Rowan Williams and the Non-Existent Fear

One of the greatest, and most important, political concepts of all time is the idea of the seperation of church and state. While we haven't quite managed it completely in this country, you'd think that we could be spared having to hear about the political preferences of the Archbishop of Canterbury. But clearly he wouldn't agree.

His New Statesman article is the sort of toss that continually gets printed by that magazine. And Rowan Williams has been comprehensively shredded just about everywhere this morning - particularly since he, as an unelected, unaccountable public figure, is really taking the piss when he criticises the democratic credentials of the coalition. One of the biggest problems, though, is that his whole article is predicated on the shakiest of grounds. Take a look at this paragraph on the much-maligned concept of the Big Society:

Government badly needs to hear just how much plain fear there is around such questions at present. It isn't enough to respond with what sounds like a mixture of, "This is the last government's legacy," and, "We'd like to do more, but just wait until the economy recovers a bit." To acknowledge the reality of fear is not necessarily to collude with it. But not to recognise how pervasive it is risks making it worse. Equally, the task of opposition is not to collude in it, either, but to define some achievable alternatives. And, for that to happen, we need sharp-edged statements of where the disagreements lie.

First up, it may not be enough to respond with things like "this is the last government's legacy", but it is still important to stress that. Labour were in power for 13 years - the situation the coalition inherited is Labour's fault. In fact, I'm amazed that the coalition doesn't spend more time pointing this out. If I was Cameron or Clegg, I'd be saying something like "this is all your fucking fault" every time Ed Miliband opened his stupid mouth. Likewise, the economy does restrict what the coalition can do. Labour could afford to do far more because the national bank account hadn't (yet) been ransacked. The Con-Dems were always going to be far more restricted as the money has been spent.

He's right, of course, when he says that the point of opposition is to offer some sort of tangible alternative to the government. But he's wrong when he talks about it coming from the left. The left (or at least the mainstream left) has become inherently conservative. That's the point of Blue Labour, that's why the Labour party in opposition can offer nothing more than "we'd do the same, but more slowly and with sad looks on our faces".

Indeed, as far as I can see radical alternatives will come from outside of the right-left political spectrum. Likewise, radical change does not - as Williams seems to believe it should - involve maintaining the current level of state power. There are radical alternatives to the status quo; these challenge that size and scope of the state in modern Britain. They dare to say that the answer to everything may not be state intervention and that the government both should not and cannot be held responsible for all aspects of national life. Take child poverty. The last Labour administration threw vast amounts of money at ending child poverty and nothing happened. It is time to consider other options and other institutions in society that might be able to help deal with and maybe end this problem. And it is striking that the head of one of those potential institutions is so utterly caught up in the statist myth.

But the biggest problem with the Archbish's article is that it is, as seems to be the case with many people writing for The New Statesman, based on unsubstantiated assertions of nothing more than the author's opinions. Williams writes about "plain fear". What fear? I have not come across anyone afraid of the coalition's policies. Sure, some people are angry and resentful about the coalition's approach, but no-one I've come across is afraid. As a result, the whole article comes across as a case based on a false assumption, and that is a fatal flaw. It isn't enough for anyone - even the Archbishop of Canterbury - to effectively say "it is true because I say it is". I doubt I am alone on demanding a little more proof of the fear that is the foundation of this article before I can treat Williams' views with the credibility that he seems to believe they deserve.

The New Shadow Cabinet

I've carried out a detailed, in-depth analysis of all those who have just been appointed to the Shadow Cabinet and reached the following conclusion: I don't care. I just don't fucking care. The choices are insipid, weak and utterly uninspiring - much like Miliband Minor's leadership thus far. This ragbag bunch of non-entities and incapable politicians tainted by the Nu Labour years can only really achieve one thing - and it is quite an achievement in fairness - they make the Con-Dem cabinet look fucking inspired.

Let's actually have ideology in politics

Chuntering noisemonkey Ed Balls on the "regressive" Coalition:

“The government’s ideological assault on our welfare state and public services is not simply economic vandalism, I fear it will damage the very fabric of our society too."

I have little interest in what Balls has to say - I'm tired of listening to his vapid and deeply predictable assaults on the Tories and/or the Lib Dems. You could replace Balls with a basic programme designed to spew out attacks on the Con-Dems every few days without damaging political discourse in this country. In fact, such a programme would positively improve British politics, if only because Balls would be excised from it. Binning Balls would be lancing a festering wart on the face of British politics.

