Skip to main content

Racing post

In horse racing terms the favourite got off to a good start with the advantage of a lighter handicap (from MPs and journalistic pals, you understand) but soon began to flag badly, and it was just as well for him that the race was a sprint and not a steeplechase because the challenger was gaining on him fast by the home straight. I never believed the hype about a 60:40 lead. If the course had been a week longer, I believe the favourite would have lost.
But the ballots have been counted, and under the rules of the course the favourite won by a short nose.
Congratulations Nick, say I. The members have made their choice: you are the leader now. I’m following! This is the start of the real race.

Comments

Left Lib said…
I think it is a case of fingers crossed (from another Chris Huhne supporter).
As Chris Huhne did so well, I am sure he will scrutenise carefully what gets through.
The latest slogan I discovered at the manifesto conference yesterday was that the "Gentleman in the town hall does not know best either". As rhetoric goes, this looks rather suspicious to me - although I am open minded at the same time. I spoke to ALDC types and they were not concerned, they seemed to think it was a way of supporting what they are already doing. I am not so sure. Does this rhetoric imply that policies to do this are funnelled through local councils by democratic decisions, or will it be imposed on councils by central government?
13 January 2008 at 20:40
Jo Hayes said…
Not the latter - rather, I believe, the idea behind the rhetoric is the return of power to ordinary people via different routes from the town halls. E.g. decisionmaking about local NHS services can be devolved to boards elected specifically for that purpose so that powers are more widely distributed than now. I think the late and much missed Earl (Conrad) Russell would approve.
14 January 2008 at 15:31
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Iran: the minority that will not let go

I am thinking about places in the world where women are oppressed. Iran for example. There, I gather, militia roam the streets intimidating and attacking women who behave or dress in ways of which they disapprove. In my country, such militia would be arrested and tried for public order offences. It is not that the British have no opinions about what is acceptable dress or behaviour in public and what is not. Of course we have opinions. But individuals behave in a way that is their own choice, provided that it does not contravene a specific law, and it may be a poor choice, but it is the individual's and not imposed. Live and let live, and mind your own business, are mottos here. And gangs who roam the streets trying to impose their own ideas on others tend to get arrested. So what essentially is different about Iranians? I suspect, nothing is. A minority of society suppose they have a superior social and ethical code but that is normal in any society. The trouble is tha...
9 comments
Read more

Clegg on school vouchers - the evidence

Did Nick Clegg endorse school vouchers or didn't he? Well, the evidence that he did is rather strong. Not only Rachel Sylvester in the Telegraph on 29 October but also self-confessed Clegg fan Jasper Gerard, writing up an “exclusive interview” in the Observer on 21 October, state that he did. Gerard writes, quoting Clegg: "'I want a sense of empowerment on a daily basis for people accessing health care and good education.' Well that's clear. But he differs from free marketeer Tories in that 'having lived in Europe and had children born in hospitals in Europe, they have a far greater sense of equity in health and education. It is not like a supermarket but the patient, pupil or parent has entitlements which the provider of services has to meet.' So according to his 'pupil premium', parents would be given a voucher to spend in their preferred school; but while a flaw in such schemes is often that the savvy middle class pack the best schools, Clegg ...
23 comments
Read more

Time to take stock

I think it is time for our MPs to take stock - to take a good hard look at the situation in which we find ourselves. It is up to them, in particular, for at least three reasons. First, under article 10.5 of the Federal Party constitution, no one can stand for leader unless proposed by at least ten per cent of our MPs. Second, it was a group of our MPs who forced Charles to resign, which under Article 10.2 triggered the leadership election back in the winter of 2005-2006. Third, a good proportion of our MPs proposed Ming, and when other candidates entered the contest, argued in Ming's favour that he would be a "safe pair of hands", and persuaded the membership to choose Ming, though not by an overwhelming majority. In short, a heavy responsibility lies on our MPs. I am just an activist with no real say in all this - just as I had no say in whether Charles ought to go, and had limited information on which to cast my leadership vote (though I had more information than a...
7 comments
Read more