Ken Clarke says that changes to the inheritance tax regime are now a lower priority for an incoming Conservative administration. They are, he says, an 'aspiration' and 'not something we are going to do the moment we take power'.
George Osborne says that it will be a manifesto commitment, and that it is 'a promise we will keep'. Putting aside the fact that it is one of the precious few commitments that any Conservative has made on anything, it demonstrates the ongoing tension between George and Ken and, in turn, between the Conservative frontbench and Conservative activists.
And this is where the Conservative failure to comprehend how strategies employed by others work before using them themselves shows itself. In the years from 1992, New Labour promised financial stability but also investment in public services and infrastructure. There was a tacit understanding that this would mean higher levels of public spending, and voters knew that Labour would do that - it was in their historic DNA.
The Conservatives, by applying the same strategy of promising little but embodying change, need to persuade people that they can cut taxes without hurting the public sector. Therefore, David Cameron and George Osborne talk about the well-off 'paying their fair share' and have withdrawn their public opposition to the proposed 45% tax rate. Unfortunately, the activists and carriers of the Thatcherite 'low tax, smaller government' flame don't like it. Indeed, they don't like it at all.
The risk for Messrs Cameron and Osborne is that they fall between two stools, failing to convince the public that they want fairer taxes whilst maintaining public services, whilst at the same time leaving their activists disenchanted and less committed to the struggle. As an activist, the question is, who to believe? Is it Ken, the big beast brought in to add ballast to the Conservative frontbench, or George, the unproven Shadow Chancellor with a tendancy towards flakiness under pressure?
The answer to that question may cast a shadow over perceptions of Conservative competence on tax and the economy for some time...
Monday, March 23, 2009
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Unlocking Democracy: 20 Years of Charter 88
The bookshop Housmans will be holding a special event next week with guests Peter Facey (Director, Unlock Democracy) and Anthony Barnett (co-founder, Charter 88 and co-director of the Convention on Modern Liberty).
Event information:
Wednesday 25th March – 7pm
Housmans Bookshop
5 Caledonian Road
King's Cross
London
N1 9DX
Tel: 020 7837 4473
Free entry
Nearest tube: King's Cross St Pancras
If you're in the area, why not drop in?
Event information:
Wednesday 25th March – 7pm
Housmans Bookshop
5 Caledonian Road
King's Cross
London
N1 9DX
Tel: 020 7837 4473
Free entry
Nearest tube: King's Cross St Pancras
If you're in the area, why not drop in?
Not exactly the last train to South Cambridgeshire
Halfway between Kingsbury and Creeting St Peter is the railway station at Whittlesford Parkway, a fact which, until recently, had no particular value to me. Until last night, that is, when I found myself on the 17:28 service from Liverpool Street to Cambridge.
It's not a journey that I've made very often, and certainly not recently, but the route up the Lea Valley is pretty enough once you get beyond the London suburbs and a pretty good sunset meant that I could look out of the window and enjoy the scenery. Darkness fell as I left Essex and entered Cambridgeshire, and I was met by Peter, who had very kindly offered to pick me up and take me to the evening's event, a dinner hosted by the South Rural branch of South Cambridgeshire Liberal Democrats. Ros had arrived separately, and was out knocking on doors with one of the local campaigners, Tim Stone.
My first surprise was to run into Balan Sisupalan, a former colleague on the London Region Candidates Committee. He has a home inside the Cambridge city boundaries, and had dropped in to see what was happening.
However, Balan wasn't the only person I know in the South Cambridgeshire area. Sebastian Kindersley, the PPC for the constituency, was approved as a Parliamentary candidate by a panel which included your correspondent, and Fiona Whelan, recently elected to the County Council in a pretty sensational by-election win, turned up with her two sons - nice jacket, by the way, Fiona!
Best of all, my old friend Peter Facey was able to make it. Whilst he has recently moved over the border to North East Hertforshire, he has retained his links there, and it was great to have a chance to catch up.
Ros opened the event by speaking and taking questions. You can never predict the types of questions that get asked on these occasions, and last night saw a number of foreign policy questions. Our members in South Cambridgeshire come from a variety of backgrounds, and a retired professor of philosophy raised the interesting dilemma of what to do about Afghanistan. Should we stay and fight an apparently unwinnable war, or should we just withdraw and let the Afghans decide their future?
Dinner followed, with curry and desset, and an opportunity for me to talk about sport - should tennis be an Olympic sport? - Argentina and why it's wonderful, and the fact that South Cambridgeshire is the second best rural authority in which to live. Did I mention that Mid Suffolk is the best?...
And then back to Creeting St Peter for a glass of wine and then sleep...
It's not a journey that I've made very often, and certainly not recently, but the route up the Lea Valley is pretty enough once you get beyond the London suburbs and a pretty good sunset meant that I could look out of the window and enjoy the scenery. Darkness fell as I left Essex and entered Cambridgeshire, and I was met by Peter, who had very kindly offered to pick me up and take me to the evening's event, a dinner hosted by the South Rural branch of South Cambridgeshire Liberal Democrats. Ros had arrived separately, and was out knocking on doors with one of the local campaigners, Tim Stone.
My first surprise was to run into Balan Sisupalan, a former colleague on the London Region Candidates Committee. He has a home inside the Cambridge city boundaries, and had dropped in to see what was happening.
However, Balan wasn't the only person I know in the South Cambridgeshire area. Sebastian Kindersley, the PPC for the constituency, was approved as a Parliamentary candidate by a panel which included your correspondent, and Fiona Whelan, recently elected to the County Council in a pretty sensational by-election win, turned up with her two sons - nice jacket, by the way, Fiona!
Best of all, my old friend Peter Facey was able to make it. Whilst he has recently moved over the border to North East Hertforshire, he has retained his links there, and it was great to have a chance to catch up.
Ros opened the event by speaking and taking questions. You can never predict the types of questions that get asked on these occasions, and last night saw a number of foreign policy questions. Our members in South Cambridgeshire come from a variety of backgrounds, and a retired professor of philosophy raised the interesting dilemma of what to do about Afghanistan. Should we stay and fight an apparently unwinnable war, or should we just withdraw and let the Afghans decide their future?
Dinner followed, with curry and desset, and an opportunity for me to talk about sport - should tennis be an Olympic sport? - Argentina and why it's wonderful, and the fact that South Cambridgeshire is the second best rural authority in which to live. Did I mention that Mid Suffolk is the best?...
And then back to Creeting St Peter for a glass of wine and then sleep...
Unlock Democracy - fighting to close the democratic deficit
I've been involved with Unlock Democracy and one of its predecessor organisations, the New Politics Network, for a few years now, after their Director, Peter Facey, asked me if I would be interested in getting involved. Given my long-running interest in the workings of our democracy, and twenty-five years as a jobbing Returning Officer at student union and Party levels, it was an easy offer to accept, and I've served on the Council of the two organisations since then.
