What the hell are the Home Office playing at - and why are Liberal Democrats letting them get away with it?

So, it seems that officials from the Home Office have been showing up at tube stations in London and demanding to see proof of people's immigration status. That would be non white people's status, by the way. The Independent has more...

Witnesses who saw the operations in London claimed the officers stopped only non-white individuals, and in Kensal Green said that when questioned, the immigration officials became aggressive.

Phil O'Shea told the Kilburn Times: "They appeared to be stopping and questioning every non-white person, many of whom were clearly ordinary Kensal Green residents going to work. When I queried what was going on, I was threatened with arrest for obstruction and was told to 'crack on'."

Another witness, Matthew Kelcher, said: "Even with the confidence of a free-born Englishman who knows he has nothing to hide, I found this whole experience to be extremely intimidating. They said they were doing random checks, but a lot of people who use that station are tourists so I don't know what message that sends out to the world."

This is horrible. The idea that people are being asked for their papers as they go about their business and if they can't provide them, they are bundled up in a van, to be another statistic in a Home Office tweet, is horrible. I strongly suspect many of them will be innocent anyway - I mean, who thinks they have to take their documents with them if they are simply taking a tube ride?  Tube stations are pretty cramped anyway, so being confronted with a dozen burly Border Force types is going to be pretty intimidating.

And what if you are arrested in full public view, maybe in front of your neighbour, or the local shopkeeper, or the woman who does your eyebrows? They aren't going to necessarily know when you've been released, with no action taken, by the Home Office. They may well assume that you have done something wrong.

So why are the Tories doing this? The obvious answer is to say that they are pandering to UKIP, being seen to be doing something about this vast underworld of illegal immigrants the Daily Mail says we have. But I think that there may be more too it. They're not just trolling us, they are trying to toxify us. If they can get our voters thinking that we have abandoned our belief in civil liberties, then that's a job well done for them. They know we'll be guilty by association and the nice liberal minded people who read about it in the Independent in some of our rural England Tory facing held seats might just decide to vote Labour, or Green, or stay at home come 2015. If our voters do that, then the Tories could win some of our seats.

This is where Nick Clegg really needs to kick off. Tim Farron has already said the right things as he usually does:

@caronmlindsay @colingale @markpack I think the BF should police the borders and not our buses and tube stations.
— Tim Farron (@timfarron) August 2, 2013

We need Nick to be obviously fighting the civil liberties corner and being robust about it. The Tories don't care for civil liberties, but they have a vested interest in tarnishing our USP. We can't let them do it.

What bothers me is that there's too much emphasis on what our "electoral market" thinks. Nick's done quite well in the past few days saying what sorts of things need to happen on immigration, like exit checks and spoken out against these god awful vans. However, the language he's using is still a little too "crackdown" rather than "fairness" for me. When things like the vans or the tube station checks happen, every liberal collectively retches. However, you'll get a part of the electorate, and some of them might vote for us, feeling in some way reassured that something is being done. We talk of the importance of policing by consent. What happens if a good proportion of people consent to policing of others by intimidation? For me, it's back to first principles every time. We're liberals, and we don't agree with that sort of thing. Nick,I am very politely asking you to get your arse into gear and get these heavy-handed, authoritarian Tory tactics stopped. Now would be nice. Thanks.

Oh, and if you are fizzing mad about this, and you haven't already, for the love of goodness join Liberal Democrats for Seekers of Sanctuary. They are brilliant. It'll be the best tenner you ever spent.

Some thoughts on dying, end of life care and the Liverpool Care Pathway

There's been a lot of controversy about end-of-life care, and particularly the use of the Liverpool Care Pathway, over the past few days. So much so that it seems that the Government is about to change NHS procedures on this. I'm not sure that's even necessary, as consulting relatives is already part of what the Liverpool Care Pathway entails. I'm concerned that this may be an over-reaction to scare stories in the press and that reassurance rather than actual change is necessary.

Caring for a dying relative

I've only supported one person through a terminal illness at close quarters. It was bloody awful. Of course it was. The diagnosis was bad enough. As death approached, everything got very scary and distressing. What helped us was professionals around explaining what was happening, why a particular symptom was getting worse and how we could deal with it. In the final 3 weeks, we developed a close relationship with the doctors, nurses and carers and we trusted them.

 Often a lot of what happened was more distressing to us than it was for the person who was dying. We tried to have a rule that went "if it doesn't bother her, it doesn't bother us". It was useful to have that in our heads, even if it didn't always work. There were times, though, when it did bother her and as she became weaker, those became more frequent. Looking back, and comparing with what happens now, I know that she could have been spared some suffering if she'd been put under the sort of sedation you get now during her final hours, if she'd been able to decide that the time was right for that, or if she wasn't capable of that, we could have done decided that with her doctors. She could then have had a much more comfortable passing. It might have been quicker, but kinder. If death is imminently inevitable, surely comfort at the end is the most important thing? It's the compassionate approach.

My relative wasn't in a hospice. She was cared for and died at home, but we were lucky enough to have pretty good palliative care. That wasn't the case for others, who died in much more distressing circumstances, without their pain or discomfort being properly addressed. They were not as comfortable as they could be. That's why, essentially, the Liverpool Care Pathway was developed - to get the best of hospice-standard care out there into hospitals and the community. My worry is that if barriers are put in the way of implementing the LCP, or confidence in it is undermined wrongly, then people will suffer in the horrible way they used to. That would be very wrong.

Irresponsible scaremongering

The Daily Mail would have us believe that the Liverpool Care Pathway was almost an instrument of eugenics, used by the NHS to despatch people who weren't ready to die. I have no medical training, fair enough, but I know enough about the Daily Mail to be able to confidently assert that this is irresponsible, scaremongering nonsense.

What's my evidence for this? Well, let's go and have a look at what the Liverpool Care Pathway actually is. This is the leaflet designed by the people who developed it for relatives and carers. It makes clear that families should be involved and care plans discussed with them at all times. If that's not happening in any NHS setting, then that needs to be addressed, but part of the pathway involves explanation and consultation. End of.

