As one door is closed with a degree of relief, another opens…

With the setting of the sun on what I had vaguely thought might be the bureaucratic equivalent of the thousand-year Reich, I had been forced to give some thought to what I might do next. With the new responsibilities of my relationship and impending marriage to Ros, I needed something less day-to-day and more outcome focused. So what is a faceless bureaucrat to do when the secretariat loses its savour?

My solution seems to be an elegant one, in that I have put my name forward to be the Regional Conference Chair and, in an unexpected turn, been elected unopposed! And so my friends, this posting is my way of introducing you to the potential entertainment to follow and to seek your thoughts on how London’s Regional Conference could be better.

I have had some thoughts already, in terms of what we might do in terms of improving opportunities to debate policy, both with Parliamentarians and our London Assembly members, using the Regional Conference as a stepping stone to securing debates at the Federal Conference, and making the Regional Executive more accountable.

However, Conference is an opportunity for the members to attend training sessions, find out what is happening across the Region, and network with friends and colleagues across our home city. I’ve never run a conference before, so I’m starting with a clean sheet, although I’m planning to attend a few Regional Conferences elsewhere (South Central, East Midlands and Yorkshire and the Humber) to see if I can get any inspiration from my opposite numbers elsewhere. However, if you have any suggestions, I’ll be sure to consider them…

Not a posting about the leadership… a bureaucrat regrets (with apologies to Sir Menzies Campbell)

(Embargoed until I feel like it)

When I was elected as Secretary of the London Liberal Democrats in November 2004 I had three objectives. First, to restore stability and purpose in the bureaucracy following my predecessor’s decision to spend more time with the people of Ealing Southall, second, to make the internal operations of the party more professional, and third, to prepare the secretariat for a general election.

With the help of others, I believe that I have fulfilled these objectives, although I am convinced that the internal structures of the party need radical revision if we are to compete effectively against our opponents. But it has become clear that following my decision to get a life, questions about bureaucracy are getting in the way of further progress by the secretariat.

Accordingly I now declare my intention not to run for re-election as Secretary with immediate effect. I do not intend to hold a press conference or make any further comment (unless I change my mind).

No, didn't the Federal Executive learn from our last leadership contest?

Apparently, we are to have a new leader by 17 December.

After our last contest, I noted that the process was somewhat limited, and prevented a proper dialogue between the candidates and the members. Now I may be being unduly pessimistic here, but how in the name of God are candidates going to be able to organise campaign teams and really reach out to the members in a period of, effectively, six weeks at the most?

So, just in case the message didn't get home the first time, what I want to see is:

• access to the membership lists for the campaign teams
• something more than one side of A4 so that I can find out more about them
• an e-hustings so that I can elicit some meaningful answers
• access to podcasts and the like, so that I can see the whites of their eyes

That requires a little time, and the notion that declaring a winner a week before Christmas is, being generous, unlikely to draw huge attention when most people are thinking about Christmas, not politics, nor will it allow candidates to develop a 'personality' and a narrative.

Might it not be better to run the process more slowly, announce a winner in February, and let the new leader's momentum carry us into the spring local elections?

Ming: apparently, it's all over...

News has reached me, from a range of sources, that Ming will announce his resignation very shortly. Let the contest begin?

UPDATE: 18.19 - BBC have confirmed that Vince Cable and Simon Hughes will be making an announcement at 18.30...

UPDATE (2): 18.39 - BBC announce that he has resigned, with immediate effect...

European selection: is it a bird, is it a plane? No, it's Super Returning Officer!

Well, for South East European Region, the hustings are over.

In a final flourish, today I acted as Returning Officer, timekeeper, Chair and sports ticker at what can only be described as a bijou gathering in a sunny Canterbury.

Due to illness, unexpected person events and failed transport, only ten of our fifteen candidates could make it but the level of debate was as high as ever. I ran a comparatively laissez faire ship, as I've increasingly concluded that formal hustings are just about the least effective way candidates can spend their time, and went for entertainment instead.

So speeches and.questions were interspersed with tea and the football and cricket scores (good wins for England and Scotland at football, a bit of a shocker for England's batsmen against Sri Lanka), as the afternoon passed by in an atmosphere of bonhomie.

Curiously, despite my multi-tasking, I was incredibly relaxed, and I'm beginning to gain the impression that I simply enjoy chairing things. Perhaps it's just a control thing but I happen to think that I'm quite good at it. I have no great desire to hear my own voice, I'm kindly to speakers and appreciate the audience. It's also a confidence thing, I suppose, something which I suddenly seem to have a little of.

But as the sun sets over North Kent, it's time to head for Suffolk for a little sanity and good sense and some quality time with Ros.

Leadership: it isn't just the responsibility of the leader

I have to admit that I've watched the events of the past few days with increasing despair.

I'll be honest, I didn't vote for Ming as my first choice (he got my second preference). Naturally, I thought that my choice (Chris Huhne) was better, but I accepted the verdict of the membership as I had in the past (in fairness, having voted for Beith against Ashdown and Rendel against Kennedy, I had little choice!). Like many non-Parliamentarians or denizens of Cowley Street, I had no knowledge of Charles Kennedy's drinking problems, and was surprised by the rapidity with which he was removed, even if the execution was sloppy - we're nice people, or is that simply an excuse for not being very good?

And here we are again. The Press have decided that Ming is wounded, and fatally so, on the basis of a very selective sampling of individual bloggers, regardless of their relative credibility. It might not be so bad but for the comments of anonymous senior Liberal Democrat insiders, whoever they may be, whether or not they actually exist.

In an ideal world, the Chair of the Parliamentary Party in the Commons (in this instance, Paul Holmes), our Leader in the Lords (Tom McNally) and the President (as representative of the wider membership) would take soundings, form and agree a conclusion, and go to the Leader with either a declaration of loyalty or a pearl-handled revolver. Unfortunately, this can't happen as Simon Hughes has a clear conflict of interest.

So how does the membership have its say, or who can speak for it? And that is our problem. We have no effective mouthpiece for our views, either pro or anti-Ming, and into this vacuum step the not-so-massed ranks of Liberal Democrat bloggers, compounded by the general fecklessness of journalists, so many of whom seek a story, any story, as long as it causes debate, even where it doesn't exist.

Perhaps the Chairs of the English, Welsh and Scottish State Parties could step blinking into the sunlight? It is a lot to ask of Brian Orrell, Rob Humphreys and AN Other (I can't locate the Chair/Convenor of the Scottish Executive Committee, even on their website), and given that, in the case of Brian, they can't claim a broad mandate - he's elected by the members of English Council, a group notable only for its usual lack of competition for membership - it perhaps is a step too far for them to be asked to take.

I've urged for a degree of restraint, or at least, that people consider the likelihood of their comments being interpreted in a manner not wholly compatible with their actual intent, but have realised that in a Party which treasures the individual, any hope that we could coalesce around an agreed stance is pretty futile and, frankly, not entirely liberal.

So let's either do the deed, or accept what we have, a perfectly decent man who cares deeply for his nation, his Party and our cause. But dithering makes us look weak, and occupies too many of the best and brightest minds of our Party in a doomed exercise in damage limitation, both personal and corporate. If Ming has the support of the two Parliamentary Parties, they should be able to demonstrate it soon enough.

Leaving it to Ming to "do the honourable thing" is a cop-out. He wanted to be Leader, I can't imagine that he doesn't want the job now, and asking him to be altruistic asks far too much of any man. Very few people are capable of making an entirely objective evaluation of their own performance, especially when it comes to deciding upon their own 'political mortality'. Allow him his dignity, he's done plenty enough for liberal democracy to merit it.

