Conference beckons...

I have to admit that, in recent years, I’ve rather drifted through Party conferences. I don’t really have a role, and I’ve not particularly sought one. This year is different though.

This year, I’m organised, with a diary of things to go to or do, a speech I’m minded to give, and nominations to get (I’ll say more about that another time...). I’ve even got a job, albeit one that I might have hoped was unnecessary.

The journey down to Bournemouth has been pleasant enough, with some scenery to look at, and everything has run to schedule so far. Ros is already at our hotel, and dinner is booked.

So, what are my prospective “highlights”?

I’ve got a meeting of the Federal International Relations Committee on Sunday afternoon, which should be relatively uneventful, if brief. We’ve had to squeeze it in because it clashes with Jo Swinson’s Q&A session. Unfortunately, that means that it clashes with the Federal Board report, which our Chair really ought to be at, I guess. I’m hoping to escape in time for the Constitutional Amendments, given that I’m partly responsible for some of them.

Oh yes, that. The idea of changing the requirements for calling a Special Conference was not mine, but I’m claiming the solution, a percentage of both membership and Local Parties. It struck me that why not allow this to vary automatically as the Party expands or contracts, rather than having to amend it if numbers change significantly? I may not be wholly popular in certain quarters, but it does strike me that, in the Internet age, it’s much easier to rally opinion and support, and our Constitution should reflect that.

I’ve got some training to do too, which is unusual. I hope to make the session on “Running a data led Local Party”, although it is a bit early on the Sunday morning. On Monday, I’ve set aside time for sessions on “Unconscious Bias” and “People behind the scenes” (people like me, I guess), and on Tuesday I’m keen to support the “Be a Councillor - Making a difference as a Town or Parish Councillor”, especially as I don’t think that ALDC have done much of this previously.

I’ll probably be at the Peers fringe event (do come along, they’re mostly lovely!), and will be putting in an appearance at the LGBT+ Lib Dems AGM. Following recent events, they find themselves in need of a Returning Officer and, as they asked nicely...

I’m minded to put in a card for the debate on Business Tax, sensing that there might not be very many, and that I have an unusual perspective on the subject. The motion itself is a bit “motherhood and apple pie”, and I often suspect that politicians are happier discussing how to spend money rather than how it might be raised, but it is rather important. There’s also a motion on railways, but I’m not enough of a train geek to feel that a contribution would add value. But who knows?

So, fingers crossed, I’ll be doing things rather than drifting semi-aimlessly. And, if you run into me, do say hello. I’m a friendly soul and I don’t bite...

A soft-spoken bureaucrat makes an unexpected departure from the schedule

You know how it is. You're minding your own business, catching up with some old friends, when, out of the corner of your eye, you notice that something isn't there. And so it was today with the Constitutional amendment F14, which was intended to introduce a structure for generating party strategy and reporting on its subsequent delivery.

I am, as previously reported, the Secretary of the Party's International Relations Committee. And what I had noticed was that, in the list of new committees, the proposed new Federal International Relations Committee did not appear. Oversight or deliberate strategy I know not, but I did feel that a few polite words from a genteel bureaucrat might be helpful.

Naturally, an entirely uncontroversial constitutional amendment was never going to attract a lot of cards, thus making the prospect of my being called rather higher than usual, and, sure enough, as Mark Pack was called to speak, I was asked to standby. There was a small, nagging problem though. I had no speech prepared.

This does not, traditionally, end well.

But, ironically, a speech that I didn't prepare for is the one that I have preparing for most of my political life. I have always believed that having a strategy is one thing, holding those responsible for its implementation to account is quite another. The proposals require those empowered to report back to us, which requires us to gently prod them if we feel that they aren't doing their job well enough. How could I not support that?

I did rather promise that the missing committee would not seize the opportunity not to participate in the reporting back although, given that my prospects for re-election to the committee are probably rather slight under the new 'One Member One Vote' system for electing our internal committees, it may turn out to be a commitment without personal consequence.

And so, dear reader, I got away with my unusually spontaneous intervention. Who knows, I may do it again one day...

On not being at Conference...

I've got my papers and my voting delegate badge, I've downloaded the conference app onto my iPad Air, so everything is set for this weekend's Liberal Democrat Spring Conference in York. There is but one catch, in that I'm not there.

