It's very hot, very hot indeed...

Tuesday, September 28th...

Alright, I admit, I've gone away, to Cyprus for a family wedding, to be exact. And you know how it is, you don't exactly want to advertise the fact that the house is empty because, whilst we don't have much in the way of crime in Creeting St Peter as a rule, you don't want to take any chances.

It is unseasonably warm in north-west Cyprus, with the thermometer peaking in the mid-eighties Fahrenheit, and the sun beating down relentlessly out of a perfectly blue sky. There's nothing to drink except gin and tonic, but at least the limes are easily available - it's harvest time in Argaka.

We've hired a villa, mostly because they're really rather cheap, at least, compared to the cost of a hotel room of a similar standard. The reason for this is, in part, due to the financial crisis. There has been a vast level of property development here, and clutches of speculative development ran into the sand two years ago. If you borrowed to buy your villa, you will now be almost certainly in negative equity, and if you need to sell, you'll probably have to accept a significant loss.

In the meantime, many are rented out, by the week or by the month, in the hope that something will come along. There are plenty of shells of part-built properties too, left in suspended animation, awaiting the return of the good times.

There is a growing expat community here in the Polis area, north of Paphos, mostly retired, avoiding the spiralling cost of heating, enjoying the greater spending power of their pensions. Those living off of their investment income have struggled as interest rates and returns have fallen, but it is widely felt that things won't get any worse, and the community tends to look after its own.

But you'll excuse me if I end here. After all, a gin and tonic isn't quite as perfect if you let the ice melt...

I'm home... and the amassed paperwork isn't too bad...

As the rather erratic blogging might have implied, I've been away for a fortnight or so, to Cyprus, in fact. It appears that I should go away more often though as, in my absence, I have broken into the top 100 political blogs on Wikio. There is much to catch up on though, so I'll be reporting on the trip over the next week or so, and trying to report on the forthcoming ELDR Congress in Helsinki too.

It was nice to return to sunshine though, and Suffolk looked lovely both from the air and on the ground, as Ros and I made our way home from the Eastern Mediterranean. Unfortunately, it's back to the daily grind for both of us tomorrow...

ELDR theme resolution - Inter-generational Dimensions of Demographic Change

And now for the fourth and final instalment of the theme resolution...

Inter-generational Dimensions of Demographic Change

• Notes that the overwhelming majority of people choose to live independently in later life, but with good family and social links and considers that autonomy in later life, with family and community inter-dependence achieves both what people want and reduces the strain on services and associated costs;
• Notes that the unemployment rate is increasing across the EU among the 18-24 and 50+ age ranges, accompanied by a rise in the number of young people that are in neither education, employment or training;
• Notes that young people will bear the brunt of the after effects of the global economic and financial recession in terms of their level of debt and reduced spending power;
• Notes that social democrats use early retirement as a short-term answer to unemployment;
• Notes that the longer people remain active in society, the healthier their lives will be and the greater sense of well-being they will achieve;
• Considers that individuals must have the right of self-determination over how they live their lives, whether they are young and seeking opportunities in education and work or older people wishing to remain in employment and as active members of society;
• Considers that young people must be encouraged to take up their responsibilities as members of society, whether through work and the betterment of their standard of living or volunteering;
• Considers that both increasing the percentage of experienced and skilled older people in the workplace and supporting young people at their point of entry into the labour market are advantageous;
• Calls for the extension of flexible working practices, including home-working, as a means to allow people to fulfil their work and private commitments to meet their individual needs;
• Calls on member states and EU institutions to invest more in education at school age levels and, more broadly, for a greater commitment to improving education levels among young adults, both for the good of the individual and Europe’s prosperity;
• Calls for initiatives which promote inter-generational links and contributions by older and younger people to benefit all generations.

In truth, much of this is aspirational, but is at least consistent with Party thinking.

The big question is, how much of this will survive the amendment process? Next, I'll look at the amendments as currently available, to see what impact they might have...

ELDR theme resolution - Free Movement, Immigration and Social Cohesion

Time for part three of our review of the ELDR theme resolution, due to be debated next week in Helsinki...

Free Movement, Immigration and Social Cohesion

• Notes that the free movement of people between member states is fundamental to the political and economic goals of the EU and the well being of its citizens;
• Notes and welcomes the extension of qualified majority voting to issues of immigration and asylum under the Lisbon Treaty and supports the provisions in the Stockholm Programme for the development of a comprehensive and sustainable European migration and asylum policy framework;
• Notes that immigration and asylum are often confused so that the distinction and reasons between the two are lost;
• Notes that a large number of immigrants come to the EU on the grounds of marriage and family reunification. We support the human right to family life, but this should not be used as an easy alternative to formal immigration procedures;
• Considers that the free movement of people within the EU is vital for continued European integration and prosperity and calls for the rights of all EU citizens from old and new member states to be harmonised as soon as possible, notably the right to work in all member states;
• Considers that proposals for EU cross-border health care, currently being blocked by European socialists, must come into force as soon as possible in order to provide more effective and efficient forms of treatment;
• Considers that a broader review of labour market policies is needed to address the issue of migrants often filling low paid, low skilled service sector jobs;
• Considers that the introduction of flexicurity, will make member states’ social security systems more sustainable, while guaranteeing a fair level of social welfare to citizens in need and promoting employability in a more flexible job market;
• Calls for, in line with the Stockholm Programme, the creation of flexible immigration systems that are responsive to the priorities, needs, numbers and volumes determined by each member state and which enable migrants to take full advantage of their skills and competence. To this end supports the migration of skilled workers into and between member states, both in the short-term, post recession period, and in the longer-term, through a blue card scheme that is administered by each EU country to ensure measured economic migration;
• Calls for appropriate and effective integration programmes at the national level, including linguistic, cultural and educational elements, to enable immigrants to contribute actively to our societies, economies and welfare systems;
• Calls on immigrants to EU countries to participate actively in society with the expectation that they will respect the fundamental values and rule of law of the society in which they live;
• Calls for an EU framework and qualifying period of eligibility to receive social welfare benefits for those immigrants of working age and capability coming to the Union as part of a family reunification process and who are reluctant to actively seek employment;
• Calls for greater efforts to ensure the compatibility of member states’ national social security systems, including pensions and unemployment benefits;
• Calls for the establishment and full implementation of a Common European Asylum System to ensure the same level of treatment of asylum seekers across all member states with regard to reception conditions, procedural arrangements and status determination. This system will ensure that only people fleeing from a justifiable fear of persecution are granted asylum;
• Calls for coherent policies at EU and national level to promote and encourage the participation of young people in the labour market, education and training, including, at EU level, additional funding for student exchange programmes to develop a more mobile and knowledgeable workforce;
• Calls for greater flexibility of labour market rules while providing a good level of social protection.

There are some issues of potential difference here. The call for freedom of labour movement across the European Union seems to indicate that accession countries should receive the full benefits of a freely mobile workforce immediately, and whilst Liberal Democrats might feel that this is a price worth paying, it wouldn't be universally popular.