No, what does bother me is the increasing use of the word "ideological" in relation to the government's spending cuts. Put simply, there is nothing ideological about these cuts; they are basic economics. The Labour government spent too much, the new government has to spend less - therefore it has to cut spending.

That's not to say that there is anything wrong with ideological attacks on the size of the state and state spending. In fact, I'd love it if the government was being ideological. It would make a welcome change from the bland technocratic government that we have had to endure in this country since 1997. To actually have a government doing something because they believe in it rather than to get good headlines or because they have no choice would be a welcome fucking change, quite frankly.

Using the term "ideological" in the way the quote above does is to run the risk of turning it into an insult - which would be beyond stupid, even for a witless toad like Balls. Surely the reason why people get into politics and join a political party is because of ideology? Politics should be ideological, and if the main parties actually remembered the ideologies they are meant to believe in then politics in this country would be one hell of a lot more interesting than the beyond bland bullshit and empty posturing that had now been substituted for political debate.

Prescott on Milburn in the Coalition

I have no time for Alan "Nu Labour's answer to Alan Beresford B'stard" Milburn whatsoever, and I'd argue that his new role in the government is nothing other than naked politicking from the coalition - something that even a charlatan like Cameron should be opposed to if he genuinely wants to close the door on the Nu Labour era of politics. After all, that obsequious little turd Milburn actually cared about social mobility then he would have done something meaningful about it when he was in office.

But what is striking about this deeply cynical move from both the Con-Dems and Milburn is just how idiotic it can make the Labour party look. And to prove that, we can look at the crown prince of Labour idiocy, "Lord" Prescott:

Lord Prescott wrote on his Twitter page: "So after Field & Hutton, Milburn becomes the 3rd collaborator. They collaborated to get Brown OUT. Now collaborating to keep Cameron IN."

Ah, the word "collaborator" - a word so loaded it is unbelievable. But let's think about other collaborators, shall we? Let's take one in particular: what about a former trade unionist member of the Labour party, a traditional Labour MP who decided to collaborate with Tony Blair? A Labour MP who collaborated with a fundamentally centrist upper middle class Labour leader in order to give that centrist's leadership some much needed working class credibility? A Labour MP who became Deputy Prime Minister in the Blairite government, and reaped the rewards of said collaboration through his games of croquet at a grace-and-favour home... yes, I'd imagine Prescott is well placed to know what a collaborator looks like, because he is the very definition of a class traitor, and if you looked up collaborator in the dictionary it would have a picture of his fat fucking face next to it.

And yes, you can argue that the trio mentioned in Prescott's tweet campaigned to get Brown out. And guess what? Had they succeeded, they might have helped Labour limp to a fourth election victory. Furthermore, even if that (highly unlikely) event didn't happen, then the results of the hung parliament may have been very different - since Brown was one of the major things that pushed Clegg into the arms of Cameron. So guess what, Prescott, you jowly cretinous fuckwad? These people may have been collaborating against Brown, but in doing so, were acting in the best interests of the Labour party. Blind loyalty isn't always a virtue, you know - particularly not if your leader is someone like Brown, and the electoral equivalent of a lethal injection.

Finally, keeping Cameron in? Is someone like Milburn credible enough with any constituent part of the British electorate to actually achieve that? Of course he isn't. All his presence does is allow for Cameron to claim bipartisan support for his social mobility programmes; a claim that will not stand up to even the most basic scrutiny - assuming that the next Labour leader will be capable of even offering that level of scrutiny.

The thoughtless, crass and purely party politically based bile of Prescott eclipses even the shallow cynicism of the Con-Dems' no doubt fleeting alliance with Milburn. And it takes something as radical as the incredible fool that is John Prescott to add credibility to Milburn's dubious appointment to a role to the coalition government.

How to cut Benefit Fraud...

... in one easy step - make the benefits system far simpler. Cull the number of benefits people can claim without necessarily drastically cutting the amounts people receive. Make the whole system less complex and more transparent and guess what? It will be easier to spot fraud. And, also on the plus side, it will require fewer people to manage the system, meaning you can save money there as well.

The same for tax - you want to reduce tax evasion? Make the tax system simpler. You want to make it really easy? Introduce a single, flat tax rate. Guess what? It will also be easier to administer, so you'll require fewer people to do so, meaning you save money.

I know what you're thinking - this isn't rocket science. In fact, to most people, it should be blindingly fucking obvious. Then you hear about Cameron's proposal to offer a bounty to companies who help then find benefit cheats. Oh, do fuck off David. Make your system simpler. Make the massive bureaucracy fit for purpose. If you're not going to fundamentally change the nature of government in this country - and from all the available signs, Davey boy isn't - then at least make it a little bit less inefficient. Or at least make it a little bit less easy to commit fraud than through slipping through one of the numerous glaring gaps in the system.