I was going to attend, but I have to admit to being a bit jaded by politics at the moment. Actually, let's be a bit more precise, I'm a bit jaded by domestic politics, the lack of meaningful dialogue, the emptiness of the debate, the inability of the media to hold our leaders to account, the narrow-mindedness of so much public opinion, the lack of horizon, the seeming inability of so many to think beyond tomorrow afternoon (if you're lucky).

I'm probably being a bit harsh, and I don't particularly blame any individual or group, but I suppose I've spent too much time wondering about possible second-order consequentials and being puzzled as to why others aren't doing the same. And, perhaps, the advantage of not being there is that I can take a deep breath, gather my thoughts, and get on with some other things that really do need doing.

In the meantime, there is beer, football and quite a lot of travel in my future. Oh yes, and a career-critical exam. But the least said about that, the better...

An unexpected moment in the spotlight

I am not a regular speaker at Liberal Democrat conferences, and when I do, I normally stick to issues of bureaucracy. Not always, but as a rule I don't really do policy.

However, the more time I spend as a parish councillor, the more aware I become of the issues that affect small villages and rural communities. And, confronted with a conference motion that called for all residential roads to be made 20 mph zones, my interest was attracted, especially as my fellow colleagues on Creeting St Peter Parish Council are rather keen on the idea.

There was a catch though - this was to be imposed on all residential roads, regardless of the circumstances, and the concept of a residential road wasn't actually defined. In theory, that sounds good, but if you're a resident of Earl Stonham, on the A1120, or one of the villages on the A12 north of Woodbridge, you might not be so keen. Indeed, my own village has greater need for footways (the 'proper' term for pavements), as we have none.

Call me old-fashioned, but I rather like the notion of local communities deciding upon their needs, equipped with a range of options, rather than one blunt implement. And so, I decided to put a card in to speak, for it wasn't likely that many people would oppose the motion.

I didn't expect to get called. After all, there were a lot of cards in, and I'm not an particular expert on the subject (I am the Vice Chair of our local Road Safety Committee, but I've only held the post for a month or so). However, I found a comfortable seat near the back of the hall, and waited. I didn't have to wait long...

Luckily, I didn't have a long speech...

This motion gives the impression of reflecting life in the suburbs and country towns, where main roads are, for the most part, kept apart from residential areas. And, as a child of the suburbs, I understand the motivation of the movers. However, I now live in an area of the country where small villages predominate.

The concept of a residential road in a built-up area can be quite different to that of a residential road in a village. In some linear villages, the main A-road is a residential road, and in Suffolk, for example, the A12 and the A140 run through the middle of a number of villages. It may not be viable to build by-passes, yet a 20 mph limit would cause congestion, increase pollution and affect commerce.

As a Party, we believe in localism, in bottom-up community action. And yet, the motion as it is before us, denies that. It imposes one solution on communities regardless of size, regardless of circumstance, regardless of need.

I therefore support Amendment 1, which at has the effect of empowering communities, allowing them the freedom to develop solutions that reflect their needs and aspirations.

So, Conference, please endorse amendment 1 or, if you cannot, reject this motion as well-meaning, but flawed.

Nothing fancy, but it did the job.

I was surprised when it was picked up by the BBC in their live feed,

1651: 

Delegate Mark Valladares says the motion is "well-meaning, but flawed" because it imposes one solution on communities "regardless of their size... circumstance... [and] needs". He says amendment one will allow communities the freedom to develop their own solutions.

But perhaps even more surprised to return to the office this morning to find that BBC Radio Suffolk had namechecked me. Indeed, they rather generously broadcast a chunk of my speech, and then returned to the debate during the breakfast show.

Perhaps I ought to do this more often...

Feeling the love for Navnit and Ann Dholakia...

Instead of being at the BOTYs, I was accompanying Ros to a surprise event, a dinner to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the election of a Liberal to Brighton Council. That young Liberal candidate was Navnit, now Baron, Dholakia.

Navnit is a very special figure to me, as his experiences are similar to those of my father, and when our paths first crossed fifteen years ago, we hit it off immediately. We would, thereafter run into each other occasionally, but ten years later, he was to play an unexpected role in events that changed my life forever.

I had not been seeing Ros for very long, when she went on a delegation to Taiwan with, amongst others, Navnit. He very kindly gave me a very good character reference, and the rest is history. To this day, Navnit jokes that ours was an arranged marriage, and that he was the one that arranged it.

