I have to admit that, while I am tempted to offer Conservatives platitudes about reaping what they sow, I really am a bit uncomfortable about the allegations being made against Ray Lewis.

The fact that they are being made by an Anglican Bishop sets alarm bells going off instantly. But the fact that the woman he is alleged to have ripped off remains a personal friend and in his employ makes it even harder to swallow. There are dark mutterings about sexual misconduct, but significantly no actual allegations being made. He has answered all the questions put to him robustly and straightforwardly. It does all look rather like a bit of a smear, compounded by the standard of the Church’s own record keeping.

When you consider the number of paedophiles it lets operate under its radar, it’s amazing how they seem to think they have chapter and verse on Ray Lewis.

A caveat though: a few weeks ago I sprang to the defence of Caroline Spelman. In light of more recent developments however, I rather wish I hadn’t. So, innocent until proven guilty and all that, but I will suspend my judgement.

I’ve just trawled through Nick Clegg’s speech on localism to the LGA today. A few thoughts:

1. He lets the Tories off too easily (unintentionally I’m sure). He is of course perfectly right to give them a hard time for refusing to even contemplate devolving spending, but the truth is it’s far, far worse than that. To quote Gideon Osborne’s interview in Prospect this month:

But surely this devolution process just means the health and education services are captured once more by the professionals? Not at all, says Osborne. “Accountability will come through payment by results.” This, he says, is a superior approach to the Labour model of targets. “Targets mean you have a big monolithic service and the secretary of state decides how you achieve something—how much time you spend on a task and how many times you do it. This is a different approach, where you say to a private company that is, say, running a prison: we will pay you according to reoffending rates. So we will choose the objective, but they will decide how to achieve it.”

Replacing targets with “payment by results” is an oxymoron. What he means is that he wants to replace the government’s present system of targets by a new system of targets. The fundamental problem with targets - that it creates an incentive to game the system - will remain. Contrast this with Clegg’s definition of the role of central government:

The central state has a vital role – of course.

It must intervene to allocate money on a fair basis, to guarantee equality of access in our schools and hospitals, and to oversee core standards and entitlements.

But once those building blocks are in place, the state must back off.

This is genuine localism. Osborne’s prescription is for more, but different, centralisation. If he and his colleagues are going to insist on uttering such drivel, we have a duty to point and laugh.

2. There is still an LVT-shaped hole in Lib Dem policy. Clegg’s redefinition of local income tax in this speech is actually quite encouraging, in that it is clear that his real enthusiasm is not for replacing council tax with LIT but replacing national income tax with local income tax. I share his enthusiasm.

His problem is that he is extremely unclear about how inverse the current 3:1 national:local tax raising ratio without creating a system that would reward rich areas while penalising poor ones. Indeed he only mentions this dilemma once:

The government needs some leeway to make up the differences between needier and wealthier councils with a grant that varies between areas.

… and doesn’t even allude to the fact that localising business rates will actually make this even more pronounced.

The question is how do you create a clear, transparent way of squaring this circle. The solution, in principle at least, is obvious: create a national tax on wealth and redistribute it on a per capita basis. That means a national system of Land Value Taxation. The alternative is lots of complex formulas which can be manipulated by the government of the day. You couldn’t redistribute a national income tax in this way equitably because, as we all know, a lot of the richest in society don’t actually pay a penny.

You couldn’t introduce a fully fledged LVT system in a single term of office, but we could at least talk about it. As I said before, it is curious that we are so shy about doing this while at the same time so enthusiastic about rolling out a system of national road pricing over a 10 year period.

I’ve written a piece on Our Kingdom about the debate currently bubbling under in reformist circles about whether or not the campaign for fair votes should be abandoned in favour of a “compromise” in the form of the Alternative Vote system. In my article I seek to show how AV is not a compromise but a wholesale surrender, will not be any easier to get introduced than full electoral reform and won’t do what a lot of its supporters think it will do:

I would summarise the push for AV as a call for a lot of pain in exchange for very little gain. Pushing through this reform will mean facing down the combined might of every single minority party, the Conservatives, the media and a large proportion of the Labour Party. Even if the Lib Dem leadership were convinced of this strategy (which I doubt), a lot of the grassroots will be in uproar. It will mean convincing the potential activist base to curb their enthusiasm and compromise on almost everything that they believe in - that tends not to work as much of a motivator. For every supporter of first past the post who might be prepared to compromise on AV there will be a supporter of proportional representation who would not. The whole thing reeks of stalemate and Whitehall farce.

