The Yellow Pimpernel

Whatever you do... don't mention Coco Pops!

2011-02-20T04:03:00.000-08:00

It was a Saturday. Carwyn Jones had just finished his speech, and Leighton Andrews had prepared well for his appearance before the media. He was nervous. He had watched Fawlty Towers the night before. That, and his guilt about the funding gap between English and Welsh students had combined to create the weirdest dreams, where the Coco Monkey was doing a goose-step round a British hotel screaming, “DON’T MENTION THE COCO POPS!”

To be fair, it must have been terrifying. And maybe that’s why he dressed the way he did. He had chosen a saucy little number. Jeans, suit, shirt and tie (deliberate reference to fashion – may start describing male fashion more, until people stop describing the fashion of female politicians). It was a brave choice of attire, but the mismatched jeans and suit combination was an unfortunate parallel of the disjointed nature of his tenure as Education Minister.

Leighton Andrews is everything that is wrong with (Newer) Newish Welsh New (now Old again) Labour.

Education Failure and Criminal Political Games

He is desperately trying to bring Education back under the absolute control of the Welsh Assembly Government. Now maybe it’s necessary sometimes to keep monitoring what’s happening especially with regards to standards. But he keeps avoiding the issue: Welsh pupils are underfunded, compared to English pupils, by £527!

Now I’m sure when asked about this, he’ll say “DON’T MENTION THE COCO POPS!” or maybe that old classic, “TORY-LED GOVERNMENT SPENDING CUTS!”

Yes, he will try and blame it on London.

But please. The Welsh people aren’t stupid. And he needs to stop treating us like we are. Labour was in power in London since 1997. So in that case... who is to blame for failures in Wales? Since 1997 Labour have been in charge in Wales in every Government. And believe me; an education spending gap of £527 doesn’t just turn up after a year of a Coalition Government.

So who is to blame? Leighton Andrews, and his predecessors.

Do you know what make this worse?

The introduction of the Liberal Democrats’ policy of the Pupil Premium in London could have meant a huge amount of money for Welsh schools – for the poorest Welsh schools. Now imagine it. All those lovely Labour champagne socialists in the Bay need to think about this. Imagine it. Those schools in Wales, some of who are failing the poorest and most vulnerable communities in Wales, could have been given more funding to target their poorest children.

Instead, Leighton ignored the policy. I mean, it’s a Lib Dem idea, isn’t it Leighton? We can’t go having Lib Dem ideas that actually work being implemented, can we?

And then there’s his awful, awful response to a question yesterday.

When asked about his free breakfast policy, Leighton erupted. “DON’T MENTION THE COCO POPS!” he spat hysterically. Maybe it reminded him of his nervous dream the night before? It must be hard, spending every night worrying that the people of Wales might wake up to his shocking underfunding of our education system.

Or maybe it’s because he was asked a question.

Leighton doesn’t like questions. They’re too much effort for this man. They’re far too much effort for someone who rules by diktat. They’re far too much effort for this Minister who has tried time and time again to bring more and more power into his Department.

But there are tough times coming up. And what would the people of Wales rather see: Coco Pops in the bowls of kids? Or real investment to tackle the huge, gross inequality in our small country?

As Kirsty Williams said a few Conference ago. You don’t tackle poverty by “waving a piece of toast at it”.

Sorry. I mentioned the Coco Pops. And toast. Please don’t hit me, Leighton.

Hooters and Feminism

2010-08-14T07:47:00.000-07:00

I’m a feminist.

But I might not be their kind of feminist. Or your kind of feminist. Or his kind of feminist. Or her kind of feminist.

Unfortunately (and fortunately!) there are many kinds of feminism. It makes it a rich academic field, it makes it a potent political force (or did), and it makes it a hugely important area of thought to consider.

Unfortunately, feminism as a concept is in danger.

Had I said that, decades ago, we might have blamed the silent majority complicit in male oppression. We may have blamed the status quo, or the system, or Conservatives (and conservatives with a smaller c).

Nowadays, feminism is in danger from two main areas: firstly, apathy and secondly, though this is only my view, from the increasingly “out there” actions of an increasingly vocal (yet of an increasingly diminishing number) feminists.

If you ask a girl or woman whether she is a feminist, their face (generally) will pale, and they will say, “No!”

If you ask a boy or man whether he is a feminist, they will (generally) snort, or something suitably "male" before saying, “No!”

And that’s worrying, surely?

The view that apathy is killing feminism has been documented and spoken about. There is a distinct view that there is nothing left to fight for. This, of course, is fundamentally untrue. The feminist cause, whilst having achieved great victories, has many more battles to fight (see my earlier blog post on that very subject).

The second hypothesis is one that is probably controversial – the fact that, in some respects, feminists have become guilty of alienating the mainstream from their cause.
I think feminism has fallen victim to its own over-intellectualising approach.

Nowadays, to be a “feminist”, one has to identify whether you are first, second, or third wave. One has to identify whether you are an anarcho-feminist, a socialist feminist, a radical feminist, a liberal feminist. One has to work out whether or not lesbianism is a choice or a biological fact. One has to wade through tracts on political lesbianism. Then there is the question of whether or not feminism is meant to be opposed to capitalism. There are reams upon reams upon reams of feminist theory.

Unfortunately, by over-intellectualising, and by splintering into innumerable fragments of varying philosophies and approaches, feminism has lost its voice. And when it finds its voice, it is (regrettably) a voice that is raised in tired arguments that no longer need to be had.

For example, myself and my friends are all (predominantly, anyway) feminists. Only when I say ask them, “Are you a feminist?” they back away. Which is odd, because they agree progress still has to be made on a variety of (women’s?) political issues: political representation of women; the tone of the media towards women of all kinds; body issues, viewed by many feminists as a new (or old, with new weapons) battle of women’s rights; childcare; prostitution, rape and domestic violence.

The consensus that action needs to be taken on all those issues (and more) should, logically, lead to an overwhelming number of women identifying as feminists.

Unfortunately, they do not.

I remember I was once told I couldn’t be a feminist because I was a man.

I was then given chapter and verse about how, because I happened to have a penis, I was by default part of the predatory nature of man. That somehow, because I happened to be born a man, I was predicated to the setting of rapist and abuser, and that therefore I was not worthy (my word, not hers) of standing alongside women and fighting for their rights.

It was like being told I couldn’t oppose racism because I was white.

Or like someone being told they can’t oppose homophobia because they’re straight.

Or like ... well... anything else that is incredibly stupid.

(Incidentally as an aside, whilst I understand the motivations behind women’s only marches, and accept their potency in uniting women and giving them a confidence and a safe place, there is still an element of me that cries out, “No! I want to fight with you! My voice is as powerful as yours, let me raise it with you and change the world!” But I suppose that might be my innate, natural tendency to oppress women coming out, there.)

So why this sprawling, inconclusive discussion on feminism?
Well, because of Hooters. Matt Smith has already blogged here about the arguments for and against. My discussion is taking a different tangent, and asking feminists directly, “Why?”

Why are they challenging this place?

Is it because men might leer at women? Yes, that is unpleasant. The only argument that has any sway with me is the fact that it propagates the view of women as sex objects, which diminishes them in the eyes of men, making Hooters, in a sense, societal endorsement of predatory attitudes towards women.

So yes, it is unpleasant. Yes, it may propagate that view of women. But the key point here is that it is those women’s choice to work there. Just as it is a woman’s choice (or should be) if they want to work as a lawyer or stay at home and look after children.

For me, feminism is not about an equally narrow-minded approach from a small section of feminists, to the narrow-minded nature of misogynist men. For me, feminism is about the power of choice.

Is it a woman’s choice to work in Hooters? Yes.

If you are a feminist who doesn’t like it, don’t go there. But don’t look down on a woman because she chooses to use the freedom you claim you fight for. Unfortunately there is also an element within feminism of “you do it our radical way or you are a man’s plaything”. There is an element of feminism which looks down on women who want to be mothers, who want to get married, who want to have the choice and freedom to do whatever they want. For even the smallest most radical section of feminism to take any of that choice away is selfish, controlling, and hideously patriarchal and oppressive.

So, Hooters. And feminists.

As a final point. Why in the name of feminism or anything else, are you campaigning here? Against a bar?

Do you realise, anyone who is devoting their time to this, that for every minute you spend campaigning, sending leaflets, picketing, or whatever... you could be fundraising for a women’s shelter?

Do you realise that for every moment you spend writing letters into the local paper... you could be writing letters prompting action from people with regards to political representation or equal pay?

Do you realise that for every councillor you contact, asking them to oppose Hooters, you could have contacted that same councillor ... asking them to donate some of their community fund to a local women’s group, for a new kettle, or a microwave, or something concrete that might help some of the most vulnerable women in our society?

So please. Feminists concerned about Hooters? That’s fine, be concerned. I suppose deep down if I had a choice I’d rather it wasn’t there.

But any time I have (other than writing this blog post) that I might have used to protest against Hooters, will be spent working on real issues of importance.

A simple, brutal question: would you rather, as a feminist, stop a restaurant or reach out that hand to help someone who has just escaped from an abusive relationship, who needs help? Will you help to provide her with shelter and food urgently to help her stay free?

Or would you rather stand outside Hooters feeling vindicated about how much of a feminist you are, looking down on those silly women endorsing male views of oppression – whilst behind you in the street, you fail to notice a woman with a child walking past, dreading every step that brings her closer to her house?

Will you focus on the glitzy restaurant, and ignore the pain and fear far closer to home?

I know which one I’d take action on.

But because we’re a free society, and I’m a feminist, the choice is yours.

My Coalition Squee Moment

2010-06-15T03:16:00.000-07:00

It is not often in the past fourteen years that I've actually gone "SQUEE!" when I've seen a news article. Okay, maybe very occasionally, but generally when the Labour Party were in power I'd feel generally angry, betrayed and devastated whenever they acted with a ridiculous, knee-jerk, instinctively statist and dictatorial motivation.

I remember last year particularly, I felt as if I was in some sort of parallel universe, where a Government was using the safety and health of our children as a means of appearing tough politically. I remember blogging (here, here here and here about it, and setting up a Facebook group and attempting to gather like-minded people together.

As Campaigns Officer of IR Cymru, I also wrote a motion which passed unanimously at the Welsh Liberal Democrat conference. This called on the Welsh Liberal Democrats to fight the formation of the ISA at every stage. In my mind, I was glad that our political party would form a barrier at Offa's Dyke, to keep the dictatorship Leviathan out of Wales.

So imagine my joy today (yes, a literal SQUEE) when I saw this news. I am happy for many reasons. First, that the new coalition, which stands for a freedom so opposed to anything Labout ever proposed, has decided to cancel this vile plan. I am also happy that it was IR Cymru, the youth wing of the Welsh Party, that led the charge against it. I am ecstatic that it was so enthusiastically supported by our Party.

It is why I love both the Liberal Democrats and the youth movement. Our instincts, generally, are spot on. We seek to protect the individual, we seek to safeguard liberty and freedom. We refuse any attempt to increase the intolerable hold of the state over our lives.

So I want to say:

Thank you to those who felt the same as I did, and who tried to fight.

Thank you to those in IR Cymru who fully supported my motion.

Thank you to those in the Welsh Lib Dems who voted for my motion.

Thank you to the coalition Government.

But above all?

Thank you to the millions and millions of people who said no to Labour's autocracy.

It means children might be able to start trusting again. It means we are not branded as criminals for just wanting to work with children. It means our lives are not probed and examined by the Government. It means our charities can survive and do their wonderful, wonderful work.

What makes this news better, is that I know there is more coming. Slowly, slowly but surely, the great Leviathan of Labour's state is being driven back. It will take time, but the tide is turning.

And it feels bloody amazing.

How the Liberal Democrats can win a majority, actually...

2010-04-01T14:13:00.000-07:00

There’s been a lot of discussion about Howard Dean, claiming the Liberal Democrats could win a majority, or at the least that Nick Clegg could be Prime Minister. Well, I’ve put my thinking cap on, about how we might actually reach that target.

It’s difficult really, because I don’t know tonnes and tonnes about polling methodologies and weighting. But even a complete amateur like me can make a few diverting observations that are more fun than watching the news.

The lowest (I know they have gone lower, but let’s consider this the “normal” lowest for now) the Tories have gone in recent times is 31%. At the moment, the Conservatives are polling an average of 38%. Which gives, to my mind, 7% “softenable” vote that can be taken from the Tories.

The lowest Labour have gone is 22% - although such a position had not been seen, until last year, for over two decades. So, let us say the lowest “normal” vote for Labour is 24%. A fairly arbitrary figure I know, but for illustrative purposes, it is useful.

So, the current averages for the polls (from ukpollingreport): Conservatives 38, Labour 30, and the Lib Dems on 19.

Well, what follows is what could potentially happen to bring us within reach (in terms of votes, not, unfortunately, seats) of winning a General Election.

(election is called): media coverage begins to give more equal air time to the Liberal Democrats. We usually jump 3 or 4 points during an election. Now, what is interesting, is to compare our ICM poll results from previous to the 2005 General Election, to the ICM poll results we are seeing now.

Around the start of April 2005, we were polling 21%. It is interesting that in the poll for April by ICM today, we are polling 23%. Notice that the election has not been called yet, so we may still benefit from fair coverage during the campaign proper. Now, because we’ve been a bit more clever lately at fighting our corner, I am not sure if our poll results will still jump as much as 3 or 4. They may well do, but let’s be cautious and call our “general election boost” +2%. Where will that leave us around the start of the General Election? 25%.

Looking at the numbers from May, we can see that when we were last on 25%, Labour were languishing on 22% and the Tories were in the heady heights of the magic 40%. I doubt those numbers will be replicated. So instead, let’s turn to July 2004, when we polled 25%, Labour 35%, and the Conservatives 30%. Well, that means the Labservative share comes to 65%, when we stand at 25%.

So, to extrapolate from our most recent ICM poll, we could potentially see the following figures a short time into the next election:

Lib Dem: 25% Labour: 28% Conservative: 37%

That’s quite a strong showing already, but alas, as elections tend to do, voters would solidify around the two main parties, as is the accepted wisdom for a “change” election. But wait! There’s something new this time. Actually, some three things new.

15th April, ITV Leaders’ Debate: now, this has never happened before. We are not sure how or if at all, these debates will affect our showing. But I think we will do very well for them. And I am going to suggest that we gain 3% after the first debate, with the debate “payoff” reducing a little after each one, as voters adjust to seeing us on an equal footing with the other two. This could change if our leader makes a gaffe, or either of the other two make a gaffe, of course.

So, a few days after the first debate, you could potentially wake up to these poll results:

Lib Dem: 28% Labour: 28% Conservative: 34%

I know, it could be more likely that we gain Labour voters than Conservatives, but I am trying to be extremely cautious here. Well, as cautious as I can be whilst being wildly optimistic. Rather than hoping to be ahead of Labour just a while into the next election, let’s at least hope to be level with them. But anyway, just imagine how these scores would look to the voters. All of a sudden, it looks like a three-way fight. And that is just plain exciting!

22nd April, Sky: okay, so then we hit the next one. And I’m going to be incredibly unoptimistic, and suggest we only gain 1% from this poll, touching as it does upon foreign affairs and potentially the poison chalice of Europe. So imagine waking up a few days after that debate, with these numbers:

Lib Dem: 29% Labour: 27% Conservative: 34%

Jesus, all of a sudden we’re two points ahead of Labour in the polls, and Nick Clegg starts talking about the possibility of a Liberal Democrat government. All of a sudden, it doesn’t seem so stupid. I mean, the Conservatives are five points ahead, but Labour are starting to slide down, and the Liberal Democrats are offering real radical change. Radical tax policies, radical environmental policies, policies that by now are being spread across the entire country.

29th April, BBC: And there’s still one more debate. During which we will talk about our tax policies until we are blue in the face. So then, we close our eyes, and head out over the next few days to deliver more and more leaflets. Nick Clegg is on the radio, news presenters are talking about the potential “death of Labour”, people are talking about “thinking the unthinkable”. Something has changed in the election mood, and there is a real sense of movement from the Liberal Democrats.

And then a new poll hits us:

Lib Dem: 31% Labour: 25% Conservative: 34%

By now, Labour and the Tories are starting to foam at the mouth. The Tories are flinging Europe at us (ouch, meant the issue of Europe, not the whole continent, because that would hurt), but it doesn’t really wash, because it runs the risk of opening up Tory divisions on Europe. Maybe the Tories get rattled enough to start returning to their reflexive attitudes, similar to those under Howard? Labour are telling people that “a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for the Tories”, but that isn’t working either. Because now Nick Clegg can point at the numbers and say, “No. We are in second place. A vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote for the Liberal Democrats.” Mud is being thrown left right and centre. They are panicking.
And slowly, polling day approaches, and we are just three points behind the Conservatives, and they are three points away from their “normal” lowest vote.

6th May, Polling Day: So imagine the unimaginable, and imagine exit polls that show the following:

Lib Dem: 34% Labour: 25% Conservative: 31%

Of course, then you have to fight the inherent imbalance in the political system. But if we obtained that result, and if (as it says according to ukpollingreport) we had the following seat allocations, then there would be real, serious questions about our democracy.

Lib Dem MPs: 148 Labour MPs: 235 Conservative MPs: 234

I know, it isn’t a majority.

So for fun, I tried to work out what we’d need for a majority, by firstly going to the limits of what Labour and the Conservatives have polled recently - Labour: 22%, Conservatives: 28% Lib Dems (as a result): 40%.

These “election” results are fun:

Labour: 151 seats. Conservatives: 162 seats. Lib Dems: 302 seats.

Imagine.

Now, I don’t think it is likely. I mean, by being really quite cautious, we reach a heady height by May 6th anyway. How could we manage to beat both the Labour Party and the Tory Party to their lower vote shares, in the space between the last debate and polling day?

And it is a challenge in itself to sustain the potential growth in our vote share. That would mean our Party would need to work to keep the poll result up in time for the next debate, then sustain that level in time for the last one. If we rise after one debate, then fall, then rise, then fall, we will not break through.

But all the same, the opportunity is there. This is the first time I have sat down and tried to imagine a cautious, gradual, but (at a stretch) achievable route to a strong second place (in vote share, not seat share). Then once you’ve reached that achievable strong second place in vote share, you sort of have to see how we could get to a majority (or as close to it as possible). And then you realise that actually, the jump from the lofty heights of the Liberal Democrats on 34%, and the Liberal Democrats on 40%, is not completely outside the realms of possibility.

And so when Howard Dean is laughed at for saying “There could be a Liberal Democrat Prime Minister”, you can smile. Because yes: he is reaching for the stuff of incredibly distant, far-away dreams. But for the first time in years, that stuff is out there to touch.

I suppose we just have to campaign for it.

And believe in it. Because yes, it is close to impossible.

But not completely impossible.

The Feminist Battles of the 21st Century

2010-02-26T04:56:00.000-08:00

I know, I know, feminism is a dirty word. I mean, what else can there be to fight for, now that we have the equal pay act, anti-discrimination laws, and (puke) all-women shortlists?

There are many women nowadays who will describe themselves as anti-feminists, with great passion and vigour to their voices. They speak about being anti-feminists with the same passion of the suffragettes and suffragists, when they fought for the fundamental right to vote.

Every woman (and every man, for that matter) should be a feminist. Now, a radical feminist might hate the idea that a man is writing this. Men, after all, are the cause of patriarchal oppression and so having the default perpetrator of millennia of oppression suddenly speaking out for feminism might be seen as wrong, somehow. But then, I never said I was a radical feminist. I am just a feminist who is occasionally radical. There is a difference.

Those who misquote, misrepresent and focus their views of feminism on rare, fringe, radical feminists have, in my opinion, done more to destroy the common ground for the last battles of feminism than any sexist man could ever have done.

I am not talking here, about the questions asked by radical feminists who challenge the societal, defined roles of women, nor about any of the vital points that have contributed to a vast body of theory and argument which cannot be neglected or dismissed. But there is a lot of wacky radical feminism out there, and it is a deep shame that feminism is seen nowadays as inseparable from that wacky fringe. When we watch debates, or listen to radio shows, or watch TV political programmes, that sort of “fringe” feminism is seen as the feminism by which we should define ourselves. It is wrong, and as I wrote above, it has in my view weakened the fight for true equality.

I do not believe... no. That is not strong enough: in no way, at all, ever, would I ever accept or even condone the view that all men are intrinsically motivated towards violence or abuse. That is a view shared by many of the “fringe” feminists. I also fundamentally believe that our society has changed so much for women in the past hundred years, to make the UK almost unrecognisable today. That is not a view shared by many of the “fringe” feminists.

So, before I get to the point of this blog post, let me be clear about what I mean by feminism. I do not mean that narrow-minded fringe feminism that paints men as villains, that decries women for choosing to marry and have children, that denounces women for giving up jobs to raise children. I am talking about the feminism of choice and freedom. It is a feminism of choice and freedom that allows women to seize whatever opportunity they wish.

(I am aware that the tone of this blog post may end up seeming patrician and patriarchal, as if I am anyone of import to deign to talk about allowing women the freedom – I apologise if it comes across that way, but unfortunately, I am bound by the words that exist, and it is hard to qualify exactly what I am trying to say.)

So, what do I feel are the biggest battles left to fight? What issues do I think that all people should rally round as if marching to war?

The lingering, un-ending horror of domestic violence and the woeful lack of care for women suffering from eating disorders.

These are, I feel, two of the biggest battles left to fight for feminists. There are, undoubtedly, far more. They are all important: greater access to childcare for example, ensuring representation of women in our democracy, and ensuring that the glass ceiling is well and truly broken, to name another three. But, and though it pains me to say it, none of those three issues are anywhere near as important as the first two I named.

In England and Wales, two women a week are killed due to domestic violence. That is just one of the terrifying statistics concerning domestic violence. It is a livid scar on the face of our country. It is a mark of shame that it still continues unabated. Unfortunately, it will never be possible without a Big Brother state of gargantuan proportions, to prevent every single incident of domestic violence. However, there is still a lot we can do. I am sure every single woman’s charity has suggestions on how to help deal with domestic violence. I am also aware however, that all these suggestions cost money which, in the current climate, is hard, or impossible, to find.

So, perhaps it is worth contemplating an action so grubby, so dirty, so sickeningly statist, that it might make our liberal stomachs churn. I would suggest that any man convicted of domestic violence or rape should be forced (yes, I used that dreaded word forced) to pay a huge amount of money to the Government, which would then be used to fund the support systems that victims of rape and abuse need.

Let’s say a man living in a beautiful house, with a beautiful car, and a fantastic job, leaves his wife emotionally and physically scarred, living under the shadow of a terror that may never fade. Why should he not be forced (yes, that word again) to lose a large part of that money, to allow other suffering women to find a way out?

I am also very supportive, for perhaps the first time in my life, of the illiberal, draconian, heavy-handed measures by France to electronically tag violent husbands. I am still working out what I think about the nuances of the law, but in practice, I actually strongly support this idea and, if UK women’s charities believe it would help here, I would be 100% behind a similar move in our country.

Illiberal, yes. But arguably necessary, in a way that ID cards just are not.

Eating disorders are responsible for more loss of life than any other type of psychological illness.

At least 1.1 million people in the UK are affected by an eating disorder.

A survey by Beat of 600 young people found: only 1 per cent of children felt they could tell their parents. 9 per cent of children felt they could tell someone in school. 17 per cent of children felt they might be able to talk to a doctor or a nurse. 92 per cent of children felt they couldn’t tell anyone.

There is a temptation when it comes to talking about eating disorders, to focus on body image, and magazines. Whilst these are obviously contributory, and remain one of the key reasons I offer my resounding support for the Real Women campaign, the issue of eating disorders cannot be so easily dealt with. It requires massive changes in the way we deal with these disorders.

For example, (if it has not already been done) we should start to count eating disorders as a cause of death. I have been told that when people die as a result of eating disorders, the cause of death is entered as heart failure, or kidney failure, or such like. By ensuring that doctors note the eating disorder’s cause of the death, we can begin to get a much greater impression of the scale of eating disorders.

There are many other issues raised by Beat, a fantastic charity, which I urge you to look into. They make the case for action on eating disorders far more eloquently than I could ever hope to.

These two issues do go beyond feminism. But they also serve as a potent reminder (and a shameful one) that feminism is not redundant for the 21st century. They serve as a call to arms for all caring people to take real action to beat these problems. Whilst perhaps not as “glamorous” as the right to vote, they are nonetheless just as vital.
We are talking about the rights of women to live safely in their own home, and to live a life free from the terrible burden of anorexia, bulimia, or any other eating disorders. The right to life a healthy, safe life is something that all of us take for granted.

And it is a right that is denied to an incredible number of women every single second of every single day, in the UK.

So no, feminism is not dead, and never will be, whilst these infections linger in our society.

Maybe think about that if you ever listen to a radio debate when someone phones in and talks about feminism being irrelevant, or the fact that there are no struggles to fight any longer for women in the UK.

And maybe wonder why so many people think that, and who is insisting on focusing our minds on the wacky fringe feminism, as opposed to the hugely relevant, vital battles still to fight.

It is something to think about. No, more than that: it is something to act on.

Why We Should Hug Tories...

2010-02-17T07:46:00.000-08:00

There have been many blog posts over the past few weeks or months about the Conservatives and gay rights. Most of them have been examples of exhaustive, agonising examination of the Shadow Cabinet. And some of the points raised by the bloggers have been important and constructive. However, what I find extremely distasteful, is the way in which we have begun to use it in the Party, as a political football.

Ask me the question “Which political party in the UK is most committed to gay rights?”

The answer would come back loud and clear, “The Liberal Democrats.”

From the perspective of Liberal Youth Wales, it is amazing to see our consistent arguments and policy ideas being taken forward by Nick Clegg. In 2007 MIDR Cymru persuaded the Welsh Liberal Democrats to vote to allow gay men to donate blood. It is great to see this policy being strongly supported by Nick Clegg.

In 2009, our youth organisation (now known as IR Cymru) persuaded the Welsh Liberal Democrats to pass a policy in which we would institute compulsory anti-homophobic bullying guidance (and sex education) in all schools whether public, state or faith. It is incredible to see this policy being supported by Nick Clegg in his interviews with Attitude and Pink News.

So, let us be clear and let us be clearly happy. The Liberal Democrats (as ever, on gay rights) lead the way. We are miles ahead of the other parties in seeing what must be done, and having the political will to do it.

However... do we need to constantly attack Cameron on gay rights? This constant wailing (it seems to me) is only distracting from something which we should be pleased about. A Conservative leader actually talking about gay issues and listening to them? A Conservative leader, actually considering how to end homophobic bullying? Incidentally, his plans are ridiculous and designed to avoid any major clash with the religious establishment. But that’s an attack on his policy, and not on him.

Yes, there are serious questions to ask of the Conservatives. But why can’t we be happy for once, and welcome the Conservatives into the 20th Century? They can join us in the 21st Century in the next decade, but can we at least be pleased that for possibly the first time, gay men and women can choose either of the three main parties based on their political beliefs and not based on having to defend their sexuality?

It has always appeared to me that there is too much of a focus on “gay” as an identity (just as much as there is too much of a focus on “Catholic”, “Liberal Democrat”, “British”, “Welsh”, etc, identity). When you meet someone, you don’t want them to say, “I’m Billy, I’m gay.” You want them to say “I’m Billy”, and be happy that they are a person, with all the complexities and beliefs and issues any person will have.

If religion, sexuality, disability, etc, becomes the sole determining factor of that person’s identity, that person will constantly have to fight everyone. It also means that that “culture” and “identity” becomes closed-off, elitist, dismissive of change. For example: the gay community and culture. I know many LGBT people who find that community quite dismissive and closed-off to gay people of certain views and beliefs – and (although a minority) of a certain size.

By having just one identity, it means that, because an entire being is taken up with one identity, one “raison d’etre”, there can be no room for compromise. There can be no room for the appreciation of other beliefs and ideas, no room for the acceptance that a multicultural society needs to survive.

This blog post is turning very heavy, very quickly. But it is not enough for us to boldly declare, “We have a multicultural society” and expect society to follow suit. No. We must work hard, and see places where compromise is possible, and places where compromise is not. We must ensure that people are able to identify with many different communities, ideas and beliefs. Because then as individuals, we can reach out to join others, rather than putting up walls (or being at the receiving end of others’ walls) that create division and hatred.

The Conservatives are a perfect example. Do I believe the entire Party has changed? Nope. But do I believe that Cameron is at least genuine in having had a rethink about his beliefs on homosexuality? Yes. I may detest the man and his politics, but to criticise a man for now supporting gay rights just because he never used to, seems a bit much.

How are we meant to persuade anyone with entrenched views about gay rights to support gay rights, if we lambast the man who does a U-turn on his beliefs?

