Localism Bill: Labour still don't get this...

Another day in the Lords, another day spent on the Localism Bill, in fact the first day of the Report Stage, which kicked off with an attempt by Lord Whitty to impose ten year housing strategies on local councils.

Before Clause 132, insert the following new Clause—

"Housing strategy

(1) All measures required of local housing authorities in relation to social housing and homelessness as a result of this Part shall be undertaken in consistency with the housing strategy required by subsection (3) and with requirements under section 87 of the Local Government Act 2003 and section 13 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and regulations and guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

(2) All local housing authorities must draw up an analysis of housing supply and demand in their areas and neighbouring areas as far as is relevant.

This analysis should include all forms of tenure in their area and cover at least the following—

(a) trends in housing supply and demand in the owner occupied, private rented and social housing sectors;

(b) trends in housing prices and rents;

(c) new developments, new build and conversions;

(d) empty properties;

(e) second homes; and

(f) broad demographic and employment trends in their areas.

(3) On the basis of this analysis, each local housing authority shall draw up a rolling ten year housing strategy for their area.”

In other words, in a piece of legislation designed to give local authorities the freedom to explore new ways of doing things, Labour wanted to require them to plan their housebuilding strategy in the same way, regardless of whether or not it would be appropriate to do so. As Lord Shipley pointed out, "You do not actually need a 10-year housing strategy. You do need an acute, local awareness of housing demand and trends and an ability to be much more fleet of foot in meeting those trends than we have seen over the past two decades."

But it is worse than that. It represents an attempt to teach local authorities to suck eggs, in that you might reasonably expect local councillors and their supporting council officers to give these matters some thought in any event. Anyone would think that Labour had no confidence in their ability to think for themselves... although as they were one of the most centralising administrations in the history of our nation, they probably don't.

Labour Peers were out in force though, determined to test the view of the House on its first day back, so the amendment was pressed. Without significant rebellion from the Liberal Democrat benches though (Baroness Neuberger was the sole rebel), and with the crossbenchers still adjusting to their new leadership, the amendment fell by 197 votes to 164.

Mobile Libraries and small villages - a luxury that we can't afford?

Yesterday, Suffolk County Council announced the opening of a consultation on the future of mobile libraries across the county. The proposals are designed to save 37.5% of the current budget, reducing spending on this service from £600,000 per annum to £375,000, a sizeable chunk of money when funds are tight.

Naturally, as a parish councillor in a small village, I am concerned. The visit of the mobile library every fortnight for fifteen minutes represents one of the very few visible signs in the parish that the County Council exists, and for elderly residents, it is a social opportunity, a way to keep themselves informed and entertained, and intellectual stimulation.

One of our friendly mobile library staff

According to the County Council, the service costs £7.70 per customer visit, compared to £2.51 for a 'built' library, again a sizeable difference. Visits to mobile libraries are in decline, and the number of books loaned has fallen proportionately. The logic appears simple.

And that's the catch of course. On the basis of those numbers, it would be difficult to defend maintaining the service at its current level. Indeed, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire don't try to, sending their mobile libraries to each location monthly. However, a mobile library is about more than just book borrowing. For a village such as mine, it is a relief from the isolation that those without their own transport experience.

There is no regular bus service, although the community bus provides a means out of the village when it is available. There is no pub, no shop, no school, nothing organised to do unless you do so yourself. Stowmarket is two miles away across the fields, impractical if it is wet, or you have young children, or you're less than entirely mobile. In a village of less than two hundred souls, you can be awfully lonely.

The internet isn't much help either. If you're poor and you live in a village, you might not be able to afford a computer and, if you can, broadband speeds are appallingly low - which explains why the County Council are investing more than £10 million on building the necessary infrastructure to improve matters.

In short, the mobile library matters in a place like Creeting St Peter. Yes, not many people use it - I've never seen it because it parks in The Lane at 11.45 on alternate Friday mornings for fifteen minutes - but perhaps if it came when people were around, it might be better frequented. There are children in the village who read, who might like to pick their own books, and people like me who don't use the library service at all because I'm away at work when library buildings are open.

