Brexit could save the Lib Dems

Embed from Getty Images

Who says? Chris Deerin, that's who:

The Lib Dems, despite what many of us thought, are not necessarily done for. They have not kicked the bucket, run down the curtain or joined the bleedin’ choir invisible. And for this they have Cameron and his disastrous referendum to thank. 

Clegg and co may justifiably view Brexit as a calamity, but as the old political truism has it, every crisis contains an opportunity. And as Alex Salmond is fond of saying, you must play the ball as it lies.

And:

Brexit also seems likely to serve as something of a ground zero. Such is its epochal import that much of what has gone before could be wiped away — clean slates and fresh starts and all that. 

The Lib Dems have long been dogged by their (entirely sensible) u-turn on tuition fees, but it surely now seems a bit pre-war to continue holding it against them. 

And where that spell in coalition government counted was judged harshly in the short–term, it may play to their advantage over a longer period. After all, they didn’t screw up in power. 

Quite the opposite: their ministers competently delivered a decent number of social-democratic policy wins, including taking the lowest earners out of income tax, ensuring extra money was spent on the most disadvantaged schoolchildren, and keeping the government focused on the environment. 

The idea that the party is unfit for office has been debunked.

If you are a Liberal Democrat wanting more encouragement, read Stephen Bush.

Alex Salmond banned from flight after booking ticket as Star Trek captain

The Independent wins our coveted Headline of the Day Award.

The English question and the whale in the bathtub

#79037936 / gettyimages.com

The West Lothian question should not trouble a Conservative over much. Why overturn a constitutional arrangement that works in the name of abstract principles like ‘fairness’ or ‘justice’? That’s the sort of folly that Liberals and Radicals go in for.

But David Cameron had to act on it and act quickly. Because today large parts of the Conservative Party are hardly Conservative at all. The brighter among them do care about abstract principles, but most are Angry White Men who believe the disappointments of their lives and the failings of British society are the fault of Europe or the Scots or some other group institution or group.

It is from this latter group that most Conservative activists and increasing numbers of their backbench MPs are drawn. Such people believe the Scots already get more than their fair share from the English taxpayer – hence the imperative on Cameron to be seen to offer the English something once he had decided to issue a pledge in an attempt to buy off the Yes campaign in the Scottish referendum.

And if he hadn’t acted, not only would his own party have been in revolt against him, Nigel Farage would likely have emerged as the champion of the disaffected English.

So it looks as if we are to have English votes for English laws. In theory this is a fair reform, but the practical problems are that it will either make no difference (that would be the situation in most parliaments) or that it would lead to the UK being governed by one party and England by another and prove to be unworkable.

So, much as the idea of an English parliament meeting in York appeals, I cannot see it as a sensible option. Nor am I attracted by the idea of artificial English regions, each with its own assembly and capital.

I agonised about these problems in a book review in Liberal Democrat News a few years ago:

What to do about England in the new devolved United Kingdom is a question that will not go away. A Useful Fiction quotes Anthony King’s description of the country under the current settlement as “a huge whale in a small bathtub”, and without the counterbalance that the new parliaments offer in Scotland and Wales, it is England that has suffered most from the demise of local democracy. 

The traditional Liberal answer is to call for assemblies to be set up in the English regions, but I do not find this attractive. There are problems on agreeing where the boundaries should be drawn and the inconvenient fact that on the only occasion when plans for an assembly were put to the public (in the North East in 2004), they were voted down decisively. 

More than that, the regional system Labour has set up acts like a shadow, unelected variety of local government that makes it easier for Whitehall to force new infrastructure projects through in the force of popular opposition.

Perhaps the real problem is that English regional government appeals to those who do not feel comfortable with Englishness at all. Many on the liberal-left who are indulgent to Celtic nationalism still fear that England is too big and too irredeemably Tory to be allowed a modern constitutional form. They would rather see English identity hobbled by a collection of smaller assemblies.

If we are not to have an English parliament or a comprehensive system of regional government, then we shall have to learn to live with a looser solution where large cities and counties that want more power are given it and those that do not continue under a regime much like the one that exists at present. At the very least, we are going to have to give up the expression ‘postcode lottery’.

