Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

Tuesday, 14 June 2016

Dear Tracey - why I'm voting remain.

Dear Tracey,

Hi, how are you? It's been a while since we've spoken over social media but I saw your post on Facebook and wanted to respond at length and felt a blogpost was a better format than a comment.

My regular readers, if there are any left, and yourself will know that I am a  supporter of yours across party
lines. I've always admired your hard work in the constituency and that all of your decisions have been well thought out. At the heart of all of your decisions is your heart, conscience and your constituency even if it goes against your party's position and that, in my mind is what a MP should do and why you have my support and admiration - if I lived in Chatham I would have, secretly, voted for you.

I'm pretty much in the same position as you. When I moved house some four months ago I lost all television signal. I also try to avoid newspapers as it is far to easy to gravitate to ones you agree with and dismiss those you don't as scaremongering and hokum. A prime example is yesterday's Daily Mail headline about the ten million Turks coming this way - a headline that hasn't been seen since the crusades.

I have also had some serious personal problems which almost cost me my marriage and I gave up my Liberal Democrat activities so lost that line of information.

I have spent a lot of time listening to my friends and colleagues and their opinions and beliefs, weighed things in my head and come out with a side that I am mostly happy with. 

I agree with you that both sides are guilty of scaremongering and manipulating figures and I've tried to ignore them as well - it isn't good for my stress levels.

Let me bring you to where I'm at.

Firstly, and I'm sure you know this, but Medway is more than likely going to vote out. Just a cursory glance at the last round of Euro elections and the Police commissioner's election you can see UKIP surging ahead. This shouldn't have an impact on your decision as I believe it has a local colleague but it is something you may have to contend with in time. 

Immigration is a problem in Medway, sometimes I feel it seems a bigger problem than it is. Although international is a problem, one that always arises when cultures collide and it is a separate debate that needs to be had. 

The concerns are very real though with the first being jobs. It is easy to gloss over and say that a foreign worker in a job is a Briton out of work but that is not always the case. I remember seeing a segment on the South East's Politics on Sunday about Romanian Fruit pickers. The reporter went to a local job centre to ask Britons if they would pick fruit only one person said yes. It seems no one wants to clean streets, work in supermarkets or at McDonald's - all valid careers (I've worked at two of the three).

I think blaming immigrants for the strain on services has also got flaws. When I was born in 1980 there were three hospitals and Canada house, now we have one that is struggling to meet demand. On the rare occasions I go to the GP with the children it is not a swarm of foreigners in the waiting room but white Britons with minor ailments that my parents would have self medicated. 

Successive British governments have cut hospitals and other services including the police and fire brigade as well as selling off social housing. It was only a matter of time before we reached this point and although it is easy to blame Europe for reaching it now it is hard to believe it could be avoided.

On the subject of cuts the EU also invests money into many projects and businesses across the nation and in Medway including youth and tourism projects. The BREXIT campaign would argue if we weren't in Europe and sending £Xm a year (whatever the final figure is) then the British government would invest in them. I find that a bit of a tall order especially in these times of austerity and the government would find "better" places for the money to go.

It is true the EU is far from perfect and there are many things that need reforming but there are also some great bonuses too.

As a member of a family of Police officers I cannot tell you how excited I am about the EU policing treaties that allow us to share information and issue warrants for those who commit crimes and try to hide abroad, no more buggering off to the Costa Brava after a jewel heist. A good example was a man who posted indecent images of children on the Internet. Within hours the Danish police had picked them up and using location and search tools were able to pin-point his residence and the following day the Leeds police raided his home.

There are other things, which you have listed including cleaner beaches, moves to enforce greener fuel, safety etc...

For me, I worry about economic uncertainties. Britain is no longer a global Empire that produces the majority of the world's ships or refined cotton. Should Britain leave we'll have to negotiate our own trade treaties with the EU, America and Far East but what do we trade? We can't fall back on the Commonwealth.

When I look at the Brexit I think of the first game of Connect 4 I played with my daughter. When she lost she folded her arms and refused to play any more. It is a priceless look that I'm sure you'll see it on Freddy's face in the near future - it is a priceless expression.

If I could use a football analogy;

You're playing in the Euro 2016 final against Germany, Thomas Müller takes a dive as he passes you and the Ref calls you over for a yellow card. Do you walk off the pitch, hang up your boots and refuse to play anymore OR do you protest the decision, fight to clear your name and carry on with the game?

I personally believe if our MEPs embraced the EU rather than refusing to do anything, as our current UKIP MEPs do, we might get more of a say. 

I look back at the state of Britain and Europe over the last century and there is a declining Empire, distrust of minorities, finances wrecked by bankers and general strikes as well as a continent ravaged with world war twice. I see a lot of what has happened before still happening now but things are improving especially with international cooperation.

I can't help thinking it is better the devil you know.

I want to make a sound decision for my children and their children and I hope that I have made it.

I know that you will make your decision after many hours of consideration with your heart and conscience without being pressured. 

I hope all is well with you and your new family.

All the best, and good luck making your decision.

Chris

P.s. Remember me when you are Prime Minister and you want a biography written - my publisher's always after new ideas and I'll write a very good one!  

Saturday, 15 November 2014

Britain First are Toxic and blight Rochester


I fear the days of Mosley are returning, at least to Rochester
As a liberal, and an opened minded person I firmly believe in the freedom of speech for all. This is tempered with the addendum that you can say what you want as long as it does not interfere with another person’s freedoms.

This said, I am horrified that Britain First have come to Rochester yet again.

Reports say 50 Britain First “activists” in uniformed dress arrived at Rochester railway station attempting to march up the High Street with Union Jacks unfurled but we’re held off by 100 odd locals chanting and the Kent Police line that was trying to defuse violence. As I write this, I understand the BF are back on the train to where ever they have come from and that Rochester is attempting to return to some semblance of order.

I am against any such “organisation” on so many principles.

Firstly the very name is prejudice. Britain First.

Britain is an artificially constructed country spurned on by English military might and economic superiority and based on genocide of the clans and forced assimilation. Britain is in the process of devolution and almost broke itself apart this year and only hung on by a small margin in Scotland.

The other thing is; define a Briton. How long must your family have lived on this island before you are classed as a Briton? Do you have to be a Christian (or non Muslim)? A similar situation grew up in 20s Germany with a certain party saying that Germany was for the Germans and that non-Germans should be expelled or if they remained had rights withdrawn from them and well… we all know how that ended!

Britain is no longer an Imperial power that can dictate world policy, nor is it a homogenously (or majority) white Christian nation of Britons. As the Empire collapsed we have attracted former subjects who wanted to come to the mother land. As we became one with the post War Europe we attracted migrants to our shores, not just as “benefit tourists” but as people who wanted to flee oppression from the Soviets or dictators or came to forge a better life in a land of opportunity for them and their families much as many did to America. Some of them served in the British armed forces to defeat the Nazis but did not or could not return to the Eastern bloc as they had been over run by the Russians – what more do they need to do to be accepted? They are part of us now, second and third generations living in Britain as part of our society.

I thought I may have been overly judgemental so I checked out their Twitter and Facebook page and immediately wished I hadn’t.

Just check out this post….
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=650218521790079

It made my blood run cold.

The labels being thrown around, Liberals, Transsexuals, Communists...  I mean what the hell?

This is truly the voice of hate and mistrust. A voice I had hoped had been consigned to the waste paper bin of history or consigned to thugs like the EDL not an actual "political party" that is running for a Parliamentary seat - in MY neighbourhood!

This is the hate and prejudice that tore the world apart, cost the lives of so many people and should have died in Berlin in '45. I thought we were better than this, I thought we had evolved past this, the BUF and Mosley are a dark spot on the history of this nation and should have been forgotten and not replayed on the streets of Rochester. What gives them the right to dictate what lifestyle is right? Tell people how to live their lives? This is prejudice of the highest order.

In this Centenary year of the First World War, where nationalistic belief in ones own superiority caused the slaughter of innocence, where young men flocked to the flags of their nations and marched towards their deaths singing patriotic songs. Only 75 years after another nationalistic government that believed in Germany for the Germans and in ubermenschen (Teutons) and Untermenschen (Jews, Muslims, foreigners, Homosexuals, Jehovah's witnesses, Communists etc etc...) reopened the same wounds let us remember that we are better than this.

We have evolved past these notions and hate.  

Saturday, 20 September 2014

Southeastern Renew rail franchise

Well this is a sticky wicket.

Firstly I should say that for those of you who don't regularly read my blog will know that when it comes to rail travel and the EXTORTIONATE amount of time and money I throw at the railway system, I am apolitical on this subject.

No party, no government is innocent in the journey that has led to this day.

