LibCync

When the Pick of the Day isn't - Journalistic integrity WIN

2011-07-19T22:40:00.001+01:00

I was reading the Metro on the train this morning and was annoyed to find little adverts for "Body of Proof" on the Alibi Channel strewn throughout the TV listings. This made it harder to scan the listings and was not on I thought. I then noticed a big advert for the same programme on the left page. So far so commercial but I also noticed that "Body of Proof" was the top "Pick of the Day". Now, I know this is the Metro, but surely "buying" the Pick of the Day is a bit rum. But then I read the review which I quote below:

Dr Megan Hunt (Dana Delany) is a police medical examiner who adheres to all the usual US procedural drama clichés: she has a traumatic past and tricky personal life, and talks in the speedy, matter-of-fact, wisecracky way that all Workaholic Females In Tough Jobs have to. Quincy is available on DVD – you’re better off buying that instead.

Seems a certain TV reviewer wasn't happy about being told what to pick!

Too little too late from the Yes campaign

2011-05-05T15:06:00.004+01:00

So on Tuesday, the Yes campaign finally decided it might be an idea to actually explain AV (albeit in a necessarily wooly way). Two days before the referendum may be a tad too late.

I received an addressed leaflet from the No campaign a few weeks ago and Mrs. L received one from them last week. We have received nothing from the Yes campaign. I really hope the Yes campaign has some clever targeting strategy although I'm not at all confident.

(UPDATE: I also realised I got a lovely Take a Break style booklet from the tories about AV:
Your guide to voting 'NO' in the referendum
Exclusive: David Cameron: Why I'm voting 'No'
Why can't everything be a simple as First Past the Post?

I hear from a source in another tory local party that the local parties had to pay central office for the privilege of these anti-AV booklets. Clearly tory local parties have a lot more money than we LibDems are used to!
)

Also on Tuesday, I had a load of last minute addressed Yes letters dumped on me from someone who in turn has had a greater number dumped on them who in turn has had them dumped on them by someone who has an even greater number dumped on them! I managed to deliver the vast majority (phew!) whilst they are still of some use but it will be no great surprise that some of the more geographically difficult ones will inevitably be ending up in the recycling bin. Also I'm not sure their targetting is that great as the chances of anyone voting from one long street I delivered is approaching zero!

Anyway this letter (from that nice Mr Richard Wilson apparently) was again, IMHO, concentrating on politicians not people. The 3 reasons it gives in order are:

1. MPs working harder for you
2. Tackling 'Jobs for life' in Westminister
3. Giving you a stronger voice

Shouldn't these be the other way round in order of importance? Isn't empowerment of the voter the most important aspect?

Throughout this so-called campaign the Yes campaign have followed the No campaign in concentrating on politicians and outcomes rather than the actual system and the benefits for the voter.

Off the top of my head:

Real Benefits to the voter/the people:
- The result more accurately/farier reflects the will of the people in a constituency
- No more voting tactically
- No more wasted votes
- Genuinely popular independents have a better chance of breaking through

Debatable "outcomes":
- MPs will work harder
- MPs will reach out beyond their core vote
- Fewer safe seats

Why the hell haven't the YES campaign been concentrating on the clear-cur benefits for the voter rather than the rather dubious claims for the political outcomes?

The vast majority of people have no experience of an MP "working" for them, so this will hardly resonate. Yet this is the Yes campaign's number one point.

Also, the more important consequence of not concentrating on the system is that NOBODY UNDERSTANDS IT! Yes, saddos like myself who have made time in their busy lives to think about such things do but I'd suggest it doesn't go much further than that. Where were the mass mock AV elections up and down the country? The Yes campaign seems very proud of their facebook app to do this but where was the non-facebook equivalent? Not everyone is going to want to install yet another app and allow it to have access to all their details and to harass their friends. And, whille we're at it, why is it that googling "yes2av" until recently didn't return the Yes campaign page at all?

Understanding and education was the only defence against the lies of the NO campaign and people are not going to vote for something they don't understand if there's even a hint that it has anything to do with politicians.

Anyway, back to Mr. Wilson, he'll explain it for people...

"The new Alternative Vote system is simple - you can just put the people you want to vote for in order of preference - 1,2,3 and so on. It's a small change that will make a big difference.

No one can win unless they receive more than half the votes. It couldn't be fairer. Your vote will always count and every MP will have to work hard to get more people on side"

Er...no . This will read to your average person as:

1) Put the people you want to vote for in order of preference
.
...some magic...could be a politicians' fix....
.
5) Someone receives more than half the votes

That's not to mention the whole half the votes issue.

If, by some miracle, the polls are confounded and the result is a yes, I will be delighted of course.

"AV is a stepping stone to PR" - The Evening Standard

2011-04-18T18:39:00.001+01:00

In a typical establishment diatribe against AV full of the usual half-truths, today's Evening Standard editorial also warns:

"Voting reform, ideally full PR, is the Lib-Dems' Holy Grail, and AV a stepping stone towards it."

So what do the Yes2PRNo2AV muppets have to say about that?

There are big lessons to be learnt from Labour's handling of the economy...Labour says

2011-04-03T12:40:00.001+01:00

Following my invitation to help out Mr.Ed, I have found this nearly mea culpa on their fresh ideas website. In the economy section, it says

"But we didn’t get everything right – and we know the challenges of the future will be different. There are big lessons to be learned from our time in government."

I'd love to hear from them what they think they got wrong and what big lessons they need to learn.

In which Ed Miliband invites me to write his manifesto and is usurped by a Mexican design company

2011-04-02T19:43:00.005+01:00

I got a letter from that nice Mr Ed Miliband today inviting me to tell him what my "hopes and concerns" are.
I had hoped to post a nice scan of it but unfortunately it didn't get past Mrs. LibCync so is now ripped into little bits. In a show of dedication to my readers (Sid and Doris Bonkers) I have retrieved it from the bin and done my best:

The text of the letter reads as follows (a lot of references to "people"):

Dear LibCync,

Over the past few months I have been meeting and writing to people up and down the country, asking them about the challenges their families face today but also about the future ambitions they have for themselves and their children. I know that many people feel that Labour lost touch with the British people and so one of my top priorities has been to get out of Westminster and listen to people.

It's been a fantastic experience and I've learned so much about the challenges people face at home and in work. I've also learn that the British people are resilient, inventive and hopeful for Britain.

I want to continue this valuable exercise. So today I'm asking if you'd like to tell me what your hopes and concerns are. For you, your family and your friends.

You'll find some questions online at fresh-ideas.org.uk/priorities which I hope you can take a few moments to answer.

Your ideas are invaluable and I thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours sincerely,

Ed Miliband
Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Labour Party

I had a look at the website and saw that they had one of these new-fangled social media thingies, a hashtag #freshideas. Unfortunately it seems that this particular hashtag is already used by a Mexican design company. Oops!

To be fair to Labour...

2011-03-07T14:34:00.003Z

As I was repulsed by this article by shadow minister Yvette Cooper last week, it's only fair that I should praise senor Labour figure Sadiq Khan for this article in which he argues that Labour made a mistake by "playing tough" on crime and allowing the prison population to soar and that they didn't do enough on re-offending. He says:

"A focus on rehabilitation and reducing reoffending was seen as being soft on crime, when in fact it is effective in reducing crime."

Blimey, it read like LibDem policy, one of course Labour relentlessly criticised us as being "soft on crime" for.

Anyway, I for one welcome this sensible progressive thinking. It is, of course, a shame they couldn't have done something about it when they had 13 years of untrammeled power! (instead of shutting down the debate and appealing to the lowest common denominator in the most disgusting way)

I look forward to Mr. Khan's support for Ken Clarke's liberal prison reforms. What are the chances of persuading Mr & Mrs. Balls though? I wonder who has the greater share of the ear of Mr. Milliband?

Update: Doh! Mr. Khan isn't a minister yet but is close to Ed M. Modified accordingly.

Coalition now on the side of rapists...

2011-02-28T09:52:00.001Z

...according to Labour!

That's right, whilst we're all giving a hearty two cheers to the Freedom Bill and we're all being told that with that nice Ed M in charge, Labour is eschewing it's authoritarian ways and reaching out to us liberal types, Mrs Ed B writes "Relaxing DNA rules could reduce rape convictions".

Whilst it would be easy to pull her tawdry argument apart we know these are intelligent people (aren't they?) so we must assume this is just mendacious rather than meant. However can you spot the slight (!) disconnect between these two conjoined statements:

"Cooper is alarmed that DNA will be retained only in "limited circumstances" if someone is arrested but not charged with rape."

and

"Labour said this was a "huge missed opportunity" because studies have shown that the reoffending rate for rape is as high as 29%."

? Sigh...

Maybe he's found a safe Labour seat?

2011-02-21T11:29:00.003Z

Just saying...

UPDATE 16/04/2011 Well well well...

Conservatives for AV banned from own Conference

2011-02-13T22:15:00.002Z

I hear, via Yes2AV, that the Conservatives for AV group have been banned from their own spring conference. The article on ConservativeHome from their leader is here. As always with ConservativeHome, it is the comments which are more fascinating and telling than the article. These are mostly concerned with any party advantage that can be gained from any voting system instead of any principles but my favorite comment is this from "neocon":

"Keeping FPTP is no guarantee of anything .It just produced a Coalition and produced Minority and Coalition Govts in the first half of the 20th Century.

If as Prof John Curtice and the IPPR suggest that we will see many more Coalitions in the years to come with AV or FPTP then obviously we must stop this.

My view is legislate so that we only allow two political parties at Westminster and then we and labour can take turns and only have to govern on our own." (my emphasis)

I don't think further comment is required!

Welcoming Master LibCync

2011-02-03T18:08:00.000Z

I've been completely terrible at blogging for a while, this is one of the reasons:

He was born last week at a whopping 9 pound 5 and a half ounces!
There is a lot less sleep going round chez LibCync, whether this will lead to more or less blogging I'm not sure! It will certainly lead to a drop in coherency levels (oi, I heard that :)!

