A Rose by any other Name.....

I spent Monday at home and yesterday in parliament, listening to the Same Sex Marriage debate. It was at times infuriating, moving and challenging. There is no doubt that this is an issue that divides opinion, often, but not always, along religious lines. To be honest it highlights, maybe like no other issue, the need to disestablish the church.

My view is that the most sensible way to have resolved the differences of opinion would have been to accept the amendments proposed by Greg Mulholland and Simon Hughes making the distinction between religious and civil marriage clear. It would have then been far easier to have made the case to faith groups that what they choose to do with regard to recognising same sex marriage, or second marriages or whatever else, is their business and what the state does is the state’s business. To quote my dear pal Colin Ross (who was also quoted by Greg in his speech):

“I am a gay man and not religious. If I wanted to spend my life in a loving relationship recognised by the state I want to be able to do that – without any religion having their opinion on it – but what is more I want to have the same rights as everyone else. The current Marriage (same sex couples) Bill does not offer equality, the legislation is flawed it still doesn’t provide equality especially in respect of pension rights when one partner dies and issues affecting the Trans community, likewise the Civil Partnership legislation was not about equality – as it neither gave equality to marriage and also did not allow opposite-sex partners to have Civil Partnership as well. Mr Mulholland’s proposals would for the first time deliver equality for everyone who wanted to spend their life in a loving relationship recognised by the state and enjoy the rights that come with that.”

As someone who was christened a Catholic, baptised in a Pentecostal church, and at times a member of the Church of England, Baptists and Free churches – I spent much of my life in the same bubble that many Christians find themselves in now. The teaching on marriage was clear and until recently remained unchallenged. Through having the privilege of having many gay friends some with a strong faith, some without, I have been on my own journey in squaring the circle of church orthodoxy and my own experience. 

One of the biggest influences on my thinking has been Desmond Tutu whose position is beautifully summed up here. More recently the brave decision of Steve Chalke, a leading evangelical, to speak up in favour of same sex marriage has pushed the debate on in the church. But as the past couple of days demonstrate, and contrast Gerald Howarth’s outrageous “aggressive homosexuals” comment with the moving speech by Katherine McKinnell on Monday, it is clear that no uniform Christian understanding of the nature of marriage exists any longer.  Let’s be clear, marriage is an institution that predates the church, the mosque and the temple. And clearly is defined differently in countries where polygamy is permitted. So the idea that there is one, universally agreed definition, is ridiculous. 

But, having said that, I would expect my fellow Liberal Democrats to have more appreciation of just how difficult it is for those who have grown up with the church’s understanding of marriage to square their own circles. Simon Hughes is a good friend of mine and I know just how much he has wrestled with this. My advice to him throughout has been that he had to do what he believed was right, and because he couldn’t please both sides he had to make his priority hanging on to his own integrity. However hard many fellow Lib Dems may have found his decision yesterday, I would hope we could respect that, for him and others, their faith came first. 

Much has been made of the fact that we have party policy on equal marriage. Yes we do, we also have lots of party policy that has been ignored while we have been in coalition. Yesterday was a free vote because it was seen that this was a conscience issue. To be honest I actually think issues like the bedroom tax, attacks on welfare benefits and legal aid are conscience issues too (!), but there was not the same furore about the fact that our MPs were whipped against party policy in those and other cases. 

So as the dust settles, credit must go to Adrian Trett and Lynne Featherstone for all they have done to get us to this point. This is a reason to celebrate. But we must also respect the reality that for some people of faith balancing their religious and political values is often an excruciatingly painful process. 

Bring Back National Service............and the Birch........and Zero Tolerance..........and David Blunkett?....and Jack Straw?

