Labour lead over the Liberal Democrats in my constituency in 1997: 25,998. Lib Dem lead over Labour in 2005: 2,395. So as you can imagine – I’m quite a fan of the party’s campaigning techniques! One of the curios of the result though was afterwards – the number of constituents who came up to me (quite genuinely) to say, ‘I didn’t vote for you, but I’m really glad you won.’

This wasn’t a burst of over-eager politeness, but rather reflected that many people liked the Lib Dem message locally but wanted more convincing about the full range of the Lib Dem offering. And that – in my view – is in large part is because we concentrated on a fairly narrow range of popular policies.

The justification for this is fairly straightforward. For a third party you have to boil down the number of things you are talking about on the national stage to a minimum to have a chance of getting any message across. And the policies were on the right issues. Indeed, one of the major shifts in the Liberal Democrats’ approach to campaigning in the mid-1990s was a switch to concentrating our efforts on the issues which people say are most important to them at (Westminster) general election time. The result – ‘health, education and crime’ have become a bit of a holy trinity- though we often don’t say nearly enough on crime (see my article in Liberator No.304).

There was quite a wide-spread agreement in the party that, looking forward to the next general election, one thing to work on is to have a clearer theme / narrative / big picture / ideology / call it what you will so that the popular policies fit into a more coherent overall story. The Meeting the Challenge policy review is in part about that. And with a leadership election going on as I write this, that process too will concentrate people’s minds on these issues.

But to have a successful story, you need the right constituent parts. Look again at that holy trinity of health, education and crime. Intriguingly missing from this list is the economy. Why ‘intriguingly’? Well – the trinity is based on both public and private polling – but if you ask one of the political chattering classes (and there are quite a few of them in my constituency!) they’ll most likely say that the economy is crucial to shaping the result of general elections, probably accompanied with yet another retelling of the story about Clinton, 1992 and James Carville’s ‘the economy, stupid’ sign. Or as Philip Gould wrote to Tony Blair on 17 April that he should: ‘drive the election to the point where it came down to one central question: ‘Who do you trust with the future of the economy?” But the economy doesn’t feature in the trinity.

So where’s the economy hiding? I think the answer is in the details of how the polls are done. Don’t worry – you don’t need to be a statistical geek to follow this (lovely though such people are, I hasten to add) as the basic point doesn’t even need any decimal places.

Polling companies like MORI ask people which issue is more important to them and give answers for ‘health’, ‘education’, ‘crime’ etc. But economic issues get split between a range of categories, such as economy, taxation and unemployment. So for ‘health’ the MORI definition is ‘National Health Service / hospitals’ and for crime it’s the even more omnibus ‘Crime/Law & Order/Violence/Vandalism’. The judicial system, the crime rate, policing issues – they are all put together into the one heading. However, for the economy we have separate categories for ‘Economy/Economic Situation’, ‘Inflation/Prices’, ‘Pound/Exchange Rate/Value Of Pound’, ‘Taxation’, ‘Unemployment/Factory Closure/Lack Of Industry’ and more.

You could argue how many of these should be gathered together under the ‘economy’ umbrella but think of the contrast with the broad ‘health’ and ‘crime’ categories – and ‘education’ too – where all different schooling up to 18 and beyond is lumped into one category, including too the different issues of resources, buildings, curriculum etc.

Does all this matter? Yes it does – for example if you look at the MORI poll figures for November 2005 for ‘the most important issue facing Britain today’, the economy rates behind education and health – but leapfrogs over them if you add in unemployment and taxation. Yes, there are margins of error to watch out for – but it is a consistent pattern looking at the longer-term trends and not just amongst MORI’s polls: the economy moves up the list sharply if you define it more broadly.

Even on the narrow definition, there are some polls in which the economy comes through strongly. To whit – YouGov’s polling by May 5th 2005 had the economy as the third most important issue, after health and education, in answer to ‘which issues will be most important to you in deciding which party to support’ and this was even excluding taxation.

It’s true that economic news attracts much less media coverage than it did in the 1990s and earlier: look how little coverage the latest inflation or unemployment figures get and as for balance of payments figures – they used to be everywhere and are now harder to find than a smiling Gordon Brown. And where we used to talk about our economic policies in terms of European monetary polices and independence for the Bank of England both have largely been overtaken by events.

Instead our economic offering in 2005 was all about what to do with the fruits of prosperity – changing spending priorities, taxing a bit more those who can pay a bit more in order to fund necessary extra spending elsewhere and so on.