And last night, the room was full of people whose lives have touched, and been touched by, Navnit and his wife Ann. From his early days in Brighton, through his work on penal reform, policing and equalities to his fifteen years in the House of Lords, there were people who had been there, had experienced that.

There were speeches from Tim Razzell, Chris Rennard and Raj Loomba, highlighting his contributions in a range of fields, but it was Navnit's response, talking of his early experiences after coming to this country from Tanzania, of casual racism, of being part of a mixed-race couple, which exposed a passion and a vehemence that I had not seen in him before. It did, however, encapsulate exactly why I admire him so much.

I should also mention Ann. Ann has been by Navnit's side throughout, and always has a kind word or gesture. She fulfils a role that I recognise in a way that many might not, that of support, helpmeet, and the person who, in quiet moments, is there with advice or information, who understands what you are going through. It was nice that she was recognised.

Afloat on a sea of affection, the evening almost ended too soon. But some of us are getting old, and you have to pace yourself.

I should not close without mentioning Chris Maines and Paul Elgood, whose kindness in arranging the event cannot be overstated. The brochure for the event, with pictures and stories from a range of people, brought back some great memories, so many thanks to them.

The sun is shining, and I'm on a train heading south(ish). It can only mean one thing...

Welcome to the 10.03 service from Billericay to Liverpool Street, the fourth leg of my seven leg journey from home to Conference hotel.

Yes, engineering works are a feature of today's odyssey, in this case starring a rail replacement bus between Witham and Billericay. However, all has gone well so far which, I hope, augurs well for the week to come.

As part of the Liberal Democrat Voice team, I'll be chipping in with reports and the like, but I'm hoping to keep up with my own impressions here on the blog.

So, don't go away, the next few days could be interesting...

Is this the best way to go about lobbying?

In my various capacities, people occasionally want to talk to me. Mostly, it's about things that are internal to the Party - people wanting advice, or support in terms of candidate stuff - as I don't have what I would describe as significant influence. So, when I received an e-mail asking if I would be available to meet the Vice-Chairman of the National Association of Local Councils, as well as its Senior Policy Officer, for a briefing on what they are doing, I was naturally intrigued.

Some research had clearly been done, as I was noted as being a Parish Councillor and a 'leading Liberal Democrat blogger', and, apparently, NALC was "particularly keen to catch up with you personally at conference to outline their current work in promoting the development of locally democratic and accountable community level councils, and in using the powers granted by the Localism Act and the ideas set out in the Open Public Services White Paper to empower local communities".

So, I replied, saying that I would be delighted to, subject to diary commitments. Yesterday, I received an e-mail acknowledging this, and asking for my mobile phone number and a short biography. The phone number I can deal with, after all, things happen. But a biography? For people who have approached me asking to meet? Why am I supposed to justify myself like that?

I admit that it has somewhat 'put my back up', in that having been approached by a group to meet them, I am expected to go to such trouble. It leads me to suspect that their lobbyists don't really 'get' politicians, which is problematic, given who it is that NALC are trying to influence.

Ah well, we'll see how it goes...

NHS Reform: Shirley rides to the rescue...

So, Liberal Democrat Conference has voted to debate the leadership favoured alternative in the emergency motion ballot, by a margin of 309 to 280. And the majority, small that it was, includes me.

There's no doubt that such a margin demonstrates how important the work of the Lords has been in revising what was a very poor piece of legislation. And, whilst the public debate has centered on what was in the original bill, I would rather have us debate what we now have, rather than what others would like us to believe.

I'm intrigued by the protests. They have been emotional, many entirely genuine. However, I feel it only right that  Conference has the opportunity to hear for itself what has been done to reflect the concerns expressed in Sheffield last spring.

And tomorrow, we'll see if Conference thinks that it is enough...

1 a.m., somewhere between Newcastle and Gateshead...

Alright, so I've made it to the Liberal Democrat Conference after a not terribly epic journey. Yes, the journey to Peterborough was pleasantly familiar, and the trip from there to Newcastle gave me long enough to catch up with the blog and with my Liberal Democrat Voice stuff, so I arrived with a vague sense of achievement.

I've popped into the conference HQ hotel to catch up with old friends, and now I'm heading back to the hotel for some sleep.

Life is going to be very interesting in the goldfish bowl for the next couple of days, and I'll need to be alert...

