Almost before it had even started, I am disbanding my blog. You may have realised this already but I thought I’d formally let you know.

Don’t fret – there are many other better researched and written blogs out there. Go to one of them .

It’s been a pleasure.

Over and out,

Confused Liberal

Today they are having a by-election. Just three months after the Lib Dems partnered with the Conservatives, Lib Dem-led Seaford is going to vote for a new councillor. But what can this election tell us about coalition popularity?

“You hear on the knocker that people are not happy about the coalition. People who would usually vote for us are likely to vote Labour which means that the Tories will probably win our seat,” said the leader of the council, Jon Freeman. The Lib Dems dropping popularity is being reflected nationally.

But, where Seaford’s Lib Dems and Conservatives differ (the council is 11/8 LD/Conservative) is that this by-election seems rather at odds with the coalition’s own agenda. At a time when local authorities are having their budgets slashed, this council is spending (officially) almost £4,000 on the by-election. “It’s an utter waste of money. No one wanted an election in August,” one councillor told me. Add to this the fact that the next council election will take place again in May, this by-election seems rather futile and extremely extravagant.

Local Lib Dems feel that they have taken the brunt of public disapproval over cuts and waste. Sussex alone is said to be losing 75,000 public sector jobs in the autumn. And it was the resignation of liberal councillor Rosemary Collict that caused this costly by-election. Collict left the council for “personal reasons” however, no wonder then that Lib Dems popularity may be dropping, the public probably feel that the exorbitant amount of money spent on this election could be better spent on staff.

Perhaps the timing and expense of by-elections should be looked at by Eric Pickles as an example of how to improve government efficiency.

I’ll update this post tomorrow when we know how the election turns out. But the result doesn’t really matter (after all, it’ll happen again in May). What is significant is the reasons for the election and its cost.

With so much being spent on unnecessary admin, maybe the hacker’s decision to halt Seaford’s online communications was a bit more politically-driven than first thought?

After all of that, the Lib Dems held the seat!

Now, I can understand why everyone is rejoicing (that was my immediate reaction). However, there is actually little to celebrate in this news. Bear with me…

The BNP groups those with extreme and destabilising views together. Without an official party it would be a lot harder to prove these zealots wrong on mass. This is because, under one banner, all of its members can be criticised. Obviously, it’s a lot easier to defeat an extremist when you know where to find him. And, it’s easier to beat one common enemy than thousands of individuals.

Secondly, the BNP should be debunked at the ballot rather than the bank. If the party disbands due to money then they have not been given the public denouncement that they deserve (just look at Margaret Hodge’s victory in May). Similarly, if they aren’t dismissed by the public then it gives the BNP’s members the grounds to believe that their policies are correct – it’s just their bank balance which is toxic.

Lastly, as a party, the BNP holds a national platform. As such, rational opinions can defeat their dogma in open and public debates. As long as sane counter arguments continue to be aired nationally then the BNP’s support cannot grow because individuals will be educated against their persuasive rhetoric.

If we all think that the BNP will be stopped over a bit of money then we’re sadly going to be proven wrong. They will only come back under another name. The only way to beat them is to let them be a party. After all, I’d rather have the BNP in the public eye than underground.

Let’s hope that what defeats the BNP is reason rather than cash.

Another former Labour minister Alan Johnson seems to share the same nostalgic rhetoric. In an interview with the Saturday Times he describes why he didn’t stand for Labour leader: “It’s true that the candidates all come from a certain mould. It’s the same mould that Cameron and Clegg come from.”

Now, these two wizened MPs could be hinting at a combination of two things. Firstly, that to compete in current politics you have to have young, “fresh” blood ala Cameron and Clegg (the Milis, Balls, Burnham…). Or, secondly, that Labour cannot progress if it is tainted by human reminders of Labour’s legacy –Brown’s premiership and the Iraq war.

Given that the current leadership cabinet, minus Dianne Abbott, are all mixed up in Labour’s recent history I am swayed into believing that it is the former: that they are stepping aside for younger models.

However, it is very hard to make the transition from cabinet minister to being a successful backbencher. In fact, many ex-cabinet ministers have ended up stepping down as soon as they reach the next election (those of note who haven’t are David Blunkett and Patricia Hewitt).

You only have to look at another cabinet-retiree to see where Straw may be headed. Gordon Brown is currently retired in all but name – he makes such rare appearances at Westminster that Guido has a ‘Where’s Gordon?’ feature. The reason he has practically turned into a hermit is because he is churning out 10,000 words a day for his memoirs. How he can represent his constituents and his country with that output is unfathomable.

So what’s Jack Straw’s first act since his announcement? (Cue alarm bells) He’s writing his memoirs…

I expect there’ll be a few less Labour grandees at the next election.

However, I am not a lone wolf howling for the retirement age to stick. In fact, Matthew Parris seems to have read my piece or, what is much more likely, we are in one mind (dramatic pause). Either way it’s always nice to know wizened politicos support you.

As it’s behind a pay wall I shall quote a few of his eloquent words from his Saturday Times column:

“Compulsory retirement may sound unfair, but it carries one huge benefit for employers, for younger jobseekers, and for the health of the economy.”

He continues: “There are millions like me in Britain, fading slowly, and there always will be. The means must be available to dislodge us without a bloody ruinous court battle.”

