3 ways you can try to save #isamuaza's life

I am reeling from the fact that a government with Liberal Democrats in it is on the brink of crossing a major humanitarian line. Not content with standing by while Isa Muaza starves himself to death in protest at his treatment within an immigration detention centre, tomorrow morning they are planning to deport him. He can barely stand, and as this report from the Guardian states, he has numerous health problems. If he survives the flight, what are they going to do to someone in such a weakened state? Dump him in the arrivals lounge and head back home? What reputable airline would do that? This one, Air Charter Scotland, apparently.

Lord Roger Roberts wrote a heartbreaking post on Liberal Democrat Voice yesterday describing his visit to Isa, who has now not eaten for 90 days, and making the case for clemency.

Even before this protest began – and before he ever came to the UK – Isa Muaza was a deeply vulnerable person. He fled Nigeria fearing for his life at the hands of the terror group Boko Haram, a group he says have already killed several members of his family and as he told me yesterday, if returned this week he will have no one to meet him off the plane. He is penniless, blind and incapable of standing on his own. In his current state this on its own is a death sentence.

In deporting Mr Muaza on Friday the Home Office seems to be seeking to avoid another death in immigration detention. But the Home Secretary cannot – and should not – escape responsibility for her actions. In this case, for forcibly detaining a man the system so evidently could not care for. Those held in the thousands of beds in immigration detention centres across the UK are some of the most vulnerable people in the country. Striking out at them is not the sign of a strong immigration system, but a desperately weak one.

So what does a fair society do when faced with someone on hunger strike? There are some people, like Theresa May, who think it's just a way of playing the system. For three months? To the point of a long drawn out horrible death? For me, it's the sign of a very sick system that nobody going through it has any confidence in it to treat them fairly.

We need to be working on prevention. Isa originally started his hunger strike because his clinical and dietary needs were not being met. Taking someone's liberty is drastic enough. We don't need to have their dignity too. If someone is being detained, which should not be a common thing at all, they should have all the support and health care that they need and the respect as a fellow human being that they deserve.

We generally are pretty helpless in these situations, but that doesn't mean we should sit and do nothing. There are times when we should make our voices heard and this is one of them. Here are 3 things you can do:

1. Sign Julian Huppert's and Roger Roberts' e-petition.

2. Tweet or email Air Charter Scotland and ask them not to transport Isa Muaza.

3. If you are a Liberal Democrat party member tweet or email Tim Farron, Party President, to ask him to continue to press Nick Clegg to intervene. He has met with Nick's team today and urged them to do so and he has also signed Julian and Roger's petition. The more people he can say are annoyed about this, the stronger his case will be. Although, bluntly, it shouldn't take us being annoyed to move Nick to action on this.

We already knew that the asylum system was inhumane and put people through horrid indignities while not giving vulnerable people enough time to get representation and present their evidence properly. It was bad enough under Labour, and the Conservatives have, seemingly unchecked, made it worse. What are we there for if not to stand up for those who can't stand up for themselves? We need to start making a tangible difference, and soon, to the way people are treated. It's already bad enough that a Liberal Democrat minister has been restricting access to Legal Aid so that women can't get legal representation, for example, if they are trying to get a place in a mother and baby unit. That's heartbreaking enough, but we're talking about a matter of life and possibly imminent death here.

Liberal Democrats are there to protect people from the excesses of the state. I accept that there are limits to what we can do when we make up just a fifth of the Government and I know that Labour and Tories have no such concern, but we need to do it firstly because nobody else will and secondly because it's right.

Nick Clegg is wrong on EU benefits - his words and actions don't match up. We might save peanuts, but we lose so much more..

So, all these EU citizens from poorer countries coming here and claiming benefits. A huge problem? Actually, not so much. My Liberal Democrat Voice co-editor was bang on the money yesterday when he said:

So, for all the uproar and shouting, 94% of overseas nationals entering the UK do not claim out-of-work benefits within six months – c.6% do, compared to c.13% of UK natives. That’s not nothing, but it puts the issue into perspective, doesn’t it?

That’s also the most charitable explanation I can come up with for Nick Clegg’s decision to go along with the Tory proposals, describing them as “sensible and reasonable”. If he’d said the proposals were “blatantly populist but unlikely to have much effect beyond further stoking the public perception that immigrants are to blame for all our ills” he’d have been closer to the mark.

 Regular readers will be familiar with my "Lock me in a cupboard with a bottle of gin" list of things that I really cannot stand about this coalition. Things already on it include time limiting Employment and Support Allowance, the Bedroom Tax, secret courts and cuts to legal aid. There is, of course, also a list of fantastic stuff we've done, like the Scotland Act, ending child detention for immigration purposes, giving extra money to disadvantaged kids in school having a health minister who knows what he's doing about mental health and a pensions minister who has given the biggest cash rise in the state pension and put them on a fairer and more secure footing. But every time something else goes on the Gin List, the glow of the Good List diminishes.

I'm not saying that Santa Claus will be putting a lump of coal in Nick's stocking this Christmas, but I am well displeased with him for agreeing to Cameron's benefit restrictions. It will save the UK peanuts, but we will lose so much more. If you look at the big picture, what you see is the liberal voice you thought you could depend on to challenge the awful UKIP/DailyMail/Tory anti immigrant rhetoric ceding ground. It's all very well for Nick to say on Call Clegg that he's speaking for the majority of British people, but if the majority of British people are wrong, misinformed and have a view that's contrary to our core values,he should be challenging them to think differently. He should be pointing out where their facts are wrong and giving them evidence to the contrary.

What he shouldn't be doing is giving the forces of xenophobia and conservatism the sort of shot in the arm that was in his email to members last night:

Let others flirt with the prospect of European exit in order to pander to the right. We remain passionately committed to staying in the EU for the sake of British jobs, security and influence in the world.

That does not mean that we are indifferent to the need to reform the EU. On the contrary, pro-Europeans urgently need to reclaim this territory. Otherwise we surrender this debate to the populists and xenophobes – the people who want to pull up the drawbridge and pull Britain out of Europe.

For that very reason I am urging all pro-Europeans to back the changes to the access European nationals have to UK benefits announced by the Coalition Government today. It is precisely because I want Britain to remain an open and outward facing nation that I am delivering these reforms.

Freedom of movement is a cornerstone of the European project and millions of Brits benefit from it every year. But years of mismanagement of the immigration system have undermined people’s confidence in it and this loss of faith must now be addressed. That is the only way to preserve this nation’s warm and welcoming nature. If we are to protect the right to move and work in the longterm, we must ensure it does not become an automatic right to claim benefits.

