And another thing…

I’M NOT a fan of chick flicks, so I’ve not been watching Nick Clegg’’s speech to whatever conference he’s speaking to this afternoon.

But I’ll make a wild stab in the dark and guess that he’s going to be no clearer on which party he would choose to support in the event of a hung parliament. David Laws, the LibDem MP, said on Any Questions on Friday that any such decision would not be taken until after polling day.

Thank you, David. Thank you for confirming what I’ve been saying for years about the undemocratic nature, not only of the LibDems but of their most precious policy – proportional representation.

It’s entirely consistent of Laws to say that the public will not be consulted before the LibDems make a decision. That’s the essence of PR: let the little people have their vote, then ignore what they say and start bartering away the very policies they voted for behind closed doors and without reference to them.

Refusing to come clean about which of the main parties the Liberals would support if they got the chance is the opposite of transparent and democratic. But it’s entirely consistent for the Liberals.

PREDICTABLY, the right-wing blogs will pour scorn on attempts to embarrass the Tories over their successful attempt to scupper Andrew Gwynne’s anti-poverty Private Member’s Bill.

They will use the following excuses:

1. The Bill was flawed and wouldn’t have accomplished what it intended, or worse – it would actually make things worse.

2. The Bill had little chance of getting Royal Assent before the election’s called anyway.

3. The “Object” rule is a well-known and regularly used parliamentary procedure.

And none of those excuses will wash. If the Tories killed the Bill for what they believe are valid reasons, let them explain what those reasons are. Because there is at least one fact in all of this: it was a Conservative MP who shouted “Object!”

Objecting to the Bill was an act of political malevolence. Whoever did it is no friend of those charities working hard to improve the lot of the developing world and to stop bankers profiting from misery.

We have the right to know the identity of the MP because the electorate should be able to judge whether he is a “maverick” acting outwith the mainstream of his party, or a central figure representative of David Cameron’s Conservatives.

Flashback to my first post on 13 March 2008

TWO years.

Ah, yes – I remember it well. It was a Thursday, and after months of weighing up the pros and cons, I finally succumbed to the urge to return to the world of blogging. And so, And another thing… was (re)born.

I never thought I’d still be going two years on, but here I am. So once again, thank you for reading.

IN THE run-up to the most hotly-anticipated season of Doctor Who since it was relaunched in 2005 (season 31, if you’re counting), here’s a remarkable video tribute to David Tennant’s portrayal, brought to my attention through Twitterpal @lilianedwards and produced by HogwartsProductions.

Warning – this is for true Who fans only. Eleven minutes long and featuring clips from every single Tennant episode. Bloody marvellous.

THE LIBDEMS have unveiled their general election slogan. I rather like it. It’s pithy, catchy and down with the kids…

DANIEL Kawczynski is not a happy camper. Shewsbury’s Tory MP has written to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, John Lyon, to complain that Paul Flynn MP used a room on the House of Commons estate to launch his memoirs.

Kawczynski has been gracious enough to “share” his letter of complaint with conservativehome, the site announced this evening, just as a BBC correspondent in Olden Days might have asked Harold Macmillan if he had anything he wished to share with the country.

“The rules of the House with regards room bookings are clear,” wails the grief-striken Mr Kawczynski, his lip audibly trembling, the theme from The Dambusters growing louder in the background as a Spitfire thunders overhead. “Any disregard of these rules causes me great frustration, as it brings the House, through use of its facilities by members, into disrepute; causing the standing of Parliament to fall even further in the eyes of the electorate.” And the same breeze which causes the Union flag to flutter proudly above him causes a loose strand of hair to fall briefly over his manly brow…

And he’s right, by George! To arms! This is something up with which we shall not put!

But hold on a minute – there’s more:

I recently held the launch of my book, a biography of Colonel Gaddafi, at the Royal Institute of Mechanical Engineers on Birdcage Walk. This I did at considerable cost as I felt and was indeed advised by Commons Authorities that to use a room in the Commons to launch my book would be inappropriate and an abuse of taxpayers’ money.

“… advised by Commons authorities”, eh? So, Daniel, did you decide that “the rules with regard to room bookings are clear” before or after you asked permission for your own book to be launched in the Palace?

In other words, Daniel asked if he could launch his book in the Palace first, and only put his hand in his pocket after he was refused. And now he’s complaining about Flynn’s launch, not because the event “brings the House into disrepute” but because Flynn was allowed and Kawczyynski wasn’t.

