Published elsewhere: @ALDEParty Council preview - "How was it for you?"

Not all of my regular readers follow Liberal Democrat Voice, so here's an opportunity to read my piece published there earlier this morning...

It seems like mere weeks since the last Council meeting of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in Europe (ALDE), when optimism was in the air - admittedly helped by the presence of our Austrian hosts on that occasion, who were running an unashamedly pro-European campaign. Sadly, just six weeks later, delegates from across Europe gather in Brussels under rather less cheery circumstances.

The decimation of the British, German and Italian member parties in the European Parliament, plus the defection of the Romanians to the European People's Party following merger with a former rival, was somewhat offset by results elsewhere, with ALDE members doing particularly well in Scandinavia and the Baltic. And, with new political parties still searching for a pan-European home, the final outcome remains uncertain.

The centrepiece of today's agenda is a review of the campaign across Europe, and the value or otherwise of the support given to member parties in the run-up to May's elections. No doubt much will be said about the possible clash between the European Parliament and the European Council over the next President of the European Commission, and about how the 'spitzenkandidat' (lead candidate) concept worked for liberals - it had no impact in the United Kingdom because barely anyone knew anything about it until afterwards.

There are other consequences from the loss of seats, in that funding for the various pan-European political parties is linked to success in winning seats in the European Parliament. Some potentially difficult decisions will need to be taken over the next few months, and some thoughts on that will doubtless be aired during the financial report by ALDE Treasurer, Roman Jakic, who is taking time off from his day job as Slovenia's Defence Minister.

It isn't all doom and gloom though, as Latvijas Attistibai (Latvia's Development Party) is seeking membership, and Council will be asked to agree that this year's Congress should take place in Lisbon in November, allowing us to meet with an emerging liberal group in Portugal, Nos Ciadados (We Citizens).

Finally, on a more reflective note, it will be interesting to see how ALDE looks going forward. In recent years, the influence of the German FDP and the Liberal Democrats has been particularly strong. Now that both have taken such an electoral beating, will ALDE see the emergence of new power bases within itself, and what philosophical impact will that have? Today might be very interesting indeed...

From there to there, from there to here, but with a hat

Back to Brussels again, this time for an inquest into the European Parliament elections at an Extraordinary Council meeting of ALDE.

Naturally, given the well nigh catastrophic performance of the Liberal Democrats - if Catherine Bearder hadn't survived, it certainly would have been catastrophic - our plucky delegation will be the recipients of a little sympathy, and quite a lot of regret. We have, rather too late, discovered just how punishing D'Hondt can be. There is some personal consolation, in that it does mean that I'm back in Brussels, enjoying some fine beer, with the opportunity to eat fine food and generally potter around. The meeting doesn't start until after noon, so I even have the morning to take a stroll around the city.

I had, in my haste to leave the house yesterday, forgotten two things - my Berlin guidebook and a hat. Given my lack of hair, a hat is a must, so I picked up a Panama hat whilst passing through London this afternoon. The guidebook will have to be done without...

Perhaps, instead of demanding that someone do something, have you thought of being that someone?

There is, not unexpectedly, much debate on what needs to change after the fairly ghastly events of the past three weeks. A change of leader, a change of policy (or perhaps an adherence to the policy we already have), a reorganisation of Party structures, withdrawal from the Coalition, I've heard them all. And, in fairness, some, maybe all of them are necessary. But they aren't going to be easy, as some are beginning to discover.

Gathering signatures in the hope that a beleaguered Leader will see the light having failed, and a bid to obtain a leadership contest by dint of resolutions passed by seventy-five Local Parties having seemingly run into the sand - it seems awfully quiet out there all of a sudden - unless the Parliamentary Party in the Commons mutinies (not likely... yet), one might assume that we will enter next year's General Election under the current leadership.

Policy offers equally difficult challenges. There appears to be relatively little disagreement with Party policy, and the issue is about how much of that policy survives as far as government, whether the remainder is fought for sufficiently vigorously and whether the inevitable compromises that coalition, and events, bring are acceptable. For some, the outcomes haven't been good enough. But some of that comes down to the ability of either element of the Coalition to overcome its own internal dissension, something that we can't control in the case of the Conservatives.

George Potter has written an interesting piece in Liberal Democrat Voice with his suggestions on how the Party structure might be redesigned. I don't really agree with most of it, because he seems determined to ignore the fact that, in volunteer run and led organisations, leadership and organisation are limited by the talent available. In an area like mine, you might have to expand the size of an organisational unit quite a lot to find one willing and able Treasurer, for example. And, at that point, they may not want to travel so far to get to meetings.

But, ultimately, every part of the Party structure is only as good as the people who make it up. And, sadly, those people are often only too familiar, because they're the only willing volunteers. You can get a long way in this Party without meeting any significant opposition - for example, I served five terms as Regional Secretary and was opposed just once. English Candidates Committee is often elected unopposed, and as for Local Party officers, well, arm-twisting is often the order of the day.

So, rather than demand change because the current structure appears not to work, perhaps it would be better to find out why it doesn't work first and, if necessary, do some of that administrative work rather than leave it to those who are willing, but under-resourced or under-skilled.

South Cambridgeshire Liberal Democrats select a PPC

It has been a very busy week. I had been looking forward to a relatively quiet week until my phone rang on Friday, asking me if I would be willing to be the Returning Officer for South Cambridgeshire. I wasn't keen - I'm already dealing with two selections, but it was explained that this was urgent, and would need to be done quickly, as a by-election was potentially in the offing.

And so, an expedited selection took place. I probably can't tell you how it works - the details are available on request but not otherwise available, but what I can say is that, from publication of advert to result, it took less than one hundred and forty-eight hours.

