Irfan Ahmed - this is your fisk!

Readers of 'Liberal Bureaucracy' will be aware that I have had my problems with young Mr Ahmed over the past year. There have been issues regarding his use of language where I have felt it appropriate to register my concerns. For the most part though, I have overlooked a series of faux pas on the grounds that I have no desire to act as some kind of 'school prefect' for the Lib Dem blogosphere.

However, that came to an end when he decided to launch a salvo at the 'Liberal Bureaucracy' household. I wrote what I thought was an astonishingly restrained response (you will never see my first draft... or the second or third ones for that matter...). Here is Mr Ahmed's response, with some commentary...

I know what many think but the problem is that I don't know my elbow from my as* if I can use the term when it comes to issues that matter to everyone.

Interesting that this doesn't restrain you in any way. However, the problem is no longer yours - it is mine - especially when you bring the Party and a senior figure within it into potential disrepute.

I make comments on issues from time to time that everyone doesn't agree with and after I have made them I notice that it was a bad mistake making them in the first place.

Yes, and then you end debate by closing the piece to further comments and issue a feeble apology. And you only notice because a horde of people descend on your blog to question your judgement and your liberalism. Interesting how you get so little support...

A lot of my views that you don't see as being acceptable are due to my cultural and religious views and the rest are just because I am a naive child on the block.

The first half of that sentence might have some credibility, except that you're not being judged on the basis of your culture or religion but on your liberalism. And as for 'naive child on the block', you've been called for being anti-semitic, homophobic and sexist. At what point am I supposed to conclude that, whisper it gently, you might not actually be a liberal? Besides, you're an adult, the child defence is demeaning to you, and insulting to the rest of us.

The current issue has been understood wrongly, I personally was promoting a whistle blower for writing about issues e.g. how the party claims one thing and does another.

No, you libelled the Party President. There is no scope for wriggling here, no scope for misunderstanding. You still do not understand the gravity of your actions, or the responsibilities you take on when you claim the mantle of a partisan blogger. You are entitled to promote anyone you like, regardless of my personal opinion as to their stance. You are not free to defame without consequence. But because you either do not understand or choose not to, here is an excerpt from Wikipedia...

In law, defamation – also called calumny, libel (for written words), slander (for spoken words), and vilification – is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. It is usually, but not always, a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).

Is that sufficiently clear?

The problem is that we didn't give the Lords who were in the expenses scandal a hard enough time but many will think an 'investigation' is enough but I don't.

Call me old fashioned, but I am led to believe that 'innocent until proven guilty' remains the foundation of English law. I am also aware of the limitations of the power of the Federal Executive and its Chair over either Parliamentary Party. Perhaps checking out both sides of the story might make you a better journalist?

Clearly Mark you and me have a lot of differences but I think its time we settled our differences and worked together as Liberals who want to promote our party.

So, you defame a member of my family and threaten me with physical violence and think that we should settle our differences and work together? You're certainly demonstrating naivety there. Either that or you're insulting my intelligence and sense of personal honour. I'd go for the latter, given your form so far...

P.S. You can get my email address from my blog, please do drop me an email and lets have a civilised conversation about this.

You can take that as a no, I think...

I did respond though, along the lines of 'it'll be a cold day in hell...', which drew the following rejoinder...

I have made my piece offering to you, I have apologised to the people I offended but I think its time to end these games and lets have a civilised conversation and end our problems.

I think you misunderstand the situation. We don't have a shared problem. My problem is you, your actions and your seemingly total inability to understand what you've done and what potential impact it might have.

If you don't want to then that’s your choice but I can no longer carry on with this duel and accept that you have won.

No, this is not a duel. A duel would assume that I intend to seek retribution for a public slight. Luckily (very, very luckily...) for you, I have no intention of seeking retribution, violent, organisational or social. Although, put it this way, if somebody else were to do so, organisationally or socially, I would be happy to act as a character witness...

Two hundred years ago, if you had levelled such a charge, the injured party would have invited you outside and given you a 'damned good thrashing' for your behaviour. Nowadays, I am restricted to giving your character a sound thrashing. It will have to do, I'm afraid...

Irfan - isn't it nice that we've moved on from Victorian times?

A month or two ago, I was quite unkind to Paul Walter - as much out of anger and frustration as anything else. Since then, we have exchanged e-mails and have settled our differences. All very courteous and civilised.

These days, duelling is banned - which is fortunate in so many ways. It was, of course, the way in which gentlemen settled matters of honour. After all, it was rather more satisfying than a libel suit, and much more immediate. Of course, if you lost, it probably wasn't as satisfying, but there was a sense of tragic romanticism about it.

In Pakistan, as I understand it, matters of family honour tend to become blood feuds. Less romantic, they can continue for generations, which does seem a little over the top, although I wouldn't be critical of the traditions of others.

I would say this though. I don't think that I'll be exchanging e-mails with Irfan any time soon. For the record, I don't accept the apology that he has offered, because I don't believe for one moment that it is genuine. Simply saying sorry doesn't get you off the hook, Irfan, it really doesn't...

A publishing policy change for Liberal Bureaucracy - you break it, you pay for it...

The events of the past week, and the response of a significant chunk of the Liberal Democrat blogosphere appear to have made my current publishing policy untenable. Accusations that I am merely 'a lackey of my wife', and suggestions that my comments somehow presage the opinions and plans of the Party President have demonstrated that, whilst we collectively talk a good game in terms of freedom, democracy and opposition to conformity, when push comes to shove, nothing beats a good mob scene. And as for the right to hold and espouse an opinion, that appears to depend on who you are.

