The social influence behind Labour's support for military academies

The Shadow Education Secretary, Stephen Twigg, has caused uproar among many grassroots Labour activists by endorsing military academies to school the most troubled pupils in society. For many activists, it is an indication that the party cannot let the militarism of the early 2000s go, nor return to its natural habitat of the centre-left politics of days gone by. I cannot say I am overly enthused about the idea either. However, it is understandable why parties are sentimental towards military solutions to societal and global problems (that is of course when the coalition government are not cutting troop numbers) - there is much public support at stake.

Over recent years, we have witnessed the popularisation of militaristic discourse in this country. You only have to look at those heavily duplicated Facebook pages, urging support for the armed forces and tough jobs they are expected to undertake.

Meanwhile, it seems as though every helping of human misery is equated to those lives lost in the battlefield. At a time when football supporters were posting messages of good will on the Internet in support of the critically ill Bolton player, Fabrice Muamba, others were critical of the attention being given Muamba when hundreds of soldiers had lost their lives. They could have pointed to the many lost lives on the roads as well, but that is somewhat less political and less in tune with current popular military discourse.

Then there are the millions of pop records sold by the wives of servicemen. There are surely many choirs up and down this land, but the success of the military wives was no fluke. It was a true measure of support for the armed forces and their families. There are also the 'Keep Calm and Carry On' branded products and their variations, which nostalgically reflect a country under siege.

I could go on, but I think the amount of examples I have recalled are sufficient enough to support my point. Indeed, even old rocker John Lydon indicated a separation from his old punk persona by stunning Question Time viewers (and a few old fans, no doubt) by declaring that "one of the most beautiful things about Britain, apart from the NHS and the free education, is the British Army."

As a consequence of these glamourisations, the military is always going to be a central plank of any targeted election campaign. Rightly or wrongly, it is perceived to be on a par with those two great social creations, the NHS and our education system, as being something great. It is just a shame it seems the education system can no longer be trusted to school our youth despite the fact we invented it.

I have a lot of sympathy for those Labour activists working hard to battle the Tories, who fear that the support of military academies could possibly backfire and see Labour's 9 to 12 point lead turn to dust. I admire how critical they have been. To see the dozens of Labour activists I follow on Twitter irritated by the idea demonstrates a reflexivity among us that you would never see in Tory or Lib Dem activists.

Those Lib Dem activists who still remain despite Nick Clegg, David Laws and friends painting their party orange, and eroding the relevance of the party in the process, have hardly uttered a word of dissent. Meanwhile, sticking up for bad Tory ideas seems to be a core characteristic of many Tories who are so unflinchingly tribal. In fact, you see more antagonistic debate on the Tory benches in the House of Commons, than among those Twitter Tories.

So like the idea of military academies or not, you can guarantee it will be strongly debated within Labour before it ever sees the light of day.

Warsi right to call for race debate on abuse case

I have never agreed with the Tories' mouthpiece, Baroness Warsi, on anything, but they allow her to speak so often it had to happen eventually. Warsi has made a huge and admirable statement on the subject of how white girls are perceived by a small minority of Pakistani men. The comments come following the jailing of nine men for abusing young girls in Rochdale. As a daughter of Pakistani migrants herself, it is a bold declaration.

It is also a declaration that treats the situation as it is - something that involves a minority, and therefore we must resist the temptation to treat it as a generalised problem. However, it is right to racialise the issue, not because the crimes were racially-driven per se, but because some of the debates surrounding the abuse have taken a potentially damaging racialised narrative already. The abuses have also taken place in the background context of racial difference.

I will be the first to admit that initially I set out to avoid reading the reports of what happened in Rochdale, such is my discomfort for reading about such matters. Having finally read the unsettling articles about what happened to those vulnerable young girls, it makes me despair at the state of British society at the moment.

Firstly, it does seem that young (white) British females are seen to be morally lacking, and, as some cynically see them, as 'fair game' for abuse. Although the crimes were sexual, rather than racial, it would seem undeniable that the offenders chose their victims carefully. The judge in the case, Gerald Clifton, cited a key reason was "they were not part of your community or religion," suggesting there may be community acceptance factors in play as well.

Secondly, and more significantly, it has been said that police knew about the abuse since 2002 but failed to act. The article reports that "[t]hey have now been accused of ignoring evidence of the rapes because they were frightened of being accused of racism." This is often the crux of the problem. The race and religion of the offenders mean they are allowed by stupid white people to continue their deviant behaviour unchallenged.

When the offenders were finally brought to justice, the procrastination of those people played straight into the hands of Nick Griffin and his BNP. Griffin is now on a points-scoring mission off the back of it, and has already called for a public inquiry. Well done, everyone.

Mainstream politicians often get a bad press, but on this issue there is a sensible discussion unfolding among parliamentarians. On one side of the debate, I can understand the sentiments of Keith Vaz MP that race should not be the issue (or, at least not the central issue, as I would argue). However, Warsi is correct that the offenders' decision to choose white girls cannot be treated as incidental. Either way, the outcome of any debate is that there must never again be fear to act on reports of such awful abuses.

Vote 2012 review, complete with some risible myths

Almost 72 hours have passed since David Cameron's bleakest hour, which saw his party suffer heavy losses in the 2012 local elections. His Con-Dem partners, the Liberal Democrats, sustained a second round of heavy losses following a similar mauling twelve months ago. For the junior partners in the Con-Dem alliance, there was little in the way of comfort. The only comforting factor for Cameron seemed to be re-election of Boris Johnson as the Mayor of London.

However, this good news tidbit for Mr. Cameron may be a slight myth. If Cameron is rejoicing Johnson's victory in public (and Cameron needed something to be seen to cheer about), then privately he must be alarmed as to how Johnson has maintained such a level of popularity. Johnson's narrow victory over influential rival and seasoned campaigner Ken Livingstone was an impressive one in light of the level of animosity towards the present Tory-led government. Some may see this as a silver lining for Cameron, but the rise of brand Boris is something that has the potential to be troublesome to the Prime Minister in the future.

Another myth the Tories and their Con-Dem partners are trying to promote is the election result was a typical "mid-term kicking" being given to the governing parties. Not only is that claim highly disrespectful to all of those who exercised their democratic right to vote, but the opinion polling over recent weeks do not reflect these claims in any case.

