Randomly Selected Article or Link

Sorry I've been quiet for a few days. I blame Praguetory for introducing me to "Second Life" one of the online virtual world social site type things (actually from what I can see a "MOO" for those of you who may remember Xerox Parc in the early nineties but with fancy graphics).

Anyway, today I sat in on a seminar led by Chris Huhne here at Brookes on the subject of "Politicians and Conservation: can politics deliver on climate change?". And I heard nearly the same talk again at a fund raising dinner for our European campaigns in the evening.

It was inspiring, but I'm sure you wouldn't think I was for real if I didn't say that it only went a small way towards addressing some of the issues. More on that perhaps a bit later.

But one thing in particular struck me. Chris was talking about where the ramifications of climate change are felt in government, and how teamwork on a nearly unprecedented scale (except perhaps in period of outright war like the national governments in WWII) between departments is so essential.

If, he said, we want to ensure our built environment is to the highest possible environmental quality we look to the Department of Communities and Local Government who set things like building and planning regulations. If we want to make an impact on aviation and motor vehicles we have to look to the Department of Transport. Flood defences, the natural environment and environmental treaties to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. To negotiate those treaties, you need the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to administer aid to developing countries to get them past the population and industrial smog of underdevelopment you have the Department for International Development. You need the Department for Education and Skills to get the message across to the many people who still aren't truly aware of their part in all this from the youngest age. And the mother of them all, to pay for it, you've got to have the Treasury team onside.

He could have added the Department of Health to deal with the soaring weather related illnesses, the Home Office to deal with the migration issues and in the worst case scenarios to deal with law and order issues related to shortages and Work and Pensions to deal with issues like fuel poverty.

Chris's case was, of course, that the Lib Dems, of the major parties, are the only one who has all the relevant shadow teams onside with this agenda. But I couldn't help wondering throughout, that if what is at stake is the survival of between about a sixth and a third of the world's species and the biggest potential threat to humanity's wellbeing should we not have, as one of the "great offices of state", at least as important as the Home Office, the Treasury and the Foreign Office, A secretary of State for the Survival of Species with an overarching brief to bring all of these necessary players into line.

Instead, that is, of putting farm payments and flood defences in the same budget and calling it "environment".

There has been a bit of a spat at the Euro-parl about whether some amendments to the "Telecoms Packet" (how romantic, is that like the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Packet Company's packet?) that I encouraged readers to respond to a couple of days ago.

One of the movers of one of the offending amendments has, according to the BBC, said...

What a fuckwit. I doubt there has ever been any piece of legislation in any legislature which was claimed not to have "innocent intentions". But in a month when his own party has been moaning about, amongst other things the use of RIPA in ways for which it was not intended, surely the extension of "innocent intentions" into overbearing surveillance and so on should be obvious.

If there are drafting issues that permit an interpretation of a law that increases surveillance then the lawmakers should protect against it. The world is littered with "innocent" laws that have been interpreted to allow more sinister applications. A Tory, if committed to small government, should know this and not continue to protect his corporate sponsors.

Can anyone point me to a Euro-parl equivalent of "Public Whip" so I can determine if any of my supposedly liberal Euro-reps agreed with this Tory tosspot?

I find the story of Farepack's collapse heart-rending. Whilst I'm none too fond of the notion that Christmas is something that should put such a burden on families that they feel they have to save up for a whole year to give their families a decent time (I believe a decent time should depend on the people and the spirit of the festival not the material goods that go with it) those who have chosen a savings scheme, rather than a spend-now-pay-afterwards credit card Christmas, have been doing the really responsible thing. And they've been left completely in the lurch.

Not only that but Farepack also allowed people to become their "agents" and collect from friends and other family members, so there's bound to be a bit of resentment in some households.

Presumably Farepack would have to have been a licensed deposit taker? And regulated as such by the Financial Services Authority? Their collapse should I hope, be dealt with as firmly by those authorities as any - Barlow Clowes springs to mind. I know running a business can be a fine balance between keeping the confidence of your customers and dealing with what might have seemed at the time - in June or July when they knew they had some cash flow issues - like little mid-year difficulties that they were confident they could get over. But it's not as if we are talking about sophisticated investors here who might have been watching for signs of trouble, just people paying into a relatively simple conceptually savings scheme that would guarantee them some fun over Christmas.

