Why the slaughter of Labour (not so) innocents should be a warning to us all

We're on our way back from the North East, having spent the day campaigning in Durham.

As in Northumberland, the highly unpopular imposition of a unitary authority across Durham has been the cause of much infighting amongst Labour councillors, many of whom have lost their seats through the abolition of the district councils, slashing the number of available positions by as much as 60%. Undoubtedly, for some councillors, the resultant loss of income will be a cause of much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Because this is County Durham, the Labour Party is most severely affected, although some Liberal Democrats will undoubtedly have been impacted too. I'm rather less sympathetic towards Labour councillors though, as they rammed the legislation through, against the vocal opposition of many across the county.

That said, I do have quite serious reservations in terms of the impact on local democracy. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that the new unitary authorities will be deliberately less open, transparent and inclusive, merely that a much smaller number of locally elected representatives will have greater responsibility and more work and, correspondingly, less time to fulfil their casework and public contact duties.

Most councillors have full-time jobs. If you ask them to attend more meetings, represent more people and cover larger areas, you can hardly expect them to manage the casework and meet the public, be it through canvassing or public meetings. The public will effectively be distanced from their representatives and lose that connection with their local authorities.

One does wonder if, indeed, this is the intention of an increasingly managerial Labour government, whose paranoia about releasing their grip on local authorities grows by the day. They have talked a decent enough game on localism whilst, at the same time, imposing unpopular unitary schemes on counties such as Cheshire, Durham and Northumberland. Their proposals for the governance of local authorities tend towards the 'one size fits all', unless of course, it is something called for by one of the loopier Labour authorities such as Stockton-on-Tees.

'Best' of all are their proposals founded on a curious belief in strong leadership, in Labour-speak, strongman leadership, where responsibility inflexibly lies with one all-powerful figure, usually supported by a small cabal, leaving the remaining majority of councillors to attempt to hold them to account. We've all seen how effective this is in London, where Ken rules supreme with the support of just nine of the twenty-five Assembly members.

And yet there appears to be no underlying priniciple other than that of virtual totalitarianism. The now Department of Communities and Local Government has had so many changes of leadership that we have a kind of bungy decision-making. A new Secretary of State arrives, makes a serious of pronouncements which contradict those made by his/her predecessor, causing councils to attempt the administrative equivalent of tapdancing on quicksand, only to be pulled out and replaced by someone new, who promptly... well, you know what I'm going to say.

Comrade Brown has, over the years, pontificated about the importance of economic stability in the construction of a sound economy. Administrative stability is important too, especially in enabling local authorities to plan the effective provision of key services. Perhaps a period of silence on the part of the current Secretary of State might be helpful?

A bureaucrat's response to artistic criticism

I really knew that I should have researched more on the haiku form before I blogged yesterday. On the other hand, canvassing in Alnwick seemed to be more immediately relevant. At least the erudite nature of my readership is apparent.

So, here is a response to the anonymous Tory leafletter in inner London...

Tory Boris fan
Get used to some frustration
Johnson is a fraud

Inspiration strikes in Berwick - my day as haiku

I don't know much about poetry, and less about the noble Japanese concept, but here goes anyway...

Train
A duo of baronesses
Leaflets and rain
The sting of hail
Kindly old lady and her view
Fiona and her car
Alnwick
More rain
Canvass cards slightly damp
Alan Beith
Sunshine on the Castle
Seagulls

Taking the campaign to the North East, and vice versa

Thanks to the wonders of modern technology, this entry comes to you from somewhere between York and Darlington, courtesy of National Express East Coast's free wifi service. It will therefore come as no surprise when I tell you that Ros and I are on our way to the North East to campaign in Newcastle, Berwick and Durham as part of their campaign in the forthcoming local elections.

Whilst Ros has a long record of campaigning around the country, given her responsibilities as our Lords spokesperson on Communities and Local Government, my history is not so good. I've not been terribly keen on visible campaigning, partly because I find 'retail' politics stressful, but because I've generally been busy with the administrative side of things (motto - going to meetings so that you don't have to).

That said, I've been encouraged by Ros to take a more active part in the campaigning work of the Party, and it is entirely right that even bureaucrats should get out and about, meeting voters and arguing the case for liberal democracy. So, today I will be canvassing in two Newcastle wards in support of our candidates.

We're very used to seeing MP's dashing around the country during election campaigns, but members of the House of Lords are a resource that we use much less effectively than we might. Ros is by no means the only Peer on the circuit, so to speak, yet when I talk to friends around the country about getting good speakers, they tend to be fixated on our sixty-odd MP's, forgetting that our Peers often have as much, if not more, to add to campaigning and fundraising efforts. They have the same portfolios, tend to get more time to speak and have, ironically, more influence on government business than to their colleagues at the other end of the Palace of Westminster. They often have quite interesting backstories - for example, one of our noble Lords was in RAF Bomber Command during World War II.

So perhaps it shouldn't be a surprise to see Ros appear at a Local Party event near you. Yes, she is running for Party President, it's true - one can hardly pretend otherwise, there's been enough overt campaigning. And yes, appearances do raise her profile. On the other hand, the opportunity to get eagerly sought media coverage is improved by the presence of a Parliamentarian, local members like to have a chance to meet them, especially in areas where we have comparatively few, and morale is raised by the realisation that someone out there actually cares enough to visit. Best of all, it's all free - we pay our own way...

Vote Match - try it, I think you'll like it

My old friend, Peter Facey, and his colleagues at Unlock Democracy have launched 'Vote Match', an opportunity for voters to measure their views against those of the declared candidates for Mayor of London. Now, whilst I admit to being a member of the Council of Unlock Democracy, having been elected last month, I thought that I really ought to try it first.

It would seem that the candidate who most reflects my views is Brian Paddick, and that I should probably vote Liberal Democrat for the Assembly. This is undoubtedly good news given that I'm the Regional Conference Chair of the London Liberal Democrats, but reassuring nonetheless.

The concept of Vote Match is one that we should all applaud, allowing ordinary voters who may not have the time to peruse the various manifestos and who do not spend their time glued to political websites, news outlets and blogs to measure their views against those of the candidates and political parties. Admittedly, this does imply that the information used to populate the program is sourced in a politically unbiased way, but knowing the range of people involved in Unlock Democracy, I have little doubt as to the effectiveness of the tool.

The idea first took off in the Netherlands, but has spread across Europe and now to the United States, where it may prove to be quite educational. So, well done to Peter and his team, and I hope that it gets the coverage that it deserves.

European Selections: And you thought that we had problems!

I had a moment or two to spare, so I thought that I might see what our Conservative friends are up to. And fascinating it was too...

ConservativeHome is running a piece on the way Conservative Central Office has "stitched up" their selection process for the European Parliament, then withheld the results data from members. There are suggestions that ballot papers didn't go out to all members, that candidates were barred from campaigning, and that the process was rigged in favour of women.

Add to this the fact that the incumbent MEPs went through a separate process at Regional level to decide which order they would appear on the ballot paper - a process run by a regional committee without reference to the membership - and the sense of a political party that can't trust its members emerges.

I'm not actually going to take this opportunity to gloat - our own process was far from flawless - but am rather saddened that Conservative members are seemingly being denied an opportunity to involve themselves in selecting those purporting to represent them.

Political parties suffer from a declining sense of connection to the public. One of the ways they can overcome that is to rebuild their membership base, reversing decades of decline, and encouraging people to join, and even put themselves forward for public office is a core part of that. If, on the other hand, a remote clique deny ordinary members that right, they perhaps shouldn't be surprised if the politically active go elsewhere to express themselves.

I wish Tim Montgomerie and the ConservativeHome participants every good fortune in winning their battle for greater democracy within the Conservative Party. It isn't in anyone's interests to see the politics of the closed shop be successful, regardless of party...

Off the beaten path: lifting our game in East London

And so, inevitably, I'm at a dinner launching Farrukh Islam's campaign for the GLA constituency of Havering & Redbridge, here in Barkingside.

There is a theory that investment of campaigning resources in those areas of traditional weakness that exist will achieve significant returns in terms of additional votes. After all, we all adhere to a belief that, if given a genuine choice, the public will vote Liberal Democrat in droves. And in truth, East London has never been the focus of our campaign strategy. That said, we have eleven councillors in the two boroughs (ten in Redbridge, Jonathan Coles in Havering), so we clearly have a core vote where we work.