"Scoop" of the century from Liberal Conspiracy:

The most senior Libdem MP outside of government, Simon Hughes, has said he would have preferred a deal with Labour instead of the Conservatives.

We have been forwarded an email Simon Hughes sent in reply to a voter, in which he explains why the party went into a deal with Labour.

Fuck a duck! A left wing member of the Liberal Democrats would rather have had his party in a coalition with Labour that the Tories. Whatever next? Are Liberal Conspiracy about to reveal that Gordon Brown hung onto power long after it was clear he'd lost and had to go? Or are they about to say that Cameron was absolutely determined to get into Number 10, even if it meant compromising with the Lib Dems?

I don't know what they're going to publish next, but in these crazy days, let's thank fuck Liberal Conspiracy is here to state the bleeding obvious for us...

The Big Society

So that's it? Really? That's all it is? Cameron's great, exciting, bold new vision for the future is little more than a Lyndon Johnson rip-off? Actually, I don't know why I'm surprised. It was always going to be like this. They are, after all, the Tories.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for increased localism and increased voluntarism. Yet this doesn't feel like the great rolling back of the state that we almost seem expected to think it is. Firstly, there's a suspicion that the areas being foisted onto volunteers are all areas which the government can no longer afford to fund and run itself. Furthermore, I remain very uncomfortable about state-promoted voluntarism; it has the potential to become the state interfering further in people's lives rather than the state retreating from the private realm. Besides, by definition, voluntary work taken up under compulsion from others ceases to be voluntary work.

However the biggest problem I have with all this is that it is state led. The central government is telling its people what areas they are allowed a little bit of autonomy in, and no doubt will also tell people how to go about their voluntary actions. This isn't about freedom, it's paternalism rebranded. It is a bit like parents allowing their kids to do a few things on their own - ultimately the parents remain in control because they can decide which areas their kids are allowed to be free in, and can also decide to remove that freedom whenever they see fit.

All this is based on the assumption that the central government knows best, and that state control is a given. And I just cannot stomach that. All this is saying is "you can be free if the government lets you." And that isn't freedom; in fact, it is quite the opposite. I don't want a big society, headed up by a bloated government. I want a free society, where those living in it can decide for themselves what that society should look like, rather than responding to government control and "guidance".

The best government in a generation?

"The best government in generation" - that's the way I keep on hearing the coalition being described, including by some intelligent people. It bothers me a bit, so I though I'd work out why.

On one level, the description is entirely accurate. That this government is better than the last one is a given, and will remain so as long as the coalition doesn't actually declare open warfare on its own people. The Brown administration was the worst one we have had in this country since Anthony Eden nearly got us into a war with America over Suez. But the Brown government didn't last for a generation; it struggled to exist for just over half of a Parliamentary term. In order for the coalition to be the best government in a generation, it will have to do more than just be better than the last administration.

So let's travel back in time, and see whether the coalition is better than the Blair governments. Well, the first Blair administration did absolutely nothing - even when it had to do something, like during the petrol crisis and the foot and mouth outbreak, it did nothing other than faff about a bit. Blair's pitch for re-election in 2001 can be summed up like this: "give us another four years, and we'll actually do something this time." His second government was the one that took us into war with Iraq - and in doing so pretty much guaranteed that Blair's legacy would always be tainted, and his government associated with the starting of an illegal war that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives. And Blair's final years in office after winning again in 2005 saw a man desperately trying to cling to power in order to find a positive historical legacy - something that would never happen. So yes, thus far the coalition has been better than the Blair administrations, but that isn't difficult. The Blair years consisted of apathetic indolence, pointless warmongering and vicious infighting. They hardly represent a model government.

And what did we have before that? The Major years - a government that managed to destroy then rebuild the economy, and never managed to stop fighting amongst itself. Furthermore, the Major administration from 1992 appeared to be mired in sleaze and also appeared to be completely detached from the people it was meant to represent. And any government that ends in the sort of wipe-out that the Tories experienced in 1997 cannot really stand as anything other than a failure. Again, to be better than this doesn't take much.

We actually have to go all the way back to the second Thatcher administration from 1983-1987 to find a functional government that actually did something effectively for this country - since from 1987 the Tory government became increasingly dysfunctional and developed its taste for regicide. 1987 saw the last good government in this country; a fact that is simultaneously terrifying and absolutely unsurprising.