This is a particularly pertinent discussion to be having at the moment because, on Saturday, the Electoral Reform Society will be having the same debate. I should point out in the interest of political balance that not all Labour people think AV is the only way to go; the alternative “compromise” - 3-member STV - which I write favourable things about in my article is going to be advocated on Saturday by one Recess Monkey.

You can read the full article here.

I wrote an article back in December about intellectual property becoming one of the big ideological political footballs in ther 21st century and it got a good reception. Time for an update of some recent trends methinks.

First of all, numerous posters have recently gone up around Islington claiming that, as you can read in Islington Now (PDF), DVD piracy “finances crimes including child trafficking, drug smuggling, gun crime - even terrorism.” If I were an Islington council tax payer I’d be demanding my money back.

Leaving the claims to one side for a moment, why is council and the police devoting so much resources into what is a civil matter? Couldn’t these resources be better allocated elsewhere? This is doing the film industry’s job for them, isn’t it?

Fundamentally though, is there really any evidence that dodgy DVDs fund trafficking? I get the impression that Islington officials have been watching too many 1960s espionage TV series. There is no global criminal organisation that exists to simply do evil things for their own sake. Is it really that complacent for me to suggest that if child trafficking, drug running and illegal arms dealing were such loss-making industries, people wouldn’t do them?

As for terrorism, anyone who has ever sat in a pub or cafe around Chapel Market will know who does the bulk of the illegal DVD selling in Islington: it is Chinese immigrants of presumably dubious legal status. I have to say I’m rather dubious about the claim that the money they make will be going to Al Qaeda or even Kim Il-sung. Is it really so hard to believe that illegal activities might be going to fund… criminals?

Onto other matters, and a return of the Performing Rights Society. The Federation of Small Businesses has been complaining that many of its members have started being harassed by the PRS - something which I reported on here late last year. I can certainly confirm that when the PRS rang my office it was of a distinctly threatening nature.

I can understand why any business which uses music as a marketing tool ought to pay the PRS, but why should TV license fee payers, listeners of commercial radio and individuals who have already paid for the music they want to listen pay twice? In that, I’d include car mechanics and people sitting in an office listening to their personal stereos. This isn’t about whether people should pay for the music they listen to, it’s about why they should be forced to pay twice.

And as for the PRS’ claim that 90% of their members are small traders themselves, that may be true, but you can bet your bottom dollar that those members don’t get 90% of the revenue the PRS raises. Perhaps if they did (but really, why should they?), they might expect a little more sympathy. But of course it is the big music stars who get the lion’s share so let’s not kid ourselves this is about sticking up for the little guy.

Finally, from PRS harrassment to harrassment by the US military. Clive Stafford-Smith wrote an interesting and at times amusing article in the Guardian on Thursday about how the US uses music as a torture weapon, and how the music industry doesn’t seem to care. It’s ironic, isn’t it? The music industry is busy trying to lock up everyone with an illegal download on their iPod yet are quite sanguine about using their intellectual property to hurt people (presumably the US army has a PRS license though, so that’s okay).

What is most interesting is the reaction of the musicians themselves. It should surprise no-one that Napster-slaying and all round dickheads Metallica seem to think it is wonderful (”If the Iraqis aren’t used to freedom, then I’m glad to be part of their exposure,” according to James Hetfield). David Gray at least laments it: “It’s shocking that there isn’t more of an outcry. I’d gladly sign up to a petition that says don’t use my music, but it seems to be missing the point a bit.”

He has a point in that the real issue is music being abused in this way, not whose music. But he can do more than sign a petition - it is surely within his rights to not allow it to be used in this way? If intellectual property rights are worth fighting for at all, surely they should be used in this way? If I owned a gun and left it lying around I would be criminally negligent. Surely it is equally negilgent (morally, if not criminally) of musicians to knowingly allow their music to be used in this way? If musicians aren’t prepared to stand up for their rights, why should we respect them?

An interesting link made by Martin “son of Richard” Wainwright between the current Obama bandwagon and the Red Guard of the 60s:

Jo Grimond in particular enjoyed intellectual experiments and didn’t mind the excesses of youth. He sent Young Libs out all over the world to report back to him on Yugoslavian workers’ cooperatives, black power in the US and the first stirrings of free thinking behind the iron curtain.