I was impressed with the energy with which Farrukh addressed the gathering, and with the number assembled. It was also good to see an excellent turnout from members of the Muslim community, a sign that, with the right candidate, we can reach out to the wider community.

Good food, good company, who could ask for more? Except, perhaps, for a fair wind for Farrukh's campaign...

A reflection on mortality

I've just got back for a visit to my local vet. Not the usual call for flea treatment or something unpredictable but instead, given that I own five cats aged betwen fifteen and seventeen, the first of a series of visits that would eventually have to be made.

Last year, Victoria, my black and white cat, contracted cancer and underwent fairly radical surgery, involving the removal of most of her ear canal. It was hoped at the time that all of the malignant material had been removed but, in recent weeks, it became apparent that there was a problem.

Steeling myself, I took Victoria to the vet, fearing the worst and so it came to pass. What to do? Having undergone surgery so recently, and experienced such trauma, I honestly couldn't put her through it again, especially given the reality that even further invasive surgery would merely buy her a few more months. And so, dear reader, I decided to have her put to sleep.

I've always been in favour of euthanasia. I understand that there are ethical and moral concerns, and the risk that unscrupulous relatives might influence a seriously ill person into making a decision that might be the wrong one. However, freedom to live must also imply a freedom to decide that life is no longer preferable, subject to a robust framework and proper psychological evaluation.

There are those, particularly in the Catholic Church, who believe that to even countenance such a debate is the beginning of a slippery slope towards an amoral society, where the value of a human life becomes a matter of pragmatic economics rather than a contemplation of the human soul. Let me tell you, given the trauma of choosing such an option for a domestic house cat, I cannot imagine how much more ghastly having to make that choice on behalf of another human being would be, even if they had signed a 'living will'.

But it is surely better to consider the quality of someone's life. Fifty or more years ago, medical science had far less in the way of tools to maintain life. The issue of whether to keep someone alive or not was, for the most part, fairly irrelevant. The wonders of modern science allow us choices that our grandparents never had but they also offer us challenges. We human beings have never wanted to die quietly, raging against that dark night as a poet famously wrote. If modern technology can keep us alive, then many of us will want to take that chance, regardless of cost, regardless of probability.

The Catholic Church seldom protests about this, probably a good thing. However, might it not be helpful if they, claiming as they do to be a force for moral good, gave some thought as to the moral dimensions of chronic pain, ill-health and quality of life, rather than simply reprising their role as the opponent of modern scientific thinking that they've got down to such a fine art?

We, who are about to fly, salute you...

Never let it be said that the life of a faceless bureaucrat revolves entirely around bits of paper. There is, I confess, quite a lot of paper involved but Ros is still working through the process of weaning me off of the stuff.

As part of that process, and because she has a wonderful sense of humour, I was driven to Milton Keynes today to try body flying, otherwise known as indoor skydiving. Those of you who know me will be aware that I am likely to be to flying what a rhinoceros is to ballet, but I was assured that, with a little effort, I could soar gracefully through the air and not look the slightest bit silly.

After a slightly frustrating journey (will the roadworks between junctions 6 and 10 of the M1 ever be finished?), we arrived at Xscape and I reported for my introduction to manned flight. A brisk lesson on body positioning and signals followed and, although I wasn't absolutely certain that I had absorbed everything, I was keen to don knee and elbow pads, a jumpsuit, helmet and goggles (the latter in Lib Dem yellow, naturally) and get to the wind tunnel.

Body flying works like this. There is a wind tunnel which blows upwards and a steel mesh represents the floor, enabling your instructor to get a sound footing, and preventing you from falling to the bottom of the tunnel where, in truth, not much will happen (you are absolutely safe, I promise you). You step to an entrance and lean forward, chin up, arms raised, into the wind and assume a horizontal position, chin up, hips arched forwards (downwards) with arms and legs extended. By making small adjustments, you can go up, down and move around. Work hard, and you can do acrobatics and all sorts of other exciting things that would terrify your mother.

I wasn't that good. I got the hang of hovering in the air but every time I started to think about what I was doing, I tended to do something wrong and head off in the wrong or unplanned direction. That said, it was an amazing experience, and there is moving footage of me flying, occasionally. If I work out how to post it on the blog, I'll do so. Maybe I can post my bungy jump in Queenstown, New Zealand as well...

In summary, I wouldn't have missed the opportunity for the world. Jumping out of a plane fills me with dread, but this is exciting without the element of danger. On the other hand, trying to find your way out of Milton Keynes once you've finished... now that's danger for you...

'I'm 4 Ros' - an evening of thinking beyond the box with Brian Eno

I had the great pleasure of attending a function in support of the 'I'm 4 Ros' campaign last night, where the guest speaker was the apparently infamous Brian Eno. I say 'apparently' because a degree of fuss has been made about his recruitment as an adviser to Nick Clegg on reaching out beyond the core vote.

He spoke to an intrigued audience on those issues about our democracy which trouble him, such as what he described as 'an ever shortening feedback loop' in public policy, whereby there is pressure for immediate solutions without time to measure the long (or even medium) term implications. He was also concerned about the tendancy of political parties to operate in thrall to focus groups.

It was a speech of a type we seldom here in politics, thoughtful, full of philosophical insight and imagery and, dare I say it, rather thought-provoking. The absence of political jargon, the sort that comes from all political parties, gave me a sense that I really ought to have been taking notes in order to better appreciate it later.

A varied crowd, including a pleasing number of parliamentarians from both the Lords and the Commons, enjoyed what turned out to be a very entertaining evening, and I am confident that it demonstrates not only that Ros is the serious candidate for the Presidency that I firmly believe her to be, but that there is genuine support for her across the Party.

Liberal Youth - a more auspicious start this time

Ros and I attended the launch of "Liberal Youth", the rebranded Liberal Democrat Youth and Students (LDYS). There were lots of young people around, and very few older people. Spirits were high, and there was plenty of optimism and confidence in the air. How different from the first launch of the youth wing of the Liberal Democrats post-merger...

I first got involved with the Young Liberals in 1986, having been encouraged to get involved on leaving my university's Liberal Society. I joined my local branch in Brent and Harrow, made friends who have lasted through the years... but I digress. The next year, following the disappointment of the General Election, talk of merger between the Liberals and the Social Democrats was in the air, and negotiations were soon under way.

The Young Liberals, who had always been suspicious of our Alliance partners, boldly (and some might say, suicidally) announced their terms for merger, most of which were, quite frankly, never going to be obtained. There were a few who were passionately in favour of merger, the 'realos' to steal a term from the emerging green movement of the time, but most were 'fundis', loyal to the concept of radical, community-based activism. There were a few of us stuck in the middle, longing to uphold the fine traditions of the Young Liberals yet fully aware that merger would happen with, or without, the youth wing. Someone had to man the ship until it could be handed over to a new crew.

Once it became clear that merger was truly inevitable, what was intended to become a merger of two youth wings into one rapidly became the fragmentation of two groups into four, maybe five. The radicals, concluding that their terms wouldn't be considered, let alone met, resigned en masse, leaving those in the room to carry on. Some formed the Young Liberal Movement, a ginger group for real liberalism both inside and outside of the Liberal Democrats, a few transferred their allegiance to the continuing Liberal Party, others chose the Greens. The Young Social Democrats sustained losses too, some to the continuing SDP, others, such as Danny Finkelstein, to the Conservatives.

In the midst of the chaos, I became Secretary General in the absence of any meaningful alternative. My task was a sad one, to deliver the Young Liberals to the grave, in the hope that something new and exciting could be created from the wreckage. It was a grim time, being able merely to stand by as an organisation revered by many former activists limped to an ignominious burial.

Merger brought crisis. There was no money to run the central Party, let alone a youth wing of whom the leadership were deeply suspicious. Former SDP members had always disliked the Young Liberals, based predominantly on a knowledge of its past glories rather than its current dereliction, and were not keen to encourage potential troublemakers. And yet there was no desire to cause trouble. The radicals had left, pragmatism was the order of the day but, without money, little could be done, leaving gesture politics as a tempting option.