And as for coming to terms with Englishness, I commend a Spectator article by Nick Cohen:

The danger for Labour is that it could find itself portrayed as the enemy of the English. It is a novel position for the party. Most Labour politicians are wary of the left intelligentsia – and vice versa – and know the dangers of the electorate thinking them unpatriotic. But patriotism is changing. It is not enough for a political party to show that it loves Britain; it has to show that it loves each of its constituent parts. For Labour, the only national party with strong roots in England, Wales and Scotland, the balkanisation of Britain, represents a moment of danger. 

The question now is no longer: does Labour love Britain? But does Labour love England? Maybe not enough to allow fair treatment for the English electorate.  Labour is giving every indication that it will not accept English votes for English laws. It wants to devolve more powers to English cities and regions, as do the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.  But it is not contemplating a federal Britain, and is refusing to cooperate with David Cameron’s attempts to answer the English question. 

I sympathise with its reasons. I don’t want to see Welsh and Scottish politicians excluded from English life, not least because they are the men and women most likely to forward left wing interests. I hate the prospect of the petty, almost racist, populism of the Scottish nationalists spreading south. But my Britain is going or gone. The Labour Party cannot expect others to stand by an archaic system, rigged for the left’s benefit.

Who will benefit from the new system born from Salmond’s populism and the panic of the leaders of the UK parties in the face of it remains to be seen. But that is the battle we must now fight.

Hear Alex Salmond make the case for an independent Scotland

You are welcome.

New blow for Salmond

#109253734 / gettyimages.com

Wee Jimmy Krankie interviewed in The Big Issue:

Alex Salmond can sod off ’cos I don’t want it.

Celebrating Britishness before it's too late

My keyboard is misbehaving today - when I try to type i I get ik7, - but I can cut and paste. So hear is some great comment on the referendum debate.

First, Ian Jack (one of my favourite journalists) mourns the possible end of Britishness:

In the SNP’s big-change but no-change version of independence, nobody’s identity is at risk. If people want to think of themselves as British as well as Scottish, then they can keep calm and carry on. 

As Salmond wrote, soothingly, in the same document: “Much of what Scotland will be like the day after independence will be similar to the day before: people will go to work, pensions and benefits will be collected, children will go out to play and life will be as normal.” 

And of course it will. But gradually British identity will wither. If it survives at all, it will become narrow, eccentric, strident and romantic, like so many other national identities that have been deprived of their states and institutions. I value it too much to want that. 

Gordon Brown erred when, as prime minister, he attempted to enunciate his list of “British values” – which turned out to be the values of most civilised nations. He would have been wiser to have written, as Orwell did, about its characteristics rather than what he imagined to be its longstanding moral beliefs. 

The markers of Britishness for me include empiricism, irony, the ad hoc approach, pluralism, and a critical awareness of its own rich and sometimes appalling history. It’s sceptical, too: it has seen a thing or two and knows nothing lasts. 

But perhaps what recommends it most is the frail senescence that makes it an undemanding kind of belonging, and unexpectedly fits it for the modern world. 

The untangling of the institutions – military, administrative, academic, ambassadorial, commercial, cultural – that have sustained this identity can’t but be painfully destructive. The past 300 years have not been about nothing.

Next, Paul Mason attends #LetsStayTogether in Trafalgar Square:

I’ve been thinking about what was different to the vibe last night and, say, the Olympic opening ceremony designed by Danny Boyle. Boyle’s spectacle was brash, drew on a Brits-via-Hollywood meme, and placed heavy stress on working class culture (Abide With Me) and the folk traditions of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. 

The Dan Snow/Bob Geldof version drew much more on poetry, the non-national and even laid claim to internationalism (The Night Mail, by gay, communist conscientious objector WH Auden was read out.) 

So maybe, if you want a Britishness that exists at a higher level than medleys of regional folk songs, this is what you have to accept. 

There was no mention of royalty, or Dunkirk. Nobody shouted “British jobs for British workers”, as Gordon Brown did to the Labour party conference once. You can have strident English nationalism of the EDL and generations of far right football hooligans. 

You can have the progressive English nationalism we saw around Euro 96. You can have the sturm und drang available to both sides in Northern Ireland, or the soaring, class-based patriotism that transports rugby crowds at Cardiff’s Millennium Stadium.

But maybe you can’t have a strident *British* nationalism. Maybe that’s the subtextual mistake all those lectern-banging politicians have been making. Maybe it has to be something quiet.