Hilary Clinton once famously wrote that it takes a village to raise a child. Well, as a Returning Officer, I can tell you that it takes a village to select a potential by-election candidate - with the goodwill of shortlisting committee members, by-election panellists, Candidates Office, Membership Services, the Campaigns Department and some hard-pressed but highly motivated applicants. And, in this case, a baroness.

In the middle of this, armed only with a set of rules and a protocol, sits the Returning Officer. Queries regarding procedure, questions regarding membership issues, hustings organisation and all manner of things must be answered courteously and swiftly, paperwork prepared and distributed, candidates informed and nurtured.

There are some consolations. There is no appeal process, so the Returning Officer is, in a small way, the ruling deity of Planet Selection. Actually, that's the only certain consolation although everyone else made the process so much more pleasant than it might have been - and here I pay tribute to the shortlisting committee, who I would happily bring home with me.

And so, this evening, accompanied by Ros, who was to chair the members' meeting, I went to a village just outside Cambridge, where a very decent crowd, all things considered, gathered to select a prospective by-election candidate.

It tells you a lot about the way social media can spread news more quickly than ever before, that, as the Returning Officer, I have been scooped by Jonathan Calder and by the Cambridge News, but I should congratulate Sebastian Kindersley on his adoption as the candidate, after a very high-class hustings with excellent performances by all three short-listed applicants.

A day in the life of a Returning Officer

It has been rather busy over the past week, through no real fault of my own, apart from saying, "Alright, I'll do it.". In respect, that might not have been entirely the most sensible thing for me to do.

But, despite everything, I've made it to the penultimate day of the process. Candidates are campaigning, my ballot box is assembled, with a silica gel packet at the bottom to absorb moisture, ballot papers have been printed, a membership list is printed and noted with the names of all those who need to renew their membership before being able to vote. I've e-mailed a copy of the Selection Rules to my Kindle so that I have it available to me if I need them, as well as an archive of e-mail in case there is a problem.

All is calm for the time being, and the sun is shining. I've even managed to find time to assemble a piece of garden furniture, string up some garden lights and go to the gym - Ros made me (a bit).

It probably can't last...

@BaronessRos in the Lords: Motion for an Humble Address

Baroness Scott of Needham Market:

My Lords, I beg to second my noble friend’s Motion for an humble Address. It is an enormous privilege to have been asked to speak this afternoon. Historically, the honour of seconding the Motion for an humble Address is given to fairly new and up-and-coming Members of your Lordships’ House, so having entered my 15th year here, it is really good to hit the ground running.

This is always a great day in the House and it is an astonishing thought that no one under the age of 62 has lived in the reign of a monarch other than Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. Her record of dedicated service to the nation, now well into its ninth decade, is both remarkable and a genuine inspiration to the nation.

It is a real honour to follow my noble friend Lord Fowler, who I know is respected right across this House and far beyond it. I feel confident in saying that without the leadership he showed as Secretary of State for Health when the threat of AIDS first revealed itself, hundreds of lives would have been lost and many thousands more blighted. It is magnificent that he is still campaigning on this issue, and that his new book Aids: Don’t Die of Prejudice is due to be published next week. It is only £14.99 from all good bookshops.

I had the pleasure of serving on the Communications Committee under his chairmanship and it was a most informative and interesting experience. I have never confessed this to him before, but six months before, as a member of the Liaison Committee, I had strongly opposed the formation of the committee. Well, he was right and I was wrong; it has gone on to do some great work.

That of course is one of the strengths of this House: the way in which a range of expertise and knowledge is used not just to hold government to account through debate and legislative scrutiny but to take evidence, deliberate and then contribute to public policy. The range that we cover is quite remarkable. In the coming Session we shall have new committees on the digital economy and on the challenges facing the Arctic region. Our European Union scrutiny work is respected across the EU and I am very proud of the work done by the members of Sub-Committee D, which I chair. Our recent report on food waste has sparked a genuine national debate. I gently say to the leadership of the House that our sitting schedule does not have to be totally dominated by the legislative agenda; we have other valuable work to do.

Noble Lords:

Hear, hear.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market:

One of the big changes that I have seen in my 14 years in the House is the increasing size of the House. This is testing both the procedural and operational capacity of the House, as well as its staff and facilities. I am sure that noble Lords will join me in thanking all the staff who do so much to make sure that we can do our job effectively. Not only are they efficient and good at what they do, but their friendliness and genuine commitment to the work of the House is remarkable.

On the subject of change, I am sure that the House will join me in thanking my noble friend Lord McNally for a decade of service as the Leader of the Liberal Democrats in the Lords, and as Deputy Leader of the House and Minister for Justice. He is not in his place today, but I do not think that the House will begrudge his day release; even for a Liberal Democrat, a whole-life tariff might have been a little harsh.

We wish him well in his new role as chair of the Youth Justice Board. He is a hard act to follow, but I can think of no one better to do so than my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness—or, as my computer spell-check likes to call him, Lord Tenderness. He has long earned the respect of this House for his work both in the Scottish Parliament and here in this House. I have one piece of personal advice, Jim, just between us: at the Dispatch Box, calm down. There is too much passion, too much irascibility. Just ask our noble friend Lord McNally; he will give you some tips.

Noble Lords:

Oh!

Baroness Scott of Needham Market:

It is one of the many conundrums of this House that while new Peers are invariably given an individually warm welcome, sometimes the overall impression is that new intakes of Peers are not entirely welcome. Well, I for one do welcome them and believe that the contribution made by the Peers introduced during this Parliament has been excellent. This House needs to be constantly refreshed with new thinking, approaches and experience if it is continue to be effective. We cannot afford simply to pull up the drawbridge behind us. It is worth reflecting that in this fast-moving world, the technologies that dominate our lives did not even exist a single generation ago.

