First day at school - welcome to the East of England

There is something about turning up in an unfamiliar place, and sitting in a drab room full of people you don't really know, that makes me slightly nervous. Are they going to like me? Am I going to be able to contribute?

Today was like that, as I made my way from inner London to a business park on the northern edge of Cambridge to attend my first meeting as a member of the East of England Regional Executive. Having only become a member of the Regional Party in early October, and been elected in absentia to the position of Regional Secretary, it was time to face the music.

Curiously, the Secretary does not minute, nor does he service the Executive - Lorna, our Regional Administrator, does that, leaving only a series of unrelated, rather vague roles. And so I settled down, laptop on the desk in front of me, and listened as Julie Smith, our newly-elected Chair, kicked things off with a round of introductions.

It did dawn on me that I ought to do something, so I brought up the Regional Constitution, as a guide to what was supposed to happen. Almost immediately, a question of jurisdiction arose, and I noticed that we were about to act in a manner contrary to the Constitution, so I pointed this out, surprising my colleagues somewhat.

When I was Regional Secretary in London, I was often surprised by the lack of awareness of the constitution. Such documents are, I admit, pretty tedious, but when you really need them, they're a lifesaver. It appears that East of England is little different in that sense, and I suspect that the first role to be put on my job description is 'constitution guru'.

It was a pretty good meeting, I think, and smartly chaired by Julie, in spite of her disappointment over the Cambridge candidate selection (she had been on the final shortlist but wasn't successful) and the sort of weariness that an intense selection campaign inflicts. I've got a few things to do, which I'll need to get on with, and I'm looking forward to working with a rather more traditional type of region, as opposed to the city-state that is London.

Our next meeting is scheduled for 6 March. I am reminded that attending it could be difficult, as I'm supposed to be in Perth that evening. Note to self, write a good report...

Conservative proposals to reduce the deficit (part 6)

• Review of the state pension age. We will hold a review to consider bringing forward the planned rise in the state pension age.

And now we begin to reach the scraping at the bottom of the intellectual barrel. The Turner Report proposed that the state pension age should increase to 66 by 2030, 67 by 2040 and 68 by 2050, whilst the Government decided that it should increase to 66 by 2024, 67 by 2034 and 68 by 2044 (a precis of the 2006 White Paper can be found here).

The suggestion of a 'review to consider' is just weasel words, to be frank. If you believe that increased longevity and improved health and quality of life enables those in their sixties, seventies and beyond to work on, then say so. Indeed, given Government proposals to remove the mandatory retirement age, the opportunity to address this now exists.

Offer these people a deal, work on and defer your pension, or part of it, and we'll increase the value of it when you choose to take it. The Government has an actuarial service, so there will be little extra cost, and the potential for some savings. In any event, there is already an acceptance that people can and should work longer - you might not like it but it is now a matter of consensus - so the question is whether the current proposals go far enough.

This is a timid proposal when the time is for bold ones, an attempt to demonstrate that they are willing to think the unthinkable, or at least the unpopular. Unfortunately, it falls under the category of an aspiration to be dumped as soon as the Daily Mail comes out against it. Anyone would think that they weren't really serious...

A chance to halve the Conservative majority on Mid Suffolk District Council

Following yesterday's resignation of Bruce Cameron-Laker, there is a vacant seat on Mid Suffolk District Council in Haughley & Wetherden, north-west of Stowmarket, and one of the four district wards that make up the County division of Upper Gipping (why does that sound vaguely familiar?).

I don't know Bruce at all, except that he is a Conservative who won the ward by just 45 votes in 2007 over Liberal Democrat candidate, Geoff Clarke. The full result last time:

• 354 votes    Bruce Cameron-Laker (Conservative)
• 309 votes    Geoff Clarke (Liberal Democrat)
• 122 votes    Jenny Overett (Green)

So, less than a 3% swing required to reduce the Conservative majority to just two, albeit that at least one of the four independents is a Conservative in disguise.

More news as it comes in...

Conservative proposals to reduce the deficit (part 5)

• Stopping tax credits to high earners. We will stop paying Child Tax Credits to those earning over £50,000.

Well, I suppose that you can't really argue with this in terms of fairness, and there is no doubt that it is bizarre to use public funds to give credits to the wealthy. I have had a look at how much in the way of child tax credits would be received by someone earning £50,000, and I make it about £550 per annum, assuming that their partner doesn't work and they have one child (try the HMRC calculator if you're interested or, indeed, if you might actually be eligible yourself and aren't claiming.

At £70,000 per annum, an individual qualifies for nothing at all, based on the same assumptions. Therefore, we aren't talking about a huge impact here, rather a symbolic one. In 2004/05, just 5% of individuals had taxed income above £52,400, equivalent to approximately £58,000 now, and 10% had taxed income above £39,000, roughly equal to £43,000 now.

In short, we're not talking about a huge amount here, and whilst it is media-friendly, in the face of £178 billion, it is merely spitting in the wind. 

An opportunity to find out exactly what Labour mean by 'citizenship empowerment'

A press release lands on Liberal Bureaucracy's e-doormat...

On Wednesday 27 January, Unlock Democracy will be hosting a lecture by John Denham in the Grimond Room, Portcullis House, Westminster, starting at 7.15 p.m.

All parties talk of devolving power to local communities.  This series of lectures is designed to find out what exactly they mean by Citizenship Empowerment. This is the second of a series of lectures Unlock Democracy is hosting, examining the vision and philosophy of each of the main three parties regarding Citizen Empowerment, and follows on from the success of the Sustainable Communities Act, the campaign for which was led by Unlock Democracy. The first of our lectures was given by the Rt Hon. Oliver Letwin MP.

Tickets are free, however numbers are strictly limited so please be advised to RSVP as quickly as possible to http://johndenham.eventbrite.com/. Please allow 20 minutes to clear security.

The Rt Hon. John Denham MP is Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. He  served as a local Councillor from 1981 until 1993, prior to being elected and has had a distinguished parliamentary career. Following the election of the Labour Government in 1997, he served as a Government Minister in the Departments of Social Security, Health and the Home Office and in June 2000 he was appointed by the Queen as a Privy Counsellor. Following his return to the backbenches after his resignation over the Iraq War, he chaired the powerful Home Affairs Select Committee, before his appointment to Gordon Brown’s first Cabinet as Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills in 2007.

National Express East Anglia - an apology

Don't get excited, it isn't an apology from me to them. You may recall that I lodged a complaint with the shambles that is National Express East Anglia in late November, after another of those deeply unsatisfying trips that they seem to increasingly specialise in. Given that their published aim was to reply to 90% of complaints within six working days, I was expecting a response in the first week of December, possibly the second.


That response didn't come, and still didn't come, and by Christmas, I had begun to start thinking about another complaint. I'm a busy man though, and you know how these things are...


However, I arrived home this evening to find an envelope waiting for me. In it was this letter;


Dear Mr Valladares,


Thank you for your email dated 24th November 2009. I am very sorry that it has taken some time to reply to you.


I am sorry that you had a bad experience when travelling with us on the 19.30 service from Liverpool Street. We expect to provide a reliable, punctual and comfortable journey and I understand that we let you down.


