Chris Davies MEP

BRITAIN’S NON-VOTERS INSULT FREEDOM FIGHTERS IN LIBYA

2011-02-23T15:24:00.000Z

Anyone who has ever knocked on doors seeking support for their party has heard the words: “I’m not interested in politics or in voting; I never vote; you politicians are all the same, you’re just out for yourselves.”

I have sympathy for those who don’t believe that their views are properly represented, or who feel that their vote can have little influence in a first-past-the-post voting system, but I have none at all for those who can’t be bothered to vote even as a gesture of protest.

Hearing the news each day from the Middle East brings home the stark contrast between those in Britain who hold our democracy in contempt and those who fight for it elsewhere.

People in Tunisia, people in Egypt, people in Libya have taken to the streets and laid down their lives for the sake of having what the complacent non-voters in our country appear to despise so much – the chance to influence the way they are governed through the ballot box.

I doubt that I would have the courage to face the wrath of authoritarian regimes as those seeking democracy in the Middle East are doing now, but I cherish what we have in Britain. It is very far from perfect but, in the words of Churchill: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

Some 37 years ago I joined the Liberal Party and first knocked on a door to ask for support. Over the years I have grown to respect supporters of all political parties who have done the same. Politics in Britain is tame by the standards of many places elsewhere but those who try to influence the decision-making process are standing up for the fundamental values of freedom all the same.

Maybe it’s time that the candidates of all parties, the people who put their heads above the parapet and engage with the democratic process, got together to tell the non-voters what we really think of them.

I cannot be alone in finding that a great many non-voters tend to be smug, superior and disdainful. So often they give the impression that they think it’s clever not to vote. In their arrogance they express the view that politics and politicians are simply beneath them. Some simply have no appreciation of the idea that anyone could be motivated by concepts of public service, or by a desire to achieve change for the greater good, probably because the thought of doing the same has never crossed their minds.

Non-voters can despise practising politicians all they like, the reality is that they have cast aside their chance of having any influence and have opted instead for impotency. The vote is power, and we who use it are pretty contemptuous of those who do not.

So, non-voters, hear it from one practising politician:

“You insult the memory of those who fought for the vote in Britain and who are fighting across the world for it now. Our law gives you the right to emasculate yourselves by choosing not to vote but don’t imagine that this wins you respect.

“We live in a democracy and while the views of voters matter the views of non-voters do not. By not voting you have made yourself irrelevant.

“We don’t care what you think. You have made the decision that you want no influence. So be it, you have none.”

I feel so much better for writing that. Maybe I’ll get some cards printed that I can carry with me to give to non-voters when next I go knocking on doors.

“SORRY,” they might read. “Sorry for having disturbed you and sorry too that I wasted my time. Perhaps if you suffered under authoritarian rule you might appreciate why the chance to vote is something to value and use.

“Fortunately we live in a democracy, but please don’t expect politicians to take any notice of your views, we serve at the whim of voters and you have chosen not to be one..

“If this annoys you there is always something you can do about it. USE YOUR VOTE!”

AWAYDAY

2011-02-12T09:15:00.001Z

‘Team Davies’ has been on our annual Awayday; two of them in fact. Staff from my Stockport and Brussels offices got together at a Tudor mansion in the Peak District National Park to talk about just about every aspect of our work. We combined the work (and occasional heated dispute) with some hearty breakfasts, substantial evening meals, and an afternoon walk in Dovedale.

I have always thought these occasions useful, but perhaps this was the best. Maybe the fact that there was no signal for mobile phones helped concentrate the minds; it certainly made it difficult to follow developments in Egypt.

Grudgingly I now accept, as someone who long regarded a simple word processor as the most advanced aid to communication that I ever wanted to master, that times are changing even faster than I had appreciated. Perhaps one day I shall even read a ‘tweet’.

Most important, we agreed my campaign priorities for the year ahead. They are, in order:

Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy and introduction of sustainable practices while we still have fish left in our seas to save;

Better implementation of EU environment laws in every Member State, and securing the adoption of correlation tables in new legislation;

Advancing measures to curb climate change, especially development of carbon capture and storage technology;

Identifying measures to protect biodiversity, particularly to arrest the decline in insect numbers;

Championing the case for legislation to permit medically assisted dying.

By the way, the Tudor mansion was Hartington Hall. It’s a Youth Hostel, and great value.

LESSONS FROM THE BY-ELECTION THAT COULD NOT BE WON

2011-01-17T09:46:00.001Z

It reveals naivety on my part that it was only after the polls had closed in Oldham East & Saddleworth that I learnt that no opposition party had lost a by-election in a seat it held since 1982, when Labour was beaten by the Conservatives at a time when the latter were riding the crest of the wave after Britain had recaptured the Falkland Isles. Had I known this beforehand I would not have placed a small bet on the Liberal Democrats to win, even with the odds at 10-1 against.

We campaigned to win OE&S. There may have been some in the organising team who realised from the beginning that a respectable second place was the best that could be achieved but if so they did a remarkable job at maintaining morale by keeping such sentiments to themselves. They showed great dedication to the job, leading from the front and working themselves into the ground. For weeks on end they also braved the lowest temperatures that most of us have ever experienced in an election campaign.

If the election had taken place in the immediate aftermath of the Court case that saw the MP disbarred then all might have been well. But parliamentary by-elections are not mere local affairs, they command national attention, and it was inevitable that the agenda would move on quickly from Phil Woolas to the record of the Coalition Government.

Labour and the Liberal Democrats were neck and neck last May, separated by just 103 votes. Since then, according to the polls, Labour’s support has risen by 10 points and ours has fallen by at least 13. The tide hasn’t simply turned since May, it has raced out in a torrent. How could we possibly have won such a by-election in these circumstances?

The challenge was clear enough on the doorstep. During every canvassing session I met a couple of people who had voted Lib Dem in the past but who were not going to do so this time. The mere fact that we were in coalition with the Conservatives was repellent to some, the impression of broken trust over tuition fees saw off the rest. Each time I would return to the campaign HQ feeling that a few more grains of sand had slipped through our fingers.

Anyone who assumed that Labour supporters might feel betrayed by the actions of Phil Woolas were quickly disabused. However bad the nature of the divisive and racist (“make the white folks angry”) campaign he ran, Woolas’s past supporters didn’t like him having been thrown out by the Courts. That said, I’m still pleased that Elwyn Watkins mounted his legal challenge; his success drew a line that candidates and agents everywhere may be reluctant to cross in future elections.

On the other hand we DID mount one of the most effective third party squeeze effort in the history of parliamentary by-elections. The Tory vote collapsed as their supporters took the tactical decision to back the Liberal Democrats. But we needed to gain two votes from the Tories for every vote we lost to Labour, and that was too tall an order.

Political commentators question whether the Tories pulled their punches and mounted a campaign that was less than wholehearted. It’s true that they didn’t launch an all out assault on their coalition partners but the Tories don’t have a single borough councillor in the constituency and no party organisation worth mentioning. They were always going to come third, and a more vigorous Tory campaign would have had only one consequence – to increase the size of the Labour majority over the Liberal Democrats. How would that benefit the Coalition Government?

We didn’t win, and realistically we couldn’t have won, but Liberal Democrats secured a creditable result in the circumstances. The question that has to be asked now, as it should be after every such event, is what could we have done differently and better? The OE&S campaign left me convinced that we need to review our approach and learn some lessons for the future.

I have no complaints about the organisation; administratively it seemed close to flawless. Campaigns Department pulled together a team of dedicated young people, some of whom were not born when I set about the task of turning derelict wards in the constituency into strongholds of local Liberalism. Amongst them was a great esprit de corps, with apparent rivalry to demonstrate who could go without sleep for the longest period and drink the greatest amount of Diet Coke. Their efforts and tactical planning suffered initially from having too little outside support (it was before Christmas and weather conditions across much of Britain were terrible), yet even with the pavements covered in snow a great many leaflets got delivered.

My concerns are not with the organisation but with the politics, and particularly with the belief that in some quarters seems to have taken on the mantra of religious doctrine that elections are won by pushing out more paper than our opponents, and that sheer hard work will win the day. I do not share this view. Good graphics and technical wizardry (“look, we are so clever that we can produce individual leaflets with the elector’s own name on them”) do not make up for the lack of effective political content.

Too much of our election literature in OE&S was simply vacuous, and for all that the Tory squeeze was effective there were some examples (‘personal’ letters in particular) whose content made me squirm with embarrassment. On a number of occasions I delivered pieces of literature that I thought would not persuade a single extra person to vote for us, and sometimes I feared that they might do us actual harm. Voters complained that they were assaulted by the sheer number of leaflets, but a criticism of greater concern is that too much of the paper we distributed said nothing worth saying. If electors felt that our approach was condescending they had good reason.

Why do we do this? I learnt many political lessons in Liverpool from Sir Trevor Jones (‘Jones the Vote’), who used to tell me never to underestimate the stupidity of the electorate. By this he meant that we should distil the messages, keep them simple, and repeat them often. But he countered this by telling me that at the same time I should never underestimate the intelligence of the electorate, by which he warned not to patronise the voters and to make sure that I had something worthwhile to offer and that would hold their attention. I’m not convinced that our present strategists have got the balance right.

It might be argued that Labour’s campaign literature in OE&S was wholly negative; they attacked us for broken pledges on tuition fees and imposing excessive cuts. But if the position had been reversed we would have done the same. We didn’t confront criticisms that found a strong resonance amongst the voters. More importantly, we did very little to counter them by promoting the achievements of Liberal Democrats in office. I know the arguments about not allowing opponents to dictate the agenda but if we are not to celebrate the role of the first Liberal Democrat ministers in our lifetimes then what is the point of us fighting elections in the first place? We surely should adjust our mindsets, treat the voters as adults, and be prepared to address serious issues - while doing it in a way that ensures that the appearance of our literature secures sufficient attention to pass the doormat to dustbin test.

It’s difficult to write these words without implying criticism of people I like and for whose efforts I have admiration, and I am well aware of the rebuttals that can be made. Whatever flaws I might suggest, surely the fact that we not only held our own against the outgoing tide but made a tiny advance in percentage terms speaks for the success of the strategy? How can I prove that the result would not have been worse had we done differently?

It’s possible that we would have done less well if we had devoted more space in our election literature to putting across the arguments of Liberal Democrats in government. It is indeed a risk, but it’s not a question that can be answered because we have not attempted to convey the achievements of our party in an attractive manner. Now we are in government we must start to do so.

I want Liberal Democrats to do well in elections. I also want us to be proud of ourselves and of the political messages we convey. There are lessons to be learnt from the Oldham East & Saddleworth campaign, and there are new approaches that must be explored.

THIS IS A GREAT REFORMING GOVERNMENT

2010-12-24T10:13:00.001Z

I don't have a problem with the indiscrete things that Liberal Democrat ministers have said about their Conservative opposite numbers within the Coalition. I expect most Liberal Democrat party members will be reassured to learn that their ministers have not been subsumed into Conservative culture, and despite an amicable working relationship the two parties within the government remain very definitely distinct.

In fact the indiscrete comments will help us in all sorts of situations: "You think we LIKE having to work with the Conservatives? Well now you know, we don't, but it's the price that has to be paid for having Liberal Democrat influence within the government of Britain."

I DO have a problem with Vince Cable losing himself influence over the decision as to whether Murdoch and News International should gain control of BSkyB. Not because I disagree with Vince's views one iota, but because the consequence of their expression is that the Murdoch bid has been given a massive step up. That can only be bad. If I had my way Americans/Australians would not be allowed any control whatsoever over the British media.

I am very familiar after 11 years in the European Parliament with working across parties to try and build consensus for particular changes. It doesn't mean I have suddenly embraced another party's philosophy that I am able to do a deal with opponents as individuals with a different approach to my own; I think it's an honest and healthy demonstration of democracy in a open society. Coalition governments are the same, only with knobs on.

But I DO have a problem with our insular and immature media that presents all this as somehow revelational, when it is in fact just 'normal'. I don't expect a majority of the public to understand this; too many people appear to think that the artificial public expression of unity is 'good' and honestly expressed differences ultimately resolved through negotiation are somehow 'bad'.

And I have a really BIG problem with what people too often appear to think of as 'proper' government, viz. the elected dictatorship of one party that has formed a government despite having secured a minority of votes - in the case of Tony Blair just 35% of the total cast.

Britain has been ruled by governments that have not commanded a majority of votes for decade after decade, Tory after Labour after Tory. An electoral system that would be worthy only of a Banana Republic may have given them a huge majority in the House of Commons, but in truth they have never represented the country.

The Coalition Government is formed of parties that secured 60% of the votes last May. It is the first true majority government that Britain has had since 1945 (ok - Labour then only won 49.7% of votes, but it was near enough).

It has the potential still to be one of the great reforming governments of all time, and I believe that Liberal Democrat influence will ensure that those reforms steer us towards a society that is more fair, more free, more democratic and more green.

It continues to have my strong support.

ADVICE FROM A BY-ELECTION WINNER

2010-12-22T21:13:00.000Z

I contested and won the Littleborough & Saddleworth by-election in July 1995. The weather during the weeks of campaigning was glorious. The summer sun beat down, cracking the pavements.

What a contrast with the record low temperatures being experienced by campaign workers helping now in the Oldham East & Saddleworth by-election. If the pavements are cracking it can only be because the ice is breaking them up. Not that we would know as the pavements are covered in snow, although for the moment it is at least nice and crisp.

On the basis of my experience I can offer the Liberal Democrat candidate, Elwyn Watkins, one useful piece of advice.

I spent the last two days of my election campaign touring the constituency in shirt sleeves, waving cheerily at potential voters from the front of an open top double decker bus.

Elwyn, when our campaign organisers suggest that you spend two days waving from an open top double decker bus, just say "thanks, but no thanks"!

WARM WEATHER FOR THE TIME OF YEAR!

2010-12-19T11:08:00.000Z

After returning with frozen fingers from a twilight run on snow covered moorland I turned on the computer. Jim Hansen at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies provides data each month on global temperatures. These are his latest conclusions:

"This has been the the warmest January-November in the GISS analysis, which covers 131 years. However, it is only a few hundredths of a degree warmer than 2005, so it is possible that the final GISS results for the full year will find 2010 and 2005 to have the same temperature within the margin of error.

"The cold anomaly in Northern Europe in November has continued and strengthened in the first half of December. Combined with the unusual cold winter of 2009-2010 in Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, this regional cold spell has caused widespread commentary that global warming has ended. That is hardly the case. On the contrary, globally November 2010 is the warmest November in the GISS record."

DRUGS POLICY HAS FAILED

2010-12-18T17:46:00.000Z

There is a certain familiarity to the words used by Bob Ainsworth, the former Labour Home Office and latterly Defence Minister, who has announced his conversion to the belief that possession of all drugs should be decriminalised.

“Prohibition has failed to protect us,” he said. Billions of pounds are being spent on enforcement policies “without preventing the wide availability of drugs.”

“Leaving the drugs market in the hands of criminals causes huge and unnecessary harm to individuals, communities and entire countries.

“We must take the trade away from organised criminals and hand it to the control of doctors and pharmacists.

“It is time to replace our failed war on drugs with a strict system of legal regulation to make the world a safer, healthier place.”

The words sound familiar to me because, in speeches and in articles over the past decade and more, I have used them all myself.

It’s a pity that they are expressed now only by a FORMER Home Office minister. The emperor is not wearing any clothes, but his serving ministers never dare say it.

CHRISTOPHER DAVIES KILLED IN AFGHANISTAN

2010-12-16T16:22:00.001Z

My namesake, Christopher Davies, was killed in Afghanistan last month, The 22 year old from St Helens served in the 1st Battalion Irish Guards; he was hit by small arms fire while taking part in a security patrol in Helmand province. By all accounts, and there are many of them, he was a model professional soldier and a very popular man with all who knew him.

The European Parliament has just expressed its views on the need for a new strategy in Afghanistan. It says nothing that can't be found from other sources but is still worth citing.

It says that a revised strategy should face up to the deterioration both in security and in socio-economic indicators in Afghanistan despite almost a decade of international involvement.

The insurgency is financed largely by the money extracted by war lords and local mafia bosses to protect the US military supply chain. We are paying for the weapons used against us.

The number of people living below the poverty threshold has more than doubled since we commenced military operations.

Up to 80% of international aid has never reached the people of Afghanistan. Most US aid never leaves the USA.

Scant regard has been paid by the international community to the involvement of Afghan people.

Afghanistan is today the source of 90% of the world’s illicit opium yet when coalition forces entered Kabul in 2001 no opium poppies were being grown in the country. The opium trade now accounts for 26% of Afghan GDP, with most of the money going to government officials and regional brokers (only 4% to the Taliban).

