I seem to have accidentally attracted the attention of the anti-5G campaigners...

One of the bits about being a day editor of Liberal Democrat Voice is that, occasionally, you are tempted to respond to the news of the day. And sometimes, you realise why you aren’t often tempted...

On Monday, I was critical of a piece by Nick Cohen, attempting to smear the entire Liberal Democrats on the basis of a rather quirky stance on 5G masts by two councillors in Bath and possibly endorsed by the local Liberal Democrat MP. My view was that his attempt to associate the party with an anti-science stance was indicative of lazy bias.

My understanding is that 5G-capable masts aren’t an issue. At least, that seems to be the generally accepted position amongst experts and, as I know a lot less than them, unless someone is going to offer me overwhelming evidence that the experts are both wrong and corrupt, I’m content to go along with that. I’m not, for example, going to tell the pilot of a flight that I’m on that, just because someone on Twitter is convinced that there’s a better way of doing it than the way he was trained to, he should stop what he is doing and heed my words of wisdom. Expertise and consensus, whilst not foolproof, tend to offer better odds over time.

The bad news is that some anti-5G campaigners have found me and incorrectly assumed that I share their view. So, to be clear, I don’t. Please don’t send me obscure and, doubtless, thoughtfully edited quotes from reports, documents or other sources. As I’m not a scientist, I don’t have the technical knowledge to properly evaluate them, and I haven’t got the time, or the inclination, to teach myself.

It is a reminder that, out there, there are some people absolutely certain that, in the face of the available evidence, that governments are out to control us all through mind control, or microchips administered via fake vaccinations. Frankly, I haven’t encountered the government competent enough to do that or, even if they somehow could, monitor individuals any more than they currently do. The internet has given such people the means to publicise their views and convince the paranoid, the vulnerable and the disturbed to do things that harm society.

Anti-5G campaigners mostly don’t fall into that category, but they are likely to make the same sort of mistake, i.e. believing that because something passionately concerns them, the rest of us should be equally passionately concerned. And in a world where there are plenty of obvious things that need addressing - poverty, climate change, armed conflict to name but three - I really don’t have the bandwidth to worry about something that I currently have no reason to worry about.

So, if you have been trying to contact me without response, perhaps this might explain why. I’m a statistician by training, sceptical of data but prone to accept the odds implied by having most of the experts on one side of the debate, especially in a field that I’m not trained in. It’s not personal though...

Liberal Democrat Voice and moderation - some historical perspective...

As the former Readers' Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, I was obliged to give much thought to the dilemma that faces any debating platform, i.e. how do you create a space which is inclusive yet lively, informative but not aggressive, in the face of accusations of being either overly laissez-faire or unreasonably censorious? My conclusion was that you can never satisfy everyone, so you might as well be true to yourself and as consistent and transparent as you can.

Of course, the dilemma is one that predates the Internet, as this guidance, explicitly defining the formal conditions for fruitful conversation, demonstrates;

During the discussion that followed readings or lectures, members were to avoid arbitrary or ill-considered comments. Critiques should engage in a structured way with the style, method and content of the lecture. They should employ 'the cautious language of reason'. Digressions and interruptions were strictly prohibited. All members were ultimately guaranteed the right to have their say, but they must wait their turn and make remarks as concise as possible. Satirical or mocking remarks and suggestive wordplay were unacceptable.

The fact that the guidance was issued by the 'German societies' which sprang up across Prussia in the mid-eighteenth century, does tell you that discussion moderation has been an issue for some time now and, indeed, that the basic problems are unchanging.

For the Liberal Democrat Voice team, that demonstrates the scale of the moderation challenge. In the early days, moderation was quite relaxed, before tightening up significantly after the expenses scandal in 2009. I admit that, subsequently, I had thought that moderation had become excessive until I became part of the team myself, and began to appreciate the challenges brought about by some of the behaviours exhibited.

But now, I find myself wondering whether or not the current policy finds the team caught between two stools - activist in terms of one-off incidents, yet excessively tolerant in terms of those who consistently derail threads, behave aggressively towards other participants or who seek to distort the apparent support for their position by multiple commenting.

