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...