Then Isabel Hardman dissects "The Vow" made by the three party leaders:

It doesn’t matter how many front pages you sign next to your new promise to Scottish voters, you’ve still only unveiled this offer in the last two weeks. If you had it planned for ages, then why wait until the point that it’s so late you appear desperate? Or if you’ve only cobbled together this promise in the last few weeks, then is it really a good idea.

Finally, Nick Cohen shows that Scottish nationalism is as pernicious as any other variety:

Nationalists build walls to keep their people in and the rest out. They create ‘us’ and ‘them’. Friends and enemies. If you disagree, if you say they have no right to speak for you because not all Scots/Serbs/Germans/Russians/Israelis think the same or recognise their lines of the map, you become a traitor to the collective. The fashionable phrase ‘the other’ is one of the few pieces of sociological jargon that enriches thought. All enforcers of political, religious and nationalist taboos need an ‘other’ to define themselves against, and keep the tribe in line. 

The process of separation and vilification is depressing to watch but familiar enough. Scottish nationalists are preparing a rarer trick, last seen in the dying days of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. They are trying to break up an existing multi-national state and turn neighbours into foreigners. They want people, who have lived together, worked together, loved each other, had children together, moved into each other countries and out again, to be packaged and bound up in hermetically sealed boxes labelled ‘Scots’ and ‘English’.

The notion that Scottish nationalism is always cosy and ‘civic’ has flourished without challenge. Alex Salmond’s greatest propaganda success has been to limit debate. If you are outside Scotland, and disagree with him, you have no right to comment on its internal affairs. If you are inside, you are ‘talking down Scotland’; showing yourself to be a self-hating Scot unfit to serve on its ‘Team’. 

The nationalists have bullied too many into silence. People who know better have not spelt out the costs of separatism, or said clearly that progressive forces will suffer most. 

How can they not? Nationalism will allow capital to remain global, while forcing arbitrary local divisions on labour. Brian Souter and Rupert Murdoch have flirted with Salmond because they can sniff a small state coming that must, whatever its currency turns out to be, run surpluses and build reserves to please the Bank of England, the European Central Bank and, above all, a market that will punish the tiniest step away from neo-liberal orthodoxy. 

The currency question has no answer except deeper and wider austerity. That people who think of themselves as left wing can brush it aside and pretend that working and middle-class Scots won’t suffer is a self-deception so extreme it borders on religious fantasy.

Keyboard latest: the backspace is working again.

Yes Scotland has lost the referendum campaign

Terrific stuff from Cicero's Songs:

Yes Scotland have comprehensively lost the intellectual argument. They have been totally destroyed. From currency, to healthcare, to pensions every argument that they have put forward has been eviscerated. 

It is not that Yes Scotland has more emotion that bothers me- it is that they only have emotion. All rational considerations have been ditched and those who raise the perfectly valid questions of how - practically - Scotland can avoid serious problems, are dismissed without any attempt to answer the questions.

And he later says:

This referendum has been divisive and dangerous, and no matter who wins, it will be difficult to heal the wounds that have been created. 

Now, the process of healing must begin, but the Yes campaign should understand there has been emotion - and increasingly that emotion is abiding anger at the way that they have dismissed so lightly all the serious concerns that any rational observer would have at making such a big step.

Just to cheer you up, let me add a passage from Shuggy's Blog that I quoted yesterday:

This is not a national independence movement that requires any struggle or sacrifice but rather one that promises that nothing and everything will change. Keep the Queen, the open border, the currency - you'll hardly notice a thing, except your wallet becoming a bit fatter. 

It is the lie of painlessness and that it is so widely-believed is storing up trouble for the future for this country, regardless of the outcome. For who do you imagine the nationalists will blame if they're denied this decaffeinated national rebirth, or if they get it and then realise it isn't how they were told to imagine it? Certainly not themselves.

 

Alex Salmond and Rupert Murdoch

“@SnoozeInBrief: Yeah, an independent Scotland would see a completely new style of politics. #indyref pic.twitter.com/LP5ePulhCH” Lol or cry
— Kevin Maguire (@Kevin_Maguire) September 13, 2014

This tweet reminds me of something I blogged in 2012 after Alex Salmond refused to meet the Dalai Lama during his visit to Scotland:

I am instinctively sympathetic to the idea of small nations, but today's events have done nothing to make the prospect of an independent Scotland more attractive. 

They have reminded me of Alex Salmond's appearance before the Leveson Inquiry. You can read his evidence on the inquiry website, but this quote from a Daily Record report is telling: 

“I have no responsibility for broadcasting policy, I have no responsibility for plurality in the press but I do have a responsibility for jobs and investment in Scotland.” 