It's now time for the Blessed Vince to pipe down on the bonus question

2010-11-26T15:11:00.006Z

So goes the wisdom of bankers. On the day that Vince warns bankers about excess bonuses again, I bring you the political pronouncements of the bankers themselves.

In a letter to clients from an investment management firm passed to me, they have this to say on the political issues of the day:

"Whilst one may dislike good companies disappearing, particularly to overseas predators, it is surprising how often they resurface at a future date in a somewhat different form after some imaginative financiers have had a bob or two. Apart from contributing to some banker's bonus, takeovers keep a lot of company directors on their toes to the overall common good.

"It is probably now time for the Blessed Vince to pipe down on the bonus question and remember that one banker's £1 million pound bonus is very often the Chancellor's £500,000 tax take - a fact that is conveniently forgotten in banker bashing. "

Well, Vince has been dubious about the "common good" of some takeovers for a while now and has also expressed the view that excessive bonus may be better spent, in the "common good", lending to small companies or improving the fragile banks balance sheets to allow them to lend more and to improve the worth of TAX-PAYER OWNED banks. But thank to Messrs Bankers I can now see the error of my ways!

UPDATE: Due to the letter passer being paranoid, I've now removed the company name!

Brian Coleman insults our Lynne...again!

2010-11-25T16:11:00.000Z

You may remember, a couple of years back, Brian Coleman, Conservative Chair of the London Fire Authority, called Lynne Featherstone, "dizzy", "an airhead" and "an utter disgrace" for calling out the fire brigade when she thought her boiler was going to explode and take her house down. Her actions were backed up as the right thing to have done by the fire brigade.

Well, amazingly, Brian is still chair of the Fire Authority and in Today's Hampstead and Highgate Express he's back to his old tricks. Amongst the other insults liberally flung around he says:

"Lynne Featherstone is entirely light-weight. God knows how she manages as a minister"

Charming...

Oi, students! Answer this!

2010-11-24T14:58:00.007Z

What would you rather the LibDems have done:

a) Have all 57 MPs valiantly keep to their pledge and vote against the unfettered, uncompromising and unprogressive (Labour-initiated) Browne proposals for a cap-less full free market in tuition fees with no allowances for poorer students and then valiantly see these proposals go through with the votes of 500 Tory and Labour MPs (to be fair, now they are in opposition I'm sure some Labour MPs will now abstain but not enough to change the result).

or

b) Trade our votes with our coalition partners to make the Browne package better, fairer and more progressive for Students

Any rants/comments are expected to start with an answer and working. I thank you!

Having said that, I don't think having Vince denying there is a trust issue with breaking the pledge (and it was/will be broken, however justified) is particularly right or helpful. I don't know what our press operation has been doing all this time. Surely they could have seen this coming? The leadership should have been out there explaining this (along the lines above) a long time ago instead of putting their heads in the sand and hoping this would all go away and allowing this "betrayal" narrative to develop (which the media are only too happy to perpetuate).

But then, in my opinion, this is just a continuation as we also had an appalling election campaign (okay that's over-stating it a tad, but it was just the usual depressing long line of missed opportunities) starting with that appallingly bland slogan and logo and then that embarrassingly misjudged VAT bombshell poster (when even your own politicians look embarrassed unveiling it you have to ask - oh and that hasn't caused us any problems at all...) just making us look like any other party. Yes the first debate was great but we didn't seem to move foward in the subsequent two or capitalise on them (evidentally).

Er... I digress but only slightly as the tuition fees problems were all eminently foreseeable and have done us tremendous damage but not, I would argue, by the facts themselves but by the mishandling of them.

UPDATE: Also, what he said.

It was ever thus

2010-11-14T12:42:00.002Z

Student protests have always been ruined by a small section looking to cause trouble. They have always been the Socialist Workers (neither socialist or workers!). They included a surprisingly high concentration of sons and daughters of bishops and high court judges and would spend most of their time on campus debating whether they should actively start the revolution or just be prepared when it inevitable comes due to the failure of capitalism.

On every student protest I went to in London there was always at the edge of the peaceful protest, members of the socialist workers party (SWP) snarling at police and calling them "pigs" in the hope of fomenting some violence. On one particular protest ("grants not loans", that dates me!) I was leading a small but dedicated LibDem contingent from our University and we ended up waving out LibDem self-augmented NUS placards amongst an SWP contingent who then all sat down in the middle of the road as part of their protest. Well, we agreed with the aims of the march and to show that us lily-livered LibDems weren't afraid of a bit of civil disobedience we sat down too. This conversation ensued:

SW bloke: What are you doing?
Us: We're protesting again the withdrawl of grants
SW bloke: But you're LibDems!
Us: And we agree with free education
SW bloke: You shouldn't be here
Us: Yes but we share a common aim and feel strongly about the cause
SW bloke: No, we're here to get our heads smashed in by the police
Us: er...alright then, we'll just be off then...

During my first year we actually had a LibDem student union president (amazing!) so the union actually had sensible relations with the administration for once and it was unprecedentedly agreed with the administration (who shared our concerns) that the students would stage an overnight "occupation" of the central venue (which was owned by the University and which they otherwise rented out for a good income most nights) in protest at the government's plans. This was well organised and publicised (getting wider publicity for our cause being a constant problem). Various local news teams turned up and even a crew from Channel 4 news. There were going to film the initial meeting/debate of the occupiers. This was publicity money couldn't buy, it seems like we were actually going to break through into the media for once. Exciting times.

Except when the meeting starting, the SWPers just constantly stood up and were loudly f'ing and blinding about smashing the system etc., so unsurprisingly none of it got on TV. We felt quite deflated when the media had moved on and we were left there to spend the night.

Every couple of hours throughout the night the SWP kept calling meetings of the "occupation committee" (that they'd made up) and tried to pass a motion that we'd occupy the building indefinitely. Everytime everyone grudgingly got out of their sleeping bags to attend and vote against them. They lost everytime and were in a clear minority.

By the morning when people were packing up and preparing to leave, there was a sudden influx of SWPers from somewhere (they were not there overnight), there was a hastily convened meeting of the "occupation committee" and the motion to occupy indefinitely was passed due to weight of numbers. Everyone else left.

The situation dragged on for another day or so, windows were smashed and, in the end, the police were called. Bridges were burnt and a it was a waste of everyone's time!

I never went on a protest that wasn't ruined by the SWP!

Film 2010 f*** up

2010-11-09T23:05:00.000Z

Oh dear, looks like the BBC will be apologising again tomorrow.

On Film 2010 on BBC1 tonight at the beginning of the first review, clearly someone didn't cut the sound from somewhere and we heard a female voice over the programme saying something like:

"They ask if I have problems with fans, Well, I don't give a f***"

Claudia Winkleman later apologised in case we had heard something we shouldn't have but not to worry if we didn't. Well we did! Not that I'm bothered and it was after the watershed but I'm sure someone will moan!

The LibDem media curse strikes again!

2010-11-05T14:17:00.001Z

Typical! Phil Woolas is found guilty and the NUJ are on strike meaning there isn't much news on the BBC networks!

Is it just me or is this video in this BBC article a little bizarre? I'm probably missing a legal nicety here but I can understand distraught families of victims not wishing to talk to the media and letting their lawyer read a statement but responding to a court judgement yourself quite happily and then getting your lawyer to then read a statement from you whilst still sitting next to him is just a little odd.

So, the by-election...Brown-trousers time? Logic would dictate that in the current national circumstances Labour would increase their majority. However on the plus side we can finally start trying to explain the coalition and our gains in it to real people en masse and see how that goes. You never know...

I hope we do modify our campaigning to deal with the new circumstances and start defending the sometimes complex decisions we have taken rather than reducing it to more flippant headlines. I know this is electorally naive (5 seconds from letterbox to bin etc.) but we should have a bit of a lead in here and I'd love to see if a more intelligent campaign could work...

Another scam to watch out for

2010-10-29T21:40:00.000+01:00

My elderly (but luckily savvy) aunt just had a call from an Indian on a bad line claiming to be from Microsoft telling her that her firewall wasn't working and that he could fix it.

He asked her if she was near her computer. Luckily she wasn't. She asked him what she should do but she didn't catch all the details. She then rang me to check whether it was a scam.

A quick google shows this is quite common. I can see how a non-tech savvy person may fall for this. Warn your elderly relatives!

Daily Mail outrage at LibDem influence

2010-10-21T21:06:00.001+01:00

Over at the Daily Hate Mail, they have an article seething about the "price in political correctness" paid by George Osbourne to his LibDem coalition partners.

Be amazed at the outrage as the coalition gives money "back to poorer parents", gasp as they recoil in horror at the thought of helping 'disadvantaged' (their quotes!!!) children.

I am, like many LibDems, a little queasy over some of the spending decisions, but just this once, indulge yourself. Take a little time out from the soul-searching and self-doubt and just read the article and feel an overwhelming sense of pride.

Met lets corrupt officers get away with it (again)...quelle surprise

2010-10-19T16:27:00.001+01:00

It's all just depressingly predictable really. Here is the article.

If you think this"financial mess left by Labour" rhetoric is overblown...

2010-10-16T16:20:00.001+01:00

It seems to be an increasingly common view now that saying that the state of the country's finances are much worse than expected is a dishonest ruse and of course we knew how bad it was.

Well, let me draw your attention to this one counter-example.

Remember way back when during the election campaign when we were boldly going further than all the other parties in spelling out what cuts we would have to make? I distinctly remember repeated assertions that we would save about a billion by taking the tough choice of cutting our commitment to the third tranche of Eurofighters. I also remember Andrew Neil picking us up (either Nick or Vince) on whether we could really make this saving and in the impartial (hah!) way that he has he implied we were lying whilst promising to check it later. We were still adamant.

Fast forward to the coalition getting at the books...