We need to be grown up about it. And we need to welcome Cameron into the new era of accepting gay rights.

And direct our questions and accusations of homophobia against other members of his Party, not the man who did risk a great deal by raising the subject of gay partnerships at a Conservative Party conference.

You do not gain equality and acceptance by forcing it on people. You gain equality and acceptance by preserving your own freedoms and then slowly (and yes, infuriatingly slowly) working to convince others to support your different views.

You don’t gain equality and acceptance by bellowing down anyone who thinks differently, or who used to think differently.

Why I Might Be £1080 Better Off This Time Next Year…

2010-02-15T09:58:00.000-08:00

Okay, so I’m not sure how much tax you pay on bets, so my calculations may be a bit “off”. But last year, when my student loan came through, I decided to be brave and fork out £20 as a sort of long-term investment. If it doesn’t pay off, well, none of my 2010 income has been devoted to the failure, so I can write it off as the folly of a previous year.

I placed two £10 bets with Ladbrokes. One, I did as a hopeful safe bet.

For Sarah Teather to win Brent Central. I’ve always liked Sarah Teather, and would back her campaigning vigour and ferocity against (almost) anyone. So although last year the general “odds” were against her, I decided to put £10 on her winning Brent Central. Interesting, and a hopefully safe return on my money to leave with (at least) a £10 profit from my fiendish betting habit.

Oh, but you haven’t heard the best bit yet!

I put £10 on the Liberal Democrats winning 90-99 seats in 2010.

“What?” you shout, “What? Ninety to ninety-nine seats? For us? Madness!”

Well, yes, madness it might be. Especially at the time when I laid the bet, when the odds were 33/1. I mean, back then, the Liberal Democrats were being squeezed by the Tories, and people were predicting an absolute meltdown for us. Well, because I enjoy being contrary, it seemed the perfect time for me to place my bet.

How can I honestly believe we would do so well? Okay, no incredible mathematical decision has been made here. And I accept it is a tough ask. But if Labour continues to be unpopular, if the TV debates take place (and if we do well in them), if the media scrutiny of Cameron picks up to decent levels, if the Liberal Democrats benefit from the fair media coverage during an election, if our income tax policies gain enough ground and are seen as workable… if, if, if, if and many more huge ifs…

…then we could do it.

Make no mistake. The Liberal Democrats are in an incredibly strong position. I won’t brag that we are the cleanest of the three parties (we were, after all, still accused of some wrongdoing), but we should brag that we were the first mainstream party to call for a transparent Parliament. That should count for something.

We are the only Party committed to real, radical reform that would change the future of our country.

There is so much going for us that, at the General Election, the voters will be able to see more and more of.

I do not believe in a month of beaten, bruised Mondays that we will decrease our overall seats. If I was being realistic, I think we might get into the high seventies or the low eighties. But, but, but. If the perfect storm is created during the general election (which it could be), I think we might be able to climb as high as 90 – 99 seats.

My only dilemma now is whether or not I place another £10 on us gaining 100+ seats. Because I really don’t want to be in the situation where we have won 99 seats, but are still waiting for Newport East to be declared… eek!

So, this time next year, I might benefit from a £700 income tax cut + my £380 ( - tax) winnings from what is, I suppose, a sinful, wicked pastime (the gambling, not the progressive social reform that is our income tax policy).

Whether or not I then retire gracefully with my winnings, or use some of it to lay some ever more ridiculous bets, is another question entirely.

So, to the rest of you, which seats, and how many seats, are you putting your money on?

The Corny List (#1)

2010-02-05T07:31:00.000-08:00

It’s Conference weekend! And now herds of enthusiastic Liberal Democrats are, as I type, scurrying across the plains towards Swansea. In their hands, they carry the new policy motions, the agendas and the fringe meeting guides. As I type, flocks of IR Cymru members are delivering in Swansea West for Peter May – hopefully a new MP in the next election!

Alas, alas, alas. I cannot make it to the rally tonight. But I will be there tomorrow morning for the first official day of Conference.

It is at times like this that I start to reflect on my membership of the Liberal Democrats. What makes me tick? What made me become a Lib Dem? What has made me get so ridiculously involved in the Party? What keeps me going, and who keeps me going, when the odds are stacked against us?

Well, mostly? It is the people. And so I thought, since Conference is (amongst other things) all about meeting people you respect and admire, I would write out a Corny List. I’ve invented the name myself, but what follows will be my list of Liberal Democrats (both Welsh and otherwise, conference attendees and otherwise) who have inspired me. I will probably be writing about more people over the next few weeks, so if you’re not on it, it is absolutely no indictment. It just means I didn’t have room! Of course, my inspiration to do this may fizzle out, so... yeah. NB: This will be incredibly corny, as the list itself disclaims, so if you hate corniness, stop reading here. Now.

My Dad and Mum:

Oh, puke, you probably think. But it’s true. There is a strong chance that my Dad may become the next MP for Newport East in the next election. Alright, so that’s all great and everything, but to me he’s still the person who helps me when things look like they’re about to collapse. And he’s the person I come to for advice, and the person I sometimes have massive debates (heated discussions, even) with. About policy, the Party, even the world.

My Mum is exactly the same. I’ve lost count of the times I pop downstairs for a chat in front of Newsnight or Question Time, and then suddenly look up at 1 am and realise we’ve been talking about Iraq, socialism, or something like that, for three hours.
I was always raised to argue anything politically (okay, so the rules of the household are not up for debate, but that’s parental prerogative). I attribute my (hopefully) questioning mind to both my parents. But they gave me a much greater gift than that. They gave me my fierce compassion and care for people and the world. Without them, I wouldn’t be half the person I was today. So they remain my first and absolute inspiration in everything I work towards.

(Interesting aside, I actually didn’t join the Party because of my parents. Lots of people assume I did, but I state for the record that I asked to join the Party first. Badge of honour, that!)

My Siblings

Oh, “siblings”. How generic a term! But oh, well. There’s something about growing up in a big family that does certain things to you. Firstly, you eat food very quickly. Because seriously, if there’s one slice of bread left on the table, you have to be able to snatch it and eat it as quickly as you can before anyone else can notice. Or you could just get another slice from the bread-bin, but that’s no fun.

Of particular inspiration (politically) is my brother, of “middle of nowhere” fame. Where I’m an emotional, instinctive, react-before-thinking kind of person, my brother is one of the most calm (and humorous) people I know. So when I start ranting about so-and-so-and-so, and how the world is awful and why don’t they just do something... he sort of listens and then gives the facts.

Even if he managed to cause more controversy with one throw-away comment than I’ve managed to achieve with years of trying. Damn him.

“Ben and Dom”

When I was eighteen, I got my first job! Pitifully, for the Lib Dems working in their phone bank. I was (and I suppose, still am) a cocky young person, fresh from A levels, thinking I knew everything about the world. I was soon disabused of that fact, when I met Ben Lloyd (now Policy Officer) and Dom Hannigan (now PPC for Cardiff South and Penarth).

They were so clever. The first day I finished work, I went home and said to Dad, “Dad, they know everything. They were on the phones today, and like, Dom started quoting our tax policies without reading anything and Ben managed to talk about immigration with so much detail! I’m thick!”

Well, I’m naturally competitive, and I hate feeling stupid. So I started learning more about the Liberal Democrats because of them. What was once a visceral, instinctive “I’m Lib Dem because of Iraq” feeling, coalesced into a firm belief in liberalism and social democracy. I still haven’t caught up to them both yet (and doubt I ever will), but they still made me learn.

Not to mention that both of them are incredibly enthusiastic about the party, and about how we can change things for the better. I may not agree with them both all of the time, but when I disagree with them on anything, I make bloody sure I know what I’m talking about.

So, they were a major inspiration. Yeah.

(PS: Vote Dominic Hannigan as your MP in Cardiff South and Penarth!)

Conclusion:

Which brings me to about 2006... when my experience of the Party was limited to just a few people. Little did I know that in just a few months or years, my head would be full of inspirational people, places and speeches. But more on that in “Corny List #2”, in a few days.

Oh. I’m not putting any AMs or MPs on this Corny List. They’ll get their own “Why I Am Inspired By Our AMs and MPs” blog post, so it’s not fair for them to be put on here as well. :)

Do your own Corny List. G'won, g'won, g'won, g'won.

If you go down to Swansea on Friday...

2010-02-03T07:31:00.000-08:00

...you're sure of a Lib Dem conference!

Well, as much as most students are probably thinking "Oooh, I could go to Wine Street and see the latest in Welsh clubbing cuisine!" or even, "Hmm, I wonder if Swansea's chip shops are really all they're cracked up to be?" or maybe, "Cardiff? Who'd go to Cardiff when you've got Swansea?"

For the record, I think you should go to Newport, but I may be biased.

Anyway, why go to a Welsh Liberal Democrat Conference, if you are a Welsh Lib Dem student? The simple answer is this: why not? The longer answer is why I am writing this blog post.

This Conference should be amazing. Not only are we having a visit from Nick Clegg, but we have the amazing Welsh leader, Kirsty Williams. She is a passionate, inspiring speaker, and I think we are glad to have her to rally the troops. I'm just waiting for a Vera Lynn impression, where she bursts out into "We'll win again, we know where, we know when!"

But it is not actually the people at Conference that make this one so special. It is the policies. We are passing four specific motions (amongst others) calling for a completely new start to the UK.

I have heard so many people of my age saying that our country is wasting away. And it is. Not in a David Cameron "broken society" style, or a Labour "asbo and terrorism" style. No. Our country is wasting away on a much deeper, more horrifying scale than that. Our country's heart is slowly dying.

There are areas of our nation where people live in poverty. Their parents live in poverty, their grandparents live in poverty, their children live in poverty. It has been that way for decades now.

There are schools which are failing to offer the route out of poverty that is education. Young pupils from areas of deprivation should be given every ounce of extra help we can. Why? Because they need it. They have been neglected for far, far too long. And it's about time we said, "No more".

Then there is our politics. Dirty, shattered, corrupt. Unrepresentative, uninsipiring and worst of all, unrepentant about it all. In ancient edifices of bureacracy, millions of lives are governed with a single stroke of a pen. In closeted Cabinet rooms, peoples' lives are debated as a means to an end. As tools in the political machinations of the priveliged few.

Our country is rotting. And young people, like me, and my peers, are the future. But is there anything that inspires us? Is there anything in our life but slow and unending drudgery? Is there anything in our future for us to aspire to, to reach for, to work for? Is there any hope at all, that we can stand proud in a country where our voice is respected, listened to and valued? No.

Make no mistake. When Cameron talks about a "broken society", he is right. No, not in his judgement on marriage, or his judgement on anti-social behaviour, or his judgement on almost anything at all. But there is a broken society. A disconnect between the young and old; a disconnect between the political classes and the apolitical classes; a disconnect between individuals and communities. And all of these problems are not easily solved. There is no magic button to press. It requires consistent, long-term, focused investment.

This is why all young people in the Welsh Lib Dems should attend Conference. Because we are discussing our future. Not the future of the dried up prunes in Westminster, but our future.

If a Liberal Democrat is returned, I am passionate in my belief that Britain will start to be healed. Because of all the parties (and for once I include the Greens and Socialists in that), only we are willing to take the harsh choices to save the economy, but... but... but... but... to also plan for the future and to try, even whilst we suffer the cutbaccks, to build a better Britain.

No. Not a "better Britain". The best Britain. The Britain we all dream of, the Britain where someone born in Merthyr can do anything they want, just like a child born in Kent.

That is why I am a member of this Party. That is why I wake up every day and work hard for a new dawn of liberalism. And, on a smaller level, it is why we should all head to Conference. Because there, we pass the policies of the future.

Make no mistake. The Liberal Democrats are the party of the future.

So get involved. :)

Pope: "I follow Natural Law" shocker

2010-02-02T08:35:00.000-08:00

Pope: “I follow Natural Law” shocker

Apologies in advance: this is yet another religious-themed blog post, rather than my usual inane ramblings on politics.

I was distressed, saddened and angry last night, when I read about the Pope and his criticising of the Equality Bill. Then I stopped myself, and tried to think rationally.

First, one point that needs to be addressed. We won’t like hearing it. Us liberals don’t like hearing about the positives of religion – especially Catholicism – after all. The salacious claims going around that the Catholic Church has been an oppressive institution “for over 2,000 years” need to be challenged.

Nothing is that simple.

Remember how people say “Liberal Democrats play dirty”? Or “Liberal Democrats always sit on the fence”? Or that golden classic, “Liberal Democrats don’t have any policies”? Well, those are three stereotypical (and incorrect) views of our Party. Just like the straightforward view that Catholicism is a collection of bigoted, anti-gay, misogynist shits in robes pretending to be saintly.

Let’s go back to history ancient enough to be almost meaningless.

If anyone is familiar with Wicca, and the Celtic traditions they are (purported to be) based on, they will know by now with a certainty engrained on their consciousness, that Celtic society was a fair, wonderful utopia, when men and women were equally valued, when the feminine was worshipped with equal abandon as the masculine, where (in Ireland) codices existed that protected women in law – an unheard of level of cultural advancement, for that time.

All too often (and quite rightly) this “liberal” utopia of Celtic spirituality and the offshoot of Wicca is used as a direct counterpoint to Catholicism. Catholicism to many people, represents the ultimate in patriarchy, in oppression, in narrow-minded isolation from modernity.

Yet again, we must scratch the surface. Let’s look at the ancient Celtic society. Which was for women, much more liberated than anything that came after. Only, that’s not actually strictly true. For in ancient Celtic society, it was only the top 5% (or so) of their stratified culture that had access to the “utopian” attitudes often attributed to them. The other 95% lived in abject poverty, as slaves to an often cruel society which lived only to provide further glory and wealth to that indulged 5%.

We are told constantly that the early Church missionaries to the British Isles “stamped out” the indigenous religions with cruelty. That may be true of the later, imperialist Church of the Medieval period and beyond. However, when Christian missionaries first arrived on British shores, they offered a voice of radicalism almost unheard of in that time. This voice of radicalism had already swept through mainland Europe.

Imagine it. You are a Roman woman, or a Celtic slave, or a Hellenist, or whatever you want to be. Wherever you live in that ancient world, you are answerable to someone higher. Your life and station is one of misery and want. And then, a Christian comes. And he (or she, because women preachers were common) tells to you a message of wonderful hope. “Gentile or Jew, woman or man, servant or free, no more.” They tell you a message that, whoever you are, wherever you are from, whatever you do, you are loved. Religion ceased, in that moment, to be the province of the narrow elite, and became something fresh, something open, something radically changed.

The Church is like any institution. Institutions are inherently flawed, because by their very nature they have to fight to protect their own power, and end up corrupting themselves more than the very evil they were built to prevent. It is why we are liberals, surely? Because we believe that such behemoths of orthodoxy are bad. That they inhibit our freedoms and hold us back.

Like any institution, the Church has a troubled history. But we still have the wonderful liberation theology and base communities, working in South America to end poverty and suffering. We have the incredible Oscar Romero, standing up to a corrupt regime’s excesses in El Salvador. We have thousands upon thousands of individual stories of inspiration. We have hundreds of Catholic charities, working to better the lives of their fellows. We have people who give generously every week to end the suffering of those worse off. We have inspirational leaders like Pope Benedict, speaking out for peace in the Middle East, speaking out for an end to corruption in many African governments. Truly, the world without the Catholic Church would be a terrible place.

No, I’m not saying that only Catholics do good work. That would be intolerably smug, self-satisfied and arrogant.

But the work the Church does cannot and should not be brushed under the carpet and ignored. We’re liberals, aren’t we? Before leaping to hysterical judgements and screaming about the evil of the Pope, shouldn’t we try and appreciate some of the good things that religion does? But then, hatred of the religious by the irreligious is in vogue, as is hatred of the irreligious by the religious. And I refuse to be drawn into that. I don’t hate atheists, Muslims, Jews, gays, pagans, Wiccans, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, or even followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I strongly, absolutely believe that there is room in the world for all of us.

Now, this is where I probably get controversial.

The Pope has praised Britain’s commitment to equality. Isn’t that good? I mean, it means the Pope has stressed his commitment to equality. That is a moment of triumph, surely? Not a cause for hatred and recrimination?

Ah... but then there is his attitude to homosexuality.

Now, this is a difficult one. My beliefs on homosexuality (and for that matter, on women priests) is so far deviant from the Church’s teachings that I could be dismissed as a heretic. It upsets me greatly, that many of the wonderful, loving Catholics I spend my time with, who give so much of their health and time, are so ready to dismiss homosexuality as a sin.

But here’s some news. None of those people I meet are horrible about it. They would never go on a march calling for gays to be killed, beaten up, or bullied. They are polite, friendly and caring to anyone they meet. It is just that deep down in their heart, they think that homosexuality is wrong. And – oh, God, here it comes – is that wrong?

The Pope was not writing a letter denouncing homosexuality. He was praising equality. As far as I can tell, his only crime according to our liberal viewpoint was to express concerns that equality was infringing religious freedom, as well. And that, surely, is not a problem? If we forget he is a Catholic for a moment, he could just be making a political philosophical point about the complexity of balancing equality with liberty.

Equality is equality for all, not just equality for those we like and agree with.
My views on the Equality Bill are plain, and set out in a blog post from last week. I support it fully, and decry the influence of the Church to get it changed. But why is it wrong for the Pope of a massive Church spanning the globe, to worry that religious voices are being drowned?

Let’s say for a moment that I am a Catholic that hates gays (I’m not, for the record). Let’s say that I am an extremely strict Catholic. That means I follow the Catholic teaching that homosexuals are to be treated with respect and love, and not suffer attacks or bullying. Deep down, it just means I follow Natural Law (I don’t, for the record) and respect the teachings of the Church.

We are so quick to denounce religion, these days. It has become an evil, for some reason. But I ask you: isn’t it just another evil that society seeks to enforce not tolerance, but the embracing of things we might dislike. I tolerate the BNP. I don’t embrace their racism. People tolerate the Church, but don’t embrace their homophobia. Can’t we allow the Church to tolerate what they call the “permissive society” (a view I disagree with), but not to have to embrace it? That sort of change will take years, as much as we would wish otherwise.

And no, I am not likening homosexuality to the BNP or Church-going, both of which are choices, which homosexuality patently is not.

In a hundred years, I am confident the Church will embrace homosexuality as the life-affirming, loving thing it clearly is. But if we force them to accept it, and as a result destroy the freedoms of religion just to protect the freedoms of another group... that change will never happen. Because then it becomes a battleground. Gays against Catholics, Christians against Muslims, atheists against the religious.

I don’t want to live in a world like that.

The only way to stop it is for all sides to show respect to each other, and to accept that not everyone accepts change at the same pace. If Catholics want to moan about gays instead of poverty? Let them. Eventually, the Pope, or the next one, or the next one, will remember what Jesus really stood for. And then that’s the day when (hopefully) the religion I feel I know and love, will be revealed to the rest of the world.

And conversely, maybe then the rest of the world I know and love will be accepted by the Church.

"Get ye to a nunnery, lesbians!".

2010-01-25T13:58:00.000-08:00

Apologies for religious exposition contained herein:

Somewhere in the universe, at least to my mind, there might be a God. Wow, that's conclusive, but then I hesitate to sound like a Bible-bashing religious person who has absolute certainty in everything. I like to doubt. It is quite enjoyable, actually. By doubting everything, including my two loves (Catholicism and liberalism), it keeps what I think and feel fresh and renewed. As far as Catholicism can be fresh and renewed, that is (more on that later, though).

I wear a peculiar badge of honour. Several of my friends have, at different times and in different contexts, described me as the most anti-Catholic Catholic they know. It is a point which at times upsets me, but that at times makes me feel proud. Why does it upset me? Well, because I do have real faith. Not actually so much in the proud, glittering might of the Magisterium, or the ancient, echoing authority of the Bible. Nor even in the fragile domain of my conscience. I have faith in the inherent goodness of people.

As much as liberals seem to dislike religious people, and as much as religious people seem to dislike liberals, the two are far, far, far closer than they both realise. In the context of Catholicism, the Church teaches that we are all "temples of the Holy Spirit", and that therefore we are drawn by the "power of God" to do good works. In the context of liberalism, we believe that people should be free to live our lives as much as possible, that we are all "good" people, and that the State should retreat and let us live.

My existence as a Catholic owes a lot to denial, if I am honest. I lost my faith when I was fifteen, then rediscovered it again when I was eighteen.

I lost it, when I realised that there was no room whatsoever in the Catholic Church, for love. I lost my faith when I realised that the Church had become dominated by the political interests of right-wing Conservatives. I lost my faith, when it hit me day after day that I was trying to hide from the unavoidable fact that the Church was full of hate-filled, bitter men and women desperate to control us through the "weaknesses of the flesh", as if we had not moved on from the 13th Century.

Then I found it again (to be honest, it had only been left in my top drawer, underneath my much-thumbed copy of the Hobbit). I realised that the Church was built solely on love. The love that all humans share, the love that we have (sometimes very deep down) on a very intrinsic level, for our fellow human beings. It is the love that is not unique to religion, but it is a love that still brings thousands, if not millions, of people (religious and otherwise) together in common causes. Our response to the disasters in Haiti was inspired by love (although the agape love that seems so hard to quantify or explain). Our response daily to the images of suffering is inspired by love. And, for me, the Church was my way to show that love. It remains so, aged twenty-two.

It is a source of constant embarrassment, and worse, constant sadness, that the two views of the Church are so closely intertwined. I can sit with people who give their time, money and health to work with some of the most vulnerable, ignored people of our society. I see men and women working day in and day out, to give something back to the world. Incidentally, I also see this in almost every member of the Liberal Democrats. After all, the same force that drives us Lib Dems to get up and deliver, to get up and fight for a change, to get up and shout from the rafters to a world that doesn't seem to listen is - like it or not - the same force that drives religious people (and non-religious people) to work with charities, to volunteer, to listen.

And then after all that goodness, I can read this. Okay, after all the self-indulgent, high-fluting hyperbole leading up to this, you might think this story a bit of a let-down. When I'm talking about "humanity's common love", and "intrinsic good" and the like, it seems an anti-climax to start talking about a House of Lords amendment.

YAWN.

But. But, but, but, but, and several thousand more buts. This seemingly small story is huge. Here, we have politicians listening (far too much) to Churches. But, not only that, you have politicians accepting a view of the Churches as (excuse the pun) gospel truth.

So, Baroness Royall says the bill ensures the church could turn down some candidates when explaining or promoting the religion was not "intrinsic to the role". Wow, Jesus. That's a sentence which hides so much. No, actually, it doesn't. That is a sentence which, despite seeming to hide so much, actually sounds out a clarion call of discrimination and hate that is ridiculously incompatible with any definition of religious love or political liberalism.

Let me see. A gay or transgendered person can work in a Church to teach sports, or something, but the moment they try and "explain" or "promote" the religion, they are considered acceptable to sack? Or to not hire in the first place? Now, excuse me whilst I get a bit more religious (Jesus Christ, is that possible?).

We are asked as Catholics to do good deeds to spread the message of God. By seeing Christians doing good works, the world will be illuminated just that little bit more. Therefore, more than any preaching or proselytizing, it is our good deeds that "explain" and "promote" the religion. Okay, it is an argument of logic as opposed to an argument of scripture or dogma, but it still holds water. By (essentially) allowing the Church to refuse employment to any LGBT person who would be in a position to "explain" and "promote" the religion, the Church has tied itself into a knot. By the temporal actions of the Church to pressure the Lords, the Church has decreed that gay people cannot do good deeds.

Even beyond the logic, scriptural rubbish and stuff like that, the whole idea is flawed. I remember when I was fourteen, learning that many in the Church believe homosexuals are "called to celibacy" and "to a life with God". It used to be the almost accepted fact that gay Catholics would enter the priesthood, or a monastery, or a nunnery ("get ye to a nunnery, lesbians!" to paraphrase Shakespeare horrifically). Of course, that has all changed now that Benedict the Holy Father has managed to make the indisputable (hmm) link between the abuse scandals throughout the Church, and homosexual priests. Yes, it is because of gay priests, that we have paedophiles. Who could argue differently (hmm)?

Let me suggest this. It was Pope John Paul II, and Ratzinger's Inquisition-style force within the Church, which argued that the Church should hide the abuse from the world. Merely move priests from parish to parish, without ever allowing them to face the justice their disgusting, vile crimes warranted. By trying to focus on gay priests in the Church, this evil (yes, I called this action by the previous and current Pope evil - but then, we are taught that nobody is perfect, I just hope the Pope goes to Confession regularly) decision is hidden.

What is worse, I ask. The Pope complicit in the hiding of sexual abuse, or a gay priest helping the homeless? What is worse, I ask. The Catholic Church presiding over years of hatred for LGBT people, or an LGBT Catholic working with vulnerable children to help them realise that the world still cares for them?

One of the most sad things I heard last Friday, was a gay friend say: "Ah, well, Jesus hates me anyway." He doesn't. The Pope may do. The right-wing political interests do. But all Catholics? We do not.

This action by the House of Lords reminds me of all I hate in both politics and religion, and of nothing I love. Why do the churches not act together to make real changes to our society, to prevent the hideous poverty that inflicts parts of our nation? Why are they wasting their time ensuring they have a little bit more petty, authoritative control over whether to employ someone who likes men, women, both, neither?

I love the Catholic Church, and the Anglican Church, when they work for the vulnerable. Today, I see why they are so often dismissed as relics of the past. These are groupings who cannot see the joy of the love they so often preach about. Love is constantly changing. Love doesn't stay still. Love calls us all to do better and to be better. And love (and therefore God) doesn't care who acts on that love, or how they act on love, as long as they do.

A bad day for the churches. A bad day for the Lords. A bad day for the UK.

The Future: Discrimination by Default, Traditionalism by Deceit, Ignorance by Choice

2010-01-17T09:13:00.000-08:00

Let's imagine a woman called Angela, who has two young children, between the ages of six and eight. She is married to an abusive man. In 2010, it is incredibly hard for any woman suffering domestic violence to leave a home. There are so many obstacles placed in the way. Many worthwhile charities have shown just how hard it is for anyone suffering domestic violence to leave. Indeed, there are already so many financial obstacles to overcome. So many emotional, terrible choices to make.

Does Angela leave her children behind with an abusive father, because she is scared she cannot afford to look after them alone? Or does she decide to stay, as so many victims of domestic violence do, hoping that the father will direct his hate at her, instead of her children? Although people would like to pretend otherwise, financial decisions, especially ones that will lead to poverty and hardship, do force people to remain in intolerable situations.

Now, of course, David Cameron's tax cuts for married couples will not (I doubly hope) lead to poverty or hardship for those who do not qualify. However, it is a symptom of something we have long feared about the Tories. I mean, do they really consider the only "stable" family, a family with a marriage certificate?

I want to ask David Cameron several questions:

Do a man and a woman living together but who have not yet married qualify for tax breaks? If not, why not? Does he think it is right that the Government sends out the signal that certain ways of living are better than others? Does he believe that two men, or two women, raising a child together, living in a "stable" "civil partnership" should qualify for tax breaks, as well? Could he share the reasoning behind his view that marriage is infinitely stable? Does he believe it is right to put unnecessary pressure on people to stay trapped in loveless or even dangerous marriages?

This raises important points about the Tory proposals. Firstly, we see their priorities. For the Liberal Democrats, it is taking the poorest people out of income tax altogether, and providing a fair system of Government, education and taxation. Those are our priorities. For the Tories, it is providing inheritance tax cuts for their friends, and leading a Christian Right-style charge for the sanctity of marriage.

Don't get me wrong. I love marriage, me. Marriage is great. Nice, when it's nice, and all that. But is "marriage" the great solver of the world's wrongs? Does Cameron expect the gun crime and knife crime to end the moment 10%, 20%, 30% more couples stay married? Does he honestly expect his narrow, narrow, bigoted view of "stability" to cure the ills of Britain's supposedly "broken society"? I've seen marriages that are wonderful; I've seen marriages that have hidden secrets, marriages that have locked dangerous, violent people in with defenceless children and terrified women. It is not good enough for the (supposedly) Prime Minister in waiting, to say, "Marriage solves everything." No, it really doesn't.

Good parenting can solve a bit. Loving parents can solve a lot. Respect, community, tolerance, love, acceptance... that can solve even more.

It also upsets me that we have seen the style of Cameron's (possible) Government. Not a big, guns-blazing initiative. But rather, a sneaking, encroaching, slimy policy that buries a festering amount of bias, intolerance and outdated views.

If Britain has a broken society (and I dispute that it does, every time I see good things done by people we assume are "evil", "thugs", or "chavs"), then we do not need a conceited, smug traditionalism to solve it. We do not need a sneaky, underhanded policy of "tax breaks" for married couples, as if marriage is something that by its very nature should be congratulated and held up on a pedestal. Marriage is not an inherent good, not matter how much forces on the Right would have it otherwise.