So it seems to me that HBOS do have some responsibility here. They were issuing warnings months ago to Farepack, and must have known the nature of their business and their customers. To allow it to go on till mid-October, when there's really little chance of people being able either to get what payout from an insolvency they might end up with before it was needed for Christmas or rustling up the same amount of money to replace what they had paid in and now lost, seems almost callous.

Farepack and similar schemes started life seventy and more years ago as mutual savings schemes. Maybe they've got too big to have the kind of care about their customers and the local savings club did of its members. Would that we had more credit unions that conscientious savers could have used instead. After all, how difficult can it be - you collect money over a year, put it all on deposit, even make a little interest for the members in doing so, and then all club together and go shopping in bulk, and start again the following January.

I hope someone steps in and offers these hapless but responsible people some material comfort at what promises to be a pretty miserable time of year for them.

Charles Kennedy was presenting a Channel 4 "Thirty Minutes" tonight on "Politics and Power". I can't find it online, so if you missed it (as I missed the first five minutes being suckered in by those other great Liberals trying to rearrange the county in the Madness of King George) all I can find to give you a flavour is the Radio Times write-up:

Charles Kennedy, former leader of the Liberal Democrats, examines the problem he sees as being at the heart of British politics: the way politicians too often sacrifice their principles in the pursuit of power. Speaking about his experiences fighting six general elections, Kennedy compares notes with parliamentary colleagues including Michael Howard, Ian Duncan Smith, Baroness Jay, Norman Tebbit, Baroness Morris and Jonathan Cruddas.

If it wasn't actually intended as a reminder to party members heading off to conference in four weeks or so of what we (were forced to) gave up only eight short months ago, it certainly succeeded in being so for me! Charles came across as we fondly remember - frank, honest and genuine. A real "home boy" still representing the constituency he grew up in. The man who, for all his faults and fumblings at times, managed to woo the electorate with his fireside chattiness.

I missed him setting out the hypothesis, but he diagnosed many of the problems lots of us feel about politics today - disengagement, lack of trust, unwillingness to debate with the public some of the biggest issues - especially at elections times - the concentration on what a tiny number of floating voters in a small number of marginal constituencies think and want to the exclusion of the majority of communities in the country, even the whips system keeping MPs on the party line regardless of what they honestly feel and whether their constituents agree.

He said that reform was necessary. IDS, I think it was, argued that there was no such thing as a General Election nowadays because of targetting marginal seats. Everyone seemed to agree. One problem was that parties did not want to appear to be divided on these hot issues (they chose Europe, nuclear power and Trident, but it could have been any of a whole load of other big issues - environment, drugs and so on), again especially at election times. And it made me wonder - how would it affect my commitment to an election campaign, say, if these big debates were aired and I did stand divided from my party on something that I thought very important.

And as I thought about it, I found that Charles was making the perfect argument for electoral reform, and in particular STV voting. It's a little ironic as I know some Labour electoral reformers felt that Charles was pretty much responsible for us letting the long grass grow around PR as an issue at a time when they could have built a lot of support for reform in their own party if there was pressure from us and the issue kept at the fore.

Under STV you have larger constituencies with several MPs and you get to rank the candidates individually in order of preference on the ballot paper. Say Oxfordshire could be one instead of six constituencies, returning six MPs altogether. In order to get yourself a better chance of being elected than your party colleagues you've got to make a name for yourself, differentiate yourself a little from them. So you might be generally a Tory voter, but are strongly pro-Europe, so you can get to choose the Tory candidates who are least anti-Eruope and maybe throw in a vote for a more free-market Lib Dem as better than the more Eurosceptic Tory candidates.

So it would give the candidates a reason to highlight their individual issues where they differ from the predominant party line, an excuse for when the whips try to berate them for voting honestly on those issues when the pressures are on to vote with the lobby fodder. In short, more open, honest and public debate, a closer approximation to the overall political preferences in the nation as a whole and no safe seats to abandon to concentrate on targeted marginal constituency.

A great pity then that Charles did not take the opportunity to prescribe that remedy. But I do hope to see more of him, soon. Not just the party, but the British political scene is the poorer for his not being as big a part of it as he was. And I say that as someone who put him sixth (if at all even possibly) in my preferences when he was first elected.