Party Presidency: a job description

Now that the debate has moved on to "Who next?", perhaps some information about what the job entails/requires might be helpful. And given that I've had a ringside seat for the past two years, and that the information might inform anyone seeking to fill the vacancy, here goes...

Role

The President has three primary roles;

• chairing Federal Executive - which is rather more than just turning up and doing the job. The agenda has to be agreed, papers commissioned, debate managed so as to ensure that all of the business is given a proper airing. The President is also a member of the Chief Officers Group, Federal Conference Committee, Federal Policy Committee, Federal Finance and Administration Committee and the Campaigns and Communications Committee. All meet in London, mostly in the evening, and occasionally on a Saturday.
• representing the membership to the leadership - responding to hundreds of e-mails and letters (some of them astonishingly rude or even abusive), travelling around the country to regional and state conferences, to local party dinners, to campaign events, and then conveying the information and views gathered to the Leader, the Chief Executive and now to the Liberal Democrat parliamentarians in ministerial office.
• representing the Party, as opposed to the Parliamentary Party, in the outside world, to pressure groups, media, lobbying organisations and, leading our international delegations to organisations such as Liberal International and ELDR.

Resources

• It is not a salaried position.
• No office accommodation is provided.
• No staff are exclusively given over to support for the President.
• The total budget is £5,000 per annum - this has to cover all travel expenses, including international events, and any other costs which might arise.
• Volunteer help. People do come forward, but you have to find somewhere for them to work (see above).

Time Commitment

An absolute minimum of 30 hours per week to do all the things above, and, combined with most people's need to earn a living, that does mean that most of your waking hours are filled for you.

And a personal comment, if you’ll indulge me, if you have a family, or loved ones, you will therefore not see much of them, unless they can afford to pay to travel with you. If you don't live in London, you might not see much of your home either, which can get a bit depressing if you let it.


Required competences 

Having considered this, and having reached a personal view on what is required, I'm not actually going to list them. Ros had her way of doing the job, and her predecessors likewise, and each differed in terms of their personal skill set, likes and dislikes, methods of working and priorities. Oh yes, and the needs of the Party vary over time too.

Given that the membership needs to decide upon its priorities for any incoming President, it seems appropriate to leave this element of the debate for others to pontificate upon...

I certainly wish Ros's successor well, whoever it turns out to be. Because, to do the job well, and to meet the expectations placed upon them, they'll have to work bloody hard...

Campaigning: smarter, better, winning?

I'm in Henley, at my County's campaign training day. As the weather is a bit grim, it's good to be inside.

Ros spoke first, an unscheduled speech only possible because she had to drop me off - Henley isn't easily accessible from Creeting St Peter - before Keith House took centre stage. He had very kindly driven up from Eastleigh to impart his accumulated wisdom on the subject of winning. Given that Eastleigh are very good at winning, there was much to make me think, "Yes, I can use that.". And I plan to do just that. He very kindly brought copies of some of the leaflets they have used in the past, and my future leaflets will benefit from their example.

After a very good lunch (pork pies were particularly welcome), we spent the afternoon learning about the nuts and bolts of a campaign - how to organise action days, how polling day should be managed, how social media can support your campaign. It's been an education, although I have been surprised at how much I've picked up over twenty-five years as a bureaucrat. Clearly, all of those meetings at local, regional and state levels have left their mark.

I've also realised that I need to be better integrated with my District and County Council Groups. Their efforts can, and probably should, inform my campaigning. Given that the Conservatives run both Mid Suffolk and Suffolk, I look forward to holding them to account, challenging their record (or lack thereof).

The immediate issue is candidate approval. Setting up panels is complicated by the requirement to include at least one councillor, one non-councillor and one member from outside the District. Given that I may be the only Parliamentary candidate assessor in the county, and have chaired approval panels in Haringey and Southwark, I might yet find myself conscripted...

In the light of today's announcement...

... in Liberal Democrat News (see here for non-dead tree media version), the answers to the obvious questions are;


a) No comment.
b) Don't know.
c) Dedicate myself to my District Council campaign.

Seeking the approval of my peers

Saturday sees Liberal Democrats from across Suffolk gather in Henley, just north of Ipswich, for a county training day. I'll be there as part of Team Mid Suffolk (if it's good enough for our nation's capital, it's good enough for paradise), and am looking forward to discovering what is expected of me, as opposed to what I expect of myself. Add to this the presence of Keith House, who heads the Liberal Democrat administration in Eastleigh, who is expected to whip us up into a frenzy of campaigning activity (I may be exaggerating just a touch here...), and it should make for a great day.

Alongside this, Team Mid Suffolk will be having its first campaign meeting and, in conjunction with that, I have received a draft campaign plan. Curiously, it bears an uncanny resemblance to the plan drawn up by the Stowupland campaign organiser (she's very good, by the way). However, it does provide for the creation of a candidate approval panel and, if I want to be formally adopted, I'm going to have to pass an approval interview.

There is an irony here, in that I've never actually been approved to be a council candidate, be it in Brent, Southwark or Suffolk. Given that this will be my fifth candidacy, and that I've been a Party member for more than twenty-five years, it's an odd omission from the CV, but I've never fought as anything other than a paper candidate. I'm a bit more serious this time (the level of seriousness is for the residents of Stowupland and Creeting St Peter to judge, I reckon), thus the need for approval.

It won't be my first approval interview, however. I've taken part in hundreds, both at Parliamentary and Council levels, but always as an assessor. I've even chaired panels that have withdrawn approval from sitting councillors. So, it should be an interesting experience to be on the receiving end for a change. I hope that they're kind to me...

Another Liberal Democrat rebellion in the Commons

It is a sign of the lack of attention being paid to the Superannuation Bill currently on its passage through the Commons that yesterday's rebellion by four Liberal Democrat MPs appears to have gone pretty much unnoticed.

For those of you who may not be aware of this piece of legislation (and I guess that you're probably not a civil servant), Clause 1 of this Bill would cap compensation payable under the Civil Service Compensation Scheme at a maximum of 12 months’ pay for compulsory redundancy and 15 months’ for voluntary exits. Clause 2 provides for clause 1 to expire after 12 months, unless repealed, extended or revived using order-making powers.

You would expect Labour to vote against it - after all, it was their original proposal that was struck down by the courts - but it seems to have attracted some concern on our benches too.

So, step forward Mike Hancock and Bob Russell, who clearly have their ears to the ground, or have been lobbied by the Public and Commercial Services Union (declaration of interest - I'm a member). Admittedly, they have rapidly built a reputation for themselves as serial rebels/the conscience of the Party (depending upon your personal view), but on this occasion, they weren't alone. The third and fourth men in this mini-revolt were Martin Horwood and David Ward, and today's Telegraph indicates their stance.

I'll be honest, amongst civil servants, this is an astonishingly sensitive issue, with the expectation of severe job losses over the coming year, with some very lowly-paid staff likely to be at the vanguard of these. Under the circumstances, yesterday's protest by PCS in Westminster was only the opening salvo in a campaign that will be particularly targetted at Liberal Democrat MPs.