The past week has seen a cornucopia of opinion and counter opinion in relation to the shocking events that swept so many cities in this country. From Melanie Phillips blaming the "liberal intelligentsia" (Melanie darling you are SO last season!) or the delightful Nadine Dorries citing the "moral vacuum"....ah yes dear, so that's what you are blaming for your own lack of moral fortitude is it? Now let's check out your alleged behaviour - hmmmm, adultery, lying and stealing? Not bad to be going on with. But of course, you haven't been caught looting Louboutins from Selfridges, no you were able to loot the public purse without breaking a single window! Rather like your millionaire pal George "we're all in this together" Osborne - you just don't get irony! This is in marked contrast it has to be said to the brave and perceptive Peter Oborne, whose analysis in his Telegraph piece this week was characteristically spot on. Ah, now there's a man the right could do well to look to for their moral compass.

Up and down the country, sorry England, sentences are being dished out like smarties. Sentences that on the face of it appear to betray a knee jerk response to a phenomenon that has at least unsettled and at worst shocked us all.

As a party we are committed to evidence based practice, now, more than ever, we need to demonstrate that this is what distinguishes us from our Tory partners. The likes of Phillips and Dorries may, rather like Cameron and May, want to absolve their class from any responsibility by dumping it in part on those immoral nasty liberals, but let's consider the facts. We have had decades of totally illiberal political leadership! Thatcher - liberal? Major - liberal? Blair - liberal? Brown - liberal? Cameron.........ah yes, claimed to be a liberal once, but prick him and does he not bleed pure illiberality?!

So this morning, as the dust of the last turbulent week (is it only a week?) settles - we have the unedifying spectacle of a prime minister, clearly out of his depth, calling for.......you've guessed it ZERO TOLERANCE. Oh and then we have that novel idea, being touted in the Express that the real answer is NATIONAL SERVICE (that'll sort them out, give'em some discipline in their lives........er......I joined voluntarily and look at me!). So let's look at what happens after people come out of the armed services - disproportionately homeless, disproportionately street drinkers, disproportionately suffering from mental health conditions. Now if our prime minister's argument is to be extended to its logical conclusion, given that our "feral youth" are the products of dysfunctional parents and a sick society, presumably there are some of our service personnel who are the product of our dysfunctional and sick armed forces??? But, maybe they're right, much better to train our "feral youths" to beat up and kill foreigners in Afghanistan Iraq or Libya than let them loose over here.

Having spent the best part of my life working with and for young people (and scarily that is now a very long time!) I have lived through many moral panics. The last week is no different. And frankly isn't that different from moral panics about youth throughout the ages. Even Socrates described the youth of his day as having contempt for authority, being disrespectful to their elders, tyrannising their teachers. But, what is different in every case is the environment in which such behaviour takes place - the values which people accept or reject - the messages our young people are getting from the society in which they either participate or feel disaffected from. And given this government's belief in "nudge" theory and behavioural economics, it seems extraordinary if they do not consider this as part of what must be a proper inquiry into what happened.

So it seems to me that what this country desperately needs is a truly liberal response to what are clearly complex problems. I may have been a little reticent in expressing my anxieties about the coalition, but surely this is a golden opportunity for us to stand up and challenge so much of this knee-jerk rhetoric? Most of us agree that short sentences don't work, and many Liberal Democrats (including myself) are ambassadors for Make Justice Work, the campaign which highlights the wastefulness of short term sentences and promotes more intensive community sentencing. We also agree with using restorative justice as an alternative to custodial sentences, surely given what as happened and the evidence of how effective this approach is, our leadership should be making this point? Being faced with the consequences of your criminal behaviour can be not only far more difficult for a young person to cope with, but also is far more likely to get them to reform their ways.

At the moment there is talk of some 3000 arrests and no doubt there will be many more, like Cameron and Johnson in their youth, who will escape justice. Do we honestly believe ALL of these rioters were criminals? Or is it more logical to conclude that there was a hardened criminal element but that many more, particularly young people, were drawn in by the mob mentality? Those young people more than any will be far more likely to respond positively with being confronted with the enormity of the consequences of their behaviour. What's that saying about acting in haste and repenting at leisure? (both young people and politicians). Don't we know that our prisons are universities of crime?

