Is The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel a model for some of us in our old age?

After an evening of killing Ottomans, Chinese and Russians - I'm playing as the Portuguese at Civilisation III - I locked up the office and found Ros in the living room, watching "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" on the television. And, as it is a movie that has a happy ending (I do like a happy ending), I sat with her for the last section.

But I was moved to wonder whether or not it is a model that might have some basis in credibility. After all, anyone over the age of fifty is likely to be wondering how they will fend for themselves as old age reaches out towards them.

One hears how much care homes cost these days, amounts that never get smaller, and note that care homes are increasingly staffed by people coming to this country from overseas - I assume that Theresa May isn't planning to get old and infirm - and find myself wondering whether or not it might be easier to just simplify matters by retiring somewhere with lower labour costs, better weather and suitable provision.

In my days travelling on Democrats Abroad business, one thing I noticed was that, particularly in Mexico, there were a number of communities made up almost entirely of retired Americans and Canadians, seeking warmer, drier weather, access to cheap medication and lower nursing costs and, until now, I hadn't thought much about it. But, when one considers it, why not? On the same income as you would have in Europe of North America, you can have a larger home, someone to clean and/or cook and, if you pick sensibly, better weather. In all likelihood, you'd even have money left over.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not proposing sending Granny to Ahmedabad or Mysore as a matter of public policy, but it does surprise me that someone hasn't thought about this and put together a package. Perhaps, for all I know, somebody has.

Given the increasing crisis in care for the elderly, we may have to become increasingly creative in terms of the solutions, especially given Conservative determination to reduce the flow of migrants to a relative trickle, regardless of the effects. Costs spiral, whilst pressure on staff increases and quality inevitably suffers. Add to that an ageing population generally, and the scale of the problem becomes apparent.

So, just a thought on a Bank Holiday weekend. It's amazing how a slightly enhanced sense of one's own mortality sets you to thinking...

Another reminder that things aren't like they used to be...

I like to joke at gathering of my cousins that, as the eldest, I am our generation's guinea pig, testing concepts so that others might learn from the experience. Divorce and (relative) old age are my main areas of expertise and, whilst both are better avoided, only one can be put off permanently.

Since having to resort to reading classes two years ago, there has been a constant, albeit slow, deterioration in the quality of my eyesight, coming to a point whilst Ros and I were in the US whereby I could go into a coffee shop and not be able to read the menu either with reading glasses or without. There is, suddenly, a visual range where I need more help.

Luckily, I have become rather better at spotting the signs, and had taken the precaution of booking an eye test for this morning. And so, I wandered in, expecting bad news.

Yes, my eyesight has deteriorated, introducing a requirement for distance glasses - distance defined as anything beyond arms length (news to me too, I admit). However, it is easily remedied with new glasses and so, I have arranged for some to be made for collection next Monday. The only problem was that I was left to choose frames without the benefit of Ros's good sense.

I did look at these, but concluded that they didn't really give the inquisitorial look that I perhaps ought to have - albeit that I prefer to peer benevolently over them as a rule. Maybe next time...

So, in the end, I picked two frames that were vaguely sensible, looked smart and were comfortable to wear. And that, for the benefit of my cousins, is another one of the things about getting older - you become a little more conservative in your choices...

The World's Busiest Railway: might I suggest that Hugo Rifkind's bourgeois slip is showing?

I have to admit that, having only got home on Thursday, I haven't kept up with what's on television. And so, it was only yesterday that I found out that BBC2 are having an India Season, courtesy of Ann, who drives the Gipping North Suffolk Links bus on Friday evenings. She had found the first four programmes, on Indian railways, fascinating, and gave them a strong recommendation. And so, I made plans to watch them over the long weekend. After all, I am, deep in my soul, at least a part-time Mumbaikar.

However, household chores have a tendency to get in the way, and by the time I had picked up my copy of The Times, an opportunity had not yet come. That meant that I got to read Hugo Rifkind's review of the series first...

Now, normally, I have little against Hugo. Yes, he is the son of a senior Conservative politician, which may well have helped him in his career a bit, but life's like that. I tend to think that he is sometimes clever rather than bright, but when you're a columnist, you can"t expect be right all of the time.

But, I have to say that I disagree with his review somewhat. He thinks that the series is poor, delivered with enthusiasm rather than skill. And, I admit, I might not have done it the same way, but the series isn't really intended for people like the two of us, more as a peek through a curtain at a world unfamiliar to most of us.

And, in that sense, Dan Snow, John Sargeant (wearing my hat, I see), Anita Rani and Robert Llewellyn did their jobs well. Dan, Anita and Robert braving the morning rush into Victoria Terminus (yes, I know that it's now Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus but I'm an old man and I treasure my childhood memories) demonstrated just how daunting it is for outsiders - I've always found that having a pale skin gives you a fraction of a second to take advantage of the confusion engendered by you being there at all.