Of 94,000 men in the Afghan National Police 90% are illiterate and 30% go missing within a year of joining.

Parliament recognised that negotiations with the Taliban are essential for a political solution.

If we had really tried very hard indeed, would it have been possible for us to have made an even worse mess of things than this?

CAMERON WAS RIGHT – PARLIAMENT BLINKS FIRST

2010-12-15T17:47:00.001Z

When David Cameron announced that he had agreed with other leaders an EU budget increase of 2.9% , and that was that, I accused him of not having read the Lisbon Treaty. “Was he not aware that the European Parliament had equal powers in the making of the budget?” I asked.

Whether or not he has read the Treaty the Prime Minister got the politics right and I got them wrong. In the face of the European Council’s refusal to change its position, the European Parliament simply backed down.

So much for my assertion last month that the Parliament was “united and determined” in demanding future negotiating concessions.

A majority of MEPs supported a 6% budget increase by way of an opening gambit, but negotiators abandoned this almost immediately. The real battle was to try and secure arrangements for involvement of the Parliament in preparing long term budget plans, and for discussing transfer of funds between different budget lines. These ended up being shunted off into the long grass for debate at another time.

Why did the Parliament give in so easily and so meekly? Our negotiators argue that they secured an increased level of future expenditure commitments, but I'm not convinced that this is worth a great deal. In my view, faced with the option of no increase in the budget at all, no new External Action Service, and payments to farmers and for regional development being curtailed, a majority of MEPs simply backed down.

A 2.9% increase and nothing definite on negotiating rights suddenly seemed attractive when compared to hearing David Cameron utter the words: “No budget increase at all? Make my day!”

DON'T PLAY GAMES WITH CLIMATE CHANGE

2010-12-14T23:09:00.001Z

I thought the opening of my climate change speech was rather good. "I have no interest in football," I said, "but I have seen pictures of the manager of a team playing its last game of the season, 2-1 down, and facing relegation, and in considering the outcome of the Cancun conference I thought of our Climate Action Commissioner.

The manager is saved by the scoring of a goal. The result is a draw. A vital point is secured and relegation avoided.

"It's not a triumph. But it's not a defeat. The manager lives to fight another day."

Guaranteed to maintain attention I thought.

Commissioner Connie Hedegaard responded: "Let me first respond to Mr Davies. I'm very sorry but I follow football even less than he does, and I did not quite understand the analogy."

Oh well. Back to the writing desk.

ISRAEL HELPS HAMAS

2010-12-13T21:03:00.000Z

One of my Italian colleagues, Niccolo Rinaldi, has just returned from Gaza. He reports that Israel's partial lifting of the blockade has ensured that there are plenty of goods in the shops, although with 70% of the population receiving UN food aid there aren't many being bought. Worryingly, he also reports that there are very few women now to be seen on the streets of this teeming conurbation - in stark contrast to the situation in the more secular West Bank townships. His comment reminded me of a conversation I had in Gaza nearly 5 years ago with the wives of two Palestinan businessmen. It was soon after the elections that had brought Hamas to power, and they were both in tracksuits having just returned from the gym: "They'll have us all in burkas," they predicted.

Niccolo told me that, at their peak, there were 1,400 smuggling tunnels in operation between Gaza and Egypt, the entrances on both sides plainly visible and swarming with people and goods. Since the partial lifting of the blockade these had been reduced to 400, with some of them big enough to drive a car through. "And at the entrance to each there is a Hamas man, collecting "tax" on the goods in transit. Israel's blockade presented Hamas with its major source of income."

"It is, without doubt," he said, "the most stupid policy I have come across in all the years that I have followed foreign affairs."

CLIMATE CHANGE – THE BALL IS STILL ROLLING

2010-12-12T14:16:00.001Z

Even if every country does what it says it will do, world temperatures will rise by 4 degrees centigrade over the next century. That’s the best-guess scientific prediction.

A temperature rise of this magnitude would force hundreds of millions of people to move or risk death, so it’s extreme in itself. (Where do these people move to without giving rise to enormous political unrest?). But it also gives rise to the prospect of run-away climate change, leading, for example, to the release of methane from frozen tundra that will accelerate the process of global warming.

All this sounds fanciful when it’s cold outside. It’s hard to appreciate that across the world 2010 will go down as one of the warmest years on record, and that average global temperatures just keep going up and up. The climate change sceptics have an easy time arguing their case to a shivering public.

So one of the most important things to have come out of the UN’s climate change conference at Cancun is a reminder that every government in the world is expressing concern about climate change and saying that we must take action to curb it. Only Bolivia registered its reluctance to support the final document – because it didn’t go far enough.

The European Union had a minimum objective for these talks, it was to keep the ball rolling. The result has exceeded its expectations by quite a margin. UK environment secretary Chris Huhne can take a share of the credit for this by hammering out an agreement on the future of the Kyoto Protocol (which places obligations on only a limited number of countries) that kept everyone on board. I didn’t have the impression that my former MEP colleague took much interest in the global warming debate when he was in the European Parliament, but he’s proved himself a quick learner and an effective practitioner.

It’s been a miserable year for all those involved in trying to persuade governments across the world to recognise the need for action. The failure at Copenhagen sucked momentum from a negotiating process that requires the consent of every nation on the planet. It strengthened the resistance of those who would argue, not unreasonably, that the EU cannot take measures of its own in isolation without the risk of losing more jobs.

But now the process has new life. The USA is still failing to provide leadership but it has joined with other developed countries in agreeing to start helping poorer countries meet the costs of climate change, and to curb the destruction of forests. Both India and China have shown a willingness to take the agenda forward, and they have agreed to international monitoring of emissions; this represents a major retreat for the notion of national sovereignty and acceptance that we are all in this together and must be able to trust one another. Who knows, maybe my meeting in China with key environmental legislators a month ago contributed a little bit to the change in mood.

The agreed target is to stop temperatures rising above 2 degrees centigrade. It’s a target that is probably already too late to achieve, and the measures announced so far are nothing like sufficient, but the agreement means that we can return to this year after year with new proposals for taking the agenda forward. We can ratchet up the requirements and obligations.

Next step for European politicians will be to consider raising our CO2 emissions reduction target for 2020 from 20% to 30%, setting an example and helping to promote low carbon investments. A month ago I would have said that prospects for securing agreement for this from EU governments were minimal. Now they are better – I go no further than that.

WHAT NICK CLEGG MUST DO NEXT

2010-12-09T18:44:00.001Z

The Liberal Democrats have been damaged by our divisions over tuition fees. The strongly held views of different MPs couldn’t be reconciled, and our role in government meant that we couldn’t share with Labour the luxury of being able to criticise without explaining how we would fund higher education.

Nick Clegg’s authority has taken a blow, but it is one from which he can recover. He will appreciate as never before that the inescapable rule for all political parties is that whether they do things well, or do things badly, they must do them together. Our influence over government policy depends upon us being reliable partners and our leader being able to deliver the votes.

Within the party Nick is unchallenged, but a lot of our MPs will be saying: “please don’t put us through that again.”

Morale has been shaken, and Nick needs now to rally the troops.

He should start with some mea culpa. It’s clear that the situation has not been handled well even if it’s unclear how it could have been handled better. Nick will need to provide reassurance that similar situations will be avoided in future, that elephant traps will be identified before we fall into them, and that MPs will have a greater chance to influence decisions before they are announced.

He can remind the parliamentary party that this is our first opportunity in generations to shape government policy. Liberal Democrats can be proud of measures that take the lowest paid out of tax, of commitments to democratic reform, and of helping some Conservatives (think Ken Clarke) release their ‘inner Liberal’. We can be pleased to have forged a pragmatic policy on Europe, halted the renewal of Trident, and stopped the Tories widening the income gap between generations by raising the inheritance tax threshold.

Nick can admit that there is bound to be more pain to come, but this is the price to be paid for being in government at a time of financial crisis. He can urge them to take no sanctimonious nonsense from a Labour Party that destroyed the country’s finances in the first place.

And, of course, he can lift the spirits of our MPs by being positive about the future. The hard bits have to be done now so that the good bits can follow.

A week is a long time in politics and there are 4 years to go before the general election. Liberal Democrats will be judged by our record over the lifetime of the Government, not by a single decision.

Nothing that has occurred in the debate over tuition fees will prevent Nick from being able to claim with good reason that that the record will prove to be a proud one.

TUITION FEES: THIS IS NO TIME TO ABSTAIN

2010-12-07T12:45:00.000Z

Splits weaken parties, and sometimes destroy them. The reputation of the Liberal Democrat brand is being undermined with each passing hour as the impression grows stronger that on the issue of tuition fees we are not only divided but clueless.

The case for supporting the recommendations of the Browne inquiry is strong, and if I were in the Commons I would be voting with Nick. The real damage to the party comes not from our adjusting course to take account of changed conditions, nor from rebellion by backbenchers on grounds of individual conscience, but from the impression we are now giving of being all over the place.

Some Liberal Democrats will vote for the recommendations, some against. Some want to defer the vote, others want to abstain. In short, we are creating the impression not just of being weak, but of being a joke.

I would rather us have a reputation for being tough (but fair) bastards than for being indecisive.

Liberal Democrat MPs must now decide how to vote. If they want to limit the damage there should be only two options for them to consider . Either they vote for the recommendations, recognising that they provide funding for higher education in a progressive manner that protects those on lowest incomes, or they vote against on grounds of individual conscience.

There are times when an abstention is an honourable third option. This is not one of them.

ARGENTINA AND BRAZIL RECOGNISE PALESTINE

2010-12-07T10:15:00.001Z

Within days of each other Argentina and Brazil have each recognized Palestine as a free and independent state within the borders defined in 1967.

Good for them. Israel is said to have reacted with "sadness and disappointment" to the declaration. I bet it has.

Will the Europeans follow the South American's example in due course? Many of them have suggested that they will, but when push comes to shove they won't rock the US-Israel consensus.

The US will block any attempt to secure UN ratification. From Britain, from our/my Coalition Government, and from the rest of the EU, there will be nothing more than weasel words.

PHIL WOOLAS JUST DOESN’T GET IT!

2010-12-03T15:48:00.001Z

He’s hurt, of course. He’s lost his career, his income and his reputation. His name will be known for years to come as the MP who was disbarred for having “knowingly” lied about his opponent. It’s hardly surprising that Phil Woolas wants to claim that it’s all unfair.

But his interpretation of events just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

He implies, just as he did in the hearings before judges, that what he did what just part of the run-of-the-mill of political knockabout, and that others have dealt with him in the same way over the years. “It is now unclear what is political and what is personal,” he says.

No, it is NOT unclear, and his opponents have not treated him in the same way as he treated them.

In the past his actions, the reason for them and the likely effects of them, have been subjectively interpreted– this happens to everyone in politics, it’s the difference between the Daily Mirror and Daily Telegraph view of events - but no-one invented those actions or put words into his mouth.

Phil Woolas says that the voters should be given the right to judge him. But those same voters have been deceived by him in the past. He told them lies, and he knew he was doing it. The judges who condemned him were able to hear what he hoped the voters last May would not - both sides of the case.

He was desperate last May. He faced election defeat and was ready to do anything to avoid it. So he listened to the words of his election agent, Joe Fitzpatrick, who thought that Woolas’s best hope was “to make the white folk angry.” Together, they bet everything on influencing opinion and swinging the votes with just a couple of leaflets. They were humdingers, quite vile.

The Immigration Minister of the United Kingdom didn’t just tell lies to try and secure his re-election, he told racist lies, intended to pander to the fears of white residents. That’s why what he did was so utterly beyond the pale.

I don’t feel personal animosity towards Phil Woolas. I hope he will pick up the pieces and get an alternative career; I am sure there are plenty of people in the Labour Party who will give him a helping hand.

But what he did was despicable, and democracy in Britain is the better for his defeat.

TALK TO HAMAS

2010-12-02T16:10:00.000Z

The man who leads the Hamas-controlled Palestinian administration in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, has given a press conference. The words he used are worth repeating.

He told journalists: “We accept a Palestinian state on the borders of 1967 with Jerusalem as its capital, the release of Palestinian prisoners, and the resolution of the issue of refugees.

Haniyeh said that a priority of his government was to avoid a military escalation with Israel by persuading other militant factions to preserve a de facto ceasefire.”

Now here is an opportunity, is it not? You can’t make peace without talking to your enemies, and here is one of Israel’s enemies talking in terms that should delight European governments. Anyone seriously interested in securing a just settlement in the Middle East would surely be beating a path to Haniyeh’s door, but it won’t happen. Hamas will stay on the list of terrorist organisations because Israel (and therefore the USA) would be upset if we tried to remove it.

I met with Haniyeh in Gaza in 2007, when he was Prime Minister of the short-lived Unity Government. He spoke then words not of terrorism but of diplomacy, but when the message was communicated no-one in London or Brussels took any notice.

FREE PALESTINE

2010-12-02T14:23:00.001Z

Israel’s absorption (or dismemberment) of the West Bank continues apace, and the European Union does nothing to give practical form to its criticisms of a country with which it has a very close relationship.

Meanwhile, Palestinian Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, says that Palestine (or the West Bank at least) will be “ready for statehood” no later than August next year. Presumably he will then call upon the UN to recognise a Palestinian ‘state’.

It’s a great idea but I can’t see it getting very far. The USA is alleged already to have told Netanyahu that they will use their veto. European Union foreign ministers have indicated their support in the past, so it will be interesting to see how long it takes for them to wriggle out of any such commitment.

Past evidence suggests that Hell will freeze over before Britain and the rest of the EU dissents with the USA on matters to do with Israel.

WARM AND FLUFFY ISN’T ALWAYS RIGHT

2010-11-30T11:09:00.000Z

Maybe my green credentials have been blown to pieces.

I have just voted in the European Parliament’s environment committee against calls to take action to combat ‘speculation’ that may lead to extreme price volatility in food prices, against the insistence that environmentally-friendly farming practices will increase the income of the agricultural sector and improve food security, and against demands that EU agricultural policy should focus on providing support for small-scale and organic farming systems.

On the agenda was a non-legislative report about food security. Italian and French colleagues within my group had sided with Green, GUE (far left) and some Socialist members to table a series of amendments that prompted a lively debate when we met before the meeting to discuss the Liberal Democrat (ALDE) voting intentions.

Emotionally I am opposed to the idea of ‘speculation’ in food, and I don’t have much time for commodity brokers (I always recall the film ‘Trading Places’ whenever they are mentioned), but I couldn’t agree with my French colleague who said that food could not be considered as just another product. What’s the alternative – some kind of state intervention, market control or limit on food prices? Speculation by traders may be nasty but the alternative is usually worse.

I support the idea that payments from the Common Agricultural Policy need to be linked to environmentally-friendly farming practices, but that’s a different matter from accepting that this will certainly increase the income of farmers or guarantee food security; I don’t think these claims can be accepted as a matter of faith.

Maintaining small scale farms is a nice idea but primarily is surely a matter of social policy. I don’t see that small scale farming contributes any more to guaranteeing food security than large scale farming. The same applies to organic production, which I welcome for a variety of reasons but food security is not one of them.

The sentiments behind the amendments were warm (and fluffy!), but I didn’t believe they stood up to scrutiny. We need to ensure that our agricultural policies are sustainable, but we also need to ensure that our cities are fed.

By a small majority, and with the ALDE Group split 4-2 my way, the committee rejected the amendments.

AND THE BLIND SHALL SEE

2010-11-29T11:40:00.000Z

I have no doubt that a couple of weeks ago, in the weakened state in which he was left after putting off death for a while, 18-year old Paddy cat had gone blind. The evidence was convincing - he kept bumping into things, and he had difficulty finding his food dish. The vet couldn't make up his mind: "it's hard with cats."

A steroid injection, a daily kidney pill, and some (apparently very tasty) paste in his food and he is now much restored and enjoying a healthy appetite.

And he can see again. His sight is back - or at least some of it. He can follow my movements. He looks out of the window. He avoids obstacles and can find his food. What more does an elderly cat need?

BY-ELECTION IN OLDHAM EAST AND SADDLEWORTH

2010-11-26T09:00:00.001Z

Oldham East has had no MP since Phil Woolas was disbarred and the result of last May's election was declared null and void, but we still don't have a date for the by-election. A writ could be moved at any time in the House of Commons but no-one plans to do so until High Court judges have given their ruling on whether the decision of the Election Court is open to judicial review.

