The more eagle-eyed among you may have spotted that I’ve replaced my Politigg buttons with LibDig buttons. Built by LibDem codebodger Ryan Cullen, LibDig has the potential, in my opinion anyway, to be the biggest thing to happen to the Lib Dem Blogosphere since LibDemBlogs (which Ryan also built).

The beauty of LibDemBlogs, unlike anything else out there, is it’s democracy. Anyone who is a party member can have their feed included in the aggregator and as such unknowns can become must reads literally over a couple of weeks. The downside is that it does not seperate the wheat from the chaff, or perhaps somewhat more positively, of highlighting the best of the Lib Dem blogs. That function has been done by Stephen Tall with his weekly Golden Dozen, but even that has its disadvantages as Stephen himself has ruminated about on more than one occasion. It only highlights the most read, which is not neccessarily the best (as someone who has gamed the system simply by using “EXCLUSIVE” in a blog post on more than one occasion, I can testify to that). LibDigs is designed to complement LibDemBlogs rather than replace it by making it easier to find the “best” but in an equally democratic way. I hope that if it proves to be a success, Stephen will start using it for the basis of his five “recommended” posts.

So LibDig is about lauding the best of the Lib Dem blogosphere, but fundamentally it can also be used to recommend anything out there on the internet (Ryan has already built a bookmarklet to make this as simple as possible). And because its membership is restricted to party members (which - another plus - means you only need to use your login.libdems.org.uk login and don’t need to go through yet another registration process), what that means is that over time it can be used to build up a map of what Lib Dems consider to be the best of the internet.

For me, and I suspect many others, that is useful because I’m always looking for a good way to both find out what’s out there and to put things out myself. All social bookmarking websites are only as useful as who is using them. The problem I have with Digg is that its pool is so enormous I don’t get a look in. The problem with Politigg is that it is predominently used by rightwingers with their requisite obsessions about the beastliness of Gordon Brown, the EU and English Parliaments. I’d rather see what people with a similar political outlook to me consider to be important.

So thanks again to Ryan for building it, and I hope as many people as possible out there will begin bookmarking with it and adding LibDig buttons to their blogs (it has already been integrated with LibDemBlogs, LibDemVoice and FlockTogether which should give it a good kickstart). I’m just a little disappointed he didn’t use my suggestion of having a special section about the US Presidential Race called LibDigOnAPig.

… I’ve clearly offended Stephen Glenn which I’m truly sorry for as it was meant in a light-hearted way and I wasn’t singling him out by any means. I set up my little Facebook group (which I haven’t invited anyone to join as it was just a mini-rant really) to highlight that some blogger’s content is being obscured by obtrusive headers which get in the way of the content.

If that is what people want, then fine, but I do find it tiresome to click on a link to a potentially interesting article to be greeted by a massive header which doesn’t have anything to do with why I’m visiting the website.

I don’t accept the argument that other bloggers “do not have the size adjustment facilities” since Paintshop is available on every copy of Windows and there are plenty of free resources available such as Gimp (hat tip: Himmelgarten Cafe). Nor do I accept the argument that because you can’t adjust the size of your images your readers should just lump it. But, as a peace offering, here is Stephen’s header adjusted so that it is 200 pixels high (click for full image):

There really is only one response to this story about Sarah Palin trying to get Polar Bears’ endangered species status declassified…

Claims that Lembit will be appearing on the next Celebrity Big Brother have now been vigourously denied. But there remain two problems.

The first thing is that the story “rang” true. CBB is pretty much the only celebrity reality TV show Lembit hasn’t appeared on. He’s made much out of his appearances on I’m a Celebrity and Celebrity Apprentice*. And he has of course appeared on a myriad of other chat and panel shows. By contrast, no-one would have believed the story about Ros Scott or indeed pretty much any other MP. That is an image problem which Lembit himself has cultivated. So while it may indeed be “mischief” to invent stories such as this, it is only planting a seed in well cultivated soil.

