If I weren't laughing, I'd be crying

There must still be an element if innocence left in my bones - that I can still be shocked by the bare-faced effrontery of a politician like Danny Alexander, LibDem Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

I’m still honestly shocked as he advocates (as a Liberal Democrat - the party they say that is the radical progressive party) forcing long-term unemployed people to pick up litter, paint schools or do public gardening. And then trying to argue these aren’t punishments - but ‘sanctions.’ No, no, no Mr Alexander - you can’t get away with that. The long-term unemployed will see these as punishments. And most of the public will too; the only difference here is that the public will divide into two groups - those that approve of the punishments and those that don’t. But punishments they are.

But it’s about teaching the work habit (they say). Then let’s find people work which teaches skills and knowledge. No doubt it’s easy jumping out of bed when you’re Chief Secretary to the Treasury (or a millionaire like most of his colleagues); what does he know about getting out of bed to get his hands dirty? (Being a press officer for Tourism doesn’t count.)

And there’s another aspect equally worrying. Don’t we have people who are paid to do these jobs? What is to happen to these workers - are they to lose their work because of the forced work-parties? Alexander couldn’t guarantee, in an interview, that none of enforced labour would be replacing paid workers . . . and he and his cronies won’t be able to either. They’ll see the headlines now when the scheme falls apart, so best make no guarantees.

What a shabby mob. We’d expect this from some of the hard-line Tories, but from the LibDems we don’t. Or at least we wouldn’t have; but we’re fast coming to know better. A recent poll had the LibDems as low as 9 per cent; bit of a blip, but here’s hoping it becomes more the norm.

Interesting times, interesting polls, and Ed safe from Warsi

Two down, one to go. We wait to hear from Osborne and Cameron; in the meantime Ed M begins his work while he (and we) wait to hear about his shadow cabinet. And polls are interesting.

Recent polls show a big drop in LibDem support and Tories and Labour neck and neck. Some put Conservatives slightly ahead, others put Labour slightly ahead. There haven’t been dramatic Conference Bounces this year; we’ll have to see if the Conservative vote follows this pattern.

Ed must capture the goodwill in the Party and move onwards. He must quickly get some quick answers to some often repeated Tory claims. Many people in the country are failing to support Labour because they hold us responsible for the UK debt; it’s easy to understand why. The Tories keep telling them we’re responsible for it. ‘Say something often enough and it becomes true’ a cynical person might say.

The Tories have several add-ons too . . . ‘We have the biggest debt of the G20’, ‘We’re like Greece’, ‘Look at Spain and Ireland’, ‘Look how Canada got itself out of debt with budget cuts’. We must have media friendly answers to these, and use them loudly and often.

Speaking of loud . . . I caught part of Baroness Warsi’s Conservative address. At one of her climax points she finished with ‘Ed Milliband - you’re no friend of mine.’ He must be breathing a sigh of relief. And Ms Warsi, I don’t personally know anybody who’d want you and your squawking clap-trap as a friend.

What's Clegg communicating?

There’s much talk about Nicko and his confidence. He appears confident, but I’ve been listening carefully to him.

I’m reminded of a theory Lewis Carroll puts in The Hunting of the Snark; the Bellman (who is hunting the snark) works on the principle that whatever you say three times must be true. Today Nicko was constantly talking of the complex tax system ‘left by Gordon Brown.’ Our tax system has always been complicated, but ‘what the hell’, Nicko must be thinking ‘we’ll just blame Gordon and if I repeat it often enough the public will believe me.’

‘Learned lines’ are always so obvious when politicians put them in; it’s disturbing they think we’re so daft.

It’s also informative to listen to Nicko’s voice. Far from giving us great confidence he speaks incredibly quickly sometimes . . . possibly worried that we’ll stop listening? And he gulps for air, a sign of his discomfort. And listen to him move into a high whining tone when answering tough questions.

He knows he’s made several U turns on election promises, and he senses many can see it. He’s not as confident as he seems.