Over recent months, Labour and the Conservatives have been closely matched in the polls. Many voters were uncomfortable with the speed and the scale of government cuts, but while the Tory-led Con-Dem government were able to coherently argue a desperate need for cuts, supporter numbers held up. Then came the budget which put money into the pockets of millionaires, the problem that is Jeremy Hunt, the under-reported assault on the NHS and various other acts of incompetence. Polls started revealing a shift towards Labour, giving them anything up to a 12 point lead. The Guardian's ICM poll had the Tories ahead by 3 points on the 18th March of this year. By the 22nd April, the same pollsters had Labour a comfortable 8 points ahead. Thursday's vote reflected the emerging gap, as the overall vote share suggested a 7 point triumph for Labour over the Tories.

Tories continue with the claim they are suffering for "cleaning up the mess they inherited" (they still do not realise this phrase is a vote-loser).The aforementioned polls suggest this is a complete fallacy, for it is those calamities involving Jeremy Hunt, the Murdochs, a self-inflicted fuel crisis and the budget that co-incided with plummeting poll ratings - all of which had more to do with creating mess rather than cleaning it up.

Some old-fashioned but highly influential Tories have complained Cameron is not 'conservative' enough, not right-wing enough and too liberal. Their argument is that parties like UKIP will continue to grow if the Tories do not move rightwards (unless your name is Warsi, then you imply that UKIP are mopping up estranged BNP voters). Some bitter backbenchers are delivering similar criticisms, and worryingly that means commentators are now actually taking the outbursts of Nadine Dorries seriously. Cameron himself has declared he will continue as he is, continuing to make those "tough" decisions, and presumably continuing to slide down the poll ratings.

His Tories could not even win in Chipping Norton. Labour's success in this area was laughed off as something ironic given the area being synonomous with Cameron and his News International pals. I would suggest the result is more reflective of the absolute embarrassment felt by local residents of the way their corner of the world has been brought into disrepute over the past twelve months. Also, as should be the case with local elections, there are also local difficulties that contributed to the result.

Cameron's management of both party and country does not lend itself to winning new voters anytime soon. Moving towards the right will not help either - voters already think their economic policies are too extreme and favour the top of society's food chain. That means Cameron's run of not being very good at winning elections is liable to continue. This is quite the opposite to a certain Boris Johnson, who for whatever reason seems to be well-regarded in London. The best advice for the Prime Minister should be to keep looking over his shoulder.

Murdoch crisis has exposed Cameron's unelectability and Tory dependence on his press

Whatever the outcome of the Leveson inquiry into media standards, and the many other investigations into the conduct of News Corporation, one thing for certain is the Tories will emerge with their reputations battered. Although David Cameron's asserts that all parties got too close to the Rupert Murdoch machine, there is no doubt the Tories are coming away with more muck on them than the others. It is hardly a surprise - they have showed themselves to be the party of the few and out of touch with the many.

The phone-hacking scandal and the subsequent fallout relating to Murdoch's undemocratic influence in Britain, is the gift that keeps on giving. This week, the Prime Minister resorted to personal jibes in the House of Commons, targeting veteran MP Dennis Skinner with a legally dubious remark about his age. This is because he had no robust defence of Skinner's question about Jeremy Hunt being given more employment protection by the PM than the average worker gets.

Past Labour Prime Ministers may have tried to gain some of that Murdoch stardust, but this is hardly surprising given the supposed impact his populist paper had on their 1992 election defeat. However, it is becoming clear some serious back-scratching must have occurred for Cameron to get such Murdoch support for the 2010 election (not to mention the fact the BBC and Sky News coverage of the election was also very unfriendly towards Gordon Brown). Cameron's Tories certainly need these media giants: the unelectable one still could not win an election off the back of almost universal media support, and had to beg Parliament's biggest bunch of chameleons to form a working majority. Embarrassing.

The list of Murdoch-related calamities so early in his tenure as PM reflects badly on Cameron, and he knows it. Firstly, Andy Coulson, the former News of the World editor, was recruited by Cameron, despite having to resign due to phone-hacking concerns as early as 2007. Following his necessary resignation as Cameron's communications director, he was arrested by police investigating the phone-hacking scandal.

Secondly, there is the question of David Cameron's own links with the Murdochs and Rebekah Brooks. It has now claimed that he DID discuss the BSkyB bid with James Murdoch - something that had been repeatedly denied.

Thirdly, Cameron is developing a fast-growing reputation as notoriously inefficient when it comes to sacking ministers who are clearly on borrowed time. First Liam Fox, now Jeremy Hunt - it is not good enough. Jeremy Hunt's office faces an onslaught due to its underhand support for the Murdoch's bid for BSkyB. The way Vince Cable was shifted from his role in assessing the BSkyB bid in favour of someone whose office have apparent Murdoch sympathies is suspicious to say the least.

Finally, it has emerged today that four Conservatives wasted their time sitting on the Culture Committee to question journalists. They refused to endorse the report that followed, dismissing it as "partisan" because it reached the conclusion Rupert Murdoch "is not fit to run not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company". This is the same Murdoch who either would not or could not do anything about systematic phone-hacking at one of his newspapers. As the Coulson example above demonstrates, the phone-hacking has been in the background since at least 2007. This will do nothing to extinguish the heat that is rising against the Tories, or the suspicion that they represent the wealthy, the elite and powerhouses like the Murdoch machine. It simply adds to the distaste of the saga.

Hopefully voters will find recent Tory performances equally as distasteful on May 3rd.

No pride in how we manage our water supply

Ever since the day it was announced that parts of Britain were facing a drought, it seems to have rained relentlessly. Now parts of Britain are facing flooding.

The drought warnings and the hosepipe bans are now coupled with the threat of having to use sandbags to protect property from floods. Water companies are going to great pains, in addition to rather unhelpful messages discouraging hygiene, to remind people that the drought threat remains.

It is understood that one month of almost incessant rain is going to do little to make up for a two year shortfall in rainfall, but the message from the water companies remains warped.

Try explaining to people who live in the driest parts of America, that a country like this one ever has to place restrictions on its water supply. We do not hear much about leaky pipes anymore. It would be interesting to learn how much of our water supply vanishes in that way.

The key question is whether we should trust privatised water companies to invest in the infrastructure. The drought we face is partly down to the dry winters, but to be facing a drought concurrently with the risk of floods says a lot about the way this country manages its water supply.

Galloway by-election win needs Labour reflection, not revolution

This was meant to be Ed Miliband's finest week since taking up the reins as leader of the Labour party. As one scandal after another hit the Tories, Miliband found himself suddenly in the driving seat; the likely victor of a future general election. The Tories floundered under the weight of criticism against taxes on pasties and pensioners, the creation of a fuel crisis and NHS reforms. At one point, Labour built up a massive 17 point lead in the polls. Nothing could go wrong. Then along came George...

