8.45 a.m., Needham Market Station...

The sun is warm, the view from the platform over towards Needham Lakes is green and lush. Behind the platform, a fieldmouse is searching for berries and the air is filled with birdsong.

How's your commute going?

Yesterday(ish - still) in (and around) the Lords: Harry Potter and the Select Committee of Doom

Life in the modern House of Lords (alright, this might be a bit of an oxymoron, but stick with me...) isn't all about trying to improve badly drafted attempts by the Government to make us all criminals. Sometimes, the Lords interact with the community, and yesterday the Lords Select Committee on Communications were meeting with the cast and crew of the next Harry Potter movie as part of their review of the state of the British film industry. Apparently, any leak of information is punishable by death, but my sources tell me that the stars aren't as tall as they look on screen...

Meanwhile, in the Chamber, it was back to the Parliamentary Standards Bill, and the second day of its Committee Stage. As the Government hedge, trim, amend and backtrack like some demented and slightly haphazard barber, it becomes increasingly difficult to establish what the Bill says at any given moment. Think of it as a memory test for a group of aging lawyers...

Clause 8 introduces a new offence for MPs committing expenses fraud, and a number of Peers noted their concern that an act already covered by anti-fraud legislation elsewhere should now be addressed by legislation offering different, and more importantly less stringent, maximum terms of imprisonment. Unfortunately, the irony of this is completely lost on the Government, and they seem determined to push it through. Indeed, Standing Orders have been suspended so as to allow the Report Stage and the Third Reading to take place on the same day, and allow amendments at Third Reading One suspects that Monday will be a long day...

What Ifs: what if Lembit had met the Labeque sisters instead of the Cheeky Girls?

Ah well, one can only dream...

A night at the Royal Albert Hall

I am something of a classical music lover. Educated at a North London comprehensive which had yet to address its demotion from grammar school status, we had the benefits of a somewhat elitist education without our parents having to pay for it.

A love of music was one of the by-products (another was a deep suspicion of certainty, but that's another story...). And so an invitation to attend the First Night of the Proms was too good an opportunity to give up. Whilst orchestral music is not uppermost on my hit list - I have a weakness for chamber music and keyboard works - how could you miss such a gig?

Of course, our hosts, the BBC, threw a reception first, attended by the great and the good (and me). Those of you who follow Stephen Fry will know that he was there, and there was a touch of celebrity spotting to be done.

For me, the highlights were the Labeque sisters playing Poulenc's Concerto for Two Pianos - absolutely amazing - and Brahms' Rhapsody (Opus 53), which reminded me exactly why I am so fond of his works.

On the other hand, I still don't feel that I would cross the street to listen to Tchaikovsky's 3rd Piano Concerto...

Yesterday(ish) in the Lords: a by-election and a never ending sentence

Yesterday saw the announcement of the result of that rare creature, a by-election in the Lords. In the event of the death of a hereditary peer, an election is held to fill the vacancy, the electorate being those Peers sitting on the same benches. In this instance, twenty-seven hereditary crossbenchers voted to fill the vacancy arising from the death of Viscount Bledisloe on 12 May. The result, the election of Lord Aberdare, whose father's death had caused an earlier by-election.

In the Chamber, it was Day 8 of the Committee Stage of the Coroners and Justice Bill, with the proposed new Sentencing Council for England and Wales front and centre (readers in Scotland and Northern Ireland might wish to make a cup of tea at this point). With the one consolation that the Council would include a number of lay experts, debate centred on its composition, with Conservatives seeking to double the number of lay justices, and Liberal Democrats wishing to include, potentially, a member with an expertise in rehabilitation of offenders. The latter proposal was accepted by the Government, so applause is due for Lord Dholakia, for it was his amendment.

A brief debate followed on an amendment put forward by Lord Ramsbotham, calling for sentencing guidelines to specify whether or not an offender will be capable of voting in parliamentary or local government elections during their detention. As Lord Lester of Herne Hill put it from the Liberal Democrat benches, it didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted, and in the absence of support from the Conservative benches, it was withdrawn.