But for the benefit of any journalists who might be reading this, you'll notice that I'm not calling for a particular decision, just that a decision be made. In a crisis, whether real or imagined, kudos goes to the person who makes a decision, justifies it and sticks with it...

A song for the Conservatives...

I'm a child of the eighties in so many ways, and always struggled with the apparent heartlessness of the Conservative Government, particularly post-1987. And so, whilst listening to my copy of the Proclaimers 1987 album "This Is The Story", I thought that I would post a reminder of why I can't quite bring myself to trust what David Cameron and his boys would like me to...

"Don’t get me wrong
Don’t mind you shouting
Just think your style excludes
The part that really matters
Just grow tired
Of empty minds mouthing English language courses
While they struggle with the a b c of heart
And I confess
That all I’ve learnt
Has been learnt a million times
By every empty heart
That ever felt a song come home
But I’d he happy
When next I ask the time
If I find I’ve wasted none of mine
Listening while you wasted all of yours."

Thanks, Craig and Charlie, for making the point so emphatically...

SHOCK NEWS: Returning Officer makes pragmatic decision in support of the campaign!

It is with some bewilderment that I must report that I've made a decision.

Yes, I know, the concept is an unlikely one, but sometimes, outcome is better than uncertainty. So, without further ado, I would like to announce the Mark Valladares Memorial Decision...

I've cancelled Saturday's European hustings in Eastleigh.

There, I've said it. I've made a decision. I've made all of the arrangements so there is no turning back, and fifteen European candidates can more effectively use the day getting more votes for the Liberal Democrats. May God have mercy upon my soul...

Oh, you wanted a justification. Um... oh yes, the three neighbouring constituencies are all expected to get their campaigns underway with a blitz of activity on Saturday, a General Election will almost certainly be called early next week and we still haven't issued the ballot papers and manifestos so nobody will come anyway. So why lock a bunch of people in a room to listen to fifteen candidates when all of them could be knocking on doors, putting leaflets out or getting press coverage?

Is that joined-up thinking or what?

The case for fixed-term parliaments - time to end this farce, Gordon…

The need for fixed-term parliaments has become ever more apparent as the game of feint and counterfeint has dominated political life over the past month. We all know that Gordon will go, we almost certainly know that it will be on 8 November, and yet the game goes on.

As a qualified cynic, I thoroughly understand that the governing party wants to do everything in its power to ensure victory. I suspect that if my job, my legacy and the history books were at stake, I’d want to be damned certain I would win. But there is a price to be paid for taking such a view of the public interest, and it’s a price that we’ll all be paying for years to come, regardless of Party affiliation, regardless even of membership of a political party.

Firstly, we almost certainly disenfranchise a significant chunk of the population. The students returning to college will probably not have registered. They may find time to do so in the run-up to polling day, but electoral registration officers are going to be sorely pressed to cope. To do so, they’ll probably have to draw on staff from other parts of the council in an unplanned way, causing interruption to other services. The fact that the electoral register doesn’t undergo publication between September and December will also potentially exclude those, like myself, who have moved house, or are less than entirely efficient with paperwork.

Secondly, the legislation currently passing through Parliament will either fall, or will be the victim of a rushed act of horsetrading. Some of it, quite frankly, is rubbish, or poorly drafted, or both. There will be pressure on the opposition parties to yield to the Government majority in the Commons, and legislation that needs more review and amendment will slip through without proper scrutiny. You and I will suffer from that, and the need to create more legislation to address the flaws that emerge later will snarl up both the Commons and the Lords even more than they already are (and how many people actually believe that legislation gets the scrutiny that it deserves?).

Thirdly, creating a programme for government takes time. Political parties need to develop ideas that can address the needs of the nation, and in the panic to get a manifesto ready for public scrutiny, there is a tendency to resort to the tried and tested (and, actually, normally pretty unsuccessful). The Conservatives were coming up with some interesting ideas, but are junking most of them in the absence of an opportunity to properly evaluate them for viability. Is that in our interest as a community, or merely advantageous for the Government, who are somewhat ill-equipped to fight a campaign on ideas (if they have any, presumably they’ve attempted to implement them by now). We are therefore offered a choice between two established parties with few new ideas and a record in government and a third with plenty of ideas developed over a lengthy period but no real record in national government. I’m sorry, but casting aside my Party allegiance, is this the best that is on offer?

Finally, the work of government has reached a state of paralysis. Do you take a decision now, or wait until you know who is running the country in a month’s time? How long have you waited already in anticipation of an announcement? Can you get buy-in from your Minister, or is he/she preoccupied with the impact on their campaign?

I can already hear the counter arguments, noting the likelihood of coalition governments, or the tradition of our Parliamentary system, or the need for flexibility in times of crisis, and you know something, they’re the cries of people who like the cosy consensus that exists and benefit from it. The idea of a open and just democratic process doesn’t appear to enter into it, although it’s good enough for every other tier of government.

We’ve accepted the notion that the economy needs transparency and stability in order to be a success, so why not our government? Or is it the case that politicians truly believe in Party before country? Gordon, over to you…

European Selection: watching... and waiting... and hoping...

For those gallant few pursuing selection for the European lists, we've entered something of a period of limbo. If a General Election is called, the process is suspended, and the work already done may or may not impact on the views of members. Worse still, it isn't exactly clear when the process would resume... So, how hard do you campaign?

Saturday sees scheduled hustings in Bethnal Green (for London) and Eastleigh (for South East). Do we cancel, do we proceed? It's all up to Gordon and his dance of the seven veils in any event. As an apparatchik, my life is simple. Carry on as normal until told otherwise, so I'm continuing to field questions, talk to candidates and plan as though nothing untoward was happening.

And yet I have this overwhelming urge to become a lumberjack, to stride from tree to tree through the forests of British Columbia, with an axe in my hand and my gal by my side. There may even be some wild flowers that need pressing. In short, I'm having existential doubts about being a bureaucrat, not a particularly helpful thing to be happening at this time of year, when nominations for Party office are due and plans for the year to come are being made.

It is healthy to consider why you do things from time to time, and we so often fail to stop and smell the metaphorical flowers. Am I attempting to do too much and, if so, what elements are easiest to drop or least entertaining? Or perhaps I need time off to renew my enthusiasm for all things Liberal Democrat?

One thing that I do know is that my connections to Dulwich & West Norwood lapse at the end of the year. My house move complete, and Federal Conference passed, I have arranged for my membership to be reallocated to Borough of Brent and this has been done (thanks to the gentlemen in Membership Services who made it happen).

So, what do I do now? Well, I'm a member of:

• Joint States Membership Committee
• English Council
• English Candidates Committee
• London Region Executive Committee (as Secretary)
• London Region Candidates Committee
• London Region Finance and Administration Committee (ex-officio as Regional Secretary)
• London Region Conference Committee
• Borough of Brent Executive Committee (as Secretary)
• Dulwich & West Norwood Executive Committee (as Membership Secretary)
• ADA Resolutions Committee

I also act as a parliamentary candidate assessor and Returning Officer at Westminster and European levels, regional contact to Beckenham, Bexley Borough, Bromley and Chislehurst and Orpington Local Parties.

Perhaps I am overcommitted, and perhaps a rethink is needed. Of course, I do need to get re-elected to a great many of these posts in the meantime, so I can't take anything for granted. So let's see how things go, and wait for Gordon to throw a spanner in the works...