And so the Young Social and Liberal Democrats (soon to become the Young Liberal Democrats) were born without fanfare, without resources and without much direction. Involvement was weak, activity weaker (except the international activity, for some reason very successful) and influence virtually non-existent. I served from 1988 to 1992 as Secretary, International Officer, President and Treasurer, hoping against hope that we could build something and always running into the sands of lack of resource and credibility.

Over time, and via a merger with the Students, LDYS built up its credibility, its funding and its activity. I have occasionally bemoaned a lack of consistency and follow-through, but it has become a more viable, more respected organisation in the intervening period. Now, it looks like a pretty vibrant group, and I am optimistic for its future.

A word to the wise though. Whilst one should never be radical simply for the sake of it, if you can't be radical when you're young, you're unlikely to discover the notion as you get older. So don't pander to the leadership in search of credibility, be it personal or organisational. Remember that the radicals of the present tend to become the ancien regime of the future and keep making us older people think a bit...

Criticism, hyperbole and censorship - why being a liberal blogger isn't so easy

One of the difficulties with blogging is fighting the urge to control debate. As a liberal, I believe in the concept of freedom to publish. On the other hand, there is a responsibility to protect the wider society where hurt or offence may ensue. As a publisher, I want to propagate my views and, by attracting favourable supporting comments, gain greater credibility for them. This, in turn, creates a larger audience and thus a virtuous circle is created.

Liberal Democrats tend to be keen to debate, partly because liberalism tends to balance the needs of individuals against those of the community, however defined. That said, discussion within the Lib Dem blogosphere usually remains courteous. Those among us with a reputation for 'edge' generally aim their invective at the opposition. However, when an argument becomes heated, we like to see it unfold. Censorship of public disagreements is frowned upon, as long as criticism is open, and not hidden beneath a cloak of anonymity.

We also tend to dislike hyperbole. Exaggerating your case to the point of ridicule will attract... ridicule...

It looks as though one of my fellow bloggers has overlooked this. Like Bernard Salmon, I read Bob Shaw's comparison of the 1933 Enabling Act with efforts by the Catholic Church to influence the debate on embryo research, and thought that it was an absurd exaggeration of the case. Unlike Bernard, however, I took the viewpoint that Bob was demonstrating his lack of a sense of history and of perspective and left it at that.

Bernard felt more strongly, and chose to comment. Bob's response appears to have been to play the man rather than the ball, resorting to invective. After an exchange of views, Bob then seems to have decided that the exchange shows him in a bad light and removed it.

Sorry Bob, but that's rather foolish. Now that you've been outed as someone who censors merely to protect his own reputation, it is clear that engaging with you is futile, and that comments posted on your blog must agree with your line. In short, what credibility you have is damaged, and credibility is much easier lost than won.

And before anyone gets too excited, I freely admit to censoring comments posted to my blog. Anonymous comments attacking third parties are banned, unless they contain coherent, logical and verifiable argument. I don't believe that anonymity should be encouraged except in very limited circumstances. Otherwise, I'm perfectly happy to publish comments critical of me or my positions on whatever issue I have blogged about.

Where your delivery walk is a bit longer than usual

Amazingly, London's run of by-elections has come to an end (five wins, two good seconds and Havering). And so this bureaucrat found himself in Creeting St Peter, delivering a walk small in numbers but large in distance.

There are some rewards. Despite the snow, there is much to see, horses to pat, pheasants to admire - they're a bit more confident now the season is over - hares in the fields and rabbits in gardens. You meet the occasional local walking their dog(s), which provides an opportunity for a chat, or catch a glimpse of one of the area's many small but perfectly formed rural churches.

The Stowmarket North ward has been Conservative since the Black Death one presumes, but the local Tories appear to have a few problems hanging on to their councillors. Having been elected in 2005, the initial member disappeared, finally resigning in time for a by-election last July. His replacement has quit before his seat at County Hall could barely warm up. It isn't somewhere that Liberal Democrats have fought hard in the past, but a proper campaign was fought last year, and a decent vote was won.

This time, the by-election candidate, Nicky Turner, is back, and she's giving it a go. I'm quite impressed with the literature and the message, "we're local and we're still here", something that the Conservatives really can't claim.

So, if you still have a yearning to help out in a by-election, and fancy giving the Conservatives a bloody nose in a ward they really won't want to lose, get in touch...

And a damned fine conference it was too, if I say so myself...

And so I have delivered my first and, quite possibly penultimate, Regional Conference. Most people seemed to enjoy it, the feedback has been positive and, thanks to the efforts of what I must lovingly refer to as the Regional Geek Sub-committee, attendance was very good. Hopefully, we made a profit...

I've already eulogised about Sally Hamwee, but the contributions from Brian Paddick and Nick Clegg raised our spirits and, I must admit, the latter's comments about the gifts for Sally and Graham simply confirmed his gift for comedy. I'd be quite intrigued to see him on 'Have I Got News For You' or some similar game show.

Simon Hughes and Sarah Ludford continue their gracious support of the Region, and provided us with further reasons to take the fight to our political opponents, both this year and for next year's critical European election.

The final policy session was ably chaired by Caroline Pidgeon, and the contributions from Chamali Fernando, Jo Christie-Smith, Denys Robinson and Mike Tuffrey merely demonstrated the wealth of talent ready to be unleashed on London in the coming months and years.

Thanks must go to Flick Rea and her team of volunteers who make things run so smoothly. Eddie Ottery is our Chief Steward, knows his job backwards and is always calm, Jill Fraser, Margaret Foreman and Eliane Patten deal with registration and, above all, Flick manages me on top of her other responsibilities.

I've learnt quite a bit from this event, and hope to apply it in the run-up to the Autumn Conference and AGM, provisionally scheduled for 15 November. See you there, then?

Sally Hamwee rocks!

Alright, this might not be the headline that leaps most readily to mind when you think about the noble Baroness Hamwee of Richmond upon Thames, but I think that it’s high time for a re-evaluation.

Like many people, even those whose interest in politics is somewhat above the norm, I have traditionally paid little heed to what goes on in either the London Assembly or the House of Lords. The media are where they believe the action to be, and that place is the House of Commons. Meanwhile, work of equal, or more likely, greater value is going on down the corridor and down the river.

Sally Hamwee has served the electors of Richmond upon Thames and London for some years (courtesy causes me not to say how many, but if you’re interested, why not look it up…), as a councillor, as Leader of the council, as a member of the London Assembly – including chairing the Assembly itself – and has a wider brief as a key member of the Communities and Local Government team in the Lords. Until recently, this had little significance to me, and I perceived Sally (as much as I thought of her at all) to be a rather distant, slightly daunting senior figure within our ranks. That is, until I actually met her.

Our paths had crossed in the past, although in mostly glancing terms, but as a colleague of Ros’s, we’ve had occasional conversations in recent months. However, her ‘elevation’ to the position of president of London Liberal Democrats has brought us into closer contact. Apart from being a source of wise counsel, one of the roles of the President is to open our regional conferences and chair the Annual General Meeting. As Chair of the Regional Conference, I therefore have to work with her to ensure that her contribution is properly organised.

On this occasion, however, it was decided that we should honour her for her work as a member of the London Assembly, particularly important given that she did not stand for re-selection and is therefore retiring (a word I use with caution), along with (Lord) Graham Tope. Tasked with organising a suitable gift, I employed my contacts to ascertain what this might be and arranged for purchase.

The agenda was set so as allow Sally time to make a speech on any subject she cared to pick, and she chose to review her eight years on the Assembly, acknowledging the efforts of her colleagues, celebrating the good times, and the not so good ones, bringing events at the Assembly to life and leaving no doubt as to how proud she was to have served London and the Liberal Democrats. She struck just the right tone of outrage at the antics of Mayor Livingstone, and commended Brian Paddick as the best choice for London.

I admit that, as the applause died down, I was impressed. I had never really considered Sally to be the emotional type, more a calm, level-headed technocrat than a warm and witty speaker, but I was clearly wrong.

Indeed, Sally isn’t retiring, far from it. Once the elections are out of the way, she will return to the Lords to lead for the Liberal Democrats on the new Housing and Planning Bills, where her sharp analytical mind, and close command of her brief will doubtless cause the Labour frontbenchers much angst as the summer approaches. It would be nice if she found time to enjoy her gift though…

Civil Serf - does this mean the end for Liberal Bureaucracy?

The recent controversy over the 'Civil Serf' blog which, I note, is no longer accessible, is a reminder of the high-wire act that is blogging when you're a civil servant.