The work that many of us do outside the Chamber also makes our contribution to this House all the more rich. Like many noble Lords, I am involved with the voluntary sector both nationally and at home in Suffolk. I am sure that we all stand together in gratitude for the contribution that volunteers make to the well-being of our nation. I was pleased to hear in the gracious Speech that the question of legal liability for people acting in good faith in the public good will finally be clarified.

I also very much value my external role on the board of the Harwich Haven Authority. As a maritime trading nation, our ports should be drivers of job creation and growth. I hope that the forthcoming infrastructure Bill will encourage the road improvements to our ports that the sector has long been calling for. Stormy seas, hidden rocks, the occasional man overboard and even mutiny—and when I have had enough of the party, it is always good to go up to Harwich.

In 2010 many commentators believed that the first Queen’s Speech of the coalition would also be the last. It was—and for some still is—very difficult to comprehend that two political parties might manage their differences and produce a programme for government. We do not have much experience of coalition in this country, either as voters or when it comes to the machinery of government, and there is a lot to learn from the past four years. It is ironic that while the public are not showing any particular enthusiasm for coalition per se, their voting intentions make it a likely outcome again in the future.

I was president of my party in 2010. I was proud then, and remain proud, that my party did not shirk its responsibilities, either by telling voters to think again at a second general election or by permitting an unstable minority Government. At a time when the country’s finances were in jeopardy, the eurozone faced collapse and the global economic crisis continued to unfold, to do so would have been wholly irresponsible. My party has paid a heavy price for that decision, but even in hindsight I do not believe it was the wrong thing to do.

The irony is, all Governments are coalitions; compromises between different wings of the party, or even between No. 10 and No. 11, have to be thrashed out, and no one ever gets everything they want. But in the end, it is about balance. Next year the Government can reflect on their achievements, most notably in rebuilding the economy, for no Government has a greater responsibility than its stewardship of the public finances. I was very pleased to see the emphasis in the gracious Speech on stability and security for the economy, and a recognition of the importance of the role of small businesses.

The measures announced today on pensions, affordable childcare and apprenticeships are not about tomorrow’s newspapers but about people’s lives for decades into the future. They sit alongside raising the income tax threshold, reforming the pension system, introducing the pupil premium, the Green Investment Bank, equal marriage and fixed-term Parliaments. These measures all reflect long-term thinking and, I venture to suggest, will not be quickly overturned by any incoming Government. They say that success has many fathers, but a DNA test of those policies would show definite Liberal Democrat paternity.

The gracious Speech has outlined many measures for which proper scrutiny will keep us fully occupied, although I applaud the emphasis on the business of governing. I note that there are always calls for more and more regulation—and then we have to have a deregulation Bill to undo all the regulation that we have made.

To use the old phrase, we live in interesting times. There are some huge decisions facing our nation which will determine our place in the world. They will start with the choice that Scotland will make about its future and will go on to the general election next year and beyond. Debate in this House will no doubt be lively and, at times, fractious, but while our beliefs may differ, and despite what the cynics would have you believe, what unites us here in this House is a desire to do the very best for our country.

The race for the Party Presidency: a few things that you might have forgotten

It has been four years since we last had a contest for the Party Presidency, and for those people who might not have been around in 2011 for the Tim Farron versus Susan Kramer contest, here are some of the things that need to be borne in mind.

The President is the principal public representative of the Party and shall chair the Federal Executive. The President is elected by the members of the Party for a term of two years starting from 1st January in the year immediately following the election and shall hold office until death, incapacity, resignation or the election of a successor; the President shall be eligible for re-election once only.

The timetable for the election shall be no shorter than 7 weeks and no longer than 12 weeks.

To be a validly nominated candidate, you need the nomination of not less than 200 representatives entitled to attend the Federal Conference in not less than 20 Local Parties. Liberal Youth, and their Scottish and Welsh equivalents count as Local Parties, and don't forget the Local Parties overseas and in Northern Ireland. You don't have to be a Federal Conference delegate yourself, although it will be very helpful to attend the Autumn Conference, as it is the easiest place to collect nominations.

Candidates (and their campaign teams) don't have access to the membership lists. That means that reaching members is that much more difficult, so it helps if potential supporters can reach you.

There is a spending limit for all candidates, to be decided by the Federal Executive. It would be nice if they decided upon that early, so that potential candidates can organise accordingly. The Federal Executive are also supposed to review the Regulations for Presidential elections six months after an election takes place. It doesn't look as though they felt the need for change...

If there are three or less candidates, each is entitled to a double-sided A4 election address, printed and paid for by the Federal Party. If there are four or more, the entitlement is reduced to double-sided A5.

So, there are some of the key factors that candidates and their campaign teams will need to consider over the weeks and months ahead.

It's going to be interesting...

A day out to the seaside

It's been a mite hectic over the past couple of days so, as the sun was shining, Ros suggested that we might go out, with Harwich being the destination of choice.

In a straight line, it isn't that far, but because of the estuaries of the Orwell (I still think of it as the Lower Gipping) and the Stour, you have to go as far south and west as Manningtree before you can final turn east. And, as it was such a nice day, instead of taking the fast road, we meandered down the A137, through Brantham, before heading out of Manningtree on the B road that meanders on, or near, the shoreline.

