Liberator magazine has a new blog!

Well, Liberator magazine has gone all New Statesman on us! The magazine for radical liberals has launched a new blog.

I'm pleased to see that the collective will now be able to give their take on events in between issues of their magazine.

I did have a slight facepalm moment when I read their Comments Policy - "Play the ball not the man." For goodness sake, I thought we had all learned about using more inclusive language.  My one criticism of Liberator is that it can sometimes be a bit blokey. I'm not sure that they really understand the many ways our culture harms women and restricts their freedom. Maybe I should write something about that for them....

The policy itself sits closer to the Liberal Democrat Voice comments policy (be polite, stay on topic, be who you say you are) than to the almost free-for-all that I allow on here. It basically says be polite,legal, on topic and makes it clear that any comment which breaks those rules will not be published.  I hardly ever reject comments. I did junk an anonymous one the other day which named someone in connection with the child abuse scandals, and I didn't publish the one that called me a "f***ing disgusting racist nazi whore" but that's about it. You can see by reading many of the threads on here that I have a fairly high tolerance level and allow more rudeness than I probably should - and even then I get certain of our cybernat friends whinging.

Anyway, despite all that, Liberator is always a great read and I always learn something from it. It is sometimes hamstrung by not being able to respond immediately to things and the blog is a very welcome addition to online debate.

Killing us softly - advertising's image of women

Thanks to Keris for posting this short video about how the way women are portrayed in advertising is harmful. I thought it deserved sharing with a wider audience. I like the quote from Cindy Crawford who said "I wish I looked like Cindy Crawford."

If you ever wondered why Jo Swinson has spent so much time taking cosmetics companies to the Advertising Standards Authority and winning her case, this is a good summary of the arguments.

The People's Review of the Work Capability Assessment - a catalogue of incompetence, inaccuracy and poor decisions

You will know that I have been pretty critical of the Work Capability Assessment. This is the tool by which sick and disabled claimants are assessed for entitlement to Employment and Support Allowance (the new name for Incapacity Benefit).

The Government will tell you that it has reviewed the WCA and implemented all the suggestions made by Professor Harrington. However, a new report, The People's Review of the Work Capability Assessment has some very worrying indications of some harsh treatment at the assessment, bureaucratic incompetence and very poor decisions. On top of that, there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of mental health conditions and fluctuating conditions.

I would strongly recommend that you read some of  the actual documented experience. Don't be put off by some of the emotive language in the introduction, which I feel goes a bit far. Read the actual referenced accounts of what happens.

A few examples to be going along with:

• Man sent ATOS assessment form. He's in a coma. His wife tells DWP and is told to get letter from hospital and send it to ATOS. She does. They don't record it and he loses his benefit. Surely the wief had enough to be going on with a sick husband.
• Man given appointment for a Sunday. He turns up and this is verified by a health professional. He then gets his benefit stopped for failing to appear on the right day. 
• Terminally ill person with brain tumour told they could work for a specified period which was the same as their expected life span
• People being prevented from taking notes at their assessment on pain of being marked as being non compliant and losing benefit
• Someone had a panic attack during their assessment and was told to "stop messing about."
• Someone severely disabled, tube fed, blind, deaf, who suffers frequent seizures, requiring 24 hour care being told they are fit to work.
• Someone with a mental age of 7 being marked fit for work
• Same assessor medically retiring someone from their employer then awarding them no points for ESA 

This is just scratching the surface of what's in this report.

Every single Liberal Democrat MP needs to read this to see how bad some people's experiences have been. Please send them the link to the report and ask that they read it. If they don't have time to read the whole thing can I suggest that pages 7-9 and page 28 will give them an insight into the reality of life - and death - under this system.

Reading it makes me think there is a good case for every assessment to be recorded and for there to be much more intense scrutiny of how the system operates. Apparently Professor Harrington only visited Benefit Delivery Centres, not the actual assessment centres.

It makes me furious that sick and vulnerable people are being treated like this. Any one failure is unacceptable, but there is clearly something intrinsically wrong with the way the Work Capability Assessment works. The Government needs to ensure that it reflects the realities of illness and the expectations of the workplace. If someone isn't fit enough to hold down a job, they have no chance in the labour market.

What we also need to do is make sure any examples of failures we come across are passed on to our MPs. The more evidence we can collect, the better. We can't simply stand by and watch the systematic failure of the sick.

And so it begins...Nadine Dorries to be buried with beasties

Well, there's a surprise. Errant Conservative MP Nadine Dorries was voted by the great British public - including what seemed to be fairly sizable proportion of political types on Twitter. Tonight, for our entertainment, she will be buried for 10 minutes with a not very delightful abundance of antipodean beasties - you know, rats, maggots, cockroaches, spiders. Occasionally they put water in as well which must be really terrifying.

I wrote yesterday that these programmes can bring out some fairly unpleasant impulses in us. Taking pleasure in someone being very distressed isn't an attractive character trait. We're not there yet with Nadine, who seems to be coping quite well.

At the moment, the contestants have been split into two teams, so Nadine will be competing for food rations with Helen Flanagan, who played Rosie Webster on Coronation Street. She has been voted for presumably because she cried and screamed her way through negotiating her way across a very dodgy, high stepping stone bridge across a ravine. I couldn't have done it, and the fact is that she got there in the end. I suspect she may be learning that she's made of stronger stuff than she thinks. We have learned that her portrayal of the self obsessed Rosie involved no acting whatsoever.

Viewers may need to get smarter on strategy, though. Surely if you want Nadine to do the trials, you also need to make sure she gets beaten. If I had to make a prediction about tonight's trial, it would be that Helen will lose. She got through yesterday with some fantastic support from her team-mates. She won't have them with her today. When people are voting tonight, they may want to think about who from the other team can beat Nadine. Charlie Brooks looks pretty feisty and competitive, and they have a boxing champ there in David Haye. 

I actually want Nadine to win tonight. Not for glory for her, but so that Colin Baker can eat. I want him to stay well. He's a bit portly and not very fit, and seemed to be feeling it on last night's show. I've seen Colin at Doctor Who conventions in the past and he's witty and very entertaining. I could listen to him all day so I want him to stay healthy and sparkle. Nadine's team haven't had anything other than rice and beans to eat in 2 days. The other lot had a night in luxury in a beach house and then got all the food last night. Fair's fair. 

But tonight, if you are going to waste your money on voting on this, think about the bigger picture, that's all I'm saying.

Elsewhere on the programme, I am amazed at how much I liked Hugo. I did not have high expectations of a man I expected to be a posh git waste of space. He also criticised Nadine for being away from her constituents. I'm not discounting the possibility that that was inspired by a producer with a wooden spoon, though. 

Ashley Foster showed some good leadership skills and positive attitude in the first task which they lost, really, because the other lot were quicker on their feet than Colin. 

Brian Conley also showed himself to be funny and useful. Both he and Linda Robson were really good at keeping Helen safe as she crossed the ravine.

This series has potential. As long as we can avoid actual damaging cruelty, and it stays the right side of the line, it could be an enjoyable three weeks with some interesting characters. I want to see Nadine try to promote her pro-life views and get told off by one of the others. Or for someone to take her to task for abandoning her constituents in true Rhona Cameron style.

Mail's Mike Moore Mea Culpa

I was interested by a profile in yesterday's Sunday Mail (that's the Scottish sister paper to the Daily Record, not the Fail on Sunday) of Liberal Democrat Secretary of State for Scotland Michael Moore. The picture in the online article is a bit scary - Mike does look a bit as if he's about to pounce out of the paper, but never mind.

