London to Pula... by the pretty route

Last week, I mentioned my dilemma - how to get to Pula by as interesting a route as possible, given a series of limitations.

Jane Leaper kindly suggested;

Train or fly to Venice then seacat ferry to Pula.

If train: Eurostar to Paris and overnight sleeper to Venice.

although this did mean doing the Alps in the dark, which missed the point a little.

I did give more serious thought to the the Zurich/Innsbruck/Ljubljana route, but the fourteen minute connection in Salzburg was just too tight for my taste, so I've settled on the following;

• Lufthansa flight 4U2379, departing Stansted at 20:10, arrives Stuttgart at 22:35

• overnight at the Holiday Inn Express Stuttgart Airport

• S-Bahn 3, departing Stuttgart Airport at 09:08, arrives Stuttgart Hauptbahnhof at 09:35

• EuroCity 113, departing Stuttgart Hauptbahnhof at 09:58, arrives Zagreb Glavni at 20:55, via Ulm, Munich, Salzburg, Villach, Lesce-Bled and Ljubljana

• overnight at the Palace Hotel, Zagreb

• Croatia Airlines flight OU674, departing Zagreb at 14:10, arrives Pula at 16:00

Alright, it is a forty-six hour journey, but it will be a bit of an adventure. And adventure is good sometimes, isn't it?

Payday lenders: as the world catches up...

The sudden flurry of activity on the question of payday lenders is, I suspect, long overdue. The fact that borrowers can borrow from a range of such lenders with minimal, if any, cross referencing, means that such individuals can get into trouble very quickly.

Indeed, Ros raised concerns about payday loans as long ago as June 2010, amidst a wave of adverts for such services. I acknowledge that APRs are not a very effective tool for judging the impact of such loans, but the interest rates are significant. And the problem is that the people most likely to get into difficulties are those least likely to understand the implications of their actions.

You see, such loans are really only useful to those who encounter an unexpected one-off cashflow issue, and are not a solution for those consistently limping from pay cheque to pay cheque. If you're not taking, or not capable of taking, a medium or long term view of your finances, your vulnerability is obvious.

This creates a problem. If your aim is to protect the most vulnerable, the temptation is to ban such lending, or at least to restrict it significantly. If, on the other hand, you want people to take responsibility for their actions, you might leave things as they are, with a view that choice and freedom are good things.

So, we'll see how the lenders respond to the instruction from the Office of Fair Trading to get their act together in just twelve weeks. They'll certainly respond, business is just too lucrative, but watch out for the smoke and mirrors...

A clutch of certificates for me, as the qualifier heats up...

I'm now well into my core assessments as the long journey towards becoming a real life Inspector of Taxes is finally underway.

The training is the same, regardless of background, so we start with some basic skills - analytical thinking, communication and teamworking - as well as some basic tax knowledge - how appeals are handled, how HMRC is structured, as well as some simple legal premises. As an old man, relatively speaking, I've spent my career doing these things, so the online assessments shouldn't represent a particularly high hurdle.

There is a catch though. The pass mark is 70%, and you only get two tries. Multiple failure means that you get a one way ticket back to oblivion, and I haven't sat an exam since 1986. And people do fail... Luckily, I've been in pretty good form, with only one score below 90% to date, and, although one can't get carried away, my confidence is higher than it was when I started.

The vagaries of timing haven't helped. My target was to complete all ten assessments by 15 March, but I've lost time due to our pre-arranged trip to Cuba, and a day to go to Brighton. All of this means that I will end up sitting a test every working day at 3 p.m. until next Wednesday, leaving me two spare days if anyhting goes wrong. It isn't ideal, but my ability to read critically has helped, it seems.

And yes, I do feel a bit under pressure, but after a quarter-century of almost unbroken lack of ambition, it does feel a bit like a zoo lion would if you realised it into the Serengeti - slighty scary but intriguing at the same time. Hopefully, it won't be me helping the vultures to grow fat.
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

What does this Liberal Bureaucrat believe in? #libdemvalues

Why wait for someone to tag you, when you can just wade in?...

Technically, of course, as a bureaucrat, I should do this in 450 words, rather than 150, but, here is my especially personal take;

A liberal bureaucracy should bolster the freedom of the individual against the danger of an overmighty state.

It should respond, not react, to the established needs of the individual, enabling them to make informed decisions in their lives, participate in their society to the extent desired and take advantage of the full range of opportunities available to our society.

It should enable, rather than proscribe, protect, rather than abuse, and encourage, rather than place obstacles in the way of, innovation and diversity.

It should encourage imagination in problem solving rather than impose blunt conformity by its methodology, and should be prepared to justify the decision reached.

It should seek efficiencies such as to enable elected officials the widest possible range of options in making public policy, and be aware of the burden of compliance when designing processes, seeking to minimise it where possible.

Right, that's 142 words. I'll be damned if I'm going to conform...
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Ros in the Lords: Written Question - Parish Councils: Tax

I am, I admit, a bit annoyed, as Mid Suffolk District Council required three attempts to correctly calculate our council tax base this year, here in Creeting St Peter, and, as a result, the precept increase is much higher than we had planned. Given that we had already set our precept, and that the deadline for doing so had passed when the new figures became available, I wondered what effect this might have. Luckily, Ros was curious too...

Baroness Scott of Needham Market (Liberal Democrat)

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in the event of a parish council tax base being altered by the district council after the precept had been set, and the resulting percentage increase in precept exceeding the threshold for triggering a referendum, such a referendum would be required.

Baroness Hanham (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Communities and Local Government; Conservative)

Local precepting authorities are not included in the council tax referendum principles for 2013-14, which were approved by the House of Commons on 13 February 2013, therefore such authorities will not be required to hold a referendum for any precept increase relating to that financial year. No decisions have been taken on referendum principles in respect of subsequent financial years.

