What rights could we lose in Cameron's EU gamble?

Well, if Liberal Democrat activists were feeling a bit lethargic and demotivated, David Cameron gave them lots to fight for today. We have got to do everything we possibly can to stop him getting an overall majority.

If you're not in UKIP or the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory party, Cameron had very little to say to offer today.

Here's his plan. He's going to go to the EU if he gets a majority next time and throw his weight about a bit. He'll tell them that unless we get to opt out of things like the Social Chapter and the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Arrest Warrant and a whole host of things that the EU is actually useful for, he'll throw his toys out of the pram and hope that they hit the white cliffs of Dover. So, your hard won right to a decent working week, to paid leave, all those inconvenient employment rights that Tories hate so much could all be lost. So would the facility to get criminals back speedily - like the guy who ran off with that young girl last year.Let's not kid ourselves, that's what Cameron ideally wants.

The chances are that our European partners will tell him to go forth and multiply when he tries it on. And then the Daily Mail will be even more full of xenophobic drivel than usual. But, as Ming Campbell so cleverly put it today, if you have a choice of two approaches, trying to get everyone to work through issues together, or making it all about you, which do you think is going to be more effective? Presumably in that instance we get a choice between the status quo and leaving the EU. That's probably better than the alternative referendum.

But, just say the rest of the EU gives Cameron what he wants. What do we get then? The Status Quo isn't an option. We have a choice between losing things many of  us hold dear or leaving the EU altogether. The choice between bugger all and catastrophe.

I'm really all referndummed out already. We'll have had best part of 4 years of the Scottish referendum by 2014 and then we'll have another 3 and a bit of the EU caper. Yes, I know, we could vote yes to avoid it, but, really, sledgehammers and nuts come to mind. An independent Scotland's terms of joining the EU are far from certain and very likely to be much worse than we currently enjoy.

Willie Rennie compared the SNP and Conservatives today, talking about how they both put their obsessions above the national interest:

The Conservatives and the SNP are now both advocates of grinding uncertainty.

Our priority should be to build a stronger economy in a fairer society but the Conservative obsess about Europe and the SNP about independence.

Their obsessions are creating a grinding uncertainty which will hamper our efforts to restore the economy and deliver fairness.

By the way, I think we Lib Dems should take the phrase "stronger economy in a fairer society" out of any bingo style drinking games right now. Our livers just won't be able to hack the pace. Just remember that we'll be sick of it long before the electorate has even cottoned on to it. There's a long way to go and we'll hear it a lot.

We'll hear a lot about how we aren't letting the people have their say on Europe. This is complete nonsense and the sort of people who will throw that one at us are the sort of people who are opposed to giving people a say in electing the House of Lords. The SNP didn't get their majority up here because people were clamouring to get a referendum on independence. They got it because there was no decent opposition to them at the 2011 election. We were in a mess over the Coalition and are in a better place now and Labour were next to useless. Actually, no, they were useless.

I think Nick Clegg has said the right thing today  - that, of course, if there's a reason to have a referendum, like a major move of powers from the UK to Brussels, then we'll have one, but otherwise our priority should be about growing the economy. I  think he may have mentioned a stronger economy in a fairer society too.

But there is a third choice, thankfully - making sure the Tories don't get a majority. That means getting back out on to doorsteps  and campaigning for every Liberal Democrat vote we can possibly get in the Counties, local elections, Euros and finally in 2015. Let's get to it.

I just have to remember that the Downing Street press conference was not for my benefit...

Most people like politicians who behave like grown ups, governments where they spend time getting things done rather than fight with each other. 

To be fair, I like that too. And for all our worries about some of the things this Government does, Liberal Democrat heads know that it's much more functional than the last Labour lot, who spent more time at each other's throats, virtually from the off in 1997 than actually doing anything useful.

My head is mostly proud of Nick Clegg (sort yourself out on secret courts and welfare, Nick, and I'll be able to drop the mostly) for leading us into Government, getting our major policy priorities enacted and doing a mostly good job at holding the Tories back. 

My heart gets a bit jittery and scared whenever it sees him and David Cameron look too chummy together. This, I suggest, is not only an entirely appropriate emotion for a Liberal Democrat, but also not incompatible with wanting the coalition government to succeed and do well. These appear contradictory emotions. They are. Nobody ever said this rollercoaster ride was going to be easy and uncomplicated. 

Their cosy little press conference in Downing Street today was not, then, for my benefit as a Lib Dem activist. It was for the wider public who care about jobs and the cost of living and what's going to happen to their parents when they can't live independently any more. Oh, Liberal Democrat activists care about this kind of stuff too. We don't live in a bubble where we're sustained by hot air generated by discussion about electoral systems. Honestly. We just see it from a slightly different perspective where we can see all the electoral casualties behind us and the minefield ahead. It wasn't for Peter Bone's benefit either. He was well upset on BBC News Channel this morning, bemoaning the huge influence the Liberal Democrats have on this Government. 

Nick did a great job outlining where we've done well - Steve Webb's pensions triple lock which has led to the pension going up by over £7.50 in two years, cutting income taxes for those on low and middle incomes, the Green Investment Bank, investing Government money to boost the green economy, the youth contract and apprenticeships. He went on to outline what we will deliver on parental leave and the like. Why, oh why, no mention of mental health, though? Aargh!

Where I was less happy was where was using his carefully crafted "stronger economy in a fairer society helping people get on in life line" as a strapline for the Government. It doesn't seem right to put all our narrative on a Government where we don't win all the battles. It's ok to say that's what we've brought to the Government but not give away what he thinks our identity is.

