Yes, let's have the Greens in the TV debates...

The news that David Cameron is insisting that, unless the Greens are included, he won't be taking part in the TV debates, is almost amusing. It is highly unlikely that he cares about the Greens very much - after all, he allegedly thinks that environmentally friendly policies are just so much 'green crap' - rather that it is a strategy to either avoid the debates altogether (can he possibly be frit of Ed Miliband or, more credibly, Nigel Farage?) or, more Machiavellian, he wants the Greens in to potentially leach support from Labour.

I've always taken the view with campaigns that, if you invite all of the candidates, giving them reasonable notice, a failure to show is your problem, not that of the organiser or the other candidates. There should be a risk in leaving your chair empty. And, making an assumption that nobody would possibly dare to carry on without the Prime Minister is, in an era where deference is anything but a given, highly risky.

There are some potential setbacks with increasing the number of participants, regardless of who they might be;

1. You need longer to fit a decent number of questions in - the attention span of the public is not brilliant, and the more broadly similar answers you get, the less enlightening it is likely to become.
2. The debate is harder to manage - both presenter and candidates have to very disciplined lest the debate deteriorate into people talking over each other.
3. It becomes harder to exclude increasingly smaller parties.

For the record, I tend to think that exposure to cross-examination might not be that helpful to the Greens or UKIP, in that their arguments are likely to be exposed for their weakness in a way that the media seem mostly unable, or unwilling to do.

But, I may be wrong, and the public deserve to have an opportunity to hear from the Greens, because that's how democracy works...

Boris Johnson plays whiff-whaff with civil liberties

I'm not particularly interested in this civil liberties stuff when it comes to these people's emails and mobile phone conversations. If they are a threat to our society then I want them properly listened to. 

I've always found the fuss made over Boris Johnson to be somewhat mystifying. I'm sure that he is highly intelligent, but then I expect that of people holding high office. But he has a tendency to act the fool, to contradict himself and to be vague on detail, and despite this, a surprising number of Conservatives appear to believe that he is the greatest thing since sliced bread. It is, perhaps, the triumph of celebrity over competence, although he has often been fortunate in his choice of opponents.

But what worries me most is that I can't really tell what he really believes in, apart from being on top. Is he in favour of civil liberties or not, for example, although on the basis of the quote above, the answer is yes, for nice people, but not for people we don't trust. Does that mean that he disagrees with the Government for, as the Tory/Lib Dem Programme for Government declared:

The [Coalition] believes that the British state has become too authoritarian, and that over the past decade it has abused and eroded fundamental human freedoms and historic civil liberties.

Personally, I suspect that Boris is playing to a very specific audience - right-wing Conservative MPs who distrust David Cameron. It is, after all, one of sufficient size to be worth pursuing, and one which is unlikely to want to back a husky-hugging, socially liberal leader any time soon. If Boris does want to be leader, he's going to have to win their support or, at the very least, have them onside.

From a liberal perspective, one could argue that the security forces are barely capable of managing the data they already have, and have been proven to have a relaxed attitude towards current legislation, in that they are willing to stretch it as far as it will go, and will always seek to have more powers.

And, ultimately, politicians like Boris Johnson, who are more interested in outcomes, and care far less about due process, are probably as big a threat to our civil liberties as terrorists are to our safety. Whilst they might not wilfully give up our freedom, they might do it by neglect or as a bargaining ploy. But the next time I hear Boris talk about liberty, I'll remember that he is, first and foremost, a bit of a fraud...

I'm not really Charlie, it's perhaps a little more complicated than that...

First, violence is never a justified response to satire, no matter how unpleasant one might find the material personally. That is, if you like, the easy bit, given that we live in a society that has determined that violence, whether committed by individuals or the State, is inappropriate except in self-defence.

My problem is with the 'right to offend' argument. I believe wholeheartedly in freedom of speech, but wonder why it is deemed appropriate to wilfully offend an entire community for having a world view that is different to yours simply for having that view. That hardly indicates a respect for diversity within your community, quite the reverse in fact. Perhaps, to be accurate, my problem is with the 'necessity to offend' and the accuracy of the targeting of that offence.

My family, or at least that on my paternal side, is part of a small religious minority in a city which has seen more than its fair share of sectarian, religion-based violence in recent years. Clashes between Hindu fundamentalists and the sizeable Muslim community in Mumbai have led to violence and death, and the attacks on the city by the Islamist terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba in 2008 did little to enhance trust on either side. So, perhaps, I am more sensitive than most about the notion of poking a community with a stick, just because you can in a free society.

In an increasingly interconnected world, material deemed offensive by a community can be shared and anger stoked up very quickly. That anger will express itself in ways that seem irrational to many of us, but are nonetheless predictable. And, if we have failed to fully integrate communities into our broader society, and make them feel inferior or threatened, such attacks feed fundamentalism and hostility towards the rest of us.

So, feel free to offend if you choose to do so but remember, the consequences may fall upon someone entirely innocent, somewhere far away. It was undoubtedly tragic that so many people, all entirely undeserving, died in such a terrible, terrifying way, for nobody deserves to die for a cartoon. Unfortunately, somewhere far away, a small Christian community are probably wondering what might happen to them tomorrow, or the day after. Nobody in the West will spend much time mourning for them, there will be no hashtag. Likewise, Muslim communities around the world will feel exposed and unsettled simply because they adhere to their faith, and some will suffer, as has been demonstrated in France already. Some will stand by them, many I hope, for most Muslims are as horrified by events in and around Paris as the rest of us are.