George Galloway, Labour's self-created nemesis when he was expelled from the party in 2003, triumphed in the Bradford West by-election on Thursday to remind Labour he still has great nuisance value. While the rest of us were busy point-scoring off the back of the Tories' nightmare week, Galloway was putting the final touches to a typically well-crafted campaign. In the campaign, he used every available resource to communicate with voters, found out what was troubling them (probably jobs, the economic outlook and welfare provision, in addition to locally specific concerns over foreign policy and alienation with the political system). From this starting point, his job was simply to tell them the words they wanted to hear. There was no photo finish. Galloway mopped up 56 percent of the vote. He won fair and square. The margin of victory suggested votes came from all sections of the community, not just Muslims and leftists whom he built the solid foundations from.

I would not have voted for Galloway, for I already have my party loyalty towards one I deeply care about - probably the same party that Galloway too still holds a torch for. However, I think if public attitudes towards politics in general is to be truly reshaped, then the attitude from politicians must change, but so too must the attitude of those who discuss politics in the media. The overall reaction to Galloway's win, from all areas of the discursive political sphere, smacked of sour grapes.

Of course, Galloway's shoulders are more than big enough to withstand the critical onslaught in the aftermath of his victory. He will happily take on those who criticise or merely attempt an inquisitive interview with him, in some cases quite brutally. A particularly unpleasant exchange was between him and the interviewer Cathy Newman of Channel Four News. From the interview, it was immediately apparent that Newman is no Jeremy Paxman, nor is she ever likely to be, though she gave it her best shot. The mildly challenging questions she posed were batted away with the well-rehearsed "I can see you and I are not getting on very well" and "I really do have a lot of very important interviews to do". Seasoned Galloway-watchers will be familiar with this tactic. He was working from an fairly similar script to the one he used in his post-2005 General Election interview with Jeremy Paxman (who unquestionably deserved to be brought down a couple of notches). Although the video is incomplete, I recall the interview was also terminated by Galloway.

Galloway should realise though that the hostile Paxmanesque inquisition is now the norm for political interviews. To some extent, they're all Paxmans now. As soon as a politician is being interviewed, that politician must not just explain their work, but explain their entire existence. Nobody working in any other field would be spoken to so universally in that fashion. Doctors, teachers and other professionals would be required to explain themselves when they fail to reach the standards expected of them. Those who desire to be an elected representative have to explain themselves the moment they hit the campaign trail, before they have even won an election.

It is true that people have become sick of politicians because they are sick of being lied to. This was never more blatant than when Liberal Democrats walked around university campuses with camera crews on hand to witness their worthless signed pledge regarding university tuition fees. The expenses scandal also lives in the recent memory. Despite these facts, there is no excuse for the media contributing to the loss of respect for politicians by wrongly presenting a narrative that it is acceptable to speak them as though they are scum. Galloway therefore must realise he is not being treated any differently to anyone else, and to not take the media jibes so personally.

The media coverage of his victory has been harsh and unfair though. Aside from the prickly interviews, the print media (including the more leftist newspapers) have taken aim at his tactics, notably Nick Cohen, from the Observer, and David Aaronovitch. In typical Galloway style, he responded to the pair in the strongest of terms. The BBC meanwhile showed its usual disregard for editorial impartiality by playing a montage of his past 'crime-sheet' before his Radio 2 interview with Vanessa Feltz, including predictably the notorious fawning speech he delivered to Saddam Hussein and the cat impersonation on Big Brother. Vanessa handled the interview itself admirably, and did not fall for the Paxman 2005 script - unlike Cathy Newman over at Channel 4.

He has not only received media criticism, but individuals have also been quick to condemn Galloway's success. Here is a clip of a man expressing his dissatisfaction with a democratic outcome by aiming eggs in the direction of the victor.

Most of the soul-searching must come from Labour. How bad was the result for the party? Should there be reflection or revolution? Is it time to chuck out Ed Miliband and replace him with someone of greater presence? Such an idea represents a huge gamble. There are elections coming up in May, and Labour candidates are set to do well. I believe the Bradford West by-election is an isolated setback, orchestrated by an experienced, aggressive and well-known campaigner. Some are suggesting that to dismiss it as a freak result is reckless complacency, but on this occasion maybe the result is just extraordinary. Galloway is, after all, a man of great political skill and oratory, but he cannot be cloned and sent to every area of the country to campaign - imagine that! In any case, there are many places where the conditions would not be right for him to win. For example, when he stood in Scottish Parliament elections, the Scottish sent him packing.

The Respect Coalition is not much of a force outside of the Galloway bubble either. There will also be no influx of celebrity candidates for future elections as a result of Galloway's success. That has been tried before and did not work. The public are wiser than to vote for political lightweights who were not as popular as TV casting executives thought they were in the first place. Galloway's victory is not the start of a wave of independent election candidates that will radically alter the way elections are conducted.

The Labour man in me remains optimistic about what remains an awful week for the Conservatives. Few newspapers led with the story of Galloway's triumph, as government incompetence continues to give them more mileage. For now, it is a time for reflection in the Labour ranks; not revolution. Galloway captivated Bradford. A refounded Labour can captivate the rest of Britain.

Cameron taking us all for fools - We must all fight him harder

"You're taking everyone for fools" - that was one of David Cameron's regular digs at Gordon Brown back in the days before the Condem coalition. If that was true, then not enough people were taken in to offer Brown another term in office. David Cameron however has had no difficulty taking people for fools.

This week, in Questions to the Prime Minister, Cameron explained how reforms to the welfare system were necessary in order to manage Britain's economic deficit.

His government's menu of ideas include tinkering with the NHS, pricing young people out of education, taking child tax credits out of the homes of those young people who depend on it, and making young people go and work for wealthy corporations for free. It's like we are going back to the future - and the future is 1812 rather than 2012.

At the same time, there are suggestions that the 50p tax rate for high earners may be on the way out at the next budget. On that note, I am not sure how that helps the nation's books, but I am confident it will not lead to an increase in revenue. Maybe there are a few more pounds left to shake out of the pockets of our young. The one thing he will not be able to do is take is their school milk - his mentor already plundered that a generation ago.

How can all this eternal assault on the nation's children be explained? It is quite simple. One one hand, wealthy business people donate to the Tories; on the other hand. many young people do not vote. The young and the poor have been battered by the Tories throughout history, but somehow the party's vote continues to hold up.