I don't find the idea that the provision of jobs in Scotland trumps concerns of media plurality or media ethics appealing. And if you heard Salmond you would have gained the impression that he would have little time for such considerations even if they were his legal responsibility. 

It is easy to imagine an independent Scotland, at least one with Salmond and the SNP in charge, being a little too keen to placate the powerful and unattractive, whether it is Rupert Murdoch or the Chinese government, out of a fear of losing jobs.

It also reminds me of this Herald report from the following year:

The police investigation into alleged misconduct by journalists in Scotland has effectively come to an end. 

Spending on Operation Rubicon has fallen to a trickle, and, by this summer, only three officers were working on the probe. 

Moreover, John McSporran, who was the senior investigating officer on the case, has retired from the force. In reference to Rubicon, 

McSporran said on his social media profile: "Retired at the end of this enquiry." ... 

During the Leveson inquiry, set up to examine the ethics of the press, the then chief constable of Strathclyde, Stephen House, said he had "no doubt" there were individuals in his force "who are in receipt of money from various people". 

As a result of the investigation, Bob Bird, the former editor of the Scottish edition of the News of the World, was charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice. 

Douglas Wight, news editor on the Sunday tabloid, was charged with perjury, conspiring to hack phones, and of multiple counts of conspiracy to obtain personal data. 

However, despite an initial flurry of activity, the work of Operation Rubicon now looks to be at an end.

More speculation on a Liberal Democrat reshuffle

Jane Merrick reports in the Independent on Sunday that reports that Nick Clegg will not be conducting a reshuffle of Liberal Democrat ministers on Tuesday when David Cameron's reshuffles his team.

As part of a concerted effort by Lib Dems for a "conscious uncoupling" from the Conservatives, he will be holding his reshuffle just before the party conference in the autumn.

Merrick quotes an unnamed "Lib Dem Source":

"We are under no obligation to be bound to David Cameron's timetable. We have a party conference later this year and at that point we will set out who we will take into the general election."

So far, so good. But some of the detail in her article is distinctly odd.

First, she tells us that there has been speculation this week that Alistair Carmichael would be sacked as Secretary of State for Scotland to make way for Jo Swinson.

No doubt Jane Merrick is better connected than I am, but this makes little sense to me. All the speculation I have come across recently has been that Jo will take Ed Davey's place as Secretary of State for Energy.

The idea of dropping Alistair in the final weeks of the referendum campaign is bizarre. As Merrick says, "this would have been seized on by Alex Salmond and his supporters as an admission of failure".

It would also ignore the fact that Alistair is fast emerging as one of the party's most effective communicators both in the media and in the Commons.

Her report also tells us that "Mr Clegg is being urged by some allies to sack Business Secretary Vince Cable".

I don't know who these allies are, but I suspect they are the usual 12-year-old special advisers.

The usual complaint against Vince is that he sounds more like an independent economic commentator than a minister.

When these SpAds are older, they will realise what a precious gift that is.

The Junior Whip: "A hell-raising street-fighter"

My 12th Whipped column for Ad Lib magazine.

It was when I heard the Chief Whip was giving up hard drink for a month that I sensed change was in the air.

“It’s called ‘Go Sober for October’,” he told me. “People sponsor you to give up alcohol for a month and the proceeds go to Macmillan Cancer Support.”

“But what if you have to give a backbencher a bol… you know, tell them off?”

“That’s easy. I’ll sit them down, tell them a few home truths and then offer them a stiff orange juice.”

******

Two days later I was in the office when a SPAD burst in.

“The Chief Whip is leaving! The Chief Whip is leaving! He’s going to save the Union.”

“What? Like Unison?”

“No, not the union: the Union. The United Kingdom. He’s taking over as Secretary of State for Scotland and he going to sort out Alex Salmond. The papers say he’s “tough,” a “bruiser” and .

“That’s a bit kind, isn't it?”

“They don’t know him like you do.”

******

It was a shock to me, though probably not as much as it was to Alex Salmond. And certainly not as much as it was to Michael Moore.

I am going to have to find a new job here at Westminster. You may think that will be difficult, but I don’t see it as much of a problem. Because this morning I finished copying out the last few pages of the Chief Whip’s black book.

They are not the only souvenir I am taking with me from the office.

