Christopher Galley - possibly a bit of an idiot

We await the whole story of Damien Green's adventures in information gathering and, whilst I fear that it may not be as tidy as our Conservative friends would like us to believe, my concerns at this time are with the young man really at the centre of events, Christopher Galley. If, as accused, he wilfully leaked documents with the intention of embarassing his employer and, moreover, did so to achieve political advantage for one or other of the political parties, he is entirely reprehensible.

Civil servants, in their working lives, must be relied upon to give advice in an unbiased and neutral way, both by politicians and the public that they serve. If they find themselves unable to do so, resignation is the only acceptable course of action. This is not to say that they should not have political views, nor that they should be prevented from playing a full role in the society and communities in which they operate.

What Christopher Galley has done, if guilty, is to undermine that sense of trust which engenders good governance. Politicians must be able to trust those who work to them and, in eturn, politicians must respect the independence of the Civil Service. Otherwise, politicians work in isolation from those who must carry out their orders or, perhaps worse still, surround themselves with people that they trust, leading inevitably to a further politicisation of the bureaucracy.

If he is guilty, the book must be thrown at him, both to discourage others from behaving similarly and to restore confidence in the ability of the Civil Service to serve politicians of all parties and none. There is, as Mrs Thatcher once said, no alternative...

All quiet on the Western (India) front

I was, like so many people, horrified by recent events in my second city, Mumbai. It touched me particularly, given that I have family across the city, and that I have spent many happy weeks in the city over nearly forty years. Luckily, the various members of my family have checked in, and all is well.

However, it was the choice of targets that was of particular poignancy. Victoria Terminus, one of the busiest railway stations in the world, is a place that I have passed through on many occasions, and somewhere I took great delight in showing to Ros when we were on our honeymoon. The swimming pool of the Taj Mahal Palace hotel was pictured in some disarray, and was the place where we spent our final afternoon in the city before flying home on that trip.

Mumbaikers are resilient souls - they've had to be over the years - and the city will recover, just as New York, London and Madrid have in recent times. Hopefully, those who hide and plan such atrocities will be found and punished for their acts, and the authorities in their countries of origin are willing to cooperate so that this might happen.

Let me make myself absolutely clear...

Before Ros and I left for Madeira, I published my thoughts on the Parliamentary Candidates Association, and what it should do. These led to a fairly robust exchange of views between myself and Martin Turner, the PCA Chair, most of which has taken place off-line. I will not bore you with the detail, suffice to say that I have offered Martin a platform to espouse the work that the organisation is undertaking.

However, there have been some knock-on effects, and I feel obliged to add a clarification regarding the status of this blog, what it represents and, whilst doing so, what my policy is with regard to comments. I am, I confess, slightly irritated that I should have to do so. However, if individuals insist on drawing the wholly unjustified conclusion that I am acting as a mouthpiece for any individual other than myself, or for any organisation, then I feel justified in denying it vigorously.

So, the text that now sits in the upper right hand side of this blog should be taken at face value. You have only yourself to blame if, by disregarding this friendly warning, you adopt an incorrect stance...

Bring Your Spouse to Work Day - House of Lords style

Never let it be said that the House of Lords is not a progressive institution, as the State Opening of Parliament is one of those rare occasions when the spouses (and families) of Peers get to be part of the show.

Only those Peers who own, or have borrowed, the red robes topped with the pelt of some poor hapless creature who would much rather still be alive and attached, get to sit in the chamber, so the benches which are normally filled with Barons, Earls and the like, are filled with Ladies (the capital is intended) in their finery.

Naturally, as is so often the case, no such provision is made for male spouses, so I had no opportunity to dust off my tiara - a family heirloom, you understand - and instead put on a suit and was found a seat in the West Gallery, with some of the High Commissioners from such countries as The Gambia and New Zealand. I had been lucky enough to get a seat, as Ros had noted in her application that I was a 'rookie' spouse and that this would be my first such occasion.

The speech by Her Majesty was notable primarily for its brevity, and from my angle, I got the impression that she was turning it over to see if she had missed something. She does give 'good speech' though, and it was certainly an occasion that will live long in the memory.

I can also confirm that a potential diplomatic incident was averted, however. I wonder whose idea it was to seat the Indian and Pakistani High Commissioners next to each other?