Calling for greater compatibility between the various national social security is interesting, and might be seen as a logical step towards a fully-integrated labour market. However, it does smack of interference in the right of sovereign states to decide for themselves the level of benefits they can afford to provide.

ELDR theme resolution - the Economic Impact of an Ageing Society

Welcome back, as our review of the ELDR Congress theme resolution continues...

The European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party convening on 14-15th October 2010 in Helsinki, Finland

Economic Impact of an Ageing Society

• Notes that longer life expectancy in the EU should be celebrated and that there are consequences for the structure and financing of health, social care and social protection as well as the need to meet the housing, security and environmental needs of older people;
• Notes that post-war baby boomers are approaching their later years, with Finland and Italy the first EU countries set to experience this adjustment in workforce composition. Without effective policy responses, this change could significantly reduce the size of Europe’s workforce and threatens economic competitiveness, productivity and service provision;
• Notes the EU’s Barcelona Summit proposals to raise the average actual ages of retirement; that a number of member states are discussing raising the age of eligibility for state pensions; and that some have already done so;
• Notes that Europe’s economy needs more entrepreneurs to stimulate economic growth and knowledge sharing and it is important that the member states find ways to overcome the factors that particularly discourage women from taking up the option of entrepreneurship;
• Considers that relying on state expenditure to meet the largest part of the income of retired people is no longer a sustainable economic model and that individuals must work in partnership with the state and employers to enable sufficient income in later life;
• Considers that the need to maintain an adequately skilled workforce across the EU is vital for sustainable economic growth, particularly in a post-recession period, and notes that previous economic downturns have led to the loss of skilled and experienced workers and to increased costs in social support, health and care services;
• Considers that the employment of older workers has positive effects on the economy in terms of them remaining active consumers and spenders, which in turn creates demand and jobs;
• Recognises the importance of flexibility in labour markets which allows employers to pay appropriately for the contribution which workers make, while safeguarding older workers' pension and employment rights,
• Calls for the abolishment of mandatory retirement ages in EU member states. Older people are not a collective group and must have the individual freedom to continue working, if they so wish and if they meet employers’ proper expectations;
• Supports the concept of a 4th pillar of income in later life, focussing on the flexible extension of working life in order to supplement retirement income;
• Calls for common EU guidelines for member states on how to ensure people’s financial future, including the abolition of retirement ages, greater incentives for longer-term saving and private investment, and a review of unsustainable public sector pension schemes;
• Calls on governments actively to promote healthy ageing programmes, as Finland has done successfully;
• Calls on governments at every level in the EU to support the development of age-friendly communities to enable older citizens to play their full part in society;
• Calls for a business climate that is favourable to female entrepreneurs, as well as social structures that encourages and enables a larger number of new women entrepreneurs and, in general, greater equality between male and female workers to facilitate wider female participation in the labour market;
• Calls on the EU institutions and member states to recognise the implications of societal ageing in their policies for aid and development.

Once again, the resolution, in its draft form, is relatively uncontentious from a British perspective. Indeed, elements of the resolution are already UK policy, with the abolition of the mandatory retirement age, the move away from mostly state provision of retirement income, and an ongoing review of public sector pension schemes already part of the policy furniture, so to speak.

I would suggest that the implication that public sector pension schemes are unsustainable fails to take into account the 'social bargain' made between public sector unions and their governments, but doubtless there will be an opportunity to clarify that further.

There are, as one would hope for and expect, the usual clauses calling for greater participation of women in the workplace, particularly as entrepreneurs, a group that our more free-market sister parties (no, I didn't call them ideologues...) tend to like.

Finally, you'll notice the occasional reference to Finland. Don't be particularly surprised, as such resolutions tend to include a favourable reference to the host nation... especially if they are in government...

You are kindly invited to a book launch...

One of this country's most prominent European politicians and thinkers, Graham Watson, launches his new book later this month. I'm hoping to be there myself, and it might be an interesting opportunity to explore this relatively little known area of European political dialogue... 

ELDR to discuss demographic change next week in Helsinki. 'Liberal Bureaucracy' reports...

Is it really a year since the last ELDR Congress in Barcelona? The answer, it seems, is yes, so  'Liberal Bureaucracy' is pleased to bring to a rather wider audience than might otherwise be the case, a preview of the forthcoming debates.

It is traditional on these occasions to start with the theme resolution, a generally weighty tome, running to pages, written in a Euro-variant of English, and this year is no exception. Indeed, so much so, that the report will come in several parts. Bear with me...

Liberal Responses to the Challenges of Demographic Change

DRAFT theme resolution of the ELDR Party Congress, 14-15th October 2010, Helsinki, Finland

The ageing of populations sets one of the biggest challenges for the 21st century. Increased life expectancy is one of the greatest successes of the 20th century: who would not prefer a longer life? Older people provide Europe with a major social, economic and political resource and contribute a great deal to society. At the same time, European and global populations are ageing, which raises questions about health and social care; how to ensure sustainable economic growth; and the type of social protection systems that we expect and can maintain.

Demographic change has not happened overnight. However, without policies to address these issues now, some EU countries will discover in five to ten years time that our economies are less productive; our health care systems are unbalanced with the demands for health care in later life and reductions in the number of family carers; and state pensions systems are in crisis. Europe’s Liberal Democrats believe these questions must be answered now with policies that actively engage both older and young people in society and working life, with people having the right of self-determination to create and pursue their opportunities.

Population ageing also affects the developing world. Developed countries became comparatively rich before they aged; many developing countries will age before they become rich. This fact has important implications for the EU’s development policies and will affect the development of trade and competition.

Furthermore, as Europe begins to recover from the worst recession since the 1930’s it is imperative that changes to Europe’s demography do not hinder our ability to innovate, create and be competitive and in this regard the free movement of people and knowledge and a fully functioning Single Market are vital. Equally important is having a sufficiently sized workforce and, in addition to increasing the participation of country nationals into work, we must also take advantage of the emergence of the pan-European labour market and the process of (economic) migration and immigration.

Migration affects the composition of our societies and is not a new phenomenon; the relocation of people across the world has been taking place for centuries. Without policies which address the economic and social aspects of immigration, undue pressure can be felt in recipient countries. Liberals consider that the migration of skilled third country workers into and between member states to complement the workforce of member state nationals remains an important way to maintain Europe’s workforce, stimulate research and innovation and ensure the EU’s global economic competitiveness. Relocation of third country nationals can also occur through people claiming asylum in EU countries as a result of a justifiable fear of persecution in their own country and Europe’s Liberal Democrats support the notion of a Common European Asylum System.

This opening exposition of the current situation contains little that we, as British Liberal Democrats, could disagree with. The stance on non-EU migration is that which our Party took into the General Election campaign (with little positive response from the voter), the support for a common European Asylum System would probably make little difference to the current position - I suspect that any proposal acceptable across Europe would be more restrictive than current UK policy.

So, what are the 'liberal, democratic answers'? Stick with me, gentle reader, as 'Liberal Bureaucracy' probes further...