Guns don't kill people, people do. If that is right, then let us also say this: marriage doesn't make a better society, people do.

To Those Who Wielded the Knife: Don't Seek to Rule

2010-01-12T09:22:00.000-08:00

2010 was promising to be a very good year.

Liberal Youth Wales had just elected a renewed Executive. Matt Smith became our new Chair, Hannah Griffiths our Youth Officer, and Craig Matthews our Vice-Chair. Sian Cliff returned as our Communications Officer, Ed Wilson as Treasurer and I stepped enthusiastically into the role of Campaigns Officer.

As a small (but growing!) force in Welsh politics, we continually look to the Federal Liberal Youth for support and help. Over the past year, under the Chairships of Corey Shefman and Richard Morgan-Ash, we increased our membership by over 50%! It was an incredible achievement, and one that spoke well of all of those involved in making our first year what it was.

Our success was helped significantly by the Federal Liberal Youth Executive. I remember panicked phone-calls about Welsh translations of campaigns materials; I remember the constant worries about the websites; I remember the willingness of that Executive to help with some of the strangest queries: “Where can we get Homophobia is Gay badges, and how much do they cost?” “Do you have the postcard from 2004, you know the one with the guy on it?”

But throughout it all, they (and especially Elaine Bagshaw and James Shaddock) dealt with the questions patiently and with dedication (although I can only imagine what was said about us late at night when yet another email of daft questions came through!).

Either way, in IR Cymru, it was felt we were moving forward. We are a week or two away from having a full Welsh plan for a General Election, ready for consultation with our membership. We are a week or two away from our first “Bootcamp” (following after Elaine’s success). We are a week or three away from Spring Conference, where we will be encouraging our members to speak for or against motions, to help them with their speeches and to make them feel more and more involved.

Federal Liberal Youth was increasing in strength as well. From holding a massive presence at the Wave, to focusing on fighting the view that the Lib Dems have dropped their opposition to tuition fees, to organising Action Days and the like all across the country.

Imagine my surprise then, when all of a sudden, Elaine Bagshaw resigns. Now, nobody believes she went voluntarily. What I find rather unfortunate, is that those who forced her out remain nameless. I also find it unfortunate, that whatever occasional criticisms have been laid against Elaine, those people ignored the huge successes she has achieved over the past year. I also find it almost unforgiveable, that a hard-working Chair (even if some few people have levelled objections on a personality grounds), and an equally hard-working VC Comms (James Shaddock), should be essentially forced out at a General Election.

We need to be on a war footing now, and Liberal Youth doesn’t need a harmful, divisive interregnum, but a united, dazzling team ready to hammer home the message to young people and students, workers, the unemployed and graduates ... that we are the best Party for you. That we can reach out the helping hand and give you the lift you need.

I feel, frankly, that this coup was childish, silly and counter-productive. If we must indulge in childish games, then let’s do it after the General Election, not before. Why remove the most experience people from the Executive, just before we have to go to the polls and argue our case? Why engage in the turgid, toothless treachery that seems somehow pointless. Pointless? Yes, pointless. Because surely organising a coup should only work when there is something to gain? We were at the point of a stunning contribution to a General Election campaign, and plotters at this stage have almost nothing to gain, and almost everything to lose. Oh, not for themselves, but for all of us in Liberal Youth who simply keep their heads down and work to get our message out there.

Remember Obama’s campaign? Energised and fuelled by young people, it created an unstoppable force arguing for hope and change. And Liberal Youth could have been all of that.

A solution

But let’s not dwell on this negativity for too long. It can still be healed, it can still be fixed. To this end, I suggest that those who requested Elaine stand down, also announce that it is not their intention to stand in the by-election to replace her. I’ve heard it said that those who requested she stand down did so according to the best of motives, apparently. I say it is time for them to prove it. Go public with the fact that they asked her to resign, and then rule themselves out of the election. This will enable a new, unaffiliated, untainted Chair to be elected, who can hopefully unite whatever petty factions remain. And they are petty.

For anyone to be concerned about little things when there is a General Election coming up, is ridiculous. We are not the Labour Party, removed so far from the base of our electoral support that we have begun to fragment. We are not the Tory party, riddled with European Union-sized splits. We are the Liberal Democrats, and it is time we remembered how good we are when we are united, and how, frankly, shit we are when we are split.

That is all I will say now. Whoever wins as Chair will have my full support. But I do hope that the two key priorities for the incoming Chair will be one, to GET OUT THERE AND WIN AS MANY YOUTH VOTES AS POSSIBLE, and two, to HEAL WHATEVER CHILDISH RIFTS THERE ARE and just do the ruddy JOB.

Then maybe we can actually do good stuff. Because, to finish on a positive note: we can do anything, as Liberal Youth. We have the ideas, we have the drive, we have the passion.

The world can be ours.

Let’s not blow it on stupid stunts.

You've Got to Pick a Pocket or 100,000!

2009-11-16T04:48:00.000-08:00

£1,893,000 ...

... that sounds like a lot of money, doesn't it?

That's because it is.

Over 100,000 students having to wait for their loans, due to incompetence...

... that sounds like a bloody massive failure, doesn't it?

That's because it is.

£1,893,000, given as BONUSES to the same company that FAILED so ABJECTLY...

... that sounds like a terrible, inconceivable endorsement of stupidity and incompetence, doesn't it?

That's because it is.

This really, really makes my blood boil. Not only do we students have to pay for the education that will provide the impetus to drive this country out of recession (I know, I don't understand the logic of putting the organs of recovery into debt, either. Surely it limits our productivity and the extent of our future economic contribution?), but we now have to wait, without any income or ability to pay for food and accommodation, while the bloated, pickpocket loans company pisses our money away with incompetence.

But then, it's alright! We're students! I mean, we don't matter. The staggering, unmatched arrogance of politicians who continue to level heavy levies on our generation astounds me.

Let's look again. Despite the ABJECT FAILURE of this company, they have been paid a BONUS. NO! They should have been FINED, or those responsible SACKED! If we have to pay for our education and saddle ourselves with a debt UNIMAGINED by any of the politicians currently "representing" us (and by "representing", I mean "shitting on"), then we should at least have prompt payment, transparency, and accountability.

Alas, it doesn't look as if we'll get any of that.

Unless we vote Lib Dem, of course.

Say no to fees, say no to bunglers, say no to bonuses!

And below, we have a charmingly appropriate song, for your perusal:

Are you going to vote for Labour? No!

2009-11-13T11:17:00.000-08:00

Apparently, Edwina Hart is a fan of one-word answers. In response to a written question from Kirsty Williams, she replied with an answer of such mind-boggling intricacy, it really left me awed at the intelligence and skill of our Health Minister.

"No."

That's right. N. O. spells no. I mean, she could have spiced it up a bit and added a few bits of silliness. What about a use of "nada", or "never, fools!" or how about, "over mah dead body". Or even "Begone, you inconveniently sharp-minded political party, or I shall be forced to deal with you in a manner that befits my bungling, burgeoning bellicose brainlessness." That would at least have spiced things up, surely?

Mind you, she's completely and utterly messed up the health service of Wales, so she probably can't afford to give a full and detailed answer about it.

I find her answer incredibly disrespectful to the patients who use the Welsh NHS, to the nurses and doctors working within it, and for all the electorate who will be judging her on the performance of the service. And don't forget, she has a duty now to the Labour members, who will be judging what sort of First Minister she could (temporarily, until Labour get stuffed) be.

Well, in the vein of this latest Labour debacle, I thought I'd ask myself a question, and ask most of Wales a question, and give an answer in the Edwina Hart style (henceforth to be known as "doing an Edwina Hart", or "doing a fart").

Dear Wales,

Will you be voting for Labour in the next General Election?

Yours sincerely,
Edwina Fart (sorry, Hart)

The answer should be obvious.

Why Journalists Can't Afford To Understand

2009-09-22T02:31:00.000-07:00

Rachel Sylvester in the Times, writes an interesting piece basically saying we should jump into bed with Labour or Conservatives. It has been said before, but I'll continue to disagree with it. If people want a Liberal Democrat Government, vote for a Liberal Democrat Government. If they don't then they don't. It may sound a bit too sanguine, but some correspondent shouldn't suddenly make us forget who we are.

I particularly like her extremely misleading paragraph:

Mr Clegg says he wants to replace Labour as the “dominant force of progressive politics”. But politically he looks increasingly confused. One minute he outflanks the Tories to the right by advocating “savage” public spending cuts, the next moment he outflanks Labour to the left by proposing a tax on homes worth more than £1 million. The coalition he holds together is under strain.

Well, this is something which, as I said in my previous blog post, annoys me massively. Media people (who, let us be sure, should be well-educated in political matters, or at least they say they are) should know very well that "left" and "right" is more than about "cuts" and "spending". But alright, let's grudgingly accept that "cuts", and "lowering taxes" are tools of the right, and that "spending" and "raising taxes" are tools of the left.

I am still unsure as to why this means we are confused. Really, I think the media are confused. It is very, very simple in my head. Here's my summary:

The Liberal Democrats are a social democratic party, also committed to liberalism. As a party, we have always championed the idea of a fair society. Therefore, we have finally decided to call the Conservatives' bluff. For years and years and years, they have talked about tax cut after tax cut, to help "ordinary people". Labour too, promised the same. Neither did it. People on lower pay, pay more proportionally than those on higher pay. Is that right? The Liberal Democrats do not think so. So, we're showing the way forward. We are taking the "tools of the right" in "lower taxes", and adding to them the "tools of the left" of "higher taxes". What does this mean? It means that people in middle to lower income families would be around £700 better off under a Lib Dem Government. There is not some great ideological split. It is merely the fact that the media cannot seem to cope with the idea of tax cuts for ordinary families and the closing of tax loopholes for the rich.

Then we have the latest (brilliant) idea from Vince Cable, judged by some a "mansion tax". At this point, I had to laugh at Andrew Neil. This guy, (no, let me be clear, this vile, jumped-up media hack) clearly fancies himself as the next Paxman. But whereas Paxman asks probing, serious questions, Andy Neil thinks he's Paxman and tries to ask probing, serious questions, but ends up revealing his own bias. I would never guess who Paxman does or does not vote for. With Neil, I knew he wouldn't be voting Lib Dem.

Why? Because, when asking Vince Cable about the plan to increase tax on people who live in house worth over £1 MILLION, Mr Neil said something like (and I paraphrase, because I cannot find the interview): "But what about an old lady who no longer works, who has managed to scrape together to afford a house?"

I'll be generous to Andrew Neil. No, actually, I won't. I wonder why a journalist who was apparently taught economics by Vince Cable, would try to needlessly obfuscate the facts? Why would he pick up on one of the most unlikely scenarios imagineable, that someone who cannot afford it, would have a £1 million pound house. I mean, we are not talking £500,000, nor £250,000, all of which are extremely expensive houses in their own right. We are not even talking around £100,000 - £200,000 which lots of people tend to live in, or £50,000-£100,000 which more people live in. We are talking £1,000,000. That's not expensive, that's luxury. A luxury that so, so many people cannot even dream of. Vince Cable actually gave the figure of 1% of people it would have an impact on.

I'm tempted to submit a Freedom of Information request to see how much Andrew Neil's house costs. He is a man a bit like Richard Littlejohn. A man who says he is "one of us", but whose entire demeanour screams that, in his head, he is thinking that he isn't "one of you". He is a man who professes to speak for the people, when in actuality, he is one of the cancers of a closed, almost secret elitist society designed to perpetrate the same failed policies that have kept this country edging along on the sidelines of decency.

I am also amused by many other editorials and columnists talking in similar hyperbole about the mansion tax. I expect to see the Sun screaming, "THEY'LL ROB YOU!", along with all the vile casters of hate in the paper claiming that the Liberal Democrats are going to "steal the houses of the middle classes". Or "tax the rich so benefit cheats can get a tax cut".

It upsets me, that the media of this country cannot even try to remain impartial. It saddens me that the very people our tax policies will help will be whipped into opposition by misguided reports.

It also annoys me that Rachel Sylvester makes a weakness out of healthy debate:

No sooner had Mr Clegg suggested that child benefit might be means tested than Steve Webb, the party’s work and pensions spokesman, declared that there should be no change. “Leaders of the Liberal Democrats don’t always get their way,” said another MP, Evan Harris, on the subject of student tuition fees.

Erm... what's wrong with that? Look, I know you journalists are used to rubbish Labour Conference where people are drafted in to give obeisance and worship to a big clunking shit - sorry, fist. Look, I also know you journalists are used to entering the shrine of Ashcroft and listening as his young Anakin Skywalker apprentice Darth - I mean, David - Cameron sets out what Ashcroft wants. Look, I know you don't expect or like debate at Conference.

But you are trying to turn a strength of the Liberal Democrats into a weakness. In our Party, I, me, Oliver Townsend, has just as much of a say and a vote in our policy, as Nick Clegg or Vince Cable does. Fine, I'm not stupid enough to believe I could sway that many people with my arguments, and they are given freedom to speak about policies they'd like to see. But at the end of the day, if I had an idea on how to get us out of the economy, I could get my policy adopted by Federal Policy Committee, then sent to Conference, then debated, then voted in.

It is a democratic mechanism that very few other parties possess. Labour is still dominated by unions, it still gives its MPs more say. A member of the Labour Party is only allowed a third of the say a Lib Dem member has. As for Conservatives, I'm not even going to go there. David Cameron is losing his members in droves, as a result of listening more to Papa Ashcroft than his members.

So please, don't start turning the fact that the Lib Dems believe in democracy against us. Let Evan Harris and Steve Webb disagree with our leader. During conference, they are members of the Lib Dems as equal as myself, or any of my friends. If they want to argue against one policy or another, let them! It's not the end of the world.

Journalists who are incredibly erudite and clever when analysing the issues faced by Gordon Brown for some strange reason suffer an intelligence and normality bypass when it comes to the Liberal Democrats. I find it odd. Or rather, it makes me wonder what has happened to the days when journalists understood what it was like in the real world?

We have a political class removed from the daily struggle of life. We now have a journalistic class also removed from the struggle. No wonder then, that in their media coverage, these journalists act more to protect themselves from a mansion tax, than in reporting carefully and giving an accurate argument about what the Liberal Democrats mean and stand for.

Convenient, huh?

Radicalism Is Not Just For The Left

2009-09-19T02:09:00.000-07:00

Polly Toynbee is on her usual silly form today.

I won't quote the whole article, just the bits I take issue with.

The Lib Dems seem to have lost their old knack for snatching byelection seats; their share of the vote fell in both byelections this year

I wish people would stop pointing to these byelections. The comparison between these byelections and the byelections we won in Brent, and such places, is a wrong comparison to draw. There will be other Brent Easts. The fact that the byelections have happened in places where circumstances are against us, does not mean the Lib Dems are unpopular, or have lost their byelection knack.

"...the party has abandoned its opposition to fees."

Erm... no? Blatantly no. Absolutely no. Where did she get this from? Doesn't she check what's written in our own policies? Grr.

"If tax-and-spend defines a party, those policies have never mattered more as emblems of identity. The detail may escape most voters, but all parties need to declare their essential character loudly. Under Kennedy, the Lib Dems proposed a 50% top rate on earnings over £100,000. But Clegg waved a very different flag: when that 50% rate was abandoned, he promised instead to cut the basic income tax rate by a walloping 4%. That flag declared that this was now a high-tax party, but aiming for middle-ground Tory votes. But that policy was abandoned too this April, in favour of taking 4 million people earning under £10,000 out of tax altogether, raking it back from the rich by cutting relief on top-rate pensions and adding new green taxes. In truth, Lib Dem tax policies are decently redistributive, yet seem deliberately to avoid flying any symbolic flag to show which way their ship is heading."

But Polly, that's why we're the best party to vote for! Fine, our tax policies don't fit onto nice 2-word political slogans. However, look at the basic premise, which you agree with: "policies are decently redistributive". So, what you're saying, is that although our policies are actually good, we need to descend to the level of changing our tax policies to create a gimmick? We don't do gimmicks, Polly. We do tax policies that will work and help the country. Gordon Brown's 50% seemed to fly a flag, didn't it? But the detail shows it doesn't change much at all. So no, please don't say we need to use tax as a PR move. Tax is far more important than that, and you should know that.

"If he was serious, he could go for Labour's jugular with an unequivocally radical message. The empty political ground is not in the crowded centre, but out in the near-deserted radical wastelands. But Clegg looks over his shoulder, anxiously protecting those essentially conservative seats that so many of his MPs hold."

Erm... "radical" is not reserved for the left? You know what, I can't imagine a party more radical than the Lib Dems. People may laugh. But what other party in the UK actually has tried to combine the freedom of capitalism with the fairness of social democracy? What other party constantly struggles with their heart and soul to ensure that they sufficiently balance freedoms with fairness? What other party looks to the real solutions as opposed to outdated socialist thinking, or cheap populism, or masquerading vacuous spin? God, Polly. The Lib Dems are radical. And just because a socialist party doesn't exist in mainstream politics, doesn't mean the Lib Dems should just throw away their radicalism to return to defunct, assinine political theories which are based around at best a naive idealism without any attention to the world at all, and at worst a malicious barely suppressed class violence. What is radical about socialism? About clamping down on freedom at its most extreme? About reducing individual freedoms? About instituting an arbitrary measurement of equality?

No, the "radical" choice is the Lib Dems, who make the point that we should seek equality of opportunity, not enforced equality of means. That struggle is impossible. The struggle for equal opportunity however, is possible. It just means we need people to vote for us, and not the tired, old, morally-defunct two parties.

"Instead he has joined the slash-and-burn brigade, just when he should be offering the alternative voice of calm reason. It is not an idle boast for Clegg to claim he could lead his party to overtake Labour; but to do it, he has to go for it – and go radical."

Again on the radical. But he has not "joined the slash-and-burn brigade", he is being honest as to what is needed to help Britain. The areas we have outlined so far as a party are not about tearing into the NHS or schools, but about tearing into waste, nuclear weapons, and the like. That, Polly, is radical. And something you should be supporting.

The Liberal Democrats are not retreating into the political wildernesses of the Left. Nor should we. We are the only centre-ground party with a moral, philosophical and political drive to be there. We are the only centre-ground party who can make the claim that we were there first and that we are there because that's what we believe.

The Tories are invaders from the right, Labour invaders from the left. Why are you suggesting that we flee, Polly? Because we're staying put. Let Labour's empty protestations to its centre-ground credentials be revealed for the charlatan tricks they are. The Lib Dems are centrist, liberal, democratic, and socially aware. That is more than you can say for any other mainstream party.

Join us, Polly! Help us fight for the centre ground. You couldn't be amongst an intellectually richer tradition if you tried.

BREAKING NEWS: Puppies are cute

2009-09-18T11:02:00.000-07:00

I get really disheartened sometimes, with the media. We have the start of the Lib Dem Conference, and who is top of the media story? Cameron talking about finance. It is actually maybe time to start talking to the Lib Dems? Just a thought, but I'm sure we're around a lot of journalists at the moment and could be talking about the economy.

It annoys me, the way the Lib Dems are always, always, always sidelined in the media.

Cue Nick Clegg's speech:

Reporter: Yes, and we are reporting live from Bournemouth, where the Liberal Democrat Leader has announced what the Institute of Fiscal Studies describe as an incredible...

Huw: Sorry, I am going to have to interrupt you, there, Jim. We've just had reports that David Cameron's dog has given birth to puppies and that they are cute. Now, on with another media visit to David Cameron's house, a discussion on David Cameron's history, an analysis of David Cameron's agenda, and... then a speech by Gordon Brown to his wife.

I Don't CARE about SHOES!

2009-09-18T07:23:00.001-07:00

Look. I know women have far more fascinating wardrobes. I mean, no matter how metrosexual the male side of the world is (apparently) becoming, there's a limit to how much spicing up you can do as a man, in the wardrobe department. Alright, so there's the eternal dilemma about what sort of suit you wear. And some people try and choose a decent tie, trying to work out whether they should seem happy and relaxed by showing a gentler side of politics with a Snoopy tie... or whether they should seem serious and elegant with a dark blue tie. Oh. Then there's the hairstyle choices for male politicians: short, or short? You know, other than that, there's not much choice for us poor, beleaguered males.

So, we've established that the wardrobe choices for women in general and women in politics, is far more versatile and varied. I mean, they have skirts (and different kinds of skirts!), dresses (and different kinds of dresses!) and hats, shawls, scarfs, amazing hairstyles, and make-up, and the choice between Maybelline and Rimmel. To be honest, I am so jealous it's not true. Women's clothes are just so much more interesting. Not that I wear them unless its a fancy dress party, of course.

You might be forgiven at this point, to think that actually, I'm lying and that I do in fact, care about shoes.

You're WRONG!

Betsan Powys today wrote about Edwina Hart, a possible contender for the leadership of Welsh Labour. Only... she wrote about her shoes. Or to be fair to Betsan, wrote about someone else writing about shoes.

This has been said before, but it is really starting to annoy me that the media still continue with the same old tired reporting. Why do reporters take so much time talking about women's clothing in politics? Is it because the largely male correspondents are secretly suppressing homoerotic tendencies which have to express themselves somehow, in the adoration of female fashion? I didn't think so either. Or maybe it is darker than that. Maybe... just maybe, its because of a latent sexism amongst journalists?

You know, when I see Harriet Harman, Caroline Flint, Caroline Spelman, etc, my first thought is not "Oh... my... God... did you SEE those shoes?".

My first thought, is usually: "Oh... my... God... your policies are the most misguided, stupid approach to this issue I have ever seen." Or, "Holy crapsticks, are you actually thinking of launching a leadership bid, Edwina? You've utterly failed the NHS, and now you want to screw up the country as well?"

See how easy that is? I just talked a little bit about something women politicians have done and talk about. Only, there's something wrong with that sentence. Yes. I actually noted a difference between male and female. And in this instance, it is completely and utterly wrong to do so.

I can see two ways forward. One of them is far more entertaining, the other is what should actually happen. One. Maybe all the macho political correspondents can start describing male suits as well as women's shoes, resulting in the following coverage of Prime Minister's Questions:

Huw: "And now it's over to Nick Robinson. Nick, how did Gordon do at PMQs today?"

Nick: "Well, Huw, Gordon stood up at the offset, supremely confident in his well-tailored suit. Do note the use of darker thread for the seams, and the very faint pin-striping. Clearly, he has decided to go for a reserved elegance today, rather."

Huw: "And what about David Cameron?"

Nick: "Ah, Huw... this is where it gets really interesting. David Cameron has turned up in a bright yellow suit. It caused quite a stir, I must admit, a little like Kate Moss. It really screamed for attention, drew the eyes. An invention by a new, in-your-face designer from Putney, this yellow suit is a fabulous suede number, studded with beautifully shining diamonds. The motivation behind this yellow suit is clearly part of his lovebombing strategy to pull in Lib Dem voters. The diamonds are there to reassure the Tory right that he's still a rich tosser who doesn't really care about the poor. It seems to be working."

Huw: "And Nick Clegg?"

Nick: "Well, Nick Clegg has..."

It sounds strange, doesn't it? But although it has been exaggerated, maybe this is what Harriet Harman feels like, when people harp on about her clothing, her shoes or her appearance? You know, whatever your feelings about Harriet Harman, she has risen through a male-dominated world and socked it to them as an equal.

I think we owe women the respect to treat them like people, especially when they are part of the "class" that runs and governs our country.

So next time we read something about a woman's shoes and we realise it is talking about that woman's leadership bid for a political party... maybe we can reflect on the latent sexism which leads even intelligent female commentators like Betsan Powys, to fall into the same lazy, dismissive trap which does nothing to further the equality for women that this country still needs.

IWJ is better than Obama!

2009-09-14T15:14:00.000-07:00

...when I stay up to listen to Obama, I stay awake. When I stay awake to listen to Ieuan Wynne Jones, I fall asleep. That has to be the worst, most vacuous speech I have ever heard in my life. I only got 14.53 minutes in, and had to stop.

He's talking about being relevant to Wales, but nothing he said there resonated at all with me. It's all Plaid backslapping about irrelevant Plaid Cymru things. Nothing at the outset about the massive problems facing Wales. Maybe there was some later, but to be honest, I think the terrible unemployment issues in Wales is more important than congratulating three MPs on doing their job.

My headline for now: IWJ in "My MPs do their job" shocker.

Can't believe he's the Deputy First Minister.

We all agree! So now what?

2009-09-14T09:28:00.000-07:00

I've read so, so many blog posts over the past few days, about the ISA. We've had fantastic discussions, and all of us have absolutely and totally agreed with each other. Some of us have said you're wrong about why the ISA is wrong, but none of us have actually disagreed with the principle... which is, you guessed it, that it's wrong.

So where do we go from here? We've got the group I set up, "Trust Not Fear". Also the group "I am NOT a paedophile." Anyone else set one up? Anyone want to be an admin on my group to help if we ever turn it into a functioning campaign? Anyone willing to contact the relevant bodies (Liberty, NO2ID, etc) that might be interested, to see what is already being done to stop this scheme?

We've talked a lot. It's time to take action.

If we don't take action and just carry on debating how much we agree with each other, the moment will be lost and hundreds of childrens charities will wither and die.

We don't have much time.

Let's Gather Against the ISA

2009-09-13T12:26:00.000-07:00

...digitally, at least!

I have created the "Trust not Fear", group. I have recently seen the "I am NOT a Paedophile!" group as well. Are there any other groups set up? Is it worth gathering together into one big group, with all the admins of the separate group in one?

I think the biggest danger with this campaign, is that everyone becomes outraged, but that the anger is dissipated. At present it lacks a focal point to gather and direct that anger into real opposition. So, I'm urging everyone to talk to each other, work out where these groups are, and co-ordinate.

It's the only way we can stop this appalling, disgusting scheme.

Oh: and just a tip from several debates I've had today... go gently. I know we as Lib Dems are obsessed with civil liberties. That is a strong argument, but most people listen when you explain that it is causing a lack of trust amongst children and adults. Most people appreciate arguments about gathering rumour and hearsay. And most people appreciate when we talk about the benefits of CRBs. After all, it isn't the idea of security checks we should oppose, just the abject lack of regulation and guidance in these proposals: amongst other things.

Whilst civil liberties are one argument to use, they are not the argument. If we want to appeal to more people than just Lib Dems, we must look at ways to persuade the average person. They are angry, but if we do not organise quickly, they will be convinced by the lies of the Government. They will start believing the lies that this will make children safer, when the exact opposite is true.

So, we need to unite the separate campaigns and separate groups into one large all-encompassing campaign. We need to co-ordinate, preferably on a well-known blog and share Facebook groups, websites and bloggers who are against these proposals. And we need to work on different messages, not the relatively "niche" civil liberties message...

...although that's important too!

Let's work together. Let's stop this together.

Trust Not Fear

2009-09-11T16:41:00.000-07:00

Well, I haven't been able to find a group about the issue of the ISA and its incredibly dangerous remit and power. So if you feel strongly about this issue, which will leave children terrified of adults, and adults terrified of children, join this group and then spread the word to everyone you know.

If of course there is already a campaign organised, I'll redirect anyone who joins this group, to the "official" one.

Let's not take this lying down, folks. If there is a campaign, let's support it. If there isn't, let's get it up and running.

There is no way I'm living in a country where I have to be vetted in such a way just to be near children.

It is not the UK I want us to be.

A New Home For CSLD...

2009-09-11T13:49:00.000-07:00

Well, any regular readers of this blog will notice a new theme, and... well... the fact that I've finally admitted to myself that my original experiment in having a collaborative CSLD blog has failed. So, I'm turning this into my personal blog.

Never fear, however! CSLD does still exist, and this year I'll be working harder to ensure that other people contribute to it. You can find CSLD at cardiffstudentld.blogspot.com

This has been on the cards for awhile, since I am aware I did start to delve into my personal life more than a collaborative blog should. Well now, anyone that enjoyed my posts can stay here, those that did not can follow CSLD away to its new home!

I just home I don't end up doing two blogs daily, because one's enough for anyone!

Oh: and why the Yellow Pimpernel? Largely, because it sounds a bit cool (in a geeky way). And also because the Scarlet Pimpernel was a dashing figure, despite supporting the status quo of Britain. Well, the Yellow Pimpernel is his long-lost descendant, ready to smash apart the cozy consensus.

Or at least to talk about smashing it apart.

~Oliver Townsend

Labour Will Destroy Our Charity

2009-09-11T04:17:00.000-07:00

I am officially fuming. Raging. Only, not even the same level of fuming that I was when Plaid Cymru stabbed students in the back with a bit of a smirk. No, I am in a cold rage, because the Labour Party has suggested something which will probably prevent me and hundreds of people from doing something I love almost more than the Liberal Democrats.

