Another Lib Dem policy in action

Excellent news from the Liberal Democrats:

"The abolition of identity cards was confirmed yesterday, when the Identity Documents Bill was granted Royal Assent.

Liberal Democrats have consistently campaigned against ID cards, a scheme introduced by the previous Labour Government.

All existing ID cards will be cancelled within one month, and the National Identity Register, the database which contains the biographic and biometric fingerprint data of card holders, will be destroyed within two months.

The Identity Card Scheme and other biometrics work has already cost the taxpayer £292 million. The Act has saved £835 million in planned future investment."

Vince Cable shock horror probe

Pushing even the weather and transport chaos into second place on the radio news this morning was the scoop from the Daily Telegraph that Vince Cable admits relationships in the coalition aren't always harmonious and that he could quit his role as business secretary if pushed too far.

My first reaction to this was astonishment that a newspaper like the Telegraph would think it appropriate to use a 'sting' operation like this against a senior politician in a case that didn't involve crime or wrongdoing.

My second was that disagreement, perhaps even strong disagreement, in the coalition is hardly news. For two such opposed political parties to work together is always going to be difficult and create pressures and tensions. If that weren't the case I'd be very worried, frankly. What on earth did these 'journalists' unearth that wasn't already commonplace?

My third was anger at the 'journalists' concerned who used Vince's constituency surgery to pose as constituents and conduct this charade. I've been an elected politician who has held surgeries for the people who elected me to come with any problems and concerns. It's a service I'd hope all elected politicians would offer, and one that shouldn't be abused. Our members of parliament shouldn't always have to be thinking 'is this a real constituent in front of me with a real problem, or just someone pretending in order to get a story?'.

This shouldn't be an embarrassment for Vince. But it sure as hell should be for the Telegraph.

Not before time

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has announced an end to child detention for immigration purposes. He has confirmed that the family wing of Yarls Wood detention centre will close immediately, and that no child will be held in detention for immigration reasons over Christmas.

The incarceration of children who had done no wrong was an appalling act by the last Labour government, and one of the many reasons I am truly glad to have seen Labour defeated at the last General Election.

Tidings of comfort and joy indeed, and something for liberals to be truly proud of today.

Snow clearance

Thanks to Mark Pack for his very helpful (not to mention seasonal) observations on whether or not it's OK to clear snow from outside your home. Another tabloid myth busted.

Hoary old chestnuts

That Eric Pickles has got my dander right up again.

Not content with telling councils how to collect the bins or where to put railings, Mr Pickles is now moving on to banning local authorities from including non-Christian elements in any celebrations they organise in winter.

Yes, that's right, not just banning local councils from failing to include the Christian religion; but banning councils from organising winter celebrations which include anything other than Christianity. Apparently, local councils should not be free to decide to run events called Winterval, or Winter Lights, and must include 'Christmas lights, Christmas trees, carol services and nativity scenes'. Who died and made Mr Pickles supreme ruler of the universe?

Mr Pickles is Communities Secretary in the coalition government. That's the department responsible for local government. He is also a Conservative. I had thought that one of the things Conservatives shared with Liberal Democrats was some respect for local government, local decision-making and local determination. Apparently not. Has Mr Pickles really got nothing better to do than to micro-manage the bin collections, street furniture and Christmas celebrations of every council in the country?

The coalition government will shortly be steering a Localism Bill through parliament, aimed at reducing central control of local councils so that they can be freed up to get on with working for their residents rather than for civil servants in Whitehall. Does Mr Pickles have even a glimmer of understanding of the local freedom and local choice his government wants to promote? And if not, is he really the right person to hold the post he currently has? Or is he, as I suspect, more interested in grabbing cheap tabloid headlines and whooping up the readership of the Daily Mail into a frenzy, than in liberating local councils to represent local people?

Why should a religion to which only half the population of the UK adheres be given a monopoly by the Government on holding celebrations in winter? It's not even as if Jesus was born in December anyway; the church took the date over from a much older pagan tradition. And to be honest, how much is there in our Christmas celebrations that's religious anyway? There's nothing particularly Christian about tinsel, mince pies, snowmen, or tacky wrapping paper. Is Mr Pickles going to ban those too?

The urban legend of Birmingham Council's Winterval in the 1990s has been endlessly recycled by people whose favourite start to the day is harrumphing into their Daily Express about how Britain's gone downhill since the 1930s, to show that we're all going to hell in a handcart. It's supposed to have been part of a politically correct plot to obliterate Christmas. The fact that during Winterval "there was a banner saying Merry Christmas across the front of the council house, Christmas lights, Christmas trees in the main civil squares, regular carol-singing sessions by school choirs, and the Lord Mayor sent a Christmas card with a traditional Christmas scene wishing everyone a Merry Christmas" is of course set to one side as it rather inconveniently gets in the way of a good story.

Under Mr Pickles, it appears that instead of local government run from the centre by politically correct box-tickers, we're going to see local government run from the centre by ignorant populists. I'm really not sure which is worse.

But then, what more seasonal at Christmas than another load of hoary old chestnuts from Mr Eric Pickles?

Royal wedding

It shows you're a political anorak when you hear that Will and Kate's wedding is going to be on 29 April, and your first thought is "What will that do to the timetable for the council elections?"!