The trouble is he is legitimising the populists and xenophobes by ceding our ground to them. He says one thing and does another. It's just not right.He might use moderate language, but he will be associated forever with David Cameron's more bombastic approach. That is not what you want from an advocate of liberal values.

Sarah Teather, who has been consistently critical of the coalition's immigration policies, had this to say:

Once again we have an immigration policy announcement that has nothing to do with reacting to fact and everything to do with reacting to anti-immigration rhetoric-driven polling. Instead of providing political leadership and tackling immigration myths, these proposals target a problem that doesn't exist while stoking public anger and distrust towards foreigners.

Politicians are often far too afraid of talking about the benefits to the UK and its residents of being part of the EU project, which has freedom of movement at its heart. Over 2 million Brits live in other EU countries with tens of thousands of British citizens claiming benefits in their host countries, a fact many opinion formers seem to conveniently forget.

Reading today's proposals you would think that all EU nationals have unfettered access to the benefit system and that people from all over Europe are flocking to the UK in their millions in order to abuse our hospitality. Yet the reality is far different.

EU migrants already have to have to go through a process of registration before being able to claim benefits, which in itself takes several weeks and requires a fixed address. Plus the Government's own data shows that EU migrants are far less likely to be claiming out of work benefits than UK citizens.

If Nick is looking at a problem about immigration that actually needs solving, he would be well advised to look at what's happening to Isa Muaza at the behest of his cabinet colleague Mrs May. The Home Secretary is about to deport a man who is close to death, who hasn't eaten for 90 days in protest at the inhumane conditions we keep those who seek sanctuary in our country. The medics say that he isn't fit to fly, and even if he survives the journey, what's going to happen to him when he lands in Nigeria when he can't stand and can barely speak? I feel such utter shame and fury that my government is behaving so unethically and immorally.

The party is going to be debating immigration at Spring Conference in York in March. If you feel that we need to have a liberal immigration policy, please register here and come along to have your say. If your local party hasn't had its AGM, go along and stand to be a voting rep. If there are spare voting rep spaces, make sure that you organise that soon as the cut-off date will be some time in January.

Now is not the time to be running scared of the Daily Mail. There are more than enough people clamouring to put an illiberal point. Nick needs to get on the stage and loudly proclaim the liberal argument. He is not doing so at the moment. And it's abundantly clear that if he won't, nobody else will. There are vulnerable people who need us to stand up for them. If we let them down, we let ourselves down too.

Nick Clegg on Andrew Marr: Tories want tax cuts for the wealthy, I want to put £100 back in workers' pockets

Nick Clegg was on Andrew Marr today talking about his wish to see the Government raise the tax threshold by a further £500, putting £100 back in people's comments. If you agree, by the way, sign the petition here.

Without any hint of rancour or peevishness, he put a lot of effort into demonstrating that the Tories favoured tax cuts for the rich while the Liberal Democrats favour tax cuts for ordinary people. He listed the Tory plans - cutting inheritance tax, cutting the top rate of tax, marriage tax breaks, that the Liberal Democrats opposed.

Again he looked relaxed and confident, and also a bit like he'd been messing with the Strictly Come Dancing spray tan machine. What's going on there, I wonder?

I was much happier with his language on the community tensions in Sheffield as well - it was much more consensual and his point on the need for dialogue was not lost this time. He also was absolutely clear that he wasn't going to see any group of people villified.

And, finally, on the age of consent controversy, he said he wouldn't favour a reduction to 15 but talked about the need for much better sex education.

Why, though, do journalists never ask the questions you want them to? An extra £100 to basic rate tax payers is fine but I'm not sure I want it to be the pinnacle of our ambition. It makes the extra £2000 we'd promise for the next Parliament look uninspiring - although you have to see that in the context of more help with childcare, more nursery places for the most deprived two year olds and the like. What worries me, though, is that there are single income households where less than £10,000 is coming in. They won't get that extra £100 and they are really struggling. What can be done to help them?

Here's a storify thingy of mine and others' tweets.

Actually, Nick, there might be something in this vouchers for breastfeeding thing

Nick Clegg was asked yesterday, on his LBC phone in, what he thought about the plan to give women in deprived areas £200 in High Street shopping vouchers. This was one of these questions which he had to answer by instinct because he didn't know the detail and to give him credit, he said a lot of the right things. He talked about how no mum should feel pressured to breastfeed, but those who do should get the support they need. Whether he knows on a practical level what that actually means, though, is not clear.

He was unambiguous about one thing, though

Needless to say, it's not going to be Government policy to pay mothers to breastfeed.

I actually think that the benefits of breastfeeding, particularly in deprived areas, are so clear that it is worth trying anything that works.  Given Nick Clegg's commitment to tackling inequality, too, he might be very interested to find that research shows that a poor breastfed baby has better long term health chances than an affluent formula fed baby. If I had to pick just one of my many ramblings on various subjects for him to read, it would be this from last year following the UNICEF report that showed that the NHS could save £40 million a year by supporting breastfeeding and in particular this quote from research:

Breast fed children from lower socio-economic groups had better outcomes than formula fed children from more affluent families.

However, when resources are tight, I think that there are three very practical things  that come ahead of the vouchers scheme. I was on Radio Scotland's Call Kaye on Wednesday talking about them, and you can listen here to "Caron from Bathgate" at about 45 minutes in.

Good quality support

When I hit trouble early in my breastfeeding career, it was the specific support I received from La Leche League that sorted me out. I could so easily have given up because my local midwife and health visitor, lovely though they were, just didn't have the detailed information I needed to get through. Nor could they come out and sit in my house like LLL's Louise did. When I started supporting women myself, I found that some health professionals didn't know things I considered to be basic. Things are better now, but women often still can't access the help that they need.

Groups

Guilt seems to go and in hand with motherhood. When you're tired and upset and things aren't going well, you can blame yourself and think that you are the only one in the world who's going through it. You worry constantly that you are failing your baby. Attending a support group means that you meet others who are going through the same thing. Some will still be struggling with it. That group dynamic, led by someone who has some good evidence based solutions to offer in an informal and friendly environment, can do wonders.

