Recently I have engaged in some email communication, as a result of a residents' survey, with a verywell-informed and thoughtful member of the electorate. This person has shared with my constituency party some innovative ideas for improving our locality that we hope to give wider publicity, especially if we increase our representation after the elections in May. She also set all politicians a challenge:

Sadly, I feel that politics has become an ego-boosting game when it comes to governing the country and it seems that only if is good for their Party are policies put into place. Fire fighting is the name of the game …

I wonder if I asked any member of the political parties whether they could immediately answer the following question: How do you want the United Kingdom to look in 10-20 years time?

My view is if they have not got a Clear Long Term Vision and plans on how to put that vision into place (everyone in the party from the cleaners to the top should know it and start implementing it in their daily life), how can they get somewhere? They will be wandering with the wind, pushed by other countries (US, EU). I have not voted for the President of the US , nor for any other countries’ leaders (or Tony Blair) but we have to sit and swallow what they give us and see this potentially great country go down the pan.

The reason why I am happy to share my ideas is that as there is a lack of general leadership with a clear vision, actions can only be taken from the grass roots, i.e. in the local community. If we can get a clear long term vision for our locality and a strategy that goes with it, suitable for the 21st and 22nd Century, we can become a model town, a place where people want to come and look and ask how we have done it. An example to follow!

What example can we follow now?

This struck a chord with me; especially as a couple of days earlier I had read Cicero's piece Liberals and anti-Liberals. The resemblance between the main points of his article, and the challenge of this letter is uncanny:

British politics is changing.

Traditional party politics is in long term decline.

Politicians have promised too much and delivered too little. Partly, this is because it is simply not possible for the political process to deliver the kind of outcomes that politicians and their voters expect. Disillusion and apathy are the order of the day- and political pragmatism has declined into the pursuit of power above any other interest. Many politicians will say- "of course it must be power above all else, otherwise how could we actually make any difference at all". The problem, though, is that power is concentrated in the hands of so few and is so jealously guarded that by the time that anyone gets close to the top they have forgotten what they wanted to change in the first place.

This concentration of power - economic as well as political - has reduced the power of the individual to impotence. Huge administrative bureaucracies, in almost every field, have acquired enormous powers to control. As people have lost control over their own lives they have given up on responsibility.

I wasn't sure of my correspondent's political views (I suspect she is non-aligned, but I thought she would be interested to read the thoughts of one of the most robust Liberals I know. Her response to me was telling:

I have read it and like you thought, I strongly agree. The frustrating bit is, that if this is truly what the Liberal Party stands for, it has not come through very well to either me or my husband (and possibly to other people too).

If I had any left, this would have me tearing my hair out. Especially given the recent coverage of Gordon's "5 Tests".

If anyone with any influence is reading - forget Gordon. We should be setting out our own 5 Liberal Principles, and proclaiming them loudly from the bottom to the top of the party, till even our lazy media begins to take notice.

Update: my colleague Peter's report of Paddy's article in the Yorkshire Post will do for starters:

In a nutshell, liberals believe in individual freedom, accountable government, the dispersion of political power, social justice, the rule of law, the free exchange of opinions and goods, and the protection of the natural environment.

Tonight sees the launch of internet TV station 18 Doughty Street.

Founded by Conservative bloggers Iain Dale and Tim Montgomerie, it aims to offer a new angle on British politics. Broadcasting over the internet from a London studio, the channel represents a new experiment in internet TV.

The big question for me is how partisan the channel will be. If it's simply 'Tory TV' then I can't imagine watching it very often - but for now I'm open-minded about it - particularly as tonight on the Iain Dale-presented show Vox Politics, Lynne Featherstone MP will be a guest. Lynne recently wrote a feature article for us on the rise of webcasting, which you can read here.

I'm watching the opening show right now, just to see how it turns out. Anyone else out there watching it?