So I'm keen to have a proper consultation in my village, to find out who uses the mobile library, whether or not the time it comes is relevant, what the impact of reducing the number of visits would be, whether providing transport to Stowmarket would provide an effective alternative. We don't ask for an awful lot in Creeting St Peter, and anything that protects the viability of our community is precious indeed. Which reminds me...

The House of Lords gets a little bigger... and a little more diverse too...

Ros, along with her colleagues on the House of Lords Appointments Commission, has been busy interviewing potential candidates to join the crossbenches. Strange, you may think, that the supposedly partisan members of the Commission should take part in such an exercise, but I see it as a way of ensuring that those with a party political background don't take up those places intended for people from beyond the Westminster bubble.

And yesterday, the latest nominees were announced. Quoting from the House of Lords Appointment Commission's website;

Sir Donald Curry is the Chair of NFU Mutual Insurance Society (a leading rural general insurance and life/pensions company) and is also the non-executive Chair of the Better Regulation Executive, which works with government departments and regulators to help reduce regulatory burdens and red tape. Since 2009 he has been the Chair of Leckford Estates (a 4,000 acre estate owned by Waitrose/John Lewis Partnership) and adviser to the John Lewis Partnership and Waitrose on agricultural and food strategy. He founded the charity ‘At Home in the Community’ in 1991, and remains the Chair of the organisation, which is based in the North East of England and provides care for people with learning disabilities. Sir Donald is a former Chair of the Meat and Livestock Commission and served for many years as an adviser to government on sustainable farming and food. In 2001 he was asked by the Prime Minister to review farming and food policy, and his subsequent Report ‘Farming and Food – a sustainable future’ (The Curry Report) led to a fundamental review of Government policy and influenced the Common Agricultural Policy reform package of 2003. He currently farms 440 acres of arable and lowland grass in Northumberland. 

Dr Indarjit Singh CBE is the Director of the Network of Sikh Organisations UK. He is the Vice Chair and founding member of the Inter Faith Network UK, a national body promoting inter faith understanding, and is Head of the Sikh Chaplaincy Service, which works for the pastoral care of Sikhs in prisons. He is also the co-ordinator of pastoral care for Sikhs in hospitals and in the Armed Forces, and a trustee of the World Congress of Faiths. Dr Singh has represented the UK Sikh community on national occasions, including the Remembrance Service at the Cenotaph and the Westminster Abbey Service to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the coronation of HM the Queen. In 2008 he became the first Sikh to address a major conference at the Vatican, when he gave a keynote address on the need for respect and tolerance between world faiths. He has served on the Home Secretary’s Advisory Council on Race Relations; on the British Medical Association’s Medical Ethics Committee; and was a member of a working group which advised the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development on issues of third world debt and poverty relief. Since 1984, he has been a regular contributor to ‘Thought for the Day’ on Radio 4’s Today Programme, and has made frequent World Service broadcasts. He has a First Class Certificate in Mine Management and has worked on mining and civil engineering projects in the UK, India and Dubai.

They appear, on the face of it, to be the very sort of people we need to bring into Parliament. Indeed, it is interesting to note that, when listeners to Radio 4's 'Thought for the Day' listeners were polled for their views as to who would make a good 'People's Peer', Dr Singh was the runner-up... to Bob Geldof.

Death Penalty - a reminder of the actual relevance of bloggers

Regardless of what one might think of Guido Fawkes, his campaign to oblige Parliament to debate the death penalty has been genuinely interesting. It did get coverage in the broader media, and it inspired a counter campaign in support of the status quo. That said, it hasn't been successful - just 18,572 people have signed it as I write this.

What it has done is to act as a useful reminder that most political blogging takes place amongst a very small 'community', a rather insular one, I might suggest. After all, if the Daily Mail asked its readers to sign up, one might reasonably expect it to reach the 100,000 threshold in days, if not hours. Given that Guido is probably the most significant individual player in the world of political blogging, it demonstrates that bloggers are 'world famous in Romford', to coin a phrase.

Bloggers are, if you like, a weathervane, pointing out the direction of travel on an issue or within a political party. We are observed by those paid to report, rather than interacted with, and occasionally picked up by other, more far reaching, media if we are interesting. For example, this blog is read by a small audience of people who have blundered here by accident, or have read it in the past and been impressed enough to return, or are friends and family interested to know what I'm up to at any given time. However, as a result of blogging, I had a letter published in the London Evening Standard, circulation in the hundreds of thousands. My views reached many more people than my blog ever does, or ever will.