There is clearly a price to be paid, and in this instance, it's a price I pay with a heavy heart but a sense of relief. So, until the time comes when a new Party President takes up his or her office, I will refrain from comment on the following:

• anything to do with the activities of the President
• anything to do with the internal workings of the Party

This means that, unfortunately, my offer to report for Liberal Democrat Voice on English Council and English Candidates Committee must be withdrawn (much to the relief of the latter body, I suspect). Sorry about that, Alix...

Welcome to the Irfan Ahmed Challenge!

I note that Irfan has sounded off about MP expenses again, challenging our MPs to reduce their expense claims to the average levels of Tory and Labour MPs. Whilst a number of you have commented on his blog, the fact that I would have to register to do so rather put me off. So I am obliged to enter into the fray via this august medium...

My challenge to Irfan is this. Alastair Carmichael claims the highest level of expenses for travel of any Liberal Democrat MP. Can Irfan find the cheapest way of getting from Evie to Westminster that allows Alastair to be present in the Commons chamber for the maximum amount of debating time and allows him the flexibility to change his arrangements without additional cost?

In my experience, statistics offer a mere snapshot of information and provide little context in isolation. It's a bit like trying to identify an elephant through a keyhole. If the elephant is far enough back, it's possible. If the elephant is too close, you can describe what colour it is, but not what it is.

You really need to break down expense figures and analyse each element before you start making sweeping statements condemning a group of people. And then, by all means, attack waste, fraud and greed, but do ask questions first, and shoot later. It's so much more difficult if you do it the other way round...

Let me make myself absolutely clear...

Before Ros and I left for Madeira, I published my thoughts on the Parliamentary Candidates Association, and what it should do. These led to a fairly robust exchange of views between myself and Martin Turner, the PCA Chair, most of which has taken place off-line. I will not bore you with the detail, suffice to say that I have offered Martin a platform to espouse the work that the organisation is undertaking.

However, there have been some knock-on effects, and I feel obliged to add a clarification regarding the status of this blog, what it represents and, whilst doing so, what my policy is with regard to comments. I am, I confess, slightly irritated that I should have to do so. However, if individuals insist on drawing the wholly unjustified conclusion that I am acting as a mouthpiece for any individual other than myself, or for any organisation, then I feel justified in denying it vigorously.

So, the text that now sits in the upper right hand side of this blog should be taken at face value. You have only yourself to blame if, by disregarding this friendly warning, you adopt an incorrect stance...

European Selection - if a candidate endorses another candidate in a different selection, and nobody notices, has it really happened?

The observant amongst you will have noticed have noticed comments from Linda Jack, amongst others, noting that she cannot indicate which leadership candidate she is endorsing. As Returning Officer for the South East European Region, I am obliged to enforce this ruling. I do so with a heavy heart.

The endorsement rules have become a lead weight around the necks of candidates and Returning Officers alike, although they were created for the best of reasons. In the ‘good old days’ when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, small furry creatures called candidates scurried about the place, looking for places of safety called constituencies, where, if adopted, they would have the security of a team of supporters called activists. The risk was that the dinosaurs, known as ‘senior Party figures’, would favour a particular furry creature, and unduly influence the outcome of the selection. Given the size of the electorate, endorsement by an outgoing MP, or the MP of a nearby constituency, might well persuade armchair members to vote that way, and this worked against the desire of the heavenly host (otherwise known as the English Candidates Committee) to ensure a level playing field for the small furry creatures. So far, so ethically sound.

The problem was that this worked very well in an age of limited technology and small electorates. Regional list selections and the Internet made it seem anachronistic but, if you were going to be consistent with the principle as established, you had to address the technology with new rules, ones that could be policed. Policing the Internet – you are kidding, aren’t you?

If a member in, say, Ludlow, writes a blog entry endorsing a candidate for East of England, who is at fault? Were they prompted to write it by the candidate, knowing that it would be seen by members in Cambridge, or Lowestoft, or even Harwich? Are they an old friend merely speaking their mind? Can you prove it either way? And who do you then punish? What, indeed, should the punishment be? As for Facebook, who monitors it? Can you reasonably expect a volunteer Returning Officer to dedicate weeks on end scanning the Internet for clues? I think not.

The problem is that, in an attempt to remain true to the principle, you find yourself running around in ever-decreasing circles, leading to the recent ban on European selection candidates publicly endorsing leadership candidates. The principle of ‘reverse endorsement’ has appeared and, I fear, my faith in the logic of our systems has finally cracked.

If I were to endorse either Chris or Nick, it would indicate that I support them, obviously. They might well choose to highlight my support on their website or other literature which, in turn, might indicate that my support might be influential somewhere. However, does it imply that they endorse me, my views or a potential candidacy? I’m unconvinced, especially as there are many Returning Officers, all of whom are precious in one way or another.

I happen to be a candidate in an internal election at the moment. Does my endorsement signify that my chosen candidate is supportive of my candidacy, or are they even aware that I am running? Frankly, they may well support one, or more, of my opponents, which is their right and privilege.

This was a ruling that does nothing for the credibility of the process, is an unfair limitation on senior members of our Party, and indicates that the distance between the bureaucracy and the campaigners is as vast as ever it were. Not our most glorious moment…