Drink ASBOs - missing the point yet again...

And so we can expect the dawning of a new age of responsible drinking, following the introduction of so-called 'drink ASBOs'. Well, probably not.

You see, the problem is that ASBOs are merely a way of delaying action. In order to get an ASBO, you must have committed an offence, right? If you haven't, society has no right to stigmatise you, does it? All right, so you've committed an offence. The police find you and arrest you, charging you with the offence. So, instead of prosecuting you and punishing you, you get an ASBO. Breaching the terms of the ASBO is an offence, for which you will be prosecuted. Alright, I'm beginning to lose sight of the point of this arrangement.

Let's see now. Someone guilty of a criminal act is caught and given an ASBO. That person then needs to be monitored to ensure that they don't breach its terms. Police will be needed to do that, although PCSOs and CCTV cameras will be there in support. There will doubtless be a new offence linked to serving someone with an ASBO, placing the onus on publicans and their staff to be able to identify individuals.

It strikes me that it would be much easier to just charge an offender and have a formal process for punishment and rehabilitation instead. Apparently, we have such a thing already, known as a justice system, staffed with magistrates, judges and probation officers, with big buildings called courts and prisons.

Unfortunately, once again, this Government has gone for the complex and probably ineffectual, instead of using the array of tools that already exist. They're called laws, lest we forget...

PPC selection rules: in the forest, a new kind of regime stirs

There has been, for as long as I can remember, generalised unhappiness with the way we select Parliamentary candidates. Too complicated and long-winded for smaller, weaker Local Parties, too restrictive for candidates, too quasi-legal for Returning Officers, the list goes on. Well, things are going to change. The third draft of the proposed new rules has reached 'Liberal Bureaucracy' and, I must say, I'm pretty pleased. Much of what I've called for is in, and major issues addressed.

A further drafting exercise is under way, and I expect the next draft to be discussed at the meeting of the English Candidates Committee for Sunday, September 20th, with the final version potentially debated at English Council on Saturday, November 28th. I guess that, if such a schedule is achievable, the new Rules would come into force immediately after a General Election.

The style might prove to be a bit of a surprise too...

Why this woman may well have changed blogging forever...

The young lady in question is called Rosemary Port, the once-anonymous author of a blog called 'Skanks in NYC'. Last year, she accused a Canadian model, Liskula Cohen, of being, amongst other things, psychotic and lying. Unusually, Ms Cohen sent the lawyers in, demanding that Google reveal the identity of the author, and after a hearing in the Manhattan Supreme Court, Google, and its subsidiary Blogger.com, were forced to reveal the identity of Ms Port.

Now, bear in mind that this took place in the land of the First Amendment, guaranteeing freedom of speech, in a jurisdiction that has been frequently unfriendly to those seeking to limit said rights.

But the story gets better. Ms Port has announced her intention to sue Google for $15 million for revealing her identity. Now I may be a lay person when it comes to privacy laws, but it strikes me that Google were given little option. The potential fines for contempt of court would have been eye-watering, and why should they pay for the supposed right of an individual to defame anonymously?

The serious issue, however, is that this case will make Google, as well as other blog platforms, rather nervous. If individuals use Blogger or Wordpress or any of the other alternatives to defame individuals (as opposed to criticising them), will the host disown them? Is it worth the financial risk that a series of high-profile libel suits here in the United Kingdom, a notoriously friendly jurisdiction for those seeking to supress criticism, might bring?

There are those who blog anonymously with good cause. Issues related to confidentiality or commercial sensitivity, or individuals who wish to cast light on areas of public life that are otherwise hidden away but risk censure or worse, make anonymous blogging a necessity. However, anonymity is increasing used as a shield to attack freely, without fear of reprisal. And whilst I might have personal qualms about such an approach, no illegality takes place until defamation occurs.

As a liberal, I obviously believe in freedom of expression. However, I cannot accept that such a freedom extends to the right to defame and, if someone chooses to do so, they should understand that there are consequences. After all, with rights come responsibilities.