In fact, I’m guessing that the launch of Flynn’s book about his life as an MP was probably considered a more appropriate event to take place within the Palace than that of a biography of “Mad Dog” Gadaffi. But what do I know?

SOME might say that, as the author of a blog that did rather well in the last two Total Politics Blog Awards, I have more to lose than others by indulging in a boycott of this year’s contest, as proposed by Though Cowards Flinch.

The boycott is being suggested as a response to Total Politics publisher Iain Dale agreeing to interview Nick Griffin for the latest issue, a decision which resulted in the resignation of Labour MP Denis MacShane from the TP board.

And of course I sympathise. And I admit I raised an eyebrow when Iain announced on his blog that the interview was happening. But I won’t take part in the boycott, for a number of reasons.

The first of those is that Griffin and his odious chums are now democratically-elected representatives of the British people. I wish it were not so, but it is. And ignoring the BNP now isn’t too far from ignoring the views of however many people voted for them. Not a particularly democratic principle, I think you’ll find. And I trust that all those who now want to boycott Total Politics also refuse to watch Question Time…

Secondly, Total Politics is a magazine that political anoraks like us should be encouraging, not boycotting. In this anti-politics age, where celebrity tittle-tattle is considered more important than democracy, shouldn’t we value those very few magazines which seek to portray politics and politicians in a reasonably positive way?

Third, I started this blog to try to rebalance the blogosphere, to add what I hoped would be a popular and articulate Labour voice to the more popular right wing blogs. Large numbers of left-wing, Labour and progressive blogs boycotting the annual poll would effectively mean us retiring from the arena, making the results in the “Labour-supporting” and “Left-wing” categories meaningless. Another victory for the right-wing, then.

Fourth, I worry that the “no platform” argument is used too often as an alternative to addressing the issues which drive voters to abandon the mainstream parties in favour of the BNP in the first place. Yes, the BNP are racists, but that cannot be the end of the debate. And we can’t win the argument with someone to whom we refuse to listen.

Fifth: why is it always the Left which calls for boycotts? Why must that, rather than argument, be our gut reaction? That and banning stuff, obviously.

And lastly, I rather like those Total Politics widgets in the right hand column. They’re dinky.

LAST week the Electoral Commission (“No we can’t!”) sent me a copy of a report which concluded that in Glasgow, only 74 per cent of adults who would otherwise be eligible to vote were actually on the register. And even that figure was subject to an accuracy measure of 77 per cent.

Strangely, although Glasgow’s Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) voluntarily took part in the research, it seems that he is now, a week after the report was published, contradicting that conclusion, insisting that the real figure is 89 per cent – 15 higher that the EC’s figure.

I’ve today written to the council’s chief executive (and returning officer) asking why these figures are so at odds and why, if the council knew of the commission’s findings, why it didn’t contradict them earlier.

This is serious. If the commission’s figures are correct, more than 150,000 people have been missed off the register – the equivalent of more than two Westminster constituencies and nearly three Holyrood ones. It’s complacency in the extreme on the part of John Curtice, professor of politics at Strathclyde University, to dismiss this situation as unlikely to affect the result in the city’s seven constituencies; even in the safest seats, increasing the electorate by a third could have a major effect on the result. And even that is missing the point: just because you live in a “safe” seat, it does not mean you should have any less right to vote.

Glasgow, although easily one of the worst in the Britain for registration levels and accuracy, is not alone in failing in its democratic responsibility. All over the country, electoral registration is not seen as the priority it once was. And that is a disgrace.

If you don’t want to vote, don’t vote. But you should be on the register anyway. If you don’t want to be registered? I. Don’t. Care.

One of the questions I’ve asked of Glasgow’s returning officer is how many people have actually been fined for failing to return a registration form. I may be surprised. I may be told that the figure is in the hundreds or even thousands. That would establish, for me, the fact that Glasgow is serious about democracy.

If, however, my fears are confirmed, I will be told that the figure is closer to zero than to, say, one.

I’ll keep you posted.

One of the most outrageous and almost surreal conclusions in the letter from the Electoral Commission was that, although Glasgow had achieved just 74 per cent registration with 77 per cent accuracy…

The 2008 performance standards assessment for Glasgow, (sic) the ERO met all of the ten standards. The assessment for 2009 showed that Glasgow either met or exceeded all of the standards.

“… either met or exceeded all of the standards.” Seventy-four per cent registered. Seventy-seven per cent accuracy. Oh, did I mention that the judgment as to whether the performance standards are met is down to self-assessment by the EROs themselves?

A TRIUMPHANT – and yes, emotional – conclusion to the tenth Doctor’s reign.