A Liberal Dose

Freddie Mercury

2011-11-24T12:46:00.000Z

Queen have been my favourite band since I first started listening to rock and pop music and Freddie Mercury is simply the best rock front man of all time.

Queen's Greatest Hits was one of the first five albums I bought (in 1983, as you ask), and I played it daily for months, staggered by the brilliance of the songs.

The reaction to Queen's performance at Live Aid, in front of an audience who had bought tickets for the event, not for them, demonstrated Freddie's outstanding ability to work a live crowd.

And their performance at Newcastle St. James Park, Newcastle, on the Magic Tour, remains the best gig I have ever been lucky enough to witness.

20 years ago today I remember reading in The Observer that Freddie had said publicly that he had AIDS. In those pre-internet days, days, rumours traveled more slowly. and it wasn't until listening to the radio the following morning that I heard that he had died. I remember being incredibly upset by the news. Freddie wasn't just liked by his fans, he was adored.

For much of their career Queen were not liked by the critics. Perhaps this was because they weren't easily categorised, or because the members of the band all liked their privacy. 20 years later they are more popular than ever, with several of their songs having become worldwide anthems.

Just as a reminder of how good they were, here are three favourites of mine:

First that classic Live Aid performance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vofSgnnnIrI

Secondly a great video and the song you're most likely to hear me sing at a Karaoke. It includes the only guitar solo I ever learned properly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO6D_BAuYCI&ob=av2e

And finally the last video Freddie filmed, looking visibly ill, and which still brings a tear to my eye:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCMV1j_VnVs&feature=related

By this point Freddie was very frail, and the video was produced in black and white to help hide how unwell he was. Despite his illness Freddie was determined to get down as many vocals as he could manage while he still could. He recorded most of the vocals for what would end up being the Made In Heaven album before he died, often having to rest between takes and in great pain in the studio.

The Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert, held six months after Freddie's death, highlighted for me just what a fantastic vocalist he was. The line up of vocalists was pretty impressive that day, including George Michael, Annie Lennox, Elton John, Roger Daltrey and Axl Rose. But between them they couldn't manage the range and power of Freddie Mercury.

My thoughts are with his family and friends today.

The Government's extremely generous public sector pensions offer in full

2011-11-02T14:00:00.000Z

The Government has today set out its very generous revised public sector pensions offer.
The long term savings from this scheme will come from the switch from a final salary to an average salary approach - hitting the highest earners - and from workers working for as many years as those in the private sector and most (but not the low paid) paying slightly higher contributions.

The Government is also protecting those who are near to retirement.

This proposed scheme is far, far more genrous than the vast majority of private sector workers have access to.

A quick comparison:

I contribute 10% of my gross income and on current projections (which are less ecure than a government pension scheme) expect this to provide a pension at the equivalent of about 23% of my career average salary.

In comparison a teacher on a similar career average income will contribute 9.6% of their income and end up receiving a pension of about 63% of that salary.

If any public sector employee thinks they are getting a raw deal from the Government I am more than happy to swap pension arrangements with them.

Fox on the Run

2011-10-14T16:25:00.000+01:00

Always was a favourite of mine :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dhZ2VjbxQQ

Steve Jobs RIP - Inspiring 2005 speech

2011-10-06T14:34:00.000+01:00

I'm not an Apple fanboy as many seem to be, but I certainly recognise that Steve Jobs' vision has had a major impact on how we live our lives today.

I've never owned a Mac, and don't yet have an iPad, but I do make good use of my iPod which was given to me as a leaving present by my colleagues when I left the Campaigns Dept. a few years ago.

It's clear from reading the obituaries that Steve Jobs wasn't perfect, and that he was very aware of this, but his drive and innovation deserve recognition.

This was his 2005 Stanford University Comemncement Address. I think it is quite inspirational, particularly his willingness to learn from his experience and his resilience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

Hat tip: DailyKos

My conference blogs wordle

2011-09-22T14:12:00.000+01:00

This is what wordle makes of my conference blog posts:

Nothing unusual there then.

#ldconf Monday (2): In which I am inspired by those I was asked to inspire

2011-09-20T13:59:00.000+01:00

The most enjoyable part of Monday for me was away from the conference itself.

An old friend and colleague, Simon Foster, is now a Politics Lecturer at Birmingham Metropolitan College, and he had asked me to go and speak to his A2 Politics group about Liberalism.

This term the group are learning about the main political ideologies, so the arrival of the Liberal Democrat conference in the city has enabled many of his students to get some hands on experience of a political party.

Not being in any way academic myself, I was a little unsure of where to start. I ended up deciding to talk about how I had become involved in politics (25 years ago I would have been sitting in my A Level Politics class!), how I worked out I was a Liberal, what Liberalism means to me and how that links with some of the issues the Liberal Democrats have been discussing this week.

Simon gave me a lift over to the College and blimey it's impressive. I took my A Levels at the then Sir William Turners Sixth Form College in Redcar which had about 160 students in each f its two years. It was tiny and was recently closed and demolished after merging with the bigger local FE College.

Birmingham Met is on an entirely different scale. The Matthew Boulton campus (which used to be a college in its own right) seemed to be as big as a small university.

By coincidence the College were also about to receive a visit from (Baroness) Margaret Sharp, Lib Dem peer and education policy expert, which did mean that coffee and buns had been laid on. I got to talk with a diverse group of youngsters who were waiting for her about the courses they were doing and their aspirations for the future.

I then got taken up to Simon's classroom and watched the first part of the lesson which was about the main principles of Liberalism, a nice lead in to what I had in mind to say.

It was immediately clear that Simon's students were a bright bunch, as well as a real mix, and they were very engaged in the discussion. It also struck me that whatever some people might say about exam standards they group were working at a higher level than I remember from my A Level course 25 years ago.

I then got up and did my bit. I talked about how I had first got interested in politics when I did my A Levels and that the first politician I went to hear speak was Shirley Williams, then MP. This was obviously the moment when Baroness Sharp was going to turn up on her tour of the College which she then did. The consequence of this was that she had to sit an listen to me explaining Liberal ideology for ten minutes, which is a bit of a role reversal!

She and her entourage left, and I went on to link Liberal theory with some of the issues we have been dealing with as a party: relating the ID Cards issue back to Mill, the pupil premium to positive liberty etc.

Most of the session was then left for discussion and it was, for me, a joy to take part in. The standard of debate was high, and we tackled some difficult issues. A question was raised about the limits of free speech. I posed the example of the insulting cartoon of The Prophet Muhammed which were published in Denmark in 2005 and how it related to Mill's harm principle.

We also discussed Lib Dem education policy (tuition fees and EMAs were both high on their minds) and how different people have come to different conclusions about spending priorities and how that might relate back to Liberal principles.

Most of Simon's students were already applying for University but I was keen to end the session by encouraging them on that path. I talked a little about my personal experience, coming from a background where University wasn't the common option, and what a life-enhancing experience University had been for me. I'm glad to say that they all seemed to be keen on applying and several chatted about where they were hoping to go and what they hoped to do.

I cannot express how impressed I was with the level of debate and the eloquence of the students and felt quite inspired by the whole experience. They were great kids and I hope they go on to fulfil their ambitions.

#ldconf Monday: In which the veterans demonstrated their resilience

2011-09-20T13:29:00.000+01:00

Why Paddy, Lynne, Vince and Tim are so resilient

Those of us who got involved in the party around the time of merger will have had a lot of sympathy with Paddy's recollection of the period we registered as an asterix in the opinion polls.

I joined the Liberal Party in 1987 and became active as the parties were merging and remember keeping track of opinion polls in which we bumped along at 4% or so, competing with the continuing SDP and the Greens. As Paddy pointed out there was one month when the pollsters couldn't find even enough supporters for us to get a score at all.

I remember several NUS conferences in the few years following where a small Lib Dem grouping which included Tim Farron, Jeremy Browne and several other now veteran party campaigners when the national party was, frankly, seen as a joke. I also remember organising a couple of visits by Paddy to Leicester as part of the party's strategy to get anyone to notice that he and the party actually existed.

The first set of elections I was heavily involved with was the 1989 County Council elections in Leicester. Although we gained the East Knighton County Council seat (Bob Pritchard) and one of the City Council seats in a by-election (Arnie Gibbons), the results across the country were pretty dire.

We regained some of our credibility by holding our own in several rounds of local elections and then by avoiding a complete disaster in the 1992 General Election. Not long afterwards I remember going to speak at a Haringey Lib Dems AGM, attended by Lynne Featherstone amongst others, at a point when the Lib Dems had not even one councillor in that borough.

We had a few by-election successes which got us taken a bit more seriously (for which my noble friend Chris Rennard deserves much of the credit) but it wasn't really until the 1997 General Election got going that we really found our feet.

And that explains why so many of our party's leaders and activists, much to the surprise of many in the media, are far from depsondent.

Those of us who slogged through that tough ten years from after the '87 election through to our breakthrough in '97 don't see a temporary dip in the polls 18 months into Government as something to be gloomy about.

If anything it is encouraging that the polls seem to be showing a slight upturn already given the economic situation and the tough decisions that have had to be taken.

Our activists are a pretty resilient bunch, and the response to the difficult year we've just had will be to redouble our campaigning efforts and re-engage with the communities we seek to represent. We are acheiving a lot, and by the next general election we will, as always, come out fighting.

#ldconf Sunday: In which we discovered we weren't married to the Tories, just sharing a flat with them, or something

2011-09-19T10:35:00.000+01:00

Danny tells conference we should aim for £12.5K income tax allowance
Sarah tells conference the Pupil Premium is to double
Vince tells conference that excessive high pay should be tackled
Danny (again) tells conference that the richest will be made to pay their tax
And Tim even tells conference that we're not married to the Tories

All in all it's a bit like the old days, lots of agreement about the things the Lib Dems would like to see happen to make our country a better, fairer place.

The difference is that now the Lib Dems making these announcements are Ministers and our policies are already being enacted.

Cutting taxes for ordinary workers

Danny Alexander's keynote speech, and his later interview with Andrew Neil, which was entertaining to watch, set out what I think will be the single most important policy for the party at the next election.

Though not agreed as party policy yet (as Danny himself was quick to point out), a proposal that the income tax allowance should rise to the income level of someone working full time on the Minimum Wage has been floated as a Lib Dem aspiration for the next Parliament.

This policy if both right in principle and smart politics for the party.

It is right because it targets the most help to those on the lowest earnings, increases the incentive to work and simplifies and reduced the cost of running the tax system.

It is smart politics because by the time of the next election the rise in the allowance to £10K will almost certainly be our most visible success and will demonstrate our belief in fairness, that we have delivered on our manifesto and that we were able to win on major policies in the coalition. Pledging to go further will therefore have credibility and will provide a very strong positive reason for people to back us again.

Personally I'd like us to go much further on tax: combining income tax and NI at all levels; simplifying the rates; shifting the overall burden further from those on median and lower incomes to higher incomes; and further removing complications to the system.

More cash for poorest pupils

Similarly Sarah Teather's announcement that the funding for the Pupil Premium - the extra cash given to schools to support children from poor households - is to double, is a big win for the Lib Dems in coalition, and a policy that will steadily sink in as the Parliament progresses.

In my view the amount of money being spent so far has been enough to make a start, but against the backdrop of a tight overall funding settlement hasn't really taken off yet. This announcement takes us further in the right direction and, again, will be something we can build on next time.

We're not married to the Tories, it's more of a flat-share, or something

Without wanting to extend the metaphor (that way madness lies) it was good to hear my mate Tim Farron's strong, passionate and very funny speech.

Although pretty much every Lib Dem conference rep understands the nature of a coalition government for one term of office, it is worth our President setting it out so clearly for a wider audience.

Tim is hugely popular in the party and hearing him set out the clear differences between us and the Tories was refreshing and motivating. It is the speech everyone was talking about in the bars last night.

Accreditation concerns

As has been widely reported conference reps backed a motion critical of the accreditation process adopted for this conference. There were concerns about who would have access to data, who had final say on attendance and some important issues around how transgender reps were treated by the process.

I think there is acceptance that security needs to be tighter now that we are in government, but reps thought the way it was done this year was excessive.

My own take on this is that a large part of the problem has been presentational. As Mark Pack pointed out recently the party could have communicated much more effectively with reps about the process. I for one don't like being told that I have been accredited by the Police, rather than by the party, and I hope the lessons have been learned for next year.

It is, however, interesting that we have been criticised for discussing these issues in open at our conference by critics for other parties, and Labour in particular. This is because, as Lib Dems, we actually care about civil liberties, that security measures are proportionate and that our conferences are open and inclusive. I appreciate that Labour forgot about any similar concerns decades ago.

The drugs debate

Conference also passed a very intelligent drugs policy, with a lot less furore than I remember around a similar debate back in 1994 when the then LDYS proposed something similar. One of the highlights of that conference for me was my redesign of the party logo for the LDYS conference flyers by adding a nice fat spliff hanging out of libby bird's mouth ;-)

And finally ...

The most enjoyable part of conference for me is meeting up with people I have made friends with during the years I have been involved with the party. I won't list all of them but yesterday I think I bumped into people I've worked with at just about every stage of my career in the party, including Arnie Gibbons, who I helped get elected to Leicester City Council back in 1989, a group including Tim Prater, Simon Foster, Colin Penning and Richard Gadsden during an impromptu LDYS reunion, many of my former Campaigns Dept colleagues including the now very important Shaun Roberts, and I also managed to meet a couple of recent twitter/blogger people that I've exchanged messages with but never met face to face.

Lib Dems are generally a lovely, friendly and diverse bunch and it's invigorating to be spending a few days with them.

#ldconf Saturday: In which both sides lose an argument

2011-09-17T20:26:00.000+01:00

A somewhat shaky start to Lib Dem Conference saw conference reps deliver defeat to both sides in an argument about whether we should debate the current NHS Bill at this conference.

A bad result for the Federal Conference Committee (FCC) (in this instance a proxy for the leadership) as a clear majority of those voting made it clear that they want a proper debate on the Bill.

But also a bad result for those calling for the debate, as they demonstrated that they don't have quite the strength they need to force the issue.

The debate was also marred by some of the protaganists on both sides who on one side accused the FCC of 'Toryfying' our conference, and on the other accused the 'rebels' of acting like 'Militant'.

As someone who has tried to deliver conference speeches with a crowd of Militants shouting at me on more than one occasion I can tell you that the Social Liberal Forum are as far from 'Militant' as Slayer are from having a Christmas No. 1.

For me this argument raises a wider question: Have we adjusted the way we do things in response to being in Government?

The answer appears to be a resounding 'NO'.

The main arguments put against debating the NHS Bill were all about how we have a tradition of not debating policy on the same issue when it has been debated at a recent conference.

Well that was fine when we were in opposition, and when most of our policy debates were about deciding policy for the next General Election manifesto, but we're not in that position any more.

We are now part of a government, and playing a part in framing legislation. It is vital, particularly where government policy goes well beyond both the coalition agreement and party policy, that our conference is given a say on issues of the day.

It is also the case that many of our members and activists are somewhere between unconvinced and downright hostile to quite a few things the government is doing. And in our party it is hugely important that we have the opportunity to vent our concerns in an open and honest way.

It is also important that we take the opportunity to demonstrate to the wider public that we are fighting our corner within the coalition and that our position is not the same as the Tories'.

Any sense that debate within the party is being stifled, particularly on a key issue like the NHS, and we will simply start to lose people.

I don't know whether or not the FCC have had a proper discussion about these issues, or what conclusions they have come to if they have, but there is little evidence of it from the debate earlier today.

In Other News:

The mood is positive but more serious than a year ago. The we were coming to terms with being in government but celebrating the fact that we were. Now, and after a tough set of elections and the referendum, we are coming to terms with the downside.

Nice to see so many familiar faces though.

Boundary Changes: Take Corporal Jones' advice

2011-09-14T11:42:00.000+01:00

So, the initial draft Boundary Commission proposals for England have been published and we've had 24 hours of comment before even the first proper analysis has been produced.

Thanks to the Guardian (who, to be fair, pointed out clearly that their methodology was simplistic) we've seen figures flying around showing that, amongst other things, the Lib Dems have been 'shafted'.

Well, hold on a minute.

Firstly, the Guardian's methodology is seriously flawed. They have simply shared out the constituency votes from each constituency last time in proportion to how many electors have moved. Any good Lib Dem knows that the level of support varies enormously between wards in a constituency, let alone between them.

So any comments based on those figures should simply be ignored.

Secondly, any good Lib Dem knows that by campaigning in our held and target seats we significantly increase our share of the vote and squeeze the third and other party vote. So any ward from a neighbouring Con/Lab seat, or a Lab/Lib Dem or Con/Lib Dem seat that we don't fight hard, will inevitably bring the numbers down. That means that any Lib Dem seat other than one that starts with a huge majority that is taking on new wards will look like a loss.

Thirdly, even when you look at the Gaurdian figures you can see that many of the seats we wouldn't have won on their figures are, in fact, highly marginal. Look at the proposals across Cornwall, Somerset or SW London. We win some and lose some on the Gaurdian's figures, but several of the others would be very good targets.