The romance of travel is still not dead…

This entry is written on, but not posted from, flight EZY5304 en route from Marrakech to Gatwick Airport. I’ve escaped with Ros for a little sunshine and relaxation after Federal Conference, in the company of her daughter Sally.

Curiously, despite my reputation for globetrotting, I’ve never actually been to mainland Africa, so it’s been just a bit of an adventure. Now I admit that, for someone who has been to Vanuatu, Ecuador and Vietnam, to name but three countries in the lifetime of this blog alone (since writing this blog, I’ve visited fifteen countries on all six continents), an Easy Jet flight to Morocco doesn’t appear, on the face of it, to be that thrilling or exotic.

And yet, there is something unique about Marrakech still, something that differentiates it from most of the places that I’ve been. The fact that English, whilst spoken, is still not the primary language of tourism (still French, I’m glad to say) helps. The comparatively slight impact of mass tourism (although, sadly, probably not for long) is another plus. However, the fact that the souks of the Medina, with their shady alleys and riads, remain virtually untouched by the modern era (externally, at least), is what makes the city so wonderful. It’s still Ramadan, and the city’s body clock is controlled by the inability to eat whilst the sun is up. And, as the skies dims, the tension rises and all ears await the call of the muezzin, announcing the sunset and unleashing a feeding frenzy across city and suburbs alike.

Tim, a friend of Ros’s, owns a riad (a bit like a tower, with a small courtyard at the bottom) near the heart of the old city, and kindly invited us to join him for a few days. His terrace looks out over the rooftops of the medina and, once the muezzin start their cries (accompanied by what appear to be air raid sirens salvaged from an earlier war), you are surrounded by a wave of sound which would have been familiar to a time traveller brought forward from the Middle Ages.

In short, Marrakech is different. Things happen broadly on time (for a given value of ’on time’), although there is always room for negotiation. There is no such thing as a fixed price (unless you actually want to be ripped off, of course), and there is always another day, God willing. It does remind me a bit of India, although not the India that tourists mostly see, in that you do have to leave behind the Western virtues of certainty and efficiency, and accept a rather slower, occasionally bewildering sense that you can’t entirely control what is happening. Just accept that, if it is fated to happen, it will, and all will be well.

Unfortunately, it’s now time to return to the reality of work, meetings and politics, and the day to day stuff that makes a romantic getaway so appealing. Ah well, there’s always a moment to plan the next getaway…

The world gets smaller every day

I have to confess to having a carbon footprint the size of Wiltshire. Indeed, Ros jokes that Liberal Democrats don’t pay a supplement on their registration to cover the environmental impact of the conference, they do it to make up for my personal carbon dioxide emissions. Naturally, in an attempt to save us all from the potential harm done by climate change, Liberal Democrats have led the way amongst the three main political parties in proposing policies that make air travel more expensive and encourage us all to use more sustainable forms of transport.

And that’s my problem. The effect of such a policy is to limit longhaul travel to the wealthy, or to restrict the amount of travelling I do, something which is more difficult when your family inhabit four continents, and you actually enjoy their company. But even more than that, at a time when jetting off to foreign parts is so easy, we British have become more open and more tolerant of foreign cultures. At home, we still stick to what is safe and familiar. Yet in Budapest, or Marrakech, or Tallinn, our compatriots are discovering the beauties of new scenery, new and unfamiliar cuisines, and attempting (often amusingly - for the locals, at least) to speak new languages. The young Britons abroad don’t, to a greater extent than ever before, crave fish and chips, warm, flat beer and an English newspaper. They drink the local brew, eat seafood, go clubbing, wear local fashions and look forward to their next weekend break in Vienna, Hamburg or Helsinki.

We need to think long and hard before we take these opportunities away from future generations, and retreat into an enforced isolationism that weakens our newly broadened cultural values. So, for example, we need to ensure that carbon offset programmes actually fulfil their promises, encourage airlines to use the most fuel-efficient aircraft, design and resource our infrastructure (airports and air traffic control) to allow efficient use of aircraft. And yes, we do need to encourage the use of rail on shorthaul routes - frankly, why would anyone fly from London to Brussels or Paris any more unless they had a connecting flight?

But let’s not get so fearful of climate change that we completely lose track of quality of life issues and our innate internationalism as liberals. It’s not just about being nice to foreigners, it’s about interacting with them too…

I'm a liberal guy, too cool for the macho ache...

I suppose that I really ought to note Iain Dale's new book, a rather dramatically expanded version of last year's guide to political blogging in the UK.


Last year, he very graciously ranked this blog 30th amongst Liberal Democrat blogs, much to my surprise at the time. This year, votes came from Liberal Democrat bloggers and I can now bask in the allegation that my ranking has climbed to 14th! Now, he has published his list of the top 500 political blogs in the country and I rank 185th.

I'm still surprised, and would like to thank those of you who so kindly voted for me. On the negative side, it's going to very hard to live up to the accolade, so I'd better just get on with it...

European Selection: we're on the road to nowhere (with apologies to the Oxford massive)

I'm on my way to Oxford for the first of four Regional hustings, to be held in a school somewhere near Blackbirds Ley (or so I'm told). In typical Valladares style, I think that I'm late but you can never really tell until you are, I suppose. Fingers crossed, anyway...

As someone who has been more intimately involved with European selections than anyone other than applicants, I've tended to observe them with a degree of perplexed fondness, and this year is no exception. So I thought I might review the campaign thus far...

We got off to a pretty good start last year, agreeing a perfectly sound timetable, establishing the Selection Rules (I know, you don't like them but at least they were available in good time!) and, in the case of South East, appointing a Returning Officer in good time (marvellous chap, sound under fire, sense of humour, not one of those appalling pen pushers...).

From then on, in terms of process, things have gone well. The problem is that enthusiasm to run has been, to put it mildly, slight. And it leads me to a heretical thought, i.e. are we so hung up on democracy that we've sacrificed efficiency, merit and diversity to achieve a mirage of fairness?

Many activists will lament, if given any opportunity to do so, that they didn't vote for Ming, but that the armchair members opted for a safe pair of hands and gravitas. In regional list selections, they tend to support incumbents, making it difficult for fresh, new talents to break through, and discriminating against the emerging BME/young applicants.

My gut feeling is that this is linked to all member postal ballots. So, if the desire to include everybody is so strong, why don't we have them for PPC selections, where the armchair member is, ironically, far more likely to be an informed participant?

So why not have a series of local 'meet the applicants' events where ballot papers can be cast, and thus limit the franchise to those who have actually taken the trouble to inform themselves as to the merits of the candidates? You could even use Regional Conferences!

Candidates selected on merit by an informed electorate? I'm beginning to worry that I'm turning into a heretic in my old age...

Selection Rules: From triumph to disaster and back again

I've been a bit busy with another election recently, but have managed to find time to observe those elections actually underway, and they've really been quite interesting.

In the Mayoral selection for London, we've had the first hustings - in Brighton. I have to give credit to those who came up with the idea of holding it, as the coverage was far better than the 'official' one is likely to be, and the press clearly lapped it up. Perhaps it is a mite unfortunate that running alongside the European selections has meant that at least one candidate has the dubious pleasure of having to comply with two sets of Rules which clearly contradict each other...

Meanwhile, one of the European candidates has had a picture of himself and his lovely wife ruled out of order due to her status as a notable member of the Party. That'll teach him to marry a baroness... hmm, perhaps I ought to move along at this point...

