Can the tide of political unpleasantness be turned?

I spent some time this afternoon talking to some political colleagues about the problems that arise when people disagree. It was an interesting discussion and offered me an opportunity to express some of my concerns about modern politics and how the way people treat each other undermines how political parties function.

Unfortunately, that seems to be a problem that gets worse with time rather than better, and it distracts from the cause, whatever cause that may be. For a bureaucrat not generally seen on the front row of political activity, I don’t tend to be involved in the competitive element of politics, even within my own Party. It does risk appearing somewhat sheltered from the reality of campaigning, especially when you consider that, in my quiet corner of England, politics is relatively genteel.

That said, I do understand how much it can matter to people. I’m not naive. Indeed, I have a pretty good understanding that, when a contest really matters, people can be tempted to bend, even break, the rules for personal advantage. The first round of list selections for the European Parliament in 1997 was a case in point, when the prospect of becoming an MEP was a real one for whoever topped their regional list (and in some cases, the runner-up too).

That led to some interesting strategies being employed, but in the absence of social media, it was for the most part fought in good spirit. Had we tried to repeat the process twenty years later, I have a nasty feeling that it might not have been quite so easy to manage. There are, unfortunately, those who have less restraint in terms of the language they use, or allegations they make, especially if done remotely.

And, to make things even harder, as time has passed, the rules and procedures are more prescriptive, more complex, more open to misinterpretation (deliberate and accidental) and the implications of getting it wrong more severe, and not just to the person committing the “offence”.

The danger is that you have to dedicate more and more resource to dealing with the unhappy, the unreasonable and the unlucky. And, given that most people join political parties to change things or gain power, finding people to handle that burden becomes more difficult. It is, in short, a challenge that seems to grow as the years pass.

Ultimately, political parties, like societies, operate better and more effectively if people behave reasonably both in general and towards each other. It seems like such an obvious truism that you might wonder why it needs to be expressed. However, people often forget that political parties are not monoliths, where everyone agrees, but coalitions loosely wrapped around a philosophical concept, where arguments can rage over what outsiders may see as trivia.

Thus, the existence of rules to guide behaviour, ensure due process and compliance, covering everything from meeting etiquette to candidate selection. You hope that they don’t have to be enforced much, by offering training, encouraging mutual respect and providing guidance. You hope that it’s taken up and applied and, when things do go wrong, that there is someone to remedy the situation.

So, apply the rules, maintain them, recommend changes to them as the situation requires, but defend them and the ethos that underpins them in the hope that people learn and improve. Because, regardless of the organisation you’re a part of, if you can’t treat your colleagues decently, you’re probably not going to treat anyone else very well…

Published elsewhere - a (day) editorial thought for a New Year...

This piece was published on Liberal Democrat Voice earlier today, and it drew more attention than I normally do...

One of the unexpected advantages of being the Day Editor on New Year’s Day is that you can, perhaps, make a resolution for the year ahead. And nobody can stop you... 

Mwah, hah, hah, hah...

And it dawns on me that, as the person technically responsible for moderation today, I have the tools at my disposal to actually change a small corner of the Internet, and make it a better place, if only for a little while. Call it “taking a stand for decency”, if you like. Or, as someone is bound to say, “censorship”... (you’re wrong, in the nicest possible way, because this is a liberal, rather than libertarian, website).

So, let’s lay down some ground rules for today. Firstly, treat fellow commenters with respect, even if you don’t agree with them. I am the judge of whether or not you’re showing sufficient respect and, as the Day Editor, my word is law. If you don’t like that, go somewhere else, at least for today. You aren’t being censored, as I have no control over anything you say anywhere else, you’re just being managed.

Secondly, try to make a positive case for whatever it is you believe in. You’re trying to persuade people as to the virtues of your argument, not trying to browbeat them into submission. You probably won’t succeed in the latter here anyway, and all you achieve is to ratchet up the level of unpleasantness. And, frankly, it’s all a bit tedious. As my mother might have asked, “How old are you? Five?”.

Thirdly, and this isn’t a rule but merely a suggestion, sarcasm and irony work relatively well when there’s body language to read. Here, there isn’t any. So, why not consider how your witty barb might read sans context before you post it? And, if in doubt, think again.

