Thursday, March 18, 2010

Whatever happened to the Interim Peers List? (part 1)

My mind was drawn to the question of the Interim Peers Panel last night, whilst doing some research for a Liberal Youth count. So, as a service to historians, I thought that I'd look back at the 1999 election, and see what happened to some of the fifty eminent Liberal Democrats who were successful.

In order of election, with the stage at which they were successful (those who got a peerage are highlighted in Lords colours);
  1. David Bellotti - stage 1
  2. Ramesh Dewan - stage 1
  3. Tony Greaves - stage 1 (31 March 2000)
  4. Rupert Redesdale -stage 1 (31 March 2000)
  5. Roger Roberts - stage 1 (30 April 2004)
  6. Lindsay Granshaw - stage 29 (31 March 2000)
  7. Viv Bingham - stage 57
  8. Jane Bonham-Carter - stage 79 (30 April 2004)
  9. Elizabeth Shields - stage 84
  10. Alex Wilcock - stage 85
  11. Joan Walmsley - stage 91 (31 March 2000)
  12. Ros Scott - stage 98 (31 March 2000)
  13. Fiona Hall - stage 100
  14. Candy Piercey - stage 108
  15. Flo Clucas - stage 115
  16. Philip Goldenberg - stage 119
  17. Monroe Palmer - stage 121
  18. Sharon Bowles - stage 122
  19. Jonathan Fryer - stage 124
  20. Val Cox - stage 125
  21. Flick Rea - stage 125
  22. Michael Steed - stage 128
  23. David Williams - stage 128
  24. John Tilley - stage 131
  25. Sue Baring - stage 132
  26. Hilary Stephenson - stage 132
  27. Atul Vadher - stage 132
  28. Paula Yates - stage 132
  29. Robert Adamson - stage 133
  30. Michael Anderson - stage 133
  31. Sarah Boad - stage 135
  32. David Boyle - stage 135
  33. Alan Butt Philip - stage 135
  34. Ruth Coleman - stage 135
  35. Gordon Lishman - stage 135
  36. Keith House - stage 136
  37. Bill Le Breton - stage 136
  38. Dee Doocey - stage 139
  39. Iain King - stage 139
  40. Rowland Morgan - stage 139
  41. Alison Willott - stage 139
  42. Ralph Bancroft - stage 140
  43. Frances David - stage 140
  44. Jock Gallagher - stage 140
  45. Josephine Hayes - stage 140
  46. Matthew Oakeshott - stage 140 (31 March 2000)
  47. David Shutt - stage 140 (31 March 2000)
  48. Paul Tilsley - stage 140
  49. James Walsh - stage 140
  50. Joanne Whitehouse - stage 140
So, we see that nine of the fifty got a peerage, seven of them from the top twelve. The future Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay and Lord Shutt of Greetland, just scraped in, but as they're apparently amongst the twenty-five most influential Liberal Democrats, they would probably be judged to have been worth it.

An interesting sidenote is the position of one Alex Wilcock. I wonder how different the world would have been if you'd been ennobled, Alex. Would that have brought us the Honourable Millennium Elephant? Also, the two contenders at numbers 13 and 18 didn't do too badly, gaining seats in the European Parliament in 2004 and 2005 respectively.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Liberal Youth: wanted, someone else who can count

A Returning Officer's work is never done and so, with a new Federal Executive mostly in place, there is a vacancy for the position of Vice Chair Finance, following the elevation of Alan Belmore to the position of Supreme Leader (and no, that doesn't mean that he's the senior backing singer for Diana Ross, although, now that I mention it, why is that so ridiculous?).

So, in due course, a calling notice will be issued for a co-option to last until 30 June. As a one term Treasurer of the Young Liberal Democrats of England (1992 wasn't a great year...), I know how difficult the job can be. However, with Katy in the office and Alan to handover, anyone who wants to take on the role shouldn't feel overwhelmed.

But, in an attempt to inspire someone to run, here's a video from a time before any current Liberal Youth member was born...

House of Lords reform (part 37 of 94)

Just too late to make any difference, Jack Straw finally lets slip that he has a plan for reform of the Second Chamber. Because, let's be honest, thirteen years is barely long enough to even scratch the surface of getting rid of an unelected legislature and replace it with one that is fit for the third millennium.

Best of all, it is all being done by leak. There will be just 300 seats in the new House, provisionally called a Senate. Salaries will be less than that for those in the Commons (will that be renamed too?). It will be elected on a proportional basis, in thirds. Existing members will be bribed given an incentive to retire.

So far, so good(ish). If only there weren't less than two months before a General Election, and nowhere near enough time to ram the legislation through a reasonably pliant House of Commons. Even if there were, one can assume that the Lords would want a good, hard look at any legislation before signing its own death warrant.

One must therefore assume that this is a cynical attempt to peel off a few voters who consider constitutional reform to be important. The catch is that we've all been here before. The Jenkins Commission which led to precisely zip, nada, nothing, was the point where it became clear that the only power that Labour were willing to 'give away' was going to go to people who they could trust, i.e. other Labour politicians in Scotland, Wales and London.

And, like Gordon Brown's Damascene conversion to the cause of electoral reform, talk of enhancing our democracy is just so much window dressing. For let's be truthful here, even the Conservatives are more truthful on the subject than Labour are.

So, if you really want fairer votes, localism and a Bill of Rights that you can rely upon, one that doesn't rely on a Government that graciously allows you to have it, you know where to go. And with that, 'Liberal Bureaucracy' endorses the Liberal Democrats (alright, no great surprise, but I thought that I ought to do it anyway...).