Have a look at the whole mid term review here. I haven't read it all yet - a teenage essay crisis and a list of Spanish words to cram for tomorrow has kept me busy on homework duty this evening - but two things I did notice earlier. There is no specific mention of closed material procedures. That may mean nothing, but it may mean that we have some wiggle room. And, the bloody Tory marriage tax break is back. Whether it's there just to save their face and it won't come to anything, I don't know. I hope so. But the fact that it is there is pretty vomit inducing.

By the way, I can't make up my mind who made the bigger idiot of himself today, Quentin Letts from the Daily Mail, or David Cameron. Letts asked a question about whether the Government was dumbing down universities in pretty dumbed down form, using the word swivel-eyed to describe someone And Cameron, who should never be allowed to talk about Scotland, got his referendum campaigns wrapped round his ears and called the pro-union campaign the Yes campaign. Then he called it the Alistair Darling campaign like the Tories weren't part of it. I truly despair.

Shock as politician behaves like a grown-up!

I have to say I was fair chuffed with our boy this afternoon. Nick Clegg showed how to conduct disagreements with your partners in an orderly, respectful and calm fashion. No matter how many times people tried to get him to slag Cameron, who was, by the way, completely out on a limb today, he refused and talked about trying to build a consensus.

I can't, for the life of me, see what the problem is with Leveson's clever proposal for a self regulating body with true independence - ie not full of newspaper editors or chaired by politicians. It seems pretty obvious to me that Cameron is trying to protect the powerful corporate interests that run the media for some reason. Well, protecting powerful vested interests is what Tories do, so we shouldn't be surprised. I really don't get how giving statutory underpinning to a regulatory body the press sets up itself along Leveson's guidelines infringes press freedom in any way. Is the BBC, which is regulated to within an inch of its life, curbed or compromised in any way? Of course not.

Nick was very calm and assured at the Despatch Box, and there was no sign of bad blood between he and the Prime Minister. He said his piece, which you can read in full here and took questions for quite a while, cracking a few jokes about the realities of coalition while he was at it.

He was very clear that the worst that could happen would be for nothing to change and emphasised how important to balance two fundamental liberal principles - the need for a free press holding politicians to account, and the need to protect innocent people from the abuses of powerful vested interests. He talked about how the Irish system was set up by Parliament, reeled off a long list of British newspapers who have Irish editions and said he'd never heard them complaining about an illiberal press environment there.

He wasn't entirely uncritical - saying that Leveson's chapters on using OFCOM as a backstop regulator, and on data protection would need more careful scrutiny.

He also hinted, when pressed by Tories who think he should basically just have done what Cameron wanted, that there may be more double statements in future. I think he has to play his hand wisely on that - but there are no greater issues than secret courts and web snooping where he would do well to set out the distinctive liberal case.

I did a wee Storify thingy to keep the tweets of the occasion together. Near the bottom, there's some wee gems from the Chief Whip.

Nick Clegg does PMQs - the tweets

Nick Clegg did Prime Minister's Questions today while David Cameron is schmoozing his way round the Middle East. He was so assured, confident and natural and spoke completely without notes. He even answered the question he was given and not the one he wanted to answer, too. He made David Cameron look like a complete amateur, to be honest, and Gordon Brown, too.

My Liberal Democrat Voice colleague Nick Thornsby reminded us on Twitter this morning that four years ago, two days after Barack Obama was elected the first time round, Clegg, then a humble third party leader, questioned PM Gordon Brown, who put him down quite snidily. And the subject of Clegg's questions? Taxing the wealthy and cutting taxes for the poorest. Nothing if not consistent. Have a look here.



It was quite a contrast to see Clegg in Brown's position today.

There was one irritation, though. In fact, two. Alan Reid and Simon Hughes both got up and asked the pathetically toadying soft ball question that always seems to come from the Government side in both Holyrood and Westminster. I can't stand it whoever is doing it. I don't know what Alistair Carmichael had on those two, whether they'd stolen his orange Clubs or something, but seeing grown liberals toadying is so not a good look. And it's completely unnecessary. Nick didn't need it as he'd already peppered references to the same points throughout the proceedings.

I think my favourite bit was when Peter Bone asked a really friendly question. Nobody could ever have expected that and Nick looked quite surprised about it. Mrs Bone didn't get a mention, though. He will probably be in big trouble later. During the exchange, Nick got his obligatory Nadine Dorries joke in, saying that when he'd heard she'd gone off to the jungle to eat insects, he assumed it was a punishment from the Chief Whip. As if the gentlemanly Sir George Young would ever do anything so, well, naff.

As is my wont, I have saved various tweets from the proceedngs in a storify thingy for you to read.

"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. 

ComRes poll boost for Lib Dems - but the rest are as bad as each other

I'm certainly not going to get excited about a brief 3% increase in our poll rating, even if 15% is nearer where we have been in mid term even in opposition in previous parliaments. The ComRes poll in the Independent published today, though, doesn't make happy reading for either Conservative or Labour leaders.

Ok, so only 22% of people trust Cameron and Osborne on the economy, but they don't see Balls and Miliband as the answer to their prayers either, with only 2% more trusting the Labour team. If they can't get any traction from the luxury of opposition, they're not doing at all well. Maybe people remember only too well that they didn't fix the roof when the sun was shining and didn't save for a rainy day.

What can the Liberal Democrats extrapolate from this poll? Well, it was taken after five days of coverage in which we were talking about how we made the tax system fairer. So we need to talk more and more about that. Given by the reaction from Labour folk on my Facebook when I put up a picture showing how Liberal Democrats had cut taxes for people on the minimum wage, they know fine we're right.

The Government has also put up the Minimum Wage by 11p per hour as of yesterday - although there's further to go on that issue as I'm not impressed that the rates for young people have firstly not gone up and secondly are so much lower than for over 21s. The different rate for 18-21 year olds is particularly iniquitous. Why should these adults be paid less than other adults? However, the increase in the adult rate is good.