Unhappy? Get in touch with me via voice@libdemvoice.org. I’m five hours behind you, and whilst I am on holiday (it’s very cold, and thank you for asking), I’ll answer as quickly as I can. Remember, I’m on holiday, so you are not my uppermost priority, but I’m a courteous soul at heart. Oh, and yes, my fellow editorial team members are celebrating New Year as well, so cut us all some slack, if you’d be so kind.

And so, on with the medley... Have fun, and be careful out there...

Campaign Diary: Day 5 - canvassing proper begins...

There may not be a lot of people who know that a surprising amount of Barking and Somersham ward is linked by a proper bus service. Ipswich Buses operate, with County Council support, route 111, which runs from Ipswich to Hitcham Causeway, and passes through Somersham, Willisham and Barking in doing so. It does also serve the Limeburners at Offton, but that's a fifteen minute walk from the village, so it isn't exactly useful if you're less than fully mobile. But, if you're a non-driver, as I am, and you need to get to Somersham to start your canvassing, it's a very useful service indeed, even if it only runs four times per day.

And so, I made sure that I was at Ipswich's Old Cattle Market bus station in time to catch the 5.40 p.m. bus. Having paid my extremely reasonable £1.80 fare, I sat back to enjoy the ride.

The timetable doesn't leave a lot of slack for rush hour traffic in Ipswich, and we were running a bit late by the time we reached my stop in Somersham. There was a hint of rain in the air too, but I set off to call on postal voters with a spring in my step.

As I've already noted, they aren't always conveniently in, and so I had prepared a small leaflet to post through the door if there wasn't anyone in. At least if they know I've called, they might appreciate that I did try to reach them and, at a time when politicians are as likely to knock on your door as once they might have been, I do think that making the effort is both worthwhile and valued.

I also called at the home of my Labour opponent, Will Marsburg, as much to introduce myself as anything. Will is young, enthusiastic about politics, and was happy to talk. It's important that young people engage in politics because, whilst pressure groups have their place in civil society, the people they seek to pressure are politicians.

I couldn't stop for long though, because there is a limited window for canvassing in the evening - you don't want to be knocking on the doors of, in particular, elderly people as darkness falls - and I had plenty of doors to knock on. The rain clouds were gathering over the Gipping Valley though, and I eventually called it a day, just as a steady rain fell from a rather gloomy sky.

I had found some Liberal Democrat supporters though - a very good evening's work indeed.

Leadership contest: "Regrets, I've had a few, but then again, (almost) too few to mention..."

And so, polls have closed, and the candidates await their fate. Whilst they do, I thought that I might reflect on the events of the past ten weeks or so.

Firstly, whilst I have voted for Tim Farron, I would have no real concerns if the membership chose Norman Lamb. He has performed well, confirmed that he is a wonderful exponent of liberal values, and has risen in my estimation (albeit that he didn't have an awful lot of scope to do so - I have always held him in high regard). Indeed, if the Party's circumstances had been different, I could easily have found myself supporting him instead of Tim.

It has, for the most part, been an interesting campaign, especially if you don't take it too seriously. Neither candidate has ventured into the wonderful county that is Suffolk, although Norman might, occasionally, have glanced out of the window on his regular commute between Norwich and London (it's very nice between Diss and Manningtree, Norman...).

Having made up my mind and cast my vote, nobody has seemed too bothered about involving me in either of the campaigns, so I have remained beyond any partisanship, which is nice.

And that brings me to my regret. You see, leadership campaigns tend to highlight, usually unintentionally, some of the less savoury sides of political campaigning. This puzzles me because, it seems, such bad behaviour is much more likely to be noticed, and exposed, during a high-profile campaign. It also implies that the values of such people are out of keeping with the underlying one of the candidate they are espousing.

This campaign has been no exception. References to 'real liberals' (as opposed to those awful ersatz ones you get on market stalls in South London), or negative campaigning when your candidate is talking a good game about positivity and optimism, do neither you, nor your candidate, any good. And, to put it bluntly, I think rather less of you as a result. Not enough to disown you or anything, but enough to be disappointed. You're probably a good person otherwise, but you've sown the seed of doubt in my mind. I may not give you the benefit of the doubt in future, which is a pity.