The Liberal wing of the Condem axis have paid the greatest price in terms of lost votes. This is understandable as they promoted a worthless manifesto in 2010 which tricked many people into voting for them. Their worthless campaign involved lying to students on university campuses about changing university fees. When I say 'changing', I refer to their promise to eliminate them. I wonder what happened to that one.

The Lib Dems have argued that they did not win the election and can only negotiate concessions in the Tory-led decision-making processes. This may be true, but I am not sure I have ever witnessed more of a spurned opportunity in the history of British politics. They have leverage to be far more disruptive than they are currently being. Rather than just waving policy through, how about scuppering a few Commons votes, just to let the Tories know that this Condem coalition lark is not going to be all easy?

Not only have the Lib Dems spurned the chance to show the power their casting vote gives them, they have also spurned the chance to set a more contrary convention for coalition governments. Where was it written in the rules that coalitions have to be so collegiate? A bit of antagonism would not suddenly bring down the coalition government, so they should give it a go.

At the moment the Lib Dems are being taken for fools. Then again, at the moment the whole electorate are being taken for fools.

Feltham and Heston by-election review

On Thursday (15/12) a by-election took place in the parliamentary constituency of Feltham and Heston. It offered voters in West London the opportunity to cast their verdicts of over eighteen months of the Con Dem nation. The voters chose to overwhelmingly reject the coalition, with both the Tories and Liberal Democrats taking a massive hit.

Unsurprisingly, the broadcasters opted to make the lousy turnout of 28 percent the story of the election. One could almost sense their disappointment that they had to concede the poor turnout was due to stormy weather and the proximity to Christmas, when a big story about political disengagement throughout the public would have been more desirable.

There were few surprises in how the parties responded to the result. It gave Labour the chance to remind the public that Tory policies were "hurting, but not working". There is truth to that claim: Tory cuts, leading to more unemployment, less tax revenue and more benefit payments, therefore putting government finances under more pressure, will not help Britain in the short or long term.

The Tories' responses ranged from the very dignified speech by their defeated candidate Mark Bowen, who paid tribute to the late Feltham and Heston MP, Alan Keen, to the sour grapes from Baroness Warsi, who complained of the election being won with just 12,000 votes. That response is evidence in itself as to how bitterly disappointed the Tories are with the result. Off the back of a fortnight when David Cameron went on a European wrecking mission, much to the delight of the press and a reasonably Euro-sceptic public, little gloss can be put on the 8.4 percent swing to Labour.

Meanwhile, Simon Hughes, the straight-talking Liberal Democrat, somewhat arrogantly conceded the government losses are to be expected when in government. There was no suggestion of an inquest to find out why the voters are deserting the Con Dems, despite their repeated claim of how they are trying to clean up the mess they 'inherited' from the last government. (One of the things I learned from the Feltham and Heston by-election coverage is they still fail to realise the electorate is turned off by the 'inherited mess' line of argument. If I have realised that, why are party strategists yet to do so?)

Unless the Liberal Democrats are more prepared to look inwards at why they are losing so many voters, then the 5.87 percent they polled in Feltham and Heston will become the norm. There is no point being arrogant about the trappings of power, when a 'generation of voters' have been lost. The loss of a 'generation of voters' are not my words, but the words of Liberal Democrat MP, Adrian Sanders.

It is true that governments often fare badly in by-elections, but they usually have to become unpopular first. Labour continued to sweep up by-election post successes, even after their post-1997 election victory. The Feltham and Heston result suggests the Con Dem coalition is already losing the public, with Labour making a comeback.

Election summary; Feltham and Heston 2011: BBC NEWS

Con-Dem government sell Northern Rock at a loss

The incompetent Tory-led government have sold Northern Rock - the bank rescued by their predecessors during the credit crisis. The price at just £747 million is almost half the £1.4 billion invested by the taxpayer, though there is the possibility of a further £280 million. Angry? You should be.

Over thirty years, the Tories have repeatedly shown they have failed to learn from history and are doomed to repeat their own mistakes. In the same way they handed over Britain's utilities for the financial equivalent of peanuts in the 1980s and 1990s (those utilities that now change hands for billions, and charge their customers extortionate fees), they handed over the bank, almost at the first opportunity.

If a director of your company paid to acquire a struggling company, steadied the ship, then sold it for less than paid for it, would you have confidence in that director? No you would not. And I do not have faith in this government.

Where has all the money gone? (Part Two)

Almost a month has passed since I pondered the causes of all the seemingly missing money in the world. Apart from the reminding ourselves countries have run out of cash, that banks are not flush with cash and the general public certainly have little in their pockets, nothing is clearer. As a self-certified non-economist, the best I can do is produce crude theories. Here is one such theory.

I see the world as a massive game of poker. And it follows logically that there are only so many chips on the table. We all know that governments try to avoid printing money because it makes bad things happen, such as hyperinflation. So there is always a limited number of chips.

Eventually one person ends up with all the chips in the game of poker. As far as I can make out, something remarkably similar has happened to the world financial fluidity. Of course this game of global poker is so large no individual ends up with all the chips as they would in poker, but some definitely end up with greater piles than others. Worse than that, just as with poker, when someone has a big pile of chips, it becomes easier for them to take a great deal more chips from others.

It is enough to convince me that the theory of economic success is in fact a fallacy. A successful company is based on a flawed notion that those industries and companies (who, in poker analogy, have most of the chips) must keep increasing their income year-on-year. For example, company X may make a £275m profit on the year, but this is considered failure because the previous year they made £300m. What happens when all this money is lying around static in corporations? What happens when someone retires as a Chief Executive with more money than he or she will ever be able to spend?

The answer is we end up with money that is fenced out of the system and leads to a constraining of future economic success, as well as the limitation of the economic capability of those who have to share the rest of the shrinking pot between ourselves.

What does everyone else think? Have I got it completely wide of the mark - as Tories with economic qualifications will take great delight in saying I have? I may not be an economist but I do not think so. More to follow on this no doubt....

Analysis: How the England Riots split the left

This week the unthinkable happened - I was accused of being a Tory. I was not alone. In his excellent Friday night Talksport broadcast, leftist broadcaster George Galloway had the same absurd allegation levelled against him during an otherwise cordial exchange with a dissenting phone caller. Has left suddenly become the new right? And where are these cruel accusations coming from all of a sudden.

