Starbucks tax farce is one thing - but messing with my unborn nephew is another

The idea that you or I could just turn up at our local tax office and tell them how much tax we were going to pay them is utterly ridiculous. I'd kind of like to try, just to see their faces. It seems that corporate muscle will allow you to get away with a multitude of sins. I don't see what's wrong with Starbucks working out what profit they make in this country and pay tax on it. It's not rocket science. and it's what, as Christine Jardine pointed out in the Scotsman the other day, the little independent coffee shops do.

Your average Starbucks Latte costs around £2.80. For a wee bit milk, some coffee and a scoosh of steam, even with overheads, I really have difficulty with the concept that the company is not making  a profit in this country. 

I was pleased to see our Stephen Williams taking them apart in the Telegraph:

It is extraordinary. People have been joking that some of these multinationals seem to think that paying tax is voluntary. Well, Starbucks have just confirmed the joke really. Tax is something that is a legal obligation that you should pay. It’s not a charitable donation in order to gain brand value.

If every branch of Starbucks upped and offed because they were forced to pay a fair rate of tax, that would surely leave a massive gap in the market to be filled by entrepreneurs with independent shops. The demand for these places is surely there.

One person might miss them rather a lot, though. I'm fairly certain that the chain will be making a profit now, even if temporarily. My sister is currently expecting her fifth baby. Little Ethan is due to arrive, like his big sister did, in the middle of a Liberal Democrat Conference in just 14 weeks time.

It greatly distressed my little sis when I told her, very gently, yesterday, that the eggnog lattes she is currently craving and imbibing in industrial quantities will not be available after Christmas. So, she rang up Starbucks customer services to see if she could buy bottles of the special eggnog flavoured milk that they use to make it and they told her no. So, not only are they not paying an appropriate amount of tax, they are also depriving my sister and little Ethan of what have clearly become an essential part of their daily lives.

When I told my Facebook friends about this yesterday, one suggested Advocaat as a substitute. I think the brandy in that may not be good for little Ethan. Someone posted a Martha Stewart recipe for eggnog for my sister to make which I'm sure she'd do if she was desperate, but it might not have the same appeal. Starbucks sell their ground coffee, which fiendishly tempts you as you queue. Surely it wouldn't hurt to add some of their additives/milks to their merchandise range. It could only add to their profits and help the UK's coffers. What's not to love?

Labour lefties help Liberal Democrats achieve election promise

Nobody was really expecting another rise in the Income Tax threshold in yesterday's Autumn Statement. A significant rise, to over £9,000 had already been announced. When Chancellor George Osborne revealed that there would be a further rise to £9440, he didn't add on the rest of the story - that this would mean that the Liberal Democrats' key pledge of raising the threshold to £10,000 by 2015, looked certain to be met.

The tax threshold pledge was right there on the front page of our manifesto. Nick Clegg had talked for years about making the tax system fairer, citing the example of the millionaire banker who paid a lower marginal rate of tax on his income than his minimum wage cleaner paid on hers. That was a scandalous situation and one which the Liberal Democrats have done much to remedy. The rate of Capital Gains Tax has gone up by 10%. The same banker who under Labour would have had tax relief to put  up to quarter of a million quid a year into a pension fund can now only put away £40,000.

But going back to the point of this post, the reason we can be pretty certain that the £10,000 target will be met is down to two Labour MPs in the 1970s. Audrey Wise was a bit of a leftie, while Jeff Rooker must have mellowed given that he served in the Blair Government. They put a rebel amendment to the 1977 Budget to ensure that tax thresholds would rise at the same rate as inflation.The Conservatives  and, I assume the Liberals, voted for it and statutory indexation of tax thresholds was born. The consequences today mean that the statutory increases alone should give us a £10,000 threshold by 2015.

I doubt that a couple of Labour awkward squad would have anticipated that their amendment would help a Liberal election pledge to come to fruition 35 years later. Thanks, by the way, to Adam Corlett on Twitter who pointed me to the exact piece of legislation.

£600 off the tax bill of every basic rate taxpayer, with millions taken out of paying tax completely is quite something.

£600 tax cut for ordinary workers

This is something we can be very proud of. Yes, there are legitimate concerns about some of the rest of the Autumn Statement, but this is the good bit. It is a big Lib Dem win. If you haven't yet signed up to the Liberal Democrats Fairer Tax campaign, you can do so here.

Autumn Statement: the good, the bad and the ugly

So, the Chancellor has given his Autumn Statement. Liberal Democrat reaction is likely to be at best mixed. Will people feel that the balance of tax and benefit measures is sufficient to support our claims that we are making the system fairer?

Osborne painted a fairly gloomy economic picture. The growth forecast is under 3% for the next 5 years. Austerity will continue way beyond the next election. It's in that context that his measures must be judged.

Let's take a brief look at the key points from a Liberal Democrat activist's point of view:

The good - Lib Dem gains

Steve Webb's Pension Triple Lock has ensured a 2.5% rise in the State Pension, more than earnings and inflation.

The tax threshold edges closer towards £10,000 as a further £235 rise is given from next April.

No removal of Housing Benefit from under 25.

No plan to remove benefits for the third and subsequent child.

Fuel duty rise planned for January cancelled. Environmentalists won't like it, but it's the only fair solution for rural areas where you have no choice but to drive because public transport is as good as non existent.

The bad

Benefits will rise by only 1% for the next 3 years. If the reports in the press were right, the Tories wanted to freeze them. I am not sure cutting the spending power of people who have nothing is justifiable, particularly as higher rate tax payers will get the benefits of the extension of the tax threshold.

The rise in the tax threshold has to be taken with the effective cut in tax credits, which only rise by 1%. Tax credits are payable to poorer people who are in work, so cutting them does not seem to be consistent with the aim of making work pay.