Occasionally, I do wonder if some of those who blog don't have a rather inflated opinion as to their importance in the scheme of things. As fewer and fewer people engage in party politics, and more and more of the public incline towards a view that politics is something done to them, rather than by them or for them, those of us who remain involved run the risk that, by talking amongst ourselves, our sense of perspective is lost. It is, I suppose, a reminder that a good politician has a hinterland, interests beyond the partisan, in short, a life. They are the sort of people who when talk turns to politicians, are referred to in terms of, "oh, but he/she isn't like that - he/she's normal".

So, perhaps we should take Guido with a pinch of salt. He has an opinion that we don't share for the most part, he's deliberately provocative. But he seeks the influence the agenda, as we do. And in reality, he is a small voice amongst the hubbub of the noise made by the national and international media. Perhaps it is better to expend our energies on trying to make our voices heard where it makes a real difference, out there where people are, and leave blogging as a place for free expression and the propagation of ideas, somewhere where we can have some fun...

Election Rules for the East of England Liberal Democrats

It's been a bit of a struggle, but I've finally got there. So, without further ado, here they are... 

The East of England Region of the Liberal Democrats is determined that elections for regional posts shall conducted in a manner that is democratic, accountable, inclusive, fair, robust and manageable.

Appointment and powers of the Returning Officer

The Returning Officer shall be appointed by the Regional Executive and shall administer the elections using his or her discretion, applying the core principles stated above, subject only to the Rules as laid out below, the requirements of the Constitution and natural justice. Guidance will be provided in written form to the Returning Officer by the Regional Executive.

How do you become a candidate?

Nominations will close at 2 p.m. on the day of the Annual General Meeting, held at the Autumn Regional Conference. Self-nominations shall be permitted.

What are you required to do as a candidate?

Manifestos shall be submitted no later than ten days after the declaration of poll, i.e. by the end of the tenth day after the Annual General Meeting. They shall be submitted in PDF or Word format. Candidates for Officer positions shall be entitled to one side of A4, candidates for other positions one side of A5 in landscape format, for ease of manifesto booklet production.

What may you not do as a candidate?

1. Defame any other candidate.
2. Spend more than £50 on campaigning materials.

What will be provided to candidates?

Candidates for officer positions will be entitled to issue one e-mail to Regional Conference voting delegates, to be issued by the Regional Party at a mutually agreed time. Candidates shall provide forty-eight hours’ notice of their wish to use this facility, providing the text to be issued at that time.

Right of appeal

Any person believing there to have been a breach of these Rules, or of the Constitution, shall have the right of appeal to the Regional Management Committee.


I'll have them on the Regional website as soon as I can...

The sun was shining... time for a Regional Executive Committee meeting

Today has been one of the nicest days that we've had for a while now, so naturally Ros and I were off to Cambridge for a Regional Executive Committee meeting.

One thing that I've noticed about the East of England Region, as opposed to London, is that we don't know each other as well. Geographic considerations mean that we do more by teleconference, and we hold fewer meetings as an Executive Committee. That's good in terms of travel, but bad in that there is more to talk about when we do get together. Also, we don't have the familiarity with each other that you have when you see each other around a small Region like London. In London, I ran into my colleagues fairly regularly, I attended Local Party events across the city - East Dulwich to Orpington, or Havering was quite easy. In the East of England, I can't easily get to my neighbouring Local Parties in Suffolk, let alone South West Hertfordshire or Peterborough.

And knowledge is rather more thinly spread too. Most Local Parties in London know someone in a 'position of authority', and can find out what's happening relatively easily (I say relatively with caution), whereas in the East of England, knowing who is responsible for what is comparatively difficult. Here's an example...

At today's meeting, our Regional Training Coordinator lamented the fact that nobody tells her what training is being done across the Region, making it somewhat difficult for her to coordinate it. But who knows that she exists, what her role is? The County Coordinating Committees, who run training days, don't. Local Parties certainly don't. So, why do we have one? Because the English Party tells us we must. So we have a postholder existing almost in isolation from the area of Party activity she is supposed to be enabling.