Classes

Ante-matal breastfeeding classes are extremely useful in informing and preparing parents for what they might expect. Like all problems, the sooner you recognise it and intervene, the easier it is to resolve. If you can give people an idea of how to know if the baby is getting enough milk - and there are some very graphic leaflets around showing you exactly the size and colour of the emissions necessary to indicate that - they are more likely to call you in earlier.

I'd take it further, though. I've come across so many women whose families have undermined their breastfeeding. If their baby doesn't sleep, or cries a lot, breastfeeding gets the blame. They are told, often with the best of intentions,  that their milk isn't good enough or that the baby is hungry. I think there needs to be an ad campaign, or a class targeted at grannies to update them on current research, evidence and effective ways to support the new mother in their family.

Culture

Our culture has some very strange ideas about what breasts are for and how they should be portrayed. It equally has some very strange ideas about how babies behave and what they need. The baby that sleeps for four hours and only wakes up to be fed exists only between the wishful thinking pages of a text book. It's going to take a long time to achieve that and it will take getting many more mothers to breastfeed before we accept it as normal. That's why the vouchers scheme might be worth a shot. I'm looking forward to seeing how the pilot turns out. There is a very strong argument for putting as much money into encouraging breastfeeding as it takes to transform the health of our most disadvantaged babies.

Syria: what do Liberal Democrats want?

Last night Liberal Democrat Voice brought you Nick Clegg's view on Syria, which can be summarised as follows:

• if we stand idly by we set a very dangerous precedent
• the use of chemical weapons is a repugnant crime
• we will not stand idly by when chemical weapons are used in complete breach of international law
•  Government “is not going to act outside the remit of international law”
• we want to stand up for the standards and norms in the civilised world

In the last couple of days Paddy Ashdown and Sir Menzies Campbell, two of the most respected voices this country has on foreign affairs, have been saying slightly different things. It's almost like it's being cleverly choreographed. Paddy is slightly in favour of action, Sir Menzies slightly against. In the Times on Monday (£), Paddy said:

What has happened in Damascus is a challenge to our humanity. It is also a challenge to our system of international law. If the international community will not now find the means to make it clear that we will not tolerate the use of weapons of mass destruction, like poison gas, for the mass murder of innocent citizens, then the fragile structures of international law that we have painfully erected these last 20 years will be undermined, and the threat of the future use of weapons of mass destruction will be widened.

What sort of intervention does he want to see? Well, he doesn't really say, but he says what he doesn't want.

Here what is needed is something proportionate, consistent with international law, closely defined and tightly targeted on the crime. So no to no-fly zones — even if they were militarily possible. And no to arming the rebels too — even if that was wise (which, by the way, neither is). It means something sharp, quick, specific and punishing. And preferably — strongly preferably — legitimised by a UN Security Council Resolution.

On the other hand, Sir Menzies, while being equally measured in his comments, reminded us that intervention in Iraq didn't end well. Speaking on the BBC News Channel yesterday, he said that any intervention must have clear objectives and understand the potential consequences. He said that he was not persuaded that military action is the right thing to do.

From what I can glean, the predominant feeling in Liberal Democrat circles, amongst those is intense anxiety. This is entirely appropriate. Nobody should ever contemplate something like this without calculating the human cost. Whatever we do or don't do, people will die. What is the least worst option?

This is no six month debate like Iraq. We are hurtling towards a decision which will have long term and serious consequences and Parliament will vote tomorrow on a motion which is as yet unseen. We can expect that action will follow swiftly thereafter, given that the Commons is being recalled just two working days early. Why the haste? You can understand that nobody wants a repetition of the scenes in Damascus last week, and the longer it's left, the more likely it becomes.

Nick Clegg has a lot of work to do if he wants to persuade an anxious party to go along with any military action. The major concerns that I can see are:

Is it legal and what?

There's no chance of UN backing, but, as Jonathan Fryer argues, the "responsibility to protect" might cover that:

 As I said in a live interview on the al-Etejah (Iraqi Arab) TV channel last night, the justification for the UK, US, France and maybe Germany taking such a step, along with sympathetic Middle Eastern countries including Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, without UN approval, would be the relatively new concept within International Law, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), about which I have written extensively. This asserts that if a government is unable or unwilling to protect its own people, then the international community has a responsibility to intervene on humanitarian grounds, providing there are reasonable prospects of success.

We have Nick Clegg's assurance that action will be legal, but we must see the basis for that argument and we must know why it's being done, with the evidence spelled out in words of one syllable.

Is there an international consensus in favour?

My sense is that people are pretty much opposed to a unilateral action involving just Britain and the US. They want to see broad international support for action. This is one area where the slowly turning diplomatic wheels and the perceived need for speed to prevent further atrocities clash. Our European liberal partners are not so reticent. ALDE's Guy Verhofstadt wants Assad out:

Europe should show to Assad that it cannot accept in any way his crimes against humanity. We should be united in this. This intervention should not be a loose coalition of the willing but a strong cooperation between the US, the EU, Turkey and the majority of the Arab countries. We should also work together in a strategy to get Assad out as this is the most important obstacle for peace talks.

Together we should discuss how to arm the Free Syrian Army, how to implement a no-fly-zone to protect the Syrian people and how to deal with the growing number of Jihadis. Such a common and effective strategy will only be possible if the EU speaks with one voice. I call on the High Representative to convene a new urgent meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council. Also, I have called on my colleagues in the EP Conferce of Presidents to meet for an urgent discussion on Syria.

What are the objectives and exit strategy?

Do we know what we are doing and have we thought it through properly, and have we taken account of the fact that according to a poll in today's Sun that we're facing public opinion of 2:1 against? I suspect that's not a million miles from where the Liberal Democrats are.

As I said yesterday, I am seriously struggling with this. My instinct is against, but where military action is proposed, it almost always is. I wasn't happy about the Falklands War when I was 14. I see where Nick Clegg is coming from, and I am prepared to listen to what he has to say. I just hope that Parliament steps up to the plate tomorrow and properly goes through the issues with as fine a tooth comb as time permits. We need a measured, cautious, serious tone.

Mike Crockart, by the way, has emailed all the people signed up to his email newsletter to ask for their views. He said:

The Prime Minister has said that MPs will vote on a 'clear motion'. It is likely that the motion will consider whether Britain should take military action against the Assad Government.
I appreciate that people across Edinburgh West hold strong views on the situation in Syria and I wanted to contact you to ask that you share your thoughts on the matter with me.

Others may have done similar - please add any you know of in the comments.

What do you think?

What the hell are the Home Office playing at - and why are Liberal Democrats letting them get away with it?