Another big reason to not get too exercised at this point is that these are very much first draft proposals. And some of them are, frankly, barking mad. There is a proposed 'Mersey Banks' seat that includes wards either side of the Mersey where there is not bridge. Chances of that surviving the consultation? Pretty low IMHO.

But the even bigger reason why we shouldn't get too het up about these proposals is that they will, at most, have a small impact on our success or failure next time. Our national performance as a party and the strength and tactics of our local campaigns in the new winnable seats will have far, far more impact on the results than the boundary changes themselves.

Whatever the eventual boundaries tun out to be, the biggest risk is that we focus far too much of our time and energy on the boundaries process, and not enough on preparing for campaigning on the new boundaries.

What we do need to do now, at national, regional and local level, is look at how we can support the campaigns in the seats that change, but are still winnable. That may mean making a decision to start doing some initial campaign development work in wards that might join winnable seats now, or it might mean preparing the campaign plan so that it is ready to roll as soon as we know the new boundaries. Either way it is just as important that we work on the campaigning now as it is that we work on the Boundary Commission proposals.

A few thoughts on the looting/rioting

2011-08-08T21:32:00.000+01:00

It's quite depressing seeing the spread of trouble around London and other places.

My heart goes out to those directly affected. One of our friends works at Wood Green shopping centre (where we often used to shop when we lived in Tottenham) and he and many thousands of other people are very scared this evening.

Hundreds of people will have lost their homes, jobs, their businesses. My guess is that many of the communities affected will lose quite a few local shops for ever.

There is quite a debate going on about whether this is political, or just criminality. It is probably some of both, but it is definitely a lot of the latter.

Spontaneous political uprisings of the poverty stricken are not orgnaised via BlackBerry Messenger.

People angry at the Police don't decide to go off and loot a retail park two miles from the riot. That is pure, pre-meditated criminality.

In the long run, though, it may well be that the fact that so many young people feel able to act in such a selfish and thuggish way is, in itself, a much more serious problem than if it were simply a response to either their unhappiness with policing or with the Government's austerity package.

The other issue that a lot of people seem worked up about is whether David Cameron should have dropped his holiday and rushed straight back to ... well I'm not sure exactly what he should do ... but apparently he should be here doing it.

Personally I think all members of the Government should be entitled to some holiday, particularly those with young children, and that other senior members of the Government should be perfectly capable of running the country in their abscence. The current situation is more directly the responsibility of the Home Secretary, who is here. We shouldn't need the PM to be here every time something kicks off.

Independent wrong on NHS IT debacle

2011-08-03T13:14:00.000+01:00

The Independent has today rightly highlighted the waste of £6.4 billion on the attempt to create a national NHS IT system.

This waste, and the range of failures that caused it, have been highlighted in a report by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee.

The leader article in the Independent, however, includes a bizarre comment in its concluding paragraph.

The paragraph starts:

"Away from the blame game, however, the bottom line is that this waste has to end."

Fair enough. But then it continues:

"In an era when the economy was booming, IT faragos, though scandalous, were tolerable."

Apart from questioning how something 'scandalous' can, at the same time, be 'tolerable', this is an utterly bizarre comment.

It is NEVER tolerable for the Government to waste billions of pounds. Never. Every pound the Government wastes is a pound that could have provided a much needed service, could have reduced taxation on the less well off, or could have reduced the deficit by a pound.

Remembering Andrew Reeves

2011-07-19T11:23:00.000+01:00

I'm still coming to terms with the sad death of my friend and colleague Andrew Reeves who died at the age of 43 a few weeks ago. Although the same age (he's actually a few months older than me) I always thought of him as younger for some reason.

Last year he named me as one of three people who had inspired him in his early years in the party (along with Dave Hodgson and Gerald Vernon-Jackson) and I regret that I never got round to thanking him for that comment which meant a lot to me at the time and means even more now.

I knew Andrew from early on in his involvement in the party when he was working hard to get activity going in Dartford and started attending training sessions run by the South East Lib Dems. I liked him from the start, he had a keen intelligence, a willingness to learn, a down to earth attitude and a great sense of humour. We came from similar 'ordinary' backgrounds and often chatted about how neither of us had expected, earlier in our lives, to end up in this sort of role.

Like many of the people who turn out to be the best campaigners he was initially unsure about his ability but he quickly started to get involved.

The first time I remember having a lot to do with him was during the organisation of a regional conference which, from my rather sketchy memory, was a great success socially and politically but a bit of a disaster financially. (A combination not unknown to Andrew and many other campaigners!)

After some involvement as a volunteer Andrew started to think about working for the party, I think he saw it as a more interesting job than the catering work he was then doing. He was still a little hesitant, but I and others encouraged him, and he soon started on a series of organiser roles.

From then on I was in regular touch with Andrew, by email, on the phone, at training events, meetings and conferences. He rapidly developed from being one of the 'new' organisers to being one of the experienced that others would turn too for advice and support.

As the various speakers said yesterday (and thanks to Alistair Carmichael, Hilary Stephenson, Craig Ling, Fred Carver and Simon Hughes for great speeches which together summed up Andrew brilliantly and made me laugh a lot and cry a little) Andrew had an infectious enthusiasm and was loved by everyone who knew him. As Craig and Fred made clear yesterday he was a supportive and encouraging mentor.

After his stints in different parts of London as an organiser (for Vince Cable, Simon Hughes and Lynne Featherstone - quite a combination!) he became one of two London Campaigns Officers alongside Chris Leaman, and a member of my team of COs covering London and the South East of England (I was always very lucky to have a strong team working for me). As his line-manager it was great to see Andrew grow in this role, and in particular see him become a mentor to so many newer organisers.

As part of that job he went on the be the campaign manager for Brian Paddick's Mayoral Campaign in 2008. That election was always going to be hard work, and it was made harder for Andrew by the fact that I managed to contract pneumonia over Christmas 2007 and was not able to give the support he deserved during the campaign. We did keep in touch by email and phone and Andrew did as good a job as anyone could have done in the circumstances.

(It was interesting to hear Simon Hughes say yesterday that he had never seen Andrew lose his temper. That is a credit to Andrew's professionalism as a campaigner. As many of our former colleagues know we campaigners do our best not to explode in front of our candidates/MPs/local party executives at their latest idiocy - we hold it in and then go and ring one of our colleagues to let of steam instead! I was often on the other end of the phone when Andrew did so.)

Andrew, feeling that he had done as much as he could in London and wanting a new challenge, then made the move to Scotland as their Director of Campaigns. It was clear from Alistair's comments yesterday the he established himself quickly and won activists over in what would turn out to be a challenging period for the Scottish Lib Dems. As a result of that move, and of my resignation, I saw less of him during the last three years although we kept in touch and met up at conferences and training events.

Despite his undoubted talents I don't think Andrew himself ever really understood how well liked he was or how much his abilities were valued. He probably always had his head down working to have time to. (And my did he work - when I was his manager I had to force him to take at least some time off!).

I'm an agnostic when it comes to believing in any kind of afterlife, but Andrew's partner Roger is still regular posting on Andrew's Facebook page, so I'd like to hope Andrew was looking down on us yesterday with a combination of surprise and wry amusement.

So Andrew, assuming you are reading this, I miss you fella, I'm so glad I knew you, I hope you realise how much you meant to me and your large Lib Dem family.

And Roger - sorry I still didn't get to meet you - but I hope the service yesterday was some small comfort.

The Daily Mail - what a bunch of cnuts

2011-06-06T12:03:00.000+01:00

The Daily Mail have got themselves into a right old tizz about a rude word that WAS NOT ACTUALLY BROADCAST on Radio 4 one evening.

And the article is written so badly that it is not at all clear whether this particular rude word was broadcast or not.

This is what was actually said by Sandi Toksvig during an episdoe of The News Quiz:

‘It’s the Tories who have put the ‘n’ into cuts,’

Yet the Mail reported this as:

"But the BBC is again at the centre of a decency row after it broadcast the word deemed the most offensive word in the English language in the early evening."

Except that the BBC didn't actually broadcast the word at all.

Anyone would think that the bunch of cnuts at the Daily Mail had it in for the Beeb and would use every available opportunity to have a go.

(Declaration of interest - Paul Mayhew-Archer is a friend.)

The Guardian gets its priorities right again

2011-05-25T21:26:00.000+01:00

Can anyone point me to the Guardian article about what the gentlemen were wearing?

You can find out about what the ladies were wearing here.

UK Debt passes the trillion mark

2011-01-17T18:46:00.000Z

UK Debt passes the trillion mark.

At least, according to this website which sets out a strong case, and quite a lot of useful information, from the 'debt is a bad thing' side of the argument.

By-election polls - take them with a pinch of salt

2011-01-08T21:33:00.000Z

I see that ConservativeHome are reporting two polls from Oldham East & Saddleworth which show a modest Labour lead as evidence that Labour will win a 'thumping' victory.

I would take this interpretation with a pinch of salt.

I well remember during the Hartlepool by-election in 2004 that an NOP poll for Channel 4 put Labour a whacking 33% ahead. The actual result? Labour won by only 6%.

And it would have been less if the poll hadn't put Lib Dem helpers off from coming to help!

There was a similar poll, IIRC, in Birmingham Hodge Hill.

Parliamentary by-elections are all about momentum, and a lot of that is created by the sheer amount of effort that goes in during the last few days of the campaign.

We now have clear evidence to show local voters that the election is a 'two horse race', and this is likely to help us narrow the gap sharply.

Reports from the campaign are good. I would urge you to get along and help if you possibly can.

Dear Electoral Commission (2) ...

2010-12-23T14:41:00.000Z

A further letter asking for clarification following the Zac Goldsmith Case Review.

Dear Electoral Commission,

re. Case review concerning campaign expenditure return in respect of Zac Goldsmith MP

Further to my email yesterday there is another issue it would be useful to have guidance on.

Paragraph 3.16 of the review states:

"Mr Goldsmith‟s expenses return included an invoice for leaflets which cost £11,150.39. His return declared expenditure of £8,629.76, on the basis that not all of the leaflets had been used. The allegation suggested that in fact all material purchased should have been declared. However, the RPA2 defines election expenses as expenses incurred on materials used for the purposes of the candidate's election after the date when he becomes a candidate at the election. The guidance issued by the Commission states that candidates and agents must include the value of everything used in the regulated period, not what is purchased. We consider that Mr Goldsmith‟s reporting of the cost in relation to this item was consistent with the requirements of the RPA and the Commission‟s guidance in this area."

I was very surprised to raed this as the advice I have always been given is that you should declare the cost of everything you have bought for the purpose of the election, other than where you are sharing the cost with another campaign or going to use the material in the futre.

The problem with allowing campaigns to declare only part of a print run is that this allows them to benefit from economies of scale in printing costs and makes it very difficult to be certain what proportion of the run have actually been delivered.

For example if I want to produce a run of 10,000 leaflets it might cost me £500, whereas a run of 40,000 of the same leaflet might only cost £1000, due to the economies of scale involved in the printing process. If I get 40,000 printed and only use 10,000 (25% of the run) this ruling would allow me to declare only 25% of the bill, i.e. £250. In other words a campaign that has a lot of money to spend can artificially reduce the amount if has to declae on the election expenses.

Please can you therefore provide me with clear guidance on how this (new) rule works.

Is there any limit on how much a campaign can actually spend in order to reduce the aount it declares in the election expenses? (In either cash or percentage terms)

Is there any limit the number of different leaflets a campaign could claim to have not fully delivered?

How do you plan to be able to check what proportion of any given print run has been delivered?

Again, I would appreciate clear guidance on these points.

Yours faithfully,
Neil Fawcett.

Dear Electoral Commission ...

2010-12-22T20:01:00.000Z

I am sending this to the Electoral Commission after reading their Case Review regarding Zac Goldsmith's Election Expenses:

Dear Electoral Commission,

re. Case review concerning campaign expenditure return in respect of Zac Goldsmith MP

I have just read your Case Review regarding the expenses of Zac Goldsmith and am, frankly, very surprised by your decision not to refer the case for prosecution.

As someone who has been an election agent on numerous occasions, including at the General Election in 2010, it has always been clear to me that it was my duty to make sure I understood the rules, read the guidance, fill in the forms in line with the guidance and only spend within the limits.

I always understood that I faced prosecution if I failed to comply with your guidance and/or spent above the election expense limts, and that the law was applied strictly.

Your Case Review sets out very clearly that a) Mr Goldsmith's agent did not fill in the forms in line with your guidance, and b) that Mr Goldsmith's campaign almost certainly overspent the short campaign limit.

Yet you conclude that it is not in the public interest for there to be a prosecution.

In paragraph 4.3 you state: "In determining whether to refer the case to the police for criminal investigation, we considered not just whether an overspend may have occurred, but also the relative amount involved and whether the aggregate expenditure for both the whole campaign period exceeded the overall spending limit. We also considered whether there was any evidence of excessive spending which was so unreasonable as to indicate a deliberate avoidance of the rules."

I am likely to be a legal agent again in the future and would therefore like some clear guidance on the following points please:

1 What is the level of overspending above the election limits that you consider to be low enough to avoid prosecution. (Please feel free to answer in either cash or percentage terms)

2 What is the level of overspending that you consider substantial enough to indicate a deliberate avoidance of the rules.(Please feel free to answer in either cash or percentage terms)

3 Is it the case that it will strengthen my defence against prosecution if I claim to have not read and/or understood your guidance and therefore fill in my election expense return forms in a confusing manner?

I would appreciate clear answers to these questions please.

Yours faithfully,

Neil Fawcett.

Why Lib Dem MPs should vote against increased tuition fees

2010-12-09T09:00:00.001Z

Later today MPs will vote on whether or not to significantly increase tuition fees.

For me the lead up to this vote, and the implications for the party I have campaigned for for 23 years, are profoundly depressing.

I do accept that in a coalition we will have to make compromises. We have 57 MPs in a House Commons where the two dominant political parties both believe that individual students should make a substantial contribution to the cost of their first degree. I understand and accept that.

But what I find depressing is the way in which our party leaders, Nick Clegg and Vince Cable in particular, appear to be more willing to argue that black is white rather than stand up for our party's clear policy and the principles behind it.

Nick and Vince have tried to frame the debate as being about whether monthly repayments are lower or higher than under the current system. Clearly they are lower, at least for a few years, and clearly anyone earning between £15K and £21K will be better off.

And clearly the improvements for part-time students are welcome.

But surely the debate is about more than monthly repayments. (Apart from the fact that paying slightly lower monthly repayments, but for two or three times as many years, leaves you a lot worse off overall.)

Surely what is important to us, as Liberal Democrats, is that Higher Education is (or at least should be) an experience which transforms individuals and boosts their contribution to society.

Surely we should be arguing that yes, there are benefits to many graduates' earning potential, but the wider beneficial effects are far more important.

Surely, even if we believe that individuals will benefit, we believe that society benefits too? And that it is reasonable for society to pay at least some of the cost of each individual's higher education.

I wanted to hear our leaders arguing this case. A case which has won the day repeatedly at party conferences, in policy committees, and in manifesto negotiations. A case which our leaders argued during the election campaign. A case which is based on a Liberal view of the broader value of education.

Sadly this hasn't happened.

Sadly our leaders appear to be so bought in to making the coalition work that they see arguing the detail, and redefining concepts such as 'fairness' and 'progressive' rather than arguing the party's principles.

Sadly it appears that they would rather divert our attention onto what some email someone in NUS might have sent, than debate the real issues.

Our party leadership appear to have completely underestimated the importance of this issue to activists, members and a lot of the people who voted for us.

They appear to have ignored the express view of party conference and all the discussions that took place during the formulation of the manifesto for the last election.

And they appear to have forgotten a whole pile of things they said about trust in politics.

So it isn't the fact we have to compromise that annoys me, it is the way we got to this position.

They could have made this more of an issue in the coalition negotiations.

They could have chosen different priorities in departmental spending.

They could have 'received' the Browne Report rather than 'welcomed' it.

They could have taken a bit more time to look at all the alternatives, not rush to proposals based on the Browne report.

And our leaders could have made it clear that this is a compromise, but one that is difficult for the Lib Dems.

If they had done these things we would not be in the mess we are now.

Instead we have a set of proposals that mean that future graduates will pay the full (and possibly more than the full) cost of their degree while those of us whose education was paid for by other people's taxes pay nothing extra.

We have a scheme that means those who end up on above average but still modest incomes will pay back a much greater share of their earnings than those on high incomes, so that it is NOT progressive.

We have a scheme which will mean that most graduates will pay far more over their lifetime than under the current scheme.

And all this from a Government that claims that it is dealing with the deficit quickly so that future generations don't have to pay for the mistakes of this one.

So this is why Lib Dem MPs should vote against the Government's proposals.

They are unfair, they are not progressive, and they do not, therefore, pass the tests set down in the coalition agreement.

Our leadership has failed to argue the party's strong case for free education paid for by progressive taxation (so that those who do benefit financially would contribute more) and therefore have no right to expect our MPs to support them.

P.S. Yes Labour have been rubbish on this too and NUS not much better, but this isn't about them.

Well done Tim

2010-11-13T15:00:00.000Z

I am delighted to hear that Tim Farron has been elected President of the Liberal Democrats.