The actual paper version has an amazing photographic treat with Mike's head photoshopped onto an old Roger Moore James Bond picture. Very classy indeed.

The Mail has been pretty unpleasant about Mike in the past. Last year they presented him with a cardboard cut out of him that they'd taken round the streets.

Yesterday, though, it seemed they had had second thoughts as they devoted a fair bit of space to quoting John Rentoul's profile of him, which described Mike as Westminster's answer to James Bond. Then they have quite a long (for them) interview with him.

He told them that their cardboard cut out no longer "freaks out my daughter Ella as much as it used to."

On the forthcoming independence debate he had this to say:

Scotland can be independent. The question is on what terms.

My view is the opportunity and security is greater staying where we are.Our focus as the UK government is to work through all the big chunky issues that affect people’s lives like what would happen with their pensions and what currency they would be using...

...We are determined it is strong, well-founded analysis that people outside government can share and inform the debate.

We will also be looking very carefully at what the Scottish government present as their arguments on issues like EU membership, currency and regulation of the banks.

Over the past few months, as they have asserted how they will work and people have challenged and pushed back, their arguments have crumbled. And we will continue to engage robustly on that side of things.

By the way, Mike is not only receiving praise from the Mail and Rentoul, but he's had a major rise in this month's Liberal Democrat Voice satisfaction poll, now back in the top five Government ministers. Willie Rennie's had a big rise in his rating, too, which Stephen Tall explains:

Willie Rennie’s high-profile support for home rule and savvy tormenting of Alex Salmond earns him a fillip.

I'm feeling a bit sorry for Nadine Dorries.......

.....which I know is not going to be popular view, but I suspect the next week is going to showcase some not very attractive facets of the mob mentality that sometimes arises around these reality tv shows. Almost 10 years ago, Channel 4 had to get in extra security when Adele left Big Brother. Why? Because people thought that she had been a bit two faced and there was such over-the-top hatred towards her, fuelled by the tabloid press.Then they same papers fuelled hatred towards Jade Goody by depicting her as a pig, starting off the rollercoaster that saw them make her, break her and finally raise her to virtual sainthood before her premature death from Cancer in 2009.

I do watch I'm a Celebrity. It can be quite compelling. It actually changed my opinion of Liberal Democrat Brian Paddick. His series was a classic, though, with George Takei, Martina Navratilova and Esther Rantzen providing much amusement and quality banter. Brian was not in my good books because he'd criticised his 2008 London mayoral campaign team, led by my friend Andrew Reeves, in the press. He later learned his lesson, recognised that he had been a bit of a diva and went on to fight a very good campaign in the same role this year. However, in 2008, I have to admit, not to my credit, that a huge motivation for tuning in  was to see him get covered in beasties and eat unmentionables.

Now, there comes a point, though, if a person is showing real distress, that enjoying their discomfort goes from being not very nice to inappropriate or even unacceptable. In the first week, viewers can choose who does the bush tucker trials, where a celebrity goes through an extremely unpleasant experience, usually involving bugs and beasties, to earn meals for everyone else. The viewers inevitably choose the people who are most scared. Last year it was Sinitta, or occasionally Antony Cotton. It's been Jordan and Gillian McKeith in the past. If someone has had to have oxygen because they are so scared, then it would never occur to me to pick up the phone  to put them through it again. There comes a time when, however much they're being paid, however self inflicted it all is, putting them through actual suffering is not nice.

I think we can guess who'll be voted to do all the trials this week. Nadine Dorries, the controversial Tory MP who's abandoned her constituents so she can lecture us all about abortion from around the camp fire, has, in my view, no redeeming features. The one bad consequence of the Liberal Democrats voting against the boundary changes is that her constituency will remain in existence. She has therefore had a pretty major reward for her bad behaviour in voting against Lords reform.

In my view, Nadine should not have agreed to take part in this programme. For an MP to be out of the country and uncontactable for 3 weeks purely to take part in a tv show is not on. There are obviously times when MPs have to take  extended spells out of Westminster. They're human beings and subject to the same crises in terms of illness or caring for sick relatives that we all go through and we'd take time off for. People have sympathy with that. They are less likely to understand an indulgent ego trip, done without consulting anyone, which will benefit nobody but Nadine. I'm sure she sees a future for herself as a Christine Hamilton type, rehabilitated by reality tv almost to national treasure status. Well, that worked so well for Lembit when he did it after losing his seat in 2010. And as Chief Whip Alistair Carmichael pointed out in his inimitable style this week:

If Nadine struggles in the jungle, I won't be wasting too much of my energy feeling sorry for her, but I don't think it is to anyone's credit if they take pleasure in actual suffering of another human being, no matter how self indulgent, self inflicted or insignificant in the scheme of things it is.

I am maybe being a bit soft here - but then I can't imagine  that, had I lived in an earlier time, that I'd have had much truck with throwing things at people who'd been  put in the stocks. These reality shows can sometimes be the modern day equivalent.

Addiction is not a moral issue - on Rennie, the Record and Labour

On Thursday afternoon, the Scottish Parliament debated the Scottish Government's Drugs Strategy, which has been in place since 2008. In general it was a pretty intelligent debate as you can see from the Official Report. The Government even accepted amendments from the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, which passed. They would not, however, accept a Labour amendment after the opposition party has been supporting the Daily Record's campaign against methadone prescription. Because pharmacists who dispense methadone have extra costs in so doing, they get extra payments to help them with that. It's a maximum of £2.49 a prescription, so for Labour's Jenny Marra to describe the pharmacists as "methadone millionaires" is a bit much. 

Labour and the Record seem to have gone for full scale demonisation, not only of addicts, but also the health professionals on the front line who dispense their medication or who make judgements about care. Labour's attitude seemed to be more about trashing methadone than recognising it as part of the tool kit for treating people with addiction. It can stabilise lives, and to suggest that the heroin substitute was solely responsible for half the drugs deaths is wrong.

I was pretty unimpressed with Jenny Marra's rhetoric on this, and so, to be honest, was the Parliament. Very few speakers, even Labour ones, agreed with her line. Not, of course, that you would have guessed from the  Daily Record's coverage the next day which failed to point out that Liberal Democrats, SNP and Tories all spoke against Labour. When you can't even get the Tories to agree with your ill-judged and prejudiced stance, then surely you know you are on a hiding to nothing.

The paper edition of the paper (which I actually went out and bought), had a special section on Willie. It accused him being out of touch for, get this, suggesting that health professionals and not politicians should be making the decisions on appropriate treatment for people. If I go to see my MSP Angela Constance, I don't expect her to give me medical advice, or to tell me what my doctor should be doing for me.And nor would she ever do so.

I guess you can't really expect a sensationalist tabloid to understand the nature of addiction - although it would be good if they tried. You expect a bit more, though, from the people who make the laws that could potentially affect the treatment people are offered. I've become increasingly worried at the way Labour are treating addiction as a moral issue in the same way as the Tories, and, yes, sometimes Labour too, treat poverty and joblessness as some sort of personal failing. Don't swallow Labour's sanctimony on welfare - one of their first acts in Government way back in 1997 was to remove certain benefits from lone parents.

When I was at Liberal Democrat Conference in Brighton, I attended a fringe meeting on civil liberties at which one of the speakers talked about how people with addictions were often handed ASBOs and, then, when the inevitable breach happened, they were carted off to prison rather than given the help that they needed. I tweeted this and Labour MP for Glasgow South Tom Harris started on about how decent people needed to be protected from adults. We then had quite a long conversation on Twitter, some of which has been blogged by Zoe over at Complicity.

