Growing up in the 80s and being a half-decent chess player (that's not false modesty, I really was just half-decent), the name of Garry Kasparov was always familiar to me. For years he was famous as the greatest chessmaster in the world, and although history may remember him as the first chess champion to lose to a computer ('Big Blue' in 1997), this says more about the tremendous strides made by computer technology than it does about his undoubted talent.

More recently, he has become well-known as an opposition politician in Russia, a critic of the Putin regime. He has been active in support of 'Other Russia', a political coalition dedicated in opposition to what they regard as Putin's autocratic and anti-democratic direction. Two months ago, he was selected as Other Russia's candidate in the Russian Presidential elections, elections which will be for Putin's successor. Of course, Putin has every intention of making sure that he gets to choose who wins the race, and there is even speculation that Putin will take up the office of Prime Minister after his (constitutionally limited) term of office expires.

Today, during a rally attended by around 3,000 people, Garry Kasparov was forced to the ground, beaten and then detained by Russian police. He has been charged with resisting arrest and organising an illegal protest. Reports are that trouble began after protesters clashed with police; the protesters were attempting to protest outside the electoral commission, which has barred Other Russia's candidates from the upcoming elections.

That Putin would move so blatantly against a candidate for the Presidency, and one as well-known as Kasparov, is a sign of his determination to exercise political control at all costs. If there was any doubt, any doubt whatsoever that Putin is a dangerous anti-democrat, this should dispel that notion for good.

It is often said that Russia 'needs' a strong man to keep the vast country in line, or that the Russian people have a secret craving for such autocratic rule. Those who want to look away from what goes on in Russia will often use this excuse; it's not so bad, the people don't mind so why should we? Of course, it's hard to mind about the suppression of democracy when minding about this can get you arrested. And nobody dispelled this notion better than Kasparov himself, in this interview:

Watch the whole thing. This is a very brave man who deserves our full support.

The Open Rights Group has reported (pdf) on the May 2007 local and Scottish e-voting.

In short: We don't know what any of the software actually did. Nor does anyone else.

People ask questions about whether e-voting is secure. And vendors will always say, often truthfully, that their systems are secure: at least as secure as paper ballots. Developing secure e-voting systems is not rocket science.

Security is the wrong question to ask. It has a specific meaning, and many many computer systems, banking, ecommerce and so on, are easily secure enough. Yes, there is an arms race between the security people and those who would gain access to secure systems. Yes, many many home computers are compromised, and are therefore an unsuitable platform for e-voting. Nonetheless, security is not the issue.

What is the issue? In a word: transparency. The functions of a locked steel box are transparent: it keeps the objects put in it, unchanged, until they are taken out again. The functions of a computer are not. A computer could be doing absolutely anything with the virtual objects it is trusted with protecting. Without looking shifty.

The problem with computers is not that they are incapable of doing the job, but they are too capable. It is not that they cannot produce an audit trail, but that they could produce a completely fictional audit trail. The only systems that deserve any consideration are those with a paper audit trail - such as the optical scan system used in Scotland.

In Sheffield ... on the night of the count no breakdown of votes from different channels was provided to attendees: these were kept in sealed envelopes and declared ‘ballot boxes’. Officers then manually added figures together using pencil and paper before presenting the figures to candidates and agents. Understandably agents at the count felt that the numbers had ‘just appeared’ and were unhappy the process had not been more transparent.

...because the numbers had 'just appeared'. They were probably the correct numbers, but how is it possible to tell? If we had had independent international observers at this election, what could they possibly say about it?

Alistair Graham is quoted in the report:

I should like to put this question to you. How does DCA or the Electoral Commission know about the extent of electoral fraud when neither of them have kept any statistics nor have undertaken any research on the issue? Is it that, in their obsession with increasing participation at all costs, they have turned a blind eye to the risks of electoral fraud and its consequences on the integrity of our democratic system?

Amen.

There has recently been a considerable furore over Cardinal Keith O'Brien's attack on the Abortion Act:

Cardinal O'Brien said: "We are killing - in our country - the equivalent of a classroom of kids every single day.

"Can you imagine that? Two Dunblane massacres a day in our country going on and on. And when's it going to stop?

"I can't change the teachings of Jesus Christ. I can't change the 10 Commandments. That's what I'm ordained to teach and to preach: 'Thou shalt not kill."'

Emotive stuff, but none of it can come as a surprise. These are the long-held views of the Catholic Church, and views which they have every right to hold. The Abortion Act has been in place for 40 years and has withstood plenty of religiously-inspired criticism in that time. Is anything different now?

Writing for the Guardian's Comment is Free, Tim Luckhurst thinks that there is something different:

Keith O'Brien's provocative speech is a warning. The church wants powers over abortion devolved to Holyrood because it believes MSPs can be persuaded to return Scotland to the dark ages. There is too much evidence that it may be right for any pragmatic liberal to persist in the myth of devolution as a promoter of progressive values.