This was, I admit, a pretty stupid answer, as the question didn't refer to this year, but was exploring the underlying principle. We all know that we're excluded from the referendum provision this year, but as Eric (the menace) Pickles is holding the threat of future referenda over us, I'd like to know where we stand.

A liberal bureaucrat in search of adventure

I must admit that I do like the occasional adventure. Nothing particularly dangerous - I'm an increasingly old man and Ros isn't terribly keen on inheriting yet, not while I can still bring her tea in bed anyway. And for me, the travelling is often as much fun as the destination.

So, on discovering that I have to go to Pula, in Croatia, for a meeting in May, and that Ros can't travel with me, the travel urge has struck. I could fly to Pula, via Zagreb, but it involves arriving on the Wednesday evening at 23:00, which sounds like no fun and is rather obvious. To add to the complications, I am in London on the Tuesday for a training tutorial on bookkeeping that ends at 16:30, and it doesn't seem worth going back to Suffolk only to turn around and come back through London the next day.

What that means is that, assuming I need to be at Pula by 16:00 on the Thursday to allow time to prepare for an evening drinks reception, I have just shy of forty-eight hours to get from London to Pula. There are some obstacles;

• Pula has no through train service to anywhere, as the only railway line runs to Zagreb via Ljubljana in Slovenia, and the only passenger trains across the border were axed in December.

• There are only two flights a day from Zagreb to Pula, and only one of them arrives in time, so I must catch the 14:10 flight.

• I don't want to use a sleeper train because I don't get to see any scenery, and the scenery is pretty spectacular, I'm told.

So, that means an overnight in Zagreb on the Wednesday night which, in turn, means that the day will have to begin somewhere in Central Europe, and that I will need to fly from London to the day's starting point the evening before.

There is a train from Munich, which departs at 12:27 and arrives in Zagreb at 20:55, and there is a Lufthansa flight from Heathrow at 20:10 which will allow me to have dinner before I fly, and leave me enough time to get from a hotel at Munich Airport to catch the train with ease.

But can I do better? The train to Zagreb starts from Frankfurt at 08:22, but the journey to Munich doesn't look interesting. It also stops at Heidelburg at 09:14 and Stuttgart at 09:58, but they're rather harder to get to the previous evening. So, Munich it is then. Or is it?

I could catch the 18:35 British Airways flight to Zurich from London City (very doable from Euston Square), get an early night and catch the 07:28 train from Zurich Flughafen to Munich, via St Gallen, which leaves me a 59-minute connection. Alternatively, I could catch the 08:40 from Zurich itself to Salzburg, via Feldkirch and Innsbruck, leaving a 14 minute connect there for the Munich-Zagreb train. That looks prettier, but riskier in terms of what happens if there is a delay.

I'm stricken with indecision, so I've booked the flight from Zagreb to Pula, and from Pula to London. Perhaps I'll come up with a better idea?...

If you're reading this, Cuba isn't quite what I expected...

It would be fair to say that, when agreeing with Ros that we should go to Cuba on holiday, I did have some doubts. It is, after all, a communist country with a controlled economy, where those opposed to the state are imprisoned on a fairly capricious basis. And given that I am by nature someone who cleaves to the notion of comfort in travel, Havana might not be an obvious destination.

As it turns out, the dictatorship is not entirely what one might expect. Experiments with capitalism have unleashed an entrepreneurial spirit hitherto unsuspected, American television shows are rather more readily accessible than might be expected, and the security on display seems designed to make sure that we get back to our hotel safely. Oh yes, and the mojitos are cheap and plentiful. Mmmm, mint...

We've been for an explore of the old city already, and I've been impressed by efforts to restore the historic centre. Havana is one of the oldest cities in the Western Hemisphere, with a cathedral that dates back to the mid-sixteenth century, and the original core is packed with badly neglected architecture crying out for restoration. And, at last, the government have realised its tourism potential.

There are restaurants and private taxis, there are people in the streets trying to sell you things, and if you didn't know that it was a one-party state, I'm not entirely sure that you would appreciate that it was one. And the mojitos are very good, although I may have inferred that earlier.

So, if you were thinking of coming here but thought that it might be a bit too complex, I would say, "Come on in, the Havana Club, mint and sugar syrup are lovely.".

Rosenberg and Cooper - avoid like the plague? (UPDATED)

Recently, I received an e-mail from a company called Rosenberg and Cooper, inviting me to invest in coloured diamonds. Naturally, being a cautious soul, I've learned not to get too excited about such invitations, knowing that if someone is sending spam e-mail like that, they probably aren't likely to be reputable. So, I deleted the e-mail and thought nothing more of it.

At least, I hadn't, until my BlackBerry rang on Friday evening. I picked it up and found that not only do they send spam e-mail, but they do cold calling too. And high quality cold calling it is, with the usual exciting claims of high yields, impending scarcity and occasional references to market developments - the comments on the effect of a new Governor of the Bank of England on inflation were particularly entertaining.

Funnily enough, for a company talking about investments in excess of £10,000, the background noise, akin to that you might expect from a call centre, is hardly that of a bespoke enterprise offering a niche investment product, and the 'patter' is surprisingly pushy for someone attempting to persuade a well-heeled individual, and therefore probably well-educated, to part with a five-figure sum.

Of course, receiving cold calls is much more fun when you can look the caller up on the internet whilst you keep them occupied, and allows you to discover that their website is extremely amateurish, their headquarters is a rented office suite, and that whilst they may claim many decades of experience in the business, the company was only incorporated on 18 December 2012 - yes, less than two months ago.

They are very kindly sending me a brochure, to the address that they have on record for me, an address that I vacated more than three years ago, which implies that they've bought a contact list from somewhere, and were too cheap, or too incompetent, to buy one that had been filtered recently.