The policy of placing 'difficult' individuals in auto-moderation is, as far as it goes, merely a starting point. It generates more work for the team, work which is trying, to say the least, and irritates those penalised, often causing them to spend time challenging the moderation policy, generating even more work.

It is argued that banning people is illiberal. Banning people because you feel like It is illiberal. But if you establish a set of rules, clearly stated, you are obliged to enforce them, and the punishment is meant to be for those breaking them, not those enforcing them. It is not censorship to deny those who lack respect for the rules of a community a platform - there are plenty of other platforms for them - below the line on most articles in the national newspapers, Guido Fawkes, the list is probably endless.

Whilst the articles on Liberal Democrat Voice retain their interest, the comments below are too often predictable and dominated by what seems like an diminishing number of individuals. I note that my engagement, as well as my participation, has dropped recently, and I wonder if I am alone in that.

But those of us who wish it were better do have a responsibility too. We could engage, adhering to the rules for the 'German societies' outlined above, and see how it goes. After all, we'd miss Liberal Democrat Voice if it were gone, wouldn't we?

Dear members who read Liberal Democrat Voice, it seems that we aren't as representative as you thought...

So, Sal Brinton is the new President of the Liberal Democrats, a result which seems to have come as a surprise to some people. Me, I had no clue in advance of the declaration, as the Presidential campaigns almost entirely bypassed Mid Suffolk, which is my connection to what one might describe as 'ordinary members' (they aren't ordinary, as I note here).

Nobody visited us, nobody approached any of our members to canvass support on their behalf as far as I can tell, and all we saw was the mailing and, for those of us on e-mail, three messages from each candidate, one of which was probably too late to matter, especially given that nearly three-quarters of members voted by post.

I don't think that Mid Suffolk was particularly unique though, as unless you were easily accessible, or had some Party event taking place on your patch, it was unlikely that a candidate would come your way - Liz Lynne being the honourable exception to that statement. And even she could only visit so many places in the time available.

Naturally, I kept my eye on Liberal Democrat Voice and my Twitter feed, although given my Local Party's bemusement at both, I was never likely to be convinced that what I was seeing online was likely to reflect the outcome. Hell, I didn't believe it in 2008, when it was pretty accurate as it turned out.

Daisy's campaign, whilst it was lively and enthusiastic, didn't appear to have anywhere near as much reach beyond social media, and given her late emergence as a candidate, it was never likely to leave enough time for her to raise her profile to reach beyond the Internet. That isn't, by the way, a criticism. After all, it took Ros two years of travelling the country to establish her credibility as a likely contender for the Presidency.

So, if you're an ordinary member, confronted with three candidates of whom you're likely to have little personal connection, what are you likely to do? The most likely thing is to read the manifestos and study them for marks of credibility. Who else thinks this person is good, and are they someone that I know and trust? In 2008, Ros's campaign had Regional Chairs, all of whom were well connected and well respected. Her background in local government over two decades meant that there was a network of local councillors who knew her, or knew someone who knew her. There were, even in areas where we had relatively little strength in local government, people willing to endorse Ros if asked for an opinion.

It didn't strike me that any of the campaigns had that network available to them - again, time didn't really permit. So, the endorsements were key, and that's where Sal scored hugely. Ordinary members see the names of Paddy and Shirley and, if they vote at all, are likely to be swung by that in the absence of a personal connection. That is, I presume, why candidates seek endorsements.

My friends and fellow readers, you are more Internet-savvy than ordinary members on the whole, more engaged with the day to day stuff inside the bubble - and Liberal Democrat Voice is within the bubble, I'm afraid. You're disproportionately male, disproportionately young, disproportionately politically engaged (well, two out of three isn't bad in my case...), in short, somewhat atypical of the Party's membership. You are, because you're more engaged, less likely to be swayed by endorsements. You are, perhaps, more likely to be swayed by a candidate who engages with you on social media - you were rather more supportive of Tim Farron in 2010 than the membership as a whole (LDV readers favoured Tim by a 2:1 margin, whereas the result was 11:9).

