The eyes of the world are turned towards Washington DC

And so the big day has arrived, and all of the news coverage is of the inauguration of that nice Senator Obama as President.

The British have always felt more at home with a Democrat in the White House, regardless of the affability or competence of the man himself, and I suspect that this is due to the chasm in ideology between Europe and the US.

Even the British, with our so-called special relationship, find Republicans hard work. The fixation with guns and religion is alien to most of us, given that we've banned handguns and licenced everything else. As for religion, we tend to the view that our faith, or lack thereof, is a private matter, not to be broadcast. Even the evangelical movement here is rooted in the Afro-Caribbean community, and hasn't really penetrated the consciousness of the rest of the population.

We're also more internationalist in our outlook. Whilst Kennedy, Clinton and Obama had travelled widely prior to their election, and not just to fight, many Republican contenders have been less travelled. Our experiences within a common Europe engender a belief in collective action, whereas Republicans tend to the view that, given that they have the capability, they can act alone, at least to some extent.

Bill Clinton was so popular here that, even in the midst of the impeachment hearings, his approval rating was 63%. Regardless of what he did at home, he was felt to be willing to persuade allies to act in concert, rather than browbeat them into acquiescence. His support for the Northern Ireland peace process was invaluable, and the warmth of the welcome given to him when he visited Belfast was utterly genuine.

George W Bush will be irredeemably linked to the invasion of Iraq, an action opposed by the majority of the British people, and the cause of too many resented deaths of young servicemen and women. Regardless of the validity of the invasion, it was felt that the US was ignoring the international framework for conflict resolution, faulty and ineffectual though it has often been.

We also struggle with questions related to the role of government. There is a far greater sense that government has an active role in building a better society, whereas Americans, particularly Republicans tend to be suspicious of 'big government'.

And so we welcome President Obama. He represents politics that we can relate to, but with added charisma and a sense of romance that we aspire to. He looks like a statesman, sounds like one too. The only worry is that we expect too much of him, but he's clever, articulate and appears to be managing our expectations closer to reality.

I wish him well...

Gaza: the war is over (sort of), let the stupidity begin

The Israelis, having reached the point where a continued military offensive was likely to transform itself into a drawn out ground war, have announced a ceasefire. Hamas, having called upon world opinion to condemn Israeli aggression by means of a fair bit of shroud waving, have survived, albeit in rather battered form. The people of Gaza should now be able to emerge to survey the damage and start to rebuild their shattered lives.

That's the theory. Unfortunately, it looks as if we will end up with the worst of all worlds. Hamas have picked up where they left off, with seven rockets already launched into southern Israel, and the Israel Defence Force responding with air attacks on the sites from whence the rockets came. Neither side has peace or security, and the likelihood is that the Israelis will feel totally justified in repeating the whole bloodstained process of attack all over again.

To be blunt, the 'international community', one of those meaningless terms we all fall back on, has failed to achieve very much, and it is public opinion that has led the way. However, public opinion can only do so much, and it is time for moderate Arab nations to step in and provide support for those forces for civil society in Gaza who might create the basis for an administration focussed on building a sound economy, a strong democracy and a secure environment for both.

If Hamas are serious about being part of the process of building a viable Palestinian state, they need to accept that using the population of Gaza as a human shield is, to put it mildly, unhelpful. Given the imbalance in terms of strike power, the pain and suffering is always going to fall disproportionately on civilians in Gaza.

This is not to say that responsibility for this tragedy falls wholly on Hamas. I fully accept that some Israeli actions have been provocative and deliberately so. However, a state can be influenced by other nations in a way that a freedom fighting/terrorist (your choice) organisation cannot. The United Nations and the European Union can withdraw co-operation from Israel through bi-lateral agreements on culture, trade or whatever. We don't have those links with Hamas.

So, as liberals and internationalists, we must channel our passions into lobbying governments, and not just our own, into doing something concrete towards a lasting peace. Otherwise, I'll see you on another demo in five years time...

The concessionary fare scheme for buses - good news and bad news

I was intrigued by a question that Ros asked in the Lords recently, regarding the impact of the extension of the concessionary fare scheme for buses across England, in terms of local government finance. And so I did some research...

Firstly, I was keen to find out what the grant position was for the three years ended 31 March 2011. As it turns out, the grant is due to increase by 2.36% in 2009-10, and by 2.76% in 2010-11. Why is this good news?

Here is the November prediction for forward inflation, courtesy of the Bank of England... As you can see, the Bank is predicting inflation as averaging about 1% over the two years. Therefore, presuming that grants remain at the level stated, there will be a little bit of slack available.

And that's where the good news ends. Sadly, there appear to be a number of cases where local councils are finding that the costs exceed the grant quite considerably.

Ros and I visited Teignbridge last year, and Cllr Alan Connett noted his concern about the looming gap between the grant and the additional expenditure that was being incurred. If spending turns out to exceed the grant, local councils will be forced to make choices as to what to cut, in order to meet the difference.

Given that District Councils are bearing the brunt of the cuts in local government grant support, and that capping will be applied to any council seeking to raise its precept by more than 5%, this will be all the more difficult to manage. Worst of all, it is virtually impossible to manage demand, especially for those authorities which attract large numbers of tourists.

I sense from Lord Adonis's answer to Ros's question that he really didn't fancy answering the question because, in answering the question, he will demonstrate that, once again, the Government has bought some short term popularity at the cost of locally provided services. And of course, who will be held accountable? Yes, you guessed it, the local councils that will have to cut services to fulfil someone else's gift...

Conservatives: it's not ideas, it's money that will gain us power...

I have been consistently critical of the lack of hard policy coming from the Conservative Party over the past year. The Cameron-led attempt to re-enact the Labour strategy pre-1997 had been pretty successful until the wheels fell off of the economy and it became clear that the lack of stated policy masked an absence of any real, coherent policy worth writing home about.

The political strategy appears to be to oppose anything that is unpopular, suggest that you're thinking about doing things that appear popular, and state that you wouldn't have managed the economy in the same way that Labour did. In normal circumstances, that might have been enough. However, in the gathering crisis, voters are keen to see something being done. I'm not convinced that there is a sense at to what that is, but the sense of activity is vaguely reassuring.

The Conservatives have responded with a flurry of speeches which, when analysed, give little steer as to what their underpinning philosophy is. Unconvincing on tax cuts, unconvincing on the role of government, unconvincing on the environment or the economy, their support is founded on not being Labour, rather than on being for anything.

Clearly, there is a realisation that this is the case at the top of the Conservative Party, and this comment, from their Treasurer, when asked if it meant he was trying to crush Labour financially;

"We will blow them out of the water."

Now I am not so naive to think that money has no place in politics. In order to get the message across, a political party needs resources, both financial and human. However, if the leading opposition party needs to 'blow its opponent out of the water' in order to win the argument, it implies that what they are offering isn't that great. Add the advantages of favourable media coverage, and you really worry about the ability of the Conservatives to make a positive case to earn voter support.

Of course, this also makes the case for campaign finance reform here in the United Kingdom. The impact of campaign spending on the result of the US Presidential election cannot be ignored. The Obama campaign outspent the McCain campaign by a vast margin, yet they only won by 5% or so. Had the two campaigns been equally resourced, who knows how things would have panned out?

In a multi-party democracy, the impacts on campaign spending are even greater. With one party of business, and one of labour and the unions, other political voices are in risk of being pushed to the margins. Given the drop in voter turnout in recent decades, might providing all political parties with the means that reflect their electoral strength provide potential voters with meaningful choice?