Via Voting TaKtiX, from the esteemed organ of the local press, Pendle Today:

TWO Pendle men have appeared before Pennine magistrates accused of having "a master plan" after what is believed to be a record haul of chemicals used in making home-made bombs was found in Colne.
Robert Cottage (49), of Talbot Street, Colne, and David Bolus Jackson (62), of Trent Road, Nelson, made separate appearances before the court charged with being in possession of an explosive substance for an unlawful purpose. The offences are under the Explosive Substances Act 1883.
Both men were remanded in custody to appear at Burnley Crown Court on October 23rd. Cottage was arrested at his home on Thursday, while retired dentist Jackson was arrested in the Lancaster area on Friday, the same day as he left a dental practice in Grange-over-Sands.

Given the negative publicity the police have had in recent months for carrying out anti-terror raids and failing to find anything resembling explosives, one would expect them to be trumpeting this great success. And yet there is not a word from the major news outlets. Not a single damn thing.

Compare this with the numerous terrorism scares we've had in the last few years, where even a hint of a bomb plot has been transformed into a media frenzy for days on end, provoking the usual round of 'can we really trust Muslims in our midst?' paranoia from the far-right press and vast amounts of both print and airtime devoted to examining the 'what ifs' of the plot scenario.

It's not as if there is likely to be any innocent explanation for such a large quantity of potentially lethal material:

Cottage is an ex-BNP member who stood as a candidate in the Pendle Council elections in May.
Mrs Christiana Buchanan, who appeared for the prosecution in Jackson's case, alleged the pair had "some kind of masterplan".
She said a search of Jackson's home had uncovered rocket launchers, chemicals, BNP literature and a nuclear biological suit.
Police raided Cottage's Talbot Street home on Thursday of last week. The house was taped off while forensics officers searched the premises. Neighbours were told to stay in their homes for their own safety. Mr Cottage's car was also taken away for examination.

In fact, this case ticks almost all of the boxes for full-on media hype: bomb materials, rocket launchers and any journalist who can't make a 'dirty bomb' story out of a nuclear biosuit being found isn't worthy of the name. They even appear to have had political hate literature on the premises. So where has this story gone wrong? I am loathe to leap to conclusions, but the obvious one here is that they simply have the wrong sort of reading materials. Replace 'BNP literature' with 'copies of the Koran' and I think we'd be hearing a fair bit more about this story, don't you? Leon at Pickled Politics raises exactly this point.

If the media were simply observing silence on this matter because the fascist far-right are loathsome, despicable people who do not deserve the oxygen of publicity, then I would understand their decision. Perhaps they might not want to inflame tensions or stoke up fear amongst the general public and the ethnic minorities who would have reason to fear the possibility of bombs in the hands of fascists. But if that's really the view that they're taking, how about they take the same view the next time we hear about a violent plot involving Islamic-linked terrorists?

One of my highlights of Conference was the Lib Dem Youth and Students fringe on their 'Stop Homophobic Bullying campaign'. At a time when schools are expected to record, challenge and tackle racist incidents, it's high time incidents of homophobia were taken equally seriously.

And the LDYS campaign is starting to get some media coverage, for instance this in the Pink News. I have several of the pink badges, which are apparently becoming a collectors' item in some London clubs. However, the "Stop Homophobia Now" postcards LDYS has been handing out at university Freshers Fairs, showing the slogan emblazoned on the shirt of a sultry-looking model, are also not to be missed.

Study after study shows that young lesbian and gay people are more likely to suffer depression, commit suicide or suffer other mental health problems . Sign the petition today!

I have just read Stephen Glenn complaining that Nick Robinson has banned him from leaving an apparently well-justified comment:

I have just attempted to post a comment on Nick Robinson's blog on the BBC news site. I was attempting to point out to other readers and Nick himself that his throw away linking the words Michael Brown, Lib Dem donation and police investigation could be misconstrued in light of the general flow of the blog entry.

As a Liberal Democrat candidate from May 2005 and a fellow blogger of Mr Robinson I find it very disconcerting that I got a message that I was not allowed to post comments to Mr Robinson's blog.

I would like to know why I have been denied the access to pass comment to and correct Mr Robinson which other people clearly have. Especially in light of my personal knowledge of the field in which Mr Robinson is your editor.

I know how Stephen feels. I posted a comment myself pointing out that to my knowledge no one had accused Michael Brown of receiving anything in return for his donation. I wasn´t told I was banned, simply that this comment was awaiting moderation.

It still is.