But, anyway, fairer tax is where it's at. Labour's record is pretty shambolic. The top rate of income tax was less than it is now for all but 36 days of the 13 years Labour were in office and we have increased the Capital Gains Tax on the wealthiest and are looking to tax wealth more. Danny Alexander has directed more resources into scrutinising the tax affairs of the richest so they pay the tax that they are due.

If you agree with this approach, of cutting taxes for the poorest and raising them for the wealthiest to make the tax system fairer, please sign up here to the Fairer Tax campaign.

Nick Clegg talked about us getting out on the doorsteps to deliver 3 million leaflets on the Fairer Tax campaign by Christmas. This ComRes poll shows us that this would be a very good use of our time. Let's wear out some shoe leather. 

There's a surprise: reactionary, conservative parties scupper Lords Reform

Boy, was I annoyed with Nick Clegg yesterday. One thing about being on holiday in this country is that you can't escape news. Well, I could switch my phone off but it just doesn't work like that. So, I was not chuffed that he chose the first proper day of my holiday to announce the end of Lords reform. My half pint of pear cider in the Magners Pasture was rudely interrupted by details of his statement. At least there were two other Liberal Democrats we'd met by chance to discuss it with.

Clegg faced a really rotten situation. David Cameron couldn't persuade his coalition-hating right wing backbenchers to support the Lords reform that they'd all been elected on and had supported going in to the Coalition Agreement. What was he to do? In the event, he is the only leader to emerge from this with integrity and dignity.

There was no way that he could simply let it pass. His decisive action yesterday to scupper a pet project of the Conservatives, the boundary changes, is entirely appropriate. Cameron really wanted those boundary changes to happen, particularly as they would benefit the Conservatives disproportionately. Nick Clegg could not afford to just sit there and take a clear breach of the Coalition Agreement without any consequences. If they'd got away with it once, we'd have risked total impotence within the Coalition and that could not happen.

Now, I know I said the other day that I wasn't too happy with the idea of using the boundary review to punish the Tories. I do however, understand where Nick is coming from. We have to wrap this up and move on. While I think people would expect there to be consequences - you can't break an Agreement and expect to get away with  it scot free - they don't want to see protracted public argument that would destabilise the Government. One clear, rational statement, presented in reasonable terms, was the right thing to do.

There is one aspect, though, of voting down the Boundary Review which really annoys me. Nadine Dorries, whose seat would have disappeared if they'd gone ahead, now gets a massive reward for bad behaviour.

It seems very clear to me that neither Cameron nor Miliband had the slightest inclination to ensure Lords Reform, which they both apparently support, actually happened. Nick Clegg was willing to negotiate with them. He offered Cameron the option of changing the legislation to include a referendum before Lords elections took place, but the Prime Minister wasn't willing to let the people have their say. He asked Ed Miliband how many days of Parliamentary debate he wanted to see and Miliband wouldn't even give him the courtesy of a reply.

The reality of the situation was that Nick was faced with a weak Prime Minister who couldn't control his own backbenchers and an unprincipled leader of the Opposition who was not prepared to enter into genuine negotiations. Nick acted decisively, rationally and intelligently.

I'm glad that he had some choice words of criticism for the Conservatives in his statement:

My party has held to that contract even when it meant voting for things that we found difficult. 
The Liberal Democrats are proving ourselves to be a mature and competent party of Government...
And I am proud that we have met our obligations.

But the Conservative party is not honouring the commitment to Lords reform...
And, as a result, part of our contract has now been broken.

Clearly I cannot permit a situation where Conservative rebels can pick and choose the parts of the contract they like...
While Liberal Democrat MPs are bound to the entire agreement. 
Coalition works on mutual respect; it is a reciprocal arrangement, a two way street.  

I have told the Prime Minister that when Parliament votes on boundary changes for the 2015 election Liberal Democrats in Parliament will oppose them.
When part of a contract is broken, it is normal to amend that contract...
In order then to move on. 

Lords reform and boundaries are two, separate parliamentary bills…
But they are both part of a package of overall political reform.
Delivering one but not the other would create an imbalance – not just in the Coalition Agreement, but also in our political system. 
Lords reform leads to a smaller, more legitimate House of Lords.
Boundary changes lead to a smaller House of Commons, by cutting the number of MPs. 
If you cut the number of MPs without enhancing the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Lords...
All you have done is weaken parliament as a whole…
Strengthen the executive…
And its overmighty government that wins.    

The Conservatives already know we're no pushover - we've forced Osborne to raise benefits in line with inflation when he didn't want to, we've insisted on more action on the environment and renewable energy than the Tories feel comfortable with. They know that we're a force to be reckoned with within the Government. That message doesn't really get across as well as it could to the general public. The challenge for Nick and his team is to ensure that it does, while balancing that with the need for the Government to look professional and competent. I'm encouraged by the way they did that yesterday.

Lords Reform dropped? Sulk a bit, then carry on...

So, if the Guardian is to be be believed, David Cameron is about to drop Lords Reform because there is no way to get it past the right wingers in his party who all stood for election in a manifesto that included changes to the Upper Chamber. If David Cameron isn't a bit scared that Peter Bone and Nadine Dorries have the upper hand in his party at the moment, then I'd be very surprised.

As a Liberal Democrat, I'm gutted that it looks like one of our major constitutional reforms, backed in some form by all parties in 2010 and therefore endorsed by the electorate, looks like it's dead in the water. When we've come up against a silly Tory plan we really can't live with, we've at least behaved like adults within the Coalition and made changes for the better.It's clear that we've succeeded, given the depth of the hostility towards us that openly emanates from the Tory backbenches.