The Oldham Evening Chronicle reports that this is expected within the next few days, which probably means at the beginning of the week commencing 29 November. The legal opinions being heard by Liberal Democrats suggest that the way will then be clear to move the writ later in the week, but that now means a by-election early in January.

Oh good! Just what we need to work off Christmas excesses.

Meanwhile the Liberal Democrats are working well and there is a very cheerful atmosphere in the HQ set up in Tanner's Mill, Greenfield, just a field or two away from my home in Saddleworth. We want volunteers through the door NOW. As the campaign will be a little longer than expected the work underway is quite measured, and while leaflets are being delivered the concentration is on canvassing - which also keeps down the costs.

A lot is getting done, and we've had a good sprinkling of MPs through the HQ doors. My colleague from the European Parliament, Baroness Sarah Ludford, came up from London last week. She told me that she went canvassing with a little trepidation, wondering what the reaction would be to the Coalition Government. "It was fine, no problem at all except from people who were hard Labour and who always had been hard Labour" she reported. "I enjoyed it."

COLD WINTERS CHALLENGE GLOBAL WARMING

2010-11-25T12:54:00.000Z

It’s cold this week, but at the beginning of the year it was even colder. Snow lay on the ground, temperatures chilled the bone but warmed the hearts of climate change sceptics. They were derisive about global warming.

So maybe it will come as a surprise to learn that global temperatures during the first 6 months of 2010 were the warmest on record. There are a few weeks to go before we learn the results for the entire year, and as it’s a time of low solar irradiance maybe the record for the year will not be broken, but NASA reports that there has been no reduction in the global warming trend that began in the late 1970s.

'Weather', after all, is not the same as 'climate'.

Incidentally, has anyone noticed the uncanny connection between frothing-at-the-mouth europhobes and climate change deniers? In the European Parliament the overlap is obvious; it's the same UKIP, BNP, and Conservative right wing nutters, plus the Polish nationalists who sit with little flags on their desks in front of them, who denounce everything about the European Union who also dismiss with much aggression the very idea that global warming is taking place.

Apparently it's all a plot to put up taxes on 'ordinary' people and establish world governance. But then, everything is a plot to these people.

UKIP CAN'T GET RID OF BLOOM

2010-11-24T20:33:00.000Z

UKIP's Godfrey Bloom may indeed be a national embarrassment, as the Liberal Democrat leader in the European Parliament described him today, but he must also be a huge embarrassment to UKIP. Still, he's here to stay.

Bloom's heckling of Martin Schulz, the German leader of the Socialists & Democrats Group - "EIN REICH, EIN VOLK, EIN FUHRER!" was out of order by the standards of any Parliament, but what gets me is the way in which he pretends that the European Parliament practices different standards to that of other democratic assemblies.

I have little doubt that his words would have got him ejected from the House of Commons, especially if he had been heckling an MP with a Germanic-sounding name, and once ejected he would have been out for at least a day. Bloom was complaining again later in the day when ushers wouldn't let him return to participate in another debate. As he likes to wrap himself in the Union Flag he should learn how the UK Parliament works.

Nigel Farage, the UKIP leader who tries to present his party as a respectable alternative, should get rid of Bloom, but that would be difficult. The UKIP delegation arrived in the European Parliament last year with 13 members. Defections have already reduced their numbers to 11. Farage can't afford to let anyone else depart.

MORE EU LAWS LIKE THESE PLEASE

2010-11-24T11:19:00.001Z

EU directives and binding regulations do not get a good press, but at best they can drive forward innovation, reduce costs, and benefit the environment.

For years the car manufacturers maintained a voluntary agreement with the European Commission that aimed to reduce average CO2 emissions from new cars to 120g by 2012. Nothing much happened; the car makers instead made big profits by building 4WD ‘Chelsea tractors’ and the like.

Eventually, at the beginning of 2008, and with MEPs like myself shouting at them, the Commission lost patience and proposed binding legislation. The car makers lobbied intensively to weaken the proposals; “we shall all be ruined,” they claimed, ignoring the reality that the EU single market provides a degree of protection from competition as every car made here or imported here has to meet the same standards. The law that emerged at the end of the year set the target at 130g by 2015.

Guess what? Once the law was in place the manufacturers finally got around to doing what the engineers always said in private that they could do, designing cars that are more fuel efficient so cheaper to drive, and that emit less CO2. Toyota has already met the 2015 target, Fiat and Peugeot Citroen are close. The German manufacturers of big cars are a way off yet but emission levels of their new cars are falling fast each year.

I haven’t forgotten being lambasted in a radio interview by the boss of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders when I claimed that the industry could meet tougher standards. Now the Society has admitted that its members “had overestimated the difficulty of cutting emissions.” Too right!

POWER WITHOUT THE EMISSIONS

2010-11-23T19:16:00.002Z

“Every little bit helps,” was the message from Chris Huhne, the Energy and Climate Secretary, when he gave his support to Saddleworth residents who want financial backing for a mini-hydro scheme they hope to see built at Dovestones reservoir in the Peak District. Using overflow water it could put enough electricity into the national grid to supply the needs of 100 homes, (assuming that they are very well insulated homes that is). It’s a good scheme, not least because it will promote the technology for mini-renewable projects and raise levels of public awareness. But with the planet’s population growing by 200,000 every single day I reckon that if it is completed it will meet the increasing world demand for electricity by only one minute.

I reflected on this when I spoke at a carbon capture and storage (CCS) conference organised by the European Commission in Brussels. As a means of preventing the emission into the atmosphere of CO2 from fossil fuel power stations and major industrial installations, CCS is the only game in town. The cause for celebration is that the Commission has, at long last, published the call for tender for developers seeking financial support to build a number of CCS demonstration projects across Europe. The financial mechanism to be used is the one I was the first to propose and makes use of ‘surplus’ carbon allowances from the EU emissions trading scheme. Alas, with today’s low carbon price it will not provide nearly as much money as was once hoped.

CCS is essential if we are to reduce the level of CO2 emissions by the 80-95% regarded as necessary, but progress is painfully slow. The call to tender was much delayed, and it is now suggested that most projects won’t be in operation until past the 2015 deadline (“No, no, no,” I said). Across Europe very few governments are on track to transpose the EU directive for the storage of CO2 into national law on time, and very few have made any independent financial provision to support CCS development. The UK is one of the few honourable exceptions on all counts.

We have two front running projects. Scottish Power looks set to win the ‘UK competition’ and will separate a small portion of the CO2 that would otherwise be discharged up the chimneys of the coal power station at Longannet, transporting it by pipeline for injection into former fossil fuel bearing rock beneath the North Sea. Then there is Powerfuel Power’s project at Hatfield, near Doncaster, where construction of a 900MW integrated gas combined cycle power station is proposed, with the CO2 separated pre-combustion and transported to the North Sea by a pipeline that could also serve many other power stations and industrial plants.

The new factor on the UK scene is the possibility that the CO2 might not only be stored but also used for enhanced oil recovery. The pressurised gas would push more oil out of depleted North Sea reserves, making better use of these resources, pleasing HM Treasury, and creating a much stronger financial incentive for CCS development. Equipping a conventional power station with CCS could effectively double the cost of the electricity it generates, making it about as expensive as heavily subsidised offshore wind generation. Coupling it with enhanced oil recovery would bring down the extra cost to only as much as the subsidy paid for onshore wind power, making CCS much more attractive, especially if the price of carbon rises from its present €15/tonne. If enhanced oil recovery developments take place as I have privately heard they might, listen out for a very big announcement in months to come.

Do we really need CCS, with all its related costs? Britain gets 35% of its electricity from coal and even more from gas, Germany gets more than 50% from coal alone, Poland nearly 90%. China, India, Russia, the USA, South Africa and Australia have all got huge coal reserves and intend to generate the majority of their electricity from this carbon-intensive fuel for many decades to come. If we don’t develop CCS, there is no chance at all of the world achieving a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050, the minimum amount needed to prevent average global temperatures rising by more than 2 degrees centigrade.

CAMERON WILL HAVE TO MOVE ON EU BUDGET

2010-11-16T19:57:00.001Z

David Cameron claimed it as "a great victory" and a done deal when the
European Council (the prime ministers of Europe) agreed an
inflation-only increase of 2.9% in the size of the 2011 EU Budget. But
he ignored the fact that the Lisbon Treaty gives equal budget-making
powers to the European Parliament.

Negotiations opened, and MEPs quickly dropped their call for the 5.9%
increase needed to meet all commitments. An increase of 2.9% could be
supported they said, but only in return for concessions.

The Lisbon Treaty doesn't spell out how the Parliament will be involved
in future budget making, so this round of negotiations will create a
precedent for decades to come. MEPs want a formal procedure for
dialogue to be established that will embrace annual budgets and the
making of long term financial plans, including the way EU expenditure is
financed. When the Council flatly refused to discuss this, negotiations
between the two bodies broke down.

Now a procedure called "minimum 12" has been adopted. It means that the
EU in 2011 will be run, month by month, on the basis of a zero increase
on the 2010 budget. This will mean indefinite delays in new initiatives
such as the creation of the EU's diplomatic service, but it also means
that the bills can't be paid.

Some 80% of EU money is spent by national governments. Even by the end of February the Commission will be unable to pay all agricultural subsidies; support for other projects will be
curtailed a little later. Some governments, including those in
financial difficulties, may then have to meet the obligations by
borrowing money on the open market at high rates of interest.

The Council is not united; Britain and the Netherlands are the two
countries refusing to concede anything to meet Parliament's demands. By
contrast, Parliament appears at present to be united and determined.
One of my MEP colleagues, who happens to be the former prime minister of
Lithuania, told my Liberal Democrat colleagues that if the Parliament
doesn't now establish a procedure for the making of future budgets we
might as well give up and go home.

David Cameron may be resolute now. Wait and see what happens when his
phone is hot with other prime ministers whose bills are not getting
paid.

WHEN FRIENDS LET YOU DOWN

2010-11-16T19:23:00.000Z

It is disturbing to read that Walid Hussein, a Palestinian from the West Bank town of Qalqilya, risks being jailed for life for “insulting the divine essence.”

The so-called 'atheist blogger' has no doubt been intemperate in his words, but freedom of belief is a principle that must apply to those who do not believe in a God just as much as to those who hold the superstitious notion that there exists a divine entity of some kind.

Of course, the arrest of Walid Hussein is a boon to every Israeli who professes to liberal values and who claims moral superiority over Palestinians. I concede the point. As someone who speaks out against the injustice experienced by Palestinians, but who cherishes liberal values, I personally feel let down.

I've just tabled a parliamentary question to the European Commission which challenges the payment of EU money to a body - the Palestinian Authority - that in this instance appears not to respect freedom of beliefs.

But just a thought, given the laws against blasphemy that exist in some EU countries, I wonder if we could pass the test ourselves?

FIGHTING THE TORIES

2010-11-14T19:54:00.001Z

I spoke to a Conservative MEP yesterday. He tells me that he has already had two letters or e-mails from Tory activists urging him to go and help their party's campaign in Oldham East and Saddleworth.

But how, I wonder, will they fight the Liberal Democrats when we are in coalition together in government and in coalition together on Oldham Council?

For the Liberal Democrats, the arguments in this election are straightforward; we need not oppose a single Tory policy. To our thinking the Tories in OE&S are simply irrelevant - they have not one single borough councillor in the constituency and came third at the last general election, albeit with a vote that appears better than would have been the case had Labour not devoted so much effort to smearing the Liberal Democrat candidate.

Phil Woolas was elected by 103 votes. If 104 Tories had supported the Liberal Democrats we would have won. The tactical argument is very clear.

But how, I wonder, will the Liberal Democrats fight when a by-election is called in a Tory-held seat, as it surely must over the next 4 years? How will we attack the policies of the Coalition Government, or criticise the views of individual Tories in ways that will not create unnecessary tensions between all the MPs who sit on the government benches in the House of Commons?

One thing is surely certain; we will be much more polite towards each other!

CAMPAIGNING WITH MOP AND BUCKET

2010-11-14T19:52:00.003Z

I have formally opened the Liberal Democrat campaign HQ for the Oldham East & Saddleworth by-election, but my principal offer of assistance has been spurned.

The first-ever task I was given when I joined the Liberal Party at the beginning of the October 1974 election campaign was to clean out the toilets in the disused shop that had been leased for the duration.

Some 21 years later, when I had the glory spot as the candidate in the Littleborough and Saddleworth by-election, with the support of hundreds of helpers who flooded in from across the country, I made it my task each Sunday morning to appear early, armed with mop, bucket and bleach, to clean the HQ toilets. A nice demonstration that combined humility with team building I thought - anyway, somebody had to do it. I was very proud of my efforts. The quality of MY toilet cleaning was unrivalled.

So I thought, as the HQ is within the constituency I represented as an MP, I shall offer the same weekly service. But I've been told that, under the terms of the lease, cleaning the toilets is the landlord's responsibility.

I checked them out. They're ok, but not up to my standards.

POSITIVE ABOUT PADDY

2010-11-14T19:48:00.001Z

I have received complaints from readers of this blog. "China is all very well," they say, "but what's happened to the cat?"

We took Paddy to the vet yesterday; compared to a fortnight ago he is much recovered. But there is no denying that he is an old cat, well into his 80s in human terms.

He is eating well, but remains a thin shadow of his middle-aged self. He is also almost blind and almost deaf. The hair has come off his front paws (the vet gave him a steroid shot for that, but maybe it's stress at being almost blind). And every now and again he misses a step, slipping sideways as though practicing a Norman Wisdom routine.

Anyway, Paddy is quite comfortable; sleeps lying on the stairs a good deal (not a good place!); purrs gently when stroked. All in all, a cat in genteel and gentle decline.

But I'm glad still to have him around.

HAS PHIL WOOLAS'S AGENT GOT AWAY WITH IT?

2010-11-11T10:56:00.003Z

What does an election agent get for his pains? The joke (well, election candidates regard it as a joke) is that he goes to jail if the election rules get broken.

This is the usual practice anyway. In the case of most election offences it is the agent who is liable for failure to observe the law. But not, it seems, in the case of Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. By declaring that the result of the May 2010 election in Oldham East and Saddleworth was null and void it seems to be only the candidate who loses out.

The agent for Phil Woolas was Joe Fitzpatrick. I thought him one of the most arrogant councillors I had ever come across when I first met him 20 years ago. My views were confirmed when he, then as Oldham Council's housing committee chairman, seemed almost to take pleasure in admitting "I LIED!" in response to questions from the Oldham Evening Chronicle about why he had changed his vote just days after telling constituents in Holts Village - a council estate in the Lees ward he represented - about his intentions.

I took some pleasure in running the campaign which saw him knocked off the council a couple of years later. He has never been re-elected, although he holds various public positions at the behest of the Labour Party. In my opinion he is a man with a tribal hatred of politicians who are not of his party. He embraces negative campaigning of a kind that - as has now been demonstrated - knows no limits.

Phil Woolas has been found guilty of lying about his opponent in order to win the election, but I believe that Fitzpatrick played the key role in leading him astray. A good agent would have made sure that their candidate did not behave in this way.

Fitzpatrick's lack of judgement, and his willingness to play the race card, dug Phil Woolas's grave. The MP may have jumped into it of his own volition, but when Fitzpatrick told the Court that the racially inflamatory leaflets at the centre of the case had only been delivered to "the white areas", he threw the earth that buried him.

Fitzpatrick has since declared himself to be "unrepentent."

BLOGGING FROM CHINA #3 - A WORTHWHILE WEEKEND?

2010-11-09T16:58:00.002Z

So was it worth spending 23 hours in planes, and 6 hours in cars, for two days of discussion? Well yes, I think it was.

China clearly hasn’t enjoyed being held up as the stage villain for gutting last year’s Copenhagen climate change talks of any substance. The regime doesn’t want to do anything that will curb the country’s economic growth, but at the same time it recognises better than many governments that global warming is a genuine threat that will cause the country harm. There were no expressions of climate change denial at our meeting.

A mixed bag of parliamentarians from a dozen countries around the world had a genuine exchange of views with a similar number of members of the National Peoples’ Congress environment committee.

It wasn’t great, the interpretation being sometimes hard to follow, but it wasn’t bad. We spelt out the problems arising from the lack of an international agreement but we didn’t condemn China. We accepted that, with its low per capita emissions, it has the moral right to continue to grow. But I pointed out that this wouldn’t count for very much if it simply frustrated getting action taken.

The Chinese response became ever more friendly. They talked about all the things they were doing to try and curb the rate at which their emissions are growing, and they used the occasion to announce publicly that they are to introduce a Climate Change Act that will require their industry to meet some specific requirements. So even if they are not sticking to the UN rulebook they are getting on with the game in their own way.