Therefore there is a double risk for Liberal Democrats at the next general election. First, without the economy joining the health, crime and education gang any narrative or theme won’t work as it won’t have the necessary key components. Second, if the economic outlook deteriorates further by the next election, policies about distributing bounty in the good times run the risk of being very dated and seeming irrelevant. It has happened to progressive parties in many countries on many occasions – when the economy takes a downturn, they are left behind if their policies don’t match the times. Just look at the struggles the Australian Labor party have had.

So – how to tackle this? We don’t make nearly enough of our economic policies in my view. For example, consistently election after election, it is the Liberal Democrats who have the most credible policies in terms of having a fully costed manifesto. The costings pass the scrutiny of the pundits but, aside from a few brief mentions on Newsnight and the like, what benefits do we accrue from this? With the honourable exception of the party’s website, www.libdems.org.uk – which had, and still does, ‘our policies are fully costed’ logos and links to details on most pages – these plus points about us are barely mentioned or publicised. My own leaflets during the election excepted too of course! – but according to the New Politics Network / Joseph Rowntree study of content of election leaflets, only 9% of Lib Dem ones mentioned the economy.

We also need to develop a clear and simple story about what our economic policies are which goes beyond ‘the sums add up’ and ‘fair and sensible reallocation of resources’. Both are desirable – and to be repeated – but they are not distinctively liberal.

I think our distinctive ideological approach is to be found in our suspicion of big government. Far too much of government – especially that within the paws of Gordon Brown, master of the complicated innovation and baffling regulation – is riven with complexity, confusion and bureaucratic waste. Brown is highly vulnerable on this I believe – the complexity of tax credit forms, the profusion of paperwork families need to fill out and the plethora of new rules and regulations may not attract much mainstream press coverage at th
e moment (a few glaring scandals aside), but ask any low-income mum sitting down to try to work out how to claim what she needs to keep her kids fed and clothed – and they’ll most certainly know what a bureaucratic mess Gordon Brown has made of so much of the financial system.

Waste, inefficiency and piles and piles of extra paperwork aren’t just economic issues, as they increasingly bedevil so many other areas of public services too. Take just one example from the transport field – it cost £455 million (sic!) in fees for lawyers, accountants, consultants etc to bring about the part-privatisation of the Tube. Instead that could have bought around 35 new trains, 65 kilometres of renewed track, 50 replacement escalators, 37 more escalators fully renewed and with enough money left over after all that to also have a comprehensive program of new lifts and other measures to make the Tube more accessible to those in wheelchairs and with other mobility problems!

Take another example, that was rather topical over the festive season – the rules over what shops can claim in their ‘sales’ advertising. Far too often they get away with grandiose claims. Being on the side of the individual is about making them a bit more honest – which brings greater clarify, more competition and more economic efficiency. Giving individuals accurate and timely information, and making economic systems simpler where possible so they can deal with them, will bring with it benefits of increased competition, productivity and in turn wealth.

Big, pondering bureaucratic government should be the natural enemy for liberals – and in the current environment our opposition to it can be honed into an effective economic policy that is about putting individuals first. Carville’s ‘the economy, stupid’ sign has entered political folklore. But people tend to forget what Carville wrote before that on his sign – ‘Change vs more of the same’. Reducing complexity in the taxation system; improving competition by having more openness; judging benefits systems by people’s ability to claim what they are due; reducing central bureaucracy through local delivery of services (and remembering to axe the bureaucracy left behind – remind me, why is there still a Government Office for London now we have a Mayor and GLA?); and more in that vein – that would be the real change.

This article first appeared in Liberator.

The Violent Crime Reduction Bill has been working its way through Parliament. Lynne Featherstone has led for the Liberal Democrats on the bill in the House of Commons. In this article she explains what the party’s line has been and why

There is a limit to what legislation can achieve – this Bill deals with the symptoms of the dreadful malaise that stalks (mainly) our young people – some of whom drink to oblivion and some of whom in believe that carrying a weapon makes you cool. So we should be realistic about the limits of legislation to change the world. But that said, the Liberal Democrats are right behind the Government on the overall aims of the Violent Crime Reduction Bill (not too often you can say that!). I may well have been very critical of some of the detail – and am very critical of the way they may use the new powers – but drink-fuelled problems and gun and knife crime need tackling.

Drink Banning Orders – introduced by the Bill – are a bit akin to parents grounding their children: a short sharp punishment which would stop them from being able to go to their favourite pub or club for a couple of months. Orders will enable the police and local authorities to stop an individual coming into a certain area because of their “criminal or disorderly behaviour”.