Ralph's story

Project management

Surveying my desk this morning, I was reminded of this wonderful observation (source unknown).

“The typical project goes through 6 phases:

1. Enthusiasm
2. Disillusionment
3. Panic
4. Search for the Guilty
5. Punishment of the Innocent
6. Praise and Honour to the Non-Participants”.

So this is what we have come to, is it?

Airport security for my short trip to Jersey last weekend was intrusive enough, but I found this quite appalling. It appears we may already have let the terrorists win.

Absolute travesty

A Crown Court hearing at Doncaster has today dismissed the appeal of Paul Chambers against his conviction for 'menace'. In a moment of frustration when his flight was held up in January, he had posted on Twitter a message saying "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"

Since his arrest, he has been convicted, fined and lost his job as a financial manager. The costs of this ludicrous and disproportionate case have escalated with his latest bid to have the verdict overturned. The option of taking the case to the High Court will increase his costs still further. You can donate here. I just have.

Not your usual day at the office

I'd booked a meeting with my line manager at Party HQ for 3pm yesterday, but by the time I'd got to London KX at 2:30pm the building was effectively in lockdown mode. When I got to Westminster, I walked through the demonstration as far as the Abbey, then round to Great Smith Street, where I got a message (BlackBerry battery almost dead by this point) saying my meeting had been moved, so I cut through to the Abingdon Street car park and back through the demo again.

Between the Houses of Parliament and the Abbey it all looked fairly good natured and peaceful, so after my meeting, and with no BlackBerry battery left for calls or texts or email, I headed back to London KX and Ely, blissfully unaware of what was going on at Millbank, had a quick coffee in Tesco's while waiting for the 1855 bus, and got to Sutton just before 7:30pm. I got off the bus in the High Street and - as I'd told the family I would - headed straight for my book group (reading Hons and Rebels by Jessica Mitford this month, since you ask) and got back home by about 9:30pm.

Meanwhile, the family, having forgotten what I said about my plans, had been worried sick seeing all this kicking off on the television, and assumed that because I had not been in touch I was at the least incarcerated in Party HQ, if not injured or worse. They'd almost got to the point of ringing the hospitals and the morgue when I arrived home at about 9:30pm, to my total bewilderment at the reception I received.

Well said

Mike Smithson from Political Betting on Labour's response to the Woolas case.

Let's Do It

I can't imagine I'll see anything funnier this year (or possibly next, too) than Ann Widdecombe and Anton du Beke's Charleston last night on Strictly Come Dancing. Anton's choreography and performance were utterly brilliant, and credit to the old bird for gamely going along with it and giving it her best. There's a serious danger that I might actually end up liking her by the end of the series, and that would never do, would it?

Co-educational skateboarding in Afghanistan

I don't know whether this is a cause for optimism or sadness, but it's very moving nonetheless.

SKATEISTAN: TO LIVE AND SKATE KABUL from Diesel New Voices on Vimeo.

Ask a silly question

The announcement that the cap on university tuition fees is set to rise to £9,000 a year is not exactly unexpected, but that doesn't make it any more acceptable.

There'll be a lot of synthetic rage from Labour, of course. That's Labour, who introduced the current system of tuition fees; who introduced top-up fees when they said they had legislated to prevent them; and who commissioned the Browne report which is the basis of today's announcement. I suspect they're rather hoping we'll forget that.

But just because your opponents are posturing like Vogue models doesn't automatically mean you have right on your side.

You can dress it up how you like. You can say it's not fees because it's paid back afterwards. You can say it's a graduate 'contribution' not a graduate 'tax', as if that somehow makes things better. You can argue that some students from poor backgrounds will get help.

But at the end of the day, many Liberal Democrat MPs signed a promise that they would not vote to raise fees in this parliament. And if they did that, they need to stick to it.

Of course, the problem with the Browne report into higher education funding is that if you ask the wrong question you get the wrong answer. Where we should have started was with a searching examination of what our current university system is there for - and only when we were clear about that should we have moved on to how to pay for it.

I've always been of the opinion that Tony Blair's ambition of 50 per cent of young people going to university was frankly bonkers. It's the sort of thing that's made it possible to get a degree in Casino Operations Management from the University of Blackpool (yes, really), or a BA in Applied Golf Management Studies from the University of Birmingham. I suppose at least with the first option there's a chance you might recoup some of your student debt at the blackjack tables.

As more and more young people are encouraged onto more and more expensive courses, the intellectual currency is inflated and the value of the degree (even assuming it's a sensible subject) goes down and down. Already burdened with the prospect of major debts on graduation, the next generation are going to find it difficult if not impossible to own their own home, or afford to start a family while they are still young.

Taking three years from 18 to 21 to complete a degree while living away from home is an expensive option, whoever provides it. Perhaps we should be looking at more flexible solutions, including OU style distance learning (I did my MBA that way ten years ago), or periods of study interrupted by periods of employment to save up for the next module.

Colleges of further education (declares interest - my husband is Deputy Principal of an FE College) have their part to play, working in partnerships or franchise arrangements with universities to deliver higher education modules locally. Perhaps some subjects really aren't suitable for university courses, and could be taught in other ways (surely we managed to turn out croupiers and groundsmen before they became degree-level subjects?).

