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

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

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

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

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

Banking with Abbey: reasons to get annoyed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suffolk reviews: Kasztelan Cafe, Ipswich

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

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

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

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

Why supporting Keith Vaz is quite astute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A day out in search of knowledge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Getting back into the swing of things

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bones Commission: a recovering bureaucrat thinks aloud

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservatives in shock call for more immigration!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A commuter asks, “So, do I wait, or do I walk?”

As a Londoner and a non-driver, the much vexed question, “ How long do I wait for the bus?” is one that occupies much of my commuting time (far too much, for those of you who are interested). Once you start waiting, you feel obliged to wait just those extra five minutes, in the almost certain knowledge that, if you don’t, the bus will arrive just as you reach the point of no return.

It was, therefore, with a degree of fascination that I read news of research by Scott Kominers, a mathematician at Harvard University, indicating that, in the absence of information, the lazy option is, statistically, the best one.

I live in the north-west London suburb of Kingsbury, sufficiently far from a useful Underground station to make using a bus a viable option. However, I have a choice of two buses, one of which runs more frequently, but takes longer to get to Wembley Park station, the other less frequent, but runs me to Kingsbury station in a shorter time. Kingsbury adds four minutes to my train journey but I get a seat. Dilemmas, dilemmas…

My bus stop has something called ‘Countdown’ which, technically, tells me how long it will be before the next bus comes. The catch is, it isn’t wholly reliable. It might, for example, tell me that there is a bus due in eight minutes, when one is actually coming around the corner. On the other hand, it might tell me that there is a bus three minutes away, which remains agonising that close for another five minutes. Alternatively, it mysteriously disappears into the West Hendon triangle, never to be seen again.

What I really need is a mathematician to tell me what my best option is. Actually, what I really need is a helicopter…

Peter Hain: government isn’t just about making laws, you’ve got to uphold them too…

There is an incredible irony about today’s resignation of Peter Hain, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Most ministers bite the dust because of financial and sexual peccadilloes, the odd one because they simply aren’t up to the job. Unusually, Hain has gone because of a simple inability to understand that, if you are a senior figure in a political party that has created legislation to control fundraising and spending, you really ought to obey it yourself.

The most worrying aspect of this is that he isn’t alone. Gordon Brown defended Hain, claiming that it was ‘incompetence’. It isn’t simple incompetence, Gordon, it’s a crime. You and your colleagues designed the legislation. You voted it through the Commons and pushed it through the Lords. Now you have to obey it, just like the thousands of other pieces of legislation inflicted on ordinary people by an administration who can’t see a single problem without reaching for the legislative agenda – the same old story of ‘something must be done, this is something, it must be done’ – regardless of whatever laws already exist which can effectively be used to deal with the problem.

The claims that he was too busy don’t stand up either, I’m afraid. Ros frequently reminds me not to take on commitments that I can’t effectively deliver upon, and that represents extremely good advice(perhaps Peter might like to give Ros a call on the subject). If, as an agent, I fail to file the proper declarations at the end of a campaign, I can potentially go to prison, or at least pay a hefty fine. I will be criminalised by a piece of Labour legislation that, to be frank, I fully supported then, and now. Yes, it is an administrative burden, but I’m not claiming responsibility for an entire Government department. Peter Hain was, on the other hand.

So, now he has resigned in order to clear his name. I await with interest his defence. The law is very simple. Did he declare all donations above the proscribed amount within the due deadline? Evidently, he did not, as he has admitted. Was he ignorant of the legislation? I think not, as ignorance is no defence before the law. Did aliens from the planet Zog create such chaos in his office that papers could not be located? Perhaps his permatan caused him to be confused…

In fairness, had he failed to declare one contribution, it might have argued that it was simply an oversight, he could apologise for the mistake, and pay whatever fine was levied. A six-figure oversight, on the other hand, is way more than simple incompetence can justify, and he had no choice but to go. Obvious to anyone with any sense of moral fibre and decency, it is astonishing to think that there are those in our party who thought it necessary to defend him. Perhaps an ethics course might be helpful?

