Scottish Independence: what are the chances of an honest debate?

It's an awfully long way from mid-Suffolk to the Scottish border, about five and a half hours by train, but as the son of a Scot, I take a passing intellectual interest in the debate that so dominates all political discussion up there.

So, let me nail my colours to the mast. If the Scottish people, however defined, decide that their desire for freedom is such that it can only be exercised through an independent state, it is not for the rest of us to say that they can't.

However, there is a catch. A free nation is also a community of informed citizens, called upon to make decisions on the basis of rather tricky things called 'facts'. And, rather disappointingly, I'm not entirely convinced that facts are going to be a core part of the debate.

You see, freedom costs. Oh yes, the alternatives aren't cost-free either, but there is a price to be paid. Often, where people seek independence, there is a cost in blood and treasure but, at least in this instance, blood is unlikely to be spilt. But there will be financial implications, and the pro-independence campaigners seem keen to avoid that issue thus far.

In strategic terms, that's probably quite sensible, as the issue is fearsomely complex. Which currency will an independent Scotland adopt? The Euro? The Pound? Will it go it alone? The first two options mean a pooling of sovereignty, the first through Brussels - and wildly popular that's proving to be, isn't it? - the second through London - you are kidding, aren't you? The third option leaves the new nation more vulnerable to the currency markets than most, but does offer the broadest range of monetary and fiscal tools. Each option comes with risks, each needs to be properly assessed.

International relationships are important too. Yes, Scotland would get a seat in the United Nations, but would have to apply for a place in the European Union. In the meantime, vast swathes of European Union legislation, directives and regulatory frameworks would be effectively imposed by fax from Brussels - ask the Norwegians what that means - hardly the independence that is supposedly on offer. In the modern era, sovereignty is increasingly pooled, be it within a federal state, or (whisper it quietly) a federal union. Independence is not necessarily what one thinks it is any more.

Finally, the terms of a 'divorce settlement'. I was interested to hear Angus Robertson, the SNP's Parliamentary Leader at Westminster, claiming that it was unfair that Scotland was not getting its fair share of UK defence spending. He ought to be more wary about arguments like that, especially as Scotland is perceived to have benefited from some quite generous provision in other areas, including disproportionate levels of public sector employment.

But if there is a separation, there will be a slice of the national debt to be agreed, and then serviced, there will be assets to be divided up, contracts to be honoured. The definition of a fair division will be a very difficult one - who gets the debt relating to bailing out the Royal Bank of Scotland and Bank of Scotland, for example.

It will undoubtedly be a tough negotiation, with both parties keen to get the best deal possible for their people, but amongst the range of possibilities are some pretty grim ones for Scots - potentially huge deficits in the short term, likely austerity in any event. There are rosier scenarios but, in the context of the current state of the United Kingdom economy, rosy is merely a paler shade of grey.

The real debate is a complex one, and the question is not just, "Do you want to be free?", but, "How much are you willing to sacrifice for it?".

And that's a question that the rest of us need to give some thought to as well. What deal are we, the English, the Welsh and the (Northern) Irish, willing to countenance? As pro-Union political parties, we have to be rather more upfront about the answer, and rather more transparent about the data.

The Scottish people deserve the very best that politicians on either side of the debate can offer, in terms of rhetoric and in terms of integrity. Whilst making an unwise call in terms of a vote for independence, if unwise it turns out to be, has an obvious, visible cost, remaining in a Union which holds Scotland back, if it does, will be a hidden burden on a proud people.

And let the Scots decide!

You want an owl? I'm your man... as long as it isn't in the nature reserve

It was a short meeting of the Parish Council on Tuesday evening, as much because neither Steve, our Chair, Rosemary, our Parish Clerk, or I were 100%, but also because much of our business had already been dealt with at the Annual Parish Meeting just a week before. Indeed, most of our discussions were about the newer parts of our empire, the Nature Reserve, the small piece of woodland and our playground.

However, at the end of the meeting, when talking about wildlife, it was decided that we should have a 'point man' for non-nature reserve related wildlife, and that this someone should be me. It is perhaps a sign of how off-colour I was that I'm not entirely sure what it is I have taken on. Luckily, I happen to have a Pocket Guide to the Wildlife of Britain so, if you happen to see me peering at various things in a rather vague way, you'll know that I'm doing my job...

