Liberal Bureaucracy

George Osborne demonstrating that he isn't fit for purpose... again

2009-11-24T13:37:00.000Z

It is clearly time for George to say something that sounds that it might be popular, and so he has leapt aboard the 10:10 bandwagon. Now clearly, as Liberal Democrats, we support the notion that organisations and individuals should cut their carbon dioxide emissions by 10% next year. However, in those places where we run councils, the commitment has to be backed up with action. George doesn't have that problem, and it shows.

He suggests that government departments should achieve the called for 10% reduction and, if they don't achieve it, he'll cut their budget. It's a great soundbite, albeit an entirely vacuous one. I suspect that if HM Treasury fail, or the Department for International Development, whilst the usual liberal suspsects will cry out, the populace won't. On the other hand, if the NHS fails, is he seriously saying that he would cut its budget? The Home Office? Would he cut the number of prison officers or probation officers, would he restrict the budget of police authorities? Thought not.

It is another reminder that he, and his fellow travellers, still do not understand how government works. He seems to think that the only way to get civil servants to respond is to beat them with a stick - we've been here before, I think - whereas the private sector only respond to carrots. Actually, both public and private sectors respond to the right incentive, and it isn't always the same one.

So, another fail grade for George. Six months until a General Election, and the Conservative front bench still shows no sign of grasping what is actually required from a political party in power. Come on ladies and gentlemen, get a grip, it's later than you think...

Defending the regulators - a bureaucrat breaks cover...

2009-11-22T15:34:00.002Z

We did lose one vote during the debate on the theme resolution at the ELDR Congress, 'Liberal Answers For A New Prosperity', ironically on an amendment to an otherwise perfectly acceptable clause. A late proposal to call for a 25 per cent reduction in the administrative burdens for business by 2014, compared with their current level, set this bureaucrat's antennae twitching. What did it mean? A 25% reduction in the number of regulations? A 25% reduction in the administrative impact of regulations? Indeed, where did the figure of 25% come from at all?

Having spotted it, and argued against it in the working group, I then found myself supported by the delegation and given the freedom to speak in the debate itself. And this is what I said...

"Congress, I have a confession to make. I am a bureaucrat. It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it.

Regulation is not simply a burden, it is a balance. We regulate to advance our social agenda, to advance our economic agenda, to advance our environmental agenda. We balance the financial impact of that regulation against its benefits. Therefore, whilst Liberal Democrats support the principle of reducing the administrative burden, we believe that Europe and the member states need a scalpal, not a chainsaw, when attacking excessive bureaucracy.

The reduction sought of 25% has no basis, no precision. It does not indicate whether we wish to reduce the number of regulations by 25%, or the resource impact of regulation by 25%. It is, in short, a pretty soundbite, not a considered policy.

I therefore urge Congress to support the removal of the arbitrary figure from the resolution. Fellow liberals, let us be surgeons, not butchers."

It was, I believe, a fairly well-received intervention. Unfortunately, by a vote of eighty-nine votes to seventy-six, it turned out not to be quite well-received enough. Ah well, the point was made, and perhaps some of those so enthusiastic to slash regulation will remember my words when they discover just how difficult it is to carry out a balanced agenda without some, if not all, of our existing regulatory framework.

An unexpected turn of events in Barcelona

2009-11-21T19:57:00.003Z

I have to admit that I hadn't exactly expected to do anything more than attend the ELDR Congress, take a few notes and otherwise listen to some speeches. Indeed, I took in the working group on the theme resolution in the expectation that it would be interesting, informative and make good reportage. I didn't expect to have to do very much.

However, as it appeared that virtually all of our delegation had other plans for their time, I became the second spokesperson for our group on the resolution itself, with Gordon Lishman leading. Fortunately, Gordon is good on the political philosophy end of it, upholding our stance that, whilst free markets are a good thing, there is sometimes a need for balancing what is good for business with what is good for individuals and the wider community.

I was somewhat surprised by a proposal that regulation be cut by 25%. Given that the original draft called for a reduction in regulation, it seemed foolhardy to call for a precise figure, especially given that, whilst the figure was precise, its meaning was anything but. And so I found myself arguing against the proposal on behalf of a party which regularly calls for a reduction of the regulatory burden on companies.