So, it seems that officials from the Home Office have been showing up at tube stations in London and demanding to see proof of people's immigration status. That would be non white people's status, by the way. The Independent has more...

Witnesses who saw the operations in London claimed the officers stopped only non-white individuals, and in Kensal Green said that when questioned, the immigration officials became aggressive.

Phil O'Shea told the Kilburn Times: "They appeared to be stopping and questioning every non-white person, many of whom were clearly ordinary Kensal Green residents going to work. When I queried what was going on, I was threatened with arrest for obstruction and was told to 'crack on'."

Another witness, Matthew Kelcher, said: "Even with the confidence of a free-born Englishman who knows he has nothing to hide, I found this whole experience to be extremely intimidating. They said they were doing random checks, but a lot of people who use that station are tourists so I don't know what message that sends out to the world."

This is horrible. The idea that people are being asked for their papers as they go about their business and if they can't provide them, they are bundled up in a van, to be another statistic in a Home Office tweet, is horrible. I strongly suspect many of them will be innocent anyway - I mean, who thinks they have to take their documents with them if they are simply taking a tube ride?  Tube stations are pretty cramped anyway, so being confronted with a dozen burly Border Force types is going to be pretty intimidating.

And what if you are arrested in full public view, maybe in front of your neighbour, or the local shopkeeper, or the woman who does your eyebrows? They aren't going to necessarily know when you've been released, with no action taken, by the Home Office. They may well assume that you have done something wrong.

So why are the Tories doing this? The obvious answer is to say that they are pandering to UKIP, being seen to be doing something about this vast underworld of illegal immigrants the Daily Mail says we have. But I think that there may be more too it. They're not just trolling us, they are trying to toxify us. If they can get our voters thinking that we have abandoned our belief in civil liberties, then that's a job well done for them. They know we'll be guilty by association and the nice liberal minded people who read about it in the Independent in some of our rural England Tory facing held seats might just decide to vote Labour, or Green, or stay at home come 2015. If our voters do that, then the Tories could win some of our seats.

This is where Nick Clegg really needs to kick off. Tim Farron has already said the right things as he usually does:

@caronmlindsay @colingale @markpack I think the BF should police the borders and not our buses and tube stations.
— Tim Farron (@timfarron) August 2, 2013

We need Nick to be obviously fighting the civil liberties corner and being robust about it. The Tories don't care for civil liberties, but they have a vested interest in tarnishing our USP. We can't let them do it.

What bothers me is that there's too much emphasis on what our "electoral market" thinks. Nick's done quite well in the past few days saying what sorts of things need to happen on immigration, like exit checks and spoken out against these god awful vans. However, the language he's using is still a little too "crackdown" rather than "fairness" for me. When things like the vans or the tube station checks happen, every liberal collectively retches. However, you'll get a part of the electorate, and some of them might vote for us, feeling in some way reassured that something is being done. We talk of the importance of policing by consent. What happens if a good proportion of people consent to policing of others by intimidation? For me, it's back to first principles every time. We're liberals, and we don't agree with that sort of thing. Nick,I am very politely asking you to get your arse into gear and get these heavy-handed, authoritarian Tory tactics stopped. Now would be nice. Thanks.

Oh, and if you are fizzing mad about this, and you haven't already, for the love of goodness join Liberal Democrats for Seekers of Sanctuary. They are brilliant. It'll be the best tenner you ever spent.

Dancing Queen, carnations and Nick Clegg - a snippet of the Equal Marriage vigil

I had half wanted to come down to London with Anna yesterday to be outside the House of Lords when the Same Sex Marriage Bill cleared its final hurdle there.We decided against it as we've been away so much recently, so it's lovely to have this wee snapshot of the event.

Nick paid tribute to Lynne Featherstone, Ed Fordham and Liz Barker and all the others who have helped make the Bill a reality. We as a party owe him a huge thank you for his vocal and steadfast support, the first party leader to unequivocally support equal marriage.

There is a much longer Liberal Democrat Roll of Honour on this issue, of people who have been working away behind the scenes for years - people like Dave Page, Holly Matthies and the rest of LGBT + Lib Dems. Liberal Youth Scotland who made this Scottish policy.

It's great to see equal marriage pass in England. Scotland, with an even better bill, shouldn't be far behind.

Anyway, enjoy the merriment from last night.

Spend an extra hour campaigning to thank Nick for killing Snoopers' Charter

Before I even start, I know there are many Liberal Democrats up and down the country for whom giving an extra hour to the campaign would mean having to re-write the laws of time and physics and nature. But then, you are not likely to have time to read this post if you're in that situation. This is aimed at those of you who maybe don't have elections or aren't directly involved in a campaign.

I'm a great believer in showing appreciation when someone has done something good, even if you think it's something they should have done anyway. It's polite and everyone likes being thanked for stuff. We can sometimes be pretty quick to take someone down when they do wrong, but not quite so fast to give credit when they do right.

After the secret courts fiasco, I had fully expected to have to spend the Summer fighting a new and equally pernicious Communications Data Bill. That was never on the cards as I understand Nick never had any intention of letting it go ahead. I don't think this was entirely due to the fact that he knew the membership would freak out completely if he did. I think he actually had learned his lesson from the outcry last April when the problems were pointed out to him.

This is a very good example of the party working together to deliver the right result. The fact that people like Julian Huppert and Dr Jenny Woods were able to get in there right at the start, before it had gone too far, helped. The role of that infamous and fractious phone call between the great and the good and some humble bloggers can't be underestimated, either. Essentially, everyone listened, learned and kept talking. This is a good thing and lessons must be learned for the future before any legislation is agreed to. I've been saying for a long time that there has to be more attention paid to consulting the party before we agree to legislation. The Queen's Speech in two weeks' time will be an indication of whether that's been done for this year.

But, back to the point. Nick has done well and has earned our thanks. We need to make him feel some sort of tangible reward. So, what I'm asking is that those people who have time to read this spend an extra hour delivering leaflets, phone banking or otherwise helping the local election campaign, over what they were already planning to do in order to show our appreciation. If you have no elections where you live, you can make phone calls easily by signing into Connect and spend time speaking to some voters. It couldn't be simpler.

We could make thousands of calls in that extra hour if we put or minds to it. How will you spend your extra hour?

Oh, and by the way, Richard Morris has it right - The Divine Helen Duffett deserves credit for organising the bloggers' call in the first place. If you want to show your gratitude to her, cake should do it. Where's Sara Bedford when you need her?