David Cameron has abjectly failed to show that he leads a modern party. His true colours have come out. I doubt he was ever that keen on Lords Reform anyway, certainly not enough to put any effort into getting it through. His leadership looks weak and as under siege from the right as John Major's was - and he has far less in the way of political skill than his predecessor. It's not pretty. Bone, Dorries et al will be all pumped now and looking to scupper other Coalition measures they don't like, with equal civil marriage no doubt top of their list.

The Labour Party have chosen the path of unprincipled opportunism. They could still change their mind and decide to back the programme motion which would allow the legislation to proceed. I can't see it, though. They see their mission as one to destabilise the coalition and if that means voting against things they say they believe in, then so be it. Be clear, it's not about protecting the people of Britain from cuts because they would have pretty much done all the same things. We know Darling talked about raising VAT and for every £8 the Coalition has cut, Labour would have cut £7. It's about showing that Coalition doesn't work so that they and the Tories can go back to the bad old days of keeping all the power to themselves. Labour are supposed to be progressive, but they're hardly putting their money where their mouth is when it comes to enacting constitutional reform. I wrote a few weeks ago about how Paddy Ashdown led the Liberal Democrats into the lobbies for the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 when they could have brought Major's government down. Yes, we might want to harbour dreams that it could have led to a Labour/Lib Dem coalition with John Smith asn PM, but we can't be certain of that. The divisive election campaign that followed might have led to a withdrawal from Europe that would have been disastrous for people's livelihoods. At elast we were true to ourselves and what we believe in. Then and now, we act like grown ups, for the good of the country.

So, what should happen now? We should definitely sulk for a bit. We are quite definitely on the side of the Angels here and we have been wronged by people we'd made an Agreement with. We've stuck by that agrreement, endorsed by a Special Conference of our Party, when at times we would have rathered not, when it was clearly not in our electoral interests to do so.As Willie Rennie said after the local elections, any idea that we were ever in this for ourselves is clearly nonsense.

But sulking won't get us very far. So the other possibility is revenge. Do we scupper the boundary changes that we really don't want? I am not so sure.

If we have the chance to demand change, it has to be change that means something to ordinary people, not change that would give us a better chance of retaining nmore seats. What would be on my list? Well, first, scupper Theresa May's appalling family immigration rule changes. UK citizens should have the right to have their spouses live with them in this country regardless of income. End of. The web snooping stuff can join Lords Reform in the legislative bin, too. Let's not even waste the Committee's time. Bin this illiberal nonsense now.

What other prizes could we exact? Because of the Liberal Democrats, the wealthiest are now paying more tax, but not enough. Let's look again at the Mansion Tax, build a case for it in the country. Let's get a real campaign going. The wealthiest are not yet paying their fair share and we need to look at this again.

We have to resist any Tory moves to give a sub-inflation rise in benefits and the minimum wage. We held our nerve and insisted on the full whack last year and we have to do the same again.

And we must absolutely not give any ground  on equal marriage. In fact, we might want to take it further and follow Scotland's example and allow those religious bodies who want to carry out same sex marriage ceremonies to do so.

We must look again at mental health, an area Nick Clegg has done so much to break down stigma and make sure people have access to the right therapies. Let's look at where we could add to that, to really improve the quality of people's lives, particularly in light of the study this week that showed that people with Depression, stress and anxiety have a higher risk of premature death from heart attacks and strokes.

So, yes, we can allow ourselves some anger. We need to make sure that the blame for the failure of Lords reform is equally shared between both conservative parties. We need to remind people for years that we wanted democratic change, the others blocked it.  We must not allow this to break the Coalition, though, which is still the best possible Government for this country at the present time. We need to continue to behave like the honourable grown ups we are within the Government but we must be more robust about saying no constructively, emphatically and publicly.

Nick Clegg needs to take Cameron on a bit more, particularly on post 2015 policy ideas. They are fair game.

Of course,  it's not too late to reform the Lords. All the Labour party has to do is to say it supports the Programme Motion and we can get on with having a nationwide debate about it. If we have to agree to a refrendum in the process, I'm prepared to go with it. Will Ed Miliband's party have  the courage of its convictions to do that?  Even  if he does, the Tories will still have broken the Coalition Agreement and we need to make sure that they are seen to give us something in return.

Nick Clegg needs to condemn Cameron's welfare plans

Many Liberal Democrats will have been choking on their Corn Flakes this morning as they read, with horror, David Cameron's plans to slash benefits even further than this year's Welfare Reform Bill. If he had his way, there would be no Housing Benefit payable to anyone under 25. The critical part of the article is, however, this sentence:

Downing Street said they were Conservative plans for after the next general election.

That's all right then. This rubbish isn't going to happen on our watch.


Except.....there are lots of young lives that may be even more ruined than they are already if that shower win the next General Election. Everyone who cares about these things needs to be constructing rational, common sense arguments against such ideas, against the notion perpetuated by the Tories and the right wing press that being out of work and on benefits is the result of some sort of moral failing.


That's why it is really important that Nick Clegg - and it has to be him - condemns these proposals in the strongest language imaginable. The very idea that the under 25s could be stopped from claiming Housing Benefit, which costs £2 bn per year, is particularly ridiculous given that unemployment within that age group is still so disproportionately high. Nick Clegg's £1 bn Youth Contract will help young people get jobs, but that generation is bearing the biggest brunt of the economic crisis.


Not only that, but not all under 25s have a family home where it's safe for them to stay. What about those leaving care, who are ill, whose parents won't let them stay at home, who are fleeing domestic abuse? My daughter will be welcome in our home, which is her home and always will be, but it's not the same for everybody. Cameron clearly doesn't have the first notion about the realities of life for many young people today. The PM's plans will create more homeless young people - and you know  how tough it is to get a job if you're homeless. If people can't provide themselves with a roof over their head, the state has to help them. It's the right thing to do. 