Our aim is to help make travel simpler and a pleasant experience for all our customers, and we were clearly unsuccessful this time. We are working hard to make improvements and feedback like yours really helps.


Given what happened, I am sending you £10.00 worth of travel vouchers. I sincerely hope that your next experience with us is more satisfactory and shows you that we are working to get things right.


Once again, my apologies and thank you for taking the time to get in touch.


Yours sincerely, etc. etc.


In its Passenger Charter, National Express East Anglia states that it aims to answer 90% of all contacts within six working days, and all complaints within fifteen working days. If they cannot give you the full answer within this time, they will send me an acknowledgement and let me know when I can expect to hear further.


My complaint was lodged on the evening of 24 November. Six working days expired on 2 December, and fifteen working days on 15 December, and so I suppose that a reply dated 8 January, and no acknowledgement, represents a fail. In fact, 8 January represents thirty working days, and I find myself idly wondering how well NXEA claim to be performing against that target...

Conservative proposals to reduce the deficit (part 4)

• Stopping Child Trust Funds, except for the poorest families and disabled children. We will stop new spending on Child Trust Funds for better off families. But to protect the poorest and most vulnerable, disabled children and the poorest one third of families should continue to receive both new Child Trust Funds at birth and top-up payments.
  

As a Liberal Democrat, one can hardly oppose this as a concept. After all, we're calling for the abolition of Child Trust Funds too. However, calling for their total abolition means that that you cut out all of the bureaucracy involved, with a resultant saving that is obvious.

However, the Conservative proposal is likely to give us the worst of both worlds. Yes, there will be a saving in terms of the amount of money handed out. However, you still require a bureaucracy to handle this, and now you add means-testing, with additional forms to fill in, compliance teams to deal with fraudulent claims, and so on and so forth.

The proposal looks compassionate, but if the Child Trust Fund is designed to provide a start to young people, and isn't accessible by the child until he or she reaches the age of eighteen, how do such payments help the poorest and most vulnerable, disabled children and the poorest one-third of families? It doesn't.

There is a sense here that, like political magpies, the Conservatives have stolen a Liberal Democrat policy, sought to soften it at the edges without really getting the point. Anyone would think that bureaucracy comes without costs...

Liberal Youth: transitional arrangements, co-options, cuddly toys and bedside lamps...

So much to do, so little time. Co-options to fill the Vice Chair vacancies until York, the organisation of elections to fill casual vacancies for Vice Chairs and General Executive Members, and all this with the prospect of 'real' elections before much longer.

So, let's see where we are;

Shortly, a notice will go to all members via e-mail, inviting them to apply for the vacant Vice-Chair positions, and the remaining members of the LY Executive will vote on short-term co-options.

After that, members will be invited to apply for co-option as General Executive Members, given the possibility that current GEMs might (note, not will) fill the Vice Chair vacancies. Any other consequential vacancies will be advertised similarly. Again, current members of the LY Executive will form the electorate.

Once this is done, a call for nominations will be issued for elections to fill all current vacancies until the completion of the current Executive term. A postal ballot will be available on request for members unable to attend the Spring Conference. Details of how to apply will be given at that time.

That ballot will be concluded at York on 28 February, with results available as soon as technology permits.

I hope that this clarifies the position, although it is subject to possible change and/or clarification. Please note that any Press enquiries about the conduct of elections, and that includes ursine correspondents of a sky-coloured hue, should be referred to me in my capacity as Returning Officer. It is so important to supply accurate information...

Another demonstration of the sheer inanity of modern bureaucracy

The telephone rings at work.

"Hello, Mr Valladares, I'm calling from X (a financial institution). I'd like to talk to you about your account."

"Right, fine, what do you want?"

"First, Mr Valladares, we need to carry out a security check. Can you provide me with the first line of your address, your postcode and your date of birth?"

"No."

"Why not, Mr Valladares?"

"Because you repeatedly tell me that I shouldn't give out that sort of information. So, why are you calling me?"

"I'm sorry, Mr Valladares, but I can't give you that information until we complete the security check. I fully understand why you don't want to give you the information though. Can you call us to discuss the matter?"

"What matter?"

"I'm sorry, I can't tell you until we..."

"Yes, I know, but if I don't know why I'm calling you, why should I?"

"Because we need to talk to you about your account."

"But you won't tell me why?"

"No, I'm afraid I can't. Please call us when you have an opportunity."

Sometimes, you just despair, really you do...

Conservative proposals to reduce the deficit (part 3)

• Capping public sector pensions. We will cap public sector pensions at £50,000 per year.

Ah yes, time for some grandstanding. Now it has to be said that there are very few retired public sector employees who are fortunate to receive a pension in excess of £50,000. The standard civil service pension traditionally allowed for one-fortieth of the best of your last three years worth of salary for each year of service, capped at forty years, i.e. to receive £50,000, your final salary would need to be £100,000, or its equivalent at the time of retirement.

There have never been very many civil servants on that sort of salary. Indeed, you would need to be a member of the Senior Civil Service to be in that pay range. In the days when the Inland Revenue had a London Region, we certainly didn't have more than five of them, and my entire area of the Department these days (Corporation Tax Operations) has none.

For the record, at the end of 2008, the number of civil servants, or full-time equivalents was:

• 225,400 at administrative grades
• 217,500 at executive grades
• 31,900 at Grades 6 and 7
• 4,700 in the Senior Civil Service

i.e. less than 1% of the Civil Service are at grades likely to attract a pension in excess of £50,000. To make matters worse, just 16% of civil servants retire at or above their normal retirement age, and over 60% retire to pursue other careers.

So, given that the pay scales for the Senior Civil Service do not fall wholly above the £100,000 mark either, the number likely to receive such a pension is small, if irritating. However, like expenses for MPs, the system of civil service pay has relied on an unwritten assumption that pay is kept down in favour of perks.

There is another factor as well, which has led to the perceived burden of public sector pensions, i.e. the reduction of the retirement age to 60 in the late 1980's, which reduced staffing numbers quite effectively, at the cost of increasing exposure to pension costs by five years at a stroke. It was one of those decisions that achieved a short-term favourable headline at an appalling cost, and was taken by, yes, you're right, the Conservatives.

Now, if the Conservatives want to cut the costs of senior civil servants, they may want to ask the question, "why has the number of Senior Civil Servants increased by 35% since 2000?". Answer that question, and you might have some savings...

The search for a new Chair for Liberal Youth begins here...

Soundings having been taken, and the Constitution referred to, an election for a new Chair of Liberal Youth, to hold office until the next round of Executive elections after a General Election, will take place, with the result to be announced in York on 28 February.

A call for nominations will go out as soon as possible, closing fourteen days after the announcement, so as to allow maximum time for any candidates to make their case. Postal ballots will also be available, as I believe it to be vital that as many as possible of Liberal Youth's 3,500 members can take part.

Candidates will be encouraged to use social networking, blogs and other electronic media to reach out to members, whilst official Liberal Youth media, 'The Libertine' and the website (forums excluded) will be expected to remain neutral during any campaign that materialises. I intend to carry out my duties in as 'light touch' a manner as possible.

Hustings will take place in York on the morning of 28 February, and I will be present to supervise those hustings, accept ballot papers, carry out the count and announce the result.