So, my advice to anyone who hears from Rosenberg and Cooper is, "avoid like the plague" unless you have so much money that you can afford to throw it away. And even if you do, if you're reading this, I probably have a duty of care towards you...

Reader... see update...

Are politics and polite disagreement mutually exclusive?

Is it me, or is politics becoming ever more unpleasant as the years go by? Perhaps it has always been thus, but the unpleasantness is much more immediate, much more public than it was previously.

Once upon a time, politicians were treated with rather more deference than is the case now. Interviews with the media were more of a lecture than an inquisition, and there was little attempt made to challenge what was being said. It made for rather dull television, I suspect, but then there wasn't an awful lot of choice, was there? Effectively, you got to find out what the politicians wanted you to know.

As that deference has been stripped away, we have become a more informed electorate, with more media outlets, more rigorous questions, more research capacity. Alright, a potentially more informed electorate, as it has become more difficult to judge the value, accuracy and  credibility of any one source, presuming that any one voter has the skills or desire to find out for themselves.

But the end of deference has gone beyond that to almost aggressive cynicism. The assumption that politicians are fair game for the sort of treatment that is now commonplace means that there is no level to which some in the political arena will not stoop.

It does, in too many quarters, seem entirely reasonable to describe someone with whom they disagree with as mad, idiotic, corrupt or simply evil. The notion that,  for entirely honourable, philosophically consistent reasons, a different view might be held cannot, accordingly, be respected, it must be quashed in an aggressive, offensive, bombastic way. There can be no doubt, the heterodoxy must be preserved.

And yet, most people, most ordinary, non-political people don't lay claim to such certainty. If presented with a credible (in their eyes) argument, they can be persuaded to at least keep an open mind on an issue.

The internet has made matters far worse. You can now, from the safety and anonymity of your keyboard, make vile accusations as to the motivation of your opponents without evidence or accuracy, and drive the less thick-skinned from the field altogether. But what if they're right, either partly or wholly. Or, what if there are equally effective, but alternative, means of achieving the same thing? You have, technically, won. But mightn't everyone have lost?

The advantage of debate based upon mutual respect and an openness to other ideas is an increased likelihood of reaching a conclusion which taps more of the knowledge and expertise that exists whilst increasing buy-in. It encourages greater participation and engagement, broadens the field of potential elected officials and, by doing so, creates a politics that looks more like the communities it seeks to serve.

Isn't that the aim of the exercise?...

Demand Responsive Transport - connecting the villages to the world

I was somewhat disappointed to see one of Suffolk's County Councillors criticise the Suffolk Links service recently. As a regular user, dependent on it to get me to and from the station, I have grown to appreciate the service, and have campaigned locally to encourage usage.

And strangely, contrary to the belief of some, it is a remarkably reliable service, very rarely late - often due to the failure of a preceding passenger to turn up on time - reasonably priced, and far more flexible than the fixed bus service that my village hasn't had in recent memory.

When I first came to Creeting St Peter in 2007, and asked about public transport, I was told that there was a bus service. The catch? It ran once a week, on market day, and was of no use to anyone unless they wanted a brief shopping expedition to Stowmarket. As a non-driver, that meant that living in the village was virtually impossible, especially with Ros in London most weekdays, unless I was willing to spend more than £50 each week in taxi fares just to get to Stowmarket station.

And then Suffolk Links Gipping North was introduced into my life. Originally, the morning service consisted of a fixed route in the morning, running from Stowmarket to Little Stonham to connect with buses to Diss and Ipswich, before reverting to a demand responsive service in the afternoon. This solved half of my problem, but left mornings rather difficult, as the bus connection wasn't guaranteed as Little Stonham, and the connecting bus ran on an hourly basis or worse.

Common sense won through eventually though, and the service became wholly demand responsive, just in time for me to arrange a transfer to my employer's Ipswich office and be able to use it to get to and from work. Come rain, snow or shine, Kathy or Philip are there in the middle of Creeting St Peter at 7.55 each workday morning, ready to drive me to the station, and either Philip, Alan or Ann are at Stowmarket station at 6.40 most evenings to drive me home again. They've become part of my routine, and we chat about our days, and about stuff generally. I learn more about my area, and sometimes I can suggest things that might be helpful. I even take copies of their leaflet to drop through the doors of new residents in the village.

There are some complexities. The policy of only allowing passengers to have two future bookings (a return counts as one) does mean that I have to ring daily to make the next booking, and I can't book more than a week in advance, but both restrictions mean that availability is more evenly spread. I also have to be willing to be flexible as someone may have booked earlier than I have for a time that I want, although I tend to travel earlier in the morning and later in the evening to reduce the likelihood of that.

At the core of the service is Margaret, who takes bookings and organises the schedule. It's a more difficult job than it sounds, as she needs to estimate how long each journey will take, and ensure that the bus is used as effectively as possible. She's a dab hand at matching up passengers to ensure that journeys aren't wasted, and is always keen to promote usage of the service. She also deals with those people who confuse it for a taxi service and are annoyed when it isn't available exactly when they require it.

Unlike the remaining fixed service bus routes, Suffolk Links connects up some fairly remote outlying areas, where county gritting services are less prevalent, using smaller back roads with low levels of traffic. When there is heavy snow, or flooding, this can mean that providing a service is difficult, or unsafe, but even during this month's bad weather, Suffolk Links Gipping North has made it through.

So, when considering the notion of Demand Responsive Transport, bear in mind that it serves places that wouldn't have any public transport otherwise, costs far less and is more flexible than a fixed route service, and is a vital lifeline to those in more remote communities who would otherwise be seriously isolated. And talk to your local provider, they'll be able to explain what they do, how they operate and what their challenges are.

Published elsewhere: Is bringing back the 10p rate band such a good idea?

This is a slightly longer version of an article posted on Liberal Democrat Voice this afternoon...