We had some sympathy for one Chinese congressman who commented, wistfully: “The actions of legislators are not always appreciated by the people.”

Positive words from EU Climate Action Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, didn’t get a hearing. The video presentation she transmitted from Brussels got blocked by the Great China Firewall!

Maybe, just maybe, our contribution will have helped China be a little more positive in its attitude towards securing an international agreement on climate change. Anyway, it gave them a nudge in that direction.

We concluded by agreeing a joint declaration that paid homage to the usual mantra by making reference to the need to avoid global temperatures rising by as much as 2 degrees Celsius.

Trouble is, as you look at the rate of growth in China’s emissions, let alone that of other developing nations where even less is being done to try and stem the pace, it is not an objective that seems remotely credible.

BLOGGING FROM CHINA #2 - THEY SAY THE NICEST THINGS

2010-11-09T16:20:00.002Z

Our first day was full of too polite exchanges (“After you, Claude. No, after YOU, Cecil,” or whatever might be the Chinese equivalent). There was some substance, and enough of it to make the exchanges of value, but some things of significance were undoubtedly lost through the inadequacies of interpretation.

I was nervous about my ‘keynote’ speech, not being entirely clear what might work and what might not. I had two objectives: first, to tell the Chinese that the consequences of their government’s refusal at Copenhagen to accept any reference to mandatory CO2 reductions even for developed countries had sapped the political will in Europe to take the actions necessary; second, to tell them that with the Americans off the stage it was time for them to start providing some leadership.” The speech seemed to go down well enough. I made a few other contributions during subsequent discussions.

A Conservative MP later said to me: “You have a flaw with your speaking style. I rather admire it. You don’t seem able to speak without saying something.”
Must be one of the nicest compliments I have ever received. If only it were true of all situations.

BLOGGING FROM CHINA #1 - BRIEF IMPRESSIONS

2010-11-09T11:05:00.002Z

Outside the doors of the enormous, 56-day old, conference hotel in Tianjin all I saw of this ‘small’ city (10 million people) that is 100km from Bejing was from the window of cars taking me from and to the airport: vast numbers of huge new buildings appearing through the yellow pollution haze of a still day; forests of tall cranes building new tower blocks; and too many cars.

One of my colleagues told me that when he visited the city 30 years ago there wasn’t a car to be seen. In terms of sheer numbers the bicycles are still in the majority, but it is the cars that dominate and clog the streets. The accident rate must be enormous, especially as neither cyclists nor motorists seem to have any sense of lane discipline.

Sitting in a traffic jam, with only the cyclists moving, it does seem that urban planners in China have missed a trick.

CHINA FOR THE WEEKEND

2010-11-04T10:30:00.002Z

I don't like long flights (can't sleep, keep wriggling), and the thought of flying to China for a 2-day conference held no attractions, but I was talked into it by Lord Deben (who I know as John Gummer, the former Conservative Environment Secretary) who is now President of Globe International. Actually, I spoke to him on my mobile phone while I was walking in horizontal rain on a Scottish island. The phone died before the end of the conversation and hasn't worked since.

"It's really important. You CAN make a difference. We CAN help shape China's agenda on climate change before it finalises its next 5-year plan and sends delegates to the climate change conference at Cancun." That was the gist of it, I think.

I had booked an economy ticket for the flight to Bejing for the Joint Legislators' Forum to be held in Tianjin before the agenda arrived:

HIGH LEVEL OPENING SESSION

1. Wu Bangguo, Chairman of the National Peoples' Congress (said to be the second most powerful man in China).

2. President of Mexico, host to the next UN climate change conference.

3. Prime Minister David Cameron (by video!)

4. Chris Davies MEP

Now I just have to think of something worthwhile to say.

DECISION DAY BECKONS FOR PHIL WOOLAS

2010-11-02T13:07:00.002Z

Political campaigning in Britain is about to get a lot cleaner - or a lot more nasty.

We will learn on Friday whether Phil Woolas, the shadow immigration minister and Oldham East & Saddleworth MP, is to be debarred from office for making false statements in this year's election campaign about the Liberal Democrat candidate's personal conduct.

Two High Court judges will deliver their interpretation of the 1895 Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act from the Civic Hall in Uppermill, Saddleworth. If their thumbs go down I am told it will be the first time in 99 years that such a verdict has been cast.

Whatever the judgement Woolas's leaflets were vile. I don't object to robust political campaigning but as an example of smearing your opponent these went beyond the pale. The words of the Labour agent, Joe Fitzpatrick, who told the Election Court that one leaflet was only delivered in "the white areas", speak for themselves about the intention.

Woolas's election campaigns have often pushed the borders to the limit. Maybe he has never acquired a proper sense of what is acceptable and what is not.

He and I contested the by-election in the former Littleborough and Saddleworth seat in 1995. Peter Mandelson embraced the challenge of being Labour's campaign manager, determined to demonstrate that nothing could stop the onward march of New Labour.

I was described by Woolas as the Liberal Democrat candidate who was "soft on drugs" for supporting my party's call for a Royal Commission to consider the possibility of decriminalising cannabis possession, and who was "high on taxes" for supporting my party in calling for a 1p income tax increase to provide additional funds for schools.

The Guardian commented: “So lurid is Labour’s portrayal that one expects hypodermic needles to spill out of Mr Davies’s pockets.”

This Labour leaflet (below) caused particular controversy. The story actually related to a candidate selection far away in Winchester!

In his recently published autobiography, Lord Mandelson admitted that Labour had gone “on the attack".

He wrote: “After the campaign was over, not only our opponents but some in Labour would denounce our ‘negative’ tactics in highlighting Lib Dem front-runner Chris Davies’ support for higher taxes and a Royal Commission to liberalise drugs laws. For tactical reasons, I felt we had had little choice.”

“Labour was starting from third place, and especially in a by-election, the bulk of Tory tactical voting was always going to flow to the Lib Dems. If we were to win, we would have to make that option as distasteful as possible.”

BBC Newsnight's present political editor, Michael Crick, has described the Littleborough and Saddleworth contest as "one of the nastiest campaigns of modern times." And Paddy Ashdown records in his diaries that he said to Tony Blair: "You didn't discuss your policies. You simply spent four weeks character-assassinating Chris Davies. He is one of my Party's favourite sons (nice!) and to be dealt with by Labour like this is not the way that we build respect between our parties."

But I won the contest, and no sooner had the result been declared than I had a hundred things to do. I dealt with the present, and looked to the future; I didn't bother complaining about the tactics of my defeated opponent. Maybe I should have done. If Woolas has never understood the difference between right and wrong in political campaigning, maybe it is because I didn't do enough to make sure that he got the message.

If the judges debar Woolas they will send a shockwave throughout the political system. Candidates and agents will have to be very much more careful in what they say about their opponents. Surely that can only be a good thing.

But if the petition by Liberal Democrat candidate Elwyn Watkins is dismissed, and Woolas keeps his position, the judges will give a green light to negative, personalised campaigning with no holds barred. Politics in Britain will get more ugly, and a lot more dirty.

SCRAP CONTROL ORDERS

2010-11-01T09:52:00.000Z

Nick Clegg faces a tough challenge in getting control orders abolished. I know that much of his influence has to be used behind-the-scenes and in private, but this is one battle that he has to be seen to fight, and he has to win.

If he does not, many Liberal Democrats will question the value of being in this party.

Introduced by Labour in 2005, control orders represent a fundamental attack on the principle of liberty. By allowing restrictions to be placed on an individual's freedom solely at the whim of the Home Secretary they undermine the presumption of innocence.

A control order can be imposed without the individual concerned being arrested, charged, tried, or convicted. No evidence has to be presented. This is simply wrong.

The latest terrorist incidents play into the hands of those who believe that any liberty can be sacrificed in order to provide security. Liberal Democrats need to remind these people that control orders do not exist in the USA; in this respect the Americans are better at protecting individual freedom than we Brits appear to be.

We are also calling for the lifting of the ban on the use in courts of intercept evidence obtained from bugged telephone calls and the like. Evidence is evidence, and we can leave it to juries to decide whether it has been obtained properly or not. Better that than allowing one politician to combine the roles of prosecutor, jury and judge.

Terrorists want to undermine our principles of freedom and liberty. If we sacrifice them ourselves, the terrorists win.

READ THE TREATY!

2010-10-30T18:58:00.003+01:00

So David Cameron believes that in Brussels he has secured a deal to limit the increase in the EU budget to 2.9%

Has he never read the Lisbon Treaty? He spent enough time denouncing it last year, but it seems that he never did get around to reading it, and nor did most of the British journalists commenting on this week's European Council meeting.

The European Parliament has budgetary powers that match those of the Council. Governments can't do a deal without the consent of the Parliament, and the Parliament negotiating position is to call for a 5.9% increase.

Personally I agree with Cameron; no way should the EU budget next year increase by more than the rate of inflation. That's how I voted, as did the British Liberal Democrat delegation of MEPs. But we were on the losing side.

Real negotiations between Council and Parliament have yet to begin. The MEPs will not get their 5.9% increase. But I bet that the governments aren't able to limit the increase to 2.9%.

RESURRECTION

2010-10-30T08:50:00.000+01:00

A neighbour phones: "Paddy has been found in a field nearby. I'm looking after him."

Later we take him to the vet. He is a bedraggled thing, just fur, skin and bones, hardly able to walk. The vet makes no charge but suggests we bring him back if he is suffering.

Back home he won't eat, but laps the water we drip over the tiny portions of food with which we try to tempt him.

He purrs, and sleeps.

PADDY HAS GONE (PRESUMED DEAD)

2010-10-29T09:33:00.000+01:00

I returned home from Brussels to find that Paddy has gone and is presumed dead. In his prime he was a chocolate box cat (so handsome he could have been pictured on a chocolate box), but as he turned 17 the weight fell off him and his bones protruded. He was last seen 2 days ago, very unwell.

Named after a Liberal Democrat leader, he came - like his predecessor and uncle, Gladstone - from the farm in North Norfolk where I worked as a student. He was a much beloved companion.

I had asked him to stay alive long enough for my daughter to complete her A-levels and depart for university. He duly complied.

A FISHY TALE

2010-10-28T10:37:00.001+01:00

Like an anchovy on your pizza? Enjoy them today because if some people have their way they will be gone forever tomorrow.

I cannot understand why some supporters of fishermen think their best interests will be served by wiping out the fish stocks upon which the fishing industry depends, but I suppose it takes all sorts. Still, this is for once a good news story, so read on.

The Bay of Biscay anchovy fishery has been reopened after a 5-year closure imposed because stocks were dangerously low. Now the European Commission wants to put in place a long term management plan and prevent any repeat of the annual political haggling that has caused so much harm in the past. Based on scientific assessments, it has proposed that no more than 30% of total stocks should be caught in any one year. Seems a lot to me but the Commission claims the level will help keep stocks high.

"Not enough," say some MEPs, unfortunately led on the Fisheries Committee by one of my own ALDE Group colleagues, a lady from Spain's Basque country: "We want to catch 40% of total stocks each year, and if scientists warn of dangers we want to have to reduce the catch by only 10%, and not by the 25% proposed," they argue. It will hardly come as a surprise that the Commission warns that such measures would significantly increase the risk to the survival of fish stocks.

The Fisheries Committee voted this week, and the alternative proposals were defeated 12-10. The ALDE Group has 3 members on the committee; my other two colleagues tilted the balance by voting in favour of the Commission's plans and against the attempt to establish an unsustainable policy.

But just what were the other 10 MEPs doing when they voted for ruinous measures? Why don't they get it?

EU GOVERNMENTS HIDE EU LAWS

2010-10-27T13:21:00.000+01:00

There's a war going on in Brussels. Governments are under attack from the European Commission and allies in the European Parliament. The aggressors want to force the governments to be more open and transparent, and to stop them hiding the details of how the EU laws to which they have agreed get turned into national laws. They are demanding that governments publish 'correlation tables' that will demonstrate, clause by clause, how this will be done.

The various requirements of a single EU law may end up as different parts of several national laws. It's hard to keep a check on whether they are being applied faithfully in all 27 Member States. Bland assurances from governments that all is well buy them time to stave off the slow and cumbersome enforcement procedures intended to ensure that the laws get put into practice. The failure to show how the clauses of national laws correlate with the requirements of the relevant EU legislation makes cheating a great deal more simple.

The war is being conducted through a series of skirmishes. The Commission keeps including a 'correlation table' requirement in draft new laws. The Council of Ministers keeps rejecting them. Sometimes the MEPs dealing with the legislation leap to the defence of the 'correlation table' requirement and win a battle; we did that recently with the Financial Supervision Directive. More often, alas, it either doesn't register with the ones who happen to be involved that it is an important issue or they bow to pressure from the Council in order to reach an early deal.

The two sides are limbering up for next skirmish. MEPs and the Council are close to completing negotiations on the final shape of the new Restriction of Hazardous Substances (in electronic equipment) Regulation. The 'correlation table' issue could prove the final sticking point. I'm saying as the Liberal Democrat negotiator that I won't sign up to a First Reading deal unless we get our way. If we are successful it will insert another wedge in the door that could make inclusion of the tables standard practice.

Our lead negotiator (rapporteur) is Plaid Cymru's Jill Evans. The Council is threatening not to do a deal if 'correlation tables' are included. I don't believe it, and I'm looking to her to call their bluff.

IT NEVER RAINS....

2010-10-27T09:36:00.001+01:00

But it pours and pours. Well it did for one day while I was taking an extended weekend break walking along the coast of Argyll, leaving me completely soaked and my mobile phone and its internet connection very, very poorly.

On the other hand it was a small price to pay for the 3 great days of hill and beach walking in fantastic autumn weather that followed.

PAYING FOR BABIES

2010-10-21T10:43:00.002+01:00

"Euro MPs back 20-week maternity leave on full pay," read the headlines, accurately reflecting the result of a first reading vote in the European Parliament.

Well this Euro-MP didn't back it, and nor did my British Liberal Democrat colleagues.

But the heated debates we have had about the issue in our European Lib Dem Group (ALDE) reflect different national perceptions and a different view of what the EU should be doing.

Some of my colleagues believe strongly that Europe should be laying down minimum social standards. They question how there can be a proper sense of European citizenship, and fair competition between Member States, if the rules are different?

But although the treaties extend EU competence into this area, I want the European requirements to be minimal. The customs and economies of each country are different. Statutory maternity leave and pay are matters that should be determined by national parliaments, taking into account what can be afforded. When it comes to social policy, my vote is for subsidiarity.

Incidentally, a side debate pitted those who believe that "we need more babies in Europe" against myself; "world population has trebled in my lifetime, so no we don't!"

NO CUTS HERE

2010-10-20T15:55:00.001+01:00

While George Osborne proposed his cuts package to the House of Commons, Euro-MPs were voting on the first round of the annual EU budget debate. The European Parliament called for a 5.9% increase.

Are these MEPs living in the real world? They claim that the money is needed to meet extra tasks the EU is expected to undertake, and anyway “it’s just a negotiating position.” I think it is madness, absolutely barmy, and makes us look out of touch with reality.

The majority approach is to contest virtually all cuts proposed by the European Council (the governments), even when money is going unspent, on the grounds that the cash could be put to use somehow. But there are some cuts I would be happy to support; for example, the Council is proposing to cut Common Fisheries Policy support by €140 million. Cutting a budget used to support unsustainable fishing practices sounds good to me.

And the budget of the European Parliament could be trimmed very significantly without any diminution in its functions. Our MPs and councillors are having to take action to “live within their means.” The difference is that MEPs are not responsible for raising the money they want to spend.

The Liberal Democrat European Group (ALDE) voted for the budget increase (comments from continental colleagues at our pre-meeting about not everyone in Europe having to be judged by the state of Britain’s finances). The British Lib Dems indicated our dissent, and voted accordingly. To do otherwise didn’t seem politically credible.

NO CLONED MEAT – FOR NOW

2010-10-20T09:56:00.001+01:00

The Health Commissioner, John Dalli, came hotfoot yesterday evening from a meeting of the College of Commissioners to tell us (the political team leaders on the Public Health Committee) that a 5-year moratorium will be introduced on the sale of meat from cloned animals.

No evidence of any food safety problems have been identified, he said, and there appears to be no difference between the meat of cloned animals and of others. However, there are some animal welfare concerns: cloned animals have higher mortality rates than others, and surrogate animals can experience problems giving birth to cloned offspring.

Cloning will be permitted for the purposes of research, for production of pharmaceutical products, and to help maintain the survival of endangered species. He said that the science was developing and the issue would have to be considered again in 5 years’ time. In the meantime new requirements would be introduced to enable the source of meat from possible cloned sources to be traced.