I hope that I can rely on all members of Liberal Youth to show due respect for the process itself, and to any candidates who may present themselves.

If there are any questions, I will make my contact details available to members via the Liberal Youth forums, in the members-only area.

Finally, I urge members of Liberal Youth to engage fully in this election. The value of a democracy is measured by participation, and I would like to see a high turnout, so that the winning candidate has an optimal mandate to lead the organisation into a vital General Election campaign.

Liberal Youth: the Returning Officer surmises

Article 6, paragraph 16 of the Federal Constitution of Liberal Youth states;

"Where the office of Chair is or becomes vacant the Executive may designate a Vice Chair to be acting Chair, until a proper appointment may be made under 10.6.a). The acting Chair shall assume all responsibilities of the Chair. Where an acting Chair is not appointed the Vice-Chairs shall jointly exercise the powers and responsibilities of the Chair."

As I understand the position, on that basis, and for the time being only, Alan Belmore is acting Chair, being the only extant Vice Chair.

The Federal Executive may then co-opt a replacement, as authorised at Article 6, paragraph 6, clause d)

"The Federal Executive shall have the power to initially co-opt to fill vacancies for posts under 6.1 a)-f) as laid out in 10.6 a) below"

Such a co-option shall last until an election can take place, as specified by Article 9.6.

Time to work out what the implications of Article 9, paragraph 6 are, I think...

Conservative proposals to reduce the deficit (part 2)

• Cutting the cost of Whitehall and quangos. We will cut the cost of Whitehall bureaucracy and quangos by at least a third by the end of the next parliament.

Ah yes, one of my personal favourites, and clearly one of politicians everywhere.

The problem with this is, that if it were so easily achievable, everyone would do it. There is no doubt that there is too much bureaucracy in this country, and much of it could be more efficient. However, how did we end up with all of these quangos and bureaucracy anyway?

Governments have been so keen to avoid charges of increasing the size of the Civil Service that they devolve to agencies, to quangos, anything to dodge the charge of creating a massive bureaucracy. Many of these bodies are difficult to hold to account, with Ministers only too happy to stand before Parliament and say that, no this is not their responsibility, and that questions should be put to the National Commission for the Co-ordination of Paper Clips, or whatever.

The problem is that we have in this country a tendency to respond to any situation with the cry, "something ought to be done". And so something is. A new body to monitor this, a quango to measure that, it all adds up. The presumption that all of those things that are already being done should continue means that you are adding headcount in order to carry out these additional tasks. And guess what, that headcount costs.

There appears to be no great philosophical coherence to this proposal, more an attempt at salami-slicing on a great scale. What is government for? What purpose should it have? No, the only question being asked is, "what size of government can we raise funds to maintain?".

More and more of government, both national and local, is about targets. Yes, targets are easy to understand. Unfortunately, once you've set them, you have to demonstrate progress (or the lack thereof). Someone is needed to monitor those targets, others to measure and evaluate data. Again, more headcount, more cost.

So, why not return to basics? What is government for? Where should the state intervene and where should it take a back seat? And until those questions are answered by the Conservatives, with a degree of intellectual rigour, this particular policy plank is going to prove difficult to achieve...

A vacancy at Liberal Youth as Chair resigns...

I am somewhat surprised by developments at Liberal Youth. Alright, I am nearly always surprised by developments at Liberal Youth, but this is unexpected. It appears that Elaine Bagshaw, having been elected in what was a rather unfortunate contest as recently as March, has now resigned as Chair.

As an office holder of Liberal Youth by dint of my position as Returning Officer, I keep a measured distance from the affairs of the organisation (call me a professional neutral, if you must), so have no idea what has actually happened to bring about this event.

However, this does mean that I must ride into town once again, armed only with the Federal Constitution of Liberal Youth, my ballot box and a sense of humour and tolerance. At the moment, I am consulting in order to establish whether or not my presence is required at their Spring Conference in York (last weekend of February if you're interested), and will use this blog and, of course, the Liberal Youth website and forum, to keep a waiting world up to date.

I don't doubt that there will be those who have much to say on what has happened, accurate or otherwise. There always seems to be. However, I have to say that my personal dealings with Elaine have always been courteous and professional, and I hope that she has felt rewarded in some way by her tenure as Chair of Liberal Youth.

Third time lucky in Suffolk Coastal for local Tories?

And then there were two... With Sir Michael Lord and Richard Spring already having announced their retirements with less than a year to go before a General Election, and potential succession plans scuppered, I am not altogether surprised to hear that John 'Beefburger' Gummer has also decided to make way for a young, thrusting successor in Suffolk Coastal. That leaves just Tim Yeo and David Ruffley to continue into another Parliament (subject to the will of the voters, of course...), especially as both the Suffolk Labour MP's Bob Blizzard and Chris Mole, are pretty vulnerable.
>
For me, the interest is in whether any local Conservative can even make it onto the shortlist. Association Chairmen, District Council Group Leaders, all failures thus far, and one does wonder what it will take for someone with a genuine Suffolk connection to get selected.

Watch this space!...

Conservative proposals to reduce the deficit (part 1)

A look at the Conservative Party website indicates that they will:

• A public sector pay freeze, except for the lowest paid. We will freeze pay for all public sector workers in 2011, except for those earning under £18,000. The savings from this are equivalent to protecting more than 100,000 jobs.

There is no doubt that such a proposal is popular, albeit not with public sector employees, especially as the reputation of public servants is probably lower than it has ever been. Unfortunately, nearly half of the civil service earn less than £20,000 per annum, many Departments are already imposing pay freezes, and the long-term impact of relative deterioration in salaries makes recruitment and retention of the talented people needed to administrate a country a bit more difficult.

Of course, the Conservatives didn't come up with this policy on their own. As Vince Cable said in the debate on the 2006 Pre-Budget Report;

"The Chancellor presented the Budget numbers reassuringly, but he knows perfectly well that if capital investment is to grow, current spending, especially public sector pay, must be dealt with severely in the years ahead."

There is no evidence provided to support the contention that the savings are equivalent to protecting 100,000 jobs, although if this is being offered up as an alternative to saving 100,000 jobs, we perhaps all need to be worried.

The Public and Commercial Services Union notes in relation to Civil Service salaries that;

• Civil servants average earnings growth has lagged behind other sectors for 10 years.

• Over 100,000, almost 20% are paid less than £15,000 a year.

• Nearly half of the civil service or approximately 250,000 people earn less than £20,000 a year.

• More than half the civil service earn less than the national average UK salary which is over £23,000.

• Approximately 40,000 people working for the Department for Work and Pensions, which includes jobcentres and benefit offices received no pay rise at all.

• Apparent differences in average earnings between public and private sector in the annual survey of hours and earnings is explained by structural changes in the public sector such as the transfer of lower paid support roles to the private sector resulting from patterns of privatisation

Or, in other words, there are a lot of public sector employees scraping by, some unable to make ends meet. Additional income for them means additional spending in the wider economy, as their saving ratios are generally low.

I don't expect that the Conservatives will offer much comfort to them, whereas a significant cut in their tax liability would. Cue Vince, I think...