I found the distinction between decent people and addicts deeply offensive. I've had people close to me who have really struggled with addictions. If they could have stopped, they would have. Their lives degenerated into a fair bit of chaos but that didn't make them somehow not decent people. The struggle, torment and suffering they went through was immense, over many years. And there was a time when they actually were free for several years before, suddenly, just losing it again. It was horrible for us and horrible for them.

But, no, Tom took pride in how he'd had an addict evicted because they were making a constituent's life hell. He didn't seem to realise that the addict was his constituent too and was quite happy to see them made homeless rather than given help to recover. I just found that lack of compassion astounding, and very worrying.

Contrast with Willie Rennie's people-centred contribution to the debate:

There are about 60,000 drug users in Scotland. I met one of them, whom I will call Mary, when I visited Turning Point Scotland’s facility in Glasgow. She had a young son and her ambition was to be able to take her young son to school in the morning after giving him breakfast. That was her lofty ambition—something that for us would be quite normal. If we have kids, we do such things every day, but for her it was an amazing ambition, because she did not see in what circumstances she could achieve it. Her son was getting looked after by her brother on an almost permanent basis.

I said that about Mary because we talk about big numbers and big programmes, but at the end of the day people like Mary are normal people who deserve a chance like anyone else. Some of the ways in which we talk about them and whether they do or do not contribute to society demonise them but, for me, they deserve a chance. They would love to go back and have another chance, and we should respect them for the tremendously difficult challenges that they go through. They go in and out of drug use; sometimes they are in remission and sometimes they relapse and go back into serious drug use. Such is the chaotic life that those people lead.

Mary was on methadone, along with 24,000 other people. However, for me the central methadone issue is about health professionals choosing the right way to proceed. It is not for politicians to decide which treatments can and cannot be used; it is about giving the health professionals the tools. They have the evidence and the know-how and are the best people to make decisions to help people out of their circumstances. Recovery means different things for different people. Sometimes it is about being able to stay alive; for other people it is about getting back into work. For Mary, it is about being able to take her son to school in the morning. That is why it is regrettable to see some of the stuff that has been happening in the Daily Record, supported by some in the Labour Party. Demonising pharmacists just for doing their job is deeply regrettable.

Often, we focus only on the medical aspects of drug use, but much of the issue is to do with a person’s whole life experience. Perhaps they have mental health problems, housing problems or debt. Perhaps they have a chaotic family life and have been divorced. Perhaps they have had experiences in the military that have led them into drug use or alcohol use. We must sort out those issues as well if we expect people to recover long term. However, we must also recognise that sometimes people will have a chaotic lifestyle for some time. The simplistic view is that somehow we can get people into recovery automatically, if only we change one little thing, but that is just not going to happen.

I have been to some projects, including the Lothian and Edinburgh abstinence programme—LEAP—in Edinburgh. I saw its abstinence regime. It is not right for everybody, but it is right for some people. They brought the whole family in to share the experience and ensure that people were able to recover on a long-term basis.
It is a shame on this country that we have such a high proportion of drug users when we have such wealth. Poverty—the pockets of poverty that we have in many communities—is the root of much of the situation. Again, we must deal with that if we are to expect any longer-term benefits.

On methadone, the HIV rate among drug users in Russia, where they do not have the same kind of programmes as we have in Scotland, is about one in three. In Scotland it is less than one in 20. I do not know what more evidence we need than that simple statistic. In addition, lots of scientific studies show that hepatitis C is reduced by about 80 per cent as a result of needle-exchange and methadone programmes. Elish Angiolini’s report on Cornton Vale shows that when a lot of the women sent to the prison were taken off the methadone programme, the self-harm rates shot up. That is no coincidence, because significant benefit can be got from methadone.

Annabel Goldie is right when she says that the treatment is not necessarily right for everyone and is not perfect, and I accept that. However, we should not say that methadone is the reason why so many people are dying, because it is not. Other drugs were involved in 60 per cent of the cases in which someone’s death was connected to methadone, and alcohol was involved in 40 per cent. 

 Further, in many of those cases, the methadone was illicit, rather than being part of a programme. To simply say that all of those people are dying because of methadone is wrong. Methadone is part of the solution, not part of the problem. We need to be careful about demonising the programme and the pharmacists, because we might undermine the good work that is under way.

Almost every subsequent speaker expressed some sort of agreement with Willie. Maybe there's hope for this Parliament yet.

Later on, in his closing remarks, Willie talked about how hard it was to persuade people that addicts were people who needed help and compassion, not condemnation:

There is a big divide between drug users and the communities in which they live. I put up a Facebook posting about drug use the other day, and the response showed that a lot of people believe that drug users should be cut off. We need to recognise that there is a huge divide. People do not understand why drug users receive support, and we have a big job to do to convince people about the merits of providing support.

The approach by some members of the Labour Party is quite disgraceful in fuelling the lack of understanding. Politicians are supposed to show leadership, not pander to people's ill-informed prejudices, whether they're on human rights, immigration or addiction. Having a wide range of treatment options and not imposing the sort of one-size-fits-all approach that Labour is instinctively so keen on, is going to get more people better. That will benefit everyone, including their communities.

Making policy based on rational evidence is always a better option than subjective moral judgement. Labour would do well to learn that.

We will remember them....

Late last night I read something on Facebook, written by a friend, which brought home the realities of war. I can't share it here, because it's not my story to tell, but it was both moving and inspiring. Many of  you will know what I'm talking about, though. Armed combat is unimaginably brutal and horrific and nobody who takes part in it is unaffected.

I can only imagine the pain of watching someone I love set off for war, not knowing whether I would ever see them again, yet nearly everybody did in the world wars. Most of us really don't know we're born these days. Think of what it must be like if your sibling, spouse or parent were in Iraq or Afghanistan. How would you go through your daily life wondering if the next knock on the door would be bad news? And if it were, how would you cope?

It's important that we set aside time today to honour those who have died in war - and those who have lived through them and suffered physical or mental consequences as a result and the families who love them.

It doesn't matter whether you approve or disapprove of armed conflict in general or any particular war. Servicemen don't have a say in where they are sent. They just have to get out there and do their jobs. We owe them our gratitude and our understanding.

The Royal British Legion does so much to support veterans and their families and it's important to support their work. You can donate £10 by texting 70800 and here are some other ways to help them.

Some thoughts on the bourach at the BBC

For the uninitiated, bourach is a Scots word which means a right old mess, which I think is a fair term to describe what's been going on at the BBC. However, I'm not so sure it deserves quite as much opprobrium as is being currently heaped upon it.

Ok, the Newsnight team screwed up, big time and exruciatingly, not once but twice. They had plenty evidence about one active paedophile the BBC employed and they didn't broadcast it. They left it to another channel, ITV, to break the Jimmy Savile story almost a year later. Newsnight got a pasting for it and there are many issues around Jimmy Savile the BBC has still to account for. So, when they had an interview making allegations about an unnamed senior Tory carrying out abuse, they really wouldn't have wanted to repeat that error. What they failed to do, sadly, was the most basic of due diligence. Showing Steve Messham a picture of Lord McAlpine could have saved a lot of bother. There was definite incompetence there, but it is far from being the most egregious action on the part of a media organisation that we've seen recently.

I was really sad to see former Director General George Entwistle tender his inevitable resignation last night. It may have been inevitable, but only because the rest of the media, owned by powerful corporations who don't like our high quality public service broadcaster or the public funds it receives, would have kept kicking him until he did.

