What About Philippa Stroud?
Philippa Stroud is the Conservative Party candidate for Sutton and Cheam. She’s also the head of the Tories’ Centre for Social Justice, which guides the party’s thinking on social policies, and for this election its mania about the ‘family’. According to The Observer, Philippa Stroud is also the founder of an evangelical church which tries to ‘cure’ people of being gay:
Abi, a teenage girl with transsexual issues, was sent to the church by her parents, who were evangelical Christians. “Convinced I was demonically possessed, my parents made the decision to move to Bedford, because of this woman [Stroud] who had come back from Hong Kong and had the power to set me free,” Abi told the Observer.
“She wanted me to know all my thinking was wrong, I was wrong and the so-called demons inside me were wrong. The session ended with her and others praying over me, calling out the demons. She really believed things like homosexuality, transsexualism and addiction could be fixed just by prayer, all in the name of Jesus.”
Is this the party you want in government? One whose social policy thinktank is headed by someone who thinks this is ok? I mean why not just make a manifesto commitment to witchcraft? If David Cameron becomes Prime Minister on Friday, her views will be heard and acknowledged at governmental level. Would Section 28 just have been the tip of the iceberg for this thoroughly unreconstructed, nasty party?
And for that matter why hasn’t anyone interviewed her about this yet? And then there’s David Cameron, who professes to support gay rights, yet sees no problem with his MEPs voting against them. Last week homophobic Tory candidate Philip Lardner was suspended for his extreme, anti-gay views, yet Ms Stroud is allowed to continue as a PPC – could it be that ‘Dave’s’ support of gay rights goes only as far as his self-interest will allow?
Big Society? Are You Kidding?
Those of you so far entirely unimpressed with David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ general election meme (basically subcontracting the responsibilities of public services provision from the state down to the individual to save money and, well, the bother), this is for you:
Gordon Brown vs ‘Liberals’
Gordon Brown is continuing to take entirely the wrong approach to the Lib Dems in advance of Thursday’s general election:
“I look at the Liberal policies. I look at them. Is there a plan for the future? They’ve got a policy on taxation that is built on a fiction about tax avoidance. They’ve got a policy on immigration that doesn’t make sense. The one that particularly annoys me is the one on child tax credits – they want to cut them.”
Erm if he’s talking about Clegg’s offer of a de-facto amnesty for existing ‘illegal’ immigrants, as Clegg himself put it last Thursday it’s simply common sense. It’s about people who are already here and who want to be here and to contribute. Why keep them in the black economy? That’s a policy which makes no sense. And is he really serious about a ‘fiction about tax avoidance‘? Even if the evidence weren’t compelling that he was wrong, it still smells like rhetoric designed to placate just the City figures who are in the metaphorical dock this election. It’s an argument on the wrong side of history.
“We’re talking about the future of our country. We’re not talking about who’s going to be the next presenter of a TV gameshow. We’re talking about the future of our economy.”
Tony Blair anyone? Pathetic. He’s going to crash and burn on 6th May.
Do NOT Vote Tory on 6th May!
Johann Hari gives good reasons:
Cameron says he is demanding spending cuts not because he has a theological belief in a small state, but because they are necessary to pay off the deficit – but this claim is undermined by the fact that he wants to strip funding from state programmes that actually save us money. Look for example at SureStart, the network of 3,000 children’s centres across Britain built under the current government. They are based on a fascinating series of discoveries. It has been proven that most poor children fall behind in language skills and stimulation long before they ever walk through the school gates – and they never catch up. The first few years of life are crucial for the formation of a child’s mental abilities. Get them early and give them intensive encouragement, with expert advice for their parents, and you can change their life.
This isn’t speculation. In 1964, they launched the first SureStart-style project in Michigan – and Dr Lawrence Schweinhart and a team of academics has been monitoring the kids ever since. Did it work? Well, they were 50 per cent less likely to become teenage mothers than their siblings who weren’t put in the programme, and by the time they were 40, they were 46 per cent less likely to have been to prison and 26 per cent less likely to be on welfare. Their incomes were 42 per cent higher. So for every £1 you spend on it, you save the state £7 further down the line. Yet Cameron, on becoming Tory leader, dismissed SureStart as “a microcosm of government failure”. Now he says he will keep it in some form, but already he says huge chunks of its budget will go to other things, and few expect it to survive long. If he can’t keep the single best policy for reducing inequality – one that costs less than nothing in the medium term – what shreds of progress can survive his rule?
