It's been a difficult year for cats

My recent Facebook update, indicating that I am somewhat more intelligent than my cat, has drawn a number of comments, and I am reminded just how many Liberal Democrats are 'cat people'.

It's been a difficult year for the feline element of the family, with Victoria dying from cancer, Franklin from old age aggravated by a meeting of my Local Party Executive, and then Eleanor from renal failure. They had all had a pretty good innings, so to speak, all of them making it to the cat equivalent of their eighties, but it has been something of a blow nonetheless.

I'm left with Cincinnati, a big orange and white bruiser of a cat (at least, he looks like one yet is a gentle soul at heart) and Katherine, who has suddenly given up her Greta Garbo approach to the world to become affectionate and demanding. Cincinnati is struggling a bit with the sudden lack of company, and has become more clingy in recent months.

Ros has been thrust into a world of cat fur, litter trays and 'cat food breath' and I have to say that she has borne this new world with surprising equanimity. However, the impact of two cats plus a cleaner is far less than that of five cats, and I have noticed that the house is easier to manage than it was.

Given the age of Cincinnati (15) and Katherine (16), they aren't going to be around forever, and I've already decided that our lifestyle is ill-suited to pets, so they won't be replaced, but I admit to a sense of foreboding about their age. Cincinnati, particularly, has been a major feature in my life, with his loud, reassuring purr and his sense of ownership over me.

Nobody ever said that pet ownership would be so emotionally testing...

A day at the zoo

It's been a long campaign, and one of the problems is that you can't always find 'us time', as I like to think of it. You want to make sure that everything that can be done, has been.

However, we managed to find a little time to spend doing something that I enjoy particularly, i.e. a trip to a zoo, in this case, Marwell Zoo in Hampshire. Now I fully accept that zoos are not perfect, and there are always questions about the size of enclosures, diet, activity and, to be frank, whether or not it isn't simply better to leave them in the wild.

My view has always been that less is better, and zoos should be encouraged to maintain less animals in bigger enclosures. However, the reality is that such conditions are uneconomic, and that many zoos would go to the wall in the face of spiralling costs. Zoos perform a vital role in protecting endangered species, maintaining a viable gene pool and providing an opportunity for young people to see animals for themselves. The hope is that, having seen them in captivity, they might be moved to ensure that, one day, they might have an opportunity to see them in their natural state.

It was the perfect day for visiting a zoo, warm sunshine but not too warm, a gentle stroll between exhibits, and a nice variety of animals to look at, including a few that you don't usually see.

And now, back to the campaign...

It really must be International Talk Like A Pirate Day...

...I just entered a PatchWatch Area!

Setting sail for Wiltshire

In keeping with today's celebration, I'm writing this post from the number 8 bus, but not the usual one. This one's from Andover to Amesbury, and here I am, parrot on my shoulder, and a chest full of pieces of eight... sorry, I'm 4 Ros leaflets. Tonight, the I'm 4 Ros roadshow hits Wiltshire, an area with little in the way of a seafaring tradition - unless you know better, gentle reader.

For a change, I'm meeting Ros at our hotel, which requires an hour long bus ride. This is an unexpected pleasure, as I've always enjoyed country bus rides since my years at the University of East Anglia in the mid-eighties. Eastern Counties buses were always a pleasure, and a front row seat upstairs always allowed an opportunity to soak in the gentle countryside of Norfolk and Suffolk. The odd stop at a country inn for lunch never did any harm either...

In recent years, without the time to ride the country buses at home, I'd taken to riding the buses elsewhere, in Mauritius or Fiji, for example. It's an unpressured way of both seeing a country and getting a feel for its people.

You also get to see places that the tourists don't go, and I remember a journey a few years ago when my bus suddenly veered off of the road down a track through a sugarcane field for no adequately explained reason. Eventually, we arrived in a small village of about 100 people, before lurching off in some other random direction. I did get to where I was going in the end...

Ah well, better dash! Aha, me hearties, avast behind!

A pirate's life for me!