It has become increasingly clear that the tone of discourse in the blogosphere has fallen somewhat. Wit is replaced by brutality, disagreement is marked with abuse rather than counter-argument, the assumption being that, by holding a contrary view, you are insane, corrupt or worse. Unfortunately, the likes of Guido Fawkes encourage such an approach be seemingly endorsing their views. Given that his success stems from the nature of the stories he uncovers, it is a pity that the published comments give an impression so cynical and destructive that one might wonder why he, or any of us, bothers.

Eventually, someone prominent will step over the line, the Government will feel obliged to act, and the rest of us will be regulated because a few individuals are unable to remain within a fairly broad framework. Another freedom, sacrificed in the name of freedom...

Big Brother IS watching you...

Apparently, the taxman has taken to Facebook in the US. By using the search facility, they have been able to catch up with tax evaders who, it seems, are determined to avoid their obligations yet, simultaneously tell the rest of the world what they're doing and where they're doing it.

If it's any consolation, at HM Revenue & Customs we don't have access to social networking sites. Some of us do have a BlackBerry though...

'Liberal Bureaucracy' reaches a typically cautious half-century off 131 balls

Yes, the most recent Golden Dozen saw the fiftieth entry from this blog, which comes as a bit of a surprise. My readership has never been vast, although it appears modestly loyal, and my subject matter varies from frivolous (crayfish aphrodisiacs) to mild outrage (anything to do with railway breakfasts) via my increasingly eccentric travels and life as a late convert to political campaigning.

However, I would like to thank you all for passing through these halls over the past two and a half years and, hopefully, I'll give you cause to continue to do so. Let's just say that the next twenty-one months should give me plenty of material...

Sometimes, just sometimes, it would be nice not to be disappointed by a law firm...

I am a cautious soul for the most part. I moderate comments to this blog, generally because this is my space, and I set the rules. And so I discovered that the following comment had been left for me to publish;

If you are interested in the authorisation process for Heathrow runway 3, check out my blog, which monitors the implementation of the new regime under the Planning Act 2008, which the runway will need to use: http://www.bdb-law.co.uk/blog

You'll note that I have not hyperlinked the website address. I fundamentally object to a commercial organisation attempting to leech off of my blog for their own gain. However, I suspect that I'm not alone so, if you've had a similar comment posted, you might like to complain to this person, who appears to be responsible...

American crayfish - oversexed, oversized and over here...

This is a white-clawed crayfish (shoulders back, lovely boy). It is native to this sceptred isle (cue strains of Elgar) and can be found in rivers and streams everywhere. It is the very essence of Englishness, no?

And now it is under threat from an invader from across the Atlantic, the signal crayfish, which has come over here, aggressively out-competed our white-clawed friends and, worst of all, spread the deadly crayfish plague amongst them.

Fortunately, all is not lost for the home team. White-clawed crayfish are being rescued from across East Anglia and brought to a secret location in Suffolk, where an 'ark' has been created in the hope of breeding new 'super crayfish', able to leap over tall buildings in a single bound and swim faster than a speeding bullet.

The Environment Agency have appealed to anyone with a large pond, lake or gravel pit to contact them in the hope of creating a second ark. In the meantime, if you see any crayfish wearing bermuda shorts, or pronouncing Leicester Square incorrectly, feel free to eat them. Apparently, they're delicious, and an aphrodisiac to boot...

A very productive weekend indeed...

The leaflet is now delivered across the ward, thanks to the efforts of Ros and Jamie yesterday, and the process of doing so has been very informative. I've met more dogs than I ever would have in London, and they're all friendly. Big, soppy labradors, bouncy Jack Russells, I've patted them and made conversation with their owners, virtually all of whom have been friendly too.

Now I'm long enough in the tooth to know that, just because people are friendly, they aren't necessarily going to vote for you. However, there isn't a history of intensive campaigning in large parts of Suffolk, and the fact that someone is taking an interest is enough to gain some attention.

I've also seen a few things that might benefit from improvement. Not huge things that will 'change the world' but which might help a few people along the way, so I'll be working on those over the coming weeks...

Where the streets have no name...

One of the aspects of rural campaigning that I have had to adapt to is, and those of you who live outside of a town will doubtless recognise, the idea that the houses aren't always conveniently next to each other.

