Tristan of Liberty Alone wrote an excellent post today in which he describes his first political stirrings and why he joined the Lib Dems.

 

My own political history is somewhat less well defined than Tristan’s. I have memories but they are much more gentle and certainly I do not remember the detail of the earlier years.

 

I vaguely remember accompanying my father to a polling station and watching him cast his vote. He wouldn’t tell me who he cast it for at the time, emphasising the importance of the secret ballot. When we returned home he explained that he was voting for the Liberal Democrat and I nodded sagely, pretending that I knew what that meant. In fact he had taken my question the wrong way – like most children my meaning was “why”, not “which”.

 

I have vague memories of political events – I remember Chris Patten being appointed to the Education brief, the fall of the Berlin Wall and Margaret Thatcher crying. All of those memories are frustratingly faint and pale in comparison to other important events like the first football match I went to or the first time I went to school.

 

In short – none of those events changed my life. They happened and I took them in, but my family never really talked much about politics. All of them were Liberal Democrats but I never really knew until I asked and I wouldn’t do that for some years to come.

 

My time in secondary school was political, only in the sense that I was strongly opposed to the prevailing mood of my class who were generally Tory-thinking. Debates were had on why we should leave the European Union (I was the only dissenter), abolish the NHS (I was the only dissenter) or not have a minimum wage (I was the only dissenter).

 

I am not sure whether at that point it was genuine conviction or sheer bloody-mindedness, but I felt badly out of place. People would refer to me as “the socialist” so I would use the term about myself. After a few years I researched it, found out more about the doctrine behind it and decided it didn’t fit.

 

By my late teens I was delivering Lib Dem leaflets for my father (who was too busy working to hit the streets) and I had signed up to a class on politics at college. I studied politics not out of any interest but simply as a sixth A level. It was the only humanities subject that worked with my timetable.

 

The first sixty minutes were electric. We did not discuss a single issue, structure or personality but I was fascinated. Politics was all around us and we did it all the time. I was an unrepentant geek, joining the Association of Political Science and devouring journal after journal.

 

And then it was the 2001 General Election.

 

I had long considered joining the Lib Dems – mainly because I was delivering the leaflets anyway and wanted to feel like I was part of what was going on. What tipped my hand was the tone of the 2001 Conservative Campaign which took as a key theme a seeming terror of the Euro and the European Union.

 

My strongest instinct politically, long before I became passionate about liberalism, protection of minorities and preserving individual choice, had always been that I was a passionate pro-European. I did not necessarily agree with everything the Union did but I felt that there was a principle behind it that was worth fighting for and adhering to. It is an imperfect structure but one that could change if there was political will for it to do so.

 

I joined the party and realised what I had done shortly afterwards when I received three rounds rather than the customary one I had always delivered. Shit. Still, it was good healthy exercise!

 

I went to University to study politics and suddenly I was in a different realm. I had used to be the socialist when discussing the welfare state or the European Union – now when discussing Latin America or the Middle East I was the “Tory” or the “Conservative” and on a couple of occasions I was even labelled a “fascist” for criticising Hugo Chavez’s dictatorial style of leadership and for voicing some support for nuclear energy.

 

I left the party for a while – considering the local party’s priorities to be wrong. I dabbled in Green politics but decided that it was too radical and unfocused for my tastes. Supermarket action days and placards were not my thing. I scurried back to the Lib Dems and was blogging shortly before the 2006 Leadership election kicked off.

 

As I get older (I’m nearing my first quarter century) I feel decidedly more liberal than in my earlier days. I become passionate talking about individual freedoms and limited government. I am, in short, turning into a libertarian, albeit one who still thinks that it is society’s duty to support those most in need of a fair chance.

 

I am more active in the Lib Dems than I have been at any stage in my life and am proud to belong to an organisation that has taken courageous stands on key issues. Although I will not be in the United Kingdom for that much longer (if all goes well), I will always feel immensely tied to the party and look forward to seeing it go from strength to strength.

 

Now, if you haven’t already done so, go read Tristan’s blog post. It’s much more interesting than mine!

With the local elections less than three weeks away now and the possibility that London may turn blue in the mayoral election there is a very real possibility that Brown’s days at Number 10 could be… well, numbered.

 

Yesterday’s poll in the Times shows Labour trailing 16 points behind the Tories (Cons 44%, Lab 28%, Lib Dem 17%) and, most tellingly of all, just 11% of voters believe that Labour will win a ‘clear victory’ in the next general. Confidence in the Brown government is falling and if the Labour party make a significant net loss of Councils and Councillors on May 1^st then the knives will be out.