However I'm.... happy with the final decision that has led to Southeastern having their contract renewed.

Perhaps happy is too strong a word. However I can see the logic behind it.

I first read about it on Tracey Crouch's website and had mixed feelings.

On the one side I will continue to put up with dirty trains (seriously I got on a train last Saturday morning and it had Metros from Friday on most of the seats!), overcrowding, cramp caused by lack of leg room, lateness, congestion and absent staff,

Then as I read the release from Tracey's office the more I thought about some of the issues.

Congestion can't be helped at London bridge, especially if there is a broken down train or signal cockup.

With absent staff, can you blame them? The way that commuters speak to staff when something goes wrong would make me want to backslide into an office when things start going badly.

I commute on a busy railway line to London and travel at peak time so I can't really complain about the business. Even if they were to throw on a couple more carriages or compromised more leg room for more seats then they wouldn't get many more of us sitting down though if they got rid of First class....

The other things are bearable. Sort of.

I can understand that Southeastern are aware of the London Bridge transformation and it makes sense that they continue. It is going to be chaotic enough let alone bringing in a completely new company which will still be wet behind the ears when the brown stuff hits the fan.

I also like that the Government are forcing Southeastern to invest money into the network in various different ways - its all on Tracey's website, it is late and there's no need in me repeating it all - and the fares will be frozen in "real terms"

Great

But they are going up by the rate of inflation and as my wages are being frozen yet again (some 4 years in a row) I'm going to be paying 25% of my take home... Great...

I did read an opposition point of view on it on Tristan Osborne's blog and there are areas which I disagree with. To be honest Connex were crap and things are getting safer and the rolling stock has improved but the escalator that Labour put in has really made rail travel the reserve of the richer.

I do not see HS1 as a victory for the average commuter.

I mean it is great for when I go to visit my sister in Newark as I can cut around London and walk to Kings Cross but it is of bugger all use to me when I work in South London, it also means my old fast train to Victoria (which used to be 45 minutes) now takes longer as it has to stop at additional stations (Meopham and Longfield) because it was faster than the HS1 into London....

It is also too expensive for a regular journey (especially if you factor on the 30 minute tube journey)...

Any way I'm getting side tracked.

Either way I'm screwed. All I can do is try and smile and hope that the optimism that Tracey's PR exudes actually holds water. Things need to be improved, the prices need to be reined in and well...

The network needs a lot of things and I could sit here bitching and griping about it but I'm sure no one would care that much - well definitely no one in any of the major political parties who have long forgotten the commuters and the system we have to put up with.

Tuesday, 20 May 2014

Labour must think you're all stupid




This kind of thing really grinds my gears.
Those of you who know me or are regular readers of this blog will know that I'm, somewhat naively, a fan of good Democracy and the democratic process. So it will come as no surprise why my gears are so well and truly ground.

Also before I start I should say this is not aimed at hard working Labour activists, councillors or MPs but the party machine and those who use the following technique on the doorstep - you know who you are!


Unless you have been living in a cave for the last few months you'll know there is an election on Thursday for some local authorities (not Medway) and more importantly the European Parliament. 

The LibDems (at least on a local level) have been campaigning for the merits of the EU over Grand Isolation which UKIP seem to espousing. National politics has not been used unless brought up by the voter.

This election is not about the cuts.

This election is not about Tuition fees.

This election is not about the Coalition.

This election is not about Nick Clegg or David Cameron.

So imagine my confusion when I saw a tweet with ten reasons to vote Labour on Thursday. (here) with a link to the Labour page with Ed's pledges for what Labour would do if they won the next election. 



Clearly it would be argued that this meant the General election next year and it is a mere coincidence that this list has appeared now at this election.

Can this behaviour be just attributed to a small dirty tricks brigade? 

Well, no.

I've seen a lot of tweets locally about the toxic nature of Clegg and it makes me wonder how much campaigning on Europe vs. National policy there has been but that is just supposition.

Who sent the original tweet? Was it an activist trying to cause confusion? It was some guy called Iain McNicol - the General secretary of the Labour party - surely he would think he knew what elections were taking place on Thursday?

This is not the first time that this has happened either, indeed shadow minister Chuka Umunna tweeted (back in may 2012 here)
Cameron is running a heartless and hopeless government #voteLabour today for growth, jobs and to relive the squeeze on you and your family.

Which was interesting as it was Local and mayoral elections with no impact on Westminster what so ever!

It is little wonder that candidates are secretly venting their frustration at Ed et al. Local PPC and Councillor, Tristan Osborne was unfortunate to get caught on tape out lining his concerns with leadership etc.

It is telling that a PPC selected for one of the top 101 target seats against a formidable and capable Tory MP (Tracey Crouch) is showing these sort of concerns.

 You can view the article here

How can they appeal to the average voter if they can't even tell the truth about what the election on Thursday is for? Or have any policies on Europe? 

If I cannot trust them on these two fundamentals how can I trust them with pledges or my taxes?

Friday, 9 May 2014

Same old Labour - Same old... Y'know

As those who follow me on Twitter will know, my days of being actively involved in politics are looking like they may soon be over (more on that later) and part of me is relieved.

As the election campaigns really set in here in Medway and ground work is laid down for the general & local elections next year the uglier and nastier things get.

As predicted the lines between national and local politics have become blurred and the three remaining LibDem councillors (as well as the standing candidates) are being blamed for supporting the Coalition nationally.

Their ministry of Propaganda has began churning out tweets regularly saying things like; 
"Medway Libdems supported the trebling of tuition fees"
"Medway Libdems support the Tory privitisation of the NHS"
"You can't trust the Libdems"

What a load of hogwash. I could easily turn round and say:

"Medway Labour supported the illegal invasion of Iraq"
"Medway Labour supported the Fuel escalator & RPI on rail fare that robbed hard working commuters."
"Medway Labour supported the reckless management of the economy that pissed the nations money down the drain"
"You can't trust Labour with your money"

I know full well that none of their (or my) statements are true. From our end there was a lot of anger at Tuition fees. As we have no MP we as a group tend to look more at local Medway issues and what we can effect. Also as we don't have an MP we cannot get them to vote a certain way. I have, however written to our incumbent MPs on a few topics requesting information and clarification on a couple of topics but that has mainly been as a resident!

I'm also tired of seeing messages saying all the LibDems will be wiped out, Labour will defeat your MEPs, take your wards and remove you. I feel like a tumour festering at the heart of Medway ready to lanced. I often wonder will my wife will come home from work and find I have disappeared into the "The Night and fog" (check out Nacht & Nabel decree on wiki for the reference).

So, I find myself asking why? Why are they targeting us in this way and not their arch nemesis Darth Cameron?

I have come up with a theory. 

Since the Coalition began Labour under Ed Miliband have defined themselves as simply "Not the Coalition." 

Cameron could hold up a lump of coal and Ed would say it was white. They say they wouldn't do things but they have little in the way of alternatives. The Libdems are seen as the weaker part and so they look to extend their majority by assimilating our seats. After all Labour has been moving from the left for the centre ground for the last couple of decades and left leaning liberals will be tempted to vote Labour over the seemingly right leaning liberals.

The other problem is Labour are actually hemorrhaging supporters to UKIP. A lot of working class families who gave up on Labour last time and who are still not convinced are looking at UKIP as saviour or as a protest vote. They know Labour screwed the economy and failed to deal with immigration and Europe, the Coalition have done little to salve that and only UKIP are saying they will deal with them. Where can they get voters??? Oh yeah, Libdem supporters.

It amused me that they wasted a PPB on how Clegg is a joke but still haven't given us an alternative, where is Ed talking about the EU or tackling UKIP? Does he or his party have an opinion? 

I'm feeling better off out of this childish point scoring and blowing smoke for votes. I got involved in politics to help people and my community and I feel disheartened that a few feel the need to resort to these levels to win votes. 

If my departure wasn't already dictated by events beyond my control I'd stand and fight for what is right.

As it is, I'm almost relieved to let the children play and I can redirect my energies to something more worthwhile.

Friday, 25 April 2014

Conservative Councillors are causing a revolt

There is something very worrying happening at Medway Council that is having a very bad effect on democracy in Medway and is turning voters against the elected council, especially the ruling Conservative party.

At every full Council there is an allotted time for Public questions to Portfolio holders. It is true that this is often used by Politicos and Party members to make a point as well as one or two people with burning issues but used to fit neatly into the time frame.

Recently though there have been more and more questions are being brought to the Full Council meetings especially about tetchy subjects like Rochester Airport and Strood Library's relocation. The peasants are restless and the council are apparently not doing anything about it.