South West Trains: not telling the whole story

In another round of railway industry job cuts, South West Trains have announced the loss of 480 jobs, 10% of their workforce. According to their website,

"Subject to consultation with staff, our plans will involve a reduction of around 480 management, administration and other roles across the company. Train drivers, guards and frontline fleet maintenance staff are not affected by these proposed changes."

Whilst the notion that there are so many people whose jobs can be axed without impacting on services to passengers is, to a cynical mind, unlikely, it appears that I have much to be cynical about. The press release continues;

"Our priority throughout this process has been to protect the core frontline service and excellent performance we currently provide to our customers."

So, you could reasonably expect that the service to passengers will be maintained at its current level, couldn't you?

But no, for the BBC have uncovered the truth. 93 full-time and 87 part-time ticket office jobs are to go, along with 62 full-time and 9 part-time platform jobs. That would be 251 roles, 52% of the total under threat. Passengers will find it harder to buy the cheapest ticket for their journey, will find it harder to get help when they need it and will feel less safe when they travel.

At least the trains will run, won't they? Well, yes and no. The BBC have also discovered that South West Trains are now running nearly 100 shorter trains every day. Once again, weasel words from a rail franchise to disguise a drop in standards...

It's a streetcar, but not as I know it...

Neil Williams has welcomed the arrival of streetcars in Haringey, and I have to admit that I was quite excited by the prospect. So I read the article, only to find that it was a bit of a let down. A car? What is this all about? No use to me, I fear, as a non-driver.

To me, a streetcar is one of these... an Art Deco example from San Francisco's F-line (no, sniggering at the back, Jennie...), which forms part of the finest vintage public transport systems to be found anywhere.

If you're interested in seeing more examples of San Francisco streetcars, follow this link.

MP expenses: we've got a longer memory than they thought

The announcement that there will be an exemption from the Freedom of Information Act for Members of the House of Commons is a disappointment, albeit it an expected one. Given the comments of John Spellar last year, when the Speaker's Conference was set up, I never expected MP's to 'come quietly'.

However, I am surprised and disappointed that they have so badly misjudged public opinion. At a time when politicians are the subject of almost universal disrespect (some earned, some not), and personal finances are under strain, why they believe that they have a unique right to privacy is beyond me. Indeed, why they feel that the public should just let matters go on as they have is equally a mystery.

There is no doubt that MP salaries and expenses are an increasingly uncomfortable fudge, designed to keep headline pay levels comparatively low (note that I don't say low) whilst providing levels of effective remuneration commensurate with their perceived value. Unfortunately, Labour's willingness to legislate for freedom of information has not always been matched by an understanding of the implications of doing so, and situations like this arise as a result.

I have said in the past that the salary levels for MP's are not competitive with those in similar jobs, and that, as a result, we disincentivise the best and the brightest from running for public office. This has consequences for our democracy, and for our society.

We create a situation whereby, for most MP's, a second home in London is necessary. Shouldn't we make a contribution towards the cost of that if we insist on them turning up? Alright, perhaps we should keep the profit and bear any losses from such purchases, but they do need somewhere to live. Unlike some of the more cynical conservative bloggers, however, I do feel that they should not be accommodated in some spartan barracks...

Heathrow: proof that the middle classes are pandered to by politicians and media alike?

Whilst the attention of the media and politicians is on Heathrow, something is stirring in East London.

When I first got involved in international youth politics, nearly twenty years ago, I discovered what I thought was a little gem, London City Airport, a new stolport (short take-off, landing) built on the east side of the new Docklands development. With ten minute check-in, business class seating and service for economy fares, it was ideal. Alright, it was tricky to get to, with the nearest station at Silvertown on the other side of a housing estate, but I liked it, especially as I wasn’t keen on airports. There weren’t many flights, but you could get to Paris and Brussels, and other destinations were slowly added.

Later, when my travel patterns changed, I stopped using London City, switching to Heathrow to take advantage of the range of direct flights to the US. I wasn’t the only one who had discovered London City though, and the numbers of passengers and destinations steadily increased. As a concession to local residents, the airport was closed at nights, and for twenty-four hours every weekend, and all was presumably well.

The decision to expand Heathrow has thrown into sharp relief the differences in response to airport expansion, however. Heathrow is, on the basis of its current user numbers, horribly overcrowded. Its runways run east-west, forcing flights to either take off or land directly over heavily populated west and central London. Noise and pollution are a blight on the lives of those who live under the flightpath.

London City Airport, whilst not suffering from overcrowding, has quietly extended its terminals, obtained a direct rail link via the Docklands Light Railway, and increased annual passenger numbers beyond three million. Its single runway runs east-west, forcing flights to either take off of land directly over heavily populated east and central London, and close to the skyscrapers of Canary Wharf. We hear little about the impact of noise and pollution, although the airport does tend to attract smaller, less noisy, less polluting aircraft.

The impact of the airport on the surrounding population is not something that has created a media stir, yet even quieter aircraft make noise, less polluting aircraft still pollute. The fact that Newham is notable for the lack of a vocal middle class (it is one of the country's most deprived boroughs) possibly explains that.

In October 2008, the London Borough of Newham resolved to approve the airport’s planning application, increasing the number of permitted flight movements from 80,000 to 120,000 per annum. There was little fuss, and little protest outside of those immediately affected. The council, something of a one-party state (54 Labour, 3 Respect, 3 Christian Peoples Alliance), appears to have simply waved the application through. Worse still, the recently published master plan for the airport envisages an increase in annual passenger numbers to a staggering eight million by 2030.

It is entirely reasonable for protestors to vent their anger at the Government and the owners of Heathrow Airport. However, we really need to take a holistic approach towards international travel. If Heathrow expansion is to be prevented, how do those wanting to, or needing to, travel get to their destinations? Do we object to the rise in passenger numbers generally, or just at Heathrow? What does that mean for Luton, Stansted and Gatwick, let alone Southend, Kent International, Biggin Hill and Farnborough, all of which are either expanding, or proposing to expand?

An escape to Fantasy Island - Digby Jones's unwitting tribute to Ricardo Montalban (somewhat revised)

This week saw the death of Ricardo Montalban, who is probably best known in this country for his role as the proprietor of Fantasy Island, a place where visitors could, for a fee, live their dreams. Ricardo greeted clients in an immaculate white suit and, assisted by Tattoo, his diminuitive assistant, handed out lessons for living to people who rather badly needed them.

It probably wasn't his finest moment as an actor, and his fans probably knew him better as a bit of a heartthrob in his time, but he gave his character depth and a sense of moral authority when dealing with those who had an exaggerated sense of their importance or value.

Unfortunately, his death, at the age of 88, means that he can't help Digby Jones to see the error of his recent statement about the Civil Service, so I'll have to stand in for him.

I see that Digby is of the view that many civil servants deserve the axe. Funnily enough, my fellow civil servants would quite like to take an axe to him...

Whilst he believes that the Civil Service is 'honest, stuffed with decent people who work hard', he was amazed 'at how many people deserved the sack and yet that was the one threat that they never worked under, because it doesn't exist'.

Lord Jones of Birmingham was appointed as a Life Peer in 2007 to serve as a Government Minister, stood down in 2008 and has now resigned the Labour whip, sitting as a crossbencher. As a Life Peer, he cannot be removed from his position except by death. Ironic, isn't it?

In the meantime, I raise a glass to Ricardo Montalban. He brought a little sunshine to the lives of filmgoers everywhere. Not a bad epitaph...

