There’s been much debate about Lords reform in the last few days from varying viewpoints. Rightly, the majority has been focussed on the need for a democratic second chamber.

But one or two people have focussed on the need to ensure diversity amoungst Lords. This article discusses the need for MPs and Lords to be representative of disabled people. Its absolutely right that MPs and Lords are woefully unrepresentative of society, in various ways. There are hardly any disabled MPs or Lords, not enough women and Black MPs and Lords are few and far between.

I don’t agree with any form of ‘appointed’ peers, they should all be elected. Its a slap in the face to democracy to then appoint a second chamber of mates, colleagues, ex-MPs, those who have paid enough and whoever is in vogue that year.

Don’t get me wrong: I recognise and appreciate the need to ensure that politicians are representative, have life experience and so on. But our only option should be a 100 per cent elected chamber - anything else is too open to abuse. The royalty, although politically pretty pointless nowadays, is enough silver spooning - without adding a load of stuffy donators on top.

These are two seperate issues. Firstly, the need for a democratic second chamber and secondly, the need for more diverse and representative political representation.

There’s a need for selection panels to have more experience and training on how to ensure diversity in appointments, there’s a need for political parties to further recognise the value of diversity and there’s a need to be standing candidates that the electorate can relate to.

But let’s not confuse this with democracy. Let’s not cloud the issue of second chamber democracy with diversity and representation.

We can achieve a representative political force whilst still respecting democratic necessities.

I woke up feeling slightly worse for wear after the bloggers drinks. It was a pleasure to meet Tom, Joe and Nick - along with a couple of other bloggers who, I’m ashamed to say, I’ve completely forgotten the names of. Despite my promises, I ended up in the Glee Club. For those of you who have no idea what I’m talking about, The Glee Club is an eccentric Lib Dem institution whereby a lot of drunk people sing along to a piano to popular tunes whereby the words are changed to reflect Liberalism and politics.

I only stayed for one drink in the Glee Club, but had six or seven before making it there. I’m embarrased to say that I then returned to my northern roots and spent half an hour wondering the streets of Harrogate at 1am trying to find chips. In my defence though, I missed dinner to attend the Lib Dem Online fringe and grab an evening shower after a day on conference floor, so it wasn’t just alcohol induced greed. Incidentally, despite some technical difficulties, the LDO fringe was good - but it spent alot of time introducing people to ‘new’ technologies and online networking sites such as Facebook. I’m already a convert to all of this, so this wasn’t entirely useful for me, although I was interested to hear the thoughts of the panelists on blogs and their (limited?) impact on elections.

So day three began slightly late for me, after having run round trying to find a cloakroom that would safely secure my laptop. ‘Sorry we don’t keep this room locked’ said the Holiday Inn, not entirely convincing me of their ability to keep my belongings safe.

Anyway, enough rambling, down to hardcore politics. Or not. I made it on conference floor for 930am, whereby most of the ‘debate’ was around procedural matters: the report of the Federal Executive, Finance and Admin body and so on. Necessary, but boring. Clearly I’m not alone in this: there was probably only about ten per cent of delegates on conference floor.

I was, though, interested to hear Jo Swinston MP discuss the work of the Campaign for Gender Balance within the Lib Dems. It sounds like an excellent project making excellent progress. A third of Lib Dem councillors are women and 15 per cent of MPs. There is clearly much work to be done to redress this balance, and the campaign is doing an great job: the number of PPCs that are women should meet the 40 per cent target for the next election. Following that, one assumes there will be efforts to ensure a 50/50 split.

As Simon Hughes said in his opening speech, though, there is much work to be done with BME groups, disabled people and LGBT people. Targets exist for the number of women and BME councillors and MPs, but not for LGBT people and disabled people. I’ll be watching closely to see how the party responds to this: there is a clear need to be representative of the electorate.

Moving past the admin, we launched into slightly more exciting debates on ‘Green and Prosperous Communities’ and ‘Sustainable Housing’. Both of these were fairly uncontentous, although they were opposed by many Green Liberal Democrats who felt that the motions ‘didn’t go far enough’. This seemed an odd reason for completely opposing a motion to me, though, particularly when there was opportunity for those groups to submit amendments that could have added more, should they have wished to. Seemingly, they agreed, and the motions passed pretty much unanimously.

A bit more work on the disability stuff followed, most of which was procedural but necessary.

Following the (presumably standard) appeals for money to fund elections and so on, we moved on to the leader’s speech.

