Science is vital

The Liberal Democrats and their coalition partners are embarking on a large number of cuts, as we know. We also know that these cuts will significantly effect almost every aspect of government spending - and many of these cuts will, in fact, be false economies that end up leaving us far worse off financially than if we'd left the investment in place.

You can see this extremely clearly with the cuts to science funding (eg Doc Richard) which doesn't just undermine the UK's ability to rake in Nobel Prizes, it also undermines our ability to capitalise and build on scientific research that is done all around the world. It will place us, economically, in a massively disadvantaged position for a generation if we allow these cuts to take place.

Vince Cable may think there is a sharp dividing line between the economically profitable bits of science funding and the esoteric mind-bending theoretical stuff, but in the medium and long term you need deep thought as well as work on more efficient micro-processors because the dividing line between the two is not as strong as you might at first think.

More than that if we are to move to a more ecologically sustainable society new technologies are going to be absolutely at the heart of that. Not because we can carry on as normal with a few funky gadgets but because if we don't develop viable energy alternatives to coal, for example, then we simply don't have a hope of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions either quickly or substantially enough.

CASE and the science is vital campaign is part of that fight to prevent the science cuts, although am I alone in thinking that Patrick Moore's claim to "support the Science Is Vital campaign 200%!” is not the most well judged way of expressing his support for scientific endeavor!

Certainly I think it would be great if readers asked their MP to sign EDM 767 on the need to safeguard scientific research funding, as well as signing this petition yourselves. You might also like to attend the lobby in the House of Commons tomorrow (Tuesday) 3:30 – 4:30pm in Committee Room 10.

Some choice

You're walking home late at night. You nip down an alley, a short cut home you know.

Suddenly you realise that you're surrounded. Hoodies! Both behind and in front. Your way is blocked by these hugging ruffians forming a giggling wall.

One steps forwards, takes his monocle out and delicately places it in his pocket. You realise with horror he is holding a baseball bat. He grins.

"Face or balls?" You gape at him as he swings the bat. "Come on old boy, face or balls?"

Months later in court the prosecution are grilling the thug in the dock. Sadly he shakes his head.

"He told me to whack him in the balls. I didn't want to - that was his choice!"

Would it stand up in court? No. He'd be sent down. Sometimes there's no right answer because the it's the question that's the problem.

Dave and Nick, sitting in a tree K-I-S-S-I-N-G

David Davis, that well known defender of civil liberties and airfix SAS commando, has dissed the government saying that the Prime Minister and his deputy get on really, really well. Apparently that's a bad thing.

Davis told "businessmen [sic] during a meeting" that the government was a "Brokeback Coalition", which was a term coined, apparently, by Richard Littlejohn. Waaa- Waaa- Waaa ALARM BELLS!

Quite what the Tories have to complain about I'm not sure. In terms of policy they are basically having it all their own way. Perhaps there are less top jobs going round the big table, but they've not had to make any ideological sacrifices in order to remain in government.

I guess Davis is just one of those tribalists who hates to share. Perhaps he's an only child.

I do have a question though. I might be being over sensitive or censorious but am I wrong in thinking that Davis' remarks are homophobic?

There are numerous close male friendships depicted in film - the Blues Brothers seems a particularly apt one in the context for example - but in order to find an example of a bad male friendship, one that's too close, Davis goes straight for the gays.

Butch and Sundance, good, Starsky and Hutch, good, Bill and Ted, good, Brokeback Mountain, bad. Why's that then?

Like I say I'm careful of reading too much into this and don't want to get all up in his shit, he obviously would not like that, but I'm right aren't I? He is basically saying calling someone gay is an alternative way of saying they're crap isn't he? Anyway, he obviously longs for the days when the two most powerful men in government hated each others guts. Good times Davis, good times...

Pic credit Lakelander.

Alternative Vote: the essay

So the Alternative Vote campaign begins in earnest. With Nick Clegg presenting to the House his plans for electoral reform including a package of reducing the number of MPs from 650 to 600, fixed terms, equalising the size of constituencies and, of course, a referendum on altering the way that MPs are elected.

He delivered the whole thing in very forceful and authoritative tones showing that what Nick Clegg wants, Nick Clegg gets. As long as Dave Cameron wants it too that is.

Gone is the Clegg of April this year who said he'd reject any "miserable little compromise" on electoral reform but that he'd be "insisting on the changes only we advocate... I want to try to push this all the way."