For example, in Creeting St Peter, there are one hundred and five houses on the register. Seventy-eight of them are in the village, which is fairly easy. The other twenty-seven are scattered across the parish so, if I wanted to deliver to them, I could walk around, but it would take quite some time. So, instead of a delivery walk, there is a delivery drive.

But, in order to deliver efficiently, you need to know where all the houses are. Fortunately, with an electoral register, maps provided by the Ordnance Survey and a car, you can plot them all, and design a route that gets you to them all. It also means that, using the skills gleaned from years of watching 'Blue Peter', you end up with a map of the entire ward, made up of bits of map cut up and stuck together at the back with sticky tape.

So, the preparation work is done, and delivery has begun. I'm out again this afternoon with Ros, and we might even be finished in time for dinner.

Bringing the message to the people

Amazing, really. On Sunday, I had some material for a Focus leaflet. Kathy, our County Group Leader helped me convert it into the finished product and, by Monday, with some help from Lib Dem Voice, I had sent it to the printer, the Chair of Ipswich Liberal Democrats, Tim Lockington. Today, it was ready, and so Ros and I drove to Ipswich to collect 1200 leaflets, the amount we thought would be needed.

But where to deliver them? Cue 'Election Maps', a service provided by the Ordnance Survey for political campaigners, which allows you to trace the boundaries of your ward and print out street maps of different bits of it. Meanwhile, Wendy Marchant, one of our district councillors in Needham Market, was putting word out across mid-Suffolk to obtain the electoral register for the ward and, by early evening, I had a full set of canvass cards.

So, a delivering we went, Ros driving. We delivered more than 40% of the ward, explored some of the outlying areas, pinpointed most of the outlying houses on the northern edge and designed some walks for the future.

Tomorrow, we'll be delivering more of the ward, and hope to have the job finished by the end of the month.

Are the old-fashioned courtesies just that - old-fashioned?

The publication of the new Liberal Democrat policy paper on issues related to women has drawn most attention for those elements addressing issues of imagery and how it influences people.

However, it almost certainly doesn't address the question of how the sexes interact. At least, I hope that it doesn't. After all, this really isn't an issue that can be addressed by policy, legislative or indicative. And yet, there is an issue to be raised here.

I was brought up to believe in the old-fashioned notion of chivalry. A gentleman held doors open for ladies, offered them the shelter of his umbrella, offered his seat on buses or trains, and stood up when a lady joined a gathering. All quite harmless, some might say touchingly cute. But that was the way things were done. And you didn't do that for men...

In these more 'enlightened' times, when women expect to be treated equally, one risks being caught by a paradox. If you maintain such habits, you run the risk of being seen as patronising, and there are some who will not hesitate to tell you as much. At the same time, there are those who are content to be treated in such a manner, and appear to appreciate such an approach. All very confusing...

So, is being a gentleman contrary to the ethos of equality for all, at all times?

MPs and second jobs - this Mark reckons different

To defend MPs at the moment is to take an unpopular position, and yet that's exactly what I'm going to do.

Mark Thompson suggests this morning that MPs shouldn't have second jobs, and that Matthew Parris, writing in the Times, is wrong to differentiate between 'cuddly' second jobs (charity work, doctor etc) and 'non-cuddly' ones (company director, barrister and the like). And so, the non-slave to conformity that I am, I'm going to disagree with both of them.

It is, in the nicest way, none of our damned business what MPs do when they're not performing their duties in the role. Since when did the public have the right to dictate what anyone does with the one hundred and sixty-eight hours a week that an MP has? No, our concern should be twofold;

1. Is the MP meeting our expectations in terms of performance?
2. Are they engaged in activities which represent a conflict of interest?

If an MP is generally accepted to be performing well, and they spend sixty hours a week doing so, why should we be dictating to them what they do with the other one hundred and eight hours? We don't dictate their reading matter, or their holiday destination, or their residence, so why are we dictating any other aspect of their lives?

I have already made the point about how we are merely repeating the mistakes of over-regulation so beloved by the Labour Party. It's not about money, an assumption that most cynics would draw, it's about freedom.

