Legal fees scandal

Personal injury lawyers are under fire today. The Tories have asked some well-aimed parliamentary questions, and discovered that the NHS is paying out a staggering amount of money to meet victims' legal fees in clinical negligence cases. In over 10% of successful claims against the NHS, the lawyers receive more money than the patient, with NHS legal costs adding up to £700m over the past five years.

It's easy to blame this on the lawyers, a profession whose popularity ratings are only marginally higher than Labour MPs and City bankers. But the real cause of this scandal is the lack of any legal aid funding for patients that have suffered from clinical negligence.

If your operation has been botched and you can't afford a lawyer, you have to enter a "no win, no fee" arrangement. Law firms doing "no win, no fee" work end up losing a lot of their cases, and get paid nothing at all. They then have to charge a "success fee" in the cases they actually win (which gets paid by the losing side, ie. the NHS). Supposing the firms lose 50% of their cases, they have to charge double the rest of the time, just to break even. (In fact, the formula is slightly more complicated than this, and takes into account the likelihood of winning each case, but the basic idea still holds.)

The obvious solution is to give legal aid funding to patients who have suffered from clinical negligence. Then, lawyers would get a fixed and fair wage, depending simply on the complexity of the case. If the legal costs clearly outstripped the value of the likely payout, claimants could make an informed choice about whether or not to proceed. The system would arguably be much fairer.

Unfortunately, our gut reaction is exactly the opposite: to cut the legal aid budget, and to feel very smug about wasting less public money on parasite lawyers. The legal aid budget has been slashed, year on year, but rather than save money, it's stopped everyone but the rich from having fair access to the courts. Both claimants and defendants are thrown at the mercy of the casino-style odds game that is the "no win, no fee" system. Populist anti-lawyer rhetoric may make us feel better for a while, but it won't solve the fundamental problems that have led to this latest scandal.

Into the belly of the beast ...

Today, I am in Witney!

A bit of restraint ...

The leader of the Conservative Euro MPs, Giles Chichester, has resigned over a serious error with his expenses.

The leader of our own Euro MPs resigned for making anti-Semitic comments. And then had the cheek to stand for re-election.

I suggest we keep very, very quiet about this story.

The intolerant left: Yasmin Alibhai-Brown goes bonkers

Like all liberals, I think of myself as being on the progressive side of British politics - but you've got to choose your allies carefully. Every once in a while, an article comes along that reminds me that the "progressive" left can be every bit as dangerous as the "conservative" right. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown has an article in the Independent which strikes me as one of the most ill-judged bits of commentary I've ever read - from someone who's allegedly on the same side as I am when it comes to civil liberties, foreign policy and social justice.

Her basic thesis is that the right is on the rise, the left is in freefall, and it'll take another generation for progressive politics to come back. Not only does she manage to completely misread the significance of the Tories' recent successes, but along the way, she comes up with some arguments which border on the offensive:

"The sun now rises on the right and those of us on the other side are left despondent as we anticipate a prolonged winter of discontent. We, who believe in fairness, equality, human rights and universal justice, are of no consequence."

This sort of attitude really does hack me off. Nobody of a conservative bent remotely cares about fairness, equality, human rights and universal justice, do they? I may not agree with people on the centre-right on much, but to say that right-wingers hate human rights and justice is ignorant and simplistic. We don't live in a cartoon world of goodies and baddies. Do my Conservative friends really get up in the morning thinking "Haha, how shall I undermine social justice today?"

From experience, most people who get involved in politics, whatever their political persuasion, do so because they genuinely want to work for the common good. We may disagree about how to create a better Britain - or even what a better Britain would look like - but that's the whole reason for having a political debate in the first place! This sort of attitude, branding one's opponents as haters of fairness and justice, does nothing but promote cynicism towards the political process as a whole.

In Yasmin's world, like in any good cartoon, the normal rules of logic don't apply:

"Local election results show the country lurching right, in some parts even embracing the BNP. Instead of condemning the scum, Britons are instructed to 'understand' why these voters are 'driven' to vote for neo-Nazis. We are simultaneously warned to show no such understanding of young Muslims who are seduced by hate-filled Imams. White resentment of 'foreigners' is no more respectable than Muslim hatred of Westerners. Yet in our unequal world it is."

