Disgruntled Liberal Democrats, have a word with yourselves

Theresa May cites same-sex marriage & taking lowest-paid out of tax altogether as Cameron's legacy... pic.twitter.com/rJ46LvwRU5

— Rachel (@underthenettle) July 13, 2016

Plenty of this going around at the moment.  As David Cameron steps down as Prime Minister after six years at Number 10, his one-time coalition partners are clearly feeling a little left out.

In one sense, of course, this is entirely understandable; these things were Liberal Democrat manifesto promises, which were then delivered in government – they absolutely should take credit for making these policies happen.  But so should David Cameron.  After all, how far would these policies have got if the Lib Dems had tried to implement them on their own?

I have written before that I think the Lib Dems were very unfairly treated at last year's general election, and that history will generally be a lot kinder to Nick Clegg and his party's time in office than were the confused and angry public who seemingly couldn't get their heads around what 'coalition government' was actually all about.  But now, it is those same Lib Dems who seem to want to claim sole credit for government achievements between 2010-15; this is also not how coalition government works.

Ultimately, Cameron was the Prime Minister whose (coalition) government enacted policies like same-sex marriage.  It happened under his watch, and with his backing.  His actions as the leader of a coalition government will form a part of his legacy as Prime Minister; they will also form a part of Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats' legacy, too – after all, the same thing can appear in more than one legacy.  Trying to take credit away from Cameron for a policy like same-sex marriage is as churlish as to try and take credit away from Clegg – it would not, after all, have happened without either of them.

Another 'achievement' of the coalition administration was the Fixed Term Parliament Act of 2011.  Another Lib Dem policy enacted by Cameron.  Maybe Lib Dem activists and politicians who campaigned for this piece of legislation would like to stop agitating for new Prime Minister Theresa May to call an immediate election to seek her own mandate for a second, and consider that it is their actions (or, at least, their Act) which have made this a whole lot less likely?

Premature wrangling

If I were the leader of a political party ("ohh, if only!" I hear you say), the only thing I would 'rule out' at this stage of my campaign is ruling anything out.

I can't, for the life of me, understand our premature obsession with 'deals' and 'red lines' in the run-up to this year's General Election.  It's like we all got bitten by the coalition government bug five years ago, and now we want to skip the actual business of campaigning and voting altogether so we can get straight down to the good stuff – the coalition negotiations.

The trouble is, it's very difficult to negotiate 'blind' like this.  Which is why I think it so incredibly foolish for party leaders to be ruling out dealing with certain other parties already – and so irresponsible of journalists and others to try and hustle them into doing so.

You (as the leader of a political party) might well say you would never deal with party x in the event of a hung parliament – and you might very well mean it, too – but it's all a little meaningless when you don't know how many seats they're going to have after the vote, or even how many seats you're going to have!  If a deal with party x then becomes your best (or only!) option, you're going to regret that you backed yourself into a corner during the campaign in order to win a cheap round of applause during a television appearance.

In 'A Scandal in Bohemia', the inimitable Sherlock Holmes famously says:

It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.

Increasingly, it seems that this is exactly what our political leaders are doing – laying the groundwork for coalition talks before they have any facts to deal with.  And that, to me, seems rather daft.

Stop getting shirty

The storm in a teacup over the new Nike England shirt for the World Cup in Rio this year rumbles on, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.  Despite his admission that it is "clearly not" the rôle of government to set the price of football shirts, Prime Minister David Cameron has been unable to resist wading in, in that intensely patronising way politicians have when it comes to sticking their oar into any and all issues in the public consciousness.

Yes, £90 for a football shirt is somewhat on the pricey side - and, yes, some fans won't be able to afford that.  Then again, some people can't afford a Range Rover; other people can't afford a loaf of bread.  Whoever you are, there will always be some things that are out of your price range.

It's worth remembering that the 'market value' of any product or service is simply what people are prepared to pay for it.  If you think £90 is too much to pay for a football shirt, don't buy one.  If enough people feel they are not prepared to - or are unable to - spend that amount of money on one shirt, sales figures will be low, and those in charge of setting the prices will realise they have made a mistake (and will probably drop the prices as a result).

I shan't be buying the new England shirt.  But neither do I want condescending politicians to swoop in and 'save' the poor little consumer - who, after all, has the ultimate power not to spend.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't - the myth of the political "U-turn"

So, with Twitter foaming at the mouth about the Leveson Inquiry, and its revelations about Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt's involvement in News Corporation's takeover bid of BSkyB, I am once again dipping my toe into the turbulent weir of political blogging.  Albeit on a totally different subject...

------------------------------------------------

The U-turn.  What is it?

I have long struggled with the concept of the U-turn (known, apparently, as the Flip-Flop, in America) in politics.  Describing sudden or drastic changes to policy, it is used almost exclusively as a term of derision, or accusation.  The idea supposedly being that one accuses a U-turning politician of not standing up for his convictions, and staying strong in the face of criticism.

Now, when a Government minister announces new policy details, he can expect criticism.  Criticism from the Opposition is almost guaranteed, and as such can largely be ignored, as it will often be Opposition politicians being contrary simply for the sake of it.  (These days, Opposition politicians seem to view their job as being to criticise the Government position on everything - even if that is exactly what their position would also be, if they were in office.  This, to my mind, is a sad state of affairs in itself, but is a topic for another post.)  It is criticism from independent and non-political sources, and from the public as a whole, on which I am going to focus here.