Commenting on Brown's suggested compromise advocating AV he said that "AV is a baby step in the right direction – only because nothing can be worse than the status quo. If we want to change British politics once and for all, we have got to have a quite simple system in which everyone's votes count. We think AV-plus is a feasible way to proceed. At least it is proportional – and it retains a constituency link.

"The Labour Party assumes that changes to the electoral system are like crumbs for the Liberal Democrats from the Labour table. I am not going to settle for a miserable little compromise thrashed out by the Labour Party."

Mr Clegg took a rather different position in the House today though. No longer is AV crumbs from the rich man's table but the kind of ambrosia enjoyed by the Gods.

Now it seems the miserable little compromise will "fix our political system" which will "restore people's faith in their politics once again". Which is nice, although perhaps the word fix in this context is not necessarily that well chosen.

Clegg's performance

Now, to my mind, Clegg actually did a pretty good job at batting the questions of Labour MPs back at them, ably assisted by those Labour MPs themselves as they complained that equalising the size of the constituencies was "partisan" or in plain language, it's not good for the Labour Party to address the massive discrepancy in size of constituencies. I think a focus on whether it's more democratic might be more effective than whether it keeps your feet under the table.

Equally the arguments of Scottish and Welsh nationalists that holding the referendum on the same day as the election was "contemptuous" come across as partisan moaning. It's good to hold these things on the same day because it increases turn-out and reduces costs end of story. I just went through a local election massively distorted by the general where half the people who voted never normally vote in, nor think about local politics, but you don't see me complaining do you? Grinding my teeth perhaps, but that';s anther story.

However, I think this whole position of, in Clegg's words, "Are they in favour of reform, or of the status quo?" is simple bullying and an attempt to prevent people actually looking at the content of reforms, instead of just being in favour of any old reform that comes along and having to accept it, no matter how thin, irrelevant or tactically problematic.

Fighting for Proportional Representation

I thought Austin Mitchell was right when he said "It is a great shame that the Deputy Prime Minister did not have the guts to fight for the best change in the electoral system, and the one in which he once believed and I still do-that is, proportional representation. Would it not be fair to give the electorate a say on that as well as on the alternative vote in the coming referendum?"

A point Clegg refused to answer, sadly given the opportunity by Mitchell himself when he coupled this point with a more partisan point-scoring comment that Clegg chose to respond to, allowing him to ignore proportional representation altogether. (Incidentally that's a good pro-tip when asking questions, ask one key thing and only that key thing and it makes it neigh on impossible for the interviewee to duck the question without looking evasive).

At least Mitchell asked about PR though, I've trawled the entire the debate and not a single one of the Lib Dems (who supposedly want PR) mentioned it, nor did any of the "electoral reformers" on the other benches. That's despite the fact that the bill has not gone through any of the process, including being written, the question not set nor the electoral commission had their opportunity to examine the proposed questions.

There's also the small question of the House of Lords which, it appears, may well have an elected element, and if everyone has effectively given up on PR who knows what electoral monstrosity we'll get for that.

So there is still space to fight for PR, but only if we take the opportunity. Not just because AV does not address any of the key issues about how millions of voters are disenfranchised but also because if it gets to an AV yes or no referendum then our chance for real Parliamentary reform is dead.

Here's three scenarios as I see them - feel free to pick holes.

a) Bill goes through as planned. There's a referendum on AV. The public says NO.

That's the end of *all* fundamental reforms for a generation, I think we all agree on that.

b) Bill goes through as planned. There's a referendum on AV. The public say YES.

Now we're in a situation where millions of people have voted FOR a particular and specific method of electing our MPs for 2015 and beyond. Who's now going to campaign to overturn the popular, democratic vote? A second referendum changing the system again cant happen in this Parliament, but it wont happen in any Parliament any time soon either because the public will have already spoken.

c) The Bill does not go through as planned.

c - i) it is defeated by a mix of Tory rebels and Labour MPs. Come 2015 the pressure for electoral reform will still be there, not headed off by a silly referendum on a change that makes little difference. In this situation 2015 offers a hope that PR can get on the agenda.

c - ii) the bill is amended to include a PR option. Hopefully a two stage referendum like they did in New Zealand that first chose the preferred alternative and then ratified that there would be a change. A real and honest campaign for PR can let rip and no one will even remember AV is on the ballot, because no one gives a toss about AV in the same way that only the starving care about the fact that rats are edible.

