Maths post 16 years old

 

So Rishi Sunak thinks that maths should be taught to all young people up to the age of 18. Now I do have an O'level in Maths, plus one in Additional Maths, an A'Level in Maths, plus as part of my Economics degree did guide a lot of maths/statistics. So I would say I know a fair amount about the type of maths that is taught after the age of 16 as in some form or other I was being taught maths up until the age of 22. My late father also had a degree in maths.

I have laid out my maths qualifications here to show the level of expertise I have on the issue of maths. I know that some out there in this post expertise required age will argue that I don't know what I'm talking about, but thats the nature of knowledge these days.

On top of this I have 2 nephews both post 16 years old and a niece currently in secondary education. Each of them have different experience of maths through their schooling as well. So with all the agrued experience within our family is maths really something that needs to be taught to everyone after the age of 16.

Most of the maths that most careers need for every day use is that which is taught up to the age of 16. Additional maths, A'level and anything you are taught at university are more specialised for the decipline you are studying or more complex maths. If you go into a career that works with numbers yes you will need to know the principles behind many of the more complex maths, especially when you have to set up a spreadsheet or a data base programme that needs to calculate something. Excel or other programmes may be good but the better the maths of the person working it the more complex the functionality can become. For this I also worked as a global data analyst for a call centre with all sorts of contingency built in, some of our worksheets will still be funtional long after we are gone, for example, working out set public holidays (Easter is a little more awkward).

My nephew are a mixture one is science base the other more artistic. Both were good at maths, both got decent result in their GCSE but both knew the path they wanted to travel. For one maths fitted into the sciences for the other it didn't fit in. Does that decision make one of them less useful going into adulthood? No! As for my neice she struggles with maths, something that I know a lot of people do, these are probably the proportion of people that the Prime Minister wants to educate more in maths.

So while I can do matrix algebra, complex statistical equaltions with x constants and other stuff that would blow your mind this isn't going to help your hairdresser, car mechanic, beautician or bricklayer. They all just want to do a BTEC after the age of 16.

Post 16 education needs to remain a mix of academic split into sciences and humanities, and vocational. The vocataional courses will include what maths is required within those professions but that maths isn't what is stardardly taught at 16 year. No young person over the age of 16 should be enslved into the level of maths that someone Winchester educated, with an Oxford First in PPE and Fulbright Scholar who went on to become an investment banker before turning to politics thinks helped him. This is how out of touch with ordinary people, ordinary work and day to day life the richest Prime Minister in our nations history is.

Baker resignation reveals the difference between Lib Dems and Tories

So Liberal Democrat Norman Baker has announced tonight that he is resigning for his post as a Home Office Minister. His announcement in The Independent as to why is not just a broadside into Theresa May's Home Office but also the denouement of the differences between Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives when it comes to policy.

He says:

"support for 'rational evidence-based policy' was in short supply at the top of her department."

And that it was like "walking through mud".

It probably came to a head with the report on drug use and punishment last week and comes ahead of the vote that could criminalise paying for sex later this week. Yet it has probably been stoked my the whole immigration debate and the jumping at ill-judged, knee-jerk, UKIP-appeasing policy announcements based on emotive exaggeration and not evidence in any shape or form.

So let me repeat that:

If you want evidence-based policy, not knee-jerk, emotive reactionary nonsense to appease party self interests you have to vote Lib Dem.

That is the lesson. Now you can look at the various policies that the coalition have brought in over the past four years you can see the origins of policy. Those that largely based on evidence such as free school meals increase educational success come from Liberal Democrats looking at the evidence. Things like the snooper's charter apart from being illiberal are largely unachievable because of the depths of the dark web.

Why would this be so? Well the way that policy is decided by the parties help. Conference decides Lib Dem policy so no matter what we debate there is some expert able to speak with authority, or even better they have been working on drafting the policy in the first place. As to who comes up with Conservative policy, there are probably a number of envelops floating around Whitehall have that been used for late night discussions to come up with something. But they just get announced, rarely get peer reviewed (if they do not in public before announcement), and if they are peer reviewed are in the words of a former leader "not for turning".

This is the mud into which Norman Baker has found himself. This is the mud that has snared up some of the Liberal Democrats liberalism, because most of all liberalism is often common sense. Why? Because it is evidence-based as to what is the right thing to do for everyone's individual best interests.

Nick right to address but wrong conclusions on immigration

Currently to access the Lib Dems website you have to go through an image of our manifesto from 2010 to highlight our fairer tax manifesto pledge which has been announced in this week's budget. Maybe we should make Lib Dems go through a copy of the preamble to the party's constitution instead.

The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives.

Why you may ask do I think that? The reason is in the words that Nick Clegg uttered today on the subject of immigration.

Far a start we aim to safeguard a free, fair and open society. Yet we appear to want to put up  barriers for others to enter that society, unless they afford a £1000 bond. Which to me suggests that we are enslaving future immigrants to poverty.

He also seems to suggest that they should know English to a level that they can understand all the legal documents that their moving here would lead them to face. Yet all of us who have any involvement in politics know that often our friends, who were born and bred here and speak English as a native tongue will often come to us with queries about some complex form and often we too are flummoxed by the legalese. So when he asks Mark Harper to look into whether we should ask immigrants to pay for translation services, is he not enslaving those who cannot afford it into ignorance.