As reported here on Friday and as originally broken by Recess Monkey, The Daily Telegraph is now reporting the story about Bob Neill's ineligibility as a by-election candidate in Bromley and Chislehurst.

The by-election campaign for a safe Conservative seat was thrown into confusion last night after claims that the Tories' candidate was ineligible to stand.

Bob Neill, the Tory hopeful for Bromley and Chislehurst, confirmed that he was a £5,000-a-year member of the north-east London strategic health authority. Under the House of Commons' Disqualification Act 1975, membership of a such an authority is one of dozens of posts that MPs are not allowed to hold.

What the story doesn't spell out clearly is that the law states that the candidature is invalid; it's not that Mr. Neill would, if victorious, be forced to choose between the two positions (the Health Authority role is soon to be disbanded anyway) but rather that he is ineligible to stand whilst occupying an "[office] or [place] of profit under the Crown". This is because all candidates must sign a legal declaration stating that there are no reasons for their disqualification at the time of their nomination. Mr. Neill's excuse that by the time he would be taking up the seat the Health Authority post would no longer exist is irrelevant under the letter of the law. Quite simply, he made a false declaration by signing the form.

A sympathetic person may observe that perhaps he was simply too busy; holding down three jobs whilst campaigning for a fourth must place a considerable strain on any individual, so perhaps it's not all that surprising that he can't remember which jobs he has. But a harsher judge might note that this is not the only legal mis-step in his campaign; for a lawyer, he seems unusually unlucky in placing himself on the wrong side of the law (see here for more examples).

Whilst the Lib Dems are attempting to ensure that Mr. Neill does not become MP by the more traditional means of trying to win the by-election, UKIP's candidate Nigel Farage is actively considering legal action. From the Telegraph article:

Nigel Farage, the Ukip candidate, accused him of "inexcusable arrogance" and said he could not be excused on a legal technicality.

"We will certainly consider launching an election petition to have the result on Thursday overturned were Mr Neill to win," he said.

Time will tell whether there is a reasonable case for legal action. For now, the decision still seems to be in the hands of the voters of Bromley and Chislehurst.

It is meant to be a joke, isn't it?

The following is an e-mail which I sent earlier today to the Editor of BBC Newsnight, following the discussions here and here.

I encourage anyone else who agrees that the biases of presenters and guest pundits should be disclosed to contact the BBC expressing this opinion. You can contact the BBC's complaints department here, or e-mail the Editor of Newsnight here.

Letter to the Editor of BBC Newsnight

Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:48:03 +0100
To: peter.barron@bbc.co.uk
Subject: Frank Luntz

Dear Sir,

Regarding your use of pollster Frank Luntz:

Mr. Luntz is presented on Newsnight as a neutral pollster, an "American polling expert", implying that, since he is not British, he has no interest or stake in British politics and is therefore neutral in his conclusions. I believe this to be incorrect. He was an Oxford contemporary of several key Cameron supporters and was active in conservative political circles there. During his initial appearance on Newsnight, he produced very favourable evidence for David Cameron during his Conservative leadership campaign. In your recent programmes, Mr. Luntz has again produced favourable evidence for Mr. Cameron, this time in relation to Labour and Liberal Democrat politicians.

Furthermore, Mr. Luntz is well known in the US as a Republican pollster, not a neutral. He has produced advice and assistance for the Republicans at least as recently as the 2004 Presidential elections. This is not a matter of minor relevance; in 2004 he was fired from a planned MSNBC focus group following complaints about his partisan bias. These complaints were summarised in a letter from the President of Media Matters for America, available here. At this time, he publicly claimed to have done no work for the Republicans since 2001, a claim later found to be untrue.

This makes clear that, in the US, Mr. Luntz is regarded as a partisan figure, unable to gain employment as a neutral pollster within the mainstream media. That he is employed as such for the BBC raises serious doubts about Newsnight's credibility as a source of political news. I understand that Mr. Luntz and his focus group is to appear again on your programme; as was requested by Media Matters in the US, I would hope that you inform the viewers of Mr. Luntz's history or, more preferably, balance his coverage with some examination of his methods and a more in-depth investigation into how his results are produced.

Regards,

Rob Knight

Editor, http://www.liberalreview.com