And instead of shovelling more and more 18 year olds onto higher education courses of dubious merit or even ultimate financial worth, what about more investment in good solid locally delivered vocational education and training relevant to the needs of the local economy?

But if burdening the next generation with mortgage-style debts is the answer, Browne must have been asked a very silly question indeed.

Votes for prisoners

Not before time, the government is finally to abide by the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, and lift the blanket ban on votes for prisoners that has been in place since 1870.

The Electoral Commission has already been thinking about the practical details of implementing this decision, which won't necessarily be straightforward. But I really don't have a problem with the principle behind the Court's ruling.

Imprisonment isn't just about punishment. It's about three things: keeping the public safe from people like serial killers and rapists who are serious dangers to life and limb; depriving people of their liberty as a penalty for the wrong they have done; and preparing them to join society again when they have completed their time in jail. Too often, it seems to me, we concentrate on the second of these at the expense of the third.

And deprivation of liberty doesn't mean denial of all rights. I did once meet a cab driver who was keen to persuade me of the merits of his view that prisoners should be kept merely as living stores of spare parts for surgery, but I suspect that's a bridge too far for most people.

The question, therefore, is not whether prisoners have rights, but which rights they should have, and which prisoners should be entitled to the right to cast a vote in elections, and which should not.

28 other European countries give prisoners the right to vote, as do two Australian and two American states. I'm not aware that the Dante's Inferno being foretold by those who oppose votes for prisoners has actually come to pass in those countries. The practicalities will naturally take some working out, but the principle is the right one.

That Was The Week That Was ...

Well, I've not often had weeks like last week, and I hope to goodness I don't have one again. That was the week in which:

• I worked ten times my contracted hours to make sure the party's East of England regional conference last Saturday was a success
• My kitchen was taken over for a week by my beloved offspring's (still unfinished) craft project - every available surface covered in painted planks and no room to make a sandwich or iron a shirt
  
• Every white blouse I own was ruined in an unfortunate accident involving burgundy-coloured gloss paint from above project, white spirit, and a U-bend in the utility room backing up into the washing machine
• We decided to get away from it all for a few days, and on Tuesday evening booked a five-day holiday in Marrakech starting this Saturday; only for OFSTED to announce on Friday morning that in three weeks' time it is inspecting husband's college where he's the College's OFSTED nominee, so we had to cancel our (non refundable) trip
• Husband's credit card was blocked, as it was on a list of cards at risk of having been cloned
• One of our dogs developed a very serious case of gastro-enteritis, and was admitted very deyhdrated and with epic D&V to the vet's on Sunday, where she's still on a drip
• Son's girlfriend's grandfather was admitted into intensive care on Friday, and passed away on Saturday.
  

Still, at least the weather was nice ...

Worse than Thatcher

Labour's new shadow chancellor Alan Johnson has lost no time laying into the government over its economic plans: "Conservative spending cuts are worse than Thatcher's", screams a headline in the Guardian (where else?).

In March, two months before the election, of course, Labour chancellor Alistair Darling accepted that if Labour won, a Labour government's cuts would be deeper and tougher than Mrs Thatcher's: "They will be deeper and tougher - where we make the precise comparison, I think, is secondary to the fact that there is an acknowledgement that these reductions will be tough".

And he was backed up by Labour's then Chief Secretary to the Treasury Liam ('There is no money left') Byrne, who when asked on BBC One's Question Time whether the cuts would be deeper than under Margaret Thatcher, said: "Yes, they will be".

Sounds like Mr Johnson needs to start reading that economics primer.

Ten green bottles

Ten o'clock and time to take the dogs for their morning walk - in the rain, again, so on with coats for the three of us and wellies for me.

Monday is rubbish collection day in Sutton and, as I shut the back gate and trudge to the road, I notice that the bin men have already, er, bin.

My complimentary black bin liner (for residual waste), carefully fashioned into the shape of a hand grenade by the East Cambs Council Origami Team, has been lobbed onto our drive where it's getting rained on, and when I get back I'll have to grubble it out of the weeds and shake it dry.

Our complimentary brown paper sacks (for garden and food waste) have also been left on the drive in the rain, and are already a sodden mess. There's no way they're going to sit and fester in my kitchen for a fortnight in that state, so I'll have to find somewhere to put them to dry out.

Our glass bottles haven't yet been collected, and are sitting in various soggy carrier bags in our trug of recyclable paper - or, as it's become by now, papier-mâché.

Up to the top of Pound Lane, where the bottle banks live. Since the council stopped collecting plastic bottles six months ago, the local recycling point has become - quite literally - a tip. Local residents, still keen to play their part by recycling plastic bottles despite the best efforts of the council to frustrate them, now bring their empties to the recycling point, only to find the plastic bottle containers stuffed to overflowing. They're not going to take their carrier bags of bottles home again, so they get left in massive heaps around the recycling point. Situated as it is on the road into Sutton, it's not exactly a fantastic advert for the village, or the council.

Back home half an hour later, I pick up the soggy paper sacks and trudge across the overgrown garden in the mud and rain to stick them in the shed. Hopefully we'll have a dry weekend so we can do some gardening, and they'll be fit to use by then.