David Ruffley MP on the road to recovery?

Following his accident in June, our local MP, David Ruffley, has been recuperating, whilst the two neighbouring MPs have been taking surgeries for him. 
Now, the East Anglian Daily Times is reporting that he is expected to return, albeit gradually, to duty, starting from next month.

I'm quite pleased to hear the news, as any constituency deserves to be properly represented in Parliament. However, I hope that David isn't rushing his return. Depression is not easily overcome, and the external pressures to return to work can be difficult to resist, especially by those with a sense of duty. One therefore presumes that the Conservative Whips will manage his return so as to ensure that he doesn't experience any setbacks on the road to a complete recovery.

The idea that Members of Parliament might be people too is, seemingly, a difficult one for the media and, regrettably, some of the public to understand. Yet, the incidence of mental health issues is likely to be similar to that of the general population, and perhaps worse, given the public nature of the job, the unsocial hours, the separation from family, just to name three factors.

We do seem to demand that our representatives are wholly without sin, so to speak, and I increasingly wonder what will happen if media pressure drives out those who would rather not have their lives picked apart for public consumption.

Tube strike: thanks for nothing, Bob

Well, I made it to work eventually, despite the strike. And whilst my usual thirty minute journey took a semi-epic two and a half hours, it was at least in reasonable comfort.

Normally, I would catch any bus from Wandsworth Road to Vauxhall, switch to the Victoria line as far as Warren Street before a brief skip and a jump to my office. But without the Victoria line south of Victoria, and with Warren Street station closed, I needed to be a little more thoughtful.

My priority was to avoid having to stand so, from Vauxhall, I took route 360 to Pimlico. It's an interesting route, Elephant & Castle to the Royal Albert Hall via Vauxhall and Sloane Square, and therefore a bit obscure. It was standing room only, but short enough a journey to be bearable.

I should note that London Buses were providing quite a bit of information and, most importantly of all, managing the queues to prevent chaos. Well done, them!

The aim of my first sideways move was to get to the beginning of a bus route that runs to my office, and my target was route 24, Pimlico to Hampstead Heath. Sure enough, the stop at Claverton Street was peaceful and the bus, when it arrived, empty. So I took my seat on the top deck, at the front, opened 'Pyramids' by Terry Pratchett, and sat patiently.

The traffic was chewy, especially on the approach to Parliament Square, but I got to work in the end, even if it took an hour and a half. Oh well, better get to work...

HMRC: tax might be more taxing than you thought, Libby...

This week's disclosure that errors have been found in the PAYE records of up to six million taxpayers comes as no surprise to those of us with experience of the system. In my case, I was, many years ago, a PAYE group leader in a smallish North London office (Hendon, to be precise, covering Golders Green, Hendon and the surrounding areas).

PAYE is a rather clever system. HMRC gathers information from you and your employer, works out what your allowances are, deducts benefits-in-kind and income from other sources as appropriate, and issues a tax code to you and your employer (simple rule of thumb: take net allowances, remove the last digit, add the correct letter, and hey presto, there's your tax code*).

For most people, this is simple. If you're single, working for only one employer, and not in receipt of benefits-in-kind or making payments that attract tax relief, you code will be calculated thus;

personal allowance = £6,475

therefore tax code = 647L

Your employer takes that code and, using the tables provided, calculates what amount of income tax should be deducted. The tables are cumulative, so there's a different table for each week and each month. With computerisation, it's even easier, as there are plenty of companies willing to provide software that will do all of the calculations and prepare the end of year forms.

And this is where the pesky asterisk comes in. There are plenty of people out there whose affairs aren't as straightforward. The system was designed on the basis that people would stay in the same job for lengthy periods, and would hold down only one job. People who move from employment to self employment, or from employee to company director, complicate matters, as more information needs to be gathered, captured and reviewed. For a system that is only as reliable as the information fed into it, the greater the scope for error, misreporting or, to be blunt, non-reporting, the more errors there are likely to be.

There have been suggestions, from the likes of Libby Purves in today's Times, that the new computer system is to blame. She's right, but for all of the wrong reasons. Reconciling people’s tax after the end of the year, is a normal part of the PAYE process. But this is the first time HMRC has done it using the new NPS IT system and is doing two years at once as it was not done last year. As a result, more taxpayers are affected. The more efficient NPS automates the process – previously HMRC dealt with cases of over and under-payments one-by-one, clerically.

So, no drama, no crisis, merely the usual media failure to understand what really happens in a Government department. The great irony is that, until taxpayers contact HMRC to query the corrections, we won't know why they happened. But never let it be said that media experts are unwilling to admit to their mistakes...

Thoughts from the Train: is the Yes to AV campaign a distraction?

Given that I'm a member of the Management Board and Council of 'Unlock Democracy', this might seem like an odd question to ask. And yet, as a Liberal Democrat campaigner (never thought I'd use that phrase as a self-description but there you go...), I am caught in something of a quandary.

You see, the referendum is due to take place on 5 May next year. As are District Council elections in Mid Suffolk. Hmmm... which one is more important to me? Easy really, the District Council election, because I'd rather like to do something that might help the two thousand or so voters in my ward, whereas a 'yes' vote will make the electoral system for Parliament slightly less imperfect. It won't make a difference in Bury St Edmunds any time soon, but my active involvement in the debate is more likely to cost me votes in conservative (with a small 'c') Suffolk than gain them.

And I suspect that I won't be the only one making that calculation, especially given that a number of our district councillors are elected on local issues and knowledge, rather than on the basis of slavish devotion to their Party. It's certainly become apparent to me that getting myself known amongst the electors of Stowupland will be much more effective than just a leaflet campaign (don't worry, I keep getting leaflets out...).

There is an advantage, I suppose, in that by not campaigning for AV as a Liberal Democrat, it depoliticises that referendum. I for one can see serious problems in achieving victory if the AV campaign is seen to be a battle between political parties. Given the commonly held view of politicians and political parties, any endorsement from them is likely to be a turnoff for voters. If the electoral system in this country is broken, one senses that political parties are part of the problem, even if they might be part of the solution.

It's a pity, in truth, that as someone committed to the cause of electoral reform over many years should feel this way. However, for the first time in my political 'career', I'd actually like to win - my community means that much to me. But, if you do see a bearded man with a armful of Yes to AV leaflets in Stowupland sometime next April, it will probably be me. I just won't be wearing a rosette, that's all...

An anniversary for our libertarian friends to celebrate...

R. v. Jacob, 1996 CanLII 1119 (ON C.A.) is not, for those in the legal profession, one of those obviously seminal cases that leaps to mind. For the rest of us, this case, held in front of the Ontario Court of Appeal, was on behalf of a Canadian activist called Gwen Jacob. The prosecution was an unusual one, in that she was arrested for walking down a street in the town of Guelph topless. An indecent exposure charge, put simply. So, how did it end up before the Ontario Court of Appeal?