New Strategic Direction: four reasons why the Suffolk Conservatives are unlikely to find their arse with both hands...

No business case exists to justify the claims that they can make 30% savings and it is feared that it could cost more to run services.

Courtesy of the East Anglian Daily Times, Colin Noble, the portfolio holder for adult and community services, admitted the new direction was a “concept” and that the council was stepping into the unknown. “I do not think that any of us know precisely what is going to happen in the future,” he said. “But we are confident that we are prepared and whatever the government announce with the spending review then we have thought of the implications and are prepared.”

Best of all, the Conservatives have presumed that they need to save 30%, ahead of the eagerly anticipated Comprehensive Spending Review.

The council is already overspending on existing contracts, including in Adult Care, Children’s Services and its contract with Customer Service Direct (CSD)

The council’s joint venture company with BT has seen significant increases in contract costs, well above the rate of inflation. There are also projected overspends this year in Adult Care and Children and Young People. The Guardian warns that outsourcing could well lead to increased costs.

In spite of various initiatives the council is actually employing MORE staff this year than last.

Indeed, Suffolk Conservatives needed to be told that this was the case - they hadn't actually noticed... which makes it unlikely that they would have any chance of supervising such a range of contracts.

No redundancy costs have been factored in: it is estimated that making 4,000 staff redundant could cost more than £110 million.

And no private, voluntary or community-based organisation is going to take that cost on, are they? The predicted savings to the council are £330 million, although if the costs of services not included in contracts is passed on to consumers, that benefit isn't going to reach the most vulnerable. And if they can't pay for it, are the rest of us going to? Or are we, as a 'big society', going to start by jettisoning anyone thought to be burdensome?

Suffolk Conservatives - I hope that you're proud of yourselves...

The New Strategic Direction for Suffolk, as proposed by the Conservative Group on the County Council, is rapidly becoming a road to nowhere. A deceitful road to nowhere, to be honest. Here's the report on the County Council's website...

At today’s Full Council meeting it was agreed that the future role of Suffolk County Council in delivering services will be different. By changing the way council services are delivered, the county council will be able to reduce costs, reduce its size, cut out waste and bureaucracy and give the people of Suffolk a better say on how they receive services.

Ah yes, that will be in the same way that Town and Parish Council were given forty-eight hours notice that this was on the cards... And of course the council will reduce its size, it won't be doing anything but monitor contracts.

In the future, the council will focus more on commissioning services and supporting other organisations, including the voluntary sector, private sector, and community groups, to deliver services.

Support? With whom? You're only planning to have contract monitoring staff, remember?...

Councillor Jeremy Pembroke, Leader of Suffolk County Council, said: “This decision was made with consideration to the financial deficit in the public sector and the Coalition Government’s priority to reduce the deficit and the size of the state. The Coalition requires lesser government and a bigger society, and Suffolk County Council has responded to this change.”

No, Jeremy, the only consideration is that you and your Group are too feckless and inept to monitor, supervise and direct public services yourselves. The Coalition is calling for better, more efficient government, not just less, and contracting huge swathes to the private sector isn't building a bigger society, it's reducing democratic accountability.

Councillor Pembroke continued: “Now that Full Council has debated the issue and agreed with the future model for the county council, we can begin to talk with the people of Suffolk so they can be involved in the shaping of services for the future.”

With three times as many councillors as the other parties combined, it was never going to be a debate, was it? And you may have agreed it, but that doesn't mean that the opposition is going down without a fight.

Today’s decision now enables the leadership within the council to further explore different options for the future delivery of services, along with beginning discussions with those people in the county who will be affected.

But you're planning to commence the third and last phase of the programme within a year. How much consultation are you planning, and with whom? Everyone who uses the Libraries service? Everyone who drives a car - yes, Highways are on the list too - or everyone with small children? Or weren't you going to mention Early Years and Childcare?

Frankly, I suspect that most of the Conservative councillors haven't had much notice of this, and their District colleagues even less, if any. But for those Conservatives up for election in 2011, it's time to choose a side, ladies and gentlemen...

I don't care how commercial it is, it's still a bus service...

We have had some potentially good news, here in Paradise-sur-Gipping, in that the persistence of our Parish Clerk appears to have finally paid off.

Rosemary was of the view that getting Tesco to run a free shopper bus between Creeting St Peter and their Stowmarket store could only be a good thing, and I couldn't help but agree. So, she wrote to them, and followed it up when they were slow to respond.

And would you believe it, we've been offered a weekly bus. Every Monday, should there be any demand, the bus will pick up mid-morning and return about ninety minutes later, allowing adequate time for a decent shop, plus a quick coffee should the mood take you.

It would be nice if it served Creeting St Mary and Stowupland too, but we'll see how that works in due course.

Alas, poor Jennie, I knew her well...

The news that Jennie Rigg has failed to gain enough nominations to be accepted as a validly nominated candidate has come as a bit of a disappointment to me. Don't get me wrong, as a very publicly declared neutral, I announced that I would not, and could not, nominate a candidate. After all, there are too many out there who believe that I am some sort of unspoken frontman for Ros (and you wouldn't say that if I had been the President and she had been my consort, would you?).

However, a contest for the Presidency, with three distinctive voices, would have ensured that, at the very least, there might have been an attempt at triangulation, an attempt to appeal to a wider audience. Throwing a grassroots activist into the mix would have ensured that the issues that matter to them would be part of the equation to be solved in order to win.

All of this said, Jennie has demonstrated something deeply important. She has demonstrated that her campaign, which I initially thought was a quixotic one, was about more than a few friends with a idea, it had genuine roots. I don't know if Jennie will attempt to run again in the future - whoever wins might do such a good job that there is no desire to replace them in 2012 - but there is now a reservoir of goodwill which might be drawn on one day.

In the meantime, we are left with Tim Farron and Susan Kramer. They are each offering something different, and members will need to choose based on what they believe is best for the Party. It won't be an easy choice, as each has much to recommend them. And I intend to remain neutral until the bitter end, even if I do cast my ballot in the end...

Mid Suffolk and Babergh: bigger, better, further away?

Last night, Babergh District Council voted in favour of a full merger between itself and Mid Suffolk District Council, with the expectation that £1.3 million could be saved with no effect on services. Good news then, for the council tax payers of Mid Suffolk, one presumes.

To be honest, I've developed the view that District Councils in Suffolk are too small to be efficient, unable to recruit and retain staff at a sufficient level, providing services that cost more than they should at a lower quality than they should. Indeed, I was of the view that, with proper standards of democratic accountability, unitary government for Suffolk, be it through a single countywide authority, or through the reinstatement of East and West Suffolk, was a step forward.

There will undoubtedly be short-term costs. Two Chief Executives, two Heads of Planning and so on, will have to be reduced to one, and that one might not be either of the incumbents. Pension enhancements, redundancy payments, they won't come cheap. On the other hand, the continuing savings will be substantial, especially if the number of councillors is cut by one-third (as the rumours indicate).