Much ado about nothing - more Conservative flapping over the Euro

This morning's Metro newspaper leads with 'Minister hints at joining the Euro', after a comment by Europe minister Caroline Flint, opposing a promise made by David Cameron yesterday to keep the pound regardless of the circumstances.

It is clearly a slow news day because, when you actually read the article that follows, she is quoted as saying,

"We will make a decision based on economic conditions. We have identified five tests that have to be met: convergence with other European economies, flexibility, impact on investment, the impact on the financial services industry and growth, stability and employment. At the moment, those economic tests have not been met."

So far, so sensible. Ms Flint is merely reiterating existing Government policy and, as most sensible politicians do, leaving options open.

That said, the exchange does raise two interesting questions. The first is, "Are the tests now met?". The last Treasury assessment was carried out in 2003, and much has changed since then. I am not so up to speed that I believe that they have been met, but it would be interesting to see how the situation looks now, would it not?

And, whilst the Conservatives and their friends in the media would doubtless get on their high horses about loss of sovereignty and saving the pound, a commitment by the Government stating categorically that entry to the Euro would be preceded by a binding referendum would shoot that particular fox. Given that the Liberal Democrats are already committed to such a referendum, the existence of a coalition of political parties representing more than half of those who voted in 2005, would legitimise the position quite effectively.

My second question is, "What are the Conservatives thinking?" I accept that Conservatives have a virulent aversion to the Euro, but to say that they would keep the pound 'regardless of the circumstances' is economic idiocy of the highest order. Are they seriously suggesting that the retention of a currency trumps the wider economy in terms of their policy priorities? I can't imagine that they really mean it, so is Mr Cameron's comment merely a bit of red meat for the troops, and a bit of a white lie for the rest of us? Given the rumours regarding the return of Ken Clarke to the Shadow Cabinet, one's gut reaction is that it is exactly that...

The unbearable lightness of sporting failure

I am a hopeless romantic in most aspects of my life. My political leanings have brought me to a political party that has been out of power nationally since the 1920's, and I was described as 'wonderfully soppy' by the Daily Telegraph. But it is sport which brings out a truly hopeless faith in the underdog.

When American football made its first inroads into British consciousness in the mid-eighties, I was quite excited, and decided to adopt a team to make it more interesting. As the colour of my political party, and of my beloved football team was orange, I chose the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. As it turned out, I'd selected the team with the worst record of any NFL team that decade. Not so much an orange as a lemon...

My cricket team of choice was Sussex, the county of my mother's family. One of the oldest counties in first class cricket, they had won precisely zero County Championships, the pinnacle of the domestic game, despite 130 years of honest effort. A bit of limited over success, admittedly, but perennial underachievers nonetheless.

Ironically, both ugly ducklings turned into swans eventually. The Buccaneers won a Super Bowl, but only after changing their colours from a friendly tangerine to a rather more assertive deep red and black combination. Sussex won their first County Championship, inspiring the classic headline '164 years of hurt, never stopped believing' before winning two more in short order.

So, it couldn't really be much worse, could it? Actually, it can be - I support Luton Town, currently the worst team in the Football League, or so it would appear. In the years that I have followed them from the old Second Division up to the First, back down to League 2 (the old Fourth Division) before two promotions and two relegations brought them to League 2 at the beginning of this season.

Bad enough, you might think, but the ineptitude of the previous Board had taken the club into administration, and breaches of league rules meant that punishment was due. A ten point deduction for going into administration, an extra seven for failing to agree a deal with creditors, plus thirteen more for the rule breaches, meant that my beloved Hatters started the season with minus thirty points, the worst penalty in league history.

Relegation to the Blue Square Premiership, the fifth tier of English football, looked like a certainty. However, the team have tried hard and, after twenty-four fixtures, with seven wins, nine draws and eight defeats, we're back to zero. Alright, I admit that the team will still be playing away games at places like Eastbourne Borough next season, but at least they'll have tried. And, as hope springs eternal, they're not relegated yet, so you never know...

There is an eight inch long golden penis in my wife's office...

Perhaps I should explain. Ros shares her office at the Lords with Lord Lee of Trafford, our Defence spokesman, and Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer, our Home Affairs spokesperson, and it is the latter who won a 'Flying Penis' at Wednesday night's 'Erotic Awards'.

Quoting from their website;

"The Erotic Awards began in 1994 to honour the stars in the erotic universe. We are cutting edge, grass roots and philanthropic and have become increasingly influential on an international level. Our 14 categories – artists, performers, sex workers, artists, campaigners, film makers, websites, blogs and podcasts – include the famous, the struggling and the previously unknown. Many of them have been ostracised simply because they work in the sex world."

Sue Miller was nominated in the newly instituted 'politician' category, for a work on last year's Criminal Justice Bill, alongside Lord Faulkner, a Labour peer, and John McDonnell, who found time following his quixotic attempt to run for the Labour leadership to arrange a discussion in the Palace of Westminster between politicians and sex workers to discuss the laws impacting on sex work.

I was intrigued, but not entirely surprised, to discover that there are such awards, and my concerted research uncovered a trio of nominees from 2002 who might be familiar to my Liberal Democrat readers...

There’s always someone worse off than you are…

I’ve commented in the past about the failure of the Government to understand that, unless you offer competitive salaries, you risk facing difficulties in recruiting and retaining the quality of personnel required to run efficient public services.

The Irish Independent reports that, no matter how bad I might think it is here, things are about to get much worse in Ireland, where the Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, is suggesting that, far from receiving scheduled pay increases, it may be necessary to enforce pay cuts on Irish civil servants. Clearly, the Irish Government are not planning to take a Keynesian approach to public spending, although with rumours that the International Monetary Fund are standing by to step in, and the Euro at unprecedented levels against the pound, there is very little room for manoeuvre.

Worse still, for those living near the border with Northern Ireland, the temptation to cross the border to shop is huge, given the exchange rate movements over the past year. A year ago, one euro bought less than 74p. By September, it bought 79p. Now, one euro is worth more than 90p, a 22% increase in just one year.

The economy that was so strong is being undercut by the developing economies of Eastern and central Europe, with the irony of the Irish Government appealing to the European Commission to investigate state aid given by the Polish Government to attract Dell, one of Ireland’s flagship employers, to move production to Lodz, with an immediate loss of 1,900 jobs in Limerick, and another 8,000 at risk according to reports.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be quite so gloomy, after all…

An evening of culture with my mates, Henry, Georg Friedrich, Joseph and Felix

And so to Brunswick Square for the launch of the 2009 Radio 3 Composers of the Year. It is:

• the 350th anniversary of the birth of Henry Purcell;
• the 250th anniversary of the death of Georg Friedrich Handel;
• the 200th anniversary of the death of Joseph Haydn; and,
• the 200th anniversary of the birth of Felix Mendelssohn

It is a very rich year for musical anniversaries, especially given the connections that all four had with music making in this country.

Handel, in particular, has an unexpected link to this otherwise anonymous part of North West London in which I live. His Chandos Anthems were written for the 1st Duke of Chandos, whose palatial mansion in what is now Canons Park, was one of the finest houses in the country when it was rebuilt in the years 1713-1720. They were performed in the Church of St Lawrence which, unlike Canons, still stands today.

The problem with events like these is that we don't really know many of our fellow attendees. The artistic set and politicians don't often come into contact so people mill about, talking to the people that they know, so we didn't stay too long, before heading for dinner at a restaurant in the Brunswick Centre nearby, and a relatively early night.