So the ball has been kicked into the wings, which is the best place for it. The genie can’t be put back in the bottle, and meat derived from cloned animals is likely to become commonplace on world markets, but while the science develops we can buy a little time so controls should be put in place for the long term.

FISH WARS

2010-10-19T16:11:00.001+01:00

Every December, EU Fisheries Ministers gather around the table to set quotas for the catch that each country's vessels can take from Europe's waters. They are presented with the latest scientific evidence about stocks, often accompanied by warnings that current levels of fishing are not sustainable. They disregard this advice, and dig in for a 24-hour who-gets-what session of bargaining. The result is that the majority of Europe's fisheries are in a very fragile position indeed, well below their potential and often at risk of complete collapse.

Plans to reform the Common Fisheries Policy have been promised by Fisheries Commissioner Maria Damanaki and will be published in May or June next year. By that time we will know whether she has both the ambition and strength to secure radical changes.

She has told MEPs that she will stick to the scientific advice in setting the TACs (total allowable catches) for next year. In a challenge to the ministers she has declared: "There will be no more bargaining."

This will be a battle to watch.

Her most pressing task is to stick up for fish and fishermen in the North East Atlantic by being tough on Iceland and the Faroe Islands. Without reference to the regulatory body, the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, both have started to catch quantities of mackerel that are clearly unsustainable, with Iceland alone upping its quota from 15,000 to 130,000 tonnes.

A negotiated solution with the Faroe Islands may be possible, but Damanaki appears to have made no progress in resolving the conflict with Iceland. Within the next week or two she is expected to announce a range of sanctions that the EU will apply in response.

Iceland has commenced negotiations to join the EU, but at the same time has decided to pick a fight with the EU. In past battles with Britain it has done them no harm to get tough. I'm not sure if this conflict will give them such a happy outcome. Iceland's reputation for fishing in a sustainable manner is just the first casualty.

TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT TUITION FEES

2010-10-17T00:00:00.000+01:00

It is acutely embarrassing to hear Liberal Democrat ministers giving their support to the introduction of tuition fees. That does not make it wrong.

We fought the election on a pledge to phase out tuition fees over the lifetime of two parliaments. Those of us who emerged from university without debts, and having been able to afford books, beer and the purchase of a new bike from our student grants, don‘t like the idea that our successors should have to pay.

But times have changed and student numbers have grown.

I have long supported the introduction of a graduate tax to provide the means of funding. But Lord Browne’s proposals offer a better solution. The cost of the measures will fall on the same people, but payments will be finite not forever. They are progressive: the Institute of Fiscal Studies says they will leave the 30% of graduates on lowest incomes better off than at present.

Liberal Democrats in the Coalition are blaming the size of the deficit for the need to change policy. I’m not sure this is wholly true.

Our opposition to tuition fees was born of principle and sustained by electoral popularity. It was an indulgence. The truth is surely that it survived as party policy because in our heart of hearts we didn’t think we would be in a position to put it into practice.

WHY DON’T WE SAY ‘NO’ TO ISRAEL?

2010-10-15T17:18:00.003+01:00

British and European policy on the greatest issue facing the Middle East is not bad. We seek a 2-state solution for the future of Israel and Palestine, taking the 1967 demarcation line as the starting point for negotiations. We call upon Israel to cease building settlements on Palestinian land, end its illegal occupation, curb the repressive measures that accompany it, and lift its economic blockade of Gaza.

In response, Israel does none of these things.

Israel is an ally and preferred trading partner of the European Union. Our military and security forces share (some) information and make reciprocal training arrangements. Money from European taxpayers is even used to subsidise various Israeli economic activities.

Israel ignores every request we make. Its attitude towards us is not simply rude, it is contemptuous.

The reason is simple. Israeli politicians have no fear that the European Union will ever back up its strong words with any deeds. They regard us weak and toothless. They are confident that Europe only has to be reminded of the sins of the Second World War to be cowed by guilt and shame.

But public sentiment has shifted over the years. The plucky little Israel of 1967 has become the aggressive bully of today, known for killing 100 Palestinians in Gaza for every Israeli death, for stealing Palestinian land even when insisting that it wants a negotiated peace, and for acts of piracy and murder upon the high seas. If our governments were to say ‘enough is enough’ they would have much public support.

So why do the Foreign Ministers of the European Union not act? Why, for example, do not they not tell Israel: “if you do not cease building settlements, the EU-Israel Association Agreement will be suspended with effect from 1 January 2011.

I’ve just been to the Foreign Office to meet with Alistair Burt, the minister with responsibility for the Middle East, to put this question to him. In a room fit for the British Empire, Alistair munched his way through a plastic triangle of sandwiches and a packet of crisps while I voiced my frustration and bemusement at our failure.

I like Alistair a lot, and shall keep the details of our conversation confidential. He was well informed and appreciated the position fully. We both agreed (he as a former chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel) that it was in Israel’s long term interest to negotiate an agreement with the Palestinians, but in response to the key question his answer was the same as I have heard many times from ministers and European Commissioners. In summary it was this:

“Yes Israel’s approach is wrong, and it very unfortunate that it does not do as we request, but the situation is very delicate at the moment. We believe that the two sides genuinely would like the negotiations now taking place to make progress, and we do not want to do anything that might detract from that. But Israel must understand that we could get tough in future.”

So that’s that. More gentle words for now, the suggestion of something stronger in future.

But how often have we heard that before?

ISRAEL HUMILIATES EUROPE – AGAIN

2010-10-13T11:34:00.000+01:00

The Foreign Ministers of France and Spain, Kouchner and Moratinos, were told to take a running jump by their Israeli opposite number Avigdor Lieberman when he met them last Sunday. They put the case for a two-state solution, arguing that the failure to establish a Palestinian state would undermine Israel’s security. The response they got was total dismissal. “Israel will not be the Czechoslovakia of 2010,” said Lieberman, making clear that he regards all Palestinian land as belonging to Israel. He then ignored all diplomatic niceties by leaking details of the exchange to the media.

The Europeans should have stopped kidding themselves long ago and accepted that the Israeli government hasn’t the slightest intention of agreeing to a two-state solution. Now it is preparing the ground to defend a system of apartheid between Jews and non-Jews for years to come. Netanyahu told the Knesset on 10 October: “If the Palestinian leadership will unequivocally say to its people that it recognises Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, I will be ready to convene my government and ask for another suspension of construction (of settlements on Palestinian land) for a fixed period. Because the Palestinians expect us to recognise the Palestinian state as their nation-state, we can expect them to recognise the Jewish state as our nation-state.”

If Palestinians were to accept Netanyahu’s latest ruse they would condemn their people forever to live in a land where Jews would have rights as citizens and non-Jews would be condemned forever to be serfs, lucky if they had even some limited and uncertain privileges. The principle would apply just as much to the Greater Israel now being created as to the one confined by 1967 borders.

The thief has his hands in the open desk and is stealing the contents. It is plain for all to see, but the EU stands to one side, wagging its finger and saying “you really shouldn’t do that.” It is pathetic.

Europe’s governments should slam down the desk lid and crush the thief’s fingers.

The EU should back up its fine words with some firm deeds, suspending the Association Agreement that provides for preferential dealings with Israel until the illegal building of settlements on occupied territory is stopped. Only then will Israel pay attention. As Lieberman told the press after his meeting: “In the reality of the Middle East, only the strong survive.”

Will the EU act? Not a chance. The guilt of history stays us from curbing Israeli injustice today. We are weak, weak, weak.

THE GREENEST GOVERNMENT?

2010-10-12T10:03:00.001+01:00

We have been promised that the Coalition will be the greenest government ever.

Well, maybe. The jury has yet to start considering the evidence.

One of the first instances to be cited will be the government’s approach to the draft EU Regulation on Light Commercial Vehicles. Its object is to reduce CO2 emissions from white vans and their like. The European Commission has called for average emissions from new vehicles to be reduced by 2020 to 135g/km from about 200g/km today (which is also where they were a decade ago).

This should be a win-win proposal for business and the environment. Reducing CO2 emissions means raising fuel efficiency standards, making the vehicles cheaper to use. An impact assessment prepared for the Commission says that any increase in the costs of new vans will be offset by net savings in running costs of €2163 during their lifetimes. A study by the UK’s Department for Transport says the payback period will be less than 4 years. Both these reports are based on very conservative assumptions about oil prices and exaggerated assumptions about the likely increase in the price of new vehicles, but they have been sufficient to persuade the Federation of Small Businesses - not commonly known for its support for EU legislation - to come out in favour of the proposal.

By contrast the vehicle manufacturers are strongly opposed. They say (ludicrously!) that they cannot do better than 160g/km by 2020. But then the vehicle manufacturers have a long history of opposing legislation of this kind, only to embrace it with surprising ease once the political fight is over (think catalytic converts, lead free petrol, or even the very similar EU legislation that now sets CO2 reduction targets for passenger cars).

The rapporteur (lead negotiator) for the legislation in the European Parliament is Tory MEP Martin Callanan. Before the formation of the Coalition Government he proposed amending the target to 150g/km. He has since raised his ambitions ( a small success for Lib Dem-Con partnership at Westminster). Last month he secured the support of the Environment Committee for a target of 140g/km. I will back this if it proves to be the compromise necessary to gain strong cross-party support, although my aim in committee was to endorse the original Commission plan to try and secure a good position for the eventual negotiations to reconcile the differences.

Back in the UK there are three different government departments and three different ministers involved in determining the official position: Norman Baker at DfT, Chris Huhne at DECC, and Vince Cable at BIS. They are all Liberal Democrats. Just to complicate matters it is DfT that leads on the issue in Britain but it is DECC that has to take charge of negotiations in the EU Council of Ministers.

The UK has now announced that its official position is to support a target of 135g/km - but by 2022. This is the equivalent of a 2020 target of 147-148g/km, less ambitious than the European Parliament looks set to support and a very significant weakening of the Commission’s position.

Now if this were the government’s fallback position it might just be understandable, but it is the UK’s opening gambit. I wonder if the new ministers appreciate the bargaining that goes into making EU laws and achieving a common position - if you give an inch at this stage those with a different view will take a mile (the metric equivalent of this wording doesn’t sound so good).

My worry is that someone understands the bargaining position all too well, and that Chris Huhne is going to have to carry the can. Somehow he will have to explain why a government that wants the EU to cut CO2 emissions by 30% instead of 20% by 2020 also wants to weaken the the means by which the Commission hopes to achieve that goal.

BY-ELECTION TEST FOR THE GOVERNMENT

2010-10-11T09:42:00.001+01:00

Two High Court judges will announce on November 5 whether to debar Labour MP Phil Woolas and force a by-election in the Oldham East and Saddleworth constituency.

A specially convened election court – the first of its kind to be held in nearly 100 years –heard four days of evidence last month.

Liberal Democrat candidate Elwyn Watkins challenged the result of last May’s election on the grounds that Woolas has secured his majority of just 103 votes by making false statements about his opponent.

Most commentators who followed the hearing say that the case was proven to be strong and the odds are in favour of a judgement against Woolas.

The case centres around a Labour election leaflet, headed ‘The Examiner’, that was designed to appear like a tabloid newspaper.

Elwyn’s barrister described it as part of a campaign intended to galvanise the white Sun-reading vote against him by suggesting that he was conniving with “Mad Muslims” and extremists to defeat Woolas.

I have lived in Saddleworth for 25 years, and I remember when the leaflet came through our own door that my wife, Carol, described it as “appalling.” That was saying something, given that she and I thought that my own 1995 Littleborough and Saddleworth by-election fight against Woolas had inured us to his nasty style of campaigning and the gross distortions of his opponents’ views he practices.

Whatever their verdict the judges’ ruling will shape the nature of election campaigning for years to come. If Elwyn’s petition fails, and the judges allow Woolas to keep his seat, then the message they will send is that there are no limits to the way in which truth can be twisted in the name of politics.

BATTERED, BRUISED AND BLEEDING

2010-10-09T23:30:00.001+01:00

On a beautiful day I have just run the Langdale Fell Race in the Lake District – 14 miles with 4,000 feet of climbing. My 66th position was disappointing, although being the 3rd finisher aged over 50 provides some compensation.

I spent far too much time on steep descents communing with hard and slippery Lake District rock. My body bears the marks to prove it.

HUHNE IS NOT ALONE

2010-10-09T23:29:00.000+01:00

I’m pleased that Chris Huhne has voiced caveats about the future of Government economic policy. His views are shared by many Liberal Democrat parliamentarians, myself included.

We all accept the need to reduce the deficit but it is common sense to point out that the approach may have to be adjusted if the economy experiences a severe downturn.

So long as the private sector creates plenty of new jobs we can afford to cut public expenditure. But if unemployment soars, tax revenues fall and the welfare bill grows, making it harder to reduce the deficit.

Of course our approach would have to be adjusted in such circumstances. To do otherwise would be akin to the captain of a ship ordering ‘full steam ahead’ after being told that water is pouring in through a hole at the bows.

PUTTING CO2 TO GOOD USE

2010-10-09T09:49:00.000+01:00

I’ve just met with a company that wants to use carbon dioxide to enhance oil recovery (EOR) beneath the North Sea. Although I have become the European Parliament’s in-house expert on carbon capture and storage issues (CCS) this was the first time I can recall people talking to me seriously about developing EOR in Europe.

The principle is simple. By pumping CO2 into the rock that bears oil you flush out more of it than will come to the surface naturally. Most of the CO2 stays underground, but what comes back up to the surface with the oil gets captured and pumped back down again for permanent storage.

Enhanced oil recovery has been carried out in the USA for decades, but for the most part the carbon dioxide has come not from power plants where it is a by product of fuel burning but has been extracted from dormant volcanoes and piped for hundreds of miles specifically for the purpose.

Applied in Britain it could allow us to gain value from the North Sea oilfields for decades longer than will otherwise be the case, while reducing our CO2 emissions into the atmosphere at the same time.

One of the most interesting meetings I have had in a long time.

WHERE ARE EU LAWS HIDDEN?

2010-10-08T10:23:00.000+01:00

EU laws have to be turned into national laws before they can be applied. How this is done is up to each government and parliament. In one country, for example, it could be that the requirements of a single EU law might be broken into parts with different bits then included in modifications to a range of existing laws. Sometimes bits go “missing” or get “overlooked.”

The easy way to make sure that this doesn’t happen is for every government to publish a correlation table that shows how the different clauses of an EU law have been transposed into national laws. The European Commission wants this to be done in every instance, the European Parliament agrees, but the Council of Ministers has fought off attempts to get the principle established as standard practice.

So a series of individual battles are taking place. Sometimes the MEPs negotiating the final shape of legislation manage to get inserted a clause that insists that Member States shall publish a correlation table that will show where every article of an EU law can be found in national legislation, and sometimes they don’t. It depends on how keen each side is to get the law made quickly, and how much the individuals concerned care about the issue.

I’m involved in one such skirmish at present, being part of the negotiating team working on legislation that restricts the use of hazardous substances in electronic equipment.

The Belgian Presidency is keen to get a feather in its cap by getting this sorted during its term of office. Parliament’s rapporteur (team leader), Plaid Cymru’s Jill Evans, is holding firm on a few key issues but has compromised or backed down on many others. A deal between the Parliament and the Council must be close.

I’m holding out for the correlation table. Using my notes, Jill insisted that this was a matter of “good governance” at our most recent meeting with the Belgian deputy ambassador (who negotiates on behalf of the Council). The European Commission representative supported her. The Council’s argument was so weak (“it’s not a requirement of the inter-institutional agreement between Parliament and Council”) that one of their officials later came over to apologise to me for it.

We have one more meeting scheduled. If agreement is reached on all other matters will the Council really refuse to support an agreement because MEPs want people to be able to find out how each country is putting the law into practice?

Who will blink first?

GET CAMERON A SPEECHWRITER!

2010-10-07T10:18:00.000+01:00

The cuts have started. They have begun amongst the Prime Minister’s speech writing team.

Content counts, but style matters - especially to the audience. Cameron’s conference speech in Birmingham was rhetoric light, sleep-inducing heavy.

Could this climax have got the Conservative party faithful to their feet if they hadn’t been expected to perform for the TV cameras: "Let’s come together. Let’s work together. In the national interest.”

Uuugh!

There are times when it matters what you say. And there are times when what matters is how you say it.

Here’s a freebie for Cameron. Next time, try it this way:

“So Conference, in the national interest......let’s come together, let’s work together, let’s succeed – TOGETHER!”

Prime Minister, for a consideration, I might be free to help out from summer 2014.

