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.

Conservative MP Philip Hammond insults mentally ill with flippant remarks on suicides

So yet again another Conservative MP hits the news for making flippant remarks.

Photo: Getty Images

This time it is Philip Hammond MP who during an interview, suggested that the train service he used from Surrey to London was:

"pretty reliable, unless somebody jumps off the platform at Wimbledon, which happens with monotonous regularity."

In the Daily Telegraph, Dr Peter Byrne, from The Royal College of Psychiatrists, said:

"There was very little mention of mental health in the Government spending review and it is a pity to hear these kinds of views come through in such ill-considered remarks.

"There is nothing inconsiderate or amusing about people taking their own lives."

I think the attack on Philip Hammond should actually come from closer to home though.

Only in June this year one of Philip Hammond's Conservative colleagues, David Ruffley MP jumped in front of a train at Victoria Station, thankfully he survived and is now back at work.

Thank goodness for Ruffley that he wasn't at Wimbledon Station otherwise he would not have got any sympathy from Hammond, just a whinge about the delay he had caused.

Seriously, MPs and others need to think clearly before they open their mouth and make flippant comments - or as my Mum used to say - engage brain before putting mouth into gear.

Andrew Marr on bloggers - socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy, bald

Now, I am not Andrew Marr's biggest fan, I personally think he is one of the group of journalists who think that they are are more important than many of their guests and who treat politicians with no respect whatsoever and just constantly talk over them instead of asking a question and then letting the guest answer it.

However, I do think his rant against bloggers is somewhat over the top.

Andrew Marr, speaking at a Cheltenham Literature Festival audience, said:

"Most citizen journalism strikes me as nothing to do with journalism at all,"

He then, once warmed up, went on;

A lot of bloggers seem to be socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy, bald, cauliflower-nosed, young men sitting in their mother's basements and ranting. They are very angry people.

OK – the country is full of very angry people. Many of us are angry people at times. Some of us are angry and drunk. But the so-called citizen journalism is the spewings and rantings of very drunk people late at night.

As a blogger, I take exception at Marr's comments - I have never claimed to be a journalist nor do I state my writings are journalism, although on occasion I get a story out there before journalists and have in fact been linked to by journalists.

Nor am I socially inadequate, pimpled, single (I am getting married next year), slightly seedy (okay, he may have me on that one), bald (balding but not bald), cauliflower-nosed, young or in my mother's basement.

The final one is possibly correct when I write sometimes, angry.  Yes, sometimes I am angry and today is one of those days.

Once again one of our elite journalists think they are above everyone else and generalise on a level that is somewhat amazing - and yet if a blogger did that, what would Marr call them then?
I will leave the final word to Roy Greenslade of the Daily Telegraph blog;

But I'm surprised at the Marr assault because he is usually so thoughtful. Aside from the paradox of him indulging in a rant to complain about other ranters, it is the one-sidedness of his argument that is so striking.

Government Ministers resign over taxpayer funded travel

Ten out of ten to President Sarkozy for clamping down on lavish spending by his Ministers as the public face cuts in the public sector.

Two French ministers have resigned after rows over spending thousands of euros of taxpayers' money on a private jet and cigars at a time when budget cuts are hitting the public.

Development Minister Alain Joyandet and Christian Blanc, a junior minister tasked with overseeing development have both resigned.

Alain Joyandet caused outrage after spending £96,000 on a private jet to take him to Martinique for a conference.

Christian Blanc came under fire last month after it emerged he spent £9,759 of taxpayers' money on Havana cigars. He was ordered to pay the money back.

Read the full story in the Daily Telegraph.

Ann Widdecombe MP defects to Labour

Not a headline you would expect to see, but according to the Daily Telegraph Ann Widdecombe is in fact a Labour MP as you can see from the picture.

The things people do to avoid admitting they are one of Cameron's Conservatives.

Protecting Tony Blair - who should pay the £115,000 each week?

Tony Blair as the former Prime Minister receives police protection, as do senior members of the government and members of the Royal Family.

However, Tony Blair is no longer an MP and his protection is costing the taxpayer £115,000 per day, or £6million per year as uncovered by the Daily Telegraph.

There are also concerns that next year that may have to increase as Tony Blair will be giving evidence in the Iraq Inquiry in London.

The high costs are often put down to his frequent trips abroad as many will require a prior visit from his security advance team and according to the Daily Telegraph the total protection bill is three times higher than previous public estimates.

The cost of Tony Blair’s protection is met by Scotland Yard with a contribution from the Home Office. It was reported earlier this year that the police are seeking an increase in central Government funding for the protection costs.

It is also estimated that he has earnt nearly £18million since standing down as an MP and many of his trips and engagements are private and not as an envoy to Britain or similar earning him £100,000 per engagement.















Therefore the question must be asked, how much of the protection costs should be met by the taxpayer and how much by Tony Blair himself?

