Layer 321 . . . Contempt for New Labour, Finding A Purpose, Radical Education, Schools, Teaching & Learning, The Case for Working With Your Hands, The Buddha, and Peace

.
Madeleine Bunting's latest column is, as ever, well worth reading.

There can be no short-circuiting Labour's essential backroom stocktake

New Labour's contempt for its own party's history now makes the central task of opposition all the more difficult

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/30/labour-leadership-opposition-values-debate?

This is precisely the point when politics becomes really interesting. Away from the glare of intense media coverage, and the carefully packaged soundbites and polished evasive formulations, glimpses of a real political debate are emerging among Labour and its fellow travellers. At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, it feels it could become the most searching debate on the left for a generation. I can't remember a time in my adult life when discussions on what leftwing politics is really about have been so open-minded. Perhaps it was like this in the 1980s, but then New Labour emerged and vigorously closed down debate and distanced the party from its history; both helped hollow out the party, and contributed to it becoming a highly centralised and relatively effective vote winner. Now, it is not even the latter. So what is it?

This is a subject of passionate interest to a relatively small proportion of the population. People will start listening again when Labour has something interesting to say. In the meantime, it is a time when Labour can't avoid a degree of introspection because it is faced with a series of big questions – and on none of them is there any settled consensus.

All of these debates are difficult for leadership contenders to navigate. How quickly can you disavow the policies that you were passionately defending a few weeks ago? There is a screech of brakes and U-turns. How can you passionately argue for something now and have done so little to advance it when actually in power?

All that the contenders have to offer are their political skills, they are all creatures of New Labour. That makes them likable, good communicators and very clever; but the drawbacks are equally evident. They are all youngish men who have grown up inside the distortions of the adrenaline-fuelled life of government. Rethinking assumptions on which you have built a career is never an easy task, it takes time, mental agility and considerable emotional maturity.

You can see them struggling to find a new language to replace the managerialism and technocratic competence that deadened the nation's soul.

...................................................................

One thing I never want to hear again is that Blair and New Labour had a brilliant electoral strategy to win the 1997 election.

In 1997 the landslide victory wasn't a vote for Blair and Brown and New Labour - we didn't give a damn about Blair and Brown and New Labour - we voted against the policies that had ruined industry and under-funded public services, sold off social housing, neglected schools, politicised education and health, supported casino banking and created so much poverty and inequality. Maybe Labour could now try standing up for the things that so many people voted for back then.

...................................................

Education

There was an excellent piece in yesterday's Observer by Peter Hyman, who's now a deputy head of a comprehensive school, having previously been 'a political strategist to Tony Blair'. Some of us still remember the very week he decided to quit the thick of it and get a proper job - initially as a pupil mentor, prior to becoming a teacher.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_hyman/profile.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/feb/26/highereducation.politicalbooks1

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/jun/24/schools.education

Are the school reforms really going to improve education?

Here, experts discuss whether this shake-up will benefit those who matter most – our children

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/30/schools-academies

The point about the Tory reforms is not that they amount to a revolution but, rather, that they are a missed opportunity – a modest extension of one part of New Labour policy. What will be frustrating for many schools is to find a new government once more ignoring the vast amounts of evidence that shows that the best school systems in the world are best for one reason above all else – the quality of teaching. The other big factor is school leadership.

So a radical education policy should start with teaching and learning. It is striking that the schools minister who understood this best in the last 10 years was David Miliband. He realised that what went on in the classroom was more important than anything else and his ideas on personalising learning for each student are, several years later, at the heart of many good schools in the country.

To raise standards, there needs to be a renewed focus on literacy. For [many] students . . . the basics [are] not embedded early enough.

But we need to do more. The area ripe for reform is the curriculum. We have got to have a rethink of what students learn and how they learn it. There needs to be a revolution in science, maths and computer-science teaching so we have a cohort of students who can truly compete with any in the world.

There is not enough thinking in schools and it appears that the Tories are in danger of making things worse by insisting on even more cramming of facts in a return to didactic teaching methods. It's time we started to test skills other than the ability to write a two-hour exam: creativity, analysis, team work, communication skills.

All these things would help students  – catch-up sessions at the age of 16 are not enough, however good. What matters is improving the quality of teaching, the richness of experience, the joy of learning and the grounding in the basics from an early age. There is a real opening in British politics for the politician who understands this.