No Mansion Tax. Osborne's justification, that it would be intrusive, expensive and, get this, might encourage a future chancellor to bring in more properties to its scope, was greeted with Nick Clegg rolling his eyes and grimacing to indicate disagreement.

Departmental budgets cut, but this is to include more digital engagement. That requires technology that many poorer people may not have access to.

The ugly

I expect many Liberal Democrats will be squirming at the language used by the Chancellor to describe benefit claimants. He talked about people getting up in the morning to go to work, while their neighbour on benefits is in bed. People are bound to feel that this language encourages scapegoating and resentment. It is to be hoped that no Liberal Democrat will use this form of language. Tim Farron has promised that he won't, but then I wouldn't have expected it of him anyway.

The rest

Other measures in the Statement include:

• a cut in the Corporation Tax famously not paid by large corporations such as Starbucks, Google and Amazon
• action at an international level to try to change the way such corporations pay their taxes
• £3 billion extra for schools, roads and infrastructure investment (the Scottish Government will receive £331 million in Barnett Consequentials)
• Ultra fast broadband extended to 12 more cities.

It's a very mixed bag for Liberal Democrats. What do you think?

Autumn Statement gloom.....

I never look forward to George Osborne getting up on his feet in the House of Commons. It's not entirely his fault, and I do know that he's not getting to give the statement that he would like to because Liberal Democrats won't let him, but the economy is still incredibly fragile and there's every chance of a triple dip recession. 

We know that Osborne would love to taking Housing Benefit from under 25s, or restricting benefits to large families. He won't be doing these things because Nick Clegg has put his foot down. That doesn't mean, though, that I'm going to like everything Osborne is going to come out with. 

Stephen Williams MP emailed Lib Dem members last night and his message was one of compromise which smacked of us being prepared for things we don't like. Williams said:

I can’t yet reveal to you the contents of the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement.

But I do want to share with you the context in which the discussions around the statement have taken place.

Both parties in the Coalition agree that delivering a strong economy and growth is the top priority right now. 

We also agree that Britain needs to balance its books so we don’t saddle future generations with a debilitating national debt.

But it’s no secret that when it comes to balancing the books, the Liberal Democrats have different instincts to most Conservatives.

Let’s be clear, there will be some difficult decisions in tomorrow’s statement. That would be the case no matter which party was running the country right now.

Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander have been negotiating hard with David Cameron and George Osborne to get the best possible deal for ordinary families across Britain.

Tomorrow we will see the results of those negotiations and the compromises they reached in the Autumn Statement.

Our key objective was to ensure the burden of clearing up Labour’s mess is shared fairly. Everyone needs to make a fair contribution, and that must include the richest too.

Whether they have done enough remains to be seen. I really will be furious if benefits aren't raised in line with inflation, for example. I also want to see more measures put on the wealthiest, individuals and companies, to ensure that they pay their fair share.

While Williams' email unsettled me a bit, Tim Farron was a bit more reassuring when he spoke to BBC News this morning.

He talked about our "battle with the Tories" to make sure that those on the lowest incomes are protected. He said that the figures today weren't going to be  glorious but it was important not to over-react in either direction, demanding either deeper austerity or an end to austerity. He said that economically the things that matter moving, if slowly, in the right direction in that we have low interest rates and falling unemployment.

He said there was a need for demand led measures which matter to people - like building schools, and he hoped to see some today. That's been trailed in the media so I suspect that he's on a safe bet there. I doubt he'd allude to something that definitely wasn't going to happen. Tim does not like to disappoint.

We'll know in an hour or so exactly what we're looking at. I'm not expecting to hear anything that lifts my mood, though.

Can everyone please leave Kate and William alone?

You can't really imagine much worse than constantly throwing up, retching, unable to keep anything down. For most of us, such symptoms pass in a couple of days as whatever pathogen responsible passes out of our system. Imagine that it doesn't stop - it carries on for weeks and months. Can you imagine the pain you'd be in, how knackered you'd feel? And then there's the additional worry that if you get any relief from the distressing symptoms, you start to worry that something has gone wrong with the pregnancy that's causing it.

It annoys me when I see Hyperemesis Gravidarium described as acute morning sickness. It's got nothing to do with mornings, for a start, and it's a hurricane where your average morning sickness (which is not pleasant at all) is a light Spring breeze.

So, poor Kate has to go through all of this with an army of photographers outside the hospital in London where she's been admitted for hydration and vitamins. The last thing they would ever have wanted to do is to have told the world about the pregnancy before 12 weeks and in such circumstances. Everything will most likely be fine, but it's an anxious time even when you're not suffering from a horrible condition like this.

It's quite likely that this will go on for weeks, if not months and further stays in hospital will be necessary. I don't want to see photos of worried looking relatives popping in to see Kate, nor do I want to see her having to face a barrage of cameras when she leaves. Because when she does step over the door to go home, she's unlikely to be feeling well and she'll probably look pretty pale and tired.

It would be nice if tabloid editors and broadcast companies could let these people go through this anxious time in peace and privacy. It's fantastic news that there's a new baby on the way. It is, I suppose, progress that whatever gender it is, it'll be eligible to succeed to the throne. The whole principle of hereditary head-of-stateness is not one that sits very comfortable with me. I'll have to accept that I'm in a minority on that.

There's a long way to go until this baby is born. Poor Kate is, sadly, likely to discover that if she thought she was public property before, it's about to get a whole lot worse. Zoe Williams has a super article in the Guardian today outlining the ten stories she doesn't want to read about the pregnancy, from the icky to the judgemental. I could add that I really don't want to see the phrase "showing of her bump" anywhere either. It's a particular pet hate of mine. But Zoe would be well advised not to hold her breath waiting for the press to do what she says.