Please, please, tell me how we're ever supposed to beat the racism of the BNP unless we engage with the people who vote for them? How can we possibly win people back to the political mainstream if we refuse to understand what's made them drift away in the first place? It's bonkers. We help the BNP immensely by the hysterical way we react to them: condemning as "racist" anyone who tries to debate against them; accusing politicians of "pandering to racism" when they try and understand what motivates people to vote BNP. How else, pray, are we supposed to campaign against them?

The biggest problem with this argument, though, is that both halves of it are mutually exclusive. Either you can say that BNP voters and radicalised terrorist sympathisers are both "scum" to be hated and ignored, or you can say they're normal people with legitimate concerns who are exploited by extremists. But you can't have a paragraph that simultaneously condemns attempts to engage with the one group, yet calls for greater understanding of the other!

"The coup was complete when Boris took over our London ..."

Again, it's this breathtaking cynicism towards the whole democratic process! Look, I may not like it any more than you do, Yasmin, but Boris was elected legitimately by the people of London. He didn't march into City Hall with guns and tanks; he won the popular vote. What's the point of having a democratic system in the first place, if you're going to cry foul play the second it produces a result you don't approve of?

I think this is how most dictatorships start out, you know. An initially well-intentioned belief that the people sometimes make the wrong choice, and that they need to be controlled for their own good.

But then Yasmin moves on from cynicism to something far, far worse:

"Almost more depressing is the sight of black and Asian Britons following the wind blowing the Tories to victory. Boris has recruited Afro Caribbean 'leaders' who believe in physical chastisement and smart young Asians who deny the existence of racism and want an end to political correctness. The more old-fashioned Uncle Toms and their female equivalents are now expediently making themselves known to the Tories and right-wing think tanks."

Yasmin is effectively saying "If you come from an ethnic minority, you should vote for a left-of-centre party". I think this borders on outright racism, and it's equally insulting to both ethnic minorities and to white people. Why should your ethnicity have any bearing on how you vote? I'd like to live in the sort of tolerant and neutral Britain where people's ethnicity isn't an issue. The sort of Britain where we make up our mind on how to vote by reading the parties' manifestos and making our minds up, rather than on the basis of our skin colour.

Conservatism, whether you love it or hate it, is an ideology based on economics, on a particular social model, on a particular philosophy. If a person happens to agree with that philosophy, surely they're justified in voting Conservative. Exactly the same goes for Liberal Democrat and Labour voters. There's something very distasteful about putting emotional pressure on someone to vote against their intellectual viewpoint on the basis of their skin colour.

The comment about "following the wind blowing the Tories to victory" is pretty distasteful, too. It's suggesting that people are only voting Tory because it's somehow fashionable; Yasmin can't get her head round the idea that someone might make a positive choice to vote Conservative for reasons of principle. When people vote Lib Dem or Labour, fair play to them, we respect their views; but if they vote Tory, they're apparently doing it for spurious reasons rather than from genuine political belief. That's an undemocratic attitude.

As a Lib Dem, I believe in trusting the voters - and that means respecting them even when they make the "wrong" decision. The correct response to recent Tory successes is not to insult, patronise and emotionally blackmail the voters. It's to accept the people's decision, to work hard, campaign hard, and do our best to win the national debate in the future.

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown is supposed to be from the same end of the political spectrum as I am, but this article makes me feel every bit as far removed from the left as from the right. I may share her views on many of the key issues of the day, but when it comes to fundamental and underlying attitudes, I think she's on a totally different planet. Choose your allies carefully!

Dinner with Dale

Top Tory blogger Iain Dale came to Oxford last night, speaking at a joint event hosted by the Oxford Union and the student Conservatives. I got wind of the invitation about a month ago, and immediately dashed off an email to Ed Waldegrave, the Vice-President of the Union. The slightly quirky debating society usually treats its guest speakers to dinner beforehand, and there are usually half a dozen spaces for the President’s mates ordinary students to come along. I told Ed a load of guff about being a talented and influential Lib Dem blogger; somehow, he bought it, and I got my invite.

