Reevesey's recommended reading

Monday 3 January 2011

Fraser Nelson's Daily Telegraph column: Reeves responds

I was on my way home from Murrayfield ice rink where my team, the Edinburgh Capitals had just been on the receiving end of an eight - nil thrashing when I read Fraser Nelson's tweet;
"Is the coalition becoming a merger? My take in tomorrow's Daily Telegraph"
So, given Chelsea FC could only manage a three - three draw against Aston Villa, then the Edinburgh Capitals got thrashed eight - nil, I was in a foul mood and responded as below to Fraser Nelson;
"No it bloody well isn't, they are two different registered political parties, why oh why are journalists obsessed with this?"
Now, I have eaten and sat down and read Fraser's piece in full again, I will now respond to the main points of his article to be seen in tomorrow's today's Daily Telegraph.

The first part I object to is this line about Nick Clegg's New Year Message;
It was directed not at the country but at his remaining party activists.
How patronising, "remaining party activists", to be perfectly honest the Liberal Democrats have seen a massive surge in our membership figures (16.4% in Scotland alone) and the numbers of people coming forward to help our MPs, MEPs, MSPs and candidates still continues to grow, each and every day.

Well Fraser, the reason it was not directed at the country but at the tens of thousands of Liberal Democrat Members, is because it was intended that way - you can read Nick Clegg's New Year Message yourself.

Nelson then goes on to list just a few of the achievements that the Liberal Democrats secured within the Coalition Government - obviously he is not pleased that 800,000 have been lifted out of paying any income tax at all or that the pupil premium guarantees children from disadvantaged backgrounds will receive more funding through their school years?

The article then goes on to say;
"At least a third of their supporters have defected and they expect to be routed in the May elections. Losing the referendum on changing the voting system to AV would compound the misery."

"No matter how hard he tries to portray his party as the good guys in a two-party coalition, voters are not buying it. This looks, talks and walks like a merger."
Sorry Fraser, a third of our supporters have not defected, on what evidence do you base this particular comment on?

He then goes on to say;
"When the Lib Dems were in coalition with Labour in the Scottish Parliament, they kept their own identity and party structures. In Westminster, though, Cameron seems to have led the two parties into a political blender and flicked the "on" switch. The spin teams are integrated, nearly every department is run jointly, and virtually all the Lib Dem MPs have a government job."

The Party structure has not changed for the Liberal Democrats and nor are there any plans for it to do so - sorry Fraser, another part of your article that is wrong.

When you say virtually all the Lib Dems have a government job, you mean virtually all apart from Mike Crockart MP, Jenny Willott MP, etc etc in fact only 18 of the 57 are on the government payroll - that really is not virtually all have a government job - let us have some honesty here.

I accept there are some PPS roles etc that I have missed, but those jobs are not government paid jobs.

Fraser also says the spin teams are integrated, yes the government aspects do work together such as the Special Advisers but the Liberal Democrats have an independent press team based in Cowley Street, who are not managed by the government - so once again not entirely correct.

The article then drifts towards the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election which has been called after disgraced former Labour MP Phil Woolas was found guilty by two High Court judges of knowingly lying to voters in a last-ditch bid to hold his seat at the General Election.


The article states;
The by-election is dangerous for the Lib Dems because it asks two horribly awkward questions: if you support Cameron's Government, why vote Lib Dem? And if you oppose it, why vote Lib Dem?

I assume from this weirdly worded line that Fraser Nelson has yet to visit the constituency? 

The reason I say this is when I was doing some telephone canvassing there, not one person mentioned either of those points, they mentioned the fact that Labour had lied to them last time round, they are worried about the debts Labour have left behind and also the fact that Labour have gone back on their promise of new health centres for Saddleworth and Shaw & Crompton.

Fraser, I'm sorry but the priorities you have for the voters of Oldham East & Saddleworth seem to be worlds away to those that actually live and work there and I think what they say on January 13th will be more important than what you write.

The article then goes on;


If today's opinion polls were tomorrow's election result, the 57-strong group of Lib Dem MPs would be reduced to a rump of just 13 members
As everyone knows, opinion polls are never perfect indicators of what actually happens in an election.  Since my arrival in Scotland as the Deputy Director of Campaigns the opinion polls and journalists predicted that we would lose the Lib Dem MEP in 2008 and that we would go from 12 to 5 MPS in the general election.
 