Given the makeup of the working group, I wasn't entirely surprised to lose there. However, there was always a possibility of arguing the case in front of the entire Congress - a slim one, I admit, but a possibility nonetheless. And so, in the delegation meeting that evening, the case was made, and it was agreed that we should continue to argue it.

By the next afternoon, I had prepared a brief intervention, only to discover that Gordon had been appointed to be a counting assistant for the Bureau elections, leaving me to 'lead' the delegation in its voting on the theme resolution. Perhaps I should have taken more notes... Fortunately, there were enough members of Federal Policy Committee around to guide me past any areas of uncertainty, and we managed to cast our votes as Party policy dictated.

It is odd that an non-policy wonk should be put into such a position, and it isn't something that I would actively seek to do in future, but it is reassuring that, if the need arises again, I could do the job and get away with it.

Oh yes, you'll want to know what happened in the debate. Let's leave that for another story...

Oh yes, you and whose army, Tom Strathclyde?

2009-11-18T13:59:00.002Z

The Guardian reports that Lord Strathclyde, the Conservative leader in the Lords, is threatening to balk Labour attempts to push new legislation through before a General Election. Apparently, he feels that, without the consent of Tory peers, nothing can be passed. It seems that, amongst his many skills, arithmetic isn't to be found.

Firstly, he presumes that he can get his side to turn up and vote. The evidence of divisions since the summer recess is that he can't, especially after the dinner hour. Vote after vote that might have been won has been lost because Tories would rather be in a cosy armchair than doing their job, with at least one instance of a Conservative amendment lost in spite of Liberal Democrat support because they managed to turn out less than thirty to vote in support.

Second. and most importantly, assuming that the crossbenchers will not coalesce around one position - they are independents, after all - the House of Lords is in no overall control, with roughly equal numbers of Labour and Conservative peers and the rather more motivated, better organised and frankly more cohesive Liberal Democrats holding the balance of power. Our team vote in numbers, punch well above their weight, and are far more likely to hold this shambolic Government to account.

So, if Tom Strathclyde is reading this, he might like to remember that those pieces of legislation that address Liberal Democrat concerns in an appropriate and effective manner actually have a majority in the Lords, with or without the tattered remnants of the Conservative benches.

And, if David Cameron can find someone on his benches that can count, perhaps a new Leader might be worth consideration...

An A-Z of Valladares - J is for José

2009-11-18T12:13:00.000Z

There are very few images of today's Valladares, flying or otherwise, for it is none other than José Sarmiento y Valladares (1643 - 1708), conde (count) de Moctezuma y de Tula, viceroy of New Spain from 1696 to 1701, and seemingly not a bad ruler relative to the time.

His first wife was a direct descendant of Moctezuma, the last Aztec emperor, from whence his title came. Whilst viceroy, he established a night watch in Mexico City to combat crime and, whilst the penalties were fairly extreme (whipping for a first offence, branding for a second offence, the loss of an ear for a third), one presumes that they were effective.

A supporter of Habsburg claims to the throne following the death of Charles II of Spain, he found himself on the wrong side when the Bourbons came to power in Madrid. However, he returned to Spain after being removed from his post, survived the residencia (effectively a commission of enquiry into charges against him) that followed and went on to be created Duke of Atrisco and becoming a grandee of Spain.

Liberal Bureaucracy at the ELDR Congress!

2009-11-17T23:12:00.004Z

Blogging here at Liberal Bureaucracy will be a bit light for the next few days, as I'm off to Barcelona to attend the ELDR Congress (oh, the glamour!). I hope to cover the event for Liberal Democrat Voice, but there may be some reportage here too.

Curiously, this will be my first ELDR Congress since Copenhagen in, if memory serves, 1990. Strangely, it was one of the things that I didn't reconnect with when I returned to frontline Party service in 2004, but it should be interesting.

Another addition to the blogroll

2009-11-17T13:52:00.000Z

A few months ago, I was in Vancouver, attending the congress of the Liberal Party of Canada, and met a few of their bloggers briefly. And so, in honour of that occasion, I bring you Liblogs...