All of us sign the Official Secrets Act when we commence our employment with whatever Department we join, and we are asked to keep any political involvement to a minimum, as is entirely appropriate given our role as servants of government.

For that reason, I don't take positions that are overtly political, acting instead in administrative roles, and always seek authority before seeking election to new positions (management are yet to turn me down). Being comparatively junior helps - I have no connection to the real levers of policy making or decision taking.

However, I have to exercise a degree of self-censorship. It would be inappropriate for me to attack Government policy as it relates to taxation, and I tend not to attack them on much else, instead noting regret or making positive suggestions as I see fit. Pay and conditions are an exception, although my stance - pay civil servants properly, and you'll need less of them - is only controversial if you're a senior figure in my union...

I haven't read 'Civil Serf' but, it would seem, his/her trenchant criticism has been noticed by someone higher up the foodchain, not necessarily a good idea. Anonymous criticism is never popular with authority, and informed anonymous criticism even less so. However, the excerpts that I've seen so far don't appear to breach the Official Secrets Act, unless Civil Serf's views on, for example, Peter Hain, represent a state secret.

That said, the hunt is on, and the indications are that there will be formal guidance for civil servants on blogging in due course. This, of course, impacts on this blog and, potentially, its very existence. Let's just say that I await the next missive from the Cabinet Office with more interest than usual...

Thoughts on public service - how a lack of confidence betrays us all

In amongst the big picture statements in Nick Clegg’s speech to the Liberal Democrat conference yesterday, was a less high-profile but heartfelt plea that the ‘system’ needs to be more mindful of the public it purports to serve.

There is a certain irony here, in that I sense a desire, certainly in my corner of the public sector, to find ways to reach out to our ‘customer base’ (sorry, but I really don’t feel comfortable with the phrase) that make it easier for them to comply. Advances in new technology, attempts to improve the language we use, to reach out to people through advertising campaigns (for example, HM Revenue & Customs apparently have a greater advertising spend than Proctor & Gamble!), have all had an impact. Even more ironically, many of these innovations have come from the top of the organisation rather than, as we might hope, emerging through bottom-up initiatives.

Bringing new blood into the public sector from the outside world has had its benefits, undoubtedly, especially through the introduction of new ideas and the removal of a corps of professional administrators whose raison d’etre was to run the system and leave initiative and ideas to politicians - not necessarily a good idea.

The problem, however, is this. You, my friends, don’t get to deal with the people running the organisation. You don’t experience their enthusiasm and initiative. I do, sort of. I experience their initiatives and enthusiasm every day, through messages, new computer systems, reorganisations and exhortations to try harder. I also experience their efforts to cut costs, hold down my salary, make my working environment less comfortable etc, but that’s a story for another day.

On the front line, I experience heightened expectations from those who call or write to me - a good thing in some ways but pressure generating in others, organisational barriers in terms of structure, lack of management clarity, complexity of legislation and a computer system which prevents me (occasionally) from doing what would make both sides happy and adhere to the legislation. In London particularly, this is compounded by the unnerving effect of various proposals to move work, and thus jobs, out of London and the South East. All of these things tend to discourage risk-taking and initiative at local level.

Indeed, where public sector salaries lag between the regional norm, recruitment tends to be less successful in attracting and retaining bright, enthusiastic staff, encouraging a ‘jobsworth’ mentality, and a desire to hid behind the rules, “it’s not me, guv, it’s the system”. A lack of experience, compounded by a lack of confidence in their grasp of the legislation, encourages staff to refer enquiries and questions further up the chain of command rather than risk getting it wrong and dealing with them there and then.

This is what frustrates the average person dealing with the bureaucracy. It isn’t necessarily a big systemic problem, although the system clearly contributes. It is a failure of will, combined with a collective loss of confidence. There is a tendency, when faced with something going wrong, to assume as a starting point, that the public sector is wrong. Often, further analysis demonstrates that there is fault on both sides, or misunderstanding on one other, and that communication is poor. Confidence in what we do, and an acknowledgement that we aren’t perfect, would go a long way to addressing ‘Faceless Britain’.

Occasionally, you are forced to confront the impact of your behaviour, and Nick Clegg’s speech has certainly given me cause to stop, think, and smell the administrative Earl Grey (not coffee, I am a civil servant after all). I’ll be giving some thought over the coming days as to how my bureaucratic touch impacts on those I interact with and maybe some style changes may emerge. The battle against ‘Faceless Britain’ can be fought one desk at a time…

And as the anticipation reaches a crescendo...

Hi Mum, I'm in the hall for the Leader's speech here in Liverpool.

We're all in high spirits after a wonderfully fun conference, something you might not have guessed from reading the papers earlier in the week. Nick looks incredibly relaxed, has mingled with the rest of us and, whilst I know his entourage were probably not too far away, there isn't that sense of 'deity come to visit the peasantry' that has existed in the past.

Must dash, Nick's on in a minute or so...

Want to interview Nick Clegg in Sheffield? Ask me how!

Following on from the debate about getting access for bloggers from outside London to key figures in the Party, I was innocently minding my own business in the bar of the conference hotel last night when who should appear in front of me but Nick, our glorious leader.

I'm not much of a groupie and tend to leave the celebrities alone but, on this occasion, I asked him if he would be willing to meet up with bloggers somewhere other than London. His response? "How about Sheffield?", he said. "That sounds like a challenge!", I said. "No,", he replied, "an invitation."

So, the opportunity exists. He's up for it. Are you? Get in touch with me, and I'll see what can be arranged...

Taxi for the Federal Executive!

This evening saw a vote on an intriguing constitutional amendment. Intriguing, because the prospect of a proposal on internal Party governance supported by both the Liberator Collective and the Federal Executive is so unlikely, that it must surely be a good thing, shouldn’t it?

I’m a suspicious soul at heart, and the scheduling of a constitutional amendment as part of a thirty-five minute slot containing the reports of the Federal Executive and the Federal Finance and Administration Committee, as well as a business motion making the Liberal Democrat Lawyers a Specified Associated Organisation, might lead one to believe that the matter at hand wasn’t terribly important, just mere housekeeping.

“And what was the proposal?”, I hear you ask. Put simply, the proposal was to decouple the job of the President from that of Chair of the Federal Executive. Naturally, I have a view on the matter, although that really isn’t that relevant in this instance. The more interesting aspect was that the proposal failed to get the necessary two-thirds majority to pass.

My concern is that, if it was a conspiracy to push something through under cover of darkness, the Federal Executive, with its acknowledged ‘payroll’ vote, wasn’t able to successfully deliver the desired outcome. This does not necessarily inspire confidence in their collective competence. On the other hand, if it wasn’t a conspiracy, the fact that the ‘non-payroll’ vote probably at best voted narrowly in favour of it indicates how out of touch the Federal Executive has become. It is true that all but half of its membership is not directly elected. It is also true that, in internal Party elections, members of the Federal Executive who are well known personalities tend to do better than their performance might merit, simply because of their ‘celebrity’. As a result, there is a decided possibility that the Federal Executive is less well connected to the membership than it might otherwise (and really ought to) be.

Perhaps a few of them, especially those publicly arguing that removing the President from their role as Chair of the Federal Executive enhances the internal democracy of the Party, might like to consider whether or not they retain the confidence of conference delegates and the membership at large…

English Candidates Committee - making things better, one meeting at a time

This morning was always going to be a very long one so, fortified by a vast breakfast of fruit (see, Ros is having a positive effect on me already…) and various dead animal by-products (…but not that positive, it would seem…), I slipped into the meeting of the English Candidates Committee, and prepared for the long haul.

The early part of the meeting was taken up with regional reports, the election of our new Vice Chair, Glynis Dumper from Devon & Cornwall, and the debut of the new Chair of the Parliamentary Candidates Association, Martin Turner. Martin is a worthy addition to our deliberations, and I really believe that, working together, ECC and the PCA can make candidate approval, selection and development core to the successful campaigning work of the Party. As I recall, it’s all about electing Liberal Democrats to change society and our communities for the better.

The second half, on the other hand, was taken up with consideration of the report of the Approvals Process Working Group. Their efforts are very close to reaching fruition, and for obvious reasons, I don’t want to jump the gun by giving away any information until the time is right (and it genuinely isn’t yet), but I really feel that the proposed new system will be more efficient, more effective, and will produce candidates who can deliver successful campaigns and make good constituency MPs if elected.