Guest Posting: the view from Cincinnati, aged 16¾

Here by the fire, in my favourite chair, it is clear that life is going to be rather tougher for the British people over the coming years. Admittedly, with people to look after my every wish, to feed me tinned sardines in tomato sauce and, from time to time, roast chicken (with the skin on for preference) and gravy, that doesn't include me. I tend to leave my people to deal with the tough issues, like Afghanistan, the War on Terror and, to be honest, most things unrelated to fishing policy.

However, I was moved to comment on the whole 'Gordon Brown' thing. It seems to me that what the British people need is a cat-person as their Prime Minister, but that Gordon is a dog-person. Let me explain.

Dog-people, or people who associate themselves with dogs, tend to value loyalty above most other things. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that dogs have their place in society (outside, in their kennel, for preference), but life just isn't like that any more. Yes, loyalty is valuable, but not at the expense of either the individual or of original thinking. Dogs don't really think much. Oh yes, they do tricks. Fetching sticks, playing dead, all very impressive, I suppose. As a cat, I tend to wonder why, if you throw a stick, I am expected to retrieve it. Why, indeed, did you throw it in the first place? If you didn't want it, why did you have it anyway?

Cat-people tend to favour individuality. A cat will only bother you if it wants something - food, water, attention, to annoy you - and otherwise will disappear for hours at a time. You have to assume that it knows what it is doing, and trust it accordingly. For that reason, I encourage my people to vote Liberal Democrat, and I even visited my local polling station in June to ensure that they did. I sense that Nick Clegg would be a cat-person given the opportunity.

I accept that voters have a choice though, and that this David Cameron chap is an alternative. He's not really a dog-person or a cat-person, I suspect, more a gerbil-person. Looks cute, tends to be very successful in the short term, yet does surprisingly little. Not a runner, I suspect...

Savage cuts: talk is cheap, action rather less so

So, in the fallout from Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt's attempt to 'clear the air', Alistair Darling announces that Britain faces the toughest spending cuts in twenty years. David Cameron responds by saying that his Party will "go further" in cutting the deficit than Labour.


Apart from the nonsense that they can go further than Labour - there comes a point when the budget deficit is eliminated and you can't go any further - there is still very little in the way of firm commitments. The occasional moan about the amount spent by the Central Office of Information (£500 million), suggestions of bureaucratic efficiencies without any idea of what those might be, reducing the number of quangos without saying what or who will carry out the tasks that they are responsible for, none of this means a hill of beans when faced with a deficit of £178,000,000,000 (and aren't those zeroes eyewatering?).


Indeed, criticism of attempts to bring in additional revenue by the Government - one end of the equation through which the deficit will be cleared - implies that tax rises, even targetted, proportionate, time-limited ones, are not on the agenda of David and his merry men.


So, I thought that it might be nice to see what they do have in store for us, based on the policy statement on their shiny website...

Gas supply problems? What gas supply problems?

Here in Creeting St Peter, we aren't worried about potential failure to maintain gas supplies. Of course, this could have something to do with the fact that we aren't connected to the gas distribution system at all. No, we rely on electricity and heating oil, augmented by coal and wood as required.

Unfortunately, it became clear before Christmas that our supply of oil was running low, so Ros rang our regular supplier and put in an order. On our return from the French Riviera, we were called on by our next door neighbour, to be advised that the tanker had come, and filled their tank in error. So, displaying her usual patience, Ros rang again and was assured that they would come again. Day after day last week, they faithfully promised to send out a tanker, and day after day, nothing happened.

And then, calamity. On Friday morning, the boiler ground to a halt, and it became apparent that the oil tank was empty. More telephone calls, more promises but no delivery. Luckily, Ros's prescience in installing a wood-burning stove a few years back meant that we at least could heat two rooms, so whilst the rest of the house was like a refrigerator, we were at least reasonably warm.

And late this morning, the tanker driver turned up, filled our tank to the brim and, after a short delay whilst our boiler got itself going, the house is warm, hot water is freely available, and life can return to normal.


We're lucky, in that we're still fairly young, we have family nearby, and the roads are passable with care. For the elderly, such problems can be fatal. So, if you do know anyone in your neighbourhood who is elderly and reliant on oil-fired central heating, do them a favour and make sure that they've got enough oil left to see them through this cold spell. And remember, someone is going to have to deliver that oil, so the more time you leave for delivery, the better.

Suffolk West: another blow for ambitious local Conservatives

Another selection to replace a long-serving but retiring Conservative MP, and once again, no local candidate has made the final shortlist. After the shortlisting committee in Central Suffolk and North Ipswich announced their final six, members of the Conservative Group on Mid Suffolk District Council wrote to the East Anglian Daily Times to have a bit of a whinge about the fact that none of them had been successful. Indeed, they're not the only ones wondering aloud about the seeming exclusion policy for local Tories, with Ellie Seymour asking, "Where are the local Suffolk candidates?".

However, according to the EADT, Matt Hancock, chief of staff to shadow Chancellor George Osborne, has emerged as favourite to represent Newmarket, Haverhill and Mildenhall. The other five candidates are Natalie Elphicke, Anthony Frieze, Sam Gyimah, Sheila Lawlor and Lucille Nicholson.


So, either Conservative activists in Forest Heath, St Edmundsbury and Mid Suffolk aren't very ambitious, or they aren't very good. Answers on a postcard? On the other hand, Iain Dale won't be suggesting that anyone is whoring themselves around the country in search of a safe seat. After all, between them, the six shortlisted in Suffolk West have only sought selection in Gosport, Penrith and the Border, Salisbury, Skipton and Ripon, Hammersmith, Macclesfield, Sleaford and North Hykeham, Hexham, Hampshire East, Congleton...

Spooky, possums...

I post this from the 20:00 hours service from Liverpool Street to Norwich, possibly my favourite journey in the world.

Nothing remarkable about that, I suppose. Except that, according to National Rail Enquiries, the train has been cancelled, it has ceased to be, it is an ex-service. No wonder it's so quiet...

National Express East Anglia - lies, damned lies and statistics

I have, of late, been pretty critical of National Express East Anglia, due next year to be the late and unlamented franchise holder for trains across the East of England. Increasingly decrepit trains, withdrawal of catering services, cleaners and customers services, mark the signs of a train operator merely attempting to minimise costs until someone capable takes over.


The key defence that NXEA put up is that they have improved punctuality. And indeed, across  the entire network, they have achieved their 91% target. So far, so good. However, I use their mainline services. Ironically, this is the one area where they have failed, achieving a moving annual average of 88.68% in the year to 14 November.


Ironic, really, because railway companies usually treat their mainline services as the priority, ensuring that other traffic is held to allow the express to pass and that it makes connections. Clearly, this isn't the case for NXEA, demonstrating once again that there is a difference between a bus company acting up, and real railway professionals.


No, I've said it once, and I'll say it again, the sooner that National Express are cast into the outer darkness, the better my life will be... 

Suffolk Conservatives fail on education

Penny Otton, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Children and Young People, has responded to a piece in yesterday's East Anglian Daily Times critical of Suffolk's GCSE results.