Isn't it marvellous? Yes, once again it's International Talk Like A Pirate Day, and to mark the occasion, I'm going to... Stonehenge.

So, I'll be the pirate with the white robes, the silver sickle and the blood sacrifice of a hedge fund manager then... So splice the merchant banker and sing with me

"Fifteen men stuck to their vests, yo ho ho and a bottle of gum..."

Death to the speculators - time to ask for our money back

It is not unreasonable to pay performance bonuses but why should it be that, whilst there is a reward for success, there appears to be little punishment for failure?

There are those who say that losing your job is enough of a punishment but, until recently, even that was unlikely. The new rich have drawn vast amounts out of the system yet suffered very little during less successful times.

So, perhaps we should ask them for our money back. We, the taxpayer, have picked up the tab for their foolishness, and don't we deserve compensation?

Come dancing with Vince

Last night saw the Annual Dinner of Borough of Brent Liberal Democrats, with star guest, Vince Cable.

How times change. Two years ago, Vince stood in at the last moment and was considered worthy if not the biggest draw in the world. Now, he is a hero, bestriding the world of liberal democracy like a colossus. Unsurprisingly, there was a good turnout for what has become a pretty good draw on the speaker circuit. Brent's Annual Dinners normally include entertainment, homemade food and decent supplies of wine, and tonight was no exception, as Vince very graciously pointed out. This time, we had a steel band and salsa dancers, and I noticed that Vince was paying close attention to the dancers. I wonder if he does the salsa?

Vince spoke of the crisis in the financial markets, and the action that will be necessary to stabilise matters. As usual, he made a compelling case for stronger regulation and action to deal with personal debt.

Brent Liberal Democrats have seen the best of times in recent years, and a great deal of that stems from the event whose fifth anniversary we were celebrating, the by-election win in Brent East. At that time, we had nine councillors, the most we had ever had. Three years later, we had twenty-seven, and were leading a joint administration with the Conservatives.

The work ethic that applies here is quite something, and Paul Lorber leads from the front, never asking anyone to do anything that he isn't willing to do himself. Sarah Teather may not be everyone's cup of tea (the lack of respect from her opponents is quite horrendous), but she has inspired a cadre of activists to seize power and use it.

And so we look to the future with confidence, and rightly so...

It appears that history is cyclical after all...

I still tend to the view that markets are good, even in the midst of a potential financial crash, the likes of which has not been seen since the 1930's.

However, we have clearly begun to see the unravelling of a financial edifice which, it is now apparent, was reliant on people who were too clever by half. The financial markets have never been a zero sum game of relative values but are a theatre of sentiment and herd mentality.

Whilst the markets were dominated by people of a conservative ilk, people who understood how a balance sheet worked and looked for the fundamentals, things worked reasonably well. Alright, gains were generally unspectacular, but there was an understanding that brokers were playing with somebody's money, even if it wasn't theirs. Indeed, they had a pretty good idea whose money it actually was.

Nowadays, with vastly increased numbers of participants, and huge waves of money coming into play, the whole thing has become depersonalised, and the sense that 'this is somebody's money' has been lost. Financial instruments have become more and more complex, to the point where senior managers are reliant on terribly clever young men to deal with ever more leveraged transactions. Indeed, the game has become one of shifting risk in less and less transparent ways in the hope that someone whose greed exceeds their judgement will snap up the 'opportunity'.

The catch, and there is always a catch, isn't there, is that in a financial market riddled with interconnections, the fall of one institution leads to tremors across the piece. Banks and brokerages that are fine as long as things stay positive suddenly look vulnerable, and other fearfully clever people behave like a lion with a wounded antelope.

Ironically, it's the rather dull players, the mutuals, those who seek security over adventure, who are best placed to survive. Whilst their shareholders moan about a lack of ambition, they now have an asset with value, unlike, for example, shareholders in Lehman Brothers.

After the crash of 1929, rules and markets were tightened up. We see history repeating itself, as short-selling is prohibited, with doubtless more regulation to follow. It would appear that freedom to gamble means the freedom to lose, after all...

