David Laws

Now, don't think for one minute that I approve of extravagant expenses claims from MPs. As far as I'm concerned, the guilty ones should be put in a gigantic duck house and floated out to sea. And, hopefully, a sea creature will take a liking to them and save us the trouble of having to clear up the mess afterwards. However, I do have sympathy for David Laws, even when it emerged today that he has been found guilty of breaking parliamentary regulations. The full report will be published on Thursday but Twitter is currently slamming him through a grinder and I wanted to voice some support.

My attitude towards Lib Dems as a rule at the moment is... strained. I want to punch the screen every time I see Nick Clegg's ghostly face appear on it; I loathe Danny Alexander for his arrogance and/or stupidity. As for Vince Cable... Well, I have respect for the man's politics but I do wish he'd make a stand on occasion. He's terribly uncomfortably in the Coalition, a condition that is plain for anyone to see, and not standing by his principles is unforgivable. David Laws, it'll be remembered, was a prime engineer behind the Coalition negotiations - but let's not hold that against him. Even I have to admit that some things the government are doing are well-intentioned, if badly implemented. And that's the point on which I feel Laws could've helped. As crazy as this may sound under the circumstances, I trust the guy in matters of politics and finance. I also believe that, had he not resigned as Chief Secretary, the noises coming from the Treasury would've been a lot more palatable. Danny Alexander is almost incompetent, and his shocking arrogance makes him even more unappealing. If Nick Clegg is set on repeating that Lib Dems did not go into politics to make cuts, he better make sure Alexander is in earshot because he's towing the wrong party line.

David Laws is a competent and talented individual who made an error of judgement. He didn't intend to profit by it; he just wanted his private life to be kept private. If I recall correctly, even his family didn't know that he was gay. No self-righteous person can stand there and criticise a situation like that. Laws apologised for his act and stood down right away - a lesser man would've waited to be pushed. We've all seen the blustering of Jim Devine and Elliot Morley as they tried to wriggle out of punishment. I would argue that Laws's immediate resignation (and silence as the investigation was going on) puts him in a completely different category to the aforementioned ex-MPs.

I don't expect many people to agree with me. A lot of people on Twitter are content to hang him out to dry. Me? I want him back in the cabinet where he can actually salvage something of the mess Clegg and company have got the Lib Dems (and the country) into.

Why I'm Angry About The AV Threshold Issue

Last night the House of Lords gave in and allowed the Commons to reject the amendment placing a 40% threshold on the AV referendum. This would have meant that if the turnout had been less than this figure, the referendum would have been non-binding and referred back to Parliament for debate. The Commons had to reject the amendment several times before the Lords admitted defeat.

Now, although the idea of sending something back to Parliament so they can decide on it isn't a great solution to a problem the whole country is asked to solve, it seemed to be a sensible one. With the threshold in place, the onus was on the Yes to AV group to prove their reforms are wanted. That is the way it should be. This is a major overhaul of our voting system: the people wanting it should have to ensure that they have a majority of the nation happy with the decision. It goes beyond whether you will vote for AV or against it; it's a simple courtesy.

We as a nation are generally lacklustre in voting, particularly in local elections. There is little evidence to suggest that the public have been captivated by the AV referendum. What is likely to happen is that the people who go out and vote on May 5th will be the people who generally vote in local elections (widely, this figure is under 40%), along with the people who feel strongly on the issue of AV. A massive alteration in our voting system should not come down to who has the most activists willing to vote for it. It should be for the good of the nation, and voted for by the nation.

What would have the threshold have done? Well, ensured that a new voting system isn't automatically implemented on the say-so of a minority for a start. Just imagine, we could have an average 30% turnout on May 5th. That would mean that the Yes group would only have to secure 15.1% of the population's votes. Again, I stress that this is the greatest overhaul of our political system in recent memory. Why should a small percentage of activists speak for the majority?

There is a simple reason why the threshold was repeatedly denied by the Commons. You see, David Cameron promised Nick Clegg a referendum without a threshold. Whether this was because Clegg believed AV could only prosper without a threshold is down to speculation. However, this kind of back-room dealing is precisely the reason I despise AV in the first place. More significantly, Lord Ashdown conceded that the AV issue was the deal-breaker for the Coalition. If the vote had gone the wrong way we could easily be looking at a government falling apart. And why is this? Because they are selfishly trying to push through a piece of legislation which will assist them at the detriment of the country.

But more of that in the coming weeks...

To Cap Or Not To Cap?

Today both Nick Clegg and Vince Cable have made noises to the effect that there will be some kind of cap placed on tuition fees, contrary to the advice given in the Browne Report earlier this month. It is initially thought this cap could be around £12,000, the level at which the Government would've started penalising universities anyway.

A victory for students? I'm not sure.

Removing the cap at the current level to allow for a reduction in funding to universities is an unpopular decision. It also looks likely to deter students from going into higher education. Now to some people this isn't completely a bad thing: the country is over-stretched as it is with graduates who offer little practical application to society once they leave university. However, the merits of individual courses aren't the issue here. What I'm wondering at the moment is whether we should be raising the cap to £12,000 instead of scrapping it altogether.

I know removing the cap is an unpopular idea but tripling it could be as costly to students. Isn't it likely that universities, eager to recoup their losses from their battering in the Spending Review, will raise their fees as a unit? All of a sudden even an education at a below-par institution could cost a fortune.

Of course, we expect there to be a lot of auditing of universities to ensure they are worth the fees they are charging. But how reliable are these procedures going to be? Considering the Government's attitude towards quangos isn't it likely that surveillance of fees will pass straight into the pocket of some harassed junior minister already struggling to deal with everything else thrown at his department?

I don't think the cap should be moved from its current level. Or, if it is, it should just be an upward nudge of perhaps £1000. However, if the cap is removed and a marketplace is created in the higher education sector then students will have the opportunity to choose. There will still be some universities who keep their fees relatively low to attract the less well-off. Equally, there will be competition between the prestigious universities: they will have to battle each other for their students and this process should demonstrate value for money.

I'm a little undecided here. I don't want the cap raised, I'd prefer it not to be moved at all. But if it must move I'd prefer it to be removed completely. What Clegg and Cable are doing in their pacification of disgruntled Lib Dems might just make the situation worse.