Could an argument like this have played in last night’s leaders debate? Surely not – last night was about points scoring and sloganeering. But this is the type of inevitable outcome from Cameron’s policies if the Tories get into power. Granted Labour’s done very badly at joined-up thinking, let alone joined-up government, but this would be an absolute nightmare. He claims to be opposed to the increased gap between rich and poor which started on the Tories watch (haha), and accelerated under Labour’s – why then offer policies which will keep the process accelerating yet further? And for that matter why vote for them?
Did Cameron Win Last Night?
The popular press would have you believe it, but then again they have an agenda. Look deeper and look at what needs to happen next week more thoughtfully and you get a different outcome. From the Economist:
Our latest poll, conducted by Angus Reid Public Opinion, a Canadian pollster, suggests that there is still plenty to play for. It puts the Conservatives in first place among those certain to vote with 33%, followed by the Liberal Democrats on 30%, Labour on 23% and other parties on 14% (see chart, and for full details see here). After pondering the specific swing in marginal seats, the pollster reckons these results would leave the Tories the largest party, with 294 seats, but 32 short of a majority. Labour would have 174 seats, and the Lib Dems 150.
The poll confirms Mr Clegg’s commanding personal lead over his rivals.
And that’s all you need to know. Was Clegg ever likely to get the largest number of seats from his position in this first-past-the-post system? Absolutely not. But if Clegg really gets anywhere near 150 seats he’ll have done far more than he set out to do, and get proportional representation onto the top of the political agenda. I don’t doubt for a moment still that Cameron will press right ahead and form a minority Tory administration, but in rejecting PR (which he’ll do, and there’s no way the Liberal Democrat Party would ever allow Clegg to join in a coalition with him) he’ll ultimately destroy himself and govern with no popular mandate, at just the wrong time in history. The electorate remains incandescent with rage about the expenses scandal, still feels betrayed by a New Labour government which delivered far less than it promised, and hates politics and politicians with a passion. Calling Cameron the winner last night is meaningless, when the sentiment which Clegg tapped into three weeks ago is still very much in play, and still demands satisfaction.
Labour meanwhile are still playing games with the authoritarian state, and wondering why the voters have given up on them. Gosh I wonder why?
Forward Thinking, Environmentally Sound Politics
It’s a good party election broadcast, and in addition to Darren Johnson’s video in the earlier post I couldn’t agree more about the High Pay Commission. The Greens have some excellent policies, and I hope they get at least one MP this election. If I didn’t think the Freedom Bill and PR were so fundamentally important ahead of everything else, I’d vote for them like a shot.
Lib Dems: The Party of Progress
(from The Guardian)
This is an extraordinary political moment. An election seemingly destined to produce a narrow Conservative victory has been seized by the voters and turned into a democratic contest – a contest not just between parties, but over the shape of our democracy itself.
The MPs that assemble in Westminster next month could usher in one of the great reforming parliaments in British history, one to rank in the history books alongside 1831-32, 1865-67 or 1911-1914. The next parliament could see cherished progressive liberal aspirations realised: a proportional electoral system; wider and better-defended civil liberties; a new, internationalist approach to foreign affairs and immigration; reform of the tax system to share wealth and curb carbon emissions; and an assault on the vested interests of the financial sector.
The question for progressive liberals is what election result now offers the best chance of achieving these goals. Certainly not a Conservative majority. Despite some welcome commitments in areas such as civil liberties and localism, the Tories remain instinctively opposed to the deep democratic reforms the country needs.
But a return of a majority Labour government under Gordon Brown would not provide a strong enough guarantee of reform. Labour has a long list of achievements over the last 13 years, of which it can be proud. But Labour has also presided over a ruinous period for civil liberties and has failed to deliver wholesale political reform.
Labour does now promise fixed-term parliaments, an elected House of Lords and a referendum on the alternative vote: too little, too late.
The question is where the energy for the future of progressive politics is to be found. It is a contemporary political fact that the stronger the performance of the Liberal Democrats on 6 May the better the chances of progressive reform.