What we need now is true political leadership, a recognition that if we truly are "all in this together" we all have to take some blame for what has happened as well as some responsibility for finding solutions. There are a good few things I disagree with Nick Clegg on (!) and we have had many arguments about, however, my primary reason for supporting his leadership was that I knew him to be a true liberal, I knew that on youth issues in general and youth justice in particular, he absolutely got the need to have a liberal approach. Nick Clegg, Simon Hughes, Lynne Featherstone (another two who absolutely gets it!) and our parliamentary team have never had a better opportunity to show that leadership, to take that opportunity we allegedly joined the coalition to promote - an opportunity to ensure we try that which has never been tried in living memory - that truly liberal response.

OK......So Now I Love Theresa May.....?

Working from home today I had the sadly rare opportunity to listen to WATO and the wonderful Martha Kearney over lunch. Imagine my delight (being in the middle of emailing our own Tom McNally about our Youth Justice policy) when I heard dear old Theresa May chatting about abolishing ASBO's - Lib Dem policy.......well almost! I wondered if Lynne Featherstone had been working her magic? Having worked with Lynne on our youth policy I do know we are totally on the same page about youth issues and her tenacity and inscrutability in seeking to ensure we are a far more liberal society, is for me one of the few bright sparks in this gloomy coalition.

I have to be honest, this was one of the issues where, given previous experience in our region, I thought we may have had a bit of a spat at conference, but hey, who will oppose it now when even the Tories get it?!

However, I am not holding my breath for too long. Already there are murmurings about what this may mean on the ground for the police - short sharp shocks? Clips round the ear? Summary justice? We will have to watch carefully - "reviews" can be little more than dipping of toes in water, retreating like lightening when the Daily Mail sharks start to bite!

So, for those of you who think this was one of Labour's flagship policies and I am a bleeding heart liberal - soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime..........this is WHY I am so vehemently opposed to this policy.

ASBO's, anyone know of anywhere else, anywhere in the world where they exist? - this is a British phenomenon - and one we should be ashamed of. It flies in the face of one of the most fundamental British values that we like to refer to as an example of our legislative superiority - INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! We are criminalising a generation of young people without due process and then wondering why our prisons are full. And creating something that is more often than not breached, or else seen as a badge of honour. I am sorry, but this is one of the barmiest most damaging pieces of New Labour Stalinist legislation they ever thought of (and there were a lot!) if anyone doesn't understand why I am not a Labour member, this is the embodiment of the bits of New Labour (along with marketization) that I cannot stomach.

So, we will watch and wait. I hope Ms May will deliver (remind me to tell you the tale of her, Trevor Phillips and yours truly - but not here!), and I hope too, that she will recognise what our Youth Justice policy recognises that this is not just about repealing idiotic legislation, it is also about ensuring our young people have somewhere to go, something positive to do, investing in our youth services (currently under demolition) especially detached youth workers (a cause Simon Hughes has always championed), supporting inter-generational community projects, giving our young people something to believe in, hope for and aspire to. Only then can any of us have any right to talk about being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime...............

Coalition Budget – “It’s not Fair!” part 2

OK, we've dealt with housing benefit, now what about the rest? I have absolutely no problem with trying to get people off benefit, I have absolutely no problem with bringing to book those who are abusing the system, what I have a problem with is the catch all approach. So for those who are genuinely unable to work because of a disability or an illness (did anyone hear that poor desperate man with terminal lung cancer on the phone to Gordon Brown on 5 Live during the campaign, who kept getting forced to go for assessments?) to include them in our attempts to catch the rogues is totally unfair and unproductive. It's a bit like expecting us all to cough up for the tax dodgers, don't see quite the effort going into calling them to account.