There are also stories in the press that people have recovered when they have been taken off the pathway after relatives protested. Well, part of the LCP process is to keep reviewing any decisions made by keeping an eye on the patient and seeing how they respond. I've spoken to nurses about this, the sort of nurses I would happily trust with my life, and they tell me that if the withdrawal of fluid is causing distress to the patient, they give them fluids. These people, who I'd trust with my life, think that the LCP is a really useful tool in avoiding suffering.

A decision to withdraw fluids is bound to be hard for relatives to take. It seems quite counter-intuitive, but there are occasions when administering fluids can make it physically worse for the dying person.

It stands to reason that if the family has confidence in the medical team, then they are more likely to take their advice. It's so important that discussions are conducted with sensitivity and care so that relatives can understand the reasons why the doctors have reached the conclusions they have reached. In turn, the staff also need to keep listening to the family because often they don't have the time to keep a close eye on people, and their families can stay with them and observe any changes.

The Telegraph reports today, under a sinister sounding headline "Liverpool Care Pathway: Minister orders report into cash rewards"  that Liberal Democrat health minister Norman Lamb has ordered an enquiry into payments made to NHS trusts linked to targets for LCP use. However sinister the headline sounds, Norman Lamb's comments should reassure:

You could say that given that the care pathway involves patient discussion and engagement with loved ones, done properly, getting more people on to an approach which guides the clinicians through proper judgment, if that ends up with people having a better experience than a more haphazard approach then that’s a good thing.

But I want to know that payments are only being made where objectively and rationally we can conclude that it is resulting in a better outcome.

The same paper has an article by Max Pemberton who outlined his fears if LCP use is curtailed:

 The media furore has been fuelled, in no small part, by religious groups ideologically opposed to medicine’s interference in the process of dying. But their intervention will make doctors and nurses less confident in actively managing death and more reticent about using the LCP, with more people suffering as a result.

In future, doctors who use a palliative care pathway will be more wary of deviating from it because they will feel more secure and protected by adhering to policy. But this will mean less responsiveness to a patient’s changing circumstances.

The LCP was an attempt to ensure access to a dignified, painless and comfortable death. My grandmother was put on it last year and died shortly afterwards. It was a peaceful death and I couldn’t have asked for anything better. She had been haunted by watching her mother die of throat cancer in agony, confused and fighting for breath, and it was a relief to be able to reassure her that this wouldn’t happen to her.

I was also drawn to something on Twitter by a Doctor who outlined what could happen if there was no family to consult about putting someone on the Liverpool Care Pathway.

Of course, by the time you get to a Judge, the patient might have died a much more distressing death than necessary.

We need to talk about dying more

Part of the reason the Daily Mail is able to scare us all is because we tend not to talk about dying. It's one of the last taboo. If we've cared for a relative as they have died, we don't discuss how it happened. We spare people's feelings with a simple "it was very peaceful" even if it wasn't really. We maybe don't want to relive it either, which is entirely understandable.

That means, though, that there's not much in the way of shared knowledge and understanding available to people. They don't necessarily know what to expect when they or someone they love is dying. The Liverpool Care Pathway people have another leaflet which gives some information. 

I would never recommend using the Daily Mail, or any other newspaper, as reference material on anything. However, those nice people at Dignity in Dying have produced a fairly comprehensive document outlining all the issues, telling people about their rights. 

Finally, the NHS Choices website looks behind the headlines on the LCP. 

The right wing press might want to scare people into thinking that their beloved NHS is trying to save money by getting people to die before their time and without their family's knowledge and consent.  What an insult to the doctors and nurses for whom such action would be a violation of all their professional ethics. 

I hope that the Government doesn't make any changes which would make it more difficult to give dying patients the most comfortable passage out of life on the basis of a few indiscriminate and irresponsible scare stories. If there have been individual failures of care, then those responsible need to be accountable for that, but let's be careful not to over-react. Any decisions made must, for the sake of patients, be evidence-based. 

"We need to teach our children to be kind, not critical" Jennifer Livingston

Jennifer Livingston is the news anchor of WKBT tv's morning sh in La Crosse, Wisconsin. I guess she's kind of like the equivalent of Bill Turnbull. She's intelligent, articulate and doesn't take nonsense from people as she recently showed when a viewer sent her a highly obnoxious message suggesting that she should do something about her weight as she couldn't possibly be a suitable role model for the local community. The clear implication is that if she couldn't, she shouldn't be doing her job. Why should someone's ability to do their job be defined by their weight? Surely the job description of a news presenter is that they can communicate and interpret and analyse what's going on in the world.

Jennifer went on air and gave him what for in a calm and assured manner. The video of this event has now gone viral. In it she said:

Attacks like this are not ok. The truth is I am overweight. You could call me fat, or yes  even obese on a doctor's chart. But to the person who wrote me that email, do you think I don't know that, that your cruel words are pointing out something I do not see?...... You know nothing about me apart from what you can see from the outside. I am much more than a number on a scale. 

...What angers me about this is that there are children who don't know better, who get emails as critical as the one I received or worse every day. The internet has become a weapon and our schools have become a battleground and this behaviour is learned. It is passed down from people like the man who wrote me that email. If you were at home and you were talking about the fat newslady, guess what, your children are probably going to go to school and call someone fat. We need to teach our children to be kind, not critical. 

I wonder if Kenneth Krause, the personal injury lawyer who wrote the email, would have written such a thing to a man? I doubt it. 

I think it was great that Livingston was able to talk, calmly, about receiving this message on air. She didn't name Krause, but she made it clear that such conduct was unacceptable. In doing so, she sent a loud message to any kid who's being plagued by cyber or text bullying messages that they are not the one in the wrong. 

The fact that Krause could send such a rude, personal and abusive message to somebody says a lot about him and none of it's attractive in any way. How did he know that she wasn't going to completely fall apart when she read it?

This guy's a lawyer. He presumably earns a small fortune and has every material need catered for. It just goes to show that money can't buy manners. Despite having all the advantages life can throw at him, he still feels the need to spew bile, borne out of prejudice, at a high achieving woman. It's truly pathetic.

I'd like to know what other jobs he feels that fat people shouldn't do. Maybe he thinks that we should stay indoors, ashamed to be seen in public until our body mass index conforms. 