Things you might not expect to receive in the post #327...

My attention has been brought to a rather unusual parcel delivered to the headquarters of the Conservative Party of Canada.

On Monday, Canada Post arrived at their office and delivered, amongst other things, a white box with a red heart on it. Addressed simply to 'The Conservative Party of Canada', it was handed to an employee to be opened, who was somewhat alarmed to find blood inside. But that wasn't all that was found.

The police were called, and a biohazard team took the box to be x-rayed, only to discover that it appeared to contain a severed human foot, later confirmed as such by the local coroner.

Across town, at the Ottawa sorting office, another parcel, not addressed to the Conservative Party of Canada, was discovered to contain a severed human hand, although a link between the two body parts has yet to be established.

However, the Canadian authorities are on the case. The major crimes unit is handling the investigation of the foot because now "there's a body without one," as Ottawa Police Staff Sgt. Bruce Pirt told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

Creeting St Peter: doing more, doing it better...

It has been nearly three years since I became a Parish Councillor and, it must be said, much has happened since then.

What was a rather small, insignificant piece of the architecture of local government in one of England's quieter counties, responsible for grass cutting and nine street lights, has rather expanded.

Last year, we absorbed the Community Council, inheriting its project to provide a new playground, as well as the funds raised, and set to work securing the site. Meanwhile, we discovered that we owned a small piece of woodland called 'Plot 89' next to the A14. Finally, following the County Council's divestment of Local Nature Reserves, we successfully bid to take over Fen Alder Carr, on the edge of the Parish, extorting £5,000 from the County for its upkeep in future years.

So, for the time being, we find ourselves with £20,000 in the bank, and an awful lot more responsibility.

And with that comes a need for a more professional approach towards our work as councillors. As portfolio holder for finance, I now have to balance two earmarked funds, income from our village lottery and a precept up 13% from last year, ensuring that we have enough money to maintain our new facilities, whilst keeping the precept within reasonable levels. It isn't always easy, especially given that being a Parish Councillor is only one of my many responsibilities.

So, we have risk analysis, financial management guidance, internal and external auditors, and all the paraphernalia of proper fiscal discipline. Occasionally, it does feel like 'awfully hard work', but nonetheless it gives the impression of responsible governance.

We are, unexpectedly, rather bigger and rather more active, than I might have expected when I was first co-opted to the Council in 2009. And yet, this organic growth has made us rather more relevant and involved in the life of our village, our Parish and our community. And that can't be a bad thing, can it?

Reforming the EHRC: is the Coalition going about this the right way?

My Liberal Democrat Voice colleague, Caron Lindsay, has recently written about the proposed reform of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). Given that I am one of those people who theoretically should benefit from its work, perhaps I ought to put some thoughts out there.

Let's start with the negatives. The EHRC was hobbled from its outset by Labour's insistence on packing its leadership with Labour hacks, who saw their role as a political one. It also suffered from appalling financial management and a sense of mission creep. It was symptomatic of an administration which thought that bigger was necessarily better. Sadly, they were wrong.

There is a serious problem with the quango state. Broadly unaccountable, the leadership of quangos reflects the nature of the people who put them there. And, because they have contracts, when a new government comes in, the scope for conflict is obvious. That isn't a party political point, far from it - in the event that the Labour Party win a future General Election, they will encounter a well-entrenched 'quangocracy' packed with Conservative and Liberal Democrat appointees.

By politicising the delivery of Government functions - as opposed to the strategy - you incentivise 'empire building' and mission creep, and you generate internal opposition to the government of the day. If you are a supporter of the Opposition, you are hardly likely to willingly accept the Government's policy stance, indeed, the temptation to oppose a potentially unpopular administration is strong. So, an obvious first lesson is "don't politicise your bureaucracy".

Secondly, poor financial management is exactly that. However, that in itself doesn't justify radical change in the role and function of an organisation, it justifies finding those responsible, and call me quirky and old-fashioned here, holding them to account. That may mean, whisper it gently, punishing the guilty.