You see by acknowledging that "many migrants...have contributed to our country" while being immensely proud of this nation's wonderful diversity and openness" you need to walk the walk. Somehow what Nick is saying just isn't it. He appears to be appeasing a certain part of the electorate that do not hold Liberal Values instead of coming up with a truly liberal solution to the problem. While Lib Dems would be remiss not to acknowledge these concerns from some we should the ones coming up with Liberal solutions that reflect the benefits that we in the UK gain from having migrants and being able to emigrate ourselves when we desire to do so.

As he says part of the problem of the legacy of both the Major and then Labour Governments is a lack of management of the issue, and keeping monitoring the numbers. Not knowing who is in the country and has exceeded their right to stay is a concern that needs to be a addressed. As Lib Dems we did believe that one way to deal with that was to pragmatically allow those who have spent over a decade contributing to our society the right to remain. It wasn't some automatic reward,it was for those who spoke English, had a clean record and wanted to stay here. It was an historic promise and not something that those coming after 2010 were going to be able to achieve, it was a plan to help deal with the mess.

But what about the point-based system that would allow immigrants to work where they were needed. There was no mention of those regionally based worked having to pay a bond in case they strayed to another region, but we expected to be able to keep a track on them better with the systems back in place. It was a system that we promised in our manifesto could deal with the regional variations in needs for workers while at the same time allowing those that we needed to fill skill gaps to come into our country to fill those voids. It was liberal, it was fair and it didn't require a financial barrier to entry, if you were employable you could have the right to come and fill one of those gaps.

Dear Charlotte, it's social not socialist and is constitutional

Charlotte Henry seems to have an axe to grind with every Liberal Democrat who doesn't agree with her. That doesn't seem to be very liberal nor democratic.

Now I don't mind discourse within our party, in fact that is what is so great about our party, we do have discourse and we come to a democratic consensus that we then rally behind. The one constant is all the 23 years I have been around this party has been fairness. Look at the preamble of our party's constitution, that is the yardstick against which I measure every policy that is brought before conference for my consideration and vote. I have actually voted against some amendments or policies laid before conference because although I agree with the general thrust parts of the methods that they aim to achieve them do not meet these criteria.

Whilst I somewhat agree with Charlotte that we are not a party that can be defines as left or right, and therefore do not see the need for a Liberal Left movement, I do notice that Charlotte decides to bracket up the Social Liberal Forum in her poison pen letter.

She says:

The Socialist [sic] Liberal Forum will no doubt try and claim that the emergence of such a group further proves they are the moderate mainstream of the party, but that would be patently untrue. The SLF continually try and push Lib Dem policy away from the centre ground, and towards higher levels of tax, spending, and state nannying. Liberal Left are likely to pursue such an agenda to the extreme. We can only hope that more sensible party members push back against this pincer movement.

Now many will take Charlotte misnaming of the SLF as Socialist as an error, were it not for her earlier piece as a "Lib Dem blogger" in Total Politics that talked of the "SDP-statist-sandal wearer", which showed a clearly mangled view of party history as James Graham pointed out.

However, let's take her points one by one and reference back to the preamble of the constitution.

• higher levels of taxation and spending - We promote....a sustainable economy which serves genuine need, public services of the highest quality.
  
  We will foster a strong and sustainable economy which encourages the necessary wealth creating processes, develops and uses the skills of the people and works to the benefit of all, with a just distribution of the rewards of success.
  
  We recognise that the independence of individuals is safeguarded by their personal ownership of property, but that the market alone does not distribute wealth or income fairly. We support the widest possible distribution of wealth and promote the rights of all citizens to social provision and cultural activity. We seek to make public services responsive to the people they serve, to encourage variety and innovation within them and to make them available on equal terms to all.
• state nannying - We believe that people should be involved in running their communities. We are determined to strengthen the democratic process and ensure that there is a just and representative system of government with effective Parliamentary institutions, freedom of information, decisions taken at the lowest practicable level and a fair voting system for all elections. We will at all times defend the right to speak, write, worship, associate and vote freely, and we will protect the right of citizens to enjoy privacy in their own lives and homes. We believe that sovereignty rests with the people and that authority in a democracy derives from the people.
  
  We want to see democracy, participation and the co-operative principle in industry and commerce within a competitive environment in which the state allows the market to operate freely where possible but intervenes where necessary.

Enshrined in our constitution is a social and liberal attitude. We recognise that the private sector alone is not sufficient to meet the needs of all individuals. When there is the need to make public services available to people they must be responsive to their need. Something that the Lords tried to bring in to the Welfare Reform Bill but was sadly turfed out by the commons. We need to be responsive to the needs to the people so that "nobody is enslaved by poverty".

If upholding the heart of our party as laid out by the constitution is somehow pushing the party away from policy, maybe Charlotte should revisit the policies that we have stood on over the last few elections and see that the Social Liberal Forum is actually trying to pull the party back towards what has been agreed before.

As for the talk of pincer movements Charlotte clearly misunderstands how the party works. There is not so much a them and us mentality. Of the 631 candidates that stood in 2010 there is a broad church, of the members who turn up to conference there is a similarly wide church. But what we put before the people come election time is what we all agree on. That is Liberal Democracy, talk of pincer movements either from the SLF, Liberal Left, the Orange Bookers, the Parliamentarians or anyone else is not the way that our party will ever work. Every one of the groups above will have failed to get policy accepted that was clearly put forward by them when the issue was put to a vote and no doubt that will continue to be the case.

Update: Before I wrote this I posted a comment that was a shorter form of this on Charlotte's blog that now at 09:30 the following day has yet to be moderated.

Tories can't stand 9% muscled Liberals

There are poor Tories who are all concerned that nice Mr Clegg is showing too much Lib Dem muscle since the loss of the referendum in May.