I've known Tim since our student days when we both used to argue the Liberal case at NUS conferences against the kind of left wing numpties who were doing so much damage to the student cause on Wednesday.

Tim is a fine liberal, comes from an ordinary background and is an activist through and through.

Back to Old & Sad

2010-11-05T11:59:00.001Z

I am delighted to hear the news that the Election Court has ordered a re-run of the Oldham East & Saddleworth election.

The campaign run by Labour's Phil Woolas in May was the most despicable I have ever seen and one he and the Labour Party should be ashamed of.

The last time I was in Oldham it was to help run the Royton South by-election (which we won), which preceded the Littleborough & Saddleworth parliamentary by-election in July 1995.

We won in Royton South, which was next door to Little & Sad, and I well remember a very gloomy Peter Mandelson turning up on the Friday morning expecting to celebrate a Labour victory but having to excuse a bad loss.

I helped with the local by-election because I was getting married on the penultimate weekend of the main by-election campaign and was therefore unable to be part of the campaign team. I even had to undertake extensive negotiations with Chris Rennard in order to persuade him to release some of our guests for the wedding!

I am already going through my diary to work out when I will be able to head up to help and look forward to meeting Lib Dem activists from around the country there.

Trades Unions elect new Labour Leader

2010-09-25T17:02:00.003+01:00

In our party we choose our party leader by a ballot of party members in which each member has one vote of equal value.

The Labour Party have just elected their new Leader in a system which gives some members several votes, and which allows Trades Union members who are not Labour Party members to have a third of the votes, and which allows those Trades Unions to promote a particualr candidate in the ballot mailing.

So they now have a Leader who has the support of neither the members nor the MPs.

No wonder they don't support Fairer Votes!

Blood, Sweat and Tears: What really happens at Federal Policy Committee

2010-09-25T16:03:00.002+01:00

Two years ago I stood for election to the party's Federal Policy Committee (FPC). My primary reason for standing was that I wanted to help make sure that we did not ditch certain key policies from our General Election manifesto, and that I wanted to help ensure that the Manifesto was an effective campaigning document as well as a sound policy one.

There was a little bit of trepidation in this move, as I've never really been that excited about the detail of policy, although I think it's fair to say that I ended up fitting in reasonably well.

Top committees

I had previously been a member of two top committees.

Back when I worked for the Lib Dem Youth & Students (LDYS) I was a member of the first incarnation of the Campaigns and Communications Committee (CCC) under the very effective chairmanship of Matthew Taylor MP. This brought together representatives from the MPs, Campaigns, ALDC and LDYS to plan themed campaigning across the party and was, I felt, generally successful. I am still very proud of the LDYS campaign packs that came out of this process and the successful way in which LDYS campaigning complemented that of the national party.

A few years later I was elected to the Federal Executive (FE) with the aim of improving the party's approach to budgeting and improving support for and coordination of training. I achieved some of this, but found the Executive to be a more frustrating affair, and that it didn't really seem to know what its role was.

I was delighted to be elected to the FPC, coming third on first preferences behind the significantly more experienced and highly intelligent Duncan Brack and the somewhat more famous than me Claire Rayner. I interpreted this as a reflection of the strong stance I had taken on maintaining the party's opposition to Tuition Fees in my FPC manifesto.

Having enjoyed the two years, and particularly having some input into the manifesto, I have decided to not restand, largely because I don't realistically have the time to do it properly (and I don't like taking on jobs I haven't got the time to do).

Do stand and vote

I would encourage anyone who wants to to stand (although there is not long left!) and would generally encourage voting reps to take the election seriously. The rest of this posting aims to give you some idea of why the FPC is important.

So what is it really like on FPC?

Well, it's mainly as mundane as you would probably expect it to be. Most of the time was spent commissioning policy working groups to draft policy papers, reviewing those papers, rewriting bits and pieces and sometimes choosing between policy options that the working groups came up with.

Probably 90% of the time was spent on this.

But the other 10% turned out to be a) quite exciting and b) quite important.

Unlike my experience of the FE, FPC certainly does know its role, and takes that role very seriously. On the FPC each person has one vote and each vote is equal, whether you are the Party Leader or a humble elected member like myself.

In general there is a lot of genuine consensus, but where there is a disagreement the majority rules. There is no fear at all about disagreeing with the Leader or senior spokespeople.

Boo, hiss

I'm not going to tell you about which individual voted which way on what (boo, hiss, I hear you shout), because if committee members went round doing that it would seriously damage the ability of the FPC to function. But I can say a bit about some of the key issues we discussed, some of which came out in a rather public way!

The biggest bust up was over Tuition Fees. Party policy was clearly in opposition to them, and that policy had been a major and successful plank of our 2005 manifesto. But several senior members of the committee did not believe that the policy was sustainable. In the run up to last year's conference various public statements were made by senior figures which suggested that we were going to ditch the policy, or at least that it would not be a funded policy in the manifesto.

To say that there was a bit of a reaction to this would be an understatement!

Within days a draft motion had been circulated between FPC members to go to conference to set the record straight. A large majority supported it. (Technically I think it was an amendment to our own pre-manifesto motion) This was unheard of and made it obvious that the FPC was at odds with the leadership.

During conference a letter to the papers was drafted and circulated, and a very large majority of FPC signed it. This letter set out very clearly that we were committed to existing policy and that we expected the policy to remain in the manifesto.

There was also a bit of a to do about the proposal from Vince Cable for a Mansion Tax.

The following FPC meeting was, shall we say, quite interesting.

Because of the strength of the FPC a solution had to be found, and I put forward the view that we needed to find a way of keeping the policy commitment whilst ensuring that the figures stacked up. Various negotiations went on and we eventually worked out the phased funding approach that ended up in the final manifesto.

Other key issues

Other key issues that the FPC had significant influence over were schools policy (rejecting something quite similar to the Free Schools policy currently being implemented), health policy and Council Tax.

On this latter issue there was a very exciting row at one meeting.

Again the majority of the FPC strongly backed standing party policy that we should replace the (highly unfair) Council Tax with a (fair and simple) Local Income Tax.

However several senior figures, particularly those who had struggled to explain the policy at the previous election, made an attempt to drop/water down/replace the commitment.

It is fair to say that the resulting discussion got a little heated, and that the ensuing 'debate' was not carried out on the usual restrained basis, but everyone eventually calmed down and some progress was made.

Once again it was the strength of the majority view that prevailed, after some careful negotiation around the precise wording, with some wording that I proposed eventually being adopted.

Slartibartfast

And this links to my final point. As an individual member of FPC you do get the chance to have a direct influence on policy, and on the manifesto. In the same way that Slartibartfast was very proud of his fjords, I am extremely proud of some of the wording of the bits about abolishing the Council Tax and investing in Shipyards.

Throughout the process, and whilst not always agreeing with them on some key policies, my liking and respect for both Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander steadily grew, and the same goes for the incredibly hard-working Vice-Chairs Jeremy Hargreaves and Richard Grayson.

So, with apologies that I haven't named names, or told you which Shadow Cabinet member behaved in a way my children would get a good telling off for, I hope that you will be convinced that the FPC fulfils an important role, and doesn't shy away from asserting its view when necessary.

If you are thinking of standing, and are someone who knows their own views and will stand up for them, please stand.

If you a voting representative, please vote.

And if you are a member of FPC, please forgive me any indiscretions in this article and the very best of luck with the important job you do for our party.

That Was The Conference That Was

2010-09-25T15:32:00.002+01:00

I always enjoy party conference and my 24th Autumn Conference, and the party's first in Government, was no exception.

Apart from the higher level of security it was little different to others on the face of it, although the mood was definitely a little different.

Lib Dem Conference goers have got used, over the years, to the media coverage of our conferences bearing little relation to what those of us there experienced. If anything I would say there was less of that this time.

Expectations

Journalists may have to come to Liverpool expecting bust ups and for the leadership to be given a hard time, but in general that didn't happen and their reporting was more subdued.

I thought the article by Andrew Sparrow in the Guardian - 'Lib Dem Conference: 10 things I've learned' - summed the change in attitude up well.

I think it also reflected the steady change in mood of party activists too. A week ago many didn't really know what to expect. There are very real concerns about the impact of the coalition, and particularly the coming cuts, and party conference might have been the place that concern would turn to anger.

In fact the opposite happened. Nick Clegg and other leading figures rightly acknowledged the concerns, encouraged a feeling that we were all part of a team that would face the problems together, and moved on to set out the very real achievements we have already made in government.

Mingling freely

Nick, Cabinet Ministers and Ministers of State mingled freely (and as usual) with party members around the fringes and in the bars, and spoke freely and frankly about how things are going.

From a personal perspective it was great to see people I have known for 20 years or more chatting about what it is like to be a Minister and what they are starting to achieve. For example I had a long chat with Jeremy Browne, who I have known since we were fighting NUS elections together, about the life of a Minister and how hard he is working to continue to serve his constituents (something Jeremy does exceptionally well). It was also good to chat to (the greatly underrated) Danny Alexander about his onerous responsibilities and his expectations about what was to come.

Where this conference differed from previous ones was that there was a much more serious tone to a lot of the debate and discussion.

No longer are the Lib Dems discussing policy in the abstract, but policy that might be implemented by the Government, or at least feed in to its thinking.

No stifling

It was also very positive to see that there has been no attempt to stifle debate. The leadership clearly disagreed with the motion about Free Schools and Academies, but did so by joining the debate. There was no attempt to stifle dissent, and no return of the kind of stroppiness we would have seen back in Paddy's day.

The other factor that I think played a big part in settling people's nerves was the strong promotion of the the Fairer Votes Referendum. From the rally last Saturday onwards the party promoted the importance of the referendum, an issue which broadly unites the party and gives people a very positive reason to get out there and campaign.

Humble organiser

For me it was a quiet conference. Being back in the role of a humble Constituency Organiser my time was largely my own. I helped run one training session, and had a couple of meetings to attend, but apart from those spent more time in debates and chatting to folk than for many years.

It was great to have time to sit down and talk to people rather than the hurried hello in passing that I had got used to in my years as a Campaigns Officer. It was also great to socialise with many of my former colleagues and, in particular, to finally get to see the hilarious Will Howells perform at one of the local Comedy Clubs.

All in all this conference did the job it needed to do. We left with a sense that while Nick and our ministerial team are set on their coalition course, they do understand the concerns of members and activists. We also left with a long list of genuinely liberal achievements which have been made, are being made and will be made soon.

Why I'm Backing Tim Farron for Party President

2010-09-20T10:38:00.003+01:00

The role of Party President is a flexible one. There are some things the President has to do, like chairing the Federal Executive, but most of the roll is down to how whoever is elected to the post wants to play it.

Ros Scott has done a good job, and was the right person for the last two years.

My reasons for deciding to support Tim Farron are based on my view of what kind of President the party is going to need over the next two years, which will be very different from the last.

We are very likely to face a difficult few years as a party. Even if our decisions to join the coalition and prioritise cutting the deficit are proven to be right in the long run there will be a few hard years before it becomes clear.

And it is not going to be easy for a party which has developed its collective skills as a campaigning opposition party to adapt to the role of a party of government.

During this period it is vitally important that we have a Party President who can keep morale up, keep the troops rallied and communicate our distinctiveness through the media.

My experience of Tim is that he has the skills needed to be that kind of President in spades.

I've known Tim since we were both involved in the National Union of Students. We were both Presidents of our respective Students' Unions (him Newcastle 91-92, me Leicester 92-93), and we attended several NUS Conferences together where it is fair to say that being a vocal Liberal Democrat was something of a novelty and often drew an excitable, noisy and negative response from a largely left-wing audience.

Even back then Tim was a passionate and engaging speaker, and to this day I always look forward to hearing Tim speak. His speech to the fairer votes rally on Saturday was no exception, despite his lack of preparation time.

Some people rightly question whether or not an MP should take the role of President.

My view is that it depends on the individual and the circumstances.

During the last Parliament Tim turned a wafer thin majority into a massive one. He did this while having a key role in the Parliamentary Party.

I am certain that he is more than capable of combining the role of a backbench MP with that of President and wouldn't support him if I had any doubts about this.

And I also know that when Tim says that he will be supportive of Nick and his role, whilst also being a critical friend of the coalition, that he understands the distinction between these two things and will do both of them well.

Finally I know that Tim's is a liberal through and through, and that he has given his heart and soul to campaigning for our party. During the next few years it is going to be hard work on the ground and Tim had been there and done that. He will lead from the front and enthuse members and activists wherever he goes.

So please vote for Tim Farron to be our next Party President.

The other three declared candidates are also great candidates, each in their different ways. It is great thing that our party's democracy is such that such a diverse field can stand and campaign.

I would like to put a plug in for the pledge bank supporting Jennie Rigg. Jennie does not have a huge income and if she wins will need support to get by. No-one should feel unable to put themselves forward because of financial worries so, if you are able, and regardless of who you are supporting, please consider making the pledge to support her.

How the coalition is affecting local results

2010-09-20T08:48:00.002+01:00

As readers of Lib Dem Voice will know (and there seem to be a lot of you, from the numbers who've already mentioned our victory on Thursday to me at conference) we have just celebrated the third of three local by-election victories in the Oxford West & Abingdon (OxWAb) constituency since May.

Sadly all three by-elections were caused by the deaths of long-standing, effective and hard-working local councillors, Audrey Tamplin, John Wyse and Pat Hobby, each of whom I had helped elect originally and each of whom I had a lot of respect for.

Following our loss of Evan's seat in the General Election there was a real danger (as the party has seen in other places) that our local seats would start to fall like dominoes as a result.

But the activists in OxWAb are, I'm pleased to say, made of sterner stuff. Within a few days of the General Election our Abingdon team were back out on the streets canvassing and delivering for a Town Council seat in Dunmore ward, one of a minority of wards in the constituency that has seen some Conservative representation in recent years.

We selected the excellent Julia Bricknell who had fought and won the same ward in a district council by-election a year ago, and she worked her socks off. I'd like to say we fought an excellent but it was actually a fairly straightforward one. We had a good, local candidate, a positive record of working for the town and a good local issue around the need for a full interchange on the A34 at Lodge Hill.

And the coalition, which was being formed during the period of the campaign? A fair few people mentioned it, some negatively and some positively. A very small number, typically of previous tactical supporters, said they wouldn't vote for us a as a result, but a few others gave us credit for making a difficult decision and went with us a result.

But the over-riding message is that nearly everybody said nothing about the coalition at all and wanted to talk about local issues in the town.

We held the seat with very little change from previously.

The day after polling day in Dunmore was the nominations deadline for a Cherwell District by-election in Kidlington North, at the other end of the constituency. This seat had been held for 12 years by the indefatigable John Wyse who had originally been elected in an election with the slogan 'Vote Wyse-ly' (see what we did there?) and who had built up a formidable reputation over his years as a councillor.

If we were to lose ground to the Tories in OxWAb, Kidlington North would likely be one of the first places to go.

We selected a keen young candidate in Alaric Rose who proved to be a real find. A local resident, he got out on the doorsteps and personally spoke to hundreds of residents. The Kidlington team, augmented by help from across the constituency and beyond, worked very hard and secured another victory.

As far as the coalition was concerned it was much the same as in Dunmore. A small number of people against, some of whom said they would not vote for us as a result, but many others pro, and an overall sense that in a local election the work our Kidlington team have been doing to improve the village is far more important than what is going on in Westminster.

Kidlington was different to the two Abingdon by-elections in that Labour did run and active campaign, with leaflets attacking the coalition. They also had a big team out on polling day, including several helpers from Oxford East. It didn't seem to make much difference and they still trailed in a poor third.

And finally (and, to be honest, the novelty of by-elections was starting to wear off at this point) we faced out third by-election in Abingdon Northcourt.

We were very lucky to persuade one of our long-standing local deliverers, Helen Pighills, to stand. The campaign got off to a slower start - it was mid-August and most of the electorate and quite a few of our key activists were away. I even managed a lovely week in Somerset myself.

We got a couple of leaflets out and from the Bank Holiday the campaign started motoring. Helen canvassed regularly, and the Abingdon team once again trooped out to help her.

And the coalition - well, sorry to disappoint those of you looking for doom and gloom, but it was exactly the same as the previous two by-elections. As soon as folk knew it was a town council by-election they wanted to talk about the town. And once again the combination of a very good local candidate, our positive record of improving Abingdon, and highlighting the Conservative run County Council's failures, was enough to deliver us a 3% swing from the Tories.

Once again a few people raised the coalition and/or the coming cuts, but it was only a small number, and those who wouldn't vote for us as a result were even fewer.

So as far as our campaigning through to next May is concerned I think there are a few useful lessons (and none of them new ones!):

Keep it local. In local elections the voters are primarily concerned about local issues and our local record.
Work hard. In each of the three by-elections we delivered more leaflets and knocked on more doors than the opposition.
Keep it simple. In each by-election we stuck to a small number of simple messages promoting our strong candidate, our positive local record, pointing out the Tory County's failures and squeezing the Labour and Green vote throughout.

To any experienced Lib Dem campaigner this will be neither news nor rocket science. But in the face of the media criticism the coalition is facing it is worth reinforcing.