I don't know how I've been sleepwalking into this. A while back I blogged about the ridiculous numbers of CRB checks. That was bad enough. Now I'm hearing about the Independent Safeguarding Authority, to prevent "unsuitable" people from working with children and vulnerable adults. They will "gather relevant information", which, according to most people will include hearsay and speculation, even court cases where the person was found innocent.

This is one of the most horrifying organisations I have ever heard of.

Anyway, let me tell you a little about what I love to do when I'm not being a Lib Dem. I am a member of a local group belonging to HCPT, a charity which takes disabled children, or children with social or behavioural problems on a pilgrimage for a week. It is a fantastic week, a week where us adult helpers will do anything to make these children feel loved and special. We push wheelchairs through the streets where hundreds of wheelchairs moved. No child feels as if they stand out during this trip, and rather than hiding them away like we do so often in the UK, we let them see that there is nothing to be ashamed of in having a disability, that it is something to be proud of, something to celebrate.

If I have to go through intrusive checks into my background, I won't be going. And it will leave me absolutely heartbroken. I am terrified that this will happen without organised opposition. And now, it's not because I'm scared of any blot on my character. I've never been in trouble with the law, have only been in detention for having not done homework, and most certainly have never had any convictions or accusations of anything improper. But I'll be damned if I let some grubby civil servant (sorry, civil servants!) go through my life with greasy fingers, trying to pore over every possible imaginable discretion.

This lack of trust cannot be healthy. This constant checking for abusers is never going to do any good. It creates a fear of adults in children, it creates a culture where we are afraid to show affection to children. Do you know that when I smile at a child in the street my first thought is not, "Oh, what a lovely child!" but "Will their mother think I am a paedophile?" That is wrong, it is disgusting. You know, it has come to the point when I stand in a lift looking anywhere but at the child, worried what their parents will say if I make eye contact. Okay, that is an extreme example, but it's true. Did you know that teachers in schools are told they can't hug children in distress?

Rubbish! As a child and a teenagers, I was bullied. Yes, it's not pretty, but I broke down in tears a few times in school. Ouch, that's a bit open, isn't it? Can you imagine how alien and unwanted I would have felt had my teachers not given me a hug and told me it would be alright?

If we are not careful, we will create a generation of children that don't know what hugs feel like, who are terrified of friendly adults. I don't want to live in a world like that. And I certainly don't want to live in a world where the Government's organisation decides what is "unsuitable" or not.

So yes, Labour does hate disabled children. Because if they get their way and this ISA becomes as wide-reaching as it promises to be, I doubt there will be many adults left to look after children at all.

I urge everyone, protest against this sickening example of heavy-handedness. It is not even going to stop abuse, considering the blatant and undisputed fact that most abuse happens within families, or by friends and peers of the child. Cases of abuse by strangers are extremely, extremely rare. There are ways of protecting children from abuse by strangers, and they should be looked at. But creating a massive monster designed to examine us root and branch for possible failure is sickening.

No human is perfect. If we look for imperfections, we will find them in everyone.

If this happens the way it looks like it will, I will be heartbroken. And more than anything... more than anything Labour has ever, ever, ever, ever done, they will have made an enemy of me. Enough of an enemy for me to actually equate them at the same level of the BNP.

If there are any sensible Labour MPs left, please, stop this madness! Will someone please think of the children?

My Conflictions On Political Ideology, or: Chaining the Leviathan

2009-09-10T10:57:00.001-07:00

I doubt conflictions is even a word. Oh, well!

As I've said on several of my blog pieces, I am a very conflicted individual. I grew up almost socialist with a liberal streak (largely because I was a youth, in South Wales, and even with Lib Dem parents it's the sort of ideology you fall for - like in those unrealistic romance novels when everyone swoons and swirls and swivels).

I also grew up (what fantasy novel reader doesn't?) with a deep and abiding love for the monarchy. I love conversations as to who my favourite King or Queen is. At the moment, I'm going for William the Conqueror because he was so bloody (literally) efficient in his conquering. Also, Elizabeth I, who I used to have a bit of a crush on when I was fourteen. Thank God I never read the Faerie Queen, or I probably would have spent the rest of my days pining for the beautiful maiden Queen of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, Ireland and France.

Oh, yes. And I have vague Irish nationalist leanings. Largely inspired by drunken sing-alongs to "Fields of Athenry" at the top of my voice, or the occasionally tearful listening to the haunting and heartbreaking "Grace".

And I'm Catholic.

You may have noticed that I am an extremely sentimental person - also quite repetetive, because most of this has been said in passing before, although not in quite the same detail.

What has all this to do with my conflictions on political ideology? Well, it's a subject that inspires debate throughout the party. Are we liberals? Libertarians? Social democrats? Socialists? People far more interested than me will come up with incredibly intricate definitions and variations of socialism, social democracy and liberalism. It all gets so complicated that I sometimes go, "Woah, woah, what does uber-quasi-pseudo-utopian-socialism-cum-judo-inspiring-utilitarian-liberalism with a dash of angry-state-opposed-libertarianism mean?"

Maybe it's just me, but I see the divide as hardly important.

There are some libertarians in the party. There are some socialists in the party. There are lots of social democrats in the party. There are lots of liberals in the party. I think the difference is extremely admirable. I've also heard lots of people say, in the event that we get proportional representation, they could then leave and form the separate parties, safely.

My response to them has to be: Why?

I accept maybe libertarians might leave, or socialists might leave. But the centre ground? Why should it leave? To me, the Liberal Democrats do the best they can to balance the occasional conflict of social democracy and liberalism. I can't support all of social democracy, and I can't support all of liberalism. The purposes of both however, are laudable. The free market that liberalism would allow to stay largely free is vital for our prosperity and freedom. The safeguards that social democracy would implement are also vital for a fair society. With just one of the ideologies, we become imbalanced. With both, we have a real chance to show the way forward.

There are things the Liberal Democrats do that I disagree with. That is because sometimes they approach one area with a more liberal or a more social democratic stance than I might like. However most of the time? It works well.

I am working as well, on a sort of compromise. I personally think that Education should be the strongest example of social democracy (even socialism!) within our party. Education, like Robert Owen (that good Welsh theorist!) said two centuries ago, is the key to changing society. So I have no objection to actions that sometimes seem heavy-handed to libertarians (for example, IR Cymru's campaign calling for compulsory anti-homophobic bullying guidance).

Other specific areas might require such heavy responses. However, these responses should be rare, focused and based on evidence of cause, effect (affect?) and solution. In many problems that face society, a minimalist state cannot intervene in the level it must, in a way that will (in time!) protect the rights of the individual. Do any of us believe that by not investing in massive state intervention in child poverty, we will make any of us safer? No. We need to end child poverty, give chances and choices, and therefore make us safer and more prosperous in our country. That sort of response requires state intervention.

Do I believe that state intervention is required with regards to chocolate over-eating, smoking and the like? Hell. No.

I see the ideal government as a general floaty net of liberalism. That net keeps the state at bay. Maybe it's an electrified fence with barbed wire, I dunno. But it's a strong, fence. With wild, rabid dogs guarding it. And security guards with machine guns. And it makes the state back off from individuals' rights.

However, that net also has certain pressure points which are attached to panic buttons that can be pressed by citizens. And when they need the help of the state, they press the big red button, and ask for help. A small gap is opened in the net, and focused state intervention occurs. (There is also an electrical link from the net to any state intervention that passes through it, so if the State gets out of hand, you can shock it to death)

I'm not sure Hobbes would approve, but really, we need that net to stop the Leviathan from crushing us all to death (like Labour is now). However, sometimes when the Leviathan wants to nip out that horrible parasite burrowing into our flesh (child poverty; homophobic bullying), we need to let it through.

I think that's a nice way to approach this apparently insurmountable divide.

How we go about creating that society is another matter.

Voting for the Lib Dems is a start, though!

Methinks the Bear Protests Too Much...

2009-09-09T02:33:00.000-07:00

Oh, God. I promised myself, I really did. I told myself I wouldn't get involved with the politics of Liberal Youth forums, websites or any of the "divisions" revealed by that trustworthy Lib Dem, Tory Bear.

...wait a minute! He's not a Lib Dem!

In the words of internetspeak, "OMG!"

I wonder, wonder, wonder why he keeps picking holes in Liberal Youth? Could it be, that Liberal Youth seem to be moving forward in leaps and bounds again and that he's jealous? Lets not forget people, that Conservative Future (indeed, most other political youth organisations) do not do the half of what Liberal Youth does.

This is often forgotten, and brushed under the carpet, or ignored by our opponents, because it is so much easier.

Why are we laughed at so much, for the occasional awful Freshers campaigns? Well, because we actually take the risk. The Liberal Democrats give Liberal Youth the trust and the resources to campaign as a separate organisation. And that's what we do. We aren't like Conservative Future, who use it as an excuse to black up, trash bars, snort coke or generally treat it as a rather amusing "oh la di da" dating agency. I mean, when was the last time you actually heard of Conservative Future doing a campaign other than what dear Daddy Cameron said? Or the leaders before him?

Exactly. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

So when a Tory criticises our youth organisation for making mistakes occasionally (No! Shock! Horror!), I tend to just smile to myself. Because when we make mistakes, it shows we're actually doing something where mistakes are a possibility.

For example, in Wales, we have IR Cymru, the devolved Welsh section of Liberal Youth. Conservative Future? Nope. They don't even recognise Wales, apparently. They've divided their organisation into North and South Wales. Riiiiight. Nice one, guys. So basically, you don't really like devolution in any sense of the word, do you?

It is noticeable in Wales, that we in IR Cymru are moving things forward further and faster than the other youth organisations (except, perhaps, Cymru X). I think throughout the UK, that is the case for Liberal Youth.

So I'm going to say this: it doesn't matter about forums. Or rather, it does, but in that case make sure the Liberal Youth Exec know that we want them back. Don't go moaning to Tory Bear. But really, if you do, it doesn't matter either. Because even as he types out his next response shrieking blue (ha!) murder at Liberal Youth... we can ask ourselves... why?

Why is this guy slagging Liberal Youth off so much? Is it because we're just so shit? At times, probably, yes. Not this year, though. This year, there's something more feverish about good old Blue.

As a vague, small, unrepresentative test, lets try and see why:

Members of "Conservative Future" Fanpage on Facebook: 1,913 fans
Members of "Liberal Youth" Fanpage on Facebook: 1,649 fans
Members of "Labour Students" Group on Facebook: 966 members

Hmm... so... in terms of good old Lib Dem barcharts... that makes the race for the most active and challenging youth organisation... yes, you guessed it. It is a two horse race... between Liberal Youth and Conservative Future.

So please, any other members of Liberal Youth who are not involved in spats with forums or spats with old material, or spats with whose mug of tea may or may not have at one time been drunk by someone unconstitutionally... wake up to what Tory Bear is doing.

It's all about morale, baby. Weaken the resolve of Liberal Youth, make members feel all we do is backbite, and the two-horse race becomes a lot harder for us to win. On the other hand, if these constant attacks make us realise that the Tories feel threatened by us... then maybe we can all realise we've got something amazing to work towards?

Why I Love Her Majesty...

2009-09-04T03:30:00.000-07:00

No... the other one!

It is apparently quite rare for a Liberal Democrat to profess not a grudging acceptance of the monarchy, but an outright love. Before it became a political issue, I used to joke with my friends that I was a Gurkha in a previous life. I almost do approach good ol' Liz with that same reverence.

That attitude is a source of deep embarrassment for some of my family. It also leads me to be rather conflicted. I have some sympathy with Irish nationalism (of the non-sectarian kind), a political belief which does not allow for love of a monarchy. Nonetheless, this is who I am.

I am a liberal democratic Irish-nationalist-supporting monarchist... and a Catholic! Holy crapsticks, that's a walking bag of contradictions if I ever saw one.

You know, there is something worthy of incredible respect, to know that our Queen has sat on the throne for over fifty years. She has seen Prime Ministers come and go. She has seen corrupt politicians come and go. She has seen the role of our nation decline year after year. She has seen unrest, profiteering on the back of poverty... she has seen it all.

And you know, I'm sure it takes an iron will to remain absolutely silent. It is the Queen's role to make her feelings known to the Prime Minister at their weekly meetings, not to make public declarations against a Government. So after fifty years, for her to have never broken that silence, is worthy of respect.

I don't think I could adequately express the admiration I have for the Queen. Its almost sickening, too! Like a Japanese manga fangirl obsessing over Sephiroth (eew). That is one reason why I am opposing the (possible, preliminary, maybe-not-presented) Lib Dem motion about the monarchy. And its going to get a teensy bit sentimental.

Isn't it nice to have a unifying force at the top of the country? Love her or hate her, she's there. She's at the head of the Government, and fulfils those neccessary State gubbins, without actually being political. What would we have instead? An elected President? Another elected politician... fun.

This is one of those things, which people want because they're embarassed by their monarchy. It doesn't matter. The monarchy has no power, the monarchy draws in money, the monarchy means political games do not affect relationship between the Head of State and Prime Minister.

There are other reasons, but I'm sure I'll put them into a speech I hope to give against the (possibly not even existant) motion in conference.

Until then... up the Monarchy!

A Fresh Freshers

2009-09-03T10:19:00.000-07:00

So, I turned up at Freedom Central today... ready to begin my nightly drudge of phoning around Wales... alas, I whispered a paean of loss as I picked up the handset, my hand shaking at its heavy signification of the path I was about to embark on. Woe, woe, I cried (in my head), as I was about to...

"Oh Ol, the Fresher's stuff has arrived!" says the Party Manager.

I think the sound that came out of my mouth was halfway between "SQUEE!" and "OOOH!", so perhaps more like "SQUOO!" or "OOOHEEE!". It doesn't really matter, to be honest.

Any lingering doubt I had that the Freshers packs were going to be as bad as last year's have been firmly torched to a grizzly and agonising death. As I rooted through the deep boxes at Freedom Central, gazing with awe upon the gleaming treasure chest of delights... I felt like I was looking deep into the beautiful hoard of a dragon... a liberal dragon... okay, maybe not, but I did feel that Liberal Youth had done us proud. All the gleamingly bright colours, the nifty slogans, the clever use of fun-sized tools...

...and BEER MATS!

In all seriousness, I am glad we are now dealing with a rejuvenated Liberal Youth. The materials are amazing, our activists are fired up. In Wales, we have our campaign going from strength to strength. All across the land, in university after university, we have liberal-minded students and youth ready to take the struggle to the barricades (a bit like the scene in Les Mis, but with less death).

I think all of us youngfolk and studentfolk (said in a Texan accent for full affect) are fed up of the same old things. Our way is not the destruction of community which occurred under the Tories. Nor is our way the destruction of liberty from Labour. Our way is a new way. And Freshers is the time we take our rejuvenated fight to the enemy.

Liberal Youth, things can only get better - and not in the New Labour sense of the word!

Don't Lose Heart, Irfan!

2009-08-27T02:02:00.000-07:00

Irfan today, has made a post about Liberal Youth. Unfortunately, it seems like he's taking his information solely from Tory Bear. Right. To be honest, I wouldn't take any info from Tory Bear, who focuses solely on the negative (obviously).

I'm not a member of the Liberal Youth Executive in London. I am a member of the Executive in IR Cymru, the Welsh wing. And having been working closely with some of the people in London, I can assure Irfan that the team is acting brilliantly, this year.

Okay, there are the usual problems with delayed communication and the occasional difficulty in speaking to someone. That always happens though, in cross-organisational discussions. However, what I've seen from Elaine and her Exec this year has been extremely professional.

Yes, last year was an absolute disaster. Like, totally. But the designs we've seen so far are amazing. Hard-hitting, direct, and pretty (I likes a good pretty design, me does).

Also, I can't speak for Liberal Youth on this, but if you want to know what we're doing in Wales, Irfan... we're leading what will hopefully be a huge campaign against homophobic bullying. With the Welsh Assembly, we have a rare influence over education in Wales, and are calling for anti-homophobic bullying guidance to be made compulsory. Our call has already had the support of Gofal Cymru (a mental health organisation), RCN Wales (the Royal College of Nursing) and as of yesterday, the support of NAHT Cymru (the National Association of Headteachers).

The fact that such organisations were willing to support us shows that the name of Liberal Youth is not that awful.

And also, might I just say, Irfan...

...I can't see anything of Labour Students, Conservative Future or (in Wales) Cymru X. They just don't do anything. They are silent, absolutely silent. At least Liberal Youth make an effort. We do not have the incredible resources available to the other parties. That means our efforts have to come always from the members of the various Executives.

It also means that it is very easy for opportunists like Tory Bear to target individuals to sow dissent and cause a drop in morale.

This year, there is no need for us to be taking advice from Tory Bear. This year should be the best Freshers fayre in years. And I have absolutely every confidence in Liberal Youth's team this year.

Ask the questions, Irfan, do. As I said, Liberal Youth aren't perfect. But they're a damn sight better than last year, have been working extremely hard, and are doing far more than the other youth organisations.

Oh! And come join our campaign in Wales! Everyone's cordially invited!

Ol

How 9/11 Made Me A Lib Dem...

2009-08-26T11:01:00.000-07:00

Matt blogged about why he joined the Lib Dems and became politicised. Its well worth a read over at, yes, you guessed it, Freedom Central.

Because I'm highly unoriginal, I thought I'd steal his idea and do my own!

So, why did I join the Lib Dems? Some people who know of me, but don't know me, would dismiss my activism by saying I only joined the party because my parents were members. Okay, that's a line of inquiry that would be interesting to alternative history writers. Would I have ever listened to Lib Dem policies had it not been for my parents? I'm not sure at all.

I remember that until I was about twelve or thirteen, Focus-folding was a chore. Whenever Dad asked me to help him fold leaflets or stuff envelopes, I'd groan, kick around the hose and stomp. I literally hated it. I'd grumpily stuff letter after letter after letter, silently vowing that when I was old enough, I'd vote Tory, just to get back at my Dad for making me miss the last twenty minutes of the pilot episode of New Tricks.

I have been thinking about this for a long time. When did it change? When did those pieces of paper cease to become something to do in a grump? I think the change started on, corny as it sounds, the 11th September, 2001. That would make me...thirteen. At that age, I just couldn't understand it at all. I came in and looked at the screen, hearing the screams of those caught in the atrocity, seeing the strange horror of an entire city - no, an entire world - held gripped. And then the questions came. Or rather, one single question: WHY?

I think that was my political awakening. Because then I started to read about the Middle East. I started to read about our actions over there. I started to read about the injustices of some countries (including ours). I stopped ignoring a strange glossy magazine in the study and suddenly the words meant something, as I read avidly the New Statesman (back in the days when it was truculently objectionable towards Labour). After that, in a desperate desire to seek answers to questions which, in all honesty, sometimes have no clear answer, I started to pay attention to the news in a way I never really had previously.

All of a sudden, the news stopped being just meaningless garble. I started to listen. And then to doubt. And then to form my own opinions. Which leads us to my year ten English Language GCSE course, where we were asked to write a speech. Caught up in my youthful political awakening, I decided to write a speech opposing the war in Iraq.

I remember in those days being a young teenager, and one of a minority (although a significant one) opposing the war. I could probably still find that speech I wrote if I wanted to, because the anger it still fuels in me will last forever. In that speech, I pictured two September 11ths, 2005. In one, Iraq still suffered its human rights abuses, but international pressure was building to deal with it. In the other, the country lay devastated, and terrorism spread in a place where, previously, there was no terrorism.

I suppose my writing that speech completed my awakening. And it's not going to sound pretty, but I suppose it was arrogance that finally made me join the Lib Dems. I remember thinking, "If I can see the coming problems with this decision, why can't the Government?" And I think it is an important point to consider... that if you are ever absolutely convinced you can do a better job than the Government, at whatever age, you have truly woken up to politics.

Let me continue, though, to another moment. The vote in Parliament on the invasion of Iraq. Up to this point you see, I was not a member of the party. I was interested, and a supporter (and because Dad would ask me to, I suppose I was a clerical helper). But not a member. The one thing Dad has always done is given us the choice of whether or not to join the Party (quite right, for a liberal, I hear you think!).

Anyway. I remember watching, with baited breath and my hands clasped together, as I (literally) prayed for those MPs voting on the invasion to do the right thing. I don't think I can ever adequately describe that moment. There was a sense of history, but also a sense that something fundamental to my beliefs would rest on this day. I would discover on that day, what sort of country we had, and what sort of leaders we had. I was absolutely crushed. Again, I don't think I could properly describe that jaw-dropping moment when I realised we were led by morally vacuous fools who were controlled utterly by the Party whips. I don't think I could ever feel the same rage, the same sense of powerelessness, the same sense of futility. And yes, the sudden sense of deep loss. I think even at that young age I felt that our country had just destroyed any hope of a changed millenium. There were so many thoughts going around in my head. I remember my parents were in the room with me.

It was at that moment that I remember turning to my Dad, and saying, "I think I want to join the Lib Dems."

The rest, as they say, is history.

Since then, my indoctrination has been almost absolute. And that's probably dangerous. Because to me, there is no half-heartedness allowed. I want a Liberal Democrat government. The Tories and Labour have both abjectly failed this country. On that one day, and on many, many, many others. It is why I am also hard to please. I always want our leaders to be more radical, more fierce... to tap into the real anger there is out there about politicians.

I will say this however, about our party. In this organisation I have met some of the most caring and intelligent people I have ever known. I know there are caring people in other parties. Mostly, those who voted against the war in Iraq. Yes, I do draw that rather clear and possibly unfair distinction. I am afraid that I see anyone who voted for that war as an epic failure of a human being, someone who would, despite all the doubts that were obvious even to a thirteen year old... commit the soldiers of their nation to a war.

This party has shown me that the best ways to move our country out of the quagmire, is to try new solutions. And these are solutions that are sometimes not popular. Declassification of cannabis? Unpopular, but you bet it will reduce crime considerably. Decent education for prisoners? Unpopular, but you bet it will reduce re-offending. I could go on. But I won't, because there are also many, many, many, many popular and effective policies our party has.

We just need to get people to listen.

And I agree 100% with Matt Smith over at Freedom Central, that there is everything to play for. It just means we all need to remember why we joined this Party, what makes us great.. and we all need to believe... to believe with such absolute fervour that we have the answers.

We are the answer to the UK. It needs us to believe that completely, and to hammer that truth out repeatedly. When we do that, the country will go with us.

Jane Hutt's Time Management

2009-08-26T07:34:00.000-07:00

As you can see, Jane Hutt visited Newport on 24th August to be photographed at the topping out ceremony on the building site (ha!) of the new University campus near the city centre. Isn't it amazing that the Butcher of Students' Lives has time to visit a building site, but didn't have time to greet protesters outside the Assembly on the day the Lib Dems voted against top-up fees?

I wonder whether she's doing the hard work of a building site (ha!) to atone for her sins, because she feels torn up with guilt.

(Ha!)

Launch of Ed Townsend 4 Newport East

2009-08-26T02:06:00.000-07:00

Oh, dear. I'm really sorry. This blog has become less of a Cardiff thing and more of an "I talk about my family" thing. I promise when all us students head back to university, you'll get more CSLD-specific stuff. In the meantime, please join the Facebook group to help Ed Townsend get elected to Newport East.

Newport East is getting closer and closer to a victory. It is a long-shot, but many people are starting to suggest we can win it. A Welsh academic (apologies, his name has escaped me) has predicted we will win. Apart from Swansea West, Newport East is our second most marginal target constituency. The sitting MP is deeply unpopular (no expenses saga from this one though, to be fair!).

In the Council elections, we won the constituency by direct number of votes. In the Assembly elections, we were 875 votes behind. In the Europeans, we moved up from FOURTH behind UKIP, to come within 176 votes of winning the constituency! All the movement is onwards and upwards. Please show your support to this winning campaign.

Newport East and Swansea West will be, if we win, two of the biggest shocks for Labour in Wales. The idea that Newport could ever turn Lib Dem was, six years ago, fanciful. Now... anything could happen!

Should We Sing For Lost Youth?

2009-08-25T15:01:00.000-07:00

Darling says he will be dealing with the lost generation. I doubt he'll succeed. There are young men and women graduating this year who have no jobs to go to. BT has cancelled its graduate scheme. How many more companies will follow suit? Luckily these students will not have to pay off their loans until they get a job, but those loans will continue to increase in interest. The longer they are unemployed, the heavier that debt becomes.

When will the Government admit it got it wrong, with top-up fees?

For Labour and Plaid there can be no excuse, unfortunately. They made the decision knowing full well the effects the recession was going to have on young people.

School Days Over, the song above soars. We'll need a similar song for the 21st Century soon. I just hope more young people wake up to the sheer incompetence of the Labour Government, and for once vote in great numbers.

School Days Over, fellow students and young people. Its time to vote for our future.

Why We Should All Read: Freedom Central

2009-08-25T04:15:00.001-07:00

Okay, so I promise I'll be spacing these out a bit more, but I wanted to show exactly why I love Freedom Central. I'll be doing this for more blogs over the next few weeks, to show those I love reading. It would be wrong though, to start the long trawl through my favourite blogs, without mentioning one of the newest (and dare I say, coolest) blogs in town.

Freedom Central. Yes, its the slightly cheesy (did I say slightly?) almost American name for the Welsh Lib Dem headquarters. Its one of those names which I feel a little embarassed to say. No, actually, that's not right. Its one of those names I used to feel a little embarassed to say. Now I feel almost proud.

Its like watching your cat use the back garden to poop in, instead of the litter tray. It feels like our Party's finally grown into the name of Freedom Central. That sounds like damning with faint praise, but anyone who knows me, knows I love my cats, so saying the Welsh Party is like a maturing cat is the greatest compliment I can pay to it! Well, almost the greatest, if it was the greatest compliment I'd say it was like a Helen Mirren, Judi Dench and Maggie Smith act-off with no clear winner... now THAT is a compliment.

Anyway, moving on, because I grow rapidly sidetracked by the triumvirate of British female acting and cats.

This blog of course, isn't about the name of our headquarters, it is about the blog of the same name. And what a flippin' blog! Its controversial (cue "middle of nowhere" neon signs to flash on, with a chorus of dancing musical theatre actors to sing a song about the joys of being Welsh, whilst their clothes gleam with sparkly red white and green sequins just because they can!), its informative. It has debates. It has regular, fabulous (did I just use the word fabulous? Ych!) contributors.

Matt O'Grady, who calls me angry all the time. That may be true Matt, but watch what you're saying, because you have to sleep some time. No, in all seriousness, Matt is probably my favourite contributor. He combines an appalling irreverence to the status quo with a probing mind and he always has a fresh perspective (gah, I use this "fresh perspective" thing a lot, but it means a lot to me, to see stories through other peoples' eyes, and Matt sure does do that!). He also manages to achieve the impossible: making a political blog somewhat amusing.

Next, I have to declare an interest, is my brother Jeremy Townsend. Alright, so I don't get his obsession with national opera or the complexities of "elite" music (my quote). To me, if its not sung by Tori Amos or doesn't have a dancing troupe with simplistic Andrew Lloyd-Webber tunes, its not worth listening to. But all joking about our different musical tastes aside, his blog posts manage to be concise with the information they deliver, and actually he also achieves a mildly amusing status. In particular, his posts on trains I find enlightening and rather hilarious. He obviously uses trains a lot, and has the rare gift of using those experiences to craft an entertaining blog post. He's also got the rare gift of managing to create a media storm about slagging off a place he probably actually quite likes. How he managed that, I will never know. Oh. And I also have to say I like his blog, because it was a surprise to me that he could actually write. (Joking! Honest!)

Who else? Ah, yes, our famous (infamous?) Peter Black. A splendid, committed and thoroughly decent AM. Also a splendidly committed "boat-rocker", who really doesn't mind poking holes in his own party. That's what attracted me to Peter Black's own blog years ago (yes, folks, for about two years the only blogs I ever read were Peter Black's blog and Paul Flynn's blog - I like to think they may have both affected/effected me a little!). He brings that spark to Freedom Central as well. The spark of choosing relevant information and presenting it carefully and clearly for public consumption. When you read Peter's posts (his own and on Freedom Central), you really get the sense he cares. And that is what we want in our elected politicians. Not that I expect anything less from a Liberal Democrat elected politician, to be honest. And the day I do, is the day I "man the guillotines" (quote from a relative who will remain nameless, there!).

Then we've got Ali Goldsworthy's posts. I haven't quite worked out the "niche" of these posts, yet. Jem does the media storms when he doesn't mean to. Matt tries to create media storms but never succeeds (sorry, Matt! Love you!). Peter balances in the middle. Maybe Ali's niche is that she doesn't have a niche? But whatever her niche is (or isn't), her posts are at times entertaining, at times thought-provoking, at times they provoke anger (that post about the Tories and their female candidates made me so angry I was about to pour acid on their cricket lawns!).