Conference: go back to Bournemouth and prepare to be perplexed

I've always had mixed feelings about Federal Conference. Years of being a wallflower amongst the 'beautiful people' (MPs, Peers, MEPs, PPCs, council group leaders and the like) have made the whole experience a rather fraught one. In the past, I tended to shuffle around Conference, huddling for social warmth with old friends, whilst everybody else rushed around, apparently part of some heady social whirl from which I was excluded.

Retiring from active politics twice probably didn't help, and being a bureaucrat didn't help either. To be honest, the Party only notices its secretaries, treasurers, returning officers and the like when something goes wrong, and then the attention is unlikely to be positive. Even the long service awards tend to go to campaigners and councillors.

And so I would potter around the venue, looking slightly perplexed, and never really enjoy myself. Until last year, that was. Last year, the faceless bureaucrat was unmasked in the midst of the maelstrom that was the Presidential contest. Suddenly, from being relatively unnoticed, I had a profile, and not an altogether welcome one. Given that I am in many ways rather shy, and notoriously poor at self-promotion, suddenly being one of the front guys for the campaign was a bit of a shock to the system. It wasn't easy, and the sense of being under a microscope didn't help.

This time, it will probably be different. I won't see as much of Ros as I might like, especially as she has a fairly intense schedule. On the other hand, I've met so many people in the past year, virtually all of whom have been really kind, it will be nice to touch base with them again.

My focus at Conference is rather different too. Having become a parish councillor, deep in the heart of the countryside, I have a steep learning curve. There will be rural receptions, training on PagePlus and EARS, and all the other stuff that I'll be able to take back to Creeting St Peter for use later in my campaign for 2011.

I suspect that I'll still be looking perplexed though. So if you see me reach for my jacket pocket and look bemused, you'll know that I've missed an appointment. Just point me in the direction of the bar, and don't let me cross any roads unsupervised, and I'm sure that it will be alright...

See you there?

For you, Herr Valladares, ze conference is over...

Unfortunately, due to a rather unfortunate lack of leave (yes, well, all of the trips I've taken thus far this year might account for that...), I am home, for good.

It's been, as far as I'm concerned, a pretty good conference. The tax debate was a welcome sign of the economic maturity of the Party, and I renewed a series of old acquaintances, some of which have led to a new appointment (subject to ratification, of course).

I have had the pleasure of acting as Returning Officer for the European Parliamentary selections for the South East Euro Region on the past two occasions (in 1998 and 2002/03) and was rather delighted to be asked if I would be available to perform an encore. Naturally, my current colleagues on the English Candidates Committee will have to approve this in due course, but I'm optimistic that they will.

I spent most of this afternoon debating positive action with my friend, Jo, from Beckenham. She argues the position fron the perspective of an ambitious candidate, I from the perspective of someone whose role is to create and maintain a level playing field within our current selection rules. We finally agreed that, regardless of what route we take in order to get more women and ethnic minority parliamentarians, there is going to come a point when our principles become contradictory. I suppose that it is a luxury that stems from not wanting to get elected that allows me to be somewhat uncomfortable with the prospect.

On the downside, a confidence I had shared was leaked, somewhat to my detriment. I am saddened that someone should choose to do such a thing, especially as I believed myself to be acting entirely honourably. Clearly, the same people who didn't believe that last year still haven't got the message. Curious, really... but I'm guessing that this won't go away...

To Brighton, where a new blog emperor is crowned...

To Brighton for the opening salvoes of the Autumn Federal Conference. For reasons best known to myself, I originally decided not to book a hotel room in Brighton, having found the prices being quoted a mite extreme even for my somewhat bourgeois taste. However, on discovering that English Candidates Committee would meet at 9.30 on Sunday morning, I realised that I had no urge to get up at 6 a.m. to get there in good time. So I booked a room in the Hilton for Saturday night and got an astonishing reasonable rate.

Sunday saw, apart from the excitement of English Candidates Committee, where I provide a touch of humour (not always a good thing) and a bit of colour (I still like the shirt...), a series of technical debates related to internal Party matters. Quite dull, particularly to campaigners and policy wonks, but nonetheless important. I had been tapped on the shoulder earlier in the week to ask a question on staffing numbers and staff diversity which, whilst I was actually interested in the answer, I can't help feeling was an opening shot in someone else's campaign strategy. So I should thank those who set me up... and for giving me a chance to test the brightness and contrast settings for the monitors on stage.