The idea that there is enough slack in the system to cut benefits because after all, "we're all in this together" is a total nonsense. What this budget will cost me is a reasonable meal out once a month, what this budget will cost those on benefits will be choosing between eating and keeping warm. Apologies to those of you who have heard this story before, but I will never forget my meeting with the Children's Commissioner in Northern Ireland last year, when we had had that exceptionally cold spell in February. She told the story of a young 17 year old who had come out of the care system and was living on her own. She had gone to her social worker to beg that instead of having £20 a week in food vouchers she could just have £10 in vouchers and the other £10 in cash – because she said "I'd rather be hungry than cold". This was a young woman who had not had the best start in life but was doing her best to try and get a job and make a future for herself despite everything being against her (and let's not forget care leavers are far more likely to be unemployed than the rest of the population).

And the moves on DLA are also distressing. Bad enough that you are suffering a disability or debilitating illness, now we will make you jump through all sorts of hoops, even though it will cost us more to do this than we will save! The fact is that for some illnesses (like ME) folk have good and bad days. For those with serious mental illness, they may have long periods of being well, punctuated by crises when they just can't work. Far better to find ways of supporting employment for these people when they are well surely? My sister is one such case. At the moment she is as well as she has been for several years – she is happily volunteering in the church coffee shop and is so appreciated they want to employ her to run it. This would be great and would help so much with her recovery, but we and she know she couldn't take the stress of actually being in charge. But if the church were able to have some back up support, to be adaptable enough to have contingency plans for the days/weeks when she may not be able to work, then this would be a real possibility. And of course, as we all know, work can be a real boost to someone's mental health and sense of well-being and self esteem. If we are serious about enabling people to work, then we have to be serious and far more creative in our thinking about how to support them. Sadly it seems this is not part of the package.

My one tiny spark of hope in all this is that having Steve Webb in DWP will perhaps help ultimately in securing a more humane approach to benefits in general and that having other ministers and MPs like our own brave Lynne Featherstone, who are also anxious about these proposals, may ultimately lead to some sensible amendments. It's a tiny spark, but maybe one that together, we can fan into a flame?

Simon Hughes, the 1922 Committee and the Future of Lib Demmery

As predicted, Simon Hughes has just launched his deputy leadership campaign. He unsurprisingly has the backing of Vince Cable.

Of course I am delighted he has thrown his hat into the ring and although I am a great fan of Tim Farron (I would see him as a future leader) at this time I think we need someone of Simon's stature and standing in the party to help provide the ballast and temper the undoubted euphoria felt by many on the right who seem a lot more comfortable cuddling up to the Tories.

Simon, I think unfairly, was the fall guy for the party on Question Time and Any Questions last week and did a sterling job of trying to justify some of the justifiable and frankly, in my view some of the unjustifiable outcomes of this coalition (55% and abstaining on nuclear power come to mind). As deputy leader I have no doubt he would be fiercely loyal in public and constructively critical in private. For those of us who are deeply troubled already by the way we seem to be rolling over to have our tummy tickled, Simon will be an honest broker - ensuring that those caught up in the excitement of being part of government don't forget that not all of us share their enthusiasm and are worried about our concerns not being taken into account. James Kirkup has a thoughtful (if possibly mischievous) piece in the Telegraph. He questions whether the election of Simon Hughes as deputy leader would spell 1922 type trouble for Nick Clegg, but then, rightly in my view, surmises that it is probably what Nick wants. Too right, it is not only what Nick wants, it is also what he needs, to help keep those of us on the left of the party a wee bit happier - although he should remember (as I texted Simon a couple of days ago to remind him ;-}), even his election will not be enough to keep some of us in line! For goodness sake, we are liberals for a reason aren't we? Dissent is part of our lifeblood, not only that, as I pointed out at Autumn Conference, dissent and scrutiny is vital if we are to avoid screwing up completely. As Nick Clegg rightly pointed out in Birmingham, we are in danger of becoming vaguely North Korean in our amorous uncritical embrace of the coalition. To continue in this mode is surely a tad unhealthy?

