But doesn’t liberalism require an English Parliament if we want one?

As Liberal Democrats, we believe that decisions should be taken at the most appropriate, most effective level. We believe that ceding certain powers to Europe is a good thing, although we’d really rather have a more democratic Europe, with open decision-making, better scrutiny and meaningful reportage.

We also believe in localism (and for our newfound allies in the Labour and Conservative Parties, this means release from the dead hand of centralised targets and regulation, and trust that other political groupings, legitimately elected, are chosen by local communities to exercise some freedom of action and should be allowed to do so), which means that levels of government closer to the communities they serve are empowered to take responsibility for service delivery.

We therefore support devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, giving them the freedom to raise standards according to local desires, good public policy or mere whim, these being some of the aspects which inform government, be it good or bad.

Labour took the view that regional assemblies were the way forward, in the face of opposition from the Conservatives (it will lead to the breakup of the Union) and ourselves (a misunderstanding of subsidiarity), and unfortunately crashed and burned in the now notorious North East referendum, a model lesson in how not to change government structures. The problem with regional assemblies is that, where the regional boundaries reflect something that people recognise as distinct from the neighbouring areas, there is support. But the South East, or the South West? I think not. And then what do you do?

So, perhaps a move to an English Parliament, with counties below it, is the way to go. However, it does require some major reorganisation in order to make it work. The Conservative proposals do not, to my mind, go far enough, as an English Grand Committee is rather a fudge. Here’s a suggestion from a bureaucrat…

1. Create an English Parliament, elected on the same basis as the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and London Assembly, i.e, with constituencies to give local linkage and accountability, and regional lists to ensure proportionality.
2. Give Westminster a properly federal role, with responsibility for defence, taxation, foreign policy, and all of the things that need a British response.
3. Revise the role of the House of Lords to enable it to actually review legislation, scrutinise European regulations, and do the things that we acknowledge are its strengths. You can take it for granted that it should be elected.

I presume that the Conservatives are terrified that the introduction of another tier of government would be too much for their friends in the Daily Mail. Fine, so reduce the number of Members of Parliament to suit. You could make constituencies twice their current size fairly easily.

Government structures are not sexy, but we get the government we deserve. Government costs, and good government costs a bit more, but bad government generates things like the Child Support Agency, Railtrack and British Energy. Bargains, weren’t they…

Around the world with Ros, via Nottingham

I’ve always enjoyed attending Local Party events, and like to think that I’ve visited a fair few of them across London and the surrounding counties in the past. It is always nice to see how others do things, to discuss their issues and concerns and, equally importantly, enjoy some good conversation, fun speakers and often surprisingly good food (Tunbridge Wells do a very good garden party if you’re ever in the area…).

Ros tends to draw her fair share of invitations, but on a national scale, so, on Saturday, we found ourselves bound for the East Midlands for the AGM of the City of Nottingham Liberal Democrats. From my perspective, it involved two things that I really enjoy, travelling by train, and being with Ros (sigh…), so it was natural that I should tag along for the ride.

And, bless First Capital Connect and Midland Mainline, their trains ran on time, seat reservations were as promised, and a fairly comfortable ride was had by all. We were able to obtain refreshments in a very nice bar close to the venue, the International Community Centre on the Mansfield Road near the Victoria bus station, before strolling down to the meeting itself.

Naturally, the meeting was running late (it never seems to matter how well organised things are, they always seem to), and Alex Foster, the Local Party Chair, was having trouble finding a Secretary (plus ça change, plus la meme chose…) but we got there in the end.

Ros delivered a speech which was based on her work in the Lords, how things work there, and the level of influence that the Liberal Democrat group has in terms of altering legislation, before taking questions. The speech itself was very well received, and I find myself repeatedly impressed by Ros’s ability to pitch her speeches at the level best suited to any particular audience. Naturally, it could be that I’m biased, but I’d have to kill the first person to actually suggest that I am (it never looks good to concede that I am anything but purely objective).

Party business done, we met up with Ros’s nephew Liam, who is studying at Nottingham University and is fearfully bright (an engineer, no less). He took us for a gentle stroll through the city centre (very nice it is too, you should make time if you’re passing through…) before taking us to the Pitcher & Piano for dinner.

Normally, these chain restaurant/bar places are a bit of a characterless blur, but in Nottingham, they’ve converted an old church, with large stained glass windows and most of the original features. They’ve used the space well, and it is quite a nice place to spend an evening. Whilst ordering dinner seemed to be fraught with risk, and both Ros and Liam were unsuccessful in ordering elements of their meals, the waitress was very personable (even whilst Liam and I were adamantly stating that chocolate counts towards your ‘five-a-day’) and a good time was had by all. The free cappuccino probably wasn’t the best idea in the world though, generating a definitely ‘Mr Creosote’ feeling (just a teensy, weensy, wafer thin mint…).

