Lynne Featherstone

"The posters have been unveiled and the war of words has begun. But it's Twitter that will make this election unique". So says Rob Sharp here as he rates the Westminster warblers in the Independent.

Amongst the Liberal Democrats - I see it's me , my old mucker Mark Pack and Vince Cable - leading the field!

The pre-budget report from the Chancellor seemed reasonable - that is - until Vince tore it apart. Let's just just take the bankers (no - you take them)  and their bonuses.

As far as I understood it - Darling was proposing that if the bankers used their profits to increase their capital reserve - they would be left in peace. If, however, they chose to use their profits to pay bonuses - then there would be a 50% levy on any bonus over £25,000. They would use anti-avoidance measures so the banks couldn't dodge this.

That all seemed fine until Vince got going.  And he had lots to go on as the entire pre-budget report was left untouched by George Osborne's really pathetic response. It was so astoundingly bad, embodying only political rhetoric but not a single word really about what the Tories would do, that I can't imagine that won't be the gist of the media coverage.

But I digress. Vince posed simple questions really: what anti-avoidance measures? No answer - just a repetition of 'anti-avoidance measures'. What would stop bankers converting proposed bonuses to salary and thus avoiding the levy? No answer.

This is just a tiny part of Vince's demolition job - but just those two simple questions blew gigantic holes in the idea that the bankers are going to feel any wind blowing on them from Darling's proposals. 

However, it's not just about what can stop the bankers' bonuses. I've been pondering on what sort of person must there be sitting on the Board of RBS ? To threaten to resign on mass if bonuses are not paid - is  stupid, arrogant and a shocking indictment of the nature of man - well man on bank board.

I would say let the bastards go. But the real question that keeps running through my brain is what sort of human being, what individual, thinks in this time of great hardship for the country and for those hit by the recession - that it is OK to be paid a bonus? Let alone a bonus that is more than most peoples' annual salary?

These must be pretty dismal human beings, to whom the god of money (above and beyond what they are paid for being on the Board) has made them no longer understand nor care about others' well-being. Whether or not the Government succeeds in curbing their bonuses (and Vince's response rather led me to believe that this was an unlikely outcome) surely this is a time when these men of good fortune should be showing leadership and saying that they would not dream of taking a bonus when others less fortunate than themselves are losing their jobs and their homes? You would think.................

Perhaps this is clear evidence that bankers should be spelt with a w.

Two thoughts strike me as the budget news continues to sink in. First, most of what passes for debate over tax and spending policies between Labour and the Conservatives has been a matter of a few billion here or there. Compared with the hundreds of billions of debt, this really does seem to me a matter of Titanic and deckchairs.

It also says something about how unhealthy the state of our politics is with so much heat and focus having gone into sums that are dwarfed by the scale of the problem. At least Nick Clegg, Vince Cable et al have been talking about plans with sums running into many tens of billions in total in terms of changed spending priorities, fairer tax system etc. That's the scale of policies we need.

Second, hundreds of billions of debt looming over the economy and public life for years to come - that's the sort of thing which can wreck a political party's fortunes for a generation. This is Winter of Discontent / forced exit from the ERM territory - providing both the symbolic and actual damage to a party that sees a generation of its rising stars have their political careers wiped out.

I wonder if that might just be enough to push them over the edge and - if Labour gets
hammered in June - make them dump Brown? The political gossip season of the summer and conference season is set to be very interesting!

One of the questions on Politics Home this morning (I am a panel member of this daily tracker of opinions political) was do I think the banks should go back to a separation between our old safe, solid high street retail bank - and the speculative, take risks, make loads of dosh type investment banks?

Yes I do! I can remember being absolutely irate when our reliable, responsible banks were freed of such regulation and zoomed off to the realm of the speculative. I was upset because I liked slow and steady.

Perhaps this was because of a salutary experience I had about risk and loss. I had a very early example in my life of the dangers of the offers of a higher return on savings than the norm. In the flats where I grew up was a young financial buccaneer. He had his own merchant bank at the age of about 23 and all the families who lived in the block thought he was just the bees knees. All our families had seen this man grow since he was a little boy - and so when he had his bank all set up - he went and sought investment from lots of people who lived there - friends and neighbours. Many of these 'investors' were coming to the end of their working lives and I guess the offer was too good. I don't know too much about the rates etc as I was a teenager at the time and not much interested in boring things like investment.

Anyway - however ridiculously high the promised return was - I expect a mixture of hope and trust and familiarity persuaded quite a few of the residents to place their life savings with this young man.

Of course, like all morality tales, this ended badly for these trusting folk - and all their money was lost. And the moral of the story was if it looks too good to be true etc.

The young man went to prison for about six years I think - so justice was done - but quite a few properly lived lives were ruined. These were not rich people - just people who had worked all their lives and put away their savings. They may have made a mistake in putting too much money with one person - but it was a harsh, harsh penalty for that.

Anyway - that was a merchant bank and therefore it was 'buyer beware'. But when our safe, high street banks, changed into risk-takers - I guess many people didn't really understand that they could play fast and loose with our money the same way investment banks could and did.

For those of us who had to literally beg for our first mortgages - when it was a case of being judged suitable to receive a loan on the basis that you would be capable of paying it back - the idea of a 100% or 125% mortgage is inconceivable as a model.

