How About Some Science Fact Tom?

It looks like Tom Harris is having a go at Nick Clegg over policy regarding the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD). He says:

"Hang on a second – "interfering in the advice they are given"? What on earth is [Clegg] talking about? If he means that literally, then he’s accusing ministers of changing the advice that the council gives them before they give it. Since this has never happened, I guess that what he actually means is that ministers – now brace yourself for this and have those smelling salts within easy reach – sometimes reject the advice they receive."

Err now Tom, I think you will find he is talking about the reality of the situation that is the implosion of independent experts prepared to serve on the ACMD, currently counting seven individuals either sacked or resigned since Home Secretary Alan Johnson sacked Professor David Nutt last October as Chair of the ACMD.

Don't take mine or Nick Clegg's word for it here's what Professor Nutt said at the time he was sacked:

"If scientists are not allowed to engage in the debate then you devalue their contribution to policy making."

Or look at what Polly Taylor's statements on her own, the sixth, resignation in March:

"The government's first response [to the guidelines] was highly unsatisfactory and appeared to justify ministers appointing and dismissing independent scientific advisers according to trust, which is an arbitrary and subjective matter."

Going on to add.

"I feel that there is little more we can do to describe the importance of ensuring that advice is not subjected to a desire to please ministers or the mood of the day's press."

Then look at Professor Nutt who was sacked by the Minister as Chairman of because he made a statement based on science:

"I am very concerned that too many scientists have been left in the position of having to decide between advising government and maintaining their scientific independence.

"I established the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs because I felt it was vital to develop scientific knowledge on drugs independent of the perception or reality of political interference. The new guidelines on scientific advice suggest to me that the government has still not understood the matters of scientific principle at stake, nor what it means to work respectfully with independent scientific advisers."

What the Lib Dems are saying and it is on page 74 of the shiny new Manifesto that landed on my doorstep yesterday:

"Always base drugs policy on independent scientific advice, including making the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs completely independent of government."

Yeah let's quantify that advise on scientific evidence. After all politicians mocked Galileo when he said the earth wasn't at the centre of the universe, they mocked Christopher Columbus when he said the world wasn't flat. Thank God there were both allowed independence to prove their theories and come up with the scientific evidence. It may not have always been what the leaders wanted, but it was accurate.

Under Labour without the facts we may well find ourselves on a disc carried on the backs of four elephants called Berilia, Tubul, Great T'Phon, and Jerakeen, carried on the shell of a star turtle Great A'Tuin

Why the People are Kingmakers not the Lib Dems

I'm sorry Iain and Tom it's not as easy as Iain makes out. Indeed Tom's argument "let the little people have their vote*, then ignore what they say and start bartering away the very policies they voted for behind closed doors and without reference to them." seems to apply to some of the policies that over 60% who expressed a preference against in 2005 saw happen under first past the post.

What Nick has laid out are four principles that will shine through no matter what decisions Liberal Democrats have to make after an election (even if that is in choosing a minority partner to see them through). So Iain or Tom either of your parties can make it clear right here right now.

• Is your party committed to a fairer tax system lifting the poorest out and make the wealthiest pay their fair share by shutting some of the loopholes you've both created.
• Is your party committed to investing in education and provision of skills to lift us out of the recession and get some of those out of work back in productive employment.
• Are you committed to a green, sustainable economy to lift us out of this recession.
• Is your committed to real political change to sort out the political mess we now find ourselves in.

Neither of you seem keen on the first, are non-committal on the second, need work on the third and are refusing to take tough choices on the fourth.

One of your parties talks change yet seems to not know the meaning of the work. The other promises future fairness while ignoring that means a failure to deliver over the past 13 years. All of the above are examples of change and fairness on the way forward. Things that the people are saying they want, you know away from the Westminster bubble, on the streets, on the buses, in the shops.

The Liberal Democrats principles are clear, the people will know just what we stand for. Whereas both you parties seem to be confused on just what you stand for.

Tom what we are waiting for is for those people to have their say first, see what mandate they give, they are the kingmakers not us. Sorry Tom unlike Labour we do not take anybody's vote for granted, that has been the problem with both Labour and the Conservatives for too long. That gentlemen is the difference, why it isn't straight forward to give an answer you want us to say. Although even you own party leaders are now being asked that question I notice, and guess what? They aren't giving as straight an answer as Mr Dale.

* How derogatory of an MP to call the electorate 'little' people.

Is Tom Harris Jealous of a Party with a Principled Stance on Education

Now I know Tom Harris is a Doctor Who fan, a fan of reality TV shows, but his recent blog post contains the phrase "back in the real world". The post in question is about the Lib Dems pledge to keep our promise to axe tuition fees for students.

In a fit of Kerry McCarthy-esque pique he is saying that the Lib Dems are keeping a meaningless pledge as he says we will not be able to enact it in the next parliament. Strangely his own party therefore have made meaningful pledges in each of the last three General Elections and have yet to "honour them" by his own standards. We still have hereditary peers in the Lords. We still haven't eradicated child poverty. As for the pledge before the first Labour win it was all about education, education, education.

Sadly in England and Wales our students find it is all about finding the money, finding the money, finding the money to pay their tuition fees. Back in their real world the failure of the Student Loans Company to provide many with money this last term is horrendous. University hardship funds are having to cover students that they should not normally have to. If students turn to them later this year with genuine hardship issues the funds will be lower than anticipated.