Curiously, legislation then in existence specifically forbade women from going topless, without referring in any way to men, i.e. the law specifically discriminated on the grounds of gender. And so, she appealed. If men were at liberty to walk the streets without a shirt on, why couldn't women? Unexpectedly, the Court of Appeal was convinced by her argument, bringing about a change in provincial law. Accordingly, should a woman wish to walk the streets topless, she is perfectly at liberty to do so.

I admit that, whilst I had heard the story before, I had assumed that it fell into the category of 'urban myth', so when the story was given another airing in a Canadian newspaper whilst I was there, I was intrigued to find that it was actually factual.

For the record, whilst the weather in Canada was mostly fine, with temperatures in the mid-twenties Celsius, I didn't notice a single woman walking topless anywhere...

And because it's Friday...

Here's the Art of Noise take on the Dragnet theme... is it really twenty-three years ago?

Maslow's hierarchy of liberal bureaucracy needs

The pyramid shown here represents Maslow's hierarchy of needs, a psychological theory first published in 1943, expressing the foundations upon which a healthy, rounded personality is built. It does seem to have a degree of credibility, although the inclusion of sex at the physiological level is open to reasonable debate and argument.

One of my more endearing/maddening habits, depending on who you talk to, is that of being easily distracted. So I was intrigued to find the distracted hierarchy of needs, as inspired by Abraham Maslow.

It wouldn't be so bad, but for the fact that Ros then took great delight, at dinner that evening, of saying, "Oh look, it's a bunny rabbit!". And sure enough, I looked over my shoulder. And sure enough, there wasn't a rabbit...

* Deep sigh *

A Presidential visit to Toronto

Whilst Ros and I were, strictly, on holiday, we were able to find time for a little Party business whilst in Canada. A meeting had been arranged with Liberal Party of Canada President, Alfred Apps, and Senator Al Eggleton, the former Mayor of Toronto, over lunch, and I was intrigued to see what would happen.

The lunch (dim sum) was extremely good, and our hosts were keen to find out how things were going following the creation of the Coalition. The politics is a matter of public record, of course, so conversation focused on the nuts and bolts of party organisation, internal communication, party management (hmmm... that's an interesting concept...) and the like.

There are many similarities in the internal organisation of the two sister parties, and given the similar electoral and political systems between the two countries, that shouldn't come as much of a surprise. However, I was reminded that, as far as I can tell, we have seldom used our international links to inform our policy or organisational debates, which seems like an awful pity.

It is one of the reasons why I am thinking of standing for Federal office this year. Money is tight, politics has changed, and our Party machinery needs to draw upon all of the knowledge and wisdom that we can glean, regardless of its source.

Guido Fawkes: proving that rights don't necessarily come with responsibilities

It's been an 'interesting' day for the blogosphere, following the resignation of William Hague's Special Advisor, Christopher Myers, linked to a series of allegations. Naturally, I'm not the first to comment on this. At Liberal Democrat Voice, Stephen Tall and Iain Roberts have already made valuable contributions to debate. Elsewhere, Iain Dale has, somewhat handwringingly, claimed that today has been a bleak day for the political blogosphere. Perhaps I have a perspective that differs from others. After all, Paul Staines has been pretty vile towards my wife in the past...

Let's start with the allegations. The best way to proceed is to break them down...

1. Was Christopher Myers in possession of sufficient skills to carry out his job?
2. Was he appointed to that position for reasons that might represent an abuse of office?
3. Was he involved in a sexual relationship with the person by whom he was subsequently employed?

My view, for what it's worth, is that conflating the three elements into one, Guido has gone beyond fair comment to, potentially, libel. I can understand why he's done it, after all, sex always attracts attention, building momentum behind an otherwise technical story about subjectives.

If doubts exist about Christopher Myers and the legitimacy of his appointment, and it wasn't an issue that was on my radar, it is perfectly within bounds for Guido to ask questions. Not very nice, perhaps, but then he never pretended to be a saint. Given the increasingly held view of public servants as being valid targets for abuse, and given the history of Special Advisors, he was rather more likely to be scrutinised than some. If there is evidence to indicate that the appointment was unmerited, then there would be legitimate questions about why he was appointed - it is public money, lest we forget.

So, why the innuendo about sexuality? Well, it's a fairly obvious inference if you're minded to reach it, and there were, it was reported, rumours of William Hague's past. It sounded viable, if hearsay and rumour have common currency with facts.

And this is where Paul Staines's status becomes an issue. He has the right to free speech, and I strongly believe that society is not free unless individuals have the right to speak their minds, regardless of the view expressed. However, with that right comes responsibility, in particular the responsibility to accept the consequences when you falsely accuse.

Paul doesn't really believe in that. By keeping his assets offshore, as suggested by Wikipedia (not necessarily the most reliable of sources), he intends to be a libel lawyer's worst nightmare. Faced with such an adversary, most of those accused will, one presumes, choose not to throw money at lawyers with little hope of recompense. Bankruptcy holds no fears - he's already been made bankrupt once - and whilst he can make a living through his blog, he has no incentive to stop.

So, on that basis, why not throw accusations of sexual malpractice into the mix, regardless of evidence, or lack thereof? In fairness, he wasn't the first to leave such an accusation hanging (warning - Daily Mail link, scroll to the end...). Think of it as Guido being appalling, but set it in the context of a media that feigns outrage with those appalling bloggers on one hand whilst using them as a source on the other, and colluding in the creation of a political culture where the notion of altruism is scorned, and human weakness exposed for the pleasure of others.

I would prefer to see the issue tested. If Guido has hard evidence to substantiate claims of a relationship, let him put them into the public domain. If not, perhaps a withdrawal and fulsome apology is called for. But it won't happen, as that is seldom the way the game is played any more. He will continue to offend most people's sense of decency, until someone decides to stop him.

Who that will be, and why, remains to be seen...

* note - I have referred to Guido and to Paul on an interchangeable basis. I trust that they don't mind...

Party Elections - yes, it's that time of year again...

Nominations open today for a series of positions within the machinery of the Liberal Democrats today, as follows;

• President
• Federal Executive (15 positions)
• Federal Policy Committee (15 positions)
• Federal Conference Committee (12 positions)
• International Relations Committee (5 minutes)

There are, in addition, two more esoteric elections taking place;

• Interim Peers Top-Up List (15 positions)
• ELDR Delegation (8 positions)

I have, in a spirit of openness, requested two nomination forms from the Returning Officer, and given that the election count is due to take place on my birthday, I may have more reason than usual to celebrate.

These elections are more than usually important, given the role that those elected will have in maintaining the independence of the Party, and doubtless there will be media interest in those who are nominated (are these people a threat to Nick Clegg/the Coalition?). Don't let that put you off, if you're interested and wish to serve...

Where on Earth did all those salmon come from?

They do take fish quite seriously in Canada. On the East Coast, the decimation of cod stocks wiped out the Newfoundland fishing industry, leaving a shadow of a trade which employed thousands. On the West Coast, it's all about salmon.