I’m not going to go into much detail, I’m sure more experienced people will be able to debate the pro and cons of the speech in far more detail than I. However, I will say that I honestly didn’t get the feeling that the issue here was coalition. Seemingly, I’m not alone. Also, Ming discussed proportional representation at least twice in his speech saying:

And fairness for all voters beset by decades of inefficient Labour local government, with proportional representation in local elections for the first time this May – when every vote will count.

and

A government elected by a system where every vote counts.

Okay, so it wasn’t in his ‘five challenges’ to Gordon Brown (and, to be honest, I’m not surprised: most of the issues there were in relation to Labour’s failures as opposed to new policies that need to be introduced), and he mentioned it in his speech: it remains a fundemental principle of Liberal Democracy.

Aside from the debates that the media will no doubt worry themselves about, I enjoyed the speech and it set a positive, encouraging, dynamic and enthusiastic tone for the May elections.

I must confess to disappearing off during the standing ovation to grab a taxi to the station (for the environmentalists, it was raining and I shared with two others…) and jump on the train before the crowds.

So day three. Although slightly blurred by my Jack Daniels head and inability to get excited about procedure, it was a good day, though seemingly not entirely accurately reported by the press.

Roll on May!

This morning began with a crap breakfast in my B&B. Ignore what I said yesterday, I’ve gone off this place!

Over at conference, I made it for 9am to hear Phil Willis and Simon Hughes open conference. Following the speeches, I dashed over to the training suite to attend the ‘Beating Labour’ session which was well attended and useful. Many of my Labour friends read this blog, so I won’t go into much detail, suffice to say that I’m looking forward to addressing and highlighting some issues that I never previously would have thought about!

I was, of course, back to conference floor in time for the Trident debate. Now. This has been billed as a test of Ming’s leadership, a revolt amoung party members and a dramatic and passionate plea to set a position on Trident replacement.

Maybe I’m just too used to the drama of NUS conferences, but I must say that I really didn’t feel that it was all that big a deal, and certainly not all *that* dramatic. .

Both the motion proposed by the leadership and the motion in its amended form was a ‘no’ to any immediate Trident replacement, although you might not have guessed that if you’d have listened to the speeches. Conference was, essentially, presented with two options.

1. To keep our current weapons but have a clear position that consideration of any replacement should never be the case;
or
2. To get rid of half of our weapons now, say no to an immediate Trident replacement and review our position in 10 years or so, retaining a place at the negotiating table in the meantime.

Strangly, and perhaps accidently, conference was not presented with my preferred option (we’ll call it option 3):

3. Say no to nuclear weapons in all their forms, say no to any replacement of Trident and scrap any nukes we currently have.

Had I have had a vote, I really don’t know what I would have done. I suppose I’d have supported option 1 (amendement two on conference floor) and voted for a complete rejection of any form of Trident replacement, although I would have done it with a bitter taste in my mouth because it would have kept a policy position to keep the current nukes.

Still, whatever happens, its not really that much of a big deal. The Lib Dems will be voting no to Trident replacement in the Commons when it comes up for debate and that’s the main thing.

Lunch consisted of the Liberal Democrats Disability Association fringe which, although it went well, was poorly attended. I spoke at the fringe and think I came across as a bit of a radical, arguing that they needed to take a much clearer position on the social model, stop using tired old medical definitions of disability and set a clearer form of aims and objections for their association. A long time member, as I left the fringe, shook my hand and said ‘well, you sure rocked the boat’. Ho hum.

On to a question and answer session on crime that, I was pleased to see, spoke to victims and perpertrators of crime. Followed nicely by a policy debate on the ‘we can cut crime’ proposal.

I agreed fully with the speaker (I forget his name) who, during an intervention, argued that ‘life means life’ is a too harsh position, an uncompromising almost BNP argument that ignores the prospect of rehabilitation. I was appeased by the explanation, later on, from the excellent Nick Clegg that ‘life’ does not mean new labour ‘life’ - ie a sentence passed down for lots of different crimes that, in reality, only means 8 years. Life should be reserved for the Mira Hindleys of this world. And, in those cases, yes - it should mean life.

Shortly after a quick sandwich in the bar, we moved to a debate on gun crime - the ‘urgent issue’ of conference. I had submitted a speakers request for this debate as I felt it would be dominated by older members telling young people how they should behave. I was right and, although they made excellent contributions, everyone who spoke was 30 or over - all of them talking about issues that affect young people.

I was surprised when my name was actually called and I got up to speak. For those of you who are bothered, here’s my speech.

Thank you chair and good afternoon conference.

I do hope that this debate goes some way to creating an agenda that is effective for all those involved.