I have learned one useful thing though. It is considered poor form to present a proposal from a group you are a member of, and then distance yourself from it in a meeting when it proves unpopular. Personally, I think that collective responsibility and a sense of honour would prevent individuals from acting in such a cavalier manner. However, we have always known that there are some amongst us who don’t understand such concepts...

World shut your mouth, shut your mouth...

Apparently, MPs are outraged that HM Revenue & Customs staff pocketed £23.6 million in bonuses despite worsening performance. In the nicest possible way, the Treasury Select Committee can kiss my... hmmm... maybe not.

For obvious reasons, I can't rehearse the arguments here as to why some of our staff genuinely merit performance-related pay, and believe me, many of them do.

However, performance related pay has been a key weapon in the fight by both Conservative and Labour administrations to drive up performance. The idea that extra money incentivises staff to work harder is a controversial one, especially is a highly-unionised organisation like HMRC. Indeed, the argument can be made to suggest that we don't go far enough.

My current pay deal, which expires this year, allows for a pot of money sufficient to pay up to 5% of my salary as a bonus. Depending on the number of nominees, in practice it works out at about 3.5%, or about £1000 before tax and NIC, if I am judged worthy. In return, I have to exceed my targets, regardless of what goes on around me, or of goalposts being moved mid-year. Not just by a little either, by a sizeable margin.

Of course, if my manager is weak, or biased, or my team is very good generally, my performance might not merit a bonus in relation to my team, even though it is excellent in national terms, because managers are limited to a set number of nominations.

All of this makes you wonder whether it is really worth the effort for perhaps £10 per week. Is 25% extra effort worth 3.5%?

The backdrop, of course, is a Treasury settlement where the Department is expected to cut costs by 5% year on year for six years, sacrificing 25,000 jobs (26% of the workforce), closing buildings and forcing taxpayers to make greater use of technology. People like me make that possible, so why aren't we entitled to share some of the benefits?

Nick Clegg calls for opposition to Faceless Britain - what did I do to upset him?

I have a fine and noble reputation as a Party bureaucrat. Not an apparatchik, just a bureaucrat. My friends call me Faceless Bureaucrat, due in part for my discomfort in the spotlight, but mostly because I tend to toil away in the administrative end of the Party.

So now, Nick calls for Liberal Democrats to oppose Faceless Britain. I'm disappointed and hurt... Oh well, a glass of wine and I'll doubtless get over it...

Good grief, what does a bureaucrat have to do to make peace?

And lo, a bureaucrat rose near the centre, and called upon the bloggers of the Liberal Democrat world to lay down their pens of venom and lie together in peace and harmony. Yea, and the bloggers spoke as a multitude and sayeth, "yes, but he started it, and besides, she smells"...

That said, there has been a general sense of agreement that there is no conspiracy, merely the nature of the way these 'blogger opportunities' have been organised. All except Nich, that is. Nich, it really wasn't necessary to attack Alex like that, especially after you'd thanked his partner, Richard, for the politeness of his response. Indeed, Alex has acknowledged that his response was a bit over the top and, might I suggest, his thought that counting to one hundred before responding might be more widely applicable. For the record, coming third in Stevenage, where the Local Party had less than one hundred members and one councillor, and flying the flag in a fairly hopeless cause is rather noble, to my mind, at least.

So, let's see where we've got. We have a problem with a perceived, if not necessarily accurate, sense of Lendon-centrism. We have a suggestion that, if certain individuals feel so strongly about it, they should do something about it.

Perhaps an experiment is in order. I am attending the South East Regional Conference in Ashford on 29 March, where the guest speakers are Susan Kramer, David Heath and Norman Baker (there is another guest speaker, but I'd rather leave Ros for later, if you don't mind). If there is anyone willing to take part, I'm willing to arrange an opportunity to meet with one of them. Susan has recently hit the headlines with her musings about the leadership, David is experiencing some turbulence over Europe, and Norman, well let's just say that he's always interesting.

Alright, it's still in the South East, but I'm giving three weeks notice, and I'm willing to do the work. I may even bring doughnuts...

Let peace reign in the land of Lib Dem bloggers

I have watched the spat between Nich Starling and Alex Wilcock with some sadness. Whilst I don't know Nich terribly well, probably because I live in London and he lives in Norfolk, his blog has certainly attracted an audience. I've known Alex for some time, and respect his ability to construct cogent arguments on the issues that he cares deeply about. I've also been Returning Officer in a Parliamentary selection he won, but that's a story for another day. Now, Bob Shaw has joined in. Bob's blog is interesting. Not necessarily designed to make friends, it must be said, but eye-catching nonetheless.

As I've occasionally remarked, there is a gap between some bloggers from London and the rest of us, but it merely mirrors the gulf in terms of access. As a London based member, I am more likely to meet an MP at one or other Local Party event because that's where they are during the week. Party HQ is in London, because that's where the politicians are. Oh yes, and the Palace of Westminster is in, errrr, Westminster. As a result, London based activists have greater opportunities than others.

In fact, if you look at where our internal Party committee members live, there is a bias towards London and the South East which reflects the political system regardless of Party. Indeed, quangos have a far greater proportion of their members in London than in any other region, and little has been done to address that.

That's the problem. What Nich has suggested, albeit somewhat hamfistedly, is that it would be nice if the Party is less London-centric. That said, he initially jumped to a conclusion which implied that it was some kind of conspiracy. Clearly, it isn't. I apparently write the fourteenth best Liberal Democrat blog in the United Kingdom (Iain Dale says so, so it must be true...), and have never been invited to one of these "meet the politician" opportunities. I live in London, work in central London, spend time in Cowley Street and, for my sins, am now part of the "establishment", whatever that is. This "omission" doesn't particularly bother me, and I've assumed that those involved have organised it themselves.

Alex has helpfully explained how it actually works and I now know that, if I am inclined to get involved, all I need do is ask. I probably won't, as I prefer to maintain a degree of independence and, besides, I'm not really a policy person. Perhaps he might have held his fire a little bit in terms of his response to Nich, but that isn't really his style (and Nich isn't exactly a shrinking violet either). It's nearly always funny, although being on the receiving end might smart a bit...

The solution to Nich's concerns is more difficult. Outside London, bloggers are more widely spread, and access to politicians less easily to achieve. Ed Davey is unlikely to spend much time in the vicinity of Norwich unless invited there by one of the Local Parties. Politicians are generally overcommitted at our conferences, thus making the creation of a space for bloggers more difficult.

The only solution is to create opportunities, rather than complain about the lack of them. Using Regional Conferences might help. If Nick Clegg is willing to go to Llandudno, or Aviemore, then perhaps bloggers in Wales or Scotland could come together and ask his office for a little bit of his time. If Vince Cable is speaking in Leeds, bloggers in Yorkshire and the surrounds could do the same. Find out who your Regional/State Conference Chair is, and ask them who their star turn is going to be, contact that person's office and see what might be done. The worst that can happen is that they say no...

As Francis Scott Key might have put it - the banner yet waves on second homes

Might I say how enlightening it has been to read the responses to yesterday's posting on second homes. The response from my economic liberal friends has been, frankly, much as I might have expected. So, let's see if I can respond in kind...

The notion that a wholly free market model can be allowed to destroy rural life cannot be left unchallenged. It is, as James Schneider so cleverly put it, entirely the right of individuals not to sell their homes in idyllic communities to outsiders looking for a weekend place in the country. Not a country dweller then, James...

As the number of second homes within a village reach a critical mass, local services begin to lose their financial viability and close. Bus services, such as they are, begin to be withdrawn. Village stores and post offices reduce their hours or close, village schools are reorganised out of existence. All of this leads to increased isolation and the temptation, sometimes necessity, to up sticks and move to a larger community, where the critical services they require are more readily available. Those who are left behind, perhaps because their house isn't as 'cute' or 'quaint', find it difficult to sell to more local purchasers, assuming that there are any, due to the lack of facilities.

An alternative solution is that we subsidise rural services, a fine example of the free market economy that my colleagues so boldly trumpet. I think not. Alternatively, we could just let small villages become midweek ghost towns. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see the eventual clamour from those second home owners now the proud possessors of charming homes in dead villages demanding support for their communities from local government whose business rate base has been decimated. Second homes, if left unchecked, cause local government and full-time local residents increased costs without any realistic compensation in return.