Free trade isn't a panacea unless it is truly free

Last May, I wrote a piece about my concerns over trade talks between the European Union and the various South Pacific island nations. I wasn't against the notion, merely newly aware of the issues of isolated states with predominantly subsistence economies, where competition may overwhelm small-scale local producers. My 'reward' was to take flak from some of our more zealous defenders of a comparatively unfettered free market international economy, in particular, Cllr Liberal Polemic himself, Tom Papworth.

However, it would seem that my concerns weren't a sign of eccentric weakness. Of the Pacific nations within the ACP (Africa, Caribbean and Pacific) group, only Papua New Guinea and Fiji have signed up to the new agreements, with the others, Vanuatu amongst them, demurring at this time.

Now, there are stirrings in Africa. A campaign, led by local musicians with serious followings amongst the population, is being run against the European Partnership Agreements (EPAs), condemning them as 'Enslavement, Pillage and Appropriation'. Their rap, 'We Won't Sign It Now!' is a sign that the allegations of linkage between the signing of EPAs and allocation of development aid are having a detrimental effect on EU relations with under-developed nations.

My more gung-ho, academic friends have to realise that the politics of perception inevitably come into play when it comes to international trade agreements. Poor, underdeveloped nations, once looted by the colonial powers, are rightly suspicious of the motives of the major trading blocs in seeking such agreements. Whilst an EU/Vanuatu agreement is hardly a subject for lengthy and animated debate on the streets of Madrid, Manchester or Maribor, it is of massive significance in Port Vila, Vanuatu's capital. The discrepancy in terms of power between the two parties is vast, an inevitability of creating a European Union and, indeed, one of its much-trumpeted advantages. Vanuatu's indigenous industries have much to fear from better-resourced European competitors, especially given subsidy levels to EU farmers, and the comparative economies of scale that major European businesses have.

This is not to say that such an agreement is bad for Vanuatu, merely that there are sensitivities that we, as 'rich Westerners', have to be aware of. The simple mantra that free trade is a good thing just doesn't address the genuine fears of the people we are claiming to want to help. Liberals believe in the empowerment of individuals and communities. How does that square with the effective imposition of trade agreements perceived, rightly or wrongly, as lopsided?

Et tu, Ros?

And so I have become part of a multi-blog household(s). Ros launched her new oeuvre into the for now warm waters of the blogosphere on Wednesday, and received a friendly welcome from some of you (thank you for your kindness, by the way).

When I first started dating Ros, my view of the House of Lords was more cliche than reality. Images of elderly gentlemen sleeping off an excellent lunch and occasionally waking up to deliver a rousing condemnation of the various works of whatever century they happened to believe they were in were foremost in my association with the Upper Chamber. Since then, I've had a crash course in the role of the House of Lords and, in particular, the activities of the Liberal Democrat front bench, and highly educational it has been too.

I'm therefore delighted that Ros's activities will get a wider audience. Given that our side actually win votes on various pieces of Labour's increasingly shambolic legislation, and, that as our Lords spokesperson on Communities and Local Government, her work impacts on those of us who are active in local government as councillors, employees and activists, it should prove to be an interesting insight to Government 'thinking' and a warning of what is to be done in the name of Brownian Labour.

And hopefully, it will encourage me to improve the frequency of postings here...

Time to look tough by beating up on the public sector again…

Yes, it’s that time of year once again, when the Government decides that the best way to look like it is cracking down on wage inflation is to offer below-inflationary pay rises to civil servants noting, as usual, that MPs will be offered a rather more generous settlement.