Cameron talked in the Fail on Sunday about the engaged couple who are feeling hard done by because they have to live with their parents while some single mother can just have a baby and get a council house. Maybe that engaged couple should just think that they're lucky to have the sort of family relationship where they can live,comfortably and probably cheaply, at home. They should recognise that not everybody can walk into jobs. They could maybe do with realising that the single mother trapped in a damp, cramped Council flat is not exactly living a bed of roses lifestyle.


As regular readers will know, I cannot accept the parts of the Welfare Reform Act which take benefits away from sick people, at the underlying assumption that they are all faking it until it's proved otherwise. We've all heard of people like Karen Sherlock, who passed away after being told by ATOS that they were fit for work.

I felt that, while many Liberal Democrats, including Paddy Ashdown, opposed parts of the Act, there was too much adoption of the moralising Tory rhetoric from senior Liberal Democrats like Danny Alexander. This was, I think, a mistake. We should have taken the opportunity to show our different approach. People who are ill should be supported, but parking people on benefits who could otherwise be happily working is highly illiberal. It's not good for anyone, least of all those who want to work but can't because their family would be a lot worse off if they did. The welfare system should not be an instrument of punishment, it should be an instrument of enablement where people are given the help they need, tailored to suit them, to get into work without losing out while making sure that those who can't work are looked after.

Cameron's plans give us an insight into what the Tories governing alone would have done if they hadn't had the Liberal Democrats holding them back. However unhappy many of us are with the changes, we need to at least acknowledge that.

I won't be happy, though, until I hear Nick Clegg say that Cameron's words are Tory plans, we think they're wrong and would not support them. As I write, Danny Alexander has made me very cross. Speakingon the Sunday Politics, he said he was relaxed about Cameron setting out his party's agenda, which is fair enough, but then he said that there needs to be further debate about the welfare system once the reforms bed in.This is simply not good enough. Removing a critical benefit from young people without considering their circumstances is just plain wrong and we should not hold back in our condemnation of it.

Why will Alex Salmond not meet the Dalai Lama?

We are all used to seeing Alex Salmond jetting off round the world to meet foreign dignitaries. He's off to California soon, Hollywood no less, among other places, to "promote Scotland's interests". He's at a film premiere tonight, mixing with the rich and famous - as he seems to like doing. Let's not forget his mates Murdoch, Connery and Brian Souter and his former bff Donald Trump. Our globe-trotting First Minister has also been to China, the Gulf States and Norway in the past year. If he's bringing the money in by promoting Scottish products to foreign businesses, then fair enough, I suppose.It would be good to have a balance sheet on that so we can judge for ourselves, though.

Given that Salmond is so keen to meet anyone he can, it's quite perplexing that he can't find the time to meet the Dalai Lama during his forthcoming visit to Scotland. You have to ask yourself why. Could it be anything to do with the fact that such a meeting would upset the Chinese? I would be disappointed if that were the case. I have a pretty good hunch that he backs the rights of the people of Tibet to self determination. David Cameron and Nick Clegg took some grief from the Chinese over their meetings with the Dalai Lama so why shouldn't Salmond do the same?

Salmond will be back from his US trip while the Dalai Lama is here. It would be good if he could find a space in his diary to spend some time with him.

Willie Rennie certainly seems to think so. Yesterday he said:

This is a missed opportunity. By failing to meet with the globally respected spiritual leader and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate the First Minister may leave the impression that he is more concerned with pandering to the diktat of the Chinese government than promoting human rights.  We ignore China’s human rights record at our peril.  I appreciate that China would be sensitive about such a meeting but the First Minister should stand up for what’s important. People from across Scotland have waited six years to meet with His Holiness. The cities of Dundee, Edinburgh and Inverness have all noted their enthusiasm towards welcoming him into their streets and town halls.
 Either Mr Salmond has completely misjudged the importance of this event, or he has shown once more that he is too afraid of “rocking the boat.” Last week we saw the First Minister continue to defend Mr Murdoch’s Empire. This week we are seeing his obsession with powerful people continue. I call upon the First Minister to recognise that it is in Scotland’s best interests for him to honour this historic event and show respect for his position by meeting with the Dalai Lama

If Salmond does not meet the Dalai Lama, it could be construed, not least by the Chinese themselves, as panda-ing to them a subject I wrote about when our furry zoo friends were first announced. I'm  reminded of what Shabnum Mustapha, Director of Amnesty Scotland, said when Salmond was in China at the tail end of last year - that, yes, the Chinese would have the diplomatic equivalent of a bit of a strop when human rights were mentioned, but there was evidence that repression did reduce as a result. Offending the Chinese authorities is therefore not a bad thing to do, whether it's about the Dalai Lama or human rights.

Actually, leaving a child behind is a big deal

Twitter is full of people saying that we shouldn't be talking about David and Samantha Cameron leaving their 8 year old child behind in a pub.  Not a big deal. There are much bigger issues like Syria and the economy that we should be talking about and this is a mere distraction. In fact, some suggest that it's a deliberate distraction to take our minds of various top Tories' forthcoming appearances at Leveson.

Do you know what? Our brains can take it. We can think of more one thing at a time. And it is a big deal that an 8 year old was left on her own in a pub or anywhere else when they were expecting to be going home with their family. The adults in the party outnumbered the children - there would have been David, Samantha and their protection officers and surely it wasn't beyond the wit of them to check that all 3 children were accounted for.

Now, nothing went wrong. They were lucky. But they mucked up big time. I am absolutely disgusted with them. I would be saying exactly the same if it were Nick Clegg who had left one of his kids behind. It's not funny. What if she'd gone outside on her own to look for her parents and been knocked down by a car? The possibilities are endless.