It seems to me that whatever happens in relation to the deputy elections, now would be the perfect time for our Lib Dem backbenchers to form their own '22 committee - 2010 committee? Frankly I think the future of our party depends on it - the activists are the backbone of this party and in my view those of us (and we are in the majority) who would see ourselves as social liberals, are the backbone of the party and the only hope of us not turning into a shapeless meaningless mush, easily digested by the carnivorous Tory party! If we are not careful, the question "what are the Liberal Democrats for?" is in danger of becoming a reality. And this is why I have argued so strongly that however devastated some of us are with what has happened, we have to stay and fight. And if we don't win this fight, I fear we may ultimately see a split in the party and possibly a realignment of the liberal left.

At the moment, those who were clearly so successful on our negotiation team, appear to think they can walk on water. Despite not agreeing with him politically I have a lot of time for David Laws - he is a principled liberal - I will never forget the way he stood up to Tory attempts to poach him (although arguably they got what they wanted in the end!). He is incredibly intelligent, competent, trustworthy and honest. But it should be remembered, intelligence and wisdom are not necessarily co terminus. His kneejerk decision to axe Future Job Funds apparently on the basis of some dodgy advice from a penpusher in DWP, is worrying. Our manifesto was clear in its commitment to tackle the outrageous level of youth unemployment and yet one of the first messages we send out to young people is that their future is not a priority for us (and I was with several leading representatives of the youth sector yesterday who were horrified). So I think it is even more important for David and others of our representatives in government to listen to the party without whom they wouldn't be there.

Which brings me to my next point. As a democratic party, we have clear lines of accountability and decision making in relation to policy making. The FPC is responsible for developing policy and Federal Conference is responsible for determining policy. It is essential that we retain our distinctiveness as a LIBERAL and DEMOCRATIC party - I am worried that these democratic systems we have in place are being undermined by what is happening, it is surely more important than ever that we continue to make policy that truly reflects our values, and not only that, expect our MPs to support and champion in in the chamber rather than being prepared to sit on their hands, pick and choose according to their own personal preferences, or worse totally ignore it. As Lynne Featherstone rightly pointed out, we had a negotiating team who were "male and pale" although the pale was more of a murky orange! This means they have TOTALLY ignored our manifesto pledges on families children and young people. I have lost count over the last couple of weeks the number of calls I have had from the children and young people's press and CEOs from the sector very worried about this glaring omission. But lets embrace with open arms the nonsense that is Academies - oh and "Technical Academies" ah........sounds a lot like a return to Grammar and Secondary Modern to me.

OK, rant over, happy to hear arguments about why I have no reason to worry about the future of the party I love, but more importantly, the future for the country that I love and those people in this country who I fear will continue to be marginalised, neglected and ignored. "We're all in this together"............yeah right.

"Free to be Young" Lib Dem Youth Policy Launch

Sadly today I am Edinburgh for a roundtable at the Scottish Parliament, so not at the Salmon Youth Centre in Southwark with Lynne Feathestone to launch our Youth policy paper "Free to be Young". I had the great privilege to take over from Laura Willoughby as chair of the working group that produced what I think has turned out to be a brilliant paper! OK, we didn't get everything we wanted .........basically anything that cost anything (!) like 10,000 extra youth workers, but the principles that underpin our policy give us a sound foundation, and in my view the strongest policy position of all the parties.

Our starting point is freedom - our young people need to be given the freedom to grow and thrive. Labour is just interested in trussing them up in a straight jacket to force them into a mould of their making, or to demonise and blame them for society's ills. The Tories offer a "ladder of opportunity" - but don't tell you that the bottom rugs are broken and only the few rather than the many will manage to get onto that ladder. I believe we offer a genuine alternative - a ladder with no broken rungs but also a safety net for those who for whatever reason may from time to time "fall off" the ladder.