Of course, this does mean that, here in Creeting St Peter, we will be more remote than ever from the levers of power. New people to deal with, new relationships to build, something for our Parish Clerk, Rosemary, to get her teeth into. It could be good, it could protect some of the services we rely on as a small village.

On the other hand, depending on where power lies, we might find it harder to make our voice heard, that services will be focussed on those places with larger populations. At the moment, we are represented by about 10% of a district councillor, who is evidently more interested in Stowupland than in us. In the new setup, we'll be represented by about 6% of a district councillor.

There will, we are promised, be a referendum to decide whether the proposal goes ahead or not. As council tax payers, we need to make sure that there is something in this for us, even if it's only lower council tax levels or better services than we might otherwise get.

Why voting for the Federal Executive is important...

I'm not actually on the Federal Executive. Not only that, I've never run for a place on it, and nor am I doing so this time. However, it is important.

In the past, the view has been that the Federal Executive is just a talking shop, where difficult issues can be parked until they fade away. The inability of the body to get through its business in past years, so that important decisions were deferred, and some devolved to much less accountable bodies (or individuals), meant that those who were elected to take a more radical line were defeated by sheer inertia.

It is generally accepted that the body now works more efficiently. Proper agenda management, married to effective discipline and preparation, means that the Federal Executive has been rather more successful in its roles of scrutiny and strategic decision making. Meetings even end at a reasonable time...

Therefore, rather than voting for the same old people, why not, as I suggested from the platform on Sunday morning, vote for those candidates who have done things, rather than been things. I'll be looking at the manifestos but, if you want to make a pitch for my first preference, feel free to leave a comment here with your e-mail address. I won't publish your comment, because it might be seen to be a breach of the Election Rules, but I will respond directly...

Simon Hughes and the Federal Constitution - might an introduction be needed?

I had an unexpected experience on Sunday morning, as I was flicking through the channels to see if anything worth watching was on. BBC Parliament was showing the Diversity debate from our Conference last week, and Simon Hughes was on my screen.

Given that I disagree wholeheartedly with Simon's stance on the issue, my finger was lingering on the 'next channel' button, until I caught him saying that he was going to be bringing proposals to the next Federal Executive calling for more quotas, beyond even those called for by the motion being debated.

I do hope not. As the evisceration of the motion demonstrated, Liberal Democrats do not like quotas. It is, however, a sign of Simon's utter disregard for the Federal Constitution of the Party that he can get up and make a speech like that. The selection rules for Parliamentary candidates are, ironically, the responsibility of the State Parties, and whilst the Scottish and Welsh Parties are increasingly following a similar path to the English, they do that of their own volition, not because the Federal Party tells them to. Yes, the Federal Conference can probably instruct the States, but the Federal Executive cannot and should not.

It isn't as though Simon doesn't have form. His appointment of a cohort of Deputy Presidents during his term as Party President was greeted with a degree of derision from those who dislike the granting of pompous titles, and concern from those who actually care about the constitution. The latter group, including myself, wondered whether there was a risk that these arbitrarily appointed individuals might take on extra-constitutional responsibilities and, perhaps, powers.

However one spins it, the Party have again taken a view on the diversity issue. If the movers of last week's motion think that, having lost the argument, they can use Federal Executive to construct a trojan horse for quotas, they are very much mistaken...

"Do not feed the Constitution, as it requires a healthy and balanced diet."

Sometimes, the life of a bureaucrat is complicated by people wanting to do things. The reasoning behind their desire might be entirely well-meaning, occasionally not. As a bureaucrat, one lives with that. Well, usually... One thing that makes me nervous, however, is proposed constitutional change. Something that someone doesn't like has happened, and something must be done. You've all heard it before, generally from the Daily Mail, and you know what the standard response is.

This weekend, I have been made aware of concerns about the powers assigned to our Regional Conference Committee. It is required to rule on whether motions submitted by Local Parties, Specified Associated Organisations or groups of Conference Representatives will be accepted. Apparently, there are questions about the way in which it reaches its decisions, and the apparent lack of an appeals process. Therefore, a Constitutional amendment has been called for.

I had generally assumed that any decision, taken by virtually any body, can be appealed. The usual problem is that an appeal takes time, requires submission and consideration of evidence. Given the fairly tight scheduling of a Regional Conference, and the need to appoint an appeal panel, this really should be a last resort in any event. However, it seems that this needs to be confirmed.

My first thought was that the right of appeal was enshrined within the Constitution. Perhaps it isn't. Alternatively, the Conference Standing Orders contain the solution. However, adding anything to a Constitution, especially one so infrequently read, is unlikely to help...

Can HMRC bear another 7,000 job losses?

The rumours emanating from Whitehall that, as part of the review of Government spending, 10% of the current workforce, 70,000 strong, will be of concern to those who believe that service levels are already poor. From the perspective of the 'poor bloody infantry' on the frontline, it will certainly come as a blow.

And yet, there is potentially scope to achieve such job losses. The new PAYE computer system spells the end of manual reconciliations, and therefore the people who carried them out. Mandatory e-filing of company tax returns for corporation tax will severely reduce the need for filing and data entry clerks, whilst mandatory electronic payment will reduce the ranks of those handling cheques.

Retirements will thin numbers too. My office has a significant number of staff who will be able to retire soon, and many of them will be only too keen to go, given morale levels. Whilst Andrew Tyrie and his colleagues condemn HMRC's senior management for presiding over a continuing drop in morale, staff survey after staff survey indicates that the problems do not change, they merely intensify. It hardly provides an incentive for experienced staff to do any more than get to sixty, or complete forty years, and go, lump sum and pension in hand.

Funnily enough, I'm not attacking HMRC. It is inevitable that technology and the Government's near bankruptcy will conspire to reduce the number of warm bodies required. However, the ability of senior management to convey a sense of strategic direction and integrity is doing them, and HMRC as a whole, no favours. At a time when goodwill is more necessary than ever, the way that the PAYE debacle was handled has put the Department firmly on the back foot. The diet of media bouncers which has followed was an inevitable result.

If politicians conclude that, like the Home Office before it, HMRC is not fit for purpose, the Government will need to act quickly and decisively. At a time when politicians are searching down the back of the sofa for pennies, a crisis of confidence and credibility at HMRC could be very costly.

Diversity: the rumbling continues...

I've been taking part in a lively debate on Liberal Democrat Voice, sparked by a young black woman (her description, not mine) called Davina Kirwan. And whilst her approach is rather spikier than mine (whose isn't?), it has been interesting as a means of rooting around behind the text of the Conference motion to see what the underlying evidence is.

As a result, I am more troubled than ever. There appears to be little available data as to the success and failure rates for BAME applicants in target seat selections, and at least one proponent is convinced that there is little point in them even trying. One wonders, if this is true, how ensuring the presence of one BAME applicant on the shortlist would make a difference.

There does seem to be something of a generational split too. Younger women, BAME and LGBT activists seem less comfortable with reserved places and restricted shortlists than their older equivalents, and that has been the case for some time. They appear to have adopted the techniques that have worked for the ambitious in the past, building networks, tapping the knowledge of others. As I've already mentioned, people have approached me for advice or information, and whilst a few years ago, they were predominantly female, now they are BAME too.