The Liberal Democrats are today’s change-makers. They have already changed the election; next they could drive fundamental change in our political and economic landscape.
Some of us have already pinned our colours to the Liberal Democrat mast. For others, the decision to back the Liberal Democrats in this election is a difficult one. Long-standing party loyalties, even in a less tribal world, are not easily suspended. But May 2010 offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reshape politics for the better. It must be seized.
Richard Reeves, John Kampfner, Professor Noreena Hertz, Susie Orbach, Shazia Mirza, Camilla Toulmin, Brian Eno, John le Carré, Henry Porter, Alex Layton, Gordon Roddick, Yasmin Alibhai Brown, Philip Pullman, David Aukin, Nick Harkaway, Lisa Appignanesi, Francis Wheen, Alan Ryan, Raymond Tallis, Julian Baggini, Jeanette Winterson, Rodric Braithwaite, Richard Dawkins, George Monbiot, Ken Macdonald, Philippe Sands, Misha Glenny, Anthony Barnett, Richard Sennett, David Marquand
Darren for Lewisham?
It’s a difficult one for me. Darren Johnson’s a nice guy, and an effective local councillor. I totally support a @RobinHood tax, building more social housing, a living wage, and the NHS not being run according to marketised principles. Yet the Lib Dems are offering the Freedom Bill and a proportional voting system (without which little else of value is likely to follow). So do I vote Tam Langley instead? It’s a difficult choice this election. I’d be delighted with either of them winning.
Fear The Hung Parliament Party!
David Cameron said it was irresponsible to scaremonger in this general election campaign. His hypocrisy knows no bounds:
The Tories say they’re offering ‘change’, yet they offer this party election broadcast, which implies that if you vote Labour or Lib Dem you might die! I mean what the hell is that noose?! But that’s not the only offensive part of this video. Rather than arguing about other parties’ policies they argue against the possible outcome, but in doing so they completely misrepresent their own responsibilities. ‘Behind closed doors politics’? So the ‘wash up’ was something to be proud of, or we’re supposed to forget that? ‘Indecision and weak government’? Really? I think you’ll find Germany managed to absorb an entire economically failed state, and has managed extremely strong government since 1949. And it’s just preposterous to suggest a hung parliament would kill the economic recovery…
To attack the Labour Party and Lib Dems as offering ‘undemocratic’ politics and dithering, should the Tories not win outright is an incredible slur on the electorate, who’ve expressed a clear dislike for politics as it’s been up until now. They don’t want the Tories’ half measure of being able merely to recall MPs – they want a system which is actually representative of their wishes and their needs. They want a system which is founded on cooperation and compromise rather than confrontation. That really would be an evolutionary step forwards for British politics, rather than just being dominated by the same old corporate interests which got their way with the Digital Economy Act.
Not Another Tory Homophobe?!
Is it contagious with them? Conservative Party parliamentary candidate Philip Lardner made a vicious attack on homosexuality, before being forced to take his remarks down from his campaign website:
They can’t help themselves, can they? After David Cameron’s inability to understand that allowing his MEPs to vote against gay rights, and Chris Grayling’s ‘unintentional offence’ at saying B&B owners should be able to discriminate against gay people, and Julian Lewis attacking an equal age of consent, it’s becoming utterly ludicrous to suggest that the party has shrugged off its ‘nasty’ reputation. It’s even more ludicrous for Cameron to suggest that the Tory Party is the natural home for progressives. Fortunately the Chairman of the Conservative Party in Scotland, Andrew Fulton has suspended Lardner from the party and ended his candidacy:
“The views expressed by Philip Lardner, the candidate for North Ayrshire and Arran, are deeply offensive and unacceptable and as a result he has been suspended as a member of the Conservative party. We therefore do not support Mr Lardner’s candidacy in the North Ayrshire and Arran constituency. These views have no place in the modern Conservative party.”
But as I’ve said before it’s one thing to talk the talk, another to walk the walk. It remains a party full of very nasty people. Should they really be the party of government next Friday?
Heckler Abused by Tories
Be not surprised. They’re so desperate they even steal handbags from women who heckle their rallies:
This is the party whose support is in freefall. ‘Change’ isn’t playing. The ‘Big Society’ isn’t playing. The ‘Hung Parliament Party’ isn’t playing. No wonder they shove placards in front of their opponents’ faces.