While other councils in the area are pushing ahead with recycling, East Cambridgeshire is continuing to tumble down the waste management league tables. It's hardly surprising, with a performance like this. Perhaps, like the green bottles, some of the councillors responsible for this farrago will 'accidentally fall' at the election next May.

Conference season

If it's September, it must be party conference season.

For me this generally means work, as I'm paid by my political party to administer the training courses the Liberal Democrats run for our members at conference. This year, in Liverpool, that's 118 courses - not as many as the 150+ that we ran last autumn, but still a sizeable amount of training.

However, this year, for the first time in years, I'll also be registering to attend as a voting representative. I don't normally do this, as I have so little time to spend in the conference hall.

But this year I've signed an amendment to a motion, on Free Schools and Academies (on P32 of the agenda). The amendment is being submitted for consideration by the party's Conference Committee, and I've agreed to sum up the debate on it if the amendment is accepted on to the agenda. If it is, it'll be interesting to be up against Peter Downes, former headmaster of Hinchingbrooke, who will be proposing the original motion.

David and Goliath

I'm intrigued that Samuel Brakespeare, veteran diarist at the Cambs Times, seems surprised that local Liberal Democrats aren't awash with cash.

Our leaflets and newsletters wouldn't ask for donations if we didn't need them. Elections are expensive things to fight, and unlike the Conservatives we don't have wealthy backers or vast amounts of councillors' allowances to call on, or the might of the 'Con Clubs' or portfolios of investments.

Next May's local elections really will be a David and Goliath affair. I'm hoping David manages to land at least a few hits!

Dives and Lazarus

So Tony Blair doesn't seem to be doing too badly out of his time as Prime Minister; not many of us can afford to buy a £1m town house for cash, after all.

Meanwhile, the media are reporting huge donations to the Conservatives by hedge fund bosses.

At personal and organisational level, there's clearly a lot of money to be found in some parts of the political sphere.

In other news, I spent yesterday cooking for a barbecue to help raise a bit of cash for my local party here in North East Cambridgeshire. It was fun; the rain held off enough for the barbecue to light; there were enough burgers to go round, sausages to spare, and the desserts were well received. There were half as many raffle prizes as guests, and we overcame the fact that I'd forgotten to get raffle tickets by pressing into service two packs of Bob Russell MP's Lib Dem MPs playing cards (from about two parliaments ago!) which served as excellent tickets and gave the raffle an additional political overtone.

The profit will help pay the bills for a couple more months, but it's all quite hard work, and relies on the generosity of comparatively few people, who do their duty by buying tickets and donating raffle prizes. One guest yesterday won a bottle of wine smaller than the one he'd brought as a donation, while another effectively paid a fiver to win back his own bottle!

All the coverage of super-rich individual politicians and mega-donations by the exceptionally well-heeled - not to mention the continuing farrago of tales about MPs and their expenses - gives the impression that politics is awash with money. For some of us, however, it's a hard slog to raise the small sums of cash needed just to keep the show on the road.

Nevertheless, it was great fun, though I now have a kitchen that looks as if a bomb's hit it, a year's supply of leftover coleslaw in the fridge, and a lot of washing up still to do ...

Note: for those who don't recognise the reference in the title of this post, Dives and Lazarus is a story about a very rich man and a very poor man from Luke's Gospel (Chapter 16), and probably one of the most popular Bible stories in the medieval period. It's also a great ballad, set to a tune that's used for songs including The Star of The County Down and the hymn I heard the voice of Jesus. Ralph Vaughan Williams wrote Five Variants of the tune, and there's an excellent version of the song in my music collection by June Tabor and the Oyster Band.

Any volunteers for Wisbech?

It's Volunteers Week this week, and to mark the event, Volunteer Centre Fenland hosted an event at the Boathouse Business Centre in Wisbech this morning to celebrate volunteers and volunteering, and recognise the organisations in the area that promote and support volunteers.

During the recent General Election campaign, I signed the Volunteering Pledge (on the last page of the Volunteering Manifesto. As a result, Annette Houghton from Volunteer Centre Fenland invited me to today's event, where I met some of the many organisations working in and around Wisbech.

Amanda Scott from Excelcare was there to promote volunteering at Glennfield Care Centre in Moneybank, where she is the activities coordinator. There's a lively programme of activities ranging from art to Cockney sing-alongs, and volunteers are always appreciated to help with activities or practical projects like gardening. The telephone number for Glennfield is 01945 581141.

I picked up some information from Age Concern Cambridgeshire, who in addition to their many ongoing voluntary activities such as their Visiting Scheme are promoting a two-year pilot scheme funded by Comic Relief. This scheme, run by Age Concern Cambridgeshire with Action on Elder Abuse and the Cambridgeshire 'Safeguarding Adults' team, is called Survivors and provides mature volunteers to help older who have gone though the dreadful experience of elder abuse. If you have experienced abuse as an older person, know someone who has, or are interested in volunteering, contact scheme organiser Dee Potter on 0845 521 3481 or email her.