It is hard to believe that it has been five years since Gordon Brown announced the abolition of the 10p rate band in an failed attempt to be too clever by half (as my mother would describe it), and I am as surprised that it has taken until now for someone to suggest reintroducing it.

I have quite a lot of respect for the Conservative MP for Harlow, Robert Halfon, whose initiative this is. He does seem to have the ability to spot ideas that are popular and not necessarily obviously ideological - fuel duty, for example - and this is potentially one of them.

At Conservative Home, he argues;

Restoring a 10p rate of income tax, between £9,205 and £12,000, would cost around £6 billion a year according to the House of Commons Library. This is significantly cheaper than raising the personal allowance to £12,500 (which could cost as much as £14.4 billion). It also has the advantage that it would benefit all workers, and could be paid for without dragging more families into the 40p band of income tax.

He is, I suspect, right in his arithmetic - I haven't checked, although I suspect that others are actively doing so. Introducing a new, lower tax rate would be totemic, a perpetual reminder to Labour activists and the public of the catastrophic error of judgement made when abolishing it in the first place. And given, the remarkably low level of knowledge displayed by the media with regard to tax, it would probably be hailed as a huge giveaway to the less well-off.

It also addresses something which bothers some amongst Conservative ranks, in that raising the personal allowance takes more people out of tax altogether, giving them less incentive to support reductions in government spending - it is, to their mind, much more attractive to support spending if it doesn't cost you anything personally. And whilst, adding an additional tax rate does add complexity to the system, that isn't to a huge degree.

There are some obvious downsides. His proposal only gives £279.50 back to basic rate taxpayers, whereas raising the personal allowance to £12,500 would give £659.00 to the same people, a much more attractive option for the 'squeezed middle'. And, of course, without other adjustments, his tax cut would go to everyone, including the currently unpopular wealthy, who would benefit disproportionately - it would be worth £978.25 to a 45% taxpayer, something he appears intent upon, as he doesn't apparently intend to reduce thresholds. It also leaves those on minimum wage still paying income tax. 

So yes, it would cost less than increasing the personal allowance to £12,500, but it should be noted that giving away less money should obviously cost less, and he is somewhat comparing oranges with apples given the differing thresholds he applies in his argument.

There is also an argument, which I hear less of than I might expect from Conservatives, which runs thus;

"If we take less money from the paypackets of the poorest working families, we need give less to them in benefits and credits, reducing the benefits budget plus the costs of administration, as well as reducing the number in receipt of benefits."

You might argue about whether you might withhold an amount of benefits/credits equal to the reduction in the tax bill, or use the money for other targeted benefits, such as child care, or just raise the living standards of the poorer, more vulnerable elements of our society, or whatever, but it would give governments of whatever stripe options to reform society in a manner suited to their philosophy. Personally, I'd favour measures designed to lift children out of poverty, but everyone will have their own ideas.

Increasing the personal allowance to £12,500 does come with a cost, plus the added complexity required to restrict the benefits to the wealthiest which in turn would probably drag more people into higher tax bands. It is simpler for most though, continues progress towards taking those on the minimum wage out of the tax system altogether (if it's a minimum wage, one might ask why should it be taxed). It could also be seen as part of a potential equalisation, and thus simplification, of tax rates, national insurance contributions and the National Minimum Wage.

In summary, reintroducing the 10p rate band is an interesting idea, which will attract support from across the political spectrum, even as its proponents will argue about the necessity for consequential adjustments to ensure their personal definition of fairness. It is less generous than the Liberal Democrat proposals but, obviously, more easily affordable.

The debate should be an interesting one in the twenty-seven months before the next General Election...

Recovering my equilibrium...

It has been, I admit, a rather testing twenty-four hours or so, for reasons which will be understood by readers of Liberal Democrat Voice. Apparently, that which does not kill us makes us stronger. Trust me, that may be true in the long-term, but it doesn't feel like that right now.

Writing instant response pieces has never been a personal strong suit, and I have received a reminder as to why that might be so. A valuable lesson learned, I guess.

It is also a reminder, both for myself, and for others, that one is often better served by reflection before a response, rather than reaction made in anger, or in partisan excitement. And, perhaps, reading all of something and confirming understanding might be good too...

The nature of the debate which followed is just as troubling, if not more so. The ability of some on both sides of the debate to express hostility to those with whom they disagree in terms that are themselves wholly offensive does make you wonder if there is any common ground to be had - I must thank my colleagues for their efforts in moderating comments that comprehensively breach its comments policy in my somewhat shell-shocked absence.

So, somewhat chastened, and rather more cautious, I continue to ponder over the responsibility I have to the audience and to my Liberal Democrat Voice colleagues. A media platform, regardless of its scale, importance or influence, is a delicate thing, requiring balance, judgement and integrity in how one interacts with one's audience. An inability to bear that in mind has tarnished our media in this country, and our politics, and I intend to remember that in future.

This committee thing, explain it to me again, will you?

Having now spent a day in the metropolis that is London, it is time to head for home.  It has, I must confess, been rather fun, although not necessarily for any reason I might have envisaged when I agreed to come.

It is still somewhat unclear as to why I was invited to attend the International Relations Committee away day, although I flatter myself to suggest that I was of some use in their discussions. I'm not a policy wonk, nor do I have a long record of activity and participation in ALDE or the Liberal International. However, I do feel that it is imperative to broaden and deepen involvement in the Party's international activity, and I know enough to make a case.

I did, it is true, wonder out loud about the purpose and function of the International Relations Committee, and whilst those with a greater record of engagement will have some very good answers to those points, I hope that I might have given the Committee some food for thought.

I then had tea with a dear friend, before meeting up with Ros and heading for dinner. It is slightly quirky, meeting her midweek, and feels a bit like a 'date night', a really rather nice feeling. Best of all, the need to come to London for training in the months ahead means that I''ll have a regular excuse to repeat it. Looks like I owe Danny another favour...