So yes, this coalition - which is a fledgling government that will not be possible to assess effectively until after it has left power - is, thus far, the best government in a generation. But for over 20 years, this country has had pretty dreadful government from its political class. And this is what bothers me - it isn't really an achievement to be the best government in a generation when you've only just started and when your immediate predecessors have been shit. The bar has been set so low for Cameron et al that they will be able to claim success even if they succeed at nothing other than avoiding direct, clear-cut failure.

Those "Ideological" Spending Cuts

It is an odd phrase that is really starting to bother me - "ideological spending cuts". Every time the coalition government trims a budget (often canceling planned future spending rather than actually making a cut, mind) the Labour party and its mindless followers scream that the cuts are "ideological". Yet against every available definition of the word "ideological" it appears that these spending cuts are anything but.

First up, let's look at the parties involved in implementing these cuts. The Tories are probably the least ideological they have been since that fat, shambling oaf Edward Heath led them. And the Liberal Democrats showed the extent to which they are a centre-ground, middle of the road ideological vacuum with their shameless flirtation with both parties after the General Election in the desperate hope of gaining some sort of power for themselves. Whatever this coalition might be about, it is based on compromise between two ideologically compromised parties. Their policies, including their spending cuts, are not about ideology.

Then you've got the fact that Labour were also committed to making spending cuts. Would their spending cuts have been ideological too? Or does the fact that the Labour party would have been doing them absolve them from the charge of being ideological? Because the Labour party has never tried to pursue ideological ends before now, has it? Oh, wait...

And then there's the timid, almost apologetic way in which the coalition has gone about its spending cuts. This isn't a bold, ideologically driven government relishing the chance to cut back government spending - this is a fragile coalition desperately trying to avoid a backlash for the spending cuts it is being forced to make owing to the incompetence of the previous administration.

So by all means attack the spending cuts for their size, their targets and the way in which they are being carried out, but don't try to make out that they are ideological in their nature. They're not. I for one would relish a government ideologically committed to reducing the size of government spending and the state; however, this timid coalition is very much not that government.

The Pointless Simon Hughes

Simon Hughes is stirring again.

I don't particularly care about the detail of what he is saying - there were always going to be those left on the outside, both ideologically and practically, of the coalition deal. And someone like Hughes was always going to be the mouthpiece of the disgruntled wing of the Lib Dems. No, no, what bothers me is this - why is Simon Hughes still in Parliament? No, even more than that - what the hell is the point of Simon Hughes anyway?

The truth is that Simon Hughes is utterly pointless. He's the sort of Lib Dem who gives the whole party a bad name - someone who tries to appear pious and caring on the surface (yet remains faintly patronising at all times - intentionally or otherwise) yet is actually quite nasty, underhand and unpleasant if you even lightly scratch that surface. His campaign against Peter Tatchell in 1983 is an excellent example of that. His constituency blindly re-elects him each time it gets the chance, despite it having some shocking examples of poverty within it and it also being an area of London that is immune to many of the improvements seen in other parts of that great city. He's run for Lib Dem leader, yet failed convincingly. And now he seems to be trying to undermine the coalition - the Liberal Democrats' sole chance to have any political influence whatsoever for more than a generation.

Wherever the Liberal Democrats go after this - to the right, to the left, straight into an ongoing alliance with one of the main parties - I think they need, and should heed, this piece of advice: ditch Hughes. Deselect him. Bin him. Get rid of him. Your party will be far better off without this waspish, poisonous cretin. He contributes nothing to your party, and he is just a headache in desperate need of a pain killer.

On David Laws

There's something faintly tragic about the resignation of David Laws. It has that inevitable air to it - he must have known that the controversy about his expenses would go public at some point after he moved to a senior government position, but the fact that it has come so early in the history of the coalition and after what has been a meteoric rise for and a pretty strong performance from Laws since the General Election makes it somehow worse than had it broken in 6 to 12 months time.

And the feeling of tragedy is further enhanced by the reasoning behind his alleged expenses fiddle. He wanted to keep his private life private, and I'd imagine I'm not alone in empathising with that. In fact, I think that our political class would be much improved if it didn't attract the sort of people who were happy to have every aspect of their lives paraded through the papers.

Furthermore, the sums claimed by Laws that appear to have fallen foul of the rules are nothing compared to the vast sums claimed by other MPs - including the ever odious Ed Balls and the obsequious little turd John Bercow. Yet those two - and others - get to strut around with relative impunity, whereas Laws gets less than a month in his job. If there was justice, others would have had their careers ended before Laws.