Those of us who remember campaigning in the post-merger 1988-1991 period know that we can win seats and councils at local level even in the face of dire national poll ratings (we were at about 4% in the polls when I helped us win control of Oadby & Wigston in one of those years!).

But we will only win where we put in the work on the ground. Anyone who thinks that it will be as easy this time round, or that they can rely on our national success, is deluding themselves. Whenever you have started your campaigns previously, start earlier. However many leaflets you have delivered previously, deliver more. And however many doors you have knocked on previously, knock on more.

Good luck!

Protecting our distinctiveness

2010-09-20T01:05:00.002+01:00

After two days at party conference it has been very interesting to listen to the views of Lib Dem activists about the coalition, its policies and the implications.

There is overwhelming agreement that going into the coalition was the only game in town.

There is a lot of recognition that on a number of key issues, particularly civil liberties and the environment, we have already made great strides and there is more to come.

And there has been jubilation that there is to be a referendum on a fairer voting system next May - an issue which has brought many of us into the party over the decades and which Lib Dem activists will relish the chance to campaign on.

Where there is disagreement is about how the party maintains its distinctiveness whilst at the same time playing its proper role in Government.

There is no simple answer to this, although there are a whole range of opinions.

Evan Harris, writing on the Guardian website, argues that we need to be ready to set out which things the coalition did that we agreed with and which we didn't. I can see what Evan is getting at, but there is an inherent danger with this approach that it will make us look weak (why did you let it go through if you opposed it) and duplicitous (why did you support it at the time and tell us you don't now).

At the other end of the spectrum are those senior figures who tell us that we should simply trust the leadership and not attack Tory policies at all because we wouldn't like it if they attacked ours. This view is, frankly, barking. In an event there has been too much experience of 'trusting the leader' only to find out later that he had been seeing someone behind our back.

Nick's line is a bit more nuanced. He sensibly points out that he would be laughed out of court if he turned up to introduce some new policy to the media while at the same time pointing out that he and the Lib Dems disagree with it.

At the same time he and others are strongly encouraging us to campaign very hard for a YES vote in the referendum, and describing it as our opportunity to have an all out battle with the Tories.

On the face of it this is a bit of a contradiction, but I think it actually points in the direction we should head in.

Amongst many activists there is a further concern.

There are several areas where we have clearly compromised, or where the Tory approach appears to be dominant, that coincide with known differences of emphasis within our party. The coalition's policy of 'Free Schools' is one such area. There was a lot of debate within our party about the approach to schools, and some support from the party leadership for a policy similar to the coalition's policy. This view was rejected by the Federal Policy Committee and by Conference, yet is now Government policy.

So what approach should we take?

In broad terms I think Nick is basically right. It is in our interest, and the interest of the country, for the coalition Government to look united, particularly in its approach to the economy. We have a direct interest in demonstrating that we can govern in a responsible way and, in so doing, that coalition government is nothing to be feared.

We can also choose which elements of the government's agenda we particularly want to highlight, and claim credit for having achieved things which were in our manifesto.

But we can also choose some ground on which we agree to disagree with the Tories. In some cases the coalition agreement sets out quite openly where these differences of opinion exists: on changing the voting system, tuition fees and Trident.

In my view the public will be quite happy to see the two parties disagreeing on a limited number of issues, particularly if we can be seen to do so in a mature manner.

The harder part may be the run up to the next election.

At that point we will, I hope, want to set out our own distinctive set of policies for the 2015-20 parliament.

I can't see how we can, at that point, suddenly disown large parts of what the coalition government has implemented.

We will have to write a manifesto setting out how we will take Britain forward from that point and set out a distinctive platform based on our principles. The emphasis will need to be on what happens next, and not on criticising what has gone before.

We will need to highlight those things we are most proud of in the coalition's record but I can't see that we go on the attack against things that we have helped implement.

The reality of coalition government is that there are a lot of areas where a genuine consensus can be found, quite a few where a compromise is made between two positions, and a few where one side has to concede to the other.

If we are to demonstrate that coalition government can work, something that is vital to our future, then we should not be frightened of being honest it.

Conference 24

2010-09-18T08:18:00.003+01:00

I arrived in sunny Liverpool last night for what will be my 24th Autumn Party Conference.

I suspect it could be one of the more interesting ones!

No doubt the media, as ever, will be full of stories about how the party is about to go down the plughole, but in the 24 years I've seen them say that it hasn't happened yet!

I hope we will see the party start to assert itself. In my view we need to put a bit more emphasis on what our policies are and what we stand for, rather than appear to fully support everything the coalition decides.

I do think the public will give us credit for having taken the decision to go into the coalition, but I also think they will respect us even more if we are honest about some of the compromises we are having to make.

Anyway - I'm off to train folk now, so I'll see you later.

Liberal Youth - listen to the Hon Lady Mark

2010-06-19T20:03:00.000+01:00

What he said.

Time to step up to the plate

2010-05-12T10:23:00.002+01:00

I joined the Liberal Party during the 1987 General Election campaign, did my first canvassing in Chris Abbott's ward, featured in the local paper for having an Alliance poster up while my Dad had his Tory one up and my brother put a Labour one up.

My first conference was the Liberal Assembly in Harrogate that same year, the last full Liberal Assembly as merger was on the cards, and met, amongst others, Chris Rennard, Arnie Gibbons and several other Leicester folk for the first time.

I went to Leicester University, lost lots of elections as a Social and Liberal Democrat, and kept track of the opinion polls which had us as low as 4%. I supported Paddy's leadership campaign and later organised a visit to Leicester by him.

I got involved in local politics, helped get Arnie elected as Leicester's first out gay councillor in 1989, stood in local elections in 1991 (vote up from 4% to 17%) and 1993 (up again from 17% to 33%), and steadily helped build up Lib Dem strength in the City. Ireturned years later to help with the Leicester South seat in a by-election.

After several years of slog in the Students Union I eventually got elected to a sabbatical post (by 8 votes after two rounds of transfers), got several other Lib Dems elected with me and , two years later was elected Union President and to the NUS National Executive, achieving a heck of a lot for the students I represented along the way. I ended up attending 13 NUS Conferences in all and became good friends along the way with, amongst others, Tim Farron, Jeremy Browne and Ed Fordham.

Not knowing what to do next, Chris Rennard (him again) asked me to work for the then newly merged Lib Dem Youth & Students. I did that for nearly two years and, I hope, helped establish the organisation as a force for good within the party and substantially increased its membership.

I then got asked by a young Oxfordshire doctor to go and be his agent, which I did. I helped the party win control of the Vale of White Horse District Council and Abingdon Town Council in 1995 and to steadily gain seats in Oxford City and Kidlington. We then went on to elect that young doctor, for it is he, Evan Harris, to Parliament in our breakthrough year of 1997.

I also got elected to Oxfordshire County Council and served eight years, three of them in a coalition cabinet with the Tories.

I stood for Parliament in Wantage in 2001 and nearly clawed us back to 2nd place.

I worked for the Campaigns Dept for a good few years as a Campaigns Officer and latterly as Deputy Director of Campaigns, slogging my guts out in by-elections from Hartlepool to Henley and some we won too, before climbing back down the career ladder to become constituency organiser again after a difficult year of floods and pneumonia.

I ran, or helped run, more European election campaigns than was good for me.

Why this tedious history now?

Because my motivation through these 23 years has been to get Liberal policies implemented, and to fundamentally change the way our political system works to one based on consensus.

And now it looks like we are starting to do just that.

So to those Lib Dems who are angry, or upset, or confused, or thinking they have wasted their effort I say this:

The inevitable consequence of what we have been campaigning for for decades is that we would end up having to share power with others that we disagree with.

The inevitable consequence of sharing power is that we have to be willing to compromise, and those we share power with have to be willing to compromise too.

And the inevitable consequence of holding power is that we will be judged. Not on the basis of who we choose to share power with, but on the basis of what that sharing of power delivers for the people of this country.

It looks like we are now in a position to implement several of the key priorities we set out during the election campaign, and which I, as a member of the Federal Policy Committee, was proud to help develop.

We may be on the verge of proving that the kind of politics we have argued for from the sidelines, for sixty years now, can work.

It is incumbent on all of us to help ensure that it does.

I, for one, relish that challenge.

Get over yourself, media

2010-05-10T16:11:00.002+01:00

If the national media really think a detailed programme for Government can be thrashed out in only a few hours of negotiations it says more about their lack of understanding than it does about the politicians' ability to negotiate.

In bed with the Tories? I was for three years.

2010-05-10T12:03:00.002+01:00

Understandably there is a lot of talk around the blogosphere about the ongoing negotiations between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives.

The reality is that this is an inevitable consequence of the election result. More people voted Conservative than voted Labour, and by a wide margin, and it is right that we talk to them first, particularly as they offered.

There are many in the party who are uncomfortable with this.

Well they'd better get used to it.

If we do achieve our long term objective of electoral reform it will become the norm, and the strongest position to be in when beginning negotiations is to make it clear that we are open to a deal with either of the other sides. That is how we will get our agenda adopted.

Back in 2001 we faced a similar situation on Oxfordshire County Council. The numbers were such that any 2 of the 3 main parties could form an administration. We entered into negotiations with each of the others, and they even spoke briefly to each other.

I was a member of our negotiating team. We had our red lines and our additional objectives. Our aim was to negotiate on the basis of our manifesto to win the maximum number of our policies as possible. Our expectation was that we would end up doing a deal with Labour.

It didn't turn out like that. It quickly became apparent that although there was more common policy between us and Labour they a) didn't know what they wanted, b) didn't know how to negotiate and c) didn't have any agreement in their own group about what they were trying to achieve.

In contrast the Conservatives were very clear about what they wanted, knew how to negotiate and had the backing of their group to do so. They also had some very constructive ideas about a clear framework for how we could work together and resolve day to day disagreements (which turned out to be both useful and well used).

It didn't take long for us to realise that, whatever the policy differences, a working arrangement with the Conservatives was the only way forward.

There are clearly parallels with the national position now, with some key exceptions:

1 Even if we want to do a deal with Labour the numbers still don't stack up easily.
2 The negotiations are taking place in the full glare of media publicity.
3 There is no fixed date for the next election.

I have every sympathy with the position Nick finds himself in. Whatever he does it will be the wrong thing to do in the eyes of many.

From what I can see Nick and the team are going about things in the right way.

They are focusing on the need to form a stable Government which can sort out the economy in the national interest. This is both the right priority and the right message to send out at this stage.

They are negotiating a deal that delivers as many of our key manifesto priorities as possible.

They are clearly working hard at it, but not letting themselves be rushed.

They are consulting widely within the party.

And, if today's rumours are true, they are trying to find a way to deal the big risk of partnership Government under our system - the lack of a fixed term parliament.

If they do come to some agreement with the Conservatives there will, of course, be a lot of people who are not happy. Those who feel that we have much more in common with Labour than those nasty Tories.

There is some truth in that, I certainly see myself as on the centre-left, and worked hard to ensure that our manifesto reflected that political position.

However we would not be negotiating with the Labour party we have things in common with, we would be negotiating with a failed Labour Government of ID Cards, bombing Iraq, Tuition Fees, unfair taxation and an economic meltdown. A party that, until 10pm Thursday, was attacking us for our progressive views on such issues as Trident and Immigration.

Of course the other thing we have to bear in mind is the electoral impact of all this.

In Oxfordshire we did not fare well at the following County elections - although this was probably more down to our own organisational issues than any political backlash.

Nationally the risk is that we lose whichever way we turn. If we get into bed with the Tories we risk losing Labour waverers and tactical voters. If we go with Labour we risk losing soft Tory voters.

However the potential upside is greater. We have an opportunity to show that the Liberal Democrats are capable of sharing power, of putting the national interest ahead of narrow party interest and that political parties can actually work together successfully for the benefit of the country.

In the meantime we just have to trust the team. We couldn't have a more able negotiating team and at this point we have to let them do their job.

Stephen Fry says vote for Evan Harris

2010-05-04T11:18:00.002+01:00

Evan Harris has had sone high profile endorsments during the campaign: Ben Goldacre, Dr Simon Singh and Richard Dawkins, to name but three.

And now Stephen Fry has urged 'Oxonians and Abingdonians' to back Evan saying:

On one front alone I would absolutely urge you to vote LibDem and that is if you live in the Oxford West and Abingdon constituency. Your incumbent member, now under threat because of boundary changes, is Evan Harris MP, far and away the most persuasive and impressive parliamentarian in the cause of good and open science and enquiry that we have had in the past decade. He has been central to mould-breaking and inspirational multiparty cooperation in issues of scientific concern since 1997. It seems to me (almost!) that he should be elected unopposed like the Speaker. If you have any interest in the promotion of science and evidence based policy-making and a voice to oppose superstition, religious vested interest and new age nonsense, then do check him out and get those Oxonian Abingdonians working for his re-election.

Men with vested interests and dubious record criticise Lib Dem policies on security in Tory supporting newspaper - SHOCK

2010-05-04T08:16:00.003+01:00

'Nuff said.

When it comes to Iraq and draconian attacks on our civil liberties I certainly hope that the Lib Dems will remain 'outside the consensus'!

Nick Clegg to visit my Dad :-)

2010-05-01T10:55:00.004+01:00

According to the Evening Gazette, Lib Dem Leader Nick Clegg is planning to drop in my Dad and sister this weekend.

Well not just my Dad and sister, but the good folk of my home town of Redcar.

Redcar has already been blessed by visits from Party President Ros Scott and Deputy Leader Vince Cable.

The fact that a constituency like Redcar is even getting these visits demonstrates just how far the political ground has shifted.

When I was growing up, and indeed when I did my first ever canvassing in the town, Redcar was donkey with a red rosette territory. For many years it was then represented by the excellent and widely loved Mo Mowlam.

But now things have changed.

People feel badly let down by Labour, highlighted by the recent closure of the steelworks. And this isn't just about the actual jobs, it is symbolic of a general decline in worthwhile employment in the area following decades which saw the loss of jobs in the shipyards, chemical industry and, slightly further afield, mining.

They have also been let down by the current MP, Vera Baird, who is seen to have neglected the constituency, had widely publicised expenses issues and to have done little or nothing to save the steelworks.

And during this period of Labour decline the local Lib Dems have been steadily building up. they hold a large number of council seats and have won some spectacular by-election wins, even coming close in South Bank. In Ian Swales they have a formidable candidate, with a long track record of living locally and campaigning on the key local issues. Ian came a good second last time and has been working his socks of in the run up to this election.

He is a good, solid, Redcar man, and the kind on no-nonsense politician that goes down well in the straight-talking north east. He will be a worthy successor to Mo Mowlam.

The swing Ian needs to win Redcar is way beyond the level that would have the seat labelled as a 'marginal', but it is the kind of seat Labour could lose.

If the seat's traditional Tory voters believe that voting for Ian is the only way they can get Labour out this time, he might just do it, and it will be the icing on the cake of a good election night for this Redcar lad.

Extremists to the left of me, fundies to the right, here I am stuck in the middle with Evan

2010-04-29T18:17:00.002+01:00

It has been a very hectic campaign here in Oxford West & Abingdon for weeks. We were already getting a tremendous response from local voters even before the first TV debate, and it has got even busier since.

I can't remember an election like it since 1997 when we got Evan in for the first time, and with the ease of email we are now being flooded with even more offers of help, poster requests, Garden Poster sites etc.

Two days ago we completely ran out of boards, and we had quite a big stock to start with!

During the last few days things have got even busier.

Online donations are pouring in (from here) and we are getting requests for Garden Posters at about twice the rate we can possibly get them up.

Why?

Because the extremists have attacked.

As many readers of blogs like this one will know, Evan is a pretty straightforward politician who goes out and argues for what he believes to be right.

Like the majority of people, he believes that scientists and researchers should be allowed to conduct properly regulated medical research within the law without facing threats of violence against them and their children.

As a result he is facing this.

Like the majority of people, he believes that competent adults with terminal illnesses facing pain and misery should have right to ask for assistance if they want to die with some dignity.

As a result he is facing this.

Both leaflets are riddled with inaccuracies and untruths and misrepresent Evan's views on many of the issues mentioned.

Now I happen to agree with Evan on most issues, but I am happy to accept that some people don't. Evan has always been more than willing to debate these issues with just about anyone and always does so by putting a reasoned and rational case.

The former Bishop of Oxford, Lord Harries, has responded to the leaflets by saying:

"I have worked with Evan on social issues in Oxford, in Parliament on legislation, and outside Parliament on ethical issues.

"We do not always agree, but he takes a responsible and intelligent position on what are always divisive and controversial matters to do with the beginning and end of life.

"I greatly respect him as a Parliamentarian"

I understand that there are people who honestly believe that life starts at conception and that abortion is the equivalent of murder. I disagree with them, but I believe they should have the right to state their views and campaign to change the law, which is what most of them do.

But to produce and distribute leaflets tagging someone with the nickname 'Dr Death' - a name usually associated with Nazi torturers and serial killers - is simply disgusting.

And the really good thing is that the vast majority of local voters seem to agree.

We have had a flood of emails and phone messages backing Evan, including many from mainstream Christians.

Donations are flooding in as a direct result of these smear leaflets and several people have said the leaflets have firmed up their vote for Evan.