"The fact that Suffolk’s GCSE results started to fall below the national average when the Conservatives took control of the council in 2005 is a sad indictment. For the 12 years in which Liberal Democrats jointly ran the County Council Suffolk was admired as one of the best education authorities in the country. So why has it all gone so badly wrong?

Your correspondent John Parsons (EADT 7th Jan) rightly identifies that the Conservatives have created chaos and uncertainty in their mad dash to abolish Middle Schools. Instead they should have been directing their attention to deprived areas, where there is a huge gap in educational achievement for children in less well off families. The five worst performing secondary schools in Suffolk are all in deprived areas. Three are within the two tier education system in Ipswich and Felixstowe. The other two poorly performing schools are in the three tier areas of Haverhill and Lowestoft. This shows that poor performance is related to deprivation rather than school structure.

Some of the best performing schools in the County are in 3 tier areas and the paper for the 12th January Cabinet meeting states that primary schools in the three tier system are doing better than those in the two tier system.

The Conservatives should admit they have made a huge mistake and say sorry to students, parents and teachers for letting them down."

Problems in the snow? Don't know where to go? Who you gonna call? Suffolk County Council!

Yes, I know that it doesn't scan (think Ghostbusters) but what the hell...

Hotline for cold weather  

The weather is forecast to remain extremely cold over the coming days so Suffolk County Council will extend its usual customer service helpline to operate over the weekend.

The Emergency Snowline will respond to calls from the public on issues relating to the weather, anyone having difficulty accessing services on their usual numbers could also use this number if they are concerned. Staff on this number will be able to deal with calls related to the current weather conditions such as social care and highways.

Operators will have access to other agencies such as district and borough councils, the police and the health authority if necessary.   The number is 08456 037686 and will be available on Saturday and Sunday from 9am to 8pm.

Iain Dale, MP for Snape?

Of course, we are all aware that the ubiquitous Mr Dale is keen to find a nice seat to run in, and in Suffolk Coastal, perhaps the perfect opportunity has finally come onto the market.

How could one not want to represent Woodbridge, with its fine dining and even finer shopping? Or Aldeburgh, with its links to Benjamin Britten, its atmospheric shoreline and cosy cottages occupied at weekends by city dwellers in search of peace and tranquillity? Best of all Southwold, with a more than decent brewery (Adnams, the beer from the coast), the products of which he quite possibly enjoyed during his three years at the University of East Anglia (I know that I did)? But don't overlook Peasenhall, where the local butcher makes some excellent black pudding, or Orford, with its austere castle and avocet reserve, to mention but two of the villages.

Yes, there is a nuclear power station at Sizewell, and the biggest container port in the country at Felixstowe, but I'm sure that you'll like the place. So, what are you waiting for, Iain?

The things that people get up to...

Whilst the Shropshire Star is undoubtedly a thrilling read, and I am perpetually grateful to Jonathan Calder for bringing us the highlights, I am moved to bring you the story of a man who arrived at his local casualty department with his penis stuck in a steel pipe. The East Anglian Daily Times has the story here...


I am intrigued to know why the solution required seven firefighters...

LabourWomen: even if you build it, they don't come...

I have, in the past, remarked on the relative lack of women in the blogosphere. Of course, there are a number of potential solutions, and Labour have contributed LabourWomen, which is: 

"A space for Labour women to blog to their hearts' content and increase women's representation on the internet."

Unfortunately, it appears to have failed, in that there hasn't been an entry from any of its purported fifty-seven contributors since 19 November.


Now I sense that, whilst some of the contributors enjoy blogging, and I note that two of them (Antonia Bance and Kezia Dugdale) have impinged on my consciousness in the past - they must be pretty good then. However, creating a space and inviting people to play only really works if they want to be there, they have something to say and there is an intention to attract an audience.


Clearly, there was initial enthusiasm, with forty-five postings in March, when it was launched. However, just six postings were added in April, six more in May, and only ten since then, with none in September at all. And now, all is quiet, tumbleweed swirling through town.


I suspect that those who were initially intrigued have now given up on the site, which is a pity really. As a means to spot Labour talent of the future, it had some potential, and as a platform for some beginners on the road to public office, it might have provided a valuable training ground for the cut and thrust of debate.

Meanwhile, back on Planet Liberal Conspiracy...

I was, in the course of last year, a bit unpleasant to a few people. Some of them were rather undeserving, some of them got away with a light singeing. One of them was Aaron Murin-Heath, the then (and maybe now), acting Editor of 'Liberal Conspiracy' - no link, I'm afraid, until they accept that they aren't actually liberals for the most part.

He made the astonishingly gauche mistake of attacking everyone's favourite elephant, and took what I can only describe as a thorough kicking. Most of us tempered our attacks at one point or another but, having started a war, he didn't seem too keen to deal with the consequences.

Anyway, I thought that it might be nice to see how he has responded to our comments, and so went to his blog to see how he's getting on. It wasn't a pretty sight, and clearly he doesn't perceive himself to be a Liberal Democrat. I had, at the time, thought that I might have been a bit hard on the young man. It appears that I wasn't...

A message from my good friends at Unlock Democracy

2009 was a dreadful year for the reputation of the UK Parliament but the truth is that the backlash was the culmination of a number of outrages in recent years, not just a handful of stories about trouser presses and duck houses back in May.

Indeed, the 2005-2010 Parliament has been mired in scandal, kicking off with the loans for peerages debacle. One is tempted to say we can't go on like this but the simple fact is that certain parts of the political establishment are determined to do all that they can to ensure that we do.

As we enter another election period, it is important to remember that the loans for peerages scandal in 2006 was kicked off by the main parties' need for ready cash to fight their general election campaigns. While the upcoming general election is a much needed opportunity for Parliament to renew itself it is also another opportunity for parties to get themselves into even more trouble.

In the next election, politicians will be falling over themselves to tell voters they have a choice, while quietly conspiring to narrow that choice as much as possible. The “big two” party leaders are working to ensure that fundamental reforms such as proportional representation and caps on millionaire donors to political parties are off the agenda for the general election. We have to make sure they do not get away with this.

Last summer it briefly looked as if the main parties had finally realised that simply mouthing the rhetoric of reform was not enough and it is of course disappointing that they have reverted to their old ways so quickly. But there are some signs of hope. While the MPs' expenses scandal has been a bloody mess, it does look as if the sort of abuses we have seen are highly unlikely to be repeated - a definite (if indirect) victory for freedom of information.

The Wright Commission report published at the end of 2009 will be an important litmus test in 2010: either MPs will sign up to its proposals to make government more accountable and give the public a greater say in Parliament, or they will allow the party whips to quietly water them down. Have you asked your MP how they intend to respond yet?

We are continuing to push for a Citizens' Convention to draw up an action plan to make UK politics more ethical and accountable and are enthused that, thanks to your efforts, more than 25% of MPs from across the political spectrum have called for it to be enshrined in law. This suggests that the thirst for real reform even among MPs is much greater than Gordon Brown and David Cameron would like you to believe.

We will also have one other chance to make a positive reform before the general election. The Sustainable Communities Act Amendment Bill, which will put the Sustainable Communities Act on a more permanent footing, has been sponsored by Alastair Burt MP and is due to be debated on 26 February 2009. We need you to write to your MP to insist that they attend the debate.

