Cameron hammers another nail in Tory Euro-coffin

Courtesy of Catherine Bearder...

David Cameron has ordered Tory councilors to abandon their political allies in Europe.

Just months after the Tories abandoned their allies in the European Parliament to side with extremists, racists and homophobes on Europe's political fringe, David Cameron has damaged his party's last remaining influence in Europe by ordering Tory councillors to leave their grouping on the Committee of the Regions*.

Thanks to David Cameron, South East Tory councillors Gordon Keymer and David Shakespeare, who sit on the Committee of the Regions, will now be forced to sit alone and isolated. The Conservatives' ability to work for their constituents will be severely restricted and they will have little or no influence on the decisions that the Committee takes.

Former councillor and Euro MP for South East England, Catherine Bearder, said, "the Tories have shown once again that they cannot serve Britain's interests in Europe. They are so far from the mainstream that they can neither fit into one of the big groups nor find enough friends to form their own. As local councillors on the Committee of the Regions they could have had a key role in forming local policy that would help people in our region."

"How can they defend Britain's interests in Europe if they have so few friends they're unable to form a credible alliance? This is humiliating for a party that aspires to be the governing party of one of the largest member states."

"This is just the latest step in David Cameron's ongoing campaign to isolate Britain in Europe: a campaign that damages Britain's national interest."

"Once again the Tory leadership has put party dogma ahead of the best interests of the people of South East England."

Return to West Berkshire

Just over two years ago, Ros and I went to Newbury to attend the South Central Regional Conference, where I got to chair a leadership hustings under somewhat unexpected circumstances. This time, I wasn't expecting anything like as much drama... This was good, because I'd been somewhat out of sorts following the events of Thursday.

Having made my way to our hotel, we were collected by local PPC and, of course, former MP for the constituency, David Rendel. 

Interesting fact - I have now been driven somewhere by three leadership candidates. They all lost.

David whisked us off to the Downlands Branch annual dinner, an event which has built up over many years until it is now, effectively, the constituency's alternative annual dinner, raising hundreds of pounds each year for local campaigning. I don't know a lot of people in Newbury, although Chris Marriage, the branch chair, is a fellow member of the Returning Officer fraternity.

The food was handled on a cafeteria basis, whereby you went to a row of tables, were served, and retreated to your table. A choice of fish pie, goulash or vegetarian lasagne, with all of the trimmings, could be accompanied by real ale (the sine qua non of Liberal Democrat catering). All in all, very good indeed.

I went easy on dessert, against all of my natural instincts. However, if anyone knows who made the raspberry mousse, do tell them that it was worth the journey on its own...

A manifesto for 'Unlock Democracy' - vote me for Council!

An incumbent member of Unlock Democracy’s Council and Management Board, professionally I am a civil servant. Outside work, I am an active Liberal Democrat, serving as Secretary of the party’s East of England Region. I first became interested in electoral systems and voter participation in the mid-eighties, and have spent the intervening years administrating and improving our internal party democracy. I live in Creeting St Peter, Suffolk, where I am a parish councillor, with my wife Ros, and two cats, Katherine and Cincinnati. My blog, ‘Liberal Bureaucracy’, is apparently the 106th most influential political blog in the UK.

I offer myself for re-election to Council because I believe deeply that our nation’s democratic structures alienate the public from those who claim to represent them. We need to encourage people to engage with those bodies that serve them, to design and promote methods to allow that.

The best way to change things is to campaign, to make the case, and to do the best we can as an organisation with the means at our disposal. The role of Council is to provide guidance to our hard-working and politically savvy staff, to help them in their work, and to develop a strategy for future campaigning that reflects the interest of members and the needs of our country.

I’m not a political scientist, or a professional campaigner, just someone who cares. I bring the financial and organisational skills of someone who has worked in financial administration for nearly a quarter-century, and the political knowhow gleaned from a similar length of time working on the nuts and bolts of internal party administration.

So, your first preference would allow me to continue, and to do my best for ‘Unlock Democracy’ and, indirectly, our country. Thank you for ‘listening’…

You learn something every day... the unauthorised cut

Alright, playing with sticklebricks done, what have I learned?

The answer shouldn't have surprised me. If you find someone utterly incapable of doing their job, take them out and, presuming you can't sack them, make them responsible for quality control. In improving the quality by removing the main cause of error, you reduce their new role to one of trying to look busy and justifying their existence, none of which does any positive harm to the product. Eventually (hopefully) someone will discover that they serve no useful purpose, merely to depress the profit margin, and let them go.

I'm not sure that this was the intended lesson though.

In addition, I learned the trainers have no sense of irony, local management need a refresher in basic ethics, and that an autonomous collective with a grasp of the public service ethos is better equipped to deliver than the structure I currently operate within.

I don't think that I was suppose to learn that either...

Finally, I was reminded that there is greater joy and personal satisfaction in seeing a task through from beginning to end, taking personal responsibility for your own successes and failures and delivering what your customer needs than in being a anonymous, soulless operative standing next to a conveyor belt.

And boy, I definitely wasn't supposed to learn that...

Lift that sticklebrick, tote that... other sticklebrick

Of course, work as a civil servant isn't all tea drinking and paper shuffling. Sometimes, we get exposed to the latest in management consultancy. I say latest, although these fads only tend to reach us just as they become totally discredited in the all-seeing, all-knowing private sector.

Today is a case in point. The latest 'this will be our future' concept is something called Pacesetter, which introduces the production line ethos into our activities. As part of its introduction, I will undergo training in 'the Pacesetter Way', which sounds a bit like a bureaucratic version of Eastern martial philosophy, designed to improve efficiency and ensure consistency. Unfortunately, it does not appear to allow for a shred of humanity, discretion or judgement. We will, it appears, have 'ordnung'.

The training today revolves around the simulation of a production line, where we will build, on instruction, a widget made out of different coloured sticklebricks. The comments of my colleagues who experienced this yesterday do not inspire confidence in the value of the exercise, one of them suggesting that this was the biggest waste of time he had encountered in his career. We'll see about that...