The evening saw the Lib Dem Blog of the Year award ceremony, with the august figure of Iain Dale in attendance. Lynne Featherstone made the presentation of the award, looking a little like the Lara Croft of Lib Dem blogging (check out the picture for yourself on the Party website). I'm not quite certain what brought that image to mind, but there you go... There was even a gold envelope, which I thought was quite a nice touch.

The winner? Stephen Tall, from Oxford. He does write very well, and isn't afraid to court controversy or lead the agenda, and he speaks well too. The overall quality of the top six really should encourage the rest of us to 'up our game' a bit, although I'll try not to overreach myself. But now it's time for bed, and my own at that. Back to Brighton tomorrow, no, make that today, though for more Liberal Democracy...

Diversity and equality - haven't I seen this somewhere before?

And so we now have the motion for debate at Brighton, somewhat later than originally promised but at least available for challenge. After a fairly shambolic process whereby a working group hand-picked by the Party President failed to meet until early July and the initial paper to the Federal Executive came from who knows where (I know of at least one member of the working group who claims not to have seen it until it was introduced at the Federal Executive meeting), a somewhat wet motion has been generated.

In the David vs. Goliath (aka Simon Hughes) contest that has taken place thus far, the score is tied after two rounds, with David winning the first contest, defeating Goliath's appalling proposals at Blackpool, but Goliath snatching a late winner in Harrogate after David made most of the running.

I fear that Goliath is going to win the decider too, as the motion is entirely reasonable if almost entirely lacking in detail. Rumours of slush funds for ethnic minority and female candidates imply that the initial idea (providing support for such applicants to create a level playing field) appears to have been subverted to the notion of bribing Local Parties to select them (say it ain't so, Simon, say it ain't so...).

The commitment to fighting for proper representation of all sectors of our community is extremely laudable, and it is nice that we make it, but I was hoping for something more concrete.

James Graham has, elsewhere in the blogosphere, indicated what he believes to be wrong with the Federal Executive and there does appear to be a tendency to use it as a place to park issues where the leadership doesn't agree with the membership. And this, sadly, is one of those occasions where a number of people who are quite knowledgeable on the subject of candidate selection throw their hands up and say, "Simon, you really don't get it, do you?". Because, Mr Hughes, you don't...

Looking back in confusion and regret

In hindsight, and with the benefit of reflection, I feel somewhat cheated. It appears that my faith in the honour and decency of some of our party's most senior figures might have been ill-judged and, by exhibiting an unhelpful degree of naivety, I may well have prejudiced the very cause I had hoped to promote.

You will recall that I had been surprised by the two amendments that were chosen for debate. One, on monitoring, came as a surprise only because I was not informed that it had been taken for debate. As James Graham rightly reminds me, I had been warned about it in advance and, putting aside my personal misgivings about monitoring for sexuality and religion, I certainly accepted the basic principle of collecting data so that progress might be quantified.

The second, proposed by Simon Hughes, our illustrious Party President, was obviously tabled with the knowledge and support of our Chief Executive, who demonstrated once again, if proof were needed, his mastery of internal politics. I was warned, albeit probably too late to do anything about it. And even, had I been able to credibly attack it, I didn't have enough 'backstory' to successfully do so, especially after arriving in the hall to find that Navnit Dholakia's speech already included a statement of acceptance. For the record, I only discovered this by reading his speech over his shoulder (and he didn't know that I was there at the time). The response to his intervention from my readership and the wider blogosphere is, thus far, a long way short of impressed.

And so they were both passed. Unfortunately, I am now left in the uncomfortable position of hoping for the best, and fearing the sort of invidious sabotage that the Federal Executive tends towards when Conference wants something that it doesn't.

It pains me to have to make a statement like this publicly, and I will happily recant if the review produces something effective and timely (bear in mind that winnable seats are selecting already, and wasn't the whole purpose of the exercise to get black and ethnic minority MP's elected?). But either the auguries aren't promising or my more pragmatic friends are overly cynical. Experience tends towards the former.

Gentlemen, prove me wrong...

Live from the Harrogate Conference Centre!