 

It is a fairly stunning turnaround for Brown’s reputation which just six months ago was soaring. It will seem like a lifetime ago now for the Prime Minister but there was a time when Labour backbenchers were urging him to go to the Country to cash in on his popularity. It is clear that if Brown was to go to the country now then the Tories would have a landslide on the scale of Labour’s 1997 election victory.

 

In fact, Brown’s reputation is taking a real kicking lately, courtesy of the plight of Britain’s economy. Headlines have appeared in all of the major UK newspapers over the last week, all pointing the finger at government inaction and complacency.

 

The line that all countries are feeling the pinch and are struggling with the current international fiscal climate is simply not credible in explaining all of Britain’s woes. There is a crippling lack of confidence in the Government’s abilities to change that situation.

 

The Financial Times’ Harris survey found that 68% of British voters are “not confident at all” in the Government’s ability to deal with the current economic crisis. Compare this to 52% in Germany, 50% in France, 43% in Italy and 36% in Spain. People’s perceptions of the difficulties are different across Europe and that reflects their faith in the country’s leadership to steady the ship.

 

It is repeated instances of inaction that are causing the British public such concern. By not accepting culpability for any aspect of the state of the economy and by not reorganising his cabinet Brown appears out of touch with the worries of normal people.

 

This month though will be the real test of his leadership as people begin to receive their first pay packets with the ten per cent tax rate removed. Already I have encountered numerous people who talk about the impact on their pay packets. Who speak about increasing economic pressures and needing to save money wherever possible.

 

Those suffering most are those who Labour rely on – the lowly paid and those in part time employment. No wonder newspapers are reporting that if the results are bad for Labour this May then it could be curtains for the man who waited over a decade to take the helm of his party.

 

Unless Brown finds some way to reassure the British public that the government can protect us from economic turbulence, protect their jobs and their quality of life then he is in trouble. The question is, will anyone be bold enough to take him on.

Implied Observer has a great piece on whether the Christian Right in America made a tactical error by not backing Huckabee.

I broadly agree with the article’s argument: the public leaders of the Christian Right damaged themselves by not only failing to back the candidate who was “their guy” ideologically (Huckabee) but further by actively backing a candidate who lost convincingly.

The impact? We used to believe that the Republicans needed a nominee approved of by the Christian Right in order to stand a chance of contention for the Presidency. If McCain wins, which despite present polling is far from certain, this received wisdom will be overturned and those leaders’ significance reduced.

So yeah, I think daranee’s right; this was a considerable mistake on their part.

Over at Lib Dem Voice right now (and repeated on the tiresome Liberal Conspiracy site) there are debates raging about which other candidate London Lib Dems ought to give their second preferences to.

 

The question as to who our natural allies as a party are is an old one and is never easy to answer. Let’s begin with what our opponents say.

 

Ask a Tory who we naturally would prefer – them or Labour – and they will tell us that we are really an annex of the Labour Party (except Vince Cable who they think really belongs on their benches – probably because they have nobody with an equal flair for economics, despite being “the party of business”). They point to our moves in the 1990s to get close to the Labour Party when in opposition.

 

Ask a Labour party member and they will claim one of two things (once they have told us why we ought to switch and back them instead). Either they will say that we belong with them because we both are passionately committed to communities and human rights (though Labour’s actions could be seen to suggest otherwise) or else they point to the Orange Book and scream “market liberals” at us.

 

And then the two of them get together, point at us and say you can’t trust us because we are neither one nor the other. There are issues we agree with Labour on and there are issues we agree with the Tories on and that means we are pragmatic, cynical masterminds – jumping on whatever bandwagon we reckon we can squeeze a few votes on.

 

Your dejected Liberal Democrat meanwhile shrugs his or her shoulders and ponders why, as individuals, we ought to be able to be grouped together and categorised.

 

It’s often said that we are a party made up of two halves but that is not really true. In my experience we coalesce around central tenets and whilst some of us veer off in different directions we have a similar starting point. It’s in our name. Almost all of us believe passionately in individual liberty and in democratic structures.

 

There are of course groupings of members – there are those who do believe in the free market; there are those who believe in fair trade. It is not ideologically inconsistent that both of these views exist within the party. Rather it is possible because we disagree over how best to achieve an outcome.