Having done that, they then explored how what looks like chaos on first sight is actually an incredibly complex interplay of technology and people which is astoundingly efficient in delivering millions of people into one small area of a city of seventeen million.

In his review, Hugo tells of his year travelling around India on trains, and you sense that he thinks it would have been a far better programme had it reflected a similar experience. The problem is, that's tourism, and there are plenty of programmes already made that do that. Frankly, Hugo, your adventures in Uttar Pradesh are so far removed from most people's lives that they don't resonate, whereas millions of us commute. Seeing what a daily commute looks like elsewhere is interesting, if you're willing to suspend your privilege.

My friend Ann hasn't travelled the world on someone else's tab, she's a normal person doing a normal job, but takes an interest in the world about her, and she thought enough about the programme to want to tell me about it. Perhaps the two of you might like to swap jobs one week - it would give you something to write about, and she might get another experience to tell me about...

Home again. It doesn't seem that much has changed though...

Three weeks away from home, without the never-ending cheerfulness that is the British media, has ended, and a conveniently timed Bank Holiday weekend allows me to catch up on all of those things that pile up in one's absence. E-mail, post, laundry and party-related tasks, for example.

So, I've written a report to my Local Party's Executive Committee for the upcoming meeting in my capacity as Treasurer (we have money - I'm terribly excited!), ordered some books of tickets for the Liberal Democrat Christmas Draw (I won two years ago, so it was well worth it), opened up a bunch of post and paid the bills that were amongst it, and laundry is currently going through its cycles. I feel vaguely virtuous, and a mite more organised than usual.

Apparently, the Labour Party is still trying to elect a new leader, politicians are behaving badly, the weather's been pretty miserable and a bunch of people are doing something that the Daily Mail doesn't like. On social media, people are continuing to insist on behaving like idiots in the face of all the evidence that it doesn't help. In other words, life is as normal.

Here in rural mid-Suffolk though, it all seems like it's a long way away, which allows me the time and space to make a few minor changes to my lifestyle, avoid things that cause me stress and give some thought to a few projects that I have in mind.

In other news, my local Tesco is already promoting Christmas tins of assorted chocolates. Remind me, it is still summer, isn't it?

Labour Leadership contest: destroying the village in order to save it?

For those of us who believe that a country is best served by a vibrant democracy, especially those of us who believe internal party democracy is key, the unfolding nightmare that is Labour's leadership contest is a cause of some sadness. The events of the past week have not been pretty, although there are some lessons we might all benefit from.

Messing about in the affairs of a party you don't support is still stupid

Oh yes, it's been highly amusing as various non-Labour supporters have waved their ballot papers in front of cameras or on social media. That doesn't make it clever, because it merely exposes how vulnerable to entryism every political party is. Regardless of your party affiliation, does your local group actually vet new members for adherence to your Party's values? So, when you have a leadership contest, or are making some other important decision, can you be confident that it is unadulterated? But, of course, you've now declared open season on such things. Labour are probably the first to be impacted - they may not be the last. And, if you've had your laugh this time, don't be upset if it comes back to bite you...

Green Party support is conditional on Labour being centrist

It is alleged that 1900 of those excluded from the Labour electorate are recent Green candidates or supporters. That's bad news for the Greens, as it means that their increased support is very shallow. Mind you, now that Caroline Lucas is calling for a formal partnership, is there much point to the Greens? And so much for internal party democracy, when your only MP can go so far off message without apparent consequence.

Slagging off your internal opponents seldom ends well

Today's charges of sexism against Andy Burnham appear somewhat artificial from this distance. How on Earth could he answer a question about the value of a female leader for the Party now, when he's running to be Leader? If he had said, "Yes, that would be great.", the obvious follow-up would be, "So, why are you running?".

And accusations relating to the creation of internal ginger groups by the likes of Chuka Umunna and Tristram Hunt do make you wonder how you could unite the Party afterwards, regardless of who wins.

Internal democracy is important, so don't mess around with it unless you've thought through the consequences...

It does seem that the likely consequences of using a leadership contest to encourage new members to sign up was not wholly thought through. One of the issues surrounding online recruitment is that vetting such new members is more difficult than with those you actively sign up - the personal relationship may very well not exist. Likewise with the notion of OMOV for internal party elections. Yes, democracy is a good thing, although informed democracy is better. An uninformed electorate is more likely to vote for well-known, well-established candidates than radical outsiders without a profile. That may lead to administrative ossification and a reduced ability to react to a changing political situation.