So, are Liberal Democrat Voice polls worth the bandwidth they take up? Possibly yes, possibly no. They may signify trends - ministerial popularity measured over a sufficient length of time might be a signpost towards future problems, or might signal potential future leadership contenders, perhaps. Do they reflect membership opinion more widely? That, I guess, depends on the question asked.

But should we, or anyone else take them terribly seriously? I can't help feeling that I shouldn't, merely seeing them as they are, a snapshot of our views as Liberal Democrats who read Liberal Democrat Voice. And, until there is some other, more truly representative means of measuring opinion amongst members, I don't doubt that Liberal Democrat Voice will continue to poll readers, and that those who wish to interpret the results as being of great import will continue to do so...

Congratulations to Jonathan Calder, double Auld Johnstons all round!

The news that Jonathan Calder has won the Liberal Democrat Voice 'Blog of the Year' contest has reached Creeting St Peter and it is all the more welcome for being thoroughly hard-earned.

I have, in the past, written of the sheer quality and diversity of his writing, and my vague suspicion that the character that is Lord Bonkers has rather overshadowed his other work. He has, over the years, gathered more bridesmaid outfits than one might believe credible.

There is a dark side to this success, however, in that the history of the award does not bode well for the survival of the blog - most winners end up drifting away either from the Party, or blogging, or in some cases, both.

I can only express a wish that you keep up the good work... and enjoy your turn judging next year's award nominees...

ALDE Election Congress: it's make your mind up time...

Alright, I've asked all of the questions, gained an understanding of the issues, listened to the speeches, even the ones in French. The dynamic duo of Rehn and Verhofstadt have outlined their vision for Europe - one that works towards peace and liberty, one that creates opportunity for its citizens, one that is democratically accountable. They believe in a reformed Europe, run in a spirit of transparency.

I have been impressed by the grace and good humour displayed by Olli Rehn, and the passion and enthusiasm of Guy Verhofstadt, and believe that the team approach offers the best available alternative in the quest for a more liberal Europe.

And so, with apologies to my Party leader, I'm ignoring the entreaties made to oppose the resolution endorsing the joint Verhofstadt/Rehn ticket, and will be casting my vote in support accordingly.

Published Elsewhere - Film Review: InRealLives

This post was published earlier today on Liberal Democrat Voice...

Released this week, InRealLives takes a look at how the internet has impacted upon the way we live our lives, and flags up some issues that should cause us to reflect upon questions of privacy, personal relationships and sexuality.

Director Beeban Kidron might be best known for "Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit" and "Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason", but here she delves into the lives of five young people as they talk variously about their use of pornography and its effect on their ability to connect emotionally, addiction to social media and computer gaming, cyber bullying and building relationships online.

Woven around these individual stories is an examination of where data is kept, how much of what we do is recorded, and the question asked is, do we have real privacy any more?

Kidron carries out the interviews off camera, allowing you to focus your whole attention on the interviewee, in their own homes, and asks the sort of questions that generate some thoughtful, and thought-provoking, answers. In doing so, she provides an insight into the impact of the internet on the next generation - just what are they doing with their smartphones all day?

The film addresses some difficult issues but also offers some optimism - I challenge anyone not to feel for Tom as he comes out on line and forms a relationship with Daniel.

All in all, this is a film for parents and grandparents who might learn why social media is so huge, and for young adults who might not entirely appreciate the loss of privacy that might ensue. Unfortunately, its 15 certificate does mean that some of those who might benefit from seeing it won't be able to do so, but nonetheless, it achieves its aim of challenging the way we see the online world with humour, honesty and integrity.

InRealLives was released on 20 September, and is produced by Dogwoof Productions.

Recovering my equilibrium...

It has been, I admit, a rather testing twenty-four hours or so, for reasons which will be understood by readers of Liberal Democrat Voice. Apparently, that which does not kill us makes us stronger. Trust me, that may be true in the long-term, but it doesn't feel like that right now.