Cllr Bureaucrat and the Budget of Doom

2009-11-17T09:24:00.000Z

Back to the demesne for another Parish Council meeting last night, with a packed agenda and a Chair keen to finish early so that he could catch "I'm a Celebrity, get me away from Jordan!", or whatever it's called.

An issue of interest to villagers is the introduction of taxi metering by Mid Suffolk District Council, and given that I've noticed the effective fare increase, I thought that it was right to question our District Councillor, Caroline Byles, on the subject, only to get an answer that I hadn't expected. She claims that an amendment moved by the Green Party group and passed by the appropriate committee has added to the fare charged to those whose journey starts from somewhere other than the town.

This raises two questions. Firstly, Mid Suffolk is a Conservative-run council, so why are the Greens winning votes? Second, where was the consultation, or even the announcement? As a Parish Council, we might well have had something to say on the subject. In any event, I'm keen to find out what really happened. Allied to the advice from Suffolk County Council that we can't have a bus stop for the village, it's been a bad week for public transport in Creeting St Peter.

Our first discussion of the budget was a gentle one. There is a difference of opinion as to what we should be attempting to do, and how we fund that. I am a cautious soul, and am uncomfortable about spending other people's money without their tacit approval. It would be fair to say that my view is not universally shared, but we have agreed to consider our options and make a final decision at the next meeting.

I'm looking at the budget on a line by line basis, adhering to the principle of 'value for money' - which doesn't necessarily mean the cheapest option - as I'd rather spend our limited funds on things that actually make a difference. Besides, I have a duty of care, don't I?

Agonising over a budget - fiscal prudence in a time of austerity

2009-11-16T09:56:00.002Z

Alright, for those of you who serve on rather more high-powered local authorities than Creeting St Peter Parish Council (and in truth, if any of you are elected to a local authority, your budget is bound to be bigger than mine - in some cases by multiples of 100,000), my dilemma is a familiar one. However, that doesn't make it any easier.

This evening, the Parish Council meets to consider a draft budget for next year, and I have my concerns. Our precept is currently £4000, which amounts to £38.45 per household (yes, we really are that small), and we have generous reserves, currently equivalent to a year's spending. On the downside, nearly 70% of that precept goes towards staffing costs, and we are vulnerable to unexpected one-off charges. As an example, if an election were to be called to fill a vacancy on the Parish Council, the cost would be £432 (216 electors @ £2 each). I accept that we don't have elections - competition would be a fine thing - but we need to hold funds just in case the village went democracy crazy and hordes of candidates suddenly came forward.

It's the lack of data that causes me to fret. Is £340 for grass-cutting a good deal or not? What potential increase in costs for street lighting should we allow for? Indeed, is it sensible for a Parish Council of our size to make charitable donations? Given that the combined length of service of two out of our three councillors is less than a year, on what basis can we decide? This is where our Parish Clerk is important, and although she has only been engaged since 1 April, she is very experienced.

My personal aim is to, at worst, freeze the precept for 2010/11, although if I can cut it, I will. Yes, a 1% cut will put just 38 pence a year back in the pockets of each household, but in a time of austerity, it sends a signal out to council taxpayers that we are cutting our cloth to reflect what they are experiencing.

We'll see what happens this evening...

Talk about efficient! Andrew Duff's office come up trumps

2009-11-15T21:52:00.002Z

One of the things about producing a Focus leaflet is making sure that you have enough material. And given that not much happens in a District Council ward as a rule, any help that you can get can only be a good thing.

However, there is a point to seking material from other sources. The residents of Stowupland and Creeting St Peter don't just vote at District level, they have votes at Parish, County, Westminster and European levels, so my Focus leaflet is a means by which other candidates and representatives can get a message out. I'm told that this is what is meant by an integrated campaigning strategy...

Last time, I asked our PPC, David Chappell, for some input, and I used his contribution to make a point about MP expenses. This time, I thought that I might include some European content - it only seems right to remind people that Europe isn't wholly a bad thing - so I sent an e-mail to Andrew Duff's office earlier this evening, to see if they had anything I could drop into a leaflet. And, within a few hours, I got a reply from Tim Huggan, letting me know that they would be pleased to help and asking for a deadline. On a Sunday, no less! I am suitably impressed.

