More "What's sauce for the goose. . . ."

 

I’m now back from my walking holiday based on Arnside, on Morecambe Bay.  On one glorious day we crossed the Bay and eventually walked into Grange over Sands, which was festooned with a riot of golden diamonds urging support for the wonderful Tim Farron.  There was no sign of any political activity whatsoever in Arnside. I was told that they had formerly been in Tim’s constituency but the Boundary Commission review had now “lumped them with Morecambe.”   The people I asked didn’t seem very pleased about it.

I am a great admirer of Tim.  He is warm, funny, a great communicator and Liberal to the core.  Unfortunately, it was difficult for him to carry out his functions as Leader because of the media’s biased and prurient obsession with his views on homosexuality and abortion No amount of explanation that these were “matters of conscience,” and that all parties recognise that such matters are outside the realm of the Party Whip could deviate them from their line. Presumably SEX in any form sells more papers and attracts more viewers and listeners than discussions serious politics.  Poor Tim’s ability to promote our party’s policies were hampered by the media’s constant probing as to whether or not he thought this that and the other aspect of private behaviour was “a sin.”

Tim’s opposite number as Tory leader at the time as Theresa May.  She is the daughter of a C of E vicar, and rarely a Monday passed without a picture up her and her lawfully-wedded husband either going into or coming out of Church appearing on the front pages. 

If her father was a conscientious vicar he wold have recited the Magnificat daily. Perhaps his daughter joined him from time to time, or sang it at a weekly Evensong.   Yet no reporter, or radio or TV interlocutor ever, to my knowledge asked her what her take was on “putting down the mighty from their seats” and “exalting e the humble and meek;” or  on “filling the hungry with good things” and “sending the rich empty away.”

Yet, these are not matters of private conscience but are basic to public policy. 

“Putting down the mighty from their seats” is about the exercise and distribution of power. “Exalting the humble and meek” exemplifies the Leveller’s view that “the poorest He hath a right to live as the richest He,” which has been part of the UK’s political philosophy since the 17^th century,  (and which today includes “Shes” as well as “Hes,” not forgetting refugees and asylum seekers.”)

 “Filling the hungry with good things” may be over-optimistic, but any government should attempt to ensure a basic minimum standard of living for all its citizens, including those who have recklessly had more than two children,  And as for “sending the rich empty away,” well, “empty” might be a bit on the cruel side, but at least we could and should confiscate the top end of their obscene wealth with some swingeing taxes.

Another example of the bias of the media (the Guardian included) is that Sir Ed Davey is one of 17 “Post Office ministers” who were allegedly in charge of it during the sub-postmaster/mistress scandal, but he is the only one who is commonly identified as such when reported on other matters.  However, he seems to be having a successful, if not exactly dignified, campaign

Sir Ed apart, the campaign so far, as reported,must surely be one of the most trivial, biased and irrelevant in our history.  It is hard to believe that we are one of the most mature and highly educated democracies in the world.  Measures to attempt to achieve a more responsible and less biased media should be high on the list of priorities for the next government.

The manifestos

 

 

I shall be away on holiday all next week (hiking, based on Arnside in the southern Lake District) so shall spend all Friday worrying about what I have/haven’t packed (it is predicted to be wet rather than sunny), so won’t have much chance to absorb whatever is in  the Labour manifesto. However I suspect it will be pretty much “the mixture as before:”  economic policy hemmed in by  parameters set by the Tories, restrained hostility towards immigrants, timidity towards Europe and no change in the political system which is demonstrably inefficient but  which they think will give them their turn at power (on average one in every three.)

The Conservative manifesto is a disgrace to a country nurtured on 15+ centuries of Judaeo-Christian teaching and the Enlightenment: an appeal to the lowest instincts of  greed and nationalism.  Shame on them.

Neither the Greens nor the Liberal Democrats are likely to form the next government so I think it would be more sensible if they would say what they will “press for” if they can influence or share in the government, rather than what they will “do.”

The Green manifesto has some glimmers of responsibility and hope. Following their priority of preserving the planet they wish to expand and repair the NHS and will impose a wealth tax to pay for it, also, remove VAT from community activities, put a limit of 20% on the maximum ownership of the media and introduce a digital Bill of Rights

 I know I am prejudiced, but I genuinely feel our Liberal Democrat manifesto is the most honest  and attractive.  It is, as far as I know the only one which promises to restore our international reputation and shoulder our international responsibility by restoring the overseas aid budget to 0.7% of GDP.  I hope this will be top of the list of things we are able to “press for.”  