And, regardless of the result, we, that is, all of us, need to pull together for the cause we believe in. Yes, we may disagree on the route to be taken, or the mode of transport, but we do believe in the same thing, liberalism. So, if you are thinking about attacking another Party member in a public forum, or even just using harsh language in response to them, do think again. It isn't clever, and it isn't worth it.

If there is a consolation though, it is that we haven't had it as bad as the Labour Party is. Don't feel that you have to prove me wrong though...

Far from the campaign trail... is decent politics to be drowned out by the vilest common denominator?

The news that Jack Monroe has quit Twitter due to homophobic abuse is just another depressing event in what has felt like a descent into a world where too many of the voices you hear are unpleasant ones.

And no, I don't want to suggest that people who disagree with me are unpleasant. Yes, some of them are, but they can't be categorised as simply political opponents. But, below the line in virtually every newspaper, there seems to be a never ending stream of vile abuse towards anyone and everyone who dares to put their head above the parapet to espouse a view that they believe in.

But, and let's face it, such people are hardly discouraged from their belief that rudeness and crudeness are perfectly acceptable ways to treat their fellow human beings. Journalists who write snide comments picking on the imperfections of politicians, politicians who lie about their opponents or wilfully misrepresent them, members of the public who express a view that all politicians are 'in it for themselves', regardless of whether they have any evidence or not, all of them debase our political culture.

And it's worse in the case of such politicians and journalists, because they know exactly what they are doing. By encouraging the likes of Guido Fawkes to do their dirty work for them, or by ridiculing anyone who expresses doubt or hesitation, or even does a little free thinking, they send out a clear message that it is open season on the naive, the thoughtful, the non-partisan. No wonder that politicians attempt to control how they are presented - a foolish notion in any event, but perhaps understandable.

Indeed, I now find myself wondering why anyone thinking of entering into politics would even think twice. Why set yourself up to be abused by the stupid, the evil and the callous when you could live a quiet life, have a decent career and travel entirely under the radar? You and your family get a private life, nobody except your boss expects you to justify yourself and, eventually, you get to enjoy the fruits of your labour without hassle or insult.

There is an obvious problem, I accept. If everyone who has feelings opts out of politics, you leave it to those more fanatical, less caring of what others say or think. One shudders to think of the likely outcome of such a turn of events.

To make matters worse, such behaviour is now targeted at public figures generally. If you are a celebrity, one might at least hope that the financial rewards make up for it (they probably don't), but for those in public life generally, it is another disincentive to serve the wider public. I suspect that the current Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, is avoiding the internet and social media, given her decision on whether to prosecute Greville Janner or not. I don't know whether or not her decision was the right one, but she will have weighed up all of the evidence available before making the decision not to proceed. She will, however, be being abused by people who haven't seen the evidence, and wouldn't care even if they had. And they will be encouraged by the attitude of the Fifth Estate.

No, it's been a deeply depressing General Election campaign, and whilst I know that there are plenty of good, decent people campaigning for what they believe in, nobody is covering that...

Liberal Democrat Voice and moderation - some historical perspective...

As the former Readers' Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, I was obliged to give much thought to the dilemma that faces any debating platform, i.e. how do you create a space which is inclusive yet lively, informative but not aggressive, in the face of accusations of being either overly laissez-faire or unreasonably censorious? My conclusion was that you can never satisfy everyone, so you might as well be true to yourself and as consistent and transparent as you can.

Of course, the dilemma is one that predates the Internet, as this guidance, explicitly defining the formal conditions for fruitful conversation, demonstrates;

During the discussion that followed readings or lectures, members were to avoid arbitrary or ill-considered comments. Critiques should engage in a structured way with the style, method and content of the lecture. They should employ 'the cautious language of reason'. Digressions and interruptions were strictly prohibited. All members were ultimately guaranteed the right to have their say, but they must wait their turn and make remarks as concise as possible. Satirical or mocking remarks and suggestive wordplay were unacceptable.