Letter to the Leader: Happy Easter from a very busy Party

Dear Nick

Thanks for your letter. You definitely deserve a lovely, peaceful, break with your family and I hope you all have a lovely time.

It was good of you to mention the forthcoming Council elections and to recognise the huge amount of work that activists, candidates and councillors will be putting in over the next month. As you know, elections aren't won solely in the four weeks before polling day. It's the constant year-round working with and listening to the local community that gets Liberal Democrat councillors elected. We have some fantastic councillors around the country. They are the bedrock of our party's success and we can never thank them enough for all that they do.

I know that you, too have been out on the campaign trail, as recently as last weekend in Sheffield where you were snow clearing and door knocking.

I thought you might like to know about some of the hard work that's taking place over the holiday weekend, though. Bank holidays are not an excuse for Liberal Democrats to put their feet up - it's two extra days' leafletting and canvassing.I dare say that there will be some ingesting of chocolate, too, but Lib Dem campaigners are not known for their DIY or Spring cleaning. I know of one wife of a Liberal Democrat councillor who once tore a strip of wallpaper off the hall in the hope that it would inspire her husband to get it decorated. It did. After a few years.

Anyway, here are what people are up to:

In Eastleigh, Cllr Louise Bloom has  "already been deliverering and got loads more to do, going to go out shortly actually and will listen to Saints vs Chelsea at the same time, we can march together!"

In Clitheroe, Cllr Allan Knox is "Lealetting - county council seat to hold...."

In London, David MacDonald is "working on a new borough tabloid

Sam Fisk is heading off to Stevenage to deliver leaflets.

In the East Midlands, our old mate David Bill is "Delivering targetted letters aimed at converting yes voters into postal voters and letting everyone know we saved the local ambulance station."

In the East of England, Lorna Dupre is " Catching up with email; thinking about the next loads of literature to design, mailmerge, print, fold, stuff; getting my own nomination paper filled in; sorting out meetings to finish the rest of the other 17 for which I'm agent." But at least she has chocolate.

Holly Matthies is "catching up on posting out new-members' packs to people who've recently joined LGBT+ Lib Dems."

Richard Marbrow is doing:  Boring PPERA admin followed by some time on Connect and Nationbuilder working out how to get information from one to the other.

In Fife, Cllr Susan Leslie was up early: "I set up the my Councillor's Surgery stall at Kirkcaldy Farmers Market at 8.10m this morning. Great morning and lots of chat with folks. Then onto Kinghorn at lunchtime for the dedication of a new bench at the harbour. Now at 3pm I do have my feet up but feel I deserve it."

But the most heartwarming sty is that of little Bailey. He's a wee shih-tsu who's just been fostered by Brentwood Councillor Karen Chilvers. He told Facebook:

"Well, as Caron Lindsay knows, I have been out delivering leaflets with my Fosty Mum. It was cold but I enjoyed telling people about being liberal because I got a chance because of nice fair-minded people. I do think it would be nice if someone had offered us a cup of tea along the way though!"

He wants us all to be aware that his foster brother Louis has been out on a ward walk with his Mum. And it was snowing!

That's just a tiny wee snapshot of the Liberal Democrat army in action, this and any weekend. 

They will not stop until the polls close on May 2nd. In Scotland where we don't have elections, we'll be visiting Northumberland and other places and will be phonebanking like demons just like we did for Eastleigh. 

I hope you've enjoyed this whistlestop tour round the country. It represents a tiny fraction of what I've read on Facebook today. 

Thank you, too for all the work that you and our ministers do, and the fantastic achievements on mental health, shared parental leave, childcare, pensions and that small matter of giving 24 million people a tax cut that you all have brought about. If I'm going to single out anyone, it would be Mike Moore. Getting the Tories, Labour and SNP to agree to pass the Scotland Act was no mean feat, as was making sure the independence referendum is fair, legal and decisive. We get all that.

There are, though, some things that we don't get, and nor should we. Secret courts was a huge thing. I don't think anyone in the Westminster Bubble really truly appreciates how painful this is for the whole party. We can't go through this again on communications data. Seriously. 

We need you to deliver Liberal Democrat priorities in Government. You need us out there spreading that message in communities up and down the country. The closer we can work together, the better. There's a bit of a disconnect at the moment between leadership and grassroots that will get worse if it's not addressed. We also need you to listen to us. It seems sometimes that you would like to get rid of us and get some new, more compliant members who won't ask any questions. You need to walk a bit more in step with us at the moment.

I remember you once having a right go at Gina Ford, decrying her advice to leave babies to cry as absolute nonsense. There's an analogy here with the Party. You can't ignore us and leave us to cry when you do things that are really counter-intuitive to us. That will just make people cross, resentful and demotivated. And we need all the people we can  out on the streets consistently over the next two years. There have been warning signs of long standing activists reaching breaking point. That has to be addressed before it gets worse.

This is a time for rapprochement not recrimination and the party needs an assurance that no more ground will be given on civil liberties. 

Happy Easter  and enjoy hiding those eggs with your boys. 

Best wishes

Caron

Salmond propmises post independence childcare revolution weeks after turning down Rennie's plans for nursery education

Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond  gave his keynote speech to SNP Conference this afternoon. There were three things in it that struck me as a Liberal Democrat.

A numbers game

Apparently a “yes” vote for independence would be a vote for a “prosperous economy and a just society.” Does this remind you of any phrase being used rather a lot at the moment by any Liberal Democrat who can be persuaded to do so? I wonder how prosperous an economy built on wildly optimistic estimates of oil revenues would be to start with.

Many nationalists have been complaining about their fixed budget doesn’t give them enough control. Come 2015, they’ll have much more power to change that thanks to the Scotland Act introduced by Liberal Democrat Secretary of State Michael Moore. As he’s always said, that’s a stepping stone and there’s a growing consensus for further devolution in the future.

Power to the people?

It is said that to govern is to choose but even more fundamental than that is to choose how you are governed. I did wonder if he was having a laugh, here, as his SNP Government will centralise anything that sits still for a minute or more. Schools, police, you name it. They have taken power from the people to Holyrood and they don’t get the idea of local communities having a say on things which affect them. As a highlander, I instinctively find the idea of a centralising SNP Government in Edinburgh as unpleasant as a centralising government in London.

People should not vote for independence thinking they will have more say. They won’t if the SNP have their way. However Ming Campbell set out a blueprint for giving more powers away from Holyrood in his Home and community rule commission report.