Were we, the population, collectively guilty of partying thinking we wouldn't get a hangover? Maybe a bit - but if we thought the party would never end - it's because the banks and the Government led us to believe that was the case. We couldn't imagine that banks would be allowed to behave that way - let alone with the tacit encouragement of the Chancellor latterly Prime Minister.

But I think we relied on the banks to know what they were doing in the way they used to. If they said we could borrow like there was no tomorrow - live now and pay later - then there couldn't be a problem with it. The banks led us up the garden path (albeit we were happily led) and now we find they were full of avarice and greed.

So when Gordon yesterday talked about a return to the separation of banks back to the old style high street banks - he is right but how dare he not accept or understand that it was under him that this dangerous financial model was given license and bred the monsters who have led to such a downfall. And yes - Gordon - it may be a global financial downturn - but the seriousness of our situation is laid at your door. No one else's.

I can't help feeling sorry for the prudent in all of this. Yes - of course those who suffer direct hits on job and home are first in line for help. But what about all those older people who supplement their meagre pension by the interest paid on a lifetimes work savings? As Vince Cable (Lib Dem Shadow Chancellor) says - time for thrift and sensible behaviour. But we need some assurance that thrift and sensible behaviour will be rewarded - not punished - as is currently the case. Now - there's a novel idea!

A big thank you to Iain Dale's readers for his 2008 political poll where, whilst I trail Vince Cable miserably (and rightly), I am a) in the frame and b) second! as Lib Dem MP of the Year! Thus I continue my saga of always the bridesmaid but never the bride! I also notice that his magazine Total Politics has me as one to watch - and that's what my teachers used to say - ' better keep a close eye on her' - although I think their meaning may have been different...

On my own side - I likewise see (thanks to those who have brought it to my notice) that in the Liberal Democrat Voice poll I again am trailing Vince! Well - the man is a star and being even near licking distance of boots is honour enough! But there is still time for you to vote...

And a special treat for Haringey Liberal Democrats - but not exclusive as we are happy to share our very own superstar soothsayer - Vince Cable - with anyone interested in coming - and stomping up the price of a ticket:

Haringey Liberal Democrats present 'An Evening with Vince Cable'
Date: 26th November
Time: 8pm - 10pm
Venue: Christ Church C of E Church Hall, Waldeck Road, N15 3EP
Cost: £10 members / £20 non-members

Numbers are limited so will need to purchase a ticket. These can be obtained from Monica Whyte: 233b Alexandra Park Road, N22 7BJ, 07976 665 110.

Happy Birthday to me. Happy Birthday to me! Well - actually - it's Happy Birthday to my blog - five years old today.

And I've just finished listening to David Cameron's speech. Long - very very long. But as with most things - it's not always the size that counts. Strong on image creation, short on tangibles - even in this time of crisis it seems DC cannot come up with the goods. Perhaps once a PR man always a PR man.

'Fresh answers to the challenges we face' he said - but none of the 'fresh answers' were available for critique. He seems to believe that appearing to be something is enough. The rest of it was rather 'back to basics' but without using the actual words. Mending the broken society by sticking it together with platitudes and £6.00 to stay married doesn't really do it for me.

I guess he is impotent at the present. He doesn't have the track record of someone like Vince Cable - who actually understands the economy and warned about the debt bubble that was bound to burst (for years). It's all very well for DC to come now to the table and say how irresponsible this has all been. It's his mates in the City who took the risks to get their ridiculous bonuses. Dave didn't utter a word over the last ten years to warn of this - and now he is all too pleased to blame Gordon (who is undoubtedly to blame) but as the Her Majesty's Opposition - all we got was a deafening silence as Tory types took the money - leaving us the taxpayers to pick up the bill.

Anyway - as you will gather - I didn't rate the speech. The last thing we need now is more vacuous image style politics. And - he did my pet hate thing of bringing his wife on stage at the end. Those who know me are well aware of my aversion to this - and he kissed her about four times in the space of one minute. Afraid that the snappers didn't get the photo first time round. Cynical - you bet!

Went to the House Magazine annual awards last night. The House Magazine – is just that – the magazine of the Commons and Lords. The voters are the MPs and Peers and there's a range of categories. Just a quick big up for Vince Cable – who not that surprisingly won Opposition Politician of the Year. He is such a star! Congrats to Vince.

Well, well - so Vince Cable tried to ask a question at Prime Minister's Questions today - and it was ruled out of order. His heinous offence? Mentioning the Queen in his question:

It is reported that Her Majesty the Queen cancelled her Diamond wedding party because it would be ‘inappropriate’ to indulge in extravagance when the country faces recession and economic gloom. Is this another good example of Her Majesty’s unerring instinct for the national mood; or does the Government think she is simply overreacting?

Well excuse me - but what sort of out of date organisation is it that has this sort of ban? So much for being a modern democracy!

Saying something is a 'soundbite' isn't normally meant as a compliment in politics! There is though a role for short, pithy statements - soundbites if you will - that get to the heart of complicated matters and pulls out the essence of them.

All of which is a prequel to praising Vince Cable for his Northern Rock soundbites yesterday. Once again Vince got to the heart of the matter, and rather than losing himself in the massive financial details of the Northern Rock saga, he got right to the heart of the matter:

The Government has ingeniously come up with a private sector sale that doesn’t involve any private sector money.

In order to save face Brown has decided that losses of Northern Rock should be nationalised, but that profits should be privatised.

Taxpayers now face years of underwriting Northern Rock, giving the opportunity for a private bidder to make an absolute killing.

Well said Vince! (And you can sign his petition on the topic here.)