When I told my Lib Dem friends that I was going for dinner with Iain Dale, they were slightly underwhelmed. A certain blogger (who shall remain nameless) suggested I slip something in his drink, and I’m not entirely sure he was joking. For my part, I was quite excited. It’s always fascinating to pick the brains of an experienced political commentator, and arguably even more useful if it’s someone you disagree with.

I arrived at the Union at 7pm, and met the other guests, who turned out to be the committee of the student Conservatives, almost in its entirety. I was feeling a little outnumbered. I made small talk for a few minutes, reassured myself that they were real, warm-blooded human beings, took a deep breath, and outed myself as a Liberal Democrat. We made our way up to the Poetry Room – a cosy little annexe to the Union’s library, which had been neatly laid out for dinner – and started on the wine.

Iain Dale turned up around a quarter of an hour late. Apparently, he’d been driving around in circles, trying to find somewhere to put his car. Oxford is, to be fair, a complete nightmare to navigate. It’s a mess of one-way systems, most sat navs don’t have a clue which roads are accessible, and parking spaces are like gold dust.

After a round of hand-shaking and introductions, we sat down and tucked into our starter. The conversation quickly turned to the London mayoral elections, and more specifically, Boris Johnson’s campaign. Most people round the table seemed to feel that Boris was much more intelligent than the buffoon he’s often portrayed as, but that his policy platform wasn’t yet eyecatching enough, and that his campaign hadn’t really stepped into gear.

Iain identified one serious threat to Boris’s campaign: another terrorist attack. Ask most Londoners who they would most like to have in charge, if the capital were attacked, and it probably wouldn’t be Mr Johnson. Ken Livingstone was in charge last time, and held his nerve. Brian Paddick spent much of 7/7 on TV in his police uniform, staying calm and keeping the public informed. It’s a horrible thought, but if there were another attack on British soil, it would seriously sway the vote.

Over main course, the conversation drifted towards Nick Clegg, and his recent comments about being prepared, perhaps, to go into coalition with the Tories. It’s odd how many Lib Dems see it as an act of betrayal to even think about the idea. To my mind, the tribal anti-Tory reaction is extremely unhelpful. I think Clegg’s absolutely right – there’s no particular reason to favour one over the other, and it would be political suicide to indicate a preference.

Iain identified two possible dealbreakers that could sink a blue-orange coalition: Europe and electoral reform. I don’t think a political debate between a Tory and a Lib Dem would be complete without an argument about PR, and that’s exactly what we launched into. Iain thinks it’s undemocratic for a third party to become kingmakers, and to wield disproportionate power. I can’t see how it’s any fairer for a party to have almost unconstrained legislative power on the basis of 35% of the vote.

We nibbled down the last of the fruit salad and ice cream, and headed down to the Union’s beautiful library for a quick photoshoot, and for Iain to sign the Union’s guestbook. Then we headed across to the room where Iain would be speaking. There was a reasonable crowd; nicely mixed between Tories and other interested students. A round of applause as Iain and Ed walked in, and then we began.

Iain started off with his experiences of the selection procedure for parliamentary candidates. He spoke about the different sorts of interviews he’d been to, and the different styles of questioning he’d been subjected to. He also told us that he probably wouldn’t seek selection as a PPC again.

He took a look at the three party leaders in turn, starting with Gordon Brown and the week where it all went wrong. At the start of the Tory conference, Brown went to Iraq. Not only did it look like a stunt to take the spotlight off Cameron, but by taking only broadcast journalists with him, he managed to alienate the newspapers. Shortly after that, he managed to alienate everyone else as well, by cancelling the general election and by giving only one interview: to Andrew Marr.

Iain then turned to the Lib Dems. He claimed that ditching Ming was the right thing to do. In his view, there was a period, about two months before his resignation, where we had almost become an irrelevance. He was generally quite reasonable towards both Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne – he told us that either would have made a good leader for the party, and that we were lucky to have two heavyweights like that in our Shadow Cabinet frontbench team.