Parliamentary Candidates Association: get better or die trying...

In October, I looked at the potential role of Regional Parties in stemming the waste of candidate talent out there. Today, it's the turn of the PCA...

I have, in the past, been quite scathing in my criticism of the PCA, and rightly so. An organisation whose past ineptitude its own Chair is able to freely admit, needs to do more, do it better and represent its members far more effectively than it has to date. The number of complaints I have received about their inability to even communicate with their own subscription-paying members is in itself a sign of an organisation that needs to justify its rank and position.

They claim to be a 'trade union for candidates'. I am a trade unionist (Public and Commercial Services, for those of you who are interested), and if my union was as useless as the PCA is, I'd be off sharpish.

In my three years on English Candidates Committee, I have seen very little sign of life. Their one attempt to propose changes to the candidate Selection Rules was marred by the seeming inability of the drafters to understand how selections work, what they aim to achieve, and how the Party works (no wonder so many of them failed 'Party Knowledge' on their development days!). The fact that, in trying to truncate the process, they proposed enough additional regulation to add three weeks to the timetable, wasn't exactly impressive. To make matters worst, after I had taken great care to shred the proposals to such an extent that they would only be viable if used as bedding for hamsters, the PCA Executive, who had sponsored the proposals, then denied any responsibility. To my mind, that was cowardice of the highest order.

So, having slated the organisation, what do I think it should do?

1. Create a mentoring structure for PPCs. The Campaign for Gender Balance can do it - why can't you?
2. Service your members properly - representing their views, providing advice on how to deal with difficult Local Parties, engaging in rules reviews, these are the things that I expect.
3. Work with the Campaigns Department to draw up better guidance for candidates in winnable seats - what commitment of time is really necessary, how adjustments can be made to allow for personal circumstances.
4. Make yourselves reflective of the sort of Parliamentary Party we all want - involve a wider range of people, find ways to encourage women and BME candidates to play a part in your activities.
5. Create a central information resource, not necessarily 'Who's Who in the Liberal Democrats' but more 'Who Does What in the Liberal Democrats'. It would be far more useful to candidates, especially the less well-resourced ones, when they really need to know something.

And you know something, if they can't do this, then perhaps their status within the Party should be a matter for debate. Or perhaps the current PCA Executive Committee should fall on their swords and leave it to others more capable... like the new Leadership Academy?

Technology back up and running

I've been having problems with my BlackBerry of late, culminating in the loss of the downward scroll function, making the gadget pretty useless.

So, the weekend before last saw me in Ipswich, talking to an incredibly helpful young man from Carphone Warehouse who said, "Why don't you just buy yourself out of your old contract, get a new gadget, a new contract and, best of all reduce your monthly charge? Oh yes, and we'll give you £100 for trading in your old BlackBerry.". Suitably pleased, I went through the paperwork, saw that it was good, and tied up the deal.

All was good, except that I was having problems accessing Blogger. Until today, that is. I was trying to read Jennie's blog entry about her dogs and got a message telling me that the site had been rated as suitable for over eighteen year olds only (I really ought to take a closer look at your blog, Jennie, I've obviously missed something). Time to ring Orange, I think...

So, I had the child protection wall removed, and a helpful young man finally worked out that my default browser was set to Orange World. A quick change later, and all is well. Best of all, he worked out that he could cut the cost of my monthly contract by £5.

And so blogging should return to normal from here on in. Let the blogosphere rejoice?

Jessica will be pleased...

So, I tried this Gender Analyser thing, and it says that my blog is 83% likely to be written by a man. Empress Jessica writes a chunk of the blog, so I suppose that it's not far away from the truth...

By-elections: before my computer so rudely interrupted me

I have teething problems with Blogger at work. It tends to stop working part way through blog postings. Perhaps I should find better ways to spend my lunch break... Anyway, where was I? Ah yes, here's the second anonymous comment...

"There is a hidden assumption that local party members are actually local. This is not always the case. A large number of members can have their membership transferred in to local parties from others to influence selection decisions and gain control of local party executives, at the expense of locally based members. A decision at regional or federal level is preferable to this kind of thing."