There's not just an 'opening' in British politics - there a desperate need for the children of England (bearing in mind that these things happen differently elsewhere in Britain) to be given back their rights to a proper childhood, and an unpressurised, meaningful education that's worthy of the name. This is more or less what Oxzen's been saying for the past two years.

...........................................................

History of the World

Today's History of the World in 100 Objects considered a statue of the Buddha. Hopefully, with today being a Bank Holiday, lots of people will have been able to listen to it.

The programme considered how artists have tried to represent "the limitless, the boundless".

We were reminded that the Buddha was a wandering ascetic who devoted his life to apprehending the roots of all suffering, and the nature of enlightenment.

Images of the Buddha are meant to help people reflect on the qualities of Buddha's speech and mind, as well as his physical composure, and not be objects of worship in themselves.

The Buddha insisted on renouncing material states for immaterial states. But he also insisted that dreams, mirages and fantasies should be replaced by a proper grasp on reality.

"The Buddha statue is a thing that leads to no-thing, and the greatest sound of all - silence."

Podcast and 'listen again' here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/ahow

Seated Buddha of Gandhara

One of the earliest images of the seated Buddha. Neil MacGregor, Director of the British Museum, looks at how Buddhism set about creating the classic image to represent the real life Buddha, who lived and roamed around North India in the 5th Century BC. It was not until over five hundred years later that the classic seated image was first formulated. The Dalai Lama's official translator, Thupten Jinpa, and the historian Claudine Bautze-Picron help explain how the image came about.

................................................................

Peace In Our Time?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/may/31/israel-troops-gaza-ships

More bad news from Gaza.

At least 10 peace activists have been killed in boats carrying humanitarian aid towards the coast of Gaza.

Peace. Activists. Killed.

I can't be the only one who thinks that killing humanitarian peace activists is hardly . . . necessary? Appropriate? Proportionate? Moral? Politically astute? Even if they happened to be the most naive and misguided people on the planet.

By all means let the armed forces of Israel set about restraining them, arresting them, thwarting them, imprisoning them. But KILLING them?

I picture myself feeling motivated enough and brave enough to join with a convoy of ships taking aid to children, sick people and destitute families in Gaza.

I picture myself being killed for my non-violent and non-threatening actions and beliefs.

I wonder whether any of these activists were in fact physically agressive and determined to resist arrest. And I still wonder whether actually killing them could ever be justified.

My support is for non-violent Palestinians. My support is for non-violent liberal Israelis who despise the violence and the over-kill of their government, which only delays and makes more difficult a proper peace process, and a 2-state solution.

To support violence and aggression on either side, and even to condone and excuse it, would be no different to supporting any of the violent factions in Northern Ireland back in the days before the peace process started.

It would be no different to supporting the killing of either whites or blacks in South Africa prior to De Clerk's decision to release Nelson Mandela. What a pity there's no obvious Mandela figure in the Middle East.

.......................................................


Start The Week - Attitudes to Work

Matthew Crawford - "The Case for Working With Your Hands".

On Start the Week this Bank Holiday Monday, Andrew Marr gets his hands dirty with the philosopher and mechanic Matthew Crawford, who argues that satisfaction comes from skilled manual labour. Iranian artist Shirin Neshat discusses her new film, Women Without Men, Sheila Rowbotham muses on the role of women in transforming ideas about work at the turn of the 20th century and the President of the Royal Society, Martin Rees, explores scientific horizons and discovers the limits of our understanding.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sj4vn

Aristotle begins his Metaphysics with the observation that “all human beings by nature desire to know.” But the philosopher and mechanic Matthew Crawford contends that real knowledge arises through confrontation with real things. In his book, The Case for Working with Your Hands, he argues that a skilled trade brings a satisfaction that can be missing from office work. He believes that we uncover a sense of agency by shaping the world around us, and explains why he found working as a mechanic more intellectually challenging than a job in a think tank.

The Case for Working with Your Hands or Why Office Work is Bad for Us and Fixing Things Feels Good is published by Viking.

http://www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780670918744,00.html

Our society has pursued the separation of thinking from doing. We see ourselves as divided between white collars and blue collars.

Mass production and the pursuit of profit is based on dumbing jobs down, and creating electronic sweatshops.