Finally, the sheer scale and scope of the EHRC meant that it tended to focus on those aspects of its brief which were of greatest interest to those who led it. Most of those in the sector tend to be campaigners against a particular brand of discrimination, rather than discrimination in its broadest sense. That isn't a criticism - very few of us are political generalists - but it inevitably impacts on the work of the EHRC. If human rights are about managing competing demands, and I would suggest that they are to some extent, any subconscious leaning towards one group or another endangers the rights of others.

So, what is the EHRC for, or, better still, what might be its role?

I agree that responsibility for impact assessments should be taken away from the EHRC and taken back into 'proper government', perhaps into the Cabinet Office. To be blunt, the notion that the EHRC is truly independent is hard to take seriously. The fact that there are a plethora of campaigning bodies shining a light on government policy and its impacts reflects a broadly held view that the EHRC is, in itself, insufficient to hold government to account.

And yes, a fundamental change in the way that government makes policy needs to come at the same time. By having a proper debate, and having real, public consultation before introducing changes, the public and, in particular, affected parties, can raise all of the salient issues, and government can respond to them as appropriate. That might not mean that there are not losers from any changes, but at least the issues are in the open.

I do see a role for the EHRC in helping organisations to operate in a non-discriminatory way, highlighting potential issues, providing guidance on specific topics and, if necessary, taking action to enforce anti-discrimination legislation. It also should provide support to individuals and groups seeking to act against discrimination, informing them of their rights, and of channels through which to confront those who discriminate.

It is very easy to talk about major reform of organisations, much harder to talk about what such reform is intended to achieve. In a political culture where being seen to be busy appears more important than outcomes, I want to see more information about what the future form and function of the EHRC will be before I get horribly excited. 

Another gentle day in the Suffolk countryside...

As I occasionally note, I tend to learn new things on a regular basis now that I am a country dweller full time. And today, it's all been about birds.

Firstly, I have been reminded that, if you leave an opportunity for our feathered friends, they will take it. I was somewhat surprised by a close range blur from an unexpected quarter. On closer inspection, a hole in a porch (not ours, I hasten to add) has been colonised by starlings, or 'feathered rats', as Richard, our builder refers to them. And, it seems, they're pretty noisy. It just shows that you really do need to keep an eye on a house, especially out here in the country.

With the weather having been relatively benign today, Ros has been in the garden, whilst I've been pottering about. And there's been a lot of birdsong, some of it remarkably loud. We noticed that a blackbird had been disappearing behind our oil tank and, curious, I took a closer look, only to find a fledgling on the ground, crying loudly.

Alright, I thought, I ought to do something. But what? I asked Ros, whose advice was to try entering "What do you do with a fledgling?" into Google. So, I did. And, for those of you who are confronted with such a problem, here's the official answer;

Young garden birds usually leave the nest about two weeks after hatching - just before they can fly. If you find a young bird out of its nest, it is probably a fledgling. Fledglings are almost fully feathered, able to walk, run and hop on to low branches, and will try to hide in undergrowth where they are fed by their parents. Parent birds are not usually far away and are probably collecting food but will not return until you have gone. Within a day of leaving the nest, fledglings can usually fly enough to keep up with their parents and escape predators.

Only move them, or encourage them to move, a short distance to safety if they are in immediate danger. If you have picked up a fledgling, put it back as near as possible to the place you found it. Don't try to return a fledgling to its nest as you may disturb other young birds. If you are concerned about its safety try to put it nearby on a ledge, or somewhere it will be out of the reach of cats. Monitor the situation from afar (otherwise your presence may continue to discourage the return of the parents) for at least two hours. You will almost certainly find that the parents have taken care of their youngster.

 So, I've left it alone. Only time will tell, I suppose...

It's raining, it's grey... but I'm really pleased that we came.

It is a wet, drab day in Yerevan, which is a pity, for our formal business is over and we have a day off to enjoy the city. But we've been for a walk anyway, passing the National Assembly building, the Cascade, which houses a rather impressive museum and some interesting sculpture, and Opera Square, with its surrounding parkland filled with cafes and bars.