The second thing is the length of time it took to rebut the story. Indeed, at the time of writing (1.20pm) the denial has yet to appear on his official website. No bloggers were briefed to start the rebuttal process. Why the length of time? Could it be that his campaign team weren’t completely sure the story wasn’t true and wasted the morning trying to track down the candidate? This suggests that a) Team Lembit perceive the same image problem that the rest of us do and b) either the campaigners or the candidate is not really concentrating on the fight.

Issuing a denial on a website is a five minute job. Is it really too much to expect Lembit to sort this out?

UPDATE: * Not forgetting Big Brother’s Little Brother of course**.

** Oops. Didn’t mention the All Star Talent Show, All-Star Mr and Mrs, Celebrity Weakest Link and Celebrity Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.

As you will no doubt have read by now, the Sun is claiming that Lembit Opik has agreed to take part in 2009’s Celebrity Big Brother. Thus far, Team Lembit have issued no denial, suggesting it is either true or they are in complete disarray.

A thought though occurs: assuming CBB starts at around the same time as it did in 2007, Lembit’s participation would prevent him from taking part in either his first or second Federal Executive meeting (so much for that much-vaunted high attendence record). I find it awfully hard to believe that intense pressure will not be brought to bear to prevent him from doing that. By contrast, if he doesn’t get elected, then who will be able to prevent him from taking part?

I’m sure Lembit has thought that one through. So a thought occurs: is the choice he is offering us that either he will get elected, knuckle down and take his presidency seriously or he will continue going down the path of establishing himself as a celeb TV fixture. So people are being offered the Hobson’s Choice of either electing him or having him make the party look ridiculous. In other contexts, that looks rather a lot like blackmail.

In some ways though, he is doing us a favour. By raising the stakes in this way he is dramatising a choice the Lib Dems have to make: do you want to be taken seriously or be dismissed as wacky eccentrics? A decisive Ros Scott victory will send a signal that the party is raising its game.

I’ve set up the following new pledge on Pledgebank:

I will buy the Jewel of Medina by Sherry Jones but only if 20 other freedom of speech supporters will do the same.

Should speak for itself. If you don’t know why, see this article.

You can also join Bridget Fox’s Facebook group by going here.

Just what is it about Tories and “families”? I for one recognise that having “family friendly” policies is both desirable and important but while Labour take that as a green light for interference, the Tories become obsessed with moralising. And interfering.

So it is that while David Willets is claiming that family breakdown is due to women becoming too big for their boots (er, the Bridget Jones generation was like 10 years ago), while Michael Gove goes one step beyond.

I don’t have a problem with increasing the number of health visitors per se (although I do have a big problem with yet another national politician seeking to micro-manage the NHS yet again), but what on earth is all this stuff about offering “counselling to couples about to get married”?

Apparently “people should not have to feel they were on their own when building a relationship” - er, excuse me but while polyamory is a perfectly valid lifestyle choice, I’m quite happen being “on our own” in my personal relationship thank you very much. I don’t need a state-sponsored person from a voluntary organisation on hand to proffer advice. Sheesh!

Who walks around saying “if only there was a third person in our marriage” (apart from Prince Charles of course)? If society really has collapsed to such an extent that people lack anything resembling a support structure via friends and family, we really do have much more fundamental problems than are being indicated here. If it hasn’t, then it is a non-issue. Which is it?

This sounds distinctly like one of those things like anti-social behaviour 12 years ago - an issue you never knew existed which politicians magic out of the air to have something to say but which soon becomes an “epidemic” and the subject of a moral panic. If you get to the point of getting married and have no idea of what you are letting yourself in for, a couple of counselling sessions are unlikely to help you. By contrast, if you think you need counselling you probably don’t - the path to wisdom is found acknowledging ignorance and all that. The voluntary sector already provides this sort of hand holding and there appears to be little evidence that, at this time of insecurity, this is even a real problem let alone a priority, so why bang on about it now?

What next? Hen and stag weekend planning services on the state? Free cake for every couple? An official to intervene if the father of the bride is not able to give her away for any reason (subject to a waiting list - with targets!)? If Gove doesn’t see this is an area for the state to back off, there’s no helping him.

But it does tell you all you need to know about the Tories’ attitude to love: one part financial arrangement, one part psychological disorder. That’s Eton for you.