Our policy has already attracted attention from Children and Young People Now who were especially interested in our pledges to put Youth Service on a statutory footing and to create a cross departmental junior ministers committee to ensure a more joined up approach to youth issues. Also the response from my colleagues in the youth sector has been really positive - especially appreciating our theme of freedom. Please let me know what you think, you can read it here. I also hope you will join us for the debate at Spring Conference.

Special thanks must go to Laura, who did all the groundwork, to Debbie Enever, one of our many unsung heroes in the policy department, who did all the donkey work, pulled it all together and did the brilliant design, and to Lynne who has been amazing to work with, she is so supportive and encouraging and also such a fabulous advocate for young people . She also supported me to the end (along with Simon Hughes) in trying to get an agreement on the 10,000 extra youth workers, a battle I believe we will win in the end! But I am pleased about putting the Youth Service on to a statutory footing, this is something we in the sector have been calling for for decades (please note my old CYWU now Unite sparring partner Doug Nicholls - will you be advising your members to vote Lib Dem now?!). This won't produce the extra youth workers but it will go some way to arresting the hemorrhaging that is going on across the country as youth services are among the first to feel the cuts. Counter productive in the extreme and something that will end up costing us more in the long run, both financially and humanly.

Special thanks also to Faiza and the team at NCVYS who kindly provided many of the photos we were able to use in the document. Please visit their website to find out more about the residential opportunities they offer to young people.

Shadow Cabinet, FPC and Virgin Trains!

Ooops! Blank post courtesy of Virgin Trains - back in Bromsgrove now so let's hope this works.................

I’m just on my way back from FPC, on the train to Bromsgrove hoping that the train isn’t as late as it was last night, causing me to miss my connection with an hour wait for the next one! Anyway last night I was at Shadow Cabinet where, with Lynne Featherstone being the only woman, I was overwhelmed by the distinct white maleness of the brood. OK, a few women were missing, but it doesn’t take many to result in none.............Let’s hope this Speaker’s Conference really does do something to redress the balance...........but that really wasn’t my point – will return to this favourite theme in the future.

Now I may be accused of many things, but leaking isn’t one of them, so I will resist the temptation to dob Vince in about something quite amusing, or someone else about something not quite so amusing.

Last night and this evening Lynne and I were presenting the Youth Policy Paper – with many radical and fresh ideas, some of which will hopefully become policy, others which will fall victim to the fall out from “savage cuts”.

I turned up yesterday having just read an article in Children and Young People Now about the truly savage cuts that as ever, many youth services across the country are being faced with. In Nottingham it amounts to around £700,000, in Birmingham £1 million and in Oxfordshire they are consulting about a staggering £2.7 million in cuts. This is what truly does my head in. All the parties nationally make commitments about preserving frontline services – BUT – when it comes to the crunch it is the non statutory services that suffer, in particular youth service. I have lived with this for most of my youth service career – year after year of cuts –when we got rid of the Tory government I naively thought things might change. Did they? Did they heck! I used to manage a youth service where once I had paid all the fixed costs (salaries, buildings etc) I had £2,000 a year to spend on work with young people - £2,000 – that equated to about 10p per young person per year!!!

The Youth Policy Working Group has been united in the need to invest more in services for young people. So we have been arguing long and hard for additional youth workers – 10,000 to be precise. There is a reason for this.........a few years ago we had two expert witnesses to our Crime Policy Working Group who both said – what we need is not 10,000 more police on our streets but 10,000 youth workers. One of the arguments our party has for investing in police rather than youth workers is that this is what the people want. They want the police to cut crime. The fact is that young people are not only disproportionately the perpetrators of crime, they are also disproportionately the victims of crime. When I was in Bedford the crime people were most worried about was abduction.....this despite the fact that no one had been abducted for 20 years. There is a notion that more “bobbies on the beat” will help cut crime. But the truth is that a police officer actually comes across a crime once every 8 years!

Anyway, excepting a few notable parliamentary supporters, Lynne, Simon Hughes and Evan Harris – we have failed to convince the parliamentary party, or FPC of our case.