The fact that the guidance was issued by the 'German societies' which sprang up across Prussia in the mid-eighteenth century, does tell you that discussion moderation has been an issue for some time now and, indeed, that the basic problems are unchanging.

For the Liberal Democrat Voice team, that demonstrates the scale of the moderation challenge. In the early days, moderation was quite relaxed, before tightening up significantly after the expenses scandal in 2009. I admit that, subsequently, I had thought that moderation had become excessive until I became part of the team myself, and began to appreciate the challenges brought about by some of the behaviours exhibited.

But now, I find myself wondering whether or not the current policy finds the team caught between two stools - activist in terms of one-off incidents, yet excessively tolerant in terms of those who consistently derail threads, behave aggressively towards other participants or who seek to distort the apparent support for their position by multiple commenting.

The policy of placing 'difficult' individuals in auto-moderation is, as far as it goes, merely a starting point. It generates more work for the team, work which is trying, to say the least, and irritates those penalised, often causing them to spend time challenging the moderation policy, generating even more work.

It is argued that banning people is illiberal. Banning people because you feel like It is illiberal. But if you establish a set of rules, clearly stated, you are obliged to enforce them, and the punishment is meant to be for those breaking them, not those enforcing them. It is not censorship to deny those who lack respect for the rules of a community a platform - there are plenty of other platforms for them - below the line on most articles in the national newspapers, Guido Fawkes, the list is probably endless.

Whilst the articles on Liberal Democrat Voice retain their interest, the comments below are too often predictable and dominated by what seems like an diminishing number of individuals. I note that my engagement, as well as my participation, has dropped recently, and I wonder if I am alone in that.

But those of us who wish it were better do have a responsibility too. We could engage, adhering to the rules for the 'German societies' outlined above, and see how it goes. After all, we'd miss Liberal Democrat Voice if it were gone, wouldn't we?

#IbackEd... with friends like these, who needs enemies?...

It seems not to be the fashion to indicate a degree of sympathy for one's political opponents these days. Often, such an expression is seen as either weakness or as a thinly-veiled attack. I disagree - my political opponents are people too, with all the same weaknesses, personal foibles and contradictions as the rest of us, politically active or otherwise. It is the reason why I have always been loathe to attack someone for making a mistake in their personal lives (within reason, I draw the line at acts of illegality).

Today, I had one of those experiences which leads you to wonder whether or not there is a future for politics as it is now done too frequently these days. Having woken up and peered myopically at my Twitter feed, I was moved to post

Can't help feeling that having to say #webackEd is a sign that you've got a problem. It's as if loyalty can't be assumed...

— Mark Valladares (@honladymark) November 9, 2014

It is, if you like, the "doth protest too much" school of sloganising. I understand the reasoning behind it, certainly I do, but in an increasingly cynical world, an orchestrated defence of the leader which appears to fly in the face of the polling evidence looks like just that, an orchestrated and not spontaneous display of on-message social media. The public don't really buy it.

And Ed Miliband is exactly the same person he was when the Labour Party elected him as their leader four years ago. Is he a bad leader, are the policies wrong, or do the media just hate him because he isn't what they want him to be? Whilst I disagree with his solutions to our nation's problems - I'm a liberal, he isn't, so that should really go without saying - he is expressing opinions that are shared by a respectable proportion of the population. But I really couldn't say that he is a bad leader - I don't know how good a leader he is allowed to be, either by his own Party, or by the media. I do get the impression that large swathes of our national media don't like him - they do seem to delight in finding opportunities to belittle him.

And I got a reply from someone using the Twitter name @killingbritain, who seemed to think that an appropriate response to my thought was to refer to a local government by-election in Nottingham where the Liberal Democrat candidate was beaten by the 'Bus Pass Elvis' candidate. An interesting response, I thought, entirely irrelevant to the point being made, but simply a cheap attack on an unknown political opponent.

I wasn't impressed - if someone anonymous thinks that David Cameron is killing Britain, I would suggest that they need to get out more, frankly - but politely replied, generating more irrelevant, cheap invective in response, a point I again politely alluded too. The response was to suggest that, if I felt attacked by someone on Twitter, there was an established reporting mechanism. So I reported him. After all, he or she (but probably he) wanted the attention...