So, just a few thoughts from the other side of the Atlantic. I was a democracy activist before I joined the Party, and have earned a modest reputation as someone who takes an interest in the workings of internal party democracy. And, right now, I'm a mote nervous...

To the Maine Shore by air, but not necessarily the conventional way...

When it was decided that, by way of respite from our two big city destinations, we would probably need some oxygenated air, Ros came up with the idea of Bar Harbor, a small resort town on the coast of Maine. I was sceptical at first, but discovered that, whilst there were no trains, or even buses, there was an airport.

And so, I set about finding flights, only to discover that no major American airline flies there. On the other hand, United would sell me a ticket to get to Bar Harbor from New York, with an aircraft switch at Boston. And yes, I did note that the connecting flight was on a Cessna 402...

Anyway, having made it to Newark's Liberty Airport, our first flight was somewhat delayed. Indeed, it was late enough to jeopardise our connection, entailing a breathless dash through Logan Airport in Boston to get to our gate. We were, thank heavens, just in time to be questioned as to our weight, which seemed not to be problematic.

And then, with seven other people, we were led down a flight of stairs and out across the tarmac to a mosquito-sized aircraft, where our hand luggage was taken from us and a rollcall taken by first names. Seats were assigned and we were off, the pilot's window open so as to allow some fresh air into the cabin.

We taxied across the airport before taking our place in the queue for take-off, dwarfed by the Boeing 737s and the like all doing the same thing. Frankly, we could have been run over and I don't think that many people would have noticed.

On a Cessna 402, every seat is a window seat, especially 1B, which would be the co-pilot's seat were Cape Air to have any, but instead increases the passenger capacity to nine. There is a rather good in-flight magazine, although it does take second place to the incredible views of the New England shoreline.

However, after an otherwise uneventful flight, we arrived at Bar Harbor's Hancock County Airport in bright sunshine. As a final reminder that we weren't on a big faceless airline, the couple waiting in the arrivals lounge turned out to be our pilot's mum and dad.

So, Cape Air is probably not recommended for nervous fliers. However, it got us to our destination on time, and in time for a lobster supper...

I don't envy Kezia Dugdale her new job, but...

I'm not usually one to get too involved in the internal workings of other political parties, and especially don't often offer advice - there's little enough reason why they should listen anyway. However, sometimes, the health of our body politic is a bit more important than that, and given that the place of Scotland in the United Kingdom has a direct impact on how the country as a whole is run, I make an exception here.

In Kezia Dugdale, Labour have elected a leader who has an opportunity to start a new chapter in Scottish politics. Not because she has any particular talent - I don't know enough about her to really know - but because she doesn't need to be particularly beholden to the sort of people who got Labour to the point where it has only one MP north of the border. Machine politicians who, when confronted with the collapse of the machine, had no means by which to resist the SNP juggernaut.

And, before you stop me, I acknowledge that, in terms of seats won and lost, we Liberal Democrats didn't do a whole lot better - our vote held up better though.

In truth, the SNP are unlikely to be beaten by simply regurgitating the old politics of aggression - they have an overwhelming advantage in terms of activists and organisation. Nor is any attempt to bring together the theoretical anti-independence coalition likely to work either. No, it is for different political groupings to offer the Scottish people what they, as proponents of different political philosophies, believe to be the best solutions for Scotland within a federal state.

Now, for Labour, that offers a bit more of a challenge, especially whilst the identity of the new leader in London remains unknown. How truly independent can Scottish Labour be, for example? Is there the will to create a truly Scottish left of centre platform? Recent history says possibly not. But in a Scotland which is well on the path to independence, and with a government in Westminster which is likely to encourage further steps along it, Labour have to adapt to the new environment, talking about a Scotland that could be.

Kezia has a history on social media of being something other than a slavish adherent to a line, and if she is allowed her freedom and is brave enough to take some risks, she could help to make Scottish politics something other than the bear put it resembles from the outside.

One should welcome new leaders in politics (within reason) as they have the power to change the political environment for the better. Indeed, I would suggest that they have a responsibility to do so. So, good luck Kezia, although you might need it...

Remembering a terrorist outrage - the 9/11 Memorial Museum

It's been some time since I was last in New York, and the city is ever changing. The effective completion of the memorial for the victims of the September 11th attack by Al Qaeda meant that we could go and see how they have decided to reflect upon an incident that most of us thought unimaginable.

In order to ensure that you can walk into the museum, it is best to book in advance online - you can print off the ticket - so that you can fit your visit in efficiently. And it is very efficient, with admission organised on half-hourly slots to help visitor flows.

The museum building itself is surrounded by a small park with two incredible water features which act as the memorial to those who died, not just in the two towers, but in Washington and in New Jersey, where the fourth flight crashed in open country. Two square pools, with water pouring down from each edge into the centre, and a square hole in the middle where water drains away. The falling water catches the light to create flickering rainbows and upon the walls are engraved the names of the dead.