Then we have the admin of Freedom Central (I'm not sure if he wants to remain nameless, so let's call him the Yellow Pimpernel, for now...). The Yellow Pimpernel (incidentally, that's now copyrighted for the possible day when I do an individual blog as Ol, and not as a member of CSLD... a time maybe coming soon!). He (or she....) does a superb job of stringing the individual characters together in this blog, with informative posts about the day-to-day working of the party. In short, he makes the chains that keep the Rosary beads of this religious affair going. Okay, that's gonna make people laugh. How's about he provides the roach that allows the Lib Dems to get stoned? Oh, wow! No, no... that's just so totally not right, and I am so not saying that Freedom Central promotes cannabis use. Okay. He's the light that allows us to read? Oh for heaven's sake, it doesn't really matter, but what I'm trying to say is that Freedom Central would not work without the Yellow Pimpernel.

Then we have the occasional other commenters. Gareth Aubrey giving his opinions about the Welsh affairs of the day. Very informative. Ben Lloyd our Policy Officer who wrote a wonderfully informative post about banking. I think that's what it was about, anyway!

You know, I could talk for years about Freedom Central. I love it. I love the fact that anyone can write an article for it. I would volunteer, but unfortunately I have that irritating (and dare I say it of myself, impossibly immature) habit of swearing a lot. I get passionate you see, and tend not to edit my blog posts too much. I'm an elemental kinda blog-writer, not a polished icy one.

Ways Freedom Central can improve? Well, it is improving every day. Firstly, people need to realise that its not the opinions of the Party, it is a place for debate. When that happens, people can blog what they like and really get it firing up. I see Freedom Central as the possible inheritor of the radical Welsh political tradition. I hope to see some more student pieces written for the blog. I hope to see more media storms (just not about Bala, please!). I hope to see more informative pieces. You know, I really do like to actually learn something from blog reading, not just have my opinions reinforced.

Freedom Central is like a fine wine. Or as one of my school friends said, like Carol Vordemann. They both get better with age. Of course, my friend broke my window soon after that, with a banana. We don't talk that much anymore.

Keep up the good work, Freedom Central! Lead the Welsh invasion of England! Show those English rarified peoples the steel and fire of the Celts!

Okay, maybe not, but do keep writing.

Oh, and for anyone reading this, don't carry on reading this! Go read Freedom Central!

(Apologies to any regular contributor to Freedom Central who I have forgotten... please tell me if I have and I will swiftly remedy the fact!)

On Disagreeing With The Welsh Party...

2009-08-24T16:11:00.001-07:00

...for the first time since my politicisation! (It sounds painful, but it really just involves taking the important step in the life of any Lib Dem activist' relative - the step where folding Focus stops being something you are told to do by your father for pocket money, to become something you ask your father to do... for free)

It was quite a wrench, to disagree for maybe the first time, but I just can't support the motion that will be coming to Welsh Conference in October. It calls for our party not to reintroduce prescription charges.

Now, of course as always I am willing to be persuaded.

It seems to me we need to be showing the Welsh people where we would make savings and where we would promise not to make any cuts. This is a brilliant moment for us to be open and honest with the electorate.

Dare I say, it also gives us a chance to set out our priorities. Let us say we are going to be taking a fine tooth comb to the bloated Assembly budgets, to really slice out unnecessary expenditure. That's the sort of maturity we need to show, especially as budgets begin to tighten.

Now, saying that we will protect everyone with a chronic, terminal or even long-term condition from paying anything. That protects people who otherwise would pay. It is right that people who suffer long-term conditions of any kind should have their prescriptions free of charge. However, I think having the guts to tell the Welsh people that we will make people pay for penicillin during the occasional cough (unless they cannot afford that, in which case they could also get it free), is vital for us to be honest with the Welsh people.

Let us make sure we amend the free prescription mess so that it protects the poor and anyone at all of any income suffering any long-term conditions. But lets not promise to keep something free for everyone. When I was phoning (admittedly a small number of people), many people said they did not begrudge paying for penicillin or paracetamol. It is that sort of freebie that becomes wasteful.

I suppose I could be swayed if someone in the party assured me the cost of changing the system for a small number of people would be greater than the cost of making it universally free for Wales.

If that's not the case, I think I feel an amendment coming on!

(Wow, two blog posts in an hour... it's like that 'waiting for a bus' joke!)

Why We Should All Read: Jane Watkinson...

2009-08-24T15:48:00.001-07:00

Largely, because she's just brilliant.

She's erudite, insightful, at times amusing. And her blog pieces sometimes challenge the way I view things. Her blog is one of those that make us re-examine our own beliefs, to really look at things we might have said in anger. Her blog, more than lots of those I've read (including mine) actually have something interesting and different to say, and really offer a fresh perspective.

I hope she continues to blog and continues to be a member of our Party for years to come! She's our Harriet Harman. No, she's not, actually. She's our Jane Watkinson, and manages to say what Harriet Harman probably means, whilst sounding reasonable. The danger of this, is that Jane Watkinson will actually have us agreeing with Harriet Harman! (Tongue firmly in cheek, of course, since lots of what good ol' Harriet says is stuff that really needs to be treated seriously rather than being laughed off - something I admit I've been guilty of at times)

Anyway, I just wanted to say how much I enjoy reading her blog, "My Liberal Democrat Political Ramblings", and I felt other people should be encouraged to read her with the avid interest I do!

Go read!

(from Ol, a secret Harriet Harman admirer - politically, I hasten to add)

I'm hoping we don't attack!

2009-08-21T03:06:00.000-07:00

Whatever the POLITICAL right or wrong of the situation of Megrahi... the fact remains that the Scottish Justice Minister made a decision based on an ETHICAL consideration of the man's health. We abhorred Jack Straw when he kept the train robber in prison when he was soon to die. Yet now we abhor the Scottish Government for releasing a terrorist.

We have heard from families of the victims, some of whom have said he should be released, some of whom have said he should not be released.

But this raises an important point. And I am sorry to say, a rather callous point. I am not usually callous, I hasten to add. Unfortunately, I have to be today. Should the family of victims have a say on the procedure of justice?

Don't get me wrong. When it comes to sentencing, I think families of victims or victims themselves should be involved in the process. However, after the process, the decision must be made according to the law. It cannot (and should not) be held to ransom by the families of the victims, or the Secretary of State for the USA. It is a hard thing to say publicly, because it sounds like I'm saying I don't care about the families of the victims.

That, I hasten to add, is singularly untrue. However, in matters of law, decisions must be made (as far as possible) by people not involved in the decision. That is why I do think the Justice Minister was wrong to visit Megrahi in prison. However, it is also why the Minister could not listen to the families of the victims. However awful it sounds, we cannot have a justice system where the families of the victims control whether someone is released, or not.

Unless that system is created, and balanced, in which case it sounds like a reasonable idea. Until then though, this politician had no more need to consult them than anyone else. Other than to reassure them and explain why, of course. That is only common decency.

This leads me to my next point. I am hoping we don't attack the SNP for this. Yes, it is a populist approach. It is not, however, the right one. I for one share the distaste of Megrahi being given a hero's welcome (if, of course, he was rightfully convicted, which is a separate issue in and of itself). However, the actions of people in Tripoli cannot be laid at the feet of the SNP. Yes, of course it is an easy shot. It makes us look populist.

But I would argue that we shouldn't. I cannot imagine a harder decision for any politician to make. It is a decision which is complex, and has strong feelings on all sides. It is a decision which I feel in balance was probably right. The braying headlines this morning are not a direction I would like to see the Scottish party head.

I hope we leave easy populism and cheap shots to the Tories and Labour.

We're a better party than that.

Ah, my favourite day...

2009-08-20T05:14:00.000-07:00

(Apologies in advance to Norfolk Blogger, the strong words in here are in some part directed at you, but the worst of them are directed at society's attitude in general, and the Tories' ideas... not you!)

Firstly, congratulations to my sister who got two As and a B! Unlike me, she did hard subjects (Maths, English and Music). Unfortunately, I went for those damned "soft" A levels. You know, Religious Studies, Theatre Studies and English. Curses to my unemployable soul.

But wait a minute, let's look at some of this intellectual snobbery for a moment. Okay. Particularly around Media (yeah, go on people, make some real intelligent joke about calling it "meeja" studies in an elitist way designed to demean those who study it. Try it! Its SO funny and SO original) Studies. Y'know, maybe it isn't as academically hard as Maths A level. But every single A level is hard in a very different way.

I'm gonna be honest (and, you might say, a wee bit arrogant, so apologies in advance). I've always considered myself to be clever. Oh, there's a lot of people a lot more clever than I am. But when I put my mind to it, I understand things quite easily, can follow logic and all that oh-so noble stuff.

You know what? Theatre Studies was the hardest A Level I did. Because not only did we have to analyse some complex theories about theatre (discuss the benefits of Stanislavski's method acting; how would Brecht use the breaking of the fourth wall to its best effect?), but we also had to act. Yeah. Go figure, you say. But in order to get my grade A at Theatre Studies, I spent every single lunchtime for pretty much a month, rehearsing. My group stayed behind after school most nights. In fact, you might go so far as to say that by working so much on my Theatre Studies work (which ate time like you would not imagine), I failed to work so hard on my more "noble", and "academic" subjects. It doesn't matter, I pulled it together at the end of Year 13 and successfully obtained the three A grades I wanted.

What point am I trying to make? Its quite simple really, guys'n'gals (or, since I've been chatting about Theatre Studies, maybe it should be guys'n'dolls?). How do we measure what is hard? How do we measure the difficulty of a subject? Do not get me wrong. I cannot do the more complex mathematical equations. I am singularly basic at my scientific awareness. Owing to the abysmal quality of "single science" teaching (a subject that may be discussed in time), I famously wrote that the Red Shift is actually when interstellar winds blow the sands of Mars across the planet. Yes, I was creative and imaginative, and to be honest wanted to tell me GCSE Physics examiner to "F*** off". But all this awful, dismissive, intellectual snobbery about media studies? Its got to stop!

Oh. What brought this rather silly, rambling, disjointed post (a post, incidentally, which my English A level teacher would shudder to gaze upon, for its American colloquialisms and informal tone)? It was Norfolk Blogger, someone I normally enjoy reading. But they managed to produce a post of such stunning elitism and smugness I almost gaped.

What is this evidence for media studies being a worthless degree? Yes, that's right. The tale of someone who went to university and drank a lot. I mean, has nobody in this debate pondered that it is what the individual makes of an A level and a degree that matters?

If I'd wanted an easy ride for my Theatre Studies A level, I would have coasted and settled for the B I got in Year 12. Instead, I did two resits to bump my theory to an A, and then slogged and slogged and slogged for a year to ensure that my practical (the hardest test I have ever, ever, ever sat - largely because it hinges upon not only a vague acting ability, but upon teamwork, upon confidence, and upon not only acting well, but acting within the chosen style) was successful.

The amount I read around the subject, to give me the depth required for my role. The amount of time I spent secretly in front of the bathroom mirror practicing the helpless pleading of a desperate Joseph K (yes, we did Berkoff, it was fun). The amount of sheer hard work and sweat, was something I haven't experienced since, outside of a Liberal Democrat campaign. And you know what? It has given me skills that have stood me in good stead and will continue to do so, for years.

Confidence - I lack it in normal situations around strangers, but put me on a stage with preparation and I can deliver something of some standard, at least. Teamwork - the most important skill learned, I feel. You cannot get a decent grade at Theatre Studies if you cannot work as a team. Versatility. Improvisation. Imagination. These are all skills which, cynically, a politician needs (you know, those sorts of politicians who lie about top-up fees and pretend to congratulate students for their A level results, yeah, them ones).

These are the vital things people overlook. Theatre Studies, Media Studies, even Sports Studies... they hinge upon significant and challenging skills. To have someone like Norfolk Blogger dismiss Media Studies completely is appalling.

Look. I know a friend who is studying for a degree in Film Studies. He works hard, hopes to direct and is constantly looking for new inspiration. He reads plays, poetry and novels. He studies light and its affects on shots. He spends incredible time, beyond anything I could devote to anything save Lib Dem activism, to subtleties in filming I didn't even know existed! He'll get a very good degree. And he will go far.

Contrast that to another person doing a similar degree, who waltzes up and doesn't have a clue. He's not going to get a decent degree. He may well go far, because he has talent, but he doesn't work. So for him, that degree is a walk in the park (and, yes, not academically challenging).

Another friend did Physics and dropped out because they were too busy drinking to care about their degree. Academically challenging degree? Not for them!

Of course compare that to another friend who started with Physics, worked incredibly hard and is now studying Astrophysics... and yes, we have a challenging degree. But forgive me for belabouring a point. Could he point a camera? Yeah, sure. Could he point a camera with the depth of understanding that my talented friend could? Hell no! Any more than my talented friend could predict rocket trajectory, or whatever it is those crazy Astrophysics lab kids do when they've got their goggles on.

So come on, guys'dolls! Its time to grow up! Its time to realise its not the subjects that are at fault, it is what the individuals do with those subjects. So if everyone does Media Studies, yeah, sure, you'll get a lot of people doing sweet F A. But you'll get those gems that work hard and are talented. And for them, that degree or A level will be the most rewarding and challenging task they have experienced their entire life.

Let's try and stop them bastard Tories demeaning their choices. Let's try and congratulate students on this day. Is it any wonder we as young people grow angrier and angrier every day? We are ignored, ridiculed, criticised. And then on this one day when we prove we can work hard and do well...

...we get people, even Lib Dems, mocking the very subjects they chose.

Shame on us all.

Yes, this post is written by me, Ol. I'm of those wasters who studied that "non-academic" subject Theatre Studies, who went on to do that dosser subject "Politics", studied by the bastards who pretend to be able to run our country. Funny that studying "Politics", a supposedly academic degree, has largely kept this country stagnated for so long... maybe we could spice things up and have some Media Studies students to govern the country? They couldn't do any worse than the current lot of Oxford-educated, totally academic, wonderfully lovely people we have now. Yes. I am being sarcastic. Yes. Absolutely.

Shove that up the Tories and smoke it.

Apparently I'm angry. So let's arrest Rhodri Morgan and charge him with theft! (And waiting for Anglo-centric response)

2009-08-17T11:21:00.000-07:00

Why be angry if you can't make sallacious calls?

But there is a serious point here. And I know, its an old, old, old, old, old point. From 2003 in fact. Ah, those halcyon days, where the Lib Dems had one councillor in Newport. Ah, those halcyon days, where the Labour Government was struck with indecision - unable to choose between ineptitude or gimicks.

Oh! And the prize remembrance of halcyon days... when a Labour Government shelled out over a million pounds to give retiring farts a lovely paycheck.

(I know, I'm once again posting on something my brother's written about, but for some reason he's taken to blogging and is stealing my progressive angry turf and turning it into progressive, reasoned thinking debate - its not natural, I tells ya, its not!)

It would be really really really funny if there was an economic recession in which that money would be needed, wouldn't it? Thank God there isn't... oh, shit... wait... crap.

Anyway, personally, I think now this has been quite rightly accepted as the abject failure of policy it was. I don't often agree with libertarian wings of my party, but excuse me while I scream: what the HECK? Since WHEN is it the responsibility of a national government to FUND the retirement egg of farts? (Egg, farts... there's a link there that I shouldn't probably make)

So here's my suggestion. The Welsh Assembly writes to those who retired with a lovely, State-funded pension-plan-on-top-of-a-pension-plan. It demands the money back (heck, if we've given the State the power to dictate the age of councillors, lets give them the power to demand the retired corruptions - sorry, councillors - pay the money back! Its only fair!). Then Rhodri Morgan pays for the rest out of his and his Party's pocket for passing it in the first place.

Oh, and if there's any money left outstanding, we arrest Rhodri Morgan, hold him to account in a public kangaroo court and then exile him to Cardiff North where he probably needs to start working for his wife, who is fighting tooth and nail (but with less of the fighting, as far as I can tell) for her seat.

Yes, I know, I'm talking out of my arse. And it'll take two seconds to notice that.

I wonder why it took almost six years for it to be seen as the failure it so obviously was.

IN OTHER NEWS: I am STILL waiting for a response from any nationalist Plaid Cymru member (or AM/MP) on what the heck Anglo-centric means in contemporary Welsh politics? I'm getting so annoyed now I'm close to laying down the gauntlet and saying something that I don't really mean just to provoke a response from Plaid Cymru's blogosphere on that issue. Come on, nationalists! I love you, but you're really bad at answering the question!

Of Welsh Language and Anglo-Centricism: a response

2009-08-15T05:16:00.001-07:00

So! Today, I’m going to devote a blog post to replying to Patrick McGuinness who made a contribution to my blog post of a couple of days ago about banning the use of the word Anglo-centric. I hope the response, whilst addressed to him, has some enjoyment to any reading it who are not Patrick.

Thanks for your response, Patrick. It is a long, well-thought out post and I hope I can respond to it with the respect it deserves. I’ve basically put into separate paragraphs, your comment. It was a very interesting comment, which is why I am responding to it like this!

First, you make great play of one unpleasant experience, and then suggest that this is endemic to Welsh-speakers. That is your suggestion. It's like me saying that the letter in yesterday's Western Mail from some idiot in Barry about Welsh-speakers herding sheep and reciting poetry, or a comment on Betsan Powys's blog that Welsh speakers are 'inbred and inferior', represents English-speaking Welsh people, and that you should be accountable for nasty comments made by someone in your community.

Okay, I cited one example (you then call into question whether this happened, later on – it did, honestly!). There are others. I am sorry to say that there is a view in certain parts of Wales that if you don’t speak Welsh, you are not Welsh. Now I should make absolutely clear that my post was not in any way meant to insinuate that all Welsh-speakers think those who can’t speak Welsh are not Welsh. I’m really sorry if it came across like that. But you have to accept that that tension does exist in Wales (I also strongly criticise that comment on Betsan Powys’s blog about Welsh speakers being ‘inbred and inferior’ – that just isn’t the case, and I hope you accept that in this blog I am trying to articulate a serious problem in Wales, and not make silly points about Welsh speakers).

You conflate one person with an entire community at your peril.

Okay, I accept that point. Of course the entire community is not out to hate English-speaking Welsh people. However as stated above, there is a conflict in Wales between English-speaking Welsh people and Welsh-speaking Welsh people. Either we can pretend it doesn’t exist, or actually debate and discuss the issue. That’s what my blog post was (partly) trying to do.

As for the old 'they told me I wasn't welsh then "proceeded to" speak Welsh all evening' (I love it when you people use that phrase - they don't speak Welsh, they 'proceed to' do it, you see... )

“You people”? What does that mean? Anyway, I apologise if my sentence construction offended or happened to co-incide with other tales from other people. As you can see from my use of “quoth I” and “completed the conversation”, I was re-telling a story that still angers me in a light, jocular way – sorry, I’m still young, and whilst I’m earnest and have been accused of being “self-righteous”, I sometimes do try to relax a bit! My use of “proceed” may have inadvertently utilised a word often used by people whose views on the Welsh language I do not share, but it was wholly inadvertent and accidental, I assure you.

Funny how the old urban myth stays the same: it's always a pub, they always check you don't speak Welsh, then they always 'proceed to' speak Welsh to exclude you. If I had a pound for the number of times I've heard that, or a variant on it, I'd be able to make a large legal donation to Lib Dem funds.

Nah, she didn’t check we didn’t speak Welsh. I didn’t say that. She checked I was from Newport. I also hope you acknowledged my words, “no, I don't challenge her right to speak Welsh, she can feel free to speak it as much as she likes - my issue is with her rude nature and dismissive actions, not her language” The point here was not a Welsh-woman speaking Welsh in her own country. I’d have to be pretty nasty to criticise that! No, my point here was the general dismissive approach she had towards me. I do assure you this story happened – I can get witnesses to back it up if you’d like. The amount of people from South Wales who have experienced similar reactions when in North Wales is quite high (and, to be fair, I am sure people from North Wales experience different exclusionary behaviour when they visit South Wales), so it isn’t something that should just be dismissed as “an urban myth”.

For what it's worth, I'm English, live in Caernarfon (probably the "middle of nowhere" in your terms...)...

Don’t confuse me with my brother! :D I don’t think it’s in the “middle of nowhere”. It’s certainly “in the middle of lots of countryside”, it’s certainly “in the middle of an area with poor transport links”, “in the middle of culture and beauty”, “in the middle of wonderful history”, along with any other number of descriptions we can attach to it. As I said in my post, people have criticised Newport for centuries. It’s something we take on board and live with. As I also said, I don’t think my brother was criticising Bala. And I don’t think I need to say that I haven’t criticised any part of Wales in any way! I love my country, all parts of it, equally.

But to avoid addressing some serious issues is to ignore real problems in Wales. How can we get a decent response from the Assembly for example, on transport issues in Mid-Wales, without admitting that there are serious transport issues in Mid-Wales? Should a politician (or a researcher in the Assembly) have to say “there is a slight limitation to transportation in this area of Wales”, or are they allowed to be blunt and clear, and say, “transport is a massive problem in Mid-Wales, and something needs to be done”? In the interests of getting real solutions (effective solutions) for Wales, we need to be able to speak frankly. I know that the issue raised about Bala was not about transport links, I was using a hypothetical situation. If we want our politicians to deal with our problems, we have to expect our politicians to use simple, clear and honest words.

...and have kids at local schools. I've never - not once - encountered any of the hostility you imply is endemic to Welsh-speaking culture. On the contrary. I'm inclined to think that people here try so damn hard to make one feel OK about not speaking Welsh that it's not fair.

I’m glad that you’ve had so many good experiences. I have had many good experiences myself, as well. However, the bad experiences still exist and are quite frequent. Again, my blog post was just raising the issue and suggesting it needs to be openly debated without being dismissed (or worse, being seen as an attack against Welsh culture and language itself!)

I walk into pubs and they 'proceed to' speak in English for my benefit.

I should also add my own good experiences here. On that same holiday we did go back to that pub repeatedly, as the landlords were extremely friendly, spoke to us in English, made us feel welcome. The woman who did not make us feel welcome was obviously a minority. She is, however, part of a significant minority, not just an inconsequential minority. And who can blame her! In that part of Wales, they have suffered for the past century from English subjugation on so many levels. Those times have gone (or are at least going) however, so that hostility should lessen. As long as politics in Wales (and its culture) is willing to acknowledge that divide, we can move closer to being more united. If we keep ignoring it, it will grow wider.

Basically your post is a familiar piece of 'come on Welsh-speakers, apologise for the occasional nasty person I've met' whingeing, with zero sense of how Welsh-hating comments, which are rife, affect the balance of power and the dialogue between cultures. You wouldn't dream of being held accountable for comments like 'Welsh is a toxin and welsh speakers are in a jihad against us' (another choice morsel from Betsan Powyss blog, but you're happy to challenge Welsh-speakers to apologise for some miserable old trout in a pub.

Again, I hope it didn’t come across as an attack against Welsh-speakers. Rather it was trying to acknowledge the gulf that does exist between different sections of Wales – I’m not the sort of person to make these things up. Sure, it’s all anecdotal. It has to be, since no politician in Wales (yet) would dare try to examine the depths and extend of these cultural divides in Wales. I know that makes what I am saying less reliable than an argument backed up with clear statistics and the like. But enough anecdotal evidence does imply that there is some issue here. And the sometimes rabid response of both “sides” also makes it clear there is an issue. So now, I don’t expect Welsh-speakers “as a body” (a body which does not exist, I am sure) to apologise. Any more than I’ll apologise for those disgusting comments on Betsan Powys’s blog. But we have to accept there is a problem! By accepting it and learning how we can deal with it, we can actually form the great and united country Wales should be!

Assuming she exists, because most of the stories like this I hear from people who go to the same pubs as me in Caernarfon are lies.
She does exist. Honest, gov!

You call a historical place in Wales 'the middle of nowhere' and the culture festival 'regressive', then expect everyone to like you. Worse still, as a defence mechanism, you then post comments, like this one, which imply that there's some kind of root illness among Welsh-speakers and that it's their problem.

Well that wasn’t my blog post, it was my brother’s. I’ll leave him to defend his comments, if you don’t mind. I was blogging separately, not as a defence mechanism, but to ask a question about the use of “Anglo-centric” which has become too prevalent as a knock-back, in Welsh politics. I also (as I’ve not said several times) hope I didn’t imply there was some kind of “root illness among Welsh-speakers and that it’s their problem”. No way! Definitely not! That’s so not what I was saying! Please don’t take this too seriously, but “some of my best friends are Welsh-speakers! That was a joke, sorry – in all seriousness, I’m not declaring war against Welsh-speakers, I’m not saying they are responsible for individuals’ rudeness any more than I am responsible for English-speaking rudeness.

But every single person living in Wales today is responsible for forming a tolerant country that can balance the significant differences that exist between North and South, West and East, rural and urban, Welsh-language and English-language. Why is it so hard for people in Wales to accept that these divides exist, and that these divides are dangerous and that if we continue to address these arguments with rabid, ill-thought-out attacks like “Anglo-centric”, these problems will never be addressed?

As for Jeremy's finding the question 'Is he Welsh' 'totally abhorrent', he's obviously led a very sheltered life. I'm asked whether I'm Welsh al the time. I imagine that when you sneer at a place for being in the 'middle of nowhere' and call the Eisteddfod 'regressive', then whether you're Welsh or not has some relevance doesn't it? I mean, they are journalists... I read the article about you and it didn't make any even sub-racist point about your nationality.

But here too, Jeremy is imputing racism or bigotry to the Daily Post merely for asking the question - is that what you mean Jeremy? Do you find the Daily Post racist for asking if you're Welsh? If so, why not say it?

Again, I’m not here to defend my brother. But I would like to ask: would the story have been any different had he been “legally” Welsh? What if he had been a Plaid Cymru AM? Or a Welsh-speaking Plaid Cymru AM? I have a significant suspicion that a Welsh-speaking Plaid Cymru AM could say pretty much what they liked about the Eisteddfod. Because who would dare accuse them of being Anglo-centric?

Are you perhaps trying to divert attention from your original comments?

Nah. Well, I dunno. But my blog post ain’t got nothing to do with Freedom Central, honest, gov! I just find the debate very interesting and wanted to add my own thoughts to a related issue. Honestly. There’s no desire by me to deflect this imaginary flak from someone. I just wanted a question of mine addressed.

After all, nothing works better than firing up the suspicion of the language than a good story about how Welsh-speakers like to use Welsh to exclude us, and it has the merit of changing the goalposts from the original mistake you made.

I’m a different person. My questions about language and Anglo-centricism are completely and utterly separate from any comments made on Freedom Central. I am a student, in Cardiff, and this entire blog is meant to be a place for students (and any others!) to debate, discuss, argue, rant, scream... it is not and will never be, whilst I’m contributing to it, a place to deflect attention from other blogs. You can have that promise in writing. <- right there! :)

Perhaps in your next post you can issue a demand for Welsh speakers to apologise for the nasty woman in the pub?

Well technically, this is my next post, and I’m not issuing that demand!

In Conclusion

I note at the end of this post that there has been no comment about “Anglo-centric”, and what it means, who gets to use it, etc, etc.

Let’s try this: "I find Plaid Cymru despicably Anglo-centric, in Wales. Not only have they delayed and delayed the quest for further devolution of powers (a quest the Liberal Democrats are still engaged on with deep fervour) to fit into a Labour Party agenda... but they have adopted the same policy on top-up fees as a UK Labour Government, obsequiously bowing down to the demands from London. This Anglo-centric, Welsh-betraying party has shown it cannot be trusted."

There, I’ve used Anglo-centric. Did I use it in the right context? Probably not. I don’t like the word as I said. But I’d really like a reply from Plaid Cymru members (or anyone who frequently uses the word), as to what it actually means! Which Anglo are we centring? Is it still a valuable contribution to any debate in Wales, considering we are now engaged in a devolution protest which (if Plaid Cymru will get its flippin’ act together) should continue with further powers... doesn’t that imply the days of Anglo-centricism are well and truly over?

Anyway, I won’t finish the blog post on a combatative note. I hope I’ve been polite yet direct (and sometimes blunt) in my response to your comment, Patrick McGuinness. I really value your comments, they ask difficult questions and really make me think. Feel free to reply as many times as you like, I am interested in a dialogue and a debate (heck, even an argument!). But I’d like use to discuss and debate the real issues, rather than imagined issues where I’m accusing all Welsh-speakers of racism, of elitism, or where I’m demanding their apologies. Because that’s not what my post was about.

I do apologise if it was unclear in my previous post. I’m still young, I’ll grow into clarity! ;)

Thanks for your comment!

~Ol

Fitzpatrick Walks Out!