And here’s the best bit:

“There’s a whole generation out there waiting for some of us to move. They should have rights, too.”

Well said, Matthew. Well said.

Speaking at the Older People’s Assembly today, Johnson argued with the government that pensioners should no longer be forced to retire at 65. But, in the midst of an unemployment crisis, keeping the elderly in jobs is just ludicrous. Instead of pandering to the silver-streaked generation the government should be concentrating on opening up jobs for the hundreds of thousands of impoverished graduates.

Boris admirably argued that: “There is no sound reason for people to be unable to work or participate in the life of the capital simply because they are older. People in their sixties, seventies and older bring a wealth of experience, insight and talent.”

Boris is wrong.

 The majority of those in their sixties and seventies have built their lives and reaped the benefits: they have houses, pensions and savings. Plus no-one remembers that they had: free education (bye bye student loans!), healthcare, full employment (in the sixties at least), and the expectation that if they gained a degree they’d be on the gravy train.

 In contrast, just two weeks ago Labour MP Rachel Reeves expressed concern that, with the cutting of the future jobs fund, young people are facing a bleak present and future: 150,000 students will not find university places, graduates cannot find jobs and there are not enough apprenticeship schemes to take up the slack. These are the people who the government needs to support so that they can cultivate their own “experience, insight and talent”.

 Of course, no-one in politics is saying this because the baby-boomer generation’s vote can win or lose an election.

 Francis Beckett, in his insightful book,  What did the baby boomers ever do for us? , summarises the problem: ‘[The baby boomers] risk trampling on the impoverished generations that come after, and there is plenty of evidence that those generations resent it.’

Graduates need jobs. If the elderly retire later how are graduates going to get them? And, if they do, how will they move up the career ladder if an 80 year old is still squatting on the top spot?

 Wake up BoJo. We need to safeguard the future instead of appeasing the electorate.

Here are some excerpts:

‘Because of course they were black.

This last fact will have been the least shocking to you, I suspect. You had guessed that ages ago, hadn’t you? Perhaps as a consequence of a subconscious racial prejudice within yourself, or perhaps because of a sad realisation of how things actually are, in the poorer quarters of London where black people make up at most 25 per cent of the population.’

Oh, hang on a minute, the idea that they were black hadn’t even crossed my mind!

He then goes on to blame ‘the culture in which these children are immersed. A culture of one-parent (that’ll be mum, then) families and a disinclination to education, and further inflamed by the mindless misogynistic, homophobic and self-pitying machismo of rap, ragga and da law of da streetz’.

Liddle has no real evidence for his claims and, instead, he is relying on a misinformed stereotype which combines rap and violence. Perhaps he is just searching for a scapegoat for Britain’s social problems. However, the black community should not be it. Blame education, blame parents, blame the media but don’t blame an entire culture! It’s shoddy journalism, it’s inaccurate and it’s just wrong.

I have no idea how the Spectator thought that it was okay to publish this tripe. Even so, why is the online community not in a greater furore over this article?

 Has this become the right wing norm? Do people agree with Liddle that it is just ‘cretinous liberals’ who aren’t lighting the vigilante torch and calling Haque’s murderers racists?

 This murder was horrendous but the facts should be decided on evidence and not on Liddle’s own xenophobia.

 We would all do well to look towards the roots of happy slapping crime (which is committed by a cross-section of Britain’s cultures) instead of blaming one minority. Shame on the Spectator. Remind me never to scan my eyes over it again!

As Guido Fawkes pointed out last week, Ed Balls has been flouting that pledge by not paying his interns. However, he is not the only Labour candidate with a dodgy recollection of their Intern Aware guarantee.

According to Interns Anonymous, Diane Abbott is practically running her campaign on unpaid interns, with one telling Interns Anonymous that she had worked for a year and a half before being offered a paid role. I counted four adverts for Abbott interns within the last year on w4mp.org – no wonder she was one of the last contenders to give her support to the campaign.

However, she is not alone. This morning Ed Balls, Ed Miliband (an ex-intern for Christopher Hitchens) and Andy Burnham are all advertising for ‘volunteers’.  But, replacing the word ‘intern’ with ‘volunteer’ should make no difference.  Yes, volunteers have no fixed hours (in line with Intern Aware policy) but they are still unpaid.

For example, Ed Miliband’s “low cost, high enthusiasm” campaign pays no expenses and is advertised as only available for those who can get to the North-East of London. Therefore, volunteers are either forced out of volunteering, and the “experience and insight into a campaign powered by people on the ground”, or they have to pay for the honour themselves.

Considering that Mili Jnr’s campaign priority is a “living wage” for all workers (a raise of the minimum wage to £7 an hour so everyone can live satisfactorily), this is rich. Moreover, in Balls’ video he pledged to pay all volunteers as well.  Despite Guido pointing this out last week, Ed Balls now has a new advert for unpaid volunteers up this morning. 

Only David Miliband pays all his interns and is not advertising in a job adverts forum.

Labour Party leadership contenders need to clarify their positions to lead by example. After all, MPs Rushnara Ali and ex-work and pensions PPS John Robertson are currently advertising for fixed-term interns, not volunteers. So much for a new honest Labour!

Like everyone else, the leadership contenders are milking the amount of unemployed graduates to further their own careers. Practice what you preach Labour.