A public information announcement for 'Liberal Bureaucracy' readers

Alright, so the whole things is redolent of a convention of crack whores but... yes, it's time once again for the 'Total Politics' Best Blogs Poll, where a bunch of desperately sad people, craving recognition and stature, prostitute ourselves in search of votes. You'll note that use of the word 'ourselves' there...

However, I'm not actually going to ask for your vote this year, although if you have already voted and included me in your top ten, you are most kind and the cheque will be in the post shortly. If you haven't voted, and were thinking of doing so, time is running out, as all votes must be received by midnight on 31 July.

There are, apparently, rules, and here they are, courtesy of 'Total Politics' Chief Blackboard Monitor, Iain Dale...

1. You must vote for your ten favourite blogs and ranks them from 1 (your favourite) to 10 (your tenth favourite).
2. Your votes must be ranked from 1 to 10. Any votes which do not have rankings will not be counted.
3. You MUST include ten blogs. If you include fewer than ten your vote will not count.
4. Email your vote to toptenblogs@totalpolitics.com
5. Only vote once.
6. Only blogs based in the UK, run by UK residents or based on UK politics are eligible.
7. Anonymous votes left in the comments will not count. You must give a name.
8. All votes must be received by midnight on 31 July 2009. Any votes received after that date will not count.

The problem with this list, as with so many such efforts, is that it is entirely dependent on the nature of the 'selectorate'. Given that the organiser is a Conservative, and most of his readers are Conservatives, the outcome is inevitably weighted towards those of a bluish hue.

I'd be intrigued to see what difference limiting such a poll to just Liberal Democrats would make. Perhaps Liberal Democrat Voice might like to take up such a challenge?

Ploughing the fields of Bihar

My father tells me that the monsoon has been somewhat erratic in India this year, although Mumbai appears to have returned to its usual state for July - wet, with occasional periods of extreme wetness.

However, not everywhere has been that fortunate. Bihar, one of the states on the east coast, renown for its poverty, remains dry. So, farmers there have decided to decided to shame the gods into bringing rain by sending their unmarried daughters to plough the fields naked.

Apparently, this is thought to be the most trusted social custom in the area, although I'm not convinced the daughters remain enthusiastic...

Beyond the reach of the LGA...

I had vaguely assumed that Parish Councils fell within the auspices of the Local Government Association. A fine body of men and women, I've attended a couple of events in my capacity as Presidential consort and been, I have to admit, pretty impressed.

Unfortunately, they only cover Districts, Counties, Boroughs and Unitaries. Parish and Town Councils are covered by the National Association of Local Councils, a rather more cosy grouping. However, it is a group which does have a degree of clout, given that most parish and town councils are members, and that they cover virtually all of the country, with the exception of big cities (London is still completely unparished).

It operates through a network of county associations, and I'm keen to find out more about SALC (Suffolk Association of Local Councils). I have a password and access to the members area of the website, and have been reading about the training they provide. It's all very intriguing.

So I'm hoping to re-engage Creeting St Peter with the somewhat larger local government community in the coming months. After all, there's nothing to lose, and everything to gain. I'll probably learn a few things from people who've been Parish Councillors for rather longer than I have, and who knows, the national stage may beckon...

Learning a new trick

I'd always wondered how some of my colleagues were able to post blog entries with bits crossed out. Very clever, I thought, I wish that I could do that.

And now I can, which allows me to do all kinds of fun stuff. For example, I could say that I firmly believe that a particular group of people should be rounded up and flogged to within an inch of their sorry lives given a jolly good talking to over a nice cup of tea, and you would know exactly what I mean.

Isn't technology marvellous, possums?

An object lesson in not answering the question

Michael Roberts, of the Association of Train Operating Companies, was on Radio 4's 'Today', being interviewed in response to the Transport Select Committee's report on rail franchises. It was a curiously unsatisfying effort on his part, matched only by the inability of the interviewer, Sarah Montague, to actually pin him down on anything.

I'm fairly reliant on National Express. In Suffolk, they run all of the trains - the only station served by anyone else is Brandon, on the Norwich to Ely/Cambridge line. They also run the long distance coach network (Stowmarket is on the Southend to Liverpool route). My only alternative would be to drive, although driving lessons would be a key prerequisite before I could do so.

So I want to be confident that they aren't going to abuse their monopoly position by ripping me off. I'm also concerned that, given what happened on the East Coast Main Line, they might decide to walk away. Let's see what Michael had to say...