My frustration, whilst I appreciate the need to have some popularist policies, is that they must be evidence based. Also, while it may be true that people are worried about crime, if you look at the results of most citizens’ panels you will see that facilities for young people is also a hugely important issue, often topping the poll!

A few years ago my local authority commissioned a report into youth crime. An academic study was carried out by the local university. The study convincingly demonstrated that in one particular area (an area I managed) of high youth crime, the crime rates went down markedly on the evenings our youth club was open. The report was never formally published because it didn’t say what the politicians wanted it to say – I wonder how many other unread, unpublished reports would say the same thing? Actually, its not rocket science is it? “The Devil makes work for idle hands” hmmmm yes – innit?! If we actually listened to young people for a change we would hear this, again and again, but unfortunately it seems we have lost the ability to think long term or strategically, to recognise that we must invest to save. The real tragedy of this recession is that something that should have been seen as an opportunity will doubtless be squandered – and that squandering will result in yet another generation of young people who have been totally let down by our society. A society that bleats about “feral youth” but then is prepared to allow the environment to exist that reinforces their so called “feral” ways. A society that has not made the connection between effort and reward – that wants everything on a plate and doesn’t see why it should pay for it – a malaise that is being passed on to our children.

OK, I am in rant mode, but I want our party to tell the truth. Tell the truth about what the consequences are if we don’t invest in services now. Tell the truth about how the obscene inequality that exists now has resulted in our children being the unhappiest of all OECD countries, us having the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Western Europe, close to 1 million young people unemployed, us locking up more children than almost anyone else and the equally obscene human and financial cost of this.

Despite my rant, and my passionate belief that we really should be investing in our young people’s futures – I do think we have come up with a great policy paper. It will be launched soon and hopefully will get through conference without too much flak (especially since it ain’t gonna cost much!) It is head and shoulders above anything the other parties have come up with and is rooted in our core belief that "The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity"

Nadine Dorries AWOL for PBR (but don't worry, she has a security guard)

The observant among you will have noticed that Nadine Dorries revealed last week that she was going to take this week off to take part in a Channel 4 reality show. No expense spared she is being shipped off to a high rise in London - apparently being issued with her clothes when she gets there. To quote Nadine "Security will be with us the whole time, even when sleeping." Wow, I know MPs are a pretty unpopular bunch, but I had no idea they were quite that unpopular!

Apparently "One of the objectives is for me to experience the problems that the residents have to face on a daily basis and for residents to challenge and get to know an MP."

Er........now. That is odd. I would have thought the most important MP for residents to get to know would have been their own? And I am sure if she ends up in a Lib Dem constituency she will find that the residents probably do know their MP!

"The programme is being screened at prime time in February in four one hour programmes, one night after the other." Ah.......that explains why she has taken 6 days off from her parliamentary duties. I have to say I mentioned this to one of our London MPs, Lynne Featherstone this evening. Lynne demonstrated why she is in the running for "best MP" and Nadine is not. Lynne had also been asked to take part in this programme but had flatly refused - how could she possibly take 6 days out, particularly when the house was sitting? So my question, on behalf of the constituents of Mid Beds has to be - why was this more important than doing what she is paid to do - represent them? Now, had she wanted to take time out during the seemingly endless recesses - fair enough. But now? In the week of the PBR? In the week when parliament is debating the Energy Bill, Child Poverty, Disability Benefits for the Elderly, Local Government Financial Settlement and Council Tax...........?

"If I said I wasn't scared, I would be lying." Yes, very scary mixing with poor people.

"I will be swapping my ivory tower in Westminster for a tower block in London – the kind of accommodation that houses many thousands of people across the UK. These are people who may be in a constant state of being overwhelmed with the sheer scale of problems they face on a day-to-day basis." Yes Nadine, and even in leafy Mid Beds, there are people with the same problems. The problems of the inner city are well known and well documented. Less so the very real problems of rural deprivation and what can be even more stark social and physical exclusion. Having taught and been a youth worker in the constituency, I am well aware of what that can mean for communities. Wouldn't it have been more appropriate for you to have carried out the same exercise in your constituency?