This would be a good opportunity for the press, in the post-Leveson environment, to show that it can behave itself. Tabloid editors will no doubt argue that if they all disappeared from the hospital, international journalists would scoop them. Well, let them. Do the decent thing for once, for goodness' sake.

I wonder how many journalists would like their own partner or sister to be put through the media scrum that Kate's going to have to go through. And do we punters really need entire papers given over to discussion of a pregnancy? The process of human reproduction is admittedly remarkable, but we've all been doing it for a long time now.

Oh, and please don't buy any of the papers that carry oodles of this dross. Wish William and Kate well, but accept that this really is none of our business. If we really mean our congratulations, the best present we could give them would be simply to leave them alone.

Hussein-Ece and Brinton on stalking, under-representation of women and gender based violence

November 25th saw the UN's International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. This occasion was marked by a debate in the House of Lords last Thursday.

Just reading the Hansard account of the debate made me feel sick. There was a former surgeon describe the hours of surgery it took to reconstruct one woman's face after a violent attack by her partner. There were descriptions of how girls as young as 12 were subjected to Female Genital Mutilation in this country despite laws against it. Where is the worst place in the world to be a woman? Reputedly a province in the Democratic Republic of Congo where 40 women are raped every day. In India, 50% of men and women believe that wife-beating is justified if a woman disrespects her in-laws or neglects the house.

Two Liberal Democrat peers spoke in the Debate. Sal Brinton wrote for Liberal Democrat Voice in 2008 about the awful campaign of intimidation and harassment inflicted on her and other Watford Liberal Democrats by Ian Oakley. In the week the new Anti-Stalking law came into force, she talked about what that would mean for people who had been in her situation:

I give my personal thanks to all Ministers who supported this legislation as it progressed through Parliament, and particularly to Lynne Featherstone, who made it a priority to champion the fight against violence against women in any form. It remains essential that we hear the voices of the victims and assess the risks to them. An anti-stalking law is only as effective as those who enforce it. The culture change proposed in the new law may take a while to implement, but I am sure that now we have a tool that can give women peace of mind and safety from the persistent nightmare of stalkers.

Meral Hussein-Ece made some very important points about the underlying culture. Having laws giving women rights is one thing, but if men still dominate the law enforcement organisations, these laws are unlikely to be implemented as well as they could be. She recounted how she  had been threatened for trying to help women:

 Recently, a high-profile, educated woman from the Indian sub-continent told me of an incident where a senior official casually in conversation talked of how when he beat his wife, she knew what she had done wrong. This is by no means an unusual attitude and is not necessarily confined to poorer communities. I experienced threats of violence myself some years ago, when I set up the first project and centre to support Turkish and Kurdish women who experienced violence in the UK, from the very men who perpetrated that violence against women and their family behind closed doors, or who, often in the name of their so-called honour, which, as we all know, is dishonour, tried to control women by using violent methods.

Having laws in place is not enough. We need those laws to be properly implemented. We know that legislatures and enforcement authorities are usually dominated by men who often do not see this issue as a priority. We must do better to protect women and prevent this pervasive human rights violation.

She went on to add that we hadn't quite got it right in the UK yet either, citing media portrayal of women and its consequences:

Here in the UK, we are still working hard to eliminate and educate people in our society to change behaviour and attitudes, but according to the NSPCC sadly one in three teenage girls experience sexual violence from their boyfriends. We need to look at how women are being portrayed in some sections of the media, particularly in online sites.

If you ever wondered why I go on about this stuff as much as I do, the transcript of the debate will give you a good idea. Every day women are beaten, raped, mutilated or killed, denied education and denied their equal right to power and participation in government. That's not a situation we should tolerate, either here or internationally.

The Independent on Sunday's  Christmas appeal this year is in aid of Refuge, a charity which supports women and children who have been through domestic violence. Yesterday actor Sir Patrick Stewart told of his experience of having to protect his mother from his violent father. A few newspaper articles and a debate on a Thursday evening alone won't change things for the many women whose lives are made intolerable. It will take sustained national and international effort for many years to come. Everyone involved in politics should be working towards the aim of eliminating violence against women.

Lib Dems stop Tories from taking Housing Benefit from the Under 25s

One bit of very good news on welfare front - the Liberal Democrats have held firm and told George Osborne where to shove his ridiculous plan to take Housing Benefit away from under 25s, according to yesterday's Observer. Nor is he getting to freeze benefits as he would have liked.

The piece has a great quote from Greg Mulholland, Liberal Democrat MP for Leeds North West who says:

The Lib Dems would not stand for cutting housing benefits for under 25-year-olds which would not only be unjust and unfair but would have unacceptable consequences for many young people. Neither do we think a freeze in working-age benefits is acceptable.

He went on to say a phrase which made me cringe a little "having spent the last year making sure that benefits are directed to those who really need them most". Actually, we have taken them away from people who really do need them. Ok, it's been as bad as it would have been had the Tories had free rein, but I really wish we wouldn't say self-justifiying things like that because they aren't true and they don't wash.


Whenever George Osborne is due to get up on his feet, there are understandable nerves throughout the Party. There's inevitably going to be stuff in the Autumn Statement that we as a party don't like. The Social Liberal Forum has issued a statement today making it clear what it thinks - no more welfare cuts, and no agreement on spending plans after the next election. I can't see much to disagree with in what they say.

The Social Liberal Forum would not support a Government that takes regressive spending decisions, on the welfare budget in particular, that will go beyond the term of this Parliament.  There is no basis for taking such decisions in the policy of the Liberal Democrats, nor in the Coalition Agreement.  With living standards already squeezed and with the considerable uncertainty associated with the introduction of the Universal Credit – a measure that needs to succeed and will inevitably have consequences that will require adjustment – it would be irresponsible for further such steps to be taken.