Our fellow delegates, many of whom had visited Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia, before coming on to Yerevan, have been a mite dismissive about Armenia, but Ros and I are rather smitten by Yerevan. One doesn't want to patronise, but this is a plucky country, with friendly people, and a sense of ambition and pride. Yes, there's not a lot of money around, and the neighbourhood is a tough one, but given a chance, Armenians could make a genuine go of it.

Republic Square is the heart of the city, surrounded by vast, imposing arcs of buildings, one of which is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and another the Marriott Hotel, with a nice cafe restaurant outside (not cheap, mind you). But in the evening, the square comes into its own, with the musical fountain and light show. Yerevan is big on water and fountains.

I will confess that I probably would never have come here unless ELDR had decided to hold a meeting here, but I'm also delighted that I came. Indeed, Ros and I are talking about coming back to the region at some point.

Labour Party joins European liberal family!

Good heavens, no, not that Labour Party, but the Darbo Partija of Lithuania, who are currently leading in opinion polls there.

When asked why they had taken the name 'Labour Party', their representative noted that they were a party for all who worked. This is in itself, an interesting twist, as it begs a question, i.e. since when was the Labour Party back home representative of the working class, given how few such people now represent it in Parliament?

So, one out in Lithuania, and one in...

ELDR: I am not alone

The rest of the delegation have arrived in the nick of time, having set off this morning. Apparently, the roads between Tbilisi and here aren't great...

Meanwhile, in their absence, I've been holding the fort at the Resolution Working Group meeting, speaking against a common consolidated corporate tax base for a EU (rejected by the group) and in support of the rights of the Turkish Cypriot community in Cyprus with reference to trade access (accepted).

But Council is about to open...

Some of our delegation are missing...

Alright, I'm here in Yerevan, I've made it to the venue for ELDR Council, and I'm in the resolution working group meeting. So far, so good.

There is a catch though... where is the rest of my delegation? They were supposed to be travelling overnight from Tbilisi by coach, but haven't arrived yet. I am led to understand that, whilst the Caucusus was well known for banditry once upon a time, this shouldn't present any problem...

Conservatives - wasting your money in Suffolk Circle

Liberal Democrats have been looking at the first year's progress of the Suffolk County Council funded social enterprise 'Suffolk Circle', and are not impressed.

Last year, the Conservatives handed over £680,000, without consultation by SCC's Cabinet to this 'pay for friendship' group, in the midst of some pretty painful cuts to local services.

And, after a year of operation, and expenditure of £350,000, it has managed to attract 362 members - all of whom pay to be members and pay for most of their activities - including getting 'help' from 'good neighbours' at twice the price of minimum wage. That represents nearly £1,000 per head, despite the fact that there are existing 'good neighbour' schemes across the county offering help already.

Interestingly, Suffolk Circle is modelled on a scheme operating already in Southwark, my old stomping ground in South London, a place where community ties are often much weaker, and it is hard to imagine how a scheme that might well work there (I don't know what impact it has had) might be successful in a place different in almost every sense.

It can't help though that the original business model, which required charging users between £30 and £75 per quarter, was quickly scrapped, and users are now charged £30 per annum, thus wiping out at least 75% of the estimated income. It is hard to envisage how such a business plan could be sustainable, but the Conservatives are already committed to pouring another £330,000 of our money down the drain.

Luckily, Liberal Democrat county councillors can count, even if Conservative Cabinet members don't (or possibly can't). As John Field put it;

The organisation appears to be duplicating, at a high cost, much of the work already being done far more economically by local charities and organisations to promote social networks in the elderly.

The Suffolk Circle has already failed to meet its membership targets in the first year, and with the reduction in membership fees, it's difficult to see exactly how this organisation will be sustainable by the fourth year of operation.

Caroline Page notes that this is another example of the concentration of power and authority in the hands of a small part of the Conservative Group;

This dubious project is a prime example of how Suffolk County Council's undemocratic Cabinet system is failing the taxpayer.  It has allowed a few councillors to make an effectively unilateral decision that is costing council tax-payers of Suffolk the best part of a million pounds. And without providing any provable benefit to the vulnerable elderly of Suffolk it was supposedly set up to help. Yet the frail elderly need all the help they can get. When money is so tight this is a disgraceful example of putting the ideology of private enterprise above the common sense of making limited resources stretch as far as possible.