Last year, the number of salmon returning to spawn in the Fraser River system was at its lowest in recorded history, just 1.5 million, and there were genuine fears that salmon fishing in British Columbia might go the same way as cod fishing on the Grand Banks. The usual suspects were blamed, sea lice from farmed salmon, predation by sea lions, anything to avoid the conclusion that overfishing was possibly to blame.

However, it had been expected that numbers would rebound this year. Estimates based on a historically accurate model indicated that, probably, about 10 million would return this year. And then the model crashed...

Estimates were gradually increased, until last week, when the evidence emerged that the Fraser River salmon run was going to be the best since 1913, when some twenty-five million salmon surged upstream (let's just say that there were some very happy bears in British Columbia that year). Indeed, there are now expected to be as many as thirty million, with salmon fisherman filling their nets to bursting point and prices at rock bottom levels. There are even concerns that too many salmon will reach the spawning grounds, where water levels are low after a dry summer.

Scientists have their theories as to the cause of this bounty, and the favourite is linked to a drop in water temperatures following changes in ocean currents. Whatever the cause is though, it is potentially good news, as it implies that fish stocks, if properly managed, are more resilient than feared.

And it'll be another good year for the bears...

Back to life, back to National Express East Anglia...

Alright, I need to get to work. So, I head for the station to catch the 9.12 to Liverpool Street which, to add to the gaiety of nations, I find is being terminated at Ipswich this morning, for reasons unexplained. So far, so NXEA. And then, an announcement. "For passengers on platform 1 awaiting the 9.12 service, we regret to announce that this service has been cancelled.".

Ho hum, thinks I, I'd be better off on the 9.29 anyway, so I cross the footbridge and head for the station shop to buy a newspaper. As I head back along the platform, the warning sounds for the closing of the level crossing next to the station can be heard, so I look over my shoulder, only to see the cancelled 9.12 pulling in to Stowmarket. Best of all, it has 'London Liverpool Street' on the front. So I scuttle over the bridge and ask the driver whether or not he is actually going to London. "I don't know", he admits, "but I'd recommend that you get on this and change at Ipswich." "To the train that stops here after yours?", I respond. "Well you know more than I do then!", he exclaims.

It's good to be back, no, really it is...

The Coalition - time to demonstrate a sense of compassion, perhaps?

"We're out of money!", appears to be the constant refrain of Coalition spokesmen when called to account for the latest 'unfortunate' consequence of its policy decisions. And yes, they have a valid point - if you're an economist or a market trader. The problem is, most of us aren't. Worse still, the public aren't either.

Let's be honest for a minute. If you're going to cut a structural deficit on the scale created by the Labour Party, someone, somewhere, is going to get hurt. Actually, make that quite a lot of someones, virtually everywhere. The key question, and one that is going to have to be answered if the Coalition is to survive is, "what is the cost of making that cut?". It isn't just an economic question, but a social one too. And given the number of my friends and colleagues who are so deeply troubled by the actions of the Coalition, people whose emotional intelligence I trust, the answer needs to be more than just a rhetorical one.

This week, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has concluded that the June budget will be regressive in its effects from 2012. As I'm not an economist, I'm not in a position to judge the accuracy of their claim although, as a credible commentator, their comments should be treated seriously. And whilst it has been suggested that their analysis is partial (perhaps incomplete is a better word to use here), it is probably better not to get into an argument about datasets and predictions based thereon.

It is all about perception, and if people are convinced that the Coalition are bent on evicting widows from their homes and taking the bread from the mouths of infants, then that is what we will be judged upon.

And that's why I have to be critical of some of the elementary mistakes that have been made so far. Failing to undertake an equalities audit of the budget proposals was foolhardy in the extreme. All right, they may fail, in which case, why not go back to the drawing board once you know what the issues are? Proposals to cut housing benefit to those on Jobseekers Allowance for more than one year smack of token victimisation rather than a meaningful strategy (and yes, I'm not blind to the logic - there are some who will respond to a stick rather than a carrot).

There is more to my concern than just these two aspects, although these two do come to mind most readily. Others might choose to feature reports from elsewhere in government. However, most of us entered politics to make things a bit better, not to manage increased levels of hardship, and if only the Coalition could express itself better in terms of what steps it is taking to ameliorate the impact of spending cuts for those in most need, we might be rather more enthusiastic in our defence of, and support for, it.

We apologise for the unannounced disruption to our service...

It's all been a bit quiet here at Planet Bureaucrat of late, with tumbleweed blowing across the blog. And given that some of you have been kind enough to nominate me for the BOTY for best blog by a Liberal Democrat holding public office, perhaps I should explain. Ros and I have been away on holiday to Canada, primarily to attend a family baptism.

But we're back now, so I can catch up. So, what can you expect? Well, here are just three things I'll be writing about. Topless women in city centres, incredible, appearing salmon and bunny rabbits - yes, Ros has finally discovered the key aspect of my psyche that explains everything.

It's good to be home...

The Coalition - did you ever get the feeling that you're being watched?

Having taken some time off to write my memoirs, I've been catching up with things. You know, the 1500 pieces of e-mail awaiting filing, reading or action, that sort of thing (it's going quite well, since you ask...).

Now, I've dipped back into the outside world, only to discover that our little relationship with the Conservatives is under the spotlight. The Economist's recent front page, depicting David Cameron with a Union Jack mohican, suggests that Britain may have one of the world's most radical governments. Now, whilst radical isn't necessarily good, it does attract attention.

I'm told that interest in our Federal Conference from overseas is higher than ever before, and people want to know how coalition works in our generally confrontational style of democracy. Our sister parties, such as the Liberal Party of Canada, are particularly keen to get a grasp of how the internal management of a party such as ours holds together under the stresses created by its factions. Interestingly, in their case, they want to understand how a bigger party, as they are, handles a smaller one, such as the New Democrats, in a coalition environment, should such a scenario come to pass.

The ongoing debate about the size and form of government and the public sector is of interest in a number of countries. The emphasis on budget cuts rather than tax rises is in contrast to that of a number of our neighbours and major trading partners - albeit that our deficit was relatively larger to begin with.

How we handle this will define our maturity as a political force. I hope, for example, that the way in which we interact with our international sister parties will improve, that we learn from their experiences and open ourselves up to new ideas. At the same time, it would be reassuring if the Party chose not to circle the wagons, to maintain its belief in open debate of sometimes sensitive issues, and hold true to its tradition of inclusivity and involvement.

I will watch developments with interest...

I like me just the way I am. Now change?

I live an unusual life. By day, I am a mild-mannered tax official, doing a job which doesn’t exactly stretch me. But away from the office, my life is… complex. I switch from the (relatively) intellectual slow lane to a life of high drama, low politics and intrigue, albeit some of it vicariously.

You can see my problem, perhaps. Or perhaps not. You see, I quite enjoy having a low-octane job in that sense, as it comes as something of a relaxant, a relatively straightforward task which, without false modesty, I’m pretty good at. I can apply some intellectual rigour, explore the morality of what I do and to whom, experiment with organisation and process, and work in a way which suits the way I feel. I’m kind of lucky like that, in that my manager and I have reached a position where he trusts me to deliver, and I do just that.