The explanation is as follows; the recent riots that occurred throughout England have created a point of intellectual separation between the liberal left and the more authoritarian left. By authoritarian, I do not mean the hardline position inspired by Stalin that the liberal left seem to be unaware of - remember, according to these types, the call for sanctions against those causing disorder is supposedly the preserve of Tories. Instead, I mean those who actually want to see the law applied substantively to the kinds of people who burn homes and businesses, attack and violate passers-by and, in some cases, commit murder.

The problem is there are some who believe that because the riots largely occurred in deprived areas, home to the impoverished, that in some way the perpetrators should be sympathised with. This position however represents an incorrect diagnosis of the cause of the riots as well as a misunderstanding of the character of leftist protesting and campaigning, both of which will be summarised in turn.

First, the diagnosis: This was not a confrontation against elites or capitalism. If it was, those rioters would not have been burning the cars and homes of their neighbours. Neither would they have been vandalising and looting corner shops, run by people working as many hours as possible to make ends meet. This was a confrontation against their fellow citizens.

Second, the position of the good leftist: It is virtuous for an active citizen to stand up for those who work hard for a living, as well as those who want to contribute to society but find themselves in a position of inequality, in turn lacking both financial and social capital. This is how workers' movements came about. It means supporting those who rightly condemned the riots, those who were killed and those who had their rather small enterprises torched.

To condemn the rioters as 'reliant on benefits' and without direction is not to metamorphisise into a Tory, nor is it to condemn those who face genuine need for welfare. Furthermore, this position of disapproval does not preclude the overlooking of the real social causes of the recent troubles, which should result in a review of youth unemployment and access to education.

It is dispiriting though that some people handle deprivation inappropriately, criminally and irresponsibly by becoming a predatory force upon those around them. Solidarity during these tough times is not defined by violating your own equals.

It is a shame those who are extreme liberal, or will stop at nothing to find an excuse for a scrap, cannot identify with this. Instead they choose to erroneously defend the actions of these rioters through the prism of left politics, blaming an admittedly incompetent government when these problems have been decades in the making. It is true however that Thatcherite politics resulted in the closure of many of the workshops of this once-great island. The jobs they created could help a few of the vast numbers of 18 to 24 year-olds currently out of work.

In the meantime, we have to deal with the predators and the rioters, safe in the knowledge that those in government setting the judicial discourse will have no objections to any accusations of them being Tories!

Thoughts about social backdrop of England riots

The English youth of today had many labels applied to them over the past week, including fickle, feckless, lazy, angry and violent. It has even been suggested, hopefully in jest, they lack the determination to sustain a riot for more than a couple of days. Whatever the labels, following last week's riots, the public have now taken a social role of judgement over the events.

As people try to make sense of what they witnessed, whether live or on the television, many questions are now being contemplated. Was there a cause behind the riots? Were the riots indicative of societal breakdown. Are particular age groups and races more implicated than others by what occurred? Many words have already been spilled, at times recklessly, trying to ascertain the answers.

The term 'riots' is being used as a blanket term, which covers a number of activities of variable severity. The riots followed a peaceful protest over a fatal police shooting. They included battles with riot police, the burning of cars, the burning of homes, the burning of small businesses, smashing shop windows, looting and murder. No doubt there were ringleaders, participants and those there to make up the numbers. It is not easy to sort the alienated in society from the scum.

Those who are definitely scum include thugs who murdered those protecting their property, who burned down retail outlets and smashed up homes. No amount of accusations that describing people as 'scum' dehumanises them will shift me from that position. These people are criminals, and their punishments must reflect their deeds.

The problem is what to do with those who committed lesser crimes of varying severity. One person has already been jailed for stealing bottled water, its seriousness being contextualised by the rioting that facilitated the theft. Then, the future needs to be dealt with and how to prevent more rioting.

Disorder has rarely had legitimacy in Britain as a means of bringing about change, even when the cause seems apparently clear, for example the vandalism that occurred on the same day as peaceful anti-cuts protests in London. When there is no definable cause, the chance of significant public sympathy may as well be zero.

Excuses for the disorder ranged from stealing from the rich, getting goods from wealthy people that can be sold on, loose definitions of 'respect' and 'having a laugh'. Without a unified cause, it is difficult to see how their actions can be looked upon with anything other than contempt.

In the absence of an overall cause, the only consistent theme is the acquisition of assets. Whether it is youths hoping to sell on their gains or people rioting through general anger regarding the rich/poor divide, the concept of what someone does not have is the one which recurs the most.

This is a capitalist society built on desired goods, ownership and possessions. Owning particular goods are viewed as a benchmark of success, which makes those in possession more attractive to potential peers and partners. The youngest in society, trying to write their futures, are inevitably going to be the most ambitious in pursuing material goods to achieve their ends. It should be no surprise that when there are no jobs for them and no scope to further their education they begin to live their lives outside of the law.

The tough standards which this society is constrained by create much unhappiness. One columnist described the riots as being an England he "didn't recognise." Sadly, I recognised it very well. I recognise it from the jobs I have had in a public facing role. I recognise it from the unpleasantness I have to witness as a user of public transport at various times of the day. England has more of its fair share of nice people, but we have to accept we have some very nasty citizens in our midst as well who will stop at nothing to enrich their own lives and make the lives of others a misery.

Other observers are trying to frame last week's trouble in terms of colour in a cheap attempt to package the riots as a black problem. This is nonsense. An attempt to arouse the public into a race conflict is both dangerous and unnecessary. Nobody needs to be told that a significant proportion of the rioters were black. Instead, people need to be told the reasons a significant proportion of the rioters were black.

There are two immediate theories that spring to mind. Firstly, the ever-difficult relationship between young black people and the police. Secondly, and even more illuminating, is that the location of the riots were in the most deprived areas of the country - and these areas of deprivation have a high percentage of black people living there. These hard facts will not prevent knuckledraggers from continuing to force-feed idiots a fallacy that criminality is determined by skin colour.

The government response can hardly be said to be any more intelligent either. David Cameron is typically talking tough and has brought in respected American 'super cop' William Bratton to advise on dealing with the rioting. This move has been widely criticised as being disrespectful to British police forces. To that, criticism can be added that the riots have happened, were brought under control, and at the very least equal attention must now be given to social solutions.

Is there a strategy for making young people more active in society? Will there be a reversal of closures to youth centres and the scrapping of Educational Maintenance Allowance? What can be done to create more employment for our excluded youth? The answer is there will probably be no such strategy when it is easier to strut around and give indirect satisfaction to the prejudiced and the racist with promises of tough sanctions.