The Pier at Harwich, a really rather nice hotel

All was well until we got to Bradfield, where we were flagged down to be told that there had been an accident ahead, and that it might be better to take the alternative route through Wix and the A120. It wasn't much of a hassle, and we were in Harwich soon enough. It was agreed that we would have lunch at the pier, which I misunderstood to mean at The Pier, the rather nice hotel on the waterfront there.

Luckily, they had a table free, and the specials were tempting. Ros had the crab, whilst I plumped for the pork Holstein, before Ros had some rather good walnut ice cream and I went for the cheeseboard. I rather like that sort of misunderstanding...

After lunch, we went for a walk along the seafront, past the radar tower and round towards Dovercourt. Despite the persistent breeze off of the North Sea, it was all very nice.

Harwich is an interesting place, with the feeling of a town that has been set in aspic. There are very few shops to serve the community, the port is actually more than two miles away, and on a winter's day, it can be a bit bleak, especially given that it is surrounded on three sides by water. But, on a sunny day, it makes for a very pleasant day out.

Sadly, there were still things undone at home, and we had to be off. Doubtless we'll be back soon though...

The race for the Party Presidency: some questions for the candidates

Alright, I've given the matter some consideration, and whilst John Tilley gave me food for thought (despite rather missing the point to my mind), I've come up with four questions to put to the candidates at this stage;

• What do you think the role of the President should be in the year of a General Election?

• What do you think should be the relationship between the President and the Party Leader?

• What do you think should be the relationship between the President and the voluntary party, i.e. the activists and volunteers?

• Name three personal attributes that would help you perform the role of Party President and why?

I will be asking the candidates to keep their answers fairly short - I don't want to take up too much of their time, and I'm sure that they're planning campaign strategy and thinking about what they want to say to members. I will also wait until I have all of their answers before I start publishing them, so as not to disadvantage anyone.

The race for the Party Presidency: efficiency isn't likely to be a problem

Well, that was quick!

Yes, within the day, every one of the four candidates has kindly replied, and all are willing to answer my questions.

Now, given that there is a review underway into the recent election campaign, I don't want to put them in an uncomfortable position, so I'm planning to focus on the role of the Presidency. However, I do want this to be useful to members and activists so, if you have a suggestion (or even more than one!), use the comments space below, or use Twitter, including @honladymark, so that I see it on my timeline.

Party Presidency: now there are four, how are they getting on?

For obvious reasons, I take an interest in the Presidency of the Liberal Democrats, and today's not entirely surprising announcement that Liz Lynne, the former MP for Rochdale and then MEP for the West Midlands, has thrown her hat into the ring, has given me some food for thought. Not because I'm planning to support her - it's far too early for me to make a decision and we have little idea what the various candidates will campaign for, or what vision each might have for the role and for the Party.

It is particularly interesting that all four candidates, Pauline Pearce, Linda Jack, Sal Brinton and Liz, are women, which is a first (assuming that no other candidate emerges), although we have had two previous female Presidents - both excellent, even if I only married one of them.

Each of them has a Twitter presence;

• Liz Lynne - @lizlynne1
• Pauline Pearce - @LibDemLadyP
• Linda Jack - @Lindylooz
• Sal Brinton - @SalBrinton

and I'm sure that they'll all maintain a strong presence on social media, something which is increasingly useful in an internal party election where membership data isn't available to their campaign teams.

And, inspired by Jennie Rigg's efforts to get answers out of candidates for office in 2012, and Linda Jack's own questionnaire to presidential candidates in 1998, I've written to all four, asking them if their campaign has a web presence yet, and if they would mind answering a few questions from me, which I would aim to publish here.

I'm of the view that the role of Party President is rather more complex than a lot of people think - it's certainly harder, especially in a General Election year, and if I can encourage people to think about what they would like the next President to be and do, and provide encouragement to the candidates to articulate their visions for a party in need to everything from a bit of TLC to inspiration through leadership, I might be of some small service.

We'll see what happens...

Liberal Democrats: what is the point of playing the game just like everyone else?

Four years ago, Liberal Democrats fought a General Election campaign on the basis that we would be different - not just in terms of ideas, but in terms of the way government was done. In a country weary with a Labour administration which seemed perpetually to be on the edge of internecine war, and with the recent experience of an expenses scandal that had almost overwhelmed the House of Commons, the idea of a new, more open, more transparent way of doing politics resonated with some people. It didn't have to be like that.

And, unexpectedly for many, a hung parliament came to pass, and Liberal Democrats took their place within a Coalition administration. I had some optimism that, even though the reform agenda was going to be difficult to implement, we might be different about the way politics was now done.

I have to say, I'm a bit disappointed.

We tend to try to placate the media, even though most of them didn't like us, and possibly never will - we ruin their carefully cultivated binary coverage of X against Y, left against right. And we know that - we say it often enough. So, why not instead talk about our ideas, the areas of difference with the Conservatives, not in terms of "we're stopping the evil Tories from doing Z", but, our policy is to do J and we'll talk to other parties to see if we can reach some mutually acceptable compromise. That's the transparent, liberal thing to do. No, you can't provide a running commentary on the negotiations, but you can lay out the framework within which the discussions are taking place, and report back on the outcome.

But, it does depend on avoiding the cloak and dagger stuff. Did you really not see that document before it was published? If so, say so, if not, don't. Don't agree to something and then pretend that, no, you actually don't. Don't get yourself in a position whereby one Parliamentary Party says one thing and the other another. It's all too easy for people to work that out - remember how useful the internet is for looking up stuff? Like past speeches?

Anonymous briefings from 'senior Liberal Democrat sources'? They can go too. If you intend to say something, say it, don't try and hide behind 'deniability' - we'll respect you for it. Engage with your opponents, don't just exchange unpleasantries. I know that Labour don't have that many answers, but why not ask them to outline their alternative? Listen, they might have valuable input and, if they do, give them some credit.