If I had done something so monumentally stupid, I would be absolutely mortified. It wouldn't be all over the papers, but it would be a serious thing.

But just imagine if some unemployed single mother had left her child in a pub after lunch with her boyfriend. I am certain that the tabloid press would be ripping her to bits. It doesn't matter who does it, what their background is, it's utterly wrong and they should be ashamed of themselves. There are no excuses.

I'm not saying that any sort of action should be taken, but I think we are well within our rights to criticise the Camerons. To be fair, they are probably criticising themselves. The whole incident and reaction does show how as  society we are so adult orientated, how we don't see things from children's point of view and how we justify extremely poor parenting practice. Look at "sleep training", a euphemism for cruelty if ever there was one, as an example. There is no justification on any level for ever leaving a vulnerable human being in distress in my opinion, yet if your baby doesn't sleep through the night at a very early age, your health visitor will tell you to leave him or her to cry it out on a like it or lump it basis. There are no alternatives offered. This latest study from Texas is the latest in a long line which indicate that this is harmful.

Now, Nancy Cameron came to no harm, her mortified parents will no doubt be waking up in a cold sweat for weeks thinking about what could have happened, and they'll learn from the experience. That child will never be left anywhere again. However, we do our kids a disservice if we fail to recognise that this was a huge error. There's nobody more prolific than David Cameron at preaching to others about taking responsibility for their actions, after all.

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.

PMQs - Tragedy, Comedy and the Continuing Saga of the Family Bone

I'm not used to learning anything from the weekly pantomime that is Prime Minister's Questions. Sadly, though yesterday's session brought  me the news of the death of Marie Colvin, the veteran Sunday Times reporter whose often heartbreaking reports from war zones I've been reading most of my adult life. Both David Cameron and Ed Miliband paid tribute to her work, the latter calling her brave, tireless and an inspiration to women in her profession. More tragedy followed as Sajid Javid, the MP for Bromsgrove, asked the PM to join in with sympathy for those killed and injured in the bus crash involving children and staff from Alvechurch School.

It amazes me how seamlessly the Prime Minister, feeding off the querulous atmosphere in the Chamber, can go from talking about a very tragic situation to throwing verbal brickbats at the Opposition and in particular its leader.

Having said that, he seemed to go a bit easy on Ed Miliband yesterday. He didn't take the obvious temptation to throw in a quote from Alex Hilton's blistering criticism of the Labour leader with every answer, merely choosing to end their exchange with the stinging:

“You are not articulating a vision or a destination, you’re not clearly identifying a course and no-one’s following you…My problem is that you are not a leader.”

This was after one of Ed Miliband's better performances. He'd led on the NHS, castigating the PM's health summit for including few health workers and following up with increasingly specific questions on the commissioning of care, citing HIV services at Homerton Hospital as an example. This didn't suit Cameron's agenda, which was to talk about people who'd not published Risk Registers in the past. He had one A Burnham, Labour's health secretary in mind.

John Bercow intervened several times during their exchange. He implored MPs to strive to be "tranquil and statesmanlike." At noon on a Wednesday? A tad ambitious for them, so his later remarks seemed to be obsessed with pulling up MPs for not referring to each other in the third person. Which of these offends you more - hearing someone being addressed as "you" or seeing a bunch of mostly men behaving like a baying mob in the Mother of Parliaments?

However, there were moments of decorum, mostly provided by Liberal Democrats. Julian Huppert secured the PM's backing for the Times'  Cycle Safe campaign. Mike Crockart was not so lucky when he asked if the PM had been persuaded by his trip to Edinburgh last week that this was an ideal location for the Green Investment Bank.

Every time Conservative Peter Bone gets up to speak, he throws in some family anecdote. Usually he refers to something Mrs Bone has said to him, but today his young son took centre stage for apparently asking whether Nick Clegg was a goodie or a baddie. The House erupted in laughter as Cameron joked that there was only so much detail he can take about the Bone household. He didn't say Nick Clegg was a goodie, though. For that, Liberal Democrats can be grateful.

Why did David Cameron make me cry?

Well, it wasn't actually him, to be honest. It was as I was watching him being interviewed on BBC Newsnight Scotland last night, with the Forth Rail Bridge in the background that I started to wonder if he was in Orocco Pier, the hotel, perhaps the very room, where Andrew and Roger Reeves were married last January. Twitter seemed to confirm that he was.

As many of you will know, Andrew died very suddenly of a heart attack on 3 June and is missed every day by his huge legion of friends and family.

It made me think how he'd have been laughing and joking and blogging about the PM being in the same  room as his wedding. He literally wouldn't have shut up about it all day. That thought had barely penetrated my consciousness when I started blubbing.

This Monday would have been his 44th birthday, so it's been quite an emotional time anyway. People left some lovely messages on his Facebook wall that had me welling up on the day.

When I looked further on the Orocco website, I found a testimonial from him about their wedding.

My second thank you is to the team at the Orocco Pier; Leonie for the initial discussion and persuading me to book and then running the evening part of the big day; Claire, the events manager for just being bloody amazing from the day she returned from her own honeymoon right up the weekend before, guiding us through every possible eventuality; Robin for being a rock on the day, from the meeting the Monday before right through to leaving in the evening, made me completely relaxed; The kitchen team including the porters (the often forgotten part of the team) - the food was as amazing as everyone in Edinburgh told us it would be; The waitresses and bar staff - you were all wonderful, including getting the food round a tight space THANK YOU, each and everyone of you from the bottom of our hearts, the day was amazing and we will remember it forever. 

It's so very typically Andrew, remembering even those members of the team who do their hard work behind the scenes. As someone whose early career had been spent in the catering industry managing station cafes and mingling with celebrities at the Royal Society of Arts, he knew what he was talking about.