I know that there are many that are cautious about incorporating a European message in their campaigning - the public are anti-Europe, they say. However, you can't change that by hiding in the trenches, and I think that if we're honest about the failings of European institutions and bold about talking up the benefits of international co-operation, we might yet be surprised by the results.

An A-Z of Valladares - N is for Noel

2009-11-15T15:59:00.006Z

The flying goalkeeper pictured here failing to save a penalty is Noel Eduardo Valladares, one of the heroes of the Honduran national football team that recently qualified for next year's World Cup in South Africa.

Fortunately, he tends to save more than he lets in, which may explain why he has earned nearly seventy caps for his country, and why Honduras had the best defensive record in the final CONCACAF qualifying phase - all important when you consider that they edged out Costa Rica on goal difference. So, watch out for him, as it might be Wayne Rooney and the boys who are trying to beat him next year!

Oh, and that penalty? It was against Mexico at the Azteca Stadium in Mexico City, it was well struck and at that altitude it does fly a bit quicker...

New selection rules passed by English Candidates Committee

2009-11-14T17:58:00.003Z

I am delighted to report that the proposed new Selection Rules for Parliamentary candidates have been passed by ECC with only minor amendments. I don't want to go into too much detail for the time being, especially as they need to be ratified by English Council next year, but the principles that underpin them are:

a two-tier approach, with a pared back set of rules for development seats
greater potential freedom for candidates in the campaign phase
the opportunity for Local Parties to opt for a more rigorous process should they deem it necessary at any phase of the selection, but not to opt out
greater protection for applicants from arbitrary decisions by shortlisting committees

I'm pretty pleased about the way things have gone, and I hope that the efforts of the working group who led on this, chaired by Sal Jarvis, meet with wide approval.

Advice to prospective Parliamentary candidates - if not now, then when?

2009-11-14T17:14:00.000Z

Talking about the Cambridge selection reminds me that I haven't rattled on about candidates for a while. Let's remedy that...

Career success is not just about talent and hard work, although without those key elements, you are unlikely to be successful. However, most successful people will acknowledge that being in the right place at the right time helps. It's knowing where the right place is and when the right time is that presents the challenge...

David Howarth's rather unexpected decision to retire at the next General Election is, for some lucky soul, the right time. As a reasonably safe seat, with Labour as the main challengers, it looks like the right place. However, it leaves little time for preparation, and the very tight schedule means that only already approved candidates are likely to be serious contenders*.

So, what should the ambitious Liberal Democrat learn from this? Get your application form for approval as a Parliamentary candidate in now! Yes, you might not have a seat in mind, you may live in a constituency where the MP is a Liberal Democrat of comparative youthfulness, you may not see an opportunity that entices. But, as David Howarth has demonstrated, you never know what might happen. And if you aren't ready to take an opportunity when it comes up, you might not get another one like it for a while. By then, there'll be new challengers, perhaps someone who has taken my advice.

* Yes, you're right, a Selection Committee can choose to include unapproved applicants, as long as they are approved prior to shortlisting. But they don't have to, and any such applicant merely adds to the pressure of the assessment day. You're also relying on a Regional Candidates Chair holding an assessment day in time, in a place where you can reach it and with a spare slot. How lucky are you feeling?

URGENT: If you're not an approved Parliamentary candidate and want to run for Parliament next year

2009-11-14T13:03:00.000Z

English Candidates Committee has just decided that the deadline for applications for approval as a potential Parliamentary candidate for the next General Election will be 1 December.

Given that there are nearly one hundred applicants for approval (virtually all of them recent) awaiting an assessment day, and that there are already more than twice as many approved candidates without seats (excluding those on the inactive list) as there are vacancies, applications received after that date will not be offered an assessment day until after the General Election.

English Party - is the election of a new Chair not worth reporting?

2009-11-14T12:03:00.002Z

Four weeks ago, I wrote about the contest to be Chair of the English Liberal Democrats. It drew little interest at the time, and none since. And now, courtesy of the Party President, I know the outcome. So, congratulations to Jonathan Davies on his success.

That's the last positive I can muster. It is a shocking indictment of an organisation that has tremendous influence on the running of the Party that there is no coverage of the outcome, no indication as to who will be running the English Party next year. You might almost suspect that they would prefer us not to know, as we might only want to hold them accountable.