University graduates expect to go into white collar 'office' jobs.

Whereas being an electrician and a mechanic can be far  more challenging intellectually. And also, in many casses, better paid.

Jobs that don't have 'physical' components are easily outsourced abroad

The core of the argument - the ethical dimension - is that it's superior to do work that involves head, heart AND hands . . .

To become genuinely skillful requires humility, coping with failure, and relying on judgement that comes only with experience. (See previous Layer on Samurai skills and football.)

'Know-how' can't be downloaded from the Internet - it only comes with experience.

We all need and benefit from the experience of seeing the direct effect of our own actions.

Complex material culture is infantilising - we're unable to do our own maintenance on vehicles, eg.

Our culture is more and more one of passivity and dependence . . .

We should put more stress on learning through experience and human contact.

Tacit knowledge is gained from doing physical things, not sitting at screens.

So many things are now too complicated. Eg mobile phones. So we have feelings of dependence instead of self-reliance.

Whilst doing physical work, using our hands, we become absorbed into a state of 'flow' in which we're gripped by the physical elements, and given time for relaxation, reflection and meditation. From the physical flows the metaphysical and the spiritual.

'Scientific' management doesn't grasp the creativity of workers or the intrinsic value of what they do and how they do it.
.

Layer 314 . . . The New Politics and The Future of Labour

.
The New Politics?

I've just realised that nominations for the next leader of the Labour Party have to be in within 6 weeks. This might cause me some problems . . .

But seriously - it's ridiculous. This is guaranteed to favour those who have been around in the last government for some time, even if the leadership election itself isn't till the end of the summer.

John Cruddas has already counted himself out and says he won't stand. Can't say I blame him - he didn't make a very good fist of the deputy leader contest, in which Harriet H far outshone him.

Maybe Harriet will now be persuaded to get involved and fight to reshape Labour as a proper principled social democratic party.

There's lots of silly talk around about how the government coalition will be hoping to push the next reincarnation of Labour well over to the left, where they will be unelectable because they'll fail to appeal to the centrist floating voters. This stems from the fallacy that the opposition in Parliament must oppose everything the government proposes, and must stand on political ground that's distinctively and exclusively their own.

It's now time for grown up politics where issues and policies are debated on their merits, and time for Labour to make it clear they support the new government's proposals as and when they make good sense. In this way they don't need to vacate the centre ground - which is where you'd expect to find overlap between the rival camps.

If Clegg and Cameron are offering fairness and social justice, then Labour need to say so and to support their offer. If C & C propose policies that are unfair and unjust then they should be attacked, and better, democratic socialist, policies should be put forward.

And if the new government, following the example of the Macmillan government, manages to increase the real income of the majority of people and families, whilst holding back the salaries and capital gains of the fat cats, then more power to their elbow, since this was patently not the case under New Labour.

.......................................

There's a very silly column on the Guardian website today, by Simon Tisdall, under the heading,

Obama's keenness to congratulate David Cameron suggests Washington feels less secure about British support

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/may/18/poodle-politics-uk-us-over

Oxzen posted this:

Why wouldn't Obama welcome a Cameron-led government into office? On a personal level Cameron has shown he shares some of Obama's intelligence, pragmatism, wit and unflappability, whilst the broader picture is that a liberal Democratic administration and a liberal Conservative-led administration occupy exactly the same political ground. This is in marked contrast to the Blair/Brown goverment that was over to the right - in Bush territory where Chicago-school (non) trickle-down economics, unregulated banking and growing inequality, together with an erosion of civil liberties, were the dominant schools of thought.

........................................

I somehow missed this Polly Toynbee column at the weekend. It's worth a read:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/15/labour-needs-to-rethink-polly-toynbee

Don't rush for a new leader. Labour has to rethink it all

First, the party needs to shed a whole mindset of tribalism and caution – and take a long, hard look at where it went wrong

First, the autopsy and time for necessary blame and contrition. There can be no moving on until Labour people acknowledge so much that has been badly wrong. No "renewal", "fundamental rethink" or "revitalisation" comes from David Miliband getting in and out of his limo to create the "alternative government". If not sackcloth and ashes, this is a party that should be travelling by tube and not wearing the tie of office.

