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.

As honest doubt lies bleeding and bereft...

It has been a trying day on the internet. In attempting to defend the notion that making change is complex, and that actions have consequences, I have been accused of being in favour of the suffering of the poor and the vulnerable, the retention of Trident, the preservation of the monarchy and of wanting a disproportionately large military.

The defence put up by one formerly rather senior figure in local government is that he presumed that I believed in such things because I didn't entirely agree with him, and therefore must be bad and evil. And, having done so, then demanded that I make my position clear on all of those things. Life is, to be honest, too short. If that's the level of debate I can expect, I've got better things to do, the company of friends, family and loved ones (often combining two or more of the three), country walks and an interest in my local community, where people are generally more real and less tribal.

I have, at least for the time being, seen too much "black and white" debate, too much "I disagree with you, so you must be evil, and bad, and wrong...", even amongst Liberal Democrats. We used to be a bit better than that, something of a family, but I'm not sure that we are any more.

So, I'm going to retreat to the safety of my own small corner of paradise that is the Gipping Valley for a while, and leave the rest of you to carry on as best you can. I'm sure that you'll cope. I'll probably pop up from time to time, with some encouragement, or a moral hug, or some friendly advice, and if you need me, or want to chew the fat, or share a good story or a laugh, do feel free.

Do not feed the sadist, sorry, troll...

One of the best pieces of advice to give anyone who wants to engage on the internet is "don't feed the trolls". Admittedly, it isn't always easy to detect trolls, as there are those who define 'troll' as 'anyone who doesn't agree with me', but the general rule is still a wise one to adhere to.

And it now appears that the theory that such people are merely firestarters has some basis to it. Research done in Canada suggests that Internet trolls are more likely than others to show signs of sadism, psychopathy and "Machiavellianism": a disregard for morality and tendency to manipulate or exploit others.

Now, one does need to be cautious, and this was an online survey, but as someone who has occasionally mused out loud on the tendency for an online minority to behave in a manner that they would surely never replicate in 'real life', it does appeal as a possible theory, and offers a means of dealing with them, or an excuse not to tolerate their behaviour.

Apparently, sadism is the most prevalent influence causing trolls to behave as they do, and as most of us don't knowingly interact with sadists in real life, it's little wonder that we struggle with such behaviour online. And for those of us who take the view that, as reasonable people, we're willing to engage in rational debate, the notion that there are people out there who simply prefer to abuse allcomers is a trying, and ultimately depressing one.

So, the advice holds - don't feed the trolls - and, if in doubt, stick to fora where moderation is effective and complaints about conduct taken seriously.

Is Liberal Democrat blogging dying, becoming more 'concentrated', or simply less fashionable?

I was idly browsing Lib Dem Blogs recently, as one does, when a thought crossed on mind. "Is it me, or does the site seem less busy of late?". And so, given my fascination with numbers, I thought that I should take a look...

I've taken today's date as a reference point, and here are the numbers of active blogs in each year since 2006;

• 2006 - 55
• 2007 - 107
• 2008 - 222
• 2009 - 186
• 2010 - 231
• 2011 - 235
• 2012 - 230
• 2013 - 177
• 2014 - 126

What I find interesting is that the drop in the number of active blogs has come in the last two years, and not rather earlier. Yes, perhaps we've lost councillor blogs as we've lost councillors, and there's no doubt that blogging comes less easily if you feel that you have to defend a less than utterly popular administration. Alternatively, perhaps blogging is now passé, now that we have Twitter, Facebook and the like.

However, it is a pity, in that it is another way for us to reach people, offers an online archive of who we are and what we think, and is easier to maintain than a diary. And, I suspect, there are quite a few Liberal Democrat bloggers out there who haven't found out about the aggregator, or have but haven't chosen to sign up. Are you one of them?...

Published Elsewhere - Film Review: InRealLives

This post was published earlier today on Liberal Democrat Voice...

Released this week, InRealLives takes a look at how the internet has impacted upon the way we live our lives, and flags up some issues that should cause us to reflect upon questions of privacy, personal relationships and sexuality.

Director Beeban Kidron might be best known for "Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit" and "Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason", but here she delves into the lives of five young people as they talk variously about their use of pornography and its effect on their ability to connect emotionally, addiction to social media and computer gaming, cyber bullying and building relationships online.

Woven around these individual stories is an examination of where data is kept, how much of what we do is recorded, and the question asked is, do we have real privacy any more?