Simon Hughes summated the debate, kindly saying that he enjoyed what I had to say and that the party did need to engage more with young people. He argued that its all very well having the debate, but we are privileged to have party members with so much expertise in these areas.

Right. I’m off to the Lib Dem Online fringe. And I’m not going to Glee Club. Maybe.

I know I said I’d be out of action until Sunday or Monday, but I can’t resist giving the blogosphere a taste of my first afternoon at conference. I’m a saddo, I admit, but I feel if I don’t blog now I’ll forget everything.

Registration was quick and simple, and I had a lovely chat with a woman who works for Chris Rennard as she tried to fix her computer. All very efficient and straightforward. The ‘official’ conference hotel (The Holiday Inn) was fully booked by the time I was invited to attend (I’m here primarily to talk at a fringe on disability) so I managed to get a B&B around the corner which, given we are in Harrogate, is expensive but nice.

I had a rummage around the exhibition, bought a couple of books, met my fellow disableds at LDDA, had a chat with a a group of very passionate Trident opponents and made my way into the first session of conference, the rally ‘We Can Cut Crime’.

I’m very impressed. Firstly, and primarily, because of Nick Clegg - the Lib Dem Home Affairs shadow minister. He was exceptional. Clear, concise, intelligent, witty and passionate. I’ve been to a lot of party conferences before (although, weirdly, never a Lib Dem conference), and heard countless politicians in countless settings talk about a variety of issues - and I have to say it was the best speech I’ve heard yet. It was almost emotive in its content and it certainly gave me an insight into the addictive tradition of liberalism and its connection with reality, particularly on very ‘human’ issues such as crime and disorder.

Following Nick Clegg was an MSP outlining some of the excellent work the Lib Dems have done it Scotland. After that, an insightful video about some of the outstanding work done by Lib Dem councils on tackling crime. Sadly, Manchester and Liverpool (Labour and Lib Dem councils) were compared on robberies, Liverpool having reduced robberies by (if my memory serves me rightly) 20 odd percent, and Manchester having robberies risen by 6 per cent. Its very true that Labour are doing little to tackle crime in Manchester, this being despite Manchester being the ASBO capital of the UK. A clear example of the good work Lib Dem councils are doing where they have the power to do so.

Finally, we had Ming’s first appearance. All the backroom, bar chat at conference is, unsurprisingly, about his leadership and the recent reports and polls on how he connects with the electorate.

Firstly, a confession. I favoured Simon Hughes in the Lib Dem leadership election. Ming, although clearly a distingushed and experienced politician of some standing, just didn’t get me excited enough. Chris Hulne, although again clearly an excellent politician in his own right, was frankly a little dull to win votes and enthuse people about liberalism.

But I’ve changed my mind. I fear I have become a Minger.

Its always been my view that party democracy has spoken on the leadership, and the role of ordinary members (and everyone else for that matter) was to get behind the party and its leadership and get on with it. But Ming did well tonight. He did well on Question Time last night, and he has done well on interviews in the press today. He’s used to these experiences, has been long used to weathering the storms and, I’ve no doubt, will continue to be an effective leader for some time yet.

He’s absolutely right to tackle issues on his age head on. And he’s absolutely right to say that the continuous jibes are offensive and discriminatory. Today, on a BBC interview, he compared forms of discrimination, saying that ageist comments are no more appropriate that racist, sexist or homophobic comments. And he’s spot on.

Quite apart from all of this, he did well at conference. He outlined a clear and substantive policy position on crime, one that recognises the reality of human experience on crime and the expertise of victims and the voluntary sector on how to effectively tackle crime. ‘Throwing away the key’ doesn’t work, we know that and many of us have experienced the ineffectiveness of the criminal justice system.

That’s not to say that the Lib Dems have, or should have, a so called ‘wooly liberal’ attitude towards crime. Life, where used in exceptional circumstances, should mean life.

An oustanding policy position, for me, has to be that on compensating victims or crime. The level of compensation has not been increased in line with inflation and, in real terms, is ridiculously low in comparison with how much it was 20 years ago. The Lib Dems want to see a real increase in compensation for victims or crime, funded by the work of criminals in prison. No more being locked up for 23 hours per day, as Labour have been so happy to put up with for so long. Criminals pay for their crime, literally, by their work - and the receipient becomes the victim, in the form of comepensation for the very real injury and trauma of crime. By doing this work in prison, the ‘criminal’ gets experience, training and even a reference for a job on the outide. Outstanding: real, simple, effective, liberal.

The only thing missing, for me, was a promise of a more general reform of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. A quicker system, a fairer system and a more straightforward system. The average claim takes over a year to administrate, many take much longer. Can we get a committment to introduce a policy of more general reform of the CICA, a reform that not just promises more hard cash, but also a more pallatable system for the claimant?