If you're going to be irritated by something, you might as well profit from it...

This afternoon, I decided to pop down to the Starbucks on the ground floor of my otherwise unappealing office skyscraper, to buy a skinny vanilla latte with sugar-free syrup (as I'm sure you all do). It isn't something that I do every day, but often enough that the staff recognise me.

Today, however, I found myself behind a couple of young, smartly dressed employees of Deloittes, that ubiquious accounting firm, with a whole page of drink and snack orders. It was clear that they had the full attention of the staff, and that nobody else was going to be served until they were done. Given that the whole purpose of the exercise was to grab a quick coffee, I allowed my irritation at their thoughtlessness to convince me that I wasn't willing to wait, and returned to my desk, uncaffinated.

Except that I could, if I wasn't so lazy, make my own coffee. I have a cafetiere, some quite good filter coffee and some sweeteners (I take my coffee black). Not only would I save myself something like £2.50 a time, I'd drink the blend of my choice, and I wouldn't have to go as far to get it.

And so, at least for a while, goodbye Starbucks. Perhaps once the irritation subsides, I might return, but until then, the money saved can furnish my bank account...

Another Conservative forgets how the public sector works - or is Lord James of Blackheath not paying attention?

David James was, in his day, a 'company doctor' of some renown, rescuing a series of British companies from misfortune, incompetence, or the vagaries of the economic cycle. In recent years, however, he became better known for his review of government spending, carried out on behalf of the Conservative Party prior to the 2005 General Election.

That review called for fairly swingeing cuts in public expenditure, involving a reduction in the size of the civil service. I didn't then, and don't now, have an objection to cutting the size of government as an aim, although the Labour Party took great delight in shouting from the rooftops that Conservatives were going to cut 'vital public services'. The proposed spending cuts, totalling £34 billion, were one of the many self-inflicted wounds that cost the Conservatives in 2005.

His reward was a seat in the House of Lords in 2006, where he specialises in issues relating to defence procurement, NHS finances and Olympic funding. Yesterday, he asked the following question in the Lords;

"To ask Her Majesty's Government, in light of the current economic circumstances, whether they will impose a freeze on new public sector recruitment and permit only replacements for staff who have left."

I fear that the noble Lord has rather lost touch with recent developments in government employment strategies. In terms of Central Government, the existing target of cutting budgets by 5% per annum in real terms has had significant effects on employment levels, with 25,000 jobs going over six years in HM Revenue & Customs alone. The costs of government bureaucracy arise predominantly from the salaries of staff and the buildings needed to house them, and so it is inevitable that job losses are part of the strategy.

Lord James also overlooks the need to maintain a conveyor belt of future senior civil servants. They don't come fully matured, but need to be trained and developed across a range of government activity. Recruits entering the Civil Service this year will be the mandarins of thirty years hence, and you need to allow for that.

I won't say much about the impact of such a proposal on Local Government, except to note that centrally driven restrictions on public sector employment are hardly consistent with Conservative thoughts on localism.

Lord Myners's response is somewhat reassuring. Yes, there will be continuing efforts to drive down the costs of government. However, he seems to understand that some elements of its work are demand-driven. For example, if unemployment increases, you need more staff to handle benefit claims and to assist peope to find work.

It would be foolish to suggest that Lord James is engaging in the politics of the cheap soundbite. However, he should be cautious lest his actions give the impression that he is doing just that...

A bureaucratic faux pas - nobody dead

As readers may recall, I 'accidentally on purpose' failed to get my nomination in for both the Regional Executive and English Council. You know how it is sometimes...

However, all was not lost, as there were still vacancies to be filled at last night's Regional Executive Committee meeting. I had taken the precaution of writing to the Regional Secretary, Andrew Horsler, a thoroughly decent guy and a worthy successor, noting that I would like to serve as a member of English Council and, in addition, as the London nominee for the English Party's Appeals Panel.

Andrew very kindly got back to me this morning, confirming that my place on English Council had been secured. However, I had been unsuccessful in terms of the Appeal Panel. In many ways, this was a good thing, as it was discovered afterwards that I am ineligible to serve due to my membership of the English Candidates Committee. You live and learn, don't you?...

Are Londoners more selfish than the rest of the country? Or just busier?

It’s amazing how much reading material reaches ‘Liberal Bureaucracy’, particularly since I married Ros. She gets magazines and mailings from a vast range of organisations and, because much of it is linked to politics and government, I take a keen interest in it.

My attention has been drawn to a report from the Department of Communities and Local Government, which indicates that the proportion of people formally participating in voluntary activities at least once a month is lower in London than in any other English region. 23% of Londoners engage in some form of formal volunteering at least monthly, compared to 25-31% in other regions (step forward the South West, at the upper end of that range).

It doesn’t look good for us, I admit, but I do wonder whether or not there are contributory factors. For example, I spend about ten hours a week commuting, an amount which is hardly extraordinary for Londoners. There is somewhat less of a sense of a community in the faceless city, and less of the groups which thrive in small towns and villages. The temptation to give money so that someone else can do the work is easy to give in to.

As a political activist (of sorts), I find myself wondering if this impacts on the ability of political parties to recruit and retain members and, more importantly, activists. Attending evening meetings tends to get in the way of the rest of my life, occupying time I might otherwise spend with my wife and family, disrupting my meal schedule, and preventing me from doing the other things that occupy the day to day lives of many people.

Under such circumstances, it is hardly surprising that membership and activity of political parties is in long-term decline. The expectation that women, in particular, will have household or carer responsibilities, increasingly on top of their careers, tends to lessen the desire to commit even more of their precious time to politics, or other volunteering activities for that matter. And now that men are beginning to take on a fairer share of domestic chores, they are less likely to engage too.

Returning to the report though, it is interesting to note that, contrary to some opinions, the involvement of younger people in volunteering activity remains relatively high, although one must differentiate between informal and formal volunteering. 41% of those in the 16-25 age bracket participate in informal volunteering activity at least once a month, a figure which drops away through the age ranges. On the negative side, 23% of 16-25 year olds, and 22% of 26-34 year olds participate in formal volunteering activities at least once a month, less than any other age group.

This might not augur well for community organisations in the decades to come, and how to attract new volunteers is likely to become a more pressing concern in future. At a time when political parties are keen to involve the voluntary sector in the provision of services, it would be ironic if they lost the ability to respond.

Paying the cost for a false market in train travel

Last week, I indicated how unimpressed I was with the way that our railways are run. I suggested that;

"Naturally, if off-peak passenger numbers fall, the Train Operating Companies will use that as an excuse to cut off-peak services."

Yesterday came reports that only reconfirm my fears. Dan Milmo and Tim Webb, reporting in the Observer, warn that rail and bus services are under threat due to collapsing passenger numbers. Now I find myself wondering whether or not increasing fares by at least 6% when inflation is at 4% and falling, hundreds of thousands of people are losing their jobs and, worst of all, the cost of using a car has dropped substantially in recent months, was such a great idea.

It's all very well the likes of National Express, Stagecoach and First Group pleading that they were only doing what they were permitted to, but they signed up to a contract, and now they don't like the consequences. The franchises that they signed, giving them for the most part a monopoly on rail travel, allowed them to, in some cases, receive huge subsidies in the early years of their deals, with reductions in later years before switching to net payments.