Liberal Youth: here today, GEM tomorrow

Alright, so the abbreviation of General Executive Member is pretty tempting. And so I include a nice picture of Colombia's third most well-known export (I understand that the first two are brought to you by the letter C).

But this isn't getting the result declared, is it? Time to get on...

With ten candidates for six places, the first task was to calculate the quota. There were seventy valid ballots cast, with one spoilt by the use of three crosses and no numbers. As a result, the quota was determined as 10.01.

The first preferences were as follows;

Sophie Bertrand - 7 votes
Robson Brown - 19 votes
Cara Drury - 11 votes
Charlotte Harris - 10 votes
Thomas Hemsley - 3 votes
Usaama Kaweesa - 7 votes
Callum Leslie - 2 votes
Callum Morton - 3 votes
Ed Sanderson - 8 votes
Callum Stanland - no votes

This meant that Robson Brown and Cara Drury were elected at the first count.

Robson's surplus was transferred at a value of 0.47 (this is where the mathematics gets interesting), and the result after the second count was;

Sophie Bertrand - 8.41 votes
Robson Brown - 10.01 votes (elected, surplus transferred)
Cara Drury - 11 votes (elected)
Charlotte Harris - 11.41 votes
Thomas Hemsley - 3.94 votes
Usaama Kaweesa - 8.41 votes
Callum Leslie - 2.47 votes
Callum Morton - 4.41 votes
Ed Sanderson - 9.88 votes
Callum Stanland - no votes
rounding loss - 0.06 votes

Accordingly, Charlotte Harris was elected at the second count.

The third count saw Cara Drury's surplus transferred at a value of 0.09, and the result after this was;

Sophie Bertrand - 8.59 votes
Robson Brown - 10.01 votes (elected, surplus transferred)
Cara Drury - 10.01 votes (elected, surplus transferred)
Charlotte Harris - 11.41 votes (elected)
Thomas Hemsley - 4.12 votes
Usaama Kaweesa - 8.59 votes
Callum Leslie - 2.65 votes
Callum Morton - 4.5 votes
Ed Sanderson - 9.97 votes
Callum Stanland - no votes
rounding loss - 0.06 votes

This having not elected anyone, the fourth count saw the transfer of Charlotte Harris's surplus at a value of 0.12. The result was;

Sophie Bertrand - 8.97 votes
Robson Brown - 10.01 votes (elected, surplus transferred)
Cara Drury - 10.01 votes (elected, surplus transferred)
Charlotte Harris - 10.01 votes (elected, surplus transferred)
Thomas Hemsley - 4.48 votes
Usaama Kaweesa - 9.17 votes
Callum Leslie - 2.65 votes
Callum Morton - 4.5 votes
Ed Sanderson - 10.09 votes
Callum Stanland - no votes
rounding loss - 0.11 votes

This meant that Ed Sanderson was elected at the fourth count.

Unfortunately, his surplus was insufficient to make a difference, and the fifth count saw the elimination of Callum Stanland and Callum Leslie. The result was;

Sophie Bertrand - 9.06 votes
Robson Brown - 10.01 votes (elected, surplus transferred)
Cara Drury - 10.01 votes (elected, surplus transferred)
Charlotte Harris - 10.01 votes (elected, surplus transferred)
Thomas Hemsley - 6.48 votes
Usaama Kaweesa - 9.26 votes
Callum Leslie - eliminated
Callum Morton - 4.97 votes
Ed Sanderson - 10.09 votes (elected)
Callum Stanland - eliminated
rounding loss - 0.11 votes

The next to be eliminated was Callum Morton, and the result of the sixth count was;

Sophie Bertrand - 11.06 votes
Robson Brown - 10.01 votes (elected, surplus transferred)
Cara Drury - 10.01 votes (elected, surplus transferred)
Charlotte Harris - 10.01 votes (elected, surplus transferred)
Thomas Hemsley - 6.95 votes
Usaama Kaweesa - 10.82 votes
Callum Leslie - eliminated
Callum Morton - eliminated
Ed Sanderson - 10.09 votes (elected)
Callum Stanland - eliminated
rounding loss - 0.11 votes
non-transferable - 0.94 votes

This meant that Sophie Bertrand and Usaama Kaweesa were elected, leaving Thomas Hemsley as the first runner-up.

So, this set of elections is over, pending any appeal. Good night, sleep well...

Liberal Youth: they call me the Count... yes, it's results time!

Never being one to delay a result, I, Mark Jonathan Valladares, being the Returning Officer, blah, blah, blah...

The number of ballot papers issued was 86, of which 76 were returned.

For the election of the Chair, there were 75 valid ballots cast, with one left blank. Accordingly, the quota was 37.51 and the votes were cast as follows;


Alan Belmore - 51 votes
Sam Potts - 21 votes
reopen nominations - 3 votes

I therefore declare Alan Belmore to be duly elected to complete the current term, due to end on 30 June. As a result, there will need to be a co-option to fill the now vacant position of Vice Chair Finance. More news on that later...

In the election for Vice Chair Campaigns, 74 valid votes were cast, with a quota of 37.01, and the result was;

Matthew Folker - 61 votes
reopen nominations - 13 votes

I therefore declare Matthew Folker to be duly elected, on the same basis.

In the election for Vice Chair Communications, 71 valid votes were cast, the quota being 35.51. The result was;

Nathan Khan - 27 votes
Charlotte Henry - 36 votes
reopen nominations - 8 votes

I therefore declare Charlotte Henry to be duly elected, again until 30 June.

Finally, for this report, the election for Vice Chair Membership Development saw 75 valid votes cast, with a resultant quota of 37.51. The result was;

Paddy Elsdon - 65 votes
reopen nominations - 10 votes

I therefore declare Paddy Elsdon to be duly elected.