On whether passengers are getting a good deal in terms of fares, "Fare rises have been kept within the limits set by government.". That would be a no, I presume. Michael did point out that passenger satisfaction was up, reliability was up, and so was punctuality. Frankly, if my fare goes up by more than inflation, my train should get there on time more often, and it should turn up more often.

That said, they took away the restaurant car, sacked cleaners and reduced the number of customer service staff, claiming that this would improve the service I get. It didn't, and it idn't going to.

It's the sort of answer you'd expect from a politician talking about his expenses...

Oh yes, and franchises. Are any more of them in trouble? "As in the rest of the economy, times are hard.". That would be a yes, a no or a don't know. Rumours that Great Western and South West Trains are thinking of 'handing the keys back' are rife. And if they're taking public money, don't we, as stakeholders, have the right to know?

No, Michael, that was, from a passenger perspective, a shockingly poor performance. I'm sure that your bosses will be pleased though...

Being a Parish Councillor - the Earth isn't trembling at my passing...

Lib Dem Blogs is full of commentary on local issues by local councillors, and I have to admit that I don't read much of it. Most of it is relevant to a particular, geographically-based audience, and as I don't live in any of these places, news of bus routes, of bin-emptying rosters or of the cut and thrust of retail politics. It's often well written, very useful if you're part of that audience, and exactly what I'd hope to find if I was a voter on their patch.

On the other hand, some of them write entertainingly on non-specific issues - what it's like to be a new councillor, the generalities of life as an elected tribune of the people - and these I find fascinating.

Of course, what all of these people have in common is that they're rather higher in the councillor food chain than I am, as a humble Parish Councillor. They have some real influence, in many cases actual power. It all seems to be terribly serious, and slightly daunting, especially for someone who doesn't really like retail politics. Heavens, I wasn't even elected - we don't really do elections at Parish level, and Creeting St Peter is no exception in that sense.

What this means is the life of a Parish Councillor in a place like Creeting St Peter isn't exciting in a macro-political sense. Political groupings are frowned on, so you don't really have opposition in an organised sense, and most issues are settled upon by consensus. And with a precept of £4,200 - some £22.11 per voter - we're unlikely to have any serious issues regarding waste of taxpayer funds.

So, whilst I intend to continue to blog about my activities as an elected member of the lowest tier of government, I have to issue a minutiae warning - if only because everything we do is at that kind of level...

Trying to be a little better - how do you be a Parish Councillor?

Alright, I've never done this before, and I'd like to do it well. I know that the Local Government Association provides lots of training for 'big' councils, but what is there for the likes of me?

So I've been doing some research. Apparently, the Department for Communities and Local Government provides support to the National Training Strategy for Town and Parish Councils, and this is administered by the National Association of Local Councils. Admittedly, I don't know what that support is, but it does at least exist.

Questions, questions, always questions...

EXCLUSIVE: John Barrett MP to stand down

A good friend of 'Liberal Bureaucracy', John Barrett, the Liberal Democrat MP for Edinburgh West, has announced that he will be standing down at the next election, after nine years of dedicated service to his electors.

Here, in his own words, he explains the background to his decision. I have to admit to a touch of regret at the news, as he's one of the nicest guys I know, and a bloody good MP too. However, he's made a decision that is good for him, good for his family, and perhaps he reminds us that MPs are human too.

Party President, Ros Scott, said, "I'm very sorry to learn of John's decision to stand down as the MP for Edinburgh West. His majority of 13,600 is a testament not only to his superb campaigning skills, but also to his dedication to the role of constituency MP. Personally and professionally, John embodies the notion of public service, and will be missed in the Commons and by his many friends in Westminster generally.".

Searching behind the sofa cushions won't balance the books... time for a little intolerance, perhaps?

Amongst Liberal Democrats, the debate about where to cut, and where to invest, is a knotty one. Social liberals take the stance that now is an opportunity to invest, as a means of driving economic growth and repairing sorely neglected public infrastructure. Economic liberals see this as an opportunity to withdraw the state from significant areas of activity.

And yet, I find myself torn. I'm a small state kind of person, who believes that government is there to enable, to hold the ring if you like, balancing the tensions of the market and the public interest (whatever that is). Ironic really, given who I work for, but there you go. I believe in sound money, public accountability and that sense that we, as a society, should look out for those less able to look out for themselves. Yes, it's kind of contradictory, but then nobody ever said that being a liberal was easy.

However, all that said, the current budget crisis offers a genuine opportunity to return to basics in terms of what we want our Government to do and why. Not about more versus less, or public versus private, because that's more about delivery than about the fundamentals. No, I mean the question of what you want to do as a community, what you want to leave to the market and what you should reasonably expect of individuals.