There is a sense that management consultants can do what managers can't, i.e. change things, which saddens me somewhat. Good management does not need the support of consultants, and one might almost suspect that senior management have given up on their local subordinates. Introduce rigid, process-mapped procedures, and you create a structure where managers merely gather data and report back, rather than inspire, lead and develop their staff.

As a short term fix, it will doubtless work, at least until the next crisis. In terms of building the Civil Service of the future, I have a sense of dread and foreboding...

Thoughts from the Train: Proportional Representation is for life, not just for St Valentine's Day

The first signs of spring are beginning to appear in Creeting St Peter and, unfortunately, have received something of a frosty reception from Mother Nature. However, as the days lengthen, things are definitely beginning to stir.

And yes, that precursor of Spring, St Valentine's Day, is approaching fast, so one shouldn't be surprised if the thoughts of politicians turn to romance. This year, the Liberal Democrats appear to fulfil the role of back-up prom date, who need to be kept sweet in case they're needed.

The Conservatives came early, attempting to convince us that they are liberal conservatives, and that we, or at least our supporters, should be whisked off of our feet with the sheer intoxication of hearing someone use the word 'liberal' without immediate derision. Unfortunately, the charge sheet for crimes against liberalism was available on the internet and they were sent off with a flea in their ear. It did cause Labour to gird their loins though. After all, they really do need us.

And so, wearing a suit that had been lurking in the back of the wardrobe since 1997 (and even then looked a mite slick and was, in any case, designed for someone rather slimmer), Gordon turned up on the doorstep with a rather wilted bouquet of flowers labelled 'Alternative Vote'. He didn't really want to be there anyway, but his friends insisted. It would be easy, wouldn't it? Liberal Democrats would be so pitifully grateful for any attention that they would melt before his manly charms.

Unfortunately, the reception he got was rather frosty. Far from being grateful, the focus of his intention remembered that the guy who wore the suit first time has promised a rose garden. The fact that it turned out to be a desert with a really good mirage had been a cause of some heartbreak, and memories were still long.

Gordon was confused. "Why don't they love me, I'm offering them what they wanted. I'm not like phony Dave!", he cried. And that is the crux of his problem. Dave gets us, but his mad aunt and uncle in the attic get terribly upset if he's seen with us. Besides, his mate Eric creeps us out. Gordon doesn't get us at all. "Why don't they join us?", he asks, an anti-pluralist to his badly chewed fingertips.

I suspect that, like two suitors hoping that their pasts won't catch up with them until after the ceremony, we won't have seen the last of the Ugly Sisters. However, if they're hoping to consummate a relationship, they'll have to try harder. I think that we can count on a couple of Valentines next weekend though...

Labour's decision to get off the electoral reform fence welcomed

Welcoming the news that MPs will be asked to debate an amendment to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill to enable a referendum to be held on changing the electoral system to the Alternative Vote, director of Unlock Democracy Peter Facey said; 

We welcome the fact that the government has, at last, come off the fence on this issue.  A manifesto commitment to a referendum on electoral reform without legislation to back it up would have been an empty gesture, especially given Labour's track record in reneging on such pledges in the past.  We regret however that the system on offer has been handpicked by ministers rather than as a result of a deliberative process involving the public and we are concerned that they have not left themselves with enough time to ensure this Bill receives Royal Assent before Parliament is dissolved.

Unlock Democracy will continue to make the case for a proportional electoral system. The Alternative Vote system is not a proportional system, although it does offer greater choice for the voter and will require all MPs to acquire the support of at least half of their constituents. It is a step in the right direction but what we need is a system that reflects the votes cast across the country. We now live in a multi-party democracy, as chosen by the voters over successive elections, but our system does not reflect that. "

The Conservatives are now the only party committed to maintaining the existing, broken, first past the post voting system. Their continued failure to embrace the need for electoral reform damages the credibility of their claims to be a party of 'change'. After years of scandal and voter alienation, we simply can’t go on like this."

Cold, late, another typical day on National Express East Anglia

Up to the big city on the 8.29 from Stowmarket this morning, and I arrived at the station only to discover that it was running ten minutes late. Not a great start but I'm a stoical soul and waited patiently for it to arrive.

Eventually, it arrived and I took my seat. It was, I noticed, a bit chilly in coach F, and I was wondering why when the guard turned up to check my ticket and advised that the heating had failed. I could, he suggested, move to another carriage. Unfortunately, as NXEA had failed to put out the reservation tickets, it was impossible to tell which seats would subsequently be occupied, so I stayed put.

I have already noted NXEA's apparent desire to make the travelling experience as depressing as possible, and on a morning when the temperature is sub-zero, sitting in a cold carriage for one-and-a-half hours is not fun. At least I hadn't paid for a first class ticket, as one of those carriages had no heating either.

Normally, I would accuse them of wanting to sell more hot drinks at £1.75 a throw. However, the announcement that they were unable to sell hot drinks and food at the cafe bar indicated that they aren't competent to do that either. If it hadn't been for the fact that the urn on the trolley service was working, I might have frozen to death. At least Lorain, who works the trolley, was friendly and efficient. I wonder if she might run our service instead - she couldn't possibly do a worse job.

Oh, and I nearly forgot, we arrived a mere eighteen minutes late. Not late enough to apply for a partial refund though...

Unveiling the new Conservative Shadow Chancellor... Vicky Pollard!

The weekend's reports that the Conservatives are rowing back frantically on the subject of cutting public spending are just another sign that they haven't really got a grasp on how to run an economy. Alternatively, you could argue that it's a sign that they haven't got a clue about how to win an election other than keeping their fingers crossed that Labour will continue to find new and interesting ways to shoot themselves in the foot.

As I noted last month, cutting public spending isn't that easy. If it were, everyone would do it. It isn't necessarily popular either, at least when specifics have to be announced. Everyone is in favour of less public spending, with the criticial exception of those aspects they benefit from. And in the face of a slight drop in Conservative support, the Conservatives have wavered.

"Public spending cuts, Mr Osborne?"

"Yeah but no but yeah but no but..."