If you would like to help defend Evan against attacks like these, please go here and donate.

Doctor Who = Excellent, BBC = Idiots

2010-04-25T12:29:00.002+01:00

I thought yesterday evenings episode of Doctor Who was absolutely top notch. (And a big step back up after last week's below par effort)

Dranatic, well-scripted, exciting, thrilling and full of suspense.

The build up to the end of the the episode, the first of a tw-parter, was exceptional.

Until, that is, the BBC decided that it would be an appropriate moment to inflict a cheerful cartoon that I assume was meant to be Graham Norton bouncing across our screens, in a feeble effort to get Doctor Who viewers to keep watching whatever rubbish they had scheduled after the top quality TV drama that is Doctor Who.

The reult in our house was that the suspense of Doctor Who was ruined for a few minutes and we switched straight over to Doctor Who Confidential, as we always do anyway.

No further BBC was watched after that.

I have sent the following complaint to the BBC:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As we do every Saturday I sat down with my two younger children to watch Doctor Who yesterday evening.

It was a fantastic episode, a real scary thriller, and we were loving it.

And then just a few minutes before the end, you ruined it.

Against the backdrop of a gloomy cave, with the Doctor, Amy and their companions trapped as the weeping angels advanced, up pops a brightly coloured graphic telling us that some Graham Norton fronted talent show would be up next.

Which idiot at the BBC authorised this to happen?

Have they been thrown off the top of Television House yet?

Has a full grovelling apology been sent to the Doctor Who production team and cast yet?

Will there be an apology to the viewers?

The BBC is at its best when it concentrates on producing quality television, like Doctor Who.

It is at its worst when it come sup with cheap stunts like this in a feeble effort to boost its audience for whatever cheap rubbish follows.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In defence of 'Dr Death' - a riposte to 'Odious' Odone

2010-04-19T19:47:00.003+01:00

Torygraph writer Cristina 'Odious' Odone has an article today which makes for a pretty unpleasant attack on the candidate I am Agent for in the election, Dr Evan Harris.

She attacks Evan for his position on abortion (broadly in line with the current law but making it easier for women to access abortions earlier and with less stressful processes) and assisted dying (where he is broadly in line with the vast majority of people).

She apparently believes that Evan's stances on these issues somehow make the Lib Dems 'creepy' and that he deserves the tagline 'Dr Death' for his efforts.

Setting aside the childish nature of such name-calling for a moment, it is worth noting that nowhere in her article does she put forward any actual arguments against Evan's views.

Nor does she put forward any reasons why taking a stance on such issues is a bad thing, or inappropriate.

I wonder if she, like many people, just finds the idea of having a rational debate about the rights of people who are terminally ill and living a life of pain to decide their own fate a bit unpleasant.

I don't agree with Evan on everything, but I think we need more MPs like him.

We need more people in the House of Commons who look at the evidence before coming to a decision on an issue, who can string together a rational argument to back up their position, and who are willing to discuss and promote sensitive issues which have a real impact on the lives (and dignified deaths) of their constituents.

If you find the views of 'Odious' Odone as ridiculous, petty and childish as I do, please pay a small visit to here.

And do read the comments. There is one from Evan himself and several from constituents of Oxford West & Abingdon.

This says it all really ...

2010-04-11T19:52:00.002+01:00

From my good friend Nich.

About the Tory policy which is an insult to married people.

And to quite a lot of unmarried people to.

Well done Nich.

Time to kebab Lord Adonis

2010-04-09T12:13:00.002+01:00

Back when Lord Adonis was an Alliance councillor in north Oxford he was nicknamed 'kebab' having fought his election on the basis of defending a threat to the city's kebab vans.

For this campaign I am grateful, if not for much he has said and done since.

I suppose it is good news that he apparently believes that there is not much to choose between Labour and the Lib Dems policy wise.

Personally I don't agree with him, but if he and other Labour types do believe that then there is a simple solution, and one with more chance of success than his proposals.

If every Labour supporter, from Lord Adonis down, votes Lib Dem, we will definitely beat the Tories the length and breadth of Britain. We will be in a position to implement our policies (which the good Lord broadly supports) and there will be no risk of the boy George getting his hands on the economy.

Simples.

Have Labour got any members left?

2010-04-02T16:54:00.002+01:00

Labour Party members in Stoke are apparently a bit miffed at the lack of a local candidate on the shortlist for their candidate selection, reported by the BBC here.

I noticed the story because Oxford Labour Councillor Saj Malik (who defected from the Lib Dems) was one of the unlucky candidates.

I always wondered whether Saj's defection was as much down to his parliamentary ambitions as his principles. If it was, he won't be chuffed at this result.

But the most startling thing about the reported result is that, in total, only 63 people appear to have voted at all.

This is a seat Labour presumably expect to hold, yet only half of the local party's membership of 140 bothered to turn up, and 140 members is pretty low to begin with!

If that is the level of enthusiasm amongst the Labour grassroots then they really are in trouble.

BREAKING NEWS: 3rd April is the big day

2010-03-15T13:47:00.002Z

After months of speculation we finally have a date for the big event:

3rd April 2010.

See here for more details.

Post Office Fail

2010-01-27T11:54:00.002Z

Just recived this speedy response from the Post Office complaints people:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an automatic acknowledgement from Royal Mail Customer Services

Your reference number is xxx-xxx (my change)

Thank you for your e-mail regarding lost, damaged or delayed mail.

We know how important it is for all mail to be delivered on time and
without incident. We would therefore like to apologise for any upset or
concern we may have caused.

We are unable to process claims for loss, damage or delayed items via
e-mail as we require your signature of declaration on our claim form and we
also need certain original documents such as certificate of posting before
we can consider your claim.

We therefore need you to complete and submit a P58 lost damaged or delayed
mail claim form for each item of mail affected. These forms are available
from all Post Office branches or alternatively you may wish to download and
print a form from our website by clicking on the following links.

For Mail sent within the UK

ftp://ftp.royalmail.com/Downloads/public/ctf/rm/Inland_P58_form_English.pdf

For International Mail

ftp://ftp.royalmail.com/Downloads/public/ctf/rm/International_P58_form_English.pdf

Once completed please post the form along with any other requested
documentation to our freepost address as detailed below:

Royal Mail Customer Service
Freepost
PLYMOUTH
PL9 7YB

What will happen next?
Once we have your completed form back you will receive an acknowledgement
from us providing you with a unique claim reference. We aim to conclude
all inland enquiries within 30 days of receipt and with some are in a
position to do so even sooner. Having said that part of our enquiries may
involve contacting the recipient and them being given time to respond - so
it is appreciated if you allow us the full 30 days after receiving your
acknowledgement before re-contacting us.

This has been allocated to one of our advisors who respond to your specific
enquiry. Our aim is to reply to all customer emails within five working
days.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Would be quite impressed with the speed of response if I had actually complained about 'lost, damaged or delayed mail'.

However my complaint was actually about the length of time I waited at Oxford Post Office to post an item on Monday afternoon!

Dear Dave, thanks for your helpful message

2009-12-28T13:59:00.002Z

It has been amusing to see some of the pithy repsonses from various Lib Dems to CallMeDave's seasonal message.

Personally I'm delighted that he has taken the time to help write some of my leaflets for me.

In constituencies like the one I live in, where we have a popular Lib Dem MP, it will be very useful to use CallMeDave's words to reassure wavering Tory voters.

There are a lot of people in seats ike this one who might be tempted to vote Tory this time because they beleive they need to to 'get Brown out'.

In response we will be working hard to persuade them to vote on the basis that their sitting MP is hard working and doing an effective job.

It will be helpful to be able to back up this message with CallMeDave's reassuring words that there is much common ground between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives. They therefore have nothing to fear about voting Lib Dem this time.

Similarly in seats where we are head to head with Labour and trying to squeeze the Tory vote, like in my home town of Redcar, we can use CallMeDave's word's to strengthen our squeeze message.

Thanks Dave!

File under: 'You couldn't make it up'

2009-11-30T16:25:00.002Z

Go on, guess who:

"Whatever faith people had in the political process is now in tatters. I’ve seen that directly, on the doorstep, where people are rightly enraged. We can reverse the decline, but it requires genuine reform, not tinkering. You can’t legislate for decency, and in any case, if there’s a will to abuse power, there will always be a way. The only solution is a combination of openness and real local democracy."

Yes, this very evening, at St James' Church, Piccadilly, you can here all about the major challenges facing us, in particular the key question: "We face huge pressures and must make big decisions. How do we spend our collective wealth?"

So who is delivering this talk?

Yup, irony of ironies, non-dom Tory boy Zac Goldsmith, in the papers today over his tax status - is due to speak about these key issues this very evening.

hattip - a post on PoliticalBetting.com

The Sun should be ashamed

2009-11-10T09:41:00.004Z

I'm sure there will be a lot of comment about the phone call between Gordon Brown and Mrs Janes which has been published today.

Having listened to the call, an uncomfortable experience, I actually think Gordon Brown handled the call about as well as could be expected in the circumstances.

He apologised, took a lot of flak from a very distraught Mrs Janes, but remained calm throughout.

Whether the Sun should have published a private phone call is open to debate. I can see arguments both ways.

However they should be thoroughly ashamed that they deem it appropriate to precede the recording with an ad for a Family Guy DVD which includes a joke about horse sperm and follow it with an ad for the Bruno DVD.

Theme Park Auschwitz - Or Children's Views Misrepresented?

2009-11-06T11:06:00.003Z

An interesting survey reported in The Telegraph suggests that one in six 9-15 year olds think that Auschwitz is a WWII theme park and that Adolf Hitler was a German football coach.

Now on first sight, and to anyone of my generation who will have studied WWII in school history lessons, this looks dreadful.

But hang on a minute - dig a little deeper and it becomes clear that our children's views have been at best badly reported and at worst misrepresented.

The full results of the survey are here - and what is obvious is that children were offered multiple choice questions.

This suggests to me that quite a lot of the children simply guessed at answers they didn't know and a proportion of them guessed wrongly.

That DOES NOT MEAN that one in six 9-15 year olds believe Auschwitz is a WWII Theme Park - but that 30% didn't know the right answer and randomly picked the wrong answer.

And given that Auschwitz is now set up as a Visitor Centre where thousands of people, including parties of UK school children, find out about WWII, is it such a bad guess anyway?

I knew about WWII from a young age because it had been a major event in my Grandparents' lives and in my Dad's formative years. I spent a lot of my younger years in the company of my Gran who talked at length about the war, and in my younger years still had an air raid shelter at the bottom of her garden. I then learnt more about the war at secondary school in history lessons.

However the average nine or ten year old nowadays will not necessarily have any living relatives who remember WWII, and even if they do it isn't talked about nearly as often as it was thirty years ago.

A large proportion of those 9-15 year olds surveyed probably haven't got to that part of their history course yet. My 11 year old happens to have just read a book about Hitler as part of his half term homework for a book review, but he has not studied WWII as part of the curriculum yet.

So it is perhaps not surprising that a proportion of 9-15 year olds don't know much detail about a conflict that ended 50-55 years before they were born.

In fact many of the answers are surprisingly good.

For example more than half the children surveyed knew the start and end years of the First World War which started 89-95 years before they were born. This is the equivalent of me knowing the dates of the Boer Wars, the Tauranga Campaign or the Bhutan War, which I didn't until I looked them up on Google for the purposes of this blog!

A massive 90% got the years of WWII right, 60% correctly identified Harry Patch as the oldest veteran of the trenches, 80% knew that the poppy is the symbol of Remembrance Day and 86% that the Blitz was the bombing of London.

For a group of children, many of whom won't have studied the subject in History yet, I don't think this is bad at all.

That is not to say that there is anything wrong about people doing more to educate children about WWII, Remembrance Day or more recent and more relevant conflicts.

But a survey like this should not be used as yet another criticism of children's knowledge or of 'modern teaching standards', particularly when the survey has been deliberately structured to produce whacky answers.

The hypocrisy of the tabloids

2009-10-24T13:47:00.001+01:00

Excellent post over at The Enemies of Reason about the utter twaddle being spouted by the right wing tabloids about the BBC's decision to allow Griffin on Question Time.

Hat Tip: Mark Reckons

Chris cleared

2009-10-20T21:05:00.002+01:00

Delighted to hear that Lord Rennard, or Chris, as I know him, has been cleared by the Parliamentary authorities over his expenses.

I didn't blog about the allegations much at the time because, as a friend, I knew I was biased.

I did know, however, that he had moved his home base down to Eastbourne, and am delighted that the evidence backing this up has been properly taken into account.

It was good to see Chris looking so well at conference, and to hear the rousing reception he got at the rally.

Fancy a pint of freedom this evening?

2009-10-18T00:07:00.002+01:00

A few weeks ago I bought a batch of beer from our local farm shop, one of which was a bottle of William Wilberforce Freedom Ale from those nice people at the Westerham Brewery in Kent.

On reading the label I discovered that the beer had been brewed to commemorate the 200 anniversary of the abolition of slavery, and that profits from the beer were being given to the Stop The Traffik campaign.

Now this sparked my interest because I had just been talking to our new Lib Dem MEP for the South East, Catherine Bearder, about this very issue.

Following a chat with her staff we then arranged for Catherine to visit the brewery, which she did on Friday with Lib Dem blogger Antony Hook.

This evening we will be meeting at the Royal Blenheim pub in Oxford to drink a few pints of Freedom Ale (and quite possibly some of the excellent White Horse beers they have on tap there) in support of the European Union's Anti-Trafficking Day.

Do feel free to join us.

Good beer round here

2009-10-17T23:42:00.002+01:00

Today's Independent features a guide to the top 50 beers.

Oxfordshire breweries have done rather well with four of the fifty being brewed in the county.

Hook Norton Brewery does particularly well with both their bitter, Old Hooky, and their Double Stout both featured.

Brakspear Triple, which is nowadays brewed by the Wychwood Brewery, and Ridgeway IPA, from the brewery set up by Brakspears former head brewer, also feature.

This is great news for local brewers and the top 50 as a whole, which is mainly made up of UK beers, demonstrates the strength of the growing UK small brewery sector.

The list also featured several other of my favourite tipples including Badger Golden Champion from Hall and Woodhouse in Dorset (for any Westminster based readers you can enjoy it at St Stephens Tavern next to Westminster tube station), St Austell Brewery's Admiral Ale and Hop Back Brewery's Summer Lightning.

Unfortunately Wychwood's cult brew, Hobgoblin, didn't feature.

There are several other excellent small breweries in this area including the Appleford Brewery based at Brightwell-cum-Sotwell near Wallingford, Best Mates Brewery, based at Ardington near Wantage and the White Horse Brewery based at Stanford-in-the-Vale.

See my next post for more about beer.

Well done Dave!

2009-10-16T15:40:00.003+01:00

A brilliant result for my good friend Dave Hodgson in the Bedford Mayoral election.

Dave is a great guy and has worked solidly hard over the years both for his Bedford constituents and the party.

He joins another good friend of mine, and very fine Mayor of Watford, Dorothy Thornhill, in that very exclusice club of Lib Dem Mayors.

Ming gets it wrong, wrong, wrong

2009-09-24T16:57:00.002+01:00

I've been watching through some of the coverage of Party Conference on the bbc iplayer* and have just happened upon an argument between Ming Campbell and Evan Harris on Tuesday's Daily Politics. (It' about 30 minutes in, after Nick Parsons).

Ming is talking complete rubbish.

It is clearly true that sometimes Leaders have to react to events.

But is equally clear that Nick Clegg's comments about whether or not the abolition Tuition Fees will be in the manifesto is not something that has just cropped up - it was fully discussed just a few weeks ago in Federal Policy Committee and the Fresh Start paper reflects the settled view of that committee.

Ming's attitude in this interview highlights why he lost support so rapidly when he was our leader and demonstrates an unfortunate tendency of some of our leaders - that they expect loyalty from the party without realising that loyalty runs both ways.

I hope that Nick Clegg will come to realise that what can, I'm sure, sometimes feel like a frustrating democratic process within our party, is, in fact, a great strength.

I also hope he won't be listening too much to former leaders like Ming.

*(although not my speech in the Fresh Start debate as that seems to have been lost)

That's more like it

2009-09-23T16:00:00.002+01:00

Yesterday, in the Fresh Start for Britain debate, I argued that we need to avoid being too doom and gloom and that we need to spell out clear, simple and principled reasons to vote Lib Dem.

Continuing my conference media blitz I gave a brief comment to the World at One this afternoon (about 15 mins in) and also agree with the comments Steve Webb and Malcolm Bruce made too.

Nick's speech this afternoon has done exactly that.

The message that should have been coming out all week: Rebuilding a sustainable economy, making Britain fairer and fixing our broken politics, came across loudly and clearly.

I hope he keeps this tone up.

Media tarting

2009-09-23T13:06:00.002+01:00

My speech during the Fresh Start debate yesterday attracted a bit of coverage. (And it is probably on Iplayer somewhere)

There was clip on PM yesterday evening and I'm told I was quoted in the Guardian, although I can't find it.

I've also been interviewed for the World at One which should be on around now.

Sincere thanks to everyone who has made a point of saying that they enjoyed the speech.