We've had Councillor Chitty say that Consultations are merely and FYI for the Public of the Council's intent and then last night Cllr Doe said a decision had been made and there was no point in consultation.

This coupled with the very dismissive and often condescending manner with which the Conservative Councillors have dealt with questions is causing more and more discontent. Questions have been answered with diatribes that don't answer the question, dismissed or in a few cases refused as in the case I saw, Cllr Jarrett said I am not in the habit of repeating myself.

At the last meeting there was a full blown revolt with hand clapping and meeting disruption where the Mayor (who wasted public money on the creation of her Christmas cards - including the rental for a fake Snow machine!!!!) ordered the public gallery emptied before leading the Council out. Last night Police officers were on hand when the same thing happened. One member of the public [
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/theyre-hell-bent-on-shutting-us-16333/]
stormed through the cordon to tell the Conservative cabinet what he thought and accused them of not listening to the people who voted them in.

This Conservative Cabinet have such a large majority that they don't need to listen to the opposition parties (even if we combined with Labour to do so) but they aren't listening to the voters either. It is seriously becoming a problem. What was a small campaign of people who genuinely care about Strood Library and becoming a Medway wide issue and a symbol of an elected body that is mishandling of their dealings with the public and the protesters.

They have thrown out the slight bone of "Civilian Journalists" for those hardcore politicos and generally don't have public questions as we're too busy writing or tweeting but they are still not addressing the Public or their issues. Thirty minutes isn't long enough, everyone should get the opportunity to ask one question (maybe not the supplementary if there are too many questions) and they should be handled with respect and clarity not dismissed or treated with contempt.

In one attempt to save time they have cut the verbal asking of questions and displayed them on a screen at the front of the Hall - which sadly cannot be read by anyone in the Public area. Or if you're visually impaired you will not know what the answer was in relation too.

Something has to be done and before the local elections next year... the locals are getting restless and arrogantly treating them is not the way.

Friday, 4 April 2014

Campaigning for Europe in Gillingham

Catherine Bearder on the Streets of Gillingham
Last Saturday the Medway Liberal Democrats hit the streets of Gillingham - but this was not an average street canvassing or leafleting it was a special occasion.

The upcoming elections for the European Parliament are exceptionally important and as we are the only party of In and in full support of Europe we had to hit the streets and talk about the excellent work the party have achieved but we weren't doing it alone.

Standing with local party stalwarts like Councillor Diana Smith and Councillor Geoff Juby as well as regular activists and newbies was current standing MEP Catherine Bearder and candidate Antony Hook.

Whilst Nick Clegg has been standing up to Nigel Farage and the generalisations and lies about the European Union we took to the streets to try and dispel the myths on our doorstep.

There was quite some interest with many people drifting by on the bright sunny day and taking leaflets and others stopping to talk to our candidate and representative about specific issues like crime, immigration, economy and jobs.

The European Union is not the most perfect organisation in the world, there are a lot of questions that need answering and reform that needs to be done BUT the only way to reform it is to be inside it. I am a fan of Gillingham FC but I have serious questions about how the club is run and of the Chairman Paul Scally. The only way to have an input on this though is to be a shareholder - so I sit at home and mutter to myself. Should the UK leave the EU it will have to deal with them in the same way that Switzerland and Norway do but without any input into the trading agreements or how they work - so we will be sat at home muttering to ourselves.

The EU also provides money to worthy causes and projects including money for projects in Medway and regeneration of the Dock yard as well as charities - who is to say that our government, who have cut services and make massive efficiency savings would still invest in them as well?

It was a privilege to meet Catherine and Antony and to watch them talking with ease with the public in Gillingham High street and talk passionately about their work in the field and what the EU has to offer and the people we spoke to were impressed too.

Sunday, 9 March 2014

Barraco Barner, tweets, Ukraine, Sarah Palin and Nukes

President Barner's got a lot to think about
As always I am running a little behind the rest of the world and I didn't see the already infamous Gemma Worrell tweet until today. If you haven't seen it here is the wording:

Why is our president Barraco Barner getting involved with Russia, scary

This tweet has gone world wide and has been used by some commentators as a metaphor for "Dumb Britain."


Let's be honest it does look like the comment of a bimbo especially when you factor in that she is a twenty something beautician. Stereotypes, media portrayal of working class Britain and the failings of our education system come out screaming.

It is, ultimately a storm in a tea cup that plays to some of the nastiest elements of the human psyche. Firstly the girl made a typo... If someone recorded all the stupid things I've said or written over the years (including the zinger "Bus drivers make up their own routes") then I'd be open to world wide ridicule at least twice a week. Let it go.

Does it say anything about our nation's education? No.

People make spelling mistakes all the time or blooper. OK so Obama isn't our president but the sentiment is just as important. It is showing a young woman taking an interest in current events rather than which celeb is shagging who or in hair and make up - let' give her points for trying and phonetically  spelling the name.

Is it about class? About standards? Stereotypes? - Really? This is what you're going to focus on?

Let's not worry about the obvious and celebrate that current events are being spoken about by stereotypical groups that wouldn't normally bother with them.

Instead of worrying about this girl, who has no influence, and has said something that sounds stupid and let's look at what Sarah Palin has said in a speech to fellow Republicans;

Mr President, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke

This is a really scary and stupid thing to say. I thought the old attitudes of the Cold War were well and truly gone. It wreaks of the Cuban missile's crisis and sincerely worries me that there are political figures out there that think that pointing ICBMs in the direction of Moscow and leaving the red button  out still there in this world. I mean G. W was a bit of a dunce but not even he considered nuking Baghdad!

The really, really, REALLY scary thing about this whole Palin debacle is that I can picture Putin shrugging his shoulders at her comment and ordering his missiles turned the other way. Palin is an idiot but Putin is a calculating and cold. He would push the button when Khrushchev wouldn't.


Yes, it was amusing to laugh at someone's twitter mistake but let's also not take our eye of the ball and look seriously at some of the idiotic things that are being said by those who have influence and worst still have bigger fools agreeing with them.

Saturday, 22 February 2014

My letter to the paper about Jarrett's "Hitler" comment

Here follows my unedited letter to the Medway messenger regarding Councillor Jarrett's "Hitler" comment at the last Full council meeting published on 21st February 2014:




Gillingham Bus station after the July 1940 air raids that rocked the town
It has been several weeks since Councillor Jarrett made his ill-judged comments about the last Labour
government's handling of the financial crisis as comparable to Hitler's efforts to bring the country to its knees and many people like me are still offended.

Although he retracted the comment at full council, the damage was already done.  
I was no fan of the last Labour government and its policies and was disappointed by their failure during thirteen years of office to keep their promises to sort out the mess left by the Thatcher/Major Conservative administrations.  

Many Gillingham residents would argue that without Libdem policies that have reduced the amount of income tax they now pay and granted them 15 free hours a week of nursery for children, they would be faring little better under Cameron than they were under Brown. 

However you cannot compare the political failings of any government to the Second World War with the bombing of British cities, the U-boat blockade and the deportation of British citizens in the Channel Islands to concentration camps. Indeed on 18th July 1940, Gillingham was bombed and people killed across the town, including Beatty Avenue at the end of my street. Many other residents lost friends and loved ones fighting the Nazis. 

I would implore Councillor Jarrett to apologise publicly for his ill thought out words in a public forum such as this newspaper.  

Chris Sams 

Sunday, 2 February 2014

Keeping Politics out of World War One Centenary

German War graves in France
On 28th July this year the World will begin to commemorate the beginning of World War One, the
invasions of France, Russia and the Balkans by the Central Powers as well as the Allied invasion of the Middle East and Gallipoli.

The First World War claimed 22,477,500 Allied KIA, WIA and MIA as well as a further 16,403,000 Central Powers KIA, WIA, MIA. One of those was my Grandmother's Uncle Donald Homersham MM who was killed instantly by a German shell on the 16th October 1916 on the Somme.

With Michael Gove's recent posturing on the subject as well as recent comments about German aggression basically blaming them for starting the war, which has riled them somewhat, the whole centenary is looking like it could become mired in baseless "facts" and arguments.

This is not what it is about.

The centenary of the First World War is not about who won what, whose fault it is, Historical revisionism, patriotic tub thumping and for reliving past Imperial glories (that's all of the nations) - it is about the suffering and death that was caused, it is about the soldiers, sailors and airmen who paid the ultimate sacrifice of death or wounding, for the many who are still missing or lay in unknown graves.

This is their war, their centenary. It is about the human aspect and experience, the stories and fighting that once read will turn your hair white and put you off the notion of War.