I do enjoy the rest of my life. I enjoy politics, I enjoy the sense of doing things to help others, I enjoy the strategic manoeuvring, even if I’m not horribly good at it. The touch of glamour that infiltrates my existence appeals to my sense of theatre, and the opportunities to meet amazing, fascinating people are just that, amazing and fascinating.

I’m even happily married. Trust me, this isn’t something that I take for granted. I’m amazed at my good fortune, and would never have thought, after my previous experience, that I could find someone that could deal with my idiosyncrasies, baggage, cats and taste in shirts. Ros has persuaded me to relocate to a small village in Suffolk, where I appear to have found my metier at the lowest level of local government, and am more connected to be community than I have been at any point in my adult life.

So why on Earth am I musing about change? There are, I think, two aspects to the question, what do I want to change and why? The question is easier than the answer. After all, what would you want to change if you’re happy in yourself? Work, social life and relationship are all good, and whilst the definition of ‘good’ is entirely subjective, it’s my definition and I can ‘tick all of the boxes’.

I’ve been travelling today, and I tend to do most of my ‘big thinking’ when I’m on a long journey. I’ve reached life-changing decisions in Paris, on a train between Strasbourg and Brussels, and in a resort in Borneo. And perhaps I’ve had one today.

It is high time I paid myself more attention. Alright, I accept that this sounds a bit selfish but, hear me out, I may have hit upon something. The thing is, I’ve been so caught up in enjoying myself, that I’ve rather forgotten that, like anything else, the whole mechanism that is my life has been rather neglected. It isn’t like a Swiss watch, it’s more robust than that, but it does need to be maintained and nurtured, protected from misuse and generally cared for. A bit more sleep, a better diet, more attention to the running repairs that a soul requires from time to time.

So I’m going to try to do just that for a while. I don’t have any goals, or targets, there are no big achievements that I want to define. I simply want to be able to be better at the things that matter. Interestingly, I’m not sure that anyone will notice the effects.

Lucky that I’m not doing it for effect, really…

Fantasy football - Deportivo Creeting is unleashed upon an unsuspecting world...

Having received an invitation to take part in a Liberal Democrat Fantasy Football League, I felt, what the hell, why not give it a whirl? It appears that I am not alone, as there are now sixty-two teams signed up - a worthy contest indeed, including as it does the Member of Parliament for Torbay, Adrian 'Bites Yer Legs' Sanders.

So that you know how likely I am to threaten at the top of the table, here is my team;

1. Gomes (Tottenham Hotspur)
2. Dawson (Tottenham Hotspur)
3. Haugeland (Fulham)
4. Vermaelen (Arsenal)
5. Toure (Manchester City) (captain)
6. Etherington (Stoke City)
7. Parker (West Ham United)
8. Malouda (Chelsea)
9. Arteta (Everton)
10. Rodallega (Wigan Athletic)
11. Anelka (Chelsea)

The substitutes are;

12. Robinson (Blackburn Rovers)
13. Van Persie (Arsenal)
14. N'Zogbia (Wigan Athletic)
15. Alcaraz (Wigan Athletic)

It may well prove to be a wild ride...

The Coalition - why having genuine policy debate matters

It is noticeable that, whilst young Mr Clegg has come under fire for some of the things he has said, most of the policy glitches have come from Conservative-inspired ideas. Nick's so-called gaffes on child detention and Iraq merely underlined our world view as Liberal Democrats, and revealed that he hasn't yet been captured by the moderate(ish) Conservatives we are currently working with. Whilst the media, who hate us anyway, will snipe away, he'll be the better for it.

I am less sanguine about some of the policy initiatives coming from the Conservative side of the coalition. It isn't that I am unsympathetic to the aims of some of it, or even that I radically disagree, it's more that the concept of delivery and consequences appears to be only tangentially considered.

Liberal Democrat policy making is seen as being a bit hidebound, a bit London-centric and a mite elitist, and I won't revisit that argument here. However, by having a working group look into a policy field, filtering it through the prism of the Federal Policy Committee and then presenting it to Federal Conference for debate, any significant idea can, and often will, be pulled to pieces to see how it ticks. It isn't flawless by any means, but most of the obvious flaws, implications and consequences tend to be uncovered.

The Conservatives, just like Labour, tend to present policy to their adoring masses. Designed by fearfully clever people like Oliver Letwin, it sometimes lacks a grounding in actuality. A concept which looks good on paper runs into the sands when someone in the real world says, "But how does Section 14 of the Paper Clips Act 1985 interact with this?", (as someone always does) creates a sense of uneasy shuffling.

One of the things that frustrated me so much about Labour in power was their ability to create confusion by legislation. Poorly-drafted bills would be rammed through the Commons by an over-mighty Executive, creating a need for remedial legislation to fix the flaws in the original.

If the Coalition is to succeed, it needs to get its policy-making right first time, especially given the ideological divide to be bridged at every stage. And that means trusting and then involving a wider group of people than is currently the case in the Conservative Party. I have become aware that there are some in the blue team who look at our internal processes and democracy with a degree of envy.

The challenge for Liberal Democrats next month is to remain as committed as we can to that debate, and not to retreat into a cautious shell in fear of what twelve journalists from the Daily Mail might think. And if we do, maybe the Conservatives will take courage and do the same...

Is that a Liberal Democrat Council Group I see before me?

Here at 'Liberal Bureaucracy', we do like to perform a public service from time to time, and this is one of those times...

The great minds of Liberal Democracy in England have come together and produced this definition;

A Liberal Democrat Council Group shall be automatically recognised if;

(a) Firstly; it comprises only Party members,
(b) Who all went through formal approval as candidates and,
(c) Who were sanctioned as official Liberal Democrat candidates by the D.N.O. and
(d) Secondly; it has Standing Orders that comply with the Party Constitution and,
(e) Provide that group offices should be filled by open and democratic election by the members of the Group.

It isn't all over if a Group does not fulfil all of these criteria, however. The Regional Party may recognise as a Group if it is considered unlikely to bring the Party into disrepute - Suffolk's Liberal Democrat and Independent Group would be approved, for example.

So, if you are a councillor at County, Unitary, Borough or District level, do check to see if your Group has been recognised by your Region. And if you have any questions, contact your Regional Secretary. We know everything...

How to recognise a Council Group - a bureaucrat reflects...

I know what you're thinking. "What is he on about this time? Doesn't he know a Council Group when he sees one?"

Alas and alack, life is not that simple when you're the Regional Bureaucrat. Since last year, Regional Parties are required to recognise Council Groups as a means towards connecting them back into the Party. You see, anyone was entitled to describe themselves as a Liberal Democrat Group, regardless of their actual status, membership or relationship to the Party, either at Local Party or Regional level.