Writing instant response pieces has never been a personal strong suit, and I have received a reminder as to why that might be so. A valuable lesson learned, I guess.

It is also a reminder, both for myself, and for others, that one is often better served by reflection before a response, rather than reaction made in anger, or in partisan excitement. And, perhaps, reading all of something and confirming understanding might be good too...

The nature of the debate which followed is just as troubling, if not more so. The ability of some on both sides of the debate to express hostility to those with whom they disagree in terms that are themselves wholly offensive does make you wonder if there is any common ground to be had - I must thank my colleagues for their efforts in moderating comments that comprehensively breach its comments policy in my somewhat shell-shocked absence.

So, somewhat chastened, and rather more cautious, I continue to ponder over the responsibility I have to the audience and to my Liberal Democrat Voice colleagues. A media platform, regardless of its scale, importance or influence, is a delicate thing, requiring balance, judgement and integrity in how one interacts with one's audience. An inability to bear that in mind has tarnished our media in this country, and our politics, and I intend to remember that in future.

Published elsewhere: Euro 2014 - a cause to fight for, not to hide from

Those nice people at Liberal Democrat Voice have graciously allowed me to publish this on their pages. But as I know that there are those of you out there who don't read it...

So, we’ve selected our candidates for Europe in England and Scotland, and a pretty good bunch they are too – people who are committed to the concept of a Europe of twenty-seven (soon to be twenty-eight) nations pooling some sovereignty for a greater good. So far, so good. But what are they going to do for the next eighteen months?

Past experience says, “not much to do with Europe”. Yes, they’ll be campaigning to a lesser or greater extent, but what will they becampaigning for? In the past, that’s generally meant something little different to how we campaign for Westminster, vote for us to keep X out, schools, jobs, the environment, you know the sort of thing. We’ve mentioned Europe in passing, but only to the minimum extent necessary.

So, why not try something radical? If opinion polls are to be believed, we haven’t got a huge amount to look forward to unless there is a sizeable increase in our level of support over the next year. If that’s so, why not, to use baseball parlance, at least go down swinging?

With UKIP campaigning to pull us out of Europe, the Conservatives publicly hostile to anything coming out of Brussels to shore up their right flank, and Labour increasingly sceptical when they aren’t being cynical, there is an enormous political space for a political party that believes in engaging positively with Europe and our European partners.

You would think that, as a traditionally internationalist party, that should be ours, and intellectually, it is. However, over the years, we’ve allowed ourselves to be cowed by the Eurosceptics, whose distortions and hyperbole have dominated the argument. “Europe isn’t popular,”, we are told, “it will hurt us if we campaign for it.”.

So, let’s not campaign for it, let’s campaign about it, making the case for active engagement, for making it more accountable, more transparent, more relevant to the state our country is in. Let’s talk about why, by electing Liberal Democrats, you’ll get a better environment, an improved transport network, more opportunities for yourselves and your children.

And let’s talk about what’s wrong with Europe too. Let’s admit that there are things that Europe wants to do that we don’t agree with, and how Liberal Democrats can stop them. Let’s talk about our campaign to reduce waste, to focus spending on enabling growth and creating jobs. We could even talk about our future in an enlarged single market.

The talk in recent months has been of differentiation, of impressing upon the electorate that we haven’t lost our identity. There is a danger that, in making the effort to do so, we forget who we really are. So, why not take an issue where we are poles apart, and go out and campaign for something, rather than against someone?

What’s the worst that could happen?

Liberal Democrats and blogging: in which I rise to the bait

There has been much talk over the past month of Liberal Democrats, blogging and awards. Jonathan Calder has, by dint of giving the snowball a decently hard shove, started that debate and taken it on, helped by Jennie (made of awesome) Rigg, Alex (and to think I was his Returning Officer once...) Wilcock and others.

I haven't won any awards, although I wouldn't say no if I did, but I do have a BOTY here in the office at home - the one that Ros won in 2008 for best use of social media in a campaign. It's very nice, and remains shiny. Shiny...

But I digress.