It is therefore up to the Government to produce an overall spending package that is functional, that will not further hold the economy back, and that is fair. Senior Liberal Democrats have always clearly stated that addressing a widening deficit through further spending cuts, not least those that harm the spending power of the poorest, would lead to an unacceptable downward spiral of low growth and higher deficits. If the state of the economy leaves the Coalition with a choice between investing in future growth by easing the deficit reduction programme and cutting support to the most vulnerable people in society, it can only choose the former.

We can't put our name towards any further benefit cuts. We've already gone too far in that direction. Nor can there be any slacking in the raising of the tax threshold. At the other end, I want to see more being done on taxing the wealthiest. A mansion tax would be great, but I'd take anything that actually works that means that the well off feel a bit of the pinch. I say that as someone who had to stop claiming Child Benefit today. I am not whinging. It was only fair that I do so. It's a bit of a shame that the only time that my husband has been a higher rate tax payer in his entire working life coincides with the time Child Benefit is being cut, especially as he's had just 6 years' notice that he'll have to wait an extra year before he gets his State Pension. But, the point is, we can deal with it. We are not going to suffer in any sense and it's only right that we should do our bit. There are plenty wealthier than us who could do with digging a bit deeper, too.

Mind you, a sure fire way of making sure the country was rolling in money would be a tax on journalists' whinges about how Leveson is the end of a free press and how they're all being suppressed like it's North Korea... I have never heard such a load of self-serving, petulant nonsense in my whole life.

Nick Clegg's message for World AIDS Day

Good to see Nick Clegg has recorded a message for World AIDS Day. Nick is always keen on tackling stigma associated with various things - his work on mental health shows that - and he mentions here how the stigma of HIV prevents people from seeking help. He says that people with HIV must be treated with dignity and respect.

And what does Popbitch have to say about the Liberal Democrats' Christmas Party?

Well, I never expected an event I attended to end up in a salacious gossip email.

On Tuesday night I was lucky enough to be at the Ministry of Sound for the annual Lib Dems' Christmas Party. It was a fantastic night and a good time was had by all. Generally, I think that what happens at the Ministry of Sound should stay at the Ministry of Sound, although I will say that I feared for one middle aged man, who had better remain nameless although everyone in a 10 foot radius will know who he was, at one point. He seemed to be doing a bit of a bizarre combination of hip-hop, limbo, dad dancing and salsa and I was convinced he'd need either or both hips replaced by the end of the evening. Brave didn't even begin to cover it.

My husband was absolutely disgusted that someone of my camp and cheesy musical taste would be allowed in such an illustrious venue.

It was a great night, but not in any way eventful in times of scandal, which is why I was a little surprised to see it appear in Popbitch this week:

 >> Political party <<
        Lib Dems Gangnam style       

    Ready to hear one of the most
    pitiful things you'll hear all
    season? The Lib Dem MPs were at
    Ministry of Sound for their
    Christmas party this week.
    And were dancing Gangnam Style.

FYI: Nick Clegg only showed up at the
start. He apparently "still looked
sad despite a slight incline at the
corners of his mouth".

I doubt there will be a Christmas party in the whole country this year where the Gangnam style won't be played. This is hardly worthy of report. Given that it was the Ministry of Sound, I should say that we didn't get any of the cheesy Christmas stuff. In fact, as you'd expect, the music was pretty darned good.

Nick Clegg, by the way was in very good form, joking and teasing people. And drinking Tiger beer.

Never in my life did I expect to be sitting in the roped off seats in the VIP area of a nightclub! Anyone could go up there and it was lovely. How the other half live...      

Shock as politician behaves like a grown-up!

I have to say I was fair chuffed with our boy this afternoon. Nick Clegg showed how to conduct disagreements with your partners in an orderly, respectful and calm fashion. No matter how many times people tried to get him to slag Cameron, who was, by the way, completely out on a limb today, he refused and talked about trying to build a consensus.

I can't, for the life of me, see what the problem is with Leveson's clever proposal for a self regulating body with true independence - ie not full of newspaper editors or chaired by politicians. It seems pretty obvious to me that Cameron is trying to protect the powerful corporate interests that run the media for some reason. Well, protecting powerful vested interests is what Tories do, so we shouldn't be surprised. I really don't get how giving statutory underpinning to a regulatory body the press sets up itself along Leveson's guidelines infringes press freedom in any way. Is the BBC, which is regulated to within an inch of its life, curbed or compromised in any way? Of course not.

Nick was very calm and assured at the Despatch Box, and there was no sign of bad blood between he and the Prime Minister. He said his piece, which you can read in full here and took questions for quite a while, cracking a few jokes about the realities of coalition while he was at it.

He was very clear that the worst that could happen would be for nothing to change and emphasised how important to balance two fundamental liberal principles - the need for a free press holding politicians to account, and the need to protect innocent people from the abuses of powerful vested interests. He talked about how the Irish system was set up by Parliament, reeled off a long list of British newspapers who have Irish editions and said he'd never heard them complaining about an illiberal press environment there.

He wasn't entirely uncritical - saying that Leveson's chapters on using OFCOM as a backstop regulator, and on data protection would need more careful scrutiny.

He also hinted, when pressed by Tories who think he should basically just have done what Cameron wanted, that there may be more double statements in future. I think he has to play his hand wisely on that - but there are no greater issues than secret courts and web snooping where he would do well to set out the distinctive liberal case.

I did a wee Storify thingy to keep the tweets of the occasion together. Near the bottom, there's some wee gems from the Chief Whip.