Cambridgeshire County Council's locality team was at the event, and I spoke with Parent Support Adviser Cheryl Brook, Sue Clark from Sure Start and Laura who works with 13-19 year olds. Volunteering is a great way for some young people to start out into the world of work and gain valuable experience, as well as for mums returning to the workforce after having their children. An eight-week parenting course has just begun at Wisbech South Children's Centre in Elizabeth Terrace, where there's also masses of other activities. They're also running new quarterly 'parent forums' - the first one is next Wednesday, 9 June, at 4:00pm. (It's free and there are refreshments!).

Like Sure Start, the Citizens Advice Bureau is an organisation I'm also familiar with from my involvement with them elsewhere in the country. I spoke with deputy manager Julie Smith, who told me that the CAB is looking for volunteer advisers to help residents with their queries and concerns. This is a very structured way to volunteer, with a national standard package of training advisers need to complete first - but is immensely rewarding for the volunteer and the local community. The Fenland CAB is also looking for volunteer receptionists and trustees.

Cambridgeshire Libraries runs a Doorstep Service with the help of volunteer Library Visitors. The Visitors choose and deliver books for residents who are housebound, either permanently or temporarily. It's a great way to meet people and share your love of books and reading. If you're interested in volunteering (or need to us the service) contact the Area Doorstep Coordinator for Fenland on 01354 754766. As for library services more widely, there's also a Community Launch at Wisbech Library in Ely Place on Saturday 19 June from 10:00 to 4:30. And coffee mornings once a month from 11:00 to 12:30 with guest speakers - the next ones are on 24 June and 29 July.

TNG were also there. They work in partnership with Jobcentre Plus supporting people including carers and lone parents in preparing for work, through jobsearch facilities, training, work experience and building confidence and skills.

It was good to talk with Penny Duce from IndependentAge about the work their volunteers do - visiting older people, telephoning, running local fundraising events and giving talks about the charity's work. I also came away with a leaflet for The Thrifty Kitchen book of wartime recipes, and an invitation to a concert evening with the Taverham Brass Band (Saturday 13 November, 7:00 for 7:30 pm, John Innes Conference Centre, Norwich, £8 per ticket if you're interested - call 01603 745503)! Penny also has other interests - she asked me to promote the KIT Club in Wisbech, which she's also involved with; I'll do that separately as it's also a very good cause.

Karen Day is the new Dementia Adviser for the Alzheimer's Society in Fenland and Marshland. Dementia Advisers provide information and support for people diagnosed with Alzheimer's. In addition to national services like the Alzheimer's helpline (0845 3000 336) there are also local activities such as the Wisbech Lunch Club for carers and the people they care for with dementia (contact Pam Freer on 01945 461805) and the monthly Thursday support group for carers looking after people with dementia.

Finally, I spoke with Jayde Thompson-Watkinson from the Community House in Waterlees. The Community House offers some great facilities to this part of Wisbech, and is looking for volunteers to help it continue its work.

I'm a huge fan of the voluntary sector and volunteering, and it's great to see so much going on in this part of North East Cambridgeshire.

Money, sex and power

Back in the early 1980s, a book called Money, Sex and Power was doing the rounds in evangelical church communities. It took as its starting point the monastic vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, and argued that these were a response to the three greatest temptations of life in the secular world. It also (and bear in mind I read this about thirty years ago, and don't intend to obtain and re-read it now) argued that the most difficult temptation of the three to overcome was power.

I'm still very, very angry at the treatment meted out to David Laws over the last few days. I'm not part of the Orange Book tendency within the Liberal Democrats that is exemplified by Laws, one of the book's editors. But as his performance at the dispatch box (hat tip Pretendy Liberal) last week showed, he's a talented performer with a first class mind, and a strong member of the Liberal Democrat parliamentary team.

The Laws 'scandal' as reported in the media centres around the first two of the three temptations - money and sex. It's been argued by enemies of the Liberal Democrats that Laws, the MP for Yeovil in Somerset, was 'ripping off' the taxpayer by claiming rental expenses for accommodation in London with someone he wasn't prepared to acknowledge as his partner. At the time of writing, the extent to which any rules were broken by this arrangement are subject to a ruling by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, to whom Laws referred himself.

Ironically, the sums involved - £700-950 a month - were small in the context of London property rental prices. Aggregated over nine years they amount to the much more shocking-sounding "tens of thousands of pounds" quoted by the Daily Telegraph (no, I'm not going to link to them, on principle) - but then so would most people's housing costs. And the owners of the Telegraph, the reclusive billionaire Barclay brothers, wouldn't notice tens of thousands of pounds if it fell on their heads.

And it's a strange sort of 'ripping off' that results in the perpetrator claiming less money than he was entitled to claim quite legitimately and above board.

An entirely spurious argument is being put about by some of Laws' opponents that, as a wealthy man (which he is), he shouldn't have been claiming any housing costs in London at all, despite being an MP for a constituency from which it's unrealistic to expect him to commute daily. This argument is spurious because the House of Commons expenses system is not a means tested one. I suppose it's possible to argue that it should be, in which case it's legitimate to have that argument out in public in a theoretical way. But so long as it's not means-tested, no-one has the right to set some arbitrary threshold for claims and condemn those claimants they think fall beyond it. It's simply not up to individuals to set themselves up as guerilla freelance regulators of MPs' expenses according to rules of their own invention.