In short, run our end of the Coalition like you would if you were running the show on your own, even if the Conservatives aren't willing to do likewise. Because the media will make it up anyway if they want to shaft you. They'll look for slight areas of uncertainty or difference of emphasis and, if they can't find them, they'll invent some. They really don't like us.

We talk a good game about collaborative government, where different political groups come together for the common good. If we don't practice it, who else will?

Liberal Democrats: staring into the abyss, or just another day in coalition

It's been another not particularly great day to be a Liberal Democrat, with one of our Parliamentarians acting in the manner of a kamikaze pilot aimed at the ammunition store of an aircraft carrier, and more unhelpful, if well-meaning, interventions from people who might be better advised to confirm that their journey is really necessary before setting off.

But, for good or ill, in a democratic, loosely controlled, political party, these things are going to happen - it is our strength and, simultaneously, our weakness. We're not control freaks (well, most of us aren't) and we tend to believe in devolving power to the most appropriate level - generally away from the leadership, in my experience. You see, the idea is that people take responsibility for their own actions to some extent, an concept that Liberal Democrats do admittedly honour in the breach from time to time.

In return, the expectation is that people will reflect before they rush to condemn, that they will balance the various consequences of their action before taking action.

So, regardless of your view on the future of the Party, and I'm not particularly interested in the input of those who want to give it a good kicking - you really don't have the interests of liberalism at heart - why not reflect upon whether or not your approach is likely to lead to greater unity. You see, we're all in this together, and whilst we can have an argument about what to do next - new leader, new policy, new message, new relationship with the Conservatives, whatever - we're going to need as many people as we can muster to keep the flame alive.

In other words, play nice, because there is nothing to say that a political party has to survive come what may. And when you find that politics returns to two authoritarian political forces, neither of which really believes in personal liberty or is willing to stand against the siren voices of a reactionary media, you might regret a few of those more unnecessary acts of provocation.

Reflections on the NHS... and why we might be our own worst enemies

Yesterday, I blogged about my recent minor surgical procedure, noting how well everything went, how kind and caring the nurses were, how efficient the surgeon was. And it got me to thinking about the NHS, not something that I've had much cause to do in the past. You see, as a very infrequent user of the healthcare system - I've been pretty fortunate to remain in good health - it is the sort of thing you take for granted. It will always be there, it will be free (well, freeish), and it will cure you if you're ill, and save you when you get broken.

Its status as a national institution is such that it was showcased in the opening ceremony of the London Olympics, and was protected from cuts by the incoming government - David Cameron promised that, you will recall.

SInce then, the NHS has come under pressure. Yes, the budget has been ring-fenced, and has kept pace with inflation. However, funding a national hearth care system is more complex than simply ensuring that it has the same amount of money in real terms. Inflation in the healthcare sector is traditionally higher that it is generally, and you can't manage demand in the same way that you might otherwise. And, as we find new and exciting ways of prolonging life, whilst more and more of us adopt lifestyles that make us more vulnerable to illness, injury and disease, the demands upon the system change.

You can deal with that in a number of ways, I guess. You can simply increase the funding available, you can charge for some services, you can seek organisational savings or you can just axe some services altogether. You might attempt a combination of some or all of these. But, the problem is that if you raise taxes, the opposition attack you. If you charge for services, or reorganise, or axe services, likewise. And, if you're a politician, you might conclude that it's all too difficult and give up.

Unfortunately, like any successful organisation, the NHS has to change to face the changing circumstances as they emerge. How many expensive pieces of kit can you have, and where do you put them, how do you incentivise your staff to be more efficient whilst maintaining service coverage, how do you address the demands of local residents, who have differing priorities in different parts of the country? All of these things require thought and the ability to adapt, and yet we protest about change, condemning it as meaning the end of the NHS as we know it when we know that, after every supposedly radical (and widely opposed) change in the past, it has still been there, still dispensing healthcare to all at a cost far lower to the public purse than it does in places like the United States.

But, if we continue to have opposition parties blindly oppose change whilst not engaging with the creation of a vision for the future of such a critical public service, we risk preventing changes that could save the NHS for decades to come. Instead, we need political parties and campaign groups to come together to create a shared view of what we need as a country, rather than treating the whole thing as a football to be kicked from one end to the other whilst the rest of us look on.

We will probably need to be pretty creative about the future shape of the NHS, we may even have to make some compromises in order to secure the broad principle of free at the point of access healthcare, but with an aging, increasingly unfit population, we're going to have to do something...

@LibDems4Change - can we leave them alone, please?

The launch of LibDems4Change last week has offered an interesting insight into the internal democracy of the Liberal Democrats, and not a very edifying one, if the various comment threads of Liberal Democrat Voice are any reflection. Attacks on 'Orange Booker subversives' or 'anti-Coalition irreconcilables' indicate that there are those on either side of the argument that simply don't get it.

This is my party. I have supported it through my voluntary efforts for nearly thirty years, carrying out a series of almost entirely thankless tasks for a mostly unappreciative organisation because of my belief in the importance of a liberal voice in a vibrant civic society. I do not do it so that others within can demonstrate a lack of tolerance that shames our claim to believe in an open, tolerant society where people work together to make our lives better.

So, LibDems4Change have an absolute right to act as they do, even if I don't agree with them. They don't have to justify their approach, other than to make a case that allows them to win the argument. Those who believe that now is not the time to replace Nick Clegg can likewise argue their position.

But the nastiness is uncalled for, and unhelpful. If we can't treat each other with a bit of respect, why should others believe that we are serious about collaborative politics?

