Simon Says

Or, at least, I hope he does. He certainly used to.

To clear the rubbish out of the way, into the Nineties, except perhaps in closed homosexual subcultures, "straight" had no colloquial meaning except "honest". And would you really rather have had Peter Tatchell in Parliament? If so, why?

Now, to the serious business. Simon Hughes abstained rather than vote in favour of Maastricht, while Nick Harvey, now a Defence Minister, voted against. Both the surviving Liberal Party and the tiny remnant SDP have been moved by the realities of these things to what are now very EU-critical positions indeed.

The Lib Dems set great store by election, transparency, and decision-making at the lowest practicable level. So Hughes should begin a campaign for the United Kingdom to adopt the show-stopping Empty Chair Policy in the Council of Ministers until such time as it meets in public and publishes an Official Report akin to Hansard. He should put down legislative amendments that would require British Ministers to adopt that approach. Diane Abbott would vote for them. So would David Davis. Indeed, who would not, and why?

And the Lib Dems are like Labour in that they, and their predecessor parties, voted against the Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies year on year between 1979 and 1997. Those Policies are wildly at variance with any sort of historic Liberal principle, and the CFP hits Lib Dem-voting areas particularly hard. So Hughes should begin a campaign, at the very least to reinstate those mysteriously vanished annual votes, and then to use those votes to demand the abolition of those Policies. Diane Abbott would vote for it. So would David Davis. Indeed, who would not, and why?

Hughes was also the first person whom I ever heard articulate the principle of the maximum multiple, now accepted, as a principle, by David Cameron, who is also offering electoral reform, preparing to restore the link between pensions and earnings, and dismantling the surveillance state. So Hughes should use every parliamentary and other available means to call for ban on anything paying any of its employees more than ten times what it pays any of its other employees, with the whole public sector functioning as a single entity for this purpose, and with its median wage fixed at the median wage in the private sector. Possibly, that median would do as the salary for MPs. Certainly, there should be a statutory ban on anyone's being paid more than the Prime Minister.

As he should expose New Labour as the only party opposed to a merged tax and benefit system that guarantees no one's tax-free income to fall below half national median earnings. To abolition of prescription charges, and restoration of free eye and dental treatment. To making employment rights begin on day one of employment and apply regardless of the number of hours worked, as promised by John Smith. To saving council housing, and bringing all council services back in house. To renationalising the utilities and the railways, and building a national network of public transport free at the point of use. And to many, many more. The trick with the Tories is to make them think that it was their idea. It has always been amazing what you could get out of them if you could pull off that one.