According to this article in The Register, whilst the country were still committed to buying the third tranche of Eurofighters, from 2005 the MoD under Labour just simply pretended the Eurofighter commitment didn't exist and removed the set-aside money from it's books!!

So, in a way, Neil was right. There was no saving to be had, but we certainly thought there was before the election!

Online Scientologists out in force

2010-09-30T15:00:00.003+01:00

I finally got round to watching (on the iPlayer) Panorama's follow up to the John Sweeney shouty investigation into scientology a couple of years back in which the reporter famously "lost it".

I was looking forward to "The Secrets of Scientology" but found it rather pedestrian with lots of "this is the man who will tell me the secrets", "the secrets will be told soon by this man" build up with lots of fuzzy walking shots and not much pay-off.

Whilst the programme was interesting and shocking (although depressingly not really as we all know what goes on) there was nothing really new in it but I suspect the reasons for this was lawyer-inspired! (Has Carter-Ruck ever been on the side of good? (apart from Mr C-R's deathbed conversion to Liberal Democracy of course (always makes by think Blackadder I's archbishop episode))

What amused me is the utter predictability of the online comments on reviews of the programme (examples in the Mirror and the Metro) from scientologists (some claiming to be and some not) that are so transparent. Why do they think that anyone would be fooled by comments randomly going into the personal history and smears of some participants, especially as the programme had just said this is exactly what they do!

Here's hoping for some Scientology-love to boost my google analytics! :)

This is a safety announcement

2010-09-30T09:02:00.001+01:00

This post about Government adverts over at Liberal Vision remins me about the announcement I recently heard (repeatedly as I was waiting for someone on a delayed train) at Kings Cross station:

"This is a safety announcement. Please do not run in the station and take care around the station and in the surrounding areas"

Gee thanks, it would never occurred to me to "take care" in the station. Also taking care in the surrounding areas would be a thought that would never have crossed my mind!! I mean seriously!!

There were other similarly pointless announcements endlessly repeated which I can't recall now. Notwithstanding the nannying issues surely people are desperately listening out for announcements regarding the delay/cancellation/late platform change of their train and we should restrict announcement to only immediately useful ones like these. (not to mention the confusion this may cause to foreign visitors trying to listen out for useful information)

In the same way there are campaigns about visual clutter (street signs, barriers etc.) should there also be one against audio clutter?

A pet Ed Balls for everyone

2010-07-30T10:07:00.002+01:00

I point you to the Labour-o-matic.

Virgin email stopped working? A solution

2010-07-27T13:05:00.003+01:00

Has your Virgin Media email stopped working today? I have an ntlworld.com email address and this morning the incoming mail server started rejecting all requests ("terminated unexpectedly") from Outlook Express.

Well, after much googling (anyone who has Virgin will know how pointless and time-wasting ringing them is!) I found the Virgin support forum and this post. The Upshot being what worked for me was to turn off SSL for the imcoming mail (Tools->Account->Mail->ntlworld->Properties->Advanced->untick incoming mail SSL). I am now receiving email again (I imagine it will stop working again once they "fix" it and I'll have to put it back). YMMV

Reading through the forums it seems that this kind of thing is quite a frequent occurrence each time picking out one of their other email domains (blueyonder, virginmedia).

When people ask me whether I would recommend Virgin, I always say that their broadband and TV service is excellent (I love on-demand TV and the broadband has never let me down) but woe betide if anything ever does go wrong as they have the worst customer service this side of Betelgeuse! (Indian call-centre script, have you tried turning it on and off, our systems aren't working at the moment, etc...)

UPDATE: They seem to have fixed it now.
UPDATE 28/07/2010 (the next day). Sigh, it's not working again, switching off ssl works...

Twitter is not just for Chirstmas...I mean...Elections

2010-07-04T17:07:00.002+01:00

Well, it is if you're a Tory MP in a safe seat who was slightly unnerved by a stronger than expected LibDem challenge during the General Election and felt you should make an effort to appear responsive to your constituents.

Mark Prisk, the Cornwall-loving MP for Hertford & Stortford opened a twitter account during the General Election in which he didn't really respond to anything other than sycophantic questioning and even then not much (I'd like to check to check the validity of this half-remembered slur but guess what...).

Mr Prisk was safely re-elected with 54% of the vote and, as if by magic, as of last week, the @Mark_Prisk twitter account has been deleted.

Well, it's not like he needs to be accessible to his constituents for another 5 years, is it?

Omninous signs from facebook

2010-07-04T15:52:00.000+01:00

Of course, concerted action by a directed group could achieve this. I wonder...

YouGov loses all credibility...again!

2010-07-04T12:27:00.001+01:00

After grumbles about YouGov's dubious methodology during the leader's debates in April, their latest impartial and not at all leading question for the recent Sun poll on the AV referendum is a corker:

“Before the election the Conservative party criticised an AV referendum as likely to cost £80 million at a time when the government would be needing to make major spending cuts. In view of the government’s current cuts in public spending, do you think it is an appropriate or inappropriate time to hold a referendum on AV?”

Wow! That's not leading at all is it? Isn't there some polling code they should be following or something?

Oh and the same polling showed overall support for AV. The Sun strangely didn't mention that though!

H/T: UK Election Trend

Prison Reform role reversal. Who's the nasty party now?

2010-06-30T09:05:00.000+01:00

I see LibDemVoice already have this well covered.

I just want to report these stark facts:

Coalition Justice Secretary Ken Clarke speaks on the need for more intelligent sentencing, sending fewer people to jail and greater rehabilitation

Former Labour Home Secretary Jack Straw in the Daily Mail (!) speaks against (and in praise of Michael Howard), "Prison DOES work!"

So go on, our next left forward friends, let's hear it?

The numbers just don't stack up

2010-05-11T09:37:00.004+01:00

Like a many other LibDem bloggers this morning, I never thought I'd say this but...

Clearly my heart says "progressive alliance" but the numbers just aren't there.

Even is we could get it to work in a stable way, we would only get electoral reform if all of the alliance voted for it, including all of Labour. I'm really not sure you would get that. There are a lot of fierce opponents of reform out there (witness Labour "big beasts" all over the media slagging us off).

Word is that Labour have dropped the referendum requirement and will just legislate for AV, however Harriet Harman on newsnight last night was rowing back from this. (also I question the legitimacy of this)

Bizarrely, I think you can trust the Tories more on electoral reform! We know they are against it.
I think Nick Clegg has played a blinder, who'd have thought the Tories would be offering us a referendum on AV? If this is part of a published open agreement, I trust that it will be delivered and we know the Tories will then campaign against a change. However AV (yes, it's only a small step, not PR) is a hell of a lot easier to sell than anything that smells of a politicians stitch up (even if that's not true). It has only (albeit small) advantages over the current system (no tactical voting, better chance for independents).

We suffer either way (the drawback of coalition under FPTP) by one wing of our voters potentially boycotting us next time but I'm sick of all this LibDem hate from "progressive" pro-PR types. We're the ones arguing for it! What about Labour who have had 13 years! Why not hate them? Besides it is clearly the point that it does not have a parliamentary majority (and was not voted for by the electorate).

However, if we can show clear policy wins out of a LibCon deal then we may be able to salvage some credibility and also the boost of doing the right thing and providing a stable government must have it's upsides politically. (Think of the damage caused by being seen to be a member of an unstable "coalition of the losers", think of the resulting Tory landslide)

So, assuming we've got good policy concessions and yes, sup with a long spoon and watch your back, but we should go with the Tories (eek!). However surely we can't countenance Michael "prison works" Howard as justice secretary? We must be able to veto that!

Top Tory ran prayer sessions to "cure" gays

2010-05-02T09:33:00.000+01:00

Philippa Stroud, tory candidate in Sutton & Cheam (we'll hold this seat, right?) who is also big in IDS's Centre for Social Justice has some very dubious views, according to this Observer article.

It worries me that people like this may soon have their grubby little hands on the levers of power...

Telegraph admit support for LibDems isn't just a post-debate blip

2010-05-01T23:20:00.001+01:00

Well they didn't mean to but they've caught themselves out!

Several LibDem bloggers at the time pointed out that contary to the prevailing media narrative that we only gained support due to a post-debate X-factor style (oh, silly voters, won't you come to your senses) blip, an ICM poll taken before the debate had actually put us at 27% showing the surge had already started.

It was convenient for the media to gloss over this fact in order to give the impression above.

Oh dear, what a tangled web we weave...it seems the Telegraph can't remember it's own lies! In the pathetically titled "Poll blow for Nick Clegg as voters think twice" when trying to argue the reverse of before, this time that the LibDem poll lead has plunged, they have bought the same fact into play that they'd previously tried to hide. They say:

"Mr Clegg’s party is down three points to 27 per cent – the same level it was on in an ICM poll at the time of the first televised debate."

Pwned!

Another truely bad review

2010-04-30T10:53:00.000+01:00

I'm almost tempted to watch this so-called Dr. Who DVD after reading this totalscifionline review!
Hilarious!

It finishes by giving it a 0/10 and saying:

"If we could give it a score lower than zero, we would. "

Can the LibDems get a fair hearing from Dimbleby?

2010-04-29T18:41:00.004+01:00

We saw how Adam Boulton tried to bend his role as an impartial chair last week. I'm worrying by the prospect of a debate with David Dimbleby in the "impartial" role.

Dimbleby is one of the worst offenders. Every week on Question Times (when they deign to let us on), he repeatedly allows smears on the LibDems from other panelists to go unanswered. He just doesn't let us back in to respond (and this happens a lot more frequently then with the establishment parties).

Having been spoilt be the leader' debates in which, by and large, a direct smear can be directly responded to by the smearee soon after, Dimbleby's "impartial" chairing on Question Time is even more apparent.

I don't wish to repeat that Ghandi quote that we have been seeing a lot lately but he used to just dismiss/ridicule us with a quip and then move on with no right of reply but now he's come out fighting for his establishment and now actively smears us himself!