Seeing as it is for such a good cause, I wouldn't want the Chief Whip to fail in his attempt to Go Sober for October. So I am taking his bottle of Auld Johnston home for safekeeping.

The Lib Dems cannot choose their coalition partners

What should the Liberal Democrats do if they hold the balance of power at the next general election?

The answer is that we shall probably have no choice.

The first reason is that the experience of coalition in this parliament may, rightly or wrongly, lead whichever is the largest of the parties - Labour or Conservative - to decide to govern as a minority and try their luck at another general election soon. We could even force this decision on them by refusing to form a coalition, but we Lib Dems are supposed to believe in coalition and would find the prospect a second election more frightening than either of the main parties.

The second reason is that it is unlikely that we shall be able to command a majority when combined with each of the other two parties after the next election.

After the 2010 election there were those who wanted a Labour/Lib Dem/SNP/Green coalition to be put together. This seemed inherently unstable to me - Alex Salmond would have asked for another billion for Scotland every second month and Sinn Fein would have held the balance of power in the Commons if its members decide to turn up - but even if it was the outcome you wanted the numbers were not quite there.

And it may well be the case after the next election that there is only one coalition (assuming Labour and the Tories do not get together - and they do have much in common) that can be put together. So the decision as to whether to govern with Labour or the Tories after 2015 may well be taken out of our hands by the voters even if the collapse of Lib Dem representation that many forecast fails to materialise - and I suspect it will fail.

Once you have more than two parties of any size under first past the post, election results become something of a lottery. We are not in government today because of Nick Clegg's masterly leadership - we lost seats and votes at the last election - but because of the way the votes for the other parties fell. Being lucky is an immensely useful quality in a leader, but it is best not to mistake it for strategic genius.

Stephen Tall makes some related points in his latest column for Conservative Home: "We Lib Dems haven't chosen our strategy. The voters have chosen it for us."

Six of the Best 288

Owen Paterson’s announcement on the delay of the badger cull is good news for badgers and for the Liberal Democrats says Andrew Wigley on Liberal Democrat Voice.

"The SNP Government is  not in a good position two years out from the Referendum. There is no cause for complacency in the Better Together camp but the First Minister's personal and political credibility has taken a huge dent. His glib assertions that everything would be fine in an independent Scotland have been shown not to be nothing more than hot air." Caron's Musings gives Alex Salmond both barrels.

Max Atkinson has clips of Conrad Blak's interviews with Adam Boulton and Jeremy Paxman.

"In a less than a decade, building on Richard Louv’s thought-provoking phrase ‘nature- deficit disorder’, the issue of getting children back outside to play has garnered public, government and media attention." Bob Peart writes on the Children and Nature site.

Talking Philosophy remembers when Lord Russell met Lord Russell - thanks for the photo.

The holloways of Cornwall are explored by Frames of Reference.

Six of the Best 287

"Nick Clegg has ceased to act as a chief spokesman for the coalition as a whole. That is working to Mr Clegg’s benefit and Mr Cameron’s disadvantage. Without Clegg constantly reminding us that he is part of the show - his Lib Dem colleagues have also gone more low profile - we are left with the impression of a bunch of Tories, and a pretty second rate bunch at that, in charge." Nick is benefiting from a decision that he will no longer act as the Coalition's lightning conductor, argues Alastair Campbell.

If you watched Trumped on BBC last night you will be interested in a post on Love and Garbage about Alex Salmond's attempt to win Donald Trump's support for the release of Abdelbasset Al Megrahi.

The truth has finally caught up with Lance Armstrong, writes Paul Kimmage in the Irish Independent.

Northumberlandia celebrates Admiral Cuthbert Collingwood - "A pious, just and exemplary man".

While Anita Harris and her marvellous juicy melons are celebrated by The Downstairs Lounge.

Song of the Paddle takes a canoe trip down the Welland from Market Harborough to Ashley.

Would an independent Scotland panda to China and Murdoch?

One of the political stories of the day has been Alex Salmond's refusal to meet the Dalai Lama during his visit to Scotland this week.

On Liberal Democrat Voice Caron Lindsay asks:

Could it be that Salmond’s discourtesy has something to do with a visit he received at Bute House two weeks ago from the Chinese Consul-General as reported in The Times? We know from reports in the Independent and the Courier that the Chinese authorities have been visiting local councils from Leeds to Inverness to discuss their involvement in the Dalai Lama’s visit. Only SNP-run Dundee City Council and the First Minister seem to have taken any notice of them.