Apparently, the results will be announced at English Council in two weeks time, and then published in Liberal Democrat News. Most unsatisfactory, to my mind, and implies that the rest of us aren't worth worrying about. As a Regional Secretary-elect, I will be making my displeasure known...

English Candidates Committee - a big finish for the faceless bureaucrat?

2009-11-14T09:34:00.003Z

It's an absolutely vile morning in Essex, with strong, blustering winds and cold, heavy rain battering the 8.39 from Stowmarket to London. Given that I'm not in the best of moods - it was my birthday yesterday (45, since you ask) and I tend to the view that birthdays mark another step towards senescence and death - at last I don't feel out of place.

My task today is to hold the line on the new Selection Rules for Prospective Parliamentary Candidates in the face of an English Candidates Committee populated in part by the sort of people that give bureaucracy a bad name. Make no mistake, the notion that their role is to serve members and Local Parties rather than the other way round is something that one occasionally feels the need to remind them of.

One of my colleagues in particular, Brian Orrell, currently Chair of the English Party tends to the view that things can't be done and that they're all too difficult. Process is all the appears to matter, and the impact of bureaucracy on hard-pressed Local Parties is not a core consideration. The reports that the last attempt to simplify and rationalise the Selection Rules ran into the sand in part due to his efforts don't exactly surprise me.

I'll report back on the meeting later, assuming that I haven't gone berserk with an assault weapon and created a bunch of vacancies for Regional Candidates Chairs...

"And they're under starters orders!" - the starting gun is fired in Cambridge

2009-11-14T09:09:00.002Z

Yes, the advert was in yesterday's Liberal Democrat News, and nominations will close on Friday, December 4th. If you're interested, I'd move fast if I were you...

A Returning Officer is appointed for Cambridge

2009-11-13T00:25:00.001Z

My sources tell me that Paul Clark, the outgoing Chair of the East of England Regional Party, has been appointed as Returning Officer for the Cambridge selection contest...

MOD bonuses - why do people talk such nonsense?

2009-11-12T13:53:00.002Z

I see that there is another story in this morning's papers about bonuses paid to civil servants, in this instance at the Ministry of Defence. And yet again, levels of outrage are high, predominantly from those who, I note, aren't civil servants. Might I politely suggest that, before getting on their high horse, they actually find out why these bonuses have been paid (yes, and that includes you, Mr Reeves...)?

You see, contrary to popular opinion, most civil service employees are equally opposed to bonuses linked to performance, and yet these have been foisted on us by governments who seem to think that they improve performance. Actually, for the most part, they are subject to arbitrary guidelines whereby generous managers will reward quite ordinary performance whilst others only reward the sort of performance that Stakhanov would have been proud of. An amount of the paybill is ring-fenced for bonuses, and the amount of bonus received is related to the number of those deemed to qualify. So, if everyone works hard and exceeds their targets, the incentive (bonus) is reduced.

The bonuses take no account of the range of jobs performed, and rely on monitoring systems which encourage staff to focus on easy tasks, a greater number of which can be delivered than those more complex, more time-consuming ones. There are no standards applied across the piece, so that the reward for performing to a certain level in Stockport, for example, may vary wildly from that for a similar performance level in St Austell. In short, it is a dog's breakfast which gives the impression of rewarding performance whilst actually empowering local managers to reward their favourites in some cases.

This Party does have a record of kicking civil servants, and I don't expect that to change any time soon. However, we have votes too, and whilst politicians have every right to comment on the effectiveness of a policy, they also have a responsibility to treat people with respect, especially if they're planning to ask those very people for that vote at some point in the future. After all, hypocrisy is such an unfortunate word...

Last week in the Lords (part 2) - "actually, Goliath tends to beat David nine times out of ten"

2009-11-12T09:53:00.000Z

The week closed with further debate on the Coroners and Justice Bill, where Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment 19;

in clause 154, page 101, line 17, at end to insert:

“( ) it is a heinous offence, and”

in an attempt to tidy up the Government's flawed attempt to prevent those guilty of the most serious crimes from benefitting from publication of the details of those crimes. As he put it, "Like the Mikado, I hope the Government and the House, will appreciate that, “my object all sublime”, is to, “let the punishment fit the crime, the punishment fit the crime”. You have to admit that you just don't get that level of erudition in the Commons... Erudition is not its own reward, unfortunately, and the amendment was lost by 107 votes to 59.