My Sunday Conference round-up

2009-09-21T16:40:00.002+01:00

A slightly more relaxed day on Sunday after a busy Saturday. Much time spent wandering about and catching up with folk, including people I haven't seen for a while from my days campaigning in Leicester and my time in youth and student politics.

It has been a lovely few days weather wise and it has been nice to sit and chat.

Much of the talk is about the big tax and spend decisins the party is facing and particularly about tuition fees.

I did get along to the ALDC members' reception where we heard from both Vince and Nick. I also attended a very useful briefing for party trainers with Hilary Stephenson and Shaun Roberts. It is good to see that a lot of thought is going in to how we widen the reach of party training.

Finally it was off to the Blog Awards, hosted by those nice people at Lib Dem Voice.

It was very nice to put names to faces, including award winner Mark Thompson.

An attempted early night didn't go quite to plan as I bumped into party Chief Exec Chris Fox and Yorkshire & Humber Campaigns Officer Dave McCobb. Dave has been doing a lot of work with the Lib Dem team in my home town of Redcar and I had a very positive chat about their recent progress.

I'm still finding it a bit odd having all this time to chat to people but it's very enjoyable.

Campaigning after Rennard

2009-09-20T12:34:00.002+01:00

My co-panellist at last night's fringe, James Graham, has a report of the meeting over at Comment is Free.

Nick's bonfire of the bureaucrats

2009-09-20T12:03:00.002+01:00

Nick has this morning set out a clear plan to slash the cost of Government and is 100% right to do so.

Westminster, Whitehall and the numerous unproductive layers of regional red tape, quangos and agencies are bloated and major savings can and shuld be found.

Nick's plan will save £1.82 billion - a substantial amount and well worth having as a contribution to the savings we need to achieve.

Equally importantly the plan will reduce the army of civil servants and bureaucrats whose main role is to stifle innovation, interfere in local decision making and waste significant amounts of time of those trying to deliver public services around the UK.

These proposals also give the lie to Mr Cameron's rather half-hearted proposals which seemed to amount to making MPs pay a little more for their beer and sandwiches.

Vince right and wrong

2009-09-20T11:32:00.002+01:00

The big issue facing the party is how we deal with the crisis in the public sector finances and balance the undoubted need to cut the structural deficit with our commitment to a fairer and greener society.

Vince Cable MP last week published a pamphlet setting out his thinking on the issue.

As one would expect Dr Cable takes the issue seriously and argues that we should too. He believes that we may need to reduce Government spend by as much as 8% of GDP over five years and that we need to set out very specific plans about how we will do this.

This would inevitably mean massive cuts in Government spending which would have a major impact on the country.

He rightly argues that Labour's plans undersetimate the scale of the problem, that they rely too much on reducing capital spending rather than current spending, and that they are over optimistic about likely growth levels.

So far, so good.

He then moves on to argue

The emphasis for fiscal consolidation must fall on controlling public spending, not higher taxes: to commit to additional tax revenue raising from the outset undermines any commitment to setting priorities in spending.

This doesn't make sense to me. Reducing the deficit can be done by reducing spending, increasing taxes, or a combination of the two.

In no way does a decision that some taxes might have to be raised 'undermine' equally clear decisions to cut areas of spending.

Dr Cable then goes on to argue that 'salami-slicing' public spending will not work, and that we have to go back to square one and examine all publci spending.

In this I also agree with him. The only way we will find the savings we need to balance the budget is by going through the entirity of Government spend and check that it is well-directed expenditure. Effectively we need to be absolutely clear about what our priorities are and be willing to stop spending money on things that are low priority or ineffective.

Most of his suggestions in this regard (and they are only suggestions) make sense.

A lot of money can be saved by doing Government differently and by decentralising power. Money spent locally tends to provide better value, encourage innovation and garner higher public support. There is massive Government expenditure on advertising, agencies, quangos, unaccountable regional government etc. etc. We should take a slash and burn approach to the lot.

Similarly we know that much of the increased expenditure on several big services such as the NHS and education has not produced the improvements it should have. This surely means there will be savings to be found.

I am a little less happy at the lack of detail about some of the suggestions. I don't think it is helpful to suggest that there are major savings to be had from freezing the overall pay bill or in public sector pensions without a clear idea of how we acheive it without hitting the lower paid staff who our tax policies are, with the other hand, meant to help.

But at this stage I go back to the question of tax.

We have to look at savings, and prioritise what we think Government should do, but at some point some of the potential cuts may be worse than increasing some taxes. What we should do is balance the two. We should identify areas where some taxes could rise and compare the pros and cons with some of the cuts we might have to make.

Doing this does not in any way reduce the seriousness of our approach to pruning spending.

Areas we should look at include strengtheing green taxes, taxing very high incomes (a popular policy during the last two elections when the financial position was much sounder) taxing the bonuses that bankers continue to pay themselves despite everything etc.

We should also look at whether there are any specific taxes that might be used to fund some key spending commitments that might otherwise be dropped. (Graduate Tax anyone?).

In terms of how this plays with the public, well I think we will be given credit if we have a clear plan that adds up. I think the public knows that the Labour Government have got us into a VERY DEEP HOLE and will expect to see parties responding in a serious way that adds up.

However I do not think that there is any future for the Lib Dems if we present ourselves as being determined to slash public spending without even considering raising taxes to protect some services as part of the package.

Nick Clegg's rhetoric is rightly starting to mirror Obama in arguing that, despite the hole we are in, we can still be optimistic and still build a fairer, greener and freer society. This is key to our message. We have to have figures that stack up, but we have to do it for a purpose and we have to provide our potential supporters with hope for the future.

A busy first day at Conference

2009-09-20T10:28:00.004+01:00

I'm finding this conference an odd experience. It's my 23rd Autumn Conference (Well the first was technically an Assembly, but you know what I mean) and the first since 1993 that I haven't been working for the party.

For the last few years my conference diary consisted of numerous training sessions, meetings with seats and the occasional fringe on behalf of the Campaigns Department. There was at least one where I never actually made it into the Conference Centre at all.

This one's different.

My conference diary has lots of gaps in it and I've got time to be sitting here in the hotel bar (Like Ms Rigg we have free wi-fi in my hotel but the signal is only strong enough in the bar and lobby - so I am writing this while litsening to dreadful piped music that even the older guests (of whom there are many) must find a tad slow).

Yesterday was the busy day diary wise. It started with a training session which I was co-training with the formidable Jeanette Sunderland from Bradford. We were training a small but high quality group of activists about 'Capacity and team building' which I enjoyed, particularly as Jeanette did most of the work.

I was left with an abiding feeling that I really wouldn't want to be the Labour MP on the end of the campaign Jeanette is planning for Bradford East.

I then attended a meeting between my former colleagues in the Campaigns Department and Regional Party Officers which was led by our excellent leader of campaigns Hilary Stephenson and then the other leader turned up and talked to us about the big policy issues facing the party. He seemed relaxed and on good form and answered questions clearly.

I then headed for the conference centre and into the hall. As a member of the Federal Policy Committee I thought I ought to be there to hear our report to conference, which was so exciting that it attracted not a single question.

Then the debate on the Real Women policy paper (which has been exciting the 'bloggosphere' a lot) was underway.

I sat, slightly nervously,, as I had earlier put in a card to speak against the amendment proposed by Bernard Salmon.

I thought the debate was very good, with most of the speeches being of a very high quality and covering a wide range of issues. Jo Swinson introduced the paper with a very strong contribution and I particularly enjoyed Laura Willoughby's speech about women's sport and suspect she is right about the reasons why the boys were keen for her to stop playing rugby ;-)

Just as the debate was heading for the end (and I had assumed I wasn't going to be called after all) the Chair, Sarah Boad, asked me to stand by.

Whenever I am about to speak I get butterflies in my tummy although I have learnt from experience how to handle them. This is partly because I've not actually spoken to the full conference hall very often, although I have done lots of training, speaking at fringe meetings etc.. This was only my fourth speech in a debate.

I never write full speeches as I tend to end up concentrating too much on the paper rather than the audience if I do. I prefer to write down bullet points and then make it up as I go along from them. I find this makes it easier to react to the audience (who, on this occasion, were very kind). I'm not a great speechwriter in a technical sense although I did chuck in the 'list of three' at the end whch worked well and led to a level of applause that took me a little by surprise.

More importantly I did have what I felt was a strong case to make and I was delighted when the vote was so strongly in favour of the motion but against Amendment 2.

After a bite of lunch I then met with Katy Riddle who is about to leave Winchester to become our Campaigns Officer in South Central Region. This means she will be supporting me in my role working for Oxford West & Abingdon and Wantage constituencies in the run up to the General Election.

It was then off to the Premier Inn (Everything's Premier but the price, and , on this occasion, the wheelchair lift) for the fringe meeting 'Campaigning After Rennard' organised by those nice people at Lib Dem Voice.

I was on the panel along with Lynne Featherstone and James Graham with Mark Pack in the Chair.

We each gave our thoughts, with a fair amount of common ground, and then there were a large batch of pertinent questions.

Then it was time for dinner and we headed a few doors down to the Indian for a lovely curry with Alex, Helen, Andrew and Costigan.

After that I headed back to the hotel (via dropping in on a few former Campaigns colleagues for a brief chat).

A busy day, but a fun one.

Goat + Tricycle = Happiness

2009-09-18T01:07:00.002+01:00

True happiness is finding out that the distance from Liberal Drinks at Conference to my Hotel is 'staggerable' :-)

Is this Nick's Moment?

2009-09-17T00:47:00.002+01:00

I've just had a quick skim through A Liberal Moment - Nick Clegg's pamphlet for Demos which sets out a pretty robust argument for a liberal approach to the current economic, political, social and environmental crises.

The pamphlet sets out a convincing case for the Lib Dems being the holders of the progressive flame.

The first part is a reflection on what happened to british politics at the start of the last century and looks at what lesson might be drawn.

Much of the material is familiar - at least to anyone who ever takes any notice of what Nick says - but it is good to see Nick's developing themes set out together in and easy to read package.

All in all a well timed contribution setting out a strong case for the party.

In lieu of some good weather

2009-07-30T12:08:00.002+01:00

Having been caught in a hail storm this morning I thought of this ...

Bloggers talk balls about by-elections

2009-07-25T13:14:00.004+01:00

Rarely is so much rubbish written by Lib Dem bloggers than after an entirely normal by-election result.

'Rennardism is dead', 'leafets don't work', 'we should do it by email', 'the Lib Dem by-election machine doesn't work any more', 'we should deliver a pamphlet setting out our principles and detailed policies to each voter and trust them to come to the right decision' (OK, I made that last one up, but you get my drift).

I do accept that there some other points of view that have a case. It IS reasonable to question whether the impact of parliamentary by-elections is enough to warrent the resources we spend on them, for example (see end).

But when the debate is about how to win by-elections, then a lot of the commentary is sadly lacking in any basis in fact.

It would be helpful if people first look at the actual history of the party's performance in parliamentary by-elections. The extremly inteligent and insightful Mr Quist helpfully set this out here.

There was no 'golden age'

The reality is that there never was a 'golden age' for the party in by-elections. We have only ever won a minority of by-elections, and generally the victories have been in seats where we started with a reasonable base of credibility and had long enough to build up some momentum.

For every one we have won there have been five or six we have lost, and I'm sure that after every one of those losses there was a group of people claiming that our by-election strategy was a 'busted flush'.

You don't understand 'Rennardism'

Many bloggers have talked about 'Rennardism'. Or at least, what they apparently believe 'Rennardism. to be - simply delivering more leaflets.

Well if that was all Chris Rennard's approach to parliamentary by-elections consisted of we would probably never have won a single by-election.

And again, before commenting on 'Rennardism' why not actually read some of the campaign manuals Chris has written about campaigning rather than criticising from a base of ignorance.

The simple fact is that no party wins a by-election without delivering a lot of leaflets. In order to stand a chance of winning you have to establish that you are in the fight, get your message through to people, turn your vote out and persuade supporters of other parties to switch to you.

And you simply can't do that without a lot of literature.

THAT IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING THAT ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS DELIVER LOTS OF LEAFLETS!

The real difference comes with other factors. Do the Local Party select a good candidate? Are there any big issues affecting the constituency or the country that give us a hook to base our campaign on? Do the circumstances give us a good line of attack? How much effort is each of the other parties putting in?

A large part of winning a by-election (and this IS what 'Rennardism' is, if it is anything) is developing a convincing messge that deals with the primary issues of concern to the voters.

Email and other new media

Several people have commented that we should not be doing leaflets, we should be using email and other new media to win the campaign.

Well yes, we should make as much use of email and other new media that we can, and in fact that is exactly what recent by-elections have done.

But there is a fatal flaw in the idea that email and the like could replace leaflets.

We KNOW where every letterbox in a constituency is.

We DO NOT KNOW very many people's email addresses.

Two factors that make a real big difference

In my experience of by-elections there are two very big factors that have a huge impact on our chances of winning:

1 Length of campaign. The longer we have to establish our candidate and messages, to identify key local issues and campaign on them, and to deliver leaflets and knock on doors, the more chance we have of winning. (Brent East is the best recent example of this - I still remember lots of people arguing that we couldn't possibly win it and challenging the resources that were being given to it. We won because we had time to dig in and build credibility and momentum.)

2 Local credibility. The more credibility we have locally at the start of the campaign, the better we will eventually do. (This was certainly the big differnce between Leicester South on the one hand and Hartlepool or Hodge Hill on the other - in Leicester we had a strong local base and record of campaigning in most wards in the constituency)

We shouldn't run a 'full' campaign every time

We don't!

Only people who really don't know what they are talking about would believe that we do.

Fighting by-elections hard doesn't stop us doing other things right

There are also those who argue that we shouldn't busy ourselves fighting by-elections, we should be concentrating on getting the message (or 'narrative' even)right, or doing longer term development.

Well yes, we do need to be doing those things. But fighting by-elections as they come along doesn't stop us doing those things as well.

There clearly will be some opportunity cost as far as the money is concerned (although a lot of the figures bandied about are nonsense, and we do get donations in for by-elections) but we actually need to sort out our message, do long term development AND fight by-elections.

In conclusion

I am not arguing that everything we have evr done in every by-election is right. In fact I have had strong disagreements with some of the tactics and some of the messaging in several of the ones I've worked on.

But frankly a LOT of the comments about how we should or should not run by-elections appear to be based on complete and utter ignorance of how the party actually runs by-elections campaigns, and/or on a completely unrealistic expectation that we should some how be winning every time.

As to the sensible question of whether by-elections are worth the resources I would make two points:

1 If you look at our current parliamentary party about a fifth of the seats we hold were first won in by-elections, or were held in by-elections, or had had by-elections that built a base to win from later.

2 Even though we didn't win in Norwich this time, the group of relatively inexperienced party organisers who made up the bulk of the campaign team will be heading back to their constituencies this weekend far better prepared than they would be by months of theoretical trainign about what running a serious campaign involves.

Winning in Redcar again, and again, and again

2009-07-24T20:39:00.002+01:00

I grew up in the north eastern and largely working class town of Redcar. (Known by racing enthusiasts for the Racecourse and by Geography students of the 70s and 80s for its steel industry).

I did my first campaigning there during the 1987 General Election - canvassing in Chris Abbott's ward and was signed up to the Liberal Party by his then ward colleague Stan Wilson.

In those days Redcar was not a hotbed of Liberalism although both the Liberals and the SDP had a few seats locally.

More recently however the Lib Dems have really been gaining ground. The part of town where I grew up was Tory held when I was there, but we have held it for years now. We have now established ourselves as the main opposition to Labour and came a creditable, if still some distance behind, second place last time.

More recently we have been winning local by-elections and last night completed our hattrick with Eric Howden's sensational victory in Dormanstown.

Eric took 52% of the vote with a 22.9% swing from Labour.

So what, you might think, particularly as you probably haven't the first clue where Redcar is, let alone Dormanstown.

Well Dormanstown is about as Labour as it gets.

Anywhere.

It is real vote for a donkey with a red rosette territory.

If Labour are losing places like Dormanstown they really are up a brown smelly creek without a handily shaped wooden implement.

So well done Eric, Ian, Chris and team.

Have a virtual pint on me, and keep up the good work.

A Fresh Start for Britain

2009-07-22T17:31:00.003+01:00

The party has published a key paper which is to be debated at party Conference in September.

A Fresh Start for Britain sets out our priorities in the run up to the General Election and how we intend to go through the process of prioritising our spending ambitions in the light of the mess the economy is in.

The document set out on the website is, in effect, the introductory section setting out the main themes we want to concentrate on: Creating a sustainable economy, Building a fairer society and Cleaning up politics.

I an confident that it does a pretty good job of setting out a platform that the party can unite around, draws on previous policy development but is at the same tme honest about the reality of the financial situation.

The full document which will go to conference will also include a lot more detail summarising our key policies across the whole range.

Alex Wilcock has written a lot more about it than I will (in fact I think his blog piece may well be longer than the document!) but makes some very good points.

He is right that 'freedom' is not as prominent as it might have been, but readers will be reassured to know that that is not because there are any plans to drop or change our policies on the issue.