Accordingly, the English Party has added Article 8 to its Constitution, which came into force at close of poll on 6 May - don't worry if you hadn't noticed, we were probably all busy worrying about other things at the time... Therefore, as a Regional Party, we were obliged to recognise our various Groups across six counties by 31 July. We're a bit behind, in truth... having failed to recognise a single Group thus far. We don't even have a process for dealing with applications for recognition, and I am hurriedly designing one to be adopted as soon as the appropriate Regional committee can do so.

We also have to, it appears, re-recognise Council Groups annually, and this brings with it further bureaucratic pressures. I can see that I'm going to have to design an annual stencil to be issued to every Council Group in the six counties. Ah well, it could be worse, we might have to recognise Town and Parish Council Groups too...

Oh, we do...

Could you be an ELDR Congress Delegate?

A message reaches me from the Liberal Democrat European Group...

The Liberal Democrats are still short of sufficent delegates to activate all of our votes at the ELDR Congress this autumn. It is in Helsinki on Thursday and Friday October 14th-15th, with a reception the night before. Direct flights on BA from Heathrow and Easyjet from Manchester.

Contact Natalie Darby in the Lib Dem International Office for details at Lib Dem HQ on 0207 222 7999. The deadline to confirm names on our delegation list is August 13th.

Suffolk - we're going to live forever... but where?

Apparently, the Office for National Statistics has released figures which indicate that Suffolk is going to be knee deep in old people by 2031. Being a relatively rural county, that perhaps comes as no great surprise, but the extent to which the county is expected to age is quite astonishing. There is, naturally, a health warning to be given with this data, in that the projection is based on a premise that the current population will remain unchanged between now and then - a very rash assumption, to my mind - but the numbers are nonetheless interesting.


At the current time, 19.3% of the population of the county is aged 65 or over, a proportion which is predicted to increase to 26.3% by 2031. The figures for Mid Suffolk are even more daunting, with the elderly population predicted to increase from 19.4% to 28.1% (including me, I have to admit).


Meanwhile, our Conservative county council is making threatening noises about the future of all of the residential care homes currently run by it which, given their track record, should come as no great surprise. Doubtless, the current financial position means that there does need to be a careful review of all spending, but the suggestion that the council may pull out of in-house provision of such care, leaving it all to the private sector, is a concern.


There are other issues too. Transport is of critical importance as we age, especially those of us who live in villages, and become less confident behind the wheel of a car. The cost of providing services in relatively thinly populated rural districts increases - who gets the wheelie bin to the curb? - and the impact of distance on basics such as meals on wheels brings organisational difficulties. One alternative is to drive the elderly out of their villages and into towns, another blow to rural communities which already depend on the retired for much local activity.


I dearly hope to grow old in Creeting St Peter, having served forty years on the Parish Council, pottering around the place as I please. It looks like I won't lack for company...

Social housing - Cameron catches 'foot in mouth' disease...

As one of those people who blame Conservatives for creating the current crisis in social housing, and Labour for being too useless to remedy the situation in thirteen years in power, David Cameron's comments on term-limited social housing are another sign that we need to step up our game in seeking to restrain those in the Conservative Party with an urge to attack those segments of society who don't fit in with their vision of society.

Interestingly, I never had a problem with the notion of 'Right to Buy'. It was the reality of the programme which was so destructive. Discounted sales produced a transfer of wealth from the community, in the form of local government, to aspirational individuals, an idea which was very nice for those who benefited, but which punished those whose rates and community charge payments had paid for the properties in the first place. By then preventing local councils from building new stock with the proceeds, they reduced availability of social housing, creating the ghettos of deprivation that now blight the lives of those condemned to them and those who live with the consequences - crime, anti-social behaviour and the like. And, of course, by encouraging people that home ownership was a must, they prepared the ground for the boom in house prices - remember supply and demand, my Tory friends?

Labour could have done so much better. If they had encouraged local councils to build as part of a balanced housebuilding programme, we might have had a better balanced housing market, as well as avoiding the price bubble that drove first-time buyers out of the market in 2005/07.

There is much in the Coalition's proposals that is good. Improving the scope for mobility will enable those in council housing to move to where the jobs are, should they be able to. Encouraging people to reassess their needs as their circumstances change will hopefully free up larger properties so badly needed at present. But indicating that you might introduce limited-term tenancies, thus creating uncertainty in the minds of tenants, is not a particularly useful contribution.

Firstly, just as long-term rail franchises are meant to provide an incentive to train operators to invest in improvements, the possibility of settling in a home, albeit one provided by the State, is an inducement to build, and contribute towards, stable communities in areas with high levels of social housing, to establish more socially diverse estates. In short, the 'Big Society' that David Cameron himself witters on about at such length. Dave, a big society includes everyone...

So, no more destabilising talk, let's be a bit more radical. Why not give local councils more power to borrow money to build new social housing. It would provide housing for our young, our vulnerable and our poor, boost the construction industry, and rebalance the housing market. Freedom means allowing everyone to take part on equal terms...

'Liberal Bureaucracy' announces a new celebration day...

There are so many events to be marked - National Orgasm Day, National Sausage Week to name but two - that trying to find time for another is quite difficult. However, I do feel that we need to find time for one more. So, I'd like to announce...

National Hug a Lib Dem Day

After all, we're in the firing line a bit at the moment, and with the degree of existential doubt out there, a reassuring hug is just what the doctor ordered.

My contribution? Well, apart from a big hug for Ros, I'd like to send virtual hugs to Caron Lindsay and Jennie Rigg, with an extra order of hug for Jennie. As for the rest of you, you know it makes sense...

Referenda for council tax increases - that's another pickle you're getting into, Eric!

To be honest, I've never really rated Eric Pickles - his bluff, 'I'm a Yorkshireman' style doesn't convince me of his integrity and his supposed common sense approach is merely a poorly-disguised populism. And, unfortunately, his proposal that voters might be able to vote down a council tax increase in a referendum is one of those superficially attractive ideas that will be very popular until it starts to be used.

In my experience, very few councils want significant increases in the level of council tax. Given that there are councils that have elections in three years out of every four, you can hardly hope that profligacy will be forgotten by the next election. And, in the current circumstances, very few will seek to levy significant increases.

But let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that there are some councils determined to increase their council tax rate by more than the rate of inflation. There could be good cause - something that central government won't fully cover like free bus travel for the elderly. It might be that local voters desire extra services. A referendum is triggered, costing however much - I'm told that the cost of Parish Council elections for Creeting St Peter is about £1.10 per elector, so you can use that as a guide.

If the proposed precept is lost, what is it replaced by? Does the Council return to the drawing board and how long will it have? Because time is of the essence, council tax demands have to be issued, direct debits updated, staff paid, after all.

And who campaigns for the two sides of the argument? Would the minority opposition group be effectively constraining the elected administration? Would the costs of running the referendum exceed the resultant reduction in income?

For most district and parish councils, the burden is likely to exceed the benefit, and the consequential effects in a place like Mid Suffolk are serious indeed. Given that the District collects the precepts of the County, the Parish and the Fire Authority, all of whom might be blameless, how is the circle squared?