The dance of the three main parties on public spending has been quite enlightening. Labour started off denying that cuts would be necessary and then backtracked as it became clear that the concept of reducing debt was a popular one. The Conservatives started by calling for major, rapid cuts (quite popular) then realised that they couldn't really think of anything that would make a difference and not be unpopular. Seemingly, only the Liberal Democrats have adopted a position and stuck to it for longer than six weeks. Hopefully, that situation will continue.

The Conservatives are so close to power that they can almost taste it. The worrying thing is that, if they get it, they are still no closer to working out how to pay the nation's bills. It's kind of scary, when you think about it...

'Liberal Bureaucracy' numbers for January 2010

Yes, it's February already, and as this seems to be something that allows people to judge if this blog a success, and is entirely objective, here are the figures for January...

• 2210 visits, up from 1462 last month (a 53.9% improvement on last month) but down from 2262 in January 2009 (a 2.3% fall)
• £0.73 of advertising revenue, up from £0.40 last month (a 82.5% improvement!) but down from £1.58 in January 2009 (a 53.8% improvement).

I'm now expecting to qualify for my first cheque from Google Adsense in February 2012...

A moment of regret on behalf of an 'enemy'

I generally find it easier to dislike an idea or an organisation than an individual, especially as most people have redeeming features when dealt with on their own. And so one can sympathise when things don't go according to plan.

I ran into Iain Dale at the weekend at the celebration of the life (so far, he's not dead!) and works of Duncan Brack. He would have had every excuse for being a little glum after the news that he hasn't been shortlisted for Suffolk Coastal (didn't I say that he would apply?), but turned out for a friend. I told him that I was personally sorry to hear his news, especially as he would have been a good fit for the seat.

It isn't entirely lost for him now, although Conservative selection rules place tremendous power in the hands of the Party Chairman, Eric Pickles, for any selections still to take place. I can only hope that he hasn't burnt any bridges there...

Nonetheless, for the right seat, an old-fashioned liberal(ish) Tory like Iain would go down well. And if Eric Pickles is reading this, and Tim Yeo does stand down (as is rumoured), South Suffolk might just be that seat.

Thank you Ryan...

Small teething problem with the blog feed over the past few days. Not being in any way technological apt, I puzzled for a while before e-mailing Ryan, the Lib Dem Blogs founder.

He very graciously referred me to the FAQ section, noting that I was using Feedburner (which is a bit rubbish, it seems). I hadn't been aware that I was but, finding a moment, I went into Blogger and discovered that, indeed, there it was. it was the work of a second to remove it, and now all is well.

Good, isn't he?

Alistair Carmichael - I don't know what he does to the enemy but...

Given that Alistair is marking Up Helly Aa, I thought it might be nice to add a picture.

This is, I am told, Alistair. Now, if he were to turn up in Parliament looking like this, I think that we might be taken more seriously...

Tax code problems: a message from HM Revenue & Customs

As a public service announcement, and because it's rather embarrassing...

Annual coding: multiple or incorrect tax code notices

HMRC has recently introduced a new National Insurance and PAYE system and is using it to issue notices of tax coding for the first time. The new system creates a single record for customers and this, together with increased automation, is resulting in many more people having more accurate codes than before.

The transition to the new system has, however brought to light discrepancies in our existing records and this is resulting in a number of incorrect notices being issued. The vast majority of notices will be correct but there will be cases where, because the data carried over from our old systems does not match employers’ data, some people receive an incorrect coding notice or more than one coding notice for the same employment because of these discrepancies. This is a transitional issue caused by data mismatches, rather than an IT issue and will be resolved once we have cleared these from the system.

We are aware of the issue and apologise for any inconvenience caused. There is plenty of time to put the codes right before the start of the tax year and we are doing everything we can to rectify the position and ensure no-one pays too much tax when the new tax year starts in April.

However, anyone who is concerned that their code may be wrong should check it using the guidance included with the code and on our website. If customers cannot resolve their query, they can telephone 0845 3000 627 so we can ensure the right tax code is applied in time for the start of the new tax year on 6 April 2010.

Click here to find out more information about your PAYE Coding Notice.

So, what does a Regional Secretary do?

I admit that, in my second incarnation in the role, I have been obliged to ponder this somewhat. Whilst in London, the role was quite a traditional one, minuting, Executive servicing and the like, in East of England things are rather different.

Again, I have a Regional Administrator to work with, but this time Lorna does the constitutional bits, leaving me, at least as far as the Constitution is concerned, without much to do. On the other hand, I've received more e-mail seeking advice in my first month as I did in all my three years in London. In a more widespread Region, e-mail is clearly more important in the absence of potential face-to-face contact.

There is a role beginning to emerge, it seems. Firstly, the Regional Constitution. Someone needs to know how it works, who is responsible for what and how the different parts of the Regional Party interact, and that someone is going to be me.

Liaison with the wider Party is next. The Region feeds into English Council and to the English Council Executive, who decide upon the level of membership fee rebate we get (as well as that for Local Parties). I should also keep in touch with my opposite numbers in other English Regions to see what they're up to, and if there are any issues of mutual interest. Information gleaned can be disseminated across the Regional Executive and beyond.

Process consultancy for Local Parties is another likely source of work. What to do if, for example, you have candidate selection issues for local elections, dispute resolution, who to talk to for what. It mostly resembles being a village switchboard operator on one of those old exchanges, sticking jacks into holes.

There will doubtless be more as the job unfolds, but in the meantime, I'll be busy enough, trying to manage the flow of communication in and out. Any questions, you know where to find me.

Come one, come all, to the inaugural Conference of Suffolk Liberal Democrats!

Yes, Suffolk Liberal Democrats are holding our first ever County Conference, on Saturday, February 27th, at the Henley Community Centre, Henley, Ipswich IP6 0QX, starting at 10 a.m.

"Getting Our Message Across"

The event will feature discussion of the General Election, the likely result of Local Government Review, plus opportunities to discuss education, waste disposal and the NHS in Suffolk, all issues of keen interest across the county. The Conference will be attended by our Prospective Parliamentary Candidates and attendees will be able to learn more about plans for the campaign ahead.

With networking and training, and a keynote speech from Andrew Phillips (Lord Phillips of Sudbury), this should a lively way to launch a season of campaigning in the run-up to key elections.