The trouble, as ever, with Labour legislation is that it is overweening and undefined – it could easily be abused. The bill uses the term “disorder”. One Labour MP seemed to think that running down a street and calling to a friend would be enough to constitute disorder! This is very broad and open to abuse. Labour has listened a little to critics – including a welcome concession that you can’t be jailed simply for breaking a drink banning order. Even this Labour Government realised that to end up with a five year prison sentence for skipping down the street drunk and shouting might be seen as a little over the top! But there are still plenty of other concerns left.

As for Alcohol Disorder Zones (ADZs) – these are areas that can be designated by a local authority and the police where there are large amounts of trouble from drinking establishments. The idea is that establishments within the zone to be designated have an opportunity to put forward a voluntary action plan, and if it works the zone isn’t imposed. But if it fails, it is – and imposition includes the power to charge establishments for extra policing or whatever.

Given we agree with the principle of the “polluter” pays this is ok in principle, but good landlords are treated the same as bad in the plans (and if the bad don’t play ball, the good have to pay the bill too), there are perverse incentives for local authorities to view this as a way of raising money, designating an area will stigmatise it (or even worse, glorifying it for some?), and many, many other arguments of detail.

The Government seem not to be interested in anything other than sloganeering that “we serve the lawful and that this legislation is targeted on the lawless”. Well yes – statement of the bleeding obvious in terms of what everyone wants as an outcome. But slogans aren’t the same as effective action. We already have so much legislation that the Government is not using properly regarding drinking and alcohol. It is already illegal to sell drink to the drunk (they virtually never prosecute). Local Authorities can revoke licenses (they rarely do). And there are the brand new powers for the police to shut down premises. But saying we want a new law gets cheap publicity points in a way that working to use existing laws properly don’t!

The other parts of the Bill are mainly about weapons. Basically the Bill, quite rightly, seeks to address the rise in knife crime and the use of imitation weapons along with some new limits on legal weapons.

During the course of the passage of the Bill we sought to address the rise in knife crime. We tabled an amendment that would have imposed an equal sentence on carrying a knife as a gun. You are equally dead if murdered by a knife as a gun – so we are seeking parity of sentence (and the increase in gun sentences does seem to have had an impact). Unfortunately, Labour voted against increasing the charge for carrying a knife – something to remind the public about in our leaflets!

Labour also have a measure in the Bill which raises the age from 16 to 18 for purchasing or selling a knife. But there is no description as to what sort of knife – which leaves the unsatisfactory position of being able to get married and have children at 16 but not buy cutlery!

So the Bill, supported by both Lib Dems and Tories, now goes on its way to the Lords. The measures will curb some of the excesses we all hope – but we all know that deep down this Bill just doesn’t begin to address what lies beneath: what is the root cause of the disaffection of our young people so that they drink themselves stupid and aspire to carrying weapons? That is the nut we have to really crack.

This article first appeared in Liberal Democrat News.

Once upon a time – not long ago or far away – one of the Golden Elves who had served for five long years in the Glass Palace alongside the handsome Mayor (more of a frog really – but for the sake of the story, Ill make him handsome) had, at the will of the people, been sent to another Palace – an older, colder palace along the water.

This Stone Palace housed the Law Maker Elves. And the Law Maker Elves were ruled over by a once powerful and strong-willed Prince who now grew weaker by the day.

The event foretold last Christmas Eve to fall on the fifth day of the fifth month of the fifth year of the New Millennium had come to pass – and the Dark Prince’s power was much diminished. Once he had relied on 412 Red Elves to serve his every wish – but the people of the land had culled this to only 356.

So the old order was changing. Part of the trouble had actually been of the Prince’s own making. Firstly he had plunged the country into a war at the behest of a mad wizard who lived in a White House across the water. And then he had proclaimed that he would abdicate around the dawning of the tenth year of the New Millennium. Before the proclamation had even left his lips – his power began to drain away. Desperately searching for a worthwhile legacy to leave his people, the embattled Prince did what rulers since the dawn of time have done – he sought to limit their freedom. By iron rule would he forbid dissent.

The Prince declared that no person would any longer be able to walk the streets by right. Each subject would have a magical device planted behind their ear. Without rhyme nor reason, Law Servers would be able to stop anyone at will and with another magic device read all the private details of their life stored on the first one. Moreover, the Prince declared that for the peoples’ own protection, he would be able to put them in prison for 90 days and 90 nights without proof – just on suspicion.