Kidron carries out the interviews off camera, allowing you to focus your whole attention on the interviewee, in their own homes, and asks the sort of questions that generate some thoughtful, and thought-provoking, answers. In doing so, she provides an insight into the impact of the internet on the next generation - just what are they doing with their smartphones all day?

The film addresses some difficult issues but also offers some optimism - I challenge anyone not to feel for Tom as he comes out on line and forms a relationship with Daniel.

All in all, this is a film for parents and grandparents who might learn why social media is so huge, and for young adults who might not entirely appreciate the loss of privacy that might ensue. Unfortunately, its 15 certificate does mean that some of those who might benefit from seeing it won't be able to do so, but nonetheless, it achieves its aim of challenging the way we see the online world with humour, honesty and integrity.

InRealLives was released on 20 September, and is produced by Dogwoof Productions.

Is it still possible to have online debate without abuse?

I've spent the last day or so in a blizzard of moderation over at Liberal Democrat Voice for having the temerity to suggest that, rather than rush to judgement, it might be better to wait for the facts to emerge. As for the suggestion that the media might not always be unbiased or even factually accurate, and that a range of sources might help in reaching one's opinion...

And yet, in the real world, plenty of people are perfectly capable of jumping to a conclusion based on something which fits with their biases, conscious or sub-conscious. That is, I suppose, normal. After all, in our busy lives, who has time amidst work, families, housework and all those other things to find out more? We effectively trust our media to be reasonably accurate, even as we acknowledge their biases.

Except that we don't, when asked the direct question about levels of trust in journalists. Depending on which polling company is asking the question, only about 1 in 5 of us trust them. So, why is it that too many people who comment on political websites will start from the presumption that the story they have read, or use in support of their argument is true, accurate and without spin? And why are they so dogmatic about it, to the point of surprising levels of anger, aggressiveness and downright rudeness towards anyone who might have the audacity not to agree with them?

It seems to work for them, I must say. That said, whilst they tend to dominate any debate in which they participate, they appear increasingly to be talking to (shouting at?) just each other.

I also find myself bemused by the persistence of non-Liberal Democrats who seem to have remarkable amounts of free time to find Liberal Democrats to abuse. I understand that they're angry, but given their assumption that we're all morally bankrupt and operate in an ethical vacuum, what makes them think that we're suddenly going to conclude, "You know, Steve's right, I am ethically and morally loathsome, I think I'll give up any interest in society and play gin rummy and engage a seven year old to clean my chimney instead."? It seems somewhat unlikely, wouldn't you say?

I'm not under any illusion as to the popularity of liberal democracy as a political philosophy. It is, self-evidently, demonstrated by the absence of a wholly Liberal, or Liberal Democrat government since 1911, and the status quo has some pretty enthusiastic, and motivated, supporters.

I'd like to think though that, given the chance, and a fair hearing, people could lend us their support. I'm not likely to achieve that by standing on doorsteps, aggressively challenging people's integrity and morality.

So, why does the internet seem different?

Internet: freedom, and liberalism, lies bleeding...

So, if David Cameron and the Conservatives are to be believed, we are about to have an opt-in provision for 'adult content' on the internet. Strike another blow against freedom, I fear.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not particularly wild about some of the impacts that the internet has wrought - it has increasingly allowed the coarsening of political (and other) debate, amongst other things, and the easy availability of online pornography may well have had a negative impact on the way some people interact sexually - but in part that comes down to the way people use what is, otherwise, a tool for good, or change, or both.

The beauty of the internet is that it gives people access to information, be it frivolous or vital. It gives the vulnerable a means to discover that they are not alone, it provides a route for those who are, in their own eyes, unusual, or outside of the mainstream, to meet others like themselves. It is, in short, a critical building block for a properly liberal society.

And yes, it does need to be policed against illegality - I'm perfectly relaxed about that - and we need to educate society about its impact and how best to take advantage of the opportunities it offers. But an opt-out option is far better than an opt-in strategy.

The definition of 'adult content' is a vexed one. Various 'minority' communities are rightly concerned that they will be impacted, and that entirely legal, consensual material will be included, as well as critical support material for, for example, the LGBT+ community will be covered. And who, exactly, decides what will be included, and how will they cover every potential website? Is such a project even possible?

It would surely be better to police the internet for criminality, and to educate, rather than to presume criminality and block material pre-emptively based on a set of contentious criteria. But, it seems, something must be done, and this is something, so it must be done.