The last Question Time, was a disgrace. I was hoping to get a screen shot of the smug anger and disdain with which he laid into Ming (I love Ming but seriously he should really stop doing Question Time, we need more than affable now) over the Michael Brown donation but trawling through the episode on iPlayer is hard going! Towards the end of the programme, he also made an unchallenged claim that the LibDem manifesto was full of double counting which he didn't allow Ming to comeback on.

I hate the fact that he pretends to be this reasonable, cuddly character and is giving the big political jobs despite his feeling for us being clear to see (am I paranoid?).

Let's hope he sticks to the rules of the debate and reigns himself in!

UPDATE: Here's a screenshot:

Another twitter election error (this time from a Tory)

2010-04-25T16:27:00.001+01:00

The Tory deputy mayor for Bishop's Stortford, Keith Warnell, has been caught out being offensive to local six formers on twitter (wlll they ever learn!).

Mr Warnell saw two sixth formers out campaigning with the Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate and tweeted:

“Bloody sixth form canvassing in town today, good grief whatever next”

Oops! The sixth formers in question saw the tweet and complained to the paper. Mr Warnell did not apologise for the tweet instead saying "he did not realise comments were public"

The Bishop's Stortford Observer has the full story.

Jo Swinson is "another observer"

2010-04-22T23:40:00.000+01:00

Just now on Newsnight's summary of tweets from tweetminster, they had tweets from Alistair Campbell, Ed Balls and Eric Pickles and then one from "another observer" but the author's name was clearly one "joswinson".

I know that name from somewhere. Doesn't she have something to do with politics?

Argh! McAfee destroyed my computer!

2010-04-22T10:02:00.011+01:00

Last night after my McAfee anti-virus downloaded some updates, I got a message saying my XP machine was going to reboot in 60 seconds. Being annoyed by this (as I was doing stuff) I didn't really read it and just cursed McAfee for forcing a reboot on me so issued the "shutdown /a" command (to abort the shutdown) then a minute later it happened again and all my desktop theme disappeared (start bar went grey).

(If you are looking for a solution please go the end of my ramblings.)

I thought I'd better let it reboot if it wanted to so I closed what I could.

When it rebooted there wasn't even a taskbar and not much worked (including the internet). PANIC!!

After a lot of fruitless tinkering I decided to go to bed.

This morning, with a clear head, I worked out that the system file svchost.exe was missing (this is needed for a lot of system services to run including the one that provides the pretty themes). Luckily I had another computer of the same XP version around so I took the file from there and transferred it. Success, after a reboot if all seemed to be working but then I get the reboot message again. This time I read it and it said the RPC service had stopped working so the machine was rebooting.

Much googling on the other machine let me to believe it could be a virus (but the ones referenced were "fixed" in 2003).

Much disk checking and "virus fixing" ensued.

However, I eventually found that McAfee itself was the problem.

There had released a new virus definition file which was erroneous marking the vital svchost.exe as a virus and quarantining it!

I downloaded the "SuperDAT Remediation Tool" (from the link above) and ran it in safe mode (press F8 before Windows startup) and it fixed the problem. (Then I updated McAfee) Phew! I only installed McAfee after coming to the end of my tether with Norton, I guess now I should try the free AVG which has had rave reviews (even from my Dad after being recommended to him by Sony for his new laptop) and isn't a system hog.

Just thought I'd put this up there so people might find it if their computers have stopped working (assuming they can get to the internet, not sure what I would have done had I not had a second computer handy!)

UPDATE: Arrghh! It's happening again svchost has gone! This is not over! (Clearly their "fix" doesn't work)
UPDATE": When I tried to run their standalone dfinition update in safe mode it said "Error: No qualifiying McAfee products found". I have now uninstalled McAfee and installed AVG. The world is a better place...

David Camerwrong presents a new vision for Britain

2010-04-21T14:35:00.001+01:00

This is quite an amusing cut-up version of a Cameron speech (warning: contains strong language):

Populus: Con 32%, LD 31%, LAB 28

2010-04-20T18:59:00.000+01:00

A populus poll for the Times just released shows a LibDem surge of 10%.
Initial details here.

We've even silenced Dale!

2010-04-19T15:58:00.001+01:00

Things must be bad at Tory HQ. We've given Iain Dale writer's block!

Surely there must be some pro-Tory spin you can think of to post today, Iain?
Have CCHQ really not sent you anything usable recently?

I thought the news about Cameron pledging a nationwide school talent show was jolly exciting. Maybe try that?

BBC live coverage promotes flirting!

2010-04-19T10:22:00.000+01:00

I've just been watching Nick at a student Q&A on the BBC election website and just for a few seconds the live feed was replaced by a cable channel running adverts for flirting services. Come on BBC, sort it out!

The Sun reports majority support for electoral reform

2010-04-19T09:23:00.000+01:00

The thing that stood out for me (about from me worrying about whether the party has sorted out a way to neutralise our poilcy negatives - not that they're are not right but can be easily misrepresented in one line - see The Sun!) in this Sun article bashing us for our liberal policies is that their poll reported that 54% supported our policy to bring in STV! Time to shout it proud! Electoral reform is no longer a minority subject!

Get your LibDem election posters here

2010-04-18T11:19:00.000+01:00

Ever since I blogging about the possibility of Esther Rantzen stealing our posters, I have had a trickle of people alighting on that post after searching for a place to get LibDem posters. Well, LibDemVoice have sailed to the rescue and let it be known that you can download the pdf of a LibDem window poster here and print it out yourself. Go on, stand proud amongst your neighbours!

Cameron pledges school talent show - winner gets to record a song with Gary Barlow

2010-04-16T16:05:00.001+01:00

No really!! I'm not making this up. This isn't some spoof story. I'll be very pleased for the BBC to use it's normal fawning Tory slot on the news to extensively cover this initiative.

A warning to us all

2010-04-16T14:23:00.000+01:00

A man in Stroud has been jailed for shouting at political programmes on the TV.

The man explained that shows like the BBC's Question Time made him angry!

The BBC has the story here.

We need to start talking about the Tax Switch again

2010-04-16T11:29:00.003+01:00

I'm not sure at what point we stopped talking about our "Tax Switch" and it became focused on the "Tax Cut" element but we need to go back to the switch.

I think the "A £17bn tax cut? That's an awful lot of money and in a recession...moving on" attack first used and honed by the BBC on their News after our manifesto launch(what that impartial news organisation, should they be trying to mislead? Yeah, you would have thought!) and now used by Cameron during the leader's debate is, I fear, an effective one.

Also, it doesn't help responding to it with our costed list if they're only going to let you mention one thing before cutting you off and then claim that it silly to think you can raise all that money from that one thing.

In this situation all you can do is don't do a waffle-filled introduction (Nick!) and just list the measures as fast as you can.

However if we start referring to it again as a £17bn tax switch (which will cut tax for the lowest earners...) then you've already got the idea of how it will be afforded in the public mind (even saying revenue-neutral which we used to say will help).

We mustn't let it be framed in tax cut...funding terms as the traps outlined above are difficult to escape in this soundbite culture.

UPDATE: One further thought, if we start talking about the switch in its entirety this also helps to neutralise that rubbish Fabian argument about the only most of the "cut" going to those who are not poor.

How will The Sun spin this?

2010-04-15T23:22:00.001+01:00

The poll commissioned specially for the Sun has 51% saying that Nick won. How are they going to spin that?

LibDem's pull wool over voters' eyes?
Style over substance win for LibDems?

Should be interesting...

UPDATE: They went for "Cameron voted 'Best PM' in Sun poll"! Gotta love 'em!

Mark Prisk: The Hertfordshire Tory MP who spends his time campaigning in Cornwall

2010-04-15T10:55:00.003+01:00

Mark Prisk is the Conservative MP for Hertford & Stortford (a currently safe seat). He is a "a born and bred Cornishman" (in his own words). Indeed, before becoming MP for a Hertfordshire seat he tried and failed to win a seat in Cornwall in 1997.

Fortunately for Mr Prisk, all the seats in Cornwall are held by the Liberal Democrats and consequently there are no Conservative MPs. So to boost their campaigning presence, David Cameron made Mr Prisk "Shadow Minister for Cornwall" in 2007 (somebody set up a local PriskWatch site then but it doesn't seem to have been updated since). This meant he could spend a lot of his time in his beloved Cornwall.

Unfortunately for Mr. Prisk, there was and is no Minister for Cornwall to shadow and this got him in to trouble when it turned out that he had been claiming expenses from the taxpayer for his jaunts to Cornwall for his "fictional minister" non-job. He was reprimanded by the speaker (but typically for our useless system there were no sanctions).

Recently, Cameron announced that under a Conservative government, that he would create a permanent Minister for Cornwall. Mark Prisk has refused to rule out becoming that Minister in response to a letter in the local paper from the LibDem candidate Andrew Lewin. So, it looks like the people of Hertford & Stortford can look forward to another 5 years of neglect!

To add insult to injury to the people of his Hertfordshire constituency, they can catch him on how he's doing occasionally via reports from Cornwall on the TV news. This was on Channel 4 yesterday:

For those of you you don't want to watch the full report, here is a screenshot of him enjoying campaigning in Cornwall:

Whether the local LibDem, Andrew Lewin (who was "born & bred" in the constituency) can make a significant dent in his majority remains to be seen. (Labour seem to have given up)

Excited about the manifesto launch

2010-04-14T09:19:00.000+01:00

Now the Labservatives have launch their two manifestos which seem be high on waffle and gimmickry but low on actual policies, I'm now quite looking forward to the launch of our policy-centric and fully costed manifesto.

Unless, the media really do go all out to mislead (they have form) I can't see how this won't be good for us.

The preview already released shows how we are highlighting our 4 big changes and keeping things simple and straightforward. Unfotunatelty we still have to use that awful slogan and Nick has to, yet again, shoehorn it into his introduction but you can't have everything...

Same "ordinary member of the public" used in Conservative broadcasts 6 months apart

2010-04-13T18:41:00.002+01:00

Can you give me your opinion on this? Are these women the same person?