PM Cameron praises Chris Huhne's passion and distinction as he accepts resignation and Clegg offers a way back

The letters between Chris Huhne and David Cameron on Huhne's resignation as Energy and Climate Change secretary have been published on the Number 10 website:

First, Chris Huhne's. His pain is palpable as he recounts his achievements.

This letter is to submit with much regret my resignation as Energy and Climate Change Secretary.  I intend to mount a robust defence against the charges brought against me, and I have concluded that it would be distracting both to that effort and to my official duties if I were to continue in office.

It has been an honour to negotiate and then serve in the first coalition government of modern times which has substantial achievements both in reducing the economic dangers faced by our country, and in making progress with policies to tackle climate change and provide energy security.  

Internationally, we have helped to build a coalition of ambitious countries in Europe and beyond to put the United Nations process back on track.

It has been a privilege to be a minister in the coalition government, and I wish the administration every success with the environmental and economic challenges that lie ahead.

And David Cameron's reply:

Thank you for your letter informing me of your decision to resign from the Government. I believe you have made the right decision under the circumstances.

You have made a very significant contribution to the Government, of which you can be justly proud.

You were a member of the team which negotiated the formation of the Coalition Government between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats in those crucial days after the General Election, with our shared commitment to come together as two distinct political parties and govern in the national interest.

As Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, you have led the Government’s efforts to live up to its responsibility to tackle climate change with great passion and distinction.  You played a key role in securing the progress made at the Cancun and Durban summits, and I pay tribute to the leadership you showed at both.  You have been determined to deliver on our pledge that this should be the greenest Government ever, recognising that cutting carbon emissions is not a luxury but a necessity. And you have relentlessly championed green growth.

Thank you too for the important contribution you have made as a member of the National Security Council since its inception, not only on security of our energy supply, but also in our discussions on Afghanistan, and during the Libya campaign.

Like the Deputy Prime Minister, I am sorry to see you leave the Government under these circumstances and wish you well for the future.


Update:


Letters between Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne have also been published on the Deputy Prime Minister's website.

Chris provides an eloquent summary of what the Liberal Democrats have achieved in the Coalition Government. It must be so hard for him to leave it less than half way through.

Dear Nick,

I am writing to resign, with great regret, as Energy and Climate Change Secretary. I will defend myself robustly in the courts against the charges that the Crown Prosecution Service has decided to press. I have concluded that it would be distracting both to my trial defence and to my official duties if I were to continue in office as a minister.

It has been a privilege to serve with you in the first group of Liberal ministers in a British government since 1945. As Liberal Democrats in government, we have put the national interest first. When we negotiated the coalition agreement, Greece had been hit by financial crisis. Since then, Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Italy have all been hit, vindicating our decision to tackle our own bigger budget deficit. We have had an essential role in ensuring that those decisions are fair. Our decisions are putting in place the foundations for a long-lasting recovery, a rebalancing of the economy, and durable jobs.

Our role in the coalition has ensured that growth in the green economy – already accounting for more than a million jobs - will be a large part of the solution. We have legislated in the first Energy Act 2011 for the pioneering pay-as-you-save Green Deal which will revolutionise our energy saving efforts, provide jobs across the country, and save householders money. The white paper on Electricity Market Reform has mapped out a new policy to encourage the billions of investment that we need in all three families of low carbon electricity generation – renewables, nuclear and clean coal and gas. The Green Investment Bank will support this goal, and this will also create new industries in which the UK will have a head start.

We have put consumers’ interests – today and in the long term – at the heart of our policy, encouraging more competitors in the electricity and gas markets, working with Ofgem to simplify the confusion of tariffs, and getting tough on abuses.

I am proud that the UK has played a leading role in the revival of international climate change talks through the United Nations at Cancun and Durban. Climate change is an area where working with our European partners can help us to achieve national goals which would be out of reach if we were isolated and alone.

The Liberal Democrats under your leadership are playing an essential role in ensuring that the coalition government reflects liberal values at home and abroad. I have been proud to help put our commitments to freedom, fairness and the environment into practice, and to demonstrate once again that liberalism is alive and well in the country of its birth.

Best Wishes,

Chris Huhne


Nick's reply stated that if he were able to clear his name, he could "return to play a key role in Government as soon as possible".


Dear Chris,

Thank you for your letter.

I am immensely grateful for the huge contribution you have made to the government over the past 18 months; both in the trailblazing work you have undertaken as Energy and Climate Change Secretary and in your wider role in government as a key architect of the coalition.

You have shown real leadership in your time at DECC, driving forward a key part of the government's agenda tackling the challenges of climate change and driving green growth and jobs. The Green Deal and other major initiatives that you pioneered will deliver major dividends to the public while marking a major step change in the UK's approach to the environment.

I fully understand your decision to stand down from government in order to clear your name but I hope you will be able to do so rapidly so that you can return to play a key role in government as soon as possible.

Best wishes,

Nick Clegg

Mike Moore launches independence consultation in statesmanlike Commons statement

Today belongs to Michael Moore. After a torrid few days on the Scottish political scene, he told the House of Commons this afternoon that he was launching a consultation aimed at "empowering the people of Scotland to participate in a legal referendum".

In the view of the Westminster Government (and as I wrote earlier the highest echelons of the SNP and proper  lawyers), the Scottish Government does not currently have the legal power to hold a referendum. We've been hearing for days that the UK Government was therefore going to take over the whole thing, dictate terms, basically run the referendum. Maybe that's what David Cameron wanted to do, but thankfully the Lib Dem insistence on reason won the day. For Mike didn't have some sort of High Noon style showdown. He announced a consultation, open till 9th March, open to all Scots to complete. I suspect you'll be hearing a bit more of that on here over the next few weeks.