I tend to think that such pointless aggression on the part of an anonymous partisan is the very sort of behaviour that puts the vast majority of people off the notion of involvement in politics. After all, who needs to put up with such stuff when there are many other things to do which involve less aggravation and probably higher levels of personal satisfaction?

But then, people like @killingbritain probably don't want anyone to play in their playground who doesn't slavishly agree with them. It might be easier, but I think that they'll find it a bit sterile... and perhaps a bit lonely one day...

Vileness on the internet: if even jail sentences don't make people stop and think...

The news that the utterly uncharming individual who used Twitter to make anonymous rape threats against Stella Creasy and Caroline Criado-Perez has been sentenced to eighteen weeks in prison is a positive development in the effort to police the internet against the sort of abuse that, in any other medium, would be stamped out forcefully.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not keen on censorship online, but where behaviour that has been legislated against on grounds that are generally accepted as reasonable, it should be punished wherever it appears, and the internet cannot, and should not be, an exception. And, if there is anyone out there who thinks that anonymously threatening someone with rape is acceptable behaviour, they need help, not sympathy or tolerance.

I have long been of the view that the internet has enabled all sorts of good things to happen yet, at the same time, it has provided some people with a means to coarsen public interaction without consequence. Public figures appear, too often, to be fair game for the sort of vile abuse that would never be proffered in real life or printed form, as a sample of even such mainstream media as the Guardian's comment sections will demonstrate. And don't start me on Guido Fawkes's blog...

It puzzles me that so many people just shrug their shoulders and say, "that's the way it is", without wondering why the distance between the public and those that serve us has widened. For, if engagement begets abuse, why engage at all? Why not simply broadcast messages and not encourage discussion or exchange of views? Life is too short to provide a means for people to be abusive towards you.

There must be consequences for those who use any means to engender hate, or fear, or to abuse and intimidate others, and I welcome Monday's verdict. That a Member of Parliament felt it necessary to install a panic button in her home as a result of the behaviour of a rather sick individual should act as a sobering reminder to those who think that such behaviour is without consequence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Anonymous...

I have a rule here, in that;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But have a nice day, nonetheless...

Vaguely annoyed by another pointless generalisation

Unlock Democracy! Yes, you! Over here!

And now that I have your attention, might I be so bold as to ask that, in return for my annual subscription, you desist from sending me e-mails seemingly designed to annoy me.

What's that, you say? You don't mean to annoy me? Perhaps you might explain the use of the phrase "the out of touch and unelected Lords" then. Yes, I acknowledge that they are unelected, but out of touch?

It is a modern truism that, when arguing a case, it is as well to find ways of discrediting your opponents. However, the fact that someone doesn't agree with you doesn't actually mean that they are necessarily out of touch - indeed, it could be that they're right and that you're out of touch. But even assuming that some Peers are wrong and out of touch, insulting those who actually support the cause of Lords reform is pointless, insulting and counterproductive.

It was enough to point out the unelected nature of the House of Lords, but Unlock Democracy seems determined to alienate the very people whose support will be required to achieve its long term goal - this is not the first time that an e-mail from them on this subject has irked me.

And to be honest, as an interested party with a strong belief in the value of democracy and civil society, such needless discourtesy makes me less minded, not more, to contribute to the work of the organisation in the future.

It's a pity, really, as I still retain a fondness for Unlock Democracy, its leadership and the people who work for it. But call me old-fashioned if you will, I still believe in trying to respect your opponent...

Nick Clegg is sorry... but is this tactics or strategy?

I admit to some surprise at the nature of this week's mea culpa over tuition fees. It seems like an odd time to choose to do so as, whilst it fits a domestic Party schedule, it doesn't necessarily come at an early enough point for public opinion.

That said, many activists of my acquaintance were consistently of the view that it was the breaking of the pledge that was wrong, rather than the pledge itself. The policy was, after all, costed, and had Liberal Democrats formed a government, we might well have been able to honour that pledge.