Like Jennifer, I am not a slight person. I am, by any definition, obese. I know that. I've struggled with it for much of my life. And if losing weight were just as easy as it sounds, you can bet your life I'd have done it by now. Believe me, I've read every diet book known to man. Maybe, one day, all the factors that need to fall in to place at the same time to help me do this will do so. Maybe they won't. In the end of the day, though, my weight is none of anybody else's business. 

My weight does not make me a bad person. Nor does it stop me from being a positive role model or making  worthwhile contribution to society. I can and I do. I'd like to think my interactions with family, friends colleagues and people further afield are a net gain for them as they are for me.My weight does not and should not define who I am and what I give to the world. 

Since school, I've never had anyone make an issue of my weight in an abusive way. I get the feeling it's only a matter of time, though. I remember being sick to my stomach when David Cameron showed his ignorance of addiction and mental health issues by making a distinction between those who were ill "through no fault of their own" and drug addicts and alcoholics. Scapegoating groups of people is simply not on, under any circumstances. When people hear their Prime Minister talk like that, they can take it as license to pick on a very vulnerable group of people - and that does nothing to help their fragile health. In the same way, a teacher laughing at a homophobic joke in front of  a class tacitly gives them permission to hold prejudice against LGBT people. Don't think that doesn't happen. 

Picking on people is just wrong. End of story. For whatever reason. The combative nature of our politics doesn't help much either. 

When I look at Jennifer Livingston, I see an intelligent, articulate, attractive, warm, feisty person who's secure in her own skin. I'm not alone. Thousands of people have written supportive messages on her husband Mike Thompson's Facebook page after he originally posted the email. This led Jennifer to end her message saying that "the cruel words of one are nothing compared to the shouts of many." We mustn't tolerate a society where bullies take people down in that way. It's important that we support and protect anyone who's targetted by bullies in that way. 

So, evil government to deny women pain relief in labour, right?

Cross posted from Liberal Democrat Voice 

“Doctors told to try and talk women out of epidurals to save NHS money” screamed yesterday’s Daily Mail headline.  I could understand women reading that and being outraged and terrified.

Fortunately, this being the Mail, the truth is not as bad as the headline implies. Rather than being a miserly, deficit-busting ministerial directive, this is expert, evidence based guidance drawn up by the Royal Colleges of Midwives and Obstetricians with the help of the National Childbirth Trust. It aims to reduce the amount of medical intervention during childbirth because that’s best for both mother and baby. Nowhere in the guidance is there any suggestion that those who need epidurals, painkilling drugs or caesareans will be denied them. A respected charity isn’t going to risk its reputation by putting its name to a mere cost cutting exercise.

It is patently obvious that a straightforward delivery you can walk away from and go home six hours later is less risky than a surgical procedure with a six-week recovery time.  All the evidence suggests that the alert, active participation of the mother in childbirth is best for a complication-free delivery. Injecting powerful narcotics, or spinal blocks which stop you moving can only interfere with that process and can make the baby very sleepy, so clearly if that can be avoided, it’s a good thing. We were told that in our NHS birthing classes in 1998. There is also nothing new about women being advised to try labour after a first caesarean.

Any announcement of pregnancy tends to lead to so-called friends feeling the need to scare you with birth horror stories. No wonder many women feel like they’ll need every analgesic known to humanity and a stiff gin to get through. As a State Registered Coward who doesn’t do pain, I was lucky to have an experienced friend to tell me that, yes, it would hurt, but it was manageable with a birth partner who knew what they were doing and a supportive midwife.

When my mother gave birth, she was expected to do what the doctor told her which generally involved lying in a bed for her entire labour. Over the last 45 years, women have been given much more choice but even when my daughter was born, I still had to hide from an over enthusiastic obstetrician who displayed indecent eagerness to hurry things up. I’ve had countless friends encounter everything from hostility to flat refusal when they have requested a home birth, despite the evidence showing that for second and subsequent babies at least, home birth is as safe as hospital so I’m glad to see that the guidance is supportive.

The Mail’s reporting is typically unbalanced. They quote a raft of senior medical people who rail against the guidance as denying choice to women. The voice in favour of natural birth is that of model Gisele Bundchen.  She talked sense, but model v medical establishment isn’t really a fair fight, especially in a paper which generally portrays models as brainless idiots. There were hundreds of medically qualified experts they could have asked. They didn’t even have a quote from the NCT.

Women can rest easy that they will not be denied the pain relief they need, and that they will be given advice from the medical profession that is based on evidence and not financial considerations.

"Showing off her bump" - the vanishing identity of a pregnant woman

It's a painful experience, but I do read the Daily Fail every day. I always feel that it's important to be aware of the misinformed bile it's giving out to people.

On right hand side of their web page there's a column called Femail which gives an index of articles about various celebrities going out wearing clothes and either putting on or losing weight. Each are bad, apparently. Because that's what women should be interested in. 

They often use a ridiculous phrase whenever a pregnant woman steps out in public. They say that she's "showing off her bump". Today it was Holly Madison. I'd wouldn't have heard of the former Playboy playmate and US reality star either if she hadn't been in Dancing with the Stars three years ago. What was Ms Madison doing? She was filling with car with petrol. I can't imagine for a moment that she was thinking "I must show my bump to the world". More likely it was something like "darn, the red light's flashing, I'd better get some gas."

She only announced she was pregnant the day before. It's quite common for a woman's identity to just disappear, even if the baby you're carrying is not much bigger than a grain of rice. Suddenly you become public property. People come up to you in the street and pat your bump and think they have the right to ask you all sorts of personal questions.

Pregnancy takes around 40 weeks. During that time, you pretty much carry on as normal. You go to work, you go shopping, you go to the gym, you go out to parties. Harriet Harman fought and won a parliamentary by-election in 1982 during her pregnancy. Angela Constance, now the Scottish Government's youth employment minister won her Livingston constituency from Labour while in the early stages of her pregnancy with son Cyrus. I'm sure that neither of them thought for a second that they were showing off their bump as they headed off to the next stop on their campaign trail. 

You can't exactly leave your bump at home when your pregnant, but it shouldn't define everything about you. Pregnant women don't stop being nurses, lawyers, government ministers or whatever. 

Further down, by the way, the Fail decided to have a pop at some other pregnant celebrity who was on her way to a yoga class. The paper expressed disbelief that anyone could bend with a bump, showing their usual ignorance on both pregnancy and yoga. 