When the membership rules were revisited in 2006, one of the changes was to prevent members transferring from Local Party to Local Party (except, of course, due to change of residence) by requiring signed approval by a Regional Officer. These are pretty rare, and there have to be good grounds - historical connections or employment, for example. I think that I've signed three in the past two years.

In fact, even before that change, an effective Membership Secretary, working in consort with an alert Local Party Executive Committee, could prevent such naked attempts at entryism. It would be fair to say that the only ways to circumvent that would require either gaining control of the Local Party first (and thus demonstrating that you represented the majority view already), or persuading the Executive Committee not to challenge new membership applications. In either instance, the Local Party is in trouble and could be suspended by the Regional Party.

So, the comment is a bit of a red herring, based on a situation which might have arisen two years ago, and was, in reality, seldom an issue. I increasingly feel that we have show that we trust Local Parties and if not, say why we don't. It is not viable to ask Local Parties and their members to do more and more, yet take powers away from them whilst you do so.

By-election candidate selection continued...

My blog entry late on Saturday evening has attracted some interest, and in particular, two anonymous comments. Funny, isn't it, how the anonymous commenter supports the notion that Local Parties can't be trusted... However, I will respond to their comments thus;

"I'd have thought there was a much better reason for not having a local party person on the panel: it's not a selection committee. Its job is to assess the ability of a candidate to cope with a by-election. Issues of local knowledge are for other parts of the process."

Actually, it is a selection committee. The By-election Panel merely carries out the shortlisting role otherwise carried out by the Selection Committee in a normal PPC selection. The process might be more intensive (although there is theoretically nothing stopping an 'ordinary' selection committee from being so rigorous), but it is fundamentally the same. And, one of the key criteria to be tested by the By-election Panel is the ability to represent the constituency in question. So, issues of local knowledge are for that part of the process.

Fancy meeting you here… old meets new in Mansfield…

Ros had been invited to be the guest speaker at the first ever Annual Dinner held by Greater Ashfield & Mansfield Liberal Democrats, and I took the opportunity to attend my first event as First Lady-elect. After a pleasant enough trip up, I arrived in what felt like the Arctic tundra but turned out to be Mansfield. Gosh, it was cold….

I found my way to the restaurant, where Ros had just arrived by car, having driven up from Suffolk via Newark and we made our way into the venue to find that the Annual General Meeting was still in progress. I know the PPC, Jason Zadrozny, whom I met when he came for his assessment day a couple of years ago.

I was surprised to see another familiar face though, that of our current President, Simon Hughes, who hadn’t been expected but decided to turn up in a show of solidarity with the Local Party. He’s paid four visits to Ashfield in recent years, a demonstration of his commitment to growing new target seats. And so Ashfield got two Presidents for the price of one pretty good Cantonese buffet. Simon spoke between the starters and the main course, as he had a train to catch and gave his usual polished speech, starting with an unexpected joke (I won’t repeat it as he may wish to use it again).

Ros spoke after dinner. She started with a response to Simon’s opening gag that was a total surprise. Clearly, if she wants something to do after she ceases to be President, she has a potential future on the alternative comedy circuit, but you’ll just have to take my word for it. Many people continue to ask me whether I get bored with hearing the same speech over and over. I have to admit that I’m never certain what Ros will say next. I know most of the elements that might be used, but they come in a kaleidoscope of variations, with different degrees of emphasis depending on the audience, the sign of a good speaker, I guess.

Whilst it was cold outside, we got a warm welcome from the members and activists. I bumped into Bob Charlesworth, who was one of my fellow Returning Officers during the first European Regional List selections - he did West Midlands, I did South East. He got to be Mayor of Eastwood recently, a role he really enjoyed, and it is good to see a party stalwart like Bob get a turn in the limelight.

I was impressed by the enthusiasm and dynamism shown by the Local Party, who have seized the opportunity presented by Labour neglect and Conservative invisibility to make real inroads in an area traditionally dominated by the Labour Party. With luck, 2009 will see a dramatic increase in the Liberal Democrat presence on Nottinghamshire County Council, and with Jason and his team on the case, we should be modestly confident that they will do so.

We said our goodbyes and headed to Newark, where a good night’s sleep was had before we went our separate ways…

An odyssey by train - London King’s Cross to Mansfield, York to London St Pancras?