So that’s day one. I’m a tired bunny, just finished with Newsnight and looking forward to what tomorrow brings. Trident debate anyone?

Normal service will resume on Monday. Or Sunday evening if I’m feeling particularly inspired.

In about an hour or so, I’ll be sitting in the back room of a pub with a dismal turn out of locals all discussing crime.

I live in an okay area of Manchester city centre, which benefits from being quieter than most of the city because it runs alongside the Ship Canal. The downside, of course, is crime. Although the local (Labour led) council have installed some new lighting (pretty paltry though it is), the towpath is a regular haunt for young lads mugging people, throwing eggs (or whatever they can get their hands on) at windows and generally causing trouble.

For most of my development, this doesn’t pose too much of a problem. But for those of us with small studio ground floor flats, its a continual annoyance and, in reality, danger. Since moving in two years ago, I’ve been mugged once, attacked a few times, had the flat robbed twice and its a weekly occurance to have something thrown at the windows.

The area is really quite affluent, with properties generally selling for in excess of £200k - which for a 2 bed flat in Manchester is quite expensive. There’s one or two of us ‘commoners’ who live in studios, though, that are much cheaper.

The police don’t see it as a priority given some of the more pressing issues in Manchester, the council have, seemingly, pretty much washed their hands of the issue after installing a bit of lighting and, as is so often the case, it’s left to a residents association to sort out.

We’ve established there is no way of blocking access down the towpath, knowing that the path is actually owned by British Waterways. We’ve established that the police will not patrol around the area. We’ve established that we can’t afford CCTV and/or a security guard.

So, aside from keeping each other safe in emergency situations, there’s not much we can do. At least I think not.

Dishing out ASBOs makes no difference, the council are a lost cause (although I’m still exploring this…), as are the police. We’re stuck with evidence building and lobbying - difficult given most of the residents are ‘alright jack’ and the difficulties are for the poor few with ground floor flats.

Ho hum. We’ll see how it goes. Apparently the police are sending a ‘neighbourhood safety officer’ or some suchlike. A local councillor has sent his apologies but asked for an update. I have a feeling it’ll be a long night….

I was delighted to read this article in the Guardian on the latest fantastic project by A National Voice - an organisation run by and for young people in and leaving the care system.

I’m getting tired of hearing Labour activists tell me how fantastic things are for young people in the care system, and how many fantastic achievements Labour have made in recent years.

Ten years ago, around the time Labour came into power, I left care with a bin bag of clothes and a fifty quid ‘leaving care grant’. I was 16 and expected to make my own life with no parental support, no financial support, no personal support, no savings, no job and no home. Literally.

I was fortunate enough to have somewhere to stay for a short while with a friend before getting a job in a hotel that included accommodation. Over the years, I managed to study at night, get A levels, get into university and graduate. I was one of the one percent of care leavers that go to university. No thanks to social services.

Ten years on, and nine years into a Labour government, last week I met a 17 year old care leaver living in a heroin filled B&B after being kicked out of her kids home with a week’s notice. She doesn’t work or attend college and receives monthly ’support visits’ from a social worker. These consist of a leaving care worker coming for a cup of tea and telling her that the most important thing is that she doesn’t get pregnant.

She went into care at the age of 14 when it became clear that her uncle had abused her for a sustained period of time. Her uncle was arrested and charged, but got off in court. Throughout this period of time, her mother refused to restrict her uncle’s access to her daughter and, as a result, the family broke down and she was taken into care. She, understandably, doesn’t have any contact with her family.

She was too old for a foster family to want her and lived in a childrens home full of drugs and violence. She’s now trying to work with her independence and applying for a leaving care grant. To date, though, she’s managed to get a bed donated to her, a table and a microwave - all through local charitable projects. She has to leave her B&B at 10am every morning and is not allowed to return until 4pm. During this time, she wonders round town, goes to the library, accesses voluntary support projects and writes poetry in her local park.

She’s one of the rare few that doesn’t shoplift, take drugs or get involved in crime.

She’s entitled to housing benefit and is on the waiting list for a flat. Meanwhile, she’s desperately trying to get more furniture donated to her and is applying for a place at college in Autumn to resit her GCSEs.

She’s given me permission to blog about her circumstances, and I think she’s an incredibly bright and determined woman who, against all the odds, will achieve well.