"My objective for the week is to survive. To learn as much as I can. To leave something behind, even if it's only friendship." Surviving - SURVIVING?!!!! Heavens dear, what on earth do you think you are going into? People who live in high rises in London are not an alien race. They are people just like you and me, with hopes, aspirations, fears. Some are nice and some are nasty. Some are loving and some are not so loving. Much like the rest of us. This is not "I'm a Celebrity get me out of Here" - now that would be scary and I for one would certainly not survive!

"I must not slip into the C4 trap of creating good TV. I'm only too aware that they will attempt to exhaust and challenge me in an attempt to provoke an adverse reaction which would look good on the telly." Hmmmmmm

"I've told my girls not to worry. The only violence likely to occur is if C4 try to prise my mascara wand out of my hand. Security will be necessary then! Big time." If ever someone betrayed their prejudices this was it.

Well, I do genuinely hope some good comes out of this "I'm a Celebrity get me in There" stunt. Maybe it will change Nadine, maybe, just maybe, she will see the consequences of decades of Tory indifference and Labour ineffectiveness. Maybe, just maybe, she will realise that the only hope for our country lies with the Liberal Democrats. Maybe, just maybe, she will decide to become a full-time campaigner for change. But, I'm not holding my breath.

PPCs, Bloggers and the Lib Dem constitution :-)

Today is set aside for me to write my application for the job of my dreams (tho success would mean my sharp exit from politics), to sort out my paper work, try and find a mortgage to avoid yet another threatened eviction, write a motion on detention of children and resubmit my petition for divorce (in one week's time it will be incontestable). But, as ever, I have to confess to having been distracted by my fellow bloggers!



Charlotte Gore started the debate, do candidacy and blogging mix? Swiftly followed by Stephen Glenn and Darrell Goodliffe, both of whom I agree with. Charlotte, we may be opposite ends of the Lib Dem political spectrum, but my response would be go girl! Whatever comments you have made you have made seriously, they are your views, they demonstrate your political commitment, if you have made them I have no doubt you can robustly defend them - why then worry about having to do that if you are a PPC? And, I have to wonder, is this one of our bugbears as women, would our male counterparts have similar worries? Seriously, it worries me that as Lib Dems, with a constitution that among other things asserts that "no one should be enslaved by conformity" it ill behoves us to condemn those who don't conform to every jot and tittle!



In the current political climate people are looking for politicians with real integrity, who are motivated by a belief that society could be different, who will not conform simply to advance their careers and who have thought through where they stand and why. When Nick Clegg was elected his mantra was "risky and radical". Oh that we would truly embrace that!

A few years ago I attended a media course for PPCs - which I have mentioned before, being as I was the only woman. During the course our tutor cautioned us about the dangers of blogs. All eyes turned towards me..........my response..........what makes you think I'm not careful?! OK, I sometimes blast off about this or that that has wound me up - but, to quote my favourite book "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks"....! :-) I cannot and will not water down my views so as not to frighten the horses. I will only alter my views if someone presents me with a logical argument, or presents me with new evidence to demonstrate that I am wrong. And, at the risk of falling into "I told you so" smugness, I have been proved right on for example raising the tax threshold rather than the 4p reduction, on Trident, on my lonely stand on troops out of Iraq (thanks to the 6 people who backed me in that debate!). I also think my support for Nick Clegg has been well and truly vindicated over the past few weeks. And in the future I expect to be proved right on my stand on privatisation of Royal Mail, Afghanistan..........amongst other things!

So to all you fellow bloggers out there who may think being a candidate or MP and blogging don't mix - take your lead from those such as Lynne Featherstone who have made an art of it. I certainly don't recall her ever pulling her punches on issues she felt strongly about.