My question of the day?

"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they carried out research into the impact of taxi metering on the provision of service to rural communities."

According to Lord Adonis, they haven't...

The day before yesterday in the Lords - the steady drip, drip, drip of concession

I had intended to post this yesterday but, having read Hansard, I rather lost the will to live. Indeed, Tuesday was one of those days when much is said, but little is apparently achieved.

That said, the first day of the Committee Stage of the Parliamentary Standards Bill demonstrated that this is an astonishingly poorly drafted piece of legislation, with much of the debate intended to probe into the actual meaning of the language used, and the Government conceding that much redrafting will be needed. Baroness Hamwee and Lord Shutt of Greetland prodded and poked the Government, the Earl of Onslow, from the Conservative benches, went for ridicule, sugesting that parts of the debate reminded him of "I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue". Indeed, he suggested that the Woolsack be rechristened as Mornington Crescent.

The ever sartorial-elegant Earl had already made a plea on behalf of the House of Commons that Peers stand up for the rights of their colleagues in another place, noting how low morale had fallen there.

Debate resumes today, so we'll see how the Government manages an ever more complex redrafting task...

Liberal Vision - missing the point on Government advertising

£179.7 million, spent by the Government on advertising. Obviously, classical liberals see this as an outrage - taxpayers having to foot the bill for Government propaganda.

Actually, classical liberals believe that people should have access to the information that allows them to take control of their lives. Libertarians believe that government should be minimalist and, for the most part, non-intrusive. Nothing wrong with either stance, the latter taking a stronger line in terms of personal responsibility, but perhaps less mindful of the needs of those less well-equipped to take care of themselves.

Most Government advertising is designed to impart information, about changes in tax law, for example, or new entitlements such as the Child Trust Fund. You might not like the legislation, and in many cases, most liberals have doubts, but the idea that the public should not be told hardly strikes me as a liberal one.

Now I am hardly stupid enough to claim that the whole £179.7 million is spent effectively - anyone who knows how media buying works will tell you that you can only use the available data and personal experience gleaned over time to make the best call on the use of spend - but to describe it as 'propaganda' is lazy and, to be blunt, misleading.

I'll offer up an example of a recent advertising campaign that, to my mind, is reasonable, justified and not propaganda. There are plenty that I could offer, but I'll settle for this one. The penalty regime for limited companies has recently been toughened up, and the points at which penalties are levied have been brought forward.

So, Companies House ran a poster campaign warning people that they were doing so. There are now millions of company directors in this country, following Government efforts to encourage enterprise. Many of them are one-man operations, and could well do without having to pay such penalties. Warning them encourages them to comply with the requirements of company law - good for the consumer, good for honest traders - and makes it less likely that they will be penalised.

Of course, it could be argued that the guidance notes provide with company returns could be used to impart this information. Unfortunately, in my experience, people seldom read the guidance notes, and then are deeply unhappy when the result of their oversight is explained to them. Therefore, a range of communication tools, including advertising, works.

Liberal Vision like to claim that they are the true champions of classical liberalism, implying that the rest of us aren't sufficiently liberal. In this instance, they demonstrate that they are the champions of classical knee-jerk reactionism, and I'm delighted to differ from them in this instance.

Yesterday in the Lords: Baronesses Hanham and Miller regret to advise...

Yesterday's business started with tributes from all five benches following the death of Lord Kingsland on Sunday, a man clearly highly rated on all sides, even when they were in opposition to the thrust of his argument. Described as a lawyer's lawyer and a parliamentarian's parliamentarian, one senior Peer described him as one of the intellectual powerhouses of the Conservative benches.

The Government then went on to announce its intention to ratify the Dublin Convention on Cluster Munitions, whereby the United Kingdom will cease to hold stocks. Currently, in anticipation of ratification, their use has been abandoned and they are currently stored pending destruction.