But it is an absolute disgrace that the system still spits children out like this. Is it any wonder that the prisons are full of care leavers? Is it any wonder that 80 per cent of homeless people are care leavers? And is it any wonder that care leavers are 40, yes 40, times more likely to commit suicide and 20 times more likely to be on smack?

It isn’t just my anecdotal stories that back up this mess that young people are forced to accept. Established research has confirmed that the system is so terrible, particularly in terms of the educational achievements of young people in care. 80 per cent leave with no qualifications at all and, whilst some of this might be expected as a result of the trauma they have experienced, much of it is because of bad management of their education and the poor self esteem created and sustained by their experiences of going into, living in and leaving care.

These children and young people are vulnerable, and have been horrifically harmed and abused - more than most of us could ever imagine.

The care system is in a mess, and the young people effectively being ‘parented’ by the state deserve proper care and attention, including the funding that this requires. Projects like A National Voice are working hard to achieve this, but the government needs to accept some real responsibility for the disgraceful system that young people now face.

Thanks to James for highlighting this - a Guardian story about how UKIP told a disabled man he wasn’t allowed to stand for a council position because his disability meant he was unable to leaflet.

This is indicative of UKIP’s bigoted attitude and behaviour. I have no moral problem with comparing UKIP to the BNP - a bunch of extremists who rely on prejudice and discrimination in order to manipulate voters into their bigoted way of thinking. Okay, the BNP might be more racist, more extreme and more horrifying in their (often violent) behaviour, but the principle remains the same.

And, as is so often the case, one prejudice leads to another. A sexist becomes a homophobe. A xenophobe becomes a racist.

A friend of mine campaigned last year for a pregnant woman in their local ward. As the election got closer, her inability to spend hours on her feet became more evident. The local party organisers made adjustments, drove her around, got others to doorknock on her behalf and so on. She won her election (a gain from the opposition) with a comfortable majority.

Would UKIP have been as objectionable to a pregnant woman who was unable to deliver? I guess we’ll never know, but my guess is they would have been a lot more accommodating.

Politics is already inaccessible to hundreds of disabled people, in fact even voting can be a huge challenge to many disabled people. It’s about time disablism, in the form of ’sorry you’re not good enough because of your disability’, was challenged.

UKIP, as ever, should be ashamed of themselves.

I’ve been super organised today and managed to have a good read through the agenda and so on for this weekend’s conference. I’m participating in a fringe on Saturday afternoon, but aside from this - anyone got any suggestions for a first-timer to attend?

I quite like the look of the Humanist and Secuarist Group ‘do politics and religion mix?’ fringe late Saturday afternoon, along with the Lib Dems Online fringe on Satuday evening.

Are there any informal bloggers drinks happening? I think that would be a good plan - it would be nice to put a face to the rants, so to speak :o)

The Guardian today discussed the role of soaps in making politics more high profile in this article.

The only memory I really have of soaps starring political characters is Alf and Audrey Roberts. For those of you that don’t remember, Alf was the mayor of Weatherfield in Corrie and Audrey mayoress. She went on to stand for election in her own right after her husband’s death, and was elected. Party politics was completely left out of it.

I can’t think of any other particularly political characters. Maybe that grungy greeny bloke in Corrie too who ended up persuading half the street to attend a demo about local trees or suchlike. But they are few and far between. Of course, the personality of an individual can perhaps sometimes spill over into their supposed political ideology, but its rare - and there are certainly no ‘hard’ political issues discussed - the war in Iraq, congestion charging, cash for honours, tutition fees - these are all issues being discussed in pubs up and down the country, except the Old Vic and the Rovers.

Apparently producers are looking into creating political characters based on real party politics, but have concerns about their responsibility to remain politically independent.

“We couldn’t, for example, make a Green councillor a likeable, fun character yet portray a Labour MP or councillor as a rogue” says Claire Powell, BBC Chief Advisor of editorial policy.

I wonder what the atypical soap political characters would be, if they were allowed to exist? The rich, snotty Tory business owner running for local council? The Labour activist pretending to be left wing but buying coffee from Starbucks and secretly investing in private healthcare? The Lib Dem councillor who will stop at nothing to win an election? Or the lovely Green councillor who is very friendly and well meaning, recycles everything down to his toothbrush, but actually achieves nothing and will never get anywhere.

I say sod the impariality. There’s enough scope to provide equal bashing and praise to manage. I’d love to see Corrie with some political characters.

And there’s a serious point too. I don’t want to be all ‘George Galloway on Big Brother’ about this - but I think there’s a cross party agreement that there should be more votes, that there should be a fairer electoral system and that there should be a concerted effort to bring politics to the mainstream, perhaps particularly for young people.

Are soaps the way forward?