One of the Prince’s jolly lieutenants in charge of these devilish schemes had been willing to see if there was a better way through – but even though he was large and cuddly like a teddy bear with very cute stick-out ears – the Prince would have none of it and over-ruled him thus making the jolly lieutenant’s voice rise an octave.

Now – whilst the Golden, Blue and Red Elves normally disagreed about everything – on the rightful freedoms of the citizens – many of them did agree. And they joined hands to fight the Prince. And for the first time in the whole of his rule the Prince was royally defeated.

And as the Prince’s power continued to ebb away, the dark, brooding and jealous figure of the Red Scottish Elf who lived next door was ever present, skulking in the wings (except when things were difficult, when he hid under the table and said nothing to anyone until finally he would whisper a few, quiet words of support for the Prince) – waiting and wishing for the day when he would be Prince.

With a clap of thunder and a flash of lightning – a new Chief Blue Elf suddenly appeared and offered his hand in allegiance to the Prince. The Blue Elf was very sweet and terribly well brought up having been to a very, very posh school for Elves and kept on saying how much he wanted to agree with the Prince. The same could not be said of the Prince’s own Red Elves who were busy being very troublesome and disobedient indeed. However, with the very welcome support of the Blue Elves the Prince would now be able to get all his evil edicts through.

That now left only the Golden Elves to fight for the people of the land against the now malevolent prince. The Prince decided he must weaken them too. He asked the Chief Golden Elf to come for a Christmas drink – and then sent a message to all the Town Criers through the land that the Chief Golden Elf had had a drink. And the Prince was helped in his mission by a few very ambitious Golden Elves whose heads were much, much bigger than their brains.

And then a very strange thing happened. On Christmas Eve as the snow began to fall – the Prince was walking homeward to his very nice house at No 10 Downing Street. And he had a revelation. Clearly if the brooding Scot became Prince – that would allow the Golden Elves and Blue Elves to grow stronger. Middle England was where the Prince’s power came from and Middle England would be frightened by the dour, brooding Scot.

It was his duty to stay – to fight his way back to complete power. The people needed him to stay! He would stay. And he wouldn’t just be prince – his mission was clear – he would be King!

And I’m the Christmas Fairy!

Happy Christmas.

It’s good to talk! And Sir Ian Blair, Met Police Commissioner, wants to talk to us – the people – to engage with us on what sort of policing we want. Now Sir Ian is a very clever man. Sir Ian will only want to be talking if he wants something out of us.

My guess is that when Sir Ian says that we need to think whether we want more police teams on the beat; or more police put on the fight against terrorism, or better detection of identity fraud, or stopping trafficking and drug dealing, prostitution, car crime and graffiti and all, he knows it’s not ‘or’ – it’s ‘and’ – the whole caboodle.

So call me cynical, but I suspect his ‘conversation’ is all about a public mandate to ask for more resources. And if that’s what the public say they need – then we may well find that we the public are then asked to pay more for it.

First though, credit where credit’s due. Ian Blair’s recent major speech came over as thoughtful and showed more understanding than the Government seems to have about fighting terrorism – such as warning that the London bombings shouldn’t lead to a wholesale transformation of policing attitudes.

His point that crime-fighting policies attract a lot of interest, but relatively little serious discussion or research compared with health or education is also a good one. And it was good to hear him make a point I’ve often made – that far too often the police are left to pick up the pieces when society fails to care properly for those with mental health problems.

But then there’s the not so good: Ian Blair’s appearance on various news bulletins whilst seemingly not in possession of the full facts about the unfortunate shooting of Mr de Menezes and the revelation of his alleged attempt to hinder the Independent Police Complaint Commission Inquiry into that shooting have brought his judgement into question.

Sit this alongside the recent attempt to lobby politicians by the most senior police officers over the 90 days detention without charge and right now, you will find that many are very, very angry with Sir Ian indeed.

To many – including me – this has crossed a line. It is undoubtedly the police service’s duty to brief politicians – but when that briefing turns to lobbying it oversteps the mark.

During the general election he also overstepped the mark when he made a public statement as to his views on identity cards. It certainly seems that we are dealing with quite a different and far more political animal than his predecessor. Perhaps what is needed is a bit less show time and showbiz from our Commissioner.