SAVE OUR SEAS

2010-10-06T10:20:00.000+01:00

I like the new Fisheries Commissioner, and after her presentation to the European Parliament’s Environment Committee a week ago (28 September) I guess I am not alone.

Maria Damanaki is Greek, has been a socialist Member of Parliament in her country for many years, and arrived in Brussels knowing next to nothing about fisheries policy. But she is no fool. Nor is she without courage; as a student she was a radio voice of liberation who was tortured for her views by the dictatorship of the time.

I had asked that she speak to the committee about her plans for reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. I hoped that its ‘greenish’ tinge would strengthen her convictions, counter balancing the less ambitious views of the Fisheries Committee with whom she normally works.

She did not disappoint.

“The proposals I make next year will be ambitious. If we lose this opportunity there will be no future for fishing," she said.

"We cannot ignore the scientific advice any more. 80% of EU fish stocks are not healthy. We need root and branch reform.

“We cannot continue to give money to fishermen to throw fish back in the sea, dead. (Discards) are unacceptable. Money should be used instead to provide help with storage and market intelligence.

“Small scale fisheries are the most sustainable and provide economic opportunities for coastal areas. We want to support them while controlling industrial fishing. The owners of the big boats take most of the fish and have the loudest voices, but they employ few people.

“I do not have many allies among the EU’s governments. Fisheries ministers are not generally supportive of radical change. There will be a hostile reaction to change. The Commission has tried to achieve radical reform in the past and twice has failed. I need help.”

My number one political objective is to make sure that she gets it.

CLEGG'S REVENGE

2010-10-05T11:33:00.002+01:00

For 5 years Nick Clegg and Roger Helmer represented the East Midlands region as Euro-MPs. On the one hand was Clegg, an utterly pro-European Liberal Democrat who despite his years as a Commission insider is a pragmatist who condemns the absurdities of some EU practices. On the other hand was Helmer, a frothing-at-the-mouth Conservative Europhobe who wants Britain out of the EU immediately if not sooner. Their different views were reflected in the debates they had in the letters' columns of local newspapers.

Helmer has had his triumphs. He has seen his party grown to be dominated by people of like instinct. He has seen the Tory Group pull out of the European Peoples' Party and form an alliance with a handful of fellow sceptics. And in the May general election he saw his party become the largest in the House of Commons.

But from that moment it has all gone downhill.

New Europe Minister David Liddington is proving another pragmatic soul who gets on with the work in hand. His statement on the Coalition Government's European Policy is one I can endorse. Essentially it says that the UK government will not agree to any further transfer of powers from member states to the EU without there first being a referendum, but that there will not be a referendum in the next 5 years. (I don't approve of referendums so I am glad that there will be none). Changes in EU rules that do not involve a transfer of power - such as the accession of Norway or Croatia - will be put to a vote in the House of Commons.

The statement did not make reference to the big change it represents in the Tory position: there will be no attempt to repatriate powers from the EU.

I think I heard Nick Clegg sum up the compromise agreed as "we lower our ambitions, they drop their nonsense." It means that the government will just get on with the business of Britain in Europe, dealing with the issues as they arise.

But for Roger Helmer this is terrible stuff. "I start to despair for my party and my country," he told a fringe meeting at the Tory party conference yesterday.

Eat your heart out Roger. On Europe, Clegg has won.

THE CLIMATE CHANGE GAME

2010-10-04T17:38:00.000+01:00

Europe’s climate action Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, has been dealt a poor hand.

She has the thankless task of leading the EU’s efforts to secure an international agreement on measures to fight global warming, and to encourage our own Member States to sign up to initiatives that will demonstrate Europe’s continuing leadership on the issue while meeting other goals, such as strengthening energy sufficiency and reducing our use of scarce resources.

But despite the scientific evidence of climate change having been wholly vindicated, continuing scepticism about the need for action prevails and saps political will, both here and elsewhere. The world needs the USA – the largest per capita emitter of CO2 – to sign up to far-reaching reforms, but there is not the slightest indication that they are likely to do so in the near future.

If the largest emitters of global warming gases will not make a commitment to reduce them it is hard for Europe’s politicians to argue that the EU, releasing just 13% of the total, must incur the costs of action alone.

COP16, the next conference of the parties (governments) who have signed the UN’s framework convention on climate change, meets in a few weeks’ time in Cancun, Mexico. After the disappointment of Copenhagen the expectations are low. Hedegaard set out to the European Parliament’s environment committee on Monday (4 October) a very limited set of criteria by which to measure its ‘success’.

“Cancun MUST keep the momentum,” she told MEPs. “If Cancun does not deliver substantial progress it is difficult to see where such progress will be made.”

Gamblers may recognise the need to play even a bad hand with confidence.

Nick, go Dutch!

2010-08-10T15:21:00.000+01:00

I like the Dutch. I like the liberal nature of their politics that I am sure will prevail despite the 15% of votes recently won by the anti-Islam ‘Freedom’ Party. I like the impression the Dutch create of having fewer hang-ups than the British. Maybe it’s a consequence of our sanctimonious tabloid press, or an unwillingness here to confront the disproportionate influence of religious extremists, but when it comes to dealing with controversial issues like drugs, prostitution, and medically assisted dying the Dutch are simply more grown up.

Dutch law provides for people suffering unendurably with no hope of recovery to seek medical help to die. Safeguards ensure that all such decisions reflect patients’ free will. Investigations have been made into a few ‘grey area’ cases but no doctor has ever been prosecuted. By contrast, British citizens experiencing great suffering who make the decision to bring forward their time of dying have to travel to Switzerland to seek medical assistance through the Dignitas organisation.

The war on illegal drugs is lost. It has been an expensive failure, and the worldwide cost paid in lives destroyed and honest society undermined has been vastly more damaging than the health effects of the drugs themselves. Debate about replacing prohibition with a regime of licensing and regulation is now firmly on the agenda in the Americas. Dutch policy of permitting the sale of cannabis from authorised outlets has driven a wedge between ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ drugs. Consumption of all types in the Netherlands is very much less than in the UK.

The ‘oldest profession’ is not going to go away. Prostitution is legal in Britain but if two or more people work together for their mutual protection they face prosecution. Licensing rules might prove problematic for local councillors but brothels should be made legal, as they are in the Netherlands.

Liberal Democrats have progressive policies on these issues and we should use our role in government to place them on the agenda. Nick Clegg is the first Dutch-speaking leader of our party; I look to him to bring some of the no-nonsense pragmatism of his mother’s country to debate here.

GAZA : TIME TO MEET WITH HAMAS

2010-05-31T14:54:00.001+01:00

Israel is doing its best to maintain a news blackout to reduce the impact of its attack on the Gaza relief convoy in international waters, but the truth is getting out. Israel has once again proven that it is a rogue state.

The EU is calling for an "inquiry," but this does not do justice to the situation. In any case we know from Goldstone how Israel reacts to "inquiries" that find against it.

It is time that our words were matched by deeds. Israel must be made to realise that unacceptable actions will have consequences.

Ten days ago President Medvedev of Russia met face to face with the Hamas leader, Khaled Meshal, in Damascus.

Russia is a member of the Quartet, yet its leader has now thrown aside Quartet policy with regard to having no communication with "terrorists" and entered into talks with Hamas. This was the right thing to do, and it swept aside years of prevarication by the EU and the USA.

You cannot make peace without talking to your enemies. Even Israel should know that.

The response of the EU to Israel's assault on the Gaza relief convoy should be that it will no longer play the game by Israel's rules. Its representatives should follow in the footsteps of President Medvedev.

The EU should talk to Hamas.

The MPs' expenses regime is stupid

2010-05-30T15:43:00.001+01:00

If David Laws were to try and book a room for the next three nights at a Premier Inn close to Westminster the cheapest to be found would be at Kensington Olympia. It would cost him £336.

Multiply that by a House of Commons working year of, say 35 weeks, and the cost would be £11,760.

It is reported that David Laws claimed £40,000 over nine years for accommodation, paying the money to his landlord/friend rather than to a commercial concern. This seems to me like a good financial deal for the taxpayer; it's certainly a very great deal less than many MPs have claimed for mortgage interest payments.

How did the Commons ever get itself into the position when it has to examine the status of private relationships before determining whether accommodation expenses can be paidt? Why should David Laws have publicly to try and define his relationship with his 'partner'?

The European Parliament system is entirely different. MEPs are not paid expenses but a daily allowance intended to cover accommodation and subsistence costs. They can pass it all on to swell the profits of Mr Hilton or Messrs Holiday Inn, or they can sleep on the park bench and pocket the lot.

The amount (€298) can certainly be criticised as excessive, but at least the arrangement doesn't require moralistic scrutiny by officials paid more than the elected representatives.

As Chief Secretary to the Treasury David Laws had the task of proposing cuts in public expenditure. His authority was bound to be undermined by claims that he had not followed the rules to the letter.

But the rules are stupid. The House of Commons should never have adopted them.

Each MP is the elected representative for a constituency of 80,000 people or more. Their current salary is £64,766,

Of course it can be argued that MPs should only be paid the average wage. Or that they should be paid less than this. Or that they should not be paid at all and should be self-funded millionaires. But I think most people will believe that the representative for their constituency should be paid at something close to the rate of the local GP or senior school headteacher - which is a lot more than they get at present - plus a set allowance for living away from home (if they do) for so many days each week..

There should be complete openness and transparency, both about the amount available and the amounts actually claimed, but we should stop micro-managing the way in which MPs use the money paid to them to fulfill the role for which they were elected.

A COALITION-FREE ZONE

2010-05-25T15:50:00.001+01:00

There is no agreement between Liberal Democrats and Conservatives in the European Parliament. We fight on, at the same time delighting in the Tory europhobes’ anger and frustration at being denied the influence they had hoped to command.

There is no special relationship between the different political groups (ALDE and ECR) to which the MEPs belong, and we respect the EU separation of powers between the Council of Ministers and the Parliament whatever government is in office. We have different jobs to do.

All of which should help reassure those who fear that the coalition agreement risks diluting the Liberal Democrats’ separate identity.

PUT WATER ON THE BONFIRE

2010-05-25T15:49:00.000+01:00

Local councils have started sending out threatening notices to the 300,000 people in England who get their water from a spring or a well. The ‘Private Water Supplies Regulations 2009’ require them to enforce compliance with new quality requirements. They can charge households up to £500 for carrying out a ‘risk assessment’ and further sums for sampling, investigating, and 'granting an authorisation.'

I guess everyone who gets water from a private source knows that it has not been pumped full of bacteria-killing chemicals and, even when it tastes fantastic, may present a risk. If a collection tank is exposed perhaps a fly may have the chance to do something unmentionable. Before I installed a better filtration system I occasionally had to remove fresh water shrimps that were blocking the shower rose. But everyone on spring water accepts their individual responsibility and will resent Labour’s nanny-state interference.

What gets my goat is the claim that these regulations stem from EU requirements. The 1998 Drinking Water Directive states clearly: “Member States may exempt water from an individual supply serving fewer than 50 persons.” The law is intended to ensure good quality provision of mains water supply, not to interfere in the provision of spring water to hamlets across Europe that have used natural sources for centuries.

It is being applied in a sensible fashion in Scotland. The law as interpreted in that country gives local councils the right to carry out a risk assessment if there is reason for concern, but it's a very much more light touch approach than south of the border.

The English way of doing things is a text book example of ‘gold-plating’ an EU law. The previous government refused to take up the exemption on offer, preferring instead to apply the legislation to every hillside dwelling in the country. As it seeks to make a bonfire of unnecessary regulations, here is where the new government can start.

ASTONISHING TIMES

2010-04-21T14:49:00.001+01:00

The political situation is extraordinary. For the opinion polls to move by as much as 14 points overnight in favour of one party is unprecedented. And for it to happen in favour of the Liberal Democrats is a delight It reveals just how many people would prefer not to have to vote for David Cameron as an alternative to Gordon Brown, and just how much latent support there is for our party that comes to light only when we get the rare opportunity to be treated as equals.

I am revelling in having been a Clegg-for-Leader advocate from the day he told me that he wanted to stand for the House of Commons (after I had failed to dissuade him from leaving Brussels that is). As I now occupy Nick’s former office in the European Parliament maybe I should try to raise party funds by charging visitors to see it.

The enthusiasm should be savoured and bottled for it will not last. I have no doubt that Nick will do well in the next debates but expectations of him are now completely unreasonable. If he defends the principles and policies of the party then he will inevitably lose some support – they would not be principles worth fighting for if our opponents agreed with them.

A TARGETING STRATEGY WITH LIMITS

2010-04-09T12:10:00.000+01:00

An election system that does not give equal value to every vote has for many decades prevented the Liberal Democrats from exerting real influence over government policy. The outrageous insult to democracy demonstrated by the Liberals winning 18% of the votes yet less than 2% of the seats in February 1974 was the spur that made me apply for membership. More recently the scale of our under representation has been reduced. At the last election we won some 20% of the votes and more than 9% of the seats. Not fair, but less awful.

The success of the Liberal Democrats’ targeting strategy has been hailed as one reason for the improvement. We have concentrated our money and resources into a limited number of target seats where we have the greatest chance of making a breakthrough. For the most part the target seats are self-evident, they are the places where we have won more than 50% of the places on the local council, gaining electoral credibility from people knowing that when they vote Liberal Democrat they often get Liberal Democrats elected. This is usually achieved between general elections not at them.

But targeting has its limits. It has not really sunk into the consciousness of party members outside the targets. Once a general election is called a great proportion of local activists (not that we have many in the first place) feel obliged to campaign locally. They want to make a creditable effort, or perhaps “frighten” the incumbent Tory MP. A mist comes over their eyes that blinds them to the reality that a ‘creditable’ third place counts for absolutely nothing. It’s an utter defeat. If there are no prizes for coming second do you have to give them away yourself if you come third?

Meanwhile the Liberal Democrats in a target seat just a short distance away may be crying out for extra help that could make all the difference between victory and a near miss, yet too often they can’t get their neighbours to set aside their local loyalties.

In Warrington South, where I am giving a bit of help myself, we are working to build the necessary bridges. By letter and telephone we are trying to explain the necessity for the approach. By encouraging some teams from Cheshire constituencies each to “adopt” a South Warrington ward we are trying to create an alternative element of loyalty.

Maybe the targeting ball is starting to move in our favour. Whether it gains momentum, and allows us to demonstrate that targeting is more than just a word, remains to be seen.

ELECTION DILEMMAS FOR MEPS

2010-04-08T01:21:00.001+01:00

UK elections attract a good degree of interest amongst European MEPs. Our continental colleagues are interested in the fortunes of their political kin, they wonder whether the Conservatives might prove as hostile to the European Union as some of their spokesmen suggest, and they never cease to be amazed that we tolerate an election system that can give a party with 34% of the vote a huge overall majority in the House of Commons. So there was an undercurrent running through debates in the European Parliament's environment committee last Tuesday - enlivened I think by a bit of good humoured banter between the British representatives present.

Most of us face the same dilemma, should we be working on legislation in Brussels or devoting all our time to campaigning in our regions? The general election had been called that morning. BNP leader Nick Griffin was not present, and nor was UKIP's Paul Nuttall (he rarely is), but Caroline Lucas, the Green Party leader (contesting Brighton Pavilion), was sitting behind me moving proposals to outlaw the sale of imported timber from sources that cannot be proven sustainable. I supported her in that, but then was on my feet myself attacking the Greens for opposing EU plans to promote carbon capture and storage projects. (I noticed that Caroline left the room before that exchange took place - environmentalists in the UK are mostly supportive of CCS development).

Labour and Conservative MEPs joined with me in other debates about legislation to improve the recycling of electrical waste. With questions also about how we improve upon the EU's dismal performance at the recent world conference on trade in endangered species (hopelessly outmanoeuvred by the Japanese), and an exchange with the EU's excellent new environment commissioner, Janez Potocnik, my own portfolio was well exercised that day. I'm glad I was there.

But a big part of me wanted to be back in the North West, campaigning in our target seats. Our prospects look good, and having fought five British parliamentary elections myself it is still a delight to know that my own neck is not on the line. There's a lot going on now in the European Parliament so I have to be back and forth, but it will be less of back to Brussels and a lot more forth to the North West election frontline.

THE CANVASSING EXPERIENCE (1)

2010-03-30T06:55:00.001+01:00

I have started canvassing for the general election and have been joined by Sarah, my assistant in the European Parliament, who is French and has taken a few days holiday to experience the British political culture. I introduced her to the art of election canvassing and she proved to be a natural.

We were in a Lib Dem held seat and the MP took Sarah away from the main road down a short cul-de-sac.