Suffolk - Conservative U-Turn on explore card shows just how wrong they were

Today's announcement that the Conservative administration is planning a new discount travel card for young people in Suffolk shows just how damaging the decision to abolish the scheme was in the first place.

When the explore card was cut in 2011 as part of the New Strategic Direction ideology budget on grounds of 'cost', the Liberal Democrats warned that this short-sighted decision would cause significant damage to the educational, work and training prospects of a whole cohort of young people.  And of course this damage did occur - in the middle of last year the Conservatives heard full details directly from Suffolk Lib Dem councillors, from schools and colleges, from parents and – most of all – from the young people affected.

Cllr Caroline Page, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Roads and Transport said, "Bringing back this card is obviously a successful outcome for the Suffolk Liberal Democrats, but most importantly all the young people and their families who have been lobbying for the restoration of this card since it was withdrawn."

"We all told the Conservatives that scrapping the Explore card would – and did – cause huge problems to those who wanted to get an education and a job.  But the Cabinet member for Roads and Transport memorably replied, "you can't spend a pound more than once." In such circumstances, the wise idea is to choose carefully what you do spend your pounds on in the first place. This was the same Cabinet that agreed the expenditure of really quite a lot of pounds on Suffolk Circle." 

"Why has it taken so long for the Conservatives to implement this decision? Why didn't they just review the explore card rather than cutting it completely and leaving many young people struggling to get to college and employment? Why has this happened now, when this is an issue that should have been extremely important throughout the years, and not just pre-election?"

Cllr John Field, the Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader said, "This U-turn shows just how wrong the Conservatives were in their decision to remove the explore card.  The Lib Dems urge the Council to roll out this new Oyster-type scheme as quickly as possible. We must reverse, wherever possible, the harm they have caused and are continuing to cause to the next generation of Suffolk."

The invisible politicians in our midst

I'm on my way to a meeting in London, an International Relations Committee away day, to be precise, and although I'm not entirely certain why I was invited, I'm sure that all will become clear when I arrive.

However, my attention is drawn to the anonymity of politicians this morning. There was, on my train this morning, a politician (who shall remain nameless). Naturally, he was a Coalition MP - there are no other MPs with constituencies on, or near, the East Anglian main line or its branches - and he was, as is obligatory these days, in standard class.

He was working on his papers in an entirely efficient way, and I found myself wondering how many people sharing the carriage had any idea who he was.

Why does this draw my attention? Because, like everyone else on the train, he has experienced the delay to the service, the discomfort of the elderly rolling stock - in short, life as "the rest of us" experience it. He isn't cocooned from the public, he is part of it. And yet he will repeatedly be accused of being out of touch with us, of not understanding what we go through.

I suppose that, as a politician, you can't win. Quietly get on with your life, do your job and don't make a fuss, and we ignore you. Be highly visible and we take potshots at you - it's the British way.

Ah well, on that note, I'd better get to my meeting...

It's the lack of a sense of humour that makes you despair...

It would be fair to say that I have a slightly quirky sense of humour, and that it tends to be expressed in my blogging, both here and in my role as day editor for Liberal Democrat Voice. What I find surprising is not that other people don't get it, or even that they don't like it, it is the fact that some find it necessary to moan about it. 

I would probably be the first to admit that I don't entirely take politics seriously. Contrary to the expectations of others, it is not the be all and end all of my life - I am a liberal and a bureaucrat and I am one because I am the other. As a bureaucrat, I believe that you must treat people equally under the law, and that the purpose of the State is to enable people to have as much freedom as possible whilst protecting the vulnerable.

If you like, that's my passion, to enable others, and most of my 'political career' has been about that - not political, more organisational. I see my role in Liberal Democrat Voice as being part of that, about enabling debate, supplying information and, hopefully, a little bit of fun along the way.

So, to anyone out there who doesn't like that, get used to it, as I have absolutely no intention of changing unless I feel like it, or get bored, or decide that it's time to hand over to someone else. Any of those outcomes is possible, as my attention span is quite limited, and there are plenty of great people who could take over...

A perceived breach of netiquette... Am I being unreasonable?

I have been, for some time now, a member of a Facebook group linked to a possible reunion. Not wholly surprisingly, it hasn't happened, and it became a means for one member to publicise his various blog entries.

I put up with it for a while, but yesterday finally lost patience. If I want to read your blog, I'll follow it, or look for it. If I choose to follow you on Twitter and you use it to promote your blog, that's my prerogative. If your blog appears somewhere I frequent regularly, that's fine too. But please don't use a social group for your self-promotion.

So, I've quit the group, at least for the time being. Am I being wholly unreasonable?

Another precept, another dilemma...

It is, I'm told, quite easy to be liberal with somebody else's money. It is, I can confirm, rather harder when it's your money and that of your neighbours.

This week, it was time to set the precept for Creeting St Peter Parish Council, and once again, our calculations are complicated by the interventions of higher tiers of local government. With the County handling us a nature reserve, which will have long-term effects, and the District raising bin emptying charges - more than 1% on the precept alone - my responsibility as the "finance guy" means that I tend to pay close attention to the numbers.

This year, I took a rather longer view of the numbers, which meant accepting an overspend next year, whilst aiming to break even sooner rather than later. I need to think about how to pay for the nature reserve when the County slush funds run out, make provision for the replacement of our new playground in 2033 (or thereabouts) and set our finances up on a sustainable basis.

For all of those reasons, I felt it necessary to recommend a 6.2% rise in the precept for 2013/14. We will be able to reduce our costs somewhat - the generous grant from our County councillor to cover the cost of meters for our nine streetlights is likely to reduce our electricity bill by 40% from 2014/15 - 4% of our current precept - but the scope for further savings is limited unless we reduce staffing costs - 60% of our precept - an option that would be better avoided.