Suddenly one down, it was time to throw men (and women) forward in an attempt to snatch an equaliser, and Baroness Miller was close with Amendment 26 to the Policing and Crime Bill;

clause 16, page 18, line 36,

after “person” to insert “aged 18 or over”

The Bill as currently drafted currently criminalises those under the age of eighteen accused of 'loitering for purposes of prostitution'. As Sue Miller pointed out, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, a convention that the United Kingdom has signed up to, she noted, states “The State party should always consider, both in legislation and in practice, children victims of these criminal practices, including child prostitution, exclusively as victims in need of recovery and reintegration and not as offenders”.

Despite support from the Crossbenches, defeat was guaranteed when the Conservatives yet again sat on their hands, although am eighty votes to sixty-eight defeat demonstrated that it was a cause worth fighting for.

Two down and time running out, with the benches emptying, Lord Thomas of Gresford made one last effort with Amendment 96ZA;

before clause 66, to insert the new clause

Restriction on extradition in cases where trial in United Kingdom is more appropriate.

discussion of which touched upon the McKinnon case, where the United States wishes to extradite a young computer hacker, despite concerns as to jurisdiction. Whilst the amendment had been moved in Committee by the Conservative, Baroness Neville-Jones, her unwillingness to press the issue meant that a Liberal Democrat was needed to take up the cudgel. And yet, with common cause between Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, the absence of Conservatives when it really mattered meant that the vote was lost by sixty-eight to forty-six.

So, a bad week closed with more defeats. Ah well, the Government do outnumber our Peers by a three to one margin...

The Party attracts my attention and saves me money

2009-11-11T16:40:00.000Z

To be honest, when the mailing hits my doormat inviting me to hand over some vast sum of money so that I can attend Federal Conference, I usually put it aside and promptly forget about it. This usually causes me to miss the early booking rate and makes it even more expensive.

However, this year is different. A strangely turquoise, rather glossy magazine-like thing emerged from the envelope. I was, I admit, rather impressed, so much so that I have registered for both conferences at a cost of £87 - a pretty good deal for those that can afford it.

The document itself is one of the best I've seen emerge from Cowley Street and is evidence that the Party is becoming more professional in terms of branding - the colour scheme matches that of the new website. It actually gives the impression that Federal Conference is valuable, that you might have fun and that you might learn a thing or two.

Stand up and take a bow, Conference Office and all involved...

Lest we forget...

2009-11-11T11:00:00.000Z

Central Suffolk and North Ipswich - local Tories need not apply..

2009-11-11T10:04:00.000Z

Gosh, our local Tories do know how to have a good time! Whilst in South West Norfolk, the local Conservative Association has imploded over the question of Liz Truss's affair with Mark Field, somewhat closer to home, the final shortlist for the 27 November open primary for my neighbouring constituency of Central Suffolk and North Ipswich has sparked off a more basic but no less intriguing dispute.

If it was indeed the case that Sir Michael Lord's retirement was a case of jumping before he was pushed, it hasn't gone quite to plan, as the shortlist excludes all of the local applicants, including the Leader of Mid Suffolk District Council, Tim Passmore, and two senior Suffolk county councillors, Jane Storey and Guy McGregor. So much heat has this generated that the Conservative Group on Mid Suffolk District Council has written to the East Anglian Daily Times to complain about, in particular, Tim Passmore's exclusion.

However, the final shortlist (Katy Bourne, Timothy Clark, Joanna Gardner, Daniel Poulter, Dominic Schofield, and Claire Strong) has been selected by a five-strong group from the local Conservative Association, advised by Eric Pickles, and they claim to be happy with the shortlist. One presumes that they'll be receiving a few less Christmas cards this year... and I suspect that the Liberal Democrat PPC, Andrew Aalders-Dunthorne, was chuckling over his breakfast this morning...