Leaving aside the parties' election manifestos themselves, there is much to be done during the general election itself. An unprecedented number of MPs will be retiring this spring and so, regardless of the eventual result, we can be sure that the next Parliament will be full of new faces, who will be more open about the need for real change. This election is an excellent opportunity to engage with this new generation of politicians and make them listen.

Regardless of how you choose to make a difference in 2010, I hope you will have a productive new year.

With best wishes,

Peter Facey
Director, Unlock Democracy

#KerryOut - are our friends in the blue corner just making mischief?

There appears to be some skirmishing going on between Kerry McCarthy, the Labour MP for Bristol East and Twitter Tsar for the campaign ahead, and some of the Tory blogosphere and Twitterati.

Now far be it from me to interfere in such an edifying contest, but are my blue friends entirely serious in their quest to replace Kerry with Adeela Shafi? An 8.3% swing is just about within the realms of credibility but it is, according to UK Polling Report, Conservative target seat number 160. A win there, and we're looking at a Conservative majority of about 65. Given that the best guesstimates are of a majority of about 30, that would indicate that Adeela will come up short.

On the other hand, the mini-campaign has raised Adeela's profile (as well as some money, I understand), distracted the incumbent and introduced something new into the world of political fundraising, so it may well turn out to be valuable after all.

My Tory friends will forgive me if I don't wish them the best of luck in their efforts (Mike Popham would doubtless make an excellent constituency MP for the residents of Bristol East), but they certainly entertain. Just one thing, gentlemen - wouldn't #makeAdeelaMP have made a more positive statement?

The Conservatives stick their finger in the dyke

"A modern Conservative Party should support marriage. We should use the law, the tax and benefits system, and other mechanisms to encourage families to get together and stay together."

- David Cameron, speaking at a Policy Exchange meeting in June 2005

I have to admit that, as a conservative (small c) political party, such an approach makes sense. However, it does seem to contradict the views of those of a more libertarian bent. You see, such a stance smacks of social engineering, of persuading individuals to behave in a manner that is not necessarily in their best interest in the long-term.

As a liberal, I believe in freedom, within certain limits, of course. I don't believe that the State has the right to tell me how to live my life, or how I should arrange my personal affairs. Yet, if a bribe to heterosexual couples is the best that might be on offer, what impact do they expect that to have?

Firstly, one has to accept that £200 per annum is not going to sway many people. As Rosemary Bennett notes in today's Times, a tax break of £1,000 would cost about £5 billion annually. Under the current circmstances, that isn't going to happen.

Secondly, data indicates that 70% of people actively want to get married, and only a minute proportion believe marriage to be an old-fashioned notion. So, there are very few people to be swayed.

Indeed, David Cameron has indicated that any tax break will be available to those in civil partnerships. So just how will that support marriage?

Society has become more complex. Increased access to divorce and abortion, improvements in contraception, all of these have made marriage a rather more fragile institution. Easier divorce laws mean that there are some who enter into marriage knowing that, if it all goes wrong, they can exit without stigma and, if both parties behave reasonably, much inconvenience. The notion that marriage is therefore no longer 'til death do us part' means that you don't necessarily have to look for Mr or Ms Right.

Access to abortion, something which has given women greater freedom (although not without personal cost), means that pregnancy does not oblige women to marry the father, in the way that it once did, likewise with improvements in contraception, which prevent such pregnancies in the first place.

Turning back the clock in these aspects of modern life is always going to be difficult. Yes, you could make divorce more difficult. The cost would be in those unhappy homes where children are raised in an atmosphere of tension, with the resultant impact on their educational and emotional development. You would also have to deal with a likely increase in spousal abuse. I don't think that Conservatives believe that these are good outcomes, and they come with their own costs too.

Tighten up the abortion laws? The time limit has been reduced, but most people would be happier to reduce abortion levels through better sex education, improved access to contraception and so on. Besides, how would this support marriage?

No, the answer is not to stick a finger in the dyke in defence of the nuclear family. Better to support those who wish to raise their children well, to support and nurture them, to have aspirations for them, regardless of how they choose, or are obliged, to order their personal affairs. Reduce the number of unwanted children by encouraging behaviour that will prevent their conception, and provide the support that will allow children the best opportunities that we can provide through health reforms and investment in education.

If the Conservatives want to really fix our allegedly broken nation, returning society to the moral straightjacket it was once in is not the way forward. Talking about supporting people to take control over their own lives, about freedom, they might even persuade Liberal Democrats as to their sincerity...

Another unwelcome Americanism: The Fiscal Responsibility Bill

One of the most annoying things about American politics, particularly under the last Bush administration, was the tendency to give legislation titles like House Resolution 2173: The Motherhood and Apple Pie Act. You could then browbeat your opponents with the line, "You're against motherhood and apple pie. You must be crazy/stupid/delete as appropriate."

And now, New Labour have brought this to the United Kingdom, in the form of the Fiscal Responsibility Bill. Call me old-fashioned (and I am, I suppose), but legislation should give you idea of what it covers, not what it will do. So, the Energy Bill, for example, indicates that it is about energy policy, and the Kent County Council (Filming on Highways) Bill is about filming on the M2 near Maidstone, I presume.

Fiscal responsibility, I suggest, is a state of mind and not a policy. Governments do not announce their intention to be fiscally irresponsible, even if that is exactly what they then proceed to be. However, let's see what the purpose of the Bill is...

"The Bill imposes a statutory duty on the Treasury to meet specific targets for the reduction of government borrowing and debt. The Government believes that this legislation demonstrates its commitment to ensuring the sustainability of the public finances.  The Bill gives Parliament a greater role in fiscal policy."

This is, without doubt, a phenomenally stupid concept. There can surely be nobody who thinks that debt is a good thing. It can, if used for investment purposes, be useful, as a counter-cyclical tool of economic policy. However, adherence to the supposed 'Golden Rule' implies that, over the course of an economic cycle, expenditure should broadly balance income.

The Bill requires the Treasury to make sure that:

• Government borrowing in each financial year between 2010/11 and 2015/16 is lower than the previous year, measured as a percentage of GDP
• Government borrowing in 2013/14 is no more than half its 2009/10 level. A draft statutory instrument made under the Bill requires borrowing to be no more than 5.5 per cent of GDP in 2013/14
• Government debt is lower in 2015/16 than in 2014/15, measured as a percentage of GDP

Given that the level of Government borrowing is, in the view of all sensible political parties, extremely high and utterly unsustainable even in the medium term, these aims are mere common sense. However, it doesn't require legislation to allow a Government to do what it intends to do, indeed should do, anyway.

The big question, and one that first Lorely Burt and then George Osborne asked, is, if the Government do not achieve the targets laid down by proposed statute, what happens? What sanctions are there for failure? The answer came back - none. So why bother? Unless, of course, the Government plan to use opposition votes against this sorry piece of gimmickry to lay charges of fiscal irresponsibility against them.

"The Bill also requires the Treasury to report to Parliament in the Budget and in Pre-Budget Reports and provide an explanation if the targets are missed."