Pampering my inner walrus

It was Christmas here in Creeting St Peter today, or at least, time for me to enjoy my gift. Yes, I know, Christmas was some time ago, but we're busy people, and we still haven't actually had the balloon ride that my parents generously gave Ros last August. And so, we set off this morning to Elveden Forest for a spa day.

Now, I know what you're thinking. Yes, I do liken myself to a walrus, and that isn't perhaps the sort of thing that a walrus would like, but actually, I do rather enjoy being pampered, and I do like a good spa. I've found time for pampering in as far flung places as Bogota and Ho Chi Minh City, and even though my self-image problems persist, I can deal with that for a while, in a good cause.

The other advantage of being at a spa is that you're cut off from the outside world. No iPhone, no iPad, just gentle steaming, massage, the odd dip in the pool, perfect when your political party has taken a merciless kicking in a national election and your party leader is being called on to resign.

It was, I must confess, very pleasant. And, it seems, we aren't yet in the market for a new leader...

My own personal NHS experience, and not one that I'd seen coming...

I had, since the New Year, been suffering from a series of cysts in and around my eyes, and although my left eye had healed up, my right eye had become more and more ugly. Prescriptions of increasingly powerful antibiotics had done little to solve the problem, and it was eventually decided that I needed to be referred to the eye clinic at Ipswich Hospital, which might involve surgery.

My situation wasn't life threatening, or even particularly inconvenient, but as weeks passed, I developed a red growth which protruded out from under my upper eyelid and increasingly into the line of sight. The four weeks in which I was told I could expect to hear from the eye clinic with an appointment came and went, and Ros became increasingly concerned, especially as I might then have to wait another eighteen weeks to actually be seen.

And so, rather grudgingly, I returned to my GP to see what might be done. He examined my eye and concluded that it might be necessary to chivvy the eye clinic along, and after a brief exchange of telephone calls, he assured me that I might hear soon.

Two days later, my phone rang. It was the eye clinic, who advised that they had had a cancellation, and could I come in tomorrow morning? Naturally, I said I could and so, the next morning, Ros dropped me off at the entrance to the Outpatients Department at 7.40 a.m. on her way to Harwich for a meeting.

I was, perhaps unsurprisingly, the first person to arrive at the Opthalmic Day Care Unit, and was welcomed by a nurse, who confirmed my identity and asked me to sit in the waiting area whilst she organised paperwork. But before long, she led me through to the patient area, where she asked a few more questions, explained what the process would be, and set me up for events to follow.

I wanted a black eye patch...

Before too long, the surgeon, Ms Murthy, called me in for a brief examination, explained what the problem was, and what would happen, which involved the injection of an anaesthetic directly into my eyelid. it would, she said with rather more candour than I might have expected, be pretty painful for five to ten seconds, but that after that I wouldn't feel anything. I was then returned to my seat whilst other patients were dealt with.

Soon enough, I was asked to move to a new seat, on what looked like it might be a motorised wheelchair, where my blood pressure was taken (123/83 for those of you who understand these things) before I was wheeled into a prep room where the chair was, by dint of motors, converted into a surgery table (I was impressed, I must say). I chatted with the nurse who applied some anaesthetic drops and talked me through the next few minutes and then the action started.

Ms Murthy made sure that I was comfortable and I didn't even see the injection needle coming. And, whilst I knew that she was inserting something into my eye, I've actually had more painful experiences giving blood. But, with one eye closed and the other unseeing temporarily, she went about her work before telling me that there would be a smell of burning whilst she cauterised some minor blood vessels in the eyelid. I have to tell you, the smell of burning bureaucrat is not particularly unpleasant.

And then it was all over. I was returned to the patient area where I was offered tea and biscuits whilst I recovered from the procedure - not that I had much to recover from. The nurses were friendly and kind, I was checked to see if i was alright, and they then gave me my discharge letter before calling a taxi company so that I could get home.

This was my first experience of surgery apart from the removal of wisdom teeth nearly ten years ago, and I have to say that I was impressed. The attention to detail and kindness of the nursing staff, the skill of the surgeon, everything worked, it wasn't soulless or uncaring - all in all it was an experience that reassures you that, when you need the system to work, it generally does.

And it led me to think a bit...

Dear Anonymous...

I have a rule here, in that;

I do moderate comments, rejecting those I deem to be offensive, libellous or otherwise unacceptable. Anonymous commenters can expect to be either ignored or abused unless I agree with them. After all, like any publisher, I maintain the right to uphold certain standards. However, dissent with my views shall not, in itself, cause me to reject a comment.

And, generally, I stick to it. However, today, this comment arrived for moderation (I moderate all comments for self-protection as much as anything else);

The sooner this liar goes the better. He is dishonest and loves a cover up. He is not an action man and backs off doing anything positive ... The voters see him as a loser and if the LD party doesnt change him now they will lose the 2015 voters just like they did in the 2014 local election this week.

It is, self-evidently, an ad hominem attack, clearly made by someone who doesn't like Nick Clegg. However, it is, as so many of these are, anonymous. So, dear anonymous reader, here is my response.

Your blanket smear of a human being, albeit a politician, adds nothing to the quality or tenor of public debate, made worse by the fact that you demonstrate that you don't have the courage of your convictions by failing to put a name to your tirade.

Regardless of what you or I think of Nick Clegg, he at least has had the decency to put himself up for election, explain what he hopes to achieve and offer you, the voter, one of a range of choices that you may take or not, as you see fit. He made the decision four years ago to go into government, at a time when all the potential courses of action were likely to be unpopular, and give it a go. You, on the other hand, have decided that you want to behave in such a manner as to drive any normal human being as far away from the political arena as possible.