It really annoys me that the aspirations of young girls appear to be directed into fashion, frivolity and  footballers by the likes of celebrity magazines and the Femail column on the Fail website.  I kid you not - Louis Walsh actually suggested in his book Fast Track to Fame that aspiring female singers should give their career a boost by dating a footballer. We need to provide alternative sources of inspiration for young girls. Let's hope that will be a big part of the Olympic legacy with so many positive role models - from the warmth and wide ranging wisdom of Clare Balding's broadcasting to Jessica Ennis and  Victoria Pendleton and now Sarah Storey's and many others' achievements in their sports. 

At some point in the next few years it is likelier than not that Kate and William will have one or more children. The media will go into overdrive and Kate will have even more ridiculous things written about her. The reporting on William will be very much business as usual, while the reports on his wife will be, pretty much, about a bump with a woman attached. It's a depressing thought.

Image of the Week

That is why we're putting ourselves through the electoral, political pain.

If you haven't read it already, the amazingly wonderful Daddy Alex summed it all up in an honest, compelling analysis, Happy Birthday to the Libera-Tory Coalition. Read it, learn it by heart and let it inspire you to keep, or start, fighting for our values.

Jo Swinson: The Invisible Woman

I've been reading through some press reports of the Gateshead Conference. It's not an unusual experience to come home and read what the media have been saying and think "What? That wasn't the event I attended."

The papers have concentrated on the NHS debate, which admittedly was a key preoccupation of the weekend, and a criticism by Matthew Oakeshott of Nick Clegg's Tycooon Tax plan which was at most a tiny sideshow. This is a new line of thinking, a work in progress and all voices are necessary to develop it into a robust proposal. I have no problem with the principle of making sure the super rich pay their dues in tax, nor, I imagine, does any other Liberal Democrat.

The Daily Fail amused me this morning. They tried to make something of a photo of Ed Davey and Chris Huhne looking  sombre as they listened to Nick Clegg speak. How are we supposed to look when we're listening? The fact that a subsequent pictures showed them positively wreathed in smiles is beside the point. The most prominent person in both photos is East Dunbartonshire MP Jo Swinson, who is completely ignored by the Fail, despite being, as Nick Clegg's key parliamentary aide, one of the most influential people in the country. You see, Jo works with Nick, whose remit covers the entire range of Government ministries.She has an overview of all Government policy and can have an input into how that develops. Given her understanding of how Government policy affects women, that can only be a good thing as far as I am concerned.  Yet the Fail doesn't think she merits a mention. Possibly they didn't know who she was, or perhaps they just assumed she was somebody's wife.

Jo really is the sort of person the Daily Mail should disapprove of rather a lot, so they would do well to find out more about her.

Why are Paddy and other Lib Dem Peers picking this Welfare Reform fight?

So, Liberal Democrat peers are preparing to stage a second major rebellion on the Welfare Reform Bill. The first, before Christmas, helped to defeat the Government's plans to cut Housing Benefit for those in houses with one spare bedroom.

Paddy told Sky News yesterday that he was intending to vote against the Government's plans to introduce a cap on the amount of benefits a family can receive of £26,000 in a year.  Nick Clegg presented this yesterday as fair on the Andrew Marr programme. He said that it the system had to be seen to be fair to taxpayers, many of whom would find it hard to imagine that someone on benefits was given the same amount as anyone else earning £35,000.

Well, for a start, someone on benefits would have to have a pretty large family and live in a very expensive area to come close to getting the full £26,000 in benefits. What annoys me most about this is that Child Benefit, which the family earning £35,000 don't have to pay tax on, will be taken into account as income for benefit recipients. That to me is pretty regressive.

The tabloid press love to show examples of large families living in expensive houses getting a fortune in Housing Benefit. Well, what if you and your large family rent a house that suits your needs and then you lose your job. Now, you could be out of work for over a year in today's climate, no matter how hard you try. My husband couldn't have tried harder way back in 1994, and it still took him 10 months to find a job at half his previous salary. Bear in mind that if you're on Housing Benefit you don't automatically get all your rent paid. You only get a Local Housing Allowance based on average rents in the area, and you only get the amount for the size of property you are deemed to need up to a maximum of 4 bedrooms. The rates for Local Housing Allowance have already been cut by the Coalition. It used to be based on an average of the lowest 50% of rents and this has been reduced to 30%. We, the taxpayer, are not financing very many palaces, you can be sure of that.

Iain Duncan Smith says nobody will be made homeless by these changes. He is talking utter nonsense. He is not in a position to guarantee that. Is there really sufficient affordable housing for everyone who'll need it? Will market rents come down as the Government wants or will landlords just not bother renting to people on benefits. How often do you see "no DSS" on adverts for rented properties?

So, Paddy is right and our peers have good reasons for opposing this measure. I just find the whole thing a bit inconsistent, though. Why are they making a fuss about this and not on cuts to Employment and Support Allowance. 40 percent of people in the Work Related Activity Group will lose their benefit of £94 a week come April if their partners earn more than £7,748 a year after tax OR work for more than 24 hours a week. Explain to me why a cap at £26,000 is not justified while it's acceptable to take nearly £400 a month off a family on a low income?

I really, really don't get it. Not only have our peers voted in favour of time limiting ESA, against very recent party policy, but they haven't come forward to explain why and that annoys me, to be honest.  At Conference, they should be closely questioned as to why they have made the choices they have. People I like, respect and trust voted in favour of these measures, but I really don't understand why.

The way it's looking the cap will be defeated in the Lords. I'd be surprised with any other outcome. This will no doubt spawn a whole load of scrounger stories in the Daily Fail, written by journalists who have probably never had to live on benefits, or had difficulty finding somewhere affordable to live.

An e-mail from Nick Clegg and an FU from Douglas Carswell

Two things which interested me from this afternoon.

First, an e-mail Nick Clegg has sent to party members on the European summit shenanigans:

Dear Caron,

Support for Europe has always been a cornerstone of what our party stands for. Recent days have been tough for pro-Europeans in our country, but I am clear that it is in Britain’s national interest to remain at the heart of Europe.

As I have made clear since Friday, I am bitterly disappointed by the outcome of last week's summit, which ended with the UK in a minority of one. There is now a real danger that over time the UK will be isolated and marginalised within the EU and as a consequence, our influence in the world will shrink. That is not good for jobs and growth; and will do nothing for struggling families across the country.