In a liberal democracy, we have an obligation to respect our political opponents, whilst challenging their views or their actions. In a liberal society, we have an obligation to respect and defend all law-abiding, peaceful elements of our community, and not tar all members of a particular racial or religious group on the basis of the views or actions of a possibly unrepresentative minority.

The fanatic will always find an excuse to justify his barbarism, and we should not self-censor in the hope that we might dissuade them from violence. However, we should always ask ourselves if we are doing what is necessary to dissuade those tempted by fundamentalism from succumbing. I hope that, in declaring our faith in the right to freedom of expression, we remember that with freedom comes responsibility.

If I'm in a hospital full of sick people, and I have an appointment, presumably I might be sick...

I've had a persistent, hacking cough for months now, and it has been annoying Ros, my work colleagues and random strangers for almost as long so, this morning I went to my local doctor's surgery, where a very attentive young doctor checked this, shone a light at that and measured the other.

His conclusion? A chest x-ray was needed. My heart sank, "That'll be weeks...", I thought, but far from it. He gave me a form with some surprisingly legible handwriting on it (is this man really a doctor?) and explained that I should just turn up at Ipswich Hospital during the opening hours for the Chest X-Ray Unit.

And so, less than five hours later, I was in a slightly dreary room with two dozen or so other people, all waiting to have their innards photographed. The receptionists were very friendly, as had been every member of staff I asked for directions - Ipswich Hospital is a bit like one of those mazes you put rats in to bemuse them - so I was fairly relaxed at being told that I'd probably have to wait for about an hour to be seen. Not bad for our 'crisis-torn' NHS, really, and I'd brought a book...

And, before long, my name was called and I was ushered into a smaller waiting room with cubicles in it, given a plastic shopping basket with a remarkably unfashionable tunic and asked to strip to the waist and put the tunic on. Eventually, I managed this (regular inpatients clearly know how this works) and took a seat for the next wait.

My name was then called somewhat inaccurately - hell, I don't always get it right first time - and I was beckoned into a slightly dimly lit room full of interesting looking bits of equipment (you may have guessed by now that I have very little experience of hospitals) where a very nice radiologist asked about the surname and we made Johnny Depp jokes (he is, it seems, welcome to visit any time he likes...).

The procedure itself was over before I really knew it, and I was packed off again to dress and hand in my shopping basket. Apparently, my surgery will get the results late next week...

There is a corner of a Caribbean field that will be, forever... Latvian?

The history of colonialism is filled with the quirky and the unexpected, if you know where to look. And I am reminded, courtesy of Michael Palin's "New Europe", of one of the more unlikely attempts at establishing an overseas colony.

When you think of the Caribbean, you think of the English and the French, the Spanish and the Dutch, who, between them, stitched up a controlling interest in the various islands, growing sugar and attacking each other's shipping. And yes, the Danish had their little corner (now the US Virgin Islands), one which, obscurely, denied the Brandenburgers a Caribbean colony.

'Tis a pity about the design...
the Courland Monument in Plymouth, Tobago

Tobago was a particularly coveted island, which at various times in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries was contested by the English, French, Dutch, Spanish and even the Swedes. It changed hands thirty-three times.

But the first successful European settlers, who arrived in 1654, were there courtesy of an agreement with Oliver Cromwell, and they were Courlanders, from modern-day Latvia. In return for his support in the dispute between England and the Netherlands, Duke Jacob Kettler was given the right to attempt to set up a colony on Tobago, which probably would have gone fairly smoothly had it not been for the extremely unwelcoming Carib Indians and equally hostile Dutch, who set up a rival, and rather more successful, colony nearby.

Driven off by the Dutch in 1659, the island was returned to them by the Treaty of Oliwa in 1660 but, despite a number of attempts to re-establish themselves, the Courlanders sold Tobago in 1689. One can only wonder what might have happened had they been successful...

Calling for a pause, the new anti-strategy strategy

In the modern era of soundbites and short term solutions to long term problems, I have noticed recently that, if you really have no idea what to do about something you don't like, calling for a pause is an increasingly popular choice.

For example, Rachel Reeves is apparently calling for a pause in the rollout of Universal Credit whilst, well, what exactly? Labour activists in Camden called for a pause in work on HS2 rather than call for it to be scrapped altogether - perhaps because scrapping it would be unpopular with Labour politicians in the North and Midlands.

You may not be able to turn the clock back,
but you can apparently stop it.

Effectively, what is being said is, "We don't like this, but we aren't sure what we should do instead, in case this turns out to be popular.". And, I guess, that's fair enough, unless you were planning to be running the country some day soon.

And, before anyone says that I'm being unfair on Labour, I must note the performance of Liberal Democrats during the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill. The fact that a pause was required rather exposed the fact that the initial work of pre-scrutiny hadn't been done terribly well, and it was only when Liberal Democrat activists went ballistic that time was taken to look at it more thoroughly. It still wasn't that great a piece of legislation...

Our politics doesn't help. Opposition, rather than constructive engagement, is the order of the day in the Commons, whilst the Lords is rather better at scrutiny and amendment but suffers from a justified reticence to overturn the position of an elected House down the corridor. And pre-scrutiny takes time, when Ministers want to be getting on with things.