One of the worst aspects of the whole business, however, is the salacious way in which the 'gay lover' references are worked into press headlines, as journalists comb through the details of Laws' (now no longer) private life. The whole thing feels like a throwback to the 1950s. It is a sad truth that, despite modern advances, there are still people like Laws who feel they cannot be open about their sexuality with family or friends - a situation, it's worth noting, which would be even worse if some of the social conservatives on the Tory benches had their way. Tony Grew reminds us here what life was like for gay men before society became, for the most part, more liberal in its outlook on such matters. In effectively forcing David Laws to 'out' himself, the Telegraph has behaved utterly disgracefully.

So much for money and sex. What about power? As a Channel Islander by origin, I followed with interest the actions of the Telegraph's owners - the above mentioned Barclay brothers - in Sark in 2008, and the poisonous interplay of money and political power there. Are we prepared to tolerate the same toxic relationship here, where the billionaire owners of a newspaper, answerable to nobody, can effectively choose who will or will not hold one of the most significant offices of government?

The role of the press (the 'fourth estate') in public life is important, and must be able to be fulfilled without fear or favour - but is the balance right? A great deal of coverage is given to 'scandals' of money and sex; but arguably, as I said in my opening paragraph, abuse of power is the most difficult scandal of all to deal with. Interestingly, it's power that Laws has had to lay down because of the accusations around the other two temptations.

One final point. Many (though, to their credit, not all) Labour politicians, commentators and sympathisers have been licking their lips and rubbing their hands with glee at the coverage given to Laws in the last forty-eight hours. So long as people like Hazel Blears remain on the Labour benches, they have no right - repeat, no right - to pass any comment at all. Indeed, you can read a story about the expense claims of one of the current contenders for the Labour leadership here (and no, once again I'm not going to link to the Telegraph version of the story).

David Laws' response to the coverage of this story has been swift and incredibly dignified. I wish him well for the future and hope that he will soon return to make the contribution to public life of which he is so very capable.

Special conference

Our special conference in Birmingham was a really amazing event, not least because it demonstrated the capacity of the party to summon nearly 2,000 Liberal Democrats to Birmingham on a Sunday at four days' notice and administer an event of that scale without a (visible) hitch. All credit to Lucy Billingsley and the Liberal Democrat conference team for that.

There are plenty of reports of the debate - including by Mark Pack here, by Mark Thompson here, and of course the collected thoughts of participants via Twitter. (In which I briefly participated until the battery in my new BlackBerry gave out).

Those few who spoke against the coalition did so in sorrow rather than anger, and were listened to with respect. Highlight speeches from Simon Hughes and Tony Greaves were among the best I've ever heard, and conference gave a deeply affectionate welcome to the wonderful Evan Harris who was so cruelly deprived of his Oxford West & Abingdon parliamentary seat on 6 May. The final vote was overwhelmingly in favour of the agreement, with only ten or so out of nearly 2,000 participants voting against. The decision that Nick Clegg should speak after the debate was over, rather than seeking to persuade the membership in the debate itself, was absolutely right.

In some ways it's a pity that it was decided that the press should be excluded, as the debate showed the party at its absolute best. However, it's perhaps arguable that if the press had been there, we wouldn't have had the kind of event we had - but that's something we'll never know, as it's a bit like the question about opening the fridge door to see if the light's on. There's anecdotal evidence from several colleagues about the national press only wanting to talk to people opposed to the agreement, which saddens but doesn't surprise me - so goodness knows what they would have done to coverage of our conference to make it fit the story they want to write.

I voted for the agreement, and for all nine amendments which were put forward to the main motion - and which were accepted by the movers of the motion. An historic day indeed.

Volunteer Centre Fenland

Congratulations to Volunteer Centre Fenland, who have just emailed me a copy of the feature about them in the latest Volunteering England magazine. The whole article is only accessible online to members of Volunteering England, but I'm happy to forward what Volunteer Centre Fenland have sent me to anyone who would like a copy.

Birmingham special conference

Getting ready to go to Birmingham this morning, for the Liberal Democrats' special conference to discuss the coalition agreement with the Conservatives. The agenda has just one item, a motion on the agreement.

Nine amendments have been accepted for debate, including one from my former local party in Harlow, where I used to live. They cover

• the lack of will of the Labour Party to take part in a coalition


• the fact that the Liberal Democrats remain an independent party free to develop its own policy


• the need for the new government to ensure the gap between rich and poor is narrowed over the course of this parliament


• a re-affirmation of the Liberal Democrats' objective of scrapping tuition fees


• a call to repeal parts of the Digital Economy Act


• a commitment to seek to protect the Human Rights Act 1998


• a re-statement of Liberal Democrat commitment to lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans equality


• a call to move towards a proportional voting system for local government, and

a re-commitment to the party's policy of PR for elections to the House of Commons.

It'll be an historic event, and I'm really looking forward to being part of it.

The 55 per cent solution

I'd started to write a story about the (deliberate?) misinformation being spread about the proposal that Parliament should be able to be dissolved by a 55 per cent majority of MPs, and found that Cllr Iain Roberts of Stockport had beaten me to it and said everything that needed to be said. A useful and informative article.