We were attacking the very last German trench. We were all knocked out, Their machine guns were waiting for us. We didn.t get through. None of us, There was a big shell-hole full of dead and dying and blinded. Tall men got it through the jaw, shorter men through the eyes. I was five foot ten and shot through my cheek. I was walking along, and a bullet blew all of my teeth out. I fell forward and spat all my teeth out. I collapsed and, hours later, I came round. My left eye was closed, I couldn't talk. I could breath, that was all. I got my field dressing out and wound it round m face and left eye. I could see through my right eye and I could see one of my Corporals who'd been shot through the foot. I took off his boot, bandaged it up, put his boot on again and he used his rifle as a crutch and together we went back. there was nobody around. Just the dead
We saw a man. A shell had come over and hit him and knocked off his left arm and his left leg. His left eye was hanging on his cheek, and he was calling out "Annie" I shot him. \I had to. Put him out of his misery. It hurt me. It hurt me. - Sergeant James Payne 16th Battalion of the Manchester Regiment on the first day of the Somme.  (Forgotten voices of the Somme by Joshua Levine p.133)

Men blinded by mustard gas
Any browse through books written from the Soldier's point of view and of their experiences throws up similar experiences like the Drill Hall massacre in Chatham in 1917. My Great Grandparents never spoke of the war or their experiences. Walter Sams was only at war for a year having been a Police officer and in a reserved occupation. Albert Bone had been in the artillery but, despite being wounded, was co-opted into the Blackwatch following  a quick inspection by a RAMC officer who threw a rifle at him which he caught with his off hand.

I saw a Tweet yesterday from Rural Labour that read the following:

I can't help but wonder what the status of Union membership has to do with anything? My Great Grandfather Walter Sams was a Police officer so could not join a union - he still fought in 1918 as a Grenadier Guard, I am forced to wonder how many others in my family were union men and does it actually matter. Union, non-union, rich or poor, British, Canadian, French, German or Austrian they all spilled the same blood in the same mud in horrific circumstances and it is this, and the men themselves that we should be remembering.

We should be remembering and talking about what our ancestors went through, talking about conditions, the death, the trenches, the gas, the endless futility not who was right and who was wrong or how it started - ultimately those things don't matter and have been long forgotten by the collective memory.

What will be remembered is that the First World War was ultimately an act of futility as massive Empire's  battled using Nineteenth century tactics with twentieth century weapons. The scale was unprecedented and saw scenes of war never seen before or in some cases since. The men who died did not die for Politics or governments but for their friends and comrades (and Kommeraden) for it was Politcs and governments who got them there in the first place. This is not the time for one up manship and the sort of Jingoistic attitude that got everyone into that mess but for quiet reflection and remembering who fell for their country and not why they fell.



Friday, 6 December 2013

Stop the Badger Cull in Medway

Many of my regular readers will know that I have been against the Cull of Badgers to combat Bovine TB within the UK.

It is a barbaric practise acting on very little evidence and is being carried out by brutal methods that are not being regulated properly. Usually someone is telephoning the sniper aiming at the badgers and measuring the amount of screams from the victim as to how much pain they are in rather than being on site. This cull has included the murder of young through direct action or by the killing of their parents.

The more costly yet effective route of Vaccination is being ignored in favour of the quick and simplistic Cull which does not cut to the route of the problem.

Now a petition is being put to Medway Council to:

We the undersigned petition the council to We, the undersigned, call on Medway Council to prohibit the culling of badgers on council-owned land and invest in vaccination programmes locally. We ask this because we believe culling to be inhumane, inefficient and unscientific.

This is a national issue which will be of direct concern to the people of Medway when DEFRA "rolls out" its culling policy in 2014. The object of the petition is to ensure that Medway's badger population is as safe as possible from slaughter and that the already available injectable badger vaccine against bTB is used in as many cases as possible. We ask this because we believe the culling policy is inhumane (DEFRA's measurement of "humaneness" is to time the screams of wounded badgers), inefficient (previous culls showed an increase in bTB because of badger movement) and unscientific (the majority of scientific opinion hold that a cull will have "no meaningful result").


Please take two minutes to sign this petition to stop the barbarism of one of Britain's favourite rural indigenous species and spread the word.

Thursday, 5 December 2013

Tracey Crouch on the Mesothelioma Bill

I have written before on the problems of Asbestosis and Mesothelioma that has affected the people of Medway in particular Tracey Crouch's campaign and outspoken work on the subject.

These conditions cause severe health issues and death and Medway is one of the highest registered areas in the South behind Portsmouth and possibly Southampton (from memory - I can't find my original chart!!!). Statistics stated here show that an estimated 100,000 will die from Mesothelioma nation wide and 1.4% of all ship yard workers will contract the condition. Unknown amounts will suffer from Asbestosis.

The heavy industrial works at Chatham Dockyard and even in the Short Brother's factories building Stirling Bombers and Sunderland seaplanes meant that many of the Towns' residents who were employed at these facilities were exposed and in later life they are suffering from their employers not taking enough care. (Asbestosis was published in Medical journals in the early 1930s)

Tracey has been speaking out on this issue for sometime and rebelled over the legal aid bill and she has consistently fought for the rights of the sufferers, who have given so much to this country's war effort as well as peace time industry. On Monday she gave a speech on Mesothelioma Bill which, according to the post on Facebook says;

 This is a welcome piece of legislation that will compensate victims of this horrific and fatal disease caused only by exposure to asbestos, and one that sadly is prev...alent in the Medway Towns due to its heavy industry and shipbuilding legacy. The Bill makes it possible for sufferers who cannot trace their former employer or employer’s insurer to receive some form of payment, but there are a few shortcomings in the Bill that need to be addressed. Unfortunately I am not now on the Bill Committee but will do all I can to continue to fight for a fair outcome for victims.

I can only hope that this bill does go through relatively unmolested and that aid can be provided to those who have been exposed to this toxic substance and help those who have slipped through the holes and more importantly that money gets to those who deserve it and not soaked up by Lawyers and insurance companies.

Here's Tracey's speech (including the first question from Rochester & Strood's Mark Reckless MP) for the original link and the rest of the questions you can see it all on Hansard


Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con): It is a pleasure to speak on this issue, on which I have a great deal of knowledge from working in the insurance industry for five years before I became a Member of Parliament and from representing a constituency with very high levels of mesothelioma. Britain has the highest rate of mesothelioma in the world and sadly that rate is rising. In the past five years, the south-east of England has had the highest rates of deaths from mesothelioma compared with anywhere else in the UK. Medway, with its heavy industry and dockyard history, is a particular hot spot.
Mesothelioma is a horrific disease that is contracted exclusively by exposure to asbestos. Those who are diagnosed are often dead within a year. For many years, lawyers and insurers have taken their time to settle claims through civil procedures, leaving great financial uncertainty for sufferers and their families. A great deal has been done to speed up civil claims for victims and tribute ought to be paid to the work of Senior Master Whitaker for making that happen. However, there remains a small yet significant group of people who contracted mesothelioma but could not be compensated either because of poor record keeping by their employer or their employer’s insurer, or because neither existed any more.

The Bill will help to rectify that and is therefore welcome, but it still contains shortcomings that, if Ministers, insurers and lawyers were open-minded, could be rectified at little extra cost to them. Before going into detail, I congratulate Lord Freud on his sterling efforts to introduce the Bill. From my own experience of working in the insurance industry and alongside lawyers, I know that the negotiations would have been very difficult. He deserved the praise he received from peers on both sides of the House as the Bill progressed through the other place, but it still lacks fair compensation for victims of this dreadful disease.

In my preliminary discussions with interested parties, there was consensus on one point: the Bill will give sufferers something. That is true and something might be better than nothing, but the Bill puts the something squarely in the pockets of the insurers and lawyers, and not as much as there should be in the hands of the victim. The victim is the one who turned up to work and was exposed to asbestos. The victim is the one who happened to work for a company that kept shoddy records. The victim is the one who will die through no fault of his own. The Bill has room for improvement, based on further compromise.
Their lordships debated the Bill on a set of assumptions that have been revised since it has progressed to this place. The goalposts have moved. It is a shame that what should be a simple piece of legislation has become so mired in suspicion and confusion regarding what is and is not included in the levy. When the Bill was discussed in the Lords, Lord Freud made it clear that the levy could not be more than 3% gross written premium. That was to ensure that insurers financing the scheme would not incur additional costs that would be passed on to their existing customers. At that point, the levy agreed with the insurance industry was 75% and equated to, as illustrated in the Department for Work and Pensions’ own analysis in support of the Bill, 2.79% GWP in the first four years of the scheme and 2.27% GWP in the first 10 years of the scheme.
Since the debate in the Lords, the assumptions relating to legal costs have changed. Their lordships debated a fixed legal fee of £2,000, but we are now debating a fee of £7,000. In truth, there is total confusion about who will pay the fee. As the Association of British Insurers understands it, it will be paid by claimants out of their compensation which the Government will uplift accordingly.