He is also right that the real debate will be about prioritisiation. In a tight financial situation, which spending commitments will be included in the actual manifesto? Let the debate begin ...

Will it be April this July?

2009-07-22T17:11:00.002+01:00

The Norwich North by-election is the first in the south eastern part of England that I haven't been involved with for more than 15 years. Had I still been Deputy Director of Campaigns I would have spent much of the last few weeks in Norwich.

It feels a little odd to know that as I write this our excellent by-election team, ably supported by my successor Victoria Marsom, will now be into the feverish last 24 hours or so of campaigning.

I'm not in a position to know exactly how we are doing, but I do know that April Pond is a doughty candidate and that the Lib Dem team behind her campaign are highly experienced and skilled campaigners.

The literature I have seen certainly suggests that we have hit on some good issues and that April is on the right side of them.

I'm not surprised to hear that the Labour campaign has been weak. There is little in general to motivate Labour activists at present, and the particular circumstances that led to Dr Gibsons' resignation probably killed any residual local activity stone dead anyway.

I am surprised that the Greens do not appear to have done more. That's not to say they won't necessarily get a solid vote, there is still a strong 'anti-main parties' vote out there, but I can't understand why they didn't treat this as a serious opportunity to win thir first MP.

Some people have wrongly characterised the Lib Dem approach to by-elections as being just about delivering more leaflets than your opponents. Well we DO have to deliver a lot of leaflets but we also need a clear message that resonates and all the other elements of a well organised campaign too.

From what I have seen and heard our small team in Norwich have achieved a lot of this on a short timescale and with limited resources. Well done to them.

If you are in a position to get over and help this evening or tomorrow, please do so!

Bread and Jam

2009-07-22T16:57:00.002+01:00

A day off today, and a chance to do some bread-making with Emma.

We make bread every so often, she enjoys it, and it is surprisingly easy (as Liz Williams regularly describes on her blog).

We use flour grown locally (the farms are listed on the back of the packet) and milled at the Wessex Mill in Wantage bought at Added Ingredients in Abingdon.

Today we used 'Six Seed Flour' which has produced lovely brown bread and rolls full of flavour and texture.

We're sitting here eating it with some lovely Raspberry and Kiwi jam from Local Roots, another newish Abingdon shop that sources all its stock from within a few miles of the town.

Not a bad way to spend an afternoon.

Tap into Wembley

2009-07-01T17:41:00.002+01:00

After waiting for nearly 25 years I finally got to see one of my favourite rock bands last night - the mighty Spinal Tap (Simply 'Tap' to their fans).

Despite their early success (initially as The Thamesmen) they never hit the bigtime in the UK as much as they did in the US and Japan, and tours have been few and far between.

Tap now join Rush, ZZ Top and The Police on the list of bands I thought I might not get to see live but finally have.

Having made the brave (it's a fine line between clever and stupid) decision to do a 'One Night Only' World Tour at Wembley Stadium, just a few miles from their origins in Squatney in London's East End, there was a real sense of anticipation as the metal hordes gathered for the gig. (They did get to do a short warm up set at a smallscale Somerset festival at the weekend).

Tap have made two previous visits to Wembley, to play Live Earth and the Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert, and both in the bigger venue of Wembley Stadium. On these occasions they played to 80,000 people live with countless millions more watching at home. Their performances at both events were considered 'extraordinary'.

Support last night was from The Folksmen, the traditional US folk three-piece whose return to fame was documented in the recent documentary, or, if you will, folkumentray, A Mighty Wind.

They played a short but accomplished set featuring several classics from their past including their big hit 'Old Joe's Place', the very moving 'Blood on the Coals' (most US folk songs are about either mining disasters or train crashes, this song covers both eventualities) and an enjoyable cover of the Stones' 'Start Me Up'.

Unfortunately Marty Shrubb was just introducing their last song, an epic about the Spanish Civil War, when a roadie came onstage and told them they had run out of time.

They were warmly received despite the level of anticipation for Tap.

The stage was cleared ready for Tap's set and after a while the call went out over the PA for Tap to come to the stage. For some reason there was a bit of a delay and the backstage cameras made it clear why - the Tap were still busy playing video games and apparantly hadn't heard the call.

We were then entertained by the video of 'Majesty of Rock' and, after a further unexplained delay, the band appeared on stage to a raptuous welcome.

A wide ranging set followed including the well known tracks that featured in the 'This Is Spinal Tap' documentary, or, if you will, rockumentary: 'Rock N Rocll Creation', 'Tonight I'm Gonna Rock You' and 'Hell Hole'.

They also went back to their routes to perform the old Thamesmen tracks (a pre-Tap name of the band) 'Listen To the Flower People', 'Cups and Cakes' and 'Gimme Some Money' as well as David and Nigel's first ever song, 'All The Way Home'.

They played a 'funked up' version of 'Sex Farm' which, if you closed your eyes, could have the Red Hot Chilli Peppers.

A real treat was their first ever performance of 'Saucy Jack', the first (and so far only) track from their musical tribute to Jack The Ripper.

The response from the audience was ecstatic throughout, but went to a whole new level when the opening chords of 'Stonehenge' rang out. the bands performance was spot on, but they were once again let down by poor stage management. The sight of two dwarves and a roadie trying to help erect an inflatable 12 foot high Stonehenge was, frankly, laughable, and the only real bad point of the night. David St Hubbins was visibly irritated by this incident, but it didn't put him off his stride.

The Tap core of St Hubbins, Nigel Tufnel and Derek Smalls was as tight as ever, and their current keyboad play and drummer are top notch.

Tap have influenced many a musician in recent years and there was a huge cheer when the legendary Keith Emerson joined the band onstage for an excellent rendition of 'Short & Sweet'. He was clearly delighted to get to play with some of his heroes.

They then finished with their all time classic 'Big Bottom' with guests (all on bass) Justin Hawkins (The Darkness/Hot Leg), Andy Scott (The Sweet) and Freddie Washington (Steely Dan et al) which led to much singing along.

After such a fantastic and lively set it was no surprise that they were called back for encores.

The first saw Keith Emerson return to the stage for 'Heavy Duty' and for the second encore we were treated with the rarely played title track of their 1992 (and 15th!) album 'Break Like the Wind'.

All in all it was a great gig and the crowd loved it. Shame they don't tour more often.

I lost (boo), Catherine won (hurrah) and a very funny you tube clip

2009-06-08T01:32:00.004+01:00

Well after the disappointment of my own result on Thursday (missed out again, this time by under 100 votes due to protest votes going Green) I am delighted to see that my long time friend and colleague Catherine Bearder has finally achieved her ambition of becoming an MEP.

To celebrate, here is the funniest thing I've seen on YouTube recently:

Bang on the money

2009-04-20T14:18:00.003+01:00

I've been rather busy of late so not much time to blog, but I am breaking my silence to say a massive WELL DONE to Vince Cable and Nick Clegg for their announcement on tax.

Raising the threshold to £10K - giving every low and middle earner 700 quid back into their pockets - is exactly the right way to rebalance our monumentally unfair tax system.

It gives spending power to those for whom it will make a real difference and reduces disincentives to work at lower income levels.

And it is paid for not by punitive tax increases at the top end but by common sense reforms that make the overall system fairer.

AND it gives us a simple, easy to sell message for our leaflets and on the doorstep.

MPs expenses

2009-03-25T12:06:00.002Z

I'll start by saying that I think it is quite reasonable for MPs who represent constituencies away from London to be able to claim sufficient allowances to enable them to stay in reasonable accomodation in London during the week.

There are issues with how they do that, but some allowance for it is reasonable.

But the idea that an MP representing Brent, a few stops up the Jubilee Line from Westminster, can claim for a second home while also owning a family home in Stratford, beggars belief.

And as my old mate Hywel Morgan has found out, the comparison between different MPs who all represent constituencies near each other in my old stamping ground of North London makes very interesting reading.

One of the issues here is that if they are using the allowance to pay off a mortgage the taxpayer is effectively buying a second home for them which they will be able to either rent out or sell off.

Whether or not this is technically within the rules, it certainly isn't right.

[Declaring my interest: I work for an MP outside London for 25% of my working week]

It's Mark v. Mike (and they've both got a point)

2009-03-19T16:24:00.002Z

It's psephological handbags at dawn over at Lib Dem Voice where one of my friends, Mark Pack, has taken another, PoliticalBetting's Mike Smithson, to task ove his criticism of David Laws.

Mike's general point is that too many pundits compare current polls with those in the mid-nineties without taking account of the changes in methodology that have happened since then.

He is quite right in this. Many of the polls in the run up to the '97 election gave Labour a massive lead, way ahead of the actual result. Several pollsters changes their methodolgy as a result.

However in his criticism of David Laws he overeggs the pudding a little.

He said: "It also does the Lib Dems no good to be undermining, in however a roundabout way, ICM polls. This is the firm that yesterday had Clegg’s party on 20% compared with just 14% that a MORI poll taken at the same time recorded. It’s all down to the methodology and the former has the track record with LD shares. "

The table in his own article shows that ICM got it right one month before the '97 election (the main parties were each within 1% of ICM's figures) with a Labour lead over the Tories of 14%.

The most recent ICM poll has the Tories' lead over Labour at 12%, and looking back at recent polls and those in the run up to '97 it is clear that the Tories' leads now tend to be lower than Labour leads were in the run up to '97.

This chimes with the general mood that I am picking up.

In the run up to '97 there was a strong national mood that it was time for the Tories to go. The only question was when and by how much. they were hated, and there was a genuine enthusiasm for Blair. (In fact I remember wondering what it was I was missing about Blair, so taken in were so many people I knew).

Now it is a bit different. I do think there is a general mood that Labour should go, but it is not as visceral as it was in '96/'97. And as far as I can tell there is nothing like the positive vibe about Cameron that there was about Blair, possibly because there is a suspiscion that he is not that different from him.

I still think there is a lot to play for, particularly for us.

Harrogate gets my vote

2009-03-09T09:47:00.002Z

I'm very fond of Harrogate.

My first conference was there - the last full Liberal Assembly in September 1987 that agreed to go ahead with merger.

It is a lovely town, it is in Yorkshire and the Conference Centre is ideal for our Spring Conference.

Overall I found the experince slightly odd, as it is the first conference for sixteen years that I have attended as an ordinary representative rather than having a packed diary of training and meetings. This did mean I had plenty of time to simply sit around and chat to folk.

Children & Education

And it was good conference. The policy theme was children and education, a theme that unites the party on all but some detail.

We agreed a coherent set of policies that will lead to investment at every level with a clear focus on providing better opportunities to those who start with the least life chances.

Importantly we also reaffirmed our clear opposition to Tuition Fees without a murmur of dissent and with several emphatic speechedin favour of the policy. Even better we have widened the policy to include part-time students and adult returners to FE.

Governor Dean

The highlight of the conference for me was watching Governor Howard Dean speak to an enthusiastic welcome and then to discuss his campaign strategy at a smaller meeting.

Having followed Governor Dean's campaign for the nomination last time, and his work as Chair of DNC, I was really excited to see him in the flesh and delighted to be able to ask him a question in the later meeting.

There are a lot of lessons we can learn from him (although we have to understand that not everything that worked for him and then Obama will necessarily transfer straight across)

The key points for me were:

The internet is only a tool, it won't do any good if you haven't got something to say
It is important to invest in a basic organisation across the board, but to still target extra resources into winnable races once you have identified them
The internet community is a community and we have engage with it and treat it with respect
We need to ask everyone to vote for us and to discuss issues with them based on where there is common ground, even if they are not traditional supporters or likely to support us initially
There are thousands of good ideas out there amongt our supporters and we have to be willing to take some risks in order to allow the good ideas to surface

Happy Birthday Oadby & Wigston and Vale of White Horse

The Lib Dem LGA group organised a 'Birthday Party' to celebrate our 18 years control of Oadby & Wigston and our 14 years control of the Vale.

I was delighted to attend this event as I had helped a lot during the 1991 campaign in Oadby, specifically organising the student campaign in the Leicester Uni Halls of Residence in Oadby and writing and prnting leaflets) and ran the campaign in the Vale in 1995.

My old friend and now Lib Dem LGA chief staffer Ed Fordham was organising the vent and I was as chuffed as cheese when he asked me if I would say a few words about my memories of the two campaigns.

It was also lovely to catch up with the Oadby & Wigston crowd that I hadn't seen for years.

Well done Reading

My good friends in Reading Lib Dems picked up a prize for top growth in membership. This is well deserved by Gareth Epps and his team and it is particularly good to see that the student branch there is doing so well too.

There were a lot of young people and students at the conference and it is good to see that there seems to be something of a growth in the number of active student branches. Our decision on Tuition Fees can only help that growth continue.

It was also good to hear that Liberal Youth are planning to reinitiate Activate weekends (the first of which was run by Hywel Morgan and myself too many years ago to remember and featured the excellent Jo Swinson as one of its participants) and an Executive Training weekend.

And finally ...

I got a sense that there is a renewed confidence in the party.

This is partly due to Vince's credibility, partly due to Nick steadily finding his feet, partly because we went with our instincts on education and fees, and partly because, whatever the polls say, we have more people fighting stronger campaigns in more places than ever before.

Keep at it folks!

The Scottish Executive should think carefully

2009-03-06T10:26:00.002Z

One of the most consistent principles that has marked out the Liberal Democrats is our belief in natural justice.

That means treating people fairly, defending the rights of the individual against those who hold institutional power, basing judgements on all the evidence and allowing people who have had accusations made against them to know what those accusations are and what the evidence against them is.

It is for that reason that I have become increasingly concerned about the Scottish Party's approach to the problems in Aberdeenshire.

For a very useful background to the history of the situation see Bernard Salmon's blog here.

Several other bloggers have also commented and I would like to associate myself with their views here, here and here.

For an insight into the thinking of the Scottish Executive when they discussed the proposal to suspend the three see ruaraidhdobson's blog here. If I had any doubts about the situation his account of the meeting - particularly his comments about the original planning decision - confirmed my view that the Scottish Executive have got this badly wrong.

By deciding to suspend three party members who are quite clearly on one side of a very complex situation, whilst refusing to investigate complaints made by those members, the Scottish Executive have acted inconsistently.

By deciding to look at the recent behaviour of the three, but not properly investigate all the issues that led to that recent behaviour, they are acting unjustly.

If they have any sense of justice at all the Scottish Executive will put the expulsion process on hold and instigate a full investigation into the history of events that have led to the current situation.

Once that has been done the Scottish Executive should then look at the various options which may include disciplinary action against one or more members, recomendations about how the Aberdeenshire group should be run and a mediation and/or reconciliation process.

If the Scottish Executive continue on their current course they not only risk losing four of the most experienced and committed campaigners in the party, but also diverting many other active Lib Dems into an ongoing campaign to win justice.

I hope the members of the Scottish executive will think again.

Freedom of Speech

2009-02-13T15:01:00.002Z

Geert Wilders holds extremly unpleasant views with which I disagree fundamentally and which many people will find very offensive.

He has produced a film which links various verses of the Qur'an with various terrorist outrages in an attempt to unfairly tarnish the Muslim faith as a whole with a belief in terrorism.

Unfortunately the Government appears to believe that because they find his views unacceptable and/or offensive, or they fear that some people may find it so, they have stopped him from entering the UK.

Strangely though they have not banned the film itself.

In my view freedom of speech is only worth having if one supports it for people one most strongly disagrees with.

The line we should draw, in my view, is when it comes to actual incitement to violence. If a film actually incites violence, or someone speaking at the showing of a film actually incites violence, then they should feel the full weight of the law.

However, offensive as it is, the film does not incite violence at all.

You can see it here and judge for yourself.

Please do let me know, if after watching the film, you have been incited to violence.

There was a very good debate on newsnight about this last night which you can see here. Maajid Nawas of the moderate Muslim Quillam Foundation argues the liberal case very effectively alongside Christian writer Rev Jay Smith.

As Maajid argues, I want to be able to hear arguments I disagree with, have the opportunity to argue against them, and have enough confidence in my arguments that they will prevail.

I do not want or need Government Ministers to decide what arguments I am capable of judging sensibly. I can decide that for myself, thanks very much.

(Oh - and Keith Vaz is an idiot.)

What planet are they on?

2009-02-10T09:04:00.003Z

According to this mornings papers, Ministers are 'trying to negotiate' a cap on RBS bonuses of £25,000.

This is 'a bid to silence the public outcry over the City's culture of huge rewards and dangerous risk-taking'.

What planet are the Government on?

We OWN 68% of RBS. Ministers shouldn't be negotiating, they should be telling RBS to take a running jump, preferably from a very high floor.

The fact that RBS are even suggesting bonuses in the current situation shows that they still have not got the first clue about their culpability for the financial crisis nor any idea of how they are seen by the rest of the population who have had to bail them out.

The fact that a Labour Government thinks a cap on bonuses, set at a level higher than most people earn in a year, is in any way acceptable, shows how comepletely out of touch they are with reality too.

And is it really too much to ask that there might be at least a hint that the Government's motives might have something to do with what is right, rather than what is expedient?

Bankers should not be getting any bonuses at all, for several years if ever again.