Yet we shouldn't overlook the fact that David Laws took taxpayer money and used it for his own benefit. And let's be clear on this point - it was for his benefit, even if (as has been claimed) it was for his personal profit. I have a lot of sympathy for someone who wants to keep their private life private; but much of that sympathy evaporates when the expect the taxpayer to fund them as they do so.

It may not be particularly fair that Laws falls while others escape retribution, but that doesn't change the fact that I think Laws was right to resign, and also that he had to go. And if Laws deserves any sort of credit, it is for the fact that he went quickly, without any of the desperate and unseemly clinging to power that was so typical of ministers during the Nu Labour years.

Those *Painful* Spending Cuts

I've not commented on the spending cuts announced earlier this week, partly because they felt so inevitable - a bit like the warm weather giving away to the rain. And let's be honest, those cuts were inevitable - and if you don't realise that, then you probably need to go away and find a website more suited to your level of intellect. Like the CBeebies one.

But the response to these cuts seems to have been dull and predictable - with Labour (who, lest we forget, were also committed to making spending cuts) MPs and members treating the cuts as a cross between the plague and limited nuclear warfare. Everyone else seems to be at odds to point out how painful these cuts are.

Yes, these cuts may well be painful, particularly if you are affected by them. However, they are also inevitable and necessary - which seems to be a message that is muted at best, and not even being communicated at all at worst. Let's examine one of these cuts in detail - a reduction on the spending for university places*:

And extra university places and schools services in England are to be cut - Labour had promised an extra 20,000 university places but this has been cut to 10,000.

First things first, it sounds like what is being cut here is extra places - so places on top of the university places already in existence. Which means that there will still be a net increase in the number of people going to university. Making this a cut in additional spending, rather than an overall reduction in spending. I don't know, maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it sounds like this isn't as scary as it first might sounds.

But even if the number of university places is being reduced then this may well prove not to be such a problem. One of the most stupid things that Nu Labour did was to set an arbitrary level of what percentage of people at a certain age should be attending university - 50%, if memory serves (and it does). It was predicated on two largely false assumptions - that 50% of people are capable of attending university, and that 50% of people will actually find their lives and their career prospects enhanced by attending university. And, of course, this all came out at exactly the time when student loans were introduced. So what we've ended up with is a large number of people attending university to study esoteric topics with remarkably little connection to the real world and saddling themselves with massive debt in the process. Whereas they might have been better served getting a vocational qualification or work experience - which would also eliminate the debt angle.

I'm not saying that certain types of people shouldn't attend university, or that the experience isn't worth the expenditure. What I am saying is that a cut in the number of extra university places created in order to chase an arbitrary and stupid Nu Labour target is not that great a sacrifice. What the Con-Dem's need to do is make this case, and explain to the people not only that the cut is happening, but why it is happening. And just to sweeten the deal for them, they could also throw in a little explanation of what it is Nu Labour's fault that the cut is being made.

At the end of the day, all of these cuts had to happen. If you earn £1,000 a month and spend the money on essentials, and then spend another £500 a month that you don't have on going out and getting wasted, then at some point you're going to hit crisis point and you're going to have to cut back on the money you spend partying. It may be a painful sacrifice, but it is also a necessary and inevitable one. All that is happening on the national level is this process - cutting back after overspending.

Because - and make no mistake about this - Nu Labour have spent money like a drunken sailor on shore leave. And now it is down to others to clean up the mess they left behind. If we as a nation should learn anything from these "painful" cuts, then it is that the government cannot overspend indefinitely any more than individual can. And consequently, we should never, ever fall for something like the Nu Labour confidence trick again. All that talk about the black hole in Nu Labour's spending plans was 100% correct and right now, as jobs, spending and schemes are all consumed by that black hole, it may be too late to heed the warning this time, but it can stand as a warning for the future.

*And before anyone belly-aches that I don't understand the implications of cutting the spending on universities, let me assure you that I do and that it is actively impacting negatively on my life right here, right now. On a personal level, I want the government to throw as much money as possible at Universities, so some of it gets to me. On a national level, I can see that the government needs to make cuts, and than some academic funding can (and possibly should) be trimmed. I guess it's called perspective.

The Authoritarian Iain Dale

Iain Dale has gone all authoritarian on us, demanding that something is done about those Parliament Square protestors in an open letter to BoJo. Let's see what he has to say:

I'm sure that like me, you cherish our right to protest. But like me you also believe people should obey the law. And also like me, you will no doubt believe that those who have the power to enforce the law should do so.

Tomorrow, the State Opening of Parliament takes place. It will be a magnet for the many tourists who visit the Capital. They will line the route to watch the Queen as she proceeds from Buckingham Palace through Parliament Square.