In a society where we are increasingly taught to be scared of things, it was inevitable that, at some point, the internet would be targeted by people who either don't get it, or have a material interest in not getting it. I would have expected it from Labour, but assumed that, given how loudly Conservatives proclaim their love for freedom, that they might be a bit more sensible. It seems that I was wrong... again. I'm afraid that it's still true that Conservatives still mostly believe in the freedom to do whatever they approve of.

But will Liberal Democrat parliamentarians, given the chance, be any better? Or, in a vain effort to appease the Daily Mail, will they just roll over?

Regardless, I don't have a good feeling about this...

@DNSAssociate - is it wise for an accountant to use spam comments as a means of attracting business?

Since giving up CAPTCHA, I have dealt with a stream of spam comments on my blog that CAPTCHA used to block. Strangely enough, it means that I get reminded of things that I have done in a curiously, rather appealingly, random way - an iPod shuffle of my 'greatest hits' if you like.

And you can guess as to the nature of the comments - US drug sellers, internet sales for all sorts of weird and wonderful things. However, today saw something different.

For one thing, the comment had a name attached, Chris Smith, rather than 'Anonymous'. Naturally, I assumed that it might be a real comment, so took a rather closer look, only to find that it was a spam comment, but with a twist. The advert was for a firm of accountants/financial advisors in North West London, DNS Associates Ltd, and read;

"Great post and i am an accountant and my company DNS Associates service provides Online Accountants and Online Accounting. DNS Associates Accountants for Contractors assist with all industries with specific focus on Accountants for IT Contractors.

corporate tax planning"

(I've taken out the link, for obvious reasons.)

Alright, I accept that an accountant's primary skill requirement is to be numerate, but am I likely to be impressed by such a poor display of literacy? I think not. And am I likely to draw the conclusion that this is a reputable company if it uses spam as a core part of its publicity strategy? No, don't think so.

And, given what I do for a living, was it wise to pick on me? Probably not. Luckily, although I have a very long memory, I do tend not to hold stupidity against people, so think of this as a polite shot across the bows...

CAPTCHA - a horribly necessary evil?

One of the things that I really hate about reading blogs is that bit when, just as you'd like to make a witty, erudite comment, you find yourself having to type something you can barely read into a box. It's called CAPTCHA, and I personally find it really annoying.

It was therefore a rather unpleasant surprise when the always entertaining Jennie Rigg noted, in passing, that the CAPTCHA on my blog was rather hard to read. This came as a surprise, as I hadn't even known that it was there. So, in a rather determined manner, I decided to remove it, discovering that I had set something called 'word verification'. This, it would appear, switches CAPTCHA on.

It felt good, I admit. At least, for about fifteen minutes, it did. And then, the wave of spam comments began to break over my inbox. Boy, are those spammers persistent! And annoying too. And yes, I can delete the e-mail notifications, and clear the comment moderation inbox from time to time, but I have rather better things to do with my time.

So, how can I solve the problem? Or do I just have to accept that CAPTCHA is a necessary evil? Or, would it work better if I changed the blog's colour scheme. You know more about this than I do, so what do you think?

Is this why the Leader's Office doesn't get it?

The recent debate over rumoured proposals to snoop on private internet traffic has been something of an eye-opener for many internet savvy Liberal Democrats. The report sparked a great deal of anger amongst the online community, all of which led to a hurriedly organised conference call between a group of Liberal Democrat bloggers, two Special Advisors in Nick Clegg's Private Office, and Matthew Hanney, Nick's political advisor on Tuesday evening, organised by the Liberal Democrat blogosphere's resident Auntie, Helen Duffett.

It was, it is fair to say, a rather difficult conversation, and it would be hard to describe it as a wholly successful meeting of minds.

There was a decided sense that the Leader's Office doesn't 'get' it, that they are too close to the heart of government to see why those of us with the opportunity to apply some perspective or, in some cases, expertise, are so aerated about the issue of internet monitoring. It would appear the Leader's Office suffers from a failure to connect to the wider Party.

If it's any consolation, it has been ever thus. David Steel was pretty much loathed by the radical wing of the Liberal Party (the feeling was almost entirely mutual), whilst Paddy Ashdown's leadership was punctuated by interesting 'out of the blue' policy announcements which did at least have the effect of ensuring that you listened to his leader's speech. Charles Kennedy never really engaged with activists, and Ming Campbell's understanding of how the Party really worked tended to ensure that he was respected but never really loved.