All in all, this is a dog's breakfast of a proposal. The Daily Mail will doubtless love it, as they hate government at every level, but voters will quickly discover the downsides. But it will glean a few favourable headlines, just as Labour were so adept at doing. They were good at promising the moon and delivering nothing too...

Ros in the Lords: Statement (27 July 2010)

As part of the attempts to reform the House of Lords, it has been decided that Peers should be given the opportunity to leave. At the moment, Peers may, if hereditary, renounce their Peerage. They may also go on leave of absence, a state which can be reversed at any moment, although it is generally a prelude to informity or death. As part of the reforms proposed by David Steel over many years, a working group has been set up to look at some options for clearing the benches...

House of Lords: Working Practices

Statement

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde): Further to the announcements I made on 29 June (Hansard, col. 1667) and 12 July (Hansard col. 514) I have set up two Leader's Groups.

A first Leader's Group, chaired by Lord Hunt of Wirral, has been appointed to identify options for allowing Members to leave the House of Lords permanently. Baroness Scott of Needham Market, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton, Baroness Murphy and Baroness Sharples have agreed to serve on the group...

The problem I foresee is this. How do you persuade people to go before they are too infirm to attend without some sort of incentive? And given the hesitation about financial inducements, is it even possible to offer a meaningful incentive? The gender balance is interesting though...

Ros in the Lords: Written Answers (2 August 2010)

Curiously, the House of Lords still ticks over during the summer, with the backlog of Written Questions to the Government to be dealt with...

Housing

Question

Asked by Baroness Scott of Needham Market

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they intend to introduce new rules covering change of use from family homes to houses of multiple occupation.[HL1699]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham): We have sought the views of key partners on our proposals to amend the planning rules for houses in multiple occupation. Subject to consideration of their responses, our aim is to have the revised legislation in place for 1 October 2010.

News of another Labour failure on immigration...

I am one of those people that firmly believe that, if you are to have laws, then you have to have enforcement. After all, failure to do so tends to lead to a view that laws can be broken, and the inevitable undermining of public order. Immigration law being one of those emotional issues that it is, enforcement is all the more relevant. So, the news that the Home Office was failing to ensure that it was represented at 41,141 successful appeal hearings against rejected asylum applications, deportations and refusals of entry between 2006 and 2009 comes as a huge disappointment to anyone who believes in an honest, transparent immigration system.

In fairness, some of those appeals might very well have succeeded even if the UK Border Agency and its predecessor been represented, but it is a sign of a immigration system under immense stress. It also demonstrates that, if a system is discredited, more people will attempt to confront it or circumvent it.

There is an irony, in that this country was seen as a 'soft touch' for immigrants in the past, when it probably wasn't, whereas Labour in recent years talked tough on immigration and quietly dismantled the machinery that allowed it to be managed and controlled. Some of that machinery will need to be reassembled, with additional staff to handle appeals, the re-introduction of exit controls and to handle the backlog in the meantime. At a time of economic hardship and budget cuts, the idea that the Government may have to spend more money on this work whilst cutting other spending will be highly controversial.

And yet it must be done. Given the general dishonesty of the debate on immigration during the election campaign, and the deception over migration from Eastern and Central European countries in the European Union, in order to clear the air, the immigration system needs to be properly enforced.

That doesn't mean 'send them all home', as the BNP would like. It means that all applicants should be treated with respect, without undue delay and after consideration of the facts. It means that genuine asylum seekers should be allowed to work, rather than be forced to live off vouchers provided by the State. It means that overstayers are pursued whilst the system doesn't discriminate on the basis of race.

Think of it as an investment. A properly functioning immigration system will reduce the number of appeals, reducing in turn the cost of maintaining that system. It will allow those who can contribute to the life of our nation to gain access, it will enhance our reputation in the world (and never underestimate how that helps in our international relations) and allow a proper debate on what kind of immigration we want or can successfully manage, free of casual racism and uninformed cynicism.

If the Coalition can create a genuinely compassionate immigration policy, which allows genuine asylum seekers to gain admission, avoids the need for long-term detention and provides clear criteria for likely refusal, it will rise in my estimation. I expect the Liberal Democrat elements to lead the way in such a quest...

The Coalition: the good, the indifferent and the rest...

It's been, in many ways, a good week. For those of us who believe that giving people more freedom is a good thing, proposals to remove the mandatory retirement age and abolish the age limit for purchasing annuities are to be applauded. Yes, people should have the right to retire at a fixed age but there are many who would like to work on as long as they are enjoying it. And as for having to buy an annuity on your seventy-fifth birthday, it seems nonsensical that you cannot be trusted to calculate for yourself when you would like the money that is, after all, yours.

The pupil premium is an entirely Liberal Democrat idea, and will make a real difference to the education of those with genuine issues requiring particular attention. And even David Cameron's somewhat entertaining attempts at diplomacy pick out some interesting new messages - a welcome to Turkey, a blunt warning to those in Pakistan who wish to play both sides off against each other, a rebuke to Israel over Gaza - which Liberal Democrats might not be particularly uncomfortable about.

There are some elements that I'm not wild about, however. The proposals to allow voters to veto council tax rises are populist and ill-informed (should I be surprised that Eric Pickles is so attached to the idea?), and I still have some residual doubts about elected police commissioners.

On balance though, I'm still comfortable about the direction of the Coalition. It isn't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than the prospects of having to do business with a bunch of authoritarian deficit deniers in the Labour Party...

Whatever happened to the Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway?

There are railway lines and there are railway lines. There are the famous, like the Great Western. There are those that have history, such as the Stockton and Darlington, or the Liverpool and Manchester. There are the heroic failures - the Mid Suffolk Light Railway springs to mind, a railway which was bankrupt from the day it opened. And then there are those who are, for the most part, forgotten, their track removed, only preserved through the endeavours of a few slightly mad, utterly romantic, individuals.

The Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway is in the latter category, originally intended to link East Anglia to the Midlands. It was no small affair either, with a network linking Bourne in Lincolnshire, and Peterborough, with Yarmouth via Fakenham, Melton Constable and North Walsham. There were loops serving Cromer, Sheringham and Mundesley, plus a line to Norwich via Drayton.

And yet, and yet, there are some surviving fragments. The Sheringham to Cromer line operated by National Express East Anglia is the only section within the control of National Rail, and the North Norfolk Railway very successfully operates between Sheringham and Holt.

Better still, there are those who have a dream. The Mid Norfolk Railway is intended to be a heritage railway and a commercial venture, running trains from Dereham to Norwich, connecting through to the Norwich to Cambridge line at Wymondham. It also runs north to County School Station, where once the East Norfolk Railway ran trains to Wroxham via Aylsham. Meanwhile, the Holt, Melton Constable and Fakenham Railway Company dreams of connecting up County School with Holt, forming the Norfolk Orbital Railway.

So, just maybe, the 'Muddle & Get Nowhere' may yet have a new lease of life. After all, Lord Bonkers doubtless used it to get to engagements in Norfolk, and such things should not be let go of too lightly...

Mr Cameron, meet a coming superpower...