There is no doubt that we were in a difficult position because of the refusal to compromise from some member states and the eurosceptics in the Conservative Party. It was clear that some combination of guarantees on the operation of the single market, including in financial services, was necessary if we were going to ensure the safe passage of the package through Parliament. I regret the negotiations failed to arrive at a compromise, as I had hoped.

It is important that we now look to the future. That's why I, as a Liberal Democrat in this Coalition Government will do everything I can to make sure that this setback does not become a permanent divide. I am determined that we redouble our leadership on things like the single market, the environment, foreign policy, and defence - all the things that we need to do at a European level.

All my political life I have believed that Britain is stronger, better, greater when we lead and when we stand tall in Europe. Now, more than ever, we need a strong Liberal Democrat voice inside government making this case.

Best wishes,

Nick Clegg
Leader of the Liberal Democrats and Deputy Prime Minister


I accept that it would be completely counter-productive for Nick to send out an e-mail that was directly critical of Cameron. I'm happy to say that I think Cameron executed the plan badly,  but I'll never be working in his Government. I feel that the e-mail needs to connect a bit more, to give more practical examples of the damage that could be done as a result of our isolation. I think it should have repeated the "bulldog" line from yesterday: "there is nothing bulldog in hovering in the mid Atlantic...". The punchiness and sense and voice of reason that came across yesterday on Marr only partially comes across in this. 


Why can't they put a link to the iPlayer of Nick on Marr?  Why not have him shoot a You Tube clip with an iPhone? I just think that they could have livened it up a bit.


It's quite important as well that they deal with the attack lines people are likely to get on the doorstep from the other parties and this e-mail does nothing to deal with the "Incredible Sulk" and talking Britain down nonsense we're getting in the Daily Fail at the moment. I mean, Nick talking Britain down? From a paper that portrays us a nation of drug addled, violent, lascivious, benefit scrounging feral savages? 


And, finally, there was an apostrophe missing from "last week's". I literally couldn't allow that to appear on here. The hives it brought out in me are just fading now.


The second thing is something that really made me giggle. Just before Cameron's statement, the BBC News Channel interviewed Tory Euro-sceptic Douglas Carswell and Labour's Keith Vaz. Carswell kept going on about the moves to fiscal union which he kept referring to as the FU. Whatever your politics, it was an amusing moment. That brightened an afternoon when my lurgy, which has long outstayed its welcome, has been asserting itself on my sinuses.

Alex Salmond complains bitterly to Cameron over EU veto - but fails to say what he would have done

So, Alex Salmond has written  a snippy letter of complaint to Prime Minister David Cameron over his use of the veto which left the UK in a minority of one.

It took him 3 days to work out how to play this which is highly unusual for him.  I was only saying to my dad yesterday that I was surprised that we hadn't had the SNP jumping up and down about this. It's clearly taken them a while to work out the best line for them. As usual, they've criticised the UK Government, but have given their customary lack of detail as to what Salmond would have done as leader of an independent Scotland.

He's clearly hedging his bets. He doesn't want to admit that he'd have gone off with the 26, because that might not play well with people, so he's just doing his usual opportunistic thing. It would be a lot more helpful if he would outline how he, as leader of an independent Scotland (not that that's a foregone conclusion by any manner of means), would have conducted relations with Europe in a different way. To be honest, I reckon if Cameron had struck a deal with the other countries, he'd have had a similarly irritable letter from Salmond to deal with today. Just cos that's what Salmond does - huff and puff about everything that he thinks can advance his independence agenda.

Scottish Liberal Democrat president Malcolm Bruce had Salmond bang to rights, saying that the SNP couldn't even tell us what currency an independent Scotland would have. I just can't help feeling that if they had the details, they would share them with us. They know they can't offer any guarantees, so they just paint this picture about how idyllic life would be in an independent Scotland without any substance to back  it up. Truth is, life is pretty darned hard for the global economy at the moment. The outlook is bleak and so the international community needs to work together as much as possible to try to resolve things.

Malcolm was really good on Good Morning Scotland this morning talking about the issues around the EU summit. He is a robust performer on the media and he wasn't letting Gary Robertson away with anything. You can hear the whole interview here from around 1:09. He very clearly set out the party's position that we want to have good relations with Europe, we'll seek to deliver that in Government and that the Coalition was not in danger. He pointed out that the EU was not perfect, something recognised by the most passionate supporters of the EU within the party.

Nick Clegg didn't attack David Cameron for what happened in Brussels, contrary to what most of the papers are saying. He said he thought the outcome of the summit was bad for Britain. I'm quite happy to complain about Cameron, though. Our PM does not perform well putting his case in these sorts of conditions as we saw during the leaders' debates in 2010. He went in with a poorly framed plan with no back up position. I would have much preferred Nick Clegg, who has solid international negotiating experience behind him, in there, but that wasn't going to happen. The French and Germans were too caught up in the still unresolved eurozone crisis to be bothered accommodating him. There were faults on both sides, for sure, but the outcome is not good for us as a country and we need to sort it.

I was thoroughly amused to see the Daily Fail this morning accuse Nick of talking the country down. A bit rich coming from a paper who's continually writing about what a bunch of drug addled, violent, benefit scrounging, feral savages we all are.

Most of the mainstream media, from the Daily Mail to the BBC, is not being entirely accurate about the Lib Dems' position - which makes it important for us to make sure that our members and campaign teams on the ground are properly informed in plain and simple terms.

I preferred it when the Mail got it wrong about Amanda Knox.....

Many others, including Stephen and Jonathan have commented about the even bigger than usual Daily Mail fail on Monday night when they reported that Amanda Knox had lost her appeal against her conviction for the murder of Meredith Kercher.

They later claimed that they were just one of the many websites who got it wrong and that it was put right within a minute? Really? All these people just happened to be on the website to get the screen shot in one minute? Pull the other one, love.

However, in a way, I almost preferred the complete pack of lies they printed on Monday night to what came the next morning.

You have to remember that this was a situation where a conviction had been quashed because it was clearly unsafe.