There was also a much more significant model: John Kennedy. And that brings this period of history up to date and gives its experiences and lessons a relevance. Barack Obama appears to have captured a similar mood. His youthful volunteers are streaming out across the States at the moment, as confident as the YLs were that they can make a difference.

Article here.

I’ve written a piece on Our Kingdom about the government’s meaningless new party funding proposals:

Hencke asserts that “The Conservatives have been blocked from targeting Labour marginals with spending that can run to tens of thousands of pounds a year by legislation which will limit all parties’ candidates to spending a maximum of £12,000 from October until the general election.” Straw’s proposals do nothing of the sort. What they do is return us to the pre-2000 situation whereby party spending limits are only “triggered” when a candidate is formally adopted by their party or declares themselves (inadvertently or otherwise).

Full article here.

I still haven’t made up my mind as to whether David Davis’ resignation is some sort of mad genius or just plain mad and I suspect this debate will rage for years to come. Over the weekend, my respect for him has increased as it became clear that part of the reason he did it was out of a fear that the Tory opposition to internment without charge was lukewarm at best and that Cameron was powerless to stop his backbenchers from rebelling as the general election loomed closer (as I’ve said so many times before, Cameron does not lead the Conservatives as much as chair their internal debates). The fact that this is a stand against his own party as much as it is one in opposition to Labour makes it a noble gesture indeed.

But there is a danger that, with even the smallest of windmills refusing to put up a fight, Davis may start to look less like a Don Quixote figure and more like Ozymandias. He’s done a terrific job as scaring off the opposition - Brown, Murdoch, Kelvin Mackenzie - but it will be a Pyrrhic victory if his only opponents are the OMLRP, a former beauty queen and John “set aboot you” Smeaton.

The question is, what should us liberal-minded folk do? We didn’t pick this fight or choose Davis to be our champion, but can we really afford to sit back and watch? I’ve lost count of the number of blog posts and facebook groups I’ve skimmed past denouncing Davis for being a hypocrite on the issue of civil liberties. That may be so, but what is more hypocritical? A hang ‘em, flog ‘em politician standing up for fundamental civil liberties or a smart arse who claims to care about the drip-drip erosion of our rights while sitting on the fence because the one person taking a stand doesn’t pass a “purity” test. Some of the attacks are even worse and appear to be partisan Labour attacks masquerading as crocodile tears for those very rights that Labour has been spending its time trashing. If Stonewall really have been actively briefing against Davis, they will have lost all credibility with me. If Stonewall is allowed to question Davis’ commitment to civil liberties on the basis of his commitment to gay rights, aren’t we free to question Stonewall’s commitment to civil liberties outside of the comparatively narrow interests of lesbians and gay men? I didn’t ask for this to become some kind of libertarian pissing contest, but there are plenty of people out there who want it to become precisely that. If they succeed, Brown, Murdoch and the other Forces of Darkness will have had a meaningful victory indeed, regardless of the vote in Haltemprice and Howden.

To say “only Nixon could go to China” is a cliche, but cliche’s have the irritating tendency to be true. There is a real question mark over whether there is actually a fight here to be fought, but refusing to fight it out of some sniffiness about Davis’ principles would be despicable.

A very honest and perspicacious article by Giles Fraser in the Guardian on Monday about how organised religion has unedifyingly thrown itself out of the temple, or rather registry office. It puts new light on things like Islington’s Registra-Martyr.

It all feels too much like the parable of the prodigal son. You sometimes get the impression that the “great” religions are sorely in need of a big hug. Sadly though, any such attempts normally result in a rather sharp jab in the ribs.

But it also raises the question of why the government was so willing to go along with such blatant silliness. It is almost as if it has been tacitly accepted that organised religion owns the intellectual property of the Bible and religious paraphenalia and that we mere morals only have access to it with the bishops’ permission. There is plenty in the Bible for an atheist or humanist and even (gasp!) homosexuals to find of intellectual and moral value. Does the Church really consider us all so damned that the word of their precious book would be wasted on us? Clearly so.

Actually, contrary to what the above headline might imply (I couldn’t resist), I’m actually quite sanguine about the Irish “no” vote on Thursday. I’m not at all convinced that Europe has been “saved” by the Irish or that the Lisbon Treaty was anything other than a moderate and sensible reform, but this latest chapter in EU reform has been farcical from beginning to end and I pray dearly that it will soon be over.