This brings me to news of an interesting development. Endorsements have been something of a problem for Returning Officers over the years, and the simple to administrate notion of banning them altogether has been traditionally favoured. However, in an age of Facebook, blogs and e-forums both private and public, policing has become virtually impossible. In my conversations with some fairly senior Returning Officers, it has become clear that there is a real consensus that the 'no endorsement' restriction is dead in the water and moves will follow shortly to have it struck from the Selection Rules. This will simply the campaigning phase beyond recognition, as it will in turn allow links to other websites - yes, another regulation gone.

One advantage of having a former European candidate in close proximity is that you do tend to hear the other side of the argument more clearly, and I have increasingly become discomforted by the paradox whereby we, as a Party, talk about over-regulation and the need for a 'bonfire of directives' whilst simultaneously adding more and more clauses to our Selection Rules.

So, we have an opening gambit in the quest for simpler, more effective Selection Rules. Is there anyone else willing to storm the barricades?

Still award-free after all these years

As a senior Lib Dem blogger (that's senior in terms of age, not status or gravitas), I was particularly pleased to see a few forty-somethings and more get shortlisted in the various categories of the 2007 Lib Dem Blog of the Year Awards. I was even more delighted to be nominated in the category of best posting, especially as I've never considered myself to be at the standard of some of my colleagues, in terms of content and ideas, at least.

This blog is unusual, in that it focuses on structures, processes and internal 'stuff', or at least it did until fairly recently. My subject matter is, therefore, not really targeted at an external, non-Lib Dem audience, and my nomination, for a piece where I nailed my still-beating, slightly bloodied heart to my sleeve in response to a Conservative Party policy review, came as a bit of a surprise.

Whilst I didn't win an award, I was touched by the kind words of my fellow bloggers and of readers, some of whom posted quite poignant comments of their own experiences, and as I noted at the time, if my candour has helped anyone, no matter how much or how little, it will make the time I spend on this blog worthwhile.

The blog has been helpful to me in terms of allowing me an outlet for my thoughts, a forum for floating ideas, a means for my far flung family to keep in touch and, occasionally, a way to express my view on those issues that impact on me personally. It can be a bit self-indulgent, and I freely acknowledge that, but as an insight into the bureaucracy, I hope that it has entertained, enlightened and enabled...

There's something happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear...

Ten weeks ago, I was an inveterate townie, whose viewpoint of the countryside was that it made an excellent place to keep things that I could eat (cows, pigs, chickens and the like), the view out of the window on train journeys more interesting and generally filled the gaps between places I have to go to for meetings.

You can therefore imagine my surprise when I found myself sitting in a meeting of the delegation for the forthcoming ELDR Congress in Berlin, arguing for an amendment to a sustainable transport resolution to reflect the needs of rural communities. I admit that there were some slightly puzzled looks around the table when they realised that such comments were coming from the delegate from the achingly rural constituency of Dulwich and West Norwood (we have parks - apparently).

However, spending time with Ros, and especially our weekends in Suffolk, have brought home how dominated the political agenda is by the big urban communities, especially London. The choice agenda, for example, fails to consider the likelihood that effective choice can be offered in rural communities, when schools may be five or more miles apart, when transport links are sparse (bus services that run once a month are not uncommon in the smaller villages), and where demand is slight in numerical terms but critical to the individuals concerned.

Another aspect of my approach that has changed is that I've rediscovered a bit of passion in terms of my politics. Bureaucracy and passion, as I've remarked in the past, don't generally go hand in hand, but Ros's approach, which is very outcome driven, has caused me to re-evaluate why I do things, and how the things that I do impact on others. I am reminded that I entered politics because I wanted to make things better, not simply to run things better (although this is, in itself, not an unlaudable aim).

It is curious how being in a relationship, and being obliged to think about someone else's needs, not just your own, makes you rethink the way that you see the world.

A terribly British crisis - cynicism and queueing

I've been somewhat disappointed by the reaction of the public and politicians to the Northern Rock crisis.

Ros and I were walking towards the Conference Centre when we encountered a long queue trailing past a branch of Lloyds TSB from what turned out to be the local branch of the Northern Rock. We'd seen the pictures in the media, but not actually experienced it in the flesh. What was most surprising was the apparent calm in which those in the queue were waiting. There were few signs of hysteria or panic, and one must assume that staff were patiently dealing with those in the queue.

Given the levels of personal saving amongst the population at large, it seems unlikely that many of those in the queue were likely to lose huge sums even if the Northern Rock was to fail, given the minimum guaranteed protections given to depositors. And yet the panic is on, and nothing seems able to stem the tide.

The response of politicians has been fairly woeful, and ironically, their lack of impact has been the result of their own unthinking disrespect for the electorate. When Alastair Darling tells the public that they have nothing to fear, voters remember what has happened to their pensions and to their tax bills, and respond with unfortunately justifiable cynicism.

Politicians have a responsibility to treat the public like adults. If they do, the public have a responsibility to behave accordingly. Sadly, this Government, and Her Majesty's Opposition, seem to be determined to spin themselves into oblivion, and take the credibility of politicians and politics itself with them...

EXCLUSIVE: There might really be a Presidential contest next year!

Now I freely accept that, for this particular correspondent, the logo has a fairly obvious rationale. However, it has just taken on a whole new significance. Yes, Ros is running for the position of Party President next year, and I am incredibly proud to endorse her candidacy, for more than just the obvious reason.

The Presidency is, for most members, a little understood role, being seen as the person who visits Local Parties, eats dinner, makes the rallying speeches, and is a public face for the Party. Indeed, all this is true, but barely scratches the surface of the job.

One key role is that of chairing the Federal Executive. This requires organisation, preparation and focus and, as I have learned from watching my own Regional Executive, it isn't easy. In particular, managing egos, personal agendas and conflicting demands requires vast reservoirs of tact, diplomacy and resolve. Ros has led a County Council under coalition circumstances, and has hard, practical experience of taking tough decisions under pressure. In the House of Lords, she has laboured tirelessly to oppose legislation that is highly technical, massively complex and, frankly, desperately poorly drafted, with limited administrative support. She leads a team with enormous individual credibility and is respected by them.

Another role, which has been little exercised in recent years, is that of representing the ordinary members and activists within the highest levels of the Party, if you like, to be a honest broker when things are difficult. During the darkest days of last winter, there was nobody who could credibly go to Charles Kennedy and say, "Nothing personal, Charles, but perhaps it's time to go, whilst you can retain your dignity?".

That brings me to another reason why Ros would make a good President. As a member of the House of Lords, she has no further political ambition, and no agenda, other than the satisfaction of doing a good job. Had she been President in late 2005 and early 2006, she could have done what Simon Hughes, for example, could never have done, without being seen to have a personal interest.

So watch out for the logo, coming to a badge near you soon!

7.45 a.m., somewhere in Stonebridge

God, I'm lonely. I've been telling outside a polling station since 7 a.m. And the number of voters so far? Nil. Democracy at its finest...

Ah well, at least the sun is shining...

Ming Campbell: does being a Liberal Democrat mean never having to accept the result?

As Conference arrives, and the background rumbling for and against Ming Campbell’s leadership continues, I am moved to think about what I want from the Party leadership and, equally important, from my fellow activists (the Daily Telegraph called me an activist, and who am I to doubt them?). Now don’t get me wrong, this won’t be an attack or defence of the reign of Ming the Merciless, or of any named individual, more a reflection on the hows, whys and wherefores of ‘power’.