My colleagues have taken a slightly different view, and we agreed a 5% increase instead. That's fair enough, I think, and we''ll see where we are this time next year...

Secret Courts: an open letter to Nick Clegg

Dear Nick,

I've been following the progress of the "Secret Courts Bill" with rather more interest than usual, as justice issues are not exactly my area of expertise - I'm a bureaucrat, not a lawyer - but given my wife's multiple votes against the proposals at the Report Stage, I do feel that I have an obligation to take an interest.

I'm proud of my Party's traditionally strong stance on civil liberties, opposing ID cards, ninety day detention and so on, representing as it does the support for individuals against an over mighty State.

And, I must admit, I do have my doubts about the logic of allowing a situation whereby an individual can potentially be denied information that might restrict their ability to defend themselves.. There may be a credible argument to support the contention implied by the need for such legislation, but it hasn't convinced a good many people whose judgement I respect.

Under such circumstances, it strikes me that there is scope for a conversation on the subject, an opportunity for both sides to make their case, an opportunity that you have rejected, as I understand it.

Given that you are asking our Parliamentarians to act in a manner contrary to what is stated as Party policy, I can't help but feel that you have an obligation to reach out to your opponents on this, especially as these are the very people that you call upon to make the case for the Liberal Democrats on the ground and in the media.

I accept that, as the leader of a political party in government, you cannot just do as our conference tells you - being in a coalition means that some compromises are inevitable - but you do have a duty to explain what those compromises are and why they are necessary.

The concession of holding a meeting with the campaigners against this Bill would earn you some respect and, more importantly, goodwill with the wider Party. Is it too much to ask?

Yours sincerely,

Mark

John Doran attacks Nick Clegg - not such a surprise, really...

"Like a number of others who have posted I am a life long Liberal/Lib Dem. I first canvassed in the Feb 1974 election and have stood for councils numerous times, and was a County Councillor for 4 years. I used to give thousands to my local party, hundreds to Cowley St. No more. My membership is up for renewal in January and I will be paying the minimum that allows me to be a voting member..."

- John Doran, Liberal Democrat Voice (16 November 2010)

One of the advantages of being fairly cynical, and having been encouraged to be a sceptic at university - many thanks to Dr Janacek, my statistics lecturer and academic advisor, for that - is that I tend to wonder about someone's motivation.

And so, when I discovered that a former Surrey county councillor had taken the opportunity of Nick Clegg's radio call-in show on LBC to attack him, I did what anyone might have done (like journalists ought to?), and Googled him, finding the above quote rather easily.

So, Mr Doran doesn't like Nick Clegg - it's a free world. But don't let anyone believe for a moment that he's a recent convert to that view...

Another day, another Tory defection to UKIP...

According to the Ipswich Star, Conservative Town and District Councillor for Stowmarket North, Frank Whittle, has joined UKIP. Given his comment that he was "sick and tired of all the political correctness and politicians who are all mouth and no action", I suspect that he'll be right at home there until he loses his seats in 2015.

Perhaps the more interesting thing was the response of the Chair of the local Conservative Association. Andrew Speed said,

We are disappointed that Frank has felt the need to move to UKIP but we retain a healthy majority on the district council.

There are twenty-one Conservative councillors out of the forty on Mid Suffolk District Council, hardly a healthy majority, or is that a confession that Ray Melvin, Charlie Flatman and Stuart Gemmill are really only masquerading as independents after all?

White lines and dead armadillos - I'm a liberal, not a centrist...

Apparently, I am in politics to anchor our government in the centre ground. At least, that is what my Party Leader thinks. And sadly, he's wrong. A Texan Democrat once said that the only things you'll find in the middle of the road are white lines and dead armadillos.

No, for me, the whole point of being a liberal is that I want to challenge the things that hold our society back, to enable people to take control over their lives, whilst ensuring that those who are vulnerable are protected and supported. Part of that is about personal responsibility, the idea that people should also have to face the consequences of their actions.

"Anchoring the Coalition in the centre ground" is, in those terms, pretty meaningless, even if it does reassure some voters. Perhaps that is why I'm a bureaucrat and not a politician. I suppose that politics is about a cause, be that a big, grand one like world peace, or equality, or a small, more personal one, such as representing your community and trying to do your best by, and for, it.

Yes, one does have to be pragmatic about it. Politics is about the art of the possible, and you are confined by budgets, or existing legislation, but with some things, such as equal marriage, you can do them because, fundamentally, they're the right thing to do. You should also try to bring the public with you, because change is more likely to last if it is broadly accepted.

But our politics is tainted already by a sense that the three main political parties are squabbling over some mystical middle England - which always seems to be somewhere else - leaving a vacuum to be filled by UKIP, the Greens or some bunch of racist lunatics.

So, instead of coming up with a slogan, why can't we just explain what we stand for and why, and leave the race to the bottom for the rest. As all the evidence is that they're better at it than we are anyway, I can't help feeling that it isn't the game we ought to be playing.

And you complain about the hike in your train fare...

As a non-driving village dweller, I have become rather reliant on my local Demand Responsive Transport service, Suffolk Links - Gipping North, which carries me from my home to Stowmarket Station and back, most days when Ros is away, and most of the time when she's at home too. Compared to the cost of a taxi, it's extremely reasonable, and I have become part of a cosy little circle over the past two years. 

However, on ringing Margaret, who organises the schedule with incredible efficiency, to organise a bus for today, I was somewhat surprised to be told that fares were going up by 20%, on the instruction of Suffolk County Council. There had been no announcement of such an increase and, upon checking the Suffolk Onboard website, there was no indication of the change at all.

In fairness, my return fare for the three mile journey to Stowmarket Station is still only £2.60, and the service is reliable, safe and friendly. Besides, I'm lucky enough to be able to afford it. However, for those who aren't as fortunate, it will come as an unpleasant surprise - in my case the additional cost will be £2.50 per week, an increase of 23.8%, and I assume that this will be reflected across the board.