And what faces her when she gets to Parliament Square? A mini hippy camp. Over the last few years a few tents have been allowed to go up on the edge of Parliament Square. But in recent weeks the whole of the grass of Parliament Square has been taken over by people who don't seem to be there to protest about anything in particular. They even drape the statue of Winston Churchill with their banners.

Right, where to begin... where to begin? I dislike so much about these three paragraphs that I genuinely don't know where to start with this. So let's just start with a random thing; let's start with the pointless royalism. I don't give a fuck what the Queen has to see in her journey from one palace to another. And as someone who used to live in Westminster, allow me to say that I found the tourists far more of a hassle than I ever did the protestors.

And the term "mini hippy camp" sounds like Nixon in his prime. If people are camping outside the Houses of Parliament, then it is always going to look like a campsite. I mean, what does Dale want? People to build houses there? Of course not! He just wants the filthy protestors sent away, so Queenie doesn't have to see the riff-raff on her way to open up the all-new Con-Dem parliament.

The whole Square is an embarrassment to our city and our nation.

Don't be bloody silly. You might find it embarrassing, but you don't have the right to speak on behalf of the city and/or the nation. Personally, I find it a point of pride for this nation that people still want to protest, but that is only my opinion. Like Dale, I don't have the right to speak for everyone in the country. I just don't pretend that I do.

What I don't understand is why you and the Metropolitan Police have done nothing to enforce the law. If you or I launched a one man protest in Parliament Sqaure or Whitehall we'd be swiftly moved on under anti terrorism laws. Why is the law different for these people who now inhabit the Square? I don't happen to agree with the anti terrorism laws, but there are other byelaws which are being blatantly transgressed too. You know that and so do I.

But all this is predicated on the assumption that those laws are just and right. That simply isn't the case. The anti-terrorism laws are not just, they are not right. The laws restricting protest around the Houses of Parliament are an egregious restriction of our right to protest, and a crude attempt on the part of the Nu Labour to remove those dirty hippy protestors from their eyesight when they arrive and leave work. And guess what? Now Nu Labour has been replaced, one of the top bloggers of the dominant party in the Commons now wants to restrict protest around Parliament. Is that the warm, pungent aroma of naked hypocrisy I smell in the air? Maybe not, maybe Dale's always wanted to restrict protest in Parliament Square. But I can't help but feel that the message is that it's alright to protest under Labour, but when Dale's party is in power, then you need to move along.

This is a great example of where we need to change the law. Rather than accept the law unquestioningly for the sake of the Queen and some tourists.

I'm all for a quiet life and am well aware that the people now residing (and that's the right word) in Parliament Square would not go quietly. But a line has to be drawn, and you should draw it now.

I'm not surprised that Dale doesn't care about the forced removal of protestors from Parliament Square provoking protests - after all, his entire post is about restricting protest at the supposed heart of British democracy.

Like most people I am am (sic) embarassed whenever I pass the site, and yet I should feel proud of a Square that is home to the Houses of Parliament, the Supreme Court, Westminster Abbey together with many historical statues.

Once again, Dale feels he can talk on behalf of "most people". Where's the evidence that most people feel that way when they walk past the site? And even if they do, does that makes the protest wrong?

The site outside of Parliament is not just about pretty buildings and pretty statues. It has also come to represent protest, and protest is a vital, essential part of British democracy. It might be unsightly, unseemly, but fuck it. To have a political voice someone doesn't have to be wearing a suit and working in Parliament. Those damned "hippies" in the square are participating in democracy, even if Dale sees them as an eyesore.

Please do something about it. The time for action is long overdue

The time for action is long overdue. We should all be in Parliament Square, demanding our right to protest in front of the so-called "Mother of all Parliaments". We should be protesting for this new government to overturn all the draconian policies of the last administration, and reinstating our right to make our voices heard in arguably the most political space in the whole country. Dale's pathetic post is an example of someone hiding behind the law not because the law is right, or good, but because the law happens to back up his deeply conservative, even reactionary, concerns for the aesthetics of the Queen's view as she comes to Parliament.

In the very first line, Dale states that he cherishes the right to protest. Unfortunately, his letter suggests that he actually cherishes the right of people to protest within the law - which means they have to protest out of his eyeline when he strolls through Parliament Square. I write a lot on this blog about how the Tories at heart are deeply socially conservative, and this is a great example of that. The right to protest is less important to Dale than the right to have your views of those nice old buildings around Parliament unimpeded by those dirty hippies.