And so I threw myself into a heady social whirl that is Federal Conference. There I was, minding my own business, when Francesca Marritt, from the Campaign for Gender Balance, told me that there were in fact two amendments to my motion. It might have been nice if someone had told me... Francesca was behind one of them, on monitoring, and I had no fundamental objection to a voluntary, opt-in scheme, so that was alright. On the other hand, the amendment from Simon Hughes looked like a ploy to delay matters, or worse, screw the Campaign for Gender Balance. What to do? And besides, who was moving the motion?

The answer was not long in coming. "You're doing it, Mark.", said Flick, our Regional Administrator and eminence grise. "Really?", I replied, slightly confused. "Yes, really." "Fine, I'd better write a speech then...".

So I retreated to my lonely garret on the third floor and wrote a speech. It didn't take that long, as the arguments have been running on continuous loop in the back of my mind for months. And then back to the bar for a little refreshment. Alright then, quite a lot of refreshment (it is conference, after all). Chris Rennard assured me that there was no hidden agenda behind Simon's amendment and I took his word as a gentleman (he is a baron, after all...).

A reasonable amount of sleep later (five hours is very reasonable for a Federal Conference), I got up and prepared for my first ever meeting of English Candidates Committee. To most observers, these meetings would seem astonishingly dull (and parts of this one were a bit, I must admit) but the subject matter and the implications are huge. It would probably have helped had I brought the papers issued to me two weeks earlier but I've been a bit preoccupied of late.

At 10.45, I sneaked out to head to the auditorium, arriving in time to hear Vince Cable describe my employers as being in chaos. Alright, I'm not wildly impressed with the way HM Revenue and Customs is run, but things really aren't that bad. I've got some nice filing in our Twickenham office that he might be able to help with...

And so, a little behind schedule, my moment in the spotlight arrived. I walked onto the platform, stood behind the podium, feeling not a little lonely and isolated, and gave my speech. It was an odd sensation, and I had the impression of being oblivious to all of the usual sensory cues, but I said all of the things that I wanted to say, didn't stumble over the words too often, and got some applause at the end. I even managed to air my concerns over both amendments.

The other speeches came and went, for and against a summit meeting, mostly in favour of monitoring and, after the summation from Navnit Dholakia, who formally accepted both amendments, the motion was overwhelmingly passed. I hurried back to English Candidates Committee, just in time to be appointed to a Working Group, set up to review the guidance notes for Returning Officers. I then reported back to the meeting as to what had happened.

So my motion has passed. A concrete commitment to do something has been wrung from the powers that be and we will have to see what emerges from the review that has been promised. It isn't a victory, far from it, but we might actually have taken the first small step towards changing the public face of our Party. I would be kind of proud if that turned out to be the case...

Apologia (bureaucrat + emotion = malfunction)

It is often unwise to blog in a moment of self-indulgence, even more so when you're tired, weary and a mite low. So it is at least a mercy that my quirky sense of catholic guilt is engaged...

In fairness to Tom Brake, he doesn't even know that he's been invited to take up the mover's speech, so I really shouldn't criticise him for a predicted lack of understanding. Whoever briefs him on this point is sure to give him all of the necessary information.

I shouldn't really criticise the Regional Executive either. I invited them to make a decision and they did so. I could have argued my corner but didn't, a valuable lesson for all of you wallflowers out there. We are talking about politicians, remember, they like winning. Me, I like winning too but hate being seen to be pushy about it (alright, go figure...). That's why I'm a faceless bureaucrat.

And most important of all, this should be about more than just self. The whole idea of encouraging the Party to think about diversity issues and then do something about it is that we demonstrate our seriousness about making ourselves reflect the communities we aim to represent.

And on that note, it's time to get ready for Harrogate.

Apparently, it's alright to be disappointed

Never let it be said that politicians, be they elected or otherwise, are without ego. And I'm no exception...

Having worked quite hard to get my motion on diversity, I nobly invited the Regional Executive to decide who should move the motion and summate the debate. Mistake number 1. The view was that the motion should be moved by a middle-aged white MP, the decision taken being to ask Tom Brake, the MP for Carshalton and Wallington. He's younger than I am... not exactly a balm for morale. With Navnit Dholakia lined up to summate (and I'm pleased to note that he has accepted), I miss my moment in the spotlight unless I put a speaker's card in and get called. Frankly, it sucks... big time.