Soon, on 'Liberal Bureaucracy', the results of the General Executive Member by-election... 

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Murder on the Liberal Youth Express...

As the train rushed through mid-Essex, ace Returning Officer Mark Valladares reflected over his glass of Fleurie. It had been a difficult year in his mission to bring democracy to Liberal Youth but there was a sense that, this time, he might have found a solution that worked.

At least, this time the blood stains had been cleaned up before rumours started, the assassination squad had slipped into the night unnoticed and, all in all, it looked like a tidy job. Oh yes, there had been issues. Ottawa had only come through at the last moment, there were newspaper articles condemning the use of British passports by his agents, and there had been differences of opinion regarding the exchange of hostages in a notorious London hostelry. At least the availability of Timothy Taylor's Landlord had settled that one without too much rancour.

And all that was left was to declare the result. A glass of calvados awaited, and Agent Cincinnati was guarding the ballot papers. The grounds of the castle were booby-trapped to deter anyone foolish enough to try to intervene, yes, all was ready.

Mark smiled in anticipation of an easy count...

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Perry Beeches School: education is inspiration

I've got a bit behind here, so bear with me whilst I catch up...

Our second visit on Friday morning was undoubtedly an inspiring one.

Not long ago, Perry Beeches School was a failing institution, with low academic achievement, low aspirations amongst its pupils, high levels of substitute teachers, in short, not somewhere you would send your children if you had a choice. Now, where once only 21% of pupils achieved 5 A*-C grades at GCSE, 64% are. Aspirations amongst the pupils are high, with some of the students aiming to be lawyers, forensic scientists, some hoping to run their own business.

The headmaster, Liam Nolan, is a bundle of energy, supported by a team who show incredible enthusiasm for what they are doing. And what they are doing is quite startling. Without additional money, without the 'support' of government programmes, they have looked at what a school does, and what it is for, and returned to the basics of producing young people equipped to play a full part in society, the very essence of building a community where equality of opportunity is more than an easy buzz phrase.

For example, resources have been found to provide mentoring programmes for those students who, in the past, would have been marginal in terms of educational achievement. But those mentors aren't teachers, they're people with backgrounds in industry, people with a hinterland, who can relate education to the outside world. The results speak volumes, as hundreds of students emerge with better qualifications and better life chances.

We finished with a sneak preview of the school production of 'An American Tale', and I was impressed by the enthusiasm of the performers. As a spearcarrier rather than a star myself, my attention was on the chorus, and it really looked as though they were enjoying themselves. The two principals gave it everything, and if there is anyone who fancies a night out in the Birmingham suburbs next week, you could do far worse than support them.

It is fair to say that I was impressed. A school which produces polite, engaged and confident students is a benchmark that all parents should aspire towards. One that does so much to develop those students is something that a whole community can rally round. In short, Perry Beeches School demonstrates what can be done and what should be done, and I wish them all the very best wishes for the future.

Friday, March 12, 2010

I think that I shall never see...

I'm in Birmingham in advance of the Spring Conference, but I'm not exactly slacking.

Ros is working, and as a result, we're getting to see what the City Council is doing. Our first stop was Alexander Stadium, and the parkland surrounding it, for a tree planting event. To encourage children to take an interest, schools are encouraged to send groups to take part, so we were surrounded by small children armed with spades and a steely determination to make sure that their tree stayed planted.

It was raining, but that will only ensure that the roots are properly nourished...

One last comment though. It was interesting to watch the girls getting stuck in, wanting a spade of their own, whilst the boys tended to stand around, looking at their hole. But there were more young people in my near future...

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Thoughts from the train: would you recognise that hung parliament if you saw it again, madam?

I see that young Mr Clegg is getting plenty of coverage in the press this week, perhaps in anticipation of our Spring Conference this weekend in Birmingham. Will the Liberal Democrats or won't they (form a coalition, that is)?

What I find so intriguing is that the press are so desperate to get the story that they are reduced to making one up. Doorstepping Liberal Democrat MPs in the hope that one of them will get the line wrong, parsing every comment made by Nick, or Vince, or Shirley, or... you get my drift... for something that might indicate that the Party is leaning one way or the other, it really is quite depressing. For let's be honest, a hung parliament will place most of the pressure on Gordon and Dave.

Oh yes, it takes two to tango, but the onus is on the ugly sisters to try and fill their dance card, not for Prince Charming to throw himself at one of them. We've posted our wishlist on the political equivalent of www.amazon.co.uk, and there'll be time enough to find out how much is actually on offer after the votes are counted.

And there will, for the chronology is quite obvious. In the event of a hung Parliament, Gordon will gather his remaining troops together, look at the numbers, and see who can be approached. He'll need time, especially if we're the only effective show in town. He may not even be able to persuade them (many of them really don't like us).

If he gives up, and he may not until a Queen's Speech, it'll be Dave's turn. They will at least have had the advantage of time whilst Gordon tries, and doubtless they'll have been in touch to see if, first of all, we can be dissuaded from doing a deal with Labour (which may not be that difficult), and second, to find out if we were serious about all that 'fairness stuff' (I will save them the trouble - we are).

So, there's plenty to be done before we even have to make a decision. Given that the only  evidence so far is that readers of Liberal Democrat Voice aren't that keen on either of the options, it might be better to leave either of them to run a minority administration.

In other words, my media friends, wouldn't you be better off asking them instead of us? After all, if you can't get your heads around a multi-party democracy (and that means more than two), why not concentrate on what you do best and see if either of them has an answer? We, and the rest of the British public, might learn something...

Tom Strathclyde - so much for democracy then...

