I've recently blogged on this issue and since posting it I've had some time to consider my opinion further. After visiting the statement-not-substance facebook group to ask for clarification about what the aims are of Compass, and those that support a windfall tax on energy and oil companies, also asking in several other blogs for a greater idea of the figures and strategy, I've come to the conclusion this is a very dangerous proposition to be supporting.

The reasons for this conclusion? Firstly, the figures...they don't add up, especially when you consider how little Compass and other supporters of this windfall tax actually talk about figures other than taking corporate profits completely out of context. Secondly, mixed messages. The call for a windfall tax is a catch-all political statement rather than a real solution, much like the everything to every person Lib Dem transport policy. And finally time-scales, if this truly is some level of mass altruism based upon a belief that only Labour (or the left) can solve the world's problems then it's missing the point of who is really going to benefit from this move at this time.

Liberal Conspiracy is helping Compass to spearhead a call for a windfall tax on energy companies. Apparently they are making far too much money and we want a piece of that pie. The article itself says...

Yet despite the billions made in profits, the energy industry spends just £50 million a year combating fuel poverty and has only agreed to raise this to £150 million a year by 2010. But every 10% increase in energy prices mean an extra 400,000 people go into fuel poverty.

I'm afraid that "we" don't all agree with this kind of thinking and feel very cautious about a windfall tax.

I've said it before, we don't need quick fixes we need absolute change in the strategy for trading energy.

Congratulations go to David Davis for winning the Haltemprice and Howden by-election, but more than that congratulations go to him for turning the Tabloids on to civil liberties for at least a while, for enabling a poll that debunks Brown's "public support" myth, and for helping us keep this issue alive!

A couple of days ago a speech that MP and Minister David Lammy made to the Fabian society was published on Liberal Conspiracy. The speech was largely devoid of content and was little more than a rallying speech about how amazing American politics is compared to UK politics in engaging people...apparently. What it did try and touch on, however, was parliament and government and how perhaps both can be more open to sources outside the Westminster Village.

What a shock and a shame it is to hear today then that in a vote on expenses made yesterday, parliament made it fairly clear that such an idea is very far from the minds of politicians. Expenses and perks of the job first, fair and representative politics second (if even that high) it seems!

Jennie has posted a few times now on Liberal Conspiracy about thinking along the same lines as me, and has linked to me a couple of times, so here is a return of favour under similar circumstances. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation says we need at least £13,400 each to simply live and be above poverty. Jennie, on the other hand, contests this amount as ludicrously high when taking in to account the wider picture of global poverty.

In all honesty, on this subject I am torn. I agree completely with what Jennie is saying, she is spot on and the fanaticism that has gone on with poverty and these kinds of figures with the media and politicians is disconcerting. However isn't there also a place for these kinds of poverty figures in developing society?

During my viewing of the 42 day debate I was most surprised by Keith Vaz and his sudden change of heart over the poposals. The leader of the Home Affairs Select committee, he and the committee announced in December that there was be "no evidence" for the legislation to take place. This is an important distinction as the evidence for and against the legislation did not change at all between December and the vote in June.

Now the telegraph is claiming evidence of at best ministers being blase about the feelings of the public on "paying off" people for support in votes, and at worst that Keith Vaz, who had prominent time in the debate with a speech of his own, has been promised reward for his allegiance to the party.

It was supposed to be nothing to do with Brown. The 42 day legislation was not a test of his leadership they said. Yet by the way the final result fell any chance Brown had of avoiding direct assessment on his own performance and abilities was dashed in to the wind. Prime Ministers and world leaders frequently say that they will never negotiate with terrorists (at least with the public knowing about it), to do so shows weakness and opens to door to manipulation and extortion. By managing to only win this issue through alleged personal involvement in coercing MPs from other parties such as the DUP he has shown in no uncertain terms his weakness, and why "doing the right thing" sometimes means dropping bad legislation and not negotiating on terror legislation.

I've been added as one of a handful of bloggers helping out at Liberal Conspiracy with their daily "NetCasts", and Thursday (for now at least) is my day in the sun. You can check out my offerings on the last 24 hours best blogs over at Liberal Conspiracy.

However I also wanted to mention a few blogs here that didn't quite make it in to my list of 6 or 7 items, and intend to do so each week here (if the quality of articles is out there!).

Lib Dem Voice - Mark Pack questions the way the Tories are picking their next Henley MP. Read the comments for the wider argument about how the Lib Dems do it too!
Political Betting - In an issue obviously close to Mike's heart, he wonders why it's taken so long to get the transparency needed for a controversial Ken Livingstone poll.
Alisdair's Blog - Get past the garish header and you have a 15 year old that manages to sound sensible on the subject of the new cluster bomb treaty.
Dizzy Thinks - Dizzy takes a look back at the websites of the main political parties as far back as before the 1997 general election. How times have changed...

You can also click below to continue reading and see the full list on this site if you so wish!