They are concerned that Lib Dems are making them steer a more liberal course on human rights; business regulation; immigration; green issues; pro-growth measures; the timing of spending cuts; Europe; NHS reforms; family policy and tuition fees.

Yeah that list is right, our dear blue painted leader was attacked for actually not doing as much on Tuition Fees that some Tories wanted to do if they had been a majority government. They want to cut faster, but have been held back by the liberal democrats. They want to take away your human rights and if you look at their stance towards Europe and Immigration you can guess how appeasing to UKIP and even slightly to the BNP and EDL this might be when they reinstate their alternative. They also wanted to make dramatic changes until Lib Dem conference reps, myself included, told our MPs otherwise and told them they couldn't go that far. Some called this last a U-Turn but conference reps did allow our party's MPs to go further than our manifesto and the coalition agreement, just not as far as the Tories wanted to take things. Of course the NHS muscle was flexed before the AV referendum was lost.

Seems like the Tories are all very good at kicking sand in others people's faces when they can, which actually is most of the time they have a Prime Minister. But as Alex Wilcock points out the electoral maths hasn't given them that muscle, yet they still want to kick sand on their junior coalition partners when they can, or secretly rejoice when Labour do it for them.

So yeah the Lib Dems are sick of both our government partners and the opposition kicking sand at us. We're beefing up, because people need to know just how liberal we are, just what changes we are bringing in to the Tories preferred trajectory. If Tories think this is only because we lost our part of voting reform, the AV referendum, while their reduction in seats went through on a common's vote, then maybe they should have just let us win that.

But of course it is not the case that the Lib Dems are only flexing muscle because of the AV referendum defeat. We flexed it in the general election and people voted for us. We need to keep flexing it to show people why they should continue to do so. If the Tories themselves are saying we are moving them leftwards, then surely we must be doing something for the people, so vote Lib Dem, you know it make sense.

Dear Ken, I'm not susceptible to bribery nor a sub-species

Venal adj
1 : capable of being bought or obtained for money or other valuable consideration : purchasable; especially : open to corrupt influence and especially bribery : mercenary venal legislator;

2 : originating in, characterized by, or associated with corrupt bribery venal arrangement with the police;

Definition for the Merriam-Webster dictionary

Now this may be news to London Mayoral candidate Ken Livingstone, but I am not for sale. Nor are the values of the Liberal Democrats. Nor am I a sub-species, he should ask Michael Connarty if he considers me to a political sub species or not.

Look at the situation that the country faced last May. Labour could have formed an administration with the Liberal Democrats, it still wouldn't have had the number of MPs to force through any legislation so would have had to have bribed Northern Irish Unionist, all the Nationalists and whoever to get anything done.

Would such a government have been stable?

Looking at what the SNP seem to be demanding up in Scotland where they have a majority Government the answer would be no. We would now be finding ourselves highly unpopular with overseas investors and without the support of the Eurozone to even be forced to bale us out, who knows where our economy would be.

What the Liberal Democrats did by forming a coalition with the Conservatives was create some stability. We don't have an administration that lurches from one bill to the next uncertain of whether they will be able to afford to do anything on the whim of a really small party. If Ken thinks we are being venal for the sake of our own party he should look at the results in the polls last month. People have been punishing our party while we still wait for the medium term results of what we have been seeking to do come into light.

Tough decision have been made, ones that Labour put off until they had hoped to win a fourth term maybe. The problem being that in putting them off the decisions that had to be made got tougher. In the nine months from when the Liberal Democrats approved the pre-manifesto at Autumn conference 2009 until the election the following May, even in the month of the election campaign itself, figures emerged that made things we promised into things we aspired to. That is how bad things were getting, when all the while and even in last week's BBC Question Time Labour were still blaming it solely on a world wide situation and unable to look at the fact that because it was worldwide nobody else was in a fit state to help us out. We had to help ourselves, not simply blame everyone else.

Ken should have taken note that his own party were offering stuff to the Lib Dems last May as well. There is just one thing they were flicking through a catalogue and picking out things that the Lib Dems they knew would like, without wanting to change too much of what they wanted, or being able to ensure that when they placed the order that they would be able to deliver.

Last Thursday on STV Sophie Bridger even got her Tory Opponent in the Inverclyde by election to say that the Lib Dems had secure more fairness that would have been present in a Conservative minority government. As one of the tenets of why I am a Liberal Democrat is to bring fairness (not just when times are good but also when they are bad) I think we are doing things along the right lines. We still have a way to go of course, but soon that too I hope will be visible to all. But people like Ken are still moaning about the problems but incapable of giving coherent solutions, that is the current Labour malaise.

The Queen's Speech - Initial Thoughts

For the last time in this the 15th Parliament of her reign the Queen has delivered the words that her Government's wishes. Well after all the pomp and circumstance has led to the Queen taking her seat on the throne in the House of Lords. When Black Rod entered the Commons though it was surprisingly sparsely populated on the Labour benches.

Frank (Oops*) Dennis Skinner shouted out "Royal Expenses are on the way!" in his traditional role as mischief maker in chief. Then all the Members, including the Lib Dems showing they still respect the authority of the crown just not the the content of this speech, followed the Speaker to the other place. But what did the speech contain once they all stood at the back of the Upper Chamber?