How the press should be regulated - from a 13 1/2 year old

With just half an hour to go until we finally know what Lord Leveson is going to recommend, I thought you might be interested in my daughter's view on press regulation, elicited on the way to school this morning.

We were talking about the habit tabloids have of getting something wrong, humiliating someone, causing real distress,  in massive front page spreads and publishing the inevitable apologies in amongst the classified ads on page 39.

She suggested that, instead, newspaper editors should have to dress up and make a video apology on You Tube. I guess it's a bit like the 21st century stocks without the rotten fruit. Clearly, she's been watching too much Merlin, but there a certain making the punishment fit the crime thing going on.

Gregor McAbery on Twitter suggested that the victim should be allowed to choose the dressing up costume, which adds another delicious dimension. It makes you wish Kelvin McKenzie and Piers Morgan were still tabloid editors.

I did explain to her that I felt we needed to have consequences that really mattered to the newspapers - so if they were going to play fast and loose with the rules, they would lose the profit they made on that edition.

Two things Lib Dems are doing that make me happy - and one where there's room for improvement

I am heartily delighted that Nick Clegg is to make his own statement on Leveson this afternoon. When there's such a complex mix of abuse of power and freedom issues, we need an unequivocally liberal point of view. The Tories don't like getting in the way of large corporations' power and Labour's authoritarian instincts need to be curbed.

I expect Nick will get it in the neck from all sides but I think it's a very mature way to handle the inevitable disagreements that are going to arise during the course of a coalition. Nick isn't going to come out and call Cameron out for everything, but he'll express his view in clear, calm and respectful terms.

Another thing that made me very happy is the BBC report today which suggests that the Liberal Democrats may not support Draft Communications Data Bill. Julian Huppert has said all along that we would not support a Bill which was not substantially changed. The party will breathe a huge sigh of relief if that happens.

And the area where there's room for improvement? The Justice and Security Bill, containing the provisions for secret courts, was passed by the Lords last night. I don't believe that the amendments passed by the Lords do any more than make a horrendous bill merely bloody awful. Liberal Democrats should be having nothing to do with secret courts and we should insist on that being withdrawn. If you agree, please sign the petition here.

The next stage for this Bill is that it'll go to the Commons. This is where Lib Dem members really need to make their feelings known to our MPs. Please contact every single one you know and tell them why you think we need to get rid of these provisions.

It's great that Nick is getting it so right on Leveson and has got he message on communications data. He must act on secret courts, though. The Party will not cope well with a failure on such an issue of such fundamental importance to us.

Travelling companions

So I'm back after a hectic trip to London, made more chaotic by the inevitable rail delays because of the awful flooding in northern England. Getting there a few hours late is nothing compared to having your home or livelihood threatened or destroyed by rising flood waters.

On Monday I left Edinburgh at 11:30 in order to get to London at 15:54 and on to my meeting at Westminster at 18:00. The weather was dark, wet and gloomy and by the time we arrived in  Newcastle, the conductor's announcements were becoming increasingly pessimistic. Twitter had tales of replacement buses and being decanted off one train and on to another after much hanging around on cold, dark, wet railway stations. It seemed only chaos and misery were ahead.

Very luckily, our train was the one that people were decanted on to. Sadly, there weren't enough seats or luggage room for everyone who joined us.

My seat was at a table with a guy who spent most of the journey going through his iTunes library and ignoring what was going on. Opposite was a very bright and smiley 8 month old baby boy called Cooper, travelling to see  family with his Mum and Granny. They live four doors down from the shop on the Black Isle where we buy our groceries when we're on holiday so it was great to chat about the area and all sorts of other things. Little Cooper was a delight and showed a great deal more patience than many of the adults on the train. I found myself getting riled at one woman who kept telling this toddler she was with that she was going to smack her. The toddler was not even making a noise and was being pretty good, considering. I found the threats of physical violence towards a child much more irritating.

As I was getting ready to leave the train, two hours late in Kings Cross,  I saw a friend of mine, known to some as the Minister for Sinister, slumbering at the other end of the carriage. I thought I'd have a wee bit of fun, so rang his mobile. When he answered, he was completely freaked out by hearing my voice next to him and coming through his phone. He really jumped. I am quite proud of myself for out-creeping him for the first and probably only time ever.

We arrived at 17:54. My meeting was due to start in Parliament at 18:00. I reckoned that I'd be about half an hour late. I didn't reckon with a queue to get into Parliament that was about half an hour long so I arrived far too late. However, some good chat took place in the pub afterwards so not all was lost. I had never been in St Stephen's pub across the road from Parliament, on the same side of the road as the Westminster tube station. It's lovely - and the very nice young man behind the bar now knows how to pronounce "Glenmorangie" correctly.

I left King's Cross yesterday at 10 am ( having been up till nearly 2 at a fantastic party). On that journey, I was really lucky to have really lovely women to chat to. The three of us seemed to click and were soon putting the world to rights, talking about politics, religion, kids, all sorts. You're not supposed to discuss these controversial things, especially with complete strangers,  but I'm all in favour of it - the more people try to understand each other, even when they disagree, the better, in my book. One was heading up north for work, the other to see family with her gorgeous, dimply, smiley 7 month old, Lennox, who delighted us all. Again we were delayed, by an hour this time and he was just such a sunny, cute little thing who was completely unfazed by his confinement. It also turns out that one of them may have been at Braemar Youth Hostel in 1985 when I had my Summer job there. Small world, or what? Anyway, I am extremely grateful to my travelling companions for making the journey so pleasant.