 

The argument as to whether we should feel drawn to Boris or Ken is simply pointless. We will not agree because we have different instincts. We should make our minds up as individuals and vote as individuals. By all means we should debate the matter about who we are most comfortable with, ask the question who is the most liberal or democratic and get annoyed when either side says that they are our natural second preference.

 

I have my preference of those two – I’m sure you have yours – though in the end my views have little to do with anything. I am not a Londoner and have no vote.

 

We should devote our energy instead to getting the maximum number of votes for Brian. Then the question would be who do Ken and Boris’ second preferences go to?

Oliver Stone’s new film W will begin filming any day soon in Louisiana and the cast list is now becoming well publicized. It will be Stone’s third film about a US president – he has previously helmed JFK and the biopic Nixon that starred Anthony Hopkins.

Stone is an interesting film maker and it is always interesting to see what he does with his material. There are some really fantastic movies amongst his back catalogue (Wall Street, Salvador and Platoon come to mind which were all released between 1986 and 1987) and whilst I am less impressed by some of his later work it is usually worth watching.

 

Usually I try to keep an open mind on film projects but I have a problem with this one. It feels too soon.

 

We are told that this will not be an anti-Bush polemic. This certainly seems to clash with the description of the Bush in the movie as being ‘a foul-mouthed, dried-out drunk with a baseball obsession and a difficult relationship with his father’.

It is not the take on Bush that is a problem for me but whether there is much value to trying to deconstruct the life and achievements of a man, not only whilst he’s still alive but when he is still in office.

 

Much of our understanding of politicians is based on the longer term consequences of their actions, hence why reputations adjust after time. A strong American example of this is President Truman whose opinion poll ratings fell to incredible lows in his second term and yet fifty years later he tends to be listed amongst the best Presidents America had to offer.

 

Bush is unlikely to be re-evaluated as quickly, if at all, although there is an interesting comparison between the two Presidents that is waiting to be written. The point is that a biopic produced in the dying days of his Presidency cannot realistically aim to be the “fair, true portrait of the man” that Stone claims it will be if we are still being directly affected by the decisions he is taking.

 

Stone’s Nixon is a breathtaking work that looks, perhaps not dispassionately at the disgraced President’s life but certainly with a degree of clarity brought on by the passage of time. I am sure that there will be merit in W – after all, I am a fan of Stone’s work. It is just a shame that there is this rush to re-evaluate and analyze so quickly after the event.

 

W will be released in cinemas in America before Bush leaves office next January and stars Josh Brolin as George W Bush, Elizabeth Banks as his wife Laura, James Cromwell as George H W Bush, Thandie Newton as Condi Rice, Ioan Gruffudd as Tony Blair and Ellen Burstyn as Barbara Bush.

An intriguing review of the script as it was last Fall can be found at Rope of Silicon and is well worth a read.

One of my guiltiest pleasures these days seems to be consuming huge numbers of cookery programmes, books and magazines.

 

I can’t quite understand why given that I have no skill in the kitchen and, even if I did, I rarely cook anything for myself from scratch. There is just something tantalising about watching delicious meals being created with seemingly little effort at all. I envy them and perhaps I feel somewhere deep inside that if I watch enough meals being prepared on the telly I will somehow develop a talent for cuisine. So far it hasn’t worked.

 

The recent return of ‘The Great British Menu’ was very welcome and after an interesting week of dishes from the Central region, some of which looked tasty and some of which looked revolting (stand up rabbit and pea trifle!), I am looking forward to seeing what chefs from around the rest of the country conjure up.

 

One thing that is a shame about the contest though is that there remains a strong emphasis on heavy, meaty dishes. As someone who, if not exactly a vegetarian, does not particularly like meat I tend to find that there are relatively few recipes on the programme that I would actually cook for myself. Still, as already noted – it’s not exactly as if I would do that anyway.

 

With the Central region done we already have a big shock with last year’s winner being trounced by one of his friends to get through to the next stage. It will be interesting to see how chefs from the other regions far over the next few weeks and perhaps this year I will be inspired to actually cook something as a result of the show.

 

‘Doctor Who’ is one of my favourite television programmes so its return this weekend was something of a treat. Unfortunately a bout of illness kept me from tuning in so I can be grateful to BBC’s iPlayer for allowing me to play catch up.