I didn’t vote for Ming, opting instead to support Chris Huhne. I thought that he demonstrated a greater sense of radicalism – and don’t let those on the ‘left’ of our Party fool anyone that they have the copyright on that word – and would argue cogently for a coherent philosophy. I didn’t mind Ming particularly, felt that he would be a safe pair of hands, and accordingly gave him my second preference as an insurance policy. And so Ming won, having convinced armchair members that, after the convulsions of the Kennedy ‘assassination’, his measured approach was what the Party needed. I was disappointed, but the members had spoken, and as any good democrat should, I accepted the outcome.

Since then, the mutterings have started, less surprisingly, from some of those who voted for Chris or for Simon Hughes, and then, less edifyingly, from some who voted for Ming, and seem to be surprised that, having voted for a safe pair of hands, that is exactly what they got. However, regardless of the background for their dissatisfaction, I am puzzled by the public vitriol with which the debate has been carried out, the defensiveness with which we’ve handled external criticism, and the apparent lack of political nous from some elements of our ranks.

The Conservatives have been quite aggressive in their condemnation of Ming, and have picked on him for his age, his relative docility and approach to Prime Ministers’ Questions. It may not be rocket science but why are we surprised? They don’t like us, they never have done, and they never will. And frankly, given our glee at the increasing signs of dissent on ConservativeHome and the like, why do we think that our own displays of dissent don’t bring joy to the hearts of Conservatives?

Yes, be unhappy with Ming all you like, but try to do so within the context in which he was elected. The membership wanted an Edinburgh lawyer with a safe pair of hands, and that is what they got. To then demand that he demonstrate flair, adventure and radicalism seems grossly unfair, even if that is what you wanted in the first place. Having your own public platform, and having a blog linked to the Aggregator gives you exactly that, obliges one to demonstrate a degree of restraint. As a rule (not unfailingly adhered to, I confess), I tend to think about the impact on external, i.e. non-Liberal Democrat, readers, especially in terms of how my words might be interpreted.

And naturally, for the 99%+ of Liberal Democrats who don’t blog, or at least if they do, don’t blog for a ‘mass’ audience, the frustration when one of our number get picked up by the wider media in a negative light is huge. For example, my fellow colleagues fighting the Stonebridge by-election would be highly unimpressed if I made a public statement condemning the Council Group, and not unreasonably so. In fact, many senior Liberal Democrats think that what we do is indulgent and a use of time better spent on winning elections.

So, what do I want from a leader? Well, I want to be inspired, whether by his/her rhetoric or by their example. I want them to be able to articulate what we stand for with conviction and consistency. I don’t want them to get too involved in the machinery of the Party’s internal workings – we have a President and a Chief Executive for that – although encouragement for the bureaucracy to reflect the Party’s core philosophy would be nice. In turn, the Party has to develop and, more importantly, consistently express those themes best designed to attract voters to liberal democracy. It isn’t just about the leader, you know, it’s about what he/she is able to say.

And next time we have to elect a leader, think about what you want from him or her, decide if any of the candidates reflect sufficient of that to merit your support, and go out there and actively campaign for them. Armchair members of our Party tend towards supporting the safe pair of hands, unless someone gives them reason to think differently. That someone might be you. How about it?

You're not in Kansas now, Dorothy...

I made a special journey up to Needham Market last night to attend the Annual Dinner of Bury St Edmunds Liberal Democrats, the first leg of my Local Party odyssey this weekend.

After a journey described by many as 'typical for One Railway', I arrived a mere one hour late (ah, now I understand the significance of the name!) but just in time to get fed and hear the guest speaker, Dorothy Thornhill, our only elected Mayor, who had graciously driven up from Watford to entertain us.

I have to admit that I was impressed, not just by her speech, which was excellent, but by her passion and enthusiasm for doing the job, and serving the people of Watford. Quite often, I wonder about the philosophical roots of some of our elected representatives (at all levels!) and her willingness to accept responsibility, engage her electorate and take hard decisions really made me feel that, if we must have elected Mayors, they ought to have her approach to the job.
The audience clearly enjoyed her talk, and a series of interesting questions followed.

Dorothy had originally planned to stay overnight at Ros's (our first house guest as a couple!) but had to drive back to Watford at the end of the dinner (something to do with a skip and a ward clean-up, I was led to understand). As a result, she missed the raffle draw. Having been introduced to all present, I was asked to draw the first winning ticket and, saying how embarassing it would be if I drew one of Ros's numbers, I promptly did just that to much amusement.

So, another lovely evening in my new Local Party. Tonight, 'Pizza and Politics' in Dulwich & West Norwood...

Look Ma, I'm on top of the world!

It will come as no surprise to many that this blog was never really intended to be a must-read news source for anyone seeking enlightenment about what Liberal Democrats are thinking and why. Originally, the intention was to allow my family to know what I was up to and where. But then, having realised that most of the things I do are related to the Party, it seemed logical, if a mite vain, to link to Lib Dem Blogs.

Still, given that my subject matter tends to either my ceaseless efforts to negate your attempts to save the planet, or the bureaucracy of the Party, I never envisaged a significant readership or any plaudits.

And so, it is with some surprise that I find that I have been nominated, and short listed, for the award for 'Best Posting on a Lib Dem Blog'. Ironically, I've written entries that have been more widely read (my recent entry on Susanne Lamido topped the 'Golden Ton' last month, and I managed two more entries in the top thirty) but have been nominated for a gallant attempt to nail my heart to my sleeve.

There is some truly great writing scattered across the Liberal Democrat blogworld, and I tend to feel rather intimidated by the quality and gravity of the ideas being debated, so I am deeply moved to be considered worthy of shortlisting. I will be at the awards ceremony, and am looking forward to congratulating the winners. Whoever they are, they'll have worked damned hard to earn it...

More proof that Conservatives don't 'get' public services

I tend to take a keen interest in policy pronouncements related to public services, and was particularly interested to see that the Conservative review group had reported back. Sadly, disappointment reared its ugly head all too soon.

It seems that there are only three public services, health, education and social housing. I presume this is to ensure that their supporters can be protected against outbreaks of plague, that young people can be taught respect for their elders and betters, and so poor, ugly people don't litter the streets and are hidden far away from decent society, i.e. Conservative voters.

But seriously, I'm not all that bothered about their policies on these issues. What really annoys me is the inference that these three aspects are the only public services that actually matter.

In fairness though, none of the major political parties have a particularly great record on public services and the civil service. Here, in summary, are their views;

Labour - like public services, especially in poor, mainly northern and Scottish, constituencies. Don't like civil servants - apparently we scratch their backs a little too vigorously?

Conservatives - apparently like them, but seem to prefer tax cuts to actually paying for them. Choice taken to its ultimate level perhaps?

Liberal Democrats - love public services, happy to pay for them but civil servants are such a problem. Why don't they come in nice pastel shades and in smaller numbers?

Greens - don't really care as long as they're GM-free, recyclable and come from sustainable communities.

Scottish Nationalists - English? Go home, a Scottish civil service for an independent Scotland!

Plaid Cymru - must be delivered in Welsh on demand. That's lovely, isn't it?

UKIP - save the pound!

This was a public service announcement on behalf of the 'Save the Civil Servant Fund'.

EXCLUSIVE: Empress denies liaison with bureaucrat!

It always saddens me when the political equivalent of the tabloid press insist on creating non-stories. However, the media speculation linking me to young Mr Valladares needs to be quoshed for once and for all.