I expect to quiz my County Councillor on this point next week, if he can be bothered to turn up. I don't expect him to have any answers other than those subsequently given to him by someone like Colin Noble, and if he is merely there to regurgitate the ill-conceived views of the Cabinet, what point is there in voting for him?

And the Gipping gently flows...

With the recent wet weather, the once parched landscape has become alive with the sound of flowing water, a reminder that this part of Suffolk is not as flat as one might think. Hopefully, the rain will ease a bit, but the importance of keeping drainage ditches clear of obstruction has been emphasised in case anyone has forgotten.

Creeting St Peter has not gone unaffected. The road to Creeting St Mary flooded just beyond the small bridge that links the parishes, and the drainage ditch that runs along Creeting Lane as it winds its way towards the A1120 and Stowupland burst its banks, causing a river effect. And even Mill Lane was tricky to drive down due to surface water. But the village itself is on a rise, probably a throwback to the plague - villages tended to relocate uphill from the churchyard where victims were buried, I understand - and is pretty much unaffected.

Ros and I have taken to walking up Creeting Lane of an evening, as much to stretch our legs as to go anywhere in particular. The sounds of birdsong, the flowers on the verges, the occasional sighting of an owl, all serve to remind us that living in the country is a counterpoint to our rather more hectic lives elsewhere. It's gentle, in an undemanding sort of way.

But it's time to head back into the more pressurised world of politics for a while. Ros is on her way back to Parliament - it's Queen's Speech day today - whilst I'll be on my way to London later, en route to Yerevan, Armenia (Ros is coming too).

And I really must pay more attention to what's going on - there's a lot on the agenda in the coming weeks...

ELDR: Rene Magritte would have approved...

I'm back from my foray to the capital of Europe, laden down with good things for other people. And, before you ask, it was nice to be back in a city I know better than most.

I am better informed than I was when I set off on Thursday, in that I now know what ELDR's Financial Advisory Committee is for, and better still, that this is a committee designed for a faceless bureaucrat. How things work, how the numbers stack up, these are issues that I can cope with, and contribute too.

So, what does this newly reconstituted pillar of European liberal organisational architecture do? Our role is to look at ELDR's finances, ensuring that we adhere to the various rules, regulations and directives, exploring new means of increasing the resources available to the organisation, and examining existing arrangements. And now you understand why a faceless bureaucrat is an entirely reasonable person to represent pan-European verwaltung.

I have already 'made a contribution', initiating some research into a revised model for affiliation fees, and suggesting that the associate membership scheme might benefit from some of the experiences gleaned by Democrats Abroad. And the chocolate was very nice...

Admittedly, ten hours of travelling and an overnight stay, all for a meeting lasting less than ninety minutes, did seem a might ludicrous, maybe even surreal (well done if you now 'get' the title). However, I now know how the Scots feel about attending Federal Executive and the rest of the Party's committees. At least they don't need a passport (yet)...

We next meet in September, when we will be considering the applications for project grant funding from the various member Parties. Given that the available pot of money is €300,000, this could be interesting. Which reminds me, I really need to talk to a few people...

Observing the count... But not that sort of count...

There are no ballot papers, there are no voters, yet I am here in an official capacity. But - and those who know me will expect a 'but' - I'm in Brussels.

To be precise, I'm in "Les Postiers', a bar near the Theatre Royal de la Monnaie, nursing a glass of Rochefort, the trappist beer, rather than the cheese, as the culmination of nearly six months of bemusement approaches.

Readers may recall that I had sought the Party's nomination for a place on the reconstituted Financial Advisory Committee of the European Liberal Democrats (ELDR) during its last Council meeting in Palermo. It is perhaps indicative of the way the Party handles its international affairs, or just possibly a sign of the regard I am held in, that my name was notified to the Secretariat, and then... silence.

