The New Yorker Cover. Rather brilliant.

Even if it doesn't make me feel terrible comfortable.

I presume Obama has sent the weekend 'rehearsing'

(Hat tip to @HelenLewis who tweeted it)

Anyway, cheer yourself up again by looking at the inspiration for the cartoon...

When politics gets in the way...

You may have noticed that I have removed all reference on this blog to a local campaign I am involved in.

The campaign is a difficult issue as it involves balancing the needs of a vulnerable group who deserve the very best in care against the disposal of key public owned assets, enjoyed by another less vulnerable but still important group who also deserve protection. I don't want to say too much more about it, for reasons that will become apparent.

Everyone involved on both sides has the best interests of all the groups at heart, of that there is no doubt. We just disagree about the best way of delivering the best services for both groups.

It is most certainly not a party political issue, and we are lobbying all elected officials from both the Tory and Lib Dem parties (there are no other parties with elected representatives locally).

But rumours are flying that I am trying to politicise the debate.

In truth, I am not, But I did link the campaign to this blog and put up a post about it here. I did this to raise the profile of the campaign - but in retrospect I can understand why people may have thought I was trying to politicise the debate.

I am not and wanted to make that clear.

So I have removed the post and the link and will not mention the issue on here again.

Why Justine Greening should resign. And the question David Cameron has to answer..

My latest in The New Statesman from Wednesday - which attracted comments galore if you fancy popping over there... Nice to see lots of the media following the theme up too...

So, when did David Cameron know about the West Coast Main Line contract debacle? 

I only ask because normally the Secretary of State responsible for a major tender like this would be considering their position. In response to loud and vociferous complaints, the individual in question described the bidding as a "fair and well established process", and only opened an inquiry into the process after a threat of legal action from one of the bidders - an inquiry which concluded that "regrettable and completely unacceptable mistakes" had been made by the Transport Department.

Add in the £40m compensation it is estimated that we, the taxpayer, will have to pay to the losing bidders, plus the questions it raises over the award of every other rail tender – and normally that Secretary of State would face the prospect of "more time with their family" right now. But that hasn’t happened because the Secretary of State in charge of the department while this fiasco was going on was moved in the reshuffle.

I always wondered about the ‘too opposed to Heathrow’ excuse that was given for moving Justine Greening. Firstly, she was the MP for Putney and her views on the third runway were well known before Cameron put her in Transport. To move her just 11 months later over Heathrow would actually suggest a complete political misjudgement in the first place. Secondly, Greening had stuck rigidly to the official Tory line on Heathrow – no change in view before 2015.  She said nothing about after 2015 - that’s a dangerous line to try and hold in West London. Sacking her for that was harsh, to put it mildly. And while the new Secretary of State for Transport describes himself as neutral on a third runway, the new transport minister, Simon Burns, has said: "Just as I am opposed to a second runway at Stansted, I am equally opposed to a third runway at Heathrow. This is environmental vandalism and will dramatically increase our carbon dioxide emission levels. The government should be encouraging better use of regional airports rather than concentrating on travel around London".

All of which suggests either Cameron cocked up his evil plans once again or that Heathrow wasn’t the main reason for moving Greening out.

Which takes me back to the original question. When did Cameron know about this debacle? And did it have anything to do with moving Greening? And I’d add a third question – isn’t there a case for her resigning over this fiasco anyway?

I LOVE it when Great George Street listens to me

Last week I said

And look what's now touring the streets of Manchester..

Of course, I suppose they MAY have thought of it themselves. :-)

'

Fairer Tax

There's a good Fairer Tax campaign website - with a petition to sign. Do pop over and have a butchers and sign the petition.

Thanks

I'm starting a campaign to make the most democratic of all the party conferences...democratic

My first experience of conference was quite some years ago, not long after I joined the party and I was invited to speak at fringe at Spring Conference. I went all the way down, spoke on the Saturday evening, then went to conference the next day, and sat through a debate.

This was when I learnt that I was, at conference, the 'wrong' sort of member, had no vote, and that some members were, in conference terms, more equal than others.

Ever since then, the vagaries of who gets a vote at conference has troubled me. All sorts of party officials get a vote, associated groups seem to have allocations, and then local members seem to get a vote if they turn up at their local AGM and ask. I know reps are meant to be elected by their local party - but I wonder how often this actually happens? This seems a fairly undemocratic way of going about things.

This seems quite wrong. I also know many people feel if they can't go to conference for the whole time, they shouldn't 'take up' a voting rep place. And of course many can't afford to go to conference for the whole time, or even part of the time.

I went to Birmingham for Special Conference in 2010. But I wasn't a voting rep that year, so I had no say in the most important decision the party had made for 80 years.

So here's what I think. I'd like to democratise conference.

I see two stages:

1. Firstly I think any member of the party who is at conference should have voting rights fo the time they are there. I simply cannot see any argument against this. The only argument I have heard is members who 'qualify' for current voting rep status are more likely to be 'informed'on the issues. What nonsense this is. We may as well say only member of the electorate who can demonstrate they have done their homework have the right to vote in a General Election.

2. And then I would go further. I would allow members of the party who wish to register to watch a debate online, and then view the debate, should be allowed a remote vote, in realtime. I think they would have to pay a mall amount to register  - but the technology is very cheap, very easy, and will not slow up conference in any way. I have seen another good blog post making this case in far more detail

Currently votes in conference often take place between a couple of hundred people. Rather more people vote in the average Lib Dem Voice survey. This is madness for the party that prides itself on being the one where the members still decide policy.

I'm considering proposing a motion at Spring Conference to make both of these things possible - although I would imagine the first would be easier to achieve than the second. I will also be starting a campaign amongst members to gather support for this.

So - are you with me? 

And why hasn't this happened before? - or am i going over old ground? Do tell.

Look, I'm doing my best....:-)

Well, it's been a miserable 24 hours for my blogging ego.

First Lord Bonkers delivers some astute comment about the general state of Lib Dem blogging.

Then Andrew Emmerson does likewise

That's before we even get in to the fact that the best blog post anyone is likely to write in the next 12 months was published this weekend. I didn't write it.

I haven't even recovered from that Hopi Sen analysis of the Orwell Prize entries this year yet. I still reckon he meant me.

Blimey