I have a huge amount of sympathy for Entwistle, much more than I have (none) for James Murdoch who, correct me if I'm wrong, still has a job despite seemingly knowing nothing that was going on in the organisation he was responsible for. And don't get me started on Jeremy Hunt.

Newsnight may have been stupid, but that's nothing compared to the brazen irresponsibility of Philip Schofield the other day. Ambushing the Prime Minister in the way he did on live TV, handing over a card with names of people who were the subject of gossip on the internet, was completely unacceptable. I am actually willing to forgive him this one monumental muck up and don't want to see his successful broadcasting career ended because of it, but I want to know that  he's learned his lesson. I want an apology from him for more than the names on that card being visible. Treating internet gossip as a reliable news source is just wrong.

What worries me most is that those who were guilty of the abuse - and there is no doubt that abuse took place - might get away with it because they've been given a bit of a smokescreen.The main issue here is that vulnerable children were harmed while in the care of the state and have not been listened to when they tried to report that harm. The appropriate authorities need to get to the root of what happened there and make amends to the victims.

BBC news is not what it used to be, that's certainly true. We could see that from the US election coverage the other night when it took the BBC far too long to report the results. I ended up watching CNN instead. However, you only have to look at Fox News to see how lucky we are to have the BBC. Auntie may sometimes be a bit late with the news, but at least what you get is reasonably impartial and accurate.

There may well have been a bourach in Shepherd's Bush, but we have to be wise to the political motivations of those who are throwing the most muck at the BBC. The broadcaster itself will have to make sure that it's proportionate in the action it takes. If they end up putting loads of resources into breathing down the neck of every single journalist, it's going to take funding away from the other excellent quality programming they produce across drama, sport, children's stuff, documentaries, entertainment and music.

In which I get on the Lib Dem Federal Executive....Thank you so much

Well, I'm truly gobsmacked!

Along with all other candidates for the Federal Committees, I received an email yesterday evening from the Returning Officer telling me that the results would be published on the party website at 9am today. I was pretty sure that I wouldn't get on. There were so many good candidates who were better known than I am.

So, it was an enormous surprise to find that I had, in fact, been elected. I am truly grateful to everyone who voted for me. I really want to play my part in getting this party ready to fight the European and Westminster elections and am looking forward to the challenges of the next two years. All of the results are available here with the detailed breakdowns over at the wonderful Colin Rosenstiel's site.

What I need from all of you who are party members is to talk to me. Tell me what you think the FE's priorities should be. Tell me what's happening on your patch and how the Liberal Democrat world looks to you. Tell me what's working and what isn't. If you aren't getting enough information on things, ask me. If you want to email, do so on caronsmusingsATgooglemailDOTcom, If you want to talk to me, I will give you my phone number, but I don't really want to put it on here just in case some drunken cybernats fancy having some middle-of-the-night prank calling fun.

Election results always bring bad news as well as good. Personally, I was absolutely distraught that Candy Piercy was not returned to FE. She is one of the wisest, most practical heads this party has and I hadn't in my wildest nightmares thought she wouldn't be re-elected. I actually cried when I saw Arnie Gibbons wasn't voted back on to Federal Conference Committee. He's pretty much always done the right thing. He, Jon Ball and Jeremy Hargreaves going means that the Committee loses a whole load of experience. It has six new faces who will have a steep learning curve. Of course, Gareth Epps, who led the charge against accreditation, has been on before.

Another surprise was the departure of Linda Jack from both FPC and FCC. It goes to show, I think, that her stance of direct opposition to the Coalition is not widely supported within the party and that Liberal Left doesn't have that much of a fan base.

I have to say that, having heard her passionate speeches on welfare reform and equal citizenship, I am absolutely delighted that Kelly-Marie Blundell has been elected to both FCC and FPC. She'll be a robust and constructive presence on both.

Social liberals, whether within the Social Liberal Forum or not, are going to be well represented, taking a majority of the directly elected places on FPC. There's a gain on FCC, too and 6 SLF candidates that I know of were elected to FE, including me. There will be interesting discussions to be had on exactly what we present to the electorate in 2015 in terms of fiscal policy. Danny Alexander has intimated his view that further deficit reduction measures will be necessary. I can't see many of the new FPC being happy about that.

The Liberal Democrat Voice team did quite well - me on FE, Mark Pack on FPC and Mark Valladares on the ELDR delegation. Although the latter will probably be called the ALDE delegation now that they've changed their name in Dublin today. I have to say, I'm never very keen on the idea of dropping the word reform from anything.

I do think we need to review the way we do these elections though. The electorate is voting reps to Conference, roughly 10% of the membership and even amongst those the turnout is nowhere near as good as it could be. My instinct tells me that all members should have a vote, both at Conference and in internal elections. Some think that if you give all members a vote, it'll actually weaken the party democracy because it makes it vulnerable to infiltration by people with a specific agenda. This was very much an SDP-led inclusion in the make up of the party. They'd seen what the likes of Militant had done to Labour and wanted to put up barriers to stop it happening in the new party. I'm not sure that's enough of a reason to deny such a huge proportion of your members a say in these elections. Certainly, all members choose the leader and President, but we should be looking at extending our internal democracy. The power in this party has to be with its members.

However, the power can only be with members if we engage with them more. We have to be aware that, unless we're very careful, those whose names are known for being Great and Good may have an unfair advantage. That could weaken, rather than strengthen, democracy, concentrating power in the hands of too few people which would be just as bad. That is no excuse not to do it - we have to be innovative. For the first time, candidates have been allowed to campaign in these elections, but I think we need to take it further.

The party needs to create a space where candidates can be questioned. Apart from the sterling work put in by Jennie and Andy Hinton, there's not been a chance to find the candidates' views on anything not in their manifestos. We need to think about how we can use technology, at no cost to candidates so there are no financial barriers to taking part, to engage the electorate.

I don't want us to be having the same conversation in two years' time, so I'd like to see some fast movement on this. We should consult widely within the party during the first few months of next year - have sessions at state, Federal and regional conferences, get local parties involved and  make online submission not just possible but welcome. We then need to listen to what we're told and make changes in time for the next elections in 2014.

Extending the franchise always has a cost implication, but, in my experience, these things pay for themselves if you include an appeal with them. We've now had two all member elections for the Scottish Party Exec and office bearers since we changed our constitution in 2009. We also gave all our members a vote, which I think has helped with attendance at Conference. It's much more of a motivation to go to Conference if you know you have a say. We also need to find some way of allowing people who can't go to Conference to participate in it.

What I don't want to happen is for us to disappear into our own belly buttons to talk about internal and process to the exclusion of all else. We can't allow ourselves to be distracted from the job of winning elections - County Councils in 2013 alongside other local elections, Euros in 2014 and Westminster in 2015. Every single thing we do between now and then has to have an eye to winning as much as humanly possible in those polls.We need a more engaged, involved party to help us with that and there are things we need to do to enhance the whole experience of being a member, not just change the election procedures.

The next two years starts here. For party members, my door, phone line and inbox are always open so please talk to me. I can't be a good FE member without you.

Active sexism as part of a marketing strategy, Lord Sugar?

We're used to seeing sex being used to sell products. We're used to seeing ads built on an unhealthy foundation of sexism. Remember that really irritating washing up liquid ad from the Olympics which suggested that mums were just there to wash dishes while their sons became athletes?

All this stuff is quite subtle and when confronted, the companies shrink back in horror from accusations of sexism.

However, I wonder if Lord Sugar has branched out today with a new strategy of using sexist comments to get attention for his products.

