 'change for good' that I can foresee is a final blow to their electoral credibility and, more importantly, they will weaken the case for electoral reform. Now that really would be a tragedy.

If you enjoy this or any of my posts and would like to join the circulation list please let me know at:

canthingsonlygetbetter@gmail.com

Details will not be passed on to third parties.