There is, my anonymous correspondent, a price to be paid, in that, by your behaviour, you help to ensure that politics becomes an arena for those that want power for power's sake, or that have a skin so thick that they can handle the abuse or, worst of all, hold views so extreme and with such venom that you ought to be rather worried - you may very well be the sort of person that, eventually, is on the receiving end of that venom.

Politics is, in this country, and probably elsewhere, an increasingly unpleasant business, in which an ever smaller number of increasingly unrepresentative individuals hold more and more sway as ordinary people give up their involvement in civic society - the number of people who join political parties is almost catastrophically low in relative terms.

So, my anonymous correspondent, thank you. Thank you for demonstrating that there is an element of the public, hopefully small, that should count its blessings. Because if the sort of behaviour that you believe is acceptable were to become standard, you had better believe that you would be living in a society where your choice to be so abusive would make you either a member of a rather unpleasant regime, or a victim of it.

But have a nice day, nonetheless...

@ALDE Party Council: the lull before...

It was three weeks ago that the ALDE Party Council met in Vienna, with nothing in particular in the agenda, but a lot of anticipation for the European elections to come. You see, for most of our European sister parties, the FDP excepted, the prospects were not so as troubling. The Dutch were optimistic, as were the Danes, most other parties expected little change in terms of the number of MEPs, and talk was of the threat of extremists to the future working of the European Parliament.

Naturally, as a directly elected member of our Party's delegation, I was keen to contribute, and so after a pleasant stroll across Vienna, I headed for the policy working group. I was late, but got there in time for the only meaningful discussion, joining David Simmons in a successful effort to bring together the disparate views of D66 and VVD (Netherlands), the FDP, Italia dei Valori and the Liberal Democrats into a stance that we could all endorse.

Lunchtime saw a fringe meeting entitled "Innovation for competitiveness and sustainable growth: towards new business models?" which, at rather short notice, Ros had been asked to chair, and it was interesting, as speakers talked about how what could and might be done to encourage the rather smarter economy that Europe will need in the future.

But we then moved onto the serious business of Council, except that there wasn't that much, given how much depends on the election results. How influential will liberals be? How many will there be? Who will be the next President of the European Commission? Indeed, the only real decision taken was to accept the membership application from our hosts, NEOS - the new Austria, who were hopeful of success in their efforts to bring Austrian liberalism back to the European Parliament. In fact, the meeting ended so early that we had rather a lot of time to kill before the evening rally to launch NEOS's campaign.

I suspect that the next meeting, on 13 June, in Brussels, might be more interesting...

@libdems4change: Clegg must apparently go, but whither the Liberal Democrats?

Last night, I received an e-mail from a group calling itself "Lib Dems 4 Change", asking for my support for a letter calling upon Nick Clegg to resign as Party Leader. Apart from the interesting notion of "Lib Dems 4 the Status Quo", I found myself recalling that we have been here before.

Indeed, it is hard to remember that, not two years ago, I wrote about similar calls for Clegg to go, asking two questions, against which I now measure the latest attempt to defenestrate an unpopular leader;

• what are you changing the Leader for?, and;
• so, if not Nick, then whom?

This time, the organisers of this round-robin missive have at least answered part of the first question, in that they state that Nick will act as a lead weight upon our prospects next year. That may, or may not be true - I for one hear less anger about him now than I did in 2011.

However, they don't really indicate what should be being done instead. Are we to pull out of the Coalition? They don't say. What they say is;

We consider it vital that at the 2015 General Election the Party should be led by someone who will receive a fair hearing about our achievements and ambitions for the future.

I would love that. I would also love a National Lottery win, a trip to visit lemurs in Madagascar and my own private train, but none of these things are in our immediate future, I suspect. Can the organisers of the petition name a single leader of our Party who has received a fair hearing from the public and the media since Lloyd George (and he wasn't exactly loved by the Press either, as I understand)?

This government is doing a whole bunch of unpopular things - cutting benefits and finding ways of running government more cheaply are never, ever, going to be easy or popular, and any new Leader will be confronted with the same hostile media, the same cynical public and the same recent political history. Why on Earth do they believe that simply changing the Leader will make a significant difference?

Or is it simply that the organisers hope that, in the event of a leadership contest, a white knight on a charger will ride over the hill and lead us to a glorious recovery in public opinion? I'm an optimist, and even I can't see that one coming, especially this close to a General Election. The public may be fickle, they may be ill-informed, even contradictory sometimes - often, indeed - but I don't see them suddenly saying, "I hated that Nick Clegg, but X seems like a nice bloke/girl, I think that I'll vote LibDem after all!".

So, applying the Sherlock Holmes rule - after ruling out every other alternative, whatever is left, no matter how unlikely, must be the solution - I can only assume that they believe that they can defenestrate a leader and replace him with one that will pull us out of the Coalition.

Now, I am reminded that those who vote in Liberal Democrat Voice polls are not necessarily representative of the party membership as a whole, but in none of their regular polling has there been even a sizeable minority in favour of ending the Coalition. In other words, unless Liberal Democrat Voice-reading members are wholly unrepresentative of the Party at large, the campaign organisers for Lib Dems 4 Change are merely attempting to bypass the membership by building momentum for Clegg to resign of his own volition.

There is a process by which ordinary members can require a leadership contest, which I would encourage Lib Dems 4 Change to utilise, if they really believe that they represent the grassroots of the Party. But until then, I'm sorry but I won't be signing the letter any time soon...