Remember that nice inventor Tom who won the Apprentice last year? Well, he's developed a  new range of nail files with Lord Sugar as his business partner.

So far so good. Now we get to the sexist bit. Part of the marketing strategy is aimed at persuading employers to buy this for their "lady staff". I kid you not.

Lord Sugar himself is enthusiastically tweeting every couple of hours or so inviting "girls" to ask their boss to get them these nail files for Christmas to show their appreciation of their hard work.

Well, frankly, I'd prefer a bonus, or even a commitment from my employer to close the gender pay gap, or to get more women on their board or whatever. That aside, though. Lord Sugar is being patronising and sexist. That's not particularly new from him, but he's also not daft. He knows full well that nobody goes and asks their boss for a specific Christmas present. I can just imagine what he would say if any of his employees did that and it probably involves a couple of expletives and the word P45.

I think he knows that by saying such a blatantly sexist thing on Twitter, he'll provoke some controversy. Serena FitzGerald replied to him, calling him out, very politely for his sexism. For her trouble she got a three word reply. Simply, "Shut up, idiot." The photographic evidence is here:

It's out of order, really. Blocking her for a polite tweet was way over the top, too. But it's a provocative act which might well get some publicity for his product. Alan Sugar is many things, but stupid is not one of them. I think this is a deliberate attempt to up sales by creating a Twitter storm and Serena has found herself in the middle of it.

I only found out about all this after I'd sent Alan Sugar a reply when I saw a similar tweet about the product from him today. He hasn't blocked me yet, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time. 

It may be a deliberate marketing strategy, but I think it's one which should be doomed to fail. What Sugar has done, of course, is insulted someone who should be part of his target market. What he really should do is apologise to her and unblock her. I won't be holding my breath for that. Misogyny shouldn't sell.

At least Lord Sugar was shown some support by a Labour Party colleague in Scotland. Ian Smart is known for his sharp and occasionally reckless wit and tweeted me that:

I'd just bought a job lot as a peace offering to @womenforindy. Do you think I should cancel?

I wish he had, and that I could be there when they opened them so I could help them thank him appropriately.

.

I shall leave the last word to @crazycolours whose crown jewel in a succession of very funny tweets to Lord Sugar was:

If you buy Margaret that, she'll slot you in the throat.

Can't you just imagine her hard stare which is enough to reduce most grown-ups to gloop?

Michelle Obama and magnetic misogyny

Michelle Obama is a formidable woman. She combines intelligence with warmth and is an inspiration to a generation of women not only in the US but worldwide. A magnetic personality, you might say.

Who can forget the affection she inspired after her visit to a London girls' school in 2009. Look at this. Three years on, it still makes me cry.



She had a message so important for girls to hear:

"We need strong, smart confident young women to stand up and take the reins. I want you to know that we have very much in common. Nothing in my life's path would have predicted that I'd be standing here as the first African American First Lady of the USA.  wasn't raised with wealth or resources....you too can control your own destiny. Please remember that."

She's had a real impact as First Lady with her campaign to get families exercising and eating healthily to combat childhood obesity and to get people giving armed services veterans the support they need.

But while she does all this good work, she's undermined by the usual sexism in the media. Try and find a profile or article about her that doesn't mention her clothes. I mean, how is it news that she wore the same outfit twice?  You might expect that from a US entertainment site, but the BBC should know better. 

It was profoundly depressing to see, on BBC Breakfast yesterday morning, the two presenters joking about a piece of Michelle merchandise:

A magnetic, 37 piece dress-up set

Heavens above. And while the BBC presenters were joking about it, there was nothing in their comments which indicated that there was anything just a bit sexist about the product. Did they just not see it?

This is just another example of the casual sexism which permeates our everyday lives. When there's a female President, as I hope there will be in 2016 (go, Hillary), I bet if she has a husband, he won't be subjected to this sort of magnetic misogyny.

Nick Clegg does PMQs - the tweets

Nick Clegg did Prime Minister's Questions today while David Cameron is schmoozing his way round the Middle East. He was so assured, confident and natural and spoke completely without notes. He even answered the question he was given and not the one he wanted to answer, too. He made David Cameron look like a complete amateur, to be honest, and Gordon Brown, too.

My Liberal Democrat Voice colleague Nick Thornsby reminded us on Twitter this morning that four years ago, two days after Barack Obama was elected the first time round, Clegg, then a humble third party leader, questioned PM Gordon Brown, who put him down quite snidily. And the subject of Clegg's questions? Taxing the wealthy and cutting taxes for the poorest. Nothing if not consistent. Have a look here.



It was quite a contrast to see Clegg in Brown's position today.

There was one irritation, though. In fact, two. Alan Reid and Simon Hughes both got up and asked the pathetically toadying soft ball question that always seems to come from the Government side in both Holyrood and Westminster. I can't stand it whoever is doing it. I don't know what Alistair Carmichael had on those two, whether they'd stolen his orange Clubs or something, but seeing grown liberals toadying is so not a good look. And it's completely unnecessary. Nick didn't need it as he'd already peppered references to the same points throughout the proceedings.

I think my favourite bit was when Peter Bone asked a really friendly question. Nobody could ever have expected that and Nick looked quite surprised about it. Mrs Bone didn't get a mention, though. He will probably be in big trouble later. During the exchange, Nick got his obligatory Nadine Dorries joke in, saying that when he'd heard she'd gone off to the jungle to eat insects, he assumed it was a punishment from the Chief Whip. As if the gentlemanly Sir George Young would ever do anything so, well, naff.

As is my wont, I have saved various tweets from the proceedngs in a storify thingy for you to read.

Everyday life under independence - Part 1. A new passport

I only managed to watch a little bit of last night's Big Debate on Scotland's future. I do wish the BBC wouldn't hide these things past my bedtime, but I knew that I'm not likely to get a huge amount of sleep tonight, what with the US Election and all that.

I'll watch the whole thing later. There was certainly a good quality panel - Willie Rennie, Angela Constance, Anas Sarwar and Patrick Harvie. The first question from the audience of 16 and 17 year olds was on a subject close to my heart - immigration. I'd be surprised if you didn't know by now that I don't think much of the UK Border Agency, or the unhelpful and misinformed attitude towards immigration of both Tories and Labour, not to mention the less mainstream parties down south.

Willie Rennie mentioned that there was no guarantee on the terms of EU Membership that an independent Scotland would have so we don't know whether we would be forced to join the Schengen Agreement which allows borderless travel within Europe. The UK has an opt out, and so does Ireland in order to preserve its common free travel area with the UK. An independent Scotland, if it wished, might well be able to secure that opt out - but there is no guarantee that it would. This is something we need to know before we vote in 2014, and we need to have more of an assurance than the SNP telling us that it'll be fine. They've got form for saying that kind of thing without any actual basis in fact to back it up.

We need to be aware that we might end up in the EU, but a member of Schengen. That means that the free travel we enjoy within these islands is likely to be compromised, with border posts being set up at the border with England.

A few of us were discussing this last night on Twitter. Below is a bit of the conversation I had with Kate Higgins, or The Burd as she is better known in the Blogosphere. The prospect of having to show passports to get into England doesn't bother her.

That's a perfectly legitimate point of view. As is the view that this would only be a minor inconvenience. The conversation continued:

But what if you don't have a passport? I didn't until we went to Mallorca for the first time in 1993, when I was 26. Some people don't travel abroad, or can't afford to. The current price for a UK passport is £72.50 for an adult, £46 for a child. That means that a family of four wanting to go and see their Granny in Newcastle would have an extra cost of £237 plus whatever it cost to get the photos done before they started. And what about the Scottish teenager with the minimum wage job in the Tesco in Carlisle? They'd be queuing at the border every day.