Not only is it unclear what precisely the fee is for, but what the other 25% is paying to administer. It would be helpful if the Government clarified who pays the legal fees. Is it the claimants out of their compensation or the insurance companies out of the administration fee? If it is the claimants, we need to be absolutely clear that when they are awarded £57,000 of compensation, £7,000 of legal fees will have to be deducted from that award.

Lawyers, insurers and the Government are, unsurprisingly, at loggerheads on the fixed fee, presumably because if it is acceptable for this scheme, why could it not be applied to civil claims? Where would it fit into the LASPO review that the Ministry of Justice is expected to complete and report on next year? At the heart of the Bill is supposed to be the fact that the victim is coming into the scheme at last resort. A lot of what is required will have already been done, so lawyers in a civil claim might not be as necessary as they would be in this scheme. Senior Master Whitaker has helped a great deal and the Department is clear that in some circumstances a medical report would be enough. The underlying point, however, is that because of the revised estimates, about which I remain sceptical, there is no room to raise the compensation limit from 75% to 80%—a much fairer level of financial recompense for victims of the disease. In his introduction, the Minister said that 75% is not the important figure and that the 3% levy is. With the greatest respect to the Minister, it is the level of compensation that is important to the victim, not what the level of GWP is to the insurance industry.

Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con): My hon. Friend mentioned that Medway is a hot spot for the disease. There have been 42 deaths in my constituency in the past five years—a greater number even than in her constituency, and about three times the national average. She mentioned the 3% and 75% figures. Is it not the case that the changes to which she referred will affect the sums relating to the 3% cap? If that is so, will it not be open to Ministers to show some compromise or movement in the direction that she is so ably arguing for?

Tracey Crouch: My hon. Friend is right that our constituencies are particularly affected and I am delighted to see him in his place to debate this important issue. He makes an important point. The Government have set a cap of 3% and there is no room for manoeuvre unless they are willing to stand up to the insurance industry and say that there is a firm view on both sides of the House that the 75% they have currently negotiated is not good enough. They need to agree on another figure. I believe that 80% would be appropriate as a good compromise between the 90% being called for by the lawyers—they cite the financial services compensation scheme as a useful comparator—and the 70% the insurers were originally willing to accept. Furthermore, with the previous assumptions under which their lordships debated the Bill, 80% would have been 2.98% GWP over the first four years and 2.42% over 10 years. Now, with the 3% cap, under the new legal costs associated with the scheme, there is no room for manoeuvre. I find that disappointing, unless the Minister is willing to stand up to the insurance industry and discuss this.

Wednesday, 6 November 2013

Guy Fawkes should blow up Parliament

One of my family's favourite sayings is that only person to enter the Houses of Parliament with honest
intentions was Guy Fawkes.

With the public perception of modern Politics this could be argued to be true.

The big problem is that the public don't vote for people, they vote for parties. You could be the best candidate in the world but if you aren't in the right party you won't stand a chance. For example of Jesus was standing for the Liberal Democrats - (I know, I'm going to hell anyway...), Adolf Hitler was standing for the Conservative party and Stalin was standing for Labour party in say in an urban constituency like Liverpool and let's be honest Labour would get in.

If it was a seat in an area like Eton, or a Rural area then generally it would be Hitler arriving in Westminster as MP.

At no point would Jesus get voted in to these constituencies because; who wants to throw their vote away on a third party?

I'll give you that there are marginal seats where the vote swings wildly but between the big two. Take Chatham and Aylesford which has swapped sides and has had two good MPs. Now when 2015 comes along there is a good chance, despite how well Tracey has done in representing her constituency, that she will lose many votes from swing voters who are unhappy with the Coalition/Conservatives in Government (despite what she may or may have rebelled against.)

It is sad that many good candidates, who care deeply about their constituents will never get voted in because they are in the wrong party. Even Independents, who are not tied to the Party mast and policies will very rarely get in without the backing of money and party activists and are considered a wasted vote to the public. Indeed the Libdems are often seen as wasted vote.

Even if there are good MPs, and I really think there are some fantastic ones in Parliament, mostly back benchers but they are tarred with the same brush as those who have caused such public uproar. Ed Balls' time at the treasury that helped the current crisis, the Cross party MPs who were part of the expenses scandal, tuition fee Lib dems... it is a big brush that paints corruption and double standards across the whole house no matter what your Party affiliation or position. The grand standing for the benefits of the TV cameras and the pithy sound bites that ultimately don't solve problems such as the exchange about power companies between Ed Balls and George Osborne yesterday, I find it hard to imagine that Salisbury and Wellington or Asquith and Bonar Law behaved in this manner, so why do our current MPs think it is ok?

Sadly, should Guido sneak under the Palace of Westminster and blew the lot up, I'm sure that there would not be that much public outcry and the notion that well, we're probably better off without them!

The mother parliament of many others around the World and the Commonwealth needs reform, it needs to generate interest from the people and represent them properly. Think of all the centuries of struggle that has gone on to get people the vote and a say in how they are ruled and now the apathy that has set in and the lack of engagement this centuries old institution has caused would make people like Fergus O'Conner, Emiline Pankerhurst and the others wonder why they bothered in the first place.

We need change and better democracy.

Saturday, 28 September 2013

Married Tax break - looking backwards?

Firstly I'd like to thank Dave and the Conservatives for bringing in this policy. With the cost of living
(and commuting) rising, my wages at a 1% rise well under inflation and my job looking fairly uncertain after next April any extra pennies are greatly received.

However - it is still bollocks.

I'm not sure what the Conservative high command were thinking about when this idea was floated. Is it a return of traditional values? Is it to try and build up marriage as the stable relationship for bringing up kids? Is it an attempt to return to the golden era of MacMillan? Eden? Or even Baldwin and Bonar-Law?

Society has moved on. With the decline in religious belief and people being more secular and with a lot of people unable to pay for weddings now they cost so many thousands of pounds people are just staying in committed relationships and what really is the difference?

Does the tax break cease if you have a divorce?

My Dad left us when I was Eight years old and my Mum had to bring myself and Gemma up on her own yet would have needed a tax break! Further to that both my Sister and I understand commitment and both of us have families of our own and are married - Not to each other obviously, I grew up in Kent not Alabama!

Many children from "broken" homes grow up to fine by society's standards, in fact no worse than children who grow up with both their parents.

The foundation of family life is not marriage it is commitment between people and that doesn't have to be ratified by a church or the state - after all you can get married and the relationship can break down in a year or two, you can stay a couple and be together until the day you die. In deed I never wanted to get married. As far as I was concerned it was just a piece of paper that sealed what my family and friends already knew - that I loved Sam and wanted to be with her. In deed we were together for five years before we tied the knot and we've been married almost five years and my feelings have not changed for her at all in that time, indeed I would have brought my children up in the same way had we not been married. This thin strip of white gold on my left hand would not stop me from being a bad parent or from being a bad husband or even cheating (was I that way inclined).

But I should be clear to say once again, I love my wife now as much as the day I married her and the day we got together.

But that should not entitle me to a tax break.

It is fairly discriminatory (despite Jeremy Hunt's protestations here). Why should one set of people get it and not any one else in similar situations not? It really does ascribe a certain weight to an ideal too. What of those struggling single parents whose partners have walked out? Or been abusive and they have taken a stand and left them now found themselves cut off?

Relief from Taxation should be based on financial situation not on family setup. Should we hand out tax relief to those who are confirmed in their religious faith as religion traditionally set people up with values for life and let the atheists suffer?

Jeremy Hunt says this is not a judgement... he says Love is love yet unless you get the piece of paper in what the State is now dictating is the only way they accept that you are committed and in it for the long haul - you won't receive the benefit.

Clearly this is not a well thought out policy and the cynic in me says that this is an attempt of the Conservative party to recapture votes from traditionalists and their original core of voters who may have been turned off by the Equal marriage bill.

Oh and Jeremy, if you are reading this, rather than Love is love (which I think I read on a fortune cookie once) I'd like to offer up the German writer and philosopher Johann von Goethe's definition:

True love is love that stays constant for ever, whatever its fortune:
Whether requited or scorned, filled or sent empty away


Or:

Without a doubt, the only thing that makes Man's life on earth essential and necessary is love

Thursday, 19 September 2013

Nick Clegg's closing Conference speech 2013



Three years ago – nearly three and a half – I walked into the Cabinet Office for my first day as Deputy Prime Minister.
 