On reflection, it would appear, however, that when making the pledge, no consideration was made of the fact that we might be the junior partner in a coalition subsequently, and thus unable to have confidence that our pledge was deliverable.

But an apology is a good thing. At least, I think it is...

However, what good is an apology without follow up? As I have noted previously, we campaigned for a new type of politics, one that most Liberal Democrat activists believed in, whereby you treated the public like adults, and hoped that they would respond.

In government, we haven't always been true to that. Not as unfaithful as our opponents would have you believe, but we've 'played the game'. I will admit that I am uncomfortable with that. So, hopefully, this is a fresh start for Liberal Democrats in power, with a more open dialogue. It takes two, or more, to make this work, however. The media fixation on conflict and discord plus the cynicism of politicians, serve to encourage a reversion to spin and bluster.

It will not be an easy road back for the Party, but given that the longest journey starts with a single step, it would be nice if we started rebuilding our credibility with the British public this week.

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...

Is it REALLY necessary to be that aggressive?

Perhaps I'm getting old, or perhaps I'm just becoming a better politician, but one of the things that bothers me is the tendency of some people, predominantly men, to do politics as though it is a contact sport, all aggression and playing the man if the ball isn't convenient.

I've had an example today. A colleague, who shall remain nameless, but knows who he is, wrote an e-mail complaining about the behaviour of a third party. That complaint was made to an e-mail list including the person being complained against, in front of all of the people she will be working with in the coming months.

I responded almost immediately, explaining why I thought that such an approach was inappropriate, but it dawned on me that, perhaps, this is the sort of behaviour that discourages people from getting involved in organisations. And I admit that I find it a little depressing, especially as someone who believes that an organisation is at its most effective when everyone who can contribute is given the space to do so.

So, if you find yourself frustrated at a meeting, take a deep breath, count to ten, and ask yourself, "Is losing my temper going to help?". And then, why not calmly, and discreetly, approach the root of your problem, and find out why they are behaving in the way that they are. You may learn something. Of course, it may still mean that you have to kill them, but at least you've tried...

The problem with so-called politicians...

Alright, this is going to come across as a mite naive but what the hell...

As one of the political theatre's more delicate actors (albeit more understudy than star), the one thing that really bothers me is the way that some people seem to think that it is better to undermine others rather than earn credibility themselves. I accept that it is probably easier (credibility is hard to gain, and remarkably easy to lose), but the collateral damage is often unfortunate, to say the least, and often affects those who least deserve it.

In the public sphere, attacks on politicians hurt families, loved ones and friends, and are often done in such a way as to cause maximum humiliation. Alright, politicians need thick skins but those around them are often unused to the glare of publicity and of guilt by association. They often don't choose public life and, in some cases, were never really consulted on the subject in advance. How many politicians actually ask their spouses whether they want them to become elected officials, with all the impact this can have on family life? Not enough, I fear. And what effect does it have on the prevailing political culture?

If you thought that your private life was likely to become the subject of prurient investigation by the tabloid press, wouldn't you rather go into commerce, where your private life is much more your own affair? And does the steady drip, drip, drip of poison encourage the average citizen to respect and trust their politicians? I don't think it does. Perhaps voters get the politicians they deserve...

And yet it can be worse within your own political family. The constant fight for competing agendas, personal or political, factional or philosophical, can leave a trail of emotional corpses, a fact often forgotten in the heat of battle. And all this by people who are supposed to be on your side! Politics is, at the highest levels, a game played by the hugely ambitious, with a long term goal of exercising power, regardless of the forum. The concepts of honour and principle are usually early victims and for the rest of us, realisation of this can become all too dispiriting, and it is no wonder that the burnout and dropout rates are sizeable.

Sometimes, in my darker moments, I find myself wondering if some of my colleagues have forgotten why we seek power in the first place. Something to think about, perhaps?

The bride looked lovely, whilst the band played on...

To Westminster for the evening reception of Caroline and Paul following their afternoon wedding. As usual, I ran late, on an evening not really designed for dressing up - hot, humid but at least sunny.