By the time we arrived in York, there was only one train per hour being allowed in each direction. We were very lucky in that it was our train, with quite a slight delay, which was that one. The people from the 9:30 train had been left on a freezing cold platform to await for our arrival and they then faced a three hour journey north with no seat. I have to say, though, they were

The train fell silent when we passed through the areas worst affected by the flooding in Yorkshire andnear Darlington. Seeing buildings and trees half submerged made us all think about the lives affected. It really was devastating. The Government really has to get a deal on the flood insurance sorted as soon as possible. Going through it is bad enough. Making these people face the prospect, possibly the inevitable prospect, of it happening again without insurance is unthinkable. Our delayed journey is over. Their ordeal is far from it.

I'll tell you some more about what else I got up to in London later. Those who were also at the party can rest easy - what happened at the Ministry of Sound stays at the Ministry of Sound.

Letter from the Leader - Nick Clegg focuses on housing

When I worked for an MP as a caseworker, the main problems I dealt with were tax credits, benefits (where the Government departments concerned were never quick to admit their mistakes) and housing. Every week, we'd have several new cases of people not just wanting a better or bigger or in fact any house at all, but desperately needing it. Four children in a two bedroomed flat doesn't go. And don't get all sniffy about how people shouldn't have children if they can't afford them. What are poor people supposed to do? Forget the hope of family life?That's mean.

Nick Clegg has thus far talked about mental health and childcare in his new series of letters to Liberal Democrat members, two issues of critical importance to people in their everyday lives. This week, he chose housing, writing about his new garden city initiative. I like that while the Tories squabble about Europe, Nick's focussed on making people's lives better.

Here it is in full:

Dear Caron,

I'm writing this as we come to the end of an incredibly hectic week in politics.

The negotiations over the budget in Europe, securing of a much needed ceasefire in Gaza, rising speculation about the upcoming Leveson report. And Ed Davey's important announcement of a landmark coalition deal on low carbon energy that will deliver billions of pounds of investment in clean technology and create thousands of jobs.

But in this letter I want to focus on an issue that wasn't so high on the radar screen, but matters enormously to me: housing. I gave a speech to the National House Building Council (the people who issue guarantees for new homes) on Thursday which brought the numbers into focus for me and made me determined to step up our efforts.

As a country, we have built too few homes for far too long - and the economic and social consequences are massive. Prices out of reach of too many young families. Our economy vulnerable to boom and bust in the housing market. The housing benefit bill spiralling. Homelessness and overcrowding.

All these problems are solvable but only if we think big.

We've been talking about housing in the coalition for well over two years. At every budget and autumn statement we've brought forward new measures. We've reduced red tape and regulation for house builders. We've supported mortgage lending with products to help first time buyers. We're backing housing associations with £10bn of treasury guarantees.

And yet it isn't enough. This year we will probably build just 110,000 homes. If that sounds like a lot to you let me put you straight: it's one of the worst years since the Second World War. When you realise that the population grew by about 270,000 households it's clear it's nowhere near enough.

No wonder prices are out of reach for so many families. The average first time buyer is now 35, and home ownership is falling for the first time in a generation.

The only way out of this crisis is to build our way out.

This week I announced funding of £225m to kick start development at eight sites, each with plans for over 5,000 new homes. But I want to think bigger - much bigger. We can't go on building a home here and a home there and hoping it's enough.

I want us to go back to some of Britain's proud heritage of urban development and build a new generation of "garden cities" - places that will grow, thrive and become part of the fabric of the nation.

Of course development is always controversial. It's right to protect our precious rural landscape and not let England be concreted over. But the point I've been making in government (and there have been some lively debates) is that planning big new settlements is the best way to protect our countryside because the alternative is endless urban sprawl.

Instead of eating away at the green belt, we can build big and even designate new green belt around new towns and cities. I think that’s why even the Telegraph was supportive of the plans I outlined this week.

We could easily build new garden cities totalling a million new homes in the next ten years without building on any green belt, National Parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. And by doing it we could deliver homes people can afford in places they want to live.

We can't do this overnight. Scale and ambition take time. But I believe if we put aside partisan politics and think collectively about the housing needs of the next generation, we could set Britain on track for a major wave of new development, new jobs, and new hope.

Best  wishes,


Nick Clegg

Ps If you want to help our party campaign on this and other issues you can do something to help.  A donation of just £10, or whatever 

Brilliant Brazil thriller for Vettel's hat-trick #f1

The circuit at Interlagos never fails to disappoint. If you have a Formula One championship going down to the wire, what better place to end the season than in a place which seems, like Spa, to have its own micro-climate, where it can, and frequently does, tip it down at a moment' notice. Who can forget Kimi Raikonnen snatching the title from Lewis Hamilton in 2007 and then the next year Hamilton snatched it from Felipe Massa on the last corner.? In 2009, Brawn GP cemented their Constructors' Championship and the world title for Jenson Button after a bit of fairytale year.

So, last week the F1 circus hit town for climax to the season. If Ferrari's Fernando Alonso could win the race with Sebastian Vettel coming fourth or less, the title would be his. It was a long shot, but if anyone could pull it off, it would be him.

Neither championship contender qualified particularly well, but a first lap spin, encouraged by a good whack on the left side which left visible damage, let Vettel in last place while Alonso had a stonkingly good start, pushing his way up to 4th, then 3rd, which would have been enough.

That was all before the heavens opened. By the time the first lot of tyre changes, to intermediates had happened, Vettel had driven his way from last to 6th, which would have been enough to win the world title. The championship undulated between the two of them for the whole race.

One highlight was that Force India's Nico Hulkenberg led the race for a good stint in the middle before being overtaken by Lewis Hamilton. When he tried to re-take the lead, both spun off. The German managed to get going again, but Hamilton's race was over.

Alonso never stopped fighting. The only place handed to him on a plate was when Massa let him pass, but Vettel had a similar courtesy from his mentor Schumacher in his last race. By the last few laps, all Tifosi hopes rested on Jenson Button doing something silly in the rain. As we saw in Montreal in 2011, Jenson doesn't do silly stuff in the rain; he brings the car home.