David Cameron’s Agenda
Straight from the horse’s mouth:
During the 20 reasons for 20 weeks abortion campaign I spoke to many representatives from various faith organisations.
Without exception, every single one supported the campaign. Muslim and Jewish faiths all support strongly the reduction from 24 weeks.
David Cameron, is the only leader who has said he wishes to see a reduction in the upper limit. They are not words you will ever hear pass the lips of Nick Clegg.
With all faiths, home and family is paramount, as is community and society. As one Muslim leader said to me, ‘community and care for our neighbour is the pillow of Islam’.
Our families and our neighbours, our community and environment are the key elements of the ‘big society’ David Cameron wants to dictate how we live as opposed to the control of the ‘big state’ we live within today.
If you want to see marriage and the family supported and reinforced. If you agree that social abortion is performed at much too late a stage. If you are appalled at the over sexualisation of young people, if you want the principles of decency and propriety to return, if as a parent you want to send your children to faith schools and have control over the content of sex education taught to your children – it appears to me there is only one party and one man you can and should vote for.
Every Christian and person of faith has to ask themselves the very important question, does my faith play a part in how I cast my vote? If it does, then surely there is only one way anyone of any faith in this country can vote?
Nadine Dorries tells it how it is. What else can anyone add? Vote Tory if this is the Britain you want.
Lewisham Deptford: A Safe Labour Seat?
The New Labour minister Joan Ruddock MP sure believes it is for her:
“Comment is free … but facts are sacred”. Unfortunately the Lib Dems in Lewisham aren’t letting the facts of my voting record on Iraq get in the way of their wholly negative campaign.
Contrary to Max Calo’s assertion I did indeed vote on the crucial amendment, which if passed would have prevented the Labour government going to war in Iraq. Once this amendment was lost, nothing could be achieved in the subsequent vote. The Guardian, the Times and the BBC are all on the record as recording me as one of the “Labour rebels” and there was never a doubt about my consistent anti-war stance. As Calo himself admits, I never voted with the government, and it is standard parliamentary practice to abstain when negotiating in private with your own leadership in an attempt to get them to change their minds.
Perhaps Nick Clegg should be told that his Liberal Democrats in Lewisham are up to their old dirty tricks.
Max Calo’s response:
First of all thanks for replying, I’ll try to clarify the point I make and that I think is important and justified.
In the letter you sent to residents you stated:
?I have always acted with integrity and stuck to my principles ? voting against the government going to war in Iraq.?.
And I think we can agree you didn’t actually do this, because voting for a motion to delay action does not mean voting against the government going to war.
For everyone’s reference here’s the text of the proposed amendment you voted for:(this house)
- believes that the case for war against Iraq has not yet been established, especially given the absence of specific United Nations authorisation; but,
- in the event that hostilities do commence, pledges its total support for the British forces engaged in the Middle East, expresses its admiration for their courage, skill and devotion to duty, and hopes that their tasks will be swiftly concluded with minimal casualties on all sides.When the amendment failed a large number of Labour MPs left, but an even larger number stayed and voted against.
I’m sure you agree that the stand taken by those Labour MPs that stayed on and displayed active dissent (including resigning from Government in some cases) was very principled and indeed commanded the admiration of many in the public.
Your public record I’m afraid is not so clear, and that’s why I don’t believe you’re entitled to make the claim you made in your letter. Your voting record on the war shows that you were absent in four out of 6 occasions, when you participated you voted in favour of amendments but never took part in the main vote.
You say that once the amendments failed then there was no hope of the main motion being rejected, still many thought that they needed to stay and register an open dissent on the main motions, and we do admire them for doing so.
It is also the case that a stronger dissent makes a weaker mandate, whether the vote is won or lost.You say that in private you were negotiating in attempt to change the leadership’s mind, well, maybe you could have written that in your letter to Lewisham Central residents instead.
If you’re writing of your public record then you’re best advised to stick to the facts.
What people understand by reading your letter is what you wrote, and that’s what those that stayed on and took an open stand against the war did, not those that are now saying that they were negotiating in private.