But whereas in the past it wasn't important because we weren't in government, and the absence of social media made organising a co-ordinated response was difficult (how outraged can you get if you don't know how outraged everybody else is?), both of these have now changed.

And that, perhaps is the key to the sense of dislocation between 'us' and 'them'. One presumes that the Special Advisors know more than we do about the detail of government - what is being discussed, at what level, and at what stage of development it is at. That knowledge is a blessing... and a curse. It is a blessing, because they can see beyond the newspaper headlines, but a curse because they therefore don't necessarily see what the impact of those newspaper headlines is on the rest of us.

However, that doesn't mean that they're right, and that the rest of us are wrong. We have to remember that a small group of people are tasked with attempting to keep track of the entire gamut of government business, whilst we can focus on the things that interest us. They are also outnumbered by evil Tories, with their own agenda (which isn't ours, lest we forget).

But the fact that we are watching, as an online community, changes the way that politics should be done at the centre. Unfortunately, the centre is suffering from time lag. In the same way that government was slow to understand the impact that freedom of information would have on its work, and that coalition would have on decision making, so it is with the ability of opposition groups to convey their message and influence the media agenda.

As Nick kept saying, we need a new politics. Ironically, that's not just because it is right, but it's because the old one is now transparently broken. And our mission, should we wish to take it on, is to help in those efforts to change the way that policy is made in this country, to break down the walls of silence and deception that impact on our body politic, and to shine a light upon those shadowy media moguls, lobbyists and apparatchiks whose influence is so strong over those who govern us.

It isn't easy, and it won't be quick. But, in the long run, it will reduce the scope for the sort of gulf that causes disharmony amongst us...

Broadband access in Suffolk: frankly, I should be grateful that you can read this at all

For those of you who live in towns and cities, or otherwise have access to fibre optic cables and all the paraphenalia of modern telecommunications, spare a thought for us country dwellers.

I live about seven miles from my local BT exchange, as the ancient telephone wires run. So remote are we, that some homes still share cables. As a result, broadband speeds are astonishingly poor, a fact which has serious repercussions for the rural economy. For whilst the incidence of heavy industry is minimal, the potential for remotely supplied intellectual and professional services is vast. After all, why run a web design business in an urban location when you could do it from a purpose built office surrounded by pretty scenery, where property prices are lower and stress levels lower still?

This potential is crushed by the failure to provide decent availability of broadband services, and today's announcement that the Suffolk bid for £20 million from the Government's Broadband Delivery UK fund has been rejected comes as a bitter blow - even more so given that Norfolk's bid was successful. That £20 million would have been the leverage for a total of £42 million to used to bring superfast broadband to the county, and although there will be further opportunities to bid in the future, valuable time has been lost.

The task of apportioning the blame has already begun and most interestingly, the new, shiny and remarkably personable Conservative MP for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, Dr Dan Poulter, has led the charge, attacking his own colleagues on the County Council and, in particular, Jeremy Pembroke, for the inadequacy of their involvement in, and support for, the bid. I don't know enough to comment on whether that's fair or not, but it does seem like an extraordinary thing to do without good grounds.

And whatever has happened in the past, the immediate future for superfast broadband in Suffolk is bleak. At a time when Government strategy relies on job creation in the private sector to compensate for job losses in the public sector, any barriers placed in the way by poor infrastructure should be dealt with briskly...

Guido Fawkes: proving that rights don't necessarily come with responsibilities

It's been an 'interesting' day for the blogosphere, following the resignation of William Hague's Special Advisor, Christopher Myers, linked to a series of allegations. Naturally, I'm not the first to comment on this. At Liberal Democrat Voice, Stephen Tall and Iain Roberts have already made valuable contributions to debate. Elsewhere, Iain Dale has, somewhat handwringingly, claimed that today has been a bleak day for the political blogosphere. Perhaps I have a perspective that differs from others. After all, Paul Staines has been pretty vile towards my wife in the past...

Let's start with the allegations. The best way to proceed is to break them down...

1. Was Christopher Myers in possession of sufficient skills to carry out his job?
2. Was he appointed to that position for reasons that might represent an abuse of office?
3. Was he involved in a sexual relationship with the person by whom he was subsequently employed?

My view, for what it's worth, is that conflating the three elements into one, Guido has gone beyond fair comment to, potentially, libel. I can understand why he's done it, after all, sex always attracts attention, building momentum behind an otherwise technical story about subjectives.