The room was filled with the elite of Southwark Liberal Democrat circles which, given Caroline's position as Executive Member for Education, should have come as no surprise. I had never really realised just how many twenty and thirtysomethings there are amongst our ranks, whilst those who don't fall into that category seem determined to carry on as though they are anyway...

Caroline looked lovely in a sleeveless dress in a colour I would describe as midway between lavender and purple (alright, I'm not great at colours, I'm a bureaucrat not a fashion designer) and I couldn't help but smile to see her so 'unbuttoned'. The band were really very good indeed and, if you happen to need a band for an event, I'm sure that Caroline and Paul will be happy to pass on contact details, although you might want to wait until they get back from their honeymoon!

It is said that most political negotiations take place at official weddings and funerals and I know understand why. After all, at official negotiations, everybody knows why you're there and operates accordingly. At weddings and funerals, the focus is on the betrothed (I like that word, it's comfortingly old-fashioned) or the deceased, so you can have a quiet chat with someone without drawing too much attention. And yes, I did take the opportunity to have a quiet chat with a few people on subjects of mutual interest...

Afterwards, back to the Marriott at County Hall for drinks, before I decided to escort a young lady home, as any gentleman should. Tea and an entertaining conversation followed (I like to see passion in my politicians) before I headed home for bed at 5 a.m.

All in all, a very pleasant evening indeed!

An opportunity to say thank you

In my experience, politicians aren't always very skilled at thanking others. It's a skill that is still greatly valued, and perhaps even more so given the rise of the professional political classes who tend to rise through political parties and into government without trace or interaction with the outside world these days.

As a faceless bureaucrat, I don't expect a great deal of gratitude, especially working for HM Revenue and Customs as I do by day, and as a political administrator by night. That should never become an excuse for becoming thoughtless or callous though.

So I thought I should take this opportunity to pay tribute to Sally Burnell, the Political Assistant to the Liberal Democrat group on Southwark Council, who announced her departure last week to go and work with a worthy and socially valued charity.

As a rookie member of the Council Group (Local Party Chairs are awarded that status in Southwark), and as someone who had never paid much attention to the inner workings of Southwark Council until that point, Sally was a welcome support, and made me feel that I wasn't entirely out of place. Her briefing documents have enabled me to contribute to debates in a meaningful and informed way, to the extent where the Group leadership occasionally seek my views on matters where I might have useful input (not what I would have predicted eighteen months ago).

There have been some less than enjoyable moments for her, the vitriolic and wildly inaccurate attacks from the Darbyshires, for example, and we aren't the easiest bunch of people to work with. But she has maintained a cheery visage throughout, and her talents will be missed. On the other hand, she'll still be about the place and I'm sure that her knowledge and expertise will be called upon from time to time.

So, thank you Sally, it's been a blast...

An apology can be a matter of honour

It has been brought to my attention that what I took to be a mildly amusing reference to one of my Conservative opponents has in fact really upset her. Now given my apparent reputation for being quite a gentleman at heart (I'm kind to animals, try to see the best in people and am loyal to my friends), I am disappointed that my frog-related postings have had such an impact.

Accordingly, it is therefore entirely appropriate that I offer a sincere public apology to Cllr Robin Crookshank Hilton for any offence caused by my reference to what is, to be frank, a bizarre and curiously anonymous attack on her character posted on the Internet. Given that I have no real interest as to what she, or anyone else, does in their spare time as long as it is legal, it would certainly be wrong of me to condemn, or even allude to condemnation of, her extra-curricular activities.

It is no defence to suggest that my series of frog references was merely an expression of a well-developed sense of whimsy (although those of you who know me will acknowledge that it is one of my more eccentric traits) and it is therefore a matter of honour to offer her this apology. A colleague will be conveying something a little more tangible as a peace offering, and I hope that it can be accepted in the spirit in which it is intended.

I would make one small request in return. If I do upset one of our local Conservatives again, and it isn't my current intention to do so, it might be more effective to approach me directly rather than approach our Group Leader. You see, it puts him in a rather awkward position because, whilst I have an ex-officio role within the Group as a Local Party Chair, he has no influence or control over me other than the regard in which I hold him. I actually like Nick a lot and am loyal to him and the Group, but still... just a thought, eh?