The fundamental problem is that, since the mid-eighties we have had one EU reforming treaty after another. As soon as one is out of the way, and often before, work on another has begun. It has been a case of not so much salami slice politics as cheese slab politics. It has alienated large numbers of pro-EU people and switched the vast majority of the European public off completely.

The result is a paradox whereby a minority of hardcore Euro-sceptics have been able to hold sway. They have no popular support - look at iwantareferendum’s futile attempt to get even 46,000 supporters after spending millions of pounds over the past year. Yet when referendums are held in the most pro-EU countries - France, the Netherlands, Ireland - the “nos” hold sway. This isn’t opposition; this is alienation.

The solution then is obvious: have a moratorium on further EU reform, at least on anything that would require a treaty change, for at least a decade. That isn’t to say that a lot of the good things in the constitution couldn’t still go ahead. We could still have Council meetings in public. We could still give the Parliament a more central role in selecting the President. We could still operate the “yellow card” system and ensure that national parliaments are sent legislation in a more timely manner. We could still operate the system of Citizen’s Initiative. I struggle to believe that even the most swivel-eyed of Eurosceptic would oppose any of that (go on, surprise me…), and it would a lot to calm tensions.

Is there really anything this treaty would have achieved that a bit of self-restraint wouldn’t replicate? One of the main reasons why I supported the Constitution was that it would end France’s veto on the CAP, but the truth of the matter is there is nothing to stop France from voluntarily giving this up. Except, of course, the French. Frankly, if they were willing to give up the veto, they should be prepared to consider the fact that agribusiness subsidies no longer have a place in a planet which is currently suffering from mass starvation. Either way, if reforms are necessary then which ones will become apparent from attempting to implement the status quo rather than insisting that at all times EU governance must be perfect both in practice and in theory.

What we must oppose, strongly, is the appalling idea of a multi-speed Europe in which “Perfidious Ireland” is shut out of Club Class. Oddly, I find that my villain of the week is not Declan Ganley (back in Westminster to answer to his paymasters before the dust has even begun to settle in Dublin), but Will Hutton. What a vile piece of steaming crap he belched forth in the Observer this Sunday. Rather than make a single argument as to why the Constitution/Reform Treaty is so necessary, he actually called for Ireland to be given one last chance to get the “right” answer before being kicked out of the EU! If that is how Club Europe is to treat its members in future, send me my 51st State application form in the post tomorrow.

Let’s not forget that Ireland has steered every other treaty through a referendum up until Nice with nary a problem. According to Hutton’s logic, that is only explainable if you work on the basis that Amsterdam, Maastricht and the Single European Act were the sort of treaties that “Hitler and Mussolini” would approve of. Shouldn’t we consider the fact that Ireland is having increasing problems getting such treaties past its public as a warning sign?

If a canary drops dead at the bottom of a mineshaft, you don’t insist the miners should keep digging on the basis that it is only very little compared to the strapping lads working on the coal seam. You get them out of there as quickly as possible. The reflexive reaction of too many pro-Europeans to want to shoot the messengers just demonstrates why a cooling off period is so necessary. Instead of continuing to bash their collective heads into a brick wall, it is time the leaders of the EU got on with the job of governing.

What funny games appear to be going on in Westminster at the moment. First, Labour and the DUP redefine porkbarreling for the UK context (deny everything, smirk, smirk), then David Davis resigns - with Clegg’s backing.

In terms of the latter, I’m just confused by the whole business. It is a little moot about whether Clegg should have agreed to not field a candidate against the Tories or not on the basis that it is hard to see how Davis would have resigned if he hadn’t. I don’t think it makes the Lib Dems look particularly bad; by contrast it is the Tories who appear to be in danger of haemorrhaging over this.

But if I were Gordon Brown I wouldn’t even consider fielding a candidate. Davis is gaming the system - attempting to magic a mandate against 42 days out of a by-election. The only grounds on which he will be able to claim such a mandate is if Brown is foolish enough to fall for the trick. And of course Brown isn’t that stupid is he?

Is he?

It may simply be that Davis has calculated that Brown has now so completely lost it that he would fall for something like this. For myself, I’m not so confident.

With the BNP refusing to field a candidate and UKIP indicating they might not either, this could be the OMRLP’s defining moment. In such a situation, I have to admit I would be sorely tempted to make the trip up to Howden. It would be sweet revenge on the Tories getting Howling Laud Hope elected in exchange for Boris Johnson. LOOK AT HIS FUNNEEE HAT!!! LOL!!!!