They bid for the franchises on the basis that they would still make money. Nothing wrong with that, if it provided an incentive to run more trains, provide better service and support the switch from private transport to public. However, the clamour to renegotiate means that we, the public, get to pay more through the public purse to support the railway and, better yet, pay more for our fares too. A double whammy, methinks.

If the cost of travelling by train had been relatively low, this might not have been so unwelcome, but in a country with the highest fares in Europe, and where the railways are supported to the tune of £4.5 billion per annum already, is it any wonder that demand is proving to be somewhat less than elastic?

The United Kingdom has one of the most bizarre arrangements for running its railways to be found anywhere. Restrictive practices, including barriers to new entrants to the market, seem to work against the interests of those of us who use the railways. Some of us have little choice, I admit, but to drive away those who do is likely to have serious ramifications for all of us over time...

Take AK-47, aim at foot, fire at will... an object lesson in how to lose sympathy by Hamas

The overall leader of Hamas, Khaled Meshaal, pictured to the left, is based in Syria, where he lives. As its official leader, his words carry much weight amongst Palestinians, regardless of their political persuasion or degree of militancy. So, when he suggests that any hope of a peace settlement has been destroyed forever, has he really considered what message he is sending out to the wider world?

To moderate Arab opinion, to the European Union and to the other players in the Middle East peace talks, he indicates that any effort on their part to broker a ceasefire is futile. To the Israelis attacking Gaza, he provides every justification to continue. Worst of all, to the residents of Gaza, he sends a clear message that their lives are to be sacrificed for a cause that will never be satisfied. Sitting in the safety of Damascus, perhaps he should mull over the foolishness that was Saddam Hussein's, claiming to have offensive capacities that didn't exist and daring the world to take them from him.

The US-led coalition called Saddam's bluff, and I fear that the Israelis will call Mr Meshaal's. The collateral casualties in Hamas's campaign of terror against Israel will not thank him for it...

Strategies for the credit crunch: have you really checked your cupboards?

With the first day of temperatures above freezing for what seems like an eternity, it seemed like a good idea to do a bit of tidying around the house. Now I had always considered myself to be the sort of person who didn't gather too much 'stuff', a theory which bit the dust when I moved house eighteen months ago, and needed a rather large skip to dispose of the detritus of my life.

It is amazing just how much stuff the average person gathers in the course of a lifetime. Given the falling price of household goods over the past two decades, it is easier to buy a replacement than to repair the old item or, worse still, buy something that you see in a sale because it is cheap and you probably need one. We tend to forget what we actually have, due to relative plenty, and you could argue that this has been a factor in the consumer-led boom that ran into the sand last year.

We are often the same with food. We buy food, put it away and forget about it. Supermarkets tempt us with offers and we end up buying things that we hadn't actually needed. I'm as guilty as anyone. As a single male, I quite often impulse shopped, ending up with fresh food that ended up in my recycling bin, dry goods that went past their use by date, and frozen food that sustained freezer burn, and I'm not much better married. In financial and environmental terms, it's a bit of an indulgence. Worse still, my indiscipline means that I need to waste time making shopping trips for small amounts of stuff when I could be doing something more useful - and believe me, I could use the time.

My wardrobes are the same. I tend to keep things that I've outgrown, in the optimistic expectation that I might lose some of the weight I've put on over the years. As a result, I have drawers full of clothes that I don't use, and find it hard to locate the clothes that fit. The temptation is to go out and buy more, rather than get good use out of those that I've already spent good money on.

My parents, and the generations before them, didn't have access to such a vast array of cheap 'stuff'. They tended to get more use out of what they had, and saved the remainder for a rainy day. Perhaps we need to rediscover that sense of living within our means as a way of changing the consumer-led culture that has led to unprecedented levels of personal debt, and the resultant financial vulnerability of so many in our communities.

An invitation from across the ocean

I am often surprised by the number of readers who come from beyond the Liberal Democrat family (or my own, for that matter) and, in some cases, from around the globe. Yesterday was a case in point.

I received, by means of a comment on my blog, an invitation to have my blog included in a list of blogs which will appear on a website called GlobalPost.com. Naturally, I was suspicious, and had a look at their website. What I discovered was an organisation which will be launching a new international news service, intended primarily, but not exclusively, for an American audience, with correspondent journalists in some forty-six countries around the world, backed up by a selection of bloggers. I appear to be one of the latter.

So, gentle reader, I have accepted the invitation, and am now flying their logo on my sidebar. They go live on Monday, and I wish them every success, given that their stated aim is to provide better coverage of overseas events to the U.S. market. In that one of the often levelled criticisms of Americans and American policy makers is a lack of knowledge of the world around them, this can only help all of us...

Selecting a PPC for Brent North - meeting the Returning Officer

Brent North is not a constituency that has a long and noble tradition of Liberal success. Indeed, under the existing boundaries, it didn't have much of a Liberal Democrat presence, even though we hold 26 out of 63 council seats in what was a three-constituency borough.

However, the Boundary Commissioners have changed that, creating a new Brent North that is rather bigger, and contains nine wards. Three of them elected Liberal Democrats in 2006, five elected Conservatives and one Labour. I mentioned a few days ago that, despite that, it is a Labour-held constituency.

Despite the 'distractions' of target seat status for Brent Central and Hampstead & Kilburn, the Local Party were keen to select a PPC (Prospective Parliamentary Candidate) and, accordingly, had approached Margaret Joachim, the Regional Candidates Chair, to seek the appointment of a Returning Officer. Unexpectedly, last week we were lucky enough to have one assigned.

It is indicative of the shortage of Returning Officers in London that our newly appointed RO is from Folkestone, Darren Briddock, but he very graciously attended our Executive Committee at short notice so that we could get a flying start.

After outlining the process, we were invited to appoint a Selection Committee that represents our diverse membership. And, quite naturally, I put myself forward and am now part of the team that will filter potential candidates. After all, I was the only other person in the room who really knows how it works

So, we have a Returning Officer, a Selection Committee and an outline timetable. Alright, we probably won't come out of this with a Barack Obama, but who knows, even the sainted Barack had to start somewhere...

Is £800 a fair price for a Taser?

I note that the Government have bought 5,000 Tasers for use by frontline police officers in England and Wales, as part of a programme whereby 10,000 will be provided in total. The cost? £4 million.

I admit that I remain unconvinced that such weapons form part of an effective policing strategy. Whilst human beings are not designed to be submitted to high voltage electric charges, and anyone given a weapon is more likely to use it, regardless of training, this resembles an accident waiting to happen.

It is, however, part of a progression towards greater militarisation of the police in this country, whereby weapons and technology are utilised to make up for a lack of numbers at the sharp end, on the street. And yet despite this, people don't feel any safer. Indeed, the fear of being attacked is now bolstered by the risk that you might get stunned by a Taser-wielding police officer.

The only real answer is a return to visible policing, and whilst the move towards ward-based policing is a step forward, I remain unconvinced that their profile within the community is any better. The public feel reassured when they see police officers in areas where they feel otherwise vulnerable. I accept that in this era of 'time and motion' led efficiencies that it might not produce tangible gains, but the intangible ones are equally valuable, i.e. greater freedom to move around your community or greater usage of public transport, to take just two examples.

Sadly, though, it looks like Tasers are here to stay. We can only hope that there aren't too many innocent victims whilst police officers familiarise themselves with their use...

Rejoice! Rejoice!...

...for on this day in 1799, income tax was introduced by Pitt the Younger.

A day on the witness stand for God?