I believe that he should pay for the private engagements himself and the taxpayer should fund those where he is representing the UK, if on official business sanctioned by the government.

He is a top terrorist target because he took us into an illegal war in Iraq, a war that he believed we should have taken part in, whatever the reason, so therefore he must pay his share.

Independence and Alex Salmond - dead ducks or deflated bubble?

If proof were needed that Independence is not wanted by the majority of the Scots and that a referendum now would be nothing more than a sheer waster of £9 - £12million then here it is in yesterdays Daily Telegraph.

With a big hat tip to The Grumpy Spindoctor for spotting this one yesterday in the Daily Telegraph.

I appreciate that we will see a few YouGov and other surveys having results produced within this next week as Alex Salmond prepares to produce his break up the UK bill to our MSPs in Holyrood on St. Andrew's day.

Well these figures won't make great reading for Alex Salmond and the SNP.

Asked to rate a referendum on independence in a list of national priorities, only one voter in eight said it was the most important of seven options – well behind the 63 per cent who saw "reducing unemployment" as the top priority.

Only 29 per cent of voters back independence now, compared with 31 per cent last year, while 57 per cent are opposed – an increase of four per cent on 2008.

The Daily Telegraph went on to say "In the aftermath of his bad defeat by Labour in the Glasgow North East by-election, the survey shows that Alex Salmond's bubble, if not burst, is seriously deflated."

The SNP bubble is slowly, very slowly deflating now, since the Glenrothes by-election this has been happening. The Glasgow North East by-election result in my opinion was a much worse result than Glenrothes.

Glenrothes was in Gordon Brown's backyard so was always a harder fight there for the SNP. However Glasgow North East was a year alter, when Gordon Brown's government was more unpopular than ever before and yet the SNP couldn't eat into that and defeat them in Glasgow.

It shows that Scottish elections are very different to English elections, it also shows that Labour's unpopularity south of the border doesn't resonate up here in the same way.

Mariah Carey's diva demands just to turn Christmas lights on

I really couldn't believe my eyes this morning when in the Daily Telegraph they were reporting that to turn the Christmas lights on at the Westfield shopping centre in West London Mariah Carey was being a diva, darling.

According to the Daily Telegraph, Mariah Carey's demands included;

• Driven in a pink rolls royce, down a pink carpet to a pink podium, where she was to wave a want to turn them on!
• 80 security guards, plus an entourage of 15
• Confetti shaped like her favourite insect, the butterfly

Now, those were the ones that the organisers apparently complied with......

Those that were turned down included;

• 20 white kittens
• 100 white doves

Honestly, I really hope this is one of those nonsense made up celebrity stories that there are in the media now and again although as reported in the story a source told the Daily Mail "We have worked extremely hard to make sure that Mariah's event is fantastic. Even the model of car had to be changed six times to one that her people liked."

What a load of nonsense, yes she can sing but let us get a grip here and get back to real life.

No expenses spared - the mole out the hole

We now finally find out why the mole who revealed all of the MPs expenses did it, according to the Daily Telegraph.

In a book released today "No expenses spared", we find out that the lack of kit for our armed forces was the motivation behind the leaks.

We also find out that the mole was working in a secret office in South London for the Stationery Office photocopying all MP receipts ready for the initial publication, and obviously something snapped after discussing with servicemen who were guarding them the lack of kit according to the Telegraph.

I do get the motivation of the mole in some respects and am sure they will be satisfied given the number of high profile scalps they eventually had, and also the fact that the MPs expenses have had the most radical overhaul for over 300 years must be a little satisfying. I am still not sure that it was the most responsible way the Telegraph could have handled it, but sales is sales.

I was annoyed however by the clear lazy journalism in some cases when every MP was tarred with the same brush and when particular MPs were hung out to dry when clearly they hadn't actually done anything wrong but journalists in London didn't know the geography of parts of Scotland or when MPs or their staff submitted receipts and only claimed for some items and the paper alleged the whole thing had been claimed for - that in my eyes ruined what was the truth versus laziness. As the saying goes, why let the facts get in the way of a good story?

This doesn't take away though that many MPs, the majority of which were Conservative, were claiming for things not only against the spirit of the rules but not even remotely connected to their work as an MP - such as the moat cleaning, mortgage overpayment's, the famous duck house, manure and the second home flipping (in effect meaning tax avoidance)!

Although now we know the full story of what motivated the mole, it is ironic (in my mind) that the kitting out of the troops and insistence on better and more equipment has been pushed (without any knowledge of this) by the politicians. I do hope the mole is also happy?

The Daily Telegraph is describing the book as "No Expenses Spared is a real-life political thriller and the definitive account of a scandal which will reverberate around Westminster for decades to come."

• To purchase your copy please go to books.telegraph.co.uk or ring 0844 871 1514 (reader warning - I searched for it here and couldn't find it).

I have to be honest, I will be buying my copy through Amazon. Where it is available.