For more information, and a registration form, contact Martin Redbond, the Secretary of the Suffolk County Co-ordinating Committee, contact details available at the Regional Party website (look under forthcoming events).

Cincinnati and the Veterinary of Doom

In all honesty, Cincinnati has been in decline for some time. A combination of thyroid trouble, gradual renal failure and a benign but growing tumour at the base of his tail has slowed the old boy down (he's about 84 in human years).

Last Christmas, he was so fragile that we were convinced that he didn't have long left. However, the permanent move to the country last summer seemed to give him a new lease of life, as he prowled the garden,  visited polling stations, and generally pottered about like an old codger.

However, his various ailments haven't got any better, and the muscle loss caused by his renal problems has made him rather wobbly on his pins, and it can only be a matter of time. And so, when he appeared to stop eating and, more alarmingly purring (and he really does purr, as anyone who has met him will testify), it seemed like the moment had come to take him to the vet to be put to s-l-e-e-p, and with a heavy heart, I booked the appointment.

Naturally, as the week progressed, he perked up a bit, but given his general state of health, we went ahead with the consultation, to get a sense that we were doing the right thing (or not). The vet was most understanding, explaining that, in his view, it was a matter of weeks in any event. I steeled myself to do the deed and then, in the way only Cincinnati can manage, he sat up, looked at me and purred.

I couldn't do it. The vet suggested a steroid injection, quite popular with ageing cats as it gives them a bit of a boost, and so, injected with a pick me up, we brought him home. As a treat, Ros drove back whilst I sat in the front seat, cat over my shoulder looking out of the window like an old codger on an outing.

Clearly, Cincinnati is going to be one of those slightly anarchic heroic figures, clinging on to the edge of the cliff with one paw, flicking v-signs at the fates with another. Within an hour of getting home, he'd scrambled onto the dining table in the conservatory to eat the remains of the smoked mackerel we'd eaten for lunch. He seemed to enjoy the roast chicken with gravy we prepared for him too...

Have Regional website, will inform

I find myself with a Regional website to 'play' with, that of the East of England, and put my first piece of information on it last night, notice of the inaugural Conference of Suffolk Liberal Democrats.

However, there appear to be a myriad number of ways in which I could make it more useful, details of by-elections, local party events, regional training sessions, links to Parliamentarians, the list goes on. I am, at heart, keen to enable.

So, gentle reader, especially those of you in the counties of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, what would help you? Let me know via the comments box or via the website...

Receiving Department, 3 a.m.

Perhaps it's just me, but in Ros's absence, I tend to revert to my underlying night owl self. It is somewhat unreasonable to inflict such a pattern on others, but I tend to be most effective in the early hours of the morning.

Musings on the Federal, English and Regional Constitutions, issues regarding Local Parties, amendments to the Regional website, all of these things can be done without interruption, and I can (eventually) sleep with a sense of achievement.

So, if you get an e-mail from me at 3 a.m., it's because I've finally found time to read what you sent me. And no, I'm not particularly overworked, it's just that my head is clear of distractions...

Musings on Conservative thinking, am I being a bit unfair?

I have been quite harsh on the Conservative policy announcements of late. I have not been, in that sense, even-handed, because I've tended to leave Labour alone. Admittedly, there are plenty of people tearing their proposals apart, but it does look like an omission on my part. So let me explain...

I am, at heart, a free trader, a believer in personal responsibility, an opponent of the nanny state. I believe that we, as a nation, have created a system of government that is fixated on monitoring of delivery rather than delivery of outcomes. You would think that I am an obvious candidate for being lured by the Conservatives. And yet I am not. Why is that?

Put simply, because I do not perceive that Conservative policies support and encourage freedom for all. Yes, they talk a good game about freedom, but there always seems to be a razorblade in the candyfloss. On tax breaks for married couples, for example, they seek to tell us that marriage is the best background for child rearing. Tell that to the two victims in Edlington. And no, I'm not claiming that being raised in any other type of family environment would have been better, an assertion impossible to prove and equally judgemental.

Oh yes, there is no such thing as absolute freedom for all. In a just society, with freedoms come the obligation to respect the freedoms of others, and government is there to establish the framework within which we take the opportunities to make of ourselves what we will.

And I acknowledge that there are elements of policy within all political parties that are contradictory, an inevitability given that, by its very nature, a political party is the sum of its disparate parts. However, I am a believer that society is in itself a compromise, and that most decisions involve a balancing of competing freedoms, often quite a difficult one.

So, Conservative-minded readers will be thinking, why Liberal Democrat? I suppose that it comes down to an optimism that people are basically decent, responsible, law-abiding, reasonable, tax-paying, sensible, honest, decent... (oops, gone a bit 'Pub Landlord' there). Most people can be trusted to adhere to the basic rules that make societies work. And whilst I might not agree with every dot and comma of Liberal Democrat policy, I still believe that the Party is the one most likely to deliver the society I want to live in.

That said, if my Party is not in government, I want the Party that is to display some sense of philosophical coherence other than "we want to get elected". At the moment, Conservative pronouncements are long on aspiration, short on delivery mechanisms. Time is running out, ladies and gentlemen, and the country deserves better...

House of Lords reform and the Conservatives - an example of self-interest when it really matters

The news that the Conservatives are proposing amendments to the Constitutional Reform Bill, removing the clauses that remove the final tranche of hereditary Peers from the House of Lords, should really come as no surprise, given that most of the remaining ninety-two are Conservatives. However, there is an element of logic to it.

Firstly, a declaration of interest (or two). I am married to a member of the House of Lords, for those who don't know me (and there will be some). In addition, I am a member of the Management Board of 'Unlock Democracy', who run a campaign to elect the Lords. And yes, I can see the contradiction there...

At the moment, the Lords is fairly evenly balanced. Labour are the largest party, with the Conservatives not far behind. The Liberal Democrats hold the balance between the two with a bit to spare. The cross-benchers very rarely coalesce behind one position, being notionally independent (that isn't always so, but there you go), and the Bishops don't vote that much, unless on moral/ethical issues.