What other alternatives are there? We could increase council tax rates for second homes, although the amount charged is pretty much the full amount. Indeed, if we were to increase the charge to properly compensate for additional costs, you would be able to hear the screaming from the middle-classes from Mars (I am, for the record, decidedly middle-class).

It is already the case that planning permission is required for the building of holiday dwellings. Legislation allowing local councils to determine for themselves what level of second home ownership can be sustained without negative impact on their communities is surely consistent with our belief in local autonomy and strong communities.

Yet again, the metropolitan fixation with choice and freedom shows its almost proud lack of understanding and knowledge of the needs, fears and hopes of rural communities, where choice and freedom are fine words not always supported by realistic opportunity. I expect it from Labour, whose concept of the countryside ends where the concrete does. I don't expect it from a political party whose existence was preserved by rural communities who remained loyal to its ideology at a time when almost nobody else cared.

Second homes - policy is theft...

I should, before I write further, declare a personal interest, in that my parents own a second home, somewhere in darkest Gloucestershire.

That said, despite the fact that they've owned it for twenty years or so, I've never been there. "Why not?", I hear you ask. The first reason is a practical one. I don't drive, and never have done, making the property pretty much a trap for me. Yes, you can reach civilisation on foot (apparently), but it doesn't really appeal. The second reason is the principled one. You see, I don't actually much approve for second homes, not for puritanical reasons but because they have a dramatic impact on the communities they are situated in.

Because I have been an inveterate townie all of my life, it hasn't had a lot of impact on me, and my lack of knowledge with regards to local government means that even if it did, I really would have little clue as to what alternatives there might be to address it. Now that I am, at least, a part-time country dweller, I have begun to appreciate more precisely the fragility of small rural communities. In terms of local government knowledge, being engaged to Ros has filled much of the void.

And so, I find myself agreeing with much of the proposals coming from Matthew Taylor's commission, as commissioned by one Comrade Brown. They are strangely familiar though, and as the mists cleared over mid-Suffolk (the metaphorical ones, at least), I was reminded that this is actually established Liberal Democrat policy.

There are elements that I am uncomfortable with. Empowering local council officials to ascertain whether or not a property is a second home risks being intrusive, although if this is what is required to protect rural services, I'm willing to countenance it. I suppose that the question is, which house is the second one? What criteria might you use to establish this? It could be the order of purchase, or residence for the purposes of voting (would the latter accelerate the decline in voter registration in big cities?), or even a simple election. Perhaps linking it to principle private residence relief might be the better solution. You would then force people to declare one way or the other.

All this said, however, this whole debate is part of an attempt by a Labour Party in terminal philosophical decline to clothe itself in our finery. The worst thing about it is that their lack of credibility actually detracts from the good ideas that they're stealing. Time to take the initiative back, methinks, and take it to this wretched Government ...

MP allowances can we really expect self-regulation?

With all the fuss over Speaker Martin's various claims, and talk of improper use of public monies, we are in danger of falling into the trap of confusing moral impropriety with its legal counterpart.

I had the dubious pleasure of listening to an exchange between Martin Bell, the former Independent MP for Tatton, and elected as a direct response to the allegations, mostly accurate, against Neil Hamilton, and John Spellar, the Labour MP and chair of the working group looking into the expense regime for MP's. It has to be said that it was a most unedifying exchange.

John Spellar rightly makes the point that, for the most part, nothing has been done which breaches the rules as they currently exist. This is almost certainly true. He then goes on to suggest that the 'fuss' being made is just media hype, and that the public don't really care. This, from the person tasked with leading a review into the issue, is an indication that not much will come from it. In fact, what Mr Spellar is telling us is, "We know what we're doing. We really don't care whether or not you think we have our snouts in the trough and, frankly, it's none of your business.".

I'm sorry to say that it is our business. Whether or not Mr Spellar and some of his Parliamentary colleagues understand it or not, they are spending our money and, I might remind him, are answerable to us. Forget whether or not Speaker Martin should go, John Spellar shouldn't have to consider his future in connection to the review. He should go now.

On the other hand, Martin Bell spoke eloquently on the moral dimension. However, his rather sanctimonious stance that the whole process is corrupt and that the Speaker must go, rather undermined his position and, indeed, his argument.

There is a need to reform the expense regime for our MPs, and I don't think that many people would deny otherwise. However, allowing a group of MPs to do the job is nonsense. Put the whole thing on a proper footing, have an open debate about MP salaries, administrative support and expenses, and then accept the findings. I would expect that, in the final analysis, we will discover that an open structure will actually lead to a greater cost to the public purse, yet I believe that we may get a better, more effective democracy as a result.

Wales: the cutting edge of Party fundraising

I spent most of my weekend travelling to, or from, Llandudno, in order to attend the Welsh Liberal Democrats Spring Conference with Ros, and a very pleasant journey it was too, with the grandeur of Snowdonia, lambs gambolling in the fields and the rest of the North Wales experience.

The event itself, at least what I saw of it, seemed to be going well, and I took the opportunity to compare notes with members of the Welsh Conference Committee for possible use later. The conference dinner, something we don't do in London, was a lot of fun, and I got to share a table with an all-star cast including Roger Williams, the MP for Brecon & Radnor, Kirsty Williams, the Assembly Member for the same patch plus Eleanor Burnham, the local Regional List AM. The fact that I couldn't talk to Ros (she was at the opposite side of the table) was made, as a result, much more bearable.

The fundraising element comprised a raffle (you were surprised by that, weren't you...), three table quizzes and a game of "Deal or No Deal". What I learnt from the quizzes was that Will Howells has an encyclopedic knowledge of Winter OIympic venues (odd, because we really aren't that good at things involving snow and ice), and that George W. Bush is even more stupid and tongue-tied than even I had thought possible.

I had bought an envelope when one was proferred to me without actually realising what it was. Once the game was introduced, I suppose that I shouldn't have been surprised when my number (five, the number of cats from whom I rent my home) came up as the contestant. It was time to match wits with banker Alison Goldsworthy, a noble adversary indeed. Luckily, and a little to Ros's surprise, I suspect, I gave the impression that I knew what I was doing, and was able to convert my £5 stake into a £25 donation to the Welsh Party by dint of some astute deal non-making.

I was impressed my the ingenuity, and think that this is certainly something that other Party groups might want to try in the future. Make sure that you have someone who can count as your banker though...

One thing that did initial puzzle me was the presence of a sizeable contingent from Cowley Street who, as it turned out, were there to lead some training. Unlike me, I guess that some of them will be in Avie more for the Scottish Spring Conference this coming weekend.

Clegg, Paddick and a touch of ermine - who could want more?

It is with vast pleasure that I announce the cast for London's Regional Conference on 18 March. You would expect our Mayoral candidate, Brian Paddick, of course. However, we also have our new Leader's London debut, four members of the House of Lords (the noble Lords Rennard and Tope, plus the noble Ladies Hamwee and Ludford), a member of the European Parliament and our London spokesperson in the Commons. Not bad for my first Conference, methinks.

I'm not smug though (oh alright, I am a bit, but you'll forgive me, won't you?). There is still much to do in terms of promoting the event, encouraging attendance and maximising revenue (if we make enough money, we could subsidise training later in the year - not too radical a thought, is that?) and I really need to get on with that.

I'm not a natural committee Chair, as I think I've noted in the past, but there are certain advantages to holding power. I'm not prone to thinking within the box, and can experiment if I feel like it. My new committee seems to feel likewise, so the scope for new ways of doing things is vast(ish).

With March now fairly much firmed up, I can turn my attention to our Autumn Conference in November. Fortunately, I will be married by then, and slightly more focussed. That's the theory, anyway...

Banking with Abbey: reasons to get annoyed

I've banked with Abbey for seventeen years or so, and generally been a fairly contented customer. The move towards e-banking suited me to a tee, and as someone who doesn't receive a lot of cheques, I suffered little from the reduction in the number of cashiers available.

All this seems to have come to an end with the takeover by Banco Santander. My first problem came last year when, on a trip to the United States, I discovered that I was unable to withdraw money from my cashpoint card, as I had already done before. On returning home a week later, having assumed that there was a problem with my card, I rang Abbey, to be told that they had assumed that there was an issue regarding card theft, and rung me at home to seek confirmation that it was me in Washington DC attempting to withdraw money.