"We are a loyal party by nature," said one cabinet member. Loyal to what? That is a fundamental question. If political tribe comes first in a country that no longer feels tribal, only 65% voting for either old party, Labour will be lost in a future that is transformed, for much the better, into multi-party pluralism.

Look at the new government with open eyes or risk misjudging the moment. There will be plenty to criticise later, but these Conservatives are leapfrogging over Labour to do radical things that Labour never dared – from docking bank bonuses to raising capital gains tax back to 40%, and better green policies. Know the enemy: this is something new. Jon Cruddas gets it: "It's a good thing that we do not have an extreme right government. That helps the centre-left."

Everything moves on. The argument will be between those who think Labour must reclaim the mythical "centre ground" and those who see how far politics have just jumped in a social democratic direction. Will Labour get it on the new pluralism? Neither old party may be able to govern alone again: better government comes from coalitions. Labour's last 13 years would have been much improved by a Lib Dem alliance.

Here is the authenticated list of what Labour offered the Lib Dems: a new levy on banking, the mansion tax on high-priced property, raising personal allowances to the Lib Dems to £10,000 (at the same pace as the Tories offer), no ID cards, the DNA database cut, fixed-term parliaments, an alternative vote referendum Labour would campaign for (the Tories won't), the Wright plans for Commons reform and fair party funding, no third runway at Heathrow, new freedom of information laws, 13 of the 15 civil liberties reforms in the Lib Dems' freedom bill and the pupil premium for poor children. If all that had been policy long ago, Labour would have kept its good civil liberties reputation as the party that brought in the Human Rights Act. Why cling to the third runway, alienating green voters, if it was so unimportant?

New Labour always muffled its messages and triangulated away its strengths. By 1997, the country was ahead of it and expecting more – but Blair restrained radicalism. Even when the country seethed with fury at the greed of bankers and boardrooms – yes, even the Daily Mail – Labour did not dare to attempt radical redress. Fear born in the 1992 lost election trammelled all that they did and said. "Fairness" was meaningless without bold action against the unfairness of entrenched privilege. Markets had to be praised and public services castigated to prove their mastery of the mythical "centre ground". What if there is no such thing – and the winner is the one who best captures the public imagination? Cowardice costs votes.

Profound rethinking takes time: rushing the leadership election is a grave error. Some imagine Tory cuts and fury with Lib Dems will gift power back to Labour. Hard questions need new answers. What went wrong on inequality? Why did 18% of vital C2s defect, angry over their static incomes, housing and immigration? Face the facts: Labour lost badly and needs a jump start, a blood transfusion and every other metaphor for new life it can summon.

.

Layer 310 . . . Bogdanovich, Petty, Dylan, What's Up Doc?, Wake Up Time and Running Down A Dream

.
You spend your life dreaming, running 'round in a trance
You hang out forever and still miss the dance
And if you get lucky, you might find someone
To help you get over the pain that will come
Yeah, you were so cool back in high school, what happened?
You were so sure not to have your spirits dampened . . .

- Tom Petty, Wake Up Time

I was talking with my daughter last week about a feature film called "What's Up Doc?", which we used to watch on our video, time after time, howling with laughter. It's one of the best comedies ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_Up,_Doc%3F_%28film%29

The film was directed by Peter Bogdanovich. Last night BBC4 cleared its schedule for a showing of a monster documentary made by Bogdanovich in 2007 - 4 hours of pure engaging magic, with never a dull moment for lovers of great rock music. It's a real tribute to the art of a great documentary maker that the film engages on so many levels, telling a heartwarming story of a great musician, singer and composer - Tom Petty.

Prior to watching this film I hadn't fully realised what a great band the Heartbreakers have been from the very beginning - a group of terrific musicians, and a kind of family and not just a group of performers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runnin%27_Down_A_Dream_%28film%29

I hadn't realised, either, that Tom and the band had hit the really big time in Britain before they were even known in America. Following that first amazing tour here, to promote their first album, they went home and went back to being struggling musos, trying hard to get radio stations to even play their music.

It's a measure of Tom's genius that later in his career he worked regularly with and made records with some of the true greats of rock music - Bob Dylan, George Harrison and Roy Orbison. The Travelling Wilburys seemed to come together almost by magic, and Tom made a major contribution to the band's songwriting and performing.