Eventually, word came that my name was to go forward, with four others, for consideration by the ELDR Bureau and, by the way, could I let them have a brief resume and a few words on why I wanted to serve. That was surprisingly easy, and I was told that the Bureau would meet in early March to decide. How many vacancies there were was left unsaid, and so I waited.

As it turned out, there were five vacancies, the Bureau never discovered my record of cannabalism, bank robbery and origami, and I was in.

And so, here I am, preparing for our first meeting, tomorrow morning. Except, I'm not sure exactly what I'm preparing for. Yes, I've read the papers - and very nice they are too - and I have my number-crunching head on, so all should be well. It's just that I feel a bit... unsure about the whole thing.

Ah well, only fifteen hours until the moment of truth. Wish me luck!...

Politics and the Media: isn't there something more important than Jeremy Hunt?

Let's see. We've booked David Cameron for the sofa, Andrew Marr is in makeup, so, what shall we have him talk about?

Well, what's happening? The economy is back in recession and there are important local government elections next week, the Leveson Enquiry is still exposing the complicity between government and the Murdoch 'empire', unemployment is far too high, the Eurozone is in trouble (again). So many choices...

I know, let's talk about Jeremy Hunt!

Don't get me wrong, the behaviour of a member of the Cabinet is a serious business, but we're hardly likely to learn anything from an attempted cross-examination of his boss. And whilst anyone who doesn't like this government, or David Cameron, will probably have enjoyed the experience, they won't actually have learned much. Cameron demonstrated that he believes in loyalty - usually a good thing - but perhaps demonstrated a tin ear when it comes to public perception - which he may pay for later.

And yes, late in the interview, there was a brief exchange on the economy, which allowed Cameron to say how much he cares and how hard he, and the Government, are working to turn things around. As if he was going to say anything else...

It reminds me that the political debate in this country is insular and closed. Do the public care much about the fate of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport? Will his fate impact on many people? Is he irreplaceable? The answer to all of these questions is no. Does Jeremy Hunt have an impact on the economy, on inflation, on war and peace? No, not one jot.

And yet, journalists talk to politicians, politicians to journalists, all the while not actually talking to us. No wonder that people feel further and further removed from politics.

At a time when we should all be focussing on how to build a sustainable economy, or how to provide care for an increasing elderly population, the debate is dominated by the fate of one, rather insignificant, politician. So, for pity's sake, have Sir Alex Allan look at it, and let us get on with something important.

Of course, that won't happen in our increasingly personality-driven body politic. Who's up, who's down, who is in and who is out - so much easier than the complex issues of economics or international affairs. The examination of big ideas - what balance to we want to achieve in our economy, what steps should government take to achieve that, how can government fund its activities and what those activities should be, what relationship should we have with our neighbours, our friends, our enemies - is complex, requiring reflection, close examination... and listening to the answers.

But no, we've all tuned in to watch the other guy being skewered by some bloke in a suit, whose job is to make sneering comments, interrupt virtually every answer and generally preen - yes, I'm looking at you, Jon Sopel and Jeremy Paxman - a disease which has even spread as far as local radio. I don't really care what the interviewer thinks, and I don't want him/her to do anything other than ask intelligent questions and allow the interviewee to answer them. Don't let them waffle, but do allow them to develop an argument. And if you won't, don't be surprised when politicians respond in meaningless, glib soundbites. After all, that's all that you've allowed them...

But then, as the public don't appear to care either, perhaps we have the politics that we deserve...

Nature conservation, the Creeting St Peter way

On my way back into the village the other day, I noticed that a couple of traffic cones had been placed a little way off the grass verge opposite Peterhouse (a row of, presumably, former council houses) in the village. Ever the alert parish councillor, as I approached, I spotted the sign.

It is perhaps an indicator of how my neighbours value the nature around them that someone should go to such trouble. "But why the sign?", I thought. And then I realised. The school bus is, for most children in the village, a full-sized coach, and on its way into the village, it passes the tree in which the bird has nested. The sign, and the cones, prevent the nearside of the coach from brushing the tree.

So, whilst I don't know who is responsible, I should applaud their enterprise. A kind deed in a sometimes thoughtless world...

Saying goodbye to Unlock Democracy...