In my own beloved Revenue & Customs (HMRC), we are in the midst of a programme to cut staffing numbers by 25,000 over six years, i.e. a staffing reduction of 26%. I have no fundamental objection to that, if we can deliver the level of service that the public demand. We are, alongside that, being asked to deliver a 5% reduction in costs, year on year. Again, no fundamental objection there, after all, we are a public body, accountable to, and paid by, the public.

But, in truth, we are being asked to lay our bodies on the line for the Chancellor and his boss. Morale has been low for some time, and too many of my colleagues, whose capabilities I respect, are talking about their retirement with more anticipation than is good in an organisation which has much to do amidst rapid change. The expectation is that our reward for being co-operative is a real terms pay cut, to be delivered over three years.

Curiously enough, there are already stirrings of discontent beyond the walls of HMRC buildings. “Taxation”, described as ‘the market-leading magazine for tax practitioners’, has started a campaign against further staff cuts (we’re about halfway through the programme, I’m told), triggered by the recent loss of those pesky CD’s, but focusing on the alleged deterioration in the level of service provided by HMRC. I can’t really comment on that, for a whole bunch of reasons, but I’m sure that they can provide plenty of evidence to support their contention.

In order to achieve the required cut in staffing numbers, recruitment will dry up (as will advancement opportunities), and departing staff will not be replaced. Whilst staff are moving around to fill the gaps, and retrained as necessary, pressure will build on those remaining, lowering morale further. A real pay cut will exacerbate the problem and encourage the best and the brightest (at least, those who haven’t become institutionalised, as I have) to flee to the private sector (the bigger accountancy firms have a pretty good idea as to the quality of HMRC training – and can pay rather attractive salaries to our technically trained Inspectors, especially in London).

And, once we finally start to recruit again, whenever staff numbers stabilise, salaries will be less attractive, less competitive, and we will struggle to recruit the quality of staff required to provide a decent service both to the public and to the public purse.

So, if you’re reading this Alastair, give it just a little thought before you make the expected derisory offer. You’ve had a tough introduction to the job, so a few friends might be a useful investment for a rainy day…

Choice is a good thing. Isn’t it?

I have been following the ongoing choice debate with some interest, especially given my predilection for free market economics (yes, I admit it, I’m on the right wing of the Party, whatever that means…). However, as a bureaucrat, I have some reservations, based predominantly on the concept of provision of real choice for real people.

Firstly, let’s be realistic about the extent to which the offer of choice will actually apply. In rural areas, where service provision is limited by viability and geography, a meaningful choice of schools, doctors and, to some extent, hospitals, will be decidedly limited. Don’t get me wrong, this is not an argument against offering choice, merely a note to be borne in mind when the great campaign for choice is rolled out. To some extent, choice is an urban issue, whereas in villages and hamlets across the country, having a viable school within reach at all is the pressing concern. Doctor’s surgery? If you’re lucky, although you’ll probably have to go to a town, where you’ll be competing with locals for a place on their list.

One of the key aspects to meaningful choice is access to the information needed to make a good choice. School league tables, operative success rates and the like are freely available, but predominantly via the Internet. Whilst the question of the ‘digital divide’ is still an open one, and it really isn’t one that I’ve heard any political party address recently, the chances are that the poor and the elderly will be restricted in their access to the information they require. Yes, public libraries and internet cafes are a solution, although access to them is somewhat limited, but is that sufficient, and are we willing to provide extra resources to connect people to the information they need?

I am reassured to some extent by the talk of empowerment, although words are cheap. There will necessarily be a role for the state in gathering, collating and providing information to those wishing to exercise their right to choose, and we need to decide how that role is delivered, and by whom. We will also need to provide support to ‘customers’, and a decision on how that support is best provided is one that will come with costs.

However, my primary concern is that choice, unless properly supported, will create yet another divide in our society. The very wealthy have choice because they can, quite simply, pay for it. The middle classes will have choice because they are ambitious enough to seek it. On the other hand, the child of parents who lack ambition for themselves and their loved ones (and I acknowledge that there are generational and other issues here) are less likely to seek the best options and therefore more likely to accept what the state ‘gives’ them.