Tom's interest in music seemed to really take off when, as a kid, he was introduced to Elvis Presley by a relative who was working on one of the King's films. However, it was after seeing The Beatles performing on television - a startling experience according to him - that his world changed forever and he was convinced he would spend his life writing songs and performing in a band.

In the course of the film TP spoke with great clarity and intelligence, and without a shred of ego or pretention, about his life and times, and of course about his passion for music. He was as determined to make great records with a great sound and great songs as he was to put on great live shows.

Another measure of the greatness of Tom and the Heartbreakers is the fact that Dylan chose them to be his "backing" band for a world tour. Dylan's never going to play with musicians who are anything but the best, but it was interesting to listen to the guys in the band being interviewed about the way in which Dylan always stretches his band to the furthest limits by constantly playing in different keys, with different tempos, and improvising with the arrangements within his songs. With the Heartbreakers he knew he could do whatever he wanted and the band would always be paying attention and be able to respond and improvise and go with him.

At the conclusion of the film Tom says, "Everybody used to care. Now they don't care."

Tom still cares.

.............................................

Check out Ballad of a Thin Man - with Dylan hugely enjoying himself, and some great drumming and guitar soloing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPwyBcRnQow

Knocking on Heaven's Door - Dylan a master of the harmonica: notice the way he signals to the others he's enjoying the blast and he's going to extend the opening harp solo -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNdeKThOljo&NR=1

An extended live version of Refugee, with great Hammond and guitars -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fxzviZmdSk&feature=related


Well, if he gets lucky, a boy finds a girl
To help him to shoulder the pain in this world
And if you follow your feelings
And you follow your dreams
You might find the forest there in the trees
Yeah, you'll be alright, it's just gonna take time, but now
Who could have seen you'd be so hard to please somehow . . .

................................................

Dylan
http://www.new-pony.com/timeline.html

................................................

What's Up Doc?

"Utterly hilarious is the best short description for "What's Up Doc?" This seldom-discussed, nearly forgotten hommage to screwball comedy is one of the most consistently funny, inspired, brilliantly realized ever made. There are no weak spots. Even if you are not a Streisand fan, it must be admitted that she has a gift for comedy (and she only stops the action once, to sing for five minutes). Ryan O'Neil is a perfect foil as an uptight college professor completely bamboozled by Streisand. Smaller roles are humourously portrayed by the likes of Austin Pendelton, Kenneth Mars and Mabel Albertson.

But, for those who love this movie, the real star of the show is MADELINE KAHN, as the all-time great comic character of Eunice Burns. Who can forget Eunice forcing her way into the hotel banquet hall, swinging her purse as a weapon? Or poor Eunice cowering on her hotel room bed, asking "what more can they do to me?"

Director Bogdanovich's version of the car chase which closes the film is so tremendously funny and entertaining that the viewer is sorry to see it end.

A richly comic feast."
- by mackjay
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069495/usercomments

"What's Up Doc is one of six movies I use to offset ANY bad mood. I have seen it countless times and still can't keep the suitcases straight.

This film is full of visual humor and one liners; Madeline Kahn screaming and taking on all comers while dragging the doorkeeper across the ballroom floor; the hotel crook using his "charm" to drop Mrs. Van Hoskins in her tracks; Eunice hiding in the bathroom because snakes "live in deathly fear of tile"; the promise of Howard conducting an avalanche in A Flat.

My only regret about this movie is that it began endless failed efforts by television and movie makers to replicate the chase through San Francisco. No one has. That sequence is the best example of humor, timing, backdrop, and action, of the chase genre. It has never been equalled by either serious or comedic directors.

Little mentioned in these reviews are Kenneth Mars and Austin Pendelton, two fantastic character actors who are the emeralds surrounding the diamonds of Streisand and O'Neal in the glorious setting of this jewel.

Thank goodness no one in What's Up Doc knows the meaning of the word "propriety!".

- by annmason1

"A zany, riotous slapstick comedy that lives up to what it purports to be...a zany, riotous slapstick comedy! Silly, simple and superficial . . . `What's Up, Doc?' is pure, unadulterated fun. Bugs Bunny should be proud.

Saluting its classic screwball predecessors, this innocent send-up has all the joy, style and panache one could ask for . . . Director Peter Bogdanovich, (who also wrote the story and co-produced) was at his zenith when he made this in 1972. Thirty years later, I've yet to see anything comparable to it.