I am, unsurprisingly, delighted to see my Government finally taking India seriously. Being partly of Indian extraction, and a semi-frequent visitor to the country, I've seen for myself the progress that is being made in Mumbai, in Bangalore and even in Delhi.

But if the United Kingdom is to be taken seriously, the relationship with India needs to be about more than just us selling things to them. It is about immigration, about cultural exchange, about India's place in the world as much as ours. So, here are a few suggestions for the Government;

1. Make it less difficult for Indians seeking to visit the country. Note that I use 'less difficult' rather than 'easier'. There is a fairly well-founded impression that, by various means, people with darker skins are given more hurdles to clear than their white counterparts. Consular buildings are more thinly-spread, there is a presumption that they will overstay that is not applied to visitors from Australia, Canada or New Zealand, and the non-refundable fee that accompanies any visa application is designed to put off as many people as possible.
2. Encourage our universities to create joint programmes with Indian partner universities. The exchange of ideas will foster a better long-term relationship, and offer opportunities to British students that they might not find elsewhere.
3. Encourage tourism to this country. Indians are beginning to travel and, with the number of flights between London and a number of Indian cities already high, it is only a matter of time before we can potentially attract significant inward traffic.
4. Start to recognise degrees from Indian universities as valid for Civil Service recruitment purposes. Current policy is to utterly disregard them, and I have seen some very bright individuals languishing at relative low levels as a result.

These aren't big ideas, they need not cost much. What they do is send a message that we are interested in India, not just because we think that they have money and might put some our way - most Indian leaders, in politics, in business, are much smarter than that - but because we have a link in terms of history.

But most important, if the future is that of the so-called BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China), then shouldn't we be taking the one with whom we have most in common seriously? And that isn't the Chinese, who have had so much attention lavished on them up until now...

I'm looking over an Andrew Clover that I'd overlooked before...

I would be the first to admit that I am generally less than kind about Norfolk. And, given that I live in Suffolk, that might not come as much of a surprise, even when bearing in mind that I studied in Norwich for three years in the mid-eighties. Ros, on the other hand, likes Norfolk, and when she was invited by friends to visit them for an evening of culture, was keen to accept... and bring me along.

So, I caught an early afternoon train from Liverpool Street and was met at Stowmarket by Ros, with the car and a small suitcase, for the journey to Burnham Overy Staithe, a small village on the North Norfolk coast, between Hunstanton and Wells-next-the-Sea. It isn't an obvious journey, and our route took us across country via Ixworth, Thetford, Swaffham and Fakenham, through some rather gentle, although still pretty, countryside. Eventually, we reached our destination, checked into our bed and breakfast, and watched the peacocks in the garden whilst we chilled out.

Our hosts, Tom and Henrietta, host fundraising events for local charities from time to time, and the evening's event was to raise money for the Wells Community Hospital. Luckily, they have a small performance space built into their home, which seats about fifty, including six up on the balcony at the back. We were seated up there...

It turned out that we were to see the final rehearsal of a show bound for the Edinburgh Festival - 'Love Rules', a one-man show by Andrew Clover, a comedian of some repute. Andrew is probably best known for his column in the Sunday Times, 'Dad Rules', in which he describes the trials and tribulations of parenthood. Alright, not perhaps the obvious material to interest a childless forty-something, but why not give him a chance, I thought.

And he was pretty funny too. I won't spoil things for anyone who might be in Edinburgh and was thinking of catching his show (6 p.m., 4th - 29th August, Pleasance Courtyard Below, booking available here) but, prepare for plenty of audience participation, references to Runcorn and a tie that could blind at fifty paces.

Tom and Henrietta had invited us to stay for dinner afterwards, and I got to talk to Andrew over a bowl of pasta. He's the first comedian that I've ever really met up close, and it was interesting to chat with him over a glass of wine.

And so to bed, with North Norfolk to look forward to in the morning...

Ros in the Lords - Statement on Policing (26 July 2010)

The problem with some of the more 'ideological' legislation is that the actual nuts and bolts of implementation are often overlooked. Luckily for Baroness Neville-Jones, Ros actually understands how this stuff works in reality...

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: Perhaps the Minister can clarify the expression in the Statement that the new commissioner will "set" the budget. Do the Government really mean set the budget, or do they mean manage the budget within its existing parameters? For example, do they intend to retain the precepting arrangements whereby it is the local authority which levies it? If they do, how can this flexibility be exercised within the context of a council tax freeze, which would impact on police spending as well as local government spending?

You see, it's more than simply passing legislation, it's about understanding the consequential things. So, Baroness Neviile-Jones has promised to see if there's a grown-up available to explain how the mechanics work. I wish her well in that quest...

"I preferred Old Labour to New Labour - at least they had some bloody principles!"

So said Nancy Seear once, after a debate in the Lords. And if ever her words were to be proved true in spades, it is by the decision to whip the Parliamentary Labour Party to vote against the Bill to allow a referendum on AV.

It is, of course, the right of the Official Opposition to oppose. I expect nothing less. However, to oppose a policy contained in your own manifesto for narrow political calculation is pretty shoddy by anyone's standards. Even more so if it was an offer made to persuade Liberal Democrat supporters to switch sides. The message that it sends out is, "we never actually wanted electoral reform, we just wanted to burnish our progressive credentials".

I freely admit that AV is watered down milk, compared to the rich cream of open list STV, but I accept that the latter isn't on offer. But I did expect that any debate would be on the issues, not on how much damage it might do to the Coalition. All I ask is that the British people have a chance to decide, and I'll accept the result.

I can see the logic. The Liberal Democrats want electoral reform, the Conservatives aren't anywhere near as bothered. It is a key plank of the Coalition Agreement though, and Labour thinking would be that if the Bill fell, the tensions within the Coalition would cause a fracture and a General Election. An unpopular administration would be voted out and Labour could return to power under new management. Best of all, those pesky Liberal Democrats would be shafted, and hopefully be reduced to background noise, i.e. not a significant threat, allowing Labour to remain the dominant voice of the progressives.

However, there are elements of the calculation that they might have forgotten. Yes, the cuts might be unpopular, but the public won't forget who created the budget deficit that quickly. Given that a drop in Liberal Democrat support will see more losses to the Conservatives than it will to Labour, Labour will need to take significant numbers of seats from the Conservatives to regain power. That's important, because unless they do, we're back into coalition territory.

At that point, what do Labour offer, and to whom? They specifically ruled out coalition talks with the SNP last time, a deal with the Democratic Unionists would be tricky, Plaid Cymru would probably stick together with their nationalist partner, leaving... errr... the Liberal Democrats.

Labour can't credibly offer electoral reform, they lack a consistent record on constitutional change full stop, public spending is ruled out, and most routes towards reducing the deficit have been ruled out. Most civil liberties legislation involves rolling back thirteen years of Labour salami-slicing, so not much hope there, either. What, indeed, could Labour offer, given their apparent antipathy to pluralism, full stop?

So, perhaps, Labour need to be rather more intelligent in their dealings with the Coalition. It is always possible to be too clever, after all...