However, strip out the hereditaries, and it becomes much easier for Labour to get legislation through the Lords, something which does exercise them. Under Tony Blair's relatively enlightened leadership, Labour tended to seek a balance of forces, rather than a majority, and there would, probably, have been a deal whereby Conservative Peers would be nominated to fill the gaps in their ranks. Under Gordon Brown, a much more partisan figure, that likelihood is more illusory.

Yes, under an incoming Conservative administration, David Cameron could appoint a whole tranche of new Peers, but it would serve to demonstrate that he doesn't have any intention of reforming the House of Lords - and given the indications that any such reform would be a 'third term priority, shorthand for never - and would be contrary to talk of democratic renewal. So, opposition to the Constitutional Reform Bill makes sense, at least from the perspective of Conservative self-interest.

There is also some irony in the proposals, as the hereditaries who remain in the House of Lords are the only ones with any democratic mandate at all, given that they had to fight a contest to be amongst those who remained after the first round of reforms. Some have been elected through the rather bizarre system of by-elections. All of them actively want to serve, and their attendance record and levels of participation are pretty good.

However, when all is said and done, the only real solution to the question "what to do with the House of Lords?" is proper reform, with an elected second chamber, open lists and all that goes with that. I'm not seeing a rush towards that by the reds or the blues...

Ballot result: Vice Chair Membership Development of Liberal Youth

Enough votes having now been cast to ensure that the result can be clearly determined, it gives me great pleasure to announce that Patrick Elsdon has been selected for co-option.

Paddy will perform the duties of Vice Chair Membership Development until elections take place to fill the position for the unexpired part of the current term, these being scheduled to take place next month.

My commiserations go to Thomas Hemsley who, on this occasion, was unsuccessful.

Ballot result: Vice Chair Communications of Liberal Youth.

Enough votes having now been cast to ensure that the result can be clearly determined, it gives me great pleasure to announce that Joe Rinaldi-Johnson has been selected for co-option.

Joe will perform the duties of Vice Chair Communications until elections take place to fill the position for the unexpired part of the current term, these being scheduled to take place next month.

My commiserations go to Rich Wilson who, on this occasion, was unsuccessful.

And as the votes slowly trickle in...

Polling is now well under way for the three Liberal Youth Vice Chair co-options, and tension is mounting in anticipation of the results.

Interested parties should note that, following resignations, the 'electorate' consists of ten voters, and once any candidate reaches six votes, or less if abstentions arise, I will be announcing the result.

Ballot result: Vice Chair Campaigns of Liberal Youth

Enough votes having now been cast to ensure that the result can be clearly determined, it gives me great pleasure to announce that Matthew Folker has been selected for co-option.

Matthew will perform the duties of Vice Chair Campaigns until elections take place to fill the position for the unexpired part of the current term, these being scheduled to take place next month.

Liberal Youth co-options update

Nominations for co-option as Vice Chairs for the period until 28 February are now closed, and the nominations are as follows:

Vice Chair Campaigns

• Matthew Folker

Vice Chair Communications

• Joe Rinaldi-Johnson
• Rich Wilson

Vice Chair Membership Development

• Patrick Elsdon
• Thomas Hemsley

Polling is underway in each of the contests, with the electorate restricted to the ten remaining members of the Federal Executive, and results will be published here as they come in.

As Returning Officer, I wish all of the candidates the very best of luck!

Liberal Youth: we have the technology, we can rebuild it

The process of filling the gaps at Liberal Youth is now well under way, with nominations now closed for the three vacant Vice Chair positions - Campaigns, Communications and Membership Development.

Despite being a bit distracted by other matters, I will be balloting the remaining members of the Executive Committee and, when any candidate has a clear majority of the available votes, I will declare a result. Electors will be able to vote by e-mail or text message - I am the very model of a modern Returning Officer.

Once this is done, attention will turn to the other vacancies. I'll provide a list of the runners and riders shortly...

When is a letter not a letter?

My piece for the Evening Standard yesterday was published in edited form, as a letter. Whilst that is, from a personal perspective, very gratifying, from the perspective of a reader, it might be somewhat confusing to find that, far from it being a spontaneous response to something that the correspondent has seen, it is a contribution actively solicited by the newspaper itself, a comment piece disguised.

On the positive, rather partisan side, it is good that Liberal Democrat views are being actively sought out - if only all media were the same. However, I always assumed that a letters page was an opportunity for ordinary members of the public to say their piece. That may be naive in an era of 24/7 news and a never ending need to find more material to put before viewers and readers, but it is a concept that one clings to as an element of a society which allows all to have their voice heard.

I should be flattered that someone read my blog, concluded that I can write coherently enough to be worthy of a greater audience, and approached me. I will, as a result, have reached a large audience, some of whom might conclude that what I have said makes sense, and might then be more inclined to consider voting Liberal Democrat.

And that can only be a good thing...

A letter to the Evening Standard and its evolution

So, what did I write, and what was actually published? The additions are in red.

Matthew D'Ancona makes a beguiling case for David Cameron and his "irreducible" faith in views on marriage. However, like marriage, it helps if you behave consistently, and I am not It is no surprised that he glosses over the fact that Mr Cameron was Norman Lamont's advisor when the decision was taken to first reduce the value of the Married Couple's Allowance in 1993. He didn't have such It clearly wasn't a deep-rooted belief then in the institution at that point.

Marriages last because both partners want to stay together, and it is hard to see how, in the midst of a recession, any government can justify spending money in an attempt to bribe unhappy people to stay put together. That £20 per week equates to an allowance of more than £5000 a year, and is unaffordable, as George Osborne acknowledges. Instead, Conservatives would be better off reforming the tax and benefits system to ensure that scarce funds are distributed according to need, not relationship status.

For example, he could support raising the personal allowance to £10,000 per year, so that it helps widows, the divorced and working single parents and not just people who behave in a manner he approves of. Unfortunately for him, that’s Liberal Democrat, not Conservative, policy.

I'm sorry that the last paragraph, promoting a policy that is uniquely Liberal Democrat, was left out, and I'm slightly embarrassed that I was described as a councillor (Parish Councillors only tend to use the honorific when acting on council business), but it is at least a contribution.