I do enjoy a good train ride. So, whilst Ros was entertaining Woking Liberal Democrats, I was on the East Midlands Trains service from York to London St Pancras. This is one of those oddities not designed to carry people from A to B but to drop them off and/or pick up at points C, D and E in between. Indeed, I may be the only person on the train who will be onboard throughout, as even the crew were changed at Chesterfield!

My train ran non-stop from York to Chesterfield, not stopping at Leeds or Wakefield Westgate, bypassing Sheffield, before calling at Derby, Long Eaton, Loughborough, Leicester, Market Harborough, Kettering, Wellingborough, Bedford and Luton on its way to the Palace of Wonderment that is St P:ancras International . It isn’t a quick route, at 3¾ hours, it’s rather longer than the direct trains to Kings Cross, which take about 2½ hours on a Saturday evening, but it’s a novel one, and left me time to write a few blog entries for posting later.

Best of all, I got a first class seat for just £15. Yes, £15. The advantage, perhaps, of not necessarily thinking inside the box. I save the English Party some money too, probably a good thing…

On Friday, I made my way to Mansfield for the first ever Greater Ashfield Liberal Democrats Annual Dinner, held in the “Emperor “ restaurant, once the local Labour Club (at least it’s now being put to good use!). It turned out to be cheaper to get to Mansfield via Grantham and Nottingham than to go straight up the East Midlands line via Leicester. Ah, the wonders of ticketing policy in our new competitive age…

English Candidates Committee - not sure that they trust you…

I’ve spent the day in York, and it’s been a vaguely unsatisfying experience. There were some good elements, and I’ll cover them in other postings, but here I want to talk about by-elections. There has been, over the years, a degree of unhappiness about how the Party deals with candidate selection in such instances, and it would be fair to say that we’ve made the mistake of focussing on process and not worrying overly much about the impact that the process has on the human element, i.e. applicants and Local Party members.

However, following the Leicester South by-election where, for a few painful moments, I faced the poisoned chalice of being the Returning Officer, we at least moved to address the previous failure to ensure that we made every effort to enable any candidate on the approved list to put themselves forward.

We are by no means word perfect though, and there was much controversy over the decision to pick outsiders in both Crewe and Nantwich and Henley, especially where sitting PPCs were already in place. Of course, our Federal constitution has made it clear for many years that this is the case (despite the mischief-making of the likes of Chris Paul, whose fascination with our inner workings seemingly knows no linit), and with good cause. After all, the skills required to fight a seat in a by-election are significantly different to those required for a general election, a point that most people accept.

So, we spent today looking at proposals put before us by a working group set up especially to look at the issues which arise in a by-election scenario. Under the terms of the protocol passed today, the sitting PPC will automatically go before the by-election panel, bypassing the first phase, an advance from where we were previously. So far, so good. They therefore miss the first stage, where the full list of applicants are screened by a selection committee consisting entirely of local party members, under the guidance of a senior, experienced Returning Officer. I’m still happy thus far.

The by-election panel will consist of;

• the Chair or Vice-Chair of the ECC (or nominee)
• an MP (preferably one who has fought a by-election or similar type of seat)
• the RCC from the Region where the by-election is taking place (or nominee)
• the Director of Campaigns (or nominee)

The eagle-eyed amongst you will note that there is no representative of the Local Party. Indeed, there is no guarantee that someone from the relevant Region will be present, as there is no obligation upon the RCC to nominee someone from his or her Region, as I discovered when a by-election was rumoured recently, and I was asked by the RCC to act as their nominee. The by-election wasn’t going to be in London…

Being a great believer in the sovereignty of Local Parties, I naturally took the opportunity to raise the question of Local Party representation. I was given a number of reasons why they should not be involved, including;

• issues regarding factions within the Local Party
• the ability of Local Party members to understand the issues involved in fighting a by-election
• the difficulty in getting five people together at short notice
• confidentiality - a Local Party member might go back to their colleagues and say that they didn’t agree with the outcome

It does seem to boil down to the fact that there are elements on English Candidates Committee who don’t trust Local Parties to be involved, a fact which saddens me. There have been instances where a popular , local PPC has been excluded for reasons which, from the perspective of the Local Party, look flimsy, regardless of their genuine validity. I will address the concerns though.