I tend to think that awards should reward innovation, entertainment and achievement, and I tend to agree with Paul Walter to some extent when he suggests that blogging is dead. I wouldn't go that far, merely suggesting that, with the emergence of a whole bunch of other media, blogging isn't as exciting as it was, and I remain to be convinced that it is the best medium to convey ideas and information, especially in a political sense.

So, if I were deciding upon the awards, what would I like to see? How about;

• best use of social media in a political campaign
• most humorous use of the internet
• best blog post
• best blog
• best tweet/hashtag
• best new blog
• best non-Liberal Democrat politician on the internet
• best non-politician on the internet

I'd also consider restricting the role of the judges to picking a shortlist, upon which the decision would be handed over to those registered in the Forum to vote on. Indeed, perhaps we should elect some of the judges!

I agree that we should announce the categories at the beginning of the year, remind people about them from time to time, and open nominations six weeks before Federal Conference in the autumn, leaving time for judging and voting.

I'd happily promote the awards, although frankly, I should be doing that anyway.

And, as for the awards ceremony itself, we should get a 'personality' to hand them out, complete with glamorous assistant if need be. There's a lot of really good stuff happening out there, and the Awards should be an opportunity to celebrate that and have some fun. Because, ultimately, we do this because we enjoy it, don't we?

Published elsewhere: Next week in the Lords - 15-18 October

It looks as though this column may be going down in flames, now that the Lords have appointed a new Media and PR Officer, but until we do...

Days 7 and 8 of the Committee Stage of the Financial Services Bill dominate the week. And, as I still don't understand it, I'm going to see if I can get an explanation. Watch, hopefully, this space... However, Amendment 197, to be moved by Lord Flight, requires banks to transfer accounts to a new institution, if requested, within ten working days and without charge. I suspect that the banks won't like this, but as it is suggested that people are more likely to divorce than to change bank, creating a more meaningful market in retail banking can only be encouraged. Interesting that the idea should come from a Conservative though...

Day 2 of the Report Stage of the Local Government Finance Bill takes place on Tuesday. I'm led to understand that there are rumblings about the impact of this legislation on the voluntary sector and on social enterprises, so we'll see if they can sort this out, as promised by Baroness Hanham before the summer recess.

There are two other pieces of legislation to be debated in the Chamber. On Monday, we have the Report Stage of the Trusts (Capital and Income) Bill, a piece of legislation so fiendishly complex that it required a Special Public Bill Committee to steer it through its First and Second Readings. On Friday, we have one of the backlog of Private Members' Bills, the Inheritance (Cohabitants) Bill, sponsored by Anthony Lester from the Liberal Democrat benches, which seeks to give new rights for cohabitants when their partner dies.

On the Committee corridor, EU Sub-Committee B takes evidence from Jo Swinson as part of its inquiry into 'Women on boards', a subject taken up by Kishwer Falkner on Wednesday in her oral question on European Commission policies on women on corporate boards. On Wednesday, Danny Alexander is questioned by the Economic Affairs Committee as they continue to examine the potential impact of Scottish independence on the UK economy.

Apart from Kishwer Falkner's question on Wednesday, there are oral questions on Monday from Derek Ezra (ninety-three years young) on UK self-sufficiency in energy, on Tuesday from Claire Tyler on the recommendations of the Riots, Communities and Victims Panel on building character and personal resilience, and on Thursday from Sally Hamwee on Anti-Slavery Day and awareness that individuals may be the subject of modern slavery. There will also be debates on developments in the bus industry, sponsored by Bill Bradshaw, and, in Grand Committee on the report of the European Union Committee on The EU: Sudan and South Sudan Follow-up Report, to be opened by Robin Teverson.

Finally, Thursday sees a debate to mark the centenary of the Scott expedition to Antarctica. I know that Ros and I covered a lot of miles during her tenure as Party President, but I really didn't think that we'd got that far...

Published elsewhere: is the golden age of government largesse over?

Here's another piece that I've written for Liberal Democrat Voice...

