What is it about the Liberal Democrats ?

It is, to say the least, notable that a large proportion of leading members of the Liberal Democrat Party seem to get themselves into hot water over a variety of scandals and problems in their personal lives. The list is remarkable : Paddy Ashdown, party leader up to 1999, was revealed to have had an affair with his secretary (resulting in his being nicknamed, 'Paddy Pants Down'), though it did his position little harm. Charles Kennedy, Ashdown's successor and leader from 1999-2006, resigned when it was revealed he was having treatment for alcoholism. Mark Oaten, one of the leadership contenders after Kennedy's resignation, withdrew when there were allegations he had had an affair with a rent boy. David Laws resigned after only a few weeks as a member of the coalition cabinet in 2010 over alleged MPs' expenses irregularities. Chris Huhne, guilty of perverting the course of justice in 2013 and involved in messy court cases involving his former wife and mistress. Lord Rennard, Party Chief Executive 2003-9 now faces accusations of improper conduct towards several women, as yet merely allegations. Given that the party's leadership cohort is inevitably limited in number, this represents a high proportion. So what is it about Liberal Democrats ? Three theories come to mind : 1. It is part of classical liberal ideology that one should be free to act as one wishes, provided one does no harm to others. Certainly some, though not all, of the above could claim to be folowing this maxim of John Stuart Mill. It also has to be said that most of the problems do not seem to have adversely affected the fortunes of the party, so little harm done there either. So they are merely putting into practice their fundamental beliefs perhaps. 2. Liberal Democrats simply get caught more often. There is no explanation for this phenomenon so it cannot be substatiated, but it is a possibility. 3. Until recently there was no prospect of Liberal Democrats being in power. And now there seems little prospect of them regaining power for the foreseeable future. This means they have too much time on their hands and so inevitably get themselves into mischief. Take your choice. But another thought occurs to me. Nick Clegg has escaped any whiff of 'scandal' at all. Yet it could be argued that he has done more harm to his party than any of the above. His breaking of several pledges and now his risible explanations of his part, or non-part, in the Rennard affair, seem to be wrecking the Lib Dems chances in the Eastleigh by election. We shall see.

kicking into an open goal

I am not an apologist for the Labour Party, but it seems to me that Miliband is shooting at an open goal. All the polls and the public mood suggest he should have an easy task in inspiring voters to abandon both coalition partners and try Labour again. He will have to accept a share of the blame for the recession but, afetr five years, the charge that the government was left with a mess is beginning to weaken. It also seems clear that the issues which will, and should, attract public support are now obvious. What's more, they mostly accord with traditiuonal Labour vaues so there need be no charges of opportunism. They are : 1. Give the electorate a vote on the EU. Labour has always been somewhat sceptical. I am convinced that, provided the 'stay in'campaign can convince the electorate that the EU is not resposnible for the European Convention on Human Rights, their campaign will prevail. This wil shoot the foxes of both UKIP and the Tory Right. If all three main parties, plus UKIP, promise a vote after 2015, it will cease to be an election issue. 2. Taxing the very rich is a no brainer. What Miliband needs is some specific proposals, not vague aspirations. Over 90% of the population will support it. 3. Bearing down on tax avoidance and evasion. Again specific proposals are needed. Naming and shaming will work well, I am sure, but there needs to be new laws closing tax avoidance schemes, if possible international. 4. Accepting the welfare and tax reforms now in train. 5. A huge re-commitment to 'saving' and improving the NHS. 6. Even more redaical proposals for care of the elderly than are now proposed. 7. Accepting tighter immigration and migration controls, but stressing the importance of a diverse society. 8. Do nothing on primary/secondary education - a moratorium on reform and making a virtue of it. Teachers (who vote) want some stability. However, much more radical policies on opening wider access to higher education. Specific proposals needed again. 9. He should look at the Japanese model of financing major intrastructure projects using quanitative easing to finance it. Clearly providing extra liquidity to the banks was a failure. Any new injections of liquidity must go directly into capital expenditure. This will end recession and boost employment. It is an inflationary policy, but we can stand a small rise in prices and the increased interest rates that will result. Low interest rates may have gone on too long. There is huge low interest fatigue among savers - and savers are often voters. Above all, he needs to develop specific proposals now - it is no longer acceptable to have vague aspirations and telling the electorate that specifics will come later. he needs to capture the political agenda now. Every indication says that Labour should not lose the next election. Labour supporters, however, must now be worried that Miliband could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory (remember Kinnock in 1992). Kinnock probably lost because of hubris, Miliband might lose through sheer indecisiveness and lassitude. Of course, all this could not disguise the lack of long term vision within Labour.......but that's another issue.