Even the Regional Executive don't entirely understand what her role is, to the extent that last year I had to point out to them that, contrary to their belief, they weren't actually empowered to appoint one - the Regional Constitution gives that power to the Regional Development Committee. We're clearly going to have to work on that...

I was inspired to do something about it though. Watch this space...

Martyrdom awaits for the man from Montgomery

With the result of the selection for a Liberal Democrat Mayoral candidate for London now announced, it now becomes clear that one of the candidates appears to have concluded that we're all out to get him, that the Party will one day realise how lucky we are to have him, and that, like Nelson Mandela, he must suffer years in the wilderness.

Call me cruel, call me heartless, but...

Lembit, we're not out to get you, really we aren't. Some of us don't think you're serious, many of us prefer someone else, most of us acknowledge that you have talents but don't see being our Mayoral candidate as the most obvious thing for you to do.

For the second time in three years, you've run an awful, half-hearted, unoriginal campaign based entirely on the premise that because people know who you are, you're the best person for members to select. Name recognition isn't the be all and end all of it - Katie Price has fantastic name recognition and she wouldn't be my first choice either.

We want our candidate to be competent, and that doesn't mean boring. What it does mean is having someone who gives the impression that he understands the issues, can take part in a campaign without making our members uncomfortable and can demonstrate the ability to lead and inspire a campaign team.

Which brings me to your campaign team. The fact that no credible member of the Regional Party in London was willing to put their head over the parapet in support spoke volumes. The person purporting to be your campaign manager repeatedly blamed the loss of Montgomery on your friend and supporter to the point where you publicly disowned his claim - a pity that it was in your manifesto, a document which you claimed not to have read or authorised in advance.

Alright, I've been pretty straight with you. So, here's some advice...

1. Decide what you'd like to be. If the answer is 'celebrity', give up on a career in politics, at least as a Liberal Democrat. When Charles Kennedy did the game show circuit (and note, not the reality TV circuit), he behaved in a dignified manner, and people took to him. They may not have agreed with him, but they liked him well enough. I wasn't wild about Brian Paddick's appearance on 'I'm a Celebrity...', but at least he emerged with his dignity intact.
2. If the answer is 'politician', give some serious thought to what you want to do. Talk to someone other than your friends, who so far haven't necessarily been able to tell you what you needed to hear. Then focus on it. This won't be easy. As the two elections have demonstrated, it's not just the leadership who have lost faith, the ordinary members have too.
3. Give up on the martyr stuff. If the leadership were so determined to 'get' you, they've done a pretty shoddy job of it so far. An effective campaign married to credibility has been enough. Too many people roll their eyes when presented with the prospect of having you represent them, and until that changes, you aren't a martyr, you're simply not what members are looking for.
4. Don't run to the media telling tales about people being mean to you. It demeans you as a person and as a politician.

It was not so long ago that you were a bit of a hero to many in the Party. Eccentric, maybe, but a hard worker, a genuine personality capable of inspiring members, activists and candidates up and down the country, and a senior figure at the highest echelons of the Party. You could be that again if you want it badly enough. Don't allow your reputation to be tarnished to the point where people forget what is good about you and only remember that you dated that Cheeky Girl...

Grand Designs, Iron Age style

Ros and I are still in Scotland, minding our own business and doing some tourist stuff, and yesterday was an opportunity to 'stretch the legs' of our trusty hire car, as we set off out of Perth to the north-west, up the A9 and then off towards Loch Tay, following the river.

Our destination was the Scottish Crannog Centre, just outside Kenmore, a village where the Loch becomes the River. Now, as you all know, a crannog is a small, reclusive member of the weasel family, and extremely hard to spot in the wild.

Actually, a crannog is rather more interesting than that. A crannog was a circular dwelling, built over water, connected to the land by means of a raised walkway. In itself, the notion of building over water is quite unusual, but given the relative levels of technological advance, it would be difficult enough now, but without heavy equipment, significant levels of manpower and metal, it would seem like a challenge too far.

Steve, our guide, took us out to their reconstruction, and explained how they worked. The first task was to sink around 120 poles, each up to forty feet long, into the silt at the bottom of the loch, set in four concentric circles. Next, you built a wooden platform, made of logs with a smaller diameter, before building a circular building on top, using more poles, hazel wicker panels and bracken stems to make something recognisably like thatch. Incredibly effective, amazingly resilient, there is evidence of crannogs pretty much everywhere in Scotland.