The whole affair does raise another question, but I'll look at that separately.

Read all abaht it! Lib Dem attacks Cameron on marriage tax break!

Well, news reaches me that my 200 words can be found on the letters page of tonight's Evening Standard. I'd better pick up a copy, hadn't I?

An apology to readers of Liberal Bureaucracy

In a piece posted earlier today, I described an image which may have caused some discomfort to my readers. Having further considered the idea of Matthew d'Ancona in a tight sweater, short skirt and pompoms, I would like to apologise to you all. I'll try not to do that again...

Matthew d'Ancona - kissing arse, and doing it badly

So, having let Josh have his 150-200 words, it's time to give some less sparing comment on what did Matthew d'Ancona actually wrote. To be honest, especially as Matthew seems so keen on not being so, I am astounded by the astonishing chutzpah that he calls upon in writing it. If Dylan Jones is a rather embarrassing cheerleader for 'Project Cameron', then Mr d'Ancona is equally guilty of donning the tight sweater, short skirt and pompoms in support of his man.

The first paragraph is an clear indication of the intellectual rigour that we can expect...

No less than Tony Blair, his occasional role model, David Cameron has an “irreducible core” of beliefs: convictions so close to his heart that they are non-negotiable. And none is more deeply-felt than his faith in marriage as the cornerstone of society. His belief in the institution is neither aggressive in character or puritanical in origin. But it is the hard kernel of his politics.

So deeply felt that he was one of the team who started the process of reducing the impact of the married couples allowance in the 1993 Budget - Chancellor of the Exchequer Norman Lamont, Special Advisor David Cameron. Did he indicate his disapproval then? Like hell he did...

So for Ed Balls to attack the Tory leader's plan to recognise marriage in the tax system as “hugely expensive and unfair”, as he did in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph, was an act of typically brazen aggression. The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families was ridiculing a policy that is as dear to Mr Cameron's heart as it is controversial: the Tory plan, Mr Balls said, was “designed to say that some types of families are first class, and other types of families are second class”.

I'm no friend of Ed Balls but on this occasion, he's right. If Conservatives believe that a family headed by a married couple is the ideal, then anything else is less than that. It isn't brazen aggression, it's a valid opinion. Or perhaps it is only acceptable for Conservatives to ridicule their opponents?

This week, the Government will publish its own green paper on family policy, while the Conservatives unveil the section of their draft manifesto on repairing the Broken Society. And in this case, the ideological “dividing lines” of which Mr Balls is so fond will be clear and unambiguous.

You'd better believe it, kid...

There are two quite separate questions to be posed about Mr Cameron's plan: would it work, and is it the right thing to do? Let us say that the tax break amounts to a £20 weekly boost for married couples. This sum is derided by those who forget how poor the poor truly are: the least affluent 10 per cent have a disposable income of less than £90 a week. So, for them, an additional £20 would be no small windfall.

No, they aren't separate questions at all. If the plan works, it is evidently the right thing to do. If it doesn't, it's the wrong thing to do. Since when was it right to waste billions of pounds to make a statement? At least this demonstrates that Matthew is less capable of running than the economy than George Osborne. Unfortunately, there are still too many people who are more so. 

£20 per week? What he means by disposable income can only be speculated at, but if you earn £4,500 per annum, you would fall below the income tax and NIC thresholds. Accordingly, the married couple's allowance wouldn't help you at all. And for it to be worth £20 per week, the allowance for a basic rate taxpayer would have to be £5,200. At its abolition in 1999/2000, it was worth £1,970 (at 10%, remember), or less than £4 per week. That represents about £6 per week now. Anyone would think that Matthew was plucking a figure out of the air. And of course, they'd be right, he is.

But let us be realistic: a tax break of this sort is not, in and of itself, going to drive millions of young people to church or the nearest registry office to tie the knot. That, indeed, would not be its purpose. Would it “incentivise” marriage? Possibly, though it would rarely, one imagines, be the clinching argument (“He married me for my tax break”). Instead, it would alter the message which claimants are given as they wander through the impenetrable thickets of the welfare system, encountering a series of signals and symbols freighted with meaning.

But surely the whole point is that it would influence behaviour? So, what is its purpose? What is worth spending so much money regardless of whether it justifies the expenditure?

At present, the message they take away is that the state is at best neutral and at worst actively hostile to marriage. The Married Couple's Allowance introduced by Nigel Lawson in the 1988 Budget was restricted in scope by Norman Lamont and Kenneth Clarke and finally abolished by Gordon Brown in 1999, replaced by an elaborate system of tax credits. And the perverse consequence of the credit structure has been the so-called “couple's penalty” — the price a couple pays for staying together.

And, lest we forget, David Cameron. If you're such a fan of young Dave, why don't you bother to find out what he was doing in 1993? Oh yes, I forget, you're a fan. But don't worry, I did the research for you. It took less than five minutes but you're probably paid by the word rather than by the hour, so I perfectly understand why you didn't.

According to calculations based on figures published by the Department for Work and Pensions, for instance, a family earning about £35,000 a year would be better off by £186 a week if the parents split up.

Is this figure as reliable as the £20 per week you quoted earlier? The calculation is based on figures published by the DWP? Did you get someone to hold the calculator for you?

There is no shortage of studies and anecdotal evidence suggesting a surge in divorce among the lower-paid since the new credit system was introduced. What is beyond dispute is that the present structure is antagonistic to marriage and incentivises separation: a status quo that is scarcely defensible. True, the old Married Man's Allowance, introduced in 1918, and the Married Couple's Allowance that replaced it 70 years later did not thwart the onward march of divorce. No single policy could possibly do that. But, since the MCA began to wither on the vine in the early Nineties, the process of social breakdown, particularly among the poorest in the inner cities, has gathered pace to a frightening extent. In such a context, it seems bizarre, to say the least, that the institution of marriage has no voice whatsoever in the system. Indeed, as far as the tax structure is concerned, marriage is invisible and irrelevant.