Darrell and Jane - is it me, or have they never been seen together in the same room?

It is only at times like this, early in the morning when it's a bit too sticky to sleep, when ideas pop up like mushrooms.

So, is it me, or are Darrell Goodliffe and Jane Watkinson the same person? And why do they publish the same postings at slight intervals? Don't get me wrong, it isn't a criticism, it just confuses me when I read Lib Dem Blogs using my BlackBerry and the same title appears twice...

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!

A bureaucrat, a Group Leader, the Party President and a computer - it takes a village to produce a Focus

So, with Irfan's encouragement ringing in my ears, I ventured to Capel St Mary, where I was to receive an introductory course on PagePlus, and produce a Focus leaflet, courtesy of Kathy Pollard, our Group Leader on Suffolk County Council.

Kathy has been incredibly supportive of my attempts to get involved with campaigning here in Suffolk and today was fascinating, as she demonstrated the basics of what PagePlus can do, and even had a photo taken of the two of us for one of the articles for the leaflet. Ros, who has been pretty inspirational in keeping me focussed, was at the other end of the camera.

I was pleasantly surprised that, whilst there is plenty of complicated stuff you can do with PagePlus, it appears to be designed so that, even if you're a novice, it can be used to make something basic yet professional looking. Much kudos must go to whoever it was who decided that this should be the preferred software for the Party.

Anyway, the leaflet is now ready to be printed, and when I manage to work out how to compress the pdf file to a small enough size, I can send it to the printer.

One small step for a liberal bureaucrat, one giant step towards 2011...

Point and shoot - starting a campaign the Liberal Bureaucracy way

Alright, I confess that, in the past, I've not always been keen on 'retail politics'. Happy to help, deliver leaflets, canvass (a bit), do the odd residents survey, but somebody else can be the candidate. It's all a bit aggressive, urban campaigning.

However, now that I've got a feel for how politics is done here in our rural idyll, I've changed my mind. This rather more gentle politics is more my speed. It's no less important, but there is less overt unpleasantness. So, I've sought an opportunity to be a candidate in 2011 with the intention of actually having a campaign - you know, doing something.

I have a long and honourable record as a paper candidate - Roe Green ward in 1990, somewhere in Southwark in 1994, Village ward in 2006, and, in June, the Upper Gipping division here in Suffolk. The Party wanted to fly the flag in each case and I was happy to be a name on a ballot paper. Now, however, it's different. I am moved to want to make my community better, and feel obliged to try myself, rather than to help someone else to get elected.

So, how does this work? You need a leaflet, which means that you need material and photographs. There aren't many pictures of me so, yesterday afternoon, we went out to take some. Mark with bus stop, Mark with field, Mark with village sign - you know, the stock photos of candidates through the ages. I may even have pointed at things.

Next, I need to create the leaflet. Luckily, my brains trust, who've done all of this before, have offered to do the first one for me. PagePlus? No clue, personally, but I'm going to have to learn - I'm hoping that there will be training at Bournemouth - and I could always borrow my brother's graphic design skills if need be.

So, with a bit of luck, a leaflet may exist soon. The next question is, how do I get it from printer to doormat?

We are top of the league, yes we are top of the...

Blue Square Premiership.

Hmmm... isn't it nice that such small things bring joy?

P.S. Condolences to Norfolk Blogger. It's not easy...

The Amaranth Guide to Dueling

I suppose that I should have realised that something was afoot when Mark stormed into the Great Hall, pulled one of Great Uncle Otto's (silver medallist, Antwerp 1920) duelling sabres out of its display, and stormed back out again. Ah, the impetuosity of youth. It brought back memories enough to make an Empress blush...

Of course, being a civilised country, Amaranth banned dueling some years ago, although there is still the odd incidence of individuals being rushed to hospital having sustained rather severe shaving cuts. Curiously, the history of Amaranth was shaped by two duels in particular, the first in 1863 when the Papal Nuncio was caught in an indelicate position with Crown Prince Klaus, whereupon the Dowager Empress sought satisfaction at swordpoint. Despite sustaining a quite serious wound to her forearm, she dispatched her opponent, leading to a breakdown of the Vatican-led coalition and the inevitable formation of the new Italian state.