It is rumoured that, in the event of a Conservative victory at the General Election, Lord Strathclyde, Leader of the Conservatives in the Lords, has let slip that there will be one hundred new Conservative Peers nominated so as to ensure a working majority over the other two political groupings. Whilst I'm not the least bit surprised by this cynical approach, it does have some pretty serious implications.

Ironically, the past thirteen years have seen the House of Lords pass from having an overwhelming Conservative majority to being effectively hung, with the removal of all but ninety-two hereditaries, and the creation of a number of Labour and Liberal Democrat Peers sufficient to give the Government the greater number of votes but not enough to ensure a majority without having to persuade either the crossbenchers or the Liberal Democrats to support them.

As a result, much of the more gruesomely repressive legislation has been either defeated or beneficially altered by means of amendments or, in some cases, by the threat of defeat. If Lord Strathclyde's rumoured comments are to be believed, the Conservatives either don't see the need for collaboration, or feel that it is simply easier to ram through legislation without proper scrutiny in the Second Chamber.

Given the willingness of MPs to be whipped, this would effectively silence opposition voices, as they would only be able to delay or amend unsatisfactory legislation if allowed to do so by the Government's business managers. You can't help but suspect that, if you're planning to stiff the place with new Peers, you aren't planning to encourage dissent.

For those of us who believe in an elected second chamber, such cynicism on the part of the wannabes of the Conservative Party provides more evidence that, whilst the label on the tin might be shiny and gentle, the contents are still as unpleasant as ever.

Unless, of course, Mr Cameron knows different. Any thoughts on a guarantee of legislation creating an elected second chamber, Dave?

A by-election fundraiser with a difference

Now there are those of you who might wonder what sort of organisation would hold a fundraiser for by-elections in the run-up to a General Election. The answer is the Orpington Circle of the National Liberal Club, and I had the great pleasure to attend this year's fundraising dinner in the Lloyd George Room of the Club last night.

Naturally, the Club was able to attract an all star cast, with Ros introducing the main speaker, Sir Menzies Campbell MP, Lord Avebury giving the toast to our candidates past and present, and Lord Steel of Aikwood taking care of the vote of thanks.

One of the features of recent years has been a rather closer relationship between the Club and the Party. Not too close, I would add, but given that the Club has a membership structure which gives additional rights to its Political Members (those willing to declare themselves to be liberals in politics), it is odd that it has taken the leadership of the Rev. Paul Hunt to create a fund to support Liberal Democrat activity.

It was a thoroughly charming evening, with the top table left somewhat bereft at one point as five Peers (Avebury, Chidgey, Garden of Frognal, Scott of Needham Market and Steel of Aikwood) were whisked away to vote down the Government before returning in time for dessert.

It's nice to see the old traditions being maintained...

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

So, why is HM Revenue & Customs so aggressive with football teams in financial trouble?

The recent high-profile clash between Portsmouth FC and HM Revenue & Customs has brought the taxman into the spotlight. On Monday, the Guardian published an interview with a senior recovery official.

Thoughts from the Train*: is there anybody out there?

As I commute from a safe Conservative seat in mid Suffolk (Bury St Edmunds, majority 10,031), I am puzzled by how quiet it is in terms of campaigning. No leaflets from the Conservatives, none from Labour, and one from the Liberal Democrats (well, I did produce it myself, and I am the District Council candidate for next year). I suspect that I'm not alone in wondering, so where is this election one hears so much about?


Of course, I am a political insider, so I have a pretty good idea what is actually happening. But what if I wasn't? How would I get an idea about which party should get my vote? The answer? Move to a marginal seat. The stories that I hear indicate that industrial volumes of paper are going through letterboxes, delivered by volunteers in some cases, by paid staff in others. And for the rest of us? Keep your fingers crossed that you have keenly contested local elections, or that you have a local councillor who reports back regularly.


In fairness, there was no 'golden age' when political parties communicated directly with the voter. Instead, voters relied on newspapers, local, regional or national, to report what their local representatives were doing, and the occasional public meeting would allow them to see their MP or councillor in the flesh. Stories of MPs who might visit their constituency once a year or so, whilst unusual, were not unheard of.


Nowadays, the local newspapers cover little of what goes on in the political arena. Sales of local and regional newspapers have declined, whilst regional television news has been cut to the core, especially by ITV. As membership of political parties declines, there are less people locally to make the case for their chosen team. If the British Electoral Survey is to be believed, only 25% of voters recall receiving contact from a political party since last July. So, if we're not coming to you, can you come to us?


Well, yes, after a fashion. The internet is a popular means of obtaining information. However, most people use the internet to find out things that they need to know. Price comparison sites, airlines, banking, that sort of thing. They don't have much time to browse. In other words, they're normal people, more likely to use the internet to pursue hobbies and interests, than to 'do politics'.

Contacting your local political party is quite difficult too. The telephone directories don't have a lot of information, and the party websites tend to provide the telephone contact for a volunteer who may, or may not, get back to you. Even if they do, they may not be best equipped to answer your questions.

So, all in all, most political parties have decided that, for the most part, your vote is decided upon, and they won't pursue it actively. That isn't a criticism, merely a recognition that political parties don't have the funds or the manpower to compete everywhere and an acceptance that targetting your resources is the best way to get value for them.

I have, of course, tested my theory on an average group of Londoners, and discovered that two of them have been contacted in some way, and three haven't. The two that have live in Harrow West (a Labour-held marginal) and Brent Central (a newly-created seat where Labour and the Liberal Democrats both have legitimate hopes). The others live in safe Conservative seats. They aren't expecting to see much until the freeposts turn up...

My gut feeling is that this increasing focus on a smaller and smaller core of seats and voters is not good for our democracy. After all, if nobody appears to care how you vote, why bother? Time to break up the old structures, I suggest...