Where has all the money gone? (Part One)

It seems as though the world has been consumed by a vacuum, which has taken all our money from us. The UK is struggling to make ends meet. The USA legislatures have spent the week scrambling around to increase the country's credit limit. Greece, Portugal and Ireland are among a group of countries that have teetered on the brink of going under because of their debts. Who is owed all this money and where has all the money gone?

Are the debts owed to other countries? If so, which ones? If the USA cannot pay its bills, then I doubt many countries are doing any better. Or maybe these countries have borrowed from the banking sector? That cannot be the case either, as governments had to bail them out for their incompetence.

The problem is I am no economist, so I do not have the answer. It seems as though dollar bills and pound notes have just vanished off the face of the earth. Maybe an economist has an explanation for this. Is it possible for money to just vanish? More reflections to follow later in the week or at the weekend.

Phone-hacking review - July 2011

The phone-hacking scandal continues to keep us amused and entertained while most of us should have been doing something better with our time. Rather than cover the details, here is a slice which covers the most important developments. To put it another way, a bluffer's guide with a little detail included.

1. The scandal has actually been going on for years, but most of the British public - understandably - had a 'tough shit' attitude to it when it was celebrities and politicians having their voicemails hacked by investigative journalists working for newspapers. In other words, it was a scandal, but one only media-types cared about.

2. The 'smoking gun' which turned phone-hacking from a scandal to a storm nobody could put out was the news that murdered teenager Milly Dowler's phone was hacked, while she was still missing. By nightfall my anger had turned to a feeling of non-surprise about the inevitability of it all. The silver lining in this awfully dark cloud is that Rupert Murdoch's empire and its power over the regulatory powers of British government would finally come under scrutiny.

3. The scandal led to typically British gallows humour. Yes, we realise Mystic Meg saw none of this coming, including the closure of the News of the World - so far the greatest day in British publishing history. Hopefully those talented and honest writers out of work will be promptly snapped up by other newspapers.

4. The death of the News of the World has already led to one frightening prospect. Rumours abound our friends at the Daily Mail plan to create a downmarket Sunday tabloid to fill the void created by the News of the World.

5. An early highlight of the scandal was Rupert Murdoch being chased by reporters. Welcome to the world of your papers' victims, Rupert.

6. Another highlight was the archive footage of former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, embracing Rebekah Brooks. Meanwhile a randomer was flapping her arms around like a seal attempting to prevent any filming. The right-wing were all in this one together (read Blair's autobiography and judge for yourself how 'lefty' he was in government).

7. The usuals have been making interesting and valid observations. George Monbiot predicted something along the lines of when the dust settles, we would be just as disillusioned with the role of the Metropolitan Police in their failures regarding dealing with the phone-hacking.

8. The usuals have been embarrassing themselves too. Mel Phillips claimed on her Twitter the campaign against Murdoch was that of anti-Semitism. This is despite the fact I always assumed Murdoch's religion was the mighty Dollar. Let us not forget a dead girl's phone had been hacked. Let us consider that people were concerned about Murdoch's discourse-shaping powers, courtesy of his press and media holdings. Or let us not - it turns out we are just prejudiced and full of hate.

9. Those involved in the Times and ex-News of the World have been saying silly things throughout. David Wooding stated 'never has so many jobs been affected by so few'. Miners' strike, anyone?

10. But prize for grand idiocy goes to Roger Alton. As Executive Editor of The Times, he brought his newspaper into disrepute with his diatribe against the website Mumsnet, describing users of it as fair trade tea drinkers and organic shortbread eaters. As someone against the News of the World's actions myself, I can confirm I do not eat organic shortbread, nor am I female.

11. Many jobs have fallen as a result of the phone-hacking scandal. Rebekah Brooks fell on her sword. High-ranking members of Plod have also accepted their P45s for employing ex-News of the World executives as press officers. Naturally, our Prime Minister, David Cameron, believes the idea of his resignation for the same offence is ridiculous.

12. Thankfully, after all the recent madness, the phone-hacking scandal has now calmed down, which means we will be hearing less of the excellent Tom Watson who has campaigned throughout this scandal. Except.......

13. Yesterday it emerged that Sara Payne, the mother of murdered Sarah Payne, may have had her phone hacked by News of the World. Considering the rag made the campaign for Sarah's Law the centre of their moral universe, it is fitting Tom Watson has described the possibility of Sara's phone being hacked as 'the ultimate betrayal'. We wont be hearing less of Tom after all.

14. So far then we have learned of the culture at the News of the World that was a disgrace. Those people the newspaper claimed to be friends of were betrayed by the rag they trusted. Every revelation that goes by must leave Rebekah Brooks feeling a little more sick; a little more disinclined to get out of bed in the morning.

This summary could not begin to collect up everything that has occurred during the phone-hacking scandal, least of all the interminable committees briefly made interesting by the actions of an attention-seeking idiot. However, there will be plenty more to come. No doubt there will be another update soon.

Phone hacking and our fickle tabloid friends

So now you know who your friends really are – and it is certainly not those at the British tabloid press.

They do not provide public service, though they might like to think they do. They do not act in the interests of the people, though they might say they do. They are there to make money by selling copies. They sell copies by digging out stories. They get stories by leaving their morals at the office door when they arrive for work.

The phone hacking activities revealed to have taken place at the News of the World were beyond contempt. Each revelation was worse than the one which preceded it. The newspaper, and around 200 careers associated with it, laid in ruins as owner Rupert Murdoch brutally closed down the beleaguered publication following a string of destructive headlines as the newspaper suddenly became the big story.

Phone hacking was always a scandal, even when the victims were ‘just’ politicians and celebrities. To learn that the phone of a dead Milly Dowler had also been hacked, as well as the phones of dead servicemen, is sickening. To cap it all off, we learn that the police were paid by News of the World journalists for information. As George Monbiot pointed out, when the dust settles, the police collusion will be equally as big a story as the hacked phones.

Make no mistake, the News of the World became more than a newspaper. It became a criminal network. Until the muddy waters clear, nobody knows who knew what, who is guilty, who is innocent, who will be charged, and who will be released. However, a law qualification is not required to realise the crimes listed above are serious enough to ensure someone is going to jail – and that someone will probably have more than just a few ex-colleagues for company.

The most depressing aspect of all this is the News of the World actually turned out to be the enemy of those it tried so hard to be a friend of. It was this newspaper that led aggressive naming and shaming campaigns of child molesters, often leading to its more uneducated readers to mistakenly attack the wrong targets. All the while, it campaigned on behalf of victims’ families.