George Lyon is an excellent hard working MEP, fighting Scotland's corner in Europe because we didn't lose our MEP and our eleven MPs continue to work hard on behalf of their constituents and three of them are now part of the coalition government - because we lost just one seat at the election, a seat we had held for a few years since the by-election.
 
My point is that opinion polls and journalists predictions must be taken with a pinch of salt.
 
Fraser Nelson summates with this point;
A merger with the Tories is emerging as the best chance most Lib Dem MPs have to keep their seats.
I have never read such nonsense in all my life, I used to respect what Fraser wrote but this silly tripe is as far from reality as flying cars.
 
The two parties are registered with the Electoral Commission as two separate parties for a reason, because that is exactly what they are.  We have separate HQ's because we are separate organisations and Fraser for what it's worth we will continue to remain separate and different forever more.
 
It doesn't matter how many times journalists make up nonsense of splits and mergers and opposition politicians try and woo our members all they do is show Nick Clegg, me and the Lib Dem activists the length and breadth of the UK that they do not understand how the Liberal Democrats work and operate and that they are no nearer to understanding that now than they were when the party was formed.

6 comments:

Adam Bell said...

It's almost as though Nelson is pushing a particular viewpoint and is willing to distort reality to that end. Who'd have thought it?

Anonymous said...

Fraser Nelson is just a bumptious second rater. It's outrageous that people like him get so much of a voice in our political scene.

Munguin said...

I thought the Lib Dems “pledged” (I use that in inverted commas because the Lib Dem notion of a pledge is different from that of all the rest of us) to make the income tax threshold £10,000 but that wont happen right away but by about £700 per year for the lifetime of this five year parliament, yes? I also understand that its is all dependent on economic circumstances of course (that old bug bear that caused Nick to review everything within about a month of the formation of the coalition!). So it is a bit disingenuous of you to say that 800,000 are being lifted out of paying tax as if that is going to happen right away. It wont, as far as I understand, and is dependent on a significant economic rider.


Meanwhile VAT which both the Lib Dems and the Tories said nothing about putting up has rocketed right away to 20%. In addition Tory claims to reduce employer NI and reduce inheritance tax have been shelved.


I heard the Tories claiming the pupil premium as one of their manifesto pledges. In fact I found it on their website here: I thought the Lib Dems “pledged” (I use that in inverted commas because the Lib Dem notion of a pledge is different from that of all the rest of us) to make the income tax threshold £10,000 but that wont happen right away but by about £700 per year for the lifetime of this five year parliament, yes? I also understand that its is all dependent on economic circumstances of course (that old bug bear that caused Nick to review everything within about a month of the formation of the coalition!). So it is a bit disingenuous of you to say that 800,000 are being lifted out of paying tax as if that is going to happen right away. It wont, as far as I understand, and is dependent on a significant economic rider.


Meanwhile VAT which both the Lib Dems and the Tories said nothing about putting up has rocketed right away to 20%. In addition Tory claims to reduce employer NI and reduce inheritance tax have been shelved.


I heard the Tories claiming the pupil premium as one of their manifesto pledges. In fact I found it on their website here:

http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/Schools.aspx

And again here they claim it as a manifesto pledge:

http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2010/10/Premium_to_help_the_poorest_children.aspx

So mixed messages?

Easy to see why people would think you are merging when even Lib Dems like yourself seems unable to distinguish between Tory and Lib Dem policy!

Munguin said...

I’m frankly flabbergasted to hear that Lib Dem membership and activism is doing so well (especially in Scotland) given your pary’s continued slump in the polls to single figures in the UK, Scotland and Wales. You will forgive me once again if I do not take your claims at face value, some published facts would be useful. In the interest of fairness Lib Dem performance in the polls can be viewed at this excellent website: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/

Munguin said...

Incidentally concerning your collapse in the polls: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2928

Steve Cooke said...

Spot on in every regard! I wonder if Fraser Neslon studied more creative writing than journalism at university? He's certainly a convincing fantasist.

Related Posts with Thumbnails