It is, I suppose, typical of the utter disrespect for residents shown by the Conservatives on the County Council that there should be no attempt to inform voters of the change. Luckily, I've got my county councillor coming to a meeting next week, and he might like to come up with a justification... especially as he's up for election in May...

Fruit Ninja... part of my five a day

My parents very kindly gave me a Kindle Fire HD for Christmas,, and it is already becoming clear that it will be especially useful for my studies in 2013, as it is small, lightweight and surprisingly easy to use. There is, however, a down side.

I am, as has been noted in the past, a bit too easily distracted, and the discovery of Fruit Ninja, a game in which the player attempts to slice fruit as it flies randomly across the screen, has proved just a little tempting, to the extent that I'm now only missing one blade and a background of the many available for achieving certain goals.

It would, indeed, be fair to say that I kill far more fruit than I eat, which is possibly a bad thing, although it does make my commute mildly more entertaining.

On the plus side, although there are those of you who might find this a bit sad, I have been able to load my training notes onto it, allowing me to study HMRC's policy on diversity (they're in favour), and the time management course that I am supposed to do.

So, new year, new gadget. I wonder what else will be new in 2013...

Ros in the Lords: Motion to Take Note - EUC Report on Grass-roots Sport

Here's another of Ros's interventions that I hadn't covered, from 10 November 2011...

Until its abolition in May, Ros was a member of the European Union Sub-Committee G, something she enjoyed greatly. One of its final acts was to review the impact of EU legislation on grass-roots sport, particularly appropriate in the run-up to the Olympics and Paralympics...

Baroness Scott of Needham Market (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, on 22 November I shall be taking over as chair of the Volunteering Development Council, following in the footsteps of my noble friend Lady Hanham. It is a great honour to have been asked to chair the council, because it represents the opinions and interests of the millions of people throughout this country who contribute to the daily life of our nation by volunteering. I would like to use today's debate as an opportunity to say a few words about the relationship between the EU and grass-roots sports and volunteering.

First, may I place on record my appreciation of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and her chairmanship of EU Sub-Committee G. She combines incisiveness and understanding of whatever subject is in hand with great good humour and a collegiate approach, and it is genuinely a pleasure to serve on the sub-committee. We are also, as ever, served very well by the staff of this House and in the case of this inquiry by the specialist adviser, Professor Richard Parrish.

Our report highlights the importance of volunteers in sporting activity and notes that, for example, the average football club will involve some 21 volunteers. Indeed, the Football Association estimates that there are more than 400,000 volunteers involved in footballing activities alone.

Why do they do this? For some, it is the love of a particular sport that stays with them throughout their lives. For others, it is drawn from a commitment to their local area and the role sport can play in cementing that sense of local community. My home town of Needham Market has a thriving and very successful football club that was first established in 1919. It has a number of teams and a record of success that is the envy of far larger towns. Over the 30 years that I have lived in Needham Market, I have seen hundreds of young people commit their time and energy to the club. There are currently some 130 young people active in football in the town, which has a population of only 4,500.

Other people become drawn to volunteering in sporting activities because of the many benefits that sport can bring to people who are disadvantaged in some way. We had powerful evidence from Street Games and the Prince's Trust, among others, about the role that sport can play, not just in providing meaningful activity but in teaching leadership skills and providing a route to recognised qualifications. The RNIB, for example, explained how physical activity can improve balance, mobility and co-ordination for those with a visual impairment, and locally I have seen how the bowls club often brings great social as well as health benefits to older people.

All these activities depend on volunteers, and one of the great things is that much of the interaction goes across the generations in a way that few other activities do. Volunteering of any kind is and should remain essentially a local activity with support from local councils and national Governments. The European Union-level dimension to grass-roots sport and volunteering is hard to establish at first sight. Indeed, a very recent communication from the Commission spoke about having a legal framework for volunteering. Even as a Europhile, I would need some convincing of the need for that.

However, as our inquiry went on, it became clear to me that there is a role for the EU in grass-roots sport, although it is limited. First, many witnesses highlighted regulatory burdens as one of the great barriers to volunteering. The experience of the English Federation of Disability Sport was that,

"even small increases in administrative burdens can have a devastating effect on a club's ability to recruit and retain volunteers".

While I accept that it is often difficult to sort out the truth from myth about EU regulation, I would support the Sport and Recreation Alliance in its call for a review of EU regulation as it impacts on volunteers. A number of witnesses told us that both sport and volunteering are vulnerable to the law of unintended consequences as a result of EU legislation in other areas. The Sport and Recreation Alliance told us how regulations about working at height and on the use of open water had had serious adverse impacts on climbing and water sports. With the coalition Government committed to reviewing domestic regulatory burdens, perhaps it would be a good idea, before we end the EU Year of Volunteering, to begin to carry out a parallel exercise in EU law.

In an ideal world, impacts on volunteers would be considered pre-legislatively, rather than afterwards. Our evidence suggests that despite the coming into force of Article 165 of the Lisbon treaty, which, as we have heard, has given the EU a legal competence in sport, the procedures within the Commission are not giving sufficient weight to the opinions of the sport unit when looking at how other policy decisions might impact. There are certainly many formal channels for dialogue between policy-makers and sporting organisations, but our evidence suggests that these are dominated by elite sport and big money, especially in football. An MEP who is an expert in this field highlighted the lack of a real grass-roots voice in EU policy-making in sport.

We definitely detected among our witnesses a real appetite for the strengthening of pan-European networks between grass-roots organisations, especially for using the benefits of modern technology in the exchange of best practice. I note that the Minister was reticent about this, but both Street Games and the Football Foundation pointed to the success of their websites' pages that detail case studies, briefing papers and best practice.