Joan Ruddock is my MP. She is a vociferous supporter of ID cards, agreed with 90 days detention without charge, supports trial without a jury and control orders, and voted to ban protest around parliament. I seriously hope she gets beaten by either the Greens or the Lib Dems – this authoritarian nonsense simply has to stop.
A Coalition? How?
I can’t figure out for the life of me how any conceivable coalition at the end of next week could work. After next Thursday, the Lib Dems should win about 110 seats, should become the major power broker in British politics, and then should become the junior coalition partner in a government with either the Tories or Labour Party. But how?
Option 1: Clegg sees a Cameron minority victory determining his constitionally mandated choice. The Tories move to accept a more proportional voting system (at least in rhetoric), and a blue/yellow coalition is formed. But would the Liberal Democrat party members allow it to remain?
Option 2: Clegg finds a Tory victory unpalatable, doesn’t believe they’ll accept a proportional voting system anyway, and refuses to work with Cameron. The Tories resolve to try a minority administration (and won’t last long).
Option 3: Labour does far better than expected and Clegg decides a red/yellow alliance would make most sense for a progressive government (most of the electorate would have voted for one after all). But if Labour does well how could they countenance his Freedom Bill and withdraw the authoritarian state they’ve spent so long building? Would Clegg have to drop it or would they have to accept Prime Minister Nick Clegg? Surely that’s out of the question, but wouldn’t the former option kill off the Lib Dems in only one parliament? Their consistent showing in the opinion polls is proving their policies are popular, so why go back on this level of popular support? And if Labour doesn’t actually win, how could Clegg work with them anyway?
Option 4: Clegg decides to try a coalition with a rump Labour Party after a Tory drubbing. But who could he work with? If David Miliband, how could he work with someone who to this day is trying to keep Britain’s involvement in extraordinary rendition and torture secret?
It’s incredibly hard to see Labour winning this election. It’s also very hard to see how, in practical terms, Labour could change leaders, hang on as a minority, and do a deal with the Lib Dems to change the voting system. But that’s the last hope left for progressive political change. It rests on calm calculation, tactical voting and cool heads.
How on earth that is going to happen? My guess of the outcome remains unchanged: a Conservative minority administration, but with the Lib Dems the party of rebellion. They’ll be able to point out the shortcomings in a Tory Party desperate to withdraw the Human Rights Act, to ally themselves with homophobes and anti-Semites and resume foxhunting. They’ll be able to point to Labour’s authoritarian state, with the party’s rejection of the working class’ interests and its abysmal human rights record. They wouldn’t get proportional representation in the short-term, but they’d be able to make the case for one in the time until the next general election, which would be long in coming.
The Rise of Nick Clegg
The HateMail is in complete panic (and can’t stop lying):
A rattled Nick Clegg today sought to defend himself over his claim that the British people have a ‘more insidious cross to bear’ than Germany over World War II.
The Lib Dem leader attempted to laugh off criticism of his astonishing attack on our national pride – in which he said we suffered ‘delusions of grandeur’ and a ‘misplaced sense of superiority’ over having defeated the horrors of Nazism.
Campaigning ahead of tonight’s crucial second live TV showdown with party leaders, Mr Clegg said: ‘I must be the only politician who has gone from being Churchill to being a Nazi in under a week.’
He also came under fire today over donations made to his personal bank account, to which he responded: ‘I hope people won’t be frightened from trusting their instincts by doing something different this time. We have got a very exciting opportunity for real change in this country and I hope we will take it.’
The Murdoch high command can’t stop it:
we learned this morning that James Murdoch and his enforcer, Rebekah Brooks, nee Wade, burst their way into the offices of the Independent to give executives a hard time.
Gosh, that’s pretty uncool, and may suggest that expensive suits at News International are rattled by Cleggmania, which could leave them out in the cold if the Tories fail to win on 6 May.
What seems to have upset them are ads that the Indy has been running along the lines of “Rupert Murdoch won’t decide this election – you will.” Brooks apparently rang Simon Kelner, the editor-in-chief and now chief executive of the Indy to complain that dog does not eat dog in Fleet Street.
Anyway, the Brooks-Murdoch posse turned up at the Indy’s HQ – now housed in the Mail’s London premises, the old Derry and Toms department store in Kensington High Street, got past security and appeared unannounced and uninvited on the editorial floor.