I've known Mark for quite sometime, although I really can't recall how we came to meet. I do vaguely remember a seminar in Aarhus, Denmark, at a time when I was President of the Amaranth Young Liberals, but I could be mistaken (there was an awful lot of alcohol, if my memory serves).

Needless to say, it was clear even then that his interest in ring binders could only end in tears, and Ludwig and I felt obliged to take him under our wing, so to speak.

It has been difficult at times, I confess, but his recent flowering has been of great satisfaction to all of us here in Amaranth.

His life partner is, I feel, an excellent choice, and he will thrive, given her reputation and renown. I've been meaning to talk to her on a personal matter for some time, and now I have a good excuse to do so.

And now I really must dash, whitewater rafting can't be done to Olympic standards without practice, you know...

Keeping the candidates honest?

I'm particularly proud of the innovative e-forum created for the European Parliamentary selections. As a repeat Returning Officer, I've gradually reduced the number of physical hustings from nine in 1998, to five in 2003, to four this year. To be blunt, they are incredibly ineffectual, with low turnouts for the most part, take up large amounts of Returning Officer and candidate time, cost valuable money, and are difficult to manage.

I thought that an e-hustings would give more members an opportunity to find out more about the various applicants, allow easier access at more convenient times, and give candidates an opportunity to give detailed, thoughtful answers. Admittedly, interest is fairly low at the moment, but will improve once the ballot papers goes out with the manifestos. The content is quite interesting already, with some lively debate underway in London, in particular, and I encourage you to take part and give the candidates some food for thought.

Returning to the hustings themselves however, I have always wondered when candidates would draw the conclusion that their time would be much more effectively spent on personal canvassing instead. Assuming a candidate has an average of three hours driving time to and from the venue, and spends ninety minutes there, how many people are they effectively reaching? Given that the average attendance was about sixty last time, and you could probably easily telephone that many people in that time, how does the 'cost/benefit analysis' play out? On the other hand, if attendance is better this year, the numbers may shift. Who can tell?...

21st century bureaucrat (part 2)

As many of you will be aware, I suffer from a tendancy to avoid technology.

Obviously, I have a PC at home, all the better to carry out the evils of liberal bureaucracy, and those of you who frequent this blog on a regular basis may recall that I obtained a laptop, allowing me to take the concept as far away as Vanuatu.

And now, let fear be unconfined! This blog entry comes to you live from a bus on route PR2, courtesy of my brand new, ultra shiny BlackBerry 8300.

For someone who has barely used a mobile phone before, the existence of such things comes as a bit of a revelation, but it is the future of the Spanish Inquisition, sorry, liberal bureaucracy...

It would appear that my faceless days are numbered…

Ros and I had considered whether or not we should ‘announce’ our engagement, and had not entirely concluded as to what we should do or where (when you reach our age, you do tend to be more traditionalist…). However, someone very kindly appears to have taken the decision for us.

I received a telephone call from Ros, advising me to check out the Daily Telegraph, and through the magic of the internet, and the Telegraph’s pretty good e-version, I found the following:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/08/23/dp2301.xml

I have been accused of many things in the past, but ‘wonderfully soppy’ hadn’t been one of them, at least until now…

Research from the University of the Bleeding Obvious indicates…

I am now regularly woken to the dulcet tones of the Today programme on Radio 4, and a means to get the blood pumping in the morning, it’s hard to beat.

However, I can tell that it’s still summer by two pieces of research that were highlighted yesterday and today. The first was released on Monday, indicating that those born to poorer parents were more likely to live their lives in poverty. I almost fell off of the bed in sheer astonishment, let me tell you. Gosh, do you think that politicians should be told?

Today, I learned that rock stars have a higher mortality rate than you and I. Apparently, the mortality rate for performers is three times higher than the norm in the five years after they achieve chart success. Perhaps they could have read the tabloid press to discover this, and maybe that was where their research came from.

But my favourite aspect to the latter story is the hope expressed by Professor Mark Bellis, of Liverpool John Moores University, that they can tame the sex, drugs and rock’n’roll lifestyle that leads to so many early deaths. Whatever happened to ‘live fast, die young’?*

*Please note that this blog does not condone the use of drugs. Sex and rock'n'roll are, however, encouraged if partaken of sensibly...

Welcome to Suffolk, Faceless Bureaucrat!

I've been juggling two Local Parties for some months now, Dulwich & West Norwood, where I lived for so many years and am Membership Secretary, and Brent Borough, where I now live and am Secretary. And now I kind of have a third, so step forward Bury St Edmunds Liberal Democrats!

Ros and I threw a small cocktail party for some of her oldest friends on Saturday evening, as much to renew old friendships as to introduce me to Suffolk Liberal Democrat society. I say 'Ros and I' although Ros did all of the hard work (supported ably by Sally and Jamie) whilst I spent a blissfully happy afternoon up to my elbows on hot, soapy water doing dishes.

I admit to being a Londoner from head to toe, and have spent my political life watching the melee that is politics there. Suffolk is, on the surface at least, rather gentler but I am entranced by the warmth and rooted nature of politics there. In fact, I might almost be tempted to run for public office there, were it not for the minor difficulty caused by my London residence.

A group of Ros's oldest and dearest political friends were able to join us, and whilst I was a mite nervous (there is always a sense, conscious or otherwise, that you are being judged), they were incredibly welcoming. I hope that I can repay their faith in the years ahead, and look forward to spending time with them, either individually or collectively, as the opportunity arises.

The evening ended with a small group of us, Jamie, his girlfriend Lisa, Ros's sister Ann, the neighbours Marcus and Nikki and the two of us singing to the accompaniment of Marcus and Jamie on guitar under a dark sky. It may be the romance talking, but evenings like this put the bureaucracy into perspective...

Bureaucrats and musicals

I like culture, and could debate policy on the issue for hours. In fact, in an earlier life, I was the European Liberal Youth representative on an ELDR Commission on the subject (after eighteen months, we had reached a broad consensus on the definition of the word 'culture', at which point it was decided to suspend the Commission...). However, I am ashamed to admit that most of the movies I see appear on 6" screens on seatbacks in aeroplanes.

So, when Ros indicated that she quite fancied going to see 'Hairspray' and that it was showing in Ipswich, I was sufficiently intrigued to take up the invitation. We could stop on the way back to London, grab dinner at a local restaurant afterwards, and still be home in Kingsbury by a reasonable time, so why not?

And a very good decision it turned out to be, too. John Travolta's performance as a woman, complete with fat suit, was quite the funniest thing I've seen for a long time, and his number with Christopher Walken, playing 'her' husband, was a blast, indeed they both looked as though they were thoroughly enjoying it. With Michelle Pfeiffer playing the evil mother role to hammed-up perfection, and a cast of enthusiastic and talented young actors, it was a great way to spend a Sunday afternoon.

It even comes with a political message, as it is set during the early sixties, when segregation by race was still common in many American cities (the movie is set in Baltimore, Maryland). The message is conveyed with humour but an underlying sense that justice must prevail, and I recommend it to you wholeheartedly.

A new sense of focus. If only AOL and BT could match it...

I have already confessed to a loss of focus in recent weeks and, in truth, this had been a problem for some time, entirely unconnected to Ros. However, inspired by the need to be there for her, I've been working on getting things in order, a task which has been made unexpectedly more difficult by technology.

Since moving home, I've had broadband difficulties, in that I haven't had it. I fully accepted that, by moving house, there would be a loss of service, and took what I thought were the necessary steps with AOL to facilitate the changeover. After a few weeks, Ros made the point that I should have received an e-mail telling me that I now had my services back, so I called AOL to find out what was happening.