I have no doubt the News of the World anti-predator campaigns had the best of intentions. But behind the scenes its investigators were violating the same families of those violated by the likes of Levi Bellfield and Ian Huntley. The newspaper, far from being the victims’ mate, added to the misery already heaped upon those families. It was the newspaper which promised so much, but could only deliver a pack of sordid lies.

Out of this darkness however may come light. The model of cosy relations between our party political leaders and the key people in the print media is now discredited. And while the allegations against the News of the World are strong and clearly with foundation when considering the defensive stance of its management, few people believe the News of the World was alone in unscrupulous practices. When considered as a whole, the days of a free press are over – and the loss of that freedom may not be a bad thing.

No longer should publications with such large circulations be allowed to tell people how to vote. This would bring it in line with broadcast media, where a plurality of views must be represented. This is the only way to cut the strong bond between politician and press. Headlines such as The Sun’s 1992 “lights out" if Kinnock wins must never happen again. A balanced democracy needs a balanced media with balanced levels of freedom as opposed to total freedom. Gone are the days when people can write whatever they like.

We must also take our share of the blame for legitimising the misdeeds of the press. We laughed, smirked and sneered when the complicated private life of a certain Ryan Giggs was released on websites, then in the House of Commons, then in the press – drip-by-drip. Will we ever know how all the incriminating evidence was collected? Given the events of the past week, it is not unreasonable to assume more than just a sprinkle of skullduggery.

Then there was the parliamentary expenses scandal. We applauded the ‘outstanding journalism’ which exposed Members of Parliament. We chose to overlook how the data came into the hands of journalists, because it was inconvenient to our collective sense of outrage at the time.

It is easy to full into the trap of thinking those who bring us the exclusives are our friends. They are not. They make money. They set the political agenda. They get Tories elected with the minimum of fuss. Now it is time for change.

Thatcher's Children Turn on their Teachers

It is a sick government, in terms of depravity rather than wellbeing, that uses the nation's children as pawns in a political game with the not-particularly militant teaching unions. The suggestion that parents could help keep schools open while teachers strike, a perverse idea by Education Secretary, Michael Gove, is perhaps the most dispiriting of all the divisive ideas coming from this government.

He is proof there is a bit of Thatcher in all of today's Conservative party. Is this a surprise? Not at all. Many of today's Tory parliamentarians were fresh-faced recruits during the days of Thatcher and soon after. Thatcherism drips across the Conservative party, perhaps more so than during her own time in power.

I grew up in the 1980s when teaching strikes happened occasionally. We would be given work to do at home. We loved it because it gave us a day off school. And however much inconvenience this may cause parents, they should be sticking with the teachers, not being encouraged to campaign against them.

'Big Society' was David Cameron's big idea for public participation in social affairs. It is something he talks about because it sounds nice, but parents and children being politicised in a struggle between teachers and government is not my idea of the 'Big Society' in action.

It makes me glad I am not a child in today's nasty society (which sounds more realistic than this 'Big Society' nonsense). I would not want to be the one beaten up on the playground by other children, blamed for keeping the school open by classmates who hoped they would be getting an unscheduled holiday. I would not want to be the one who the teachers give less assistance to in the classroom because their parents undermined their industrial action. Some militant teachers may be temped by this, mark my words.

The truth is, despite my use of the word 'militant' above, teachers are generally not that militant at all. They are not known for striking. The ATL (Association of Teachers and Lecturers) is a union definitely not renowned for striking, so you can be sure if they have downed tools, then they are not happy.

If last minute talks could avert a strike this Thursday, even at this late stage, nobody would be more happier than the teachers themselves. After all, they go into teaching because of a wish to help and develop young people. It certainly is not for the money, or the abuse they have to take from those they try to do their best for.

The lack of militancy from the teachers makes the fighting talk by Gove all the more exasperating. I would say roll on the next cabinet reshuffle, but the pool of Thatcher's children is hardly likely to produce anyone more sympathetic to society's educators.

Why is it taking an Archbishop to oppose the Tories?

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, is doing what all decent religious figures would be expected to do - rightfully slam the government for the impact their policies are having on the most needy in society.

David Cameron is accusing the Archbishop of expressing political views. There is no question that some of the Archbishop's comments about voter expectations are political, however it is right that a senior religious figure should be speaking up on behalf of those in society less able to participate and articulate their frustrations.

Dr. Williams is the closest thing Mr. Cameron has to an opposition at the moment. Ed Miliband is likeable, but at this week's Prime Minister's Questions, he yet again failed to land as much as a decent strike on the Prime Minister. This is despite a difficult week with justice and NHS reforms and some rather sloppy work by ministers.

And the large bulk of the print media are completely geared to keeping the Tories in power. How Labour are ever able to win elections with such a major chunk of the media constantly against them is a miracle in itself. It is interesting how after a couple of (what should have been) very uncomfortable days for the Prime Minister, the Daily Telegraph has typically intervened with a diversionary tale about the role of Ed Balls in a campaign to remove Tony Blair from Number 10 following the 2005 election.

Timing is everything when it comes to weathering a storm. How much help can one political party get, and what does it say for democracy?

Interestingly, phone hacking is in the news again. It makes you wonder how little of the information newspapers receive is acquired legally. Maybe we should be slower to sympathise with the press the next time they unite to whinge about superinjunctions.

It is taking an Archbishop to oppose the Tories because nobody else is up to doing so. I wonder how many others will follow my lead and receive their news bulletins from the Archbishop of Canterbury in future.

Women: "Slut Walks" or self-preservation?

Women should enjoy the freedom to wear whatever they want. It is what differentiates our culture from those where women are influenced to believe it in their interests to cover-up all their features, separating themselves from other people in society in the process.

Conversely, it is their right to be able to cover up as well. There should be no rulebook on who should wear what. This is why the thoughts of Michael Sanguinetti, of Toronto's police force, notably the comment "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised," should have been kept to himself.

As a consequence of Sanguinetti's loose talk, a protest movement called "Slut Walks" has emerged in North America. Women (and many men as well) are marching in protest, dressed sexily, and displaying various messages in order to make a statement of defiance.

Most decent folk are capable of self-control. They do not view females in minimal attire as those to be manhandled, violated and victimised. Unfortunately, not everyone thinks like that. This leads to an uncomfortable truth, and that truth is women who rightly took offence to Sanguinetti need to consider the deeper meanings behind his moralist and prejudiced rhetoric.

What follows is not another dose of 'victim blaming' - nobody deserves to be victimised, regardless of what they wear. But for too long, debates such as these have been framed in gendered terms - and it has to be remembered that some radical feminists reject the body exhibiting culture which is socialised into young women by the media.