I do find myself wondering one thing though. Building over water is very complicated, so why not build a house and dig ditches around it? However, once built, a crannog was sturdy, easily secured and convenient for trade. And someone had had the intellect to see the idea and to design a solution.

Not so clever, we twenty-first century folk, methinks...

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Kickstart 2012...

Yes, it's that time of the electoral cycle when councillors start to think about getting re-elected, and the enthusiastic start thinking about how they might get elected. In other words, time for Kickstart!

Now you may be wondering, why is Mark talking about this? After all, there aren't elections in Mid Suffolk next year, and the County isn't up until 2013. So, obviously, I'm at a Kickstart event... in Perth... sitting next to Caron Lindsay.

Alright, time to be honest. I am at a Kickstart event, in Perth, and I am sitting next to Caron Lindsay, but it is all rather accidental. You see, Ros has spent the last two days visiting BBC Scotland, so it seemed logical to spend the weekend up here. Ros posted on Facebook that she was in Scotland and, almost immediately, word of Kickstart came back.

Given that we're staying in Perth, the opportunity to drop in and say hello was pretty tempting - we still like you all, after all - so here we are. And it's very nice.

Having faced the electorate in May, and having watched from afar as our Scottish colleagues took a thorough kicking, expectations for 2012 are muted. That said, there's a good crowd here, they're in pretty good humour, and there's a sense of almost bloody-minded determination to carry the Liberal Democrat banner, come what may. I'm therefore confident that, regardless of the outcome next year, they'll have given it their best shot.

And for those of you south of the border with elections in 2012 who haven't booked for Kickstart in Birmingham (25-27 November), why not go to the ALDC website and register now?...
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Net migration goes up, Conservative policy credibility goes down...

The news that net migration into the United Kingdom rose by 21% in 2010 is another reminder why a 'get tough' policy on immigration is so easy in theory, and so futile in practice.

It is wonderfully ironic that the key factors leading to the increase were an increase in migrants from the A8 Group in the European Union* (up from 5,000 to 39,000) and a significant decrease in the number of people leaving this country to live and work elsewhere, exactly the factors that Governments can't actually control.

In this light, the Conservative policy of reducing net migration to tens of thousands is looking increasing like something designed to win arguments rather than actually changing anything. But then again, I said that last year... before the election. And, of course, nothing is being done to address the issue of those here illegally, except perhaps to give some of them an amnesty.

Ironic, really, given that the Liberal Democrats took so much flak for suggesting an earned route to citizenship for illegal immigrants in this country, an option which meant that those seeking to take advantage would actually have to do something in order to benefit.

Sometimes, being right isn't the same is being popular. And you know something, in this instance, I'm perfectly comfortable with that...

* the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania

Thoughts from the Train: if further proof were needed that we're not Tories...

Welcome to the delayed 12:15 departure from Peterborough to Edinburgh Waverley. A surprisingly decent glass of riesling gewurztraminer by the left hand, I find myself struggling with the second Times Killer Sudoku, so why not give the world the benefit of my opinion for a change...

One of the biggest advantages of being a Liberal Democrat is that, when exposed to Conservative stupidity, you are more likely to understand why it is stupid and the contradictions that exist in their 'thinking'. The likes of Tim Montgomerie (for example) are, thanks heavens, very vocal but not terribly thoughtful when it comes to civil liberties. Ironic really, as they're the first to exclaim their belief in freedom.

And so I'm rather pleased that young Mr Clegg has chosen now to nail Liberal Democrat colours to the mast of the good ship 'Human Rights'. Freedom is difficult. As a decent, law-abiding taxpayer, I want to be free to go about my decent, law-abiding, tax paying activities, free of undue interference by the State. I want the law to be applied without fear or favour, I want the guilty to be punished appropriately. However, I also understand that I have responsibilities too. There is, I would suggest, a balance to be sought.

A framework of rights is therefore helpful, and the European Convention on Human Rights, strongly influenced by English law as Nick points out, is a good starting point. However, there is a catch (there so often is, I fear) - those rights have to be universal, or they are transient.

