Randomly Selected Article or Link

The last debate on tonight's Question Time was over votes at sixteen. Most of the panel, gratifyingly, supported this Lib Dem policy. I know Sam Coates, erstwhile near neighbour of mine here at Brookes and deputy-editor of ConservativeHome, doesn't like the idea and his arguments on his own blog did give me pause for thought for a few seconds.

But the overwhelming feeling I was left with from that audience of under-21s tonight was that they are no different at sixteen than at any other age as regards ability to take on board an argument and make decisions based on information they receive.

Standing on doorsteps canvassing it is quite clear that as high a proportion of over eighteens seem not to care a fig, or are as open to the influence of lies, spin, tribalism and statistics, not to mention on occasion family or peer pressures. At least the sixteen year olds now have a future to plan for - why shouldn't they have a say?

Oh, and none of this "compulsory political lessons" please either - engaging folks is the job of the would be politicians. Just as many adults need compulsory political lessons as any other group I'd suggest. Which may be an old fashioned liberal position, but not one that should discriminate between the young and politically disengaged and the not so young and politically disengaged.

Technorati Tags: electoral reform, politics, voting, young

I nodded off quite early last night so it seems all the hoopla was only just beginning. I was evidently not so unconscious as I thought, for I had had a nightmare about everyone rushing outside to see this Davis chap ride past on his high, ever so high, horse (a strange beast, for it had white bits where you would normally expect black and black bits where you would normally expect white) whilst waving their 28th day release papers and union flag bunting, and hailing him as potentially the greatest liberal Home Secretary the country's never had.

And then, half through my snoozing state, I sort of heard a bloke called McKenzie muttering something about Rupert Murdoch paying for him to stand against the arch-liberal Ricky Dickie Davey Davis in a by-election. Mr "28 days is enough" Davis might well be wondering what he's let himself in for - perhaps a real Conservative candidate who supports that party's membership's opinion that "14 days or fewer" was plenty when he himself voted against the Magna Carta a couple of years back.

And looking around, I see more praise heaped on. I see the Libertarian Alliance backing him unconditionally . I see the Libertarian Party inviting him to join them . I hear neo-con Conservatives saying they never, ever, ever, no really never for a second, supported 42 days, ever. That 42 was just a placeholder they had used to try to work out what question the government were trying to answer at the time.

Of course, the Libertarian Party is also playing a bit of politics here (and I think they should - to get some publicity if nothing else). They could of course do with a high profile "liberal" like Davis like a hole in the head right now. The Libertarian Alliance makes it clear they take a very different position on almost everything else Dicky D has ever said on crime and punishment. You can't adopt someone like that who would undoubtedly be seen as a flag-carrier with his wildly illiberal views on all sorts of personal and social liberal issues where the state should, to any half-decent liberal or libertarian, just butt out.

Furthermore, Davis's resignation may be an extraordinary event, but frankly it is a stunt. There's nothing him being re-elected in his own constituency can do to give him a different mandate on this particular issue. Indeed it only has downsides from what I can see. He will not be steering the Tory revolt against the bill in the House of Lords, and he could end up not very convincingly re-elected (either because there is no contest and nobody bothers to vote or, if there is a contest, someone makes gains against him).

If I were a party strategist, personally, I would stand the best candidate one can find against him. The most liberal or libertarian we can find, and make this an issue of what sort of freedom do you want - his, the freedom of 28 days is okay even if that too breaches all the ancient rights he is now trying to defend and no other personal freedoms on issues like drugs and sexuality, or real freedom where the government gets out of as many aspects of our lives as possible.

The man is a politician for God's sake. He's been in that place for two decades now. Politicians, especially entrenched ones like Davis, are the problem, not part of the solution, If he is the nation's new champion of liberty, the day I look for another homeland has just drawn closer.

If ever there was a good day to lose an MEP, today must be difficult to beat.

The former Lib Dem member for somewhere up north will be inside page stuff tomorrow compared with bent-as-a-nine-bob-note Labour donation scandals, yet again.  It utterly beggars belief that anyone would imagine that donations made via someone else were right and proper.  Mind you there always were stories about a certain landlord in Oxford forcing his tenans each to give Labour small amounts on his behalf so he would not go above he notification level each year.  So maybe it's endemic.

It's not that I am usually a luddite. Nor do I necessarily mourn the fact that workers have priced themselves out of a job. But there is something very sad about the Telegraph's story that the Symington port family is to phase out crushing grapes by gangs of human feet:

Centuries of port heritage ended by family firm

The world's oldest and largest port producer is finally trampling on 2,000 years of agricultural history.

The Symington family, which has been making port since 1652, has announced that it will no longer crush its grapes under foot.

The saddest part is surely that:

While the robots are an expensive investment, they can do the job at any time of the day or night - and don't need the encouragement of an accompanying musician.

Will port wine ever be the same without the local folk tunes of Portugal being instilled into it at birth I wonder?

Maybe I'm a "man out of time" but nothing in politics makes me more nauseous than Tony Blair or David Cameron strutting around seemingly proclaiming their unique ability to govern. To me, even as a Catholic who you might think would be more used to authority and conscientious obedience to such a figure, the leader, whether of party or government, should be no more than "primus inter pares" and probably more administrator-in-chief pulling together the ideas and energies of those around him or her.

And so I was already in the mood to comment on Linda Jack's blog on Friday, outlining a paper that went to FPC stressing that we needed our "Narrative" (what?) to hook into Ming as leader. But now I presume that paper is the one by Greg Simpson ("head of policy and research" for the Lib Dems) that's been leaked to the Independent and about which Andrew Grice has written at some length today.

This seems to have met with some approbation, not least by Linda herself again, but also so far with Paul Walter on his own blog and Richard Huzzey writing at Lib Dem Voice. So I'm going to be slightly contrary and demur from this Ming-fest. Not because I don't believe Ming capable of it. Far from it. I think he has more wisdom on his shoulders than Blair and Cameron combined - and some of the more intemperate and personal remarks that always surface about him after a policy announcement say to me that many have no counter to him other than ad hominem.

But I do not believe that pandering to the cult of celebrity that has permeated politics as much as our prime time television is the radical liberal way to "re-establish in the minds of voters the 'anti-establishment' core of our liberal philosophy." Indeed, I'd say that one of our weaknesses as a party continues to be not that the leader is invisible, but that voters have even less idea of who else might be in a Lib Dem government than they do of a Tory or Labour government. SImon Hughes can't do everything you know! Okay, that's a bit harsh - many of our front bench team are getting better coverage than ever previously - but you know what I mean.

Our credentials for government do not stand alone on some "narrative" centered on the leader (I've still to work out what this actually means, and I think "ideology" is sufficient). A leader who is already (and in some circles for a long time before he even became leader) the most recognized figure, but on the radicalism of the whole party.

We are already way out of my personal "comfort zone" by being too pedestrian, not radical and not liberal enough. If Greg's advice is important it is in his exhortation to be more radical. But it applies to us all. And the way we choose not to thrust forward a leader as some kind of party champion or "born to govern" chief like Cameron can be part of that radicalism. I hope we don't join the cult of personality crowd that this advice seems to advocate, though I don't doubt Ming is up to the task were we to.

Technorati Tags: narrative, radicalism, lib dems, ming campbell