It is true that things were always better at sometime in the past. Or at least, it feels like that, especially as you get older. But perhaps it is. In the period since World War II, government, at national, state and local level, has provided more and more in the way of support to indivdiuals, organisations and communities, mostly for reasons widely supported to be of public good, sometimes for more cynical reasons, occasionally because it can. In a growing economy, such interventions are sustainable.

However, Robert Black, the former Auditor General for Scotland, in a lecture at the David Hume Institute last night, questioned whether or not the current range of free public services can remain so. And, whilst his examples were taken from Scottish government programmes, the point he makes is one that the rest of us need to consider very carefully. Responding to Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont's suggestion that their support for free university tuition, a freeze on council tax and free NHS prescriptions could be in doubt, Black said;

The move being made by the Labour Party in Scotland to at least start asking questions is a good thing. We need to do more of that but we need to do it as a society. I mean can we really afford all the services that are free at the point of delivery?

Of course, politicians agree with that. Well, mostly in private, but they do. The question is, how do you create a safe space in which politicians engage with the wider society to argue over what, and how?

To take two of his examples, the cost of the concessionary travel scheme in Scotland in expected to reach £500 million in the next decade. Is sacrificing that to maintain free, or subsidised nursing care for the elderly a reasonable exchange? Did increasing police numbers in Scotland from 6,900 in 1949 to 17,000, despite the use of technology, make people safer, or even feel safer? What has changed to justify the increase?

In his lecture, Robert Black went on to argue that, instead of focussing on passing more and more legislation, government should spend more time on budget scrutiny. The notion that Parliament might focus on how things work and what they cost, and how one might make existing structures work better, rather than replacing them with new ones, is not very 'sexy', nor does it leave an obvious legacy for the Minister, but it does have the potential advantage of stability and of organic, evolutionary change in the way public services are run.

As Liberal Democrats, we need to be part of that debate too, and whilst it is tempting to take the same stance that Labour have taken in opposition at Westminster - not this cut, not in that way, not now - if we are to protect the vulnerable, create opportunity and encourage freedom, we need to think about our priorities for a decent, inclusive society are and how we pay for them over the long term, and then start making that case in public. 

* Mark Valladares worries about balancing the books at his Parish Council in Creeting St Peter, Suffolk. He has a nasty feeling about anything much beyond that.

Published elsewhere: Next week in the Lords - 8-11 October

It dawns on me that my work for Liberal Democrat Voice really should be published here too - after it is published there, of course (I know the rules). After all, some of the people who read this, including my family, don't go there.

Yes, the moment you've all been waiting for, the House of Lords is back! And whilst I get to spend less time with my wife, legislation awaits. Will the death of Lords Reform change anything on the red benches? Just what are they going to discuss without it?

There are three Bills carried forward from before the summer recess;

As a gentle loosener after a summer of grouse shooting, light naps and memoir writing, Monday sees Day 6 of the Committee Stage of the Financial Services Bill, perhaps now to be known as the Lord Sassoon farewell tour (he's standing down as a Minister once the Bill is passed). It is, for the most part, extremely technical (that's in the sense that, frankly, I have no clue what they're on about). For the most part, it will be about Lord Flight, the somewhat controversial former Tory MP for Arundel and South Downs and before that an investment advisor and director of banks, attempting to amend the regulatory framework from that intended. From the Liberal Democrat benches, Susan Kramer will be trying to nudge the Minister gently towards greater transparency, whilst Andrew Phillips will be pitching for the individual investor, based on his experiences as Jimmy Young's "Legal Eagle".

On Tuesday, the Defamation Bill gets its Second Reading. The aim of the Bill is to reform the law of defamation to ensure that a fair balance is struck between the right to freedom of expression and the protection of reputation. The Bill makes a number of substantive changes to the law of defamation, but is not designed to codify the law into a single statute. Key areas include a requirement for claimants to show that they have suffered serious harm before suing for defamation, the removal of the current presumption in favour of a jury trial, the introduction of a defence of "responsible publication on matters of public interest", increased protection to operators of websites that host user-generated content, providing they comply with the procedure to enable the complainant to resolve disputes directly with the author of the material concerned, and new statutory defences of truth and honest opinion to replace the common law defences of justification and fair comment.