It appears Stephen Green, of Christian Voice, has complained to the Advertising Standards Authority about the Atheist Bus Campaign adverts running on buses across the country on grounds of ‘truthfulness’ and ‘substantiation’, suggesting that there is not ‘a shred of supporting evidence’ that there is probably no god.

Whilst the British Humanist Association are enjoying the joke, I do find myself wondering if this might be the moment when Mr Green discovers that there is a point beyond which his campaigning leaves behind what vestiges of credibility it might once have had.

Now don't get me wrong. Whilst I'm not an active church-goer, I still retain a sense of faith in some sort of divine presence, call it a god or whatever. In the absence of rules which dictate exactly what will happen in every circumstance, the element of randomness, for me at least, reassures me that science does not have all of the answers.

However, whilst it might be difficult to supply supporting evidence that there isn't a god, it's going to be even more difficult to provide evidence that there is one. And, whilst the idea of a distinguished elderly gentleman with a white beard and flowing white robes appearing before the Advertising Standards Authority to give evidence is an appealing one, I won't be turning up in the expectation of his arrival (sorry, my upbringing involved a patriachial deity concept - it's very hard to shift...).

On the other hand, if he did, I'd like to think that he might find the time to smite Stephen Green with a lightning bolt...

Have Liberal Youth no sense of romance?

In my capacity as Returning Officer to Liberal Youth, I am required to attend those meetings where elections take place. So far, so logical...

However, their Spring Conference has been called for the weekend of St Valentine's Day at the University if Warwick, and I find myself wondering whether they had realised that when they picked the dates. Is romance a dead letter amongst the young?

It isn't going entirely to plan...

Liberal Youth have a wonderfully ornate set of rules pertinent to the co-option process. They read well although the phrase, "The Executive Committee shall be able to co-opt X number of members to carry out designated roles" has generally sufficed elsewhere.

And so I am running a co-option 'election' to fill a temporary vacancy on their Executive Committee. The poll shall be open for seven days or until the votes outstanding have no impact on the result. Looks like seven days then...

Israel and the Liberal Democrats: a bureaucrat responds further to Iain Dale

I had taken some offence at Iain Dale's accusation that we might be becoming an 'anti-Israel' Party, and effectively 'called out' Iain to defend himself. In typical style, his response was rapid (how does he do it?) and fairly forceful. I did draft what I thought was a pretty good riposte but, one technological glitch later, it was lost forever. However, I'll have another stab here...

Iain, you have called upon the Liberal Democrats to convey a more balanced stance on Israel and Palestine. Unfortunately, the only way to adequately balance opinion would be for a few Liberal Democrats to speak out for the right of Israel to carry on with its strategy of dropping large volumes of high explosive on Gaza. Sorry, but that just won't wash, and you will continue to be disappointed.

You have repeated your claim that we are one-eyed in respect of our stance towards the two sides and I refer you to the comments made by our Foreign Affairs spokesman, Edward Davey. Of course, looking at the Party's website for the comments made by our spokesman might be a bit tricky, but you do seem to be everywhere else...

To be blunt, most of those who entirely support the rights of the Israeli people to live in peace and security within recognised borders within our Party are rightfully uncomfortable with the results of the Israeli campaign. Most people will have no objection to Israel defending itself against attack, as long as that response is proportionate. However, the deaths of innocent civilians in large numbers is not something that many people can endorse with a clear conscience, and I would be disappointed if there was a Liberal Democrat who could find it in themselves to do so.

However, you are entirely right in one sense. Whilst my point about the use of conventional warfare methodology against terrorists said exactly what I intended to say, I could, and probably should, have expanded on that point. So I will.

In recent years, we have seen a move away from wars of nation against nation towards more random attacks by small, ideology-driven groups of fanatics against predominantly civilian targets. The campaign by Hamas against Israel is, to a great extent, an example of just such a conflict.

Hamas 'fighters' launch hit and run attacks, and are extraordinarily difficult to confront and defeat by the use of aircraft and artillery in an area such as Gaza. Their willingness to use densely populated areas and public buildings as a base for rocket launches means that any counter-attack using conventional methods will simply lead to collateral losses that are unaccepted to a viewing public easily swayed by pictures of injured or dying women and children. As integrated into their communities as they are, if Israeli forces attack, they can melt back into the populace and disappear, waiting for the next opportunity to probe at possible Israeli vulnerabilities.

Lest we forget, we are talking about an organisation that has cynically played upon the heartstrings of the world's media. Accusations that Hamas have prevented the injured from being evacuated in order to generate more martyrs demonstrate that all that matters is the ability to generate undeserved sympathy whilst blackening the reputation of the Israeli people in the eyes of neutrals beyond the region.

But enough of the context. What are my thoughts on how to proceed? Any successful attempt to combat terrorism is based on an effort to deny oxygen to terrorist movements, to cut off the flow of new recruits, to isolate them from the communities they purport to fight for and, finally, to persuade communities that these people present a risk to their peace and security.

Such a campaign comes in three parts, political, moral and military. In the first instance, it is necessary to stop the bloodshed. Given the imbalance of casualties, it is perfectly legitimate to take obvious steps to achieve quick gains - one presumes that preventing the deaths of innocent civilians is a legitimate aim - and if cutting off the flow of armaments to Israel is one means of doing so, then I'm comfortable with that. If it requires a guarantee from the United States to defend Israel whilst the next stage proceeds, so be it.

A ceasefire secured, action is then required to build a meaningful civil society in the West Bank and Gaza. It means investment in infrastructure, in building a politically neutral military and police force, in developing independent media and genuine political parties founded on ideas and not hatred. By building up the Palestinian economy, citizens will develop an interest in maintaining peace. Here, I plead the example of Northern Ireland, where investment flourished and wealth increased accordingly after the bombing stopped.

Alongside this, work must be done to root out the terrorists. This is, perhaps, an opportunity for the Arab League to demonstrate their commitment to a two-state solution. Whilst a working civil society is being created, those within the community who seek peace need support to overcome those who believe in the bomb and the bullet. Whereas a wholly military answer is unlikely to succeed, an effective police action is far more likely to work. I believe that a contingent from other Arab nations could do the job effectively, if they are genuine in their willingness to find solutions. The European Union, if it can get its act together (and here I am less optimistic), can also play a major role.

The reward for compliance? More investment, both for Israel and Palestine. In the long run, both sides will be better off, better able to protect and nurture their citizens and, perhaps one day, normalise relations and work together for the good of all. Alright, that last bit might be a bit naive, but it does at least indicate that there is hope for a positive outcome. In return, the Israelis can address those issues which have so inflamed Arab opinion. Illegal settlements can be dismantled, the wall demolished where it lies in disputed territory - there can be no objection to a nation building a wall on its own border.

Establishing genuine peace requires a different mindset on the part of the two sides in this dispute. An eye for an eye has, so far, left both sides blind, and yet there are so many in both the Israeli and Palestinian communities who yearn for peace and a better life for their children. The regional powers and the United Nations have an opportunity to achieve something that has evaded us all for sixty years, and if preventing the Israelis, albeit temporarily, from shooting themselves in the foot is the price, then perhaps it is a price worth paying. Otherwise, we will, all of us, continue to suffer the costs of international terrorism and instability in a region that influences us all.

I will now return to your attacks on Liberal Democrat spokespersons and bloggers (and the two are not necessarily the same, I think we all agree). You rightly point out that one of our younger, more immature bloggers, Irfan Ahmed, rather let the side down with his objectionable use of the phrase 'the Jews'. It was therefore rather odd that you should choose to give his views a rather bigger platform than they might otherwise have had. For the record, I think that Mr Ahmed has a tendency to shoot first and think later, when provoked to do so. He has form, and I've taken no joy in pointing that out. I've done it anyway though...