Well the main thrust was the economy but how was that to be done? Fostering growth through education and training. International collaboration for Economic Growth and Climate Change (strangely of course the rejection of bring 10:10 to the House recently grates against that, can't get their own House in order). Though they have mentioned their new buzz cleaner fuel Carbon Capture and Storage, but no mention about utilising other renewables and to there was an announcement to help the poorest households with their energy bills. There is also going to be the legislation laid to bring about a high speed rail link between London and Scotland.

Regulation of the financial service industry to be brought in over the governance and benefits that the banking sector currently enjoys. So Gordon Brown is going to sort out the mess of the regulation of the financial sector that he brought in as Chancellor. There was also the vague promise to bring lgislation forward to half the deficit. Wow! That will be a lot to achieve in 70 days, and it is also very wishy washy, it is hardly a line that can be thrown away, yet the speech component of this would be able to fit into a Tweet.

Free personal care, but only to those in highest need. Parents to take responsibility of children's anti-social behaviour, so an even greater tightening of civil liberty you may not be judged by the sins of your fathers but those of your children. This from the Government that wants everybody to work full time, encouraging people off benefits with a stick, so parental supervision is going to be harder to achieve in some cases. 'Continue' to narrow the gap between rich and poor, equality of pay between men and women. Neither of these two have been effective attacked in 12 years of a Labour government surprisingly and now in their dying breathe they want to resolve the issues they have ignored or on occasions made worse over the last 3 parliaments. But there is to be movement on temporary agency workers, something that I've seen first hand for the last 8 years or so and needs greater protection, long overdue.

Constitutional reform, will continue to be brought forward, a democratic mandate for the Lords. Sadly there appeared to be very little in this section of reforming Parliament, not enough to please the people. Though Parliament will work with the Northern Irish to continue the devolution of Police and Law and Order, the one outstanding devolution from the Agreement from the start of Blair's years. There is also a promise of more powers to Wales and a continuation of working with Scotland, I didn't hear anything to implement any of the Calman proposals so Labour are dropping the ball on Scotland, and the Tories are unlikely to pick it up if they take power.

However, how this Government can work towards a world without nuclear weapons while being committed to replacing Trident is something we all want to know. But they are to bring an end to cluster munitions, after 12 years they have finally got around to tyring to deal with one Princess Diana's legacies and do away with landmines.

There is a lot of noble talk but there are some things that are too big to have been left to the end, the Equality Bill for example surely should have been a first term commitment rather than a rump achievement. They are taking steps towards the Lib Dem policy of free personal care. There was some mention of education as well, so the mantra from the pre-1997 election of "Education, Education, Education" is still looking for a resolution over 12 years later, surely some sort of failure of their Prime objective. Lord's Reform is still a draft bill, nothing about fair votes, getting big money out of politics, stuff that could have given a clean bill to the next parliament but no steps in that direction.

These are purely my initial thoughts of what struck me from what was said, as it was being said. I may look at the full text later and pick up some other things.

*May have something to do with the watching the repeat of BBC Children in Need's Frank Skinner narrated Round the World in 80 Days just before sleep last night.

New Edict from Non-Scientific Home Office

Memo from the Home Office:

From the Inquisition Chamber,
Home Office,
Whitehall,
SW1

Effective Immediately.

We have listened to scientific advise, and after a review decided that we know best after all, therefore in the this the year of our Lord Mandelson 2 we declare:

• The earth is flat and all globes shall be taken from schools and places of learning forthwith and beaten into a level playing field (Minster of Sport to be consulted about availability of these)
• This earth is at the centre of the Universe, the sun, planets and stars revolve around us. Anyone caught mentioning Galileo is to be rowed to the edge of the world and thrown off.
• If any ape suggests we are their decedent we say shoot them. Apparently those Gorillas have been saying that most loudly, shouldn't take too long for the SAS to get rid of the remaining ones. (However, send them by boat, man wasn't meant to fly, that is just unnatural)
  
• Penicillin is just mould and we will commission Kim and Aggie to look into its effective removal.
• This going to a switch in the wall and things coming on is witchcraft. We will take all 'electrical' engineers to the nearest lake and test them for witchery by means of ordeal by water. Any floaters, we expect the majority, will be burnt at the stake.
• Vehicles that move without visible means or forward momentum are also beyond our reasoning. We will announce an amnesty for those that use such contraptions to trade them in for 2 horses so as they can pull their carts.
• Mead, beer and the smoking of the noble weed brought back from the edge of the world by Sir Walter Rayleigh are honourable pastimes and the later does not affect innocent by standers. Anyone who suggests otherwise is clearly Nutts.
• We are not too sure about the lumpy, round, root crop he also brought back and we think there is still some need for scientific research. We have asked Colonel Sanders and Ronald McDonald to get all the goodness out of this item.

Signed Alan Johnson

Lord High Inquisitor

It's not the Champagne that is the Story

I agree with Mark who reckoned this morning that the fact that David Cameron had a full champagne flute in his hand last night at a Spectator fringe event was largely a non-story. At least I agree that supping the champagne in itself is a non-story, I trust it was a decent example of the vintner's art.

What made the whole thing a story is that the Tories have been trying, and failing, to control the media agenda at this, which for them, is a crunch conference.It is the conference before a General Election and as a party looking to take over the UK the Conservatives want to get their message across. Yet they are trying to do just what Labour did in the run up to 1997 and thereafter control the beast that is the fourth estate.