(We had a slight argument about the term “Shadow Cabinet” in the library, during the photo session before the talk. Iain apparently thinks that “Shadow Cabinet” is a formal term with a specific meaning, rather than simply a useful way for any opposition party to organise its frontbench. I don’t know where he gets these ideas from …)

Looking at David Cameron, Iain argued that there were supposed to be three stages to the Cameron strategy: an initial “detoxification” process to make the Tories palatable once more, then a long process of “constructing a narrative” and giving people an idea of what they stand for, followed by a much shorter process, in the run-up to the general election, of putting out concrete policy proposals. The stillborn election campaign of 2007 had badly interrupted that process, and the sense of narrative was still not quite there. That would be the main challenge for the Conservatives over the next year and a half.

The talk drew to a close, and Iain opened it up to the audience. Things kicked off with. a question about the relationship between bloggers and the mainstream media. Iain’s answer: they mainly do different things, rather than compete with each other. If he’d wanted to be a journalist by profession, there would have been nothing to stop him. The blog was more of a way for him to get his opinions of his chest. Having said that, bloggers are becoming far more influential and important than they were a couple of years ago; the US TV coverage of the primaries devoted 15-minute slots to blog roundups.

That led into a question about the US elections, to which Iain’s response was that none of the candidates was really a danger to the UK, and that Britain could work with any of the frontrunners. He was still backing McCain, but had been very impressed by Obama. He made one extremely telling comment: Obama is rather like David Cameron, in the sense that he’s got an awful long way without having many actual policies!

There were a number of other questions about the London mayoral election; I won’t go over all the material again. Iain’s opinions didn’t change very much between dinner and the talk!

The Q&A session finished off with a question about the BBC, its role as a public service broadcaster, and allegations of bias by the political parties. Iain argued that some parts of the BBC deserve to be thought of as public services – the list included BBC1 and 2, Radio 4 and 5 – but that other parts of the organisation have no business being in the public sector – Radio 1, as well as BBC3 and 4, came into this category. As far as bias is concerned, Iain asserted that there are most definitely conservative-minded people in prominent positions in the BBC, but that in general, journalists were more likely to be centre-left than centre-right. All parties claim that the BBC is biased against them, and the BBC usually use that as evidence that they’re getting it right; according to Iain, this is a very lazy response to a genuine problem. He singled out the Today Programme for particular criticism, and asked where there were never any credible eurosceptics on there.

That’s where the talk ended. Another loud round of applause, Iain slunk off to retrieve his Audi, and most of the rest of us slunk off to the pub to carry on the argument. A good night, I’d call it.

Hazel Blears - prejudice cuts both ways

I'm not a fan of Hazel Blears. I've always found her smug, patronising, and packed full of nauseating doublethink. She's so irritatingly on-message that I even backed her for the deputy-leadership, as the candidate most likely to damage Labour's standing in the country.

Well, she's excelled herself today. Speaking at the Labour Party conference earlier on, she called Boris Johnson a "fogeyish, bigoted and upper-class twit". A conference hall full of New Labour muppets laughed, and gave her a round of applause.

I'm sure Labour and Lib Dem supporters (and a fair few Tories, I'll bet!) would be horrified to see Boris running Europe's largest city. But how on earth is it acceptable for Hazel Blears to use a class slur against the Tories' mayoral frontrunner?

You can call Boris Johnson a lot of things. He's bumbling. He's incompetent. His rather careless way with words has caused offence - unthinkingly, rather than maliciously, but hurtful nonetheless - to entirely blameless people. And compared to Brian Paddick, he knows very little about policing. These are all completely legitimate reasons to oppose Boris's candidacy. But his social background should be entirely off-limits.

In a fair society, everyone should be judged on their own personal merits and achievements. Nobody chooses their parents or their family, so it's entirely wrong to take their heritage into account. But that cuts both ways. If it's unacceptable to smear someone for having working class parents, it's equally wrong to label somebody a "toff" because their parents happened to be rich.

If Boris had smeared Ken Livingstone by calling him a "working-class twit", we would be up in arms. Ken didn't choose his parents or his background, and they can't be held against him. Hazel Blears would put on her smuggest face, walk up to the nearest camera, and talk about Tory prejudice, bias and bigotry. So how can she attack Boris for being "upper-class", and expect to get away with it? She's guilty of prejudice, pure and simple: bullying someone for circumstances entirely beyond their control, and beyond their choosing.