First in this Conservative broadcast from November 2009 (at 1:02):

And second in tonight's election broadcast (starting at 10 seconds in):

she even has the same lovely blue coat (shown at 1:01 in tonights broadcast).

In the first video she is at a CameronDirect event, an ordinary member of the public explaining why she is considering voting Conservative (Brown hasn't done very well, looking for a change) and in tonight's broadcast she has made the decision to go blue.

Now this could be a great Tory success story of an undecided who has been persuaded by Cameron's charisma to come into the fold or maybe she wasn't an ordinary member of the public (with a nice blue coat) initially at all! Or maybe she isn't the same women at all and it's just my eyes...

A election broadcast with absolutely no policies

2010-04-13T18:26:00.002+01:00

I just watched the Conservative election broadcas t on BBC2 to coincide with their manifesto launch.

Is it just me or did it contain no policies whatsoever? Extraordinary!

Has Esther been stealing LibDem posters?

2010-04-13T16:58:00.000+01:00

Having been directed to this ITV News report from Strange Thoughts, I was intrigued to to see the final shot of the film which was of Esther putting up one of her own campaign posters in a shop window. However in the pile of her posters behind her was clearly a Liberal Democrat poster for our candidate there, Qurban Hussain!

Something fishy?

Has Esther been "liberating" LibDem posters?
To be fair, it is also possible that this is an example of TV fakery and they probably found a shop window which already has a LibDem poster in but took it down as it would have ruined the story they were trying to tell. But did they put it back? Or was it just there in the middle of Esther's pile?

Enquiring minds need to know!

Phew! The boy done well

2010-04-12T22:09:00.000+01:00

After my initial concerns, worried old Hector that I am, I am feeling mightily relieved and not a little impressed that Nick acquitted himself well in the face of Paxo's grilling.

My fears about Paxman's general approach were borne out, he was obviously trying to pigeon hole and re-enforce establishment lies with his general "so, you are in favour of murdering the first-born, moving on..." tricks.

I think Nick generally coped with these well but I would have appreciated greater push back on the "LibDem MPs saying different things in different part of the country" lie that he was trying to make stick. Nick did well on the hospital version of this but with the schools version, after answering well, he petered out a bit when Paxman again tried to leave the accusation hanging there. (Disclaimer: This is my recollection, maybe he was better!).

However I think we really need to push back hard on the common myths peddled by our opponents as if these are heard enough coming from supposed "impartial" (ha!) journalists there will have more staying power in the public mind (obviously that is the establishment strategy and always has been, nothing new in that).

Having said all that and considering the interviewer I'd give Nick a A-.

Now we wait to see if the other party leaders agree to a Paxman grilling and if they do, whether it is a grilling and whether it will be up against Coronation Street! (If they do refuse do the BBC have to give them equal time elsewhere?)

I'm nervous about the Paxman interview

2010-04-12T19:28:00.001+01:00

Well, I shall be watching the 30 minute Paxman interview of Nick Clegg on BBC1 tonight at 8:30pm but I approach it with trepidation.

Whilst I have confidence in Nick, Paxman is a scary prospect. Firstly his recent treatment of LibDems has been utterly appalling which has been noticed by other bloggers (can't find the links sorry) but also noticed by my aunt who randomly compained of his sneering at LibDems on the phone just now!

Also, a "gaffe" at the beginning of the campaign could haunt our campaign throughout. Now I'm not saying that Nick will make one but it has been the modus operandi of BBC political interviewers on radio and TV for a while now, not to get information out of a politician or to inform but to induce some "gaffe", or some words they can twist into one that they can then run in the next set of headlines. Depressingly this seems to define success for a political interview these days (Should the BBC be doing this I wonder?).

Anyway, I'm probably worrying about nothing...fingers crossed, touch wood...

Shock super-fast broadband for all pledge in Labour Manifesto

2010-04-12T18:45:00.001+01:00

The Labour Manifesto contains a pledge to give every household in the country a broadband speed of at least 16.8 megabits! Unfortunately this is just the result of those tech-savvy Labourites confusing megabits with megabytes. The Register has the full story.

They don't like it up 'em - Vince has the Tories on the run

2010-04-11T22:01:00.000+01:00

Having just read this article on LibDemVoice about the usual Tory mouthpiece suspects (I'm looking at you Dale) crowing over Vince Cable's supposed bad performance on the politics show, I also followed the link to the iPlayer with trepidation. However what I found was Vince being reasonable and coping in a calm way with Jon Sopel's constant interruptions and agenda (is this really what the BBC should be doing?) and coming over well.

Interestingly, Vince's very reasonableness was forcing Sopel to stay his interruptions slightly as they now made him look bad (lesson in how to deal with aggressive interviewers I think - others take note!)

Party Mouthpiece Iain Dale also posted about a Today interview with Vince in a similar vein:

"It was good to hear Justin Webb give him a hard time on Today just now. About time someone did."

I again (like a true obsessive - maybe this is how football fans feel?) dug out the link to the interview and listened with trepidation only to hear Vince coming across well as per.

Yes, this may be my partisan bias affecting my judgement but I am well used to and prepared to hear LibDem representatives screwing up (IMHO!) and this was not happening.

Whilst reading Dale and their ilk during election periods is rather pointless if you are in pursuit of any sensible insight (of which he can be capable occasionally), it is very good (and amusing) in giving you a quick real-time guide as to what has the Tories wind up. And I can tell you Vince clearly has!

Anecdotally, they are right to be worried as I and others have noticed that he plays well on the doorstep.

They can't abide the cold steel!

That awful slogan

2010-04-11T12:44:00.004+01:00

I feel a bit churlish bringing this up now as we seem to have been playing a blinder recently but I'm still bugged by THAT slogan.

When I first got the email two months ago from the Director of Election Communications revealing the new slogan and branding I though it was some kind of joke. And when we were asked to use it as "widely as possible in campaign material and elsewhere", my immediate response was "not if I've got anything to do with it". I had a look around LibDemBlogs but didn't see the anger/disappointment I expected to see. Indeed some seemed to actively like it. (Update: But I did find it later in the comments of this LDV piece)

My opinion on the subject hasn't mellowed since. It's just awful and worse, it undermines our excellent labservative campaign (I'm waiting for the "Don't vote LibDem, they'll only change things" poster!). It's more difficult to complain that the other two are the same and we are different when we have an equally vacuous slogan. It looks like the branding on a cereal box!

Our New Slogan

A Cereal Box

Having said that every other campaign thought I was too lazy to commit to a blogpost seems to have been implemented as if by magic, so it looks like this may have been an early misstep (like having no party insignia behind Nick's conference speech in the close-ups used on the news coverage or making a three minute video for Channel 4 about our tax policy without mentioning our tax policy!) but it's a shame we're stuck with it as I can feel the votes floating away every time we have to use it. Despite Mark Pack's twitter protestations (was the good Dr. involved in creating this duck-billed platypus of a slogan?), by far the weakest parts of Nick's otherwise excellent leader's speech at conference were where he tried to shoehorn in this ungainly and deeply unconvincing slogan.

Glad to finally get that off my chest! Now for some positive post-Easter break blogging...

Yet another BBC complaint sent

2010-03-21T10:02:00.001Z

Further to this response and having heard Nick interviewed on Today, I was able to write this:

I complained about an interview with David Cameron you conducted on the 7th January where he was not asked once about a hung parliament. As this is an issue that equally affects all parties, I drew comparison with how you treat interviews with Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats. These interviews are dominated with questions about hung parliaments at the expense of being informing (one of your missions!) about policy.

You replied:

"As regards to the questions put to Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, this isn't something we're able to respond to without reference to a specific interview you heard on 'Today' or another of our broadcasts"

Not having the resources of the BBC to call on, I couldn't immediately lay my hands on chapter and verse for you but last Saturday (13/03/2010) you interviewed Nick Clegg on the Today Programme and the interview was dominated by questions about Hung parliaments.

Now, you have a comparison I look forward to hearing from you with a real response. Also I hope that in the future when you interview David Cameron or Gordon Brown that you ask them repeatedly about what they would do in a hung parliament including whether they would consider working with each other.

We'll see what happens. If any of you want to complain about the interview last Saturday then you can use Cameron's interview of 7th January as a comparator!

Another BBC complaint sent

2010-03-21T09:45:00.002Z

After this post yesterday, I have now followed up with a complaint to the BBC:

On the 9am news you reported that David Cameron had announced that he wants to introduce a levy on the banks and that Labour support a similar scheme but only with international agreement.

The Liberal Democrats were not mentioned in this comparison despite having had, very publicly, supported a banking levy for some time.

Then on the 10am news you repeated the above but we got a snippet of a speech from David Cameron which was basically a word for word copy of a speech made previously by Nick Clegg. Still no mention of the pre-existing Liberal Democrat policy.

On the 12pm news, a bit about the Liberal Democrats wanting to break up the banks was added to the end but you didn't mention that they supported a banking levy too. Since it was by means of comparison this omission was actively misleading.

"Conservatives support a bank levy, Labour also supports a bank levy whereas the Liberal Democrats want to break up the banks" suggests strongly that the Liberal Democrats don't support a bank levy.

So I am complaining about the blatant bias by omissions (which I can only suspect were deliberate) and of the continuing misleading reports even when you added a bit in about the Liberal Democrats (I assume after complaints).

Let's see what they say...

Cameron copies another LibDem policy - where are our press team?

2010-03-20T10:31:00.003Z

So, I hear on the Radio 4 news at 9am that David Cameron has announces that he wants to introduce a levy on the banks and apparently Labour would support a similar scheme but only with international agreement. Hmm, I'm sure we've been calling for something similar for a long time.

Then at 10am, we not only get the same headline but also a snippet of a speech by Dave saying how the taxpayers should get something back for bailing out the banks. No that sounds really familiar, almost word for word one might say.

And here is the BBC's online version in which there is no mention of us.

Where is our press team springing into action and informing the BBC of the ommisions they are making this close to a general election? Do they not work at weekends?