It's something we have to think about. Ok, if you fly to London, you have to show photo ID - although this can be a driving licence - but you don't need to carry your passport if you're going on the train. It might not be a big deal to some, but it'll be a major pain in the neck for others.

This got me thinking, though. Bob and I have to renew our passports by May next year, before the referendum. If Scotland votes yes, then we'll only get 3 years' use out of them. And then I actually thought about having to give up my UK Passport. And, to my surprise, I filled up a bit. It hit me that I really don't want to be part of a different country. I'm a proud Scot, but I love the UK too. I feel quite an emotional attachment to the UK and it would be a real wrench to be forced out of it.

I know I'm a bit soft lump at the best of times, but even I was surprised at how much just the thought of filling in a passport form to the Scottish Government saddened me. I know, equally, for others the thought would be the sign of some great liberation that they've wanted all their lives, but I can't share that.

Of course, if Scotland votes for independence, I guess I'll have to get used to it. Bob and I would have to surrender our UK passports and apply for Scottish ones. If I could choose to, I'd want to stay part of the UK, but the choice would be a Scottish passport or be stateless I guess and I like the sunshine too much to confine myself here. Anna was born in England, but I assume as she has Scottish parents she'd get a Scottish passport. 

There will be families, though, who will have to have different passports. If you're a Scot married to someone from England, where will your family stand? What about the children - could they get dual nationality? I know lots of couples with different passports because they come from different countries and it's fine - but they were in different countries when they got together. It's not the same as being in the same country that's then split up.

There will be lots of things like this that the SNP will have to explain in some detail to us about how they'll work in an independent Scotland. As a minimum we'll need to know:

• who will qualify for Scottish citizenship
• what about their spouse/kids if they are English, Welsh or Irish, EU, or outside EU
• if your spouse comes from outside EU, will they have right of residency here?
• what immigration controls will there be?

So many from my generation have got together with people from abroad, much more than in the past. It will be even greater, I suspect, with the generation of 16 an 17 year olds in the audience last night. They need to know answers to these questions before they vote. 

Now, don't for a moment mistake me for someone who likes the UK immigration rules as they currently stand. In fact, I think this is where Ming Campbell's Home Rule Commission might have missed a trick, by not specifically giving some rights on immigration to Scotland. It kind of did, because it imposes a statutory duty to consult between state Governments within a Federal UK but it wasn't explicitly mentioned. Even so, that's a huge improvement on where we currently stand. 

So one question in a debate has set me off on quite a long and involved train of thought about the practicalities of life after independence. I'm sure the next two years will have plenty more. I'm fairly certain that I'll be called all the evil scaremongering witches by the cybernats, who consider questions as negative smears. I don't care, though. We need to know these things. 

Some thoughts on dying, end of life care and the Liverpool Care Pathway

There's been a lot of controversy about end-of-life care, and particularly the use of the Liverpool Care Pathway, over the past few days. So much so that it seems that the Government is about to change NHS procedures on this. I'm not sure that's even necessary, as consulting relatives is already part of what the Liverpool Care Pathway entails. I'm concerned that this may be an over-reaction to scare stories in the press and that reassurance rather than actual change is necessary.

Caring for a dying relative

I've only supported one person through a terminal illness at close quarters. It was bloody awful. Of course it was. The diagnosis was bad enough. As death approached, everything got very scary and distressing. What helped us was professionals around explaining what was happening, why a particular symptom was getting worse and how we could deal with it. In the final 3 weeks, we developed a close relationship with the doctors, nurses and carers and we trusted them.

 Often a lot of what happened was more distressing to us than it was for the person who was dying. We tried to have a rule that went "if it doesn't bother her, it doesn't bother us". It was useful to have that in our heads, even if it didn't always work. There were times, though, when it did bother her and as she became weaker, those became more frequent. Looking back, and comparing with what happens now, I know that she could have been spared some suffering if she'd been put under the sort of sedation you get now during her final hours, if she'd been able to decide that the time was right for that, or if she wasn't capable of that, we could have done decided that with her doctors. She could then have had a much more comfortable passing. It might have been quicker, but kinder. If death is imminently inevitable, surely comfort at the end is the most important thing? It's the compassionate approach.

My relative wasn't in a hospice. She was cared for and died at home, but we were lucky enough to have pretty good palliative care. That wasn't the case for others, who died in much more distressing circumstances, without their pain or discomfort being properly addressed. They were not as comfortable as they could be. That's why, essentially, the Liverpool Care Pathway was developed - to get the best of hospice-standard care out there into hospitals and the community. My worry is that if barriers are put in the way of implementing the LCP, or confidence in it is undermined wrongly, then people will suffer in the horrible way they used to. That would be very wrong.

Irresponsible scaremongering

The Daily Mail would have us believe that the Liverpool Care Pathway was almost an instrument of eugenics, used by the NHS to despatch people who weren't ready to die. I have no medical training, fair enough, but I know enough about the Daily Mail to be able to confidently assert that this is irresponsible, scaremongering nonsense.

What's my evidence for this? Well, let's go and have a look at what the Liverpool Care Pathway actually is. This is the leaflet designed by the people who developed it for relatives and carers. It makes clear that families should be involved and care plans discussed with them at all times. If that's not happening in any NHS setting, then that needs to be addressed, but part of the pathway involves explanation and consultation. End of.

There are also stories in the press that people have recovered when they have been taken off the pathway after relatives protested. Well, part of the LCP process is to keep reviewing any decisions made by keeping an eye on the patient and seeing how they respond. I've spoken to nurses about this, the sort of nurses I would happily trust with my life, and they tell me that if the withdrawal of fluid is causing distress to the patient, they give them fluids. These people, who I'd trust with my life, think that the LCP is a really useful tool in avoiding suffering.

A decision to withdraw fluids is bound to be hard for relatives to take. It seems quite counter-intuitive, but there are occasions when administering fluids can make it physically worse for the dying person.

It stands to reason that if the family has confidence in the medical team, then they are more likely to take their advice. It's so important that discussions are conducted with sensitivity and care so that relatives can understand the reasons why the doctors have reached the conclusions they have reached. In turn, the staff also need to keep listening to the family because often they don't have the time to keep a close eye on people, and their families can stay with them and observe any changes.

The Telegraph reports today, under a sinister sounding headline "Liverpool Care Pathway: Minister orders report into cash rewards"  that Liberal Democrat health minister Norman Lamb has ordered an enquiry into payments made to NHS trusts linked to targets for LCP use. However sinister the headline sounds, Norman Lamb's comments should reassure:

You could say that given that the care pathway involves patient discussion and engagement with loved ones, done properly, getting more people on to an approach which guides the clinicians through proper judgment, if that ends up with people having a better experience than a more haphazard approach then that’s a good thing.

But I want to know that payments are only being made where objectively and rationally we can conclude that it is resulting in a better outcome.

The same paper has an article by Max Pemberton who outlined his fears if LCP use is curtailed:

 The media furore has been fuelled, in no small part, by religious groups ideologically opposed to medicine’s interference in the process of dying. But their intervention will make doctors and nurses less confident in actively managing death and more reticent about using the LCP, with more people suffering as a result.

In future, doctors who use a palliative care pathway will be more wary of deviating from it because they will feel more secure and protected by adhering to policy. But this will mean less responsiveness to a patient’s changing circumstances.