The fact is that if something is easily accessible, the risk of that something being violated is higher. It is simply wrong to suggest that encouraging women to dress more conservatively is male patriarchy in action, while men can live without boundaries.

If men go out and get stupidly drunk, then the risk of violation of them is increased as well, particularly through theft or attack.

If men carry expensive items visibly, they are at a heightened risk of robbery.

And so if women lower their security, they too run the risk of violation. That is the world we live in.

A slightly more condescending, but more virtuous message could have gone something like this:-

The best we can do as individuals is to manage the risk. People, male or female, should go out in groups when being social during rather unsocial hours. Non-essential valuables need not be exhibited. If you feel you may be at risk, it is basic self-preservation to use the means to reduce it. That involves - sadly - covering up a little if necessary. Not only that, but arrange lifts from people you know, as even licensed taxis are no guarantee for they are effectively driven by strangers.

As this argument shows, the need is to put a safety message, not make moral judgements and call people sluts.

Bin Laden's death and excessive liberalism

BBC's Question Time ought to come with a health warning. Not a week goes by without the programme raising my blood pressure, often due to my irritation with intolerant right-wing panelists. This week's death of Osama Bin Laden led to an unusual changing of sides, whereby I found myself allied to the panel's neoconservative.

There were mitigating factors. The liberal element of the panel were represented by the unusually erratic former Liberal Democrat leader, Lord Ashdown, and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. Alibhai-Brown is highly intelligent, but her delivery makes it difficult to warm to her. It was not helped that both took the position of arguing that as with all criminals, Bin Laden had human rights and should not have been killed.

As they discussed his rights to having a fair trial, I suddenly found myself trapped alone, with an equally difficult to warm to neoconservative, in the real world.

In this real world, my limited knowledge of the rule of law and terms of engagement were over-ruled by a sense of relief that Bin Laden no longer walked the earth.

In this real world, I felt that Bin Laden's right to a fair trial was pointless convention. What was he going to do? Plead not guilty to the atrocities he has frequently boasted about on tape?

In this real world, I realised that dead or alive, Bin Laden was a huge trophy that would have sent blackmailers into overdrive?

In this real world, the comparisons between Nazi war criminals and Bin Laden were false comparisons because the nature of the conflict is different. When the Nazis surrendered, the game was up for them. Al-Qaeda is something more fluid and evolving. Nazis on trial did not inflame their dead ideology. Bin Laden on trial would have been a massive wind-up.

The fact of the matter is those leftist intellects mean well, but often find themselves in the position of defending the indefensible. As someone also coming from the left, my kindness does not stretch infinitely and sometimes I wish I could shake some of the others.

I admire the ideals coming from many writers of columns often seen in The Independent, The Guardian and The Observer, but often their thoughts are simply not palatable to the public. If they were, then perhaps they would sell more than a few hundred thousand daily papers. Trying to sell the idea Bin Laden was a man with rights is a difficult one.

The last word should be with Barack Obama, who I believe when he said Bin Laden's death makes the world a safer place. It will be safer, but not entirely safe of course. There will continue to be risk, but I find it hard to believe that Bin Laden being alive today would be of help to anyone. I am not even convinced it is what Bin Laden himself would have wanted.

Vote 2011 review - Lib Dems trounced

Who would be a Lib Dem right now? This week's trouncing in the local election is the latest in a string of calamities since leader Nick Clegg entered the coalition with the Conservatives.

Rocked by student protests, resignations from grassroots activists and the ongoing appearance of fronting unpopular Tory policies have led to the party's collapse in support.

Clegg had, up until now, pushed the argument that the Lib Dems 'did not win the election' suggesting it limited his options. While this is true to some extent, Thursday's results demonstrate the public dissatisfaction with their conduct.

The confusing part is the other mixed messages sent by the electorate. On one hand, the Lib Dems have been punished for what are, in effect, destructive Tory policies. On the other hand, the Tories actually gained seats. Some punishment that is!

It has to be said the British, or more specifically the English, have a peculiar relationship with the Conservative Party. Despite public unease about their policies, people keep voting for them.

It is little wonder the Scottish National Party has made great strides in Scotland. Perhaps the Scots are becoming increasingly sick and tired of being governed by Tories voted for by slavish Englanders and who can blame them? (I am English, by the way.)

So with the Tories emerging more or less unscathed, precisely why was it the Lib Dems suffered most? Political and social scientists will already be hard at work on this, but here are a couple of provisional theories.

Firstly, though there may be two wings of the Liberal Democrats within the party - a left and a more economically liberal right - many of the voters are (perhaps unsurprisingly) social liberals who do not support non-welfarist conservatism. In many affluent areas, the Lib Dems are the Tories' natural opposition. If they have a state-stripping coalition placed in front of them with near 100 percent collegiality, what motivation is there to vote Lib Dem in these areas?

Secondly, there have been some major Lib Dem calamities which have proven totally unforgivable to some voters. On a personal note, I spent three years campaigning to fellow university students that the Lib Dems was the party against student fees. The decision to go ahead with the trebling of fees devastated the Lib Dems' youth vote.

The outcome of this policy, which was to smash the Lib Dems to pieces, was a result beyond they wildest dreams of even the most tribal Conservative.

That is assuming the Tories did not already forecast the impact of forcing through the student fees legislation. As Vince Cable stated earlier today, the Tories are tribal. It would be no surprise if their strategists were canny enough to realise who would pay the political price for for increased student fees. Shame on the Lib Dems for falling for it.

For many students and former students alike, campaigning for the Lib Dems is now untenable. How can they expect to retain their vote? Nick Clegg and his band of dodgy policy salesmen cynically toured university campuses with a signed pledge to abolish student fees. In my view, this gave the policy more salience than a typically breakable manifesto pledge. There is no question the issue of student fees should have been a red line in the coalition agreement. The number of Lib Dem voters between the ages of 18 and 25 who are lost forever does not bear contemplation.

I have worked alongside dedicated grassroots Lib Dems. Some of them were worryingly too liberal for their own good, others more rugged, but all of them worked hard fighting Tories up and down the country. They would fight for every single vote. Every letterbox was an opportunity. Every doorstep was a point of access to a potential voter. All their best efforts lay in tatters because of their useless/useful* (delete as appropriate) idiot.

Their failings surfaced on Thursday for all to see. It was the day Britain returned to two-party politics (simply replace Conservative with SNP north of the border). In the unlikely event the Lib Dems gain enough seats to force another hung parliament, I cannot see them rushing into another coalition any time soon.