A quick glance at the shortlist is interesting, notably for the presence of Joanna Gardner, daughter of Baroness Gardner of Parkes (think tough Aussie battler and you'll know who she is). Otherwise, there appears not to be a single candidate with any connection to the county, so if you see a rather confused person wandering the streets of Mendlesham or Wickham Skeith, asking about farming or social exclusion, you'll be able to narrow it down to one of six people...

What happens when you give a cat valium?

2009-11-11T08:23:00.000Z

I have to admit that this is not a question that I had ever given much thought to, but I now have an answer. Perhaps I ought to explain.

My remaining cats, Katherine (aged 17) and Cincinnati (aged 16) are increasingly vet bills waiting to happen. Cincinnati is a fairly placid soul who, whilst he would prefer not to be in a cat carrier, behaves well with vets - the world is his friend. Katherine, on the other hand, hates the whole experience and gets into such a state that she has rather traumatising fits when being transported. Ros, finding this to be almost as stressful as Katherine does, wondered aloud about tranquilisers and so I was tasked with finding out more.

And yes, there is cat valium, and with a visit to the vet scheduled for Monday morning, I got the job of administering the drug to Katherine. She has sharp teeth and savage claws, but I managed to get her to swallow her medication. What followed was unexpected.

Almost immediately, she seemed to lose the ability to walk but made her way rather groggily towards the upstairs landing. The next moment, there was the sound of something falling down the stairs so I rushed to the scene, just in time to see her lurch away, seemingly unhurt but for her dignity.

After all of that, the visit to the vet went smoothly and you'll be pleased to hear that Katherine is none the worse for her misadventure. I might make sure that she is downstairs before I administer the valium again though...

Last week in the Lords (part 1) - say it ain't so, Sue, say it ain't so...

2009-11-10T21:27:00.001Z

It was, of course, too good to last. The three-game unbeaten streak for the Liberal Democrats in the Lords had to come to an end eventually, and last week saw the Empire strike back with a vengeance.

Baroness Garden of Frognal attempted to improve the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill with Amendment 27;

in clause 40, page 20, line 37, at end to insert:

“( ) a documented discussion of training needs resulting in a decision on whether to extend such provision to the applicant took place within the previous 12 months”.

This amendment had been suggested by the Institute of Directors, no less, and sought to lessen the organisational burden on those companies that have regular performance reviews bult in to their HR systems and, whilst the Conservatives claimed to support it, when Sue Garden decided to 'test the opinion of the House', they were nowhere to be seen, and the amendment was lost by 65 votes to 131. Yes, we ended up with the bizarre scenario of a proposal from the Institute of Directors being lost for want of Conservative support.

Worse still was to follow, as the shambolic performance of the Conservatives continued, with their subsequent amendment being lost despite significant Liberal Democrat support. Indeed, only twenty-eight Conservative Peers could rouse themselves to support their own proposal, whilst thirty-nine Liberal Democrats turned up to support them. Anyone would think that they didn't want to give Labour any ideas for when they return to opposition...

The Policing and Crime Bill is now back in the Lords for its Report Stage, and our leading goalscorer since play resumed in October, Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer, moved amendment 1;

to insert the following new clause Transparency in policing.

Apparently, the Association of Chief Police Officers is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and Sue Miller was keen to change that, given that ACPO develops policing strategies. Clearly, the Government doesn't believe that policing strategy is a matter of urgency, even though they support the proposal (go figure...), and the Conservatives are disinterested (clearly, Conservatives have nothing to fear from the police...), so the amendment was lost by a fairly resounding 142 votes to 50.

The next day, our plucky Peers returned to the fray, with Baroness Sharp of Guildford moving Amendment 131 to the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill;

in clause 111, page 70, line 19, after "body" to insert "but excluding a regional body such as a Regional Development Agency".

Her attempt was borne from the knowledge that giving that power to Regional Development Agencies the size of that for the South East would, in her words, 'eviscerate the notion of a bottom-up development of skills' as had originally been envisaged. Yes, Labour's centralising tendancies strike again. And, despite the Liberal Democrats turning out nearly 70% of their potential vote, the absence of credible Conservative support was enough to condemn the amendment by 136 votes to 96. Like Luton Town in the face of a Rochdale comeback, we had allowed the Government to snatch an equaliser, and worse was to follow...