The document asks people for their views on issues like timing, the question(s), whether it should be supervised by the Electoral Commission and who should have the vote.

While Mike was still on his feet in the Commons taking a good hour's worth of questions, Alex Salmond, in a blatant attempt to grab the headlines for tomorrow, went live on the news and announced that the Government intended to hold the referendum in the Autumn of 2014. The whole thing put me in mind of that moment in in 1994 when Diana went out in an amazing dress as Charles gave his interview to Jonathan Dimbleby. Except, clearly, Eck isn't quite as sexy.

I also thought it was a bit rude of the First Minister to so hurriedly announce the date on the news, rather than to his own Parliament. There was no reason he had to do it then - it could have waited until tomorrow.

If the SNP's preferred date sticks, that's almost 3 years away. I am almost at the end of my tether after 8 months of bickering and snidiness. If I'm going to save my sanity, this campaign has to up its game in terms of quality, positivity and passion on both sides.

Anyway, as has become my custom, I've compiled my tweets of the occasion along with some others into a Storify thingy which is below. Now, I know I've made a couple of howlers, when my brain wandered, but I'm sure you get my drift. Successional clearly means successful. You might like my conversation with Tom Harris, Labour's self-styled attack dog about the need for a positive campaign.

I'm sure that Mike Moore will have won over a lot of respect today for a very people centred, positive performance which compares well with the First Minister's Diva antics.

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.

Clegg trounces Cameron and Osborne in poll..........

.............. Ok, it's only Heat magazine's Weird Crush list of 2011, but these things have to be mentioned. I'm sure you would be disappointed if as big a fan of the trashy as I am failed to bring it up. In fact, if I'd only bothered, as I have previously, to try and drum up votes for him, he might have finished even higher.



They have used an absolutely terrible photo of Nick in this - I am sure they could have found a better one if they'd bothered to look. Anyway, he comes in at number 13, the same position as last year, while David Cameron and, believe it or not, George Osborne are at 14 and 15 respectively. What is even more bizarre is Ed Balls at 16.

I suppose it's a good thing that 4 politicians come above both Simon Cowell and Louis Walsh whose profiles are sky high. What I don't get, though, is Matt Smith and Alan Rickman being on such a list at all. It is in no way weird to find either of these gentlemen attractive, I'd say. And when I say attractive, it has more to do with personality than superficial looks. I'm not shallow, much.

I'm quite surprised that we haven't had Alex Salmond blaming the UK Government for his omission and saying that in an independent Scotland he'd have topped the poll.

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.

But, Boss, the Prime Minister told me to bring her.......

Yesterday afternoon, I had a text from my daughter's school confirming that they were definitely closing next Wednesday, the day of the massive public sector strike over pensions.

But, that's fine - no problem - because David Cameron and Louise Mensch came up with the perfect solution yesterday at Prime Minister's Questions - Bob should just take her into the office with him.

Mrs Mensch's was I think the third in a series of questions clearly drummed up by Tory whips to give Cameron the chance to have a go at the strikers. This is how it went:

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that one of most disruptive impacts of next week’s strikes will be on mums and dads with children in school? Will he join me in encouraging employers to allow parents to bring their children to work when it is safe to do so?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the strikes next week. Frankly, the strikes are going to go ahead and everybody should be very clear about where the responsibility lies: it lies with the union leaders and with the Labour party, which is taking their side and backing the strike. She makes the important point that when it is safe for people to take their children to work, organisations should allow them to do so.

Cameron doesn't really care much for health and safety anyway, so I expect he'd consider most workplaces appropriate for children.

Now, I can must imagine what my husband's boss would  say if he turned up with Anna next Wednesday, and it wouldn't be printable on a family blog. I have, of course, suggested to him that he floats the idea today, purely for mischief making purposes.

He's not going to be taking her, obviously, because I'm here to look after her. But if I wasn't I'm sure neither of us would want to subject her to the abuse she'd no doubt get if she walked across a picket line. Adults can (although they shouldn't have to) deal with that sort of thing, but children should not.

It got me thinking, though, what do parents who don't have alternative child care do?

I'm also fairly certain that if my husband put in a day's annual leave to look after her, his employers would simply refuse it and count him as being on strike, despite him never having participated in strike action before or the fact that he is not even a union member. He'd lose a day's pay unjustifiably. We really need to make sure that nobody's penalised in this way for their caring responsibilities - and that includes relatives whose carers are on strike having to go and get elderly parents up, breakfasted, washed and the like.

Last night on Twitter, Purplesun2001 pointed out that most people will have used their annual leave allowance by this time of year so may well have to take unpaid leave to fulfil their caring responsibilities.

I don't agree with this strike - it's tactically stupid. When was the last time a strike actually worked? There are serious issues over pensions which worry me. I'm concerned about the situation in 40 years time when today's young people haven't been able to save up enough to provide for themselves in retirement. Striking will ultimately be counter-productive, though and will only harm the people who take part in it.

I also don't agree with the macho hard ball stuff coming from the Government - with Francis Maude suggesting that the offer could be withdrawn if the strike goes ahead. The Tories who are murmuring about minimum turnouts in union strike ballots might like to look at turnout in particularly local government elections and reflect on that. In the Hillhead by-election last week, just 13% took part - but everyone had the choice and the chance to vote. Even a low strike turnout is more of a mandate than those really scary mass meetings I remember from my childhood. Everyone voted in favour - but what would have happened if they'd tried to defy the union bosses? The potential for intimidation was obvious.

I wonder if we'll see the little Camerons at work with Daddy next Wednesday although I really hope not because it would be pretty exploitative. I'm not sure Cameron really understands the real world of work, though, if that's his solution to schools being closed for strike action.