I was told that there was a tag on the line, and that my request for renewed broadband services had lapsed. Understandably, I was somewhat disappointed that they had not seen fit to tell me that such a problem existed, especially considering that they provide me with an e-mail address. However, being a pragmatic soul, I asked what would be required to progress matters, to be told that I needed to call BT and ask them to remove the tag, evidently put there by a former user of the line.

So, fortified by a sense of progress, albeit delayed, I rang BT, or at least tried to. A number of attempts to speak to someone (anyone?) foundered on the rocks of their apparent inability to sufficiently staff their helplines, but eventually I reached someone who, clearly irritiated by the fact that I had actually scaled each of the barriers placed before me, told me that AOL were wholly wrong, and that they (AOL) would have to ring BT Wholesale to seek the removal of the tag.

A decidedly unimpressed bureaucrat then rang AOL, who promised that they would ring BT Wholesale after the Bank Holiday weekend (by this time, it was 6 p.m. on the Friday evening, and BT Wholesale had clearly gone home to harass old ladies or whatever) but that I would have to ring them on the Tuesday morning to remind them to do so.

I'd had a lovely weekend in Shropshire with Ros, and returned to the 'real world' on the Tuesday morning, newly invigorated, so I rang AOL who, keeping me on the line, rang BT Wholesale, who in turn generously told them that they wouldn't talk to the service provider and insisted on talking to me. Another phone call to make, and a slightly less invigorated bureaucrat rang a special BT line, expecting the worst.

But lo, I found a very polite young man at the other end of the line, who explained what the issue was, and what needed to be done (it's apparently very technical and I couldn't possibly explain it to you). He couldn't do it himself, but would e-mail his technical team, indicating the urgency of the matter (by this time, I'd gone thirty-nine days without broadband).

I asked if he could copy me in on the e-mail, only to be told that he'd done that in the past, and been strongly discouraged from doing so by management, a sad indictment of modern day customer service, if ever I saw one. However, he assured me that the matter would be progressed quickly, and suggested that I call back on Thursday to check on progress. I then rang AOL, explained the position, and was told that they would put a rotating order on record, that would be reviewed every forty-eight hours and, if the line was now open, the order for services would be placed.

On Thursday, I rang BT, only to be told that the order status was inconclusive. The equally helpful young man said that he would have the matter looked into, and that I might want to call again on Monday to be reassured.

Another idyllic weekend passed in deepest Suffolk, and I returned to the fray this morning. Miracle of miracles, BT confirmed that the tag was gone, AOL advised that they have now placed the order, which now includes faster broadband (6MB, whatever that means and please don't try to explain, it makes my head hurt...), free evening and weekend telephone calls (which might yet prove very useful indeed) and a bunch of other stuff. With any luck, I should have broadband up just in time to go to Brighton where, naturally, it won't be of any use at all...

Technology, isn't it marvellous?

A frustrated Returning Officer writes…

Elsewhere in the blogosphere, there are mutterings about the European selections and, as one of the Returning Officers, perhaps I should comment (actually, I’m going to anyway…).

Yes, candidates aren’t allowed to attack each other, because we have anti-defamation rules. Frankly, I would be perfectly happy to see candidates attack each other’s records, especially if they have a record which merits it. I also see no difficulty with policy or strategy disagreements, in principle. Such an approach would make my life easier as Returning Officer, although I am leaning towards a concept of putting the candidates in an armoury, bolting the doors from the outside and then leaving them for a week or so…

There are four issues that make this less than desirable;

• A more assertive dynamic requires the right to respond, and the limitations of cost and access make this less than viable, except on the e-hustings forum.
• An aggressively fought selection provides ammunition to our opponents – this may be an internal process but you had better believe that, in particular the Tories, they are watching with interest.
• We’re apparently a jolly nice bunch of people (apparently, we are - despite some of the evidence to the contrary).
• People who seem like perfectly charming individuals become pedantic, nit-picking über-bureaucrats when faced with an opportunity to get elected (and I like to think that I know what I'm talking about here).

So far, I’ve had a rash of complaints about websites (and which part of ‘links are not allowed except for those specifically authorised’ is so difficult?), and about an Annual Report (yes, it was permissible, yes it did comply with the Selection Rules as far as they applied, and no, I didn’t have authority over it).

I’ve noted that, on one hand, the Rules are too restrictive, but on the other, we should have more rules about MEP communication. We've tried to free up campaigning as far as possible, and I propose to spend desperately little time staring endlessly at candidate websites unless forced to. That's what self-regulation is all about, after all.

Amidst all of the bickering, it would be really nice if a campaign broke out and so, on that note, I'm going to prepare for a weekend in Suffolk being a normal(ish) human being... and you never know, I might encounter one of East of England's potential candidates...

A weekend away, and a return to the real world

Ros and I were in need of a break, and she wanted to take me to see a part of the country that is close to her heart, so we set off on Saturday morning for Shropshire, and a cosy little bed and breakfast.

I must admit to having spent time in Shropshire only to get somewhere else, and bearing in mind the frequent references to the county in the works of Jonathan Calder, was more than a little intrigued. And I have to say, the area around Church Stretton is really rather gorgeous. We walked and drove around the Long Mynd, where the heather and gorse are in full flower, visited Bishop’s Castle, Montgomery and Ludlow, and generally wandered around in the sunshine wondering why people don’t do this more often.

On the way back, we passed through Broadway (a bit twee for my taste, if truth be told) and stopped in Moreton in Marsh for tea, noting the extent of the flood damage there, before reaching home in good time.

There is only one problem with that sort of idyllic weekend though, which is the difficulty encountered in returning to ‘real life’. I do have rather a lot to do at the moment, and there is a very strong temptation to just throw up one’s hands and say, if it is that important, somebody else will do it. Unfortunately, painful experience reminds me that they won’t, they’ll simply moan about it. Ah well, back to work…

Bureaucrat in love: now the story can be told...

Regular readers will have noted that Radio Bureaucrat has been an infrequent broadcaster of late, and the occasional cryptic reference will not have done anything to help explain it. So it is about time that I explained.

Put simply, I fell in love. I fell absolutely, completely and utterly head over heels in love when I least expected it, with someone I could not have possibly envisaged beforehand. Our relationship was kindled gradually, if falteringly, partly due to my rather gauche inability to read signs that aren't actually tattooed on my forehead, before blossoming into an all-encompassing passion that quite swept me off of my feet.

"Who is this magical soul?", I hear you ask. So without further ado, let me introduce my new fiancee, Ros Scott. A lightning romance has been followed by an equally lightning proposal (it would have been sooner but for my usual hesitancy in such matters), and plans are reaching the drawing board for a wedding some time next year (yes, I know, you normally think about all of those things first but I was only focused on forever...).

Ros has managed to free the bureaucrat from the box, and I love her for it. She is warm, tender, thoughtful and so many other things that words cannot properly convey, and has made me feel alive for the first time for a very long time indeed.

The side effect was that I became functionally useless for a few weeks, and for those of you who have been expecting me to do something (and you know who you are), I apologise but hope that you'll understand (you will, I know). On the plus side, I've now become incredibly focused in an incredibly vital way, having had my proposal accepted, and things are beginning to happen in an amazingly ordered and disciplined way.