I'm hoping I'm wrong and the party is working hard as we speak to rectify these omissions from the supposedly impartial BBC. Well are we?

UPDATE: Well on the 12pm news they mentioned that we want to break up the banks but didn't mention that we also support a levy which suggests that we don't by omission.

More success with the online article (thanks John)which has been updates with a good Vince quote:

Meanwhile, Liberal Democrat economics spokesman Vince Cable said: "The other parties seem to be moving on to ground the Liberal Democrats have occupied for some time: banks must pay for the protection they enjoy from the taxpayer."
Mr Cable said his party had been "very specific about how this crucial issue should be tackled, after extensive discussion with the City and others".
He said it was "seriously worrying that both the Conservatives and the government still do not seem to have worked out a specific proposal".

6Music strikes back?

2010-03-18T19:10:00.002Z

Just now on Radio 4, we've had "6Music from the North" broadcast instead across half the news and some of The Archers! It thought it may have been a local pirate station before they announced themselves.

It's gone back to normal now. Considering that 6Music is a digital only station that's quite a cock-up!
Unless it was the deliberate act of 6Music staff raging against the dying of their station. (although more likely it's yet another result of the BBC's disastrous technical outsourcing to Siemens!)

UPDATE: Seems it was a mistake (so they say...)

Tory MEP uses McMillian-Scott's grandparents against him!

2010-03-15T10:25:00.001Z

Wow! The nasty party really can't hide their true nature for long!
I followed the iPlayer link in Liberal England's posting pointing us towards an interview with our new defector and Nick on the Yorkshire and Lincolnshre Politics Show. It was a good interview but can we not brief our defectors a bit better (if they are amenable) so instead of:

Q: Which LibDem policy are you proud to have on the doorstep that you didn't have in your previous party
A: Well, it's all about Europe really...

It should have more like:
A: Well, under the LibDems no-one will pay tax on their first £10k...

but, I digress, what I really wanted to point out was that after this interview they talked to Tory MEP Roger Helmer (after CCO refused to put anyone up) and in comparing the grandfathers of the Michal Kaminski and McMillan-Scott (at about 58:20) said and I quote:

"You might like to be aware that [during the second world war], Edward McMillan-Scott's grandparents were interned in Britain because they were prominent members of the British Union of Fascists."

!!!!
The interviewer was slightly shocker by this tactic and said:

"Well, Edward McMillan-Scott admits that openly so thank you for mentioning it"

"Independent" Guido dances to the tune of the dead tree press and repeats their lies

2010-03-09T09:53:00.002Z

Despite Guido's history with the so-called dead-tree press and particularly the Telegraph, he seems to be lapping up their lies and insinuations, by regurgitating their non-story about Jo Swinson's non-existent cosmetic expenses.

As any fule kno the weasel worded Telegraph article insinuated that Jo Swinson claimed for cosmetics without actually saying that she did because she didn't. One of many stories they made up about LibDem MPs as we clearly didn't have enough (clearly there was some!) bad stuff (well, not compared to the Tories, their "parent party").

Come on Mr Fawkes, I expected better (well actually I didn't really!)

CCHQ approves dog whistle

2010-03-06T09:15:00.000Z

Looks like the clamour of tory activists to return to form has been approved. Details here.

Will the internet determine the outcome of the general election?

2010-03-05T16:45:00.001Z

No.

Iain Dale - lying tonight!

2010-03-04T09:54:00.001Z

Sigh, I know pointing out cheap party-political falsehoods in Iain Dale's postings could be very time-consuming but I'll make an quick exception for this one, Why Don't the LibDems Select BME Candidates in Winable Seats?

Iain claims that after the election that we will have no BME MPs.

Wait, what's this? My all-of-three-seconds spent at google turns up this, Operation Black Vote saying that the LibDems are on track to have between 1-3 BME MPs after the election.

He then finished his post with a flourish:

"Nick Clegg has been leader of the LibDems for two years now. Is it too much to ask why he hasn't made a single speech on what he intends to do about making the LibDems elected politicians reflect the society they purport to represent?"

Oh, wait, that same short google session has turned up something else, it's Nick Clegg giving a speech on what he intends to do about making the LibDems elected politicians reflect the society they purport to represent!

Will Lord Ashcroft's friend (look a cheap party political point! See, it's quite easy to do! I feel dirty now though...) update his posting accordingly? I wait with baited breath.

UPDATE: Well, he has updated it with a mealy-mouthed explanation but still has not addressed the flat-out contradiction about no speeches having been made.

LibDems go all "New Labour" on copyright ISP takedowns! Why?

2010-03-03T14:23:00.006Z

The Register has the worrying story here.

Apparently our shadow culture minister in the Lords, Lord Howard has tabled an amendment to the Copyright Bill giving grerater powers to the courts to grant takedown injunctions to ISPs.

To be fair, The Register admits the move is "well-intentioned" and it seems that this is to replace the current proposal to give unlimited power to Lord Mandelson but shouldn't we be fighting against any such powers that are open to abuse by big players (witness DMCA-takedowns in America)?

Having said all this, maybe I'm missing a subtlety?

UPDATE: Apparently I'm missing a fairly big subtlety, Lord Howard is a Tory! Thanks to The Bureau of Sabotage (in the comments) for doing the fact checking I failed to do...
Hopefully The Register will now update it's story. Maybe the party could send them a nice statement of our position?

UPDATE 2: Er, looking at the text of the amendment (120A), it seems that this was put forward by Lord Howard and Lord Clement-Jones (one of ours). So the story stands (but with the wrong name). Or am I reading it wrong?

UPDATE 3: The Register have updated their story and LibDemVoice has Lord Clement-Jones's explanation.

"Lord" Ashcroft admits he's a non-dom

2010-03-01T10:03:00.000Z

The BBC has the story here.

Interestingly, he says being resident for tax purposes was "not a condition" of his peerage! So can we find out the precise conditions and who let it through?

A further BBC complaints response

2010-02-15T10:58:00.001Z

As I wasn't happy with the BBC's last response to my QT complaint, I complained further and have
eventually got this back:

----

Thanks for your further e-mail regarding the 26 November edition of
'Question Time'. Please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. We
know our correspondents appreciate a quick response and we're sorry that
you've had to wait on this occasion.

We note that you were unhappy with the response that you received to your
complaint of 27 November, in which you expressed concern that Liberal
Democrat MP Jo Swinson had been dropped from the panel.

Your return complaint was forwarded to 'Question Time' Executive Editor,
Gavin Allen, who explained in response that the Liberal Democrats, like all
parties, get representation based on their level of electoral support. This
means they are on most - but not all - 'Question Time' panels across each
series. He added:

"We believe it adds to the breadth of debate to have perspectives from
politicians and non-politicians alike, so places are always limited even
within a 5-person panel."

In relation to your complaint that the programme did not include a Liberal
Democrat representative on the programme when the Iraq war was being
debated, Gavin Allen also explained that:

"It's also important to note that whilst the Liberal Democrats anti-war
policy was distinctive it was not unique. Respect, among others, were also
opposed to the war. As has been shown across a number of Question Times
this series, the Iraq inquiry will be debated many times. The Liberal
Democrat's view will be clearly and regularly highlighted, but it's
reasonable that others should also be given the opportunity to debate."

However, if you believe a serious and specific breach of the BBC's
Editorial Guidelines has occurred here, and you wish to pursue this
complaint further, you can contact the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit,
within 20 working days, and they will carry out an independent
investigation.

You can write to them at the following address:

Editorial Complaints Unit
Room 5170
White City
201 Wood Lane
London W12 7TS

Alternatively you can e-mail the Unit at the address: ecu@bbc.co.uk, but
please note that complaints submitted via e-mail must include a postal
address as ECU findings are sent by letter.

We'd also like to assure you, Mr LibCync, that we've registered your
additional complaint on our audience log.

Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.

----

Regular readers will notice that:

"It's also important to note that whilst the Liberal Democrats anti-war
policy was distinctive it was not unique"

flat out contradicts the previous explanation of:

"in order to facilitate debate by having representatives
willing to question the central political consensus on these issues, of
which the Liberal Democrats are a part"

So I shall be taking this further.

AV is a no-brainer

2010-02-02T09:57:00.002Z

I expected to see the LibDem blogosphere erupt in a fit of hand-wringing over different voting systems in response to the news that Goron Brown was now (after 13 years of dither) proposing a referendum on changing the voting system. I was pleasantly surprised to see this wasn't the case so much. Maybe it's because we've already been through a recent bout of this last year. Not wishing to repeat what I said then (although I will), I just wanted to say that I can't believe anyone can seriously suggest that we shouldn't support this.

If we are going to have a referendum, there is absolutely no way we would win with AV+ or STV as, as I've said previously, anything that is complicated to explain will be seen as a stitch up by the public. AV I can explain (and sell) to people, just about! (it's like the X factor would be if they didn't want as much of your money as possible)

Yes, we all know that STV is the best system in every way but AV does solve quite a few of the current problems.

1) It eliminates wasted votes for losing opponents
2) It requires a candidate to get "majority" support
3) It allows smaller parties/independents half a chance as a vote for them is no longer wasted (okay, same as point 1)
4) It removes tactical considerations (okay same as point 3!)

Yes it doesn't:

1) Make for a more proportional system
2) Reduce the powers of the parties in candidate selection
3) Allow you more chance of being represented by someone with similar views
4) Eliminate wasted over-votes for winning candidates

as STV would.

I would argue, however, that AV is still a major step forward in accountability and respecting the voters' wishes.

My 2-point plan for getting the perfect voting system in the UK would be:
a) Win a referendum on AV
b) A subsequent LibDem government brings in STV

Pulling back to now just for a second though, would even enough Labour MPs vote for it for it to get through (with our support)?

Another BBC complaints response

2010-01-17T11:22:00.001Z

I've had a response to this complaint. Damn, my slightly ranty scattergun approach isn't foolproof (I will try and improve). Can anyone point me to BBC interviews with Nick which were annoyingly bogged down with talk of hung parliaments?
I remember seeing/hearing them but can't remember where/when.