We have, as a society, become increasingly of the view that government, at whatever level, should be responsible. For example, we expect our local council to keep the streets clean, so they employ roadsweepers, funny little machines that sweep the gutters, or drive on the pavements vacuuming up litter, or men with steam jets to remove chewing gum. They remove graffiti, flyposted gig posters, little postcards offering the services of unfeasibly attractive women, that kind of thing. And we pay for them.

The fact that we pay for the service seems to have the effect of encouraging a belief that, having paid for that service, we might as well take advantage of it. So we litter, drop chewing gum, generally abuse our environment, and think little of it. No, not quite. We moan about the terrible burden of council tax, and the utter inefficiency of our local council. So what if we took our litter home, punished graffiti artists, and educated our children to learn from our folly? Why, we would reduce the number of people needed to clean our streets and buildings and cut the cost of government.

Call it a compact if you like. I, the citizen, agree to behave in a sensible fashion, take an interest in my community. In return, I expect the government to punish those that transgress, and punish them in such a way that doesn't burden me overly. How about restorative justice, for example? Don't imprison them - fine them, or get them to repair the damage they have done. And not just a token fine, a fine that reflects the true cost of the damage they have done. If that means they end up paying over twenty years, so be it, it will be a salutary lesson to them, and to anyone else who thinks that burdening me with clearing up behind them is a good thing.

The libertarian in me takes the view that, if people are genuinely to bear the consequences of their actions, the penalties should be transparent and honest. Now I know what you're thinking. Life is more complex than that. There are interrelationships to consider. The problem is, we allow that to override what should be a sense of anger.

This Government takes the view that, in order to solve the problem of anti-social behaviour, increasingly precise legislation is necessary (the aim is precise, rather than the legislation itself, in my experience). The impact of that legislation needs to be measured, breeding a cadre of people whose job it is to count things, rather than do anything about them. Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition believe that problems of anti-social behaviour are best solved by imprisoning everyone under the age of eighteen (alright, I exaggerate a bit there, but you get the drift...).

This leaves a bit of a gap for us to exploit, if we're up for it. Enough of the wet liberalism. The public don't like it, and we just look weak if we talk about social deprivation and the ineffectual nature of imprisonment. Let's talk about economic restitution, about cutting the cost of government, the kind of things that are thoroughly liberal, resonate with the public and, as a handy side effect, will be electorally popular.

Curiously, I suspect that thinking like this will cause me to be associated with the 'Liberal Vision' tendancy within Liberal Democrat circles. Ironic really, given that I seem to find myself on the opposite side to them on most issues. However, they specialise in allowing people to do things. In this instance, I want to give a community the opportunity to do something. Call me a reactionary if you like, but...

Today Creeting St Peter, tomorrow Greater Stowmarket, next week...

Here in the Democratic People's Republic of Creeting St Peter, we have tended to the view that, whilst the outside world is very nice, it is best left to its own devices. Unfortunately, the outside world feels differently.

As part of the strategy of creating Community Boards, Creeting St Peter has been grouped together with Stowmarket (population 20,000) and Stowupland (population 2,500). Our still, small voice is, by comparison, rather lost in the crowd. However, our now former Chair of the Parish Council did attend and, following his resignation, a replacement was needed. That would be me then.

So, the steep learning curve gets a little steeper... That said, if we do get unitary authorities, the Community Board will have money, power and... Let's just say that I'm going to have to pay some serious attention...

Answers on a postcard, please?

Alright, I'm flummoxed. What does this Standing Order mean?

61. The Clerk shall make known the purpose of this Standing Order to every candidate.

I am confused...

On being eaten by bureaucracy

An interesting spin on self-cannabalism, one might think. There I am, a bureaucrat to my fingertips, in a mini-flap over a set of rules. The problem is, put simply, I have to read them. And what are these rules, you ask? The Standing Orders for Creeting St Peter Parish Council.

Alright, we're not a vast organisation, with a staff that runs to a part-time Parish Clerk, and responsibility for... not very much actually. The Standing Orders run to eighty, yes eighty, clauses and fourteen pages, with references to European Union Public Sector Procurement Rules (damn, there goes the opportunity to get my kid brother to put in the best tender for the new High Speed Rail Link from Creeting St Peter to Westminster...), the Standards Board for England (heavens, do they have jurisdiction this far down?) and to a Code of Conduct that, I hate to admit, I actually haven't seen.

Now don't get me wrong, it's not that I'm opposed to such things, but it does seem rather sad that we should have to have them. But the Standing Orders aren't the only document that, as a newbie Parish Councillor, I need to be aware of.