That means the right to trial before a jury of your peers, it means the right to know what information is held about you by the State or by private organisations, it means that the democratic process is respected, even if you don't particularly like the outcome. And that's where I differ from my Conservative 'friends' (they hate being referred to as friends, which is the main reason I do it).

Conservatives don't get that, which is why they want an example made of looters, or why they believe in making it harder for Unions to take industrial action. You see, the universality of human rights they believe in only applies to those that they approve of. In fairness, Labour take a similar view, supporting human rights for whoever the Daily Mail approves of.

So, someone has to point out that human rights are not a 'thief's charter' (as Jack Straw so disgracefully described the Human Rights Act), or an annoyance and a barrier to a smaller state (pick a Conservative, virtually any Conservative). It might not be a comfortable place in the face of the assault from both left and right, but it is the right place to be.

However, someone has very kindly brought me another glass of that riesling gewurztraminer, so if you'll excuse me...

Rhapsody in blue (paint)...

Of course, being half-Indian, I have the advantage of a heritage where a great civilisation was being developed whilst you were all painting yourselves blue and thinking that this was the height of fashion. Don't think that I pity you for it. But really, painting your politicians blue is so... well, yesterday.

Seriously though, whilst I am vaguely sympathetic with the urge to protest, throwing blue paint at Nick Clegg probably won't have the desired effect. Indeed, it's hard to imagine something less likely to achieve anything.

I've seen this sort of thing before, and it screams out one message, "I don't want to listen to you, I don't have an argument, I just hate you.". It is, after all, so much more easier to convince someone of the error of their ways by assaulting them. Best of all, it tends to engender a degree of sympathy amongst those who might not agree with the victim, but acknowledge his right to hold an opinion.

The fact that the attacker was a former, if short-lived, member of the Party who, if the press are to be believed, joined because he was opposed to neo-liberalism is all the more depressing. Liberalism isn't about liberally spending other people's money, it's about providing individuals with the platform to take control over their own lives. But that's a difficult message, so much more complex than "No Shock Doctrine for Britain!".

Liberal Democrats don't actually enjoy cutting things. I for one didn't enter into politics to take things away from people but if you've got to make cuts, better by far to do it thoughtfully rather than repeat the Greek experience.

However, I suspect that the attacker will shortly experience a 'shock doctrine' of his own. The public are in a mood for retribution, and he may well see the inside of a jail cell. I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see him expelled from the University of Glasgow either, although it would be a high price to pay. You see, just as borrowing to pay for your day to day expenses means that one day the money runs out, there comes a day when you have to take responsibility for your actions.

So, young Mr Rodger, I hope that it was all worth it. Imperilling your career prospects, your education (you haven't borrowed too much money to pay for it, I hope) and your freedom wouldn't be something I'd recommend, but you're a grown-up and you knew what you were doing, didn't you?...

Message to Conference Office: Look. I'm not coming. Get over it...

There are moments when, as an officer of the Party, albeit a Regional one, that even I become irritated by the actions of someone who should know better. And so I dedicate this to someone called X (Ros thinks that she should be allowed anonymity, she's polite and well brought up like that) - I know no more than that about the woman who tried to ring me today.

I have decided, as regular readers will recall, not to go to Federal Conference. My heart isn't in it, it's expensive and, well, isn't that enough? Therefore, I haven't sent my photograph to Conference Office so that I can be vetted for an event I'm not going to. I've had the e-mails reminding me and studiously ignored them. Because I'm not going, right? (And yes, I know that I should just in case I change my mind, but I do have a life...)

However, the telephone rang at home today. I wasn't there - it's a Thursday and I was at work. However, (un)fortunately for the caller, Ros was at home, and answered the phone as would any polite, well brought up person (apart from my kid brother, but that's a lovable quirk of his personality...). The person at the other end of the telephone asked if she could speak to me, and Ros very courteously (because she's polite and well brought up) explained that I was at work and couldn't come to the telephone, but asked whether she could help (she's my wife - I trust her with this stuff. Besides, I trust her to run the country, so a phone call is clearly within the compass of her skill set).

X - for it was her - seemed surprised that I wasn't about (I've got a job, and whilst I note that there are 2.5 million unemployed in this country, I'm not that unusual, am I?), but explained that I had not sent my photograph in and that, if I didn't, they would cancel my registration.