I understand the politics of it all, the logic being that you need to get support from those who stand to lose most from the proposed reforms, and support it in principle. On the other hand, the idea of handing large chunks of the credit to someone who has had no involvement and offered no support, and probably won't even know who wrote the motion in the first place (or why), is hardly an encouragement towards altruism.

It is, of course, my fault. I freely offered up the decision to my colleagues, thinking that, as I had used the Regional Party as the vehicle to get the motion to Federal Conference, I should allow the Regional Executive the opportunity to decide on strategy - and they do know what they're talking about. However, I foolishly thought that my role to date might gain me some consideration. Mistake number 2...

Ah well, I'm just going to have to accept that the warm glow of satisfaction that comes from doing the right thing must suffice. Really, it's enough to make you cynical... If you're in Harrogate, do turn up and vote this through, it matters.

I get by with a little help from my Friends (Meeting House)

To Euston for the biggest and best of the Liberal Democrat leadership hustings (alright, so I'm biased, we hosted it). First though, the Spring Regional Conference...

I have to admit that it was a bit low key, with the hustings hovering over it, the air thick with anticipation. Under the circumstances, all went well, with Paul Burstow kicking things off and two of our Council leaders (Sean Brennan from Sutton, and our very own Peter Truesdale from Lambeth) giving the rest of us useful hints on what to do when we get elected. I have to admit to having been a mite flustered, as I had to keep an eye on the conference, whilst keeping in touch with the preparations for the hustings in the main hall downstairs. I also got to close Conference, in the absence of our Regional Conference Chair, Alison Sanderson (giving birth just to get out of turning up on a cold February evening is a bit much - only joking, Alison!).

You'll see plenty of other comments on the actual hustings elsewhere and, as I was in and out of the hall for large parts of it, helping to deal with late arrivals and minding one of the entrances, I'll stick to some impressions.

Ming was actually pretty good. I'm still comfortable with my choice (Huhne 1, Campbell 2, Hughes 3) and reassured that if my man doesn't win, the party will still be in good hands. He seemed to display more passion and more humour with a larger audience, an interesting realisation. Chris was solid, well-informed but perhaps could have kept his answers a little shorter. He'll need to work on demonstrating his sense of humour a little, as he occasionally came across as a mite too earnest.

Simon had the misfortune to be interrupted by a group of hecklers. Those who know a little about Southwark politics will be aware of the Imperial Gardens fiasco, and the key players in that drama took the opportunity to attempt to hijack our event. Perhaps they might learn that, in Liberal Democrat circles, we tend to rally around our own, and their attack probably served to bolster Simon's support amongst those present. It may have been foolish of me to join those attempting to intervene, but it was the right thing to do and we managed to deal with the situation without things turning violent, although it did look a bit dicey for a moment or two.

It was incredible to see a hall full of people, listening to speeches and responding warmly to them. I'm led to believe that the Guardian exit poll will show that Simon 'won' but given the number of polls that have been published, and the variations in their results, I'm going to wait until the results are declared next Thursday before I get excited.

Afterwards, off to Mabels Tavern (an old haunt of mine from my days at Inland Revenue Maida Vale) for a few beers. Simon was there with some of his supporters, and I was surprised, yet again, to encounter some of the people who read this blog. I have no real idea why you read this, my friends, but I'm flattered that you think it worthwhile to do so...

Reflecting Britain - are you with us?

I've been made aware of the new 'Reflecting Britain' web site, created by James Graham and sponsored by Jo Swinson and Sandra Gidley, two MPs whose opinions I respect.

Given the scheduled debate in Harrogate, it would seem that everything is falling nicely into place to really make some meaningful progress on diversity issues within the Party at last, and I'm truly delighted. And now I await the response of the leadership candidates... we're watching, gentlemen...

It's time to do good, as Granny Weatherwax might have said...

I had wondered what had happened to my diversity motion, you remember, the one that caused me so much angst in November. And now I know. The good news is that it's been accepted for debate, and, even better, given a 45 minute late morning slot.

And now for the politics. Who proposes it, who summates, how to lobby for support and who to talk to are the key issues now. There is evidently a desire for action across the wider Party, and the fact that the motion has been given a fairly prominent slot must be a good thing. I'll need to talk to a few people in the coming days, I suspect.

It also appears that there won't be a compositing process, as my opponent's submission was rejected by the Federal Conference Committee. I don't know why, although I'm sure that someone will explain eventually...