Finally, Wednesday is Local Government Finance day. Can't wait, can you? I know I can't... And yet, the Committee Stage ran to six days, and the Lords is full of ex- and in some cases, current local councillors. The Report Stage promises to be lively, especially given some of the savage cuts to be made in terms of grant settlement over the coming years.

It's a good week for Liberal Democrat interventions too, with short debates on provision of mental health services on Monday, initiated by John Alderdice, and a longer debate on the case for considering an alternative constitutional settlement in the event of the break-up of the UK on Thursday, called for by Robert Maclennan. Perhaps linked to the latter, the Economic Affairs Select Committee is taking evidence on the economic implications for the United Kingdom of Scottish independence on Tuesday. In addition, Dick Taverne has an oral question on Wednesday about evidence-based treatment in the National Health Service - a gentle dig at Jeremy Hunt's enthusiasm for homeopathy, perhaps?

Finally, in Grand Committee on Tuesday, Margaret Sharp has a debate on the contribution of further education colleges to their local economies and communities, whilst Qurban Hussain kicks off a debate about the human rights situation in Bangladesh.

Slightly embarrassed of Creeting St Peter writes...

There is, occasionally, a moment when someone says something, and it triggers a memory which would have been much more useful a few hours earlier.

So, when last night someone mentioned who had won the Liberal Democrat Voice 'Blog of the Year' Awards, it did cross my mind that I had intended to be there... tonight. Hmmm... not one of my more glorious moments. Admittedly, I was at one of the most enjoyable events I've ever been to at a Liberal Democrat conference, but nonetheless...

And, to make matters worse, I'd been nominated for an award, that for the best blog by a Liberal Democrat holding public office. Yes, a cute, furry parish councillor, up against a county councillor, an MP and a Minister. At least I didn't win, which is something of a mercy.

The award was won by Alex Folkes, whose reporting of events in Cornwall, around his home town of Launceston and on the Unitary Authority. Alex is a worthy winner, and losing to him comes without any sense of failure on my part.

So, three nominations, and still no award to match Ros's for best use of social media in a campaign. Ah well, maybe next year...

Does Liberal Democrat Voice need a Lords correspondent?

I ask, because the question has been raised by our noble friend, Lord Greaves, who suggests that it should include more coverage of events from the red benches and their environs.

As someone who has taken more interest in the activities of our (occasionally) ermine clad friends and colleagues, and written on the subject sometimes, I have to say that it is quite hard work. Some of the best work is done in meetings with ministers, through the 'usual channels' and by means of seemingly harmless, but actually quite significant questions. It isn't glamorous, but it is important.

The problem is that, in order to cover it well, you do need to have an interest in, and a knowledge of, the matter at hand. You also need the time to do the research, not as easy a prospect as it might sound... week, after week, after week. Accordingly, I have a lot of time for Paul Walter, whose weekly report on Prime Ministers' Questions has become a regular feature in recent months, and his efforts have now expanded to cover young Nick Clegg's regular trial by ordeal.

So, is there a demand out there for more coverage of the Lords? And if so, is anyone willing to take it on?

Liberal Democrat Voice - just like a big, extended family

The internet is a wonderful, terrible thing. It allows us to exchange information, communicate with people around the world, abuse people that we've never met.

Yesterday, however, it had a benevolent air to it, at least as far as this Suffolk-based Liberal Democrat is concerned. I had produced the leaflet, and only needed to send it to a friendly printer. The only problem was, I rely on mobile internet, signal is weak and variable, and the file was pretty big. How to resolve this? Well, what else is Liberal Democrat Voice for if not to provide a means of tapping the knowledge of friendly others?

So I post what, if memory recalls accurately, is my first topic in the members forum, in an attempt to get an answer. And, as I hoped, Chris Keating and Anthony Fairclough give me the benefit of their experience. I do as they suggest, shrink the file, send it, and I have completed a task.

Hoorah for the internet!