So Ros courteously explained that I wasn't planning to come to conference, and therefore probably wouldn't be sending in a photograph (Ros has sent hers in, just in case - she's organised like that, as well as being polite and well brought up...). She was therefore somewhat surprised to be told that I should have told Conference Office that I wasn't coming.

And you know something? I'm not surprised. I'm annoyed. I'm still vaguely irritated that I have to go through a  police check in order to attend my own Party's conference (I grudgingly accept that it has to be done but...). And now, apparently, I have to tell them whether or not I can be bothered to turn up, even though I've paid for both conferences and have the right to turn up if I feel like it.

So, X, I'm minded to submit my photograph, not because I intend to come, but because I don't particularly like to have someone talk to my wife, a former Party President no less, as though she, and I, are obstacles to the smooth running of Federal Conference.

Rant over.

When ladybirds attack...

Interestingly, Southwold appears to have suffered from an overnight rain of ladybirds. They're everywhere.

I wonder if it is in any way related to the presence of a bloody great nuclear power station down the coast...

Abandon the 50% tax rate? So, what's the trade off, Mr Osborne?

The advantage of having been around when dinosaurs roamed the Earth is that a 50% rate band isn't that exciting. I am old enough to have assessed people using six different rate bands at once - the then basic rate plus 40%, 45%, 50%, 55% and 60%. And in those days, only fifteen or so years ago, I would calculate your tax bill on the basis of the information you gave me - none of this self assessment nonsense. Indeed, there were still amendments being issued where tax was chargeable at the now unthinkable rate of 83%, and my more experienced colleagues had assessed the investment income surcharge of 15% on top of that.

So, let's not get too carried away by the supposed outrageousness of a 50% tax rate.

However, we do need to be a bit smarter about taxation in an increasingly international economy. People do have a choice as to where they live, and the tax rate is a factor. Don't get me wrong, that is not to say that one should kowtow to the wealthy minority. Instead, we need to think about tax fairness.

For example, is it fair that, for every £1 that a 50% taxpayer pays into their pension fund, the Government matches it, whereas for every £1 a basic rate taxpayer pays into their pension fund, the Government chips in just 25p? Is it right that the Government offers incentives to wealthy people to invest in things that will hopefully be profitable anyway? Indeed, UK tax policy over recent years has been part social engineering and part trickle down economics.

Perhaps it would be better to withdraw the 50% rate band whilst reducing the relief available to those investing in new enterprises. After all, corporation tax rates are already being reduced, meaning that successful companies can pay out more in dividends than was the case previously. And if the impact of the 50% rate is as small as George would have us believe, reducing the benefits to higher rate taxpayers would allow us to increase personal allowances, thus taking more people out of tax, and reducing the amount to be paid back in tax credits. In turn, this would reduce the number of people administering the tax credit system, reducing the cost to the state further.

Everyone's a winner. Well, not exactly, but it's a good first step towards a fairer, more transparent, tax system. Now, where was that draft for a flat rate tax system?... 

Oh I do like to be beside the seaside...

Or, perhaps more appropriately, bureaucrat interrupted. Yes, I'm back on holiday again, after my plans were somewhat disturbed by rioters. No, we didn't have any in Paradise-sur-Gipping, but Ros did have to go back to listen to the Cameron statement.

We had planned to spend last Wednesday night at the Swan Hotel, Southwold, eating good food, drinking good wine and doing seaside a la bourgeoisie. If you know this part of the Suffolk coast, you'll know what I mean. The fish and chips has beer batter from the Adnams Brewery in the town, rock is discreetly purveyed and there is a pier, but it is Victorian rather than old-fashioned. However, it was too awkward for Ros to get back to London, so we postponed - until today.

So, welcome to the promenade, with the North Sea gently nudging the beach. I've left Ros to drift off to sleep whilst I take the air after a dinner of quail and guinea fowl, accompanied by a very pleasant bottle of semillon from Western Australia and followed by an excellent cheeseboard. And I've got to tell you, this is very nice. And dark. But that goes without saying, I suppose.