In my experience, Americans are not prone to introspection. That isn't a criticism, more an acknowledgement that big city Americans appear louder than life. And, in a museum that marks the deaths of more than three thousand people, that might not be a helpful trait, especially when combined with tourists who might not 'get it'. But it is a remarkably tranquil place, albeit a very somber one. the exhibits explain the story of the day itself, the history of events that led up to it and followed on from it, and tell individual stories in a way that is incredibly moving.

The fact that the museum is built over Ground Zero, and that remains from the original Twin Towers form part of the building itself, is just another of the features that makes the 9/11 Memorial Museum something that visitors to New York would do well to make time for. I'm certainly glad that I did...

Take me out to the ball park...

I've always had an interest in baseball, at least, ever since I was introduced to it twenty-five years ago. For my sins, I follow the (ill)fortunes of the Cincinnati Reds, a team cursed with being in the same division as the rather more successful St Louis Cardinals. When I'm in the US, I usually try to catch a game and, when Ros and I were here three years ago, I took her to see her first game, at Safeco Field, the home of the Seattle Mariners.

This year, we're on the East Coast, and, being in New York, we had a choice, between the Mets and the Yankees. That is, we technically had a choice, as it had been made clear to us that the Yankees really weren't an option (we have a Boston Red Sox fan house sitting this week...).

So, we've spent a warm afternoon at Citi Field in Queens, watching the Mets slaughter the Colorado Rockies, 12-3. Beer may have been drunk - in moderation, naturally - and hot dogs eaten. This is pretty exciting, as the Mets are top of their division for the first time in years and, best of all, the Yankees aren't.

All of this seemed unlikely when, in the first inning, Mets pitcher, Noah Syndergaard, gave up two home runs. The Mets struck back quickly though, with three runs of their own, and by the end of the third inning, the game was symmetrically tied at three apiece. That, as it turned out, was as good as it was going to get for the Rockies, whose season is already effectively over, as their pitching staff gave up a steady stream of hits and runs.

Citi Field is one of the new generation of ballparks, with great sight lines, whilst giving a gentle nod to the past. The entrance area is a tribute to Ebbets Field, the old home of the Brooklyn Dodgers, and Jackie Robinson is honoured with a section of the stadium named after him with an exhibition for visitors.

It isn't a cheap experience - think of it as being akin to a Premier League game - but it is worth it if you're curious about this cornerstone of American life.

"A second cousin is a person in your neighbourhood" - a gentle mid-morning in Brooklyn

Saturday morning, the sun was shining, and it was time for a trip on the subway. Our destination - Brooklyn or, to be more precise, Clinton Hill, a long-established residential suburb, for brunch with Leon, Patti, Vayden and Finley.

We walked across Times Square in search of an ATM, withdrew some spending money and purchased two 7-day Metrocards - pretty good value at $31 each (never let it be said that you don't learn anything here at "Liberal Bureaucracy"), before heading into the underworld. It is, it must be said, just as hot as Hades down there. However, we eventually located the C train platforms, arriving just in time to catch a train.

One of the quirky things about the New York subway is that lines aren't necessarily fixed, and we suddenly, rather unexpectedly, found ourselves on the F line, heading for Jay Street/Metro Tech where, we were reassured, would revert to the C line, due to weekend engineering works (where have I heard that phrase before).

Having left Times Square, which is truly raucous and chaotic, we were slightly surprised to emerge into the sunshine at Clinton/Washington Streets to a scene of tranquillity. It is twenty minutes from Times Square, yet the peaceful streets betray no sense that Manhattan is so close. Tree-lined streets, interesting nineteenth century architecture, in short the sort of place where a bureaucrat could live if obliged to return to the city.

Abandoning my jacket - it was a very comfortable twenty-five degrees - we set off for a stroll around the neighbourhood. Clinton Hill has long been a middle-class enclave amongst some slightly dicey locales - Bedford-Stuyvescent to the east inspired the 1980 Billy Joel lyric "I’ve been stranded in the combat zone/I walked through Bedford-Stuy alone.” - but is now a place where some rather good restaurants compete for trade. We stopped for an excellent brunch at "Ici", which describes itself as a French country kitchen. I'm not sure about the French, but the food was very good, and a witbier from Nantucket went down very well with it.

Strolling on, we headed for Fort Greene Park, so that Vayden and Finlay could run around a bit, before having a look at the farmers' market and picking up some provisions. We returned to Leon and Patti's place via a different route, stopping at the Brooklyn Flea, an organised flea market held on the playground of a local high school. All sorts of things can be obtained, but my eye was drawn to some outsize metal letters. If only luggage restrictions weren't so onerous...