This presents liberals with a quandary. In general, the liberal view of abortion is that it is a matter for personal morality, not for the state to ban or promote. In any case, abortions occurred before the Abortion Act legalised the procedure, and would continue to occur if the Act were repealed; the only difference is the safety of the procedure itself. But liberals are also in favour of devolution - power should be held as close to the people as possible. Luckhurst appears to have made his judgement: the Scottish Parliament cannot be trusted with powers over abortion, lest it decide to ban it.

Is he right? There are two answers that liberals could give to his concern:

1) If abortion is a basic human right - the right of control over one's own body - then any ban on abortion would be invalid. But this is a legal, not a political question, and it's a question which may not have a clear answer at this point in time. Liberals have never believed that democracy has the power to trump human rights - we cannot vote to enslave our fellow citizens, even if 99% of the population voted for it. Part of the role of the law is to ensure that government does not go beyond reasonable bounds in regulating our activities; this is what the concept of rights is all about. If there is a right to abortion then, yes, the Scottish Parliament would have to accept that it cannot ban the procedure.

2) Even if we do not see abortion as an absolute right, it is not clear that a ban on abortion in Scotland would have any real effect. It would merely mean that women wanting abortions would have to travel to other parts of the UK to get them. In this case, the strength of devolution is shown: if one devolved area makes a law that its citizens disagree with, they have the possibility of travelling to other areas where the law is different. By allowing this variation in laws we, at least in part, insure against the possibility of oppressive laws. It is unlikely that an anti-abortion law in Scotland would survive for long given the impossibility of enforcing it upon the people of Scotland.

Furthermore, I think Luckhurst is being sensationalist in suggesting that a ban on abortion is likely. It is not, and would be vigorously contested if it were raised. To use this vague possibility as a stick to beat the concept of devolution with is nonsensical. Devolution is here to stay, and we have to learn to live with the debates that this brings, even if it means fighting old battles over again to confirm our principles.

Yesterday Mike Smithson sparked off a debate on the possibilities and outcomes surrounding a Hung Parliament. The lively discussion in the comments field explored a whole range of possibilities - who would be winners and losers, and the likely effect on the parties of each scenario discussed.

Yet - in one comment Stodge (occasionally of this Parish) noted that almost no-one had looked at what would be best for the country, rather than their narrow political interest.

Whenever the Hung Parliament question is raised, it is framed in terms of "Which way would the Lib Dems jump?" Our MPs always defer along the lines of "It is not right to second guess the outcome of the next election. Until we see the verdict delivered by the British People we wait on their decision." Matthew Parris recently gave equivocal support in the form of suggesting we campaign along the lines of "Vote for us, we'll keep one or the other of the b*ggers honest!"

Elsewhere, blogger Cicero has argued that he sees the future political faultline falling between the liberal and the authoritarian approach to Government. I think this offers us a suggestion as to how to tackle the inevitable question when it arises.

I would hope Sir Ming would pitch his answer something like this:

"I believe in Liberalism as a political creed, and the best approach to take when adressing the challenges facing this country. The liberal approach is the best answer to the problems that beset us.

Many members of the other parties do not believe in a Liberal approach - they are instinctively authoritarian and, to be honest, I feel would be happy in each other's company despite their different party allegiances.

Yet, there are also MPs (and voters) who hold broadly liberal views who, for historical, cultural and pragmatic reasons have chosen to join parties other than the Liberal Democrats.

The verdict of the people for many years now has been that they do not trust one political party to govern outright. It is only our outdated political system that allows one party to gain a majority of seats without a majority of votes. This time, that system has delivered a verdict more in keeping with the electorate's wishes, albeit by accident rather than design.

To move forward, I call on those in all political parties who share broadly liberal views to put aside narrow party differences, and join together to work for the benefit of all the country in enacting a liberal approach to government. We might call this a Venezuelan Coalition, after the colours of that country's flag.

It has worked before in times of national crises. It is my strong belief that the challenges posed to our way of life by the threats of climate change, international terrorism, and the opportunities and stresses of globalisation merit such an approach again, now.

Are we, as politicians, big enough to put party concerns aside for the good of the country? I think, and hope, we are."

According to the BBC, Downing Street's e-petition system received its one-millionth signature on Tuesday. Triumph for the use of the internet for political engagement, or pointless sham?

On the face of it, the idea seems to have some merit; an attempt to cut out the barriers between the PM and the public, although some may wonder about the Presidential tone of the exercise - after all, wasn't it the King or Queen who received petitions from their subjects in the past? But such judgements are superficial. The question is not whether it looks good, or looks bad; the question is whether or not it achieves any useful purpose.