So, we can expect to see more calls for pauses, in the hope that opposition can be rallied against whatever it is, whilst the policy development concept withers on the vine across the political spectrum. Because opposition and legislation based on anecdote and prejudice is so much easier than developing a philosophically consistent view of the world...

Memories of Vanuatu, and a very dangerous post office

If you didn't get to see part one of "Kate Humble: Into the Volcano" on Sunday night (available on BBC iPlayer until 3 February), you missed a treat, especially if you like volcanology.

Deliberately not getting too close
to the edge of the crater...

Admittedly, I don't really understand it, but I have been to Vanuatu, where the programme was filmed and, in particular, to Mount Yasur, the volcano featured. I went there to climb the volcano in 2007, as part of my 'see all the places I ever wanted to go' phase.

What interested me about the programme, apart from being reminded just what friendly people the ni-Vanuatu are, was the complete absence of any reference to Volcano Post, one of Vanuatu Post's two unusual post offices. At Volcano Post - which is really a post box near the lip of the crater - you can have your postcard singed for that genuine 'posted from a live and active volcano' effect.

I only spent the day in Tanna - the trip was all a bit unplanned - but it was every bit as amazing as Kate Humble describes it, and whilst it is one of the most faraway places you can go from London - you have to get to Australia or New Zealand first before you can get a flight to Port Vila, the capital - if you were to get the chance, I would strongly recommend going.

And prepare to have a good time - Vanuatu was declared the happiest country in the world by the New Economics Foundation in 2006, and the locals seemed to be resolutely cheerful. The beer is alright, the sea is warm and blue, and life is blissfully unhurried.

But if you did miss part one, part two is to be broadcast on BBC2 on Sunday...

It's so easy for Indians to get a visa to come here, right?

And this is just the beginning...

I spent a slightly frustrating afternoon on Sunday, applying online for a visa to visit my family in Mumbai at the end of the month (this is, I acknowledge, surprisingly early for me to do this but that's Ros's influence for you...). A vast series of questions are asked, and data regarding my parents, my spouse, my job, where I've travelled in India (ever) and internationally (in the past ten years!) is required. It is, compared to most places where a visa is required, a bit of a marathon.

However, it is done, and now all I have to do is deliver the original form to London, with the right photographs, and a visa should be mine.

My frustration would have been much greater had it not been for the fact that I know what an Indian national has to do to get a visa to come here to make a similar trip. You can fill in the application form online. Unfortunately, you then need to supply;

• passport
• two photographs
• evidence that you have enough money to support yourself during your trip, eg bank statements or payslips for the last six months
• details of where you plan to stay and your travel plans
• a letter of invitation from the family member you are visiting
• evidence of their financial and employment circumstances, eg bank statements or payslips
• evidence of their immigration circumstances in the UK showing they’re permanently settled or have asylum humanitarian status in the UK, eg a valid visa or immigration stamp in their passport

But it does get better. You then need to get your fingerprints and photograph taken at a visa application centre - there are thirteen, in Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Chandigarh, Chennai, Delhi, Goa, Hyderabad, Jalandhar, Kochi, Kolkata, Mumbai (2) and Pune (you have to pay extra to use the one in Goa). There are parts of India that are a very long way from these.

There is no guarantee that your application will be accepted, as I have discovered - in the current environment, the Home Office are not minded to be generous.

The price is, interestingly, broadly similar to the amount that India charges UK nationals for a tourist visa - 8715 Rupees for a visa to visit the UK, £82 for a visa to visit India. The Indian High Commission in London are rather more efficient than the British counterparts, with a three working day turnaround, compared to the British target of ten working days.

From a personal perspective, I could see that India has a rather greater incentive to make the acquisition of a visa rather easier - it is a real deterrent for potential tourists, and given that tourists have choices, anything that puts them off is undoubtedly harmful to their economy.

But, nonetheless, with the emergence of an Indian middle class who are discovering travel - and you see more and more Indian tourists in places they weren't found ten years ago - it may become an issue for the British tourism industry too...

Open Europe's guide to the big events of 2015

In my capacity as a member of the International Relations Committee of the Liberal Democrats, I am trying to keep abreast of events in both Europe and elsewhere. Open Europe are, to my mind, an interesting source of news and views, and the piece by their Director, Mats Persson, on likely key events this year, is well worth a read.

Personally, I'd add the negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the possible impact if more facts emerge linking Jean-Claude Juncker to possible sweetheart tax deals that took place whilst he was Prime Minister of Luxembourg. Given that his party is in opposition there now, it may be that there is little desire to protect him.

Oh God, are we really going to have to endure four months of this?

Which twin is the Tory?

As I watch domestic politics descend into its regular pre-election contest to see who can offer voters the most 'stuff' in return for the least pain, I do find myself wondering, "where is the vision?". Is it unfair of me to suggest that responding to the media agenda tends to lead to the very worst excesses of short-termism?

This election, in particular, offers the prospect of demands for legislative action on a vast range of issues and attempts to claim that, despite an acknowledgement that the deficit must, and will be, eliminated over the next five years, you, yes you, Mr and Mrs Robinson, won't feel a thing. Trust me, ladies and gentlemen, you are being lied to. It will hurt, and you will lose things that you value. Whether you need those things is another matter...