There are rumours that English Candidates Committee want to postpone candidate selections until after the Boundary Commission has finished its work. If that is true, and I emphasise, it is only rumour so far, there is a window of opportunity for any candidate to focus on a seat that they really want, and start working it before the formal selection process starts. And this time, with the graduates of the New Generation Programme amidst the fray, perhaps we'll see a difference.

Suffolk: a virtual County Council?

For all the criticism of Barnet Council's 'easyCouncil' model, whereby if you want anything more than the basic, you pay for it, Suffolk County Council is now proposing a move towards a scenario whereby the council provides no services at all directly, instead operating through a series of sub-contractors. Leader of the Conservative-run authority (it was so much better when Ros ran it), Jeremy Pembroke, suggests that the only staff left would be engaged in contract management.

And curiously, I'm not absolutely opposed to such a radical notion. As far as most Suffolk residents are concerned, they don't really care who provides services as long as they are provided at a suitable quality level. The devil, as they say, is in the detail.

Government, at whatever level, is not always good at obtaining value for money, or at properly defining the terms of a contract. Given that long-term contracts tend to give better value than short ones - you can, for example, depreciate over. Longer periods, any flaws will tend to be costly to correct. The Public Finance Initiative, and the often inflated costs of essential works should be a warning.

Democratic accountability is another issue requiring caution. An unpopular council, entering into unwise contracts, can tie the hands of a successful opposition for years. Why vote, if the only thing that changes is the name of the councillor?

The role of a councillor, on the other hand, might not change much. Instead of calling a council officer, one might call the contact point or call centre of a big, national organisation. However, the quality of scrutiny would need to improve, and the ability of councillors to absorb more information would be acutely tested. More training, more support, more engagement, all of these would be needed for, and from, councillors.

The rights, pay and conditions of staff would need to be preserved too. Forget the fact that the County employs 4% of the county's population, and probably about 8% of the working population (oh yes, Jeremy, they and their families have votes too...), they have to be persuaded that the services they proudly deliver would survive.

There are also implications for other tiers of government and local communities. The Sustainable Communities Act has the teeth drawn from it if contracts for county-wide delivery are signed. And in view of the expected proposals in the Localism Bill, would towns and parishes be attracted by the prospect of taking on contracts they didn't sign, weren't consulted over, and would be better suited to more local providers?

Ultimately though, I cannot bring myself to believe that the uninspiring collection that is the Conservative Group on Suffolk County Council is really up to it. Parochial, lacking in strategic vision, and often more interested in being something rather than doing anything, without a strong officer corps to advise and monitor, they would soon be more out of their depth than a kitten in a whirlpool. Be afraid, Suffolk, be very afraid...

Farewell, but not goodbye...

And so, it is farewell from me, the outgoing First Husband, and El Presidente, at least as far as Federal Conference is concerned. On the other hand, if you're in Devon & Cornwall, Western Counties, the East Midlands, the East of England, Plymouth, Bury St Edmonds, Huntingdon, Harwich & North Essex, Copeland & Workington, Cardiff, Stirling or West Aberdeenshire, or attending the ELDR Congress in Helsinki, we'll see you there.

The last day of Federal Conference did not go entirely as I had hoped. My plan to have Ros accompanied on stage by two Imperial stormtroopers to the tune of the March from 'Star Wars' failed to come to pass, as Messrs Clegg and Alexander were unwilling to hire the outfits. I thought that Nick's excuse, "I've got to save Africa from malaria!", was a bit unlikely, but as everyone seems to be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, I suppose that I ought to.

The warmth of Conference's reception was incredibly touching, and I know that both Ros and I were moved by the kindness shown to us, for which we are both very grateful. But Ros and I aren't done yet, as the visits listed above indicate. There are still some things that Ros wants to do before her term is up, and the Federal Executive will doubtless remain busy until the formal handover at the end of the year.

But for now, it's time to take a breath, to reflect on the events of the past five days, and head back to our Suffolk demesne to recharge the batteries...

Diversity Debate: EMLD and Simon 0, Merit 3

Another diversity motion, another failure, would be my pithy summation of today's debate.

I have never been happy about quotas, preferred status or all-anything shortlists, and I had already made my concerns known. The late withdrawal of the paragraph requiring two all-BAME shortlists in winnable seats went some way to addressing those concerns, and what was left, while it had serious flaws, was a genuine response to perceived failings.

Unfortunately, the golden rule of achieving radical change was overlooked - you need to build a coalition. Getting Simon Hughes to speak for you and implying that opposition is a vote against the BAME community is not enough. EMLD failed yet again to engage with key individuals and groups. There was no attempt to talk to returning officers and candidate committee chairs, no attempt to test opinion, no sense of compromise until it was too late. Even then, it shouted "our way or the highway, brooking little or no dissent from those BAME activists who disagree.

Liberal Youth's amendment, removing all the proposed actions that aren't already in place, was purist in nature but liberal in intent. I wasn't in favour of the second element, arbitrary in nature, inaccurate in fact and unachievable in timing. It is a sign of EMLD's failure to establish a credible case that it was passed anyway.

Given the butchered state of the motion as finally passed, it is as though the past four and a half years had never happened. There have been some bright spots. The appointment of a National Diversity Advisor, the creation of a Diversity Unit, a dedicated post for dealing with minority and specialist media and, above all, the Next Generation Initiative, are genuinely positive steps. But we need real action across the board, with more people with more knowledge brought into the network.

I have been contacted by a number of individuals, women and BAME, who think that my experience may be of use to them. Apart from being flattered, I am delighted to be able to make a small contribution towards helping them to make the breakthrough. Success as a candidate is dependent on talent, but also being in the right place at the right time, and seizing the opportunities when they come. A bit of information, well-applied, will make that easier.

Finally, we are where we are. All of us, if we're serious about establishing a diverse party at every level, need to do our bit, and fast. Selections in winnable seats will start, and unless we are ready, they will slip by, leaving us to play catch-up with lead shoes on. There simply isn't time to lose...

A smallish pile of good news...

Last winter, when snow fell in unusual large amounts in mid-Suffolk, my village was lucky enough to be gritted. At least, the main road through the village was gritted and remained pretty passable.

However, for those of us who live on The Lane, the village's only other significant street, the road surface was like an ice rink, treacherous underfoot, and decidedly tough to drive on. And so, as a Parish Council, we decided to seek help from the County.

Today, I'm told that the County Council have decided to provide us with some grit piles (apparently, these are not some kind of ailment), and we get to decide where they will go. I suggested that one be located part way up The Lane, next to the post box, where there is a small space. Yes, it's opposite my house (well, nearly) but without pavements, we'd have to put it in the road - not a good idea - or in somebody's front garden - probably an even less good idea.