Seeing ourselves as others see us?

We all have, I suppose, a sense of who we are. Over years of growing up, through exposure to outside influences, we develop a sense of what we are capable of, a sense of how we are perceived by those about us. It may not be wholly shared, but it is ours. To then be confronted with an image that is unfamiliar can be disconcerting, especially if that image is unfavourable.

And so it is with political parties, especially at conference time. Inside, spirits are high, enthusiasm for the electoral battles to come is abundant, and thoughts turn to potential victory. Meantime, out in the 'real world', the media are painting a different picture, one that suits their agenda, the simplistic left versus right, A versus B. They wish to talk of winners and losers, whereas we think of winning, and what we might do if we were fortunate enough to achieve victory. We think of principles and grand ideas, of philosophy and theory, whilst journalists are looking to blame someone for whatever is exciting them this week.

"If only we could reach out to the public to tell them of our plans to do X or Y", all would be well. It is my view that there is a danger that it will become more and more difficult to do so as the media fragment. Our views will increasingly be refracted through a prism of bias, often by no means malicious, in favour of the perceived voice of the mob, personified by opinion makers whose volume and tenor obscure their utter lack of mandate.

As one fears for any individual who is defined by what others say as opposed to what they themselves do, one fears for a democracy whose flaws are magnified yet whose virtues are overlooked.

Tax policy: it'll never get better if you pick at it

I have very mixed feelings about yesterday's setpiece debate on 'Make It Happen'.

The movers of the amendment had every right to seek to steer (note, not commit) the Party towards the fight against poverty and inequality. Indeed, there are few in the Party who would disagree. Those defending the language of the original document, likewise, had every right to seek to highlight the possibility (note, not certainty) of tax cuts. And, likewise, there are few who would disagree with that either.

I am generally of the view that there are areas of life where government has a core role in terms of service provision. However, there are some fields of human endeavour where unwieldy and cumbersome government dinosaurs shouls steer clear. Thus, once you have raised enough money to cover the costs of your obligations and promises, it makes sense to stop raising funds. Empowering people does mean providing them with the means to make a decision from a range of options, and part of that requires money.

I'm not clear that the debate as to the role of government has been settled yet within the Liberal Democrats and, ironically, I suspect that the debate yesterday was in part a surrogate for that debate. On one side, those whose faith rests in the ability of good government to improve lives and communities. On the other, those who believe in empowering individuals.

There is an underlying caveat to both stances, however. It assumes that, on one hand, that government is efficient, a self-evident fallacy based on the performance of local and central government, and on the other, that individuals have real freedom to make their choices, something which poverty and lack of information make a mere illusion for too many of our disadvantaged fellow citizens.

I freely admit that I voted with the leadership in the end. I'm not convinced that either side has particularly lost or won. A marker has been laid down, a reminder left, and we move on towards a General Election with a sensible degree of honest flexibility.

Paul Burstow in Fantasyland

Alright, now I'm really angry. Paul Burstow has the audacity, the nerve, to claim that there has been meaningful, constructive consultation with the English Candidates Committee.

I am perfectly happy to go on record and state, categorically that this is untrue. Until yesterday morning, there had been no consultation. We don't agree with some of the key recommendations, and I don't think that we are likely to... ever. When someone can stand up and oppose something on behalf of ECC, in the certain knowledge that, actually, they do represent all of us, who should you believe?

Perhaps if Paul would like to take up his permanent invitation to meet us, he might be (better) informed. Until then, I will doubt his credibility on this issue...

"It's not that we don't trust you... but we don't..."

So, here I am, in the hall for the consultative session on the Party Reform Commission.

We've just debated the governance proposals, and a series of speakers have stepped up to the microphone, generally welcomed the Report, and then condemned the proposed Chief Officers Group (COG), for a range of reasons related to diversity, scrutiny and, in the case of John Smithson, a former Regional Chair, basic distrust of the leadership.