Transforming childcare

Salmond knows fine that women are more sceptical about independence and he has to win them over somehow. So it’s hardly surprising that he talked about childcare and even used the phrase the gender gap. Look what he had to say:

But I believe a transformational shift towards childcare should be one of the first tasks of an independent Scotland.

What a cheek! This comes only weeks after he turned down Willie Rennie’s pleas for more nursery education for 2 year olds. He already has powers to do something about this, but chooses not to. It’s a cynical move, especially given that Nick Clegg and Jo Swinson are in the process of implementing a radically different system of shared parental leave and are offering help with childcare costs to the tune of £1200 per child per year.

Voters in Scotland will have to choose between the reality of what is available to them and some unspecified revolution yet to come.

Willie Rennie noticed the same thing and said:

The First Minister's decision to put childcare into his list of independence promises for tomorrow is not the outcome 50,000 two year olds who will grow up in Scotland between now and the referendum deserve. I'm disappointed that our reasonable and costed plans to deliver free nursery care for forty percent of two year olds is now being used as a sweetener in the independence referendum.

However I'm sure that parents, mothers in particular, will be even more disappointed. I want to build a stronger economy in a fairer society which enables every person to get on in life. It could not be clearer, or more saddening, that the First Minister is now confusing our nation's ambition with his obsession for independence.

If I had to summarise the speech in a tweet, it would be “Iraq bad, Westminster evil, and we’re not going to give you goodies until you vote yes.” It was, as ever light on detail.

The other big news elsewhere from Inverness was a challenge to David Cameron to come and debate Salmond. The SNP know they don’t have the arguments, but if they can get an unpopular Tory PM an hour and a half’s airtime, they think that will scare voters into the arms of the Yes Campaign. The pro-independence arguments are so weak that even Cameron could demolish them, but Salmond’s challenge reveals more about the desperate situation of the Yes campaign.

Nick Clegg's speech on immigration: the good, the bad and the ugly

The much-missed Conrad Russell said you should read something three times before you pass comment on it. I've done that with today's speech on immigration by Nick Clegg. I've also had several cups of tea and am frantically hunting for some smelling salts to revive me. Leaders are supposed to lead and to challenge established thinking. I have no problem with him sticking his neck out on an issue if that is what he wants to do. It's important that we listen to him and if we don't like his ideas, to calmly and respectfully tell him so.

It seems odd that he chose to ask the party to ditch its immigration policy today when he could have done so  at Conference in Brighton two weeks ago. It seems that he has done little internally to prepare the ground, not even discussing his plans with the Federal Policy Committee.

Let's look a bit more closely at what he said.

The good

Well, at least one of the three main party leaders hasn't ingested the Daily Mail's rhetoric on immigrants and recognises the importance of a rational debate.

The political mainstream has a duty to wrestle this issue away from populists and extremists. A duty to shift what can be a highly polarised debate – particularly in difficult economic times – onto practical and sensible ground.

And recognises the positives of people coming to make their lives here:

Of course, if you believed every headline, you’d think that when immigrants aren’t stealing British jobs... they’re all living the high life in 12-bedroom Kensington mansions, courtesy of the state. But that’s a complete caricature of the truth.

(Although I think I'd have preferred the use of the word nonsense somewhere in that last sentence)

The majority of people who come here work hard and make a contribution. Many have served – and still serve – in our armed forces. And if every member of an immigrant community suddenly downed tools, countless businesses and services would suffer. The NHS would fall over.

So where did it all go wrong?

There was a clue very early on that this was going to make many Liberal Democrats feel very uncomfortable.

We need an immigration system that is zero-tolerant towards abuse.

If you are going to highlight one feature that you think a public service should be, surely  "fair"  would be a good start, particularly when you are talking so much about a fairer society?  That would be a system where the right decisions are made in good time and people are treated with respect. In short, almost everything the UK Borders Agency doesn't do at the moment. It troubles me that he defended the Coalition's cruel policy of a minimum income for those who want to bring their spouses to live in this country. I have friends married to non EU citizens who are currently living abroad. Is it right that they can only live together here as a family if they're affluent?

I find it strange that he didn't talk about the asylum system, where people are forced to live on next to nothing and get little help, even at the most vulnerable times of their lives.

Nick's speech contained three major ideas:

• He wants to remove our policy of a path to citizenship for those who had been in the country for more than ten years;
• Security bonds for people from "high risk countries" who want to visit the UK;
• Charging for translation services if people won't learn English.

On the first, he said that " it was seen by many people as a reward for those who have broken the law." That was an attitude encouraged by the likes of the Daily Mail. Would it not be better to find the language to reach the people who believe their rhetoric than ditch a pragmatic idea?

It gets worse

I am not sure I understand how asking people from "high risk countries" to pay a deposit which is returned to them when they leave is compatible with "so that they don’t unfairly discriminate against particular groups." The proposal is discriminatory in nature against every single person from that country who wants to come here.

Sometime in the next few days, I'll be heading to Inverness when my nephew, Baby Ethan, is born. The only barrier I'll face in doing that is the snow gate at Drumochter. If I lived in the EU, I'd have no bother getting in to see him, and nor would there likely be a problem if I was from the US or Canada, or Brazil. Pakistan, though, that would be different. I've worked on immigration cases. I've seen people struggle to get their siblings in to see them for the last time before they die of Cancer. I think the solution is getting the visa handling services to treat people fairly, not force them to find even more money. I'm not convinced a security bond would stop people being turned down indiscriminately and having to wait months for an appeal, either. Nick specifically said that:

Visiting Britain to celebrate a family birth, or a relative’s graduation, or wedding should not become entirely dependant on your ability to pay the security bond.

How, though, do you prevent that from happening?

I've spoken English all my life and I find the immigration rules complicated

The very idea that we could weaken people's position in an incredibly complex system by making translation services available only to those who could afford to pay for them is the very opposite of what I understand fairness to mean. Now, I agree that if you live in a country you should attempt to speak the language. I've laughed at ex-pats we've met in Spain who have no intention of learning Spanish. But expecting non-native speakers to find their way through the system without help is not on.

What happens now?

There is no doubt that Nick's remarks will incite heated debate within the party. My suggestion is that everyone who has any direct experience and knowledge of the immigration system and its many failings gets in touch with Andrew Stunell, who is leading Nick's review into our policies. We need to treat this review like we did the communications data stuff and make sure that the recommendations which come out of it are fair, liberal and evidence based.