We'd like grit bins, ideally, but they cost money. Luckily, our county councillor, an evil Tory a decent Conservative chap, has a new quality of life budget, and as we don't usually ask for, or get, much, he might oblige. We'll see...

"And could Mark Valladares stand by..."

It would be fair to say that I am not a frequent speaker at Federal Conference. I think that, over more than twenty years, I've probably spoken five times. It may have been four. It isn't what I'm good at. However, when word reached me that there was a serious lack of cards for the consultative session on Strategy, I thought, "What the hell, what's the worst that can happen?". Admittedly, I hadn't read the paper. Alright, I'd never seen the paper, or even been aware of its existence, but it did contain a reference to the English Regions.


I know a bit about the English Regions. I've been to a Regional Conference of every one of them, and been the Secretary of two, London and the East of England. And when it comes to a critique of their strengths and weaknesses, I'm modestly well placed to comment. Luckily, most people seemed to want to talk about identity and differentiation, so I wasn't altogether surprised to be called. At the lectern, I found a pair of glasses, evidently left there by a previous speaker, so I tried them on and asked if anyone thought that they suited me. Cheap laugh, it's true, but it broke the ice.


I started with an observation about Regional Executive Committees, a combination of the able, the willing and the grudgingly press-ganged. I noted that they are short of resource, with already busy people trying to handle more tasks handed down from the centre. Squeezed in terms of fundraising capacity between the centre and the Local Parties, manned by individuals who are councillors, Local Party officers or deliverers of candidate selection and approval, there is little resource left. To ask these people to take on a greater role in leading the organisation is, to be generous, optimistic.


Moving on to our internal democracy, I noted our tendency to elect virtually everyone to virtually everything, yet we have no means of holding them accountable other than to vote them out at the end of their terms. Manifestos describing their future ambitions with no reference to past achievements makes it difficult to properly evaluate their worth.


Finally, I questioned the purpose of the English Party. Is it, as I suspect, a vestigal tier of party bureaucracy which could easily have its functions and resources devolved to the Regions, giving them meaning, purpose and credibility? We need a leaner, more effective structure, accessible to members, and I mused as to whether we had that.


And then I was gone. It was a little odd to hear Ros refer to me in her summation in the third person, although she could hardly do anything else. It was even odder to have to collect her later in the evening from an English Party event sponsored by National Express... I didn't stay long...

Liberal Democrat Conference, Autumn 2010 - a preview

A year ago, I set off for Bournemouth with little enthusiasm and not a little dread. Whilst the message for public consumption was upbeat, there was a small, still voice, clamouring for attention, warning of a likely third party squeeze, and of losses to the Conservatives as they swept to power.

Little did any of us know that, a year later, we would be gathering to reflect on the unpredictability of politics, and we would have Liberal Democrats as Ministers of the Crown. And with that comes a whole world of questions, risks and opportunities.

Will our conference change? Will the sudden appearance of the world's media cause a general battening down of the hatches, the emergence of a command and control style management of agenda, speakers and dissent? After all, that is what we have come to expect from Labour and, sadly, our coalition partners.

The signs are, thus far, positive. Debating Trident, marriage rights for all and diversity indicates that, whilst the leadership (or at least, some of it) might prefer us to look like a 'party of government', delegates are unwilling to allow themselves to be dictated to by the likes of the Daily Mail*. Indeed, following staffing cuts, more motions than ever are springing up from groups of ordinary members, as the ever lovely Baroness Scott** notes in her pre-Conference piece in Liberal Democrat News.

And what an opportunity now presents itself. We will be able to question real ministers, with real power to change things, to implement Liberal Democrat policies and ideas. Whilst the idea of being a middle class pressure group is a cosy one, the whole point of involving oneself in politics is to make people's lives better, to protect the poor and vulnerable and build a nation where there is genuine opportunity for all.

People suddenly want to talk to us now. Our International Office have never been so busy, fielding requests from diplomats keen to find out who we are. The very idea of the Chinese Embassy hosting a fringe meeting would have been unthinkable even a year ago, but they feel the need to make their case - we have a junior minister in the Foreign Office, Jeremy Browne, who appears to have the East Asia brief.

Business too. The fringe agenda is filled with opportunities to meet with industry lobby groups who have suddenly realised that we need to be 'made nice to'. Actually, we don't, but we do want to find out what they have to say, and how we can develop a positive relationship. For the most part, we're idea driven, and the more data we have, the better our decision making is likely to be. The fact that we've never been the prisoners of the unions or of big business, means that we're relatively open-minded.

Of course, we are blinking in the media spotlight. There are more journalists than ever before, most looking for stories of dissent, of policy splits, of fears about the Coalition and its effects on our future prospects. And they'll find them. If they don't, they'll probably make them up, as it suits their agenda. We don't believe in corralling journalists so that they only meet trusted individuals, not that it would be possible anyway. Besides, I fear that they'll find that, for the most part, we look and feel like everybody else, a bit earnest, perhaps a bit worthy, but pleased to see old friends and share a pint at the bar.

So, enjoy our conference, whoever you are and what your reasons for attending are. We don't bite (unless you really like that sort of thing), we have a quirky sense of humour, and we'd like you to like us. See you there...

* We know that they don't like us much, and we're not expecting much in the way of positive coverage.

** Yes, she's my wife, and I'm damned proud of her

Party Presidency: do it quickly, use your friends!

Two hundred elected conference delegates, from at least twenty different Local Parties or Specified Associated Organisations. Shouldn't be a problem, after all, there are about 1600 either in Liverpool or on their way. However, there are at least four of you (and perhaps more, after all, Chandila Fernando only decided to run at Conference two years ago), which narrows the field a bit.

Using one list ensures that you don't get duplicates, but it's slow. You don't really want a queue, as people are in a hurry. So, you might want to have a team spread out, each with a list. You'll get your nominations more quickly, most people will remember whether or not they have signed already. And speed is of the essence. If you get your papers in early, you can focus on profile raising and, most importantly, denies your nominators to the other candidates.

Of course, you'll need to compare all of the sheets to weed out duplicates, and to monitor progress against the target. Designate someone to act as the co-ordinator - not the candidate, who should be out there selling the product, i.e. Themselves.

So, good luck to the candidates and, if they have any questions, my consultancy fee is very reasonable...

Party Presidency - the rules for hustings, candidates take note...

You might be wondering about hustings, now that I mention them...

The presidential election rules provide:

(a) The Acting Returning Officer shall co-ordinate arrangements for official party member hustings events via the states and regions with a view to balancing the competing demands for media coverage of the campaign, parliamentary and other duties. Other party bodies may only hold hustings-type events if they invite all candidates to attend, but they do not require the agreement of all candidates to attend or send a representative in order to proceed. Events designated as official hustings by the Acting Returning Officer shall take precedence over any other arrangements a candidate may have made.

(b) Official party communications channels may only be used to promote hustings events approved by the Acting Returning Officer. Responsibility for organising and paying for any hustings event shall lie with the hosting organisation, but the Acting Returning Officer will assist in publicising official hustings events via the party’s website, e-mail communications, Liberal Democrat News, etc.”