Distrust of the leadership? Sadly, yes, there is, and there always will be. It isn't necessarily the Leader himself, more the people around him. We can't see them, they seek to control access, and we don't have any meaningful scrutiny over them or their roles. In such an atmosphere, distrust grows, especially in an organisation with a noble tradition of bloody-minded radicalism.

I would urge the Commission and the Leadership to pay heed to our concerns. It will be a clear indicator of the direction of travel of the Party if they are ignored. Indeed, if a vote were to be called for (and it won't be in this instance), the governance element might well have been rejected or referred back. That does not augur well for lasting, effective reform.

A radical proposal for candidate selection

I've been talking to Tamsin Hewitt, the English Candidates Officer of the Party. We were discussing some of the fallout from yesterday's meeting, where I raised the issue of abolishing selection committees.

There is no support for their complete abolition - that was merely a dream of mine - but I think that I've finally won the argument for a simplified process for non-target, non-Moving Forward seats, whereby we skip the selection committee phase, and go straight from advert to campaign phase. I can see that this would take weeks off of the schedule and remove the necessity of dragging unwilling volunteers to diversity awareness training, as well as reducing the number of pre-meetings for the volunteer Returning Officer to attend. We may also have found a way of reducing the costs to Local Parties of selecting their PPCs. I'll leave that for another day...

Tamsin and I do agree on one thing though. We think that televised cage matches would be a solution for the campaign phase...

My afternoon with Lembit...

By now, everyone knows that I'm 4 Ros, so I was a mite surprised to receive an invitation from Millennium Elephant (you were robbed, my friend... again...) to meet Lembit as part of the series of blogger interviews.

I was even more surprised to be accepted... clearly, pachyderms have no sense of conflict of interest...

As others have already mentioned, I did ask some fairly searching questions. Not out of malice, but because they were the questions I would have asked anyway - I honestly believe that the stated view of Liberal Democrat Voice readers as to Lembit's effectiveness as our Housing spokesman is a legitimate subject to enquire into.

I thought that, in terms of his brief, he came across as initially shallow but, when pressed further by Mary, he was able to demonstrate that he has a grasp of his brief. His housing portfolio is a key one in terms of helping us to convince potential supporters, and I wish him well in his efforts to make our case.

I also raised the issue of the headline on the front of GQ Magazine where he was interviewed by Piers Morgan, on the basis that it was part of finding out why, or more saliently, how he ticks. My more dispassionate colleagues, Mary and Millennium, have already covered his response, and I feel that it would be fairer to a neutral reader to guide him/her towards their thoughts.

There are two policies that Lembit would go to the wall for. One is the right of medical professionals to prescribe hard drugs to addicts. You could argue about the politics of it, and I have more than enough colleagues who would do so, but it is a principled stance. The other is hunting with hounds...

Lembit has changed his mind. A leading advocate of a compromise between pro- and anti- lobbies, he has now come down in favour of hunting with dogs. He quoted evidence from multiple sources in support of the contention that hunting a fox with hounds, who then tear the fox to death, is less cruel than shooting. I beg to differ. However, I come from an urban constituency and he doesn't.

I'm told that this was the most 'edgy' of the blogger interviews so far. Perhaps I'm missing the point a bit, but shouldn't we be, albeit thoughtfully and constructively, challenging our senior figures? Praise where praise is due, yes. But kindly questioning designed to make everyone look good, regardless of merit? I think not...

Understanding diversity: why English Candidates Committee is different

Meanwhile, in another meeting room somewhere in the Marriott Hotel, the non-award winning half of this dynamic duo was to be found at English Candidates Committee discussing the impact of the Bones Commission on our work.

It's curious, because there are those who see us as part of the problem. And there is something of a dilemma here. We have spent many years, individually and collectively, striving to establish a level playing field. We really believe in creating a process that is 'colour-blind' in every sense of the word, and it matters deeply to us.

Bones talks about two-tier selection, and about cash bonuses for Local Parties who select BME candidates for good seats. We don't like it, we're simply not comfortable with it. In many ways, our fixation on process rather than outcome makes us ill-equipped to address the call for affirmative action. We mean well, we really do. We genuinely want everyone to come forward and get on.