In vain, I pointed out the utter stupidity of such a strategy. If I am in Washington, I am hardly likely to answer my phone in London. If, on the other hand, I do answer the phone, it is sensible to assume that I am the victim of card fraud. This concept appeared to be far too complex for the Abbey staffer to comprehend. I then noted that they had quite happily allowed me to withdraw money from the very same account, using the very same card, from cash machines in such mainstream locations as Bogota (Colombia), Port Vila (Vanuatu) and Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam). This similarly failed to impress and I eventually concluded that a complaint was necessary.

Some weeks later, I was not horribly surprised to receive a reply effectively suggesting that it was all my fault for leaving the country without their permission, and that I should seek their authority to travel in advance, if I wanted to withdraw my money from my account. I admit to having ignored this advice to some extent - in fact, totally. So I shouldn't have been surprised when it happened again, in Washington DC (again) seven weeks ago. Ros is of the view that I should tell them, their fraud department in Madrid, and their wretched management to take a running jump whilst I take my business elsewhere.

This week, I received a telephone call at work from a woman purporting to work for Abbey. She asked me to answer some security questions and I made what I thought was the not unreasonable statement that I was unwilling to do so in accordance with the advice given to me by Abbey, advising me that I shouldn't give my security information to random callers. Denise, for that was her name, accepted that this was a reasonable stance. I then asked her why she was calling. She couldn't tell me this, as I had refused to answer the security questions!

I admit that I had a pretty good idea why she was calling, and we eventually were able to conclude the item of business in question but I find myself asking the obvious question, "Why are Abbey so paranoid about the possibility of me spending my own money, yet willing to telephone me in the expectation that I will give an unknown stranger answers to security questions without hesitation, in contravention of their own advice?".

It is my view that Abbey is a banking institution unfit to retain my trust and, therefore, my business. And, once the rest of my life has settled down, I shall be looking for a new bank with which to entrust the Valladares billions...

Suffolk reviews: Kasztelan Cafe, Ipswich

Welcome to part one of a series which, I hope, will give you some ideas for things to do, places to go and things to see in my newly adopted county of Suffolk. I am a newcomer to the county, in every sense of the word, and everything is new and strange. If you're in the area, you might find this useful. If you aren't, why not?...

Breaking off from a busy day of wedding preparations, Ros and I were in search of lunch, and we headed down to the waterfront in Ipswich. Unfortunately, building works made our journey somewhat more complicated than strictly necessary, so we fell back to Old Cattle Market in search of sustenance, to find something new(ish), Kasztelan Cafe, a Polish cafe in the true sense of the word, serving hearty food in an atmosphere which, whilst lacking in obvious ambience, reminded me very much of similar places encountered on my trips to Eastern Europe in recent years. Pictures of food in the window, Polish television playing in the corner, this is clearly meant to serve primarily as a meeting point for the growing Polish community in the town, and we were soon joined by a group of young Poles in search of home cooking.

The food itself is not fancy, just filling, and I ordered the turkey cutlet with potatoes, a sauerkraut salad and some sparkling mineral water. My expectations weren't high, but the turkey was tasty, the potatoes were especially good, mashed with dill and some fried onion, and came in a vast portion that could have fed two (but not in this case). Ros had the goulash with dumplings. The goulash had flavour without being overpowering, the dumplings were beautifully light and fluffy and we were both happy with the sauerkraut salad. Service was quick enough, no more than that, although this is not somewhere for fast food, and the cost of lunch, just £9.50, was extremely reasonable for real food.

I wish the proprietor(s) good fortune with their enterprise, and not just because they had a video from HM Revenue & Customs on display, indicating perhaps that they intend to comply with their tax commtments. It is perhaps inevitable that we'll see more such eating places as the Polish and other Eastern European communities become more established, and if this is an indication of how things will be, I look forward to eating some very good dumplings, pierogi and bigos in the years to come.

Why supporting Keith Vaz is quite astute

There has been criticism of Nick Clegg's move to support the ten minute bill to be introduced by Keith Vaz, proposing that exclusive shortlists be permitted for parliamentary and other selections. Given my past record of opposing quotas or special pleading, you might reasonably expect me to join in. I'm not going to...

It was part of the deal that, if all else failed, Nick would support positive action such as all-women shortlists. Supporting the Vaz bill merely enables that if, and only if, all else fails. Think of it as an enabling motion, not as a clear commitment to something illiberal in the near future... if we are to go down that road, there will be an opportunity to discuss it at a Federal Conference, and I expect a rigorous debate to take place when it comes before us.

So, patience my friends, and in the meantime, support worthy candidates, whoever they may be...

And it's a warm welcome from me...

Following my comments regarding the Bones Commission, an edited version of which might be in Lib Dem News this week (I was asked to edit it down to 300 words, did so, and sent it in), Martin Turner, the new chair of the Parliamentary Candidates Association, has been in touch, as much to confirm my criticisms as anything.

I freely admit that I have had my differences with the PCA in the past, on one occasion suggesting that when the last Federal Executive apparatchik is strangled with the small intestine of the last member of the PCA Executive, the Party will truly be ready for victory. However, I am more than supportive of the notion of an effective 'trade union' for parliamentary candidates, whether actual or hopeful.

I've had the pleasure of working with Martin in the past, and found him to be a witty and personable performer willing to think outside the box. He has ambitious plans for the organisation, and I wish him the very best of luck with his efforts. He certainly won't fail for a lack of effort.

A day out in search of knowledge

I'm being trained to be an 'initiative facilitator' today, and am away from my normal environment, perhaps a good thing under the circumstances.

Business Balanced Scorecard is a management tool which is designed to achieve enhancements in performance and efficiency and, in principle, it sounds like a good idea, albeit a distillation of concepts that coalesce into my existing impression of what makes a good manager.

As a liberal, I struggle with rigid process, forever fighting an urge to think outside of the box. The training seems, thus far, to discourage individuality in exchange for consistency. Perhaps this is a good thing in terms of the organisation, and I must confess that it probably is, but it indicates that initiative facilitation is not for me. Initiative and bureaucracy are not obviously associated, after all...

You are invited to the funeral of the Labour dream - flowers not required...

I am unexpectedly angry this morning. This Labour government, with its attacks on civil liberties, its compulsive centralism and slavish desire to placate the Daily Mail, has long irritated me for the sole reason that it could do so much better. But now it finally dawns on me that not only can't they, they don't want to try.

Caroline Flint, the new housing minister, purports to be surprised that more than half of those of working age living in social housing are without paid work - twice the national average. If this is true, she is either a fool or a knave. Either way, she is not fit to be a minister of the Crown.

Social housing used to be fairly mainstream in the post-war era. "Homes fit for heroes" was the cry, and governments heeded the call, building houses and flats in sufficient numbers to ensure that everyone who wanted one had a roof over their head. They may not have been perfect, but they did a job. We've always had a culture of home ownership in this country and, as the opportunity arose, council tenants crossed over into the private sector, freeing up social housing for the next generation.

The Thatcher government glorified the cult of home ownership and personal ambition to an extent that made socially conscious liberals somewhat uncomfortable but even this might not have been fatal had they not been so contemptuous of both local government or the social market. By forbidding councils from spending the proceeds of 'Right to Buy' sales to invest in new social housing, they sparked the first property boom, priced the aspirational blue collar workers out of the market and generated the crash of 1991. Having bought my first home in July of that year, I wasn't complaining, let me assure you...

It was one of the things that toppled the Major government, and you would have thought, wouldn't you, that an incoming Labour government, with young Prudence Brown at the economic tiller, would have addressed the issue of a rampant property market. But they didn't...

So, here's a precis for the benefit of Caroline Flint;

1. Because social housing is allocated on the basis of need, it tends to go the poor, the disabled, and to families with larger numbers of children. The latter two categories tend to have lower rates of employment anyway - the disabled because of access and discrimination, large families due to the cost of childcare.

2. Social housing tenants tend to disproportionately come from ethnic minority backgrounds, particularly the Afro-Caribbean community, who - again - tend to suffer from discrimination in the job market.

3. The education services in areas with significant levels of social housing tend to struggle to attract and retain good teachers, leading to lower educational achievement.