On the Bellman principle (see above) I keep hearing the word ‘broken’. Again, if it’s repeated often enough we believe it. Cameron first introduced the term ‘broken’ to speak of society; it’s an incredibly insulting way to speak of whole groups of UK citizens. But no doubt it looks OK from where Cameron and his living-in-the-1950s colleagues reside. But now I hear from the LibDems ‘broken politics’ (referring to the old way, not the coalition I hasten to add.)

What next? Broken finances, broken taxes, broken NHS - I hear them coming. Hopefully, broken ConDem - we wait and see.

The ConDem Hollow Men

While Slasher Cameron is on holiday George Osborne and Nick Clegg are on the charm offensive.

The cartoonists are having a field day with Clegg - a short-trousered school-boy sitting at his Daddie’s big desk, a budgie in a cage . . . Aren’t you reminded of the Spitting Image puppets of David Steele and David Owen . . . (If you haven’t seen them - look them up, it’ll be time well spent.) Self-serving Clegg deserves all the vitriolic ridicule that comes his way.

The joint ConDem messages from Clegg and Osborne are interesting in as much as they have so little substance.

Clegg is desperate to convince us that Society will be so much better after the ConDem financial butchery. He offers us the comfort that the cuts in the economic review aren’t just for this year but for five years . . . The fear that I find around me in many different sectors is not just short term then? To shift the metaphor - the sword of Damocles will be there, but swinging for at least five years. Some comfort!

Osborne’s arguments are just as hollow. He is following Cameron’s lead and still uttering promises with no back up, and policies which face both ways. He says that a fairer society will come from their health and education reforms; but omits to say how this will come about. He wants all young people to be given equal access to education - but seems unaware that the number of young people with good grades unable to get into university is rising.

He states that their welfare reforms with get people out of the trap of poverty and into work; but he declines to explain how the changes are to be afforded or how these people will get into work when employment starts to rise. Osborne hopes that the private sector will pick up many of the public sector jobs being lost; they’ll do this by reducing wages and increasing profits. Does Mr We’re-All-In-This-Together Osborne realise who’ll suffer in this one?

But then, I suppose, the ConDems can change the meanings of Equal and Fair; to change the language to fit the policies may be a cost effective way of being radical.

Cable can float it - but will it sink?

Vince Cable has floated the possibility of the ‘graduate tax’; that people who have obtained degrees will pay a higher rate of tax in order to repay the cost of their tuition.

During the course of yesterday, and in a series of interviews, the policy seemed to develop . . . That there might be an eventual cap on the total amount paid . . . That the money might be ring-fenced by HMRC to go back into HE. But Cable and his colleagues, in the main, refused to answer any seriously probing questions on the basis that we ‘don’t want to preempt any of the findings of the review into HE funding.’ (Other questions included ‘What happens to graduates who leave the UK?’ and ‘What about students who come from EU Member States?’)

Implicit in this proposal is the principle of the Treasury ring-fencing money - that is, the extra graduate tax income must go straight back to HE funding. This is a principle the Treasury avoids like the plague - if they start it for one department, the pressure is on to do it for others . . .

If Cable and his government colleagues aren’t prepared to answer questions, why trumpet the policy? What we have is another half-baked idea from this present coalition government. So why rush forwards with a plan so ill thought-through?

A lot has to do with where Cable is coming from.

Tony Blair introduced the Student Loan repayment system because his government vastly expanded the number of students going into HE. The cost of this education had to be paid for. In opposition the LibDems took the comfortable position of saying they would abolish tuition fees . . . safe in the knowledge that they would never be in a position to implement it. But now they find themselves tied into a Government that is likely to agree to a removal of a cap on fees - almost the opposite of their chosen position.

The LibDems gained great support from student rich constituencies in the General Election. They calculated this . . . and sadly many student fell for the cynical (if effective) ploy. LibDem MPs now find themselves in a potentially difficult position. Abstentions may have been made available, but they’re not face-saving enough. Cable - and in generous moments I have to feel sorry for the guy - finds himself in the position of having to square a circle.

Since I used to teach maths I can tell you that you can’t square a circle . . . which is a regular polygon with an infinite number of straight sides - a square having four. But you probably already knew that.