Who's Brown talking about?

This article is a report of Gordon Brown's annual Mansion House address. In it he said:

"The all too easy, but fundamentally wrong, temptation for political parties is to cling to the past or to sidestep difficult long-term choices,"

Given Cameron's wannabe progressive noises and Ming's recent shifting about on tax and so forth, who's clinging to the past? We must surely assume that he's talking about Labour here.

"Britain will need a stronger sense of national purpose, clear long-term national direction and a sense of our destiny that will enable us to move beyond the old short-termism that held us back in the past,"

Nearly a decade into Tony's authoritarian reign and there's not yet a strong sense of national purpose, no clear national direction and we haven't moved beyond short-termism? Accepting for a moment that we actually want all three of these things, who's fault is that they haven't materialised?

"Britain will have to become a more flexible economy - more ready to change, with more local and regional pay flexibility, better equipped for the long term, with more focus on the jobs and skills of the future,"

Again, nearly ten years in and the economy isn't ready for the future? Who was supposed to be sorting the economy Gordon?

Building a by-pass through road user charging.

Winterbourne is a village not far from here. It's both a traffic hotspot and an electoral problem. There's some local pressure for a by-pass and it was this issue that helped the Tories capture all the seats at the last local election (whereas the previous administration had a good splattering of LibDems). The LibDems remain the largest group on the council, however, and traffic and planning is in LibDem hands.

It's quite clear that Winterbourne won't get a by-pass. It's impractical, improbable and wouldn't do the slightest bit of good for Winterbourne's traffic problems. A great deal of the traffic comes from, or goes to, places well inside the arc of any meaningful by-pass. Nevertheless the Tories promised it but, of course, can't deliver. The LibDems promised they wouldn't deliver it and will continue to not deliver it, which won't help at all when trying to get re-elected.

Simplistically what needs to happen is this: the LibDem traffic planners solve Winterbourne's traffic problems, placate the locals, claim victory then sweep all before them at the 2007 local elections. Easier said then done.

I've heard that the council has applied for a pilot road user charging scheme. Unfortunately, applied in Winterbourne it will simply pave the way, so to speak, for a disastrous by-pass.

One assumes that the strategy will be to price the traffic-clogged center of Winterbourne highest, and therefore by necessity, the surrounding roads lower. The cars which would previously have gone through the center will disperse into several narrow rat-runs: the country lanes which lace their way around the village.

These country lanes have very little capacity and will quickly become overloaded. This will generate a legitimate cause for complaint among those who live along them, those who are now regularly queuing on them, and those who have a genuine reason to be going that way. The response will be to increase the price of these roads, driving traffic back into Winterbourne or simply onto other narrow lanes.

This situation will yield a greater demand for a way of driving around Winterbourne (thus avoiding the high road use charge) without getting stuck in a narrow lane. The obvious solution will be to widen the lanes. Then make the widened lanes join up. Then join them neatly onto what's currently the main road.

And as if my magic, a by-pass. But a by-pass at a high cost, in a haphazard location and just as ineffectual as one built straight off. Road user charging is not a valid way of addressing localised congestion.

When is a bung (not) a bung?

Is it acceptable for the central party to bribe local parties in target seats to select particular candidates? That is to say, should the party be in the business of slipping "large sums" to certain campaigns based solely on the gender of the candidate?

It appears that it is acceptable, and that this practice will grow in the future, limited only by available funds.

http://www.libdems.org.uk/conference/agenda.html?id=575&navPage=conferenceagenda.html (See the penultimate paragraph of the section titled "What the GBTF did between March and the election", about two-thirds of the way down.)

If the party is going to spend cash to get more women candidates it must at least be open and honest about it, not try to hide it away in a quango.

Rather unconvinvingly, the GBTF claims not to give any material advantage to women candidates after approval. Yet they've set the precedent of distributing extra funds to seats that have selected women. Any local party going into the selection process would do well do bear this in mind.

Up next, similarly funded task forces for racial balance, then religious balance? Maybe one for political balance (for candidates who aren't LibDems)? All "overwealmingly" supported by a nominally liberal party ostensibly opposed to centralism.

Of course Simon Hughes is already onto that last one.

An observation from Blackpool

Here in the South West when I get on a bus, I pay the driver then sit (or stand) where I like even if that's sprawled halfway up the stairs, Metro gripped between the teeth, wondering when the high speed corners are going to end. The bus takes the quickest route that includes all the requisite stops (the precise path depending on the traffic). We rattle through mostly LibDem constituencies.

In Blackpool, when I got on the tram the conductor usually told me where to sit (and not to stand). The tram would then trundle off down its centrally planned rails and, in due course, the conductor would come along and make sure to collect money from me. In New Labour country.

I wonder if there's a cause and effect thing going on here. Perhaps sometime before the next general election a LibDem action force should mount a midnight raid on the trams' engine sheds and sling on some tyres and steering wheels. You never know.

Fuel protesters, back again?

After reading the BBC's story about the possible return of the fuel protestors, I described them as "self interested fools with regard only for their own pockets. Thugs, bullies and racketeers". Then somebody asked me why...

The fuel protestors, despite their claims to be representing "motorists" are largely made up of commercial hauliers. Their complaint is not about the price of fuel as an absolute amount but about (a) how much, or little, of it they're able to pass on to their customers, and (b) competition from European operators who are paying less tax on fuel before entering the country. In both cases their motivation is commercially, not ethically, based.

They are thugs and bullies because they are using the size of their vehicles and their presence on the roads to disproportionally influence public opinion and the government at the expense of everybody else. They are racketeers because they rattle on about how lower fuel prices would benefit everybody without pointing out that such a lowering would need to be made up elsewhere, else spending would have to be cut. Who would benefit most from a rebalancing of the tax burdan away from fuel and towards (for example) VAT? The hauliers! That's the scam - presenting a tax reduction for them as a tax reduction for everybody.

It doesn't help that so little of the money raised from fuel tax has been spent on making the hauliers unnecessary, but that's not an excuse.

Ruth is responsible

According to Ruth Kelly on the radio earlier this week, her department is "responsible for parenting". Oddly though, I took my son out on a train-trip to Cheltennam yesterday and most of the parents we saw were busy being responsible themselves. Even in Ruth's absence.

Liberal spice

There is a site which aggregates LibDem blogs. At the moment it's a bit like being in the kitchen after a half-hearted party - everybody is talking about what would have made it more fun, and who should organise the next one.

There's been some talk of Liberal Democrat philosophy: what it is, what it's good for and where we might get some. A step along the way seems to be the labeling of types of LibDems, or factions maybe, depending on how aggressive the writer is feeling. So far I've seen mention of New Liberals, Economic Liberals, Muscular Liberals, and Tough Liberals. Recast, that's Baby, Posh, Sporty and Scary. Anybody seen a Ginger Liberal recently?