Let's look at the recent furore surrounding proposed reforms to the NHS (National Health Service).  The Coalition Government, and particularly Health Minister Andrew Lansley, has come in for a lot of criticism over these plans, with NHS workers, Trade Unions, and the general public campaigning and protesting over the issue.  Lansley has been urged to "Drop The Bill", and abandon the proposed reforms, by protestors at every stage of this legislation.

(Whether this criticism is deserved or not is another issue; this is not a post about the Health Bill - I am merely using it to illustrate my point - and I do not wish to debate the Bill itself here.)

So, what would happen if Lansley bowed to pressure, and did drop the Health Bill?  In all probability, he would be further pilloried for having done so - his detractors would sneer, and ridicule him for performing the infamous U-turn, and not sticking to his guns over the issue of the Health Bill.

So, Lansley cannot win.  Whether he pushes the Health Bill through or not, the public will hate him.  This is the problem I have with the concept of the U-turn.

I can quite understand that some people may not agree with certain Government policies, and that they may campaign to change these policies.  I do not understand why they would be such sore winners.  After all, if you have been urging a politician to change something, and then he does change it, surely you ought to be pleased?  You got exactly what you wanted - so why then lambaste him for doing what you asked?

By these standards, a U-turn is essentially a politician taking notice of public opinion, and acting on it.  Isn't that what politicians are meant to do?

------------------------------------------------

Rest assured, as with all my forays into political blogging before, I will soon take fright and run for cover.  Normal service (advice on chopping carrots and eating sandwiches, and moaning about people on the telly) will resume shortly.  Thank you for your patience.

Fuel's gold

I'm sure you've heard the news...  Fuel (petrol and diesel) is in very short supply, here in the UK!

A few days ago, the Unite union threatened strike action by drivers of petrol tankers, over health-and-safety standards, and working conditions.  The result was concern amongst the general public about fuel stocks over the Easter period, and possible fuel shortages, and this translated into "panic buying" of fuel, with enormous queues of cars at almost every petrol station, and many forecourts completely running out of fuel.

There has, as you might expect, been much discussion of the fuel shortage and subsequent panic buying online - particularly on Twitter.  Many people have bemoaned this extreme reaction, and have questioned the rationality and responsibility of "panic buying".  What has really vexed me, though, amidst this madness, is the politicisation of certain events.  The idea that one can blame an entire Government for one or two individual's actions seems, to me, ludicrous.  And yet...

Following the new that a woman had suffered 40% burns as a result of handling petrol in her home near York, Jayne Innes (a former Labour Parliamentary candidate, from Coventry) posted this Tweet:

Horrific news of woman seriously burned in York.Government heads must roll. #Petrolgate
— Jayne Innes (@JayneInnes) March 30, 2012

Now, I agree that it is horrific news.  However, I cannot see how this unfortunate incident can be the fault of the Government.  As I read it, this poor woman was trying to decant petrol from one container to another in her kitchen, using an ordinary household jug, while her gas stove was alight.  The advice from Cabinet Minister Francis Maude was to store "maybe a little bit [of petrol] in the garage as well in a jerrycan" - it wasn't to wave jugs of petrol around inside the house, over a lit stove.

While I feel for Diane Hill - the petrol burns victim - and sympathise with what must be absolutely horrible injuries, there has to be some element of personal responsibility in all this.  Ms Hill was not following the Government advice on storing petrol at the time when her tragic accident happened, and it would take a remarkable twisting of Maude's words to suggest that she had been.  But even this rather misses the point...

Maude, and the Government, has been criticised for the advice on storing petrol in jerrycans in the garage.  But whether it was good advice or not, surely it is not unreasonable to expect people to think for themselves before following it?  As I remarked in my reply to Jayne Innes' Tweet, the Government could've advised me to drink petrol as an energy drink, before playing sports - but I wouldn't have, because I know that would be a very stupid thing to do.

Following my short exchange on Twitter with Jayne Innes, I also saw this Tweet, from Labour activist Grant Blowers:

People are beeping and tempers are fraying. All because of a govt that can't control a situation
— Grant Blowers (@grantblowers) March 30, 2012

I could not believe that the Government were now being blamed for individual emotions.  In my previous example, I concede that misinterpretation of well-meaning but rather unclear Government advice, coupled with a lack of common sense, may in some way have led to the tragedy of Diane Hills' injuries.  But if motorists are becoming impatient, and getting angry, that is nobody's fault but their own - and I find it utterly bewildering that anyone could even attempt to claim otherwise.

If you cannot control your temper, that is not the Government's fault.  That is your fault, and it is up to you address your obvious lack of self-control.

I understand that the situation can be frustrating.  I understand that it can make people anxious, nervous, even fractious.  But the mature, responsible attitude is to know that getting angry won't solve anything - ranting and raging at the pumps will help no one's plight, and you'll only end up embarrassing yourself.

How this irrational, emotional behaviour can be the fault of the Government, I simply do not know.  Neither Francis Maude, nor any other politician, has advised the public to lose its temper.  And even if he had, common sense would still dictate that one should not.

My point, really, is not about fuel at all.  The possibility of fuel shortages has acted as a catalyst for these thoughts, yes - but my underlying point is that, in my opinion, people cannot go about blaming the Government for their own individual actions.  Government advice or not, simply to follow advice (from the Government or from anyone else) blindly, without ever thinking to oneself "is this a good idea?!" is sheer lunacy.