And Caron also quotes the condemnation of Salmond's decision by Willie Rennie, the leader of the Scottish Lib Dems:

This is a missed opportunity. By failing to meet with the globally respected spiritual leader and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate the First Minister may leave the impression that he is more concerned with pandering to the diktat of the Chinese government than promoting human rights. We ignore China’s human rights record at our peril. I appreciate that China would be sensitive about such a meeting but the First Minister should stand up for what’s important.

I am instinctively sympathetic to the idea of small nations, but today's events have done nothing to make the prospect of an independent Scotland more attractive.

They have reminded me of Alex Salmond's appearance before the Leveson Inquiry. You can read his evidence on the inquiry website, but this quote from a Daily Record report is telling:

“I have no responsibility for broadcasting policy, I have no responsibility for plurality in the press but I do have a responsibility for jobs and investment in Scotland.”

I don't find the idea that the provision of jobs in Scotland trumps concerns of media plurality or media ethics appealing. And if you heard Salmond you would have gained the impression that he would have little time for such considerations even if they were his legal responsibility.

It is easy to imagine an independent Scotland, at least one with Salmond and the SNP in charge, being a little too keen to placate the powerful and unattractive, whether it is Rupert Murdoch or the Chinese government, out of a fear of losing jobs.

It's Shetland's oil!

From the Guardian's Scotland Blog:

Scotland's path to independence could become far rockier and more complicated than Alex Salmond might like, if the equally independent-spirited northern isles of Shetland and Orkney get their way. 

That, at least, is the view of their respective Lib Dem MSPs Tavish Scott and Liam McArthur. In a paper submitted to the UK government's consultation on the independence referendum, the pair have provocatively suggested that the two island groups' willingness to stay within an independent Scotland cannot be taken as given. 

Nor, if it comes to that, does ownership of "their" oil, which, by one measure, includes a quarter of the oil and gas wealth being claimed as Scottish by Salmond's nationalist government.

The post goes on to point out, the notion that the former Viking earldoms of Shetland and Orkney have their own, distinct views on self-determination and identity is a long-standing one. Many islanders don't regard themselves as Scots at all and are openly hostile to Edinburgh rule.

And it quotes the words of the former Liberal leader and Orkney & Shetland MP Jo Grimond:

"The last thing the Northern Isles want is to be ruled by Glasgow trade unionists and Edinburgh lawyers."

When I interviewed Tavish Scott, who was then the leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, during the Lib Dem bloggers' unconference in Edinburgh in November 2009, I was struck by his "contempt of Scottish Nationalism in general and Alex Salmond in particular".

Clearly, Scottish identity is a more complex matter than Salmond likes to pretend.

Six of the Best 230

A former Vestal Virgin

"The cream of Scotland's Lib Dem blogosphere..." begins a post on A Scottish Liberal. But it gets better after that and reports a searching interview with Willie Rennie.

"I don’t like how the SNP has been cosying up to News International, nor how Alex Salmond is big chums with Rupert Murdoch these days. And I don’t like how many SNP members/supporters appear to be falling into line and accepting this." A Burdz Eye View examines an unlovely development in Scottish politics.

The Learning Spy asks who inspects Ofsted. It's a good question.

Paganism did not wither away, it was consciously destroyed says the always-interesting Heresy Corner: "Within a few of generations of Constantine's conversion to Christianity another Roman emperor, Theodosius I, acting under the influence of a Milanese fanatic later known as St Ambrose, made the practice of the empire's traditional religion illegal. Temples were closed, soothsaying was outlawed on pain of death, the Oracle of Delphi was shut down, the Olympic Games were cancelled after more than a thousand years of quadrennial celebration, Plato's Academy in Athens was forced to close its doors (many of its leading lights fleeing to sanctuary in Persia), the Vestal Virgins were forcibly married off."

Lady Don't Fall Backwards celebrates the career of the children's television writer and director Richard Carpenter, who died yesterday.

"I tend to be on my own for at least an hour or so, and occasionally hear the sound of footsteps following me; running, whispers and the sound of children laughing or playing. Noises will immediately halt if I go to investigate the source of the occurrence,  and start again, if I stop paying attention to it/them." Too lib·er·al [adj.] on working in one of the most haunted buildings in Canterbury.