* Alright, I've finished this at my desk. The thoughts came to me on the train though...

Tuesday, March 09, 2010

Style and the bureaucrat

It's been a long march towards adopting a fashion sense, here at 'Liberal Bureaucracy'. My long-held reputation for waistcoats and bow-ties failed to survive the onset of general largeness.

Exposure to all things American led me to adopt a vaguely Midwest college professor style but, in truth, my unexpected marriage into the nobility meant that, on occasion, I was going to have to essay something more formal. As someone who has studiously avoided suits, this was always going to be a bit traumatic. It has taken the best part of two years, but I am finally beginning to adjust.

I have started to renew my shirt collection, added some new silk ties, and appear to be getting the hang of colour. Apparently, the idea is that the colours you wear shouldn't clash...

There are, I must admit, suits involved, something that I have particularly struggled with. Having always preferred comfortable and/or flamboyant over fitted and formal, the need to conform with expectation is a new challenge.

All that said, I'm beginning to enjoy myself a bit. I plan to experiment with colour a little in the coming months, and perhaps a few accessories may appear. We'll see how it goes...

Welcome to the gateway to the Highlands!

I've made my way home from Perth, having spent the weekend at the Scottish Liberal Democrat Conference.

It's been a bit of a triumph for Liberal Youth, with their motion on equal rights and marriage being carried overwhelmingly, and then winning the Rae Michie award for membership growth after a massively successful Freshers round last autumn.

For me, it's been a fairly quiet affair, catching up with a few friends, doing a little shopping and getting a little down time with Ros. The Scottish Liberal Democrats give the impression of being a bit like an extended family, it's all rather cosy, and the Royal George Hotel suits them to a tee, as it is one of those old-fashioned hotels that has decided that comfort is more important than modernity. Yes, there is a fair bit of tartan, but the furniture is comfortable, the rooms have character, and the staff make time for conversation.

As a base for touring the region, it does very nicely, and we took the opportunity to take in a bit of scenery, with a detour to Dunfermline and Crieff on the way up from Edinburgh, and a drive up towards Braemar yesterday.

Dunfermline was a pleasant surprise, a bustling town with some decent shopping, and a few nice places for lunch. I took the opportunity to get a long overdue haircut, having a naked flame waved around my ears, as I did in Corstophine last year, and we did a little shopping for Ros.

Crieff is the home of the Famous Grouse Experience, but we settled for a stroll around the town, before heading for Perth, where we checked in and I left Ros to take a rest whilst I went to explore the town. To my great delight, I discovered a sale, and made another step towards the transformation of my personal style. I'll wear the tie in Birmingham...

So, what else did I get up to? I ran into the cream of Scottish LibDem blogging, including the effervescent Stephen Glenn, whose sartorial elegance on Sunday morning should not go unrecorded, and Caron, whose musings on football were a rebuke to the teasing remark that Scotland only really has two football teams. I also ran into Cicero himself, visiting old friends, complimenting him on his writings - always an education.

The Conference Dinner was pleasant, and I had the good fortune to spend some time talking with Hilary Stephenson, the Director of Campaigns. I hadn't really had a chance to find out much about her or get to know her better, but I'm impressed with what she had to say. For obvious reasons, our conversation will remain unrecorded, but she is a worthy successor to Chris Rennard.

Saturday, March 06, 2010

International Women's Day - an early contribution from the House of Lords

Thursday saw the almost traditional debate in the Lords linked to Interntional Women's Day. Click here to check out the thoughts of, amongst others, Baronesses Nicholson of Winterbourne, Williams of Crosby and Scott of Needham Market, as well as an entertaining cameo role from Lord Dholakia...

Friday, March 05, 2010

Wikio rankings for March - how are you all getting on?

Perhaps I've missed something this month, but there hasn't been a report on the LibDem Wikio rankings this month so, what's happened? The results are;
  1. Liberal Democrat Voice (6th) (down 1)
  2. Mark Reckons (20th) (up 1)
  3. Stephen's Linlithgow Journal (48th) (no change)
  4. Liberal England (51st) (down 7)
  5. Liberal Vision (61st) (down 10)
  6. Caron's Musings (62nd) (down 4)
  7. Andrew Reeves' Running Blog (65th) (up 15)
  8. Mark Pack's blog (67th) (up 3) 
  9. Peter Black AM (71st) (down 14)
  10. Quaequam Blog! (77th) (down 12)
  11. Miss S B (Jennie Rigg) (89th) (down 13)
  12. Freethinking Economist (98th) (new entry)
  13. Lynne Featherstone's Parliament and Haringey Diary (100th) (down 15)
So, it's goodbye to The People's Republic of Mortimer and to the Bracknell Blog, but we welcome Giles Wilkes, the Freethinking Economist, who has made a pretty sensational debut, might I suggest...

I also note that there are three blogs based north of the border in our top seven. I'll be in Perth tomorrow for the Scottish Conference, weather permitting, so maybe I'll be able to discover if it's something in the water.

Iain Dale, the Liberal Democrats and diversity - an open letter

Yesterday, I upset Iain Dale and, in return, he challenged me to 'answer the question'. So, here goes...

Dear Iain,

It's all very well telling us that we don't have any BME members in the Commons or the devolved administrations. I had noticed. And yes, as a 'minority ethnic' person, I want to see our representatives reflect more accurately the communities they serve. The difference between you and me is that I haven't just pontificated on the subject, I've done something about it.

When the Party debated the issue in September 2005, following a motion promoted by Simon Hughes, the then Party President, I was frustrated by the calls for quotas and, effectively, bribes to ‘ensure’ that BME candidates were selected. So frustrated, indeed, that I spoke in the debate and swore, as I walked off the platform, that if the motion was defeated, I would come back with something better.