It's impossible not to like Sebastian Vettel, or to grudge him his 3rd championship. He has the best car, though. Alonso managed to take a vastly inferior specimen within 3 points of the world title.That shows a fantastic talent. My feelings towards the Spaniard have mellowed over time. I wasn't much enamoured by his early rivalry with Schumacher, and then Alonso behaved like a total tube during his brief stay at McLaren. He and Kimi are probably the best drivers on the grid, though.

Here are my breathless tweets from yesterday. I could talk about this all day, but that train to London won't wait for me.

My hopes for next season - a scrap for the title between Alonso, Kimi, Webber and Jenson, and a place in next year's Strictly Come Dancing for Michael Schumacher. I'm missing this season already. Roll on Melbourne which, inconveniently, falls on the weekend of Scottish Liberal Democrat conference.

Xmas books for kids is back - please give generously

Last year, the amazing Burd led a project which raised over £3300 to buy books for kids who otherwise wouldn't have them at Christmas.

And she's back this year.

I'm sure she won't mind me copying her words shamelessly:

Last year, together, we bought books for Christmas for 380 vulnerable children and young people in Scotland.  We did this because you helped me raise over £3,300.  All of that is worthy of a very big wow.  And a huge thank you.

So this year, I thought we’d try to do it all again.

Because sadly, there are still children growing up in Scotland without a book of their own.  For some, it’s because their parents are too poor to afford books.  For others, it’s because they leave violent or unsafe homes, often with only what they can carry, and precious things like books get left behind.  Whatever the reason, CHILDREN 1^ST – the charity I work for – supports children who have yet to discover the joy of reading – and reading well – and the difference it can make to their lives and their life chances.

This is something CHILDREN 1^ST understands well.  We work to support vulnerable families, often from a child’s earliest years, so that their children enjoy happy and healthy, safe and secure childhoods.  Encouraging parents to read with their children, nurturing strong bonds, is part of what we do.  Our counsellors also support sexually and physically abused children to recover from their trauma through play, writing, art and story telling.

And that is how powerful books are.  Helping to heal.  Opening up new worlds and possibilities.  Providing escape and adventure.  And most importantly of all, fun.

I know you know this because you love books and books have helped take you to where you are in life.  Close your eyes and imagine if you had never owned a book, what your life might be like today.  Impossible isn’t it?  Which is why I know you will help the Books for Kids for Christmas appeal again this year.

You can give – here, right now.  Donate £10, gift aid it and half of your donation plus the gift aid goes directly to buying a book for a vulnerable child, with the rest going to CHILDREN 1^ST to help towards the costs of supporting vulnerable children and families.

But you can also spread the word by telling, emailing, tweeting, sharing and blogging.  Email me at burdzeyeview@hotmail.co.ukif you’d like to discuss what and how.

The target is the same as last year - £3000 which will allow us to buy books for 300 children. 

Already, we’re nearly half way there, thanks to an amazingly generous donation from the David Cairns Foundation of £1000.  I’ve been saving my pennies too and have put £200 into the pot.  

And we’re starting earlier to give Santa plenty of time to make his deliveries and hopefully, reaching our target and finishing earlier too on 2 December – the end of Book Week Scotland which provides a fitting finale.

I know times are even tougher for folk this year, but if we all give a little, we can achieve a lot.  And by buying books for vulnerable children for Christmas, we can give them a better start in life and help them to build a brighter future for themselves.

Thanks for your support.

Kate

PS You can keep up to date with the appeal by visitingwww.booksforkidsforchristmas.tumblr.com – please do drop by! 

And if you’d rather not give online, you can send a cheque payable to CHILDREN 1^ST to Kate Higgins, CHILDREN 1^ST, 83 Whitehouse Loan, Edinburgh, EH9 1AT

I'd like you to do three things, please:

1. Give whatever you can to this very worthwhile cause here. 

2. Tell everyone you know, whether in person or on the internet about it and ask them to give too.

3. Put in the comments what your favourite books were when you were a child.

Next week is National Book Week and it would be great if we could help Kate exceed the target before then. Let's get to it.

A bad day at the office for Jim Wallace #no2secretcourts

First of all, some words of heartfelt thanks. People like Ros Scott, Sal Brinton, Tim Clement-Jones, Sally Hamwee and Dee Doocey simply don't strike me as the rebellious sort. That Tony Greaves is doesn't make me any less grateful to him, but he is pretty familiar with the grass on that side of the fence. Sixteen of our seventy - ish peers who were around to vote last night in the Lords chose to stick with party policy and vote to delete the secret courts provision from the Justice and Security Bill. That's a tough choice to make and I am grateful to each and every one of them. I was particularly chuffed to see Bob Maclennan in there, who was MP for Caithness and Sutherland where I lived when I first joined the SDP in 1983. The others on my Role of Noble Honour are Lords Hussein, MacDonald, Shipley, Strasburger, Tope, Roberts and Thomas and Baronesses Walmsley and Linklater. Thank you all.  There were some others, by the way, who seemed to have made themselves scarce between the earlier votes and this crucial division, so they didn't vote for the clause to stay in either.

I know exactly why I think it's wrong to have cases decided between a spook, a judge and a state appointed advocate for the defendant/complainant who isn't allowed to tell them of the case against them. I do, however, get a bit scared about writing about it, not being a legal person. My Lib Dem Voice colleague Nick Thornsby has written a hell of a good article for the Guardian on why secret courts are a bad idea. As he says:

It is difficult to comprehend just how fundamental a departure from centuries-old principles this would be. The right to see and hear the evidence of the other side, and subsequently to challenge the veracity or utility of that evidence, forms the basis of our entire civil justice system. The prospect, too, of claimants being told that they have lost their case but not being given any reasons why should send a chill through any believers in fair, open justice.