The Tories are off to a flyer, accusing Labour of a black hole in their calculations, fiercely denied by Labour, whilst Labour accuse the Tories of taking us back to the 1930s. Well, no, of course neither of them are planning to do what the other accuses them of.

Firstly, both parties are committed to reducing the deficit. The Conservatives have sworn to run a surplus by the end of a five year parliament, Labour to borrow only for investment. To do either involves either cutting spending, raising taxes, or, more likely, a bit of both. Both parties favour a predominance of spending cuts, the difference being that the Conservatives appear to be relying solely on cuts, Labour have stated that "the broadest shoulders should bear some of the burden".

So, Labour will raise some taxes, for some people. The Conservatives will cut services, as will Labour. This is not rocket science, but appears to be being denounced as if it were revelatory.

The Liberal Democrats are, it seems, somewhere between the two, although given that we have little idea what either Labour or the Conservatives will actually do, that's not entirely helpful. "More caring than the Conservatives, more responsible than Labour" makes a good slogan, though it might not be entirely informative or even convincing.

As for the rest, they're mostly against sin, or immigrants, or in the case of UKIP, both (although UKIP appear to be quite good at sinning and then claiming that it's just one bad apple so why are we picking on them?).

It's going to be a really long four months, isn't it?...

Has Iain Duncan-Smith conceded the General Election?

Iain Duncan-Smith is to accelerate the rollout of Universal Credit so that Labour can't scrap it, or so it is said by the Daily Telegraph.

My first thought, when Ros told me this, was, "Is that the action of a politician who expects to be in power after 7 May?". Hardly. And it isn't as though Labour are fifteen points clear in the polls, without a cloud in the sky to spoil their triumphant stroll to power. Increasingly, talk is of a hung Parliament without any clear indication of how the chips may fall. Heaven knows, I haven't a clue what the outcome will be, and certainly won't be betting my life savings on it.

And, as I've already noted, cancellation of the Universal Credit programme is not an obvious step - it offers a (potentially) genuinely innovative means of cutting the cost of welfare without having to cut benefits (sort of).

What worries me is that, in order to protect Mr Duncan-Smith's legacy, he will cause the very thing he fears most, cancellation of a project which, due to entirely unnecessary haste, ends up failing and failing badly.

Government should be about having confidence in your actions, and not about making it impossible or extremely expensive to undo your commitments. Labour demonstrated how not to do this when ordering aircraft carriers in the run-up to the 2010 election.

So, more haste, less speed, appears to be the appropriate cliche here. Nonetheless, it's not a bad dictum for government...

"Rural bus services are crap,", says Labour shadow minister, "so we'll reallocate the blame to someone else..."

Michael Dugher has, somewhat belatedly, realised that subsidies for bus services have been cut, resulting in a loss of services, especially in rural areas, according to the Guardian. Well spotted, that man (apologies to anyone who doesn't really approve of sarcasm)!

Unlike Mr Dugher, the MP for Barnsley East, I am a non-driver living in a rural community. I actually experience the problems caused by the absence of public transport but also have an awareness of the costs of providing bus services that are sparsely used.

The bus from Stowupland
- subsequently axed for lack of subsidy

Firstly, bus services in rural areas have been relatively sparse for decades, compared to urban areas. And the problem is, because of that, people in rural areas buy cars. As more of them buy cars, there are less people to patronise the bus routes which, accordingly, become less profitable, until eventually, they only run with public subsidies. People who can't drive drift towards towns, and rider figures drop further.

As a local authority, you can increase the subsidy, but convenience will always determine the means by which an individual chooses to travel. Indeed, Ros noted from her time as Deputy Leader of Suffolk County Council that, on some routes, it was cheaper to pay passengers to take taxis than to pay for an infrequent bus to run. And, with local government budgets squeezed year on year, if you have a choice between cutting libraries or social care, and a bus service used regularly by a dozen or so people, which would you choose?

Mr Dugher's solution?

The bus market is clearly broken and the way local services are provided is not fit for purpose. Labour would change that and hand cities and county regions greater control over local bus services. We will ensure people get the local transport system they need.

Look, control is not the problem, money is the problem, and you can provide more bus services if they are financially viable or if someone is willing and able to pay for them. You could allow cross-subsidy again, but, to be honest, who wants to run loss-making services? Of course, the classic Labour solution of compulsion hovers nervously in the background.

The solution is to spend what money there is more efficiently, not to make meaningless promises on the basis of an apparent lack of awareness as to what it is like to live in a rural community. Demand responsive transport, for example, would make a huge difference to those affected by rural isolation.

I look forward to my Labour candidate turning up here in April to tell me how he or she is going to ensure that I get the local transport system I need. I live in a fairly isolated village, three miles from a town with buses and trains. That's three miles across country, on roads that wind around without pavements, or across public footpaths that are ankle-deep in mud in winter. Perhaps they could offer to drive me to the station every morning...

Is it hubristic to say that you'd quite like to win a blogging award?

I have, over the years, been notable for my utter and complete failure to win any of the Liberal Democrat Voice blog awards (or any others, for that matter). And, I have to say, looking at the list of past winners, they have been of a quality that I aspire to, in terms of the depth and breadth of ideas, or humour, or sheer wonder of the writing - well, mostly (ooh, something controversial - who could he mean by that?).

And I found myself, on a drab, grey, rather soggy Saturday afternoon, finding myself thinking that I might enjoy a little acclaim myself. So, an award would be nice. There are some obvious barriers between me and a thoroughly deserved award, fame and fortune, I guess.