If doubts exist about Christopher Myers and the legitimacy of his appointment, and it wasn't an issue that was on my radar, it is perfectly within bounds for Guido to ask questions. Not very nice, perhaps, but then he never pretended to be a saint. Given the increasingly held view of public servants as being valid targets for abuse, and given the history of Special Advisors, he was rather more likely to be scrutinised than some. If there is evidence to indicate that the appointment was unmerited, then there would be legitimate questions about why he was appointed - it is public money, lest we forget.

So, why the innuendo about sexuality? Well, it's a fairly obvious inference if you're minded to reach it, and there were, it was reported, rumours of William Hague's past. It sounded viable, if hearsay and rumour have common currency with facts.

And this is where Paul Staines's status becomes an issue. He has the right to free speech, and I strongly believe that society is not free unless individuals have the right to speak their minds, regardless of the view expressed. However, with that right comes responsibility, in particular the responsibility to accept the consequences when you falsely accuse.

Paul doesn't really believe in that. By keeping his assets offshore, as suggested by Wikipedia (not necessarily the most reliable of sources), he intends to be a libel lawyer's worst nightmare. Faced with such an adversary, most of those accused will, one presumes, choose not to throw money at lawyers with little hope of recompense. Bankruptcy holds no fears - he's already been made bankrupt once - and whilst he can make a living through his blog, he has no incentive to stop.

So, on that basis, why not throw accusations of sexual malpractice into the mix, regardless of evidence, or lack thereof? In fairness, he wasn't the first to leave such an accusation hanging (warning - Daily Mail link, scroll to the end...). Think of it as Guido being appalling, but set it in the context of a media that feigns outrage with those appalling bloggers on one hand whilst using them as a source on the other, and colluding in the creation of a political culture where the notion of altruism is scorned, and human weakness exposed for the pleasure of others.

I would prefer to see the issue tested. If Guido has hard evidence to substantiate claims of a relationship, let him put them into the public domain. If not, perhaps a withdrawal and fulsome apology is called for. But it won't happen, as that is seldom the way the game is played any more. He will continue to offend most people's sense of decency, until someone decides to stop him.

Who that will be, and why, remains to be seen...

* note - I have referred to Guido and to Paul on an interchangeable basis. I trust that they don't mind...

Liberal Democrat Voice - just like a big, extended family

The internet is a wonderful, terrible thing. It allows us to exchange information, communicate with people around the world, abuse people that we've never met.

Yesterday, however, it had a benevolent air to it, at least as far as this Suffolk-based Liberal Democrat is concerned. I had produced the leaflet, and only needed to send it to a friendly printer. The only problem was, I rely on mobile internet, signal is weak and variable, and the file was pretty big. How to resolve this? Well, what else is Liberal Democrat Voice for if not to provide a means of tapping the knowledge of friendly others?

So I post what, if memory recalls accurately, is my first topic in the members forum, in an attempt to get an answer. And, as I hoped, Chris Keating and Anthony Fairclough give me the benefit of their experience. I do as they suggest, shrink the file, send it, and I have completed a task.

Hoorah for the internet!

There is no escape from advertising... or is there?

Reuters reports that the advertising industry expects mobile advertising to grow by 45% per annum over the coming five years, from $3.1 billion now to $28.8 billion then, according to Ineum Consulting.

The increasing prevelence of smartphones, and the falling costs of data upload make the use of Facebook and other social networks more and more tempting, especially as you can thus reach people in places where they go voluntarily. It will also allow for more targetted campaigns, more localised or small scale ones, making advertising more accessible for small businesses.

On the other hand, if spend in this sector is going to increase by 45% per annum, other sectors will see a relative decline in revenue, as already witnessed in the newspaper and commercial television sectors. This could mean increased casualties in the regional press and in marginal television stations, costing us some of the choice and variety that currently exists.

The irony is that we may see a polarisation between visual, stationery mediums like poster advertsing and small scale, nimble mobile advertising. The knock-on effects could be many. For example, do you need actors to populate adverts, when a still frame will suffice? And if you need less actors, will they be available to perform 'real' drama on stage, as opposed to lowest common denominator television?

On balance, I remain to be convinced that my life will be enriched by mobile advertising...