So, for my friends, family and colleagues, welcome to the future. I'm in love, and I want the world to know it. Many of you have been part of the process that has allowed me to find happiness, and I am grateful to you all for your friendship, your support and your tolerance through a difficult phase in my life.

And now I ought to return to the blissful existence that is being in love...

Shock horror - another Labour minister who doesn't really get localism

Ros had returned to Suffolk, leaving me her copy of Prospect Magazine to read with the suggestion that I read an article by John Kay entitled “The failure of market failure”. Now, one of the things about being a bureaucrat is that ideas are something to be mildly suspicious of. However, I like to think of myself as being moderately informed so, this evening, I pulled the magazine out of my briefcase in the IKEA restaurant at Brent Park to read over dinner.

Unfortunately, as usual, I allowed myself to be distracted, and my attention was drawn to a piece by John Denham, entitled “Elect the inspectors”, in which he suggests that the “inspectocracy” isn’t working, and that inspectors should be accountable to local people, not ministers. He’s right (up to a point), but his conclusion is a rather odd one, given that the power of inspectors is solely the creation of successive Conservative and Labour governments (John, you might recall that you share a collective responsibility for much of what has happened since 1997).

His example is that of tackling MRSA in NHS hospitals, where he notes that the responsibility body if a hospital trust is failing to meet the required standards lies with a group of appointees, unlikely to be sacked except in extremis. And this is where his argument seems to be flawed. On one hand, he says that we should elect the people who are meant to respond to the inspectors’ reports, in this instance the hospital trust board. In the next paragraph, however, he starts by saying, “We don’t need new elected bodies for this job”. I’m clearly missing something here, but he goes on to suggest that local councils should scrutinise local services, noting that they already hold the power to do so.

Apart from the seemingly obvious contradiction here, I have to say that I don’t actually agree with him. The question of who employs the inspectors is quite important, and their independence is the best way to guarantee that they provide honest data. What is actually needed instead is a clear, public statement of the criteria to be used by the inspector/inspection team, in advance of them starting work. In turn, the criteria should be based on those goals set out by the local council or other elected authority, and the results published in a manner most accessible to the community.

A good inspector will examine those elements most likely to influence an outcome, and a bad one will do just about enough to avoid trouble. However, if they are directly accountable to those whose work they are scrutinising, there will inevitable be a trend towards saying what local elected officials want to hear, rather than what they, and more importantly, the public, need to know. I look forward to having John Denham reassure me on this point, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting…

Normal service will be restored... eventually

As you know, we in Amaranth have long been fond of Mark, for all of his foibles, inconsistencies, and puzzling eccentricities, and some of you will recall that we had planned to take him in hand and carry out a few 'improvements'. To be blunt, we hadn't had much success, and I was deeply concerned that he was regressing rather badly.

So you can imagine my surprise to run into him in the library in the East Wing, looking surprisingly chipper, a smile on his face, and a map of the United Kingdom under his arm. "I can't find this place on the map at all," he said, eyes sparkling, "but it probably doesn't matter anyway.". "Maybe I can help?", I offered, but he was gone. leaving behind only the memory of a smile.

Curiouser and curiouser...

Anyone could lose 189,000 AK-47's, really they could...

I'm vaguely intrigued over the fuss that has been made over the news that US forces in Iraq have 'misplaced' huge amounts of equipment, and that it is probably being used against those very same US troops by insurgents.

Firstly, this American administration probably has less interest in gun control than any of its predecessors. They, and I am particularly reminded of Dick Cheney in this regard, really aren't keen on the idea of licensing guns, so why on Earth would they be interested in keeping tabs of weaponry anywhere else?

Secondly, and rather more seriously, it was always likely to be the case that any internal Iraqi security force was going to need to be armed by the Americans. Frankly, conditions are not ideal for bureaucrats (we don't like to be shot at, as a rule), and quartermaster skills are probably not at the levels we would expect from the British Army. In addition, losses through desertion (sometimes in sizable numbers, as at Falluja), death or simply cowardice, were always likely to be significant. Add the impact of infiltration by the Al-Sadr militia, potential insurgents and of corruption, always a risk in a society where moral standards have been debased over a generation or more, and the figure of 189,000 almost seems laughable.

The Americans have always had a tendency to be sloppy over supplies and armaments. From Vanuatu after World War 2, where they dumped huge amounts of equipment from Jeeps to toasters into the harbour, rather than give them away, to Nicaragua, where they illegally co-operated with the Iranians to arm the Contras, to modern day Iraq, the desire to 'make friends (albeit rather dodgy ones) and influence people (the less said, the better here, I suspect)' has led to a charmingly frivolous approach to arms distribution, with the inevitable aftereffects.

It merely goes to show that having too much money can be worse than not having enough, as at least you learn the value for frugality and prudence from the latter...

Havard Hughes - recollections and a touch of regret

News reaches me that my recent opponent for the job of Regional Secretary, Havard Hughes, has defected to the Conservatives - which indicates that my beloved Regional Party dodged a bullet there. For those out there who voted for him, and against me, I promise not to make barbed comments about your judgement...

But seriously, I do have some regrets about the loss of a pretty decent person from our ranks. Havard and I go back to the time he arrived in Brent, just prior to his becoming a councillor in Alperton ward. People spoke quite highly of him at the time, although his ability to maintain commitment levels was questionable even then.

If he has a weakness, it is an inability to pick battles that he can win. His increasingly quixotic attempts to gain election to English and Federal committees by challenging individuals widely regarded as popular and effective, rather than the weaker alternatives, became more and more puzzling. On the other hand, Havard is a pretty likeable kind of guy, polite, bright, well-spoken and always friendly. I couldn't even get particularly angry with him for trying to take over from me as Secretary - I had, after all, invited challenges via this blog. 

He's picked an interesting time to join the Conservatives, and perhaps he had been made an offer that he felt he couldn't refuse. At least he will add to the number of Conservatives who we can 'do business with', assuming that he doesn't turn on his former allies, a temptation that I hope he can resist...

Be afraid, be very afraid - happy Returning Officer on the loose

The world is a bright, shiny place when you're a happy Returning Officer. The urge to be kind to candidates is overwhelming, you are at peace with your Selection Committee, and all is perfect in a perfect world.

It's the sort of happiness that is catching, in that I've taken to being nice to accountants, I smile at people for no adequately explained reason, and the weight is falling off - nine pounds in the past three weeks. If I was working out, or paying particular attention to my diet, it might be understandable, but I'm not (really).

And whilst I have a lot to do, I have this wonderful sense that it will all get done somehow...

Change, stress and confusion

I've been a little preoccupied over the past week, as I've moved house (finally). As a new resident of Brent, and an ex-resident of Southwark, there has been so much to do, things to pack - in my case with genuine ineptitude - forms to fill in and all the other stuff that you finally realise need to get done at 3.30 in the morning.

But I'm now cleared out of East Dulwich, and slowly establishing myself in Kingsbury. There is food in the refrigerator, new sofas in the living room and a new queen-size bed in the main bedroom. I'm slowly stocking the house with toiletries and boxes are occasionally unpacked.

Meantime, life goes on. In my usual style, I've tried to slot in a house move in the middle of the interview phase for two European candidate selections, South East, where I'm the Returning Officer, and London, where I'm on the selection committee itself. As far as I'm aware, nobody has attempted such a feat before, and it looks like I will be able to attend every interview session for both Regions bar one. As an aside, the interviews seem to be going pretty well so far, but you wouldn't expect me to give you any more detail than that, would you?

There has been another significant development in my life over the past three weeks, but I'll save that for another post...