A flute of champagne at a Conservative Party Conference would never have been a front page headline and full page story apart from the fact that Eric Pickles had ordered, yes the Tories can be authoritarian too, all the front bench spokespeople not to be seen with champagne. The Alistair Campbell impersonation that the Tory media machine is attempting is where the story actually lies.However, that media machine is failing whole heartedly. Last night on Channel Four news the Tory Conference story was Ben Summerskill, director of Stonewall not turning up at the LGBTory Conference Pride event, it was backed up by Stephen Fry being interviewed about the open letter that was sent. The morning the papers ran with the champagne storied and Europe continues to hang like the sword of Damocles over the whole shebang. We've all seen the panels on Newsnight in which the PPCs are even not allowed to say 'anything' when the Europe question is posed, how different from the Lib Dems at Bournemouth.

Even when it comes to policy they are seen as stealing and then not too well. Millennium Elephant points out the plagarism of a poor student that Osborne has perpetrated to fill the void of a lack of substantive Economic ideas that his party had before the crunch started to bite. Like any mediocre student he went to the library and looked up what the master had written, taken some key points out of it, tried to pass it off as his own work, but fell short as the whole thing doesn't fit right together. The comments in the side when Osborne receives his work back would probably say 'you have grasped some of the key principles but failed to understand the mechanics behind them to create a coherent, comprehensive answer'.

As Millennium wrote:

"At the Liberal Democrat conference, just a fortnight ago, we were having debates and arguments and even out-and-out scraps about which of our MANY well-established, long-standing, democratically approved, POPULAR policies we could STILL AFFORD to place front and centre in a manifesto.

"It was PAINFUL. It was DIFFICULT. It was what REAL "tough choices" actually looks like.

"The Conservatories, by contrast, have NOTHING.

"There are NO policies that they have had to say "we can't do that"; there were NO polices there in the first place."

So while the age of spin spins inexplicably out of control under the Conservative masters the lesson learnt from that flute is that the media is an uncontrollable as the bubbles in the glass. They will always be there ready for the fresh excitement of being unleashed. While you think you have control as you hold the glass however, the bubbles themselves will do whatever they want.

VotertragedyapproachesGordonisatrocious*

I guess I'm on a song lyric re-writing burst myself. One wonders what Gordon Brown would come out with if faced with the threat of a Jeremy Paxman interview on Newsnight. After all the blogopshere has already taken Brown to town. Would a nervy Prime Minister see the menace in Paxo's eyes and fess up? Maybe: though probably not as musically as the Sherman brothers' lyrics to Mary Poppins which I've rehashed below though.

PAXMAN

So Prime Minister your speech went down well in the hall but the Sun are saying you’ve lost it. Have you really lost all ambition and hope of forming the next Government.

BROWN

No Jeremy
No Jeremy
That’s not what I see!
Because I’m as plucky
As plucky can be

So Jeremy
So Jeremy
What you say isn’t true!
The people will decide
It’s not up to you
And the Sun is remiss
If they think so too

PAXMAN

Now in Mori’s opinion poll
You’ve been stung
It shows that Labour’s
On the bottommost rung

BROWN

Though Prescott spends time
Dreamin’ of chaps he could choke
In the next Parliament
It’s the people who vote

Now Jeremy
Now Jeremy
Can we talk policy!
It’s how we can win
And winners be

PAXMAN

Your policy
From what I see
Aren’t really that new!
You’ve made some often
But not seen them through
As for teenage mums
It’s workhouse renewed

BROWN

Ah Jeremy
Err Jeremy
Ask the BNP!
It’s their policy
We nicked it you see

So Jeremy
Oh Jeremy
Voting change too!
Lib Dems will love us
When that we review
We'll give them AV
Yes that's what we'll do.

But Jeremy
Lord ‘reditry
‘istr’y they’ll be!
When people place their vote
For Labour and me

No where is there
A more 'appier crew
Than them wot sings
"The Red Flag, me,
Labour new!"
But you've shown Jeremy
Our policy
Is see through!

Lyrics Stephen Glenn
Music Richard M. Sherman and Robert B. Sherman

*Working out the title maybe I chose the wrong song, or maybe I'm just still being inspired.

Rachel Sylvester: Fail

Rachel Sylvester's column in today's Times really wound me up as I walked from the bus stop to work. First her headline drew me in then wound me up as she quoted Oliver James, but more on that later.



What really got me exacerbated was her daring to comment on politics when she clearly has no idea of opposition "parties" (yes plural) or at least of the English language. She says:

"At the very moment when leadership is required to deal with the economic downturn, politicians of all parties are frozen in the headlights of the recession. The Government is now the majority shareholder of several banks but seems to have no control over the bankers.The opposition parties are quick to criticise Labour's decisions but find it hard to say what they would do instead.

"The political elite has been neutered by the collective failure to predict and prevent the credit crunch and their apparent powerlessness to reverse it now."

Scathing comments if they were 100% true. She mentions parties, Rachel that is the plural of party yet you only mention the Tories as an opposition party. The reason that this really grates is that one party did predict what might happen, did call for measures to be tightened to prevent the banks having carte blanche and are now suggesting what to do different to get out of it. Yes, folks surprise, surprise the MSM, or at least Ms Sylvester, have overlooked the Liberal Democrats.



Strange then that she should have used Oliver James's quote about Tweeters:

"Twittering stems from a lack of identity. It's a constant update of who you are, what you are, where you are. Nobody would Twitter if they had a strong sense of identity."

Strange that as Ms Sylvester calls for a party to have a sense of a identity, by her own definition it would seem, had over 1000 uses of the #ldconf hashtag over their conference weekend. Top trended during the leaders speech as well as souring when Howard Dean was speaking. I think that overturns both what Ms Sylvester tried to propagate and disproves what Oliver James has said.