So, the challenge for us is to find ways in which we can advance the diversity agenda and retain our principles. Suggestions, anyone?

Still waiting for Lembit...

Waiting for Lembit...

I'm here, so are Mary, Helen, Alex and Millennium. Lembit isn't.

There's a bloke outside doing street theatre with a Segway. I wonder if the two facts are related?

Lessons for Local Party Secretaries: no. 9 - crushing nations beneath your jewelled sandals

You do realise that this is the job of the Chair, don't you? Of course, it isn't unheard of for a Secretary to take the 'top job', although why you'd want to, I don't know. After all, you don't want someone coming along, inspired by the spirit of Machiavelli, making you dependent upon them, do you?...

Energy relief - Gordon says no to a windfall tax but I'm not impressed

Having condemned a windfall tax earlier in the week, I am delighted that Gordon Brown has seen fit to agree with me. Indeed, he has persuaded the energy companies to come up with £910 million to pay for free loft and cavity insulation for all low-income and pensioner families, with half-price deals for six million others. So, why aren't I impressed?

Firstly, it's a question of naivety. Gordon insists that he doesn't expect the cost to be passed on to the consumer. The chief executive of the Association of Electricity Producers says, "Whenever people impose costs on an industry, the bill to some extent always ends up with the customer.". One of these gentlemen is likely to be right, and sadly, I have a nasty feeling which one of them it's going to be. What were the negotiations like, I wonder...

Gordon Brown. "I would really like you to meet me part way here."

Energy Companies "Why should we, what are you going to do if we don't?"

Gordon Brown "I'll be very unhappy and the Conservatives will win the next election."

Energy Companies "And?"

Gordon had his trump card, the threat of a windfall tax. The chances are that it would have been popular (forget the economics for a moment) and he would have been looking for a lot more than £910 million. So the energy companies will take most of the credit at relatively little cost.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives have responded through Alan Duncan. "(it is) not clear how this announcement will help the millions of people who will struggle to heat their homes this winter". Genius. But what about a solution? Oh no, that would risk having a policy, and we can't have that, can we?

Lessons for Local Party Secretaries: no. 8 - the black arts

Of course, Secretaries aren’t always the kindly person sitting in a corner with a set of coloured pens, faithfully recording every utterance and smiling in an encouraging manner at the Chair. There is, of course, the risk that your Local Party couldn’t administrate itself out of a brown paper bag with the aid of satellite navigation.

You will, as Secretary, encounter colleagues who can irritate to Olympic standards. A few years ago, one of my colleagues would assiduously circulate his report in advance, and then, in the meeting, equally assiduously read the entire report out. After a couple of meetings, I interrupted him, seeking clarification that he was adding new material not already reported. My colleague never did it again and, given that he’s gone on to become Chair of the English Party, he clearly wasn’t too badly traumatised… Sarcasm, irony and the occasional flash of barbed wit will make people stop and think, and allow you to influence their behaviour - in a good way, of course.

Understanding the constitution gives a Secretary a real advantage, and I strongly commend reading it. Quote from it frequently in your early meetings as Secretary and people will assume that you know it off by heart - even if you don’t. Let them believe that, and when you really need to get something done, you can use that perceived knowledge to get something you really want, or stop someone from doing something you don’t like. Trust me, they won’t have read the constitution, so even if you’re making it up, they won’t know.

Of course, as I mentioned earlier, you control information, and your minutes, as the only contemporaneous record, frame the perception of events. By emphasising one view over others, you can convince waverers of the rightness of the position reached, or otherwise, if you didn’t get your way. You can, by selectively quoting individuals, impact on their credibility by only quoting them when they’re on the losing side (if you don’t like them) or only when they are on the side of truth, beauty and good administration (that’s your side, by the way).

I will finish with a quotation from Niccolo Machiavelli who wrote, “The prince must think about how to keep his minister good, honouring him, enriching him, making him feel a sense of obligation, sharing honours and responsibilities with him…”. For prince, read Chair, for minister, read Secretary…