Senior Executives, whose massive salaries were justified on the basis that high salaries were needed to attract 'the best people' have blown that theory right out of the water. They trousered millions in the good times, and they should be taking salary cuts now.

And we, or at least anyone who is still feeding the profits of these numpties, because we share the blame for letting them get away with it, should move our accounts to the nearest mutual building society.

Too Old to Rock 'N' Roll?

2009-01-19T14:46:00.001Z

This BBC report made me smile.

And you can even turn the volume up to 11 ;-)

The Democrats have just about won another one

2009-01-07T18:51:00.003Z

Despite Obama's victory feeling like old news, November's US elections are still not quite finished.

The recount in Minnesota has now been certified unanimously by the state canvassing board and this puts Democrat Al Franken ahead by a handful of votes.

But he is not home and dry. Republican Norm Coleman has issued a legal challnge (having previously opposed such tactics when he was ahead!) which means that Franken cannot be officially declared the winner just yet.

hat tip: MyDD

For me, it's about investing in people's potential

2009-01-07T18:39:00.003Z

I was delighted to be amongst those supporting the retention of our position on tuition fees at last night's FPC meeting.

For me this issue is not about the detail, but about sending a clear message that the Liberal Democrats believe that it is the role of the state to help each individual fulfil their own potential.

Large levels of student debt, attached to the individual, make it hard for people to make a free choice about their own development.

Rather than saying that education is about personal fulfilment, individual debt makes it about repayment.

By taking a clear position on tuition fees, we make it clear that we are on the side of investing in people's potential, and that individuals should be able to make choices about their higher education based on their ambitions, not their bank balance.

It is also important for me that we should treat adults as adults, rather than base their entitlement on the income of their parents.

Our message on tuition fees at the last two elections, and on the penny on income tax for education before that, struck a real chord with people because it clearly identified the Lib Dems as the party that believed in investing in education and in opportunities for all.

I'm now confident that the raft of policies that are being developed from early years through to Higher education will do just that.

Santa Claus is Coming to Town ...

2008-12-25T02:11:00.002Z

Jonathan over at Liberal England has already wished us a merry christmas with one of my favourite christmas songs - Solstice Bells by Jethro Tull - whose folksy sound is somehow appropriate at this time of year.

For anyone else still up waiting for children to settle down so that they can perform their Santa duties, here's another of my favourites:

Christmas Eve at the Fawcetts'

2008-12-25T01:54:00.002Z

This was what happened when the sherry drinking got out of hand ...

Enjoy!

Will the real David Cameron please step forward

2008-12-16T14:51:00.003Z

'Dave' seems a might confused.

Writing in The Daily Mail on December 8th he said:

"Work gives life shape. It gives people esteem and responsibility. It powers our economy. So we’re going to end the something-for-nothing culture. If you don’t take a reasonable offer of a job, you will lose benefits. No ifs, no buts."

But speaking earlier he said that it was 'not right' for the government to expect the mothers of pre-school children to be forced into work.

That sounds like quite a big 'but' to me.

Of course the more important point is that forcing single mothers of pre-school or primary school aged children into work by threatening to take their benefits away will do little to 'heal our broken society'.

Treating people with a bit of dignity might be a good start though.

Neil Trafford's Memorial Service

2008-12-08T17:29:00.002Z

A series of videos of the Memorial Service which was held in Manchester on Friday is now up on You Tube here.

It is very moving and a wonderful tribute to Neil.

And these people think they can run the country?

2008-12-08T11:21:00.002Z

For most of the 20 years I've been involved in politics I have never been able to work out how the party that has generally been the worse at managing its own budget seemed to believe itself best able to manage the economy.

Now it seems that despite having been doing better in the polls for many years, they have still managed to make a balls up of their own finances.

Conservative Home has the full story.

I particularly enjoyed this comment:

"The Board of the Conservative Party needs to start acting like a Board, not like (as former Australian Labor leader Mark Latham once said) a conga line of suckholes."

Hat tip: Lib Dem Voice

Sod politics, here' some rock n roll ...

2008-12-07T22:10:00.002Z

The last fortnight for me has been dominated by the sad loss of a friend and colleague.

Politics by doom and gloom of various kinds.

But I spent Friday wondering if I was in the mood to go and see The Wildhearts who were playing at the Oxford Academy (or The Zodiac, as I like to think of it).

Well I did go, anf boy I'm glad I did.

The reformed A, with new addition John Mitchell on bass, were as superb as ever.

And the mighty Wildhearts were sensational.

They played a set chock full of their best live songs from across their career, starting with the more recent hit Vanilla Radio and ending with their classic mid nineties chart botherer, I Wanna Go Where The People Go.

The place was a sweatbox by the end of the gig and I felt a heck of a lot better for the experience.

If you like lively, loud rock you will love the Wildhearts.

There's still time to catch them at Wolverhampton tomorrow and in London on Wednesday.

In the meatime, here's one to liven up your Sunday evening:

Saying Good-bye to Neil Trafford

2008-12-04T09:05:00.002Z

It is now eight days since I was told that Neil Trafford had died, and to be honest, I'm still struggling with the news.

I have made a few comments in other places but have found it quite difficult to write a full post.

I think I first met Neil in about 1994 when he was getting involved in the Lib Dem Youth & Students, who I then worked for. I have known him ever since as he worked in his various roles in the party and particularly these last few years as he worked as North West Campaigns Officer.

I can't really add much to what has already been said about Neil except to add my name to the long list of people who are proud to have counted him as a friend.

Neil's funeral was held yesterday in Swindon at Swindon Evangelical Church where Neil was and his family are members.

It was a bright sunny afternoon, just as it should be for Neil, and the Church was full.

Neil's parents, Mark and Lynne, spoke very movingly about Neil. They clearly loved him very much and were very proud of him. His father said that they had received many letters and phone calls and had seen the various comments posted about Neil online.

They spoke with great dignity, courage and compassion.

Hannah Trafford read from John 14.

Neil's close friend Emily also spoke about Neil, what a great friend he was, how much fun he was and how much he cared for everyone.

Neil's Pastor, Paul Williams, spoke about Neil and his memories of Neil's lobbying for a more democratic and inclusive church!

The hymns were some of Neil's favourites, Lord Be my Vision, My Jesus My Saviour, Great is the Lord and The Lords My Shepherd.

The service finished with a recording of 'Run' sung by Hannah Trafford, which beautifully sung and very moving.

The service was followed by a reception at a local hotel.

A lot of Neil's family and friends were there, along with many of us from the party. Several of the party's MPs were present, along with party staff, local members from the Swindon area and lots from Manchester.

I never find funerals easy, but it was good to see so many people that Neil had touched during his far too short but incredibly positive life.

If anyone would like to make a donation in Neil's memory please do so to the TEAR Fund - www.tearfund.org - a charity that Neil supported himself.

Good-bye Neil, and thanks for being you.

Doctor Who 45th Anniversary – Why Was 1977 Brilliant?

2008-12-01T12:51:00.002Z

Alex - hope it's not too serious and you get well soon.

I was looking forward to your take on 1977 so I hope you don't mind if I put my two-penneth in;-)

1977 was a simply fantastic year of Who.

To this then eight/nine year old boy it was compulsive viewing and much playground talk each week would be about the previous Saturday's episode and the one coming up.

Having said goodbye to Sarah Jane Smith at the end of 1976 and seen off the Master, January 1977 saw the arrival of the lovely Leela. This scantily clad 'savage' was something of a contrast with previous well turned out companions but made for a great double-act with Tom Baker's Doctor.

The show was in good hands with Producer Philip Hinchcliffe and Script Editor Robert Holmes taking the series in a more gothic direction. Storylines and scripts were strong - it doesn't get much better than Robots of Death, Talons of Weng Chiang and Horror of Fang Rock one after the other. I can still remember the drama of every one of these stories. It was during this period that Mary Whitehouse's criticism of the show was at its most strident - clear evidence that the show was doing well!

The scripts did not lose their humour, however, and Leela, in particular, had some great one liners.

My favourite, in The Face of Evil (I think):

The Doctor : "Would you like a Jelly Baby?"
Leela : "It's true then. They say the Evil One eats babies."

What to watch:

I'd recommend getting the DVD of The Talons of Weng Chiang. A strong story and script, and if, like me, you've got kids who love the new series, they'll love this one too. (And it's cheap on Amazon at the moment too).

The Olbermeister does it again

2008-11-11T09:54:00.002Z

I was delighted to read that Keith Olbermann's contract with MSNBC has been renewed for another cycle.

MSNBC in general, and Keith Olbermann specifically, have had a real impact during the last few years in rebalancing US news following an unhappy period when FOX dominated the airwaves.

Keith's best moments have been his Special Comments - hard-hitting straight to camera statements on issues of the day. On several occaisions he has taken Bush to pieces, and this time he has nailed those who support the ban on gay marriage in California and other states.

It's very emotional, very strong and very clear, and answers anyone who doesn't beleive there are real liberals in the US:

History is made

2008-11-05T04:03:00.002Z

Well he's done it!

Possibly the most historic US Presidential result of all time, and he'll take office almost exactly 100 years after the founding of the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People.

This could radically change the perception of race across the US and of the US across the globe.

Let's hope so.

In the meantime, another beer, in celebration ;-)

How long would you wait in line to vote?

2008-11-04T15:20:00.002Z

It seems pretty bizarre to me that the wealthiest country in the world doesn't seem able to organise itself to run an election properly - but such is the enthusiam generated by the campaign this time that it doesn't seem to be stopping folk from voting.

The Obama campaign have done a terrific job of making his supporters want to get out and vote for him, as the polling of early voters shows.

Such is the enthusiasm that 1,000 students in Pennsilvania were queuing up at 7am this morning ready to vote!

CNN's Jack Cafferty asked viewers how long they would stand in line to vote and I found the responses quite inspiring.

Amongst my favorites were:

Michelle from New Hampshire:

I am prepared and willing to wait all day. I have cleared my calendar to make sure I can spend the whole day. And the time I don’t spend waiting or voting, I will spend poll watching and holding signs. This is far too important not to make a personal sacrifice to make sure my vote counts. And, as an Army wife, one day of work loss is meaningless compared to the days my husband has and will spend on deployment. To all within the sound of your voice: Get out and vote!

LaShunda from Mobile, Alabama:

I am seven months pregnant and standing for long periods of time hurts my back tremendously, but in spite of my pain I plan on standing in line as long as it takes to exercise my right to vote, especially when those before me endured even greater hardships to have this right.

Joe St Louis, MO:

I have been waiting 8 years to vote…….

And this comment from a Candian reflects my own view:

Marie, Ontario:

Well Jack I’ve been voting here in Canada for over 40 years and can’t remember more than a half dozen people being in front of me in a line to vote.

This makes me wonder how a country that can send a man to the moon can’t organize and run elections without having so much turmoil and such lengthy delays at the polls.

Anyway to answer your question if I was an American I would wait all day and half the night to cast my vote for Obama as I feel it is just that important.

Well it rained, and it hailed, and it was freezing and windy but ...

2008-11-04T15:09:00.002Z

Well we're now back from Cornwall after a largely cold, wet and windy week.

We were staying just on the edge of Bodmin Moor but because of the weather didn't get the chance for any proper walks there.

But despite the weather we had a great time.

Amongst other things we visited the lovely Tintagel and its castle, the Arthurian Centre near Camelford, Bodmin, the Eden Project, Padstow, the famous Jamaica Inn, Landhydrock House, Flambards Experience (the wettest and clodest visit to a theme park ever but with a fantastic end of season fireworks display), Healey's Cyder Farm, Futureworld, Lizard Point and Westward Ho!.

We also happened upon a very friendly Post Office in a lovely village called St Brewards which also has an internet cafe and hosts several other village activities - do visit it if you're in the area - they do a lovely mocha. (There is a lively campaign to 'save the Post Office' even though it isn't currently on the threatened list).

Everywhere we went we got an exceptionally friendly welcome and all the places we visisted were well geared up for children.

We rounded the week off with a fancy dress halloween party at Michaelstow Manor Holiday Park where we were staying.

We now have a list of just as many other places to visit that we couldn't get to this time and are planning to head back as soon as we can.

A new suite arrives & Heading for Cornwall for half term

2008-10-21T13:39:00.002+01:00

Well, just one year, three months and a week after being flooded our new suite has arrived.

This was the last big thing we were waiting for to get our house back in order.

There is only a bit of 'snagging' left to sort out now.

Anyway to celebrate we're off to Cornwall at the weekend for half term.

We are staying near Bodmin (which I think must be in my former colleague Dan Rogerson's constituency?) and we're hoping that the weather won't be too bad.

Anyone got any ideas for good family things to do - our youngsters are 10 and 6.

(Yes - we already know about the Eden Project!)

$150 million in September

2008-10-19T11:51:00.002+01:00

Exciting news for the ground-breaking Obama campaign that they have raised more than $150 million during September.

Even more impressively they received donations from more than 632,000 new donors and nowhave more than 3.1 million donors altogether who have given an average of $86.

This is very impressive on several fronts:

It once again demonstrates that Obama is creating genuine mass enthusiasm across the US.

It shows that it is possible to outraise the GOP's big donors and special interests by getting a large number of small donations.

And finally it means that Obama is going to be able to continue to out advertise and out organise McCain from now on in.

Are there lessons here for the Lib Dems? Yes - although we shouldn't pretend that it will be easy or that everything that works in the US will work here.

But it does reinforce what we already knew (and what a few of our seats alreay do) - money is out there if you can identify the right people to ask, put a convincing case that their donation will make a difference and demonstarte that you are spending money effectively.

One of the Local Parties I work for has a regular income (ie from Standing Orders) of nearly £3K per month now - enough to cover all the regular costs. 100% of anything else we raise from events, appeals etc. pays for extra campaigning.

All it has taken to achieve that - and there is still a lot of untapped potential - is to ask the right people in the right way and to build up over time.

Obama really is a fantastic speaker (and a personal link)

2008-10-19T00:41:00.002+01:00

Surfing various American websites I realised that an Obama rally was about to be shown live which I am now watching.

He is speaking to a massive crowd in Kansas City, Missouri, and, after a relaxed start about the local sports teams, he is now in full flow on health care and the economy.

He has just been talking about health and his mother. I hadn't picked up that she had died of Ovarian Cancer at the age of 53, a year before my own Mum died of the same illness at the same age.

I am struck by the conviction with which Obama speaks, and the ease with which he mixes his personal story, real life examples, policy, philosophy and political rhetoric.

He has just built to a crescendo and finished and crowd has gone wild - rock start style.

He really is a fantastic speaker and is clearly attracting massive crowds, even in places the Democrats wouldn't have dreamt of winning just a year ago.

Thank You South Central

2008-10-18T19:56:00.002+01:00

I spent today at South Central Conference in the excellent Town Council run Oakwood Centre in the middle of Woodley.

The Conference was buzzing and was the usual mix of debates, speeches, training, fringe and exhibition.

As ever it was full of familiar faces as well as some new ones.

The turnout was high - presumably because Nick Clegg was going to speak at the end of the afternoon. When he spoke many of us had to watch his speech on the screen in the cafe as the auditorium was full.

I was there to do two briefing sessions on plans for the European Campaign as well as to do ten minutes promoting Nick Clegg's Million Door Challenge in the main hall.

I was somewhat taken aback when, having done my presentation I was asked to 'hang on a minute' and was presented with a very amusing 'Focus on Fawcett' (featuring a set of those embarrasing photos that usually turn up on your wedding day) and a rather nifty HMV voucher along with some kind words from Regional Chair Steve Sollit about my work for the Region for the past ten years.

I was a little stunned and gabbled out a few words of thanks which I hope made some sense to the audience.

It has been a great ten years working in the region (which used to be Hampshire and Chilterns) and working with so many activists, many of whom I now consider friends, and it was with some sadness that I decided to drop back to a more local and less stressful role.

But I am very appreciative for the gifts, and for all the kind words I received from so many people today.

Thank you.

Obama does stand up

2008-10-17T09:40:00.000+01:00

Enjoy!

Watford voters tell the Tories what they think of them

2008-10-16T23:42:00.002+01:00

Voters in Watford's Tudor ward have today made it very clear what they think of Watford Conseravtives' 'it was nothing to do with us guv' stance on the Ian Oakley affair.

Excellent Lib Dem candidate Darren Walford held the seat with 50% of the votes cast while the Tory share plummeted by more than 12%.

The icing on the cake was that the BNP trailed in fifth place.

Given that the Lib Dems hold the vast majority of seats on the council, along with the Mayoralty, an increase in their share of the vote in a by-election held in difficult circumstances is a terrific result for the party.

And despite the fact that the by-election took place just days after former Tory candidate Ian Oakley was sentenced for his nasty and anti-democratic campaign of intimidation, the local Tories were still cuaght out telling outright lies on their leaflets and had to issue an apology and retraction yesterday.

At least it is clear that a good chunk of their (former) voters have some sense of decency even if the local Tory Party continues to refuse to apologise or look into what happened.

Is the credit crunch over?

2008-10-15T13:29:00.002+01:00

Good News!

Just received a very reassuring email from the Halifax which tells me 'Your Halifax Credit Card is always there when you need it'.

So that's okay then, panic over.