2009-08-14T10:38:00.000-07:00

News that Mr Jim Fitzpatrick MP has walked out of a Muslim wedding.

Now this is one of those stories which seems to conflict with two liberal views. One, the freedom for religious groups to practice in peace. Two, the freedom for a man and woman to sit together without segregation.

Reading this story, perhaps the point that swings it for me, is the point that, "the segregation was at the request of the couple getting married."

To me, it is about choice. It was the choice of Fitzpatrick to attend the wedding. It was the choice of the couple to hold the wedding in the way they want (when my sister gets married in a couple of weeks, we'll have the groom guests segregated from the bride guests). It was the choice of Fitzpatrick to leave.

I really have a dilemma about this. Should the couple have told guests in advance that it was going to be a segregated wedding? That probably would have been sensible. That way, Fitzpatrick's choice could have been more well-informed.

However, I don't see this as some example of the Muslim faith discriminating against women. I see this as a couple exercising their choice in how they guide their wedding.

Of course, if that choice was not mutual between husband and wife, there is something wrong. If that choice was enforced by the Islamic Forum of Europe, there is something wrong.

It is a complex issue. I await with trepidation what the Sunday Express makes of this. I wouldn't be surprised if they wrote, "Evil Islam forces MPs' wife to sit alone" If that's true, its deplorable. Fortunately, I doubt it is.

Maybe I'll talk about the introduction of sharia law at a later date...

Let's Ban "Anglo-Centric"!

2009-08-13T09:08:00.000-07:00

Its sad to see that Adam Price, one of Plaid Cymru's MPs (a guy I normally have a helluva lot of respect for), is obsessing about one single sentence in a blog post on Freedom Central. Or maybe make that several sentences. I really don't care.

A declaration of interests first: the Jeremy Townsend named by Adam Price repeatedly is my brother. Don't worry, I don't always agree with my brother (in fact, we frequently disagree quite vehemently).

"Who cares?"

That's what a sixteen year old said when she looked at the posts flying back and forth on blogs, Facebook profiles and the like. It really brought me up short. There was I, thinking I was in some perfect political storm, fascinated by all the arguments and counter-arguments. But to a "normal" person?

It means absolutely nothing to her.

To me though, this argument is indicative of wider divides in Wales.

I'm from Newport (okay, I was born in Birkenhead and lived there for less than four years, so I carry an unfortunate legal baggage of being English, even when my heart and soul are largely Welsh). I'm not sure many people realise how many jokes Newport has become the brunt of, in recent years.

As far back as John Wesley (perhaps earlier than that even, I heard a rumour that the Mabinogion has reference to a border town filled with thieves which some people claim is Newport), the Methodist preacher, Newport has been slagged off. The founder of Methodism once wrote that he found the citizens of Newport the most insensible, ill-behaved people he had ever seen. In fact, he went so far as to say they were "as wild as boars".

Newport is still being slagged off. But you know what? Its not a political issue. Its just an issue for those of us who love our area to say, "Nah, its not really that bad". So therefore the same for this perceived "attack" on Bala. I mean, damn, Bala's a lovely, lovely, lovely location. We've been there as a family several times and I think have always enjoyed the experience. But stating a geographical fact isn't neccessarily slagging off the location.

But this slagging off of Bala (perceived, not real) is actually a symptom of deeper, more dangerous divides in Wales. And it involves the Welsh language. Maybe the Welsh language wasn't part of this debate. I don't know my brother's views on that, nor do I know Adam Price's views.

Before I continue, I want to put this big disclaimer in: I love the Welsh language. I cannot speak it, because unfortunately I was educated in a State school which as of yet does not place enough significance on the teaching of the Welsh language from a very early age. I intend to learn Welsh as soon as I can, largely because I find the language fascinating. Nonetheless, my admiration of the language has not blinded me to some of the problems around it.

As someone from Newport, I know that me and many of my friends are deemed by some as "not Welsh". I went to North Wales on holiday with some friends. While we stopped at a pub for lunch, a North Wales woman approached me (my friends were at the bar) and said, "Where you from?"

"Newport," quoth I.

"Oh, not Wales, then."

Perplexed and I confess, a little aggravated, I rejoinder, "No, it is in Wales. I mean the one in South Wales."

With a superior smirk, she completed the conversation, "So not Wales, then," before walking off to the bar where she proceeded to look down on us and speak in Welsh whilst giving dismissive nods and points towards us (and no, I don't challenge her right to speak Welsh, she can feel free to speak it as much as she likes - my issue is with her rude nature and dismissive actions, not her language).

For too long, the ability to speak Welsh has been seen as a requirement to be or feel Welsh, and certainly to be considered Welsh by some narrow sections of our country. I feel Welsh, I consider myself Welsh; heck, with Welsh ancestors and Welsh upbringing, I probably jolly well am Welsh. But because some narrow group of people think the only way we can be Welsh is to speak Welsh, I'll always have to cope with the elitism shown by that woman and others.

Is that real elitism any less deplorable than the (unreal) elitism shown by my brother in his post stating that Bala was in the middle of nowhere? It seems to me that many in Wales are quick to claim that those with "Anglo-centric" viewpoints are slagging them off or mocking their culture.

Could you please tell me what Anglo-centric means, Adam Price? If you're reading this. Could you please tell me how we avoid being seen as Anglo-centric? Could you please tell me why it is only you as a Nationalist MP who can state what is Anglo-centric or what is not? Anglo-centric would by semantics appear to be "English-centred". I don't think you're getting an English-centred party with the Lib Dems, Adam. We're in favour of full devolution, and as I recall, are making more of a push for it than your party has been. Does that mean you are Anglo-centric for not pushing forward the devolution debate? I didn't think so.

Personally, I detest the word. It is so vague. It is an easy, guilt-free attack generally used against people who try to point out ways the establishment can be moved forward.

If someone was suggesting the compulsory destruction of homes to create reservoirs, or the banning of Welsh-speaking in schools... that might be Anglo-centric. But Mr Price, those battles were fought years ago. Yes, your party was pivotal in fighting those battles and I give your party the greatest respect for that achievement.

But we've moved on. Wales now has serious inequalities and serious cohesion issues. When we have debates about the Welsh language and its effects in future, they must be dealt with in a mature way, not with a mud-slinging "Anglo-centric", which seems to be a knee-jerk and automatic response generated from the years when the English Government did pursue campaigns of subjugation against the indigenous Welsh people and culture. When we have debates about the Welsh culture and state funding, especially in this troubled time for the economy, let's not automatically take out the grief-marked "Anglo-centric" trophy to polish before waving it around. When we start talking about ways to unite Wales rather than divide Wales, lets leave the "Anglo-centric" fanfare in the cupboard?

It is distracting. It is overly political. It is from a history long-buried. It is unhelpfully indefinable. It is too easy. It is smearing. It is misleading. And more to the point, its usage is overly reserved for Plaid Cymru MPs.

Please stop using the word, Adam Price. The wars against England finished centuries ago. The political battle against England is largely over. The debate has moved on. Plaid Cymru and yourself should move on with it.

Oh, and a final point, Adam! My brother moved from Newport some years ago. He's no more a "Newport activist" than you are! (Although you're welcome to help the Liberal Democrats in Wales' newest city whenever you have time, Mr Price!)

Welsh Freshers

2009-08-13T05:51:00.000-07:00

Well, last spring, the Welsh youth wing of the party was relaunched and rebranded. It used to be MIDR Cymru (Welsh for LDYS Wales). Now, it is IR Cymru (Ieuenctid Rhyddfrydol Cymru, Liberal Youth Wales), and its already moving on in Wales.

This September, our Freshers stalls in the universities of Wales are going to be the best yet. Not only do we have some fabulous materials from Federal Liberal Youth, but we are launching our own campaign in September (details to be announced soon!).

IR Cymru will not be just an admin organisation for young people. Nor will it just be a glorified delivery network for the wider party. Instead, we are going to be a campaigning organisation in our own right, fighting within and without the party for the rights of young people and students.

There are many areas where IR Cymru will move to make its mark. Already we've protested outside the Assembly about the betrayal on top-up fees by Labour and Plaid Cymru (or as the chants went on that fateful day, "Labour-Plaid, they both lied!"). But to say those are the only issues that concern students and young people, would be completely wrong.

The young people of Wales are crying out for a change. They have been neglected, ignored, mocked, even attacked, for too long. IR Cymru will be their voice for change. IR Cymru will stand alongside them with their struggles, and show that at least one party is willing to stand by youth and students.

Conservative Future has always been a glorified networking agency. Labour's student organisation is packed full of deluded ex-socialists who call each other "comrades" as a salve to their agonized consciences (and a few deluded careerists who think Brown might just snatch victory from the jaws of defeat). Cymru X, Plaid's youth wing have been left demoralised by their party's targetting of their members (remember their member who was sacked from the party for speaking out about top-up fees?!).

Compared to that, IR Cymru will be a passionate, strong - yes, at times even angry - voice for disillusioned youth.

As I keep saying, Kirsty Williams told the other parties when she was elected leader, "Watch out, we're coming."

IR Cymru are telling Wales the same. So watch this space! And if you are young or a student and want to affect real change in Wales, without the stale exchange between conservatism and (fake) socialism, join us. If you want a party that cares and listens whilst making tough choices, join us. If you want a party that will march alongside its young members and fight alongside us for our rights, join us.

Wales is changing. It's time to get on board, folks! :)

Child Protection

2009-08-08T03:09:00.000-07:00

CRB. I dread those letters.

Not, I hasten to add, because I have anything to hide.

Just because they are a massive pain to arrange (okay, on the sale of Government bureaucracies they are not a pain really, but the waiting is beyond the timescales of most other waiting times). And that your jobs/voluntary work relies on your having one processed. Absolutely. There is no doubt. Without a CRB, you cannot work with children.

Which sounds wonderful, in theory.

Interesting fact, though: more child abuse is suffered within a family or friendship circle, than by strangers. In fact for a stranger to abuse a child is (comparatively) rare.

However, we still have a duty to ensure children are protected from people who would harm them. So it is right that people who are looking after children in school (anyone in school, really), has to have a CRB. It is right that when I take ten disabled children to Lourdes with my HCPT group every year, I have to have a CRB.

But let's look at some of the issues around these CRB checks:

1. There are unreliable processing times - some people have had their CRB through in a day. One lady I know however, is (technically) still waiting for a CRB, after being offered a job. She had to turn down the job after delaying them three months, because the offices responsible for CRB had lost her file TWICE.

2. If a mother wishes to sit in the passenger seat of a Council car while they escort the child to school, she needs a CRB. If she drives her own car, she doesn't. There is so much wrong here, that it's almost beyond belief. What if she failed her CRB check? Would they honestly refuse to let her escort her child to school but then leave the child at home with her? (Or him, I am using mother as an example, not as an indicator of any gender bias at all!)

3. Authors like Philip Pullman who are giving up their valuable time to go into a school to read, have to have a CRB check? What? No teacher I have ever met would leave even Philip Pullman alone in a class for long at all. For his own safety! ;)

4. One of my friends has five. FIVE. FIVE CRBs! One, for her teaching. Two, for her work with Rainbows/Brownies/Guides. Three, for a youth group she runs. Four, for her work in an old people's home (which probably requires a POVA and other things too!). Five, for the trip to Lourdes which I go on with her. Now, CRBs have to be renewed every two years. Now that is brilliant. But to require a separate CRB to say the same thing for five separate jobs? Its just silly.

By providing unneccessarry, duplicated CRBs, we are putting pressure on the department, delaying it constantly. What if an employer takes a risk because the person they've hired is the best for the job, and employs him, only to discover six months later they were convicted for child abuse? (Incidentally, employers are not allowed to make decisions like that - so in that case, someone would have to wait six months to find out, possibly losing their job).

If we cut out the need for visitors to have CRBs. If we cut out the need for duplicate, triplicate (etc) CRBs. If we cut out pointless nonsense which says parents escorting their child needs CRBs. If we do all that, then the department will be able to focus on the more important clearance it needs to give.

And not bother about giving a sixth CRB to someone who's already had a fourth and fifth issued in a month.

When a system is bogged down with sheer oceans of paper (as the CRB system is), it can only weaken the protection we give to children. Make it streamlined, make it focused, and it will work far better.

Or to put it bluntly: cut out the crap, and focus on the important things.

Do not get me wrong. CRBs are valuable.

Does "Dogma" prove Harriet Harman right?

2009-08-06T17:10:00.000-07:00

A bit of light relief.

Take this scene from Dogma. I think Harriet Harman would be delighted that the only good person in the boardroom was the woman. I wonder what secrets Matt Damon and Ben Afflek in their angel roles might find if they went into the bankers' board room?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWshPH_jsjQ

Less Philosophy, More Compassion

2009-08-06T07:39:00.000-07:00

So, I've been well and truly bed-ridden for the past few days, and I've started to be sucked into the Lib Dem blogosphere again. And I was drawn today to Charlotte Gore's blog about domestic violence.

Now, I have to say I like most of what she writes, normally. I may not agree with it, but having a refreshingly libertarian approach holds the more "socially democratic" amongst us to account.

But not with this particular post. There was just something... jarring.

And then it struck me what was quite wrong with this post. It's talking about domestic violence. It is a crime that is brutal and insidious. It leaves scars on the partners on their children and even on their children's friends. It creates climates of abject terror within a household. It forces children from the earliest of ages to think about protecting their mother or father. It forces children to cope with realities that most of us would very rarely have to even think about, let alone deal with.

And it never seems to approach the situation with any... caring note. Maybe that's just my feelings, maybe this is just the way it is, but something on this scale should be discussed on an intellectual level, but also combining an understanding of the detrimental impact domestic violence has on families.

Actually, screw it, lets not talk "domestic violence", which is a quaint, airbrushed term shorthand for "prolonged, torturous mental, physical and emotional abuse which leaves everyone affected by it scarred for a very long time".

So to see Harriet Harman suggesting something which might have an affect on this dire state of affairs is comforting. Alright, so maybe the way she's going about it isn't the best way. But heck, we go through most of our lives moaning that the Government doesn't listen to people. And I'd much rather she addresses this issue sooner rather than later.

Education, you see, is the route to a better world. If we can teach children that violence is wrong, then we can forge a far more peaceful society.

Anyway, moving on, to the generic point I wanted to make.

I know, political philosophy is fascinating. Damn it, I spend days reading different blogs and trying to work out whether I'm a social liberal or an economic liberal or a pink liberal or a fluffy green liberal, or a tiny Martian liberal. But then it kinda hit me yesterday and today...

...who cares?

Like, seriously. There are some things which are blatantly illiberal and should never be allowed to happen. Why? Not merely because they are "not liberal", but because they remove freedoms of people to affect their lives. There are other things which are blatantly without conscience. And they should never be allowed to happen. Why? Because we are human beings and we have a duty to one another to give us all an equal opportunity in life.

That's where I work from. The philosophical points are sort of interesting. But to people out there? Nah, they don't care whether the fact that 60% of Welsh jobs are in the public sector is the State misusing its power and purpose to provide employment. Of course they don't! They care about their jobs, and feeding their children, or being able to go to the pub with their mates without worrying about everything constantly.

What about foundation hospitals? Do you think the majority of people are sitting out there thinking, "Hmm... is this too close to introducing free market principles into our Health Service?" No. They just want to know they'll have a bed to sleep in. They just want to know it'll be clean. They just want to know that it works.

Now don't get me wrong, of course we need philosophy. It keeps us together (or divided!) as a Party, and strengthens our policies. There's policies of ours I disagree with, there's policies I adore which I know others will disagree with. That's the strength (and the result of compromise) of our Party. Without our principles and philosophies we are nothing.

But sometimes, I dunno. I just read so much of JS Mill or Bentham or Rawls or Gnozick and I wonder how many of us are arguing those tired, old points for the sake of it, now? Its like habit, like a twitch that just won't go away.

And its not habit we need, it is compassion. We need to show people we care. And with all the respect in the world to these fabulous political philosophers in the Party, philosophy just doesn't cut it as a way to express compassion to the people we presumably entered politics to help.

(Apologies to Charlotte Gore in advance, this wasn't meant as a deep-seated attack, simply an observation! I'll continue to read your fascinating and forthright blog with deep interest and near-devotion! :) )

Anonymous: Your Response

2009-07-24T05:50:00.000-07:00

So, today, imagine my surprise when I get an email update to my Gmail account saying someone had commented on two of my blog pieces! Its what we all love, getting a bit of blog-time. But, alas and alack, t'was not to be. For t'was but a shadow named anonymous, speaking poorly of Nick Clegg.

Okay, enough of the flowery crap.

I oppose top-up fees. I led the chants with my fellow IR Cymru members that went something along the lines of: "Labour Plaid! They both lied!" Or as one of my friends more bluntly put to me a few weeks ago: "Labour Plaid, we don't want it! We don't want your stupid bullshit!" I prefer the second of course, but then we were in public, so needs must.

But Mr (Or Mrs/Miss/Ms) Anonymous seems to have found something terrible in what Nick Clegg has said. Let me think about it for a moment. Nick Clegg has been OPEN and HONEST about what people want to hear. They DON'T want PROMISES on MONETARY ISSUES when there is NO MONEY. The Government is in a bad way. By taking a very mature decision to be OPEN AND HONEST about what he's doing, Nick Clegg is doing what people have always said they WANT politicians to do. BEING HONEST, FOLKS!

LET ME COMPARE! (Pray, kind sirs and madames, I apologise for the unseemly caps, but I am most incensed!)

1. LABOUR (LIEBOUR)

WE WILL NOT INTRODUCE TOP-UP FEES AND WE WILL LEGISLATE TO PREVENT THEM.

*election* *students vote* *Labour get in*

AAAHA! SILLY FOOLS! WE LIED TO YOU AND YOU BELIEVE IT! FUCK YOU, STUDENTS! WE'RE POLITICIANS! WE DON'T TELL THE TRUTH! UP YOURS, WANKERS! (and so forth)

2. PLAID (PLIED) CYMRU

LISTEN UP, GUYS! WE'RE FIGHTING ON A MANIFESTO PLEDGE NOT TO INTRODUCE TOP-UP FEES IN WALES! HELLOOOOO! HELLOOOOO! LISTEN TO US! LISTEN! LOOK! LOOK! OVER HERE! SEE? BIG BRIGHT SHINY BOX SAYING "NO TO TOP-UP FEES"! LOOK AT ME!

*times passes*

Oh. Erm, yes... about that. Yeah, we COULD stick with an election promise... or... nah... you know what? I'm a fucking career politician with my snout in the trough and I don't give a flying shit (apart from Leanne Wood and Bethan Jenkins - hats off to you both!) about students. Yeah, we want our bum in a ministerial car.

3. Liberal Democrats

1. Consistently oppose top-up fees.
2. Consistently support students against top-up fees.
3. Consistently point out the possibility of the economic crisis.
4. Consistently point out the inadequacies of Labour's actions to address the economic crisis.
5. Consistently point out the weaknesses of their actions.
6. Consistently call for open and honest politics.
7. Recognise that we are in a singularly unprecedented global recession (which could have been lessened by listening to us much earlier).
8. Recognise that the public (especially students) want honesty.
9. Be open and honest that although we still WANT to abolish top-up fees, it may have to WAIT until we have MONEY.

TO CONCLUDE:

Is that hypocritical? Shit. I must not understand the word. Is it a u-turn? Erm... no? Because we're just waiting for the money. Is it a lie? Bloody hell no! In fact, it... oh, my... WAIT! It's the TRUTH! HOLY CRAP A POLITICIAN'S TELLING THE TRUTH! LET'S BURN HIM BECAUSE HE'S REVEALED A WEAKNESS! (Or... alternatively... to the Anonymous poster... erm... grow up? Realise you can't promise everything and realise that it remains a Lib Dem pledge and priority. Realise that we are fighting for students' rights. And realise that by being honest about the possible effects of the recession, we're being responsible with YOUR money)

Apologies to normal readers who find my language offensive here. What can I say? I find it irritating when people don't know what hypocritical or u-turns or lies mean, criticize someone who is doing the exact opposite. As far as I can tell, the Lib Dems have done nothing that sounds like "hypocrisy".

Next time a politician lies about what he's gonna do, Anonymous, please remember that you took a politician being honest and turned it into something "hypocritical" in your head.

That irritates me, it really does. What is it you want?

Anyway. I'll still be fighting for the scrapping of top-up fees. If Nick Clegg comes to conference and tells me it is a SIMPLE CHOICE between affording massive changes to early education to reduce child poverty in a liberal and long-lasting way... or me being in debt? I'm afraid I'll have to take the debt.

Its horrible. It sucks. But now there's no money I'd rather there be money for the really needy as opposed to the needy.

Of course if the choice isn't that simple and we can find the money? Heck yes! We're scrapping top-up fees.

Does that answer your question, Anonymous?

Cameron Blames BNP

2009-06-10T05:11:00.001-07:00

Quite frankly, I find his argument at PMQs today absolutely appalling.

He opposes the idea of proportional representation, because it sees the election of the BNP.

Firstly, is David Cameron, an apparent liberal, actually saying he will deliberately remove the choice of a democratic country?

Let's say that under an extremely proportional system of voting, we get 10% of BNP MPs. So they might end up with around 60 MPs (and that's under extreme proportionality, which probably would not happen in the UK). That is far from a Government. Nor would any Party willingly enter into a Coalition with them.

But surely, if 10% of British people want to vote for the BNP, they should be allowed to? I'll stay away from Voltaire, because he's over-quoted and, lets face it, supported a benevolent dictatorship rather than a modern democracy. But his quote really does stand the test of time. It is the fundamental flaw of democracy, that we have to let the people vote. It is irritating, it is inconvenient, it is inefficient, but holy crap it's exciting, vital and incredible.

If we ever lose the argument against the BNP, with the British people, so much so that over 50% of people start wanting to support a Fascist state...

...well, quite frankly, at that point we deserve to live in a Fascist state.

For me? I have a lot more faith in the British people than that.

We are a country that has fought fascism.

We are a country that has stood firm for democracy.

So to see David Cameron apparently admit he can't win an argument against the BNP and therefore argue that they must choose an electoral system which disenfranchises the British People... I find that repulsive... from a purported liberal.

Tony's Redemption?

2009-06-09T07:05:00.000-07:00

Faith dialogue is vital. When I heard Tony Blair's new role as a peace envoy, I was (and remain) extremely sceptical.

However, from the moment he launched his Faith Foundation, I felt there was something worthwhile there. Faith, in the UK, is a hotbed of ignorance and misconception on almost every side of every debate.

I came to Cardiff University this year. I remember the moments when I told people I was Catholic were met with alternating scorn, disbelief, horror or amusement. For the first few weeks, I'd hasten to add, "But I'm not one of those right-wing ones, its alright!" Needless to say, I've stopped that now. To anyone I meet now, I'm Catholic. That's it. That's all. If they take the time to ask me about my faith, then I'm sure they'd probably be extremely surprised at my views. But very few people do ask. They hear the word "Catholic" and assume that, despite being a Liberal Democrat, I am an anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-science, anti-everything moron foaming at the mouth whilst breathing incense for kicks.

There's actually very few Catholics like that, in all honesty.

I went to Catholic Primary and Secondary schools. State-funded. My school shaped my views of religion more than any other place. In terms of science, although the view is disputed by Richard Dawkins, we were taught the idea that: "Science explains how, God explains why." Dawkins hates that view, but it has allowed me to believe everything about science, to keep my faith, but retain a healthy scepticism about the hierarchies of religion - and some of their attitudes towards science.

Our school also taught us about other faiths. Admittedly, much of it is forgotten, and many of the early school learnings are. But I know enough to be able to argue with an absolute, single-minded passion whenever anyone tells me "Muslims hate Christians" or "Jews don't worship God" or some extremely wild and fundamentally incorrect views. To put my argument simply in regards to those views: Judaism, Christianity and Islam all follow the same God. Many people are surprised when you tell them that Muslims actually believe in the Virgin Birth (like Catholics) and that they believe it will be Jesus who leads the Second Coming (like Christians - although the name for Jesus and the name for the Second Coming are different of course).

It amazes me, as (I would hope) a semi-articulate Christian, that even in the UK there is such division amongst religious people. And where does it come from? It is not, as some of my more agnostic/atheist friends might suggest, because religions are essentially vehicles for hatred and division. It is not because secretly every single Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindi, Sikh (etc) wants to destroy every other religion. It is quite simply, because there is a deep ignorance between religions.

Even amongst different kinds of Christianity, there is ignorance. Just look at the hatred that continues between Protestants and Catholics.

So for once, I applaud absolutely, Tony Blair. His move to get young people across different religions talking is highly laudable. If his Faith Foundation is still going in the next few years, it will have brought about an incredible amount of good. It is an organisation that all faiths (and none) can unite around, and work hard to end the ignorance which has doomed our world to endless religious conflict.

How long will it take us to realise this? Even the religions are starting to talk about shared values, as well. It is an often ignored fact that the Second Vatican Council - often derided for not being progressive enough - actually signally a seismic shift in the attitudes of the Catholic Church. It was during the Second Vatican Council, that the Catholic Church recognised the freedom of people to choose their own religion. It was an incredible decision which must have shaken the whole establishment to the core. But it means that even amongst what is viewed as one of the most authoritarian faiths (the Catholics), there is acceptance of other religions.

Lets work on it. Lets teach people about other religions. Lets shout about what unites us rather than what divides us.

It is a shame that Margaret Thatcher, one of the most divisive figures in British political history, took Francis of Assisi's prayer when she entered office in 1979. Any use of that prayer now would seem cliched. But really, it does apply: "where there is hatred, let me sow love." It is the duty of all and every religious person in Britain to work hard against religious ignorance.

Congratulations, Tony Blair.

Gordon Brown Is Keeping Labour Alive...

2009-06-08T14:54:00.001-07:00

He cannot resign.

Although Labour is shattered as a Government, it is not yet destroyed. Any views to the contrary are deluding themselves.

Yes, Labour have done appallingly. But there are enough seats which will hold on as Labour to make it (almost) impossible for the Liberal Democrats to unseat them as the official opposition.

That outcome is the only outcome in which Labour is destroyed.

Anything they are doing as a Party now, is to stop the destruction of the Labour Party. It is not to limit their loss of seats, it is not to try to win the election. It is to keep the Party alive so it can oppose the Government and maybe win an election at a later date.

At the moment, in our unofficial Presidential system, whereby the media pressure and dislike for a Party is focused on the leader of a Party, Gordon Brown is drawing the ire of the public. Just like Blair did, before.

Some Labour rebels believe another leader might turn their fortunes around. They might do, temporarily. They might do enough to limit their losses. But it is a massive gamble. Gordon Brown is tainted. As of yet, Alan Johnson is less tainted. Were Alan Johnson to become leader before a Labour loss, he would become tainted. And after three consecutive leaders, the Labour Party runs the risk that their "brand" becomes tainted.

The debate is not really about "who is better for the job". The debate is about "who will ensure we do not come third behind the Liberal Democrats in a General Election". Unless we as a Party suddenly gain many, many more members, or the funding of several wealthy businessmen, or (if we wanted one) the backing of a union, there is no way we can physically or monetarily compete in every seat in the country. Because of the terrible electoral system, we are forced to concentrate our resources in a way that means we cannot challenge Labour everywhere.

So, what do Labour know? They know the Liberal Democrats will do amazingly well in the next General Election. We are in second place in many Labour seats. These, if we work them hard enough, should fall like rotten apples. But they also know our limits. As I said before, we cannot fight in every constituency.

If we beat them in the popular vote share (as is possible) but (as is likely) fail to overtake their number of seats, the Labour Party has one more term to stave off destruction. Basically, we can win lots of seats in the next General Election. Then there are the next series of seats, which we can probably win in the one after.

Labour has probably accepted it will lose the election. It will want to weather the Liberal Democrat storm. Then it will want a "clean" leader, of an untainted "brand" to start fighting back, as an Official Opposition. This it can do, if the unpopular Brown resigns the night of their loss, vowing that Labour will renew itself.

Then, in steps Alan Johnson. The rough diamond, opposing David Cameron's sleek new Tories. The Liberal Democrats, after an incredible night of major wins, will start being squeezed out of coverage again. The Labour Party is not destroyed.

Or... the rebels could have their way, and depose Gordon Brown. Alan Johnson (and by extension, the Labour brand) would become tainted. No new unifying candidate could be found after the loss in 2010. The Liberal Democrats would be united, fresh and new. They would in the next Parliament make great gains, and in the next election (2014/15) they could overtake Labour.

We all know Gordon Brown is a Labour man to the core. He cannot resign. If he resigns, his Party is destroyed. In a way (if I am correct, and to be honest, I'm not that certain I am, this is just a theory), Gordon Brown is taking an extremely noble stand for his Party. He will go down in history as the man worse than Michael Foot. But in reality, he might just be the man to save it.