However, last month my level of engagement rose to a new height, when I became a member of the Management Board of Unlock Democracy. Our role is best described as working with our Director to develop a strategy whereby the aims of Unlock Democracy are best pursued.
It is vital that such organisations are supported, as they fulfil a role unsuited to political parties, and I take the view that, in this regard, I'm there as a believer in a stronger democracy rather than as a Liberal Democrat.
At last night's event held by South Cambridgeshire Lib Dems, Peter and I coincidentally happened to be present, and we took the opportunity to catch up on how things are going. We're very lucky to have people like James Graham and Alex Runswick, to name but two, working for us, and I am conscious of my responsibilities as part of the management team. So I'm hoping to dedicate a bit more time towards Unlock Democracy in future - not to interfere, you understand but to support their efforts as best I can.
However, last month my level of engagement rose to a new height, when I became a member of the Management Board of Unlock Democracy. Our role is best described as working with our Director to develop a strategy whereby the aims of Unlock Democracy are best pursued.
It is vital that such organisations are supported, as they fulfil a role unsuited to political parties, and I take the view that, in this regard, I'm there as a believer in a stronger democracy rather than as a Liberal Democrat.
At last night's event held by South Cambridgeshire Lib Dems, Peter and I coincidentally happened to be present, and we took the opportunity to catch up on how things are going. We're very lucky to have people like James Graham and Alex Runswick, to name but two, working for us, and I am conscious of my responsibilities as part of the management team. So I'm hoping to dedicate a bit more time towards Unlock Democracy in future - not to interfere, you understand but to support their efforts as best I can.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Hazel Blears and the Token Gesture
It would appear that this Labour Government is so sold on its rhetoric of 'do nothing Tories' that it is desperate to prove that it is 'do everything New Labour'. Yesterday's announcement of a £50 visa 'surcharge' for those wishing to work or study here is one of those examples where that mania for action is all about show rather than substance.
One must acknowledge the background to this decision. Local authorities have been concerned for some time about the burdens caused by inward migration, in terms of additional costs for housing, education and social services. Many have appealed to the Department for Communities and Local Government to make provision for those costs in order to prevent cuts in other services, and there can be no doubt that they have a case. They will doubtless be disappointed by the response.
They won't be alone. One of the key groups impacted by this will be American students coming to the United Kingdom on study abroad programmes. They have no real impact on local government, pump valuable money into the economy and, rather importantly, can go elsewhere. A number of our academics are employed to teach them, and any potential loss in student numbers will cause them to lose income which supplements rather poor salaries in the tertiary education sector. In this instance, the surcharge is a rip-off, plain and simple.
Indeed, our universities receive vital funds from overseas students coming here to further their education. £50 might not sound like much, but in addition to other fees, is likely to make them feel that they are, more than ever, a cash cow. They too can go elsewhere, and some might.
For those coming here to work, we are already establishing a points-based immigration system, which will presumably whittle out those most likely to become a burden on the public purse. So how will an additional £50 help here? Why not insist on minimal language proficiency levels and that any dependents be the responsibility of the foreign worker instead? Such a rule isn't uncommon elsewhere, and I can't see much objection to it.
No, I'm afraid that this is just a gesture which appears to respond to the local government family, whilst reassuring Labour voters toying with the likes of the BNP that they are being tough on economic migrants.
However, let's consider what the likely outcomes are. A few people are put off the idea of coming to the United Kingdom. They are people who would qualify for admission under a points-based immigration system, and thus fairly highly-skilled. We clearly still need their skills, but will have to make do with someone less highly-skilled. Not necessarily good.
Perhaps they are students. In not coming here, we need to provide greater levels of financial support to our universities to make up for the loss of income. Those academics earning extra income from teaching study abroad students will be worse off, and less likely to stay in the academic sector, potentially impoverishing our universities and colleges. Hmmm... still not good.
However, we've raised some money which, all being well, we can distribute to those local authorities which need it. Yes, there will be administrative costs - we need civil servants to collect it, account for it and distribute it. Oh yes, and we don't accurately know where these people have gone, so we'll need to create a formula to decide where the money goes.
And that's the point where my confidence fades altogether. I've already touched upon the issues of grants for the concessionary bus scheme, with the Government throwing its hands in the air as if to say, "we've dished out the money, stop whinging" whilst failing utterly to acknowledge that it might be in the wrong places. This is another grant which will be inaccurately distributed, failing to address genuine need effectively.
Foreign workers and students provide a welcome infusion of wealth for our battered economy. Exploiting them for the sake of an easy headline does them, and us, no favours.
One must acknowledge the background to this decision. Local authorities have been concerned for some time about the burdens caused by inward migration, in terms of additional costs for housing, education and social services. Many have appealed to the Department for Communities and Local Government to make provision for those costs in order to prevent cuts in other services, and there can be no doubt that they have a case. They will doubtless be disappointed by the response.
They won't be alone. One of the key groups impacted by this will be American students coming to the United Kingdom on study abroad programmes. They have no real impact on local government, pump valuable money into the economy and, rather importantly, can go elsewhere. A number of our academics are employed to teach them, and any potential loss in student numbers will cause them to lose income which supplements rather poor salaries in the tertiary education sector. In this instance, the surcharge is a rip-off, plain and simple.
Indeed, our universities receive vital funds from overseas students coming here to further their education. £50 might not sound like much, but in addition to other fees, is likely to make them feel that they are, more than ever, a cash cow. They too can go elsewhere, and some might.
For those coming here to work, we are already establishing a points-based immigration system, which will presumably whittle out those most likely to become a burden on the public purse. So how will an additional £50 help here? Why not insist on minimal language proficiency levels and that any dependents be the responsibility of the foreign worker instead? Such a rule isn't uncommon elsewhere, and I can't see much objection to it.
No, I'm afraid that this is just a gesture which appears to respond to the local government family, whilst reassuring Labour voters toying with the likes of the BNP that they are being tough on economic migrants.
However, let's consider what the likely outcomes are. A few people are put off the idea of coming to the United Kingdom. They are people who would qualify for admission under a points-based immigration system, and thus fairly highly-skilled. We clearly still need their skills, but will have to make do with someone less highly-skilled. Not necessarily good.
Perhaps they are students. In not coming here, we need to provide greater levels of financial support to our universities to make up for the loss of income. Those academics earning extra income from teaching study abroad students will be worse off, and less likely to stay in the academic sector, potentially impoverishing our universities and colleges. Hmmm... still not good.
However, we've raised some money which, all being well, we can distribute to those local authorities which need it. Yes, there will be administrative costs - we need civil servants to collect it, account for it and distribute it. Oh yes, and we don't accurately know where these people have gone, so we'll need to create a formula to decide where the money goes.
And that's the point where my confidence fades altogether. I've already touched upon the issues of grants for the concessionary bus scheme, with the Government throwing its hands in the air as if to say, "we've dished out the money, stop whinging" whilst failing utterly to acknowledge that it might be in the wrong places. This is another grant which will be inaccurately distributed, failing to address genuine need effectively.
Foreign workers and students provide a welcome infusion of wealth for our battered economy. Exploiting them for the sake of an easy headline does them, and us, no favours.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Stopped and searched in the best possible taste
According to the Times, security is being stepped up in advance of next month’s G20 summit in East London. The fear is that, instead of attacking the actual venue, which is quite easily defendable, protesters will opt for soft targets such as hotels and public buildings.
This puts yesterday’s incident into perspective. Ros and I were heading to the London Regional Conference when, at Westminster station, I was called over by a British Transport Police officer. He courteously explained that he and his colleague were undertaking stop and search checks on individuals, and asked if their rather cute springer spaniel could check the small suitcase I was dragging. Naturally, I had no objection, placed the suitcase on the floor and stood back whilst the dog did its work.
I had assumed that the bag was being checked for drugs or explosives, although the rationale for stopping me wasn’t made entirely clear. I was asked whether or not the bag was mine, and had to acknowledge that it was Ros’s. They then took some details from her - name, address and the like - before explaining to us that the stop and search had been conducted under the auspices of Section 44(2) of the Terrorism Act 2000. A copy of the report was supplied, Ros put it in her handbag and we continued on our way.
I might have thought no more about it until this morning, when I read the document and, in particular, the back of it, which explains what should happen. Apparently, I should have been told why I was being stopped, and the relevant legislation quoted. I’m not going to get excited about it, and I’m confident that the officers had no malicious intent – most people don’t care about the legislative background, and are, like me, happy to cooperate with the police in the pursuit of their legitimate business, i.e. protecting us from criminals and terrorists. However, we all have a duty to ensure that those exercising power are held to account and, as we might see a lot of this over the coming weeks, here’s the legislation…
(2) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a pedestrian in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search—
(a) the pedestrian;
(b) anything carried by him.
Section 45 (1) explains that suspicion is not required in order to carry out such searches…
1) The power conferred by an authorisation under section 44(1) or (2)—
(a) may be exercised only for the purpose of searching for articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism, and
(b) may be exercised whether or not the constable has grounds for suspecting the presence of articles of that kind.
Authorisation must be given, in London at least, by an officer at Commander level or above. So, clearly, a senior officer has deemed it necessary to so authorise, which is where the story from the Times picks up…
Naturally, you are protected by statute from inappropriate application of this legislation. Given that many of you reading this will be keen to ensure that your rights aren’t taken from you unduly, here is Liberty’s advice on what those rights are…
This puts yesterday’s incident into perspective. Ros and I were heading to the London Regional Conference when, at Westminster station, I was called over by a British Transport Police officer. He courteously explained that he and his colleague were undertaking stop and search checks on individuals, and asked if their rather cute springer spaniel could check the small suitcase I was dragging. Naturally, I had no objection, placed the suitcase on the floor and stood back whilst the dog did its work.
I had assumed that the bag was being checked for drugs or explosives, although the rationale for stopping me wasn’t made entirely clear. I was asked whether or not the bag was mine, and had to acknowledge that it was Ros’s. They then took some details from her - name, address and the like - before explaining to us that the stop and search had been conducted under the auspices of Section 44(2) of the Terrorism Act 2000. A copy of the report was supplied, Ros put it in her handbag and we continued on our way.
I might have thought no more about it until this morning, when I read the document and, in particular, the back of it, which explains what should happen. Apparently, I should have been told why I was being stopped, and the relevant legislation quoted. I’m not going to get excited about it, and I’m confident that the officers had no malicious intent – most people don’t care about the legislative background, and are, like me, happy to cooperate with the police in the pursuit of their legitimate business, i.e. protecting us from criminals and terrorists. However, we all have a duty to ensure that those exercising power are held to account and, as we might see a lot of this over the coming weeks, here’s the legislation…
(2) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a pedestrian in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search—
(a) the pedestrian;
(b) anything carried by him.
Section 45 (1) explains that suspicion is not required in order to carry out such searches…
1) The power conferred by an authorisation under section 44(1) or (2)—
(a) may be exercised only for the purpose of searching for articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism, and
(b) may be exercised whether or not the constable has grounds for suspecting the presence of articles of that kind.
Authorisation must be given, in London at least, by an officer at Commander level or above. So, clearly, a senior officer has deemed it necessary to so authorise, which is where the story from the Times picks up…
Naturally, you are protected by statute from inappropriate application of this legislation. Given that many of you reading this will be keen to ensure that your rights aren’t taken from you unduly, here is Liberty’s advice on what those rights are…
Monday, March 16, 2009
Equal pay too expensive? What price justice in a recession?
I am astonished. News from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) that equal pay is too much to hope for in the midst of a recession is one of the most depressing comments that I've heard for a long time.
There is no doubt that the legal process that claimants have to get through in order to assert their legitimate right to equal treatrment before the law is labyrinthine. However, to soft pedal the requirement for companies to hold equal pay reviews is an admission akin to saying that the 17% pay gap between men and women is a low priority.
Worse yet, an entirely new equal pay act is apparently needed, and will take years of work to construct. Now, either there is an assumption that the Conservatives will be equally convinced of the need for expeditious progress towards equality in the workplace (don't all laugh at once) or that Labour will be re-elected with a majority sufficient to push it through (didn't think that you'd stop laughing...). Either way, why should it take that long?
What next, not enforcing the National Minimum Wage because it puts jobs at risk? Actually, given the visibility of the teams who enforce it (have you heard of many prosecutions lately?), perhaps that's already happening.
The EHRC is supposed to be the body which campaigns for equality, yet it appears willing to sacrifice the disadvantaged in order to fulfil the new Peter Mandelson inspired New Labour agenda. They need to take a stand, and be more assertive in campaigning for equal rights. We need to be standing with them to provide some moral support.
There is no doubt that the legal process that claimants have to get through in order to assert their legitimate right to equal treatrment before the law is labyrinthine. However, to soft pedal the requirement for companies to hold equal pay reviews is an admission akin to saying that the 17% pay gap between men and women is a low priority.
Worse yet, an entirely new equal pay act is apparently needed, and will take years of work to construct. Now, either there is an assumption that the Conservatives will be equally convinced of the need for expeditious progress towards equality in the workplace (don't all laugh at once) or that Labour will be re-elected with a majority sufficient to push it through (didn't think that you'd stop laughing...). Either way, why should it take that long?
What next, not enforcing the National Minimum Wage because it puts jobs at risk? Actually, given the visibility of the teams who enforce it (have you heard of many prosecutions lately?), perhaps that's already happening.
The EHRC is supposed to be the body which campaigns for equality, yet it appears willing to sacrifice the disadvantaged in order to fulfil the new Peter Mandelson inspired New Labour agenda. They need to take a stand, and be more assertive in campaigning for equal rights. We need to be standing with them to provide some moral support.
Fish? Barrel? Just too tempting...
Many thanks to Jonathan Calder for giving me the opportunity to do this...
There's nothing wrong with alcohol... in moderation. So why can't I be left to decide what 'moderation' means?
At least the Government has chosen to kick the latest proposal from the health police into touch. The idea of a minimum charge per unit of alcohol for retail sales is a seductive one, especially given the incidence of binge drinking amongst the young. Yet it managed to provoke James Parnell, not usually a friend of this blog, to say that he didn't think that everyone should suffer for the behaviour of a minority.
Good. I admit that I enjoy a drink from time to time, although not as much as I used to when I was younger. My capacity, for one thing, is reduced as I get older, but I can now drink a higher quality product. Real ales from micro breweries in Suffolk, a nice sauvignon blanc from New Zealand, an Alsace or a pinot noir, all of these meet with my approval. Because I enjoy the taste and the complexity, I might have a bottle of beer with lunch at the weekend, or share a bottle of wine over dinner occasionally.
I learned most of my early lessons with alcohol at university, one of the safest environments in which to do so. You're generally surrounded by friends who will get you home safely and stop you from doing anything too embarrassing. You're also generally too poor to get dangerously drunk, i.e. the point where you do serious damage to yourself. In such an environment, you learn what your limit is, and the art of nursing a drink so that you have the social benefits without the hangover at the end of it.
So, rather than distort the market, wouldn't it be easier to educate young people to drink responsibly and use the existing legislation to punish those who make alcohol freely available to young people. Note the use of the word 'freely'. I'm not suggesting that parents who allow their older children a glass of wine or something similar should be punished. Indeed, parental supervision can only help young people to develop a mature approach to alcohol. But in moderation, that's all...
Good. I admit that I enjoy a drink from time to time, although not as much as I used to when I was younger. My capacity, for one thing, is reduced as I get older, but I can now drink a higher quality product. Real ales from micro breweries in Suffolk, a nice sauvignon blanc from New Zealand, an Alsace or a pinot noir, all of these meet with my approval. Because I enjoy the taste and the complexity, I might have a bottle of beer with lunch at the weekend, or share a bottle of wine over dinner occasionally.
I learned most of my early lessons with alcohol at university, one of the safest environments in which to do so. You're generally surrounded by friends who will get you home safely and stop you from doing anything too embarrassing. You're also generally too poor to get dangerously drunk, i.e. the point where you do serious damage to yourself. In such an environment, you learn what your limit is, and the art of nursing a drink so that you have the social benefits without the hangover at the end of it.
So, rather than distort the market, wouldn't it be easier to educate young people to drink responsibly and use the existing legislation to punish those who make alcohol freely available to young people. Note the use of the word 'freely'. I'm not suggesting that parents who allow their older children a glass of wine or something similar should be punished. Indeed, parental supervision can only help young people to develop a mature approach to alcohol. But in moderation, that's all...
There's no snout about it, you can do something for British farmers
"And what is that?", I hear you ask. It isn't a huge sacrifice, unless you're a vegetarian, but you might make a difference. You see, it is Bacon Connoisseurs Week and so, to mark the occasion, you are asked to make yourself a bacon sandwich. If you don't fancy making one, you can always visit your local cafe, who'll doubtless be happy to do it for you.
Now I admit, I do enjoy a good bacon sandwich. I'm a brown sauce man for preference, but with good bacon, the sauce is somewhat unnecessary. And, of course, spending my weekends in Mid Suffolk means that I have access to some marvellous, locally cured, bacon.
As I've noted in the past, British pig farmers have taken a bit of a pasting in recent years. Undercut by imports, many have chosen to leave the industry. And yet the flavour of pork from an animal that is allowed to root around outside is so much better than that from an intensively reared indoor pig.
You can do more with bacon than sandwiches though, tempting though one might be to stop there. Don't take my word for it, check out this website for more ideas on creative use of bacon...
Now I admit, I do enjoy a good bacon sandwich. I'm a brown sauce man for preference, but with good bacon, the sauce is somewhat unnecessary. And, of course, spending my weekends in Mid Suffolk means that I have access to some marvellous, locally cured, bacon.
As I've noted in the past, British pig farmers have taken a bit of a pasting in recent years. Undercut by imports, many have chosen to leave the industry. And yet the flavour of pork from an animal that is allowed to root around outside is so much better than that from an intensively reared indoor pig.
You can do more with bacon than sandwiches though, tempting though one might be to stop there. Don't take my word for it, check out this website for more ideas on creative use of bacon...
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Mid Suffolk mon amour
Alright, I freely admit that, until I met Ros, the smallest place I had lived (apart from my university days) had a population in excess of seven million - a cosy little place called London. Now I spend my weekends - apart from those on the road with Ros - in Creeting St Peter, population 260 (and that's the entire parish!).The area has no stunning scenery, no significant tourist attractions, no unusual wildlife. It does have a gentle pace, some charming villages and some great food. Locally produced pork products, cheese, beer and some marvellous farm shops and butchers. There is game in season, including rabbit, pheasant and quail, and some great pubs, serving decent beer and good food.
However, it is peaceful, well connected to London - the hourly train service takes less than an hour and a half to Liverpool Street via Ipswich, and there are also regular trains to Bury St Edmunds, Cambridge, Norwich and Peterborough - and now the rural authority with the best quality of life in the country.
According to a survey carried out by the Halifax, Mid Suffolk scores well for traffic flow, its low burglary rate, high life expectancy (79.9 years) and its weather (sunny and dry). House prices are reasonable, and more than 70% of its 87,000 residents live in villages and rural areas.
And so, quite by chance, I find myself living in a great place. Don't be jealous now...
Conservatives in Europe: setting sail for the fringe
And so the Conservatives have finally given notice of their intention to quit the European People's Party (EPP). Let nobody accuse them of doing nothing, although it has taken them the best part of three years to carry out David Cameron's campaign pledge when he ran for the party leadership.
Once upon a time, I was involved in international youth politics. In the three years from 1989 to 1991, I attended events across Europe from Helsinki to Lisbon, from Hebden Bridge to Budapest, held by various international liberal groups at both European and worldwide levels. They were entertaining, informative and intellectually challenging. Most of all, I learned the value of being part of something bigger, of being part of an international family. It looks like the Conservatives could benefit from that lesson...
The European Parliament is dominated by the two big groups, the Socialists and the EPP. Neither has enough votes to achieve anything on its own, yet nothing can be achieved unless one or other is supportive. The Liberal grouping, ALDE, is a key swing voter, and its representation in most EU states gives it the credibility to play a leadership role.
Groupings are important. Recognised groupings get funding, attract privileges, gain places on committees. The bigger the grouping, the better the spoils. However, to get such things, you have to be sufficiently credible. You have to gather together members from at least six member states.
As a result, the Conservatives can't just leave the EPP, they need to create a new grouping, or join an existing one, which is not as easy as it sounds. Parties tend to seek partners who share their philosophy or background, they want to be part of something bigger. What that means is that the types of political party that are looking for a dancing partner fall into three categories;
Once upon a time, I was involved in international youth politics. In the three years from 1989 to 1991, I attended events across Europe from Helsinki to Lisbon, from Hebden Bridge to Budapest, held by various international liberal groups at both European and worldwide levels. They were entertaining, informative and intellectually challenging. Most of all, I learned the value of being part of something bigger, of being part of an international family. It looks like the Conservatives could benefit from that lesson...
The European Parliament is dominated by the two big groups, the Socialists and the EPP. Neither has enough votes to achieve anything on its own, yet nothing can be achieved unless one or other is supportive. The Liberal grouping, ALDE, is a key swing voter, and its representation in most EU states gives it the credibility to play a leadership role.
Groupings are important. Recognised groupings get funding, attract privileges, gain places on committees. The bigger the grouping, the better the spoils. However, to get such things, you have to be sufficiently credible. You have to gather together members from at least six member states.
As a result, the Conservatives can't just leave the EPP, they need to create a new grouping, or join an existing one, which is not as easy as it sounds. Parties tend to seek partners who share their philosophy or background, they want to be part of something bigger. What that means is that the types of political party that are looking for a dancing partner fall into three categories;
- the eccentrics
- those whose views are seen to be beyond the pale by the larger groupings
- those who flit from group to group in search of a deal
To be honest, none of them make ideal partners, but when you've walked out on your former partner and you're looking for love, sometimes you have to take what you can get. But are Polish racists and homophobes, and Czech climate change deniers the best that the Conservatives can find?
Friday, March 13, 2009
Creeting St Peter needs a Parish Councillor or three? Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
I have been passed a copy of the second issue of the Creeting St Peter Newsletter, published this week. It is, I have to admit, not a huge document, A4 double-sided, but does include reports from the Parish Council, the Community Council and the Parochial Church Council. It is also in colour and is quite professionally done.
Big news in Creeting St Peter is talk of the lorry park, planned for the area. Our local MP, Sir Michael Lord, is clearly too busy to do much, so his neighbour, David Ruffley, who represents Bury St Edmunds is leaning on the District Council to speed things up.
What else? Work will be done to revitalise the Notice Board, parish boundary signs have been put up so that people know where they are - not always entirely obvious - and nothing is being done about the street lights (both of them?) as consultation drew no response whatsoever.
There are three vacancies on the Parish Council, and they're keen to fill them. Hmmm...
Big news in Creeting St Peter is talk of the lorry park, planned for the area. Our local MP, Sir Michael Lord, is clearly too busy to do much, so his neighbour, David Ruffley, who represents Bury St Edmunds is leaning on the District Council to speed things up.
What else? Work will be done to revitalise the Notice Board, parish boundary signs have been put up so that people know where they are - not always entirely obvious - and nothing is being done about the street lights (both of them?) as consultation drew no response whatsoever.
There are three vacancies on the Parish Council, and they're keen to fill them. Hmmm...
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Fuel Poverty - David Heath demonstrates what Parliament is really for
I haven't actually read the piece of legislation that David Heath is promoting as his Private Members' Bill, and whilst I probably support it, that isn't really the point.
Parliament should really be about debating the issues that really matter, and there are many amongst us who have genuine concerns about how they are going to keep warm in winter, in particular the elderly. Indeed, as fossil fuels begin to run out, it is likely that the cost of heating will rise rather faster than inflation, and the problem will intensify.
So I'm pleased to see David use his opportunity to do something serious and let's hope that the issue gets the full debate that it deserves...
Parliament should really be about debating the issues that really matter, and there are many amongst us who have genuine concerns about how they are going to keep warm in winter, in particular the elderly. Indeed, as fossil fuels begin to run out, it is likely that the cost of heating will rise rather faster than inflation, and the problem will intensify.
So I'm pleased to see David use his opportunity to do something serious and let's hope that the issue gets the full debate that it deserves...
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
The Vince Cable Tapes -part 2: in which our hero assists in my quest to be extremely rich
So far, so good. I had managed to maintain my anonymity, at least as far as Vince was concerned, and even managed to resist the temptation to eat another chocolate coated doughnut. There were signs of trouble ahead though...
Jo was keen to contrast the value of Vince's brand vs that of the Liberal Democrats. Vince's diplomatic response was to emphasise that our position, in comparative terms, is stronger than it has been at equivalent points in previous electoral cycles. He has attempted not to be tribal whilst ensuring that there is a Lib Dem 'strapline'.
Me, I just wanted to make money. In 1987, I was confident that South East Asian unit trusts were THE place to invest my money and, had I done so, I would probably own you all. In a good way, of course. Anyway, I digress. Vince knows stuff. He's a man of the world. He'd know what to do with the Valladares millions, wouldn't he?
Diversification is key, he said, although he thinks that large swathes of assets are now undervalued. I think so too, if you are able to hold your nerve. I should have followed this up though...
Andy next picked up on the article in the Guardian on alleged Liberal Democrat use of 'game theory' in modelling potential hung parliament scenarios. I had read the article too, and thought that it looked rather intelligent. Best of all, it would appeal to geeks, an important subset of the voting public.
Unfortunately, it turned out to be a non-story, melded together from bits of unrelated material. Vince was a bit annoyed about it, as the story had upset a few people. Oh well, it was a great story while it lasted...
Richard raised the proposed sell-off of the Royal Mail. As Vince sagely put it, it is unlikely to be the best time to sell if you want to get the best price. He did emphasise our support for liberalisation of postal services, although we oppose cherry picking. Funds raised from shares in the Royal Mail should be used to strengthen the network and we want to encourage staff to become part-owners of the service, giving them an interest in its success.
By this point, we had asked so many questions that loss of inspiration, and possibly a lack of preparation, were causing hesitation. Alix sprang to the rescue though (that's why she's award-winning, I presume), noting that Howard Dean felt that targetting was wrong. Vince held to the Rennard line, noting that we don't have a Presidential system. Nearly all of our seats were once no-hopers, proving that, for us, targetting does work.
Seguing neatly in, Jo touched upon his experiences as a candidate (apparently, she's a prominent figure in the PCA, did I mention that?) - he had run three times before getting elected. What did he gain from it? Well, experience. He learned that you need to be persistent and to build up a team of supporters. You develop friendships and relationships as you go, and these tend to buoy you up when you most need them.
I got the last question, noting that Vince had put a lot of energy into Local Party visits. He felt that he had a responsibility to encourage and nurture both target seats and less obvious but potentially successful seats. We exchanged a few comments about Wycombe, where his visit coincided with a surge in success for Liberal Democrats there. He had particularly enjoyed that event, and was impressed by the efforts of the local PPC and his wife, the Chair of the Local Party (that's Steve and Wendy if you didn't already know). I couldn't agree more, I was the Returning Officer when they selected him...
And with that, our interview was over, leaving just enough time for Helen to carry out what may be the longest twelve second soundbite in history and for photographs to be taken.
It was time to scatter into the night or, in my case, meet the Party President for dinner...
Jo was keen to contrast the value of Vince's brand vs that of the Liberal Democrats. Vince's diplomatic response was to emphasise that our position, in comparative terms, is stronger than it has been at equivalent points in previous electoral cycles. He has attempted not to be tribal whilst ensuring that there is a Lib Dem 'strapline'.
Me, I just wanted to make money. In 1987, I was confident that South East Asian unit trusts were THE place to invest my money and, had I done so, I would probably own you all. In a good way, of course. Anyway, I digress. Vince knows stuff. He's a man of the world. He'd know what to do with the Valladares millions, wouldn't he?
Diversification is key, he said, although he thinks that large swathes of assets are now undervalued. I think so too, if you are able to hold your nerve. I should have followed this up though...
Andy next picked up on the article in the Guardian on alleged Liberal Democrat use of 'game theory' in modelling potential hung parliament scenarios. I had read the article too, and thought that it looked rather intelligent. Best of all, it would appeal to geeks, an important subset of the voting public.
Unfortunately, it turned out to be a non-story, melded together from bits of unrelated material. Vince was a bit annoyed about it, as the story had upset a few people. Oh well, it was a great story while it lasted...
Richard raised the proposed sell-off of the Royal Mail. As Vince sagely put it, it is unlikely to be the best time to sell if you want to get the best price. He did emphasise our support for liberalisation of postal services, although we oppose cherry picking. Funds raised from shares in the Royal Mail should be used to strengthen the network and we want to encourage staff to become part-owners of the service, giving them an interest in its success.
By this point, we had asked so many questions that loss of inspiration, and possibly a lack of preparation, were causing hesitation. Alix sprang to the rescue though (that's why she's award-winning, I presume), noting that Howard Dean felt that targetting was wrong. Vince held to the Rennard line, noting that we don't have a Presidential system. Nearly all of our seats were once no-hopers, proving that, for us, targetting does work.
Seguing neatly in, Jo touched upon his experiences as a candidate (apparently, she's a prominent figure in the PCA, did I mention that?) - he had run three times before getting elected. What did he gain from it? Well, experience. He learned that you need to be persistent and to build up a team of supporters. You develop friendships and relationships as you go, and these tend to buoy you up when you most need them.
I got the last question, noting that Vince had put a lot of energy into Local Party visits. He felt that he had a responsibility to encourage and nurture both target seats and less obvious but potentially successful seats. We exchanged a few comments about Wycombe, where his visit coincided with a surge in success for Liberal Democrats there. He had particularly enjoyed that event, and was impressed by the efforts of the local PPC and his wife, the Chair of the Local Party (that's Steve and Wendy if you didn't already know). I couldn't agree more, I was the Returning Officer when they selected him...
And with that, our interview was over, leaving just enough time for Helen to carry out what may be the longest twelve second soundbite in history and for photographs to be taken.
It was time to scatter into the night or, in my case, meet the Party President for dinner...
The Vince Cable Tapes: part 1 - where Vince doesn't eat a doughnut
So, what were we to do? Were we fated to be squeezed into a tiny office with not enough room to swing a small, adorable kitten, or even a fluffy elephant, in?
Super Vince to the rescue, and he found us a room to occupy whilst we roasted him over an open flame, sorry, lauded him to the skies.
Everyone seated, and doughnuts distributed, we started our hostile interrogation/gentle probing. Alix wanted to clarify that our tax plans were still viable, and Vince confirmed that our principal premise - cutting taxes for most lower and middle income taxpayers by the equivalent of 4p in the pound, thus putting money into their pockets, whilst removing tax loopholes that favour the wealthy - was still absolutely solid.
It was interesting to see that each blogger had their own agenda, with questions veering from topic to unrelated topic, and Jo 'I'm a senior member of the PCA' Christie-Smith chose to start with Vince's role on the Diversity Engagement Group. Where were the signs of progress? Vince was of the view that our National Diversity Advisor was doing some very good work to assess where we are, despite various distractions. He did feel that opportunities in the urban North may enable us to elect more BME candidates.
I have to say that, in all honesty, Vince has only recently become involved in our diversity work in a meaningful way, and probably hasn't been briefed on the likelihood of this being true.
2014/15 perhaps, but not next time...
Vince fangirl Jennie was intrigued about Vince's interest in bees. Apparently there is an apiary at the end of his street and the group that run it invited him along to see. He asked some questions in the House of Commons and was given very short shrift, which so annoyed that he got more involved - this is important. He is now part of a cross-party group to raise awareness of bee diseases and the impact of falling bee populations on agriculture.
And then it was my turn. I haven't sensed that Vince or, for that matter, most senior Lib Dems, are particularly sensitive to public sector employees. I was therefore keen to probe his comments about civil service bonuses and public sector salaries. He had not expected the response he got from the local government community when he attacked the 'civil service aristocracy' who combine high salaries, job security and generous pensions. However, he understands that there are issues at the lower end of the pay scales, and is willing to work with public sector unions to address these.
My view is that, in order to get the best people to run public services, you need to pay attractive salaries. Part of the package is a generous pension, yes, but if the package is broadly comparable with the private sector, that's what you need to pay. Naming and shaming them doesn't help.
Mary was keen to elicit Vince's views on local government finance, given the unfair treatment of so-called 'leafy suburbs' in terms of the grant calculation by the Department of Communities and Local Government. Vince was clear about the lack of clarity and the weakness of the existing formulae of calculating entitlements, but expected that our policy of local income tax would help address the problem.
Time for a big issue, as Andy probed on talk of global regulation. Brown's ideas are really just evasion of the key issue. Actually, a lot of the issues can be addressed at national level by means of proper application of the Basle Rules, and proper application of the regulation regime. International co-operation allows us to avoid competitive gestures that harm us all.
Next, Millenium's daddy on the Euro - whilst there are potential casualties (Italy and Greece), the position of the UK is a precarious one. If there is a critical assessment of the public finances, the risks to sterling are high. It may be that we need to take a more aggressive stance on the Euro as an alternative to a weakening currency, but we need to see how the current crisis impacts on the Eurozone.
Helen wanted to know why Vince doesn't blog. Although Lynne Featherstone has made a strong case for him taking up blooging, the issue of time prevents from him from blogging - his heavy schedule and commitment to being available to his constituents take priority. At this point, there was a general clamour for Vince to blog. Well, except from me. I know how long it takes and how careful you need to be to ensure that it doesn't take over your life...
Super Vince to the rescue, and he found us a room to occupy whilst we roasted him over an open flame, sorry, lauded him to the skies.
Everyone seated, and doughnuts distributed, we started our hostile interrogation/gentle probing. Alix wanted to clarify that our tax plans were still viable, and Vince confirmed that our principal premise - cutting taxes for most lower and middle income taxpayers by the equivalent of 4p in the pound, thus putting money into their pockets, whilst removing tax loopholes that favour the wealthy - was still absolutely solid.
It was interesting to see that each blogger had their own agenda, with questions veering from topic to unrelated topic, and Jo 'I'm a senior member of the PCA' Christie-Smith chose to start with Vince's role on the Diversity Engagement Group. Where were the signs of progress? Vince was of the view that our National Diversity Advisor was doing some very good work to assess where we are, despite various distractions. He did feel that opportunities in the urban North may enable us to elect more BME candidates.
I have to say that, in all honesty, Vince has only recently become involved in our diversity work in a meaningful way, and probably hasn't been briefed on the likelihood of this being true.
2014/15 perhaps, but not next time...
Vince fangirl Jennie was intrigued about Vince's interest in bees. Apparently there is an apiary at the end of his street and the group that run it invited him along to see. He asked some questions in the House of Commons and was given very short shrift, which so annoyed that he got more involved - this is important. He is now part of a cross-party group to raise awareness of bee diseases and the impact of falling bee populations on agriculture.
And then it was my turn. I haven't sensed that Vince or, for that matter, most senior Lib Dems, are particularly sensitive to public sector employees. I was therefore keen to probe his comments about civil service bonuses and public sector salaries. He had not expected the response he got from the local government community when he attacked the 'civil service aristocracy' who combine high salaries, job security and generous pensions. However, he understands that there are issues at the lower end of the pay scales, and is willing to work with public sector unions to address these.
My view is that, in order to get the best people to run public services, you need to pay attractive salaries. Part of the package is a generous pension, yes, but if the package is broadly comparable with the private sector, that's what you need to pay. Naming and shaming them doesn't help.
Mary was keen to elicit Vince's views on local government finance, given the unfair treatment of so-called 'leafy suburbs' in terms of the grant calculation by the Department of Communities and Local Government. Vince was clear about the lack of clarity and the weakness of the existing formulae of calculating entitlements, but expected that our policy of local income tax would help address the problem.
Time for a big issue, as Andy probed on talk of global regulation. Brown's ideas are really just evasion of the key issue. Actually, a lot of the issues can be addressed at national level by means of proper application of the Basle Rules, and proper application of the regulation regime. International co-operation allows us to avoid competitive gestures that harm us all.
Next, Millenium's daddy on the Euro - whilst there are potential casualties (Italy and Greece), the position of the UK is a precarious one. If there is a critical assessment of the public finances, the risks to sterling are high. It may be that we need to take a more aggressive stance on the Euro as an alternative to a weakening currency, but we need to see how the current crisis impacts on the Eurozone.
Helen wanted to know why Vince doesn't blog. Although Lynne Featherstone has made a strong case for him taking up blooging, the issue of time prevents from him from blogging - his heavy schedule and commitment to being available to his constituents take priority. At this point, there was a general clamour for Vince to blog. Well, except from me. I know how long it takes and how careful you need to be to ensure that it doesn't take over your life...
Can anyone think of a good pun involving Vince?
I had always said that the series of blogger interviews organised by the delightful Millennium and his daddy were not really for me. I'm not really a policy wonk, and generally assume that there are people more likely to ask searching questions.
At least, that was the case until the opportunity to interview Lembit came along last year. Even then, I applied as much to seek an answer to the question, "Whither Lembit?", as anything else. And, alright, I did ask two of the most aggressive questions put to any interviewee since the series began, but as much because I was astonished that nobody else asked them, as out of a personal dislike of the man himself.
However, the opportunity to interview Vince was too good to miss, so I arrived at Portcullis House at about 5.45 p.m. to join the gathered throng. Luckily for me, I have a spouse pass and can avoid security lines and bag searches, so I got myself a Hot Chocolate Extravagance (marshmallows, whipped cream and a flake) from the cafe in the tree-lined lobby and waited for everyone to arrive.
But what was this? It was Vince, with a drink, sitting at a table with an unknown person. Should I take this opportunity to get in some early questioning before the horde arrived? Perhaps not, as my incisive questioning might put him off of the idea.
Luckily, I could see the interview panel gathering on the other side of the glass security barrier. This gave me a chance to do my world-famous zoo animal impression, pressing my nose against the glass and begging for doughnuts.
Vince then came over to escort his visitor back, and I introduced myself before pointing out the collective ranks of blog heroes awaiting their audience. And there lay our first problem, There were too many of us to fit in his office. How would this be solved? This was a job for SUPER VINCE!...
At least, that was the case until the opportunity to interview Lembit came along last year. Even then, I applied as much to seek an answer to the question, "Whither Lembit?", as anything else. And, alright, I did ask two of the most aggressive questions put to any interviewee since the series began, but as much because I was astonished that nobody else asked them, as out of a personal dislike of the man himself.
However, the opportunity to interview Vince was too good to miss, so I arrived at Portcullis House at about 5.45 p.m. to join the gathered throng. Luckily for me, I have a spouse pass and can avoid security lines and bag searches, so I got myself a Hot Chocolate Extravagance (marshmallows, whipped cream and a flake) from the cafe in the tree-lined lobby and waited for everyone to arrive.
But what was this? It was Vince, with a drink, sitting at a table with an unknown person. Should I take this opportunity to get in some early questioning before the horde arrived? Perhaps not, as my incisive questioning might put him off of the idea.
Luckily, I could see the interview panel gathering on the other side of the glass security barrier. This gave me a chance to do my world-famous zoo animal impression, pressing my nose against the glass and begging for doughnuts.
