I'm thinking the world needs a few more resignations...

This blog has something of a history of backing unlikely political figures from other parties when they get something right, and today I'm adding another surprising name to that list. As I tweeted yesterday, I read Diane Abbotts analysis of the Sharon Shoesmith case yesterday and thought 'yes, that's right'. And then had a sit down.

It seems to me to be debating whether Ed Balls followed correct due process or not in sacking Ms. Shoesmith is the wrong argument to be fighting over. It seemed fairly obvious at the time that he wasn't playing it by the book and I was surprised when he won first time round in court. But surely the debate we should be having is why did he have to sack her at all - why didn't she resign?

This isn't a case of a single mistake leading to a horrifying conclusion. It was a tale of systematic errors and in cases like that, it is the management, whose job it is to make the system work efficiently and effectively, who have to hold their hands up. You earn the big money for two reasons - to make things work better, and to take responsibility if they don't. That's as true in the public sector as it is in business. And I think that principle should apply here.

I have also read that the sacking was a mistake as it will have put talented people off applying for similar roles in case the same happens to them. I think that's nonsense as well. I doubt if you'll ever struggle to find people to take on 130 grand a year jobs - but everyone has to be clear WHY you get paid that sort of money. It's because, if it all goes pear shaped, the buck stops with you.

And if people who don't want that sort of responsibility have been put off caring for our most vulnerable members of society, that's a good thing. I want people who will put their hand up to be in charge of services like that - and who will fight tooth and nail for the children in their care, by making sure the system works.

Slacking...

Apologies if the blog is a little threadbare for the next few days as we're on holiday. Normal service will be resumed ASAP - and there will no doubt be the odd missive!

You can only manage the news cycle if you are actually sitting on the news bike...

As we get to the end of the week and reflect on the last 7 days, let's spare a thought for the poor news management folk in Lib Dem Towers, who must be oscillating widely between a state of abject despair and wild eyed fury.

Last weekend they must have been got home, poured a stiff gin and relaxed, safe in the knowledge they had two cracking agenda setting topics to lead the Lib Dem line: the launch of the Green Investment Bank and Nicks speech on NHS reforms. What's more, both popular topics were led by Nick - another step on the road to reputation rehab. Hooray. What could possibly go wrong?

Seven days on - which Lib Dem stories have actually led the news agenda?

1. John Hemming, Ryan Giggs and Imogen off Big Brother
2. Chris Huhnes driving licence

Hmm. It's tricky getting on the front foot with your own side delivering bouncers like that at you.

So chin up and stiff gins all round news team. Next week it can only get better!

Olly Grender vs. Mark Pack FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT

Oh alright then. Not really. In fact anyone following both their twitter feeds over the last few days will have been delighted as they tag team Guido and Harry Cole into knots, half nelsons, spine crushers and full on body slams. It's been a delight watching Guido work himself into a state of near spontaneous combustion as they take it in turns to gently point out the error of his ways...Take a look at the comments section on this post for example. Brilliant

However, to justify the sensationalist headline I have appended to this post, Olly and Mark have in recent days been doling out sage advice that I have been merrily nodding along to thinking 'ah yes, very good' - and then it struck me that in fact they are saying the complete opposite to each other. So who's right?

In the blue corner I give you Mark's top piece on how to deal with a media crisis that he blogged earlier this week. . In it one piece of stand out advice is the contrast between the actions of David Laws and Chris Huhne in the eye of the media storm. David fronted up immediately and came out well. Chris avoided the media, left a vacuum, and came out badly. Marks advice: if you're facing questions get out there and go on the front foot.

In the red corner we have Olly's piece praising Michael Moore. She cites an occasion when Michael was being pursued by the press and responded by doing nothing - on the basis the story wasn't true. And as it wasn't true, the press got nowhere, and the story died.

So David Laws and Michael Moore both did the opposite thing, yet each lanced the story. So which route is correct?

Well, I guess the route you go down rather depends on whether the story the press is chasing is actually true. David Laws knew there was an issue, put his hand up immediately and lanced the boil. Michael Moore knew the accusation was nonsense so ignored the story rather than give it legs.

Which brings us to Chris H. Chris says the speeding tale is not true. Therefore it has no legs. Therefore ignore it and it will die. Which is the right strategy - so long as it really doesn't have legs. For as we all know it isn't the original misdeed that gets you (David Laws will return); it's the cover up.

Chris is a fine Sec of State doing an excellent job. I truly hope the denial route he has gone down is the right one.

Lib Dem? Grassroots? Lords Reform? Facebook? This blogs for you

For everyone in the party keen on pushing the Lords Reform agenda (that seems pretty much everyone bar Lord Steel and Lord Lee by my reckoning) then there's a Facebook page just for us.

Do go and have a gander, read of the posts, add to the debate or indeed just find out how to write Lord Lee a strongly worded letter. Go on, you know you want to....

This blogpost is smug, self satisfied and slightly pompous. I wouldn't read it if I were you.

From the Evening Standard yesterday headlined 'Ed Miliband saved my job, says Clarke'.

"He had to thank the Labour leader during “my little local difficulty last week”. Ed Miliband’s call for him to be sacked had totally backfired. “such a demand makes the PM look an idiot if he sacks you, while at the same time rallying the party’s tribal tendencies.”

From this blog last Friday headlined "Deep sighs but credit where it's due. Miliband played a blinder for progressives everywhere at PMQ's yesterday".

"Firstly, Miliband probably was as outraged as everyone else by Clarke's comments. But he wouldn't want Clarke replaced either. And I'm guessing he calculated that the surest way of keeping Ken in post was...to demand he was sacked. After that, Cameron could do nothing but keep Ken in position, or else look like he was caving in to Miliband'.

OK everybody, altogether now, " Smug smug smug smug"....

A Lib Dem MP struck a great blow for Press Freedom on Monday. So why do I feel so grumpy about it?

It's funny isn't it.

John Hemming's actions on Monday were, by most people's definition, liberal. The law had already been made to look ridiculous anyway. What's more, why should the rich and famous who can afford the best lawyers get the protection of the courts when others without access to the same resources cannot do similar. I feel much the same about Dominique Strauss-Kahn's bail hearing - it seems wrong that because he had a million dollars handy and could afford to pay $200k a month in security to keep himself under house arrest he was afforded bail, when someone in the same situation without that access to funds would have been kept in Rikers Island. One law for one, etc. So John Hemming evening things up for the rest of us is just a totally good thing, isn't it? Isn't it?

So why can't I shake off this feeling of doom about the whole thing?

I guess it's because while freedom of speech, freedom of expression or freedom of the press is a valiant war, this particular battle seems especially grubby and less about freedom of the press and more of the right to gossip. Which might be an equal right, but seems a lot less worthy. And suddenly finding yourself battling for the rights of the tabloids to run kiss and tell sex stories seems a rather less good use of Parliaments time. And while I have little sympathy for the millionnaire asking for junction, I do feel sorry for his wife and kids. I know many people saw the name 'officially' revealed on the BBC for the first time on... Newsround. Imagine that in the Giggs household. No fun.

So yes, while I don't much like the rich and their super injunctions, I guess it's the hypocrisy of the press playing the moral high ground while they skirt around in the gutter that makes me feel just a bit grumpy.

It's not exactly Watergate, is it?