Or... he's just an arrogant wanker who can't abide losing control, and I'm talking bollocks. :) Feel free to contribute!

Bad Result? In Wales? Hmm...

2009-06-08T03:55:00.000-07:00

Alright, so we didn't win. Nor did our vote share increase.

But...

1. We won Cardiff Central (no surprise, really, but last Euro election we did not)
2. We came just over 170 votes behind Labour in Newport East.
3. We came around 300 votes behind Labour in Swansea West.
4. We have shown that Cardiff South and Penarth is a three-way fight.
5. We moved up in Merthyr Tydfil and Pontypridd.
6. We moved up in Brecon and Radnor (good news for Roger Williams).
7. We moved up in Ceredigion (and if the swing was replicated, Mark Williams would be re-elected with a majority of over 1000).

Being from Newport East, let me just explain why we were so pleased at our result there.

We pushed Labour a very, very close second. From fourth place, we are now second. That means we fought against a natural Tory swing, in a natural Tory election. And still beat them.

So no, it wasn't an amazing night. But in terms of preparing for a General Election, its put us in very strong positions for several gains.

The Tories Make An Enemy Of Me...

2009-06-07T05:24:00.000-07:00

...well, more than usual, at least.

They are now shouting at Lord Sugar. How dare the Tories try to take my favourite TV show off air?

Alright, so Sir/Lord/Tsar Sugar might (or might not, who knows nowadays in this queasy world of slithering slimy snakes - erm, politicians) become a Labour party peer. Is that much of a change? This guy's been donating money and supporting Labour for years.

And anyway, I don't really care.

I've already lost one person terribly dear to me (oh, Margaret, Margaret, how I will miss your sweet elitist music... but we all know that when papyrology calls, we must answer that siren call) from the Apprentice.

If the Tories take the whole show away from me, because of a technicality...

...there will be war.

I might even join the Labour Party.

(Ha! Sorry, obvious joke!)

But seriously. Tories! Stay away from the Apprentice! Be careful. Its becoming a national treasure. Treat Lord Sugar with the same respect you'd treat the Queen, damnit.

Get your tanks away from this show.

Please! We've already lost Margaret, we can't take much more!

(I may have been struck slightly mad by the aforementioned loss of Margaret and also the anxiety of waiting for the European results)

30/34 ahead of Labour ... and the Welsh Euros... and Tory Vote-Buying...

2009-06-06T03:23:00.000-07:00

LOCAL 2009:

Well, I was a little bit disappointed by our results. Until I spent a few minutes going through the Guardian election map (more regularly updated than the BBC!). I found something in these elections which has really cheered me up.

Remember Nick Clegg saying to Gordon Brown the choice is between Conservative and Liberal Democrat?

After Thursday:

In 2/34 we are FIRST.
In 25/34 we are SECOND. AHEAD OF LABOUR.
In 3/34 we are third behind Labour.
In 3/34 we are third behind independents.
In 1/34 we are fourth.
In 2/34 LABOUR did NOT EXIST.

So, how many Councils are we AHEAD OF LABOUR? 30/34!

WELSH EUROS:

Well, at the verification in Newport, early indications (very rough of course, considering we couldn't see that many crosses) are quite telling:

In areas where we campaigned, we were the main challengers (and, we hope, the winners) to Labour. However, in areas we did not campaign we saw extremely large numbers of UKIP votes, and a fairly large number of BNP votes.

So what does this mean for our Euro candidate?

Other reports across Wales have had UKIP doing well in other areas. If UKIP and BNP split the protest votes in other areas of Wales, and we poll enough in our strong areas, we could still see Alan Butt-Phillips win. But really, everything's still up in the air. Completely.

If we don't win our first Euro seat, I'll be slightly disappointed. But I know we did very well in Newport East. And that'll be enough for me!

AND NOW THE TORIES...

Ignoring our two losses in the South West, we have largely increased our numbers of seats at the expense of Labour. In many Councils the Labour vote collapsed. The Tories were the main beneficiaries, but we picked up many of the votes as well.

Dare I suggest, that had we the support of a tax exile millionaire bankrolling our campaign to the extend of Lord Taxcroft (sorry, Ashcroft), we might have been able to challenge in more wards, meaning more councillors?

The BBC of course, never mentions the fact that the Tories have been spending, spending, spending.

Its a sad day when money buys the votes. And when money buys targetted votes, where the Tories absolutely twist the voting system for MAXIMUM gain.

Congratulations to every Liberal Democrat activist! I now can't wait for Sunday! Eek!

The Mysterious Case of the Disappearing Polling Station

2009-06-04T13:01:00.000-07:00

Horror struck the Newport East campaign room this morning. At 11:30am, we received a phone call saying the polling station had been moved from its usual place - without warning, without a single sign being placed anywhere near to direct voters towards it. 12:30, we hear news of another polling station having been moved without signing or warning.

Both these polling stations were in two of our key wards.

Turnout in Newport for the European elections are extremely low (25% being the highest, as of 8:45pm). Having been knocking up on the phone for most of the day, I am pleased that most of our voters have turned out. If low turnout for all parties is echoed throughout Wales, it means the result could become extremely interesting.

That being said, I'm having to fight off pre-result blues, thinking that we may not have dragged out enough of our voters to lift Alan Butt Phillips to the European seat he truly, truly deserves in Wales. But we did our absolute best, ran a full polling day operation - and if the exhausted faces around me are anything to go by, we've worked as hard as we possibly could.

I just can't believe we have to wait till Sunday to find out what happened... that's so long to wait!

It's Alright, I Claimed It Because I'm Gay

2009-05-18T06:11:00.000-07:00

Prize for the most awkward, difficult-to-attack excuse in the expenses saga must go to Chris Bryant, Rhondda MP.

Firstly, I should express my sympathy that he ever had to endure bullying and intimidation for his sexuality. Nobody in Britain should have to go through that, ever.

But then I do have to say, why is this only coming out now? Are we meant to be held ransom for his sexual preference? There are thousands upon thousands of gay teenagers bullied every day in the UK, and Wales. Especially in Bryant's constituency. Yet I haven't heard a Labour Government talking with any great passion about that subject. A failure from Mr Bryant, perchance? (I do accept that the Government has done well on gay rights, but not on protection of gay/transgendered teenagers, where it has woefully and unforgiveably failed)

Whatever the sad facts of the disgusting homophobic attacks, it does not justify his claims abuses. Yes, I accept that it does look better than "I had to learn how to clean my swimming pool". But it still isn't right.

If Mr Bryant wants there to be a law that any victim of homophobic bullying is entitled to monetary support from the Government, let's push for it. Sounds great (if it is practical, which I doubt). But until that law exists, then, horrible as it sounds, Mr Bryant has to rely on the same methods as any Briton who suffers at the hand of bullies, attackers and thugs.

It raises an important question: if more MPs had to live life like the rest of us, would the UK be a better place to live?

Wouldn't it be amazing, if anyone bullied incessantly for being gay, in school, could get Government money to move to another school? Wouldn't it be amazing, if gay people in communities all across Wales who have (sometimes literally) been laid siege to in their own homes, could have a grant from the local Council to pay for their (voluntary) relocation?

Unfortunately, there just isn't the money for that. And that breaks my heart.

But what gets me not just upset, but angry, is an MP getting that fresh start, when people in his own constituency do not get that fresh start.

So again: I am sorry Mr Bryant ever had to endure that pain. But people all across the UK endure that pain every day. And to cheapen the pain of such bullying by using it as a flimsy paper shield against an expense claim, is almost as unforgiveable as the hate-crime itself.

I know, these are strong words. Please feel free to disagree as strongly as you like.

Post by Ol - not neccessarily those of the student society

Dear Ma'am,

2009-05-16T09:27:00.000-07:00

To Her Majesty Elizabeth II,

Please dissolve Parliament so we can have a General Election.

Yours truly.

Otherside

2009-05-15T06:29:00.000-07:00

There's been a lot of coverage and blogs, about MPs and expenses, recently.

Firstly, I agree 100% many of the claims are absolutely despicable.

However, I do want to make a point about families.

On a personal point, both my parents are Lib Dem Councillors. This, obviously, does not mean they have to live in London. But just so people do realise, their role is a great strain on me and my siblings. Alright, its not like we all sit there in our rooms rocking ourselves to sleep and crying. But sometimes it is hard.

Our telephone never stops phoning. Our parents never stop working. Now, other jobs have this same amount of stress, of course. But when you have a 9-5 job, you leave the job behind you. When you are an elected representative, that work follows you; that work phones you; that work rings your doorbell; that work, from my own perspective, sometimes shouts down the phone at you, mistakenly thinking you are your father; that work insults you and puts you down... and above all, that work does not, every four years, have a mass ballot amongst your peers to decide whether, whatever your successes, you are sacked.

Of course, my parents chose this. So they have to cope with whatever the complex issues of managing a family as well as a political career, are.

But I read last night that a girl in a school was being insulted because her Dad was a "thief". Now, even if he was (and in this case, he wasn't claiming unjustified expenses), that would be wrong. You should never attack the families of elected representatives, for the actions of their parent.

I have also seen absolutely no level of understanding, for why an MP should not have his daughter round at his second home (I stand by the fact that the Telegraph owes the Lib Dem MP for St Ive's a massive apology). I have seen no understanding for the complexities of coping with a family, in a role as MP.

Before you shout at me for defending ridiculous expenses, I want to assure you I'm not. But I do want to write a warning, that we all get too easily dragged into this mess of screaming foul abuse at anyone who dares to claim even a little bit of help. Many MPs have let us down a lot. But there are many who are extremely moral, hard-working people.

Let's tackle the worst excesses (fraud, flipping, etc). Let's moan and shout at the inexcusable fripperies (yes, including scatter cushions). But let's not hound and foam at the mouth, at all our elected representatives.

Contrary to the popular opinion now, it really is a hard job. Alright, neither of my parents is an MP (although I hold out hope one of them might be, soon). But if the work of a councillor can be so fraught, busy and hard, surely the work of an MP is just as hard?

Its the one thing I dislike in this whole coverage. We are believing the media, when they say MPs do "nothing". Which is, fundamentally, untrue.

Opinions welcome, even if you absolutely disagree!

Post by Ol - opinions most definitely not of the student society, any students of which are encourage to write their own blog post if they feel differently, in the interests of exciting debate! :)

NUS needs to be cleansed

2009-05-13T16:18:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, as I blogged, a group of students headed to the Assembly.

This was organised without any help, comment or anything of that nature, by NUS Wales.

NUS Wales have, apparently, been outside the Assembly arguing in favour of the Government's decision to saddle more students with debt.

Why is this?

Because quite simply, it has become a bedrock of Labour support.

Maybe it is my idealism. Silly me. I thought a union was about representation of its members, through a united block, making it easier to represent those who, individually, lack the mechanisms to effect change.

Its why I've always supported unions to the hilt, and have urged anyone I know never to go without union representation in any profession they enter.

NUS, both nationally and in Wales, have failed us badly.

Remember the students who were arrested for terrorism charges, but who, it was later discovered, had done nothing wrong? They were lifted from their university. They were deported. Pakistan's Government protested. Where was NUS, in this?

Nowhere. Probably too busy, if you excuse my language, kissing the arses of the Labour politicians who control the greasy pole.

I'm political. I'm a Lib Dem. I'm entitled to those beliefs. But if I am elected, or paid to be in a professional role, those beliefs have to take a back-seat. If I was elected to represent students, on the NUS... I'd represent students.

I wouldn't make it my life's ambition to toady up to deceitful politicians.

I want to know how many former top ponchos of the NUS now hold high positions in the Labour Party.

I want to know when they spoke with major party figures, and in what circumstances, during the top-up fees debate in England (and yes, now in Wales).

I want to know whether their membership of the Labour Party had any affect on the inadequacy of NUS to take an active stance on top-up fees, and certainly the reasons behind the shameful silence in Wales on top-up fees.

It is time the NUS started to do what it should do.

It's also time for the NUS to take their tongues firmly out of the arseholes of senior politicians.

Apologies for the language; but I object to the complete politicisation, without public affiliation to said party, of a union which my university pays to be part of.

Let's hear some answers from these sell-outs.

If not, let's remove our Welsh universities from the NUS, and fight stronger on our own.

Labour-Plaid! They Both Lied!

2009-05-13T11:55:00.000-07:00

I hope some of the Labour and Plaid Cymru AMs heard us students shouting our outrage about them, during our protest.

It was a brilliant protest. Not only did we make our feelings known loudly and proudly, we also met several AMs.

1: Kirsty Williams visited us personally, to congratulate our stand, and to promise Liberal Democrat support for students "for as long as she is leader". It was a passionate, forthright speech by Kirsty which went down well. She took the time to speak to us after her speech, and she was warm and interested - like a friend, rather than a distant politician.

2: Jenny Randerson spoke passionately to us as well, making clear the fact that rather than this economic climate making support for students less important, it makes it more important. After all, we students will be the engine driving Welsh recovery, surely?

3: Ed Carey, the new Union President of Cardiff University spoke firmly as well, supporting the Liberal Democrat stance, and speaking with honesty, making it clear it will put people off university.

4. We also heard from Eleanor Burnham, who talked about her own experience as a mother and the way it affects poorer families in North Wales.

We were particularly happy as well, to have the support from three Liberal Democrat PPCS: Ed Townsend (for Newport East), Dominic Hannigan (for Cardiff South and Penarth) and Mike Powell (for Pontypridd).

Thanks to all our AMs for your support. And also, particular thanks to Leanne Wood and Bethan Jenkins. Can you believe they were the only Plaid AMs to listen to our worries?

We hope they realise they're in the wrong Party, if they want to help students. But a warm, sincere thank you to both of them nonetheless. It took great courage to vote against their Party bosses.

The fight will continue, we promise.

Post by Ol - exhausted, but committed, after the protest

Stop Student Debt

2009-05-13T01:03:00.000-07:00

In an hour and a half, I'll be making my way to the preparations for the IR Cymru (Liberal Youth Wales) protest. Lots of banners, and hopefully lots of people!

Every student I've spoken to in Cardiff is so angry about Plaid Cymru and Labour's decision. Especially at a time of such economic problems.

I hope as many of you as possible can join us all outside the Assembly, at 12 noon, today.

Thanks must go to all IR Cymru who have been working hard to get this protest ready, especially Leanne-Marie Cotter (also President of Cardiff Lib Dems!) who has been organising this protest for weeks, even from hospital! Thank you.

Let's hope the Assembly will listen to us, for once.

BNP: Forget British, Just National Party

2009-05-11T10:20:00.000-07:00

Well, I'm not the most typical Lib Dem.

Regrettably, I'm actually a monarchist.

I do have some sort of emotional attachment to the idea of a British Empire (no, that doesn't include support for the subjugation of free nations, so although I have an emotional attachment, I'm glad we no longer have that Empire, which was built on invasion and coercion).

I also have incredible admiration for anyone willing to risk their lives in our armed forces.

I don't really know how I came to those three viewpoints. I'm very sure my parents have very different views (not that I've debated it with them for a while). For some reason, it is just an emotional thing. I feel an emotional attachment to the idea of Britain, whenever I see the Queen. I feel a sense of great pride when I read about the people of our country, and also the actions of our people during the Second World War (excluding the horrific tactics that destroyed Dresden, of course).

So I felt even more angry with the BNP today than usual.

Nick Griffin's launch with the subtly coloured background of (I think) a fighter pilot, with faded imagery to look like a Second World War poster, seems like a direct appeal to emotional nostalgia. It just made me angry, that they would dare to use the nostalgia from a time when Britain stood united as a country against anti-Semitism, fascism and injustice ... to propagate their message of hate.

Then there's their refusal to acknowledge with any real respect or admiration, the actions of the soldier named on the Daily Politics show. How could the BNP actively show such disregard to someone awarded two VCs? Someone who had risked all they had, for our country?

On top of that, his grudging acceptance that the Gurkhas would be "allowed" treatment in our hospitals, before being sent back. Oh, and I hated his seizing of the plight of homeless British soldiers to make his point about housing. Don't use any homeless veterans of our country as a stick to destroy what this country stands for, please.

There is nothing British about this party. Sometimes their message chimes with the emotional "nostalgia" of our country. But not because they are right. It is because they are cynically abusing the traditions of our country. They use certain words in certain conjunctions to make it look as if they are reasonable. And they are not.

Why do we allow them to seize the idea of British for themselves? In a way, why must we be ashamed of a love for our country? Why must we allow the traditions of our country to be held hostage by these twisted demagogues? It is sad, that I would never fly the Union Flag outside my house. Why? Because its been seized by these people. And that is sad.

So when we discuss the British National Party, lets drop the "British" out of it. For too long, we've let them escape, run amok and twist our national identity into their personal propagandist weapon. It leaves many liberals ashamed of standing proudly in support of their country's traditions, lest they be tarred with the same lunatic brush as the National Party.

Post by Ol - opinions not neccessarily those of the student society. Apologies for long absence.

Keira Knightley

2009-04-02T04:34:00.000-07:00

Although a terrifying advert to watch, it is amazing to see the public becoming more and more aware of domestic violence. There are always things we can do to improve awareness however, and to stop these terrible situations. They ruin lives, not just of the women who are being abused, but of children trapped in the cycle of terror and even the wider community.

It was good of Keira Knightley to do the advert, and for free as well.

Newport Nutters

2009-03-31T10:01:00.001-07:00

Well, University term has finished, so it is off to spend time with the family in Newport. My parents have both been Liberal Democrat councillors for some time now. But I had never seen them in the Council Chamber before, so, with many tissues packed for my streaming cold and lozenges for my tearing throat, I headed with them to full Council.

Just a quick recap for those unfamiliar with Newport's electoral issues. The Liberal Democrats are in a coalition with the Conservatives, currently leading the Council. Their successes have (I admit I'm biased!) been considerable:

1. Within the first few weeks, they cut the number of Cabinet posts, and cut special Cabinet allowances for councillors, saving £250,000 which they used to make much-needed repairs to the roads and pavements of a neglected Newport.

2. £21 million extra was then found to further improve the roads and pavements.

3. Despite the credit crunch initially harming the chances of successfully building Hartridge School, the Council managed to find the funding to announce a start date.

There are other successes in the Council, most of them involving finding savings in almost every area of the Council (sometimes hard savings), which have enabled the work of the Council to continue despite the economic hardship.

But with any Government, there are going to be problems. Maybe issues that a healthy opposition can point out. Maybe something that they can see that the governing body cannot see. I was ready for a Council meeting filled with activity, of political parties banding together to overcome an unprecedented crisis - the likes of which we may not have seen since 1929.

Imagine my surprise when the Labour opposition asked a probing question... ... about a leaflet with Kirsty Williams having her picture taken with a key police officer. Alright, think I, its just the start, they have to get that point in, they'll get on with constructive criticism now.

How wrong I was. After that, it was a complaint about the possible use of a council photograph in another leaflet. Then it was cheap, assinine, useless shots of absolutely no substance.

Was there any reference to the sterling report on social services, released recently about Newport? You guessed it. No.

To round it off, there came the opportunity to ask questions of the Cabinet Member for Economic Development & Regeneration. You would think that in a time of ECONOMIC CRISIS, an opposition would have SOMETHING TO SAY. The questions? Deafening silence. A few ruffled papers. Not a single word.

Thank God, gods and the concept of humanism, and science itself... that this failed group of Labour Councillors no longer control the city that is the gateway to Wales.

If I'm not in Cardiff when the next meeting is held, I'll go again. Maybe by then, they'll have some questions to ask about the economy.

Post by Ol - opinions not neccessarily those of the student society

Veteran Varnish

2009-03-30T05:15:00.001-07:00

There are a few things wrong with this.

Firstly, let me make clear that war veterans are owed a great deal by our country. Nothing in this post is meant to reduce the value of that sacrifice.

However. There are a few things wrong with the plan by the Government to introduce "special" ID cards for UK veterans.

1) The chilling phrase "priority treatment" to the NHS. I cannot say with more strength of feeling: no. Nobody should ever get "priority treatment" on the NHS. It opens a door to some extremely subjective judgements which a doctor, nurse or NHS manager should never make. Is a veteran worth more as a person, than a "normal" citizen of the UK? No.

2) ID cards. Enough said.

3) And finally, it seems to me the Government is (again) ducking the issue. Do veterans want some obscure and hazy NHS preferential treatment? Or do they want the Government to invest real, proper money in decent equipment so that the Army serving overseas can fight without endangering their lives due to shoddy equipment. What would we rather see? Discounted bus fares for veterans, or proper accomodation for returning soldiers? Proper protection from abuse/threats when they return? Proper psychological help? Proper healthcare provision (non-preferential!)? Really, a discount in bus fares just doesn't cut it.

Post by Ol - opinions not neccessarily those of the student society.

Gordie's God Complex

2009-03-28T01:02:00.000-07:00

I'm off out early today, so I thought I'd just put this video up.

Our esteemed Prime Minister is on his way flitting round the globe. We're meant to conclude that he is the greatest Prime Minister since sliced bread was invented. It is him, you see, who will save us from this recession/depression/whatever it is.

Although I am sorry to sully one of my heroes with this comparison, he reminds me a bit of Dr Cox from Scrubs, but a whole lot less efficient.

Do you think this clip captures how Brown behaves in Cabinet meetings?:

Have a lovely Saturday.

Post by Ol - opinions not neccessarily those of the student society

Pickles in a Pickle: And A Solution

2009-03-27T14:07:00.000-07:00

There comes a point when a politician's performance on Question Time is so lamentable, it is embarassing and actually awkward to watch. For a brief moment, I had a great deal of sympathy with Eric Pickles, thinking that he was trying to say something of value, which was being misread. Of course his cheap, assinine comment about the Liberal Democrats (obviously trying to score cheap points even when his own credibility had just crashed completely) made my sympathy reduce quite considerably.

Pickles' concerns about making it in are ridiculous. Umpteen millions of Britons have to commute daily to work. He can surely not be any different. Now, personally I think we should remove ALL MPs' second-home allowances from them. Yes, even those from Scotland! And hear me out.

This idea was suggested by a member of the Question Time audience, and it was dismissed. I think it has serious merits though, and it is an idea I have discussed several times in those random pub arguments we students tend to have.

MP Dormitories

Purchase a large building somewhere close to Westminster, and give each MP a dorm. Like a student halls of residence. Okay, maybe keep the mildewed toilets out, and give them decent heating, and a regularly-working water supply, but you see the point. Why does an MP need a house, or even a flat? They just need a room, with a desk, and an internet connection. Maybe room for some books and files, and a bed. They can go to a canteen to buy breakfast, or maybe if we're feeling generous they can have a shared kitchen.

Is it so bad an idea? Yes, the initial cost would be quite considerable, to buy dormitory space for over 600 MPs. But the savings, by cutting out all second-home allowances for the rest of the existence of Parliament, would be considerable indeed.

I have yet to see any reason why this would not work. I do not expect our elected representatives to exist in a tiny room. But why can't they have a shared kitchen and a dormitory just like students? If, as Eric Pickles states, it is just a place to continue the work from the previous night, surely it will be far more convenient for him to stay in dormitories.

I feel very strongly on this idea, and might even start asking it to be Lib Dem policy.

Post by Ol - opinions not neccessarily those of the student society

They Missed A Verse!

2009-03-27T07:55:00.000-07:00

Labour have ruled, this land for too long, we are waiting,
Waiting to tell them that their time, now is at hand,
They sit there laughing!
They do not care for us all, they care about power.
Why, why, why, New Labour?
Why, why, why, New Labour?
Our country still is stuck in poverty,
How long will New Labour keep hammering Wales' poor?

Okay, its a fairly rubbishly-constructed verse. But heck, in 5 minutes, that's what you get. But the sheer arrogance of this blog astounds me.

You wouldn't think that this Government is part Plaid Cymru, would you, according to Labour? You wouldn't think that MILLIONS OF POUNDS of European Funding THAT WAS OFFERED has been sent back to Brussels, would you? You wouldn't think that students were being betrayed by the Government of Wales, would you? You wouldn't think that the gap between rich and poor has widened, would you? You wouldn't think that the Labour Party in parts of Wales is starting to replace the Tories as the new villain of Wales, would you?

The YouTube video above is like someone trying to re-ignite the 80s. Yes, Labour, the Tories were bad. But they didn't take us into an illegal war. They didn't even contemplate the erosion of civil liberties like ID cards. As far as I recall, under the dreaded Margaret Thatcher, student fees were non-existent. As far as I recall, under Thatcher, corrupt and ineffectual ministers RESIGNED. They did not STEAL TAXPAYERS MONEY and then just mumble some media-spinning words and wait for the story to die down. It is disgraceful.

I hope that Aneurin Glyndwr (can you BE any more cliched?!) gets a shock in the next election when the people of Wales watch his YouTube video and say, "That is not what is happening on the ground in Wales".

Welcome to the blogosphere, AG. It's gonna be a bumpy ride, because we're not going to let you get away with the sheer blind ignorance shown on your blog.

Post By Ol - opinions not neccessarily those of the student society

Brent Central: Butler's Worry

2009-03-24T06:15:00.000-07:00

Moving away from Wales and Cardiff just for today...

...to the faraway realm of Brent Central.

I must admit, I've been a bit jittery for the past few weeks. I've been looking at ukpollingreport.co.uk (incidentally, an amazing website for anyone if you want to avoid doing work. I like going through marginals and seeing what chance we have there... but then I'm a boring sod). Anyway, on the entry for Brent Central, that is comment after comment, asking why Sarah Teather was standing there.

"But all the Lib Dem wards are in H&K!" seems to be the typical response there. I took their comments with a pinch of salt. Sarah Teather is a fabulously hard-working MP, and I think will win in Brent Central.

But I have to share this! Everyone was saying that Dawn Butler, a popular local MP, would beat Sarah Teather off easily. Well, I bet they're kicking themselves this morning!

What's this?! Dawn Butler in an expenses scandal?! Surely not!! Another Labour MP taking money for no reason?!

I think any doubts about Sarah Teather in Brent Central just got defenestrated.

Scrap Tuition Fees! Fightback Starts NOW!

2009-03-22T05:59:00.000-07:00

The NUS apparently held a protest outside the Welsh Assembly, a few days ago. I think all of CSLD would have been there had we known about it in time. But whatever happened there, I guarantee there will be more protests about this. I admit to being caught on a back foot. I never actually believed Plaid would completely and so openly go against its manifesto promise, like it has.

I never actually believed that Plaid would LIE to the electorate.

I never actually believed that the Plaid AMs were in politics for the ministerial limousines.

How wrong was I. I never liked Plaid, but I had some respect for them. That respect has gone. And I will be doing everything in my power to encourage more and more protests against this corrupt, deceitful Labour-Plaid coalition.

Already, the Lib Dems are taking the initiative.

We have this Facebook group, to Scrap the Fees.

And now, students in Cardiff, Abersyswyth and Swansea are joining the fight. Parents of students, students themselves and friends of students. I urge you to join any and all of these groups. The Lib Dems will keep in touch about protests. This complete and utter lack of regard and understanding for students cannot go on.

They say we are not switched on to politics. They patronise us with "getting down to their level", and "speaking their language" (as if we're not from the same country). But as soon as we make a stand and speak our mind, they ignore us. That is not healthy democracy. That is contempt, pure and simple contempt.

Will any students be voting for Plaid in the next election? I doubt it!

Join us! Stop the contempt, stop the deceit, but above all...

STOP THE DEBT!

Proud of Popey

2009-03-20T17:04:00.000-07:00

I am extremely proud of the Pope speaking out today against corrupt governments in Africa, on the same day Kofi Annan echoed similar beliefs.

For a moment I was concerned that it would be another "contraception-dominated" Papal visit, where the Church focuses on the (relatively) meaningless world of sex. I accept that in Africa, sex, linked closely to AIDs, is a major issue, but elsewhere in the world, it seems the Church speaks about sex and little else.

Not so, this time.

A strong, hopeful message to the people of Africa. And a much-needed one. Catholicism is an extremely potent force in the continent, as much as some might wish to disbelieve it. For once, I am delighted that the Pope is using his massive authority there, to call for real and positive changes.

Post by Ol - opinions not neccessarily those of the student society. Being about a religious figure, all CSLD members (and others!) are invited to post to disagree, or send a counter-post to us to be published. To be fair, you're allowed (encouraged!) on any issue, but I felt the disclaimer was neccessary on this one.

Virtually Insane. Nah, Proper Insane

2009-03-19T13:59:00.001-07:00

I. Just. Can't. Believe. It.

I've heard about Governments seeking a second least of life, but this is just ridiculous.

Alright, the numbers can hardly get us out of the recession, but it betrays an absolute stupidity.

Are they trying to suggest that in the future people will pop into their Second Life local DWP office to sort out disability benefits, allowances, etc?