 We will  also abandon the cruel and probably illegal scheme to deport refugees and asylum seeker who arrived by “illegal” to Rwanda, and provide some legal means of getting here. 

On poverty we will end the two-child limit, improve the carers’ allowance and offer a partial solution to the care problem by providing free “In home “ care.”  We will try to reach “Net Zero” in 2045, five years earlier than the Tories or Labour aim and try to tackle the courts backlog (though I’m not clear how, nor how we obtain an extra 8 000 GPs, who take ten years to become fully trained.)  

 We want the voting age to be lowered to 16, (something on which  I am not keen,) but – wait for it - we would REJOIN THE SINGLE MARKET and (eventually) the EU itself.

 Tory Cabinet Minster Grant Shapps has pleaded today that we should not give Labour a “super-majority”.  Quite right too.  We shall do better than “the mixture as before” if Liberal Democrats and Greens have enough MPs to share in, or at least influence, the coming government.

The "Sevens" debate

 

 

In stark contrast to Wednesday’s one hour “clash”  between the two party leaders, yesterday’s debate which involved seven of the UK’s major parties was, in spite of lasting one and a half hours, lively, gripping, informative  and, for the most part, honest.

It was unfortunate that the “luck of the draw” placed the Labour and Conservative representatives adjacent to each other (though appropriately on the “far right “ of the line up,) so that Angela Raynor and Penny Mordaunt couldn’t resist taunting, hectoring and over-talking each other.*  M/s Mordaunt in particular  gave  a faithful imitation of her leader’s approach to “discussion.” It was also sad  that    M/s /Raynor, well known for having voted in in favour or nuclear disarmament, now claims to be  right behind Labour’s current “triple lock” policy in favour of it.  Presumably she is lying through her teeth.  No wonder people distrust politicians and become detached from  the democratic process.

 It there was to be a “winner of the evening it was in my view the Green Party’s co-leader, Carla Denyer, who answered questions fluently, clearly and engagingly, and spoke passionately on the importance of prioritising the survival of the planet as a place for human habitation. 

A close second would be the SNP leader, Stephen Flynn, whose bold assertion that we actually need immigrants received a rare round of loud applause from the audience. He wasalso, I think, the only candidate to introduce the “elephant in the room”, BREXIT, which has done so much damage to our reputation and  to Scotland’s economy, (and of course the rest of the UK with the possible exception of Northern Ireland.  I wonder why there was no representative of a Northern Ireland party?)  Mr Flynn also had the courage to scoff at the expensive pretence of the UK’s “independent nuclear deterrent” and argued that its vast cost would be better spent on building up our conventional forces and equipping them properly.

 

 The Plaid Cymru representative Ruhn ap Iorwerth’s contributions were fluent and persuasive, showing how Westminster, dominated as it is with English Conservatives, is insensitive to  and neglectful of the needs of Wales.  Much greater devolution of power, and “levelling up” funding are need if everyone in the Union is to have a fairer deal.

 Daisy Cooper for the Liberal Democrats batted well.   She was challenged about our role in the Coalition put pointed out that our party had fought tooth and nail against the worst excesses of the Tories, and that, without us to restrain them since 2015, they have been demonstrably worse. 

“Student fees” was thrown at her and I wish she had had time to remind the audience that it was Tony Blair’s Labour government that first introduced student  fees, having first  promised not to, then tripled them, having promised not to.  True the Coalition tripled them again but, and it’s a big BUT, unlike Labour’s    fees , which had to be paid “up front”, the present system is of loans which are not a “Debt” in the normal sense, since they don’t have to be paid back unless and until the former student achieves a respectable salary. Sadly there isn’t time in this format to  explore problems in greater depth, but Liberal Democrats like me, who may not have agreed with the policy, should nevertheless be bolder in explaining its advantages over the previous system.  (and the media should stop banging on about “students burdened with debt:” they are not.)

 It was interesting that Nigel Farage’s predictable tirade about immigration received little positive reaction for the audience.  Perhaps “Reform’s” potential supporters don’t turn up to an events like this (or maybe they weren’t invited.)  Farage did, however hit home with the accusation  that there isn’t really much difference between the Labour and Conservative policies.

 The lesson to be learned from this seven-sided debate is that we desperately need proportional representation, so that the views of substantial minorities (yes, including ”Reform”) receive more  serious attention – so much more constructive than the relentless “ding-dong” between Labour and the Conservatives to which First Past the Post condemns us.

·       *Though rather touchingly once the debate was over they  seemed to joke together on friendly terms.  If they can behave decently to each other outside the “arena” why do they feel obliged to fratch like fish-wives in it?