The resolution was duly defeated, I went back to my constituency, and prepared for something better. Two months later, at the London Regional Conference, I moved a motion calling for the Party to develop and properly resource efforts to attract, support and mentor candidates on under-represented communities, which was overwhelmingly carried. Having taken the precaution of consulting the Chair of our Candidates Committee, as well as senior ethnic minority members of the Party, I was confident that it would address their concerns as well.

And indeed, the motion was debated at the party’s Federal Conference in March 2006, where it was overwhelmingly passed with two amendments. I then left the Federal Executive to do their job. Since then, the Party has engaged a National Diversity Advisor, it has set up the New Generations project, designed to do all of the things that I had hoped for.

I then took on the task of trying to change our selection systems to make them fit for purpose, and to find ways to make them neutral in terms of gender and culture. Again, our National Diversity Advisor has been included in that process, and we will be launching the new selection rules after the General Election. If you believe, as I do, that selection should be based entirely on merit, then the aim is to make our processes as accessible as possible, to ensure that nobody is unfairly excluded.

I have always opposed artificial mechanisms to ‘ensure’ diversity, as I do not believe that replacing one form of discrimination with another is a liberal solution. And yes, that means searching for ways to remove discrimination for systems and processes. It means actively looking for and encouraging people who can demonstrate that they are sympathetic to Liberal Democrat philosophy and policies, regardless of their background, helping them to fulfil their political aspirations.

I’ve dedicated a good proportion of my political career doing that, Iain. It isn’t glamorous, it doesn’t garner headlines, but it is the right thing to do. And, in the process, I have remained true to my political principles, in particular the belief in equality of opportunity, not necessarily of outcome.

Your original posting was inaccurate and a slur on Nick Clegg and the leadership of the Party. Regardless of whether or not you intended that, your failure to actually check your facts combined with the credence placed on your blog by the media, means that there are some who will take your comments to be factual rather than opinion. As a journalist and publisher, you are expected to cleave to a higher standard than the average blogger.

I also note that you refer to one Liberal Democrat blogger’s view as representing the broad view of Party members and activists in your second update. If I was to claim that a random Conservative blogger was representative of the views of your Party activists and members, you and others like you would rightly crucify me. It is always dangerous to superimpose the views of an individual member of a group upon the group as a whole. Labour have a tendency to do that, and those of us who believe that society is comprised of individuals (and I presume that you would define yourself as holding that view), rebel against it in our politics.

For the record, I do believe that electoral reform would potentially make an impact on representation in this country. It isn’t a magic bullet that will solve all of our problems, and Mark Thompson didn’t suggest that it would. And to call Italy in aid is a highly selective and disingenuous argument, just as using Germany as a sole example would be if I was to base my response on it.

The culture of our Parliament is a factor in deterring women and ethnic minority politicians, the lack of ‘beacon figures’ for those from minority groups is another. Issues related to representation are complex, and whilst the evidence of raw numbers is easy to explain and convey, what is being done behind the scenes, and how it reflects the culture and, rather crucially, the philosophy of a political party is much more difficult.

Organisations like Operation Black Vote tell us that quotas are necessary. I respect their view, but sense that it is based on the fact that many of their activists come from a Labour-supporting background, where social engineering is considered to be an appropriate response. As I noted earlier, I oppose positive discrimination. If quick results are required, regardless of political principle, you can meddle with your systems. If you want lasting, cultural change in any organisation, your task is rather harder.

The Conservative Party has taken the steps it believes appropriate to increase the representation of women and ethnic minorities amongst its Parliamentary Party. As a perceived likely party of government, it has an attractive offer to make. It also has a lot more opportunities to offer than the Liberal Democrats do. If the spread betting markets are to be believed, you are six times more likely to be elected as a Conservative this year than as a Liberal Democrat. Your campaign is likely to be 200-300% better funded as a Conservative than as a Liberal Democrat. And, quite crucially, the number of available candidacies brought about by retirements of sitting MPs and likely gains is far greater for the Conservatives than it is for the Liberal Democrats. In short, the opportunities are far greater in your Party than in mine.

So, in summary, no, I’m not happy about the lack of ethnic minority Liberal Democrat elected representatives, and the decided under-representation of women. As previously noted, as an ethnic minority myself, I take a personal interest, even if I have no ambition at Parliamentary level myself. However, I’m reassured that we’re actively trying to improve matters within the limitations of our resources. There are things that I would like us to be better at, i.e. looking for new activists and members locally, but then that appears to be a problem for all three political parties, in that we’re so busy running campaigns that we don’t have time to actually ask people to join and/or get involved. I’m also confident that, in time, a cohort of excellent women and ethnic minority candidates will be selected in target and held seats as a result of reforms in place now.

And finally, I acknowledge that I launched a cheap, point-scoring attack on you. However, sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, and you unwittingly provoked me. The idea that one can use the argument that ‘we’re more diverse than you are’ demeans the wider issue of building a fairer, more equal society, something that we should all care about if we want the best for our nation.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Valladares

Thursday, March 04, 2010

How badly does Iain Dale want to be an MP anyway?

Whenever I see criticism from Conservatives over our apparent failure to adopt and select BME candidates, I always check for irony. And now that Iain Dale has decided to highlight this issue, it is a rare pleasure to respond.

I am intrigued by the notion that Conservatives have taken positive action rather than positive discrimination. What Iain quite cynically fails to mention is the process by which shortlisting takes place for Conservative PPC selections. A selection committee is appointed and meets in conclave with a member of the Party's Candidates Committee, one of whose members is Eric Pickles. It can be safely assumed that the senior party figure has an influence over the process, but because it is done behind closed doors, it is difficult to demonstrate how much external influence is applied before a final shortlist is announced. However, it is hard to imagine that the centre does not influence, as there would be little point in taking such an active role if the aim was simply to observe.