So, what does this tell you? That tax credits are damaging to social cohesion? Possibly, but so is a recession, changes in divorce law, the influence of celebrity divorces, the introduction of Independent Taxation in 1990... when for the first time, for tax purposes, a woman ceased to be considered a chattel of her husband. But seriously, if the gradual reduction in the value of the Married Couples Allowance is, as implied, linked to the process of social breakdown, that would be the fault of the people who cut it, right? So it's David Cameron's fault, correct? No? Should we review your statement again, or do you see the contradiction now?

But does that mean it is appropriate to reward marriage? “I have no desire to make windows into men's souls,” Queen Elizabeth I declared, and there is part of the British character that recoils from such measures as an invasion of privacy: some of Mr Cameron's closest colleagues feel similar qualms. Would the Tory plan be, as Mr Balls claimed yesterday, an improper attempt “to socially engineer family life”?

Improper? Not necessarily, if that is the sort of society you wish to promote. Social engineering has been at the heart of tax and benefit policy pretty much since taxes were first levied on an unwilling populace. So, what's the underlying principle, Matthew? What do you and David hope to achieve? 

To which the answer is: no more than every other nudge, wink and prod. The tax and benefits system is, by definition and intrinsically, a moral system, bristling with moral judgments and moral messages. Mr Brown's tax credit structure, for instance, has favoured work and lone parenthood. Thanks to a reform in 2005, gay civil partners may now claim the Married Couple's Allowance (as could heterosexuals already) provided one or more partners was born before 6 April 1935. In this instance, the system favours older gay couples over younger straights. No more or less than Mr Cameron's proposal, that reflects a moral position translated into a policy. If the Tory leader is, as Mr Balls claims, a “social engineer”, then so is he, the Prime Minister and every other member of this Government.

I agree, the tax and benefits system is a morals-based one. In the case of the Labour Party, the aim is to redistribute from those that have money, to those who do not, using heavily bureaucratic systems which take money away in tax, only to return the money in the form of credits. Matthew also likes to make tax fairness look bad, comparing young straight couples with old gay ones. Perhaps a fairer comparison is that of older couples against younger ones. The same allowance is available to all couples over the age of 65, so it isn't gender that is the 'discriminating factor', it's age. Older people have higher costs to bear, heating and utilities, personal care etc. Society has accepted that old people need to be protected, a fact that costs.

David Cameron was a Cabinet adviser during the “back to basics” debacle in 1993. He knows full well that all this is political kryptonite. A government that takes a stand on the desirability of marriage and rewards it in the tax structure is opening itself up to the most pitiless scrutiny. If his reform goes ahead, it will be quite legitimate for the media to ask deeply personal questions of Cabinet ministers that would presently be off-limits. Indeed, it is a measure of quite how much Cameron believes in this that he is willing to take that risk, to persist with what is going to be one of the biggest political rows of the coming years. Brace yourself for trouble and strife.

Oh yes, remind me again, who was he working for?... 

I'm sorry, but whilst I'm sure that David believes in it now, he also believes in winning, and without a price tag (come on George, you might not have that long to answer this one!), this smacks of populism without principle. Given that his colleagues are already rowing away from the sort of allowance that would genuinely make a difference, it's all just a pretty soundbite. And for those Conservative MPs with a skeleton in their closet, don't worry, you can only be thrown to the wolves once, unless of course you're a mate, in which case don't get caught next time...

An outside shot at the big league?

I got an unexpected telephone call yesterday, from a very polite young man at the Evening Standard called Josh, and I should confess that it took me a little while to get to grips with the idea that a newspaper would call me - it seemed improbable that any good would come of it. Yes, I'm married to a politician, so I'm painfully aware of what some journalists can do.

However, once I had gathered myself, he explained that he had read my posting on David Cameron and marriage, and wondered if I would be willing to respond to a comment piece published in their newspaper on Monday, written by Matthew d'Ancona. He had, very kindly, e-mailed it to me in case I hadn't read it. 150-200 words would be greatly appreciated, and I felt unable to resist. After all, the public act of blogging is related to a desire to have your voice heard, and the possibility of being published in a newspaper with a distribution, let alone readership, of 600,000... well, you should, shouldn't you?

So,with time of the essence, I came up with something and, possibly, maybe, it will be in today's Evening Standard. Then again, it might not be, I don't know yet. Given that the widest circulation publication I've ever written for was 'Liberator', this might be a bit of a leap into the dark.

Reviving a local tradition - Rogation Sunday

Here in Creeting St Peter, life has its cycles. Of course, being predominantly agricultural, there are the various harvests, plantings and what have you, the splash of vivid yellow as the oil seed rape flowers, the green to gold of wheat as it ripens. We also have our local traditions, such as the Christmas Eve carol service at St Peter's Church, with readings by various members of the community.

As the Parish Council, we feel that we have a role in encouraging these sorts of things, and so we resumed the tradition of laying a wreath to mark Remembrance Day last year, our way of reflecting the mood of our little community. I have to admit though, that when the question of Rogation Sunday came up, I was a mite perplexed.

Apparently, Rogation Days were set apart for solemn processions intended to seek God's mercy. That developed into a tradition known as 'beating the bounds' whereby the local minister, the churchwarden and the choirboys led the parishioners on a walk around the parish boundaries, with prayers for the protection of the parish in the year ahead.

The tradition lapsed in Creeting St Peter some dozen or so years ago, after the departure of the then local vicar, but our Parochial Church Council are keen to resume, so we'll be going for a bit of a stroll on 9 May. The fact that the A14 cuts the Parish in half, with only two crossing points, is a bit of a nuisance, but our District Councillor is contributing to the post-walk tea, and the countryside is pretty so, if you're in the area, why not join us...

Meaning well isn't good enough on education

I spent part of yesterday morning listening to Michael Gove outline the latest Conservative policy on teacher training. Luckily, my morning cup of tea was drained, otherwise I might well have spluttered most of it over the eiderdown.


In one sense, I see nothing wrong with the notion that teachers should be selected from the best candidates available, and that to aspire to the ideal that all teachers will have, at least, a 2:2 degree is fairly laudable. However, the idea that young people with good degrees are going to flock to the classroom because Conservative Party policy will make teaching easier, despite the relatively low salaries and societal lack of respect, demonstrates a worrying degree of either myopia or naivety.