 

Whilst I was dubious about Catherine Tate’s Donna returning for a full season as the companion I felt that her performance here was strong and a world away from the over-the-top screaming buffoon she gave us in ‘The Runaway Bride’ two years ago. She handled the knockabout stuff well and had some nice tender moments, especially with Granddad who was played superbly by Bernard Cribbens.

 

The story had a whiff of 1970s James Bond about it – a villain who is marked out as such from the beginning with a sublimely over-complicated plan and accompanied by strapping young men with machine guns. In fact the whole piece had a very silly feel to it but it held together reasonably well in the end.

 

Tennant remains a delight to watch on screen and the prospect of another year with him at the helm of the TARDIS is something to cherish. It is sometimes difficult to remember that he has been with the show now for three years – he looks so comfortable in the role that it feels like much longer.

 

The next episode looks like it’ll be a cracker – Pompeii, the threat of imminent death and the superb Peter Capaldi. I’ll be tuning in!

 

Nothing here on the final episode of the cracking TV thriller ‘Damages’ though. That’s not because I’m uninterested in it – in fact it’s been my favourite TV programme so far this year. Instead this is because I vowed to hold off on watching it until I can watch it with my fiancée.

 

The last episode left me pumped up about where this show is going. I can’t wait to see what happens next so no spoilers please!

The decision to make China the host of the Olympic Games this year was already causing questions to be asked about whether Britain ought to participate given the country’s appalling human rights record, long before China began its heavy crackdown on protests in Tibet earlier this year.

Some suggested that the best thing to do would be for Britain to withdraw its athletes from the Games to make a stand. However, rightly this option was ruled out. Athletes spend years of their lives training in the hope of representing Britain at the highest level. To withdraw would make them lose their opportunity to do so – disappointing many. I agree with Gordon Brown’s decision to rule out a total boycott of the games but the question about what should Britain do to mark its displeasure at China’s actions remains.

Today Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem Leader, urged Gordon Brown instead to boycott the ceremony and events leading up to it himself. This would ensure that Britain remains an active participant whilst making a clear statement that whilst we support the Games, our leaders will not attend to show the British people’s displeasure at China’s actions.

Brown has been presented with a solution that would allow British athletes to still compete proudly for their country whilst making a strong political statement. Sarkozy has already threatened that he will miss the opening ceremony whilst the Prime Minister of Poland has said he will not go saying it would be “inappropriate” for politicians to be at the Games’ inauguration. Gordon Brown ought to take the same stand on behalf of Britain.

An interesting poll appeared yesterday from US Pollsters Gallup which concentrated its line of questioning on candidates’ weaknesses. By asking who voters don’t want, the pollsters provide an intriguing glimpse at how the differing Presidential match ups could play out.

The headline question is who do voters least want to see elected President this year. McCain led with 40%, Clinton came second with 36% and Obama third with 20% (3% had no opinion).

Whilst it is easy to say that the poll shows McCain to be unpopular it is worth remembering the number of options available here. McCain is the single Republican whilst there are two Democrats on offer, splitting Republican venom.

More reassuring for him are the figures split by party identification:

What is positive here is firstly the small percentage figure of Republicans who think he is the worst option out there. After months of criticism from the right wing pundits, the party seems to be quickly getting behind him. A good vice presidential choice might help him further shore up his figures amongst Republicans or lower his figure amongst Democrats.

Secondly, he will be happy that the figure identifying him as the worst option out there is only 71% amongst Democrat supporters. Now, take those figures with a pinch of salt as when the party finally chooses a candidate we ought to see some of the hostility towards each candidate fade away. It is worth mentioning however as the more fierce the Democrat race becomes the more chance there is of some of those numbers sticking.

So, what were the most quoted reasons for not supporting each of the candidates?

The most cited reasons for McCain were to do with his support for the Iraq War, George W Bush and his being a Republican. Clinton is perceived as untrustworthy whilst Obama is seen as inexperienced. The poll write-up notes with interest that the top three answers for McCain were all policy issues whilst Clinton and Obama fall down on personality.

Interestingly Obama’s religious views also seem to be a big factor amongst the 20% who dislike him most and 12% of those who dislike him most cite the reason that they believe him to be a “secret Muslim” (to quote Stephen Colbert). Given his recent issues with Reverend Wright and his membership of the Trinity United Church of Christ this may well seem surprising but it has been a rumour the Obama campaign has been unable to shrug off, despite the considerable evidence to the contrary.