The Coroners and Justice Bill reached Day 7 of its Committee Stage, with Lord Henley stepping in at very short notice to fill Lord Kingsland's shoes on the front bench. The opposition parties continue to chip away at some of the more troubling aspects of the bill, with the Government agreeing to look further at elements relating to witness anonymity. The proposal to crate an Independent Commissioner for Terrorist Suspects was passed by 145 votes to 103, another defeat for the Government, and we will see whether they attempt to overturn that in the Commons in due course. Again, the Liberal Democrats turned out in force to contribute to that defeat.

There followed a series of Regulations relating to the introduction, at some future point, of identity cards. Whilst these were passed, Baroness Hanham, supported by Baroness Miller from our benches, rose to move a motion regretting the decision of the Government to proceed with them, as a test of the House's opinion on identity cards. Again, the Liberal Democrat votes probed decisive, as the vote was won with 157 voting content, just 98 voting non content, an opposition victory by 59 votes.

Finally, and I make no apologies for covering this, a written question asked some time ago eventually received a formal answer. Lord McKenzie of Luton, answering Baroness Scott of Needham Market, confirmed that some, if not all, disabled councillors will be eligible for Access to Work support. Where councillors receive anything above reimbursement of travel, mileage and meal allowances, they may be eligible for Access to Work support, providing that they meet the other eligibility conditions.

Don't call the BNP fascists - publicise their policies instead

I'm not exactly a friend of the BNP - I wouldn't be allowed to join, for example. However, as I've noted in the past, simply calling them fascists and throwing one's hands up in disgust does nothing to address the question of why people vote for them.

Some of their support certainly comes from racists, but I'm yet to be convinced that all, or even most, of their supporters think of themselves as racists. Many of their voters feel neglected and frustrated and the BNP appeal to that sense where they work.

On the other hand, they stand for some quite eye-wateringly crazy policies. How about this excerpt from their 2005 manifesto;

"The compulsory National Service system discussed elsewhere in this Manifesto would begin at the age of 18 with a period of basic training in the army. This would include full training with the citizens’ assault rifle. Conscientious objectors who refuse to undertake military service would be allocated other constructive work for the community, but would not receive the citizen’s right to be armed, or the right to vote."

So, let's see. They believe that we should all have the right to bear arms. Not just any arms, but an assault rifle. That's going to make my morning commute a mite more interesting. On the other hand, perhaps people will move right down inside the carriage if I encourage them with my assault rifle.

They also believe in mandatory basic army training. Alright, a bit over the top but there are many who suspect that it would instil discipline. Admittedly, most people think of national service, which wasn't really intended to produce soldiers, and might demur at the idea of taking young thugs off the street, potentially converting them into highly trained, armed killers and then putting them back onto the streets - with their assault rifle, don't forget.

They clearly believe in changing the role of the army - soldiers will need to carry out that training - and in spending money on housing those doing their national service, feeding them, clothing them, arming them etc. Given the disposition of our armed forces, either that means withdrawing them from places they're in, or increasing their numbers. Either choice has implications, in terms of cost, or in terms of our place at the top table of international affairs.

The linkage of mandatory army training with the right to vote means, potentially, the exclusion of the disabled from the franchise. Can the blind complete the training, or are adjustments going to be made to allow them to do so? How about those on dialysis, or with injuries sustained on the sports field or in day to day life? Are they to be dienfranchised by the state for no fault of their own?

However, let's say that I've successfully completed my army training. Will allowing me to carry an assault rifle cause the police to be armed too? If so, they'll need a training budget, they'll need the weapons, and they'll need to change their strategy. After all, if everyone is potentially armed, every incident requires an armed response.

As an example of a country where the right to bear arms is strongly defended, the American model of gun ownership is, in urban areas, one of handguns, and a significant proportion of deaths are accidental. In Canada, on the other hand, gun ownership is far more likely to mean a hunting rifle, and deaths caused by firearms are far lower. An assault weapon is unlikely to be used to hunt - it's designed to kill - and one has fears for the carnage that might follow. It would be likely to assumed that an intruder is armed, and one would feel the need for an armed response. All very well if they are an intruder perhaps...