Alcohol Price Control

Well, that didn't take long, did it? The Con-Dems have only be on power for a couple of weeks, and already they've happened upon the dubious charms of bansturbation:

The UK's coalition government has pledged to ban the sale of alcohol below cost price in an effort to cut binge drinking in England and Wales.

The plan is likely to ban retailers from running loss leader promotions on lager, wine and alcopops.

Just for old time's sake, let's rehearse the reasons why this policy is both wrong and pointless. It won't stop binge drinking - that will continue, but people will just have to spend a little more on getting arseholed. It is an impingement on the freedom of business during a feeble recovery from a deep recession. Laws already exist that allow for the refusal to sell/serve alcohol to those who are drunk, and laws already exist that can deal with the anti-social behavior of those who are wasted. We should enforce those laws, rather than creating a new, illiberal rule to punish everyone in society who might want to buy alcohol at a cheap price. I don't think there is anything liberal, democratic or even particularly conservative about this policy - other than the fact that the Con-Dem coalition has jumped on it with unseemly haste.

And it is that unseemly that bothers me. This is blatantly the sort of policy designed to make the tabloids happy. It is Daily Mail friendly politics - the sort of thing that Nu Labour would propose when there was a dip in their approval ratings on when they wanted to get a decent write-up from the right-wing press. It is, in short, the sort of desperate policy that a government should only consider as a short-term way of getting a positive headline. It's the sort of thing that governments normally only consider when their popularity is on the wane.

So it is very worrying that the Con-Dem's have chosen to do this so early. I'd far rather they did what was absolute essential - the rolling back of the intrusive and bloated British state after 13 years of profligate Labour misrule - rather than chasing good press from largely bad newspapers. Get a grip, ladies and gents - you are in government to replace Nu Labour, not to adopt and ape their idiotic PR-obsessed policies.

Labour's Tory Hatred

The ever-entertaining* Charlie Brooker has written a revealing article about his feelings – or, more properly, his hatred of – the Tories. It all dates back to fear of Tory led nuclear war in the eighties and the behaviour of Thatcher administration:

As if plotting to destroy the world wasn't bad enough, the Conservatives went on to preside over the most wilfully obnoxious and polarising decade imaginable: braying yuppies at one extreme, penniless strikers at the other. The Tories weren't just nasty – they seemed to actively enjoy being nasty. And there was no getting rid of them, even when Thatcher got the boot. Consequently, an entire generation grew up regarding the Tory government as something like rain, or wasps, or stomach flu: an unavoidable, undying source of dismay.

Of course, this is largely nonsense – an unthinking reproduction of the ideologically driven and largely false left-wing slurs that built the Tories into some sort of evil nemesis for anything or anyone moderate in the UK. The Tories were far from perfect – as their failure to combat, and occasional moments of relishing, this crude caricature of them shows. But they weren’t the sort of monstrous, greedy political thugs as many people – such as Brooker – seem to have grown up believing them to be. That’s one of the reasons why they were able to win landslide election victories in the 1980s: many people in the country genuinely liked the Tories and (whisper it) even liked Thatcher.

Despite the fact that the eighties, Thatcherism and the Tory government of the 1990s are all over, this caricature has even informed much of the case against the Tories since they lost power in 1997 – hence the ongoing depictions of Tory leaders with Thatcher’s hairdo – and despite the fact that far from being a Thatcherite in disguise, David Cameron appears to be one of the most moderate and middle-of-the-road Tory leaders in living memory. Much of the Cameron political project has been to reverse this perception of the Tories – to the extent where the Liberal Democrats are prepared to do what appeared to be, for so long, utterly unthinkable: to go into coalition with the party of Thatcher.

Which is something that the self-confessed Tory hater Brooker acknowledges:

But instead we've got this . . . coalition thing. This disorientating mash-up. Cameron and Clegg engaging in public foreplay. A sour Tory cookie with chunks of Lib Dem chocolate. Even the prospect of George Osborne as chancellor seems less chilling in the knowledge that Vince Cable can pop his head round the door from time to time, if only to pull disapproving faces. If the Tories had won more seats, or slogged on as a minority government, at least we'd have a clear set of hate figures we could start despising immediately. Instead, we've got the Nazis forming an alliance with the Smurfs.

We couldn't even hate the Tories for looking smug on the steps of Downing Street – partly because Downing Street doesn't have steps, but mainly because the result forced a helping of humble pie down their necks, which they swallowed with infuriating good grace. Cameron appears to be making a sincere attempt to permanently drag his party toward more moderate ground, which is a crushing blow for those of us who were expecting outright malevolence from day one.