 The delete vote was the fourth out of five votes. The Government had been pretty heavily defeated on the first three which sought to add safeguards to the Bill. They certainly made it better - but that is a relative term. It was horrific and it's now merely bloody awful. The number of Liberal Democrat peers voting for the Government line was a whole 12. That is not a good day at the office for the man introducing the Bill, Jim Wallace, by any manner of means. If he could only take 11 colleagues with him, that should send enough shock waves through him to make him realise the strength of feeling in the party. Jim was a very good Deputy First Minister, and he should recognise this situation as the parallel to the 1999 Coalition. We had made very specific promises on tuition fees (which we did not implement) and free personal care (which we did bring in). If we had reneged on either of these, the party would have spontaneously combusted. This, I think, is where we are with secret courts, where the only people who seem to have any sort of time for it are those in Parliament. As I said on Lib Dem Voice yesterday, a glance at the list of the 172 party members who signed the letter to the Times shows unanimity across loyalists and the awkward squad, social and economic liberals, Lib Dems the length and breadth of the country. I hope that Jim heeds what he is being told and takes steps to get rid of the secret court provisions once and for all. It is really important for this party that he does.

The Bill is back in the Lords next week before it heads off to the Commons. For the Lib Dems against secret courts campaign, there is a long way to go. Jo Shaw wrote about last night's proceedings here.  If you're a Lib Dem member and you want to support the campaign you can do so by signing the petition here and following the blog or the Facebook page here.

A late World Toilet Day post

Yes, I know World Toilet Day was on Monday. I've been poorly and preoccupied by Lib Dem Voice this week so far so I figured better late than never.

I did do a bit of Facebook and Twitter sharing on the right day.

Anyway, if you thought World Toilet Day was some sort of marketing ploy by a DIY chain to sell more toilets, you are wrong.

It's actually an annual event to highlight how many people across the world don't have access to sanitation.

If I've ever been hillwalking and had to "go" outside, I've found it to be an absolute nightmare, but to 1 in 3 women around the world that's just life. Water Aid produced this film to raise awareness of this, to try and bring it home to us what it would be like to be in that situation.



After you've watched it, sign the petition to tell the Government you want them to work to make sure that everyone has somewhere clean and safe to carry out the most basic of bodily functions. If you are on the Water Aid website, you will see that there is a story by Katherine at the side where she tells how women risk rape if they go outside to do the toilet at night time.

Why #womenbishops matters to this atheist

It was what we call these days a facepalm moment when the news came through last night that the Church of England had voted by the tiniest of margins not to allow women to become bishops. The Archbishop had the  clergy on message, but the laity didn't have the required margin. And it would be inaccurate to simply dismiss the laity as misogynist. Some of them thought that the proposal on offer was worse than the status quo in the way it offered "protection" for those poor souls who couldn't bear the thought of a woman in a position of power. Kelvin Holdsworth has some thoughts on this. The wisest and most progressive priest I know wouldn't have been able to vote for the proposals and he explains why here.

The trouble with the measure in England from my point of view is that it was a compromise far too far. It was not a vote for or against women bishops, it was a vote for or against allowing women to become second-class bishops. Churches would have been able to opt out of a female bishop’s care (though not from a male bishop’s care) and request oversight from someone sharing the same theological views. It is the Church of England’s preferred heresy at the moment and it is probably a good thing that it has failed to go any further now though a horrible mess. 

Now, I'd really love to be able to say, ok, Church of England, that's your business. I don't like it, but it's now't to do with me. Sadly, though, it is, for two reasons.

Firstly, I might not be a member of the Church of England, but I do like to challenge discrimination and misogyny wherever it's found. I feel that if it doesn't go unchallenged, it pervades and poisons the whole of society.

Secondly, this Church has a much larger part in our national life than it should have, given that it forms part of the hegemony of the state. It's intertwined into our parliamentary and governmental institutions. Our Head of State (a woman, funnily enough) is head of the Church. The Church has, get this, reserved places in our Parliament. 26 Lords Spiritual make our laws. And we've seen that there can be some pretty tight votes in the House of Lords. Now, I don't think there should be Bishops in the House of Lords anyway. Sadly, the last attempt to get rid of even some of them didn't end so well. Nadine Dorries, I'm looking at you, here, and 90 od of your mates. So, if we are stuck with an appointed upper house for the time being, I think as an interim measure, we should tell the Bishops to sling their hooks if their organisation insists on being institutionally sexist. They either remove the barrier to letting women sit in the Lords, or they leave. It's that simple. It's bad enough that there's no legitimacy, but for there to be active discrimination in the choice of members is beyond the pale. They had the chance to change that and they blew it.

If you agree with that, there is an e-petition to that effect. It says:

The Church of England on 20th Nov 2012 voted not to allow women to be Bishops. Though that is within its rights to do, this should worry the Government as Church of England Bishops are awarded legislative power through seats in the House of Lords.

The Church has chosen to be a sexist organisation by refusing women the right to hold highest leadership positions and therefore should not be allowed automatic seats in the House of Lords, as this clearly does not comply with the spirit of UK Equality law.

We call on the Govt to remove the right of the Church of England to have automatic seats in the House of Lords, in line with its commitments to equality and non-discrimination, set out in the Equality Act (2010) and the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979)

I signed it when it had a couple of hundred signatures this morning. Now there are 1660. If you agree with what it says, sign here.  I certainly don't see why laws I'm expected to live by should be made by people whose organisation actively discriminates against me and the rest of the female population. If 100,000 people signed up, this would have to be debated in Parliament. Let's see if we can get there by Christmas.