The LCP was an attempt to ensure access to a dignified, painless and comfortable death. My grandmother was put on it last year and died shortly afterwards. It was a peaceful death and I couldn’t have asked for anything better. She had been haunted by watching her mother die of throat cancer in agony, confused and fighting for breath, and it was a relief to be able to reassure her that this wouldn’t happen to her.

I was also drawn to something on Twitter by a Doctor who outlined what could happen if there was no family to consult about putting someone on the Liverpool Care Pathway.

Of course, by the time you get to a Judge, the patient might have died a much more distressing death than necessary.

We need to talk about dying more

Part of the reason the Daily Mail is able to scare us all is because we tend not to talk about dying. It's one of the last taboo. If we've cared for a relative as they have died, we don't discuss how it happened. We spare people's feelings with a simple "it was very peaceful" even if it wasn't really. We maybe don't want to relive it either, which is entirely understandable.

That means, though, that there's not much in the way of shared knowledge and understanding available to people. They don't necessarily know what to expect when they or someone they love is dying. The Liverpool Care Pathway people have another leaflet which gives some information. 

I would never recommend using the Daily Mail, or any other newspaper, as reference material on anything. However, those nice people at Dignity in Dying have produced a fairly comprehensive document outlining all the issues, telling people about their rights. 

Finally, the NHS Choices website looks behind the headlines on the LCP. 

The right wing press might want to scare people into thinking that their beloved NHS is trying to save money by getting people to die before their time and without their family's knowledge and consent.  What an insult to the doctors and nurses for whom such action would be a violation of all their professional ethics. 

I hope that the Government doesn't make any changes which would make it more difficult to give dying patients the most comfortable passage out of life on the basis of a few indiscriminate and irresponsible scare stories. If there have been individual failures of care, then those responsible need to be accountable for that, but let's be careful not to over-react. Any decisions made must, for the sake of patients, be evidence-based. 

Willie Rennie talks about drug treatment on Sunday Politics Scotland

Yesterday, Willie Rennie went on Sunday Politics Scotland to take part in a discussion about drug treatment with the SNP's Mark McDonald and Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson.

The impression I've had from what Willie was saying is that he's fed up of politicians pontificating about stuff they know nothing about, and making sweeping pronouncements about care. He thinks that everyone's different, that what works for one might not work for another and it really needs to be left to health professionals on the ground to choose the best way of treating each individual from a range of options.

We've seen the use of Methadone come under attack by politicians and the media. Willie described the Daily Record's demonisation of methadone "deplorable."

Speaking ahead of his appearance on the programme, Willie was keen to stress that the debate on addiction must put medical necessity ahead of moral prejudice:

The debate around drug misuse and the connected methadone programme has taken a disturbing turn in recent months with moral rather than professional judgements dominating the drugs dilemma. Drug related deaths reached an all-time high last year so it is vital that we give professionals all the tools they need to help people, including tools aimed at reducing the harms associated with drug misuse.  

While much of the recent focus has been on the overall number of deaths in which methadone was involved, other substances were involved in nearly 60% of these deaths. This shows that drug addiction is an extremely complex issue.  The suggestion from Labour that methadone treatment should be time or cost limited risks undermining the work that drug professionals are doing every day in our communities. Methadone is responsible for saving and stabilising many lives and could be regarded as a success for thousands of individuals. 

The key issue is getting people into treatment as soon as possible and ensuring that a whole range of recovery options are available. Another big issue is whether individuals stay engaged with treatment and enjoy a good relationship with the key workers involved in their care. Every drug addict is different. There should be no one-size-fits-all approach. We need a flexible and patient focussed approach. Politicians should not seek to restrict options for moral reasons but ensure that trained professionals are able to deliver the service they think best for the patient. 

You can watch him here.

The Scottish Parliament will be debating drugs strategy from 2pm on Thursday 8th November. 

What do SNP ministers do to get themselves out of a sticky situation? Rewrite the rules, of course

Just when you thought the farce over the non-existent legal advice on Scotland's EU membership was over, yesterday's Herald has news of yet another twist.

Remember how keen Alex Salmond was to refer himself on the Ministerial Code? Apart from that being a big red herring anyway, it turns out the Government re-wrote it to suit Alex Salmond's case while the investigation  on Catherine Stihler's FOI request was going on.

If, as the Scottish Government spokesperson says, there was no difference in the meaning of the wording, why did they go to the bother of changing it?

Salmond wants to be able to say "Look, I didn't breach the Ministerial Code so those nasty unionists are trying to smear me. Aren't they horrible?"

Actually, relying on the Ministerial Code in this instance is a bit like trying to rely on the Highway Code to exonerat e you for  a misdemeanour you committed during a boxing match. What we know is that Salmond and the SNP bent over backwards over several months to create the impression that they had the legal advice we'd all expect them to have on the subject of an independent Scotland's EU membership. And then they had to confess, after they'd spent a small fortune of hard earned taxpayer's money taking the Information Commissioner to Court to cover it up, that they had no such advice after all.

The word that best describes such behaviour is, I think, sleekit.

Willie Rennie said:

Alex Salmond's emergency changes to his own Ministerial Code reveal the level of manipulation that enveloped his office following the receipt of the EU legal advice inquiry.

Mike Moore described as Westminster's answer to James Bond

It's been a while since Scottish Liberal Democrats have had much in the way of positive press coverage.

This week has seen a bit of a bumper crop, though. First, there was the Why we need the Lib Dems article from last week's Sunday Herald which said that Willie Rennie was "Salmond's best inquisitor" at Holyrood.

Then there was Euan McColm lauding Rennie as "coolly impressive" after his performance in the EU debate.

And now we have, at flippin' last, someone recognising the talents of Mike Moore, our Secretary of State for Scotland, that I've been banging on about for ages.

In today's Independent on Sunday, John Rentoul compares Mike Moore to James Bond. He goes on to say that Salmond may have met his match in Moore:

Salmond has been underestimated before, although support for independence in opinion polls has rarely exceeded one third of the electorate. But he may have met his match in Moore, as skilful in judging the politics of Whitehall as he is the mood of Scotland. It may be that, after the referendum, Moore will be counted the most successful Liberal Democrat in the Cabinet, and, even, the man who saved the United Kingdom.

If Mike Moore does not hear the sound of the Bond theme the second he walks into his office this morning, I will be very disappointed. And if someone doesn't nick his phone and change the ringtone to that familiar tune, I will not be happy.

So, the next thing we need is for journalists to recognise the work of Nick Clegg, on childcare, mental health, giving extra money to disadvantaged kids and youth unemployment. I won't hold my breath on that one.

Nick Clegg writes to Lib Dem supporters on childcare

I woke up this morning to see all sorts of comment on Twitter about an email from Nick Clegg received by Party supporters.

I hurriedly checked my inbox - and there was nothing. I wondered fleetingly and not terribly seriously if I'd been removed from the distribution list cos I'd been so critical of emails from HQ in the past. However, after an hour or so, it appeared. And it was worth waiting for.

Nick, as a parent of 3 young children, knows only too well how families can struggle with childcare. For a start, it's seen as something women sort out, because while mothers get up to a year's maternity leave, their partners get only 2 weeks. Some people have said on Twitter that they are disappointed that the email predominantly talks about mothers - but I feel that that reflects how the current system works. He explains how that disadvantages women in the workplace and he talks about how women want to go back to work but can't because the cost of childcare doesn't make it worth their while, especially if they have more than one child.

I think he's summed up the issues pretty much perfectly and I'm delighted that it's a Liberal Democrat bloke at the highest level of Government that's taking this on and trying to sort it out. His email shows he understands the realities of life for many families, what the Lib Dems have provided in the Coalition and how there's more to do.