Grey, not an award winning colour, is it?

I'm a bureaucrat. No bureaucrat has ever won a Blog of the Year Award to my knowledge - if it did happen, the award was probably in multiple shades of grey rather than gold. And gold is pretty...

I don't do angry. Being MILDLY IRRITATED doesn't really cut it, it seems.

I don't do design. I know a man who does - he has three kids, lives in North London, might vote Green if they had a chance of winning (you know who you are...). Eye-catching probably helps. That means not using grey, doesn't it (see above).

I am easily... Is that a rabbit? Where was I, oh yes, distracted. I could be arranging my next adventure, or doing a jigsaw, or making a bacon sandwich, instead of sitting down with my blog. That doesn't make me a bad person, it just isn't award winning.

I'm rather partial to loyalty. You get more attention if you're attacking what is notionally supposed to be your own side. Dan Hodges, for example, who seems to make a very good living out of attacking the Labour Party from right-wing newspapers. I'm afraid that, at heart, I rather like the Liberal Democrats, and a lot of the people I might otherwise attack are friends. And friends don't do that to friends, do they?

Not promising material, is it?

Ah well, I'm just going to have to work a bit (a lot) harder, that's all. If you feel that I should be encouraged, or have ideas to improve this little corner of the blogosphere, feel free to suggest them. Alternatively, just click on the adverts if you're around. My advertisers like that, apparently...

A cap on public sector redundancy pay-offs? A liberal bureaucrat writes...

The news that the Conservatives intend to legislate for a £95,000 cap on public sector redundancy pay-offs is a somewhat depressing way to start the New Year. That's not because I had any hopes of receiving such a thing myself - no, I'm fully hoping to fulfil my role for many years yet, but because it appears so contradictory to much of what is supposedly desirable.

Firstly, such a proposal flies in the face of the concept of localism. Shouldn't it be the case that a local authority, led by councillors who are directly elected, and deciding that a particular course of action offers best value to the electorate, should have the right to act accordingly, without arbitrary hinderance from central government? After all, if councillors are wasting my money, I can, and should, seek to replace them via the ballot box.

It also seems to contradict the expressed wish of the Conservatives to professionalise public sector institutions, attracting the best of private sector talent to enter public service. You are, already, probably asking them to take a sizeable pay cut - you'd already attacked public sector pay scales, and by now making it easier and cheaper to fire them once they've taken the leap, you chip away further at one of the more obvious attractions - stability of tenure.

It also risks reducing innovation in the delivery of public services. Why take on a new challenge, perhaps uprooting your family to do so, if there is a risk that it might not work out, causing you to lose your job? Senior public servants often discover that, after a change of administration, they may not suit the style of the incoming leadership yet be perfectly capable at what they were asked to do. Are you sure that punishing someone for being unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time is fair or honourable?

It's also imprecise. Does the cap include pension contributions, lost bonuses and all the other paraphernalia of performance related pay. If so, might that remove from local government to reward on the basis of proven long-term achievement - for example, if you want to incentivise someone to ensure that target X is met in three years, are you saying that, should you decide that they need to go before that date, for reasons beyond your mutual control, they will forego that which they have earned?

And, finally, it is likely to impact on flexibility. Sometimes, it is better for all concerned to offer a package to bring a relationship to an end. If, on the other hand, the package offered is too restricted, why co-operate if the compensation on offer doesn't cover lost earnings, relocation costs, potential reputation damage? No, better to see out your contract and control your own future, especially given the costs of any legal process from the perspective of the employer.

Don't get me wrong, I can see the short term, political attraction of such a policy. Public sector workers are an easy target - overpaid, underworked, over-pensioned busybodies who get in the way of our day to day lives. The problem is, they're still needed, every time someone says, "There ought to be a law against it!", or, "The Government must act!", or when someone litters the street or requires someone to look after granny.

And if you want to attract the sort of people who can run those services better, find innovative ways or doing more with less or even, if you're the Government, run things without making you unpopular in the process, you really need to be a little more realistic, and offer slightly less blanket criticism and deprecation.

I'm a firm believer in a well-run, efficient and effective public sector. If you provide people with the right incentives, you can do more with less, generating the sort of goodwill that radical reformers need in order to re-engineer government to face the challenges of the coming decades. Sadly, I don't think that many politicians get it, and fear that those who do have vacated the field in search of more fruitful areas of campaigning. I just hope that we don't find ourselves regretting that one day...

Liberal Democrat Voice and moderation - some historical perspective...

As the former Readers' Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, I was obliged to give much thought to the dilemma that faces any debating platform, i.e. how do you create a space which is inclusive yet lively, informative but not aggressive, in the face of accusations of being either overly laissez-faire or unreasonably censorious? My conclusion was that you can never satisfy everyone, so you might as well be true to yourself and as consistent and transparent as you can.

Of course, the dilemma is one that predates the Internet, as this guidance, explicitly defining the formal conditions for fruitful conversation, demonstrates;

During the discussion that followed readings or lectures, members were to avoid arbitrary or ill-considered comments. Critiques should engage in a structured way with the style, method and content of the lecture. They should employ 'the cautious language of reason'. Digressions and interruptions were strictly prohibited. All members were ultimately guaranteed the right to have their say, but they must wait their turn and make remarks as concise as possible. Satirical or mocking remarks and suggestive wordplay were unacceptable.