We're Liberal Democrats, we have an identity, and we're going to speak, Tweet, blog and make a fuss about it because it will make a difference.

Lynne Featherstone MP agrees.
Footnote: Proof positive that she doesn't get Twitter she says Nick Clegg Tweets but has fallen for the unofficial Nick as it even says in the profile.

SNP in Coalition? Brave New World Required

I see that Jeff is yet again displaying his love for the Lib Dems on his sleeve by referring to Jason Allardyce from today's Sunday Times.

Of course Jeff focused on the comments that were nice to the SNP and somehow missed out this:

"Many of us would be happy if we could deal with the SNP. Labour is now so contaminated that a deal with them looks impossible."

It is the contamination of the Labour Party that is the key. Back in 1999 there was a sense that Labour could move things forward and in 2003 with them weakened and the Lib Dems position strengthened we were able to get more policy across than four years earlier. However, the Labour party may have been the ones to bring in devolution to the UK Scotland and to a lesser extent Wales and Northern Ireland but they have since stalled in their commitment to that end.

There is room for a stronger Scottish Parliament and next weekends Scottish Liberal Democrat Conference will be discussing some key policies to make that so. So while Jeff, like Jason Allardyce, points out the current opinion polls, I'm looking to the future and the policies that the Lib Dems are discussing. Those from Harrogate and for Perth next week fill me with hope that we won't get splattered in the polls either at the next General Election of Scottish.

Nick Clegg said in his conference speech earlier today:

"So when, in the coming months, we offer people practical help. It will not just be sticking plaster solutions - it will be part of a new, better approach. That's what makes us different from the others.

"All parties make promises. You'll get a policy from each about job security; about repossessions; about help with bills. The real question is will they be policies to patch up the old order, or policies to build a new one?

"You know where the Liberal Democrats will stand. We will not promise just to rebuild what we had before. We will promise to build it anew, and build it better."

That is a bold new message. At a time when Labour and the Conservatives are unable to think outside the box, either because of the restraints of the unions or business, or because they are limited in what they can comprehend. The Nats also have shied away from boldness but only because they want to do it one way and seem incapable of seeking the aid of others constructively.

With our economy in ruins, our politicians at a new low (if that were possible), now is the time to make bold steps to restore confidence, in our banks, in our economy, in our politicians.

As Nick went on to say the current state that we find ourselves in "opens the door to a genuinely new way of doing things." He concluding by summing up the hotch potch of fixes from left and right saying:

"You have everything to gain because we will do things differently. A never-ending cycle of red-blue, blue-red government has got us into this mess - it is never going to get us out. Try something new.

"Now is the time to think big. If you want better, choose different. Choose the Liberal Democrats."

So with the failing of the old guard with the old style there is room for a major rethink. If it ain't broke don't fix it, but if it is? Now is the time for boldness. Labour have lacked it, the Tories have nothing to add, the Nats speak in boldness yet fail to act.

Now all we have to do is get the message across

Did you Hear the One About the SNP Making a Promise?

It would sound like the start of a comedian heading towards a punchline if it weren't about another SNP failure to deliver an election pledge. In their manifesto in 2007 they pledged to reduce class sizes to 18 for P1-3 by 2011.

Now West Lothian's progress, though welcome, does not a whole country make. Just look at the shocking progress in Dundee where progress has actually gone backwards in 2008. I heard on the BBC News earlier that on current rates of progress it would take 18 years 80 (EIGHTY) years* (87 years according to the Scotsman) to reach the Government pledge. So that would only be 16 years late then and any currently born child would be at, or contemplating, university should they have chosen that path.

One of the hindrances to real progress being made has been the lack on investment by the SNP government over the last 18 months. This has led to some councils cutting teaching staff or assistants to meet their budgetary expectations. That doesn't even take into account the moratorium that many have faced on capital spending on new schools to provide the space capability to me even to dream of such a target.

*Apparently I misheard the news earlier. Thanks to Bernard Salmon for the correction.

We Will Look to Spend Better

In response to the pledge to cut taxes and redistribute spending to priority issues today marked another step along that path. Cable said earlier today that he and Jeremy Browne would be carrying out a thorough and painstaking review of all central government spending. The end target is to highlight £20bn of public expenditure that can be reallocated to places it is needed more and better spent.

The first of those priorities was also focused on today education.

From providing 20 hours of free quality care and nursery education for every child from 18 months. To infant classes no larger than 15 pupils on to scraping tuition fees for for first Higher Education degree qualifications whatever level those qualifications are.

Some of the other parties have been ridiculing us that we don't know where the spending can be made. Well we have started the search. In six months will they be quite as cock a hoop. Indeed before the mockers flock there is a full costing of what this first trance will cost, and ideas of where it could come from already.

While these policies only apply to England you can be assured the the principle will be taken on a raised in Scotland by the Scottish Liberal Democrats led by Tavish Scott and Jeremy Purvis for the education advancement here in Scotland. Adjusted to what has already been achieved since devolution and just as in 2005 we here in Scotland had to have a radically different manifesto to other parts of the UK as much of the core then had already been achieved or was in progress here North of the border.

Clegg Wants to Break Through the Cosy Cabal

"This is the route out of recession. But the other parties will not
deliver it. Liberal Democrats – and Liberal Democrats alone – can
truly change Britain for the better.

"Together, I know we can make it happen."

Is how Nick Clegg finished his speech opening the One Day Policy Conference at the LSE about Progressive Society. He accused Labour and the Conservatives of forming a cosy political cabal sucking the life out of politics.