In the Liberal Democrats, there is no external influence, in that the selection committee is appointed by and from the Local Party membership, with no external member. The Returning Officer is there to ensure due process, and the only things that restrict the decision-making process are the appointment of the Returning Officer, which is the responsibility of the Regional Candidates Chair, and the selection rules, which are the preserve of the relevant State Party.

I am delighted that Conservative Associations across the country have chosen candidates that reflect the diverse society that their Party. Of course, as the Liz Truss affair proved, some need to be prodded and poked into action, and there are certainly dark mutterings from others about undue influence from Conservative Central Office.

But for Iain to make an unsubstantiated claim of the sort he has is merely a reminder that, underneath the veneer of being the editor of a neutral political magazine, there lies the heart of someone desperate to draw the attention of Eric Pickles so that his name can be considered for any last minute vacancies that might arise.

Liberal Democrats take the quaint view that the first task is to ensure that our processes and systems don't discriminate against groups or individuals. Allied to that, we are working to demonstrate to all that they are welcome in our Party. We have launched the New Generations project to seek, mentor and develop those who come from previously disadvantaged groups. What we don't do is rig the system. It is our expectation that good candidates, wherever their background, will emerge through a selection and go on to be successful.

It is somewhat odd that a Conservative doesn't see the logic of the position unless, of course, Iain is suggesting that we are racists. Of course, he has already claimed, on the basis of two ill-advised comments, that we are an anti-Israel party, so we'll just accept that he is making a cheap, partisan shot, and leave it at that.

That isn't to say that we won't remember...

Wednesday, March 03, 2010

The Ashcroft Affair: what did William Hague know?

Of course, whilst one might argue that Lord Ashcroft has merely taken advantage of the loophole left for him, there is one person who can provide a clearer idea of what was intended. And, dear reader, that person would be William Hague. Yes, you remember, the Conservative leader who pushed hard for a peerage for his biggest donor, the man who now allows said donor to accompany him on foreign trips.

It was he would claimed that the then Michael Ashcroft would pay tens of millions in additional tax in fulfilling his obligations under the agreement. It was he whose Chief Whip is alleged to have played a key role in watering down the pledge made in writing to Lord Thomson of Monifieth. Clearly, he had either been misled, or he knew what was happening. Neither option is terribly good for his reputation, or that of Lord Ashcroft. Indeed, as The Times put it this morning,

"Even if the peer did not originally intend to deceive, there can be little doubt that he allowed a deceit to develop. Moreover, he was content not to correct it."

So, the simple questions for William Hague to answer are, "Did you believe, as a result of his commitment, that all of Michael Ashcroft's income would be declarable to, and taxable by, the Inland Revenue? And if not, what did you believe?".

From the perspective of most people, the actual facts are, I suspect unimportant, although my workmates, none of whom are particularly political, are beginning to get the idea into their heads (unbidden by me, I might add) that the Conservatives are a bit evasive and sleazy. And, as I've noted in the past, credibility is hard earned and easily squandered.

So, whilst my Conservative friends spin away, raising the issue of other political parties and their income from non-domiciles, only one such person has made a commitment, possibly dodged it, and gained a peerage as a result. So, would William Hague like to step up to the bar of public opinion and answer a few legitimate questions?...

Tuesday, March 02, 2010

With grateful thanks to Richard Gadsden

Richard kindly pointed out that I had signed up for Amazon US instead of Amazon UK. So I've switched...

Lord Ashcroft - and another thing...

I was going to make the point that his investment in the Conservative Party has proved to be excellent value, but Paul Walter beat me to it. I can't do any better than to let him take it from here...

By the way, nice layout, Paul...

A Liberal Democrat guide to the Barclays Premier League

I accept that this is not necessarily the most obvious topic for a blog posting, but stick with me here, I'll get to the point soon...


For Liberal Democrats, there is no obvious link to any Premier League team (unless you're conditioned to do what Sara Bedford tells you to do). And, given the uncanny ability of Ipswich Town to draw their games (draw number 17 of the season at the weekend), leading Liberal Democrat donor, Marcus Evans, who owns the club, is unlikely to be visiting the directors' box at the Emirates or Old Trafford for a league fixture any time soon (go on boys, prove us wrong!).


However, that may be about to change. The Red Knights consortium, currently considering a bid for Manchester United, includes amongst its supporters, Paul Marshall, leading hedge fund manager and on the current list of Liberal Democrat members to be considered for a peerage. There is an irony here, in that the Glazers, who own the club at the moment, are considered to be less acceptable than a hedge fund manager...


This does present a minor dilemma for those of us who follow a team. As Liberal Democrats, we tend towards beauty (Arsenal), or underdogs like my own beloved Luton Town. That means that our teams don't win much, but then, if winning was everything, we wouldn't be Liberal Democrats. For that reason, teams like Manchester United fill us with a kind of horror, rich teams who distort fair competition by being able to use other teams as feeder clubs.


As a result, Manchester United were one of the most disliked teams in the League for many years, and only fell from that position once Roman Abramovich turned up at Stamford Bridge. In the same way that the average Manchester United supporter lives in Surrey, the traditional Chelsea fan, stoic in the face of chaos, has been pushed aside by the sort of people who will support anyone as long as they're winning. A bit like Conservatives, really. Yes, Iain, you're excluded from that cheap crack...


So, if Manchester United have a Liberal Democrat on their board, will that make them acceptable? Or will we all start quietly supporting Manchester City because we're contradictory like that?...



A little light reading...