And finally... yes, the reference to your political ambition was a cheap political attack on you. What on Earth did you expect though? To paraphrase a leading Conservative blogger, do you think Liberal Democrats should just sit back and accept that dozens of attacks every week will be fired onto our members, activists and elected representatives? Besides, you're the one who harps back to selections he didn't win...

Indeed, your rhetorical question invites the more extreme elements of the pro-Israel lobby to spread the slander that we are an anti-Semitic Party. It's bad enough that some of our members tend to be, to put it kindly, maladroit when discussing the Middle East, but you have been around long enough to remember the 'Zionism is Racism' debates of the mid-eighties, and the unpleasantness that infected campus life in particular at that time. So take care, Iain, because such debasement of the political currency for narrow political advantage hurts us all eventually.

Irfan, take a deep breath, count to ten and then blog...

I've been having a bit of an exchange with that Iain Dale over the past twenty-four hours, and will be resuming 'hostilities' shortly. However, I've had Irfan's contribution to the Israel/Palestine debate tossed back at me, so I had a look... and gosh, you really know how to pour paraffin onto a fire, don't you? And yes, I noticed your subsequent correction but really, what were you thinking?

So, you've offended homosexuals and Jews, planning to go for Catholics next?...

*holds head in hands in despair*

London Region: why building your strategy based on the views of four individuals is less than ideal

James Graham reports that Chamali Fernando, an aspiring Mayoral candidate for the 2012 London elections has apparently resigned her membership of the Liberal Democrats. In some ways, I regret that. I voted for her over Brian Paddick in the selection contest for our nomination last time because, whilst I expected him to win, I wanted Chamali to know that there were those of us who thought that she had real potential. However, what's done is done, and Chamali will doubtless find other theatres for her ambition.

Last November, at the Regional Conference, I was somewhat taken aback by the response given by the Chair, Denys Robinson, in reply to a questioner suggesting that we make the number one candidate on our Regional List for the London Assembly our Mayoral candidate. He stated that none of our three serving Assembly Members wanted to be our Mayoral candidate, and that our only declared aspirant Mayoral candidate (and here he named Chamali), didn't want to be on our Regional List.

Far be it from me to criticise Denys, but I see two problems here. Firstly, promoting a potential Mayoral candidate at a meeting of the Regional Party, if only by inference, potentially sent a message to other potential candidates that she was the 'anointed one' (and boy, doesn't that look stupid now...). Secondly, since when did the views of four people negate the possibility that a particular strategy might not necessarily be harmful to the Party as a whole?

There was perceived to be a chasm between our Mayoral campaign and that for the Assembly, and we need to find a way of linking the two more effectively. It might be that members across London think that the notion of our Mayoral candidate topping the Regional List is a good one, even if I have some personal doubts in terms of appropriateness. So we really need to put the matter to our members and let them tell us what they want us to do in their name.

Given that the number of people influencing our strategy is now just three, and that we're without any apparent aspirant to the position of Liberal Democrat candidate for London Mayor, perhaps we might like to revisit this?

On hearing from my local Labour representatives

Dear Councillors Crane, Moher & Moher,

I've lived in Kingsbury for about eighteen months now, in a Labour-held ward (Fryent) in a Labour-held constituency (Brent North). Curiously, on the new boundaries, Fryent is in fact the only Labour-held ward in the new Brent North (three wards are Liberal Democrat, the other five are Conservative - independents who defected from their Party excluded). So naturally, I would expect to hear more from my three councillors and my MP, Barry Gardiner, in an attempt to buttress their support in the ward.

But no, the silence has been fairly deafening. I did get a rather glossy four page A4 leaflet from Barry just before the 'General Election that never was' - on no, we had never considered the possibility of going to the country early, honest we hadn't - but from my councillors, nothing. Until this week...

I returned from Suffolk on Monday to find a lovely glossy A3 folded leaflet from Barry, including a calendar. Very nice, fairly high quality, nice range of pictures of Barry with various elements of the community. A bit light on what he's done since 2005, but not a bad effort.

This evening, I returned home to find a leaflet in my porch. It's a piece of A4 with a letter on the front and a questionnaire on the back, headed 'Fryent Councillors Survey Autumn 2008'. Not a great start that, is it? A closer look is clearly needed, so let's see what you have to say...

Dear Residents,

As your local Councillors we are writing to seek your help. Over the last few years we have met many of you and our records show that you might have indicated your support for the work we do in the ward on your behalf.

Don't think so, my friends. You haven't knocked on my door, put a leaflet through it to tell me what you've done, and even if you had, I'd hardly indicate my support for you. I'm the Secretary of the local Liberal Democrats... oh, and yes, my wife was a frontbench spokesperson in the House of Lords for the Liberal Democrats and is now Party President. Not obvious supporters, are we? Oh yes, and what work have you done? Oh, I forget, you haven't told me...

We are writing because we need your help with information, so that we can do our job more effectively. Your views are important to us and we would really appreciate a few moments of your time to answer a few questions for us.

And what, pray tell, is your job?...

Why do we need your help? Few people attend our surgeries so gathering information this way will help us represent your views and opinions. It will help us prioritise issues and gives us an indication of what your concerns are. It also indicates were the Council should be trying to improve its services and allocating resources.

Very nice, very indicative that your surgeries are pretty useless. Might that be because you don't run the council?

There follows a set of pictures of the three of you with your names and e-mail addresses underneath. Such a pity that two of you can't actually spell the name of the borough you serve. Brent isn't even that difficult, but if you (Jim and George) want me to write to you at cllr.jim.moher@bremt.gov.uk and cllr.george.crane@bremt.gov.uk respectively, then you're sending me a clear message that you don't care enough to even proof-read a brief letter. Given that Autumn was some time ago, you clearly don't care enough to deliver your missive to me promptly either...

So, let's turn to the questions...

What issues are important to you right now?

Local - list from 1 to 5, 1 being highest priority

• Street Cleaning
• Parks
• Education
• Local GP's
• Libraries

National - tick one

• Cost of Living
• Tax
• Crime
• NHS
• Jobs

Alright, a bit basic, but fair enough...

1. Do you use the internet?
2. Have you access to e mail?
3. Can we contact you using e mail with local information?
4. Would you visit a web site if it was just for local information?
5. My e mail address is ....
6. Would you like to meet us regularly to talk over local issues?
7. My phone number is or contact me at home.
8. Phone ..... Address .....
9. I have a concern but its not mentioned above - tell us more in the space below.

Ah, now all is clear. You don't actually care about my views, you're just making a blatant attempt to harvest contact information, especially e-mail addresses and telephone numbers, probably because you find it so difficult to deliver leaflets. And don't start me on the design qualities of your leaflet, or lack thereof. Oh, but don't worry, I'll be passing the document on to our Borough Organiser, as he needs a good laugh. If he produced something as hopelessly inadequate as this, I'd be wondering about finding a replacement.

If you want to engage with me, tell me what you've done and what you propose to do in the future, but please don't insult my intelligence with such a poor attempt as this. Ah well, at least the Conservatives aren't doing anything here either, so you might just get away with it...

Alas poor Iain, I knew him well...is Mr Dale intent on becoming a rather mangy attack dog?