They returned to the canvassing team and the MP gave the details to the person holding the board: "First house, Lib Dem and will take a poster. Second house, I think the gentleman had just soiled himself. Election discussions were not appropriate."

"I went to the third house," said Sarah. "The man there was stoned out of his mind. The smell of weed just poured out of the door. He said he used to vote Lib Dem but can't remember when."

I think the BBC 10 o'clock news should tell us what it is like in the real world of politics.

A PROUD DAY

2010-03-25T15:37:00.000Z

Today I have cast my vote in the European Parliament on an issue of great principle, and helped to bring about a decisive victory.

The right of people to buy bendy bananas, crooked carrots and curvy cucumbers has been maintained.

And the Spanish – who grow boringly straight products in their acres of glasshouses – have been dished. Their attempt to reintroduce the old ‘community marketing rules’ was rejected by a large majority.

It is shameful to discard food that is healthy but misshapen. People should be able to make up their own minds about whether to buy such products.

The pity is that the result of the vote won’t make much difference to anyone. I’m quite sure that supermarkets respond to consumer demand by telling farmers only to supply them with good looking products.

People say they want choice, but how many shoppers would make a deliberate choice to buy fruit and veg that they think looks strange?

THEY STILL DON'T GET IT

2010-03-24T17:02:00.001Z

Parliament's budget is getting its annual consideration, so this is the time to consider reforms. A range of proposals have been put to the vote at the Budgetary Control Committee.

REJECTED - attempts to ensure that our procurement policies are transparent, competitive and free from the taint of corruption.

REJECTED - attempts to prevent the will of the parliament not to use taxpayers' money to top up the deficit in the MEPs' pension fund being frustrated by our own governing body.

REJECTED - a bid (from me) to ensure that any MEP has the right to view reports by our internal auditor.

REJECTED - a bid (also by me) to ensure that MEPs need never lose out financially if they regularly buy non-transferable economy air tickets instead of business class ones.

An alliance between the right of centre (EPP) and the left of centre groups ripped the guts out of the reform proposals.

Now the parties who want reform must table some key amendments on core issues of principle. For the votes in parliament we need to rally our side to defeat the forces of darkness.

MING THE MAGNIFICENT

2010-03-24T07:53:00.000Z

Being leader of the Liberal Democrats was not his finest hour.

Ming Campbell had been a superb shadow foreign secretary, so often demonstrating a degree of radicalism and commitment to the best principles of liberalism that belied his establishment appearance.

Now his appearances on Newsnight suggest that he has regained his former status. And he is still as true as ever to radical liberalism. Speaking good sense. Just great.

It must be tough on Ed Davey, our current shadow foreign secretary, and unfair, but Ming is back as a great asset to the party.

WILL THE LIGHTS STAY ON?

2010-03-23T06:55:00.001Z

The government is asking the EU to relax the anti-pollution requirements it imposes on coal power stations. From the end of 2015 it is said that a number will close because it won't be economic to install the anti-NOx equipment.

"We need to keep the lights on," says the Government. "We need to allow these polluting plants to operate for up to 8 years longer at peak times, especially when the wind isn't blowing." It has persuaded the EU Council of Ministers to back a UK opt-out.

I've gone along with this argument. Maybe it's better, I have said, to keep old power stations for a few years longer than replace them with new ones before they can be equipped with carbon capture tecnology.

But the environmentalists say "you're wrong." And so do the operators of Drax, the biggest coal power station in Britain and Europe.

I think the government and I have been a sucker to lobbying by EoN and RWE. They have invested in their plants in Germany to ensure they comply with the anti-pollution laws but they are trying to get out of doing the same work here - even though 50,000 people a year are said to die prematurely from air pollution that includes nitrogen oxide from power plants.

The current low carbon price is bad news because it discourages investment in new low carbon technologies, but it's good news for operators of coal power stations. They are making lots of money from capital equipment which they claim is time-expired.

My German colleague, Holger Krahmer, is taking the Industrial Emissions Directive through the Parliament, and he is opposing the UK opt out.

I'm reversing my position and joining him. If RWE and EoN want to make money, then let them clean up the polluting power stations.

FOOLS, IDIOTS, VILLAINS

2010-03-20T18:52:00.000Z

How can so many governments be so short-sighted?

Over the past few months a campaign has gathered pace in Brussels to persuade the EU collectively to back calls for an international trade ban on bluefin tuna.

In case anyone doesn't know this is the most valuable fish in the world. It's prized as the key to a good sushi, with a single fish exchanging for tens of thousands of euros.

And because it's so valuable it's been exploited to....well, to death. The weak management controls on the Mediterranean fishery have been largely ignored, with even the mafia getting involved in the lucrative slaughter. Stocks are now down to less than 8 per cent of the levels of 30 years ago.

After much debate the EU went to the conference on trade in endangered species with a unified position of opposition. Fat lot of good it did. A coalition of countries led by Japan insisted that trade should continue.

How stupid, how short-sighted, how ludicrous is this? The fish is on the verge of becoming extinct but Japan and it's friends don't give a toss. There will be no long term supplies and no jobs for fishermen unless we stop and let them breed, but so long as a few can continue to make money for a while longer they press ahead and hang the consequences.

And thus mankind destroyed its world.

PAUSE FOR THOUGHT

2010-03-16T16:38:00.000Z

Writing a short note of thanks I pause, a doubt crossing my mind. "Ulrike IS a female name, isn't it?" I ask two (female) assistants. They THINK it is but aren't 100 per cent sure.

So I do a search on the internet, and am quickly assured that 'Ulrike' is 45,616 times more likely to be the name of a female than of a man.

Sometimes the web does remind you just how clever it is.

A conservative Liberal

2010-03-13T11:10:00.000Z

It is a good line: “From being a liberal Conservative I become a conservative Liberal.”

Euro-MP Edward Mcmillan-Scott has joined the Liberal Democrats. I like Edward (sound on Palestine) but his words are I think very accurate indeed. I think of him as a Heathite Conservative rather than as an instinctive Liberal.

Political parties can often best be judged not by the more temperate views of their leaders but by the opinions of those on the edges. I feel comfortable with the Liberal Democrat ‘grassroots’ but could not stand being amongst their opposite numbers in the Conservative ranks. That McMillan-Scott has ended up in our ranks is a reflection of how uncomfortable a place the Conservative Party now must be for pro-European Tories of liberal inclination.

I shall have to have formal words with Edward in Brussels. As whip to the European parliamentary party my first job will be to make sure that the information on his website and in the register of interests meets our requirements regarding openness and transparency in matters of finance and expenses.

PETS TO GET NEW PASSPORTS

2010-03-09T11:00:00.000Z

Next time you get asked, "what has the EU ever done for us?" here is one positive response. It's given you the right to take your cats, dogs and ferrets on holiday.

Amazingly, that is exactly what the British want to do; 60% of all the pets travelling under the EU's Pets' Passport scheme are British! Maybe the numbers are swelled by all those ex-pats with houses in Spain.

In the European Parliament we have just been reviewing and updating the scheme. It's been a great success. Onerous quarantine arrangements that were miserable for pets and owners have been cast aside so long as the animal has a 'passport' (probably an embedded microchip) that proves it has been vaccinated against rabies.

Meanwhile the incidence of rabies across Europe has continued to fall from 2,679 recorded cases in animals in 1990 to just 251 in 2008, with NONE attributable to animals with passports.

To add to the good news the EU scheme is a development of one first introduced in the UK. Our 'Pet's Travel Scheme' started up on 28 February 2000, with the first animal to be issued with a passport being a dog called Frodo Baggins. Some 660,000 pet 'journeys' have been made since then.

I'm disappointed to learn that there aren't more ferrets on the move. Ferret fanciers came to me a few years ago to press their case and we won, although it was problematic. The trouble is that ferrets can be vaccinated against rabies but there is no test to prove that the vaccination has worked. Still, there had been no recorded cases of rabies in domestic ferrets so they got the benefit of the doubt.

There is still a prohibition on the movement of pets to some countries. Portugal, for example, classifies ferrets as 'vermin.'

Still, it could be worse. You wouldn't want to take your cat or dog to China, would you? Not unless you were hungry that is.

THERE IS NO GRATITUDE

2010-03-06T19:27:00.000Z

It's 9pm on a Friday evening and the telephone rings. Carol, my wife, answers it. "Is this the Liberal Democrats nationally or locally?" I hear her say in response to the first words of the caller.

She goes quiet, listening apparently to a young woman giving a not-very-good series of apologies and pleas that not all politicians should be judged by the impression created by the expenses scandal. It must be hard to get money out of the supporters of any party at present, especially if your opening gambit is so downbeat. But the caller is clearly gearing up to ask the question....

"Tell her I gave £5,500 towards target seats in the North West only this morning," I say, speaking over Carol's shoulder. It's true, I did. I'm paid more to be a Liberal Democrat representative than anyone else in the region so I like to give something back. It's all on public record.

"My husband says he gave £5,500 this morning to four target seats in the North West," says my wife. There's a pause, and then Carol puts down the phone. "She hung up," she said. "I don't think she believed me."

Well there's gratitude for you. The Liberal Democrats call looking for money, and my news should make their day. Instead they think I'm taking the piss!

DON'T MENTION THE WAR!

2010-03-04T17:20:00.000Z

We debate the Goldstone report on Israel's assault against Gaza in my European Liberal Democrat Group.

A proposal from me that we should formally welcome the call by EU foreign ministers for the immediate lifting of the continuing siege of Gaza is accepted. But my German colleagues are adamant that we should not include a reference to the fact that Israel has ignored the call and we should now consider what action to take.

So it is alright to express words but not alright to try and give those words meaning, or to do anything that might inconvenience Israel? It seems so. German proxy votes are marshalled to defeat me.

I bite my tongue. Words like "military occupation," "collective punishment," or "blood guilt," may be too close to home.

FARAGE FINED

2010-03-03T11:43:00.001Z

UKIP MEP Nigel Farage has been docked some allowances, 'fined' £2,700, for the attack he launched against Herman van Rompuy in the European Parliament last week. He described the President of the European Council as having the appearance of a "low grade bank clerk" and claimed that his nation, Belgium, was "pretty much a non-country."

Farage's rudeness diminished himself. He portrayed the people of the United Kingdom as arrogant bullies. But should he have been penalised? What about freedom of speech in a parliamentary chamber?

For a moment I was tempted to support his 'rights' by sending him a compensatory cheque myself, but then I remembered that the House of Commons also sanctions members for inappropriate language or behaviour, and it has had centuries to develop its rules. My mind went back to personal experience, chairing meetings of Liverpool City Council's housing committee in 1982 with councillors from Labour's Militant Tendency disrupting business by droning on and on, daring me to curtail their 'freedom of speech.' Eventually I did, being reminded that a meeting chair has other responsibilities too.

Farage refused a request from the President (Speaker) of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek, to withdraw his words. Buzek's subsequent words were written more in sorrow than in anger.

He said: "I attach the highest importance to freedom of speech. I fought for decades in my own country for such freedom. However, I do not believe that freedom of speech in the Parliament can extend to insulting other persons, especially guests speaking at our own invitation in the chamber. The very foundation of parliamentarianism and democracy is that freedom of expression should respect others."

Farage has milked the publicity for all it is worth and will regard his 'fine' as worth every penny. "It is an EU attack upon freedom of speech," he will claim, though he has not faced even a day's suspension.

Achieving a balance has been hard for Buzek. He was an activist for the Solidarity movement in Poland during the 1980s, campaigning against communist dictatorship. When he talks about free speech his words carry more genuine substance than all the rants and ravings of UKIP's former leader.

GOOD NEWS - NO NEW TRAINS!

2010-03-01T10:16:00.000Z

The Government has spent well in excess of £20 million on design fees but it is SO good to hear that Andrew Adonis has 'postponed' the building of £7.5 billion fleet of high speed trains.

For 'postponed' read 'cancelled.'' Good. Good. Good.

It's said that a camel is a horse designed by a committee, and what the Inter-city express procurement programme was doing would have landed us for decades with a double-humped camel.

Civil servants in the Department for Transport came up with the brilliant idea of a train that could use both diesel and electric propulsion - but would be a very expensive way of doing both very badly indeed.

Adonis really is the best Transport Secretary the country has ever had. He has faced down his civil servants and done what everyone in the railway industry knew needing doing, even though too many people were afraid to say so.

I just wish he was going to be in the job for longer.

THE FLYING PENIS AWARD

2010-02-24T09:24:00.000Z

The editor of Forum magazine, Sarah Berry, writes to invite me to accept a nomination as Politician of the Year for the 2010 Erotic Awards.

It is tempting. There are free tickets for the Night of the Senses awards ceremony (raising money for disabled people) and the chance to win the 'coveted' Flying Golden Penis Trophy.

A declaration is required that I support their ethos, which I could provide without difficulty, but I decline to proceed.

It's an honour to be considered but it's not justified. I organised a fringe meeting to give sex workers a voice at last year's party conference, and more recently I put out a press release defending sex workers from prohibitionist government policies. But it's not enough.

The Golden Penis award must go to someone more deserving.

TEMPER, TEMPER

2010-02-22T13:34:00.001Z

If Gordon Brown is to be believed he and I have one thing in common, neither of us has ever hit anyone - although I have many times been sorely tempted. On the other hand I have three times been pushed around (assaulted?) by Labour councillors over the years, twice in Liverpool (by Derek Hatton on one occasion) and once in Oldham.

I have also exploded in rage and resorted to expletives on occasion in moments of stress, although I can't recall a recent occasion.

I was at my worst during the 1978 campaign when I first stood for election to Liverpool city council. My agent bore up well under pressure. Nothing since then seems so bad, although I did jump up and down and destroy a briefcase during the 1992 general election out of sheer frustration with my then agent (Howard Sykes, now leader of Oldham council) who had decided that the candidate was not included on his 'need to know' list.

Anyway, none of my staff have been seized by the lapels, either because I have mellowed with age, or because they are too nice, or too scary.

PUBLISH ALL TAX RETURNS

2010-02-22T09:30:00.000Z

Council officers earning more than £150,000 are required now to reveal full details of their salary package. There are strong demands for the BBC to make clear how much it pays top personalities. And the salary and expenses paid to politicians is already made known.

So why stop there? If some council officers have to reveal financial details then why not all public sector employees? And why should such a disclosure rule apply only to the public sector? Let's make it universal.

It's not as outrageous an idea as you might think. In Norway the tax returns of every citizen are published on the internet. Sweden and Finland also make much personal tax information available everywhere.

Let it all hang out, treat it as a matter of routine, the result will be a healthier society (and a bit less tax avoidance!). It might even lead to a reduction in the gross income inequalities that exist in Britain.

Some people would be embarrassed to have details published of the payments they receive. But maybe that's because they have good reason to be embarrassed.

NO COALITION

2010-02-18T11:22:00.000Z

Nick Clegg has proved himself a class political act with his strategy in the event of a hung parliament.

No coalition, but voting support for either larger party in return for commitments to promote the education of those on the lowest rung, reform the tax system to reduce income inequalities, boost the green economy (environmentalism and bash the bankers), and to introduce a fairer voting system.

So Liberal Democrats can now talk about issues they care about rather than answering questions about which other party they might support.

If the finesse works a treat we even get the others talking about OUR agenda and how far they would go to meet it.

Very neat.

BOYS' TOYS

2010-02-16T10:33:00.000Z

Average emissions from new cars on the European market fell to 153gCO2/km for 2008, the steepest drop since records began to be collected a decade ago. It means that cars are becoming more fuel efficient, and shows the value of the EU legislation that has set CO2 reduction targets for manufacturers.

MEPs helped shape the new law so how well are we putting our words into practice?

In 2009 the European Parliament bought 4 cars for the use of its president, secretary general and political group leaders, with emissions ranging from 193 to 224 gCO2/km (mind you, this was quite a reduction on 2008). Two BMW cars (192) and four Mercedes (154) were also bought for the 'pool.'

We are getting better but still not practising what we preach. The powers that be are still wedded to the idea that high status is demonstrated by a high emitting vehicle, and are failing to take proper regard of some of the impressive low emission cars now on the market.

I feel an amendment to the Parliament's budget coming on....

EURO-MPS MAKE A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY

2010-02-12T14:45:00.001Z

The issue was the so-called SWIFT agreement between the EU governments and the USA. (If this sounds dull stay with me for another paragraph or two).

Initially made on a ‘temporary’ basis, it has given the American authorities access to the confidential bank records of millions of European citizens. Allegedly it helps identify transactions that might suggest terrorist sources of funding. But it’s outrageously one-sided – the Americans have been able to see our details but not the other way around. Critics of the agreement say that it does not provide proper protection for personal privacy, has done nothing in practice to combat terrorism, and that the information can be accessed anyway if selectively requested, just not on a general basis.