The pandas of Schonbrunn

Not long after the pandas arrived at Edinburgh Zoo, Ros went to see them with her sister. It's a long way to Edinburgh from mid-Suffolk, but Ros was really keen, having never seen a panda up close before. Sadly, her effort was in vain, as one of the pandas was off display through ill health, and the other was on a high platform, meaning that you could only see its shoulder and one ear.

Yang Yang, a very unusual panda indeed

I had, in doing my pre-trip research, realised that the zoo at Schonbrunn, in Vienna's western suburbs, apart from being the oldest zoo in the world (opened as an imperial menagerie in 1752), has pandas, and so I decided that Ros should get another opportunity to see her panda. And so, with the business part of our trip over, we set off under grey skies to see them.

Tiergarten Schönbrunn, to give it its proper name, is a surprisingly nice zoo given the limitations of space, with decent sized enclosures and seemingly happy animals. And, it feels Viennese in terms of its architecture and layout. But our priority was, of course, pandas, and we headed straight to them.

Mother and son

The pandas have been there now for more than a decade, so perhaps the excitement that Edinburgh has experienced has worn off a little, but for those starved of pandas, we were quite excited. And we weren't disappointed...

Young Fu Bao has mastered climbing already

For the zoo is only one of four zoos in Europe that have pandas, Long Hui, who is male, and Yang Yang, the female, and the only one of the four which has successfully bred naturally. Indeed, they've produced three cubs, Fu Long and Fu Hu, who now live in China. Apparently, the deal is that if cubs are produced, China gets them after two years.

Best of all, on 14 August last year, young Fu Bao was born, which meant that he was still there!

Ros was, naturally, delighted, although she now wants to see them in China, something that I can't really object to. Now, all I need to do is work out when, and how, we might get to Chengdu...

Moravian food for the soul

And so, as noted on Liberal Democrat Voice, Ros and I had gone to Vienna to attend a slightly odd meeting of the ALDE Party Council. Odd, because it felt a bit like a contractual obligation which it is kind of is. But that's a story for another post.

Having arrived in Vienna after a fairly uneventful flight, we had arranged to have dinner with the ever enchanting Jonathan Fryer, and Iain Smith, who I first met as a Young Liberal Democrat in, of all places, Aarhus, in 1989. He went on to rather better things, as an MSP and, to be honest, he's aged rather better than I have. The only catch was that we hadn't really given much thought other than where to gather, the courtyard of our hotel.

After a small libation, we headed out, only to be confronted, across the street, with a Moravian beisl, a quintessentially Austrian concept, a bit like a neighbourhood kitchen - cosy, informal, but with authentic, could have been cooked by someone at home, sort of food. And so, we decided to give it a try.

There were, as one might guess, bread dumplings involved - I love bread dumplings - meat and decent Czech beer, all combined with easy conversation and stories of politics and travel.

All in all, a very gentle introduction to Vienna. However, there was work to be done...

"You're not singing, you're not singing, you're not singing any more..."

* blows dust off *

Gosh, it's gone a bit quiet here of late, hasn't it? Anyone would think that my life had become rather dull, or that I was knee deep in campaigning for the European elections. And they'd be wrong.

You see, I don't campaign much these days, mostly because of my job, which is inconsistent with public campaigning, and partly because it's quite difficult to do any in rural Suffolk, even if I wanted to. I am busy though, administering things and generally pottering about.

So, bear with me whilst I fill in some of the gaps....

Europe in my head, England in my heart...

I'm in Vienna, following a successful ALDE Party Council meeting, and reflecting on the European campaign at home. In my travels around the city, I've seen a lot of posters for the Social Democrats with the key message, "Europa im Kopf. Osterreich im Herzen.". It's a message which resonates with me, as it reflects a perspective that makes sense.

One of the key charges made against people like me by UKIP activists is that, by supporting United Kingdom membership of the European Union, I am somehow betraying my country. It is a simple message, easily delivered and very effective, regardless of its validity. And, whilst I wouldn't claim that all Liberal Democrats take the same view, I guess that many are proud of their country and believe that pooling sovereignty in some matters is in its best interests.

I am an Englishman by birth and, a bit of me likes to think, by the grace of God. I want my country to be influential and a force for good in an increasingly complex world, and I wouldn't be the least bit unhappy if other people looked up to us as an exemplar. I am accordingly, the sort of person who believes that, if we treat our partners in the international community with respect, we can win them over, if not entirely in our favour, at least to a mutually acceptable extent.

And, I guess, that's where I part company with UKIP. They believe in spending money on ships and guns, whilst I want to invest in poverty reduction across the globe and the building and strengthening of international institutions - out of interest, what are those aircraft carriers for, exactly, if you don't believe in interfering in foreign wars? I happen to think that investing in peace is, in the long run, cheaper than preparing for war.

They believe that the United Kingdom can go it alone in the world and, whilst I can't deny that it is true, I also believe that we are better off engaged in the debate about continent-wide standards that makes it easier to sell into our major markets and likely to extract better trading terms with other nations as part of a powerful trading block. These things have the potential to make us wealthier than we might otherwise be.

These are disagreements, based on our differing philosophies, and whilst I believe that my view offers better prospects than that of UKIP, they have the right to believe that the reverse is true. That, after all, is the essence of politics.

But where I fundamentally object is the claim by some UKIP supporters, seemingly inspired by America's 'Tea Party' contingent, that they want to take back their country. Given their views, I can only infer that theirs is somewhat different to mine, an exclusionary one where anyone who differs from them is wrong or bad. Funnily enough, it isn't their country and it isn't mine either, it's ours - mine, theirs and everyone else's. And that's how I demonstrate my love of country...

* If you're Scots, Northern Irish or Welsh, or identify as British, feel free to remove the reference to Englishman and replace as you see fit.