That's nice. No, really it is. Pardon me, though, aren't you obliged to do that anyway? Don't the Budget and the Pre-Budget Reports include indications as to levels of future borrowing? I thought so. In other words, this is a piece of legislation designed to oblige you to do what you must do anyway.

Married Couples Allowance: what it tells you about how Conservatives think

I have had cause to comment on the Conservative fixation with marriage before, and seldom been impressed with their outpourings on the subject. They are passionate about families though, indeed some senior Conservatives have, in the past, been so keen on families that they have maintained two simultaneously.

However, whilst the debate about whether or not married couples should be given additional financial support goes on, it does give you an idea about how modern Conservatives categorise people into the deserving and the non-deserving. And so, ‘Liberal Bureaucracy’ proudly presents;

“Where you fit in: your personal guide to whether Conservatives think that bribing you is the right thing to do”

Married couples without children

Congratulations, you are at the top of our social ladder. We’ll provide you with some extra spending money, even though you don’t have any children to spend it on. Why not use it for a weekend break in Paris or Milan (but not Brussels, ghastly place…). After all, you’re worth it!

Married couples with children

Yes, you get money too. Of course, it barely registers in terms of the costs of bringing up a child, but if you live in Barnet, it will allow you to borrow books for their education.

Single heterosexuals

Alright, there’s no money for you, but you can aspire to it in the future. Just find a nice boy or girl, depending on your gender, a registrar or recognised religious figure (Jedi or devil-worshippers need not apply, you dreadful people!), exchange rings and you too can get the money.

Lesbians and gay men

You can’t have the money. We’ll tolerate civil partnerships because we need your votes, but you aren’t going to be allowed to marry and that’s final. You made your lifestyle choice and you accept the consequences. Of course, you could always marry and live the rest of your life as a lie. After all, lying is not a sin, getting caught is…

Single parents who have been divorced or bereaved

Well yes, we do sympathise to some extent, especially if your partner died. However, you still don’t get any of the money. You could always find someone else, or you could have stayed in that abusive relationship. After all, you might not have needed help with the bills had you stayed together. But don’t worry, we’ll patronise you by providing charitable support for you, sufficient to live on. And there’s always someone worse off than you…

Single mothers

Look, didn’t someone tell you to keep your legs together? Frankly, we don’t really see why we should encourage you to have children at all, but we can’t see how to avoid giving you just enough to keep body and soul together (at least what we think you need). You will be grateful. In return, we will stigmatise you as a symptom of our broken society, and pander to the Daily Mail when they attack you.

Mr Cameron, have you forgotten 1993 so easily?

I am somewhat surprised by Dave's faux pas over proposals to reintroduce the Married Couple's Allowance. However, ever wanting to be helpful, I thought that I should provide a refresher course on taxation for him.

Our story starts in the late 1980's, when I was a fresh-faced young Tax Officer (Higher Grade). It had come as something of a surprise to realise that, for tax purposes at least, married women were considered to be chattels of their husbands, and that their income was aggregated with that of their husbands when calculating the liability to tax. Ironically, the tax system seemed designed to discourage marriage. The introduction of independent taxation swept away all of this though, and credit should go to a Conservative administration which passed the legislation.

Unfortunately, by 1993, the economy was in a slump, and money was needed fast. The then Chancellor, Norman Lamont, and his Special Advisor, one David Cameron, hit upon the wizard wheeze of altering the Married Couple's Allowance to restrict it to 20% with effect from 5 April 1994. This increased the tax take from higher rate taxpayers and could fairly be described as a measure which increased tax fairness.

However, the Conservatives didn't stop there. Kenneth Clarke, who had inherited the poisoned chalice from Lamont, further reduced the value of the Married Couple's Allowance to 15% from 5 April 1995. It did impact equally on everyone and effectively increased tax bills by around £75 per couple.

By 1999/2000, the relief was down to 10%, making it increasingly marginal in value relative to the costs of administering it and, given Labour's emphasis on providing targeted support through tax credits, it should have come as no surprise when Gordon Brown abolished it altogether for under-65's the following year.

It is clear that the conversion of the Conservative Party to a position favouring tax allowances for married couples is a recent one. After all, if one of the key figures behind its abolition is now taking a contrary stance, you have to wonder about their sincerity.

New year, new job - an apparatchik's life is never dull

I hadn't expected to return to Regional party politics so soon after leaving London, but when the call comes, you have to respond. And so, having only been a member of the Bury St Edmunds local party since early October, I find myself Regional Secretary for the East of England.


Given that most of our activity for the first six months will revolve around the forthcoming General Election, I suspect that my role will be very much secondary to more campaign-related activity (I truly hope so, anyway...). However, there will be much to do, and little time or money, as usual.


I'll let you know how I get on... first Executive Committee meeting is on Saturday, January 16th...

Beware of the bloody great sea eagle!

Apparently, Suffolk is being lined up for the site of a 'reintroduction' of the white-tailed sea eagle, according to an opinion piece in today's Times. Libby Purves is against them, on the grounds that Suffolk isn't a very big place (I paraphrase and precis a bit here).

Whilst I'm slightly bemused as to why Natural England and the RSPB are bothering, I can't see the harm in it. There is already an established colony of sea eagles in the Netherlands, just across the North Sea, and in all likelihood, we experience the odd visit already. The question is, are there sufficient places near the Suffolk coast where sea eagles might thrive?

Coastal Suffolk is, for the most part, pretty quiet. Apart from Lowestoft to the north, and Felixstowe to the south, the shoreline is bypassed by major transport routes, and the small ports are predominantly set a little way inland, up river estuaries. That quietness is reflected by the attractiveness of the villages to second home owners from the big city.

I suspect, therefore, that there are places where, with goodwill on the part of local landowners, a sea eagle or two could be relocated, to eat fish, and to look generally majestic.

There is precedence for the reintroduction of wildlife in Suffolk, with the work of the Otter Trust so successful that it has effectively ceased operations. And, as long as it is done sensibly, I think that we may all get to enjoy the sight of a sea eagle over Dunwich at some point in the future.

Perhaps someone could do something for the water vole next?...

It's a bit like being love-bombed by Al-Qaeda...

I'm not entirely sure that I can keep up with the unceasing love-bombing that is raining down on me. With that nice Mr Cameron inviting us to take the blame for anything that happens during the 'war on something' help him fight the war on terror, and now the rather less affable Mr Brown claiming that;

"The Liberals I think are closer to us on tax and public services, there's obviously the possibility of people working in common harmony. But equally we've got party politics that come in the way. I think our policies, you know, appeal to Liberal voters because, you know, we're for alternative vote system, we're for reform of the House of Lords... and equally at the same time we've got policies on the environment and we've got policies on civil liberties which are not dissimilar to them."

it is abundantly clear that we've taken the first key step towards credibility, i.e. the ugly sisters are talking about Cinderella.

However, in the same way that David doesn't really get it, it is clear that Gordon doesn't either. Sadly, it's worse for Gordon though, as at least Dave has had someone check out what we believe in first. Oh yes, he may not actually be convincing, but he at least knows which buttons to push.

Where to start with Gordon? Let's start with the easy one. We aren't 'the Liberals'. We haven't been since 1988 and, given that you were elected to Parliament in 1983, doubtless opposed by an SDP/Liberal Alliance candidate, you really ought to know better. If you want a snog, getting the girl's name right is a prerequisite.