The perils of taking Facebook too seriously

Jo Anglezarke has recently commented on her recent problems with Facebook, and I find myself sympathising with her, at least to some extent. I do have my doubts about the wisdom of her comments that appear to have triggered the issue, and of her somewhat intemperate language, but there is an issue here worthy of thought.

Facebook is a wonderful thing, and I certainly found myself semi-addicted to it at one point. You add friends and obtain a window into their lives. Status updates are amusing, sad, puzzling and occasionally intriguing. People invite you to events, or to join groups, or to support campaigns far and wide.

However, sometimes there is a dark side. There is the risk of indiscretion, of saying something because you think that it is part of a private conversation, when in truth, it is effectively committed to easily transmittable 'paper'. For those of us in the field of political endeavour, that risk is all the greater, as occasionally becomes apparent.

Recently, I had a disagreement with a fellow Lib Dem blogger and Facebook habitue. It was then suggested by them that I was foolish to trust people on Facebook as I had up until then, and so I removed said person from my Friends list, not as a punishment for them, more like an exercise in avoiding risk for myself.

I freely admit that I have 'sought' very few friends on Facebook since my early addiction, mostly family in fact, but seldom turn down approaches unless I have no idea who they are (and in some of those cases, it is likely that my memory is poor). I have no conscious notion of how many friends I have on Facebook, although it is on my homepage somewhere, nor do I see how it really matters.

It would be nice to think that we can all value ourselves for who we are, and it's probably naive to take such a stance, but is it really sensible to allow oneself to be destabilised by what is, after all, just a social contact network?

Let peace reign in the land of Lib Dem bloggers

I have watched the spat between Nich Starling and Alex Wilcock with some sadness. Whilst I don't know Nich terribly well, probably because I live in London and he lives in Norfolk, his blog has certainly attracted an audience. I've known Alex for some time, and respect his ability to construct cogent arguments on the issues that he cares deeply about. I've also been Returning Officer in a Parliamentary selection he won, but that's a story for another day. Now, Bob Shaw has joined in. Bob's blog is interesting. Not necessarily designed to make friends, it must be said, but eye-catching nonetheless.

As I've occasionally remarked, there is a gap between some bloggers from London and the rest of us, but it merely mirrors the gulf in terms of access. As a London based member, I am more likely to meet an MP at one or other Local Party event because that's where they are during the week. Party HQ is in London, because that's where the politicians are. Oh yes, and the Palace of Westminster is in, errrr, Westminster. As a result, London based activists have greater opportunities than others.

In fact, if you look at where our internal Party committee members live, there is a bias towards London and the South East which reflects the political system regardless of Party. Indeed, quangos have a far greater proportion of their members in London than in any other region, and little has been done to address that.

That's the problem. What Nich has suggested, albeit somewhat hamfistedly, is that it would be nice if the Party is less London-centric. That said, he initially jumped to a conclusion which implied that it was some kind of conspiracy. Clearly, it isn't. I apparently write the fourteenth best Liberal Democrat blog in the United Kingdom (Iain Dale says so, so it must be true...), and have never been invited to one of these "meet the politician" opportunities. I live in London, work in central London, spend time in Cowley Street and, for my sins, am now part of the "establishment", whatever that is. This "omission" doesn't particularly bother me, and I've assumed that those involved have organised it themselves.

Alex has helpfully explained how it actually works and I now know that, if I am inclined to get involved, all I need do is ask. I probably won't, as I prefer to maintain a degree of independence and, besides, I'm not really a policy person. Perhaps he might have held his fire a little bit in terms of his response to Nich, but that isn't really his style (and Nich isn't exactly a shrinking violet either). It's nearly always funny, although being on the receiving end might smart a bit...

The solution to Nich's concerns is more difficult. Outside London, bloggers are more widely spread, and access to politicians less easily to achieve. Ed Davey is unlikely to spend much time in the vicinity of Norwich unless invited there by one of the Local Parties. Politicians are generally overcommitted at our conferences, thus making the creation of a space for bloggers more difficult.

The only solution is to create opportunities, rather than complain about the lack of them. Using Regional Conferences might help. If Nick Clegg is willing to go to Llandudno, or Aviemore, then perhaps bloggers in Wales or Scotland could come together and ask his office for a little bit of his time. If Vince Cable is speaking in Leeds, bloggers in Yorkshire and the surrounds could do the same. Find out who your Regional/State Conference Chair is, and ask them who their star turn is going to be, contact that person's office and see what might be done. The worst that can happen is that they say no...