Picture it: history in the making as a Liberal Democrat leader entered, finally, into the corridors of power, preparing to unshackle Britain after years of Labour and Conservative rule. Only to arrive and find an empty room and one shell-shocked civil servant promising me we’d get on with things shortly – but first he had to get us some desks.
 
You saw the calm bit in the rose garden. What you didn’t see was the utter chaos indoors. To say the Coalition caught Whitehall off guard is a massive understatement. The Government machine had no idea how it was going to handle power sharing – and not just the furniture, this was going to need a complete overhaul of how decisions would be taken and departments would be run. And – while no one really wanted to admit it at the time – the truth is, no one was quite sure how it was all going to work.
 
Here we were, this anti-establishment liberal party – which hadn’t been in power for 70 years – smack bang in the middle of Her Majesty’s Government: a Government machine built to serve one party, with only one party leader at the centre, now suddenly having to answer to two parties and two party leaders. Alongside us were these Tories, who we had been at war with for the past month – well, actually, more like the last hundred years.
 
The country was deep in economic crisis, in desperate need of stable Government. And the whole thing was set to a soundtrack of pessimism and naysaying: the Liberal Democrats had signed their own death warrant. The Coalition would fall in a matter of months. Britain would be the next Greece.
 
So let’s just stop and think about where we are now: The country’s economy growing stronger by the day. Stable, successful coalition – something that seemed impossible now accepted as the norm. And the Liberal Democrats proving that we can be trusted with the biggest responsibility of all – fixing the economy.
 
I know how hard it has been getting here – facing down all the vitriol from our opponents. Trust me, there were days I thanked my lucky stars that my children were too young to understand some of the things that were written and said. But every insult we have had to endure since we entered Government, every snipe, every bad headline, every blow to our support: That was all worth it – because we are turning Britain around.
 
We haven’t won over every critic; we’ll be tested a million more times. But the big question mark that has always hung over the Liberal Democrats – could we handle Government, and handle it when the going got tough? – that question mark is now gone. This recovery wouldn’t be happening without us.
 
We have made sure the deficit is being cut at the right pace. We were the ones who said you don’t just get growth by cutting red tape – Government also needs to invest in things: infrastructure, apprenticeships, regional growth.
 
So I want you to feel proud today. Feel proud that the country’s fortunes are turning. Feel proud that, when we were under pressure to buckle and change course, we held our nerve. Feel proud that we are right here, in the centre of Government and the centre of British politics, standing up for the millions of people in the middle.
 
I have talked to you before about our journey from the comforts of opposition to the realities of Government – but not anymore. Liberal Democrats – we are a party of Government now. And just think of what we have achieved in three short years.
 
For the first time ever, our schools get given money – our Pupil Premium – to stop children from the poorest families from falling behind – the first time ever. More than a million men and women have started training as apprentices – record numbers. Businesses across every region are being given billions to help them grow.
 
We’ve made the biggest investment in our railways since the Victorian times. We’ve created a bank devoted to clean, green industry – a world first. Elderly people will no longer have to sell their homes to pay for social care because we’ve capped the crippling costs. Mothers will no longer be worse off in retirement because our new simpler, fairer state pension recognises the value of raising a family.
 
Fathers will have the choice of staying at home once their children are born because we’re transforming parental leave.
 
All parents will get free, extra childcare, paid for by the state, when their children turn three or two for the families who need it most. We stopped ID cards. We’ve taken innocent people off the DNA database. We’ve ended child detention in the immigration system. 0.7% of national wealth spent on aid for the world’s poorest – our party’s policy for years. Not to mention getting the banks in order and helping create over a million new jobs.
 
And, one last one: at a time when millions of people are feeling the squeeze, when every penny counts, we’ve cut income tax bills by £700 and taken almost three million people on low pay out of paying any income tax altogether.
 
The Tories like to claim credit for that one now, don’t they? But do you remember the TV debates? David Cameron turned to me, in front of the whole country, and said: ‘I would love to take everyone out of their first £10,000 of income tax Nick, but we cannot afford it’. Well, we can afford it. And we did it. A stronger economy and a fairer society too.
 
Actually, just one more, and my new favourite: just a few months ago, our Government – our Government – passed a law that will make Britain a place where we finally celebrate love and commitment equally between couples whether they are gay or straight: Equal Marriage. Three years. Three years. We’re not even done yet.
 
Can you imagine what we could do with five more? You should be able to –we’ve spent the last five days talking about it. This whole week has been about looking forward and one thing is very clear: the Liberal Democrats don’t want to go back to the opposition benches, because we aren’t done yet.
 
Because here’s what’s at stake at the next election: The country is finally emerging from the biggest economic crisis in living memory. The absolute worst thing to do would be to give the keys to Number 10 to a single party Government – Labour or the Conservatives.
 
All of the sacrifices made by the British people – the pay freezes, the spending cuts, the lost jobs, the daily grind of austerity – all of that would be for nothing. Labour would wreck the recovery. The Conservatives would give us the wrong kind of recovery. Only the Liberal Democrats can finish the job and finish it in a way that is fair.
 
In 2015 the clapped out politics of red, blue, blue red threatens everything we have achieved. But, back in Government – and next time that will mean back in coalition Government – the Liberal Democrats can keep the country on the right path.
 
Imagine the next round of leaders’ debates everyone watching to see who agrees with whom this time. David Cameron will say to Ed Miliband: you’re irresponsible, you are going to drive the economy to ruin. Ed Miliband will say to David Cameron: you can’t be trusted to help everyone, your party only cares about the rich. For once, I will agree with them both. Because they’re both right: left to their own devices, they’ll both get it wrong.
 
But, Liberal Democrats, we have learned a lot since getting into Government, and one of the main things I have learnt is this: If we’re asking people to put us back in the room next time round, if we want them to know why it’s better to have us round the table when the big decisions are made, they need to be able to make a judgement about what we’ll do there. And that’s as much about values, character, background as anything else.
 
They need to know who we are. Who I am. Why I’m a Liberal Democrat and why I’m standing here today. So, let me start with this: I was part of a generation raised – in the 70s and 80s – on a constant diet of aggressive, us-and-them politics.
 
I have so many memories of my brothers, my sister and I watching television and asking our parents why everyone seemed so upset. Angry, shouty Labour politicians. Union leaders gesticulating furiously, next to pictures of rubbish piling up on the streets. And later: stand offs between crowds of miners and rows of riot police.
 
At school I was being taught all about the Cold War – the backdrop to all of this; I even remember a history teacher telling me and my petrified classmates that we probably wouldn’t make it until Christmas because there was bound to be a Soviet strike. So the world I grew up in was all about stark, polarised choices. Us vs them; East vs West; Left vs Right.
 
An incompetent Labour Government had been replaced by a heartless Conservative Government. All anyone seemed to care about was whose side you were on. So I steered clear of party politics.
 
Then, one day, when I was 22 and studying in America, the phone rang and it was my mum. She had just heard on the News that the Berlin Wall was coming down. So my flatmate and I tuned in our radio, and we sat and listened for hours to reports of people coming out of their homes in the middle of the night and literally hammering away at this symbol of division and hate.
 
And I can remember so clearly the sense of optimism and hope. Anyone here who’s my age will understand: it really felt as though the dark, drab days of angry politics and conflict could now give way to something better. But, in the weeks and months that followed, when I looked to the Government of my country, the British Government, to see if they were raising their sights to help shape this brave new world.
 
All I could see was a bunch of Tories too busy tearing strips off each other – embroiled, surprise surprise, in rows about European Treaties and widget directives. It was so totally dispiriting: everything I’d come to abhor about the politics with which I’d grown up: insular, petty, polarised.
 
And if that had been the end of the story, I doubt I would have entered politics at all. But it wasn’t. Enter Paddy Ashdown. I met Paddy, for the first time, when he came into a dingy, grey, bureaucratic office I was working in in Strasbourg. It was the middle of a major trade dispute between America and Europe.
 
He marched in, everyone instinctively stood to attention, and in what seemed like the blink of an eye: he ordered a cup of coffee, instructed the room on how to solve the world’s trade wars, issued a series of action points that should have been delivered yesterday, reassured us all it would be alright, and then swept out.
 
This was the first time I’d seen a British politician talking with passion and conviction and without defensiveness or fear about the challenges in the world and the leadership Britain needed to show. The Liberal Democrats seemed so outward looking and forward looking, compared to the tired, old, introverted politics of Labour and the Conservatives. For me, that was it. That’s how I found our party.
 
So I know what it is like to look at the old parties and want more – to want a party that speaks for big, enduring values. And what the Liberal Democrats gave me 20 years ago. Showing me there was something better than the tired choice between Labour and the Conservatives is something I want us to give to people across Britain today.
 