I am a child of the 1960’s. Partly because of the change of culture over the intervening years, and partly because my parents very wisely brought me up without a burning desire to have ‘stuff’, I tend to the view that there are people out there who ‘want it’ more than I do. I’m not desperately ambitious. On the other hand, there are people out there who are, and if I’m not careful, there is the risk that I will be trampled to death as an innocent standing between them and what they want. Choice is like that. Thus, it is my contention that, in a liberal society, you don’t simply give people choice, you actively empower people to make the best choices.

Such a stance comes with a cost, at least as far as a government is concerned. However, if we genuinely believe in choice for all, we are going to have to address that cost in a clear and measured manner. I trust that those who are most enthusiastic in pursuit of the choice agenda will bear that in mind…

The bureaucrat's choice for President of the United States...

So, it seems that I'm a Democrat - as a member of Americans for Democratic Action, I should hope so! I'm pretty mainstream too...

87% Chris Dodd
85% Barack Obama
81% Hillary Clinton
79% John Edwards
79% Bill Richardson
78% Joe Biden
74% Dennis Kucinich
71% Mike Gravel
48% Rudy Giuliani
44% John McCain
36% Mike Huckabee
34% Mitt Romney
27% Ron Paul
24% Tom Tancredo
24% Fred Thompson

Watching the candidates… why Obama looks like the best thing since sliced bread…

Having been in the US for more than a week in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, I’ve been keeping more than one eye on the campaign.

On the Democratic side, it is clearly becoming a two-and-a-half horse contest, with John Edwards likely to hang on in the hope of becoming the Vice-Presidential nominee – it worked last time so why not this?

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has weaved a rather crooked path thus far. She has talked up her involvement in foreign affairs, and talked about her experience, as opposed to that of Barack Obama. There is a clear problem here, in that the Clinton administration denied that Hillary was playing a key role in foreign policy making at the time, and her claims merely remind people that they weren’t keen on such involvement on her point at the time.

Unfortunately, the Obama message - change - has proved to be very attractive, so Hillary has begun to claim that only she can deliver change. Unfortunately, the people running her campaign are exactly the same people who were running things during Bill’s presidency. Can they actually change things, or would they run things the same way as before? The latter seems more likely, especially if you have traded on their experience previously.

So now, it is time to attack Obama for promising more than he can deliver. John F Kennedy would weep to hear such an argument, and the concept that giving people hope should be a negative one, for me, says far too much about the ambitions of a Hillary Clinton presidency. So far, hope has been triumphant, and with rough parity in terms of resources, Hillary is going to have to work awfully hard to save this.

Her big advantage is that the Party leadership is broadly supportive, although there is always the risk that supposedly loyal allies will peel off if they believe that Obama can win.

So, why does Barack Obama appear so credible? He is, I must say, a pretty inspirational speaker. He name checks the key figures, the likes of Martin Luther King Jr., and he talks of hope whilst looking serious. He can smile, and does it often enough to appear likeable. He also looks like a leader and a visionary, and appears to understand just how unpopular America appears to the outside observer – although that’s an interesting point in itself.

He is convincing in terms of building a ‘big tent’, rather than a ‘rainbow coalition’, the latter being something which has been a dream of the Democratic Party leadership for so long without ever becoming a reality. On the other hand, building a coalition from across the political spectrum can, if done sincerely, win elections and allow meaningful action.

I hope that Obama can win the nomination, even though he will find it harder to win the Presidency than other potential Democratic nominees might. The notion that we might have an American president with whom we can share common values is one that we should relish, especially if we are serious about changing the world by example rather than diktat.

Happy New Year to you all…

I’ve been rather out of touch with this blogging stuff for the past fortnight or so, due to my absence from most things Liberal Democrat in Washington and Denver. So, I really ought to catch up… watch this space…