What's in a name?

The British upper crust, who continue to dominate British politics, love sporting allusions. Hence party business managers in parliament are called "whips" (though in my view hounding dumb animals hardy qualifies as a sport.)

It struck me yesterday as I watched the counts in several of our local elections that the only time the selection of a people's representative actually has any resemblance to a horse race is the final stage of each count, when they put the bundles of counted ballot papers for each candidate in rows on a long table, and you can see which one is ahead. That's as far as it goes: there is no "post."

So if instead of FPTP we had called the present system the Largest Minority System and AV the Majority System we might have had a more positive image.

For what it's worth the "Yes" vote in Kirklees was 1% above the national average and the "No" vote 1% below, so I regard my neighbours as marginally more enlightened that the rest of the country.

At local level we retained the council seat in which I was working, but in two others our candidates came below the Greens, who are at least honourable. The BNP, who until recently had developed a dangerous momentum in our area, seem to have disappeared as a significant force.

More Spinning (with accurate chapter and verse this time.)

On page 270 of "22 Days in May" David Laws attributes the success of the coalition negotiations with the Conservatives rather than Labour to: "...a growing emphasis on the (Liberal Democrat) party's liberal roots, not least on economic policy, (which) was expressed in the influential Orange Book...( which he) edited....Although the Orange Book provoked a strong backlash from small c 'conservative' Lib Dem activists , it helped to shift the centre of gravity in the party..."

Nice one, David. So Tony Greaves, Michael Meadowcroft, the late Maggie Clay and thousands of others who have toiled for years, many originally inspired by the great Jo Grimond, are all conservatives now, whilst you have the true inheritance.

Laws makes no bones about it.On page 271 he writes: "Out went higher taxes and in came tax cuts for those on low incomes. Out went a commitment to a higher top rate tax of 50%, in came a closing of unfair tax reliefs. Out went 'tax and spend' and in came 'save to invest.'...Out went a defence of all state run services and in came privatisation in areas such as the Royal Mail. Out went opposition to all provider reform in the NHS and education , and in came policies such as support for sponsor managed schools."

The inference that traditional Liberals uncritically defended "all state run services" is a re-writing of history that would do credit to the Kremlin. I shudder to think of the hours Liberals and Liberal Democrats higher up the hierarchy than I have spent in devising policies to reform, decentralise and democratise our public services.

It is unfortunate that, just as the party has achieved a small share in national power, this right wing economic tendency is in the ascendancy. Of course, Orange Bookers (who include Nick Clegg, Chris Huhne, Ed Davey and Steve Webb) could claim that our share in power is a result of this shift to the right. Others (now dubbed small c 'conservative' Lib Dems,) might argue that our current achievement is the result of Liberals' and Liberal Democrats' tenacity over half a century, the failure of the Labour party to make meaningful social, constitutional and economic reforms in spite of 13 years with massive majorities, and distrust of the Tory alternative.

As the economic crash post 2007 has so brutally exposed the inadequacy of deregulated and market orientated economics, it is time for we heirs of the party of Keynes and Beveridge to "fight, fight and fight again to save the party we love."

So to inspire us with the right spirit, here's some words of Lloyd George, quoted in today's Guardian as a contrast to Nick Clegg's somewhat timid request that the banks be "sensitive" in paying out their bonuses:

"No country however rich can permanently afford to have quartered upon its revenue a class which declines to do the duty which it was called upon to perform...I say their day of reckoning is at hand."

Up and at-em, says I

101 Days

Most of yesterday's comments on the first 100 Days of the coalition concentrated on the severity or the cuts and the chemistry between the coalition members. The mistake Liberal Democrats in government are making is that, in the interests of that chemistry, they are defending all that the coalition does. Whilst, as the junior partner, they cannot over-rule the mistaken policies undertaken by the majority, rather than giving acquiescence, which appears dishonest and damages Liberal Democrat credibly, they should concentrate on presenting to the public those achievements and aspirations for which they were elected. These are considerable.

In the field of constitutional reform the achievements are massive. We have a fixed term parliament - an end to hundreds of years of unfairness where one of the runners is in charge of the starting gun. There is to be a referendum on electoral reform which, if passed, will enable electors to vote for the candidate they most favour without letting in the candidate they want to stop: another massive step forward which will greatly reduce if not eliminate the need for negative voting. There is, at last, to be a completely or mainly elected second chamber, and it's to be chosen by a proportional voting system.

The need for these basic reforms in a society that claims to be modern and democratic has been evident for a least a century, but neither of the other two parties has done much about them. Now, with Liberal Democrats in government they are likely to happen.

In the area of civil liberties Labour's proposal for compulsory identity cards has been abandoned, the Human Rights Act is to be retained and the wings of the surveillance society are being clipped. In the law and order area so beloved of Conservatives and Labour in the past the Daily Mail agenda appears to have been abandoned and a more rational and reforming approach to the punishment and rehabilitation of wrong-doers adopted.

We have a long way to go in achieving a fair society but the raising of the income tax threshold and the introduction of the pupil premium are steps in the right direction.

It is arguable that constitutional reform and the preservation of civil liberties are, in the long run, more important than the mishandling of the economic situation. Of course I'm aware of Keynes's famous acknowledgment that "in the long run, we're all dead," and I regret the distress that premature cuts are likely to cause the bottom twenty per cent of our society, and Liberal Democrats in government should be pressing to ameliorate such harm. But a reform of the system, rather than panic measures to avert an immediate alleged crisis, are what Liberal Democrats should see as our ultimate goal. This is a difficult priory to "sell" to the public, but we must try.