A further gentle stroll to the station, a leisurely journey home with changes at Leicester and Luton Airport Parkway (the temptation to hop a flight to anywhere was something of a distraction, we confess), and we were home to feed the cats by 10 p.m. All in all, a good day out…

Decisions, decisions… the three prongs of Trident…

I started life in the Young Liberals somewhere to the right of Ghengis Khan in the spectrum of the organisation’s political stance. My first attempt at making policy was to propose a more effective weapons procurement policy in order to utilise the savings to… yes, you guessed it, buy more, more efficient, more effective, weapons. It seemed obvious to me at the time, and would doubtless have passed but for the fact that I wasn’t surrounded by Young Conservatives at the time (it was 1987, and the Falklands were still a key driver in terms of defence policy).

Naturally, I was a firm supporter of nuclear weapons, as they gave you significant ‘bang for your buck’ (an unfortunate phrase in so many ways as it turned out), and were the very acme of efficiency. Over the years though, I’ve begun to see the other sides of the argument. They don’t always sit together comfortably, though.

The first problem is, that in a world where danger doesn’t generally come from other countries, a nuclear weapon is a remarkably inefficient way to strike at your opponent. Admittedly, you’ll probably kill them, but the collateral damage of murdering say, the entire population of Rawalpindi, is, even for George Bush and his neo-con friends, probably too embarrassing for words (remember, boys and girls, we aren’t dealing with Mr Compassion here…). And naturally, in an era where global concern about the environment is so important, creating a glowing wasteland is soooooo not good in terms of polluting the water supply, reducing plant uptake of carbon dioxide, and generally ruining peoples’ days.

The second problem is that our enemies know that, except in almost unthinkable circumstances (the Conservatives taking a 5% lead in the opinion polls, for example), this Government would never countenance the first use of nuclear weapons. Second use, certainly (“What the hell, we’re all going to die anyway, and we can always blame Douglas Alexander, can’t we…”), but not first use. Now if they know that, and we know that they know that, and they know that we know that they know that… what’s the point of having them? You can’t display them (although they would certainly draw a crowd at the Tate Modern!), they have to be kept in rather ugly, high security facilities (and wouldn’t those submarines look so much better in a green chartreuse flock pattern?), and the chances of them gaining some positive coverage by rescuing a small child from drowning, or raising funds for cancer research are less than optimal.

Finally, they really aren’t very efficient in financial terms. I understand that we’re talking about £15 billion here, or enough money to buy Chelsea, if you’re looking for something easier to get your head around. Whilst I suspect that the nuclear weapons would bring greater pleasure to more people than Chelsea do (although their defeats do bring a smile to my face, I admit), there are clearly better uses for the money. For example, funding a rapid response force to support legitimate UN-supported missions would be good. Or investing in debt relief for the poorest countries, so that their peoples can stay at home and build a better nation for themselves and their communities, making us all safer.

Oh well, maybe I should have turned up at the Trident debate instead of sitting in an English Candidates Committee meeting… but seriously, I have to admire Chris Huhne’s stance on Trident. The weapons themselves are merely a symptom of political penis envy, and what’s the point of having a penis that someone else controls?

So, one each in the contest to decide my support. Not easy, this decision-making…

Oh, I’m terribly sorry. Were you expecting some content? Witty, or even pithy, comment, perhaps?

I know, it’s been another week, and I haven’t blogged (again). You know how it is, you find something to distract your attention from the core task of feeding the Internet with ‘stuff’. But I have been busy, honest…

I am no student of ancient culture...

... before I talk, I should read a book. But there's one thing that I do know. There's a lot of ruins in Mesopotamia... oh dear... (returns to work, somewhat glumly...)

Leadership contest - ah yes, that diversity question once again…

Nearly two years ago, I attended the hustings meeting organised by Ethnic Minority Liberal Democrats, where the three candidates addressed the knotty question of how Liberal Democrats could better reflect the communities they serve. And so it was some interest, and the help of Sandra Gidley MP, whose question it was, that I asked both Chris Huhne and Nick Clegg about the same issue on Saturday.

Once again, Chris strayed awfully close to endorsing quotas, and once again, I wasn’t impressed. Nick, on the other hand, noted that a lot of the proposals hadn’t really been implemented and wondered aloud whether the policy was wrong, or that it simply hadn’t been resourced properly. I confess that I tend towards the latter, and believe that the work of the Campaign for Gender Balance has made a difference, albeit not as quickly as many might have wished for.

There is an assumption that there is a mini-tidal wave of qualified, talented women and ethnic minority members desperate to be Parliamentary candidates and then Members of Parliament in the Liberal Democrat interest. They might not be so keen once they realise how much work a Liberal Democrat PPC has to do, first to get selected, and then to win. I don’t know the answer to either of those questions, and I’m not aware that anyone else does either. Indeed, the answers might be very different under ‘first past the post’ and one of the variants on proportional representation.

However, there are clearly certain barriers that make it harder to compete. Carer commitments, be they children, parents or relatives, act as a hurdle. Relative poverty, or geographical isolation, restricts the ability of a potential candidate to attend events, or travel to training sessions halfway across the country. Small grants could address these problems, and there are currently no programmes in place to address them, perhaps something that Rowntree money might have more helpfully been directed towards.