I'm on my way to London for a meeting of the Council of Unlock Democracy, almost certainly my last, given that elections take place shortly, and I am not minded to run for re-election.

Regrets? I have a few. But then again...

I've enjoyed much of my time on Council. The intellectual challenge presented by my colleagues, as well as subject matter that lies at the core of what I believe in, has allowed me a perhaps naïve sense that I am 'making a contribution'. I have been made to feel welcome by the staff and most of my fellow Council members, all of whom appear to be committed to the notion of democratic reform and renewal.

On that basis, it seems slightly odd to withdraw from active participation, I accept. But there are issues.

I've previously touched upon the issues of internal democracy within 'Unlock Democracy', and whilst I am reassured that the issues I raised then are to be addressed - indeed, I have been urged by members of the Management Board to put proposals to the Annual General Meeting in the Autumn - I have almost certainly burnt my bridges irrevocably. That, in itself, is enough to discourage me from seeking another term.

But I have also been made aware that, in some quarters of the organisation, albeit a minority, my presence is not entirely welcome. It is suggested by some of our stakeholders that the organisation needs to respond to a sense that it is has a strong affinity with the Liberal Democrats, by perhaps taking steps to make its pluralist nature more apparent.

One should not overreact. This does not send out a signal that 'Liberal Democrats need not apply', but it does imply that the culture of the New Politics Network, one of Unlock Democracy's predecessor organisations, remains pervasive. The Old Labour fears of infiltration and entryism, which appeared to impact on the choice of election rules, also militate against genuine pluralism, where the organisation should reflect the diversity of its members and activists, not of the people who have historically led it. Pluralism, by its very nature, demands fluidity and constancy in its demonstration. In short, there are those, albeit a minority, who believe that Unlock Democracy should have remained a campaigning group, of and for the Left.

But democracy is not an issue of the Left, or of the Centre or Right for that matter. It is a question of freedom, of participation, of the right to take power over your life, your future.

Sounds rather like a manifesto for another term, doesn't it?

And I hope that someone takes up the challenge. I have tried, over four years, to respect the underlying culture of Unlock Democracy, to support organic changes whilst acknowledging the work of those who came before me. Thankfully, the organisation has, for the most part, equally respected my idiocyncracies and occasional contrarian tendencies.

But two years of fighting against an obvious conflict of interest over Lords Reform, a subject over which I have decidedly mixed feelings, is not for me. I have other, likely more enjoyable, things to do. Time to get on, don't you think?...

As Election 2012 reaches its climax...

It is hard to believe now that, a year ago, I was deep in the heart of my District Council campaign. The sun had beat down relentlessly, making canvassing and delivery easy, the bank holidays were timed so as to minimise the need to take annual leave - a campaigner's dream scenario, really.

Of course, the Party wasn't wildly popular, and the AV referendum caused Conservatives voters who don't generally come out for local elections to turn out, but I'd given it my best shot. Heavens, my Conservative opponent came out to canvass my village, which was nice given that she'd never come other to attend Parish Council meetings for the previous four years.

And, of course, I didn't win. Yes, I did achieve a 12% swing from the Conservatives to me, I even squeezed the Labour vote a bit, but I still lost, saving future generations from a series of posts agonising about how difficult it is to balance the books on a District Council and how so few of them are really viable.

We don't have elections in Mid Suffolk this year, and that sense of freneticism is a distant one. But, reading the news, and the blogs, I am reassured by the reports of Liberal Democrat campaigns. It will be another tough year, I don't doubt, but whilst there are people willing to fly the flag, and to work for their communities, Liberal Democrats and liberal ideas have a future.

So, as we enter the last week of the campaign, let me wish each and every Liberal Democrat candidate, agent, activist and supporter the very best...

David Ruffley MP - rude, arrogant and rather ill-advised?

I've never had a lot of time for the Member of Parliament for Bury St Edmunds. Whenever I have met him, I am reminded why I find being in a coalition with the Comservatives so very difficult sometimes.

Of course, I haven't seen that much of him, as I live in a part of his constituency that both he, and his local Conservative Association, appear to have forgotten - they very kindly sent us leaflets for the neighbouring constituency in 2010 (and their MP is much nicer... can we have him instead?).