The fact that the guidance was issued by the 'German societies' which sprang up across Prussia in the mid-eighteenth century, does tell you that discussion moderation has been an issue for some time now and, indeed, that the basic problems are unchanging.

For the Liberal Democrat Voice team, that demonstrates the scale of the moderation challenge. In the early days, moderation was quite relaxed, before tightening up significantly after the expenses scandal in 2009. I admit that, subsequently, I had thought that moderation had become excessive until I became part of the team myself, and began to appreciate the challenges brought about by some of the behaviours exhibited.

But now, I find myself wondering whether or not the current policy finds the team caught between two stools - activist in terms of one-off incidents, yet excessively tolerant in terms of those who consistently derail threads, behave aggressively towards other participants or who seek to distort the apparent support for their position by multiple commenting.

The policy of placing 'difficult' individuals in auto-moderation is, as far as it goes, merely a starting point. It generates more work for the team, work which is trying, to say the least, and irritates those penalised, often causing them to spend time challenging the moderation policy, generating even more work.

It is argued that banning people is illiberal. Banning people because you feel like It is illiberal. But if you establish a set of rules, clearly stated, you are obliged to enforce them, and the punishment is meant to be for those breaking them, not those enforcing them. It is not censorship to deny those who lack respect for the rules of a community a platform - there are plenty of other platforms for them - below the line on most articles in the national newspapers, Guido Fawkes, the list is probably endless.

Whilst the articles on Liberal Democrat Voice retain their interest, the comments below are too often predictable and dominated by what seems like an diminishing number of individuals. I note that my engagement, as well as my participation, has dropped recently, and I wonder if I am alone in that.

But those of us who wish it were better do have a responsibility too. We could engage, adhering to the rules for the 'German societies' outlined above, and see how it goes. After all, we'd miss Liberal Democrat Voice if it were gone, wouldn't we?

Universal Credit: is it the theory or the practice that is bothering Rachel Reeves?

According to the Daily Telegraph, Iain Duncan-Smith is intending to accelerate the rollout of Universal Credit to thwart Rachel Reeves and her intention to pause its implementation.

This is odd, because Ms Reeves said that in June, after the Major Projects Authority and the Public Accounts Committee has noted their concerns with the project. They were probably right to, if the concern was simply over the cost of the project and the likelihood of the IT infrastructure working. However, it isn't clear to me whether or not a pause would lead to scrapping the project or not.

Universal Credit, not necessarily coming to a town near you soon...

Universal Credit, in conceptual terms, seems like a bit of a no-brainer. Bringing together the application processes of a number of benefits and rolling them into one would reduce the cost of bureaucracy and, perhaps ironically, making it more likely that some vulnerable people would receive benefits to which they were entitled but had not actually claimed, put off by the hassle of form filling and assessment. And, in theory, there is nothing that should prevent the creation of an IT system that would support it.

In practice, however, government is bad at big IT projects, poor on procurement, prone to mid-project interference and weak on deciding what it actually wants in the first place.

And so it has come to pass with Universal Credit. Ironically, one of the underpinning changes, the introduction by HM Revenue & Customs of Real Time Information for PAYE, seems to have gone quite smoothly, exposing the uncomfortable fact that any system requiring the analysis and processing of data is only as good as the data fed in. And some employers, it turns out, aren't very good at that.

Nonetheless, the Universal Credit programme has been delayed significantly, leading to a perceived loss of confidence that it will work.

But what is one to do? Scrapping the project takes you back to the drawing board, whereby you still need to find ways of cutting the cost of social security. And, if cutting the cost of administration is made more difficult, that means an increased likelihood that benefits themselves will need to be cut - not an attractive option for politicians who claim to want to protect the poor and the vulnerable.

So, Ms Reeves faces a dilemma. Does she continue to harbour public doubts about the viability of Universal Credit, does she openly support the concept, or does she oppose both process and concept? And time is ticking...

HMRC still not that good at answering the telephone, politician comes up with soundbite...

Shabana Mahmood, Labour's shadow
Exchequer Secretary

Yesterday, I touched upon Ed Balls and his proposals to cut the deficit to nil by the end of the next Parliament. He is, he claims, counting on his colleagues to come up with savings and reforms to make this possible.

At the same time, his colleagues are putting their best foot forward. Here's Shabana Mahmood, Labour's shadow Exchequer Secretary, responding to the news that HM Revenue & Customs have published disappointing data on waiting time for callers to its helplines;

At a time when people are paying more in tax and have seen their tax credits cut, it simply isn’t good enough.

Long waits and poor service are particularly frustrating when many people are facing difficult times for the personal finances.

Ministers need to get a grip on this chaos and ensure HMRC is providing a decent service for taxpayers. The government shouldn’t be leaving people hanging on the telephone.

Well, yes, she has a point. However, given that the long term trend, established under both recent administrations, has been to cut costs by 5% per annum, the inevitable loss of staff that has resulted does mean that choices have had to be made. What, might one reasonably ask, do politicians want of HMRC and how badly do they want it?

And, given that she might reasonably be expected to be the responsible minister in the event of a Labour victory, what does she propose to do about it? Would she;

a) employ more staff, or

b) simplify the tax system to reduce the number of calls from confused taxpayers, or

c) blame management, or;

d) nothing much.