The 1911 'Lugano Incident', where Ludwig's grandfather upheld the honour of Amaranth after an accusation of sharp practice during negotiations over the future of Albania, led to the withdrawal of Amaranth forces from the battle order of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1914. Who knows what might have happened at Vittorio Veneto had Amaranth cavalry been there to repulse the first wave of Italian attacks?

It is clear that dueling can be quite influential in changing the course of human affairs. Accordingly, there follows the Empress Jessica guide to duelling. You'll thank me one day...

Once upon a time, it was impossible to be a gentleman if one did not possess a set of dueling pistols. Admittedly, what this meant was that there were disproportionately low levels of life expectancy amongst gentlemen, but given the prevalence of war and disease, and the tradition whereby officers led their men into battle, it was probably seen as character building. On the positive side, dueling with pistols tended to be fairly quick - one shot apiece tended to suffice. Unfortunately, accuracy with a pistol tended to be fatal and even if you intended to miss, or wound, you could kill an opponent with a misfire.

Generally speaking, if neither party hit their opponent and the challenger was satisfied that his honour had been upheld, a duel could be declared to be over. However, there was nothing to prevent further shots from being fired, although anything more than three was considered barbaric. My cousin Jaime tells a story of two Latin American generals who, in the course of their duel, emptied the magazines of two automatic pistols at each other without drawing blood.

Prior to the development of pistols, swords were the obvious weapon of choice, and duels would continue until blood was drawn. This tended to ensure that fatalities were limited, although they were not unknown. The offended party could choose the point at which a duel would be brought to a halt in advance (the drawing of blood, the wounding of an adversary sufficient to make them unable to continue, death) and seconds would attend in order to ensure fair play.

I tend to see Mark as a 'pistols at dusk' sort of duellist - he isn't a morning person. So I did the decent thing, and asked Rupert to take the sabre from him and lend him Ludwig's Caron dueling pistols (rather lovely, cherrywood case), before giving him a short course on dueling strategy. Shots to the head look dramatic, but the Carons tend to pull to the left, so aimimg at the body will at least discourage an opponent from firing back with accuracy. Allowing your opponent the first shot is only advisable if you are a) the party accused of giving offence, and b) a formula has been agreed whereby blood will not be spilt and honour is maintained by both parties.

In the end, of course, the Carons remained unused. But there was a steely glint in his eye as he retired to the study...

Is the NHS really what we want?

Isn't the NHS wonderful? It was there when my [insert family member]'s [insert name of dreadful injury/organ failure/whatever] exploded/failed/turned green.

And yes, in terms of emergency treatment, the NHS is pretty good. Not so great at preventative treatment, overly target driven, but nonetheless, if I suffered a heart attack or other severe trauma, I would fancy the odds of survival to be as good or better here than in most other countries.

It's the N, as in National, that concerns me slightly. How much provision do we want to have dictated from the centre? How does a National Health Service fit into the mantra of localism? Indeed, should it?

I tend to the view that power should be diffused, that communities should decide for themselves the level of provision that suits. That might mean an emphasis on geriatric care in Eastbourne, on lung cancer in Pontefract. It might mean that Shetland does not fund IVF treatment, or that Powys doesn't fund cosmetic surgery. There are obvious difficulties, of course. How is the decision made, and by whom? How do you decide who is impacted by a decision? What minimum level of provision should everyone, regardless of location, have access to?

And it is interesting that none of the political parties want to touch the concept with a bargepole. I can see why - the prospect of the national press raising the spectre of a 'postcode lottery' is enough to send most sane people running for cover. Better to be safe than sorry, after all. And given the likely quality of any such debate - shroud waving doesn't begin to cover it - and the equally likely lack of backbone in those obliged to defend and justify the decision of the people, one might despair as to the prospects of a positive outcome.

However, money is tight, and obvious ways to cut spending on healthcare are somewhat noticeable by their absence. Anyone willing to come out in favour of cutting doctors? Nurses, perhaps? Cleaners, anybody? The cost of drugs has been closely examined already, PFI deals for new buildings place an extra burden on the budget, and miracle cures come at miraculously high cost.