"Both parties' dependence on special interests, their centralising,
micro-managing ways, that ignore the needs of ordinary people and local
communities, that’s what’s sucked the life out of our politics.

"The two old parties have been running Britain, turn and turn about, making
the same mistakes, for longer than most people can remember. A cosy cabal,
not wanting to change too much. Happy enough with the status quo because
they know they’ll get their foot in the door of a ministerial limousine sooner
or later.

"Labour and the Conservatives – the old parties – are
incapable of real change."

He went out to outline areas of real and radical change in taxation, investment in a stable, green economy fit for or children. About not "clobbering" future generations with debt due to our inability to do anything or the right thing to shorten and limit he effects of the recession. About carrying out a spending review to make sure that what is spent is spent well. Looking at investing wisely in areas such as childcare and education.

Both Labour in Westminster and the SNP in Holyrood have argued that our tax cuts and spending plans do not add up, but have they really looked at what we are saying. We are saying that a review will show up the waste and enable us to spend better. Look at some of the things that Government does spend money on, not necessarily bad things, but not necessarily the best use of money. Nick says:

"It's the duty of a responsible party and a responsible government to squeeze
everything it can out of every penny of tax. This is not "government money"
– it’s people's money, money they worked long and hard to earn. We should
take it away in taxes only when we’re certain we’ll spend it well."

Yes we are facing tough times financially but just as the people are finding ways to get the most out of what disposable income they have remaining, so the government should and ought do likewise. Yes we need to invest, but invest it wisely and make changes that will make it easier for people to able to cope, after all politicians are the people's representatives. The Nats in Scotland have announced less than 1% change on what their spending review said in 2007. The Tories likewise are staring in the headlights like a rabbit with their do nothingness. Or Labour with their "pinprick" VAT reduction which has had no effect.

Labour and the Tories, Nick argues will never make a big change like this. They’re far too timid, too stuck in the old ways.

I see that Tom Harris isn't too impressed quelle surprise no change there then.

The Tale of Two Debates

Both the student wings of the SNP and Liberal Democrats in under a week had their say in the SNP government's decision to raise the age of off-sales to over 21s. The SNPs youth tabled an ammendment to their parties motion while Liberal Youth Scotland proposed the motion that had an ammendment of additions from the Policy Committee.

As reported in the press over the weekend Friday's debate by the Nats changed from being about the policy to "one of delegate loyalty to the leadership". The Lib Dem debate meanwhile had stuck to the liberalism or rather ill-liberalism of several of the SNP proposals, the stigmatism of 18-21 year olds as well as separate supermarket queues.

It was hardly surprising that when loyalty became an added issue to the debate in Perth on Friday that the Scottish Youth for Independence amendment was defeated 191-130, whereas when only the policy was as stake in Edinburgh at the Lib Dems conference on the Saturday the amendment had a few more objectors but the motion was carried almost unanimously.

The Times may well have congratulated the SNP for allowing the youth wings amendment to be debated by the party hierarchy but when using Shona Robinson carried out the subtle change for the substance of the motion to confidence in the leadership was it really given a fair run?

Well the Vote is to Make it Happen

The big debate for the vision and direction of the party has just been passed, unamended down in Bournemouth, there was excellent coverage of the debate for and against (if slightly biased IMHO) by Stephen Tall over here at Lib Dem Voice.

While as Brian Taylor said there was a rather mixed response from the floor at conference the fact the tax cuts have been passed at conference means that the party will now be promising a radical agenda for social justice whenever the General Election comes along. We're trusting the people to do what is right with more of their money, you can't be more liberal than that. I know that the party will still ensure there is sufficient provision for those unable to earn an income for whatever reason. Those supporting the cuts (many of them big hitters in the cabinet) have said that this is only part of our social justice agenda going forward.

So the Lib Dems look set to deliver a fairer tax system, lifting more people out of poverty than Gordon Brown knows about (at least the ones he keeps claiming to be helping). If we can deliver this plus social justice we really will have the radical edge in UK politics.

When is a Rebellion Not a Rebellion?

The Independent has the headline this morning Clegg faces grassroots rebellion over his £20bn tax cutting plan.

Now I'm assuming that the Indy is using the word in linmes with the following definition:

"organized opposition to authority; a conflict in which one faction tries to
wrest control from another"

As opposed to the sense of:

"organized opposition to a government or other authority involving the use of
violence"

As I don't expect my fellow Lib Dems to be brandishing pick axes, sickles or pitchforks as they apporach the platform later this afternoon. Although such activity may well shift the coverage off BBC Parliament and unto BBC1 or BBC2.

Indeed as Paul Holmes MP points out in his article in Lib Dem Voice at the end of last week.

"It would appear that Liberal Democrat policy has changed to one of cutting
public expenditure to fund tax cuts rather than switching wasteful or less
desirable New Labour expenditure to fund needed investment in accord with
Liberal Democrat policies. "

So indeed rather than being a rebellion it is a case of sticking to what has gone before that may be what may happen in Bournemouth later. It is as Paul also puts it the vagueness that is the issue the as "yet unidentified spending cuts in order to fund as yet unspecified tax cuts".

So should the amendment from Paul, Evan Harris et al pass it is not rebellion but clarification. Indeed if anything it can't be a rebellion as the authority on setting policy within our party is the democracy of conference which has yet to say one way or the other which way we are going on this policy paper laid before them by the policy committee.