So, all in all, a policy which might not be so popular when you look at the detail. The BNP want your thuggish neighbour to be armed with something that will, if used, kill you. They want the countryside to be covered with army training facilities. They want the police to be armed. They want to take the vote away from the disabled. They want to miltarise the nation.

Is that enough for the next Focus leaflet?

Safe in my old cocoon

Once upon a time, when I was young, I became active in the Young Liberals - a radical bunch indeed, if not necessarily that effective. As I rose effortlessly through the ranks - it wasn't that I was that good, it was just that I was consistently the only person available to fill vacancies, it dawned on me that a radical gesture was required.

For a middle-class surburban kid like myself, the idea of doing something that involved risk, pain or demonstration was ruled out instantly. So I joined the National Liberal Club, immediately marking me out from the knit your own muesli, sandal wearing tree huggers who were my contemporaries - lovely people though they were.

I loved the Club, wood-panelled walls, leather armchairs, a terrace overlooking the Thames, and conveniently located for Parliament, the South Bank and the West End. I was single, carefree and with the sort of disposable income that made one painfully content with one's lot. It was a great place to host our international visitors too, as a gentlemens' club was always likely to impress.

Unfortunately, I had to give it up when I first married - the cost was a bit of a luxury all of a sudden. However, as my finances improved, I dusted off my right to rejoin and renewed my membership. That was 1996 and for a number of years after that, I popped in from time to time, grabbing a drink at the bar, making conversation with the barman, an institution called Benito, whose attitude to those wanting refreshment was famous, and occasionally treating myself to dinner.

I even availed myself of my reciprocal rights - Los Angeles, Mumbai, Dunedin, Bangkok, all of them allowed me the opportunity to seek sanctuary from the hubbub of urban life.

In recent years, however, my opportunities to visit began to become fewer, and I was beginning to wonder whether or not it was time to give it up. It isn't cheap and, whilst a gentleman is allowed the odd indulgence, the money could be better spent.

Until now, that is. Now that my domestic arrangements have changed, and a pied-de-terre in inner London is part of them, I actually have an excuse to drop in more often, especially during the Parliamentary recess, when Ros is in Suffolk and I am, during the week at least, in London.

So, I get to entertain a bit. If you're in London midweek, and you fancy a drink, and a look around one of London's more secluded corners, drop me an e-mail. Give me some notice, and if I'm free, and you're properly attired (jacket and tie for men, no jeans, proper shoes please), we'll see what can be done. And don't forget, Lord Bonkers is known to frequent the place when in town, or so I'm told - I've never laid eyes on the old buffer when I've been here, to be honest...

This week in the Lords - 13-17 July (part 1)

It's the sharp end of the Parliamentary session, as a number of Bills reach the point of potential no return, and the Government hasten to get as much of their poorly drafted legislation through whilst the sun shines. One complication is the unexpected death yesterday of Lord Kingsland, the Conservative frontbencher for constitutional and legal affairs which, given the nature of the week's business, is likely to cause some reshuffling, if only on the Conservative benches. Liberal Bureaucracy sends its condolences to his family.

So, what do we have to look forward to?


Monday

From the Liberal Democrat benches, oral questions on US/UK negotiations on the acceptance of detainees (Lord Wallace of Saltaire) and on the issue of refugees arising from conflicts and climate change (Baroness Tonge).

Day 7 of the Committee stage of the Coroners and Justice Bill, where our plucky team will doubtless continue to resist attempts to take more of our rights away. Lord Thomas of Gresford will be seeking to amend the Bill to tighten up issues relating to witness anonymity (amendments 185ZA to 185ZE inclusive) and to reject Clauses 86, 87, 93 and 98. Meanwhile, Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer will be moving amendments 186A-C, which seek to prevent the imposition of police bail for minor offences.