--------------------
Thanks for your e-mail regarding 'Today' on BBC Radio 4.

I note you were disappointed that David Cameron wasn't asked about the possibility of a hung parliament during his interview with Evan Davis on 7 January.

We do realise that listeners have many questions that they'd like to be put to an interviewee, but, due to time constraints it's simply not possible to ask as many as our audience would like us to ask. The choice has to be selective and we accept that some listeners may disagree with the decisions we take.

As regards to the questions put to Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, this isn't something we're able to respond to without reference to a specific interview you heard on 'Today' or another of our broadcasts.

BBC journalists and presenters are well aware of our commitment to impartial reporting. They are expected to put their own political views to one side when carrying out their work for the BBC. They seek to provide the information which will enable viewers and listeners to make up their own minds; to show the political reality and provide the forum for debate, giving full opportunity for all viewpoints to be heard. Our senior editorial staff, the BBC's Executive Committee, and the BBC Trust keep a close watch on programmes to ensure that standards of impartiality are maintained.

-----------------------

Get your Labour Bribo Laptop here

2010-01-15T21:37:00.000Z

I pass no comment, merely post the eBay link. ;-)

Most tenuous headline ever

2010-01-11T16:04:00.000Z

This BBC article (okay puff-piece for own programme but still!) has the headline:

"Survivors cast survive swine flu"

Other than the fact they were filming in the midlands, they doesn't seem to be any reason to think they may have got it! Of course had an epidemic halted production we may have been saved the tedium of a second series...

Nick's been on fire recently

2010-01-10T22:12:00.000Z

How nice it's been this last week, everytime Nick appears in the media he seems to say what I think he should be saying. Whether it's responding to the hung parliament question by saying we are not for sale or his personal comments on Gina Ford's baby rearing techniques, he seems to be hitting the nail on the head. With the comments on child rearing I think he may have inadvertently stumbled across the holy grail of genuinely reaching previously unreachable/politically unengaged people if the comments on this mumsnet thread are anything to go by.

We just need to make sure enough comes across in the media. Don't forget to join the MediaWatch group and keep up the pressure.

Dissapointed in Dale

2010-01-07T18:44:00.000Z

My automatic Dale-o-matic confidently told me to expect the following post, but it hasn't appeared (yet):

------------
Snow gives lie to climate change fanatics

I've got loads of snow in my garden. How do the climate change fascists explain this one?

The global climate conspiracy have been suspiciously quiet on this! Enough said.
------------

Come on Dale don't let your regular readers down!

National Rail website makes itself less useful

2010-01-07T15:36:00.003Z

With the news that the National Rail website has fallen over in the snow, I thought I'd articulate a problem I have with the websties revamp.

A month or so back, they revamped the website to make it prettier. However before when you would search for a journey and you clicked on "details" next to any resultant journey, you would get a page of the details of the 5 or so consecutive journeys after the time you wanted. This made it easy to compare the details of the journeys leaving at different times.

Now, on the new pretty site when you click on the details next to a suggested journey you get a page with only the details for that one journey and not the others. This makes it a real pain to try and compare them.

This makes my life that little bit less easy.

Progress, my a*se!

UPDATE: An anonymous commentator has pointed out that if you hover over the number of changes than you get a pop-up with the changes in. This seems to be the case but I'm sure it didn't do this when I wrote the post as I checked for this. Maybe something has been fixed.

Quick BBC response

2010-01-07T11:42:00.001Z

To be fair to the Beeb they obviously respond quickly to delayed responses!

Here is the belated response to my Question Time complaint (it's basically an amalgam of responses others have had):

"Thanks for your e-mail regarding 'Question Time' broadcast on 26 November.

Please accept our apologies for the long delay in replying. We know our
correspondents appreciate a quick response and we're sorry you've had to
wait on this occasion.

I understand you'd like to know why there wasn't any Liberal Democrat
representation on the panel during a discussion about the Iraq war. I note
you felt that as a result of this, false claims about Liberal Democrat
policy went unchecked.

We forwarded your concerns on this issue to 'Question Time' Executive
Editor Gavin Allen who explained that we constantly monitor the balance of
the panel and that in light of their national electoral strength, the level
of representation for the Liberal Democrats on the programme remains very
strong.

He added that on this occasion the panel was rearranged to reflect a change
in the prominence of some of the issues due to be discussed on the
programme and in order to facilitate debate by having representatives
willing to question the central political consensus on these issues, of
which the Liberal Democrats are a part.

He also added that:

"It was regrettable - but necessary - that the decision to replace Jo
Swinson was taken relatively late, but we have to keep a constant editorial
eye out for the best possible panel and this can of course mean last-minute
alterations. To ensure the widest range of political views are heard there
are occasions across the series when nationalists or minority parties are
invited onto the panel".

It then goes on to say the standard stuff about the audience log.

Hmm

"discussion about the Iraq war"

"central political consensus on these issues, of which the Liberal Democrats are a part."

Hmm, I'll see how I can take this further...

BBC complaints

2010-01-07T11:25:00.001Z

I hope you've all taken heed of this cry for help with media monitoring. To this end I have just sent this complaint off to the BBC about today's Today programme:

"In David Cameron's full interview on the Today Programme he was not asked once about a hung parliament and was allowed to talk relatively unhindered about his policies.

Whenever Nick Clegg is on for the Liberal Democrats, the interview is dominated by obsessive questions about hung parliaments to the detriment of anything else. In not asking the same to David Cameron, the BBC are showing double standards as this question applies equally to all parties.

Can I take it then when Nick Clegg is next on , you won't ask him about hung parliaments and take up valuable time in which you could be helping to inform the public about what the parties stand for? Or does the BBC's mission to inform only extend to the cosy establishment parties?"

Hmm, possibly too ranty. Not as bad as my first attempt which was a complaint about a lack of a LibDem on Question Time in November which was dominated by the Iraq inquiry. I have had a holding reply but not a response. I have now complained about the lack of response!

I have learnt to my cost that typing directly into the BBC's tiny box on their complaint form is not a good idea. Cue much embarrassment when they send the complaint back to you by email and it doesn't make as much sense as you thought it did - never mind spelling! (See below). I suggest you type it into your favourite text editor first and then cut&paste it. Also this means you can easily send a copy to LibDem MediaWatch.

My overlong Question Time complaint is presented for your delectation (corrected for some spelling and sense!):

"I tuned in to watch a Question Time dominated by the Iraq
inquiry and was disconcerted to see no Liberal Democrat representative. As
I'm sure you know, the Liberal Democrats were the only one of the three main
parties to vote and argue against the Iraq war from the start and have a
distinct position on this issue.

Also I noticed that the SNP representative made a point about all three
parties failing on the Calman report which just isn't true of the Liberal
Democrats.

There wasn't a Liberal Democrat on last week and from David Dimbleby's comments at
the end it sounded like there won't be for the next two weeks. Is this
right?

I don't see how this can be anything other than the BBC supressing legimate
opinion and hiding away the views of one party and also allowing its
opponents to tell lies unchecked about it.

Should it not at least have been incumbent on the chair to point out that
the Liberal Democrats weren't taken in by Blair in the Iraq war debate whilst
the establishment member's of the panel were all agreeing on how the house
agreed on war?

Question Time often makes space for celebrities or journalists (often
establishment politicians masquerading as independent journalists). Is this
realy more important than reflecting the range of party political opinion
and not presenting a skewed reality of the public?"

Ross is leaving!

2010-01-07T10:55:00.002Z

Finally I might be able to watch a film review show or a Friday night chat show on the BBC again (without cringing and feeling wholly unsatisfied)!

The news that Jonathan Ross is leaving the BBC is being greeted with universal acclaim in our house!

Nothing to hide, everything to fear reveals Durham Police

2009-12-11T15:39:00.004Z

Of the legal to possess substance mephedrone, Inspector Kevin Tuck of Durham police said:

"In Durham police have taken a stance and anyone found with it will be arrested on suspicion of possession of a banned substance."

He adds: "They will be taken to a police cell, their DNA and fingerprints taken and that arrest, depending upon enquiries, could have serious implications for example on future job applications"

The Register has the full frightening story here.

If you only do one thing...

2009-11-28T17:25:00.003Z

Then join the new LibDem Media Watch ACT group. Liberal England has already encouraged people to join and I want to add to that call.

I think this is the single most important (low-impact) thing activists of the armchair* or non-armchair variety can do. Currently there are 5o members, every single member of ACT (currently >1000) should be on it.

Our media coverage/treatment is, in my opinion, the last big barrier for us (the final frontier), we have the right principles, policies and people (again in my opinion) but it's just getting our message across.

Yes, it might not make a vast different to get fair representation on This Week, say, as clearly it's only saddos like us that watch it** but it's a start and the culture will eventually permeate through to more important/widely-watched programmes.

The current deliberate-seeming policy of keeping us away during the Iraq enquiry (non-coverage of Nick at PMQs, no LibDems on Question Time or Any Questions), allowing the normal establishment type to blether on about how no-one could have known at the time or how they're support was less than complete (er...remember "Charlie Chamberlain"?) and generally rewriting history and defending the indefensible is...er...indefensible.

It's time to stop pussy-footing around the issue and let them know that:

"We're as mad as hell, and we're not going to take this anymore!"

Let's man the virtual barricades and get complaining!

*Having shamefully been an armchair activist for the last few years, I actually went and stood in the biting cold and talked to the public on a LibDem stall this morning. Unfortunately, I think I may have insulted a neighbour by not initially recognizing her! Well I was in full LibDem prosthetising mode:

"Hi, I'm from the local LibDems...blather blather...local issues..."
"I see you've sold your house"
"er..."

**In fact I stopped watching it years ago as the three-pronged axis of smug (Portillo, Abbot and Neil) makes me want to put my fist through the screen

The BBC's establishment bias

2009-11-27T09:37:00.003Z

A lot of people have blogged about the decision to drop Jo Swinson from Question Time.