The official hustings are most likely to be linked to Regional and State Conferences, and the English Regions have been asked to lodge their bids by close of nominations (I assume that Scotland and Wales have been approached separately but, if you know anyone on their Conference Committees, it might be worth giving them a nudge just in case...).

I'll reprise good hustings practice later...

Party Presidency: the timetable and potential hustings

There is a small piece of me that is glad that I'm not involved in what is to follow. However, having been here before, I feel that my role as public information announcer for the contest to come is my contribution to enhancing our internal democracy. The key dates are as follows;

29 September - close of nominations

16 October - issue of ballot papers

10 November - deadline for receipt of ballot papers

13 November - count of ballot at Cowley Street and announcement of result

As for hustings, here are the potential locations...

9 October - Dunfermline (Scottish Conference)

16 October - Brecon (Wales)*, Gateshead (North East) and Nelson (North West)

23 October - Eastbourne (South East)

30 October - Huntingdon (East of England), Mansfield (East Midlands) and Oxford (South Central)

* The Welsh Conference starts on 15 October and ends on 17 October.

The English Party has invited the Regional Parties to bid for the right to host an official hustings meeting, so there'll be more news when I have it.

Party President nominations - breaking news...

Just a note so that anyone reading this, candidate or potential nominator, is aware.

You can only sign one nomination paper for the position of Party President!

For what it's worth, I'd also recommend that you get at least 10% more nominations than the minimum (some of them are bound to be invalid, and with at least four candidates doing the rounds, some people will sign anything and everything...).

Party Presidency - there's a familiar look to some of these faces...

Gosh, haven't events moved quickly? From there not apparently being a vacancy a week ago, we now have four candidates emerging to contest for membership support. For obvious reasons, I'm not going to endorse any of them, especially as I have a lot of respect for all of them, but particularly because I promised one of the candidates that I wouldn't.

I know Tim Farron from my days in the Young Liberal Democrats. He was one of those annoying Student Liberal Democrats (in fairness, I thought that they were all annoying, bloody students...). Expert paper aeroplane manufacturer, Blackburn Rovers supporter (ah well, you can't please everybody...), and a successful campaigner.

Susan Kramer and I don't go back quite as far. I was on her Westminster assessment day panel, and had the great good fortune to have her as my PPC in Dulwich & West Norwood in 1997. We've remained friends ever since, and I was quite depressed to hear the result from Richmond Park this year. Susan knows how to run things, and is good at team building. I'm not so sure about her paper aeroplane skills though...

Jennie Rigg is someone I think of as a friend. She isn't a Parliamentarian, she's a grassroot, gloriously bohemian. You know what you're getting with Jennie,and you know that she won't hold back in expressing what she believes. Her campaign is already off the ground, and I'm expecting innovation, colour and a blog to die for.

I don't know Jason Zadrozny as well as the others. Ironically, I was on the panel for his Westminster approval day too, and was impressed by his commitment, dedication and knowledge. He will certainly know what it's like at the campaigning coalface, and his gallant campaign in Ashfield is an example to us all.

I certainly have no reason to vote against any of them, and would expect to cast all four preferences (I know that the last one has no electoral purpose, but it does indicate a positive endorsement) if this turns out to be the final field. All four of them have skills that fit with my perception of the Party Presidency, and I wish all of them the very best of luck with their campaigns.

I just wonder who ends up getting my job...

Welfare and the Poor: has Nick forgotten whose Party he leads?

Reading my copy of the Times this morning, I am confronted with a front page headline suggesting that the man I voted for to be Leader believes that the State must not "compensate the poor for their predicament".

I can't help but feel that he is either being wilfully provocative or foolishly naïve. And, ironically, the rest of his piece contains much that Liberal Democrats can readily agree with. He makes entirely valid points about marginal tax rates for those seeking to move from benefits to work, on the increasingly frustrating multiplicity of forms and rules, about the need for root-and-branch reform. But all of those good things are for nought when the headline reads "Poor must accept cuts in benefit, says Clegg".

I came into politics to improve the quality of life within my society and to build a more liberal state, where individuals have greater freedom. To my mind, that implies a degree of compassion, blended with altruism. It also means demonstrating that compassion and altruism, as opposed to just using the vocabulary of caring.

I'm not suggesting that we refrain from the tough decisions that reform of the benefits system demands. Increasing the amount of benefits paid by 40% has proved to be unaffordable. But we need to be much smarter about how we allocate those funds that we can afford, with the aim being to ensure that those in genuine need are sustained, and the vulnerable protected.

As Liberal Democrats, our task is to articulate that message, to deter Conservative elements of the Coalition from carrying out the slash-and-burn carnage that some, but not all of them, would like to see. It is consistent with our philosophy, indeed, it is consistent with my interpretation of 'The Big Society'.

And if I am expected to campaign for the election of more Liberal Democrats, including (hopefully) myself, it would be helpful if my Leader was just a mite more careful about the language he uses. This isn't an intellectual exercise, these are real people, with genuine fears. Labour will not hesitate to spread fear and despair in support of their efforts to defeat us. Feeding them with unimpeachable attack lines really isn't helpful...

It's the little things that make a difference

It was back to the demesne last night for Parish Council and, to be honest, there wasn't anything on the agenda to indicate that the meeting would be anything other than routine. It appears that we don't do routine...

We normally kick off with a report from our Safer Neighbourhood Team, and PC Stefan Henriksen turned up in his hi-tech police uniform to inform us that, since our last meeting, we had been a crime-free zone. There had been a report of a stolen car at the last meeting, but it turned out that the vehicle had been misplaced. Let's just say that CSI: Creeting St Peter is unlikely to be commissioned any time soon...

Our county councillor, an evil Tory (actually, he's a pretty decent bloke, is Gary) told us about his new 'Quality of Life' budget, so we told him that we'd like a grit bin for The Lane - it was like an ice rink during last winter's big freeze - and he was very supportive, so we might get lucky.

The subject of badges for Parish Councillors was raised, as it was felt that, in the performance of our duties, it would be nice if people knew who we were. The mood being fairly relaxed by then, talk turned to uniforms, chains and imperial standards. Personally, I tend to think that a discreet lapel pin would suffice...

The rest of the meeting was occupied with talk of play equipmment and dog fouling, of planning concerns and financial administration, the stuff of Parish Council legend. It's all so comfortable... Where was Creeting St Peter all my life?...

Thoughts from the Train: is this blog just an attention-seeking self-indulgence?

It has been suggested to me in the past that blogging is merely a means of saying "Look at me! Look at me!" in cyberspace, an attempt to find a place in the sun. 

And I suppose, in their way, they're right. I hold a minor public office, which is for the most part dealt with by my other blog, I hold an obscure bureaucratic position at the Regional level of a political party, my job is, for the most part, covered by the Official Secrets Act. Not obviously the basis for a riveting read, perhaps. To make matters worse, I write in a style which can only be described as cautious. I am, after all, a civil servant, prone to avoiding extremes, abuse and hyperbole.