I think that part of the reason the  conviction was made in the first place was because of the salacious and often mendacious media coverage which saturated Italian (and global) news stands before and during the trial.  In this country that simply would not have been allowed to happen - it would have counted as contempt of court.  Nigel Scott, who's a member of the Free Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito campaign wrote an article in this June's Liberator which explores the reasons why the conviction was wrong in more detail. The Fail, in its apology for publishing the wrong verdict, made much of Knox's conviction for slander - but as Nigel says, the basis for this was an interview that wasn't even recorded.

But, anyway, the Fail is only interested in portraying Amanda Knox as a greedy, money grabbing fortune hunter. "Free to make a fortune" was their headline.  I fully expect Amanda to sell her story. I just hope she isn't used by the media in the process, but I don't think she has a choice. Imagine if you had to fight for justice for a relative of yours who was wrongly imprisoned on the other side of the world. Well, for a start, the lawyer doesn't come cheap. Then there's all the other associated costs of legal action, not to mention the costs of travel and accommodation when you have to be in that country on the other side of the world. Her family will have spent an absolute fortune on fighting this case. They are bound to be in debt. Amanda is bound to want and need to try to get some of that back.

If you give the Fail an innocuous piece of information - for example, that Amanda was going to set up an organisation to help others in the same situation as she found herself in - they will twist it to suit their own needs. Wanting to help others is quite noble, given what she's been through. The Fail version of that is to describe her as a professional martyr for injustice.

This whole thing has been a huge tragedy. The dignity of the Kercher family yesterday as they held their press conference was heartbreaking. I cannot imagine anything worse than losing your child or sister,  in such awful circumstances. They have been denied justice in all of this too.

It could so easily have been the case that another young woman and man would have spent decades in prison for a murder they did not commit. The Italian justice system has been shown up for being completely flawed.
It's also worth noting, though, that the justice system in Amanda Knox's own country isn't much better. Two weeks ago, the state of Georgia executed a man for a murder even though the case against him had fallen apart. In 1998, British nanny Louise Woodward was convicted of killing a baby in her care, but was later freed after a successful appeal.

I hope that Amanda Knox is not subjected to the sort of treatment Louise Woodward was handed out. While googling for some information on her to link to for this post, I found this hate filled Facebook group. Why do people join things like this?

Amanda should be allowed to rebuild her life after a horrible 4 years in peace.Let's hope that the media who were at least in part responsible for her conviction get off her back.

"Miriam Clegg is a force to be reckoned with" #ldconf

I couldn't let that comment, or the context in which it was made, go.

The BBC's new replacement for Laura Kuenssberg, who is kicking Robert Peston's backside over at ITN now, is Norman Smith. Yesterday, I was very disappointed to see him get into this "Miriam is a harridan who keeps Nick Clegg very firmly under her thumb" narrative.

It's all to do with this piece of nonsense in the Daily Fail - a biography by Jasper Gerard which seems to be little more than tittle tattle and wild speculation. It is alleged that Miriam has put her foot down about Nick doing another term as Deputy Prime Minister. I can't imagine anyone's even started to think about what happens after the next election for a start.

So, Norman Smith, talking about this book on camera yesterday, saying that Team Clegg had dismissed it as rubbish, said "Miriam Clegg is a force to be reckoned with." With a bit of added eyebrow raising. What? For a start he could have actually got her name right. Her name is Miriam Gonzalez Durantez. In Spain people don't change their names when they get married. I took the time to go and find out his name. Until about 10 minutes ago, he was Norman Thingy as far as I was concerned.

It sounded like one of those blokey cosy comments. You know, when you're at a party, as I was last night, and the girls are drinking mojitos in the kitchen and the boys are drinking beer outside - and when a girl ventures out, the conversation goes dead. How we mocked, by the way.

Except Norman Smith wasn't out on the decking drinking beer, he was broadcasting to an audience of men and women. It'd be nice if he remembered that in future.

What sort of ridiculous world to we live in when a politician's wife is expected, in this day and age, to be meek and passive? We saw what happened to Hillary when Bill was in the White House and sighed - and that was 20 years ago. And when expressing an opinion on anything other than knitting or cookie recipes is seen as undue, insidious,  interference.

If Nick Clegg is such a passive character, why on earth is 75% of the Liberal Democrat manifesto being implemented and why do we see such a stream of Tories whinging about all the things we are stopping them doing?

And every time Miriam opens her mouth, she earns more respect from women outside the Daily Mail's fantasy world where women are seen and not heard.

Daily Mail Fail of the Day - as they expose wife beating ways of their pet gay basher

For years, the Daily Fail has been happy enough to run to the odious Director of Christian Voice, Stephen Green every time they wanted to indulge in a bit of gay bashing, even as recently as a fortnight ago. Melanie Phillips even had him as a sort of poster boy for poor persecuted Christians in a column 5 years ago. Her hateful column earlier this week which attracted such rightful opposition on Twitter and elsewhere (thanks, Johann Hari)

Today they unveil him as a wife beater.  I'm not sure why they care. As I wrote the other day, they don't really get domestic violence.

To most of us, it's been fairly clear for a very long time that Stephen Green is a deeply unpleasant, bigoted individual. The Fail say in today's article that he "revelled in his self appointed public role as guardian of the nation's morality." Perhaps their own newspaper ringing him up regularly for quotes played a role in encouraging that delusion.

Another Daily Mail Fail - and how they could make a difference

I am so behind in my list of things to write about, but I was so angry when I read this article in Friday's Daily Mail. I don't like linking to them, but I actually think it's important that we keep an eye on what they do and challenge their flawed assumptions wherever we can.

Essentially the story is about a family with six children living in a 2 bedroomed Council house. Yes, you read that right. 8 people, 6 of them aged under 7, are crammed into a a tiny house which in no way meets their needs. That's something we should all be angry about. We know that poor housing has a long term, detrimental effect on health. If these children continue to live in these conditions, the chances are that their life expectancy will be significantly less than a child from a more affluent background.  Their whole lives could be blighted by the failure of all parties in local and national government to sort out housing.

I've met many families in similar situations over the last 4 years. It breaks my heart to see the distress it causes.  The Daily Mail could use its position to run a big campaign to have more affordable housing built so that families like this one, and others who are living in private rented accommodation who really struggle to pay their rent. Wouldn't that be great if a national newspaper took this issue on?