The lobbying to persuade MEPs to support it has been intense, with letters from Hilary Clinton and pleas from the Commission and the Council, although not all governments (Sweden for example) agree with it.

The Council, represented by Spain at present, got off to a bad start a month ago when they forgot that the new Lisbon Treaty gives the European Parliament a veto right over international treaties and failed to get the documents prepared in time. They have been struggling to regain authority ever since.

On Thursday, 11 February, the huge semi-circular Parliament chamber in Strasbourg was packed for the lunchtime votes. Fourth on the list was a single recommendation to reject the agreement tabled by my Dutch Liberal (VVD) colleague, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, who has been in charge of the brief.

The President (Speaker) invited the leader of the right-of-centre group, Joseph Daul, to move a motion of postponement. Daul stood up and argued that the Council had promised speedy action to address the concerns so we should cooperate by giving them more time. One half of the chamber applauded vigorously while the other half stayed quiet. The sound effect seemed to split the room in two. I noticed a few British Labour MEPs toeing the British government line by making clapping motions amidst their silent colleagues, but not many.

The leader of the British Tories, Timothy Kirkhope, got up to second the postponement, and the House again responded with claps on one side and silence on the other.

Jeanine got to her feet three spaces along the row from me and opposed the motion. Her party is to the right-of-centre but not on this issue. The Council had broken its promises time and again, she said, had shown no good faith, and had done nothing to address concerns about individual privacy. She finished with a killer sentence (I paraphrase): “We all know that if the President of the United States were to submit an agreement of this kind to Congress, one that gave details of American citizens to Europeans but not the other way around, it would be rejected OUT OF HAND.” This time our side of the House erupted with applause, and it was the turn of the right-of-centre to stay silent.

Cecilia Malmstrom rose from the European Commission bench. I have known her since my first day in the Parliament when she was elected as a young Swedish Liberal alongside me in 1999. As an MEP she was a great champion for issues of liberty. When Liberals joined the new right-of-centre government in Sweden three years ago she was appointed European Minister, and a couple of days ago she was confirmed as the new Swedish Commissioner, so she has worn all three EU hats. She informed the House of the official Commission position of support for the postponement.

The leader of the Socialists and Democrats, Martin Schulz, stood up on a point of order. “Is this REALLY a point of order?” queried the President. “I just wanted to ask the Commissioner,” said Martin innocently, “how her personal position had changed since a few weeks ago when she stood here as a Swedish Minister and opposed the agreement?” The House burst into laughter. A huge grin spread over Cecilia’s face. She didn’t get up but just gestured to the President, “how can I answer that?!”

The motion to postpone was put to a vote. The result came up on the giant display screen: lost by 15. The Liberal and Left burst into cheers.

The President took the main vote. With the ‘compromise’ now off the agenda MEPs voted by a big majority, 378 to 196, to reject the agreement.

The European Parliament had stood up for individual rights and for the first time ever had rejected an international treaty. Around me there was great excitement, and half the House rose to applaud Jeanine in a standing ovation.

If you haven’t heard much about what would normally have been expected to be a major news story there is a simple explanation. The Parliament was meeting in Strasbourg, while every journalist covering European affairs was in Brussels to follow the meeting of Prime Ministers as they considered the fate of Greece and the euro.

But behind the scenes, the governments of Europe know now that they can no longer take the European Parliament for granted. Adoption of the Lisbon Treaty has moved the goalposts.

REFLECTIONS

2009-12-14T09:23:00.000Z

My Copenhagen blog has been quite positive and cheerful I think. I’ve spent a week in the company of many thousands of people who want to see an ambitious deal realised, and many thousands more – researchers, industry representatives, and environmentalists – who are confident that the answers exist to curb dangerous climate change and would like the politicians to put in place the instruments to realise them.

The lower tier negotiators I have talked to have been making progress on their various briefs, and consensus is being secured about huge chunks of text of a final agreement. I would be astonished if the prime ministers arriving this week didn’t leave proclaiming success.

But the question remains whether whatever agreement they make will be of real significance, and I don’t think it will be. There are too many governments that have self-interest in avoiding making the commitments that are needed. You only have to consider the weak outcome of last week’s European Council meeting to appreciate this, and yet the EU likes to think of itself as the leader of the pack.

They don’t get it. Governments are thinking short term and not about the scale of the problems that the world will face if the 90% concerns of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are realised. They seem to think that we’re dealing with some aspect of trade policy: important but not vital.

We need to scale up, put efforts to combat global warming in the same bracket as fighting a war on an immense scale, realise that if we make a commitment of this order then technological progress will be stimulated and industry will meet the challenges.

It could be exciting. It could create a better world. But it won’t happen yet.

COP or MOP or CPM

2009-12-14T09:22:00.000Z

Jargon may be useful shorthand but it also obscures understanding. It’s hard to keep track of all the acronyms used in climate change negotiations, and even harder when they get changed.

COP is easy to understand. COP15 at Copenhagen is the 15th Conference of the Parties (signatories) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Early COPs drew up the Kyoto Protocol, a legal commitment to take various actions to curb global warming. But not all parties ratified it – notably the USA – so at COPs there are parallel sessions of the MOPs, the Members of the Parties that have ratified Kyoto. For a while the events were billed as COP/MOPs.

Then, for reasons I cannot recall, the MOP got changed to the CMP: the Conference of the Parties acting as the Meeting of the Parties (a terrible acronym). Even so, many people still refer to COP/MOP because it flows off the tongue more easily.

These things can matter. On the first day of the conference China objected to the fact that the conference logo only included COP and not CMP: did this not imply that the intended outcome would be the sweeping aside of the Kyoto Protocol with the legally binding commitments it makes upon its members? The logo got hastily adjusted.

A key negotiating issue is whether a new protocol should be created that will displace Kyoto, or whether a twin track approach will be followed with a new agreement existing in parallel to the old. Negotiators who want a serious outcome insist that it be legally binding, and Kyoto does that, but the very word ‘Kyoto’ is political anathema to the Americans and any reference to it will make it difficult for Obama to sell a deal to the Senate.

One reason why the letters CMP are said to stand in reality for ‘Conference Missing a Party!’

REST DAY

2009-12-14T09:21:00.000Z

The climate change conference is not in session today. In any case it’s the day when I have to head for home, regretting not being able to follow the negotiations through to their conclusion but not sorry at avoiding the frustrations of all those second-week closed doors.

I managed to meet up with the Liverpool and Manchester students in the Oxfam contingent of Saturday’s protest march. I missed the start, and didn’t know the route, but it was easy enough to track it, catch up and overtake by keeping an eye on the helicopters hovering in the sky. Marches march slowly. The newspapers report various arrests being made but the vast majority of demonstrators passed me twice as I searched for ‘my’ contingent and I saw no trouble as all.

The students had all succeeded in hitchhiking their way to Copenhagen in 3 days, even though only one, Nicola, was wearing a polar bear suit (I for one would certainly stop if a polar bear held out its thumb). Some wondered if the effort had been worth it and asked me, ”do demonstrations like this make a difference?” “Without doubt,” was my response. “The march generates media coverage, and that raises the profile of the issue and increases political pressure on decision-makers. We all want to do more but by being here you show how much this matters to you. What more can be asked?”

OUTSIDE

2009-12-12T15:03:00.001Z

It’s the Global Day of Climate Action, and demonstrators are marching from the city centre out to the conference centre. I know there will be students from Liverpool and Manchester with them, though whether we will get the chance to meet up I am not sure.

BLOGGING FROM COPENHAGEN - INSIDE

2009-12-12T15:02:00.000Z

The programme announces: “A group of elves will sing a Christmas song to remind negotiators that plantations are not forests and that intact natural forests must be protected.”

I hope it works. But maybe the threat of torture would be more effective.

BLOGGING FROM COPENHAGEN - BACK TO BUSINESS

2009-12-12T15:00:00.002Z

The agenda says that the plenary meeting of the Conference of Parties will resume at 10.00. Conference president Connie Hedegaard takes her seat at 10.10 and shuffles papers. Five minutes later she is called into a huddle of advisors to the side of the platform. She resumes her seat. A new huddle starts around her. By 10.35 she seems to be ready to start, but nothing happens. Is it time to scream “get on with it?” In the European Parliament members would have started a slow handclap half an hour ago. At 10.39 she gets business under way.

She reminds the negotiators that we are half way through the fortnight’s proceedings, that the COP was formally suspended 3 days ago, although detailed business has continued in side meetings. On the issue of Article 17, which is whether whatever is agreed by the conference will be worth the paper it is written on, she claims that progress is being made but more time is needed.

Tuvalu takes the floor, with a speech clearly intended to emphasise its position and communicate with a greater audience. “The entire population of Tuvalu lives just 2 metres above sea level. We need to conclude with legally binding agreements. Our proposals have been on the table for 6 months.” He becomes emotional: “I woke this morning and I was crying. The fate of my country lies in your hands.”

Business moves on to discuss the draft conclusions paper submitted yesterday. Almost all say that it provides the basis for negotiations. The USA makes clear that it causes them severe problems. Sweden, on the other hand, speaking on behalf of the EU, slams it as inadequate: it will not do the job of preventing temperatures from rising by more than 2 deg centigrade, it makes provision for controls on only one third of global emissions, it does not properly reflect the Bali action plan, and it does not provide for an agreement that will be truly binding. Good stuff! I just wish I had confidence that Europe’s prime ministers shared the convictions of our negotiators.

You would not guess from the scores of other comments made that the document was so unsatisfactory. Platitude after platitude pours forth about the need to work together and build on the basis of this text, with recurring themes being the issue of legal certainty and the need for stronger financial commitments to help with climate change mitigation.

The daily information sheet includes a notice than an ADDITIONAL meditation and prayer room has been made available in Hall B3. I guess the first one just became too crowded.

The session concludes at noon.

BLOGGING FROM COPENHAGEN - DOWN TO DETAIL

2009-12-11T17:33:00.001Z

There are said to be some 30 ‘contact’ groups and informal working groups considering various parts of the text; it’s impossible from the conference floor to keep track of them all. Many are closed to NGO representatives but I’ve got a pass that lets me in. I step into one where the proposed text for the section on the clean development mechanism is being considered.

The chairman is of Chinese origin I think, and jollies the negotiators along with a few quips and humour; he starts with a tale about the price of his lunch and the paucity of its substance. Most of the people in the room are lower tier or specialist negotiators and will have met each other many times over the past few years. The meeting is in English, without interpretation.

The draft document is displayed on a screen and the chairman proposes that he takes the meeting through it paragraph by paragraph. If no one has an objection then it gets coloured green on the screen. If changes are sought then it is coloured yellow and the objector is asked to submit alternative text within the hour. If any country cannot accept a paragraph then they should call out red.’ “But let’s call it pink,” says the chairman.

The first couple of lines get a green, then it’s a flow of yellows with the occasion pink, followed by a few greens. Saudi Arabia demands that a paragraph on forest protection gets coloured pink, but they are probably just planning a trade-off because the next paragraph is about the inclusion of carbon capture and storage, which Saudi wants and Brazil does not. Brazil duly demands that it be coloured pink.

We move on through the document. Someone says “yellow”, another negotiator says “pink”. The chairman asks: “can someone give me the colour if we mix yellow and pink?” “GREEN!” someone shouts, and everyone laughs.

There’s a bit of time left after the first trawl so the chairman goes through the document again. As we come to each pink paragraph he asks the objectors if they really want to maintain implacable opposition, and if so why. “I’ll have to consult,” is a frequent response. Presumably they are voicing pre-agreed national mandates.

“Now get your inputs in if you want modifications,” says the chairman. “We meet again tomorrow.”

BLOGGING FROM COPENHAGEN - ON THE FRINGE

2009-12-11T17:32:00.000Z

The 30 working groups may keep the negotiators busy but what about everyone else at this conference?

The media are hidden away in their own space but have a choice of 24 press briefings every day to attend, scheduled at 30 minute intervals. The President’s slot will be packed, as every journalist tries to find out what is going on. I guess today’s 16.30 slot – ‘Delegation of Finland – Buildings and climate change’ – will be more for the specialists.

For everyone else there are the fringe meetings/side events, most of them held in the conference centre but a few elsewhere. I’ve just looked through the agenda. Today there are 87 individual fringe meetings.

The one organised by the Kingdom of Bhutan looks interesting: “This event introduces how the clean development mechanism can increase gross national happiness.”

BLOGGING FROM COPENHAGEN - A STEP FORWARD

2009-12-11T13:20:00.001Z

The UN secretariat calls an informal meeting of the parties (the national negotiators) to present them with proposed draft text on “long term cooperative action under the Convention.”

In fact it is the outline of the core agreement that may be confirmed next week.

Its 7 pages propose the targets of limiting the increase in global temperatures to 2 deg or 1.5 deg, to reduce global emissions by 2050 by 50, 85 or 95 per cent, with developed countries reducing their emissions by 75-85, at least 80-95, or more than 95 per cent.

The issue of financing is covered only by the words “to be elaborated,” although various procedures are suggested as to how a financial mechanism for assistance with mitigation and adaption should be administered.

Various countries express surprise that the document has been produced, and some complain that they hadn’t been properly consulted. The USA declares that some wording is “enormously problematic.” Tuvalu says that the wording is not strong enough and that it wants an agreement that is legally binding, but they are still reading the paper and intervene again to apologise and admit that they have now noticed the words “legally binding” and “adoption of a second commitment period under the (Kyoto) Protocol.”

A second document is also circulated outlining proposed amendments to the Kyoto Protocol dealing with forest issues, the clean development mechanism and joint implementation.

Everyone is terribly polite of course, and on the whole they are pleased to have the beginnings of a final text in front of them, albeit with the tough decisions still to be taken in a week’s time. The meeting breaks up for negotiators to go away, study the words, and reconvene this evening.

BLOGGING FROM COPENHAGEN - BURSTING AT THE SEAMS

2009-12-11T13:19:00.000Z

35,000 people are registered to attend the Copenhagen event, but the Bella Centre is only certified for use by 15,000 at any one time.

People come and go (I leave on Sunday), but capacity has already been reached and higher numbers are expected next week.

It is said that 21,000 of the people registered are affiliated to one kind of non-governmental organisation or another, from business groups to environmental lobbyists. A limited number of ‘secondary badges’ are going to be issued to the NGOs and they will then have to decide which of their people get in and which do not. There will be a lot of unhappy people in Copenhagen next week, and some of them may be parliamentarians registered under the banner of GLOBE International.

When the prime ministers turn up for the high-level segment at the end of next week the restrictions will be even tighter. ‘Tertiary badges’ will be issued, with only 250 people from the NGOs allowed access into the plenary session, although it will be broadcast by webcam to screens all around the place.

BLOGGING FROM COPENHAGEN - PEACEFUL PROTEST

2009-12-11T13:18:00.000Z

The calmest demonstration of the day must have been that organised by ‘Wake up to Climate Change!’

Seven young women, in pyjamas and clutching teddy bears, posed for the cameras asleep on the floor.

BLOGGING FROM COPENHAGEN - STILL SUSPENDED

2009-12-10T19:19:00.002Z

As at 5.30pm still no signs of Team Tuvalu giving up....

BLOGGING FROM COPENHAGEN - THE TALKING STOPS

2009-12-10T14:59:00.000Z

She nearly got away with it. The gavel came down with the words “it is so decided.” Then her aide whispered into her ear, and her heart must have sunk.

Like every meeting chairman, and especially one presiding over representatives of 192 countries at a conference with a lot of controversial business to consider and limited time in which to do it, Connie Hedegaard’s priority is to get through the agenda as efficiently as she can.

She had just announced her recommendation that private consultations should take place about the shape of any changes to the Kyoto Protocol intended to make decisions taken at the Copenhagen conference binding, with proposals to be brought back in two days’ time, and no-one had jumped up to express dissent.

The words came out reluctantly: “I give the floor to Tuvalu.”

Tuvalu’s representative, who has already become an environmentalists’ hero after his performance yesterday, apologised but said he had indicated his wish to speak before the gavel descended. Private consultations were not good enough. He wanted open discussion - here, now, on the floor of the conference.

The floodgates opened. A host of others indicated their support for the idea. Connie suspended the meeting for 10 minutes of talks in the corner about what to do.

She returned 30 minutes later. “Sorry. We have not achieved a consensus. I’m suspending the sitting for more discussions.”

The gavel came down again.

So the Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is suspended, and so is the parallel Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. And both on the same issue.