And it is all rather unexpected. You see, I am experiencing a curious sense of existential certainty. I am, whisper it quietly, strangely content. Life is fun and I have learned to potter. I could do this, or that, but I don't have to. It is all very curious indeed.

But anyway, welcome to Southwold. It is really rather lovely in a gentle, undemanding sort of way. With the Adnams brewery in the heart of the town - 'beer from the coast' as it is marketed - it is a vaguely working town, but rather a long way from anywhere 'big'. The nearest railway station is at Halesworth, with its train service every two hours and then an irregular bus service between there and here, making it relatively inaccessible. Our hotel, owned by the brewery is a Georgian building and not exactly cheap - actually, prices are more like London in high season. It is very nice though.

Instead of tacky bed and breakfasts on the sea front, there are private homes, some of which can doubtless be rented. But it is quiet and relaxing - I even saw a rabbit on the promenade a few minutes ago. I can see a few lights out at sea, including what looks like a trawler, catching something that might appear on a dinner table somewhere in the town in the next day or so.

And it is nice to have the time to sit and think...

Monday morning: on my way to work

It's that awards time of year again...

It's summer time, with the Conference season approaching, and a blogger's mind turns to thoughts of... well, 'glory' isn't really the right word, so we'll try 'recognition'. Yes, it is that point in the cycle where people are called upon to decide upon the best blogs and vote in the Total Politics Blog Awards.

You can vote here, if you're interested...

There are those who blatantly solicit votes - we know who you are - and those who think that the whole thing is slightly absurd. I fall somewhere between the two, perfectly happy to receive your votes, but long enough in the tooth to know that, for the most part, the ranking of a particular blog depends on whether or not, at the point when votes are being cast, the author has managed to attract some attention.

For the really successful bloggers, the building of a readership base over months and perhaps years will ensure a good showing. As for the rest of us, a relatively small number of votes one way or the other may make the difference between a top thirty position and a less exalted ranking.

In 2007, I reached the giddy heights of fourteenth best Liberal Democrat blog. Now it may have been a coincidence that, as voting opened, I wrote a piece about an emerging Conservative stance on divorce and the family in which I performed the equivalent of open heart surgery on my first marriage and its (with hindsight) inevitable demise. Whilst it wasn't intended to be a 'look at me' piece, and I stand by every word I wrote then, it certainly did impact on the votes my little blog gleaned.

The next year? I was gone, outside of the top fifty. My blogging hadn't changed much, either in style or volume, but there wasn't the same spark. I was back in 2009 though, and hung on in the mid-thirties again last year.

So. we'll wait and see how it goes this year. And if you want to recognise this blog by voting for it, thank you very much. I promise not to let it go to my head...

BREAKING NEWS: House of Lords to be recalled tomorrow

Word has just reached us that Ros is being recalled for an emergency debate to follow statements from both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

More news as it comes in...
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

For Pity's Sake, Can We Stop Reacting to the Violence and Start Responding to It?

As a recently exiled Londoner, someone who has lived in some of the city's more 'lively' boroughs - Brent and Southwark - I have sat in front of my television screen watching with increasing frustration as talking head after talking head has added nothing useful but filled airtime conjecturing about the impact of this, or the cause of that, creating an atmosphere of tension and fear in the minds of ordinary Londoners.

My mother, thankfully safe in her North West London home, has taken the remarkably sensible view that, until trouble comes her way, she isn't going to worry about it, and if it does, she'll deal with it then. In the meantime, she wants the police to arrest the criminals and the courts to punish them.

And she's right. At the moment, I don't care why these people are on the streets, I don't want to hear their justification, I want them to stop... or be stopped, if need be. And then, when ordinary people feel that the situation is under control, and can venture out into the streets in safety, we can look at the root causes.

So, until then, it would be nice if politicians like Ken Livingstone stopped telling us that the Government is to blame - these people haven't suddenly drawn the conclusion that looting and arson are legitimate overnight - and people like Darcus Howe stop making wildly inaccurate accusations about the actions of the police. Oh, and by the way, Darcus, this has nothing to do with events in Syria (one of the most stupidly insulting comparisons I've heard for many a year).

And it would be even nicer if the media stopped asking stupid questions and stuck to reporting the facts. Because it is facts that we need, not the theories of whatever person fancies fifteen minutes of fame...
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange