All of this talk about taxing bankers' bonuses has had me a little confused.
On one hand, flinging around such huge sums appears wholly irresponsible, especially when the only reason they are able to do so is that we, the taxpaying public, were willing to bail them out. Effectively, they are using our money to enrich themselves and there is a sense whereby they should be making good rather than making off with the cash. On the other hand, one is loathe to interfere with the right of a private company to determine its own remuneration policy.
So perhaps it would be right to leave the decision in the hands of the banks' management, yet provide an incentive to reduce these to a less eye-watering level.
My mind is drawn to the concept of a 'luxury tax', introduced by Major League Baseball in the United States, whereby there is a salary cap for each team. If a team chooses to spend more than that cap, a tax is paid in proportion to the overspend. This serves to increase competition, discourage reckless expenditure in search of short-term advantage, and provide funds for redistribution.
I am still convinced that having a range of banks, from those focussing on 'vanilla banking' to the more exotic investment banking, is a good thing. Indeed, I see no reason why risk-taking should be discouraged. However, we need to change the overriding culture of the financial industry so that there is a sensible balance between risk and reward, and where those who get that balance wrong face the reality, and the consequences, of failure.
A 'luxury tax' would leave senior management in charge and allow us to claw back some of the billions that we have invested. Worth a thought?...
Monday, December 07, 2009
Have I missed the campaign?
Yes, I know what you're thinking, how could you miss it? As one of ALDC's newer members, I get frequent exhortations to start campaigning for my District Council seat as early as possible. However, there is more than one campaign taking place in Creeting St Peter. Let me explain...
Creeting St Peter is not exactly a hive of commerce. We do have a concrete factory of sorts, but it's mostly about farming. Oil-seed rape in the spring and early summer, wheat as autumn approaches and last but not least, sugar beet. Here, the sugar beet is still in the ground, awaiting the harvest. However, for reasons that, hitherto, have remained unclear, the period when the beet is harvested and transported to the sugar factory is called a campaign.
For locals, the campaign is a time when the roads are busy with big lorries, mostly heading for the enormous British Sugar factory next to the A14 at Bury St Edmunds. The lorries present an unusual hazard for drivers, in that an escaped sugar beet, falling off of a lorry, is a lethal projectile if your windscreen is in its path. Naturally, there are rules, in that the lorries have to have nets to secure their loads but that doesn't always work.
The campaign started in these parts in late-September, whilst we were in Bournemouth. And yet there still seem to be beet in the fields between the village and Stowmarket, and no signs of activity. Is there such a thing as winter beet?
Creeting St Peter is not exactly a hive of commerce. We do have a concrete factory of sorts, but it's mostly about farming. Oil-seed rape in the spring and early summer, wheat as autumn approaches and last but not least, sugar beet. Here, the sugar beet is still in the ground, awaiting the harvest. However, for reasons that, hitherto, have remained unclear, the period when the beet is harvested and transported to the sugar factory is called a campaign.
For locals, the campaign is a time when the roads are busy with big lorries, mostly heading for the enormous British Sugar factory next to the A14 at Bury St Edmunds. The lorries present an unusual hazard for drivers, in that an escaped sugar beet, falling off of a lorry, is a lethal projectile if your windscreen is in its path. Naturally, there are rules, in that the lorries have to have nets to secure their loads but that doesn't always work.
The campaign started in these parts in late-September, whilst we were in Bournemouth. And yet there still seem to be beet in the fields between the village and Stowmarket, and no signs of activity. Is there such a thing as winter beet?
Friday, December 04, 2009
Thoughts from the Train: is there a point where local democracy becomes an expensive vanity?
I am a democrat to my very fingertips. It was my fascination with enabling people to take an active role in determining those who should represent them that led me to take my first steps into the political arena, and I remain an enthusiastic supporter of campaigns to improve our democracy. And yet, I find myself wondering about what is an appropriate size for a democratic unit.
As a Parish councillor, I am responsible for a precept of £4,000, 70% of which is spent on the salary and expenses of our Parish Clerk. In the case of Creeting St Peter, we're rather lucky, in that we have a very good, very knowledgable one. However, because we pay the going rate, we are left with little in the way of resources to do much more than light the streets and cut the grass. We could do more potentially, but we would need to increase the precept quite significantly to do so, and I for one am not keen. Times are hard, and any extra services would need to add tangible value.
Of course, the trend in local government is for units at the same level to come together, sharing senior officers, pooling contracts to achieve financial savings. The Government in Westminster has pushed for a new unitary tier, abolishing the counties and districts to strip out one tier of bureaucracy but increasing the sense of remoteness between governed and governing.
Whilst we all want our representatives to be accessible, and we want to have an opportunity to influence those decisions that affect us, are we willing to pay the price that such access entails? Instead, should we bring smaller units together to retain a local strand whilst reducing costs? It is an uncomfortable question to ask, and yet we have a duty to consider what might be best for our communities.
At the moment, Suffolk is in the midst of the Local Government Review process. If either of the proposals is adopted, Creeting St Peter will be the only representative unit between a unitary county or unitary 'Rural Suffolk'. Will it be sufficiently robust to handle the strains of an uneven power relationship? Will it be in a position to take on responsibility for additional services currently provided by the District Council, and will the Unitary be able to manage the implications of differential devolution of responsibilities to Town Councils like Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket and to Parishes like Creeting St Peter and Badley?
You see, size matters. And whilst we villagers have a certain pride in our little corners of paradise, that pride comes with a price tag. At some point in the future, the question of whether that price is an acceptable one will come a-knocking, and Parish councillors like myself will be steeling themselves to come up with an answer. It isn't something that I'll be looking forward to...
As a Parish councillor, I am responsible for a precept of £4,000, 70% of which is spent on the salary and expenses of our Parish Clerk. In the case of Creeting St Peter, we're rather lucky, in that we have a very good, very knowledgable one. However, because we pay the going rate, we are left with little in the way of resources to do much more than light the streets and cut the grass. We could do more potentially, but we would need to increase the precept quite significantly to do so, and I for one am not keen. Times are hard, and any extra services would need to add tangible value.
Of course, the trend in local government is for units at the same level to come together, sharing senior officers, pooling contracts to achieve financial savings. The Government in Westminster has pushed for a new unitary tier, abolishing the counties and districts to strip out one tier of bureaucracy but increasing the sense of remoteness between governed and governing.
Whilst we all want our representatives to be accessible, and we want to have an opportunity to influence those decisions that affect us, are we willing to pay the price that such access entails? Instead, should we bring smaller units together to retain a local strand whilst reducing costs? It is an uncomfortable question to ask, and yet we have a duty to consider what might be best for our communities.
At the moment, Suffolk is in the midst of the Local Government Review process. If either of the proposals is adopted, Creeting St Peter will be the only representative unit between a unitary county or unitary 'Rural Suffolk'. Will it be sufficiently robust to handle the strains of an uneven power relationship? Will it be in a position to take on responsibility for additional services currently provided by the District Council, and will the Unitary be able to manage the implications of differential devolution of responsibilities to Town Councils like Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket and to Parishes like Creeting St Peter and Badley?
You see, size matters. And whilst we villagers have a certain pride in our little corners of paradise, that pride comes with a price tag. At some point in the future, the question of whether that price is an acceptable one will come a-knocking, and Parish councillors like myself will be steeling themselves to come up with an answer. It isn't something that I'll be looking forward to...
On the eighth day of asking, National Express gave to me... absolutely nothing
UB40 sang "I am the one in ten", but it appears that I am too. According to National Express East Anglia, they aim to respond to 90% of complaints within six working days. Well, today is day eight.
I'm still waiting, ladies and gentlemen...
I'm still waiting, ladies and gentlemen...
Hey Zac, stop digging!
Occasionally, we here at 'Liberal Bureaucracy' like to help those in need of some good advice, and it has been brought to our attention that Zac Goldsmith is in need of some just at the moment. So, here are our first thoughts...
- Shut up. Every time you talk about your personal tax affairs, you provide more ammunition for those campaigning against you. If £10,000 is a marginal amount for you, it isn't for most people. There are more of them than there are of you, and they have votes.
- Check your Constituency Association's website to make sure that it doesn't cause you any personal embarrassment - references to taxing 'non-doms' in particular - it only encourages people like me to speculate on how much money you're actually saving.
- It might be worth checking whether or not there is anything else you ought to tell your Constituency Association, or that nice Mr Cameron, before someone leaks it. One awkward secret is perhaps excusable, two might be a bit hard to gloss over.
- Take your medicine like an adult. You've been made to look like a bit of a hypocrite, deservedly or not, it doesn't matter. Trying to justify yourself won't help.
- Don't wrap yourself in the Union Flag. Your domicile status implies that you feel no long term loyalty to it and will lead to further charges of hypocrisy.
If you have any further questions, feel free to ask...
Thursday, December 03, 2009
National Express - still getting a good kicking...
Following on from the truncation of their East Anglia rail franchise, today saw a question from Baroness Hanham, seeking to find out what the current position is. Luckily, a clutch of their regular victims were there to kick the company whilst it is down.
From the Liberal Democrat benches, Baroness Scott of Needham Market (usual journey Stowmarket to Liverpool Street) commented, "As a poor benighted passenger of National Express East Anglia, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware of the steady deterioration in services with regard to cleanliness, refreshments, repairs to carriages et cetera, which is making the travelling experience pretty miserable? Can he assure passengers that in the new franchise more attention will be paid to ensuring that the new company operates a decent service?".
Lord Walpole (Norwich to Liverpool Street) was less scathing from the crossbenches. "My Lords, like the last speaker, I use this service regularly. I could not agree more about the lack of service, which is getting worse and worse. The punctuality is not too bad, but the service suffers from Railtrack problems, such as level crossings that do not shut so that we have to wait for 10 minutes, which meant, I am afraid—addressing the right reverend Prelate—that I missed Prayers the other day."
In response, the Secretary of State, Lord Adonis, acknowledged that, whilst punctuality levels were improving, he was keen to see improvements to the service. He does make the mistake of believing that running the trains on time is what really matters, a point which I mostly agree with. However, if you're paying for a service, you expect clean trains, a decent refreshment service and satisfactory levels of information when things go wrong. That's a fail for National Express on all counts then...
From the Liberal Democrat benches, Baroness Scott of Needham Market (usual journey Stowmarket to Liverpool Street) commented, "As a poor benighted passenger of National Express East Anglia, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware of the steady deterioration in services with regard to cleanliness, refreshments, repairs to carriages et cetera, which is making the travelling experience pretty miserable? Can he assure passengers that in the new franchise more attention will be paid to ensuring that the new company operates a decent service?".
Lord Walpole (Norwich to Liverpool Street) was less scathing from the crossbenches. "My Lords, like the last speaker, I use this service regularly. I could not agree more about the lack of service, which is getting worse and worse. The punctuality is not too bad, but the service suffers from Railtrack problems, such as level crossings that do not shut so that we have to wait for 10 minutes, which meant, I am afraid—addressing the right reverend Prelate—that I missed Prayers the other day."
In response, the Secretary of State, Lord Adonis, acknowledged that, whilst punctuality levels were improving, he was keen to see improvements to the service. He does make the mistake of believing that running the trains on time is what really matters, a point which I mostly agree with. However, if you're paying for a service, you expect clean trains, a decent refreshment service and satisfactory levels of information when things go wrong. That's a fail for National Express on all counts then...
A duty of care to our former colonies?
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in the light of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Trinidad from 27 to 29 November, how they are building a constructive relationship between the United Kingdom and Caribbean Commonwealth countries.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead): My Lords, last week, Her Majesty the Queen made a state visit to Bermuda, the Bahamas and to Trinidad and Tobago. Her Majesty attended the Commonwealth summit in Trinidad and Tobago. In Port of Spain, at the summit, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister met the Caribbean Heads of Government and emphasised strongly the value of the UK's relationship with the Caribbean region and its people. Before attending the summit, I visited Jamaica and met Ministers and others.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: Is the noble Baroness aware of the very widespread perception in Caribbean countries that the UK Government have much less commitment to the Commonwealth Caribbean than they previously had? Is she aware, for example, of the widespread anger among Jamaican parliamentarians that, if they wish to attend meetings in Brussels, they have to transit through the UK and are now required to have a visa simply to change planes?
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: I thank the noble Baroness. I am aware and, indeed, acknowledge that some disquiet has been felt by the Caribbean Governments in particular. We are making every effort to address that. I have been engaging with the diaspora in the UK. I have had a round table with representatives of the Caribbean community and a UK-wide event with the diaspora. I have plans in hand to deal with issues such as trade and industry, the relationship with DfID and, I hope, with the border authority as well, so I am making a serious effort to address some of the concerns that have been raised.
The noble Baroness referred to visas. We believe that we get more efficiency and more flexibility, and that the system has more integrity, by delivering Jamaican visas from the United States. The visa system has to have quality and consistency and it was discussed with the Prime Minister at the meeting that I mentioned earlier.
In other words, that would be a non-answer. The reasoning behind the question is one of visas for Parliamentarians and officials attending meetings in Brussels. Nowadays, following retrenchment amongst Caribbean airlines, there are very few direct flights to Europe, which means a connecting flight via London for most Caribbean island states. The new border regime means that they need visas to transit London. Not stay in London, you understand, not to even leave the airport, but simply to transfer from one flight to another.
Quite often, meetings are called at short notice, and a delay in obtaining a visa means that the meeting cannot be attended. Of course, if the application has to go to the High Commission in Kingston, for example, then onto the United States and then back to Jamaica, delay is inevitable. Given the power imbalance between the European Union and small island states, an inability to press their case is only likely to make life more difficult.
Baroness Kinnock's answer implies that she doesn't care, that she mistakes holding meetings for actually taking steps that might make life easier for Parliamentarians and officials from our former colonies. I presume that she does care, however, so wouldn't it be nice if she found some way in which her Department could help?
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead): My Lords, last week, Her Majesty the Queen made a state visit to Bermuda, the Bahamas and to Trinidad and Tobago. Her Majesty attended the Commonwealth summit in Trinidad and Tobago. In Port of Spain, at the summit, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister met the Caribbean Heads of Government and emphasised strongly the value of the UK's relationship with the Caribbean region and its people. Before attending the summit, I visited Jamaica and met Ministers and others.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: Is the noble Baroness aware of the very widespread perception in Caribbean countries that the UK Government have much less commitment to the Commonwealth Caribbean than they previously had? Is she aware, for example, of the widespread anger among Jamaican parliamentarians that, if they wish to attend meetings in Brussels, they have to transit through the UK and are now required to have a visa simply to change planes?
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: I thank the noble Baroness. I am aware and, indeed, acknowledge that some disquiet has been felt by the Caribbean Governments in particular. We are making every effort to address that. I have been engaging with the diaspora in the UK. I have had a round table with representatives of the Caribbean community and a UK-wide event with the diaspora. I have plans in hand to deal with issues such as trade and industry, the relationship with DfID and, I hope, with the border authority as well, so I am making a serious effort to address some of the concerns that have been raised.
The noble Baroness referred to visas. We believe that we get more efficiency and more flexibility, and that the system has more integrity, by delivering Jamaican visas from the United States. The visa system has to have quality and consistency and it was discussed with the Prime Minister at the meeting that I mentioned earlier.
In other words, that would be a non-answer. The reasoning behind the question is one of visas for Parliamentarians and officials attending meetings in Brussels. Nowadays, following retrenchment amongst Caribbean airlines, there are very few direct flights to Europe, which means a connecting flight via London for most Caribbean island states. The new border regime means that they need visas to transit London. Not stay in London, you understand, not to even leave the airport, but simply to transfer from one flight to another.
Quite often, meetings are called at short notice, and a delay in obtaining a visa means that the meeting cannot be attended. Of course, if the application has to go to the High Commission in Kingston, for example, then onto the United States and then back to Jamaica, delay is inevitable. Given the power imbalance between the European Union and small island states, an inability to press their case is only likely to make life more difficult.
Baroness Kinnock's answer implies that she doesn't care, that she mistakes holding meetings for actually taking steps that might make life easier for Parliamentarians and officials from our former colonies. I presume that she does care, however, so wouldn't it be nice if she found some way in which her Department could help?
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Cambridge: the hills are alive with the sound of candidates
Luckily, I have absolutely nothing to do with the Cambridge candidate selection, although I am picking up the odd rumour as to who might be applying.
It would certainly be fair to say that there has been a rush to seek approval, as those who have ignored Valladares's First Rule of Candidate Approval (never assume that, just because there isn't a vacancy now, one might not unexpectedly appear) seek to remedy that. Indeed, three assessment days took place last weekend, with three more scheduled for this one coming.
Once nominations have closed, I'll have a look at what happens next, as the selection committee grapple with the challenge of filtering the applicants down to probably five final contenders...
It would certainly be fair to say that there has been a rush to seek approval, as those who have ignored Valladares's First Rule of Candidate Approval (never assume that, just because there isn't a vacancy now, one might not unexpectedly appear) seek to remedy that. Indeed, three assessment days took place last weekend, with three more scheduled for this one coming.
Once nominations have closed, I'll have a look at what happens next, as the selection committee grapple with the challenge of filtering the applicants down to probably five final contenders...
Back from the dead - I have my BlackBerry back!
Yes, after the best part of four weeks undergoing repair for a wonky mouse wheel, I am reunited with my beloved BlackBerry.
This means that I have e-mail on demand, the ability to blog as I walk or ride the Tube, and all sorts of other things that are terribly exciting.
On the flip side, the display is completely different, all my settings have been lost, as well as my contacts, and there are some new features that, to be honest, I don't understand yet.
However, on balance, it's good news. Next task, to find out how Twitter works...
This means that I have e-mail on demand, the ability to blog as I walk or ride the Tube, and all sorts of other things that are terribly exciting.
On the flip side, the display is completely different, all my settings have been lost, as well as my contacts, and there are some new features that, to be honest, I don't understand yet.
However, on balance, it's good news. Next task, to find out how Twitter works...
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Health and safety gone mad - a village mourns the loss of its bus stop
You may remember that I was keen to get a bus stop for my village, and the process of obtaining one was duly kicked off, with a request to the County Council. A potential site was found, and I was really quite optimistic, especially when our site was judged to meet the criteria. However, we now have bad news to report.
Apparently, the policy of Suffolk County Council is that you have to have a bus stop on each side of the road. The bus stop has to be placed next to a raised curb to allow easy entrance to the bus for those with disabilities. Therefore, we need a site on the other side of the road that passes through the village, so we're forced back to the drawing board.
There is an irony here, in that, with the exception of our one regular bus service each week, the bus that serves Creeting St Peter is the community bus, which has a rear entrance designed for wheelchair users. Therefore, for them to board the bus at a new, accessible bus stop, the bus would need to reverse at right angles to the traffic. That isn't going to be good, is it?
Time to revisit this project, I think...
Apparently, the policy of Suffolk County Council is that you have to have a bus stop on each side of the road. The bus stop has to be placed next to a raised curb to allow easy entrance to the bus for those with disabilities. Therefore, we need a site on the other side of the road that passes through the village, so we're forced back to the drawing board.
There is an irony here, in that, with the exception of our one regular bus service each week, the bus that serves Creeting St Peter is the community bus, which has a rear entrance designed for wheelchair users. Therefore, for them to board the bus at a new, accessible bus stop, the bus would need to reverse at right angles to the traffic. That isn't going to be good, is it?
Time to revisit this project, I think...
Monday, November 30, 2009
Can I haz title? Does that come with ermine?
On 14 December, the following item is on the list of business in the House of Lords;
Baroness Deech to ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will make proposals relating to the titles used by the husbands of women members of the House of Lords.
Now I don't know where this question comes from, and I'm not sure what Baroness Deech's motivation is, but I am certainly intrigued by the prospect of an answer.
However, it isn't clear to me what title one might give. Of course, the wife of a male Peer is given the honorific 'Lady' (I'm not sure if this applies to the civil partner of a female Peer - anyone know?), but 'Lord' seems somewhat inappropriate. A life baronetcy perhaps, although Sir Mark has a bizarre ring to it.
No, I tend to think that things will be left as they are. After all, if all political parties are committed to reform of the second chamber and a mostly or fully-elected House, why bother with further fripperies? And if this Government were that bothered, you would have thought that Harriet Harman would have acted before now...
Baroness Deech to ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will make proposals relating to the titles used by the husbands of women members of the House of Lords.
Now I don't know where this question comes from, and I'm not sure what Baroness Deech's motivation is, but I am certainly intrigued by the prospect of an answer.
However, it isn't clear to me what title one might give. Of course, the wife of a male Peer is given the honorific 'Lady' (I'm not sure if this applies to the civil partner of a female Peer - anyone know?), but 'Lord' seems somewhat inappropriate. A life baronetcy perhaps, although Sir Mark has a bizarre ring to it.
No, I tend to think that things will be left as they are. After all, if all political parties are committed to reform of the second chamber and a mostly or fully-elected House, why bother with further fripperies? And if this Government were that bothered, you would have thought that Harriet Harman would have acted before now...
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Zac Goldsmith - not a fit and proper person to be an MP?
My morning was somewhat brightened up by the news that Zac Goldsmith has been outed as a 'non-domicile'. As an old friend of Susan Kramer's (she was our candidate in Dulwich & West Norwood when I was active there), anything that legitimately helps her to gain re-election in Richmond Park is a good thing.
However, I see that Iain Dale has chosen to defend him on the grounds that what he is doing, using his non-domiciled status to avoid capital gains tax, inheritance tax and income tax, is perfectly legal. I therefore feel obliged to remind him that the public clearly don't see that kind of old-style thinking as acceptable any more. That might seem unfair and unjust but, as we know, the public view of politicians is fairly poisonous.
As for Zac, he is guilty of a degree of hypocrisy. Proposing a range of green taxes when you are actively avoiding paying what many would see as fair levels of taxation smacks of 'one rule for you, another for me'. It is true that he has told the Sunday Times that he will voluntarily give up his non-domiciled status, but it does seem odd that someone who is selected to fight a Parliamentary seat should consider himself to be non-domiciled.
To be automatically considered non-domiciled in the United Kingdom, you must fulfil the following criteria;
- you must be born outside of the United Kingdom
- your father must have been domiciled outside of the United Kingdom at the time of your birth
- you must have come to the United Kingdom for the purposes only of employment (including self-employment) and must intend to resume employment abroad when that employment ceases
I presume that Zac meets the first two criteria. The third, however, is not so clearcut. What exactly is his employment status? Perhaps the Residence & Domicile Technical Team of HM Revenue & Customs might want to take a look?
I'm not of the view that David Cameron is obliged to sack Zac as the Conservative candidate for Richmond Park. Of course, he may feel that a candidate whose behaviour brings his Party into disrepute might not be a fit and proper person to be a Member of Parliament. After all, if buying a duck house on expenses is an offence sufficient to cause the loss of a nomination, how relatively heinous is using your non-domicilied status to avoid potentially hundreds and thousands of pounds in tax?
Only a week late into Edinburgh...
I'm a busy man and not always the most organised, and so it shouldn't have come as a great surprise to discover that, on arrival in Edinburgh for the Bloggers Unconference on Friday night, it had taken place the previous weekend. Luckily, a full schedule of events was available to me, and I had already swapped blog comments with Jo Swinson before setting off, so my journey wasn't in vain.
Friday saw me on the 14.00 Aberdeen service from London King's Cross, bound for the Edinburgh Pentlands St Andrew's Day dinner, in the company of John Barrett and his wife Carol, where an excellent meal (game terrine, chicken stuffed with haggis, Lanark Blue cheese with oatcakes) was enlivened by an excellent speech from the guest for the evening. So that was a second element of the Unconference achieved...
Saturday opened with with a mince pie and mulled wine event for Edinburgh North and Leith, where I ran into the godfather of Scottish Lib Dem blogging, Stephen Glenn (the third element), before heading to a Christmas Fayre in Edinburgh West, where I paid £2 for a go on the 'water or wine' stall. The idea is that there is an array of sealed gift bags with bottles in. You pick one and it either has a bottle of wine in it, or a bottle of water. On the basis that you stick with your party colour, I picked a yellow one and was most gratified to find a bottle of sparking rose in mine. John Barrett, who had an unblemished record of winning bottles of water, took my advise and picked a gold bag. Sure enough, there was a bottle of wine in it.
By this point, we had met up with Mike Crockart, and I pointed out a yellow bag with white polka dots - I was beginning to suspect some subliminal Liberal Democrat bias by this point (does a 13,600 majority cause that?). And yes, when Mike picked it, there was a bottle of wine inside.
But, it was getting on, and our day wasn't finished. I did, however, have time for a haircut. It appears that I got a bit carried away though, and Ros is still slightly traumatised by the result. It is very short, I fear. The one disconcerting moment was when my barber took out a piece of wire with a lump on the end, set fire to it and announced that I shouldn't worry about the naked flame being held close to my ears. Apparently, this acts to singe the hairs on the ears, making it easier to remove them.
Next stop, Perth...
Friday saw me on the 14.00 Aberdeen service from London King's Cross, bound for the Edinburgh Pentlands St Andrew's Day dinner, in the company of John Barrett and his wife Carol, where an excellent meal (game terrine, chicken stuffed with haggis, Lanark Blue cheese with oatcakes) was enlivened by an excellent speech from the guest for the evening. So that was a second element of the Unconference achieved...
Saturday opened with with a mince pie and mulled wine event for Edinburgh North and Leith, where I ran into the godfather of Scottish Lib Dem blogging, Stephen Glenn (the third element), before heading to a Christmas Fayre in Edinburgh West, where I paid £2 for a go on the 'water or wine' stall. The idea is that there is an array of sealed gift bags with bottles in. You pick one and it either has a bottle of wine in it, or a bottle of water. On the basis that you stick with your party colour, I picked a yellow one and was most gratified to find a bottle of sparking rose in mine. John Barrett, who had an unblemished record of winning bottles of water, took my advise and picked a gold bag. Sure enough, there was a bottle of wine in it.
By this point, we had met up with Mike Crockart, and I pointed out a yellow bag with white polka dots - I was beginning to suspect some subliminal Liberal Democrat bias by this point (does a 13,600 majority cause that?). And yes, when Mike picked it, there was a bottle of wine inside.
But, it was getting on, and our day wasn't finished. I did, however, have time for a haircut. It appears that I got a bit carried away though, and Ros is still slightly traumatised by the result. It is very short, I fear. The one disconcerting moment was when my barber took out a piece of wire with a lump on the end, set fire to it and announced that I shouldn't worry about the naked flame being held close to my ears. Apparently, this acts to singe the hairs on the ears, making it easier to remove them.
Next stop, Perth...
Friday, November 27, 2009
Thoughts from the Train: What if Deutsche Bahn rang my local rail franchise?
Liberal Bureaucracy has received, in a brown paper package, a copy of a document purported to have been sent to Lord Adonis, the Secretary of State for Transport, following his announcement that National Express will have their current franchise for East Anglia truncated so that it ends in 2011. The covering letter is signed by the Chief Executive Officer of Deutsche Bahn.
Having read through it, here are the key proposals;
Frequency
Trains will run at least hourly on all routes. We have ways of making them run on time.
New services and special arrangements
Catering
We intend to reinstate the restaurant car, where the finest local food will be served, alongside a range of German beers and wines, as well as classic bierkeller snacks such as pretzels and weisswurst, all served by staff wearing traditional outfits.
Entertainment
Naturally, we will introduce an accordian player on mainline services to provide an opportunity for passengers to sing traditional drinking songs as they return after following Colchester United, Ipswich Town and Norwich City to away games. Whilst we understand concerns about drunken and unruly fans, we are confident that, by providing them with good German lager, brewed according to the ancient laws that still control beer production in Germany, they will be happy to behave positively.
The Future
Naturally, we expect to seek an anschluss with the franchise covering services from Fenchurch Street, and will look to seeking to extend operations across Cambridgeshire to Lincolnshire, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire in due course.
Well, I don't know about you, but I'd sign up to that...
Having read through it, here are the key proposals;
Frequency
Trains will run at least hourly on all routes. We have ways of making them run on time.
New services and special arrangements
It is our intention to run more services to Stansted Airport and to Harwich from across the Region, with the intention of making it easier for East Anglians to travel to European cultural centres such as Berlin, Munich and Heidelberg, and for central Europeans to travel to important towns such as Stowmarket. We see particular potential in running special services for those seeking to make pilgrimages to worship before Dalai Russell in Colchester.
CateringWe intend to reinstate the restaurant car, where the finest local food will be served, alongside a range of German beers and wines, as well as classic bierkeller snacks such as pretzels and weisswurst, all served by staff wearing traditional outfits.
Entertainment
Naturally, we will introduce an accordian player on mainline services to provide an opportunity for passengers to sing traditional drinking songs as they return after following Colchester United, Ipswich Town and Norwich City to away games. Whilst we understand concerns about drunken and unruly fans, we are confident that, by providing them with good German lager, brewed according to the ancient laws that still control beer production in Germany, they will be happy to behave positively.
The Future
Naturally, we expect to seek an anschluss with the franchise covering services from Fenchurch Street, and will look to seeking to extend operations across Cambridgeshire to Lincolnshire, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire in due course.
Well, I don't know about you, but I'd sign up to that...
Pearson of Barking? Barking of Rannoch? Is this important?
I am led to understand that Lord Pearson of Rannoch is the new leader of UKIP (I'm cocooned on an East Coast train somewhere near Newcastle, on my way to Edinburgh...).
In fairness, Malcolm Pearson is probably ideal for the job, in that he is of the view that between them, Islam and the European Union are determined to destroy the country that we love. Indeed, there are enough people out there who agree with that view to attract a rather more than infinitesimal share of the vote.
His big problem at the moment is the issue regarding a very large donation, over £350,000, which is to be returned, due to the donor not being on the electoral register. It appears that he is of the view that being on the electoral register should merely be optional, and must therefore assume that he would be happy to receive money from anyone, regardless of their link to this country - an odd thing to believe for someone who believes in pulling up the drawbridge, but there you go.
He also supports those who believe that the Koran should be banned, yet demands the right to freedom of expression. Perhaps, in this case, he means freedom to express that which he agrees with. Of course, he is consistent here, in that he believes that Islamism has taken over. As he asked on 23 March,
On House of Lords reform, he is of the view that it should only take place once the United Kingdom has 'reclaimed power from Brussels' and reformed the House of Commons. That would be never then...
I suppose that we should be reassured in a way. With Pearson of Rannoch at the helm, UKIP are clearly not intending to be anything other than an anti-European, anti-Islam political party. In other words, completely irrelevant to the day to day needs of mainstream public opinion. Thanks, Malcolm, thanks very much...
In fairness, Malcolm Pearson is probably ideal for the job, in that he is of the view that between them, Islam and the European Union are determined to destroy the country that we love. Indeed, there are enough people out there who agree with that view to attract a rather more than infinitesimal share of the vote.
His big problem at the moment is the issue regarding a very large donation, over £350,000, which is to be returned, due to the donor not being on the electoral register. It appears that he is of the view that being on the electoral register should merely be optional, and must therefore assume that he would be happy to receive money from anyone, regardless of their link to this country - an odd thing to believe for someone who believes in pulling up the drawbridge, but there you go.
He also supports those who believe that the Koran should be banned, yet demands the right to freedom of expression. Perhaps, in this case, he means freedom to express that which he agrees with. Of course, he is consistent here, in that he believes that Islamism has taken over. As he asked on 23 March,
Does he further agree that all must be equal under our law, including women, gays and those who wish to convert from Islam to another faith, and that Sharia law should therefore not be allowed to go on holding sway in this country?
On House of Lords reform, he is of the view that it should only take place once the United Kingdom has 'reclaimed power from Brussels' and reformed the House of Commons. That would be never then...
I suppose that we should be reassured in a way. With Pearson of Rannoch at the helm, UKIP are clearly not intending to be anything other than an anti-European, anti-Islam political party. In other words, completely irrelevant to the day to day needs of mainstream public opinion. Thanks, Malcolm, thanks very much...
Extreme inconvenience to the enemies of Valladares (part 2)
For those of you who wonder what a bureaucrat does in his spare time, I can confirm that one of the things I don't do is sticking pins into wax effigies of National Express East Anglia management. I can't speak for Andrew Adonis though, but if he does, he's pretty good at this voodoo stuff. Less than forty-eight hours after I complained to and about NXEA, it was announced that their franchise will be terminated three years earlier than scheduled, in 2011.
There has been, for some time, a sense that National Express were doing just enough to meet the performance targets built into the franchise agreement. However, the loss of the restaurant car service, the increasingly shabby rolling stock, with faulty toilets and deteriorating standards of cleanliness, and the claims that removing customer service staff would improve the service provided to passengers all pointed towards a corner-cutting, asset-sweating approach by a company in financial difficulties.
Perhaps we will get a better deal from a new franchise agreement this time. It would be nice if passengers were more involved in drawing up such an agreement, although I am not optimistic on that score.
Interestingly, the withdrawal of the last three years of the agreement allows for a bringing together of the currently separate East Anglia and Fenchurch Street to Southend franchises, the latter, held by c2c at the moment. I have little doubt that a foreign bidder will emerge, and that likelihood will only be increased if the two franchises are brought together. The significant commuter traffic from East London and Essex will provide the backbone for the income stream, whilst the rural routes in Norfolk and Suffolk will offer potential growth linked to population growth.
To be honest, I'd been tempted by any bidder who offered to put the breakfast service back at the pre-2009 levels... ah, pork...
There has been, for some time, a sense that National Express were doing just enough to meet the performance targets built into the franchise agreement. However, the loss of the restaurant car service, the increasingly shabby rolling stock, with faulty toilets and deteriorating standards of cleanliness, and the claims that removing customer service staff would improve the service provided to passengers all pointed towards a corner-cutting, asset-sweating approach by a company in financial difficulties.
Perhaps we will get a better deal from a new franchise agreement this time. It would be nice if passengers were more involved in drawing up such an agreement, although I am not optimistic on that score.
Interestingly, the withdrawal of the last three years of the agreement allows for a bringing together of the currently separate East Anglia and Fenchurch Street to Southend franchises, the latter, held by c2c at the moment. I have little doubt that a foreign bidder will emerge, and that likelihood will only be increased if the two franchises are brought together. The significant commuter traffic from East London and Essex will provide the backbone for the income stream, whilst the rural routes in Norfolk and Suffolk will offer potential growth linked to population growth.
To be honest, I'd been tempted by any bidder who offered to put the breakfast service back at the pre-2009 levels... ah, pork...
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Will the last London-based civil servant please turn the lights out?
It seems that the Government have reached the conclusion that a review is needed to see what civil service and quango jobs could be moved out of London and the South East... again. There is, it is suggested, scope to move some of those 132,000 civil service and 90,000 "arms-length bodies" jobs and achieve not only savings but place civil servants in the heart of the communities they serve.
Well, yes and no. Firstly, there are those of us who are still struggling through the reorganisations wrought by the Lyons Review, published in 2004, which called for transfers of work out of London. As a result of that, corporation tax work for most of the City of Westminster (my old office) was transferred to Hull, and that for South West London was transferred to... Dundee. To go for another reorganisation so soon would certainly be challenging but, if that's what Government wants, that's what Government will get.
Indeed, Lyons wasn't the first transfer of work out of London. In 1991, the final tranche of PAYE work left London, in the case of my then office, Hendon, it went to Salford. I was moved to deal with wealthy self-employed individuals and those with significant investment income in Maida Vale, only for that work to be transferred to Leicester in 2001.
There is little of the local network left in London nowadays, with much of the work transferred to enormous sheds in Washington, Merthyr Tydfil and East Kilbride (to name but three). And yet the intention is that we should be closer to our communities? Does that mean that the work already transferred out of London will suddenly materialise back into the city? No, of course not, that would be consistent. In other words, the community only matters if it isn't in London and the South East, and the warm words are merely intended to provide cover for another transfer of jobs to Labour supporting areas in the North and the Celtic fringe.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to the transfer of work out of London. The arguments about the cost of accommodation, of London weighting and about retention and recruitment all hold some merit. However, if you believe that a national civil service is about providing a high quality of service everywhere, it means that you need to provide that service everywhere. Technology means that much of the work can be done remotely, especially where it involves processing of documents. However, you do need people to provide the face to face service, and there comes a point where you cut numbers beyond that required.
I am astonished that it took Liam Byrne seven months to come up with this proposal. Given that all he needed to do was pull the Lyons Review off of the shelf, get someone to update it a bit, and then act upon those recommendations that haven't yet been carried out, it shows that any sense of originality has been drained from an increasingly desperate Government.
Well, yes and no. Firstly, there are those of us who are still struggling through the reorganisations wrought by the Lyons Review, published in 2004, which called for transfers of work out of London. As a result of that, corporation tax work for most of the City of Westminster (my old office) was transferred to Hull, and that for South West London was transferred to... Dundee. To go for another reorganisation so soon would certainly be challenging but, if that's what Government wants, that's what Government will get.
Indeed, Lyons wasn't the first transfer of work out of London. In 1991, the final tranche of PAYE work left London, in the case of my then office, Hendon, it went to Salford. I was moved to deal with wealthy self-employed individuals and those with significant investment income in Maida Vale, only for that work to be transferred to Leicester in 2001.
There is little of the local network left in London nowadays, with much of the work transferred to enormous sheds in Washington, Merthyr Tydfil and East Kilbride (to name but three). And yet the intention is that we should be closer to our communities? Does that mean that the work already transferred out of London will suddenly materialise back into the city? No, of course not, that would be consistent. In other words, the community only matters if it isn't in London and the South East, and the warm words are merely intended to provide cover for another transfer of jobs to Labour supporting areas in the North and the Celtic fringe.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to the transfer of work out of London. The arguments about the cost of accommodation, of London weighting and about retention and recruitment all hold some merit. However, if you believe that a national civil service is about providing a high quality of service everywhere, it means that you need to provide that service everywhere. Technology means that much of the work can be done remotely, especially where it involves processing of documents. However, you do need people to provide the face to face service, and there comes a point where you cut numbers beyond that required.
I am astonished that it took Liam Byrne seven months to come up with this proposal. Given that all he needed to do was pull the Lyons Review off of the shelf, get someone to update it a bit, and then act upon those recommendations that haven't yet been carried out, it shows that any sense of originality has been drained from an increasingly desperate Government.
Diversity: Labour's control freaks want us to be control freaks too
And so the Labour Party Speakers Conference has concluded that political parties should be made to publish the number of women, ethnic minority, disabled and gay people are applying to be Parliamentary candidates. Let us not be under any misapprehension here, this is an attempt to impose a Labour solution on the body politic, regardless of the fact that other political parties see the solution to the diversity issue in very different forms.
The phrase 'Speakers Conference' is meant to reassure, to provide the cover of apparent cross-Party agreement for an authoritarian attempt to blackmail other political parties to adopt the sort of 'nanny state' positive discrimination that, as liberals, we prefer to eschew. However, a closer look at its membership reveals that, far from being cross-Party, there is an inbuilt Labour majority, with nine Labour members, four Conservatives, two Liberal Democrats (Andrew George and Jo Swinson) and one Democratic Unionist.
So, unsurprisingly, it has gone for a 'name and shame' approach in its efforts to make Parliament more representative of the nation. If that is the best that they can come up with, then we should be demanding our money back.
I fundamentally object to being told that I must betray my Party's philosophy and principles in order to achieve the goal of fair representation. As a liberal, I believe that everyone is equal, and that equality of opportunity is something that we should strive for. That doesn't mean equality of outcome regardless of merit, it means creating processes that do not discriminate, and providing support and encouragement for anyone who wishes to offer themselves up for consideration.
More than most people, I know that Liberal Democrats have wrestled with the desire for proper representation with the idea that we select on merit, with the only consideration being ability. We believe that Local Parties are sovereign, with the only roles for the centre being in setting minimum quality standards for candidates and designing the processes for approval and selection. I've been at the heart of the debate for a long time and I know that we haven't always got it right, but we have tried.
For smaller Parties without deep-pocketed funders, it is difficult to provide the training and support that candidates, regardless of background, need. We do our best given the limits placed upon us, trying to be smart rather than omnipresent. And given the evident lack of support for state funding of political parties, I suspect that it is a problem that will not go away.
However, it seems that they have also fallen into the classic trap of believing that numbers are all that matters. As I have pointed out, and won the subsequent argument, the number of women, ethnic minority, disabled and gay candidates is far less important than the numbers in those categories who can actually win. In the past, I have heard positive reports that we selected, for example, eighteen BME candidates in London. The fact that none of them had a hope in hell of winning was considered to be of less importance.
On the contrary, this is not like the Olympics, it isn't the taking part that matters, it's the winning, and only the winning, that matters. The runners-up don't sit in Parliament, they don't count towards the diversity statistics that anyone cares about - the number of women/BME/disabled/gay MP's.
So, Mr Speaker, if you think that you'll make friends and influence people with a report like this, you're wrong. Oh yes, your new Labour friends will love you. But remember, they auctioned off their principles to the highest bidder years ago...
The phrase 'Speakers Conference' is meant to reassure, to provide the cover of apparent cross-Party agreement for an authoritarian attempt to blackmail other political parties to adopt the sort of 'nanny state' positive discrimination that, as liberals, we prefer to eschew. However, a closer look at its membership reveals that, far from being cross-Party, there is an inbuilt Labour majority, with nine Labour members, four Conservatives, two Liberal Democrats (Andrew George and Jo Swinson) and one Democratic Unionist.
So, unsurprisingly, it has gone for a 'name and shame' approach in its efforts to make Parliament more representative of the nation. If that is the best that they can come up with, then we should be demanding our money back.
I fundamentally object to being told that I must betray my Party's philosophy and principles in order to achieve the goal of fair representation. As a liberal, I believe that everyone is equal, and that equality of opportunity is something that we should strive for. That doesn't mean equality of outcome regardless of merit, it means creating processes that do not discriminate, and providing support and encouragement for anyone who wishes to offer themselves up for consideration.
More than most people, I know that Liberal Democrats have wrestled with the desire for proper representation with the idea that we select on merit, with the only consideration being ability. We believe that Local Parties are sovereign, with the only roles for the centre being in setting minimum quality standards for candidates and designing the processes for approval and selection. I've been at the heart of the debate for a long time and I know that we haven't always got it right, but we have tried.
For smaller Parties without deep-pocketed funders, it is difficult to provide the training and support that candidates, regardless of background, need. We do our best given the limits placed upon us, trying to be smart rather than omnipresent. And given the evident lack of support for state funding of political parties, I suspect that it is a problem that will not go away.
However, it seems that they have also fallen into the classic trap of believing that numbers are all that matters. As I have pointed out, and won the subsequent argument, the number of women, ethnic minority, disabled and gay candidates is far less important than the numbers in those categories who can actually win. In the past, I have heard positive reports that we selected, for example, eighteen BME candidates in London. The fact that none of them had a hope in hell of winning was considered to be of less importance.
On the contrary, this is not like the Olympics, it isn't the taking part that matters, it's the winning, and only the winning, that matters. The runners-up don't sit in Parliament, they don't count towards the diversity statistics that anyone cares about - the number of women/BME/disabled/gay MP's.
So, Mr Speaker, if you think that you'll make friends and influence people with a report like this, you're wrong. Oh yes, your new Labour friends will love you. But remember, they auctioned off their principles to the highest bidder years ago...
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Brief reminders about Cambridge and, for that matter, the rest of England...
Time is running out!
Yes, the deadline for filing your papers to apply for approved candidate status for the 2010 General Election is just six days away. Hurry, hurry, hurry...
Oh yes, and the deadline for nominations for the Cambridge selection is coming closer too - 5 December is the cut off date. It will be a quick turnaround affair, with the calling notice reported to be scheduled for issue before Christmas. Watch this space!
George Osborne - Peggy Lee probably has it right
Now I admit to being a bit partisan. Yes, I would like the Liberal Democrats to form a government, introduce all of those things that I've been keen on over the years, and generally make the world a better place. However, if I can't have that, then all I ask for is that whoever is in charge gives the impression that they care and that they have a high level of competence.
Which brings me, once again, to the subject of George Osborne. It appears that he has managed to make a mess of his claim for mortgage interest expenses, claiming £1,400 for his second home in October, when the limit is just £1,250. His office claim that it was a 'submission in error'.
Error it may be, but it is indicative of a general level of sloppiness and a lack of attention to detail. In an aspiring Chancellor of the Exchequer, that can't be good, and it demonstrates once again that, whilst George hit gold once with his inheritance tax proposals in 2007, he has added very little to the sum of human knowledge since. One presumes that his retention as Shadow Chancellor is linked to something other than his skills in finance and economics, especially with Phil Hammond lurking in the shadows - a far more comforting option, might I suggest.
All this said, George does have form with expenses. Who could forget the £440.62 chauffeur bill for driving him from his second home in his constituency to London (he was entitled to a 5% discount for prompt payment but claimed the full amount anyway)? Or the rebuke for using public money to pay for an overtly political website? And, of course, the charge of 'flipping' after his rather fancy footwork over his mortgage arrangements?
All in all, not a pretty picture. Combined with his seemingly sub-GCSE grasp of economics, it does make you wonder... Perhaps Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller got it right, and so the final word goes to Peggy Lee. Take it away, Peggy...
Which brings me, once again, to the subject of George Osborne. It appears that he has managed to make a mess of his claim for mortgage interest expenses, claiming £1,400 for his second home in October, when the limit is just £1,250. His office claim that it was a 'submission in error'.
Error it may be, but it is indicative of a general level of sloppiness and a lack of attention to detail. In an aspiring Chancellor of the Exchequer, that can't be good, and it demonstrates once again that, whilst George hit gold once with his inheritance tax proposals in 2007, he has added very little to the sum of human knowledge since. One presumes that his retention as Shadow Chancellor is linked to something other than his skills in finance and economics, especially with Phil Hammond lurking in the shadows - a far more comforting option, might I suggest.
All this said, George does have form with expenses. Who could forget the £440.62 chauffeur bill for driving him from his second home in his constituency to London (he was entitled to a 5% discount for prompt payment but claimed the full amount anyway)? Or the rebuke for using public money to pay for an overtly political website? And, of course, the charge of 'flipping' after his rather fancy footwork over his mortgage arrangements?
All in all, not a pretty picture. Combined with his seemingly sub-GCSE grasp of economics, it does make you wonder... Perhaps Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller got it right, and so the final word goes to Peggy Lee. Take it away, Peggy...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)