Most Local Parties that I have encountered encompass differences of opinion. Commonality of opinion does not figure highly in the Liberal Democrat Book of Essentials. Commonality of purpose usually does though, and that tends to be where the problems lie. The ability to accept a decision taken openly and democratically does occasionally find key activists missing however, and there are individuals who can only too readily testify to what happens when a decision taken is undermined by a small but influential group of dissenters. Sadly, whatever you do, in such circumstances you cannot stop them from becoming a problem short of radical disciplinary action, a course which can create more problems than it solves.

I am puzzled that there are those who doubt that Local Party members can grasp the issues pertaining to a by-election campaign, when the proposals already place responsibility for drawing up the shortlist to go before the By-election Panel in the hands of a selection committee made up entirely of… Local Party members. Are we not at home to Mr Irony?

We overcome the difficulties of bringing the By-election Panel together by allowing wide powers of nomination. So, why not invite the Local Party Chair or his/her nominee? Given that we will be testing potential candidates on, amongst other things, the ability to demonstrate credibility as a candidate for the constituency in question, might not a little local knowledge be helpful?

As for confidentiality, I am disappointed that a Local Party member should be thought to be less trustworthy than a senior figure in the Party. Personal experience tells me that this is not necessarily accurate and it is indeed fortunate for certain individuals that I can keep a secret.

However, the desire to retain control at the centre continues to cast its spell on some who claim to be calling for radical change, and I fear that the path towards a selection system that has genuine support and buy-in will be strewn with obstacles in the months and years to come. Luckily, I expect to outlive most of my colleagues on ECC…

Jacqui Smith and prostitution: where Old Labour prurience meets New Labour cowardice

There has been much talk about the new proposals that make paying for sex with someone who has been trafficked or are otherwise exploited. They are, without doubt, entirely laudable in terms of intent, and any reasonable person would want to see such people protected.

However, as Evan Davis put it so well on the Today programme on Wednesday morning, the new proposals put the emphasis on those using prostitutes to ascertain, beyond doubt, that their 'partner' is taking part of his/her own free will. What that might actually entail is yet to be made clear, probably because it will prove virtually impossible to define what is actually sufficient.

Labour have generally had problems in terms of dealing with human sexuality. They acknowledge that it exists but would rather not talk about it. On one hand, they talk about legislating to ensure that individuals are not discriminated against on grounds of their sexuality (a thoroughly good, liberal notion), yet tend to try to discourage the actual practice of that sexuality. And don't even start on the notion of frank and open discussion of sexuality in its many and varied forms...

Yet again, Labour have come up with a proposal notable only for its attempt to address an issue of concern without actually having the courage of their own convictions. Jacqui Smith believes that prostitution is, in itself, bad, and that most people fall into the sex industry because they are forced into it. The latter is true in many cases, and society has an obligation to help such unfortunates by providing them with the means to escape such an existence.

However, the New Labour approach appears to overlook basic human nature. Using sex workers is risky for most of those using them, and many of those who fear exposure are already likely to avoid temptation rather than takes such a chance. That leaves a hard core of, predominantly but not exclusively, men, for whom need, or the love of risk and/or adventure, makes the use of prostitutes essential in their eyes.

If prostitution is bad, Jacqui should have the courage of her convictions and ban it. On the other hand, if she wants women to be safer, she should crack down on the trafickers, the pimps and those who attack sex workers. Of course, she could always do something that might reduce the risk of driving prostitution underground, provide a safe environment for those in the industry and put things on a legal basis.

Prostitution is known as the world's oldest profession, and the chances of Labour overcoming the laws of supply and demand are remote. So, if I had to give Jacqui some advice, I'd suggest that she legalise prostitution, put it on a proper footing, tax the profits, and provide proper support for those coming into the industry so that they can make a life for themselves doing something else should they wish to.

Instead, they have chosen a piece of legislation which will criminalise people for doing something that they probably won't be aware that they're doing. Given the rate at which Labour criminalise things, the likelihood of anyone leading an entirely innocent life is now so remote that, if the laws were enforced, we'd all be behind bars.

Take that as a no then, Jacqui...