Blogging is also resource-intensive. I spend valuable time blogging when I could be doing other things, although I have got better about that, thanks to the BlackBerry and the laptop (he writes, as his train hurtles through Essex...). Sometimes, I find myself drafting a post on a subject that, on reflection, I'd be better off not touching with the proverbial bargepole - more wasted time.

However, it does give me an audience, a means of influencing others. It also acts as a conduit for people to find me, as happened this afternoon. I, like a number of Liberal Democrat bloggers I suspect, received an e-mail from an intern at the Independent on Sunday, James Burton, which read,

"Dear Mark,

I'm putting together a piece on the Liberal Democrat grassroots' view on the coalition four months on and after two local elections. I've been reading your blog, and was wondering if this is something you'd like to comment on.

Do you feel the coalition is a cause for commiseration, or celebration?

Please give me a call any time today (before, say, 10 pm) if you'd like to comment.

Many thanks,

James"

It isn't the first time that this has happened to me. However, I'm not really a grassroot, and it seemed a bit unfair to pretend otherwise, so I rang him, explaining why I could only really respond with "no comment". But it does remind me that, as part of the spectrum of Liberal Democrat membership, 'Liberal Bureaucracy' represents a viewpoint that should be heard.

So, the blog continues, with its mission to explain the bureaucracy, explore some of the issues of the day, and to give those who don't know me a taste of what it is to be a Liberal Democrat, a parish councillor and a bureaucrat. Besides, if I leave it to the rest of you, the world will assume that we're all Doctor Who obsessives...

Gosh, I've been shortlisted for a BOTY!

Today's announcement of the shortlists for the Liberal Democrat Voice Blog of the Year Awards brings the rather surprising news that we at 'Liberal Bureaucracy' are in with a shout of the Tim Garden Award (see pretty picture).

I admit to some guilt about this. My fellow nominees are a Member of Parliament, and some serious councillors. Me, I'm a humble parish councillor, not even elected to the position (co-options, aren't they great?). They do serious stuff, impacting on the lives of thousands. Me, I fret about bus stops and ten street lights.

However, that said, parish councils are the backbone of local democracy, and it is nice to carry the flag for thousands of my fellow councillors across the country, serving towns and villages as best they can.

I'd like to thank those of you who have nominated me, and wish the best of luck to my fellow nominees. There's some excellent writing out there, and a lot of blogging councillors, MPs, MEPs and Peers, so to even reach the shortlist is an achievement to treasure.

Public sector unions vs Liberal Democrats - a hint of what is to come

I've received an e-mail from my union, the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), an excerpt of which reads;

Branches will be aware that government are using a little known procedural legislative process to push through the detrimental changes to the CSCS called a Money Bill.

These bills are used to rush through emergency revenue generating measures, and DO NOT get readings in the House of Lords. They remain the property of the Commons only.

The second reading of the Money Bill takes place on 7 September. We have calculated that there is literally only a handful of votes in this, around 11 MPs can change the outcome of this crucial vote. With this in mind branches should redouble their efforts to lobby Liberal Democrat MPs.

Action

Branches should focus all efforts on lobbying Liberal Democrat MPs. They should encourage all members in those constituencies to write and ask them to sign EDM301 and to vote against the Money Bill on the 7 September. Where MPs fail to respond to members letters, branches should keep a tally of the numbers of letters issued and to notify John Coote of numbers and the MP involved.

It is, perhaps, a sign of the competence of my union that I received the message this morning. However, I am intrigued by the sheer ineptitude and mendacity displayed in such a brief message.

A simple check of the Parliament website will confirm that the Superannuation Bill is scheduled to be considered by the House of Lords and, even if it is a money bill, the Lords can hold it up for a month (admittedly, that isn't much). As Francis Maude said, at last Tuesday's Second Reading,

"If this Bill progresses through the House, achieves Royal Assent and goes on to the statute book, it will come into effect, so the cap will apply as of the day of commencement. As I said, I hope that we achieve something frankly more grown up, more sustainable and more long term by having an agreed long-term comprehensive settlement. If both Houses of Parliament agree that the Bill should be passed, however, it will come into effect."

I admit to having reservations about the proposals. However, I also understand that the current arrangements are wholly unaffordable. The fact that the bill has a sunset clause, requiring review annually, should be taken as a sign of good faith, indicating that if a formula can be agreed by all participants, it will be put into force.

Hopefully, PCS will improve their campaigning techniques - on Tuesday, they protested outside the House of Lords, despite there being nobody at home. We'll find out when they protest outside of our conference next week, I guess...

Diversity in the Liberal Democrats: mixed race need not apply?

With another setpiece debate approaching fast, my thoughts have turned to a question that always troubles me. Not "Is this liberal?", because to my mind at least, quotas aren't, but, "Who decides who qualifies for such preferential treatment?". It is one of those 'elephants in the room' that lurks, just waiting to spring out and trample the unwary or imprudent.

If the motion as currently written is passed, said elephant will be loose. Why? Because the definition of BAME will need to be nailed down, with individuals having to demonstrate that they are 'BAME enough' to qualify. At the last census, nearly one in six of those described as non-white were of mixed race, a proportion likely to increase as time goes by, if a gentle stroll through Peckham will demonstrate.

We mixed-race types vary, depending upon dominant genes, some of us are relatively dark-skinned, some of us pretty pale. For the most, we self-define as non-white, even if in doing so, we draw attention to ourselves as different. So, do I qualify, am I sufficiently BAME? Ironically, the motion, if passed, will invite claims to minority status that might surprise. I have friends and colleagues who are part Roma, one-eighth Maori and one-quarter Pakistani. Are they BAME, or would it be seen to be just a 'flag of convenience'?

So, defining what is meant by BAME may prove to be necessary, a challenge requiring, potentially, the wisdom of Solomon. And it will matter too. If a self-defined BAME applicant is successful in gaining the nomination from an all-BAME shortlist, and an unsuccessful opponent appeals on the grounds of ineligibility, on what basis does an appeals panel rule? Perhaps referring back to the last attempt to define individuals racially might be of use, although whether or not Apartheid-era South Africa is an example to be valued is open to reasonable doubt, I suspect.

Ultimately, whilst I am willing to accept that the movers of the Conference motion simply aim to redress an imbalance. However, merely insisting that a BAME applicant is shortlisted will achieve nothing if they are not strong enough to compete credibly for member support, and may act as a positive disincentive to campaign building before the shortlisting phase.

Where their proposal does guarantee the election of a BAME candidate it is, I believe an illiberal manifestation of the notion of equality of outcome, which rejects merit and effort and rewards status over quality. It will provide false hope, without even a token effort to discover why BAME candidates don't apply and don't get selected if they do. Until or unless proper research is done to find out what the real problems are, we are condemned to repeat the failures of the past. I fear that the movers are responding to the issues of a different generation, one that seeks to change the culture of an organisation to suit it's needs without seeking to address the existing philosophical foundations of it.

And accordingly, I don't agree with Nick, and I certainly don't agree with Simon...