Alternative vote? No, not really. In fact, not at all. Reform of the House of Lords? After twelve years of opportunity, with a solid majority in the Commons and support in the Lords from the Liberal Democrat benches if required? What were you waiting for? But civil liberties? For heavens sake, man, don't you remember more Criminal Justice Acts than I want to remember, the right to trial by jury, ninety day detention? If you don't, we do.

There is a tremendous irony here, in that in terms of the pursuit of a social and constitutional agenda, we could and should have more in common with the Labour Party. And yet, by their word and deed, they have created an image of a political force more akin to the Conservatives in their thinking on such issues than ourselves. In terms of international co-operation, on Europe, on local government and civic engagement, the Labour Party has consistently taken positions that make liberals, be they economic, social or a bit of both, deeply uncomfortable and distrusting.

It does seem though, that both sides are preparing the ground for coalition talks in the event of a hung Parliament. It may be Labour's only hope of hanging on, and it may be the Cameroons' means of salvation if they can't gain a working majority. But if there is dancing to be done, I'm perfectly happy to sit out a few numbers before picking a partner.

It doesn't look like much now, but you come back in a few weeks...

The agony of planning pretty much complete, work begins on our new outbuilding this week, at least, it will if the snow melts and the man with the digger can see what it is he's trying to work on. However, here's a picture of where we are now...


The paw prints that you can just make out are those of our neighbour's cat, Timpy, and at the back you can see the wheelbarrows ready for action. We even have two signs in the shed to warn drivers that work is taking place...

Another innovation for 'Liberal Bureaucracy'

Now I freely admit to not being terribly commercially minded - I am a civil servant and all that. However, Blogger have now teamed up with Amazon so that I can 'monetise' this blog, and I might as well take them up on their kind offer to give me lots of money, or possibly no money at all, or not much. Whatever, it costs me nothing, as far as I can tell, so we'll see what comes of it...

Q4 readership data - no statporn here!

Oh yes, whilst I'm looking at data, here are the figures for the fourth quarter of 2009, with some comparison data for you to enjoy...

visits - 4,505 (4,877 in 2008)
absolute unique visitors - 2,563 (2,609)
income from advertising - £2.66 (£0.99)

The top three postings were;

1. Damn it Jennie, just sit still and be revered, why don't you? (106 views)
2. The Boundary Committee for England regretfully advises... (103 views)
3. Zac Goldsmith - not a fit and proper person to be an MP? (91 views)

Let's see if we can do better than that in 2010, eh?

National Express East Anglia - when freezing fares doesn't mean what you thought it did

Amidst the flurry of stories about fare increases this weekend on Britain's railways, I note reports that National Express East Anglia have frozen their unregulated fares, good news indeed for those of us who use their services. Good news, that is, if you don't purchase your tickets using the internet.


Because, curiously, what they don't mention is that the 10% discount they offered to passengers booking their tickets online has been withdrawn, which means that those fares have effectively gone up by more than 11%. And, amazingly, they didn't announce that with a fanfare of trumpets, oh no. Indeed, a look at their website doesn't mention the withdrawal of the discount at all.


Oh dear, another year, and another disappointment from our friends at National Express East Anglia...

2009 by numbers - not exciting enough to be statporn, more light titillation...

As I only started using Google Analytics sixteen months ago, 2009 is the first year for which complete data exists. So, here goes...

'Liberal Bureaucracy' received 22,922 visits during the year, an average of nearly 63 per day, or 1,910 per month. Not too bad, I would suggest, especially as I don't really promote the blog as well as I might. The top postings were;

1. EXCLUSIVE: John Barrett MP to stand down (454 views)

2. Nigel Griffiths - it's not the sex, it's the lying that will get you in the end... (280 views)

3. Derek Draper - getting his canvass data in early? (269 views)

The best month was March, with 2,466 unique visits, although February (2,273) averaged more per day. The worst month was October, with just 1,305 unique visits.

In terms of income yield, it was by far my best year ever, with advertising yielding £16.49 (I'm not going to get rich fast by blogging, obviously). I'm expecting to get a cheque from Google at some point in May 2012. And yes, I am planning to declare it in due course...

A war cabinet - "You are cordially invited to provide us with political cover..."

"We have said that from day one of a future Conservative Government, a national security council, with the key ministers and defence chiefs, will sit as a war cabinet.

And I can announce today that if we win this year's election, I will invite leaders of the main opposition parties to attend the war cabinet on a regular basis so they can offer their advice and insights."

David Cameron, Woodstock, Oxfordshire, 2 January 2010

Apart from the obvious question, "Who, exactly, are we fighting?", I was most intrigued by young Dave's suggestion that Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown's replacement, whoever that might be, would be keen to rock up to a Conservative-led National Security Council meeting, and tell Dave and his mates how to run the campaign.

Firstly, this is not a World War, whereby politics is suspended in order to focus minds on the only important thing, saving the nation specifically, and peace generally. Indeed, Dave doesn't actually mention who the war is against. This country is not under sustained attack, and there is nobody trying to take our country from us. Second, if you accept the first point, what's in it for the Opposition, official or otherwise?

If we assume that it is accepted that we are fighting a war, and one must presume that this is against Al Qaeda, support for what we are doing is hardly deep and sustained. A majority of the public believe that we should withdraw from Afghanistan, and many believe that our current policies actually make us less safe, rather than more so. An outline of current Conservative thinking was given by Chris Grayling last month, which can be boiled down to "more of the same", staying the course in Afghanistan, maintaining the 'special relationship' with the United States, efficient intelligence sharing, supporting democratic forces in Pakistan. Hardly cause or justification for the creation of a 'war cabinet', is it?

As for the presence of Opposition figures, it would be difficult for them to attend unless they are planning to accept the core tenets of Conservative policy. Liberal Democrats have already expressed their doubts, and it seems unlikely that a dissenting voice around the table would have any more value inside the tent than outside of it, so why risk entanglement? And, if you agree with the strategy, why not use the platform of Parliamentary debate and the media to say so, why restrict your room for manoeuvre if circumstances change?

No, I'm not convinced that this is anything other than an illusion of pluralism on the part of someone who doesn't really have a big idea in terms of the actual issues of national security, but is quite good at spin. Sadly, spin wasn't a major factor in our military victories of the last century, and I'm not expecting it to factor much in this one either...

For I have promises to keep...

And so, another new year (and indeed, new decade) beckons. Given the action-packed nature of the last one, there might be much to be said for something a little quieter, but I don't think that the fates have that in store for me.

There are some things that I'd like to do though, and without getting too hung up about them, i.e. I'm not publishing them here, it wouldn't do me any harm to sharpen up my act a bit in 2010.

And with that, I'll see you all bright and early in the year to come...

And a Happy New Year to you all...

I'm an hour ahead of most of my readers, here in Nice, so by the time you read this, I'll probably be asleep.

However, I hope that 2010 is kind to you, wherever you are, and that you get everything you want, unless of course you're standing against a Liberal Democrat, in which case I hope that you enjoy your campaign and don't mind coming second too much.

Happy New Year to you all!