Anyway, I'll let you see for yourselves.

Dear Caron,

I want to start writing to you, as a supporter of the Liberal Democrats, regularly and more informally than I have in the past. I want to give you a bit more of an insight into what’s going on behind those Whitehall doors and how we, as Lib Dems, are dealing with the issues and challenges that come up.

An issue that gets raised again and again when I speak to people across the country is the question of good childcare – and how important it is not just to families but to our economy too. When you’ve got young kids, getting the right childcare matters enormously. Even if it’s just a babysitter for a few hours, you need to know you’re leaving your children with someone you trust and can rely on. But when it comes to finding a nursery, a childminder or a nanny, it can be a real nightmare.

For too many parents that’s first and foremost because of cost. I know so many mothers who’ve been really keen to get back to work after their year of maternity leave - until they’ve calculated the cost of a place at nursery. Add in the cost of travel to work and mums can find themselves effectively working full time for just a couple of pounds a week. It’s absurd.

In government we have already made important steps – introducing 15 hours free childcare for all three and four year olds. And from next year we are extending this to the poorest two year olds. Real achievements we can proud of. But only this week a report by the Resolution Foundation said that living standards will only rise for people on low and middle incomes if we support women to work. And recent research showed that two thirds of women with children under five say they’d work, or work more hours, if we got them more help with childcare. That shows how much more there is still to do.

Even mothers who do go back to work after their first child can find it impossible when it comes to the second child. Too often they just can’t make the sums add up, and even though they’d love to be out earning they find years go by before it makes financial sense. So by the time they can afford to go back to work, it’s a struggle to find a job and convince an employer they’ve still got what it takes.

Some families may decide that they want to share childcare between them, or one parent may stay at home to focus on bringing their children up. But no-one should be forced into that decision - it’s about giving parents choices.

Of course there’s no silver bullet. Everyone knows there isn’t much money to go around. And looking after small children is a difficult job which should be done by skilled people who know what they’re doing. Childcare isn’t something you can buy at bargain basement prices.

But I’m determined to make sure we do more, and do it better. I’ve got a simple objective in mind: I want every parent who wants to work to be able to - without seeing every penny of their wages disappear in childcare bills. And if we can find the money, we’ll try to make that possible. Through hugely increasing the tax threshold and introducing the pupil premium we have already ensured a powerful legacy for families from our contribution in government in this parliament. I would very much like to add improving childcare to that list too.

Thanks for reading. If there’s anything you particularly want me to update you on, please reply to this email.

Best wishes,

The #hardesthit fringe at Scottish Liberal Democrat Conference

The Liberal Democrats have done a lot of good in this coalition government, from ending child detention, to cutting income taxes for low paid workers to ensuring fair pension increases every year with Steve Webb's triple lock, to giving extra money to disadvantaged kids via the Pupil Premium, Nick Clegg's £1 bn Youth Contract and the extra money he's given to ensure half a million people get good treatment for mental health problems in England.

It's an impressive record. But there is bad to go with the good. Regular readers will be aware of my FFS list - that short but still worrying list of places I wish we hadn't gone. Right at the top is that part of welfare reform which cut benefits to sick and disabled people. However much we know that if the Tories had been left on their own to sort the welfare system, they would have been even worse, the reality of the Welfare Reform Act is something that many Liberal Democrats feel very uncomfortable with.

We are not, however, sweeping it under the carpet and pretending it isn't there. The Hardest Hit came to our Scottish conference in Dunfermline at the weekend and held a fringe meeting at which they told us about what some of the most vulnerable people out there are going through. The room was absolutely packed, showing that many of us care deeply about this issue and want to know how we can help.

The video that they showed us was hard to watch. Disabled people's fears about what may lie ahead were laid bare:



One point I would make, though, is that many, most even, of those who fear will not have their benefits taken away from them. Friends of mine went through months of hell worrying about having to go through the Work Capability Assessment. Now, I'm as cynical about ATOS and the system as anyone else, but even I was certain that there was no way they would be affected. And they weren't. But they went through hell. What happened to them was not humane. People have had two years of worry about the prospect of losing their benefits and that's just not fair. These are people who are already fighting their physical or mental condition to start with. They don't have the energy to put up with the insecurity and uncertainty, or the reality of losing their benefits as well. If people are being driven to want to commit suicide because they worry they are going to starve to death if they lose their benefits, that's something that we need to address. Now.

There have been some welcome changes to the Work Capability Assessment, but it's still not something which commands confidence among people. They don't trust it, and their cynicism about it is justified. Listening to Carolyn Roberts from SAMH talk about how a man who had barely left his house in 25 years due to Agoraphobia was put in the work related activity group, thus losing his benefits, made me furious. Let's hope that family gets the help they need to have that overturned on appeal - but, again, that is an incredibly stressful process, and very long drawn out. Often, once an appeal has been successful, the person barely has time to catch breath before being dragged in for the next assessment and the whole treadmill starts again.

Last year, I spoke at an RNIB fringe meeting on welfare reform. I was completely outclassed by Ken Reid (although I was pretty much on his side), the chair of RNIB Scotland. He is such a compelling and captivating speaker. Last year he asked us to imagine being suddenly blinded - it would take much more than the year you would get ESA for to get used to being blind and coping with life, let alone getting to work. This year, he talked about the Work Capability Assessment which he described as cruel and inhumane. He talked about the extra costs of being disabled - for example, he said it costs £800 for software to make your computer talk to you. He talked also about the disadvantages faced by disabled people in the job market, as well as the limitations to the jobs they can go for.

Carer Jacqueline then talked about the challenges of caring for her severely autistic daughter. She told us how it can take 3 hours to get her ready, and how her behaviour can be incredibly challenging to deal with. She's doing all this on around 2 hours' sleep a night. It's not the best environment to have to take on a whole load of Government bureaucracy as well.

Mike Crockart, MP for Edinburgh West, talked about his work on relating the WCA to human rights and how his committee had been very clear that the Work Capability Assessment had to take into account social and environmental factors.

I made a brief contribution right at the end, repeating my strong belief that we need Nick Clegg to call out David Cameron or any other Tory when they come out with their "scrounger" narrative. That seemed to have a lot of support in the room.

One of the fundamental tenets of liberalism is to protect citizens from abuse by the State. The Department of Work and Pensions doesn't always get it right. When it mucks up, it, like its friends HM Revenue and Customs and the UK Border Agency, it is very reluctant to admit or sort it. I think that we as a party need to do two things. First of all, we need to get evidence of where this new regime is letting people down. Hard evidence. And make sure our ministers know about every single case. We must not give up on them.

Secondly, we need to put our heads together and work out how best to challenge the system, how to make sure people going through it have a better experience. I wonder if we could learn from the likes of Citizens UK, who turned up at UKBA HQ with a caravan with nuns serving tea to the staff. That got them into high level talks and as a result small but significant changes have been made at reporting sessions. The frontline DWP staff are often poorly managed, underpaid, stressed and have little power within the organisation. They in turn are the point of contact with extremely vulnerable and often desperate people. It's a recipe for disaster and has to change. It will take inspirational leadership to change the culture at the DWP, to make people feel that they are being treated by human beings, not criminals.

We're not, as a party, in a place where we'd choose to be. I am glad that groups like the Hardest Hit and Scope, with whom I attended a very useful round table discussion in Brighton at Federal Conference, recognise that we do have a commitment to ensuring fair and proper treatment of people in the benefits system. George Potter's Equal Citizenship motion passed at Conference shows where our heart is.