I may have mentioned that I have signed up for this Amazon thing. Finally, I have a chance to use it, although it does seem to be designed for an American market.

So, here it is, a collection of essays on liberty and allied stuff, with a contribution from the always entertaining and ever thoughtful Brian Eno, brought together by my 'Unlock Democracy' colleague, Rosemary Bechler. If you can persuade Amazon to sell it to you in pounds sterling, it will make a good, if occasionally depressing, read.

Michael Ashcroft and a few errors of judgement

And so, the Right Honourable Baron Ashcroft of Belize has finally clarified his tax status and the sport begins. As usual, that sport is playing the man and not the ball. What do I think? Let's break it down into what I believe are the key issues...

The Residency promise

When the press release was issued notifying the media of the list of new Peers, there was a 'Note for Editors', and this is what it said;

In order to meet the requirements for a Working Peer, Mr Michael Ashcroft has given his clear and unequivocal assurance that he will take up permanent residence in the United Kingdom again before the end of the calendar year. He would be introduced into the House of Lords only after taking up that residence. These undertakings have been endorsed by the Leader of the Conservative Party and conveyed to the Prime Minister - and to the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee.


The important words here are 'permanent residence'. There was no commitment sought that his domicile would change, and none given. To be blunt, this looks like one clever, or at least well-advised, individual getting one over on the powers that be. If they didn't think about the question of domicile, they should have done. After all, we have no idea what the financial benefit accruing to Lord Ashcroft from his domicile status is, and that is rather important. He can be as resident if he likes, but if the majority of his income remains offshore, it isn't likely that it is being taxed here.

In that sense, based on the statement above, Lord Ashcroft has lived up to his commitment. It may not be terribly honourable, but then those responsible for reaching the agreement shouldn't have been so trusting.

Lawmaking and tax avoidance

At a time when David Cameron is talking about patriotic duty, it is astonishing that he has allowed the Ashcroft situation drag on as long as it has. The brutal fact is that a man who believes that his home is in Belize is potentially sitting in the Upper House, debating, scrutinising and voting on laws that affect all of us. Most ordinary people would find that in itself bizarre. The fact that he claims his domicile to be in that country too is even more difficult for them to swallow.

To be automatically considered non-domiciled in the United Kingdom, you must fulfil the following criteria;
  • you must be born outside of the United Kingdom
  • your father must have been domiciled outside of the United Kingdom at the time of your birth
  • you must have come to the United Kingdom for the purposes only of employment (including self-employment) and must intend to resume employment abroad when that employment ceases
Michael Ashcroft was born in Chichester, but as his father was a colonial civil servant, it is not impossible that he would qualify under the first two criteria. His activities in the House of Lords do not represent employment, but his directorships do. It is fair to say that his claim to non-domiciled status probably stands up.

But if they do, can David Cameron, George Osborne and the boys not see what the problem is here. Can you rightly claim non-domicile status if you are a Member of Parliament? Forget legislation, this is a matter of personal honour. If Conservatives cannot see the genuine issue here, are they likely to 'get it' in power? The idea that you can believe home to be one independent country and make laws for another is morally and ethically wrong.

Receiving funds from offshore

It is now accepted that taking contributions from non-residents is wrong, and the law was changed to prevent that, to provide greater clarity about the sources of income of political parties. So, what is different about taking money from those who are non-domiciled? In my view, it comes down to arrogance, whereby a rich person can buy influence, potentially using funds held offshore and away from the prying eyes of HM Revenue & Customs.

The Conservative argument that Labour take money from non-domiciled individuals too doesn't make their problems with Lord Ashcroft and Lord Laidlaw any less difficult. To try to mitigate your moral offence by implicating the next door neighbour in an equally horrid crime is not sustainable in the court of public opinion. Indeed, all it does is to besmirch the reputation of all politicians, some deserving, some rather less so.

They could instead propose legislation stating that political donations cannot be accepted from non-domiciled individuals, but I suspect that they won't.

In summary, I would argue that Michael Ashcroft should never have been given a peerage, an honour which consequentially gives you an opportunity to change the law of the land. The Conservatives should never have nominated him without a clearer demonstration of the fulfilment of his promises, and now that they have, we're stuck with him.

In all, it provides a nice big stick for people to hit the Conservatives with, and in the current climate, there'll be plenty of bruising ahead for them as this saga plays out.

'Liberal Bureaucracy' - numbers for February 2010

I have no idea where the time goes (although a lot of it seems to be spent on trains) but with February behind us, here are the figures for last month...
  • 2228 visits, up from 2210 last month (a 0.8% improvement on last month, although given the number of days in each month, it equates on a per day basis to an 11.6% improvement) but down from 2273 in February 2009 (a 2% fall)
  • £1.20 of advertising revenue, up from £0.73 last month (a 64.4% improvement!) and up from £1.03 in February 2009 (a 16.5% improvement).
I'm now expecting to qualify for my first cheque from Google Adsense in December 2014...

Monday, March 01, 2010

A productive day in the sunshine

After a lightning turnaround by my friendly printer (take a bow, Tim Lockington, Chair of Ipswich Liberal Democrats), I had a day to deliver the second Stowupland and Creeting St Peter Focus. And, with some help from my massively over-qualified fellow deliverer (I can always rely on the Party President to attend our Action Days...), we've managed to deliver something like 70% of the ward.

As I've noted in the past, District Council seats in places like Mid Suffolk are not all that political, and in the absence of political activity, voters tend to default to voting Conservative. And yet, Stowupland ward was held by Labour not so long ago, and we gained 23% of the vote without a campaign last time, so I'm not convinced that Stowupland is unwinnable.

I'll keep working, and we'll see what happens. After all, my campaign manager is really rather good...