Hillary? There is a question as to just how much she can move these numbers as looking at the detail, many of the reasons are historic in nature. Heading into the campaign it was noted that she has always been a hate figure for a large number of Americans. These figures look brighter than those early match-ups but there is little she can do to change some of the biggest negatives. The past is there and looking at these numbers it is still in the minds of many.

The figure she needs to concentrate on is the 24% of responses criticising her trustworthiness. Her campaign recently got itself into trouble with overplaying Hilary’s role in Bosnia and Northern Ireland which will be a contributing factor to that 24%. However it is hard to see how this late in the campaign she can repair that damage. As her campaign struggles to make up ground, it will by necessity attack Obama more, only adding to that figure. What is clear is that if Hillary pulls off a highly unlikely nomination win, she starts with a heavy disadvantage.

One final word on the poll’s findings for McCain. Whilst the media (and indeed me yesterday) comment on McCain’s need to reassure voters about his age, the poll finds that just 7% are concerned that he is too old. His campaign will likely be looking at that figure with interest as search for a Running Mate. He will also be hoping that the Obama-Clinton race continues for a while yet – the more Democrats there are that will not back the winning candidate, the more open the race becomes.

Harriet Harman is probably feeling happy and full of confidence right now. The news that she would be faced at PMQs by William Hague and Vince Cable had many predicting that Harman would be shown up badly by two men who typically impress at these sessions. Instead she was strong, confident and calm – a tough feat in the bear pit that Gordon is increasingly coming to fear.

Gordon will be feeling the heat at his next session – it would have been helpful for him if Harman had tanked, to remind people that PMQ’s is a high pressure environment. That Harman made a success of it will only increase concerns about his ineffectual, grumpy and stumbling style.

Harman’s success was in giving as good as she got back to Hague. Her response to the gibe about the stab-proof jacket she wore on a walk-around her constituency, that “the man in a baseball cap” was the last man she would take fashion advice from, was superb and had the whole house in stitches.

Hague asked questions on Zimbabwe, the effects of the tax system changes on poorer people and the current economic climate.

Then Vince stood up to great cheers but his question about whether the queen had captured the mood of the people by cancelling her Diamond Wedding Anniversary Party on the grounds that lavish celebrations would not be appropriate when the public are worrying about the state of the economy. The speaker ruled the question out of order as under Commons rules discussion of the Queen is not permitted without prior warning. Vince had already used up one of his questions, allowing Harman to give a quick, tidy answer knowing that Vince would have no opportunity to come back.

It was unfortunate and an unusual error of judgement from Vince. However once again the antiquated rules of the Commons have been shown up to be stifling genuine debate at the highest level and Speaker Martin will not have made any friends on the Lib Dem benches with his ruling.

Oglethorpe’s Winner:
Harriet Harman
- Without the Tories or Lib Dems unable to get the best of Harman she will be deemed to win by default and no doubt will be looking forward to her next chance to shine. With more performances of that kind her reputation in her party will only be on the rise.

CNN’s Election Centre is leading today on a story that McCain has told journalists that it will take weeks to narrow down his 20 or so person shortlist for the Republican vice presidential nominee.

McCain said he is taking his time to make a choice to ensure that he picks and prepares a running mate properly. He made references to Dan Quayle in 1988 who he believes was not fully prepared at the point he was selected by Bush Senior – that is a mistake McCain could not afford this time around.

There is much speculation out there as to who will be on that list but there are some names that pretty well everybody is listing as serious contenders:

• Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota
• Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina
• Governor Charlie Crist of Florida

One blog engaging in the guessing game (or rather, the “informed speculation” game) is Washington Post’s The Fix which ran “Pin the VP on the Nominee” as its Friday Line last week. He also adds Mitt Romney and John Thune to the runners and riders.

Thune seems a strong, outside choice. He’s still fresh to Washington, having notably beaten Senate Leader Tom Daschle in 2004. His good looks and his strong speaking style make him easy to watch and he sounds knowledgeable.

The Junior Senator from South Dakota’s age would be a benefit to McCain and he was one of the first people to endorse and then stick with McCain through the hard times last year. Thune would be able to talk about environmental issues with enthusiasm to make the Republican ticket sound more credible on green issues, whilst he has strong credentials as an economic conservative.

I don’t expect Thune to be picked – he is still green and Pawlenty and McCain go back decades together – but McCain has a habit of surprising us all. If he decides to surprise the media with his running mate then I think Thune could well be the way he does that.