On that score, it seems hard to identify what that purpose might be. There have been lots of petitions, and lots of signatures, but nowhere is there any sign that these petitions have prompted even the slightest change in Government policy. The petitions are not referenda, they have no legal standing and, thus far, seem to represent nothing more than a place for people to vent their feelings. But effective politics isn't just about getting something off your chest, be it opposition to the hunting ban (the 2nd-most-popular petition) or reform of road taxation (the most popular). Politics should be about achieving real change and real debate, something this one-sided (you ask, Tony ignores) system cannot deliver.

The problem is, in fact, quite simple. There is no way that one man, even the Prime Minister with his aides and assistants, can engage in political debate with an electorate of tens of millions. Real democracy is local, where people have a chance of talking to their elected representatives and where the power of the ballot box ensures that their concerns are answered. Government is more likely to be influenced by the loss of back-bench MP's seats than by petitions on a website which can safely be ignored. Nobody can really believe that, by signing a petition against the hunting ban, or against ID cards, they will bring about a change in government policy.

Perhaps the more interesting petition is the 5th-most-popular one, to 'Save the Royal Surrey County Hospital in Guildford from cuts or closure'. In excess of 14,000 signatures for an essentially local issue means that there must be substantial local interest. But why are the campaigners petitioning the PM? The answer to that question exposes what is wrong with democracy in Britain, most especially in England: there is simply no local democratically-elected official worth complaining to. Although local hospitals are regionally managed, this is done by unelected health authorities, and the first democratically-elected person with real power over health issues is the Secretary of State for Health, and her only direct superior is the Prime Minister, neither of whom are likely to be swayed by any amount of local support for a petition.

If we want real democratic engagement, real diversity and real power in the hands of citizens, control of such services must be transferred to local democratic institutions. This post raises some good ideas about how this might work. If we want real power over our public services, local democratic control is essential. No number of Number 10 initiatives can be a substitute for real democracy.

The more astute amongst you might have noticed that a rather unusual event is taking place this week. I'm talking about an Autumn political conference in an inland city. Yours Truly was unable to lose his conference virginity in Brighton this year, but I am aware that Seaside Towns are the usual venue of choice.

Much has been made of Labour's decision to visit Manchester this year, rather than one of the Big Three seaside venues. The Peterloo Massacre is pointed to; Marx and Engels' studies of such utter urban deprivation. But is Labour really returning to its roots?

But if there were ever to be a city to epitomise Liberalism, Manchester would be it. It is the city of Cobden and Bright. The city where Free Trade was successfully fought for. The city that stood up against the centralising power of the state and the Metropolitan elite. The city that dragged itself up by its boot-straps from the stagnation of the 1970s, the unemployment of the 1980s, and the the indifference of the Southern establishment. In other words, the city that every Liberal should hold dear to its heart, highlighting in its resurgence all that is wrong in the Labour and Conservative parties.

I hope we will be visiting soon.

Today is the day that nominations open for the Presidency of the Liberal Democrats. Stephen Tall has stimulated some debate on whether change is required (for example on politicalbetting).

Should Hughes stand again? I failed to stimulate any debate when posting this quote from Hughes on Pigeon Post

After congratulating new Councillors on their election, Simon Hughes* wrote

"I also hope those elected who were previously party officers will now stand down from party office so that others can take their place. Only party members who are not elected to public office can hold those of us who are effectively to account."

I could only interpret this message (from Member of Parliament, Member of the Shadow cabinet and Party President) as Maoist self-criticism. In brief, it is time for a change.

So who might stand? No rumours have reached me but here are a few people to think about.

Women

Sarah Teather or Lynne Featherstone might do the job very well. Sarah does a great line in motivational speeches, while Lynne has shown herself to be an interesting thinker on the future of the party.

Oldies but Goldies

Paul Tyler or Alan Beith would both do a great job (perhaps they have already done - Tyler seems to have done most jobs in the party).

Future leaders

Nick Clegg or Michael Moore to name but two might have an interest in the job. The current President is widely thought to have wanted the job as a stepping stone (and much good it did him) - but I don´t think leadership aspirations are a handicap. Being President is probably a good way of finding out about the strengths and occasional weaknesses of the party in the country. I do agree with Hughes that the President ought to be outside the Shadow Cabinet and ought to swear an oath not shirk awkward decisions because of a desire to be leader in the future (okay, I know he didn´t exactly say that...).

Cuddly toys

David Heath or the Millenium elephant would both be popular choices. I´m not sure the elephant is a paid up member though.

Bloggers

A wealth of choice here: Lynne Featherstone (again), Jonathan Calder, Alex Wilcock would each get a lot of support. Liberal Review would back a Tabman campaign, of course. And what about matinee idol Stephen Tall?

Participate

We can all join in. Don´t wait for someone to ask for your signature on a nomination paper - phone, write or e-mail and tell them you would like them to stand. We´re Liberal Democrats, aren´t we? We should believe in elections.