If today's speech is Nick playing good cop ahead of Cameron's speech on immigration, the ensuing debate is not going to be easy. There are plenty people who want to be tough on immigration. Surely it's our job to be liberal?

Nick Clegg in Africa - a missed opportunity?

Nick Clegg and Lynne Featherstone went to Africa this week. Shortly after he picked up every banana skin left for him at Deputy Prime Minister's Questions by Labour and the incomparable Peter Bone, and lobbed them back with vigour, he took a flight to Mozambique and Ethiopia.

He was there to highlight the Girls' Education Challenge Fund set up by the Department of International Development. Its aim is to give a million of the world's poorest girls the chance to improve their life chances by giving them access to education. Nick said that this would help them escape HIV, domestic violence and poverty.

African women should be driving  economic growth, not be driven into poverty and dependency. From what I have seen today, I’m convinced that giving girls a good education is the single most effective thing we can do to break the cycle of poverty.

Africa’s recent economic success – growth rates from five to seven per cent – owes much to its women. Sustaining and increasing the pace of growth will depend on them too.

Projects such as this one are getting girls into good quality education and are vital to help African women escape poverty, disease and domestic violence. The girls I have met here are enthusiastic, committed and dedicated to learning. They are clearly the key to unlocking Africa’s potential.

He is absolutely right and this is exactly what we should be doing. His Letter from the Leader told us more about his visit to Africa:

In meetings with leaders from both countries I particularly highlighted the need for global action on tax avoidance and evasion. Developing countries have suffered from this for years but the developed world is now waking up too. Big companies can move quicker and easier than national tax laws and they end up playing us off against each other. Only by working together - developed and developing nations - can we make sure that tax is properly collected and spent on the public services we all need, whatever country we live in.

I also took a business delegation with me because the opportunity for British businesses in Africa are enormous. Seven out of the ten fastest growing economies in the world are on the continent and it's part of the job as a Government Minister to make sure they are getting the best access to these booming emerging markets.

I think there's one huge issue he's missing out, though. And it has to do with reining in corporate greed and improving the health of kids. If kids are going to benefit from education, we need to get them through the perilous first five years of life. A Save the Children report last year highlighted the importance of breastfeeding, amongst other things, in that.

There are lots of interventions Governments can make  to support breastfeeding. Some of them are very simple - like making sure babies are put to the breast and encouraged to feed within an hour of birth. Others are much more complex - getting the formula companies to behave. Nestle,and others, for example, is threatening the Government of the Philippines with withdrawal of investment if it does not reduce its regulations on the marketing of infant formula according to Baby Milk Action.

Friday's Guardian carried a horrific report by Zoe Williams on how the antics of the formula companies put babies in danger. Heavens above, a wee bit of horsemeat in our food, which won't harm us, and we all go mad. That's nothing compared to what's happening in Indonesia and elsewhere. The article highlights 20 year old Fifi who was given a sample of formula for her daughter by her midwife of all people.Now she has to spend half her husband's income on formula, but that's not the worst of it:

But at Fifi's home, it became obvious that the sanitation problem towers over this one – 45% of Indonesians have no access to clean water. There are only two places in the capital where anyone can drink from a tap, and that's the American embassy and Jakarta international school. But Fifi can't afford gas to boil water either. She has no kitchen. She has to pay every time she goes to the loo, which is shared between 26 people, and sometimes she cuts a deal with a neighbour where one of them goes to the loo while another has a shower, to save money.

Clean hands, clean utensils, clean bottles, clean anything, it's all a total pipe dream. A paediatrician in a separate Jakartan clinic, Dr Asti Praborini, said: "Selling formula is like the killing fields, in my opinion. The babies will die of diarrhoea and they will die of malnutrition.

The report highlights how formula companies work with midwives to get them to sell their products, flouting the law in the process.It is time that Governments did something about this.Otherwise babies will continue to die unnecessarily of diahorrea and malnutrition. I'd really like to see Nick Clegg and Lynne Featherstone get some international action going on this.

The countries they visited last week are classified "good" on Save the Children's scale. They still have room for improvement, though. Countries like Malawi and the Solomon Islands where they are putting a lot of effort into encouraging breastfeeding are seeing child mortality rates fall. Obviously.

And it'snot just in the poorer parts of the world where improving breastfeeding rates  makes a difference. You might be interested in this post I wrote last year telling Nick Clegg how action now could both save money and tackle inequality in health, quoting current research which says clearly that:

Breast fed children from lower socio-economic groups had better outcomes than formula fed children from more affluent families.

 It's time to take this issue seriously by making it easier for mothers to breastfeed and clamping down on formula companies both at home and abroad.

Call Clegg: The one where Boris agreed with Nick

Yes, you couldn't make it up. "Boris from Islington" put a recorded question to Nick Clegg on his LBC phone-in this morning. Apparently the London Mayor will be in the hotseat next week during the recess.

Anyway, this was also the one where Clegg outlined his 3 proudest achievements - cutting taxes for the lowest paid and making the tax system fairer, giving extra money to disadvantaged kids in school, son idea he first wrote about a decade ago and Steve Webb's pensions triple lock, guaranteeing a decent state pension increase.

He also summed up a huge difference between us and the Conservatives thus:

Liberal Democrats are in favour of a fair tax system. Conservatives are not. 

Anyway, here are the tweets of the occasion.

Can we have a stronger line against marriage tax breaks, please?

I am very pleased to see that Nick Clegg has spoken out about how stupid the Tories' plans for marriage tax breaks are. He's done that consistently over the last 3 years, most recently on last week's Call Clegg LBC show. 

What I'm not so chuffed about is the line put about by a "senior Liberal Democrat source" in today's Times  (£) which says that the Government couldn't introduce a marriage tax break before we got to a tax threshold of £10,000.

Well, it's guaranteed we're going to get there anyway, as I showed way back in December. The legislation already exists to make sure it'll happen without George Osborne's help.

When our people are briefing the press on this issue, they need to reinforce Nick's points about how silly it is to put up taxes for single people and people who aren't married.

And, anyway, if the Government's got half a billion a year going begging, then, I would suggest, there are plenty better uses for it. Sorting out the bedroom tax fiasco for a start.....

But, seriously, Nick has made a good case against marriage tax breaks. Let's just stick with what he says without appearing to negotiate on the pages of the Times.