I suppose that'd stop the shitholes that are the Jobcentres from fulfilling that odd dichotomy of purposes: to be both singularly useless yet apparently neccessary.

I suppose it'd mean people are not intimidated by security guards when they enter their virtual world (although I suggest the Government invests in Second Life security markets, just in case someone enters the virtual DWP offices with a virtual machette).

But really?

I suppose it just shows that James Purnell is really just a big nerd who wanted to buy that new luxury penthouse apartment in Second Life. I can imagine the conversation now:

"Goooooordon. Pwwweeeeease! I nweeeeed a pwenthouse aparrrrrrtment. Bwah. Bwahahaha."

Please. Can someone in Labour stop the trainwreck that is this Government?

Ooooh. No, wait! Even better!

VOTE THE LABOUR LOONIES OUT.

Post by Ol - opinions not neccessarrily those of the student society

Unforgiveable Uncaring U-Turn

2009-03-19T03:16:00.000-07:00

Plaid have betrayed students.

Labour have continued their war against students.

Thank God the Liberal Democrats led the opposition against the vote in the Assembly.

Already, students are bearing a heavy burden in Wales. This is now going to become worse.

The Cardiff Student Liberal Democrats will be setting up protests in Cardiff, at this outrageous action.

That's it, for today. I am so angry that I can barely write. How these cowardly wimps of politicians can stand there (sorry, SIT there, with their nice, nifty laptops just clicking inanely, boringly and stupidly as they look at screens like zombies, waiting for Rhodri "I had free education now you can't nerr-nerr-nerr-nerr" Morgan to tell them what to do), and vote to harm Welsh students at a time of economic crisis... I really don't know.

It makes no sense.

I hope they will reverse their decision soon.

Arrogant, Stupid and Feckless

2009-03-17T04:43:00.000-07:00

Here it is!

University Vice-Chancellors, urging a sharp increase in student fees!

Hmm... how about NO.

Students cannot allow this to go on.

We are the future.

We are those who will be working in the coming years to support the Government. Our taxes will be higher than the present workers' taxes.

We are the ones who will be working to support the pensions of those older than us.

We are the ones who will be trying to find a place in a new world marred by the current economic climate.

Since we will be the tax-payers of the future, paying the price for Gordon Brown's epic mismanagement, surely we can be given a bit of a break now?

As it is, we'll graduate with massive debt. And as it is, only 50% of us will find a job. What happens if there is a sharp rise in fees? Our debt might double. Treble? So, we graduate with even more debt. We carry that into our professional lives. We are then hit by higher taxes, worsened employment opportunities... etc, etc.

And all this by a Government whose MPs got their education for free.

The sneaky shits.

So, you're probably reading this and thinking: Yes, fine, that's all well and good, but how do we fund our universities?

The honest answer is "I don't know".

But here's a few suggestions:

* Certain students in University are given free laptops to allow them to better cope with the course (such as dyslexic students). This is great. However, I have heard of students who are given these free laptops (at expense to the University) then selling it on to other people. Help for the disabled, is meant to help them when they can't help themselves. To make life easier, but not to give everything on a plate. (I speak here, as a disabled student myself, who has had to fight tooth and nail for any ounce of help from my University) Why is it that the University can fork out the money for a laptop, when a student might already have one? When a student might sell it for six weeks' drinking money?

* Similar students are also given dictaphones for lectures. Great, yes? Only... our University (apparently) has given someone an iPhone, instead of a simple recording device. So... £20-30 for a recording device. Or £100 for an iPhone.

* Basically, I would rather the Vice-Chancellors of the UK get stuck into the University, inch by inch, cutting needless expenditure. Work with the Student's Unions in every campus, because (believe it or not) we students actually sometimes spot things that cost money, which lecturers might not. Once we have slashed the bloated waste in University budgets, then MAYBE we can see whether we need a sudden sharp rise in fees.

But please, Vice-Chancellors. Just because you're all too lazy to bother going through some of the stupidities in your budgets, don't saddle us with even more piles of debt.

It does make me angry, sometimes, that people don't realise quite how much debt we students will be in.

They talk about intergenerational strife. If we have to carry £30,000+ debt, maybe they'll start to see how far students can go before they finally crack.

Post by Ol - opinions not neccessarily those of the student society

Travel Plans And the End of Terrorism

2009-03-14T03:16:00.000-07:00

On the radio today, we hear reports that the UK Government may start requiring people travelling abroad, to submit a travel plan in advance. There are SO many things wrong with this debacle of a proposal, that I can barely start. But I'll give it a go:

1: Erm... let me think... WHY?! Is there a reason for this stupid, privacy-intruding, rights-removing policy? Do British tourists to Tenerife regularly turn out to be terrorists?

2: What happens if you miss your scheduled train? What happens if you meet an attractive gal or guy and decide to go to their house for a couple of weeks, thereby contravening your travel plan? Do you have to ring the Home Office and "press 9, for deviation due to unforeseen dirty weekend"? Will they start tracking you down if you deviate from your travel plans? I fear for anyone who happens to be in the middle of a good time when the SAS agents smash into their room to apprehend the "travel deviant".

3: How much detail do they want? How much detail do they need? I'm thinking of emailing them regular travel updates of my everyday journeys within Britain. Let me see if the Home Office finds my travel plan enlightening:

I will wake up, and walk to the toilet. After spending somewhere between 5-15 minutes having a poo, I will wash my hands then head downstairs to join my family for breakfast. After that, I will walk approximately three metres over and over again as I clean up the mess in the kitchen. I will then probably walk three metres out of the kitchen to the study, where I will type a blog update to CSLD. Then I plan on walking upstairs, to shower. I will then head to my sisters' room to borrow a hairdryer. Having scrounged £1.20, I will walk out of my house, walking ten metres maximum to the nearest bus stop. There I will wait anywhere from 2 - 10 minutes, before taking a 10-15 minute bus journey into my town centre. I will then...

Somewhere in there, is the magic cure for terrorism. I'm sure of it. By knowing my pooping patterns, I am positive the terrible threat of terrorism will be solved.

Yeah, right. Lovely to see our Government focusing on such... worthwhile measures.

Post by Ol - opinions not neccessarily those of the student society

The Torture For Hearts And Minds

2009-03-13T07:02:00.001-07:00

Nothing really needs to be said, in response to this news story.

If true, our Government is complicit in one of the lowest imaginable acts - the torture of an innocent man.

Wait, wait, what am I saying, "if". Whatever the Government says, of course they torture. These are people who lied about a war that ended up killing thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people. A war that devastated an entire region. A war that placed terrorism where there used to be no terrorism.

They're hardly going to hestitate over torturing people.

Post by Ol - opinions not neccessarily those of the student society

Cat Adopts Rabbit

2009-03-12T10:53:00.000-07:00

And just in case you thought everything was doom and gloom in this recession, here's a quick burst of cute happiness. Think of it like an adrenalin shot to the heart of depression.

Click here!

Are You A Member Of A Political Party? No Account For You!

2009-03-12T07:44:00.001-07:00

This story dated today is terrifying, about RBS denying members of political parties, their services.

Their reason? Because those "sorts" of people are more inclined to commit fraud? What's happening when we think all members of political parties are committing fraud? What right does a publicly owned bank have, to stop political activists signing up for an account?

Obviously it needs more scrutiny.

But if this is true, it rocks the very foundation of our free society.

Post by Ol - opinions not neccessarily those of the student society

Raindrops and Roses and Cheapskates' Expenses

2009-03-11T06:02:00.000-07:00

Sing the title to the tune of "My Favourite Things".

We've heard a lot about MPs expenses over the past couple of years. And people are angry, raging at the system that creates corrupt and money-grabbing MPs. Nick Robinson is extremely moral in covering these stories fully and without much offering of an alternative view.

Now, don't get me wrong. MPs claiming ridiculous expenses is wrong. They're there to serve us, not to be served a platter.

But what about the BBC? As a publicly owned body, have journalists ever asked for details on what expenses the journalists claim? What about in the highest levels of the Civil Service? What expenses do the bosses there, claim?

My opinion, is that greed is in all humans. MPs, journalists, steel workers, nurses, doctors, whatever your job, you are just as likely to be greedy and corrupt as anyone else, surely? So why do we focus all our anger against under 700 individuals, who earn a fraction of what senior BBC journalists earn.

I hope someone makes a few FoI requests to the BBC, to work out exactly what expenses Nick Robinson, for example, claims when he travels to America with Gordon Brown (for that matter, why do we need to waste him there, considering the correspondents over there can easily meet up with the Brownmeister when he arrives).

It just smacks of hypocrisy. Yes, target MPs and make their expenses crystal clear. Hooray for that! But let's not forget, there are other public servants who are never scrutinised. And when BBC journalists get laid off, because the Corporation wants to cut its outcomes, it becomes imperative to apply the same root-and-branch scrutiny of BBC expenses as is applied ad hoc and via public trial, to the House of Commons.

Just a thought.

Post by Ol - opinions not neccessarily those of the student society

The Mysterious Case Of Stating What We've Stated

2009-03-10T06:13:00.000-07:00

I was reading the politicalbetting blog, last night. I was putting off going to bed. It reached the ridiculous point where I was reading through the comments on the blog. Sometimes these are enlightening. Not last night. I'll paraphrase the questions below for convenience, because trawling through the North Sea of quotes is a waste of my time, unfortunately!

"Why won't the Liberal Democrats do something brave like calling for the nationalisation of the banks?" - was one question.

"Why won't the Liberal Democrats criticise Labour?" - was another.

"Why are we hinting that we'll cuddle up to Labour after the next election?" - was another.

"Why won't the Liberal Democrats make clear their policies on what they'll do different if they are elected?"

"Why do they even bother, why don't they take their 'no ideas' and go home?"

Apart from the obvious moronic idea of taking something that doesn't exist home with you, those questions made me so angry. Because none of them are true. And all of them have been clearly, directly and passionately addressed by our Party.

We've criticised Labour greatly. Nick Clegg in the last Welsh conference criticised Labour's systemic failure over its long history. Just in Harrogate we firmly called for the nationalisation of Britain's banks. We are most certainly not hinting about either party for coalition, because we want to be considered as an equal to both. We do make our policies clear, and we have so many ideas to make this country better, that it would be a woeful failure that none of us could live with, to "go home".

Why does nobody ask New Labour if they will enter coalition with the Tories? They'd work a lot better together. Why does nobody ask New Labour if they have any idea other than a ridiculous VAT cut? Why does nobody ask the Tories what they would do to help the country other than slash our vital services?

Sometimes I despair. You know why nobody read about the Lib Dem conference? Because it was underneath CUSTARD ATTACK ON MANDELSON in importance. Come on, media moguls, our true rulers. Don't make your bias and ignorance of our Party quite so obvious. You're starting to look a bit clumsy in the way you try to sideline us.

When earnest discussion of the economy and peoples' discussion is less important than custard... we really need to worry for democracy.

Post by Ol - opinions not neccessarily those of the student society

Plaid Prats

2009-03-09T06:07:00.000-07:00

War is peace, 1984 reads. An overquoted phrase, but it serves as a major example of doublespeak. Unfortunately, we have ignored the warnings in that book. We now accept and legitimise doublespeak in every walk of life. Hopefully, the recent doublespeak by Plaid will be scornfully and absolutely rejected with all the ridicule it deserves:

According to WalesOnline, the Plaid National Executive Committee has "backed Mr Jones’ line of allowing them to be introduced in practice while opposing them in principle."

WHAT?!

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?!

You may be thinking: look at this immature student with silly, naive ideas of politics. However, I think we should hold our politicians to much harder account than this disgraceful and shambolic LIE.

Yes, I am capitalising now. Because this might join the list of the most ridiculous side-stepping of a morally defunct party. New Labour lied about WMDs. Plaid lies about their stance on top-up fees.

I want all Plaid AMs (the cowardly lot, all of them) to answer these questions. Answer the challenge to your morals, your principles and your very existence as a politician of any credibility:

1. HOW can your party OPPOSE IN PRINCIPLE, yet INTRODUCE IN PRACTICE?
2. In politics, does PRINCIPLE not provide the groundwork for PRACTICE?
3. When politicians are losing trust rapidly, don't you accept that going by PRACTICE before PRINCIPLE is fundamentally wrong and inherently dishonest?
4. HOW can your party exist if it is so WILLING to back down from its PRINCIPLES just to stay in POWER?
5. What will YOU do to work against this DECEITFUL, DISHONEST policy?
6. WHEN WILL YOU STAND DOWN AS AN AM FOR ABSOLUTELY BETRAYING THE TRUST OF VOTERS?

To say I am furious is an understatement. Any Plaid AM who can vote for this is betraying the trust of voters. Any Plaid AM who can vote for this is destroying the legitimacy and integrity of the political system. Any Plaid AM who can vote for this is clearly intellectually defunct, and morally bankrupt.

And as for the capitulating, weaselly, obsequious, paltry, weakling NEC? Don't get me started. Any NEC who fails to hold its Party to account has failed.

Plaid AMs: we at CSLD want your answers.

The students of Cardiff want your answers.

The students of Wales want your answers.

I won't hold my breath.

Post by Ol - opinions most likely shared by all Welsh students who are angry at being lied to and treated like fools

Students at Harrogate

2009-03-09T04:36:00.001-07:00

I think loads of people have spoken about Harrogate from a general point of view. But I'd like to share the experiences of our three attendees to conference:

Friday, March 6th

For some reason, we had to travel to Harrogate via Aberdare. Because we (I) made a silly mistake, we ended up taking 8 hours to travel to Harrogate. When we got there, I was shattered, and hungry, so I went for food. Leanne and Emma (President and Vice-President of CSLD) went to watch the rally, with Nick Clegg. Their reports were that it was amazing. Energising. I must admit, I found the presence of so many Liberal Democrats an invigorating, wonderful experience.

Saturday, March 7th

We attended the education debate, during which it seemed that we overwhelmingly passed the motion to retain our opposition to top-up fees! And then... then we listened to Vince Cable. What a man! You listen to him speak and the whole conference chamber is still, hushed with reverence. He can speak with an authority unmatched by most politicians nowadays. His call for the emergency nationalisation of the banks was received thunderously. Yet he also warned us all that very, very tough decisions would have to be taken over the next few years. He spoke without jokes, without cheap shots. It was incredible. And me and the students of Cardiff Lib Dems are glad he's in our Party, but more importantly, in our country.

Then it was lunch, then training. And then more time with Vince, at the CentreForum fringe about Liberalism during the economic crisis. I have never attended a more interesting fringe, which raised significant issues concerning students:

- 50% of graduates this year will be unemployed
- All graduates this year will be leaving with massive debt
- All young people over the next few years will have to work to fund the pensioners of the country
- There could be risks of an inter-generational divide the likes of which we have not seen in recent memory

Such frank levelling with the audience was gratefully received. Our Party, it became clear to me, the President and Vice-President, was the only Party ready to look into the future. Not just to dream of a better future, but to consider a worse one. We went away with a lot to think about, after this fringe.

Then it was off to the Glee Club. And what a place! Liberals old and young, singing songs old and young. With many drinks. The Welsh National Anthem (sung extremely badly by Mark Cole, and a few other people on the stage which may have included myself), the Flower of Scotland (led by the fabulous Jo Swinson) even some song about someone or somewhere called Trelawney. Then there were songs dating back from as far as 1892! Sung with as much relevance and passion as they were sung then.

It may seem an odd thing to focus on, so why am I? Because as fun as it was, I was humbled to be within a room united by laughter, but also a common, shared history of liberalism. People may laugh and sneer about Glee Club, but it reminded me of everything Liberalism has stood for over the centuries. I'll be back there next conference, and the next, and the next. And I hope to see lots of you there!

Sunday, 8th March

Although we regrettably missed Kirsty's speech (we were trying to find somewhere to park!) everything I have heard said she did an amazing job, passionately stirring the conference hall into a thunderous applause.

Then there was the speech... by Nick Clegg. And wow. Wow, wow, wow. Something has changed in him. I'm the first to admit that some of his earlier speeches have seemed a bit woolly. A bit fluid. A bit airy-fairy. Not this one. His voice was assured. His posture sombre, serious and straight. He spoke with compassion for the people of Britain, but with steel for the jaded, out-of-date New Labour and Tory parties. I said how Vince Cable held the conference rapt and silent. Nick Clegg held the conference in baited anticipation. We were ready for his vision. We were ready to hear the direction we were travelling in. And what a direction! Real action, for the people hurt badly by this recession. No quibbling. No dancing around the issue. Blunt, bald ideas and direction for the country. It was a superb speech. And what a team we have with Nick and Vince.

But then, after the journey home, you see the media reports. And every headline gives the ideas we have! Yes! But... why do they add a question at the end? That question, simply being: "But will they have a chance to implement them?". To put it bluntly, as only a student unconcerned with impropriety can...

Fuck off. Stop insinuating to people your bias. Stop trying to second-guess what we're about. Stop trying to imagine plots and deceits where there aren't any. Why not focus dispassionately on what we offer (as the media is meant to!), and let the voters decide if they elect us or not.

So, after a wonderful conference it was back to the real world of distorted media reporting. But somehow, I feel more confident as a Liberal Democrat. The world is on the cusp of change. Either we trust to the old captains of New Labour and the Tories, where we are steered into old, treacherous waters. Or we trust to a new captain. To lead us across the old, treacherous waters to the New World. The Liberal Democrats are the only party with real vision. For students, yes. But for all of Britain as well.

Listen to us, vote for us, join us.

Your chance for a better future.

(Post by Ol - opinions not neccessarily those of the student society)

Harro We Go!

2009-03-05T23:24:00.000-08:00

Yeah, really, really, really bad pun.

Me, the Vice-President and the President (of the Lib Dems, I haven't managed to persuade Biden and Obama to pop along in a three-door student car) are on our way to Harrogate Conference today! Should be an interesting Conference.

All three of us are Federal Conference "newbies" (to borrow an internet gaming term), so we will be relying on the friendly Welsh Party to show us the ropes of Conference life.

If we get free access to a computer, you may get an update tomorrow and Sunday! If not, there'll be a nice and happy (or not) summary of the Conference.

It will be happy though. Best one yet. Because CSLD are there!

HOW do we save Welsh Pubs?

2009-03-05T07:49:00.000-08:00

Well, thanks to the Welsh Lib Dems, we have a bit of an idea.

But I would add one thing to this campaign:

* Call for a less crippling cost for an entertainment licence. Many pub landlords in Newport (where I'm from!) and I'm sure it's the same across Wales, say that their big "pull" days are match days. Football, rugby, the pubs are full. When you're in a pub on match days, you feel that there's some hope for pubs after all. Unfortunately, the cost of paying for a licence for Sky coverage of matches is absolutely, terribly crippling. I welcome happily all the ideas from the Welsh Party, but hope they can consider ways of reducing this cost.

The slightly guilty, kept-down socialist in me would be tempted to call for state subsidisation of the Welsh Pub!

(That's obviously a joke, but should show how serious this matter is)

Post by Ol - opinions not neccessarily those of the student society

Red Red Whine

2009-03-04T12:04:00.000-08:00

I did laugh at this story. Then I felt angry. Then a bit scornful. Then I decided to laugh in an angry and scornful way. Which made me feel a tad bit better about this whole story.

Essentially, this story can be summed up as follows:

Phil Woolas broke down into a teenage tantrum today, when it became apparent that the ONS wouldn't give in to the petty, ludicrous micro-managing censorship that has become the norm for this decrepit government. "They won't *blub* do what I tell *blub* them to do!" Woolas shrieked in a pitiful way to the news. "I-I-I've tried! I've tried *blub* telling them to *blub* shut the fuck up about embarassing figures, but *blub* I- I- *blub* can't seem to convince them that we're g-g-going to *blub* win the next election! They keep... doing their job!"

He called the independence of the ONS disgraceful, asserting (after composing himself to stop the tears of futile terror) "Look, we all know the ONS is there to propogate the lies, damned lies and statistics of this New Labour narrative - shit, I meant Government! - anyway, yes. It's not there to gather statistics about the country in a neutral, un-biased way. I mean, what century are you living in? A department... set aside to provide statistics... telling the British people what the country is actually like? You mean, embarassing us? Ha! That sounds like a tin-pot democracy to me!"

Woolas soon broke down into tears again, shrieking about how dastardly unfair it is to actually be held accountable to information in the public domain and did mention something about "Dictators not having this problem."

(Obviously this didn't happen, but sums up the whole spirit of this fool whining about statistics. He's probably just peeved because he was too busy worrying about leadership challenges and poll ratings he completely forgot to actually do his job)

Post by Ol - opinions not neccessarily those of the student society

Harrogate Hopes

2009-03-04T08:31:00.000-08:00

Just a really quick one, today.

On Friday morning/afternoon, a small group of us from CSLD will be travelling north to Harrogate. It will be all of our first trip to Conference. Personally I can't wait. Although the polls have been fidgeting a little, we're starting the climb-back to where we were a couple of years ago.

During a General Election campaign, I am almost without a worry, that our poll rating will increase dramatically. If we can reach such heady heights of 22% during none-election time, what heights can we reach during a General Election when the usually biased press are forced to treat us with (almost) equal weight as the Labour Party.

During conference season, do I expect Gordon Brown's poll ratings to go up marginally? Yes, probably. Will they remain that way? No. Will David Cameron rattle the Liberal Democrats by dramatically increasing his poll lead? Yes, probably. Will such a result be continued during a General Election campaign? No, most likely not.

When people see the forthright nature of Nick Clegg, combined with the true wisdom of Vince Cable, and the heavy intelligence of our front bench... I have every confidence our poll ratings will increase.

Harrogate will be made out to be a test for Clegg. The media needs a story to tell, rather than reporting what happens. They will try to shake our nerve by saying "Clegg fails to..." or "Poll ratings under threat by Tories". I disagree. During Harrogate, Nick Clegg has his opportunity to share with us all what we will do during the election campaign and the policies we want to implement after the election. Any poll adjustment will be temporary (since it will then be adjusted after the other parties' conferences), but any adjustment will be a measure of how well we are received.

If we are overshadowed by some conveniently placed story like we were last time, and there is no change or even god forbid a fall? I'm still not worried.

Harrogate is a chance for our Party to shine. To show that we are a different, radical party ready to make real changes for Britain.

Join us in Harrogate, folks!

Post by Ol - opinions not neccessarily those of the student society

U.P.B (see below for translation)

2009-03-03T06:37:00.000-08:00

A new acronym for Plaid Cymru. They chould use it as their new election slogan:

"Uncaring, power-hungry bastards."

And yes, I use that word deliberately. I'm not a Parliamentarian, it's not my place to be polite to the supine mass of Plaid AMs who have blindly gone along with the Labour Party in Cardiff.

Frankly, any Party that ignores the voice of its members (even the voice of its main committee!), just to keep their little powers going is deplorable and worthy of absolute, crippling scorn.

Compare the Liberal Democrats in coalition, to Plaid.

Liberal Democrats in power: 100 of our policies passed. Compromises, but no manifesto promise-breaking.

Plaid in power: argument, splits, manifesto pledges shattered, the student voices ignored.

Why am I posting with such vehemence on this issue? Because Plaid has spat in the faces of students. The party has turned against students, seeking instead the instant gratification of power.

I must however, give my congratulations to Leanne Wood here. Thank you for going against your Party. However, there comes a point Leanne, when if your Party is no longer the Party it once was, you have to leave. Become an independent, or join another Party, or do something. The students of Wales are watching your Party now.

And we will not forgive lies, broken promises and betrayal.

If Plaid continues this way they will have no credibility left. If Plaid continues this way they will doom students to the current bent-back levels of debt. I used to have some respect for that Party. Not exactly a "liking", but at least some respect.

In the past two weeks I have decided they warrant neither.

Post by Ol - opinions not neccessarily those of the society

Disarm Cardiff University NOW

2009-02-20T07:25:00.000-08:00

I am blogging today, to invite any readers of this blog, to join the Cardiff Student Lib Dems by the Main Building of Cardiff University.

We are there to protest against the fact that £225,000 from our fees has been used to invest in the arms trade.

What makes it worse, is that the current Dean of Cardiff University at first tried to deny that it was happening. As well as this initial protest, if the University finance department fails to change their policy, I understand those students who feel strongly about this issue will refuse to shake the Dean's hand at graduation this year.

A small stance, but it shows that the graduating students this year will not allow their finances (finances that they never wanted to pay in the first place - we were ignored over that, remember!) to be used to fund the death and destruction that spreads misery and terror all over the world, in all places and in all countries.

Quite frankly, I think it is not up to the University where they invest our money. We fund our education now, or at least a significant part. Which means the University is more reliant than ever upon our voice.

Please join the students of Cardiff - students from every political denomination, every religious denomination, and every racial divide - in protesting against this hideously unethical stance by our University.

There have been similar examples of activism across the country. These protests have resulted in most universities backing down and changing the way they do things.

If this protest fails, I know most of Cardiff Student Lib Dems will be ready to help the protest in every way we can.

Post by Ol - opinions not neccessarily those of the student society

Graduates: A New Class Divide?

2009-02-18T06:06:00.000-08:00

Despite the gap between rich and poor rising by official figures, there is an impression in Britain today that the class divide is less important than it once was. Nick Clegg, in his leadership campaign, made clear reference to several chilling facts that prove that view naive and wrong.

He pointed out that children born in one part of his Sheffield constituency will live shorter lives than those in another part. He pointed out that a middle class child, "less able", would soon take over a poorer child who was more able, simply because of money.

Well, today I want to talk about another class divide. And it comes, shockingly, after university. After we have gone through the great equaliser that is university, with the same access to libraries, IT and the like, the class divide hits again. Big style.

Graduate employment advice states clearly that a degree is often not enough to win over employers. Especially the high-paying employers that look for other experience, volunteer work, work experience and the like.

Here, the difference between classes becomes clear. A poorer student who leaves university, will essentially be forced into low-paying employment simply to clear debts, overdrafts and the like. Similarly (do not ignore the fact) so will middle class students whose parents cannot afford to subsidise their whole life.

This leaves richer students able to take a further gap year, using all the contacts of their parents, without worrying about their debts.

What is the end result of this? Basically, if you possess a degree but have never been able to afford further training or experiences like richer students, you will find your degree becomes worth less and less. You will find it harder to break that glass ceiling of class that Labour was created to shatter.

And Labour has to answer to this. By creating top-up fees, by making the role of universities, simply "product providers" to the businesses seeking "skilled personnel", they have effectively brought a class divide where there used to be less of one. In past days, once someone of a "poor" background had gone to universities, they could be said to have made it.

Nowadays, their problems are only just beginning. Saddled by debt, without parental support or governmental support, they must struggle forward whilst richer, more influential students (sometimes with lesser degrees) skip straight into high-paid jobs.

This is an issue which no political party has even tried to tackle, yet. The Welsh Liberal Democrats need to ensure we make every effort to remove this newly-developing class divide, before it has time to entrench itself. We have proved ourselves ahead of the curve on so many issues.

Let's get ahead on this one.

Post by Ol - opinions not neccessarily those of the student society

Cameron, Bread, Butter and Eva Cassidy

2009-02-16T23:54:00.000-08:00

Cameron showed his true colours yesterday.

I am a fervent (some might say, rabid) believer in devolution. I say, full powers for Wales. Now. Without compromise.

His comments yesterday pissed me off, actually. His dismissal of the devolution issue shows the lukewarm approach his party has towards devolution. He claims the argument is over whether the Assembly should "have a little bit more power or a little bit less power".

When he puts it like that, it does sound a bit boring. It sounds a bit pointless. But I suppose we can't blame him. Although his media gurus are desperate to steal the localism/regional spots of the Liberal Democrats, his party don't have the imagination, the inclination or the guts to work as hard for both things.

If Wales had more power, we could take action on the economy in an extremely focused way. Does he honestly think Gordon Brown in London actually has the foggiest about how to solve issues in Neath? Merthyr? What about Ceredigion? Bangor? Wales is a land of such variety and such complex issues, any Westminster solution for the Welsh economy is bound to fail.

By arguing the case for full devolution, you can give Wales the powers it needs to get its own economy back on track.

And there's another point. Just because there is an economic crisis, does that mean we have to lay everything else aside? I will remember yesterday, as the first time Cameron warned us about his party. Is there anything you feel that is important? Oh, we won't do anything. It's an economic crisis! When politicians ignore issues or worse, fail to do what is right just because our economy is stalling, they have no right to govern our country.

A vote for Dave is a vote for someone who has admitted he hasn't the imagination to look beyond the current debate (which, to be fair, is boring - I don't care about quibbling over powers, I just want the Assembly to have some guts and call for a referendum on full lawmaking powers).

A vote for Dave is a vote for a Tory party that hasn't changed.

Post by Ol - opinions not neccessarily those of the student society