Marginalisation of grass-roots sports organisations extends to the funding programmes. The chief executive of Street Games told us that the application procedures are simply too complex and bureaucratic for small organisations. At this morning's sub-committee meeting, we looked at a mid-term evaluation of the Europe for Citizens programme, and it is shown that of the €215 million budget for its projects only €1.16 million has come to the UK. This is a significant under representation in a programme that ought to be of great interest to the UK, and which includes sport.

Although it is tempting just to blame the bureaucracy, the fact that other countries are finding a way to get through the bureaucracy suggests that we have a particular issue. I certainly undertake to work with the current Government, if they wish, and with the volunteer sector to find out exactly why we are so poor at accessing this money. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Putting the New Delhi rape case into a little context

The gruesome news of the rape and subsequent death of a young woman in New Delhi has led to protests on the streets of cities across India as citizens demand action from the authorities. The sheer vileness of the attack, of the abuse and of the final dumping of her body as if it were without value of any kind, has touched the collective heart of the people.

I caught a recent report of the story on BBC News the other day, and in it was the statistic that a rape is recorded in New Delhi every fourteen hours, a fact likely to produce a sense of disgust in the minds of viewers. And there is no doubt that the figure is much higher than we would like it to be, especially given the likelihood that the number of recorded rapes is likely to be a fraction of the actual number that take place.

However, for those who have drawn the conclusion that such events are the preserve of less- developed parts of the planet, one needs a reminder that this is far from being so.

Delhi has a population of about seven million, according to the report, approximately that of London. There were 635 recorded cases of rape in Delhi in 2011/12. In London, 3,334 cases were recorded.

So, whilst we mourn the tragic death of a young woman in a Singaporean hospital, let us not forget that, every three hours, someone in London is being violated with little likelihood that their attacker(s) will be punished. It is time that we did more as a society to change that...

Ros in the Lords: Written Questions - Gypsies and Travellers and Council Tax

Here's another of Ros's interventions that I hadn't covered, from 17 October 2011...

At the height of the Dale Farm controversy, Ros was intrigued to find out what action the Government was taking to address the question of provision for gypsy and traveller communities, and their position regarding council tax...

Baroness Scott of Needham Market (Liberal Democrat)

To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they have made on a national policy framework for the Gypsy and Traveller community.

Baroness Hanham (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Communities and Local Government; Conservative)

The consultation on the Government's draft planning policy for traveller sites closed in August. We intend to publish a new policy as soon as possible, following due consideration of the consultation responses.

The consultation on the National Planning Policy Framework is open until 17 October. We welcome views from everyone on all aspects of the framework. This includes views on the consistency of the draft framework with the draft planning policy for traveller sites, or any other comments about our intention to incorporate planning policy for traveller sites into the final framework.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market (Liberal Democrat)

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether council tax is payable on properties that do not have adequate planning permission.

Baroness Hanham (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Communities and Local Government; Conservative)

An unoccupied dwelling where the occupation is prohibited by law (including by planning law) is exempt from council tax. Occupied dwellings not exempt for another reason are chargeable, whether or not they have adequate planning permission.

ALDE Policy: LGBTI Rights

As part of my work as a member of the Party's delegation to ALDE Council, I passed the original version of this motion to LGBT+ Liberal Democrats for their thoughts. They quite liked the original, and I hope that they like the final version as much...

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) Party convening in Dublin, Ireland on 8-10 November 2012

Notes that

• the Universal  Declaration of Human  Rights affirms  that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, should be entitled to all the rights and freedoms in the declaration;
• crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity lead to abuse in the form of discrimination, violence, imprisonment, torture or even execution, every day somewhere in the world;
• 78 countries out of 193 still have legislation criminalising  same-sex consensual acts between adults;
• among the 113 countries where homosexuality is legal, 55 countries have legislation against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in the work place. 

Welcomes

• the United Nations Human Rights Council adoption  in 2011 of a resolution on violence and  discrimination against lesbians, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBTI) people.
• the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon’s request at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva 2012 asking for countries around the world to “decriminalize same-sex relationships and  end discrimination against  LGBTI people,” and his  exhortation: “When individuals are attacked, abused or imprisoned because of their sexual orientation, we must speak out.”
• the message of Hillary Clinton’s speech on International Human Rights Day, in Geneva 2011, saying that “Human beings are born free and given bestowed equality and dignity, who have a right to claim that, which is now one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time  ...  Gay rights are human rights. …To the leaders in those countries where people are jailed, beaten or even executed for being gay, I ask you to consider this: Leadership, by definition, means being in front of your people when it is called for. It means standing up for the dignity of all your citizens and persuading your people to do the same. Be on the right side of history.”

Expresses concerns

• about countries where the right of freedom of opinion and expression are under threat when it comes to  LGBTI individuals and where LGBTI individuals are being abused because of  their sexual orientation;

Calls on all governments and member parties

• to recognise the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex (LGBTI) people as human rights
• to push for the adoption by the European Commission of an EU roadmap on the rights of  LGBTI people, in order to systematically identify the policy areas of EU competence where action can be undertaken to advance LGBTI equality, and propose relevant policy measures.
• to stress the importance of highlighting instances of abuse against LGBTI individuals and the importance of every person’s equal rights, including the rights of LGBTI people.
• to stress the importance of LGBTI rights in the negotiations during the accession procedure of candidate countries for EU membership.
• to recognise the rights of same-sex relationships;  LGBTI parenting; non-discrimination in military service obligations; anti-discrimination laws; aggravating circumstances in criminal law regarding violence against  LGBTI people; the repeal of sodomy laws; expedient legal gender recognition and publicly funded healthcare for trans people; the right to bodily integrity for intersex people.
• to urge states to ensure adequate protection for human rights defenders who work on this issue,  and to guarantee their rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of assembly.