Quotas, on the other hand, actively discriminate against a group or groups of individuals, and I believe them to be a thoroughly managerial, illiberal way to ‘create’ equality, more worthy of a command-based rights system than a free, just society.

So, on diversity at least, one-nil to the Cleggster. But it’s still early days, and there is much to consider…

How (not) to chair an opportunity to hear and question the declared leadership contenders (it’s not a hustings, really it isn’t!)

And so Saturday came to pass, and Ros and I drove down to Newbury, to participate in the Autumn Conference of South Central Region Liberal Democrats. The events of the previous forty-eight hours meant that we would both be working, and I debuted my new suit, in an attempt to look credible, given the likelihood that I would be in camera shot (look Mum, I’m on television!).

In my role as chair of the ‘not a hustings’, on arrival I was able to sit down with Ros to select the questions to be asked. Normally, this wouldn’t be a problem, but with the media present, and the possibilities for controversy, the aim was to pick questions that:

1. reflected the interests of the audience

2. would provide a range of topics

3. avoided narrow areas of interest

I was slightly perplexed to note that some of the questions were of a nature likely to cause real embarrassment to both the candidates and the Party, and hope that they were written in the absence of an understanding that the media would be present. However, we ended up with five questions, which sought to elicit knowledge of their leadership style, their philosophical leanings, and their views on the environment, Europe and diversity.

2.40 p.m. came very quickly, and I was ushered into a packed hall to introduce the session and the first of the two ‘candidates’, Chris Huhne. I had planned to briefly explain the format of the session, tell a brief anecdote and move straight to a very short introduction of Chris. But where was Chris? Nowhere to be seen, so I had to fill the time with a brief Q & A about the European selections, the London leadership hustings and the Regional Executive elections, all the while wondering where Chris had got to. By the time ten minutes had passed, my repertoire of humorous one-liners was almost drained and I was relieved to see Chris striding towards the door to the hall. Anecdote and brief introduction delivered, I was able to take my seat and watch Chris perform.

And perform he did, with a speech laden with gravitas and policy direction. Now it may be that he was at a significant advantage, debuting the speech on home turf (he’d fought Reading East and Oxford West and Abingdon before winning a European Parliament seat for South East England – which includes all of South Central Region), but his reception was a genuinely warm one.

His speech done, I asked the questions in turn, giving him freedom to answer each before moving on to the next. He gave a series of solid answers, and engaged in some comfortable banter with some of the questioners, and received sustained applause from an enthusiastic audience.

Then came the handshake, a piece of media construct if ever I saw one, and the area in front of me suddenly became a blur of cameras, cameramen and journalists before Chris left, leaving the hall to Nick.

Nick’s speech wasn’t as polished, but made up for that with a sense of almost boyish enthusiasm (I can say that, he’s younger than I am) and a bit more obvious passion. He told stories from his constituency surgeries and talked of the need to talk to those beyond our core base of support, using language that they understand and empathise with.

Again, the questions drew out some good responses, although his answer to the diversity question drew an unexpected outbreak of laughter when he said that he had spoken to Jo Swinson on Thursday. It had to be explained to him that Chris had said exactly the same thing when answering the question, but he recovered his poise very quickly.

More applause, the event was over, and the hall emptied of members and the media to chew over what had happened.

So, what was the result? If I had to use a sporting metaphor, I would suggest that the plucky visitors came away from the home team’s fortress with a well-earned point from a score draw. If you’re looking for gravitas and grasp of policy, Chris probably came out on top. If you’re looking for personality and passion, Nick probably shaded it. If you’re asking me who would make the better leader of the Liberal Democrats, I’d say that I still need more information before I declare for one or the other.

Newly organised, an ex-bureaucrat reaches for the stars...

I've just returned to work after a couple of days off, spent getting my life in order. I had rather allowed things to pile up to the point that I was frozen in the headlights of an oncoming truck marked 'administrative overload', and Ros persuaded me that some time spent on my paperwork would allow me to dig my way back to the light. I wouldn't say that I'm entirely up to date, but close enough...

Tomorrow, I head for Newbury for the South Central Regional Conference, originally intending to appear in my capacity as European Returning Officer. However, things seldom work out as planned, and I was then appointed to be the Returning Officer for the Regional Executive elections. So far, so good. Now, I find myself chairing what is described as "an opportunity for members to hear and question the declared leadership candidates". This is not, I repeat not, a hustings, in that nominations haven't closed yet, and Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne, or Chris Huhne and Nick Clegg, depending on your perspective, will not actually be on the platform at the same time other than to shake hands.

I should warn anyone expecting a polished chairing performance that I've chaired a European hustings meeting (ironically, in Canterbury last Saturday), but am unused to the spotlight and, in particular, to the media. On the other hand, I may be the only person in the party to have been Returning Officer to both candidates simultaneously (the 1999 European selection contest for South East), so at least it's all familiar. And best of all, I haven't actually made up my mind as to who I'm supporting this time (really, I haven't!), and so I get a close-up view of each of them.

May the best candidate win!

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?