What do you think Britain would look like today if the Tories had been alone in Whitehall for the last three years? What would have happened without Liberal Democrats in this Government? I haven’t said enough about it.
 
It’s a bit old fashioned, but I always thought it was better, in politics, to tell people about the things you’ve achieved not just the things you’ve stopped. But people do need to know how coalition operates and what we do day in day out inside Government.
 
Ultimately it’s up to the Prime Minister and me to make this work; where there are disagreements, we try and seek compromise, and by doing that we’ve cracked problems that single party Governments have struggled with for decades: social care, pension reform, reducing reoffending, and so on.
 
But sometimes compromise and agreement isn’t possible and you just have to say “no”. Inheritance tax cuts for millionaires - no. Bringing back O’ levels and a two-tier education system - no. Profit-making in schools – no. New childcare ratios – no. Firing workers at will, without any reasons given – no, absolutely not.
 
Regional pay penalising public sector workers in the north - no. Scrapping housing benefit for young people – no. No to ditching the Human Rights Act. No to weakening the protections in the Equalities Act. No to closing down the debate on Trident. Had they asked us, no to those ‘go home’ poster vans.
 
No to the boundary changes if you cannot deliver your side of the bargain on House of Lords reform. And if there’s one area where we’ve had to put our foot down more than any other, have a guess. Yep, the environment.
 
It’s an endless battle; we’ve had to fight tooth and nail; it was the same just this week with the decision to introduce a small levy to help Britain radically cut down on plastic bags.
 
They wanted to scrap Natural England, hold back green energy. They even wanted geography teachers to stop teaching children about how we can tackle climate change. No, no and no – the Liberal Democrats will keep this Government green.
 
I don’t pretend it’s always easy to say no. Sometimes I’ve had to wrestle with some genuinely difficult dilemmas – not just Tory party dogma.
 
With the Snoopers’ Charter, I took months listening to Home Office officials, the IT experts, the security services and the police because, as much as I am in Government to protect civil liberties, I also have to go to sleep at night knowing I did my bit to keep people safe.
 
Government ministers, loud voices in the Labour party, the securocrats and Whitehall were all adamant I should say yes. But, when push came to shove, it became clear that the surveillance powers being proposed were disproportionate: they would have massively undermined people’s privacy, but the security gain was neither proven nor clear. It was right for the establishment, but wrong for the people. So I said no.
 
Obviously, we haven’t been in coalition with Labour. I could give you a hypothetical list of bad ideas the Liberal Democrats would have to stop – but that would involve Labour producing some actual policies. Who here knows Labours plan for our schools? Or welfare? What would they do for the NHS? For industry? To cut crime?
 
Well, Labour may not have an economic strategy, but fortunately we do. A bold plan for growth agreed by conference two days ago, built on sound public finances, with house-building, infrastructure and lending to business at its heart – Liberal Democrats turning Britain around.
 
The truth is, Labour haven’t set out any kind of vision for Britain because they didn’t think they needed to. They have spent the last three years lazily assuming austerity would drive voters into their laps. For them, 2015 is all about the coalition parties losing rather than Labour having to actually try and win. And that tells you everything about why they act the way they do: their deliberate decision to put tactical victories ahead of long-term reform.
 
Remember the AV referendum? Not a happy memory for the Liberal Democrats, I accept. But do you remember that AV was in fact in Labour’s manifesto? Yet it was Labour figures who were most staunch in the defence of the status quo – just to score points against us. Lords reform – something they historically believe in. Yet when they had the chance to vote for it they found excuses not to – just to score points against us.
 
Even when we hear good news about the economy, they’re miserable – they’d rather it be bad, just to score points against us. So I have a message for Labour today: you can’t just duck responsibility for the past – refuse to spell out what you’d do in the future – and expect people to give you a blank cheque.
 
You can sit and wait for the British people to come back to you, but don’t hold your breath. And if there is one area all of the parties need to put politics aside, it’s Europe, and Britain’s place in it. The Conservatives have this bizarre view that we can turn our back on Europe and still lead in the world.
 
As if we’ll be taken seriously by the Americans, the Chinese, the Indians, all the big superpowers when we’re isolated and irrelevant in our own backyard. But the truth is we stand tall in Washington, Beijing, Delhi when we stand tall in Brussels, Paris and Berlin.
 
I know it because I worked there; I have seen with my own eyes what can be achieved for Britain by engaging with our neighbours and building the world’s largest borderless single market upon which millions of jobs in our country now depend.
 
Of course the European Union needs reform – no one is saying it doesn’t. But we cannot allow the contorted confusion of the right, the outright isolationism of UKIP, to jeopardise millions of British jobs and diminish Britain’s standing in the world.
 
Liberal Democrats, it falls to us to stand up for the national interest: we will be the party of In. I am an internationalist – pure and simple; first by birth, then by marriage, but above all by conviction. We may be an island nation, but there’s no such thing as an economic island in an age of globalisation.
 
And Britain is always at its strongest and proudest when we are open to the world – generous-spirited and warm-hearted, working with our neighbours and a leader on the world stage. That’s the message I will take to New York next week, when I represent the UK at the United Nations General Assembly.
 
There are some in the world who seek to present us as pulling up the drawbridge, following Parliament’s decision not to consider a military intervention in Syria – but they will hear from me that they are wrong.
 
My views on Syria are well known: I believe the use of chemical weapons – a war crime under international, humanitarian law – should be stopped wherever possible.
 
But I understand why some people are wary of another entanglement in the Middle East – Iraq casts a long shadow – and we now have the opportunity to work with the UN, the Russians, the Americans, the French and others to put these heinous weapons beyond the reach of Assad’s regime.
 
What matters now is that we are clear that this nation is not heading into retreat. It would be a double tragedy if the legacy of Iraq was a Britain turned away from the world.
 
Others look to our values and traditions for inspiration. Democracy, peaceful protest, equality before the law. That, in itself, confers a leadership role on us. Not as some military superpower. Not out of some nostalgic impulse after the loss of empire.
 
But because we believe in the virtues of law, peaceful dissent, political stability and human rights as enduring liberal values.
These are values that my own family – affected by the wars and conflicts of the past like so many other families – never took for granted.
 
And Miriam and I try to teach our sons that they shouldn’t take these values for granted either. After Spain moved to democracy in the 1970s, Miriam’s father was the first democratically elected Mayor in a small agricultural town in the middle of the countryside.
 
He single handedly brought better schools, more jobs and better housing to his community. He was hugely proud of being the first Mayor to serve his community through the ballot box. He sadly died some years ago, and there’s a small statue of him today outside the church in Miriam’s village.
 
Our small boys see that statue every holiday and Miriam tells them of the wonderful things he did. And they always ask about why he was elected and no one before him. We teach them that democracy and freedom are a fragile and recent thing in many parts of the world.
 
We teach them – just as my parents taught me – that rights and values should never be taken for granted, and if you believe in them, you should stand up for them.
 
And that is the United Kingdom that I want my children – all children – to grow up in: a United Kingdom that defends and promotes its values – our liberal values – at home and abroad.
 
It is now a year to the day until the Scottish people decide whether or not to leave the UK. The independence referendum. I unambiguously, unequivocally want Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom. The nationalists don’t have a monopoly on passion in this debate. I love the way the UK is made up of different peoples, different traditions, different histories.
 
I’ve sat in rugby grounds shouting my head off for England while the Scottish fans have shouted back just as loud – and it is a very special thing when good natured rivalry can flourish side by side with a feeling of affinity and closeness that comes from being a family of nations. And on every single level we are stronger together than we are apart.
 
We live in uncertain times, in an uncertain world - these are not days to build walls. They are days to bring them down. The decision in a year’s time does not need to be between breaking the bond or keeping the status quo – that’s a false choice.
‘No’ does not mean no change.
 
A Scottish decision to remain within the UK family can and must give way to a new settlement for this nation. The Liberal Democrats have always fought for more powers for Scotland – and Wales and Northern Ireland too. In Coalition we have overseen the biggest transfer of financial freedoms in 300 years. And, from Gladstone to Grimond to today, we continue to believe in home rule.
 
Ming Campbell has recently produced a superb report setting out how we think home rule will work in the future. Our vision is of a proud and strong Scotland, within the United Kingdom, in charge of its own fate but part of a family of nations too. This is a vision shared by many Scots and, increasingly, the other major political parties.
 
That is why – once the issue of Scotland’s continued participation in the United Kingdom is hopefully settled next year – I want to see a new cross party approach to the next advance in Scottish devolution.
 