And, you see, as a senior figure of a credible party of government, she needs to have a strategy for addressing the problem. Yesterday, Ed Balls appeared to be ruling out employing more staff, so that doesn't seem like a likely solution.

Simplifying the tax system is unlikely too - its very complexity, combined with the view that the tax system offers an avenue to change behaviours, makes that quite difficult. That leaves blaming management or nothing. Civil servants are dispensable, and politicians don't appear to like them very much, so I fear that she may be headed in that direction.

It's a pity, because there is an opportunity here to rethink the way a key public service is run and managed, and it is quite possible that Ms Mahmood has some ideas along that line. The problem is, if she's going to stick to the usual strategy of attacking something we all agree to be sub-optimal without offering possible solutions, we, the voters will just assume that she's just another politician.

Turning around something that Ros often says about Facebook, you can't change things by just saying that they're bad, you actually have to make choices. And you'd like to think that politicians would take a little more care before attacking the very people who raise the revenue that is spent on all of those things that said politicians want to take credit for...

Is a Conservative/Labour grand coalition actually a serious runner?

Only two days ago, I rather rashly ruled out a Conservative/Labour coalition as almost too absurd to take seriously. And yet, Ian Birrell, writing in the Guardian yesterday, is suggesting that it might be a credible possibility. He, of course, is paid for his opinion, whereas I am not, so one ought to do him the courtesy of giving him a hearing, even if the 'below the line' comment is almost entirely negative, often offensively so (plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose...).

He suggests that, rather than yield to a constitutional crisis, the two big parties could come to an arrangement...

A government of national unity between Labour and the Conservatives may sound far-fetched, especially amid the froth and fury of a nascent election campaign. It would certainly be tricky, exacerbating internal divisions and leading to more defections. Yet, while there are serious disagreements, the two parties have more in common with each other than with the insurgents on many key issues – especially if David Cameron survived and Miliband was replaced by someone such as Chuka Umunna.

It may well be that the two parties have a lot of common ground - the deficit, a desire to control from the centre, a surprisingly similar world view on the welfare system, a general lack of regard for civil liberties, but I don't believe that it is as encompassing as Ian would have us believe.

For political parties are not just about the politicians in Westminster, they are about activists and members, about donors and deliverers. Labour has increased its membership on the basis that it opposes the Coalition's austerity, but could it hold onto them in coalition with the hated Tories? Not very likely? Could the unions give money to a Labour Party almost certainly promoting further cuts in public spending which will self-evidently impact on their members? One must surely believe that Labour strategists, having seen what happened to the Liberal Democrats, would be astonishingly wary of committing organisational suicide in such a manner. And if not, they must be either very naive or truly, heroically, optimistic.

From a Conservative perspective, one could reasonably expect a hemorrhaging of members, activists and councillors to UKIP, for could an in/out referendum on Europe be granted by Labour? Indeed, would the Conservative aim to shrink the size of the State be stymied by the need to get Labour MPs from the North, Scotland and Wales onside?

It all seems highly unlikely. Admittedly, one does get the impression sometimes that the one key thing that both Labour and Conservative politicians have in common is a mutual hatred for Liberal Democrats, but that's hardly enough, is it?

He does appear to be an optimist, when he suggests that;

Regardless of the personalities and positions, however, the two parties could start to hammer out those huge issues confronting the nation that conventional politics seems incapable of solving. These include the creation of a modern political system, the resolution of Britain’s haphazard drift into federalism and a workable funding solution to save the creaking NHS.

I'm sorry, but why should the two prime beneficiaries of the current political system want to change it. Labour benefit from the current arrangements very well indeed, needing less votes to gain an overall majority than the Conservatives do, whilst first past the post makes it very difficult for new parties to break through and discourages defection to other parties.

And, Mr Birrell, what's so bad about federalism anyway? The problem is not federalism itself, it is the inability of Labour or Conservatives to actually give any meaningful thought to the opportunities and challenges of relinquishing central control over so many aspects of our lives. Besides, they rather promised it when they rushed to Scotland in the dying days of the referendum campaign to make The Vow.

As for the NHS, funding is not the whole of the problem. Structure is key too. What services can/should the State provide, and how do you design a system that adjusts to changing pressures over time? Throwing money at it doesn't appear to have helped as much as it might have been expected to, and, as I recall, we still don't have any.

So, whilst on consideration, one should never rule out anything, I still see a Grand Coalition as a fairly unlikely option after 7 May. On the other hand, after a second inconclusive election...

Ed Balls - still working on that credibility thing, I see...

A cup of tea, that will help...

I see that the Shadow Chancellor has written another piece for the Guardian explaining why George Osborne's austerity is bad but Labour's will be so much nicer - the axe will look pretty, as I understand it.

So far, however, the actuality of what Labour might do to reduce the deficit to nil has been, to put it kindly, noticeable only by its lack of content, with the honourable exception of Rachel Reeves, who has proposed a range of changes to the social security system which are not really of the kind that will get Labour activists dancing in the streets. So, with just four months to go before polling day, what has Ed come up with?