We also have Financial Regulations, ten pages of them. There are references to the Audit Commission Act 1998, the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 and the VAT Act 1994, and references to contracts in excess of £50,000 (twelve years of precept income at current levels).

And last, but not least, we have financial risk assessment and management. It seems that there is a high risk of illegal activity or payment, if only because none of the councillors have been properly educated as to our legal powers. That's possibly true, as I was rather hoping to learn as I go along. Apparently, there are also concerns about the adequacy of the precept. Again, I'm not yet in a position to comment, as I still don't have a true grasp of what we, as a parish Council, actually do. Mind you, given that only one of the councillors stood for election in 2007, and the other three have been co-opted since then, it would be a fairly steep learning curve...

It's enough to make you wonder if I didn't make a mistake in volunteering in the first place...

Cincinnati is unwell...

One fears the inevitable as cats get older. They slow down, they become impossible to insure - you try insuring a cat over the age of 12 - and, eventually, they die. Given that my five cats were born in 1991. 1992 and 1993, my luck had been pretty good. Victoria was the first to go last year, as cancer finally caused her to succumb. Franklin suffered a stroke and Eleanor fell to renal failure, all of them last year.

That leaves me with Cincinnati, a big orange and white bruiser with a heart of gold and a purr which would melt the resistance of even the most inveterate cat-hater, and Katherine, a rather neurotic calico who, in recent months has blossomed into something of a people person. The two don't interact much, but they are rather good company, and I like to take time out to sit, with a cat on my lap, reading, or drinking beer, or catching up on the events of the day with Ros.

However, such reverie was disturbed by a call from Suffolk. Cincinnati is unwell, was the message. On returning to the house, Cincinnati was lying on the bed in the spare room, and purred quietly when I stroked him. Overnight observation led me to conclude that he's not in great shape, a bit wobbly on his hind legs, and rather too keen on lying curled up on the bed for my taste.

Oh well, to the vet on Saturday in the cat carrier of doom. I fear the worst...

8.45 a.m., Needham Market Station...

The sun is warm, the view from the platform over towards Needham Lakes is green and lush. Behind the platform, a fieldmouse is searching for berries and the air is filled with birdsong.

How's your commute going?

Yesterday(ish - still) in (and around) the Lords: Harry Potter and the Select Committee of Doom

Life in the modern House of Lords (alright, this might be a bit of an oxymoron, but stick with me...) isn't all about trying to improve badly drafted attempts by the Government to make us all criminals. Sometimes, the Lords interact with the community, and yesterday the Lords Select Committee on Communications were meeting with the cast and crew of the next Harry Potter movie as part of their review of the state of the British film industry. Apparently, any leak of information is punishable by death, but my sources tell me that the stars aren't as tall as they look on screen...

Meanwhile, in the Chamber, it was back to the Parliamentary Standards Bill, and the second day of its Committee Stage. As the Government hedge, trim, amend and backtrack like some demented and slightly haphazard barber, it becomes increasingly difficult to establish what the Bill says at any given moment. Think of it as a memory test for a group of aging lawyers...

Clause 8 introduces a new offence for MPs committing expenses fraud, and a number of Peers noted their concern that an act already covered by anti-fraud legislation elsewhere should now be addressed by legislation offering different, and more importantly less stringent, maximum terms of imprisonment. Unfortunately, the irony of this is completely lost on the Government, and they seem determined to push it through. Indeed, Standing Orders have been suspended so as to allow the Report Stage and the Third Reading to take place on the same day, and allow amendments at Third Reading One suspects that Monday will be a long day...

What Ifs: what if Lembit had met the Labeque sisters instead of the Cheeky Girls?

Ah well, one can only dream...

A night at the Royal Albert Hall

I am something of a classical music lover. Educated at a North London comprehensive which had yet to address its demotion from grammar school status, we had the benefits of a somewhat elitist education without our parents having to pay for it.

A love of music was one of the by-products (another was a deep suspicion of certainty, but that's another story...). And so an invitation to attend the First Night of the Proms was too good an opportunity to give up. Whilst orchestral music is not uppermost on my hit list - I have a weakness for chamber music and keyboard works - how could you miss such a gig?

Of course, our hosts, the BBC, threw a reception first, attended by the great and the good (and me). Those of you who follow Stephen Fry will know that he was there, and there was a touch of celebrity spotting to be done.

For me, the highlights were the Labeque sisters playing Poulenc's Concerto for Two Pianos - absolutely amazing - and Brahms' Rhapsody (Opus 53), which reminded me exactly why I am so fond of his works.

On the other hand, I still don't feel that I would cross the street to listen to Tchaikovsky's 3rd Piano Concerto...