Of course, Brooker’s article is simply a means by which he can cast his acerbic wit across a bit of current affairs. But actually, there is something far more important within his article than might first be appreciated. Because Brooker is talking about what is a typical Labourite mindset, where the Tories become the evil, awful enemy and Labour the only possible way of defeating that terrible foe. It is this mindset that allows Labournistas to forgive the unforgivable – for example, to embrace the party of the Iraq War because it is better than the party that supported Pinochet 25 years ago. And it is this mindset that creates incredulity that the Liberal Democrats would ever go into government with the Tories rather than Labour, even though the Liberal Democrat leadership is far closely, ideologically and instinctively, to the Tory leader. And it is this mindset that leaves Labour clinging to the keys of Number 10 Downing Street, even after they’ve comprehensively lost a General Election. They are entitled to anything that might keep them in power, according to this stupid mindset, because they are not the Tories.

Whether the Tories have really changed or not is almost irrelevant – the Labour party needs to change, and lose this mindset of irrational fear and hatred of the Tories. It is not 1997 anymore, and if the last election has any sort of a lesson for them, then it is this – it is no longer enough just not being the Tories to win an election. The Labour party needs to start showing why it is better than the Tory party. Only then will they find a voice again; only then will they start to recover. And it is only then that they will be able to escape the 1980's - something that is pretty essential, given we are now in 2010.

*NB – ever entertaining does not mean always right…

Libertarians and the Con-Dem alliance

Clegg's really found a voice, hasn't he?

We will oversee the radical dispersal of power away from Westminster and Whitehall to councils, communities and homes across the nation. So that, wherever possible, people make the call over the decisions that affect their lives. And, crucially, the relentless incursions of the state into the lives of individuals that has characterised the last 13 years ends here. From rolling back excessive surveillance, to ending the criminalisation of innocent people, we will restore and protect our hard-won civil liberties.

I call that agenda liberalism. Others may have other names for it, but whatever terms you prefer, this is our best guarantee of a fair society. That is the case I have argued my whole political life. Yes, as the coalition moves ahead there will be bumps and scrapes along the way; there has already been significant compromise from both sides and there will of course need to be more. And, no, we do not yet have all of the answers to the inevitable questions that lie ahead. While we will be open about our differences, we also know that our strength – the strength now needed to deliver the change needed in Britain – depends on being the sum of our parts. And from our different traditions we can pursue one simple, shared aim: this will be the government that re-empowers the British people.

Which sounds wonderful, really. All that's missing is the "how" - how is the Con-Dem Coalition going to achieve those wonderful aims? Because, given the parties involved in the alliance governing this country, we could be forgiven for being a little cynical about whether their government will actually follow through with Clegg's splendid rhetoric.

See, the Liberal Democrats are generally quite strong on civil liberties, but when it comes to economics and taxation, spurious talk of "fairness" seems to overcome any tendency towards actual economic freedom. Witness the Mansion Tax. And their anti-banker rhetoric (that Clegg hints at in his article). And while the Tories might be better when it comes to economics, they remain deeply socially conservative. They are the party of tax breaks to stigmatise those who aren't married and spawning, they are the party of the idiotic voluntary national service scheme. Oh, and they are the party of Philippa Stroud. You can be free in Tory Britain, as long as you resemble and agree with the views of the blue rinse brigade who provide much of that party's core support.

Sure, the Con-Dem coalition have made a good start in some of their actions, but these are not so much a ringing endorsement of the new governing alliance as an indication of just how far the last Labour government got at shitting all over civil liberties in this country. The first actions of the coalition are not bold steps towards freedom, but rather dragging us back to normality after the draconian actions of the utterly illiberal Labour party. But moving forward, the best we can probably hope for is that each party balances the illiberal tendencies of the other.

For Libertarians everywhere in this country, there's no real reason to think that this coalition will be genuinely committed to freedom, and every reason to suspect that they might not be. Despite the truculent, triumphalist assertions of some, there is no reason for Libertarians to suddenly rush and embrace either the Tories or the Liberal Democrats. Neither of those parties remains fundamentally Libertarian (or even that Liberal). Being better than the Labour party does not make either entity actually committed to freedom. Any true Libertarian in the United Kingdom can raise a glass to toast the demise of Labour and, with it, the end of godawful ideas such as the ID card scheme. But they should also know that the best the Con-Dem coalition can offer is a step in the right direction - it certainly isn't the end game in the battle to roll back the state in this country. At best, this coalition will less awful that Labour - nothing more.