It was, all in all, a very pleasant way to pass a few hours, catching up on events, just hanging out in the neighbourhood. And, hopefully, we'll see my second cousin and his family rather sooner next time...

The curious miracle that is intercontinental flight

We are on our travels again, this time on the right coast of the United States - or the East Coast for those of us with a more conventional sense of geography. And yes, there is some 'touristical' activity - baseball, the Freedom Trail, a national park, sea otters and whale watching, amongst other things - but I also have family here, in New York and in Boston.

So, yesterday, Ros and I presented ourselves at Heathrow's Terminal 5 for what can be astonishing tedium. It turned out, fortunately, to be an astonishingly uneventful trip and, just twelve and a half hours after leaving central London, we were ensconced in my second cousin Leon's apartment in Brooklyn, catching up on the odd nine years or so, waiting for his wife Patti and children, Vayden and Finlay, to get home.

That is, when one stops to think about it, pretty amazing. After all, it is nearly 3,500 miles from Heathrow to New York's JFK, against the prevailing winds. And yet, we now take it for granted - people do it for a weekend break. Even in my lifetime, long haul air travel has become (relatively) commonplace.

Within a few hours, my father's cousin Chris, and his partner Beena, had shown up, and we were talking politics (why, exactly, Donald Trump? Actually, just why?), family and stories of travel, house refurbishment and how Polish contractors are so efficient (yes, that's true here too...).

It was nice, and a gentle start to our trip, before jet lag hit with the impact of a brick wall, and Chris and Beena drove us into Manhattan and to our rather conveniently located hotel - a story for another time, perhaps...

I remember when Ed Joyce and Lembit Öpik were the future...

I recently noticed that we now have something called Lib Dem Future, and was curious to find out what this might be. By means of a little investigating, I discovering that this curious little effort appeared on Lib Dem Blogs under the name of Ed Joyce, a name perhaps familiar to readers of this blog.

I'd wondered what had happened to him, after the shambles of a campaign whereby he had been disowned by his own candidate for blaming the loss of Montgomeryshire on the misfortunes of a third party. And now I know, as he is providing a platform for the one, the only, Lembit Öpik, to opine on... well, anything, really.

Don't get me wrong, Lembit is a genuinely interesting person, although in a rather different manner these days, and his views on the world probably have a market... somewhere. But, since his defeat in 2010, he has been a bit of a political gadfly, supporting a candidate running against a Liberal Democrat in a Parliamentary by-election (technically an automatic expulsion offence), working for an Iranian television station, coming fourth (and last) in the contest to be our London mayoral candidate in 2011.

However, if the dynamic duo of Joyce and Öpik are together again, I suspect it means that either Lembit wants to make a comeback, or he wants something. What that might be is anyone's guess, as he does have something of a credibility gap to bridge, but we'll doubtless find out soon enough.

If I might be so bold though, gentlemen, as to make a suggestion, it would be to remove the sub-heading "The New Voice of the Lib Dems". In the light of the 18,000 plus new members, so many of which are in their teens and twenties, you're twenty years too old, and at least five years too late...

International Relations Committee doesn't exactly meet...

Never let it be said that Party committees move slowly. So, when I received an e-mail last Thursday evening, inviting me to a meeting on Wednesday, I moved swiftly... to open the e-mail (one doesn't want to over-exert oneself...). 

It seemed that I was invited to attend a meeting to discuss the Party's engagement with both ALDE and the Liberal International, both in terms of the forthcoming Congresses (Budapest and Mexico City, respectively) and of our delegations. One of the lesser known effects of our election result is that our entitlement to delegates to each is, how might I put it, somewhat reduced - there is a direct relationship between votes received and representation.

As far as ALDE is concerned, we lose nine of our fifteen Council members, and half of our sixty-two Congress delegates, with effect from 1 January 2016. The catch is, we elected eight people to serve a two-year term as Council delegates covering the 2015 and 2016 calendar years. Eight into six doesn't go terribly well. Throw in the delegate slots assigned to the Federal Executive, the Federal Policy Committee, the Chair of the International Relations Committee and the Liberal Democrat European Group, and you've got a real problem.

So, what to do?

I have a personal interest, in that I am one of the eight directly elected members of ALDE Council, and was the fifth elected last year. And, I'd quite like to carry on next year. The initial proposal, that the election be re-run and the top six candidates chosen, had some obvious personal benefits, but it would leave us without the Chair of International Relations Committee, and key dealmaker at international Congresses, Robert Woodthorpe Browne (and he is undoubtedly a class act...).

The counter-argument was that this would exclude those who were ex-officio and might have chosen not to stand for election accordingly. The only catch with that argument was that such individuals would have been presuming that they would be re-elected to the relevant committee and retain their ex-officio roles, which should have been something of a gamble if our internal party democracy is genuine.