David Cameron has announced his party will work with the government to tackle the continuing financial turbulence, whatever that means. Nick Clegg has apparently said much the same.

But is this really the correct response? There are certain instances - for example when the country is physically under threat at a time of war - when suspending party politics may be a good idea. But outside of such extreme cases, when has cross-party co-operation ever lead to good policy?

In the immediate aftermath of 7/7 and 9/11, opposition parties agreed to “work with the government” - the result has been a massive curtailment of civil liberties which continues unabated. Even though the opposition parties quickly regained their senses and resumed scrutiny of legislation relatively quickly, the agenda of detention without charge, identity cards and even internment was set. 2005’s “compromise” of setting detention without charge at 28 days was in many ways a tactical defeat on the part of civil libertarians.

Rolling further back, we have legislation such as the Dangerous Dogs Act - initiated due to a nation-wide panic. This is widely cited as a brilliant example of how badly Parliament can get things wrong, yet isn’t the ground being laid for similar poor groupthink?

It strikes me there is a massive ideological debate to be having at the moment. Outside of Parliament, the Keynsians are having a resurgence. But with all three parties signed up to a monetarist agenda and the drawbridge being self-consciously drawn up, will they even be heard? Regardless of the rights and wrongs of this or that economic society, surely at a time of FAIL we should be encouraging debate in an open society not battening down the hatches? It’s also pretty meaningless with Labour holding a majority in the Commons. Sure, the other parties have some influence in the Lords but it is distinctly limited.

So I’m afraid to say I’m quite, quite wary of this latest development. It is time for a massive ideological punch up in the Houses of Parliament not a group hug. The fact that this is the automatic reaction to every reaction suggests that our political system itself is broken in a way that isn’t the case even in the US.

Come on Nick, this is your big chance: don’t throw it away because of a desire to be establishment!

Thanks to those who have taken part in my film poll. Currently, it is looking like a four way split between Apocalypse Now, Chinatown, Some Like it Hot and the Seven Samurai. Keep them coming folks!

 Loading ...

By rights, it should have been. The Tories are in a total mess over the economy. I have to admit, I held my peace on Sunday over this idea about having the Bank of England step in when banks get in trouble. It sounded pretty much identical to what the government is doing now, only with even less oversight, but I felt that I must have been missing something obvious. 36 hours of listening to the empty soundbites emanating from the mouths of Cameron and Osborne and I can safely say it is every bit as vacuous a policy as I thought it was.

Ditto this idea for an Office for Budget Responsibility. We live in an era where the government ignores its own watchdog regarding compensating the people caught up in the Equitable Life scandal; why should they worry about another quango wagging its finger at it?

This issue also threatens to divide the party. Hardliners are unlikely to take this lying down. At a stroke, Osborne has directly contradicted two of the main principles behind Dan Hannan and Douglas Carswell’s much vaunted “plan” - specifically:

* Devolving power to the lowest practicable level
* Replacing the quango state with genuine democracy

Quangos are now the panacea for everything while localism has been completely abandoned. As Carswell and Hannan like to remind people, they speak for a growing number of Tories these days, Tories who thought all that stuff about Cameron representing a new kind of Conservativism actually meant something. All that has been trashed now.

I actually got it wrong yesterday. I assumed that the Tories would underwrite a council tax freeze if inflation was running at 4-5%. Inflation may well be at that point if the Tories seize power at the next election (I hope not, but a massive interest rate cut now looks likely), yet Osborne only committed himself to a 2.5% freeze and even that was contingent on local authorities making cuts in their own public spending. So he isn’t willing to commit to public spending cuts at a national level but he is willing to impose them on perhaps the most efficient arm of the state, local government. Clue, anyone?

But perhaps the greatest indictment of the Tories on Monday was the video below. Highly reminiscent of Spinal Tap (note the shots of people sleeping during the speech - approx 1 min into the video), Osborne and Cameron manage to come across as feckless amateurs who are treating the whole thing like a jolly lark:

Seriously. Does anyone watch that video and not think “novices”?

See also: Sara Bedford, Jackie Ashley.