But, sadly, the Fail has different priorities. The headline "Jobless Couple demand bigger home for them and their six children (who are named after celebrities)" gives you an idea of their agenda. They chose to criticise the couple for the names they gave their children and for the fact that they are unemployed. Have they any idea of the childcare costs for 4 pre-schoolers? One full time at a nursery will set you back around £500 per month up here and much more down south.  Have they any idea how much their parents would have to earn to be able to feed and clothe their family so that work would make them better off than being on benefits?

The Mail could choose to argue for better housing. Instead it chooses to demonise a family in desperate need. I think it's clear who's in the wrong here.

Lib Dems, Earthquakes and Promiscuous Women

One of the first things I read this morning was this tweet from Jo Swinson linking to this article in which a senior Iranian cleric pins the blame for earthquakes fairly and squarely on women dressing immodestly. This is what he said:

"Many women who do not dress modestly lead young men astray and spread adultery in society which increases earthquakes"

So, we have a major power player talking absolute rubbish to try to ensure that the forces of change don't take hold. It all goes to show why education is so important ensuring kids grow up with the skills to discern when people in power are talking rubbish. To use the earthquakes the area is particularly prone to and which have killed many thousands of people as a threat to manipulate people's behaviour and repress women is an act of cruel cynicism.

You could look at the Daily Mail's rather desperate attempt to attack the Liberal Democrats in the same light as the Iranian Cleric's. The old forces of power tryig to stamp out reform and progress. It's not a pretty sight. Today we have a 2 page spread which is laughable in many ways but comparing Vince Cable to Puff the Magic Dragon is bizarre even by its standards. They go on to attack Nick for his expenses, publishing a picture of his London home in a paragraph about his constituency home. Bear in mind as well that when Nick sells his home in Sheffield, the taxpayer will get every single penny of the profit because he doesn't believe that MPs should be in the propery game at taxpayers' expense. Also bear in mind that it was the Tories and Labour together who blocked expenses reform and openness which we'd been arguing for for a long time.

If the Liberal Democrats come to power, there will be big changes. Taxes will be fairer, with 4 million low earners being taken out of tax completely and we won't have the situation that Nick Clegg regularly mentions, that a rich city banker pay less tax on his millions than his cleaner does on her minimum wage. Politics will be fairer - with a fair voting system that will bring about Governments that the majority of people have a say in electing and give the voter maximum choice about who should be their MP. The ecoonomy will get the infrastructure boost it desperately needs with investment in green technology providing sustainable jobs geared at the ambitious target of making us carbon neutral in 40 years. Ambitious, yes, but look where we were 40 years ago when we didn't have automatic washing machines or home computers or video recorders.

The Liberal Democrats have offered a substantial and positive programme for Government while the others use fear of their opponents as a reason to vote for them.

So while we have Quentin Letts and the full force of the powers that be at the Daily Mail attacking us to try to stoke up the chances of their Tory pals but let's have a look at who actually think that our policies have some merit: the International Monetary Fund and retired generals.

I'd much rather take the word of experts in the field than of Quentin Letts and the Daily Fail on anything.

Dan and Dan's Daily Mail Song

I've been itching to see this since yesterday when it started being heavily touted round Twitter by people I like such as the lovely Mister Doctor Chocaholic and fellow Lib Dem Blogger and F1 fan Jeremy Rowe.

It fulfils all its promise as it takes the scaremongering, bigoted ill-informed rubbish printed by the Daily Fail and puts it to song. Absolutely brilliant. Enjoy!



Follow Dan and Dan on Twitter here. I have no idea who they are but I'm looking forward to seeing more of what they produce.

Daily Fail considers criminalising a generation

The Daily Fail's latest poll is as ridiculous as we've come to expect from them. They are asking "Should under-16s be prosecuted for having sex?" It's illustrated with a photograph of a young girl wearing a tracksuit looking detached from her miserable looking baby. That's because, obviously in the Fail's blinkered and misogynist world view, girls are to blame for pretty much all the evils of the world, and getting pregnant specifically.

What exactly is giving youngsters a criminal record for having sex going to achieve? There's evidence, with the falling numbers of teenage pregnancies, that investment in education to ensure that teenagers have life saving contraceptive information is working and that's a process which should continue. Who's going to seek that information out if they think they'll end up in court?

The Daily Fail's attitude shows a similar mindset as the SNP on this one, though. Remember when they tried to introduce such a measure in Scotland?

At the time of writing, 64% of the respondents to the poll are in favour of prosecution. Those of a more socially liberal disposition, you know what to do! I love it when Fail polls don't give them the result they want. Childish, I know, but I think it's important to challenge the ridiculous bile they print.

A couple of minor irritations.....

Thought I'd share with you a couple of things that have, well, I won't say annoyed me, but made me bristle with irritation over the weekend.

The first was brought to my attention by Jennie on Twitter. I do wonder, sometimes, if the numpties at the Daily Fail have a weekly "how do we wind up liberals and feminists?" meeting. The poll they've been running recently is just ridiculously insulting. They are asking "Should female MPs be allowed to employ a cleaner on expenses?" It's even accompanied by a photo of a woman in alice band and marigolds scrubbing the carpet. The clear implication, of course, is that women should do the cleaning themselves, but men shouldn't be expected to get their hands dirty.

Then I watched Have I Got News for You last night. You would think that Kirsty Young would have more sense than to make a joke of this one, but, sadly, no. She read an excerpt from the memoirs of the canoeist who faked his own death, John Darwin. It was pretty cringeworthy stuff, to be honest, coming defiantly under the description of too much information as he recounted, shall we say, the physical aspects of how he took his leave from his wife.

So it may well be up for one of those badly written sex scene awards, but what happened next was interesting. Kirsty basically said "Now have a look at them." The implication of that was clearly that only beautiful people are allowed to seek and obtain sexual fulfilment. The rest of us, the ordinary looking and the ugly, presumably aren't worthy to indulge our libidos. How shallow can you get?

Thank you, dear readers, for letting me get that off my chest. Now I can go and spend the rest of the evening in a serene state of general relaxation - ie I'm going to go and lie on the couch and watch the X Factor.