Willie Rennie has signalled his willingness to work with the Scottish Labour and Conservative leaders ahead of next year’s vote – and I support him.
 
Delivering Home Rule is a tantalising prospect that is now closer than it has been for a generation.
 
So let’s get out there to win the referendum in favour of keeping our nations together – and then work with others to deliver the future Scotland wants.
 
I had the pleasure of meeting one of Scotland’s finest this summer - Andy Murray. It was at a reception in the Downing Street garden the day after his stunning Wimbledon victory. David Cameron, Ed Miliband and I were all kind of fluttering around him, trying to ask clever questions about the Djokovic match, when Andy Murray suddenly interrupted with: ‘you all seem to get along now, why can’t you always be like this?’
 
A good question that was met with an awkward silence and the three of us shuffling our feet. He was right, it’s true: we can get on. We’re never going to be mates, but I’ve got nothing against them personally – politically, yes, personally, no.
 
That’s why the constant, breathless speculation about how different party leaders get on kind of misses the point. I’m endlessly asked who I feel more ‘comfortable’ with – David Cameron or Ed Miliband? Wouldn’t our party be more comfortable with Labour? Aren’t we more comfortable with our present coalition partners? But I don’t look at Ed Miliband and David Cameron and ask myself who I’d be most comfortable with, as if I was buying a new sofa.
 
In an ideal world, I wouldn’t have to work with either of them because I’d be Prime Minister on my own thank you very much – and I’d like to think I’d do a better job too. So the best thing would be to put all of the predictions and personalities to one side. Whether or not we have another coalition is determined by the British people – not me, not you, the people.
 
And if that happens, only their votes can tell us what combination of parties carries the greatest legitimacy. Our job is plain and simple: to get more Lib Dem MPs elected.
 
A liberal commitment to genuine pluralism – genuine democratic choice – starts and finishes with the wishes of the public, not the preferences of the political classes.
 
That’s one of the reasons why I’ve never shared the view that the aim of our party should be to realign British politics by joining up with one of the other parties.
 
Roy Jenkins – someone I admired very much – believed that if we aligned with a modernising Labour party we could heal the divisions of the centre left. But, for me, joining forces for good with another party simply reduces democratic choice. The Liberal Democrats are not just some subset of the Labour or Tory parties – we’re no one’s little brother. We have our own values, our own liberal beliefs.
 
We’re not trying to get back into Government to fold into one of the other parties – we want to be there to anchor them to the liberal centre ground, right in the centre, bang in the middle. We’re not here to prop up the two party system: we’re here to bring it down.
 
My upbringing was privileged: home counties; private school; Cambridge University. I had a lot of opportunities. But I also had two parents who were determined that my brothers, my sister and I knew how lucky we were. On both sides, their families had experienced huge upheavals.
 
My Dutch mother had spent much of her childhood in a prisoner of war camp. My dad’s Russian mother had come to England after her family lost everything in the Russian Revolution. So our home was full of different languages, relatives with different backgrounds, people with different views, music and books from different places.
 
And my mother and father always told us that people’s fortunes can turn quickly – that good fortune should never be assumed and misfortune can occur suddenly, without warning.
 
I think because of the traumas their parents had been through, while they wanted to give us everything, it was so important to them that we didn’t take things for granted.
 
My brothers and sister and I were always taught to treat everyone the same, not to judge people by their background. We were raised to believe that everyone deserves a chance because everyone’s fortunes can change, often through no fault of their own.
 
And now, as a father with three children at school, I have come to understand even more clearly than before that if we want to live in a society where everyone has a fair chance to live the life they want - and to bounce back from misfortune too - then education is the key.
 
The gifts we give our children – self-confidence, an enthusiasm to learn, an ability to empathise with others, a joy in forging new friendships – these are instilled at an extraordinarily young age.
 
That’s why I made social mobility the social policy objective of this Government – and I will want it to be the same for any Government I’m in. It’s why so much of my efforts over the last three years, and so much of the money available to us, has been invested in those crucial formative years:
 
The £2.5bn Pupil Premium that I first wrote about 10 years ago. The 15 hours of free pre-school help for all three and four year olds, and now two year olds from the homes who need it most. Shared parental leave; new rights to flexible working; tax free childcare. These are the measures I’ve spent more time on than anything else in this Coalition.
 
If you want to know what I really believe in you will find it in these policies. Using the muscle of the state to create a level playing field when it counts most – when boys and girls are still forming their views, their characters, their hopes and their fears.
 
That’s why I’m delighted to tell you that we are now also going to provide free school meals for all children of infant school age.
 
From next September we’ll give every child in Reception, and Years 1 and 2 a healthy lunch every day – saving families more than £400 per year, per child.
 
And, for the Liberal Democrats, this is a first step: my ambition is to provide free school meals for all primary school children. Another reason we want to get into Government again next time round.
 
The Conservatives, on the other hand, have made it clear that their priority is to help some families over others, with a tax break for married couples. A tax break for some, funded through the taxes of everybody else - that tells you everything you need to know about their values.
 
We, however, will help all families in these tough times, not just the kind we like best, by helping their young children get the best possible start in life – and that tells you everything about our values. Providing this kind of help, Liberal Democrats, is now, the most important thing we can do.
 
Aside from anything else, that is how we restore people’s faith in our politics: by delivering for them in ways that are relevant and real. By talking to people about the things they care about, not what the political classes are talking about.
 
It’s so easy to lose sight of those things when you’re stuck in the Westminster bubble. And I want to be honest with you: keeping a balance between politics and normal life isn’t straightforward.
 
Politics these days is a roller-coaster ride of 24 hour news, breathless headlines, lurid tweets, endless polls, constant gossip about who’s up and who’s down. And you have to be really disciplined with yourself about keeping one foot in the real world to keep things in balance.
 
Miriam and I chose not to live behind the Government battlements in Whitehall, so we live in the same home we’ve been in for some years. We try very hard to keep our family life normal and private – we keep our children away from the cameras. We don’t pretend we’re a model family – we are who we are. We try to make sure that Westminster doesn’t take over our lives.
 
I know I won’t be in politics forever. What I will be is a father, a husband, a son, an uncle to all those I love in my family for good – just like anyone else. So, the longer I spend in this job, the more and more I cherish the human, direct and unstuffy way we Liberal Democrats do politics.
 
Our zeal for knocking on doors, making ourselves available, speaking like human beings – we must never lose that. And, as much as I’m always telling you all to embrace Government, I’m forever looking for ways to try and get out of Whitehall myself.
 
Taking answers on the radio; fielding questions in village halls; trying to help my constituents out when they come to see me in my Sheffield surgery; going out on regional tours; or, when I can’t get away, answering your questions online.
 
Doing things differently must always be part of our identity. I want us to stay in Government – but I also want us to show that it is possible to be a party of Government without behaving like an establishment party.
 
There was this wonderful moment on the day of the last vote on Equal Marriage. Some of us put pink carnations in our button holes and Alistair Carmichael and I were invited to go outside to meet some of the campaigners. Little did we know that they had set up an impromptu wedding ceremony – cake and dancing ‘n’ all – outside the Palace of Westminster.
 
And we found ourselves standing side by side – if not quite hand in hand – in front of the exuberant London Gay Men’s Chorus, singing Abba’s Dancing Queen for us at the top of their voices.
 
Meanwhile, inside the House of Lords, dinosaur opponents of the Bill were having a final go at killing it – declaring that gay marriage would be the end of civilisation as we know it. And, awkward though I think Alistair and I must have appeared as we lamely clapped along to Abba, at that moment we were exactly where we belonged: on the outside, welcoming in reform.
 
Liberal Democrats, three years ago I told you that we had an opportunity our predecessors would have given anything for. To govern. To turn our liberal principles into practice. Today I tell you that an even bigger opportunity awaits. The cycle of red, blue, blue, red has been interrupted.
 
Our place in this Government has prevented the pendulum swinging back from left to right. We are now where we always should have been: in power; in the liberal centre; in tune with the British people. And every day we are showing that we can govern and govern well. That pluralism works. And if we can do this again – in Government again in 2015 – we are a step closer to breaking the two party mould for good.
 
In the past, there were people who would only support us when the future of the country was not at stake. Now there are people who will support us precisely because the future of the country will be at stake.
 
In the past the Liberal Democrats would eke out an existence on the margins of British politics. Now we hold the liberal centre while our opponents head left and right. I have spent my entire life watching the other two mess it up.
 
We cannot stand idly by and let them do it all over again. We are the only party that can finish the job of economic recovery, but finish it fairly.
The only party able to build a stronger economy and a fairer society too.
 
Liberal Democrats take that message out to the country. Our mission is anchoring Britain to the centre ground. Our place is in Government again.