It seems to me that if the bill goes through unamended then PR is dead for a generation. All these people who think that if AV is won it is a step on the road to PR seem to forget that the British public aren't going to keep chopping and changing their electoral system and go back to referendum after referendum changing and then rechanging their electoral system.

It's not purism to want a proportional election system rather than a non-proportional one. Nor is it purism to see that a meaningless reform that prevents proportionality is worse than keeping the door open for real change. The question is not yet written, hell, the bill is not yet written - we should not give up on PR now.

Blog Nation: left Lib Dems

At the Liberal Conspiracy blog nation event yesterday one speaker from the Social Liberal Forum told us that the biggest threat in this Parliament will be tribalism. He continued to predicate everything on the inevitability of Parliamentary mathematics and the idea that the Lib Dems had no choice but to support the coalition.

Well, I don't agree. Like my friend Dave Osler who gave a spirited rant in response I think the biggest threat posed by this Parliament is a slash and burn economic policy under pinned by a right-wing anti-state ideology.

It's estimated that between half a million and 1.3 million people will lose their jobs, millions of families who rely on public services will find their lives harder and many people will literally find themselves on the streets - all cheerfully supported by the Lib Dems en bloc, en masse, en tribe.

Anyone who saw the beleaguered Vince Cable on Question Time this week will have seen the shonky dishonesty of the Libs Dems on proud display. He weakly tried to justify this budget as progressive and good for the poor. He claimed to have changed his mind about VAT, coincidentally at the same time as being given a cushy treasury job, even he didn't believe it.

If Lib Dems want to dissent from the party, argue against the budget and other parts of the coalition deal then they're welcome to pride of place in any campaign I'm part of, but you don't get to posture as part of the left while supporting these extraordinary measures of mass impoverishment.

The speaker told us that if we rock the boat too hard it would "jeopardise the referendum on AV." Well, big deal. AV, like FPTP, will leave millions unrepresented in Parliament and millions more massively under represented. As carrots go it's pretty rotten.

The AV referendum is the Tory strategy to prevent PR, damn right I want to jeopardise it but not half as much as I want to challenge the down right villainy of this budget.

If Lib Dems want to hang out with the left then they need to buck up and stop pretending that they're taking part in some sort of "progressive coalition". Our job is to thwart the intentions of this government, not give excuses to its embarrassed supporters.

A fair budget from a progressive government

Chancellor George Osbourne told us that this was a "fair budget" from a "progressive coalition" and I agree. Well, I agree as long as by "fair budget" we mean one that makes the most vulnerable destitute and homeless and by "progressive coalition" we mean shower of shits.

Last night I attended the Camden protest rally the cuts outside the town hall, a protest that was mirrored in dozens of other places across London and the country (Hove, Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh (pictured), Parliament Square, Bristol, Portsmouth, and many others, add your report link in the comments). I think once people begin to realise the extent of the attacks we will see more and more of this sort of thing.

It was not a surprise that this was a cuts budget although I think the scale of the cuts has only really begun to sink in now it's been formally announced. Osbourne may have let the banks off lightly and reduced corporation tax but public services are in deep, deep trouble.

A two year pay freeze for public sector workers earning more than 21k and a minimal raise for those below that line, raising the pensionable age, part privatisation of Royal Mail, education cuts of 25% over four years, in fact all departments, except international development and health, will be expected to cut their budget by a quarter in this time. Bloody hell, that's not trimming the fat it's sawing off the arms and legs.

Then we have things like cuts to swimming, cuts to disability benefit, freezing child benefit and reducing eligibility for child tax credits, freezing council tax, very low housing benefit caps, 10% cut in housing benefit for those on benefits for more than a year, stricter regime for single parents. This is not cool.

It's the VAT hike to 20% that's likely to cause the strongest ripples across both left and right as it hits families hard and adds the tax burden on those who are deemed too poor to pay income tax.

While the Lib Dems appear to have won a concession on cider duty it may well be a double bonus for those who voted for the Lib Dems because not only does Clegg and co get to sit at the big table, they get cheap booze to chug in the shop doorways once they've been laid off and thrown onto the streets. Good times.

Additional material.

• The Guardian's full budget coverage.
• Caroline Lucas on the budget.
  
• Left Foot Forward looks at the responses in Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland.
• Richard Osley spots that Dappy (from NDubz) cannot support cuts in benefits.
• Two Doctors imagines what the Lib Dems might be thinking.
• Johnny Void on housing benefit reform.
  
