And where, exactly, was the cat? I like cats...

To London on Wednesday for a social occasion, as the Parliamentary Party in the Lords, newly buttressed by its new members, was invited with significant others, spouses, grandchildren etc. to 10 Downing Street by someone described as the Deputy Prime Minister but who I tend to think of as 'that nice young man who was so impressive when I was his Returning Officer in 1997'.

I don't come into London so much these days - ghastly place, crowded with expensive beer, where you can only get decent cheese at Borough Market (and have you seen the prices?) and where people seem to think that standing right in front of the doors when you're trying to get off of a tube train is so obviously clever (I increasingly have to resist the urge to wave a walking stick at them angrily, even though I don't possess one... yet). But the prospect of meeting some old friends and, just possibly, some celebrity glitter, was enough to lure me onto a Greater Anglia train.

Sadly, Freya was off somewhere - she probably isn't Liberal Democrat friendly - but it was a fun evening anyway. There are no pictures - mobile phones are taken from you at the entrance - and you are pretty well supervised but the chance to catch up with the Family, as I lovingly think of them, made the effort well worth it.

The 'perfectly charming young man' spoke to an audience who were respectful in the way that grandparents can be towards great-nephews and the like sometimes but were rather more there to catch up with old friends, check out the soft furnishings and mark the nibbles for quality and quantity. And for the spouses, it's a chance to catch up, ask after each other's grandchildren and what they've been up to since last we met. It is surprisingly gemütlich, for want of a better word.

But, just as we were talking about quilting and swapping stories about late, lamented colleagues, it was time to be herded gently back towards Whitehall and back to our normal lives.

I'm sorry I missed you, Freya. Maybe next time?...

ALDE: competing loyalties as Clegg and Verhofstadt square up

Alright, where were we? Ah yes...

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was "federalism". Guy Verhofstadt is a federalist, and a very passionate one at that. He's also Belgian, but that isn't all that important, after all, good things come from Belgium, like beer and frites... and Magritte, now I think of it. It is, however, a combination that makes some people nervous, and others angry.

Mr Verhofstadt wants to be the Liberal candidate for the Presidency of the European Commission, an unlikely, but not impossible, eventuality. However, there are those liberals who don't think that his candidacy is a good idea, so they went away and found a potentially credible alternative. Olli Rehn was that alternative, currently serving as European Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Euro, and a Vice-President of the European Commission. He's a Finn, and not as frightening to those who find charismatic, passionate Belgian federalists scary. He isn't as charismatic, but this is Europe, where charisma is optional, so that's alright.

A campaign ensued, with the early running being made by the Manchurian Belgian candidate, snapping up endorsements from all of the Benelux member parties and generally being everywhere. The Rehn campaign, however, struck back with a concordat signed by a number of liberal leaders, including Nick Clegg, endorsing him. It all looked to be quite exciting, and given that the Germans and the British were expected to vote for Rehn, it was going to be quite close too, assuming that the British delegation voted as instructed.

And that's where the wheels fell off. As a friend once said, trying to organise Liberal Democrats can be like stacking frogs in a wheelbarrow sometimes, and so it was decided to 'manage' the delegation to ensure, as far as possible, that it voted the 'right way'. Luckily, I made the cut, which is nice.

But, behind the scenes, one of the candidates may have concluded that he might not win, and the contest was causing some concern amongst the member parties. So, the Dutch Prime Minister and the new National Chairman of the FDP were sent off to make a deal. The deal was done, the candidates shook hands on it, and it was decided. Verhofstadt is to be the candidate for the Presidency, with Rehn to be nominated for a key position in the next Commission. Very neat, you may think.

Well, yes, but for the fact that our Leader doesn't like it...

This isn't a deal Nick Clegg or the Liberal Democrats have signed up to, and we won't be supporting it. We will continue to back Olli Rehn, and we regard him as being at the top of the liberal ticket across Europe, certainly in the UK. Nick Clegg will not be campaigning with Guy Verhofstadt and does not support at all his views of a federal Europe.

That's telling me, isn't it? So, obviously, I will be voting against the deal, as he would like me to. But I am being lobbied to vote for the deal by my MEP, Andrew Duff, someone I have a lot of time for. He makes some very good points, and I find myself wondering, "Exactly what does voting down the deal actually achieve?". Presumably, even if it were to be voted down, Rehn would withdraw from the contest, leaving Verhofstadt to be elected unopposed. And who else is going to vote against it, now that both men have written to us all, asking us to accept it? What, apart from a gesture, is the point?

So, as I'm an elected delegate, elected by Federal Conference delegates, what do you think I should do? The vote takes place on Saturday afternoon, so time is short...

Published elsewhere: Nick speaks on immigration. and proves that my fears were justified...

A shortened version of this article was published on Liberal Democrat Voice yesterday...

Last June, in one of the Coalition's less glorious moments, the idea of insisting that those wishing to bring a foreign spouse into the country should have a minimum level of income was mooted. Naturally, I wasn't impressed.

It was bad enough that the Government adopted it, but it was the Labour response that was even more dubious? Here's what Yvette Cooper said at the time;

It is not clear that the best way to protect the taxpayer is to focus solely on the sponsor’s salary. For example, in the current economic climate, someone on £40,000 today could lose their job next month, and then, of course, there is no way to protect the taxpayer. The system does not take account of the foreign partner’s income, which might have a differential impact on women. Will the Home Secretary explain why the Government ruled out consulting on a bond that could have been used to protect the taxpayer if someone needed public funds later on?

So, when Nick Clegg talks about the idea of introducing a security bond for visitors from certain countries, it isn't original and it isn't clever. In fact, the security bond for foreign spouses option is already used in Denmark.

But the justification was that it would act as a disincentive against false marriages. The Government, having consulted the Migration Advisory Committee, chose to go down the route of minimum income levels for the British spouse instead.