I proposed a compromise, arguing that a democratic mandate from Federal Conference should trump any ex-officio rights, especially as there is no firm constitutional basis for the current arrangements, but acknowledging that the Chair of the International Relations Committee must form part of the delegation.

Was this accepted? In truth, I couldn't tell you. I do know though that I have been tasked with producing a formula that will address this problem in future, which will doubtless make me a lot of friends (note, irony alert). My challenge, to ensure that the States are fairly represented, that diversity is reflected in terms of gender and ethnicity (I'll do my best with the other disadvantaged groups) and that the process is as transparent as possible - it might have been fair in the past but it was hardly transparent.

I may be gone for some time... 

If Jeremy Corbyn is the answer, what does that say about the relationship between Labour's Parliamentary Party and its ordinary members?

Obviously, I don't have a dog in the increasingly curious fight that is the contest for the Labour Party leadership. Indeed, it isn't important to me who wins, although the views they advance will be of interest in due course. But the emerging fears amongst those within the Labour Party who are stepping forward to condemn Jeremy Corbyn seem to demonstrate something that I've suspected for some time, i.e. that there is a divergence between some senior Labour figures and their membership base.

It doesn't take a genius to spot that, here in Suffolk, most of the buzz is pro-Corbyn. I follow a few leading Labour activists in these parts, and they are fairly, though not ludicrously, left-wing. They believe in redistribution, in the role of the state to support people and in taxing the rich. What I might call, traditional Labour, now I come to think about it. Admittedly, they weren't terribly successful in these parts in May, failing to win the county's two marginal seats - Ipswich and Waveney - but you do know what they believe in.

And, it seems, the Guardian-reading, granola-knitting fraternity appear to be unhappy too. They hate the Conservatives, and see the role of a Labour opposition to, well, oppose the Conservatives. Easy, really.

So, with a leadership contest to get their teeth into, you might expect the four contenders to seek to buff up their appeal to the people with the power, the ordinary party members and tack to the left. Except Liz Kendall, of course.

The Welfare and Reform Bill is an obvious place to start. It is a fairly unpleasant piece of legislation, likely to hurt the poor, the sick and the vulnerable - an obvious Labour cause. And yet, Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper have, for whatever reason, hedged and trimmed, leaving Jeremy Corbyn as the only one attacking the Government.

If you're an angry, left-wing Labour supporter, determined to fight the evil Tories, you'll want a leader likely to do that. You are, it could be argued, left with only one credible choice.

Yvette, Andy and Liz will argue that they are credible too, and they'd be right. The problem is, the people they are credible with aren't necessarily helpful, because they mostly aren't members of the Labour Party. Supporters, maybe, but not actually members, thus not voters in the selection.

Someone will doubtless tell me that, it's about selecting a candidate who can win and be Prime Minister one day. And yes, that's what you might want in the medium and long term. But, unless you win the selection, your credibility with centrist voters is irrelevant. The dilemma is obvious, but in dwelling on the consequential stuff, three of the four candidates risk conceding the contest to the candidate least likely to be seen as widely credible.

And the apparent groundswell of support for Jeremy Corbyn appears to have come as a complete surprise to people like Margaret Beckett, who called herself a moron for nominating Corbyn in order to ensure that a range of views were heard. It might imply that she doesn't come across ordinary members that much, or that the huge increase in membership has left senior figures struggling to work out who these new members are and what they want.

Might it be that the policy of parachuting bright young things for London into safe seats in the North and Wales has left a gulf between members and MPs? Or is it more fundamental than that? This may not be a good time to get the answers...

Labour placate the Conservative supporting media. For the love of God, why?

I am not a radical. My best friends wouldn't call me a radical. But, for pity's sake, when a piece of legislation is up for debate which will make your supposedly core voters much worse off, people who are likely to have no financial resilience and won't easily be able to make up the proposed loss of income, it seems like a no-brainer to oppose it. 

So, what the hell are the Labour Party doing, proposing to offer up the gesture of an amendment which includes the phrase;

a benefits cap and loans for mortgage interest support are necessary changes to the welfare system

and bemoans the impact of cuts in tax credits in the most hand-wringing way imaginable?

All of the evidence is that the Conservative proposals will make a lot of vulnerable people considerably poorer in the short term, in the hope that, in four years time, they won't be quite as impoverished in four years as they will be next year. Hell, I oppose them, and I'm a middle-class, comfortably off, bureaucrat.

It seems that Labour Party strategy (and I note that many Labour activists are as aghast as I am) is to demonstrate that they are 'fiscally responsible', regardless of how many poor and vulnerable people, many of them in work and therefore not 'skivers' (and I hate that word), will be thrown under the bus as a result.