You don’t need the taxman to tell you whether you should get married or not,“And you certainly, I don’t think, need the taxman to tell you that you’re going to pay higher taxes because either you’re not in a relationship or you’re not married.

BBC stoop to new Question Time low...

The BBC doesn't give enough representation to Liberal Democrats on Question Time. We've known that for some time. And the weeks when we don't have anybody on the panel often coincide with a time when we have a different point of view to offer. 

Last night, though, I was particularly annoyed because, despite having no Lib Dem in the room, they allowed a very personal question about Nick Clegg's choice of secondary education for his son. Like it's any of our business.

Decisions about children's schooling are stressful enough. The memories are still fresh enough for me to make me shudder. 

Nick Clegg's son has two parents who will decide together what schooling is best for him. Whatever they decide will displease somebody as soon as it becomes public knowledge. They can't win. All they can do is pick a school where he will thrive, where he'll learn well and be happy. If they had any other consideration, they would be failing as parents. 

Every parent will understand how difficult and stressful these decisions around education can be and they'll understand the drive to find somewhere that meets your child's needs. Liberal Democrats don't have policy against private education, nor has Nick Clegg criticised anyone for sending their child to private schools. 

For Question Time to make an issue of something in Nick Clegg's personal life when there's nobody there from his side to stand up for him, to put that liberal point of view that celebrates diversity and enabling people to make the choices that work for them.

And while we're at it, let's just take a look at what Nick Clegg's input into our education system- whatever decision he and Miriam make for their son, let's not forget that it's he has driven the scheme that gives extra money to kids from deprived backgrounds in school and he has made sure that the poorest 2 year olds get the best start in life by getting the chance to go to nursery. We can talk about his public record, but his private, family decisions really should be off limits. 

And Question Time should not be making an issue of a private decision in such an unfair way.

Nick Clegg finds his way into Popbitch

You might not be surprised to find that I, with my trashy underbelly, subscribe to the salacious Popbitch email, but there's someone significantly classier on the Liberal Democrat Voice team who takes it as well. Well, we don't want to be caught napping if one of our lot is in it, do we?

And what do you mean, everyone on the Lib Dem Voice team is classier than I am? I'm truly hurt.

Anyway, our dear leader finds his way into its scandal ridden pages this week. This is the story.

lexie writes: "My friend was at Westminster with Nick Clegg and says the only thing remarkable about him was that he was always first in the lunch queue."

Given that he was competing for that position with similarly young, fit, hungry teenagers, I'd actually say that was pretty remarkable.

Call Clegg 31 January: The return of #iagreewithnick

Nick Clegg's fourth Call Clegg phone-in on LBC has just finished. It's the first time I've been able to listen to all the way through. He took a huge range of questions, from David Ward's comments, which he handled sensitively, to marriage tax breaks to youth unemployment, to childcare, to whether he wanted to be PM and Lib Dem leader after the General Election (and he definitely did) to what he thought about MPs' pay. On that latter question, I was glad to hear him say, as I have always done, that MPs work very hard before he added that they needed to stay in keeping with what their constituents are getting in terms of pay rises.

What I like about him is his totally down to earth manner. When someone said that "I agree with Nick" he said "I haven't heard that for a while." He sounds like a normal human being, very natural. He had lots of empathy for the person who talked about Lewisham Hospital and managed to get across the complexity and difficulty of the decisions that have to be made in Government.

Anyway, here are my tweets from the occasion.

Why is a Tory making all the running on opposing secret courts? #no2secretcourts

My feelings are a bit mixed, reading the Centre for Policy Studies report Neither Just nor Secure on the Justice and Security Bill, currently going through the House of Commons. Co-authored by Conservative MP Andrew Tyrie, it says that the Amendments passed by the House of Lords are not sufficient.

The provisions to extend Closed Material Procedures (or secret courts) are not the only criticisms they make of the bill. They say that the Intelligence and Security Committee must have stronger scrutiny powers and the definition of sensitive information should have a tighter definition to stop Governments suppressing their own wrongdoing.

It annoys me that it's a Tory who's making all the running on this. If we were in opposition, there's no way on earth we would be backing it. Nick Clegg makes no more mistakes than you or I - but this one is a fairly major blooper and it's time for him to acknowledge that he was wrong to let this bill get as far as it has in the condition it has. It should be withdrawn and reconsidered.

However, although Andrew Tyrie has written the report, you don't have to look too far to find some Liberal Democrat names in the acknowledgements:

We would also like to thank a large number of people who have come forward over the years to help in efforts to discover the truth about – and bring to an end – Britain’s involvement in kidnap and torture. Among these are Joanne Clement, Derek Craig, Joe Cyr, Paul Dacam, Deba Das, Roger Gough, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Paul Lomas, Stuart McCracken, Jamie Potter, Timothy Pitt-Payne QC, Cordelia Rayner, Stuart Wheeler and Baroness Williams of Crosby.

We would like to thank David Anderson QC, Damian Hind, Ann Marsh, Ravi Mehta, Chris Mullin, Jesse Norman MP, Shane Sibel, Lindsay Symmes and Lord Tyler for their comments on various parts of this paper.

The changes Tyrie and his co-author Anthony Peto QC want to see are as follows:

CMPs must be a last resort; a judge should have to exhaust the possible use of “Public Interest Immunity”before considering the use of a CMP.

Even where a CMP is approved, the judge should be able to balance the interests of justice against those of national security in deciding if information should be disclosed.

Where CMP is used, summaries of the national security sensitive information should be provided to the excluded party and his or her legal representatives.

The definition of “sensitive information” to block application of Norwich Pharmacal disclosures should be narrowed.

Proposals to reform the ISC should be strengthened, and its Chairman should be elected, subject to safeguards, by secret ballot by Parliament, as recommended by the Wright Committee in 2009.

A five year sunset clause should be incorporated.

They say quite unequivocally that the Bill in its present form risks damaging Britain's open justice system.

If you agree that the relevant parts of this Bill should be withdrawn, please can you email any MPs of ours that you know and Nick Clegg asking them to think again. It dawns on me that maybe the Letter from the Leader on Saturday might give us an opportunity to get our point across in sufficient numbers. If you get this, and you want to see the Bill withdrawn, reply to it this coming Saturday and say, simply, "No to secret courts - please withdraw Liberal Democrat support from Part II of this Bill now as Conference requested last September." If The Powers That Be get a few hundred emails like that, then it would give them another sign that the Party is very unhappy with them on this. And that's the whole party, not just one particular group within it. Are you in?