Proving before her she had a nose for comedy (she was a hoot in `The Owl and the Pussycat'), Streisand outdoes herself here. She wisely (and generously) defers to the director and, in return, churns out her most engaging performance yet as a wacky, accident-prone, highly determined gal who creates utter chaos out of confusion while striving to win the guy. She proves once and for all she is a funny, FUNNY girl, her quicksilver timing a joy to behold. And, as a bonus, she sings!

`What's Up, Doc' is a refreshing reminder that laughter is still the best medicine. Th...Th...That's all, folks!"

- by Gary Brumbergh

"Not only in my top three favourites of all time, but most definitely the funniest hour and a half ever registered on celluloid. I first saw it in 1974 - I was nine - and instantly fell under the spell.

Streisand delivers like a sniper and actually looks sexy and desirable, O'Neal does his bespectacled Iowa music professor with all the dizziness of sex on legs that he was, and the cast generally glide through two separate crescendos of stupid situations, fuelled by dialogue in break neck speed, each more hilarious than the previous, all inexorably slipping into general uproar and mayhem at every turn.

This is a true comedy classic that hasn't lost any of it's breeziness, funk, sexiness and freshness with years. Dumb, twisted and invigorating all at once it's a true gem. Watch it and feel your I.Q. drop, and get hooked by all means. Or miss at your own peril."

- by Oggz

"I think this film is the funniest movie I have ever seen. No matter how many times I see it, I always find surprisingly fresh and completely hilarious. Barbra Streisand's performance is the centerpiece of the whole film. She simply glows with warmth, sexiness, and humor. There isn't a moment when we don't find her completely believable. Ryan O'Neal adds a great physical presence and is gloriously restrained. The film also contains some great supporting turns from Ken Mars, Liam Dunn, and especially Madeline Kahn, who nearly steals the movie in her film debut."

- by MAX80

......................................................

Nick Clegg has this piece in today's Guardian:

Don't take offence at our coalition. Its aims are liberal

A Lib-Con deal was the only responsible choice. And our shared aim is to build a fairer society by a radical dispersal of power

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/14/nick-clegg-coalition-aims-are-liberal?

It's helpful that Clegg's bothering to give us an update on his thinking, but Oxzen took issue with his concluding words:

    And from our different traditions we can pursue one simple, shared aim: this will be the government that re-empowers the British people.

Such a shallow and glib slogan - they can empower but they can't re-empower since the powerless have never had any real power. Without PR the concept is meaningless anyway. In Britain it's the major parties and the cliques who control them, and over-mighty governments and prime ministers, that have power. Money = power. I'll believe in decentralisation and power to the people if and when I see it.

There are, however, six good reasons for Clegg to have joined in a coalition with the Tories:

1) Too many Labour MPs made it clear they wanted no part of a coalition.
2) Too many Labour MPs made it clear they will never support PR.
3) New Labour needed to be kicked out - as a punishment for being a lousy government, and also for the party to re-think what it's about, under new leadership.
4) Britain needs a progressive and not a regressive Tory party, and with the help and the constraints of the LibDems Cameron has a chance of bringing this about.
5) Several things done by Labour need to be undone, and several things not done now badly need to be done.
6) There needs to be a demonstration that a coalition government can work effectively in Britain as a whole, just as it has in Scotland and elsewhere. Under a fair voting system coalition governments are both inevitable and desirable. Government by 'big tent' parties using whipping systems in the name of party 'discipline' both stifles debate and fudges issues.

One overwhelmingly bad reason for the LibDems to join with the Tories is to assist them in slashing spending on front-line public services, creating further unnecessary unemployment, and putting us into a deeper and more prolonged recession - all in the name of rapid repayment of debt and appeasing 'the markets'. Nick Clegg says nothing about this in this column. Since the rate of debt repayment was such a major issue in this election Clegg can't stay quiet about it in the name of 'collective responsibility'. We need to know what Clegg and Cable are now advocating, even if, or especially if, they continue to disagree with Osborne and his fellow slashers. I'm sure we're grown up enough to accept that they were simply outvoted in cabinet, if this is the case. It's all very well showing TV pictures of happy smiling faces around the cabinet table - we need to know what they're saying and who's arguing for what. Coalition is all very well - but it has to be done in an open and transparent manner, if it's to have credibility, legitimacy and public support.
.