The rainbow progressive coalition of the losers that never was

Five days after Labour lost its majority in the House of Commons, Lord Mandelson was still spinning faster than my washing machine when he was interviewed on television last night. The Labour Party had offered a wonderful opportunity to share government with the Liberal Democrats, he was telling us, but instead the Lib Dems had chosen - yes, chosen - to do a deal with the Conservatives, which was what they had really wanted.

Much breath, ink and pixels have been wasted since last Thursday discussing the potential for a 'progressive coalition' to unite the best of Labour and the Liberal Democrats. There were only three problems with this: firstly, Labour weren't up for it; secondly, the maths just made it impossible; and thirdly, it wouldn't have been progressive.

When Liberal Democrat negotiators met the Labour team, it was abundantly clear that even the Labour negotiators were far from keen on the business under discussion. As Allegra Stratton reports for the Guardian:

"Every one of the Lib Dem negotiators gave an individual report back of their meeting with Harriet Harman, Lord Mandelson, Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Lord Adonis, and they each reached the same conclusion: that the Labour team were uninterested, with no movement on ID cards, the third runway at Heathrow, or increasing the proportion of renewable energy from 15% to 40%.

All reported back that the climate change secretary, Ed Miliband, was the "greatest disappointment" since they had regarded him as a fresh broom, unencumbered by the kind of instinctive dislike of electoral reform that some of his colleagues held. Others were angry that the Brown team had put up Ed Balls. "I mean, Ed Balls in there? For goodness sake. That's not very serious," said one."

And even while the talks between Labour and the Liberal Democrats were taking place, Labour MPs and even the odd minister were queuing up to say they wanted no part of an agreement with the Liberal Democrats. David Blunkett, John Reid, Jack Straw, Diane Abbott, Tom Harris, Andy Burnham, falling over each other to argue against any sort of arrangement with the Lib Dems. In some cases, the case was argued from a basis of blatant self-interest, that it would be easier to take votes from other parties by sitting on the sidelines while attacking other parties for working together. Even perennial Labour cheerleader Polly Toynbee confessed it wasn't looking good.

To be fair, the mathematics of Thursday's result made it a long shot. With 326 MPs the number required for a majority in the House of Commons, Labour's 258 and the Lib Dems' 57 only totalled 315, so other parties would have to be involved. A senior Labour figure was adamant he wanted no truck with the SNP. The new Green MP said she wouldn't take part in any alliance at all. Take away the Labour MPs already mentioned, and there just wasn't enough support - even with full Liberal Democrat support.

Finally, by what stretch of the imagination would such a coalition have been 'progressive' anyway? During its term in office, the Labour government gave us ID cards. Retention of innocent people's DNA on police databases. War on Iraq at the behest of George W Bush. A widening gap between rich and poor. The extention of detention without charge. Detention and appalling treatment of children at immigration centres such as Yarls Wood. Fingerprinting of primary school children, for heaven's sake. As Oliver Cromwell said when he dismissed the Rump Parliament in 1653:

"Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd; your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse the Augean Stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings, and which by God's help and the strength He has given me, I now come to do.

I command ye, therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. You have sat here too long for the good you do. In the name of God, go!"

There would have been nothing progressive about an alliance based on these policies. The jury may be out on whether the new coalition will deliver the goods, but it is a great relief to know that Mandelson and his ilk no longer run the show.

The agreements

The coalition agreements between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives have been published this afternoon.

There's lots to welcome. A spending premium for disadvantaged children. Restoration of the link between pensions and earnings. An increase in the personal allowance for income tax, phasing in to a £10,000 allowance. A switch from a per-passenger to a per-plane duty for environmental reasons. A banking levy. Tackling tax avoidance. A commission on separating retail from investment banking. An end to the detention of children for immigration purposes. Fixed term parliaments. A referendum on electoral reform. A committee to propose a wholly or mainly elected second chamber chosen by PR. A register of lobbyists and reform of party funding. Phasing out the default retirement age. Greater school freedom over the curriculum. A Freedom Bill. Scrapping of ID cards. Changes to the rules for the retention of DNA. Reform of the libel laws. A green investment bank. High-speed rail. Cancellation or refusal of additional runways at Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick.

Indeed, a Liberal Democrat majority government would have been able to include additional items from its manifesto, and some hugely talented Liberal Democrat MPs would have been given the roles they deserve. But partnership has to be about compromise, and I'm seriously impressed at what the Liberal Democrats have managed to get included in these agreements. There are genuinely exciting times ahead.

Liberal Democrats will be holding a special conference on Sunday in Birmingham to discuss the agreements and - I hope - give them our backing. I've booked my place. We Liberal Democrats can be a difficult bunch to please, but from what I've seen so far the mood is optimistic.

What's going on?

Four days after last Thursday's election resulted in a 'hung parliament', and the talks continue. I'm being stopped in the street, asked by email, picking up comments on Facebook and elsewhere, by people wondering what the outcome will be.

In shock news: I don't know.

This is a difficult situation for the Liberal Democrats. As pundit Olly Grender put it pithily on Twitter: "It's official - we are now in formal conversations with a 'rock' and a 'hard place'".

Though not the only important discussion point on the table, a commitment to serious moves on electoral reform will be a sticking point for the vast majority of Liberal Democrats.