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Iain Dale has accused our Party of being anti-Israel. What is a nice boy from North West London who started his political life in one of the country's most Jewish constituencies with a Local Party who used to spend much of their meetings talking about Prague before the war - because many of them appeared to have lived there - to do?

I've generally taken a pro-Israeli stance. I attended North Kensington Reform Synagogue for a number of years, an unusual shul by the very diversity of its membership and, in particular, its leadership, and those who know Beit Klal Yisrael will know exactly where I'm coming from when I say that. I'm far from being a knee-jerk Zionist but I start from the basis that an Israeli state free from fear of attack is an obligatory goal for any plan to 'resolve' the Middle East issue. The 1947 borders are sacrosanct, unless a swap of territory can make both an Israeli and a Palestinian state more secure and is agreeable to both sides.

So, if Iain is right, I should really be ashamed of my membership of the Liberal Democrats. Well no, not really. My support for Israel is not blind, and I am aware that a long series of ignoble decisions to ignore illegal building in, and occupation of, territory that would form an integral part of a Palestinian state have made peace much more difficult to attain. It is a very short step to understanding why the extremists on both sides have been able to so easily persuade enough people to take action which merely inflames those sections of their communities into supporting acts which they would otherwise condemn.

So, when Iain asks, "Are the LibDems Becoming the Anti-Israel Party?", I realise that all he is doing is taking part in the usual cheap shot attacks that discredit politics and demonstrate why his involvement in 'Total Politics' is a potentially double-edged sword in terms of its future success.

To suggest that the comments of an individual member of our group in the European Parliament are indicative of an anti-Israel stance in the Liberal Democrats is absurd, as absurd as suggesting that the alleged violent acts of a Conservative MP (Andrew Pelling) were indicative of a pro-physical violence stance in the Conservatives. For the record though, I'll note that I don't hold much truck with the approach that Chris Davies takes which, whilst mostly reflective of our Party's stance, places it in a context that many of us would find unfamiliar. Half of a story is not better than none, might I suggest?

Nick Clegg, in calling for a cessation of arms sales to Israel, touches on a sensitive issue. If you believe that a sovereign nation has the right to defend itself from attack, then Israel is within its rights to launch attacks on military targets within the Gaza Strip, indeed the United Nations Charter permits such acts. However, if you believe that the Israeli actions have gone beyond proportionate, and risk the deaths of too many innocent bystanders, then one way of preventing it is to prevent the supply of further armaments.

I've always taken the view that fighting conventional wars against terrorist organisations is fairly futile. They do not adhere to the Geneva Conventions, think nothing of using innocent civilians as shields for their attacks and, when attacked, are content to melt back into that very civilian population until another opportunity for terror appears. The Israeli government and military appear not to share my view, and the result is a level of civilian casualties that is being waved as a shroud to persuade Arab opinion of the evil of the Israelis. It isn't a hard sell.

In terms of cynicism, Hamas are hard to beat. They appear to be doing everything to maximise the impact of Israeli attacks, and suggestions that they have at times prevented the injured from being evacuated to Egypt indicate their desire to blacken the reputation of Israel regardless of the cost to individual victims. If the rocket attacks stopped, international pressure on Israel to stop its attacks would become impossible to resist but the number of 'martyrs' would also stop climbing and the radicalisation of Palestinian youth become that little bit more difficult.

So,by joining the calls for a ceasefire, and proposing action which might bring such a ceasefire closer, are Liberal Democrats taking an anti-Israel stance? No, I think not. Is it likely to be successful? Actually, I doubt it, but it is better to try than to do nothing. If anything, it's a bit idealistic, but what's wrong with a little idealism in a war-weary world?

I do despair of Iain sometimes. He has a first-class mind in a second-class political party, and if he concentrated on the argument rather than the partisan soundbite, would have even more of my respect than he does now. Or is he now so desperate to become a Conservative MP that he is willing to sacrifice his principles from time to time to achieve that? It may be naivety on my part, but wasn't politics once an honourable profession? Wouldn't it be better if someone whose opinions are taken seriously set an example? Over to you, Mr Dale...

Welcome to my freezer, sorry, home...

Ros and I have spent most of the past three weeks in Suffolk, and I have returned to London to find that my house is like a refrigerator. Odd really, because I could have sworn that I had set the timer on the boiler to come on twice a day, heating the house and boiling some hot water to prevent frozen pipes and the like.

It clearly hasn't worked because the temperature in my office (formerly the second bedroom) is akin to being outside. It really is very chilly... So I am reduced to drinking rakia and typing energetically to prevent hypothermia from setting in. Luckily, I've been busy setting in train a co-option for the position of General Executive Member for Liberal Youth.

I am the very model of a twenty-first century Returning Officer, so notice of poll has been by text message, with an e-mail to follow tomorrow morning (strike that, this morning...). The two candidates have been informed, and provided with contact details for the Executive (the electorate in this instance). Hopefully, I'll be able to declare a result in the early hours of Friday morning...

In other news, I've joined LiveJournal. I've found that not being to comment on blogs that use LiveJournal is a bit frustrating and whilst my blog is staying put on Blogger for the time being, who knows what the future holds?

Busy, busy, busy... and now I'm going to find something warm to drink...

What a way to run a railway...

I'll admit that I'm still hooked on the romance of trains. I'm not a train spotter, one class 47 locomotive looks very much like any other, but I enjoy train travel. The news over the past few days has rather depressed me though.

First, the fare increases. Now I'd be the first to accept that there is a case for investment in Britain's railways. However, given that I, along with my fellow citizens, pay more for my fares than my European counterparts, 6% plus is an awful lot to be asking for, especially when most of us will be lucky to get a third of that as our pay rises this year. And of course, that's just the minimum rise, with unregulated fares increasing by as much as 11%.

In their defence, Michael Roberts, of the Association of Train Operating Companies, said Monday's increases were partly because taxpayer funding was being reduced. He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Fare changes this year will help pay for 265,000 extra services, all against a background which is determined by government policy to reduce the call on us as taxpayers."

The fare changes "actually in our view strike the right balance between trying to ensure a reasonable level of increase to fund in return much improved services," he added.

Now, that may be the argument, but why doesn't it appear to be borne out by the facts. As regulars readers know, I have the pleasure of using National Express East Anglia, who have recently removed the restaurant car service from their trains on the London to Norwich route. Is that a much improved service? I think not. Better still, they have now announced that, following a review of their operations, they are cutting 350 jobs in an attempt to enhance customer satisfaction and provide a better service. A better service with less people? Yes, and I'm a monkey's uncle...

Elsewhere, there are reports that hundreds of station ticket offices will close or reduce their opening hours. Passengers will have the alternative of using call centres or the Internet. How the elderly, those needing extension tickets or anyone who has difficulty in wading through the maze of fare structures and restrictions are meant to cope is beyond me. One might almost suspect that they really don't want ordinary people to ride on their trains.

Naturally, if off-peak passenger numbers fall, the Train Operating Companies will use that as an excuse to cut off-peak services. It is high time that Government uses its powers to demand a genuinely fair deal for passengers, and ensure that we get a better return on our investment. I do not see why we should enable private enterprises to make huge profits from an effective monopoly, and especially when it is taxpayer money that is used to maintain and upgrade key rail infrastructure.

The Conservatives have no right to whinge, as it was all their fault that we ended up with such a complicated structure, fit only for lawyers and accountants, that actually makes innovation and service enhancement more difficult than it was in the days of British Rail. And isn't that just saying something?

At least Norman Baker is getting rightly indignant about it...