Interestingly, I had a similar reaction to when Nick Griffin was on, "At least we won't be the ones to be patronised and rudely cut off and not allowed comeback by a smug establishment-biased Dimbleby"

(It has been pointed out elsewhere of course that we were still maligned with no comeback by at least one panelist - this time Nicola Sturgeon, usually Caroline Lucas can relied upon to fulfill this role)

It has been suggested that we all complain more. I completely agree (although I have been remiss on this count in the past). I see that someone has set up a group on ACT to protest against Jo's dropping. Maybe there should be a general "The BBC have done it again" group to co-ordinate (but in a completely individual way!) complaints to the BBC everytime they do somthing similar (misrepresent or omit us).

We all know that famously we have people timing our coverage during the election campaign so we can prove the discrepancy to the BBC and make them make up for it during the rest of a GE campaign. I know some might argue about the downsides of p*ssing off the BBC. But I think relentless pressure is the only way to go.

Further evidence of the BBC's indefensible position (WARNING: about to use the Daily Mail as evidence!), is that after Nick's excellent performance at PMQs where he genuinely raised a point of wide interest which skewered the Prime Minister, the BBC decided that it obviously wasn't worthy of wider reporting. Nick Robinson's PMQ report doesn't even mention it. Then I go shopping yesterday and what should I see i the supermarket but the front page of the Daily Mail:

"Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg ambushed the Prime Minister in the Commons, angrily accusing him of trying to 'suffocate' the Chilcot Inquiry"

and goes on to mention Nick 6 times including in pictures and pull-out quotes.

Oh, so it did happen and somebody thought it might be worth reporting...

hmm...

LibDems in the clear!

2009-11-20T11:28:00.003Z

Finally!

In yer face Dale.

Ahem. Anyway, in summary:

“Having considered all the evidence in this case, we have concluded that 5th Avenue Partners Limited met the requirements to be a permissible donor. The Electoral Commission will be taking no further action in this case.“

UPDATE: LibDemVoice has the announcement here.

"Thatcher Dead" text mix up

2009-11-13T12:16:00.002Z

This story made me laugh. Canada's transport Minister's cat, Thatcher (named after the iron lady), died so he texted friends "Thatcher had died". This soon lead to their prime minister being informed and it unraveled from there...

That letter

2009-11-11T10:12:00.004Z

I wasn't going to write about the Brown letter as it's been covered extensively elsewhere. Most liberal thinking bloggers have been disgusted (by the Sun). The normally spot-on Charlotte Gore initially jumped the wrong way (IMHO) but then corrected herself.

Anyway, I have really bad hand writing (I expect this is something that may unite many bloggers, ah the lure of the simple keyboard...) and this morning Mrs. L commented that Brown hadn't misspelt the mother's name as his handwriting looks just like mine!

I think it's a credit to Brown that he takes the time to personally writes these letters. Writing a letter is a real effort for me and I wouldn't be surprised if our Prime Minister doesn't sometimes find himself sticking his tongue out in concentration whilst writing them.

Any, I was also sick of this whole "She thought to press record" thing. Are they really suggesting there wasn't a Sun Journalist sitting with her waiting for the call? I see Moments of Clarity have already covered this angle.

A Fox news future is of course what Call me Dave wants for all of us and I do sometimes wonder if it isn't time to batten down the hatches in preparation of a Tory government and see if there aren't a few good things in our country that we can't concentrate on trying to save from the oncoming gleeful wave of destruction?

What should I get instead of Norton?

2009-11-08T17:39:00.002Z

My Norton subscription is coming to end and and recently it has been causing me terrible problems with it using 99% CPU (ccSvcHst.exe) whilst seemingly doing nothing.

I want to replace it with something else. Should I just go for another commercial program like McAfee or should I go for the free AVG (which geeks seem to rave about)?

Any recommendations?

WARNING: There are no First Capital Connect trains tomorrow (Sunday)

2009-11-07T18:51:00.003Z

At our local station, there is a poster up informing the long-suffering passengers that there will be no trains tomorrow (Sunday) at all on the First Capital Connect Great Northern route (London to Stevenage, Hertford, Cambridge etc.) due to a shortage of drivers!

This doesn't help Mrs. LibCync who is staying over in London tonight and will need to try and make her way back home tomorrow. Seeking an alternative way home is made even harder by the fact that half the tube isn't working.

Anyway, this appears to be the result of an unofficial ban on rest day working linked to pay talks and it's also affecting other parts of the county.

Just thought I'd raise the alert for anyone planing to travel by train tomorrow. It was the first I'd heard of it.

Good news! I'm a clear thinker

2009-11-03T13:43:00.002Z

Well according to this BBC article, "Feeling grump is good for you".

This should be the end of Patrick Mercer's career

2009-10-26T10:59:00.003Z

I was going to blog in indignation about Patrick Mercer saying of a (possibly bad-taste) joke by Jimmy Carr (the famous...er...bad taste comedian) that it:

"should be the end of Carr's career"

but then I find my moral high-ground being shot out from under me by friendly fire.

Nick Harvey is displaying Sandra Gidley-levels of opportunistic illiberalism here!

When will we learn?

The Trouble with Tribbles...I mean Hedgehogs

2009-10-14T16:53:00.003+01:00

Look at da ickle pygmy hedeghogs.

Altogether now, Aaahhh.

House Price rises caused by lack of supply shocker

2009-10-13T14:56:00.005+01:00

Damn right! Speaking as someone attempting to move at the moment, I can confirm that demand is massively outstripping supply.

At last someone speaks the truth.

After this BBC article a couple of weeks ago which trumpeted the rise in house prices with only a sentence referencing a possible supply issue it's good to see another BBC article today correctly identifying lack of supply as a driver.

Certainly, in my area, any 3 bed house that's any good doesn't even make it onto rightmove. Sold signs just appear.

UPDATE: Doh! Can't even get the title right...changed now

Telegraph Dr Who Captioning fail

2009-10-13T14:04:00.001+01:00

Apparently William Ecclestone played the Doctor in 2005 according to this Telegraph gallery.

BBC news lack-of-perspective morons

2009-10-02T19:01:00.004+01:00

According to the BBC news at 6, Rio's Olympic 2016 win (and Chicago's loss) is like:

"an international referendum on [Obama's] first nine months of leadership"

Er....what? Yeah, absolutely, the world is totally bummed by Obama's healthcare reforms and have really stuck it to him through this decision of the IOC, hell yeah!

Also, apparently, Rio won by basing their bid on sport! Who'd have though it? Basing an olympic bid on sport? That's the kind of revolutionary thinking you get in South America! We'd never have thought of that here...er...hang on...

Dozens of people turn up to see Clegg

2009-10-02T14:05:00.002+01:00

Is it just me or does the phrase "Dozens of people turned up" in this article in the York Press about Nick's York public meeting mean that either:

a) Not many people turned up (a bit embarrassing)
or
b) A journalists is using it as a way of belittling us (cynical, moi?)

Does anyone now what the actual figure was?

Channel 4 should be ashamed

2009-09-28T20:29:00.004+01:00

What is this sub "Tonight with Trevor MacDonald" sh*t that's supposedly about MPs abusing tax payers money?

This is really quite pathetic.

Parliamentary trips should be transparent
Some should be justified

YES

Some MPs tack on Family holidays to business trips (that happens all the time in the private sector) and don't cost the taxpayer anymore.

MPs have to sit through dull local entertainment put on by the local Government and sometimes take part.

Er, what am I missing?

Is this it?

I'm off to watch the second Corrie, let me know if it gets any better.

The Liberal Democrats have proposed not renewing Trident. David Cameron wants to increase the price of salads

2009-09-08T16:43:00.001+01:00

I know several people have already blogged about Dave's exciting proposals (!) but I just wanted to applaud the utterly genius set of quotes from Danny Alexander. I also liked:

"While it's nice to finally have some concrete proposals from the Conservatives, at this rate it would take them several centuries to balance the books"

More like this please!

Need to read your local newspaper from afar?

2009-09-06T15:17:00.002+01:00

Then My Digital Newspaper is for you. Simply go to the website and look up your local paper and if there is a digital version (and it uses the PageSuite platform which they mostly seem to) then you'll be able to find it and read it here.

Even if your local paper doesn't claim to have a digital version it may still be here (our local paper has been claiming that its digital version no longer works for the last month or so yet it's always been accessible though this page!).

Dead magician is elected president of Gabon

2009-09-03T13:14:00.002+01:00

An ex magical consultant to Paul Daniels and Jonathan Creek inspiration has won the Gabon's presidential election.

Oh, not that Ali Bongo.

I learnt my one and only party trick from an Ali Bongo magic book. The amazing detachable thumb or something like that. It still amuses small children and slow adults from time to time.

Former LibDem admits hunting offences

2009-09-01T13:18:00.003+01:00

Thought that'd get your attention! I'm actually talking Clarissa Dickson-Wright who along with racehorse trainer Sir Mark Prescott has pleaded guilty to attending hare coursing events.

I remember a few years back hearing the news on the radio that she had defected from the LibDems to the Tories to which my instant reaction was:

"She was in the LibDems?!?!?!?!"

I hardly thought it was a great blow to the cause at the time. Seriously, did anyone know she was a member before she left?

I do wonder about some people and the parties they join, I mean how does one explain Mark Littlewood? Only joking...sort of...

Bear stuck in skateboarding park

2009-08-27T13:18:00.001+01:00

A bear in Colorado fell into a skateboarding park overnight and they had to put a ladder in for it to climb out!

The BBC has the pictures.

Can a LibDem stand as an Independent?

2009-08-25T08:27:00.002+01:00

Quick question for all you party rules aficionados. Can a LibDem member stand as an Independent in a local election and stay in the party? This isn't for me (!) but I've been asked about this by someone and I said that I thought it was probably okay as long as you're not standing against an official party candidate. Is this the correct position?