The teaching profession is made up of, for the most part, the best of those that apply. Many of them are devoted to their charges, some do it because they couldn't think of anything else to do, others were probably never good enough but aren't bad enough to sack - just like most professions. There are even those who went into teaching for entirely altruistic reasons.


And that appears to be what Michael Gove is expecting. He compared salaries in other European countries (and South Korea) for good measure, noting that teachers in Finland or Germany get paid at the same level as teachers here. And whilst I suspect that the collapse in the value of sterling relative to the Euro hasn't helped those numbers, what I suspect he hasn't factored in is the level of salary relative to the wider national income distribution.


At the moment, I presume that recruitment into the teaching profession is relatively buoyant. In a recession, jobs that are perceived to be 'safe' are at a premium. However, as the economy improves, that will change, and it will become more difficult to recruit and retain teachers.


You see, it's a free market out there, one with a workforce less prone to seeking a career in one organisation, where aspirations are higher. Potential employees are likely to compare and contrast packages of salaries and benefits, and when you can earn £60,000, £100,000 and even more in the financial sector, with its impact on your prospects for housing - even now, a teacher's salary won't buy much in London - why teach?


Trust me, the answer isn't going to be "because Michael Gove asked nicely"... 

Hey, big spender!

It's the big night in Creeting St Peter, setting the budget of the Parish Council for 2010/11. Yes, I know, it's not as though we're talking about a vast sum here, approximately £40 per household, but it does matter.

I have agonised in the past about the effectiveness of small local authorities like ours, and reflected the local pride in doing small things well, and in representing the views of our residents. However, we as Parish Councillors are the frontline of citizen representation, so we'd better be competent, open and transparent.

There are some potentially enormous challenges for us in the year to come. Proposals for unitary government in Suffolk will open up a gulf between our village and the next tier of government and, whilst I have little positive to say about Mid Suffolk District Council, they do at least have a sense of what our issues are - unlike our district councillor, who rather relies on us to represent to her the views of the village - and are fairly responsive to them.

And so, three people, supported by our loyal and faithful Parish Clerk, will sit down this evening to agree a budget. Wish us well...

Do Conservative plans add up? What would Margaret Thatcher say?

I've been looking at Conservative plans for reducing public expenditure over the past week and, to be honest, I've not been particularly impressed. Admittedly, you might expect that - 'Liberal Democrat endorses Conservative spending plans' is particularly unlikely given who I am - but I'm genuinely disappointed by the timidity of these proposals. It's almost as though the Conservatives want not just power, but to be loved too. It's hard to imagine a Margaret Thatcher-led administration taking such a stance.

This is the phrase that prefaces the proposals on the Conservative Party website;

These are examples of specific savings that should be made in addition to the tens of billions of pounds of efficiency savings and productivity improvements that the Conservatives would deliver throughout the public sector over the next Parliament in order to reduce waste, deliver more for less, and protect frontline public services:

It has that uncertain element of 'it's government, it must be inefficient' to it. And, of course, there is an element of truth to that. However, there appears to be no question of why this is so. If there are tens of billions of efficiency savings and productivity improvements to be found, and it is so easy to do so, some of it would have happened by now. No government wants to spend vast amounts of money on waste and inefficiency, it wants to spend money on doing things.

Now I am no friend of this government. However, what I do know is that, since Labour gained power in 1997, I have personally experienced four major reorganisations, each one intended to achieve efficiency savings and productivity improvements. In HM Revenue & Customs, where I work, there have been a series of office closures, transfers of work away from the South East, the abolition of Regional offices, the introduction of mandatory e-filing of PAYE returns and, amongst all this, the loss of 20,000 staff. It is foolish to suggest that a concerted effort has not already been made to cut costs and improve efficiency.

The challenge therefore, for our Conservative friends, is to find out where further savings can be made through organisational and structural change. I would suggest that they would be better off trying to find things that Government need not do, as that's where the big savings are to be found.

Unfortunately, our blue friends are too busy trying to be loved to find time to talk about real cuts, about a rolling up of the State, about unshackling people from the nanny state. The debate about what the nation wants, what it needs and what it can afford is going to have to be started by someone else.

If Margaret Thatcher were dead, she'd be turning in her grave...

I'm no friend of Lady Thatcher, but at least you knew what she stood for.

91% punctuality? National Express East Anglia are having a giraffe!

Well, the performance statistics are out for January, courtesy of National Express East Anglia, and so, how have they done on punctuality?

• 78.2% for all routes
• 69.3% for mainline routes

Guess what I have to deal with?

What this means is that, to achieve their franchise target of 91%, they'll have to achieve 93% punctuality for the next eleven months. That is, to coin a phrase, so not going to happen.

Ah well, never mind...

Conservative proposals to reduce the deficit (part 7)

• Creating an Office for Budget Responsibility. We will create a new Office for Budget Responsibility to assess independently the sustainability of the public finances and hold the Government to account.

It wouldn't be a Conservative manifesto without something stolen from the United States. The US Office of Management and Budget states that its mission is;

to assist the President in overseeing the preparation of the federal budget and to supervise its administration in Executive Branch agencies. In helping to formulate the President's spending plans, OMB evaluates the effectiveness of agency programs, policies, and procedures, assesses competing funding demands among agencies, and sets funding priorities. OMB ensures that agency reports, rules, testimony, and proposed legislation are consistent with the President's Budget and with Administration policies.

In addition, OMB oversees and coordinates the Administration's procurement, financial management, information, and regulatory policies. In each of these areas, OMB's role is to help improve administrative management, to develop better performance measures and coordinating mechanisms, and to reduce any unnecessary burdens on the public.

Of course, we have something like this already, the National Audit Office. It isn't independent, but it is pretty effective.

However, if you want something independent, who decides who serves in it? How do they hold the Government to account (and in any case, isn't that the job of we, the people?) and what sanctions are there for a Government deemed to have failed?


I have been extremely critical of the Government's Fiscal Responsibility Bill, and this is another example of a political party without any confidence in its ability to do what is right, so much so that it has to be told what that is. And if it can't trust itself to do that, what can you trust it to do?...