Stephen Gately 1976-2009

Like Andrew and Stephen, I was really saddened to waken last Sunday morning to discover that Boyzone singer Stephen Gateley had died suddenly on holiday in Mallorca at the agonisingly young age of 33.

At 26, I may have been much older than their target market when they appeared on the scene in 1993. However, and much to my husband's eternal shame, I just love that sort of trashy, cheesy boyband pop. I bought their stuff - I still listen to No Matter What and Love me for a Reason and I actually preferred Boyzone to Take That. Stephen, with his elfin good looks and permanent cheery demeanour was my favourite.

It was heartbreaking to watch his bandmates gather in Mallorca today to accompany his body back to Ireland for his funeral tomorrow. Five days on, they are obviously still in shock and I really feel for them and Stephen's partner, friends and family.

It was around the time that my daughter was born that Stephen decided to tell the world, his way, that he was gay. Ok, his hand had been somewhat forced given that somebody was attempting to breach his trust by selling a story on him to a newspaper, but he chose to take control of the situation and by doing so became a positive role model for young gay men who may have been struggling to come to terms with their sexuality. There was, of course, no backlash from fans. I, for one, had not really ever thought he was anything else and I admired the courage and dignity with which he came out. I just think it was such a shame that he had to endure years of anxiety beforehand. Even now, though, in sport and music, people still feel that they have to hide who they are. That's not their fault - and if you ever need proof that homophobia is alive and well, all you need to do is pick up a copy of the Daily Fail on probably any day you care to mention.

Today, though, they have excelled themselves. You would think that they would have the decorum to show some respect both to Stephen and his grieving family. Before I go on, I should say that it's been confirmed that Stephen died of natural causes, fluid on the lungs which is commonly a sign of a heart attack. Apparently there is a history of a heart condition in the Gately family.

Unfortunately most of us either know or know of someone who has died in similar circumstances - a young, fit person just basically dropping dead all of a sudden. It's horrible, but it happens.

But no, the facts aren't good enough for Daily Fail, whose columnist Jan Moir has today published a piece so crammed full of innuendo and homophobic bile that I actually felt like I wanted to go and have a shower after reading it. It takes a special kind of narrow minded bitterness and maliciousness to produce an article intended to provoke at any time, but especially on the eve of someone's funeral.

Her main assertion is that Stephen died because he was gay. What sort of person writes this?

"The sugar coating on this fatality is so saccharine-thick that it obscures whatever bitter truth lies beneath. Healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again."

She describes is death as "strange, lonely and troubling". I don't know if she ever met Stephen, but I doubt that she knew him. I tend to take more seriously the views of those who actually were close to him. We've heard in the past week from them how happy he was with life in general. Moir talks about a rented cottage but in reality, Stephen was on holiday with his partner in the apartment they'd just bought and done up. Career wise, things were going really well for him. He had a children's book about to come out and he'd shared in the success of the Boyzone reunion. How many of us have gone on holiday with our partners, gone out for a few drinks and fallen asleep on the sofa?

I don't know who is more despicable - Jan Moir for writing such prejudiced bile or the Daily Mail for publishing it. It's hard to believe that somebody actually took money for writing such a hatchet job and using a tragic, premature death as a springboard for an unjustified attack on everyone who's gay.

What's even more disgusting is the fact that she has a go at Kevin McGee, the ex partner of Little Britain's Matt Lucas, who tragically committed suicide last week. Apparently his demise and that of Stephen "strikes a blow to the happy ever after myth of civil partnerships". So what's she trying to say? Does she think relationships between men and women are based on the Disney Princess idyll? In fact, poor Kevin McGee had a long history of depression and addiction that would test any relationship. I've seen the toll that those awful illnesses had on the relationship of a close family member and how they contributed to her early death. Her partner loved her so much and he endured so much over so many years, despite her leaving him on several occasions. Sexuality has nothing to do with it. I've really felt for Matt Lucas since Kevin's death because I can empathise with what he's been through. Illness and addiction is hell for the people going through it and their loved ones.

For the second time this week, Twitter has risen up in outrage. There's a group on Facebook as well.

I like the way Stephen Fry puts it on Twitter:

"I gather a repulsive nobody writing in a paper no one of any decency would be seen dead with has written something loathesome and inhumane.".

It appears that people have been constructive with their outrage, complaining to the Press Complaints Commission to the extent that their website has crashed. Once it's up and running again, if you feel as strongly about this as I do, add your voice against this piece of insensitive and disgraceful writing. I'm not gay, but I'm sure as hell not going to stand about and watch an ignorant, prejudiced newspaper columnist away with a poisonous attack on a whole group of people.

I can't imagine that anything can actually make things worse for Stephen's friends and family at this time, but it must be horrendous for them to see such twisted half truth and innuendo about the person they loved. Jan Moir is only one person. Most deceent people will find her comments abhorrent and send their sympathy and love to them as they prepare for the ordeal of Stephen's funeral tomorrow.

Lock up your sons, the Feminists are coming, cries Daily Mail

The Daily Mail is excelling itself this Silly Season. First of all it publishes an article advocating eugenics and now it sees plans to teach children that domestic violence is wrong as some sort of scary sign that civilisation is about to end and these nasty feminists are going to take over the world.

This short article from the Economic and Social Research Council states that, depending on how you measure it, there are between 240,000 and almost a million children in the UK affected by domestic violence. They reckon that these figures are a gross understimation of the real problem. So, actually, that's a fair few children coming to school with an all too good idea of what domestic violence is all about because they see it on a regular basis.

The Fail squeals with horror that hard pressed teachers are forced to put time for this in an already packed curriculum while parents complain that they don't want their children indoctrinated. If they were being told that they'd all go to hell if they didn't say their prayers, I'd agree, but surely it's a good thing if they're having some guidance early on in what constitutes a healthy relationship.

I can't believe the paper is failing to see the problems domestic violence causes yet it goes all hysterical about Swine Flu, which for the overwhelming majority of its sufferers will turn out to be a mild infection, necessitating lying on the sofa watching trashy tv for a few days.

It's not the school lessons that are sinister, it's the Mail's attempts to paint everybody who pursues equality as some sort of harbinger of hell. I don't expect to see them printing any time soon this piece of research which shows that feminists tend to have healthier relationships and that men in a relationship with a feminist partner report greater relationship stability and sexual satisfaction.