Lipstick on a Pig: The Porcine of the Species

Well neither Barak Obama nor John McCain were first to coin the phrase "putting lipstick on a pig" though both have used it it was first cited in the online Urban Dictionary as far back as August 10, 2004; when it was defined as:

A term used by many, generally in reference to someone who may be trying to make something or someone look appealing or attractive when it quite clearly will not work, or will only deceive the dumbest of people.

Although Time magazine ran a story ran a story on the history of the phrase and it first sprung from funding for an American football stadium in 1985.

"One of the oldest published quotes using the entire phrase appeared in
The Washington Post in November 1985. Asked by the San Francisco Board of
Supervisors to put his station's $20,000 fundraiser earnings toward the
renovation of Candlestick Park, KNBR personality Ron Lyons scoffed, "That would
be like putting lipstick on a pig."

Well there's no doubt this idiom survived the collision of two words and thoughts to conjure up a phrase that has a specific use and parlance. This evolution of language has seen the word survive and be fit to be used by both candidates during this election cycle. So why the brouhaha over it's use? Has it really become a term of sexist abuse as the latest attack ads on US TV would have us believe? Lets look into the context of how both Senator's use the phrase.

The first use was by the Senator from Arizona not as they may have you believe by the one from Illinois. It was actually made in the context of a female opponent. As CNN reports it was John McCain who first used the phrase:

In Iowa last October, McCain drew comparisons between Hillary Clinton's current
health care plan and the one she championed in 1993: "I think they put some
lipstick on the pig, but it's still a pig." He used roughly the same line in
May, after effectively claiming the Republican nomination.

Now look at the alleged sexist use of the phrase by Barak Obama on Monday in Virginia.

"John McCain says he's about change too, and so I guess his whole angle is,
'Watch out George Bush -- except for economic policy, health care policy, tax
policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics -- we're
really going to shake things up in Washington.'

"That's not change. That's just calling something the same thing something
different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. You
know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it's still
going to stink after eight years. We've had enough of the same old thing."

Now maybe McCain spokesman Brian Rogers can tell me what he thinks is the "big difference" between the two references. He says:

"McCain was referring to a policy proposal. Obama was referring to [Alaska]
Gov. Sarah Palin. It's obviously disrespectful and offensive.

"Who has been talking about lipstick lately? It was obvious. The crowd
went crazy because of it."

Erm well lets take a careful look at those two paragraphs of text from Barak. He starts by stating he is talking about McCain, about his lining up with Bushes policy in Washington. Now as Sarah Palin who actually described herself (and all hockey moms) as a pitbull with lipstick, loves to remind us she isn't one of the Washington set. So clearly she cannot be lining up change in line with those policies i.e. putting lipstick on a pig.

He carries on after the first analogy with a second about fish in paper still stinking after 8 years again a reference to the Bush policies that McCain has supported. The context is complete on either side of the edit that is doing the rounds in republican circles and on the airwaves in the States. Fortunately as the Huffington Post points out many in the media are not so easily fooled or deceived like the dumbest people.

No where in what Obama said does he refer to, nor hint at, Governor Palin. Of course McCain only started talking about "change" after the Democratic candidates in the primaries got mileage from it. Surely instead of a sexism charge which has no foundation in truth a trades description violation should be levelled at the McCain camp.

One senator used the phrase "putting lipstick on a pig" in relation to a female opponent. But the female opponent in question Hillary Rodham Clinton didn't take offence at it, nor use it to turn the tables on the man who said it, because Hillary is more of a man about it that McCain, Brian Rogers or his campaign team are.

You Better Knock, Knock, Knock on Doors

On Monday Ideas of Civilisation posted an interesting piece on his blog called "Should politicians have to contact voters?". It caused a little bit of debate in the comments thread of which I partook. Well yesterday I noticed this challenge issued by Nick Clegg which takes up just that point.

Nick points out as with IoC that most people feel alienated with politicians, I can vouch for that from the contact I have had with people on the doorstep. They rarely see their politician and in some instances have gone many years without any direct contact with a member of any political party coming to them before I turned up. Too often it seems that politicians especially in what are conceived to be safe seats take their electorate for granted and fail to connect.

Nick points out that he also feels the best way to engage with people is to go and talk to them saying:

"I'm passionate about connecting with people. Talking with them, listening to them, and learning from them. That is why since I became Leader I've been holding Town Hall meetings in constituencies across the country. And that is why at our conference in Bournemouth I will be challenging our party to knock on at least a million doors between the end of conference and Polling Day for the Local [in parts of England] and European elections. It is a tough challenge, but one which I am confident that we are more than capable of meeting.

"For Liberal Democrats calling on people to talk to them isn't just about elections and votes. It is about understanding what matters to residents in our communities. Our opponents often deride us for listening to the very real concerns of voters about local issues. But it is something to be proud of that we take seriously such concerns and, more importantly, work to act on them. This is what community politics is all about; and this is what makes us different from the other parties. Community politics rightly lies at the heart of our party and the way in which we do politics."

I totally agree, while you yourself may be somewhat tuned in to the concerns at a certain level you can get caught up too much in the high level, high profile politics. So without direct contact with non-political people you can miss an underlying groundswell of opinion from residents, concerned parents, the elderly or some other group in your society. A number of people have at times said to me that they feel that Lib Dem policies are often common sense, although sometimes followed by the phrase but I can't see myself voting for you. I think the fact that Lib Dem politicians and activists do engage with people is partly why our policies do form common sense, we hear both sides of the argument before going to conference to shape policy and the direction our party will take.

I for one will be out and about on doorsteps but I can't do a million on my own of course.