“They barged in and Kelner had to take them into an office where discussions took place. Rebekah was observed in gesticulating mode,” says my source. The incident was mentioned on Radio 4′s Today programme, where Trevor Kavanagh, a Sun guru, was found to be unbriefed about the whole thing.
The Sun isn’t pulling it off through censorship:
The Sun newspaper failed to publish a YouGov poll showing that voters fear a Liberal Democrat government less than a Conservative or Labour one.
The Liberal Democrats accused the newspaper, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, of suppressing the finding. The paper, which endorsed Labour in the past three elections, declared its support for David Cameron during the Labour Party’s annual conference last October. Like other Tory-supporting papers, it has turned its fire on Nick Clegg over his policies, pro-European statements and expenses claims since he won last week’s first televised leaders’ debate.
YouGov also found that if people thought Mr Clegg’s party had a significant chance of winning the election, it would win 49 per cent of the votes, with the Tories winning 25 per cent and Labour just 19 per cent. One in four people Labour and one in six Tory supporters say they would switch to the Liberal Democrats in these circumstances. The party would be ahead among both men and women, in every age and social group, and in every region. On a uniform swing across Britain, that would give the Liberal Democrats 548 MPs, Labour 41 and the Tories 25.
Even the tactics Craig Murray alleges YouGov has employed to smear Clegg aren’t working. And it’s all a reminder of a change which I think is playing a major part in determining the outcome of this election, namely that these papers used to determine people’s opinions, and no longer do. Political commentators aren’t getting listened to, party political broadcasts and press conferences are getting ignored; the whole process of opinion formation has completely changed. Long-term departure from print media has certainly played a part in this, but for all the talk of an election determined by the Internet, Twitter and Facebook and other social media don’t yet have that sort of power. They are however keeping the narrative of Clegg’s sudden rise (and its desirability) visible and a story in itself.
Also whilst the usual pundits are saying Clegg’s ‘upstart’ narrative is accidental, in truth it seems to have arisen from a confluence of factors which have been bubbling up in political life for some time now, the principal one being that the public now detests politics and politicians alike. They may not know how they want to express it, but Clegg has shrewdly made a strong attempt to do so for them in the first two debates. Could he have done that without the continuing, massive popularity of his shadow chancellor Vince Cable? Probably not – Cable has been legitimising the Liberal Democrats for some time. But conventional wisdom has also long suggested that the British public was eurosceptic, waswedded to nuclear power and nuclear weapons and madly in love with American power; Clegg in the last fortnight has challenged that entire paradigm and has astonishingly been increasingly admired for it. I suspect if he directly attacked the Iraq War (and Afghanistan) in the manner of Charles Kennedy he’d rise even more.
With Cameron giving the impression he wants power because he believes he’s due it, and New Labour now only being a power winning-and-retaining machine, Clegg is far from an ‘upstart’ – he has become the ‘insurgent’, representing tool to move past public’s loathing for the Way Things Were. The first debate allowed him to rise over the top of the biased, distorting right wing press and communicate directly and spin-free with the electorate. Maybe the electorate has been waiting for the chance to finish the hated New Labour (and its Tory copycat) off, and has seen him as a unique historical opportunity to do so. Cameron’s director of communications Andy Coulson may have already realised this too late – the flip-flopping between dog-whistle politics and the failing ‘Big Society’ message suggests he does, but Mandelson has also been caught flat footed. Johann Hari says:
Rattled, the right-wing press now demands Cameron start publicly thumping the table and articulating the agenda he whispers to them behind closed doors, and can be uncovered in his policy documents: big cuts in public spending, big tax cuts for the rich. But Cameron sees the polling and the focus groups, and he knows the public loathe his real agenda. That’s why his performances in this campaign are so stilted. Once Cameron is forced to address us directly, without being bigged-up by the Murdochracy he has promised to feed and fatten, he withers under the weight of his own deception.
For a moment, the media demonisation of the liberal-left was switched off in favour of equal time and open access – and it revolutionised our politics. If this happened day in, day out, how would our national conversation change?
The conversation has begun to change, and Murdoch, Dacre & Desmond are being kept out of it. Let’s keep it that way.