Yes, we need to do something about the size of the welfare budget. Frankly, I wonder if we haven't gone too far with pensions, guaranteeing as we now do that pensioners will be better off in real terms every year through the triple lock. But even if you think that tax credits are too generous, you need to give those affected some time to adjust their spending, seek more work and make necessary arrangements.

And, in some places, finding additional work will not be that easy. The opportunities are still not there in some parts of the country, and not everywhere is like Mid Suffolk, with its 2.7% unemployment rate.

But who are Labour trying to impress? The right-wing media? George Osborne? Perhaps I ought to explain. They don't want you to win. You could propose the sacrifice of the first-born from migrant families and they would still rather have a Conservative government. Instead, you have to at least make sure that those who have put so much faith in you for so many generations have someone to stand up for them.

I am proud that Liberal Democrats will be voting against the proposals this evening. I am pleased that they will be standing together with the SNP, the Greens, Plaid Cymru and even the Democratic Unionists. I hope that Labour MPs will join them, defying a whip which deserves ridicule.

As a Liberal Democrat, I sat by over five years, watching our MPs cast votes that I truly wish they hadn't had to cast. Coalition is like that - you get some of your stuff, and they get some of theirs. And, if there are more of them than there are of you, they get more than you do.

But if you aren't bound by a coalition agreement, why for the love of God would you put party discipline above the views of your own members? Is it that gaining power is more important than remembering why you wanted it in the first place?

I pity Labour Party activists this evening, I really do...

FoI review - a lack of information shalt make you free? Hancock abuses the concept of cross-party

The announcement by Cabinet Office Minister, Matthew Hancock, of a review in to the way Freedom of Information policy currently works is just another sign that the Conservatives would much prefer to be left alone in peace to run the country.

But, what would be almost amusing if it wasn't so important is the cynicism of his approach. It would not have surprised me to see a review panel stuffed with Conservative sympathisers - after all, it is highly unlikely that they will have launched this unless they have a pretty good idea as to their preferred outcome. That would at least make it obvious where the thinking is coming from, and the resultant report could be judged in the context of Party policy.

No, it's a cross-party panel, whereby Matthew has picked members of other parties whose views are, how might I put it, somewhat controversial amongst their own ranks.

Jack Straw has never really believed that the public deserve an insight into the workings of government. An authoritarian to his fingertips, he has never had any qualms about throwing our human rights, and those of people from other countries, 'under the bus' if it suits his political priorities.

Alex Carlile has what I can only describe as a blind spot when it comes to issues of security. In the past, I have defended him as, for the most part, pretty liberal. However, given that his past activities as the independent security advisor to the Government have generated much outrage amongst Liberal Democrats, his appointment is likely to welcomed with all the enthusiasm of a flying cowpat in a crowded room.

On the other hand, Michael Howard will perform entirely as the Government will wish him to. He is to civil liberties what Herod was to childminding.

There is, somewhat radically, a woman on the panel, Dame Patricia Hodgson, the current chair of Ofcom, and someone likely to play a role in the future supervision of the BBC, another Conservative target. It isn't clear to me what her background is that qualifies her to do this, but if this is intended to be a hatchet job, that probably doesn't matter. She may turn out to be more cover for young Hancock.

And finally, in the chair, that old reliable himself, Terry Burns. If in doubt, he is the establishment's go-to man. He does have some form on Freedom of Information, as in 2007 he indicated in an article in the Financial Times that some information, particularly analysis, supplied to ministers might be better made public. But, you sense, he will do as he is asked, rather than rock the boat.

So, I have some questions for the noble Lord Carlile. Firstly, how do you end up being appointed to the panel, and was there any consultation with the Party leadership before you accepted the invitation? Second, do you believe that it is a genuine cross-party review if your position is likely to be unrepresentative of Liberal Democrat thinking? Thirdly, does the fact that someone like me feels the need to ask such questions not make you wonder whether or not you've done the right thing?

Go on, Alex, prove me wrong...

MP pay - is it really too difficult to read the whole story before engaging outrage mode?

Yes, it seems.

Oh, you want me to say more than that. Right. Ummm... let's see. Wait a minute, it's on the tip of my tongue...

In my day job, I spend my time examining all of the available data in order to define any areas of doubt and uncertainty and then, having done so, work out a fair and rational way of dealing with them. It is surprisingly enjoyable, especially as you learn more about human nature and about how people organise, and rationalise, their lives. You get to meet interesting people and get a sense of their worlds.

So, it would be odd if I spent five minutes looking at one particular piece of data, and drew my inferences from it alone, ignoring all of the rest. And yet, people seem perfectly willing to do just that when it comes to politics, politicians, and how our country is run.