Vince then came over to escort his visitor back, and I introduced myself before pointing out the collective ranks of blog heroes awaiting their audience. And there lay our first problem, There were too many of us to fit in his office. How would this be solved? This was a job for SUPER VINCE!...
Harrogate - Day 3: the postscript or, "when Jodie met monkey"
As Ros was on her way to introduce Kirsty, a monkey was thrust into her hands, a raffle prize from an event we had been forced to leave before the draw could be made. Whilst it was cute, we weren't certain what we could do with it. However, we were headed for North London, so I put it somewhere safe for the journey.
The train to York was the usual bus on rails, and crowded to boot. At York, we transferred to an absolutely packed National Express service, where our reserved seats were even more highly prized. Our table was shared with a couple and their five-month old daughter, Jodie. Jodie was cute, as advertised by her bib, and the journey was passed with the occasional gurgle.
And then it hit me, there was someone who would appreciate the monkey more than we would. So we gave it to Jodie. I wonder if she'll ever know that a baroness gave her a monkey?...
The train to York was the usual bus on rails, and crowded to boot. At York, we transferred to an absolutely packed National Express service, where our reserved seats were even more highly prized. Our table was shared with a couple and their five-month old daughter, Jodie. Jodie was cute, as advertised by her bib, and the journey was passed with the occasional gurgle.
And then it hit me, there was someone who would appreciate the monkey more than we would. So we gave it to Jodie. I wonder if she'll ever know that a baroness gave her a monkey?...
Monday, March 09, 2009
Harrogate - Day 3: Nick Clegg speaks (with commentary by Bob Russell MP)
And so, the Conference reached its climax, the Leader's speech. Naturally, the great and the good were positioned on the front row, and a camera panning it would have spotted senior frontbenchers, the Leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats, leading MEP's and the Party President. Oh yes, and someone in a lightly pinstriped suit with a dark tie with flowers. Must be a big donor, because the media would have no idea who he was. Perhaps he just found a spare seat and occupied it when nobody was looking?
But anyway, the Leader comes on, and delivers the speech that is the result of so much careful preparation. And it was a pretty good speech (I have always been known to be a hard marker), with plenty of 'red meat' and messages that really resonated with his audience. Indeed, there were elements that, I believe, will resonate far beyond the hall.
I have always wondered why the directors of the banks have been treated so leniently, especially given the amount of time I spend at work explaining to directors that they are liable for their compliance failures. Nick's call for them to be prosecuted under company law is, I think, entirely fair. They clearly didn't exercise control, for if they had, the inability to calculate their potential liabilities should surely have made them stop and think. It's not simply retribution, it's a clear sign that failure has its consequences.
One thing I like to do is to monitor reactions around the hall and, this year, my barometer was Bob Russell. Bob knows where his constituents live, so to speak, and I tend to respect his thoughts. He seemed to like the speech, and was never short of an approving comment.
And so the Conference was over, and it was time to go home...
But anyway, the Leader comes on, and delivers the speech that is the result of so much careful preparation. And it was a pretty good speech (I have always been known to be a hard marker), with plenty of 'red meat' and messages that really resonated with his audience. Indeed, there were elements that, I believe, will resonate far beyond the hall.
I have always wondered why the directors of the banks have been treated so leniently, especially given the amount of time I spend at work explaining to directors that they are liable for their compliance failures. Nick's call for them to be prosecuted under company law is, I think, entirely fair. They clearly didn't exercise control, for if they had, the inability to calculate their potential liabilities should surely have made them stop and think. It's not simply retribution, it's a clear sign that failure has its consequences.
One thing I like to do is to monitor reactions around the hall and, this year, my barometer was Bob Russell. Bob knows where his constituents live, so to speak, and I tend to respect his thoughts. He seemed to like the speech, and was never short of an approving comment.
And so the Conference was over, and it was time to go home...
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Harrogate - Day 3: Clutching the symbols of power!
And so the moment I'd all been waiting for, the moment when Ros seized the symbols of ultimate power from the cold, dead hands of the ancien regime, the moment when everything became possible, when... oops, err... Let's start that again, shall we?
It is a tradition, passed down from the Liberal Party, that the outgoing President passes to his or her successor the symbols of office, the gavel and the sacred text, 'On Liberty' by John Stuart Mill. The book is obvious, the gavel perhaps less so.
In the 'old days', the President of the Liberal Party chaired every session from opening to closure of the Assembly. The gavel was used, and had a power. Of course, there is a entire Federal Conference Committee to do these things now, and the President's role is much more ceremonial, but symbols have their place in our memories.
It was left to Phil Willis to introduce Ros, and he was most gracious with his introduction, before El Presidente (outgoing), Simon Hughes, presented Ros with the gavel and the book. Ros made a gracious speech in praise of Simon before performing her first awards ceremony as President, honouring Greater Reading for the largest increase in membership by a Local Party. And she was right, all of the students who came on with Gareth and Daisy did make Gareth look a bit old and knackered... She then presented the award for biggest percentage growth to Leeds East before handing back to Phil for the financial appeal.
Whilst Tim Farron tried to distract him by folding his appeal form into a paper aeroplane and throwing it at him (nice craftsmanship, Tim), Phil extorted us to be generous in his own inimical style - "Give us your bloody money!".
Having so persuaded us, he noted that he'd better hurry up, as a young man was due on next to give us travel and weather reports for the journey home...
It is a tradition, passed down from the Liberal Party, that the outgoing President passes to his or her successor the symbols of office, the gavel and the sacred text, 'On Liberty' by John Stuart Mill. The book is obvious, the gavel perhaps less so.
In the 'old days', the President of the Liberal Party chaired every session from opening to closure of the Assembly. The gavel was used, and had a power. Of course, there is a entire Federal Conference Committee to do these things now, and the President's role is much more ceremonial, but symbols have their place in our memories.
It was left to Phil Willis to introduce Ros, and he was most gracious with his introduction, before El Presidente (outgoing), Simon Hughes, presented Ros with the gavel and the book. Ros made a gracious speech in praise of Simon before performing her first awards ceremony as President, honouring Greater Reading for the largest increase in membership by a Local Party. And she was right, all of the students who came on with Gareth and Daisy did make Gareth look a bit old and knackered... She then presented the award for biggest percentage growth to Leeds East before handing back to Phil for the financial appeal.
Whilst Tim Farron tried to distract him by folding his appeal form into a paper aeroplane and throwing it at him (nice craftsmanship, Tim), Phil extorted us to be generous in his own inimical style - "Give us your bloody money!".
Having so persuaded us, he noted that he'd better hurry up, as a young man was due on next to give us travel and weather reports for the journey home...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)