That said, I see him on television occasionally, as you do, catching part of a debate on BBC Parliament. And when I do, I watch his antics, and his somewhat 'over the top' style and mannerisms, and think to myself, "Who is he trying to impress?". It seems to be all about making an impression, rather than making a point effectively.

But some of his worst traits appear reserved for Select Committee work, where his rather sneering approach towards witnesses demonstrates an almost callous disregard for courtesy and for his colleagues.

Yesterday, at a session of the Treasury Select Committee, he attacked David Riley, one of the witnesses, during questions on rating agencies. Accusing the witness of 'smirking', he described him as "incompetent", "complacent" and useless - absolutely useless", after Riley was unable to answer questions relating to a document that Ruffley was waving.

It's a pity that the witness had nothing to do with the document, and perhaps one shouldn't be surprised that he was unaware of the contents of a document produced by a different, rival company.

So, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect David Ruffley to apologise, would it? I won't hold my breath though, as I suspect he'll be telling anyone who'll listen how great he was, and how he made that witness look stupid. But, if he does, perhaps he might reflect that, had he not been so appallingly rude in the first place, the apology might not have been necessary.

I don't have huge expectations of Conservative MPs, but one think I expect of all Parliamentarians is the ability to carry out a forensic examination of the issue at hand. I would suggest that David Ruffley bear that in mind, and give up the cheap theatricals...

The European Court of Human Rights versus the United Kingdom?

Occasionally, Ros gets e-mails that she reads and thinks, "Mark will find this interesting..." before forwarding them on. And one from the Equality and Human Rights Commission fell into that category.

On Thursday, it published a research report on the European Court of Human Rights and the UK to coincide with the meeting of the forty-seven member nations of the Council of Europe in Brighton to discuss the UK government proposals for reform of the court.

 

It seems that just a tiny minority of rulings by the Strasbourg Court are against the UK government.  In fact, of the nearly 12,000 applications brought against the UK between 1999 and 2010, the vast majority fell at the first hurdle. Only three per cent (390 applications) were declared admissible. An even smaller proportion of applications - 1.8 per cent (215) - eventually resulted in a judgement finding a violation. The latest figures for 2011 show a rate of defeat of just 0.5 per cent, or one in 200.

 

Even more interestingly, it is the case that, in a similar situation to the Human Rights Act where the UK parliament has sovereignty over its implementation, UK courts have the flexibility to interpret the European Convention on Human Rights in a manner different to that of the Strasbourg court. A 'margin of appreciation' recognises that national authorities are in the main best placed to decide how human rights should be applied.

 

While judgements against the UK have been relatively few in number, they have frequently been serious in nature, with a significant proportion involving basic civil liberties such as the right to a fair trial; around eight per cent of judgements related to the right to life and the prohibition of torture and inhuman degrading treatment.

 

Other important rulings have led to better protection against unnecessary intrusion into privacy through the use of secret surveillance; legislation outlawing forced labour and servitude; equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender people and protecting the freedom of the UK media, including the protection of journalists' sources and the importance of investigative journalism, as in the exposure by the Sunday Times  of the thalidomide case.

 

The Commission, which is Britain's National Human Rights Institution (NHRI), welcomes the Declaration issued by government representatives gathered in Brighton. In particular, the Commission welcomes their acknowledgement of the Court's extraordinary contribution to the protection of human rights in Europe; the right of individuals to take their cases to the Court as the cornerstone of the system; the UK government's acknowledgement that it can prevent breaches of the Convention and reduce the workload of the Court by ensuring respect for human rights at home; and the reaffirmation of the important role of NHRI's like the Equality and Human Rights Commission in protecting human rights.

 

The Commission also welcomes the news that the backlog of cases which has built up will be dealt with over the next few years and that there will be moves to improve selection processes so that only the best individuals become judges.

 

You do begin to wonder if Conservatives are so knee-jerk on European issues these days that they automatically oppose anything with 'Europe' or 'European' in its name. Thank heavens that UEFA changed the European Cup to the Champions League!