And, one can see the logic. If you're going to set the bond at a particular level, how do you choose it? Too high, and you punish those whose intentions are entirely honourable, too low, and you set the rate for those whose intentions are less so. Nick does at least see that;

The basic premise is simple: in certain cases, when a visa applicant is coming from a high risk country, in addition to satisfying the normal criteria, UKBA would be able to request a deposit – a kind of cash guarantee. Once the visitor leaves Britain, the bond will be repaid. Clearly, we need to look into the detail and seek a wide range of views, including from the Home Affairs Select Committee. 

The bonds would need to be well-targeted – so that they don’t unfairly discriminate against particular groups. The amounts would need to be proportionate – we mustn’t penalise legitimate visa applicants who will struggle to get hold of the money. Visiting Britain to celebrate a family birth, or a relative’s graduation, or wedding should not become entirely dependant on your ability to pay the security bond. 

However, his naivety is astonishing. If you target the bonds, they by definition discriminate against particular groups. Is he really telling me that the bonds will apply to the United States but not India, Japan but not Botswana? Does he not understand that we already make it difficult for citizens of many countries to get a visa, insisting on payment without guarantee of success, dealing with applications remotely so that decisions are not made locally? For example, if you are Jamaican and applying for a visa, your application is not processed in Kingston, but overseas. You are not interviewed, merely scored against criteria decided upon by the Home Office. Hardly a sensitive, accurate process.

It might not be the case that Nick means to give the impression of racism, but if you are an ethnic minority, you might not be quite so generous of spirit.

You might ask, "Wouldn't it be better to improve the visa application process?", and it's a perfectly good question. Unfortunately, we've already cut back our network of consulates as a cost-cutting exercise, so the tick-box method of processing applications is the only currently practical option. It just isn't a very good one.

So, if my uncle wants to visit me from Mumbai, how much should he be charged? On top of his airfare, any accommodation costs and expenses? Does it depend on how long he plans to stay? He is family, so my father or I might choose to pay the bond.

But it can't apply only to family visits, or you would create an incentive to lie about the purpose of your visit, so it must potentially apply to all visitors from the designated countries, which brings me to the potential effect on tourism and trade.

If you are a tourist, you have a choice - Paris or London, Berlin or Edinburgh, for example. If you're like me, you're price sensitive, and if the United Kingdom wants to add a large chunk to the potential upfront cost, I might decide that it isn't worth the bother and go to Prague instead. And what will the cost of that be to our tourism industry?

And then, there is the risk of retaliation. Proposals to tighten the visa regime for Brazilians coming to this country were shelved when it became abundantly clear that the Brazilian government would simply retaliate in kind. Trade trumping principles, you might conclude, and I would agree with you. 

In June, I wondered if this was a sign of things to come. I didn't think that the answer would come quite so soon, and certainly not from the Leader of the Liberal Democrats...

Nick Clegg is sorry... but is this tactics or strategy?

I admit to some surprise at the nature of this week's mea culpa over tuition fees. It seems like an odd time to choose to do so as, whilst it fits a domestic Party schedule, it doesn't necessarily come at an early enough point for public opinion.

That said, many activists of my acquaintance were consistently of the view that it was the breaking of the pledge that was wrong, rather than the pledge itself. The policy was, after all, costed, and had Liberal Democrats formed a government, we might well have been able to honour that pledge.

On reflection, it would appear, however, that when making the pledge, no consideration was made of the fact that we might be the junior partner in a coalition subsequently, and thus unable to have confidence that our pledge was deliverable.

But an apology is a good thing. At least, I think it is...

However, what good is an apology without follow up? As I have noted previously, we campaigned for a new type of politics, one that most Liberal Democrat activists believed in, whereby you treated the public like adults, and hoped that they would respond.

In government, we haven't always been true to that. Not as unfaithful as our opponents would have you believe, but we've 'played the game'. I will admit that I am uncomfortable with that. So, hopefully, this is a fresh start for Liberal Democrats in power, with a more open dialogue. It takes two, or more, to make this work, however. The media fixation on conflict and discord plus the cynicism of politicians, serve to encourage a reversion to spin and bluster.

It will not be an easy road back for the Party, but given that the longest journey starts with a single step, it would be nice if we started rebuilding our credibility with the British public this week.

Europe and the Liberal Democrats: we're at our best when we believe in something

Having just watched young Clegg on 'The Andrew Marr Show', I am much reassured. The initial reports of his response to the failure of the Brussels summit were, in the eyes of many Liberal Democrats, including this one, deeply regrettable, which only goes to show that you shouldn't necessarily believe what you read in the newspapers or see on the television news.

And I have to say, I thought that Nick did very well this morning. By admitting the truth, that the City of London is no safer now than it was before Cameron played the Conservative Party's joker, he said what most people who actually understand both the issues and the politics know, that a veto only works if it prevents something bad from happening, and that if you're not in the room when the big questions are discussed, you're not fighting for Britain's interest, you're watching as other decide your future for you. Not so much a veto as an abrogation of personal responsibility.

There are only really two options from here, one popular but wrong, one difficult but right.

If we want to protect the City of London, we need to be at the heart of the debate, or outside altogether. The Conservative Party would, I fear, given the chance, lead us out, leaving us dependent on the World Trade Organisation to protect our interests - not a happy scenario for anything smaller than a multinational. And Nick is clear, with three million jobs potentially at risk, with our influence in the world at stake, leaving Europe is not an option.

No, young Clegg did well today. It's about jobs and growth, not about machismo. It's about our long term future as a nation, not about pandering to the Daily Vile.

And perhaps, whilst we're at it, we can start talking about building the sort of democratic, accountable, transparent Europe that might prevent this sort of stupidity in future...