Yesterday(ish) in the Lords: a by-election and a never ending sentence

Yesterday saw the announcement of the result of that rare creature, a by-election in the Lords. In the event of the death of a hereditary peer, an election is held to fill the vacancy, the electorate being those Peers sitting on the same benches. In this instance, twenty-seven hereditary crossbenchers voted to fill the vacancy arising from the death of Viscount Bledisloe on 12 May. The result, the election of Lord Aberdare, whose father's death had caused an earlier by-election.

In the Chamber, it was Day 8 of the Committee Stage of the Coroners and Justice Bill, with the proposed new Sentencing Council for England and Wales front and centre (readers in Scotland and Northern Ireland might wish to make a cup of tea at this point). With the one consolation that the Council would include a number of lay experts, debate centred on its composition, with Conservatives seeking to double the number of lay justices, and Liberal Democrats wishing to include, potentially, a member with an expertise in rehabilitation of offenders. The latter proposal was accepted by the Government, so applause is due for Lord Dholakia, for it was his amendment.

A brief debate followed on an amendment put forward by Lord Ramsbotham, calling for sentencing guidelines to specify whether or not an offender will be capable of voting in parliamentary or local government elections during their detention. As Lord Lester of Herne Hill put it from the Liberal Democrat benches, it didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted, and in the absence of support from the Conservative benches, it was withdrawn.

My question of the day?

"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they carried out research into the impact of taxi metering on the provision of service to rural communities."

According to Lord Adonis, they haven't...

The day before yesterday in the Lords - the steady drip, drip, drip of concession

I had intended to post this yesterday but, having read Hansard, I rather lost the will to live. Indeed, Tuesday was one of those days when much is said, but little is apparently achieved.

That said, the first day of the Committee Stage of the Parliamentary Standards Bill demonstrated that this is an astonishingly poorly drafted piece of legislation, with much of the debate intended to probe into the actual meaning of the language used, and the Government conceding that much redrafting will be needed. Baroness Hamwee and Lord Shutt of Greetland prodded and poked the Government, the Earl of Onslow, from the Conservative benches, went for ridicule, sugesting that parts of the debate reminded him of "I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue". Indeed, he suggested that the Woolsack be rechristened as Mornington Crescent.

The ever sartorial-elegant Earl had already made a plea on behalf of the House of Commons that Peers stand up for the rights of their colleagues in another place, noting how low morale had fallen there.

Debate resumes today, so we'll see how the Government manages an ever more complex redrafting task...

Liberal Vision - missing the point on Government advertising

£179.7 million, spent by the Government on advertising. Obviously, classical liberals see this as an outrage - taxpayers having to foot the bill for Government propaganda.

Actually, classical liberals believe that people should have access to the information that allows them to take control of their lives. Libertarians believe that government should be minimalist and, for the most part, non-intrusive. Nothing wrong with either stance, the latter taking a stronger line in terms of personal responsibility, but perhaps less mindful of the needs of those less well-equipped to take care of themselves.

Most Government advertising is designed to impart information, about changes in tax law, for example, or new entitlements such as the Child Trust Fund. You might not like the legislation, and in many cases, most liberals have doubts, but the idea that the public should not be told hardly strikes me as a liberal one.

Now I am hardly stupid enough to claim that the whole £179.7 million is spent effectively - anyone who knows how media buying works will tell you that you can only use the available data and personal experience gleaned over time to make the best call on the use of spend - but to describe it as 'propaganda' is lazy and, to be blunt, misleading.

I'll offer up an example of a recent advertising campaign that, to my mind, is reasonable, justified and not propaganda. There are plenty that I could offer, but I'll settle for this one. The penalty regime for limited companies has recently been toughened up, and the points at which penalties are levied have been brought forward.

So, Companies House ran a poster campaign warning people that they were doing so. There are now millions of company directors in this country, following Government efforts to encourage enterprise. Many of them are one-man operations, and could well do without having to pay such penalties. Warning them encourages them to comply with the requirements of company law - good for the consumer, good for honest traders - and makes it less likely that they will be penalised.

Of course, it could be argued that the guidance notes provide with company returns could be used to impart this information. Unfortunately, in my experience, people seldom read the guidance notes, and then are deeply unhappy when the result of their oversight is explained to them. Therefore, a range of communication tools, including advertising, works.

Liberal Vision like to claim that they are the true champions of classical liberalism, implying that the rest of us aren't sufficiently liberal. In this instance, they demonstrate that they are the champions of classical knee-jerk reactionism, and I'm delighted to differ from them in this instance.