There are some in Labour and the media who are dangling the possibility of some 'progressive coalition' (Lib Dems plus Labour plus nationalists plus Green) that will deliver a fair voting system. They seem to have overlooked two facts: firstly, the numbers for such a coalition barely stack up and would be very vulnerable as a working government; and secondly and more importantly, many Labour MPs in safe seats - not to mention many of their defeated candidates - don't want a fair voting system anyway and would vote against it.

Whatever the outcome, two things are clear. Firstly, Thursday's 'hung parliament' result hasn't caused a run on the pound, the collapse of the economy, or anything else that Kenneth Clarke and other scaremongering Conservatives were shrieking about during the election campaign. Other countries around the world, including some of the most economically successful, have parliaments with no one party in charge, and have done for years. It's grown-up politics, and it's not a bad thing for politicians to talk to one another.

Secondly, I'm very pleased to know that - unlike in any other party - as a Liberal Democrat member and candidate, I could yet have a direct say in the outcome. It's not up to Nick Clegg, or even Liberal Democrat MPs, to come to a deal with one party or another. Under our constitution, 75 per cent of Liberal Democrat MPs and 75 per cent of our Federal Executive (the party's governing committee) have to agree to any outcome from these discussions. If that doesn't happen, there has to be a special conference, at which 75 per cent of our voting conference representatives would have to agree. And failing that, there would be a ballot of all Liberal Democrat members. Other parties envy us the extent of our internal party democracy, and that's yet another reason to be proud to be a Liberal Democrat.

Nick Clegg speaks to the protest for fair votes in London yesterday

Everyone's a loser

At least in the cold light of morning the misery is fairly widely distributed.

For Labour, Gordon Brown has lost large numbers of seats, and is now in second place in votes and seats. For the Conservatives, although he has the most seats and the most votes, David Cameron has failed to secure a majority in the House of Commons. For the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg is left with fewer seats than before the election, only a few percentage points behind Labour in terms of votes but with only one-fifth Labour's share of seats.

For the Murdoch press, their attempts to terrorise people into voting for a Conservative majority by warning of the horrors of a hung parliament have resulted in the election of the hung parliament they urged against. For the television media, the outcome of the election seems to have reduced them to a condition of total inability to understand the simplest and most straightforward statement made on the doorstep of Liberal Democrat HQ at 4 Cowley Street. For the pollsters and pundits, they're left scratching their heads at how what appeared to be happening during the campaign turned into the result that finally occurred.

And for the British public, once again they've been denied what they wanted to vote for, by a crooked electoral system which has delivered a totally distorted result, and which the likely party of government is unlikely to want to reform.

At the time of writing, Nick Clegg has announced that the Liberal Democrats are going to keep to our word, and allow the party with the largest number of seats and votes to try to govern. Let's see what Mr Cameron has to say this afternoon.

North East Cambridgeshire result

The North East Cambridgeshire election results came through later than originally predicted, at around three in the morning at the Hudson Leisure Centre in Wisbech. They are as follows:

• Steve Barclay (Conservative) 26,862


• Lorna Spenceley (Liberal Democrats) 10,437


• Peter Roberts (Labour) 9,274


• Robin Talbot (UKIP) 2,791


• BNP 1,747


• Debra Jordan (Independent) 566


• English Democrat 387

The Liberal Democrats have moved from third place to second, and from 17% of the vote to 20%. The Labour vote has collapsed from 30% in 2005 to 17% this time.

I've congratulated Steve Barclay on his election as MP for our constituency, and hope that he'll represent this beautiful area and its people as we deserve to be represented.

I've also pointed out that nationally, the unfolding results show how badly our electoral system is broken.

Scary stories from worried Tories

As we count down the hours until the polls open at 7:00am tomorrow, all three parties in North East Cambridgeshire have been out delivering last-minute leaflets today. Steve Barclay's final effort for the Tories holds a grim postscript for its readers.

"P.S. A hung parliament would cause indecision, weak government and a paralysed economy. This would mean higher costs for families, higher fuel prices and higher mortgage payments"

it intones. Of course, that's what he wants residents to think, but unfortunately for him, his scare stories aren't borne out by the evidence.

A national newspaper report reveals that

"Fears of an economic meltdown in the case of a hung parliament have been dismissed by a leading credit rating agency and senior economists."

It goes on to show that

"of the 16 countries worldwide who currently have the top triple-A financial stability rating, 10 are run by coalition governments. The majority of nations that have taken the toughest action in recent decades to tackle their debts were also governed at the time by coalitions."

Moody's ratings agency thinks a coalition government would find it easier to push through necessary savings. Another ratings agency, Fitch, describes the prospects as 'stable', which it says takes into account the prospect of a hung parliament. And a third agency, Standard & Poors, lowered its assessment of Britain's economy to 'negative' - but they did this a year ago, when the Conservatives had a 17 point lead in the opinion polls!

It just shows that the Conservatives will say anything to terrorise people into voting for them. What was that David Cameron said in the television leaders' debates about it being 'wrong to frighten people' in election leaflets?

On a lighter note, while at home for a brief respite, I answered a knock at the door - a young charity salesman trying to sign me up to donate regularly to his (very worthwhile) cause. "Don't worry," he told me, "I'm not a politician after your vote". "Well, I am!" I told him, to the amusement of both of us.