• Raphie de Santos says a cuts based economy will fail.
• Nick Pearce thinks it is incredible to call this budget fair.
• The SSP alternative budget.
  
• Bright Green Scotland has the budget A-Z.
• HarpyMarx gives the Labour left response.
  
• Jane Watkinson thinks the Lib Dems may be starting to wake up.
• Disability funds run dry.
• Michael Meacher looks at the myths behind the budget.
• Lib Con asks how we should respond.
  

Coalition wobbles?

Perhaps there's trouble in paradise? A liberal and conservative party starting up a marriage of convenience and yet under the strain of a tough economic climate they've started to bicker and stopped talking to each other over breakfast.

One partner wants a laissez faire partnership where the market is free to screw who it likes, the other wants a more traditional arrangement where frugality and responsibility with the public purse is the order of the day. On the face of it they agree in cuts and budget constraints but the tensions beneath the surface start to break out with a harsh word here and an off message briefing there.

The ink is hardly dry on the German coalition government's agreements and already there have been huffy resignations, bad news at the polls and talk of early elections to sort this mess out once and for all.

The German economy may still be one of the most robust in the EU, but it is no longer in a position to simply bail out other economies or fulfill its traditional duties of Europe's banker. This is causing international tensions as well as internal ones with France's Sarkozy making pointed remarks about Merkel's government.

The left has smelt blood and is pushing the coalition to take the plunge and call a new general election. It's certainly not an option either partner would take willingly as it would be seen as a major defeat, but if the working relationship between the parties and, crucially, within them has broken down to such an extent that they can no longer run a viable government then there may well be no choice.

It couldn't happen here though. The Lib Dems and Tories have found a very comfortable working relationship with each other and have, possibly to their own surprise, found each other more than natural allies in government, particularly when the Lib Dems are such accommodating partners. No early election for us I reckon.

The silver lining round this government

Now the fact is the three largest Parliamentary parties are not identical. There are shades and nuances of difference and, in a small number of certain areas, there are actual, real disagreements. One of the most painful things about this is that actually this government might actually be better in certain areas than the Labour government that preceded it.

That's partly because it's hard to be as obsessed by passing authoritarian legislation as New Labour, nor are the two new coalition parties obliged to save face by defending policies that the public hated simply in order not to U-turn.

Before I get really stuck into how awful this government is going to be, and Vince Cable's Royal Mail privatisation plans are in my sights, I thought I'd take a little look at some of the areas where Labour was so poor that the new government can seem like a welcome breath of air.

------

ID cards. Gone. Both Tories and Lib Dems were opposed to these and as long as Labour hadn't won they would be abolished. There are still questions to be asked about whether they will be withdrawn for immigrants or not, but we will see the back of the National Identity register which is very welcome.

Bank charges: While I'm skeptical about the noises being made about banking regulation I was pleased to hear that there will be action taken on "unfair" bank charges made against account holders. The banks really do rake it in from over-charging account holders for all sorts of rubbish that costs the banks very little, and it causes real hardship. Any action taken on this would be fine by me.

No third runway: This was always on the cards. Sadly not a commitment to cheap and reliable public transport to provide alternatives to aviation, nor a commitment to restrict the growth of aviation as an industry - however, the battle to prevent Heathrow's third runway has won, and it would be churlish not to smile at that thought.

Asylum: No, really. The jury is still out on how this government treats asylum seekers overall, although we know they'll be terrible on immigration more generally, but they have committed to prevent asylum seekers being deported where they face threats due to their sexual orientation. This will save people's lives. They say they are looking at not locking up kids anymore, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Gay rights: Historical convictions for consensual homosexual sex over 16 are to be treated as spent and removed from the criminal records. There are still people around today who have convictions from the days when homosexuality was illegal altogether (and must declare them in job interviews, etc.) it's a very good thing that the slate is going to wiped clean.

-----

There are some other areas which *might* turn out to be a good thing, and feel free to suggest some I may have missed.

For instance they promise to end the centrally dictated policy of closing A&E units, high speed rail, action on dangerous dogs, ban on alcohol sales below cost, restricting interest rates on credit and store cards and the regulation of CCTV, and intriguing maximum wage proposals in the public sector - I'm reserving judgement on these which may be surprisingly progressive, although my inbuilt cynicism is shaking its head sadly and tutting rather loudly.

I'm braced for the fact that the government will occasionally do things I'm happy with, although, frankly, the defining feature of the next few years is likely to be economic austerity measures so I'm unlikely to be going soft on them any time soon.