In short, I take the view that Caroline Flint is a knave. By definition, she can't be an idiot.

The Conservatives aren't going to attack this policy. I suspect that they can't believe their luck. So it's up to us, and I pray to God that we have the courage and nous to do the job.

Getting back into the swing of things

I had one of those rare events, a Sunday in London, which offered me a chance to catch up with all of those things that I should do but don't.

Flick, London Region's indefatigable Administrator (and the capital A is truly appropriate), had produced a draft preliminary agenda for our forthcoming Regional Conference. I amended it a bit and then, having dismally failed to call a meeting of the Region's Conference Committee, decided to circulate it to the entire Executive by way of information.

The response, a whole bunch of suggestions that might have been slightly more helpful (and viable) had they come when I asked for ideas a month ago. I don't know, you communicate with your stakeholders and they wait until the last moment to get back to you. Flick was, it is fair to say, not impressed.

I am left with a choice, either to amend the preliminary agenda that is now being printed in time for the next mailing, stick with my original thought, or try to finagle some sort of compromise. Time to call a meeting of my committee, methinks.

Meanwhile, the selection of a prospective GLA candidate for Lambeth & Southwark has finally been concluded. It has, I confess, been a bit of a nightmare, but congratulations must go to Caroline Pidgeon for an overwhelming victory over a persistent opponent.

This now frees me up to start work on the selection of a PPC for Chipping Barnet, not a million miles away from my home. The amount of paperwork involved seems to get a little bigger every time I do this, so it will be interesting to see what effect this has on my stance on the Selection Rules working group that meets next week.

Worryingly, all this means that I'm rather up to date. The upside of this is that I have time to drop in on the Leyton and Cheam by-elections. Perhaps I may earn the awarded moniker of 'Liberal Democrat activist' after all...

The Bones Commission: a recovering bureaucrat thinks aloud

I have been persuaded that, despite my fairly minor position in the pantheon of internal bureaucracy within our great Party, I should submit something to the Bones Commission, looking as it is into how the party can be better run and managed.

Firstly, I should note that I was rather depressed to discover that we bureaucrats are the problem not, as I would willingly accept, part of it. If the suggestion is that those of us manning the bureaucracy prevent the organisation from working effectively, then perhaps those who are so criticial might like to take on the roles of, for example, Returning Officers, Treasurers or Regional Candidates Chairs, to name but three. In many cases, they would be more than welcome...

However, whingefest over, I thought that I might outline what I believe is one of the major weaknesses we have, that of poor communication channels.

My own particular area of interest is candidate selection. I'm a Returning Officer, Parliamentary candidate assessor and member of both my Regional and State Candidates Committees. It would be fair to say that I know my way around this often controversial area of our activity. Looking at English Candidates Committee (ECC), our key stakeholders are;

• Regional Parties;
• candidates, both approved and potential; and
• Campaigns Department

You will note that I don't mention Local Parties, English Council or ordinary members. With the exception of English Council, they almost certainly don't care what we do. There is, to some extent, a sense that English Council cares about what we do, but prefers to let us get on with it - it is so very complex, after all...

Regional Parties are represented on ECC by the Regional Candidates Chairs who, for the most part, are vastly experienced in the arena as candidates past and present, or Returning Officers, or assessors, and often have experience of a multiple of those roles. They generally have a firm grasp of the issues, and give much time and energy to solving the inevitable problems that arise. They should, and in my experience do, report back to their Regional Executives. So far, so good. This is where the Local Parties link in, however, and speaking for my own Region, our means of reaching Local Party Officers and members is weak/non-existent.

The Parliamentary Candidates Association (PCA) represents candidates, albeit it in my view rather badly. Their representative turns up sometimes, although inconsistently, and we have no way of knowing how information is fed back to the PCA Executive Committee, let alone ordinary members of the organisation. I have received a number of complaints in the past about the PCA's failure to include approved candidates who have paid a subscription, and generally refer them to Jo Christie-Smith. As I don't tend to hear much after that, I presume that she deals with the matter with her usual competence. However, they don't have any means of reaching potential approved candidates, so another gap in our reach to stakeholders becomes apparent.

Campaigns Department is of the view that ECC isn't very good at its job. We are too slow in getting candidates selected, we are unresponsive to their needs. On the other hand, they issue edicts without considering how this might impact on the ECC's work. For example, they annonuced that, in order to become a 'moving forward' seat, a constituency had to select its Prospective Parliamentary Candidate (PPC) no later than 31 December 2006. It might have been nice had they told ECC, I suppose, but we did find out when in late summer 2006, there was a rush of Local Parties demanding Returning Officers.

There is a tendancy amongst Campaigns Department to make decisions without consideration of what needs to be done to deliver their wishes. Given that there is no apparent channel of communication between Campaigns Department and ECC, perhaps what tends to happen next is predictable.

I have concluded from this, and a whole series of other intra-organisational clashes, that we really aren't good at considering stakeholders when creating strategy. When I was elected to the Regional Executive in late 2004, and became Regional Secretary, I attended a meeting of the Regional Policy Committee, merely to find out what it did and how it worked, to find myself in the middle of a meeting about a Region-wide manifesto. My first question was, "Who does this affect, and how?". A list of stakeholders was drawn up and a consultation process devised. It didn't have to be lengthy, it merely needed to be thorough.

In meeting after meeting since then, the question of stakeholders has been glossed over. Questions such as who is impacted by your work, how it impacts upon them, and how best to communicate with them, are neglected because we have extremely limited means by which we can reach them.

If the Bones Commission can achieve one cultural change in this Party, I would hope that it might be to strengthen our communication channels. More effective use of e-groups would help, but a little more thought about the poor bastards who have to deliver upon commitments entered into from on high might also allow the volunteer bureaucrat corps to deliver them effectively where it actually matters.

Conservatives in shock call for more immigration!

David Cameron has today called for the provision of a dedicated maternity nurse for every new mother for up to six hours a day in the first week after her new baby's birth, according to a front page story in today's Observer. I applaud the notion, as most Liberal Democrats are only too aware that early intervention can make a huge impact on future outcomes. Besides, such a strategy needs to be seen as an investment in the future.

However, there is a potential hitch. The National Health Service finds the recruitment of nurses to be very difficult and, as a result, our hospitals are propped up by an army of nurses from developing world countries. Thus, if we need 'thousands more nurses', as is indicated, where are they going to come from? The Philippines? Malawi? And, of course, Conservatives are so in favour of migration from anywhere...

There is, of course, an alternative, entirely consistent with the free market that Conservatives and, frankly, some of my colleagues, bang on about at such length. One of the reasons why recruitment of nurses is so difficult is that salary scales are, in comparison with other sectors, fairly low. You can probably earn more as a PA than as a nurse, and not have to deal with the unpleasant side of sick people.

Of course, the public sector only has to reflect the risk elements of a free market, and not the rewards, as far as pay is concerned. Until politicians understand that, great ideas will founder on the rocks of a lack of capable public sector staff to deliver on the ground.

Sorry Nick, but on the Conway affair, you're wrong

And so, our glorious Leader has spoken on what should be done following the Conway affair. Unfortunately, he's wrong.

This week, a junior officer in HM Revenue & Customs was given a jail sentence for defrauding the department by means of false expense claims. The judge felt that her behaviour put at risk trust in those responsible for public funds. It is my personal view that this was entirely the right stance to take.

So, when I discover that our response to Derek Conway's utter stupidity is to call for limits on the number of family members that can be employed, there is a palpable sense of despair. What impact will that have in terms of public perception? Being generous, precious little.

The only solution is to have a transparent system of recruitment, with independent monitoring and agreed pay scales, just like the Civil Service. The funds used are public in nature, and if family members are good enough, then they will be employed.

There is, in fairness, an issue linked to spouses and partners. In some cases, they met because one worked for the other. In others, employment acts as a means of allowing them to spend time together which would otherwise be denied to them. Perhaps it would therefore be appropriate not to disturb existing arrangements, especially given the disruptive implications to lifestyles and domestic planning.

However, that caveat aside, we must establish clear, transparent procedures, as well as proportionate levels of punishment. Derek Conway will graciously give up his job, take his pension and give up £15,000 or so. He should be in court and, given his obvious guilt, be expecting a prison sentence. After all, he has put at risk trust in those responsible for public funds...