Let's take MP salaries as an example. They have been awarded a 9.26% increase in their basic salary by IPSA, the independent arbiter of what an MP should be paid, as well as the rest of their package. 9.26%, or about £7,000, that's an outrage, right? In isolation, it is a lot of money, especially given the pay restraint to be applied to the public sector (and it amazes me the level of ignorance about that too, but that's a different story, for a different day perhaps).

Of course, it isn't the whole story. The personal contribution towards their pension will be increased, and the resettlement allowance for MPs who are not re-elected has been axed and replaced with a rather less generous 'loss of office' allowance only to be paid to MPs who fight their seat and lose - think of it as redundancy money, as paid to a lot of people when they lose their job. And there are other, reasonable reforms such as the abolition of the food subsidy currently payable if the House sits after 7.30 p.m.

The overall additional cost to the taxpayer? Nothing. Nada. Zip. Heavens, even the Civil Service paybill is increasing by 1% per annum.

There are some elements which might be questioned. Why, for example, should it right for future increases to be linked to the growth in average earnings, when the public sector will be pegged to something rather lower than that if the Government's own figures are to be believed?

But that isn't a cause for outrage particularly, especially if future increases are linked to those of average employees. It provides a realistic incentive to spread the benefits of economic growth rather more widely, even if taking the median figure for pay growth might be more credible than the mean.

Unfortunately, most people will read the first sentences of the story and never bother to get to the end. Indeed, attention spans seem so short now that getting to the middle appears unrealistic. It does not augur well for an intellectual renewal if our body politic, does it?...

We have a new overlord, it seems. Well done Tim, and well done to Norman too...

So, the white smoke has come, and Tim Farron has won by a rather wider margin than his predecessor did eight years ago. I'm pleased that the margin is unquestionable, but also that Norman did as well as he did do. 43.5% is more than respectable, and it means that he has earned the right to be as serious a player in the future of the Party as he wishes to. Given his obvious ability, that can only be to the advantage of the liberal cause.

It is interesting to see the response below the line on the various websites. The irreconcilables are, still, irreconcilable but, frankly, the fact that they see fit to post how disinterested they are rather undermines that apparent stance. There are others who continue to take great delight in attacking the Party for supposedly enabling the Conservatives. I tend to think that the electorate have some responsibiity there too but wonder if these people were listening to the likes of Rachel Reeves on the subject of welfare. Probably not, as that might challenge them to question their own prejudices.

There are, astonishingly, those who consider that a new leader offers the best hope for social democracy in this country. I do hope not, as I'm a liberal.

And finally, there are those who believe that we should all just give up and go home. Bearing in mind that they aren't liberals and apparently have no interest in hearing an alternative voice, we can safely ignore them.

No, there are millions of people in this country who, if given a reason to vote Liberal Democrat, will do so happily. Will they agree with us on everything? Probably not, after all, even party members disagree amongst themselves - it's part of the liberal DNA. It's our job to make the case of liberal democracy, do it well and rebuild trust again.

So, Tim, good luck. From the snippets of your speech this evening that I've seen, you came across as suspiciously human, and that's a damned good thing. We will probably disagree from time to time, and that's healthy, but if you can inspire the sort of respect that has appeared in my Twitter feed this evening from a surprisingly wide range of people, you're not likely to go far wrong...

I wonder if the Daily Telegraph's editorial team have bothered to read the Conservative Party's membership rules...

There appears to be an organised attempt by the Daily Telegraph to sabotage the Labour Party's leadership election by encouraging its readers to join the Labour Party and vote for Jeremy Corbyn.

Telegraph providing step by step guide on how to vote for Corbyn in order to help "doom" LAB. http://t.co/AJNWGAzdKM pic.twitter.com/Ii6XHxRtV5

— Mike Smithson (@MSmithsonPB) July 15, 2015

This is, of course, a remarkably stupid idea, especially as it will simply lead to retaliation - the Conservative policy, currently in abeyance, of having open selections will become so easy a target - and coarsen our body politic even further. Admittedly, the Daily Telegraph doesn't like democracy very much - its owners, the reclusive Barclay brothers, don't pay tax in this country and have an unusual approach to democracy on Sark - but such an overt attempt to subvert the politics of our nation is a new low even for them.

However, they might want to read Article 3 of the Conservative Party's membership rules which read, and I quote;

The Party is a political Party for the Nation, open to all who share its objects and values and who undertake to be bound by this Constitution. The Party shall consist of its Members. Membership of the Conservative Party is not compatible with Membership of or association with any other registered political party.

Now, of course, the Conservative Party will have to judge whether or not its rules mean anything, or whether or not it would be reasonable to expel someone who decided to join UKIP as well given the precedent they would be setting.

Far be it for me to interfere though...

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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