There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Boris Johnson, but his parentage isn't one of them. And for a Labour MP - a Labour MP - to pour scorn on somebody's upbringing, when the Labour movement has been fighting for over a century to stop children being left behind in society, simply because they were born into under-privileged backgrounds - well, it just beggars belief.

I say this in all seriousness: she should resign, and if she doesn't resign, Gordon Brown should withdraw the whip from her.

The coalition question. Again.

Mark Oaten won't have made himself very popular today. In a very disjointed article in the Times, he argues that a hung parliament now looks likely; that if it happens, the Liberal Democrats should agree to enter a coalition with whichever party is the larger; that we should therefore be prepared to ally with the Conservative Party if necessary; and that the Tories aren't really so different from us anyway.

Nothing derails the Lib Dems more effectively than speculation about a hung parliament. We need a well thought-out, reasonable, and above all, consistent answer. The fact that the question keeps coming up, again and again, shows how badly we usually tackle it. And of all the dreadful attempts, this one by Oaten has to be the worst I've ever seen.

The premise behind the article is shaky to start with - we are not staring a hung parliament in the face. Even taking the figures from the Times' poll on Tuesday, Brown would still have a majority. The last hung parliament was fully a third of a century ago; the one before that was in the year my granny was born. Under Britain's rather eccentric voting system, they come along very rarely, and when they do come, they don't last long. We need to let people know that the idea of a hung parliament isn't credible, and that it only gets so much airtime because the other parties know it gives us a headache.

But just suppose Oaten's right. Brown calls a general election, the vote splits three ways, and any possible combination of Labour, Tory and Lib Dem could form a government. Would we really be right to insist on dealing only with the larger of the other two parties?

The largest party in Parliament clearly deserves to have the first go. However, any grouping with a majority of the seats can legitimately form a government. Talking to either party would be morally acceptable. The guiding factor should be political principles, not numbers. That doesn't mean it would be unthinkable to ally with the Tories - but if we did, it would be because we managed to reach a genuine agreement, rather than because they had a half a dozen MPs more than Labour.

Mark Oaten believes we have plenty of common ground with the Tories. He arrives at this conclusion because "recent votes have seen the Lib Dems walk through the House of Commons lobby with the Tories more often than with Labour in protecting liberal values." Perhaps. But then again, perhaps it's because we're both parties of opposition, in a system where politicians can have a nuanced debate in the chamber, but are forced to make a polar choice in the lobbies.

I know I keep banging on about the importance of the Lib Dems being independent, but it's so crucial, it just can't be overstated. If we give the slightest hint that we're endorsing the Tories over the Labour, we give both of them an open invitation to squeeze us like a floppy yellow sponge. Cameron can say "why vote Lib Dem, when you can vote for the real thing?" Brown can say "if you dislike Cameron (and who doesn't?), Labour are the only choice." Exactly the same process will happen in reverse if we appear to be endorsing Labour.

The only way to get rid of the coalition question is to refuse, point blank, to give any preference to either party. Instead, we have to pledge to sit down with both of them, in the event of a hung parliament, and try our best to agree on a Queen's Speech that would be true to our liberal principles. We have to promise not to enter government, with either party, unless we can agree on a programme of legislation that doesn't betray our manifesto, and where every compromise we make, for the greater good, is explained honestly and openly to the public. That would be the most responsible way to navigate a hung parliament, should it ever occur, and far more effective than some pre-determined strategy based on crude numbers (Oaten) or personal chemistry (Ashdown and Campbell).

Perhaps the best way to turn this back on Labour and the Tories is to point how close together they now are, and argue that they'd do best to form a German-style grand coalition with each other. It's a very cheeky answer. But it's no cheekier than our opponents branding us as opportunistic, for hypothetically making the wrong choice in a non-existent situation.

Mayoral run will wreck Boris’s career

Tomorrow at 10am, if we're lucky, Boris Johnson will finally tell the world whether he wants to be the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London. According to his blog a couple of days ago, it was a definite yes – for about 10 minutes. The article suddenly disappeared from the front page, although it stayed in the archive until this morning. Perhaps he panicked and backed out; perhaps he wanted to tease us, to whet our appetites before the big announcement. Either way, we’ll know tomorrow.

He’s right to think it over carefully – and the armies of Boris fans egging him on would do well to reconsider, too. More so than any other Tory, a bid for Mayor gives Boris a serious dilemma, and could very well ruin his career.

Until now, Boris’s buffoonish streak has been a help. The scatty dress-sense, the souffléed hair, the faintly loopy writing style: it’s given him a cult popularity. It’s also helped him to survive in a harsh political world, and one which hasn’t been desperately friendly to Tories for the past decade. There are parts of Britain where people would rather stick pins in their eyes than vote Conservative – but Boris is a household name across the country, and even if people don’t agree with him, they find him amusing and likeable.

All of that would have to go if Boris ran for Mayor of London. It’s one thing having a loveable nutter livening up our TV screens, but do Londoners want a nutter to get his hands on real power? Boris knows that if he wants to be a credible challenger to Ken, he needs to emerge from the buffoon cocoon, transformed into a serious and professional politician.

There’s no doubt that he could manage it. Under the mass of unkempt blondness, there’s a top-quality brain. But right now, Boris must be asking himself whether or not it’s worth the risk. Because once the disorganised, schoolboy charm is stripped away, what you’re left with is an articulate, principled libertarian Tory. And while I mean that as a sincere compliment to Mr Johnson, I don’t think his politically-diverse fan base would warm to the new image. Libertarian Tories are a welcome part of our political landscape, but they don’t play well on the sofas of the nation on a Friday evening. Boris would very quickly fade, and turn into just another politician.

If he became Mayor of London, of course, it wouldn’t matter. He might have jacked in a popular and carefully-crafted media persona, but in return, he’d hold a position of responsibility and power. That’s a no-brainer for any ambitious MP.

The danger, though, is what would happen if he lost – and that is by far the most likely outcome. In 2000, Ken Livingstone’s personal popularity took him to a decisive victory, despite being an independent. In 2004, as the official Labour candidate, he won hands-down, although Labour had slipped in the polls with the Iraq war fresh in people’s memories. In 2008, Labour will have a clean slate and a clear lead – Ken will take an awful lot of beating, however good the Conservative or Lib Dem candidates are.

So where does that leave Boris in May 2008? A failed candidate for mayor; he’s ditched his irreverent charm, and become just another politician. He’s been condemned as a lightweight by his opponents, had all his gaffes (Liverpool, Papua New Guinea) reprinted in large type, and this time, as a contender for major office, we didn’t give him the benefit of the doubt. He’s sacrificed an awful lot, and gained nothing. It’s a hell of a gamble!

If Boris is serious about frontline politics, his best bet is to work his way quietly up the ranks of the Conservative parliamentary party. He can gradually blend in the hard-headedness that a frontbencher needs, without needing to perform an abrupt, public about-turn. If it still doesn’t work out, then at least he has a long and happy career in media and broadcasting to look forward to. By contrast, running for Mayor of London is madness.

Boris fans should leave the Facebook groups, and take their name off the petitions. “Boris for Mayor” might appeal to you now, but in a year’s time, it’ll have gone sour.

Liberals abuse our language too

Tristan Mills has dug up a fascinating little quotation from the 1950s. Democrat politician Joseph S Clark, then Mayor of Philadelphia, misuses the word “liberal” to mean “one who believes in utilizing the full force of government for the advancement of social, political, and economic justice” – a big-state viewpoint which would unsettle many modern-day British liberals. For Tristan, the word “liberal” has been corrupted from both sides: on the one hand, socialists and statists have tried to claim it for their own; on the other hand, conservatives abuse it as a slur against the left in general.

You don’t even need to go back to 1953 to dig up examples. In his rather underwhelming documentary on anti-Semitism last week, Richard Littlejohn used the term “liberals” to describe the people who marched through London last year with banners praising Hezbollah – that well-known bastion of religious freedom and women’s equality. (Dynamite has a provocative review here.) Earlier on this year, Peter Hitchens wrote that “a modern British liberal will defend to the death your right to agree with him. Disagree, and he will call the police.” There certainly are people like that in Britain, such as the Diversity Officer at Wyre Borough Council, but they sure as heck aren't liberals. Are conservatives trying to smear genuine liberals by associating us with these cretins, or is it an honest case of mistaken identity?

The answer is far simpler – it’s lazy use of English. For right-wing commentators, it’s easy to throw the term “liberal” at progressive thinkers across the spectrum. It saves them the effort of exploring the differences between liberalism, social democracy and socialism. It lets them attack a broad range of opponents at the same time, without having to descend to the level of engaging with their views and providing a well-informed criticism.

But it isn’t just liberals who are the victims of this intellectual laziness. Throughout this article, I’ve used the terms “conservative” and “right-wing” indiscriminately, glossing over all the nuances. The “right” of British politics ranges from moralising traditionalists through to hardcore libertarians, and everything in between. The Conservative Party is the home of both Edward Leigh and Alan Duncan; of both IDS and Ken Clarke. On so many issues, they are poles apart: whether the state should be dominant or constrained; whether morality is a matter or private judgement or public interest. The term “right-wing” can’t possibly do justice to all this variety.

What’s more, I’ve held up Peter Hitchens and Richard Littlejohn as flag-bearers for conservatism. They certainly represent a particular brand of conservatism, but they’re individual commentators with their own views, and they can’t stand for every Tory in the country. Peter Hitchens would raise the age of consent for same-sex couples to 21; something tells me that Iain Dale probably wouldn’t. Just as liberals don’t chant the Guardian’s editorial line in unison, it can’t be fair for us to put the words of the Mail in the mouths all conservatives.

The trouble is not just this sort of laziness, but also the tribalism of UK politics. We’re all in little gangs, with our own logo and colour, and it’s very easy to think of ourselves as being “good” and our political opponents as being generically “bad”. As long as we know that we’re fighting the good fight, we’re not that bothered to know the fine detail of what we’re fighting against. It gives us a sense of comfort; it motivates us to get up and go campaigning; but it isn’t especially healthy for political debate.

Equally unhelpful is the increasing need for political parties to have a short and snappy message. With rolling 24-hour news, and increasingly professional and PR-driven campaigning, political parties have a very short space to get a quick and easy message across. Why get dragged into a balanced and detailed debate, when a lazy generalisation will win far more votes?

Tristan is right to complain about the misuse of “liberalism” to mean almost its exact opposite – but it’s far too simplistic to see this as a right-wing smear against the Lib Dems. It’s symptomatic of a far wider problem with the culture of British politics – a problem which severely threatens the quality of our national debate.

HoodieTV: Local elections in England

Oh dear. This vlog experiment isn't going well, is it? To fail once is excusable, especially when you're ill. To fail twice is certainly pushing it. To fail a third time is unacceptable.

The excuse this time: technical problems. I recorded the vlog, but for some reason the video and the audio are out of sync, and I can't fix it. It also looks as if I'm doing something rather dodgy with my left hand, although I assure you this is merely a cruel trick of the camera! To top it all, I'm out of battery, and I'm out of the will to live, let alone re-record the darn thing.

So here's a transcript of what I would have said:

"Paradoxically, the first thing to become clear from these election results is that there is no clear message for any of the main parties. We’re dealing with a pretty nuanced and complex set of data, and all three parties will be able to spin some positives out of it.

"I'm sure the Conservatives will be celebrating the most. Before this vote, Tory bloggers were saying they’d be happy with 40% projected national vote share, and they’ve exceeded expectations with 41 – in theory, that’s enough for a majority at the next general election. In practice, you can’t just neatly extrapolate general election results from the results for local councils, and the Tories can’t just assume they’re on their way to an easy landslide in a couple of years. Still, they’ve given themselves a very good springboard, and David Cameron’s position can only be more secure now.

"Labour must be relieved to have avoided a total electoral meltdown – but the fact that avoiding a meltdown is seen as an achievement shows how bad things have become. With their leadership still unresolved, it’s hard to place Labour at the moment. It’ll take a few months of Gordon to know where they really stand in public opinion.

"Which brings me onto the Lib Dems, and a worryingly indecisive result. Impressive gains in some places, offset by losses elsewhere. Most upsettingly, we seem to have lost some middle-of-the-road votes to the Tories, whilst picking up disaffected Labour support, in a sort of revolving-door action. At a time when we need to be consolidating, building a core vote, and establishing an identity based on policy and on principles, this doesn’t bode particularly well.

"It isn't a disaster by any means. It certainly isn’t the time for panic, or for drastic and rushed remedies. But over the coming weeks and months, we’re going to have to think long and hard about how to make progress, and how to kick-start the party from here."

HoodieTV: Tories and alcohol

Welcome to HoodieTV, my new series of video blogs. I'll be posting a new episode every Friday afternoon for the next few weeks - if it works well, and has a good response, I'll keep it going as a regular feature.

This week's episode deals with misleading campaigning by the Tories, and the liberal way to tackle alcohol-related crime.

Richard Porter: “Why I defected to the Tories”

Last December, three Lib Dem PPCs defected to the Tories, sending little ripples across the blogosphere. With only a formulaic press release from the Tories, and a brief quotation from each of the runaways, it was hard to understand their reasons for leaving. Now, Richard Porter, one of the defectors, has written an article in Pink News, explaining why he made the switch.

He focuses on the changes that have taken place in both parties. He argues that the Conservatives have “changed their spots”, and these changes are “sincere” and “substantive”. At the same time, the Liberal Democrats have been “stuck firmly in reverse gear”, and are “trying to be all things to all people”.

I’m not convinced. How can Richard Porter, or anyone else, talk about substantive changes? Until we see some detailed policy, it’s impossible to judge. It’s ironic that he accuses the Lib Dems of being all things to all people, at a time when his new party is trying its level best to avoid saying anything weighty, for fear of offending someone.

It’s standard practice, almost a cliché, for defectors to claim that their views have stayed exactly the same, whilst the political landscape has rotated under their feet. Nobody likes to look inconsistent, especially if they’re standing for public office. Porter’s analysis might help smooth his own personal transition, but it isn’t a serious, balanced take on recent events.

Porter is clearly very dissatisfied with Ming Campbell's leadership, but with due respect to him, I think it’s crazy to choose your political party by its leader, rather than its ethos. To Ming's credit, he presents himself as the head of a team, rather than as a cult of the personality. People who join the Lib Dems under Ming will feel equally included when he’s no longer in the job. But the next time a Michael Howard-type is in charge at Central Office, will Richard Porter really feel at home?

What worries me even more, however, is Richard Porter’s approach to the politics of gay rights. He was very involved in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender politics within the Lib Dems, and even wrote up the party’s LGBT “mini-manifesto” for the 2005 election. He has joined the Conservatives because he’s convinced that the days of Tory homophobia are over. But gay equality shouldn’t be an issue of left or right. I was at a student debate last year, where Peter Tatchell was speaking. After the talk, a Conservative friend, who is gay, explained to me how frustrating it is that Tatchell, a left-winger, has become the most recognisable face of LGBT people in Britain. On purely gay issues, my friend can identify with Tatchell – but on almost everything else, they’re miles apart. We’re going down a very dangerous route, if gay and lesbian people are stereotyped as coming from a particular political direction, purely because of their sexuality. Sexuality shouldn't be an issue, any more than right- or left-handedness, so why should it affect somebody's choice of political ideology?

It would upset me a great deal if it turned out that Porter had always been a Conservative at heart, and was just waiting for the party to take a more supportive stance towards gay people, before he filled in his membership form. Much as I disagree with the Tories, I can’t see any contradiction, in principle, between gay rights and conservatism. Conservatism is a political ideology concerned with economics, and with the social model. It doesn’t take a position about homosexuality, either way. If Porter is a Conservative by conviction, he should have been brave enough to join the Tories. He should have been brave enough to say, out loud, that homophobia is not a fundamental part of conservatism, and that Tories who oppose gay rights are misguided. If he really joined the Liberal Democrats, despite us not reflecting his own views, purely because he agreed with our support for gay rights, then he’s let himself down badly. He’s also helped to reinforce stereotypes about LGBT people in politics. And he’s betrayed all of us within the Lib Dems, who mistakenly backed him for Parliament, thinking he was one of us.

I don’t know if Richard Porter was in the wrong party to start with, or if he started off right, and had a sudden change of mind. If it’s the former, he was dishonest to join the Lib Dems in the first place; if it’s the latter, he should come clean about the fact that it’s his political views that have changed, and not ours.

Either way, I’m not particularly impressed.