So it comes down to, what do you want, and how much are you willing to pay? And until someone is willing to break the 'circle of reassurance' (the NHS is safe in our hands), I won't be holding my breath in anticipation of a meaningful debate.

Privatising the NHS - how much are you willing to pay, and to whom?

Alright, so I've been a mite mean to Charlotte and Sara although, if you make trite comments, you do risk retaliation. However, I promised some thoughts of my own, so here goes...

It is said that you get what you pay for. In healthcare, that isn't exactly true. Does 15.3% of US GDP purchase a healthcare system that is 84% better than that of the United Kingdom (8.3% of GDP)? Almost certainly not. Yes, there are other factors - the increasingly vast burden of medical malpractice insurance, for example - but it isn't the amount of money you throw at it, it's the effectiveness of how you use available resources.

Across the OECD nations, an average of 73% of healthcare spending is funded through taxation, a figure doubtless depressed by the US data (putting the statistic into context, Luxembourg, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and the UK fund 85% or more of healthcare spending through taxation). There are very few examples of privatised healthcare in the developed world, so the only model in existence which demonstrates how effective a predominantly privatised healthcare system can be is the United States.

It would be foolish to assume that the US healthcare system has reached that nirvana of perfect efficiency. However, if we assume that additional spending, sufficient to bring the proportion of GDP spent up to the US level, was required, we would be talking about an additional spend in 2006 of £72.6 billion (average exchange rate for 2006 was £1 = $1.8424, 2006 GNP was $1911 billion). Frankly, that isn't going to happen, especially if you try to explain to people that they'll have to find that figure - approximately £1,200 per person - themselves, with no tax refund available to offset it.

Alright, we need to bridge the gap. There are large amounts of waste in the US healthcare system, which manifests itself in three ways:

Choice requires spare capacity

Choice. It's wonderful. However, privatisation only gives you choice without rationing if it allows spare capacity. That spare capacity costs. Extra doctors, nurses, cleaners, scanners, ambulances, wards, how much money does that cost? You have to maintain these things unless you assume a constant and even flow of customers, an unlikely occurence. Without the spare capacity, you are rationing by availability. If I'm paying extra each year, I'd like to be seen at the time of my choosing, I think. Otherwise, what am I getting for my money? Besides, spare capacity eats into my profit margin as a supplier of healthcare services. Why should I provide spare capacity? Let someone else do it!

Bureaucracy costs, it always does...

One of the burdens on the American patient is that of the bureaucracy of billing. The hospital bills the insurer, who quibbles a bit - was this necessary? Our expert thinks not... An exchange of views follows, all of which costs. In fairness, we've experimented with charging here in the UK, and succeeded in creating a bureaucracy to compete with any the world over. I'm yet to be convinced that public health has improved as a result though...

You don't think that we're going to give you a chance to sue, do you?

American healthcare is, in terms of equipment, what French healthcare is to the pharmaceutical industry. They've got a lot of kit, and they're going to use it just in case. in 1992, an admission to hospital for what turned out to be a really bad migraine cost an unlucky insurance company approximately $7,000. We never did find out what caused it for certain... Someone has to pay for that and near-certainty doesn't come cheap...

So the difficulty for our friends in favour of contracting out healthcare is in squeezing the gap between the cost of a free market and that of predominantly state provision. They've jeopardised the benefits of economies of scale, failed (thus far) to convince the people who really matter (few of whom will be reading this posting) that rationing by resourcing, the increasingly disguised British approach, is less good than rationing by availability. Yes, they come down to the same thing, but the former is in the hands of the public through democratic accountability, whilst the latter is biased towards the provider in the absence of functional collective bargaining.

Conclusion? I'm obviously opposed to any move to privatise the NHS. Actually, no. I'm just unconvinced that privatisation can provide tangible improvements without greater infusions of money, regardless of its source. But I'm not finished yet...

Hattip to James Graham at the Social Liberal Forum for pointing me in the direction of some useful statistics...