This choice is not about whether to get the deficit down. All the main parties are committed to balancing the books in the next parliament – whatever the smears from David Cameron. But only Labour has a plan which is tough and deliverable, balanced and fair. We will cut the deficit every year, and get the current budget into surplus – and national debt falling – as soon as possible in the next parliament. But we will take a different approach to the Tories. We will reverse the £3bn a year tax cut the Tories and Lib Dems have given the top 1% of earners, and put saving our NHS at the heart of Labour’s first budget with our plan to raise an extra £2.5bn a year. We will also scrap the winter fuel allowance for the richest pensioners and cap child benefit rises at 1%. Our review of every pound spent by government is finding savings that can be made in order to better protect frontline services, including £250m in policing and over half a billion in local government. And in the coming weeks my shadow cabinet colleagues will set out further details of the savings they have identified and the reforms they will make.

So, what do we now know? The top rate of tax will, presumably, be increased to 50%. Will it raise £3 billion a year? Well, that rather depends on your stance on the Laffer curve, I guess. But let's say that it does what Ed claims. However, Ed will raise, and spend, a chunk more money on the NHS - he is somewhat silent on how he'll raise the funds, presumably via the mansion tax.

The winter fuel allowance will be scrapped for wealthy pensioners, some of the benefits of doing so  to be eaten up by the bureaucracy of means-testing, I guess. Child benefit will be cut in real terms, taking money away from the poor - I'm not expecting to see that on a Labour leaflet any time soon.

Oh, and that classic, finding savings - shorthand for cutting spending - on policing and local government. And all of this to be done by a bunch of people who, for the most part, failed utterly to do so when they were last in government.

I'm particularly looking forward to Andy Burnham's proposals for reform of the NHS... involving no top-down reorganisations or restructuring...

Latvia - a country to be proud of

Call me quirky if you will, but I rather liked the video marking the fact that Latvia will hold the Presidency of the European Council for the first half of 2015 - Luxembourg are next - and so, having discovered the follow up, I thought that I ought to bring it to your attention...

In the event of a hung parliament, please break glass...

It is interesting to watch as the Westminster village turns its thoughts to what would happen in the event of an inconclusive result on May 7th. There is talk of a second election, of possible coalitions involving the Liberal Democrats, UKIP, the Scottish Nationalists and the Democratic Unionists - sorry Greens and Plaid Cymru, but there just aren't going to be enough of you to be decisive, I fear.

I have, to some extent, written off the first election as leading to a hung Parliament. So, what might happen?

• Conservative/UKIP coalition - unlikely to get enough seats to form an administration, and even if they just scraped together enough seats, could it ever be stable? We still really know what UKIP stand for on so much of the spectrum of government activity. All we do know is that they don't want to be unpopular. How much in the way of cuts is required, Nigel?

• Conservative/Democratic Unionist coalition - see above, but add on a new leisure centre/hospital/nice thing for Belfast/Derry/Coleraine/insert name of Ulster town here if the Conservatives really want something badly.

• Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition - they hate us, we've given up enough with the MPs we have now. With less MPs, what could we really hope to get that would make the pain worth it?

• Labour/SNP coalition - what's in it for the SNP? Independence couldn't be on the cards unless it was part of a package of radical constitutional reform to protect Labour in England. Electoral reform at Westminster and for local government to prevent Conservative majorities in a rump United Kingdom would surely be a minimum, and I can't see Labour having the courage, or the imagination, to do that. They might do it in order to be in power though. I, for one, would look forward to seeing how Labour's recent membership recruits accept the painful cuts that such an administration would have to make.

• Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition - are there going to be enough of us to make this work, and even if there were, do Labour understand the idea of sharing power? I'm not convinced, frankly. Indeed, I can see a scenario whereby we go into coalition with them, and they then seek to blame us for the cuts that follow.

• Labour/SNP/Liberal Democrat coalition - after the unpleasantness that surrounded the referendum campaign last year, could three parties that were so vitriolic towards each other really work together reliably? On the other hand, having two junior partners might bring home the reality of coalition to the Labour leadership. And then, perhaps, you could get the constitutional reform referred to above.

• Conservative/Labour coalition - don't laugh, after all, just how much difference is there between the two parties on some of the main issues? But seriously, if you thought that David Cameron made a big offer to the Liberal Democrats in 2010...

So, a sceptic might suggest that none of the coalition options are likely to be stable and acceptable to the parties concerned. And that means a second General Election, as the politicians say to the Great British Public, "Try again and give us a result that works this time.".

And, in the event that the voters produce another inconclusive result, what happens next?

That, folks, is the question that nobody really wants to have to address, leaving us with four months of campaigning where the minor parties will be talking about red lines for coalition and the two major parties will be trying really hard not to talk about coalitions until forced to.

It would be ironic, would it not, if 'first past the post' produced an outcome that was even more unstable than the worst outcomes of proportional representation...

So much for New Year resolutions... Welcome to 2015!

Like a lot of people, I usually make a few resolutions at the beginning of the year, break them sooner rather than later, and then feel badly about it. And so, this year, no specific resolutions, no "I'll improve X by Y", just a general "try and be a little less useless this year".

And it's not as if I'm particularly useless. I am, I think, reasonably competent at the things I do - I don't tend to attempt things that don't suit my skill set. But I could be better, a little more focussed, a little more disciplined, a little more organised. So, we'll see how that goes.

Meanwhile, here on the blog, it's a General Election year, so traffic might be a bit heavier. I also reach my tenth anniversary as a blogger in October, so there might be a little bit of retrospection. I started, after the obligatory self-justification post, with a reference to llamas in internal party campaigning. I leave it to you to judge whether or not the blog has moved on from there...