Harris goes on to say that the only way to fund such a pledge is by reducing drastically the number of people entering further education. Strangely his colleagues in Holyrood didn't take that attitude when they did agree to follow through the Lib Dem policy here. See we hadn't been the largest party in the Scottish Parliament but we were able to follow through on our pledges to some extent over eight years. Also there hasn't been a reduction in the number of people in Scotland doing further education since the dropping of tuition fees, what there has been has been a fall in the proportion who drop out because they can no longer afford to attend.

Who knows what the outcome of the next Westminster Election will be? It appears that Tom Harris has stopped fighting to win. Even with a little effort from Labour there may be a hung Parliament, which could mean, oh wait, some party may have to negotiate with another to form a workable Government. If that were the case surely certain of their pledges would end up being meaningful.

So if Tom Harris is saying that the Lib Dems should not form pledges to put before the electorate, what does that mean if his party is well behind in the polls from now until May? Does that mean that his party will not have to bother issuing a manifesto as it will be full of pledges they have no chance of keeping or honouring? Of course not.

What Tom Harris cannot stand is that the Lib Dems are remaining true to a long held education policy when over the last 12 years of Labour Government there have been 12 different Education Bills following the shifting sands and a thirteenth was included in the last Queen's speech.

So maybe Tom should look at the "real world" where everything isn't so Red and Blue. Latest opinion polls are showing once again that over 20% are going to vote Lib Dems and in the run up to previous elections that proportion has gone up. In some of those same polls Labour has been within a margin of error ahead of the Lib Dems. As for students I'm glad to see that Tom Harris takes their concerns, their issues so lightly, in the long run they are the people that he will need to re-elect him. Indeed it may be sooner than he anticipates.

But Tom Harris Where Were You Last Summer?

I cannot believe that Tom Harris has taken the view that the reforms suggested by Nick Clegg are political posturing. For a start isn't he listening to what the people are saying and the Lib Dems have long said that a lot of things he has highlighted need changing for transparency, fairness and for the good of democracy.

But the line he is taking is quite two faced. It's all well and good Tom Harris saying now 'if the existing [interim] system had been put in place years ago, virtually none of the excesses we’ve seen would have taken place.' But where was he last July when the issues he outlined as key were put to the vote. He wasn't in the division lobby that is for sure.

Indeed the fact is most of his own party and the official opposition voted against the changes he is now a year on so supportive of. So the Lib Dems were the ones moving with the agenda back then rather than the Johnny come latelies like Harris and Cameron. The fact is we need to do more than we wanted a year ago, the public demand it and the Lib Dems are still driving the agenda to action rather than platitudes and lip service.

A Leaky Chanter: SNP Attempt to Tartanise Smeargate Failure

Well The Times is running a story today about A Leaky Chanter being the Red Rag of Scotland. it even quotes a week old post by Iain Dale which calls them attack blogs.



But the Times is showing a bit off sloppy journalism when it says, "The respected Labour blogger Tom Harris MP has a link to A Leaky Chanter on his site" as if that was damning evidence that it was Labour run. But hang on a second thinks I the Scottish blogosphere is very incestuous when it comes to links so I checked out some of last years top Scottish Blogs in the Iain Dale love in. Well Jeff as top ranked SNP blog links there is his blogroll as do I. The Scottish Roundup will refer to it including this snigger at the Scottish Tories. So hang on if Leaky Chanter is meant only to be an attack blog against the Nats what is that story doing there. Admittedly most of the posts are anti-SNP but they are in Government.



But hang on Angus MacNeil, the SNP’s Scotland Office spokesman, said:

"With a senior blogger linking Leaky Chanter to Scottish Labour, and Welsh Labour finding themselves red-faced over the Aneurin Glyndwr blog, Labour must reveal who is running Leaky Chanter and what its relationship is to Labour’s blogging operations.

"There is a place for humour but we have Labour-linked blogs in Scotland branding neutral civil servants as SNP staff, making inaccurate allegations claiming ‘phantom houses’ and running fake sites as the First Minister — this is a dangerous path for any organisation to take."

Pardon? How does having a link to another blog link that to your own party. Tom Harris also links to Iain Dale, Guido and ConservativeHome does that make them Labour. Personally I agree with Tom's tweet that this is a pathetic attempt by the Nats to tartanise Smeargate.





There are a number of addition reasons that this rant from MacNeil is ill judged, first it comes so late in the day it cries out of attempting to steal some of the thunder. Although if he'd seen some of the polls at the weekend he may have seen that staying clear of the issue was the best course of action. Also Leaky Chanter does not fit into the modus operandi of a Labour backed attack blog, it is on blogspot not a purchased domain. It could be any manner of types that run it.

• A disillusioned floating voter not necessarily pro-independence that voted SNP in 2007 and is sick of seeing broken promise after broken promise


• It may be a disillusioned former Nat (there are a few of these one even sits in Holyrood)


• Of course it may be a Labour sympathiser doing it off their own bat. Particular seeing the number of Nat propagating blogs out there.

So as well as being ill informed MacNeil's comments are also terribly blinkered as a Labour spokesperson correctly points out at least 12 anonymous pro-Nationalist and anti-Labour websites operating (some of them will also be found on my blogroll). "Angus MacNeil and the SNP need to take a long hard look at the actions of people associated with their own party . . . before making baseless allegations against others."

One thing that MacNeil's misunderstanding of the blogoshere does do in linking him to smeargate is that like Draper and McBride he doesn't get the concept, thinks he can just jump in and make statements without full understanding, grasp of the facts or checking his own house first.

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.