The most interesting, and most likely to be successful, amendment is one that has the support of both Conservative and Liberal Democrat benches, amendment 187, which creates an Independent Commissioner for Terrorist Suspects. Paragraph 2 of the proposed new clause reads;

"The principal function of the Commissioner shall be to monitor the detention and treatment of terrorist suspects held under section 41 of and Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) and in particular to give the judicial authority such independent assistance as it may require in deciding whether or not to extend the period of detention, and to perform such other related functions as the Secretary of State may determine."

Finally, there will be a Motion of Regret from Baroness Miller, opposing some new regulations in support of the introduction of identity cards. The Conservatives are likely to be supportive, although whether they can round up enough votes is another question.


Tuesday

From the Liberal Democrat benches, there will be oral questions on the prospects for a united Cyprus (Lord Watson of Richmond) and on university places (Baroness Sharp).

Then, it will be on to the Committee Stage of the Parliamentary Standards Bill. Liberal Democrats will be pushing to make specific the fact that the Bill only applies to the House of Commons, and to insert a proper system for investigating complaints. Meanwhile, Lord Jenkin of Roding will be attempting to insert multiple references to the 1689 Bill of Rights. I wonder if Conservatives opposed that piece of legislation at the time?...

Curb your enthusiasm - 'yesterday' in the Lords (Friday, July 10th)

Firstly, apologies for falling behind. You know how it is, it takes time to read the papers, something else crops up, blah, blah, blah...

Anyway, last week saw one of those rare Fridays where the Lords remains in session, doubtless preventing Lord Redesdale from getting home to continue his excellent work in preserving the red squirrel by killing every grey squirrel within the borders of Northumberland. But I digress...

Business started with a statement from Baroness Royall, advising that additional time will be found to debate the Parliamentary Standards Bill, i.e. the bill that introduces the nanny state to Parliament. Whilst this was welcomed by the opposition front benches, Lord Shutt of Greetland, he of the effervescent tie collection and the very model of a Yorkshireman, called upon the noble Baroness to life her e-quill and notify Peers via the exciting new communication method involving electronics. This radical notion appears not to have crossed her mind previously, but she was keen to take up the selection. We'll see how successful it has been on Thursday...

The remainder of the day's business consisted of Second Readings of four Private Members' Bills, the last of which was that originally moved in the Commons by Willie Rennie, seeking greater regulation of driving instructors, in particular those accused, or found guilty, of serious offences. Willie has covered this far better than I could, but it was good to see that the Bill received wide approval across the House. Hopefully, it will be passed into law shortly.

With a final glowing endorsement from the Government spokesman, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, the House adjourned in time for lunch, or an early train, depending upon ones taste or distance to be travelled...

The lights may be out in Creeting St Peter but the torch burns in Norwich North

A typical Sunday morning. Wake up at about 8, go downstairs, make tea. Drink tea, go downstairs again to make more tea. Turn on kettle, nothing happens. Turn off kettle, turn on kettle again. Still nothing. Hmmmm... try a few other electrical items. No, mone of them work either. I know, ring electricity company...

And that's when I found out that there was a high voltage cable fault, apparently affecting an area from Great Bricett in the west, through Needham Market and the southern end of Stowmarket, to Mickfield and Stonham Aspal in the east. Engineers were on the job though, and it was expected that power would be restored as soon as possible.

As it turned out, power wasn't likely to be restored until the early evening, but I had an appointment in Norwich with April Pond and the campaign team.

So, off up the A140, across the Waveney, stopping only for a very good lunch at the White Horse at Stoke Ash. At Norwich, a spot of light shopping before arriving at the HQ to meet activists before going on to do some canvassing with April Pond, John Pugh, Gerard from Liverpool and Chris Butler, April's minder.

There weren't an awful lot of people in, but those that were seemed fairly friendly, and pleasantly supportive. Alright, it may not be entirely representative, but I am reassured that we'll do alright.

Then home again, where the power was still to be restored, but at least the barbecue was working. And the power did come on eventually...