It’s striking also that his concept of modern policing involves more police and more police powers and that’s pretty much the end of the story so far. Now – I’m all in favour of the new local police teams, putting more police on the streets in our communities in Haringey. But where’s the joined up thinking when at the same time Labour is wanting to axe the funding for so many community wardens in Haringey? And where’s the broader conception of the police service? There’s still too much of a drift away from local police stations to remote, impersonal centralised sites – with many police stations nearly impossible to easily contact on the phone.

The tragic recent shooting of two women police constables on duty is a timely reminder of the ultimate sacrifice that the police are called, thankfully rarely, to make on our behalf. It’s a reminder of the brilliant job they do – day in, day out – in fighting crime and protecting us from harm.

The respect and gratitude we feel and owe to our police force must not be compromised or tarnished by poor judgement or decisions by those at the top.

After my election in May, several people came up to me to say, “I’m so glad you won. It’s great that you are now my MPbut I didn’t vote for you, I stuck with Labour.” Thankfully plenty of others did switch!

The combination for many people of liking what the Liberal Democrats are doing along with a tradition of backing Labour is part of the reason why the idea of a left-of-centre progressive consensus is coming back into fashion, at least in Labour circles. It naturally raises questions about the position of the Liberal Democrats – should we aim to be part of a near-permanent non-Conservative political majority in this country?

As The Independent‘s fringe meeting asked at our 2005 Blackpool conference: can the Liberal Democrats be part of a new progressive consensus? My answer – could, but depends which progressive consensus? Gordon Brown’s? I don’t think so!

I think Gordon is a cowardly, cowardly, custard, who keeps his head below the parapet when the going gets tough, votes a straight New Labour ticket, takes credit for and dines out on the one and only truly progressive policy Labour have delivered- giving independence to the Bank of England (a long time Lib Dem policy) – and silently waits for Tony’s tide to go out.

For all his talk about prudence and responsibility, he pushed through the massively expensive part-privatisation of London’s Tube system – racking up huge bills for lawyers, accountants and bureaucrats, but not improving the service. Prudence didn’t get a look in when he signed the huge cheques for military intervention in Iraq. (If only he had been willing to show the same financial generosity closer to home!)

In fact, look at all the issues that most motivated Labour supporters to switch to the Liberal Democrats and were plastered all over Focus leaflet after Focus leaflet. They are all ones like top up fees and (lack of) free care for the elderly, which have Gordon Brown’s fingerprints all over them.

It says something about the desperation of so many in Labour that they see as their saviour the very man deeply immersed in the policies which have driven millions of voters and tens of thousands of activists away.

My own long held, genuine belief in a left-of-centre, progressive consensus that would consign the Tories to the dustbins of history – something I longed for and would have fought for – appears now as dust. Labour have squandered their Parliamentary majorities with timidity. They have been too busy instead alternating running for office and running for cover.

I don’t trust Labour any longer, and I don’t believe they are capable of true consensus. Brown’s “progressive consensus” means just that – OK so long as you agree with him.

Now, I could spend a long time writing about the other parties and whether there might be common ground – but guessing where either of those treacherous buggers are going next is so easy to get wrong. And quite frankly if you want views on where Labours will go after Blair, you’d be better off reading a piece by a Labour MP in Prospect.

So instead, I want to address the question of whether the Lib Dems can tap into a larger progressive consensus – in society. The question of our beliefs and policies is under our control – and focusing on them is rather more productive that trying to fix our position relative to the ever-shifting other parties.

It’s another take on the question that’s been knocking around the party since May about what the thread is which could draw together our individually popular key policies.

Call it vision, narrative, theme, pitch or message – whatever – what should it be?

We face an apparently paradoxical general public view – people increasingly feeling powerless yet also highly suspicious of those collective way of asserting power and control over your own life – using the tools of democracy and government.

It’s these conflicting pulls on the party that is reflected in some of our internal debates. At least we still have internal debates.

That’s why you have those keener on big government, spending money and regulating against bad things – as the way to immediately tackle some of the issues that give rise to anxiousness and powerlessness.

And on the other hand you have the classic small government liberals, responding to the other pull and wanting to cut back on central government to give people more direct control.

To me, this is a false dilemma as we can be smarter about the tools of government. Government can ban, can price it or can use its powers of publicity. One example – we can outlaw high fat foods, or slap an extra tax on them or put Jamie Oliver on the telly every night telling us to eat different. Far too much of political debate within the Liberal Democrats is about the first two options only.

Take the similar example of the amount of quick buck seeking third-rate diet advice out there, feeding on fears of obesity? The old big government answer would be to ban and regulate. But do we really want to get into regulating the details of diet books – having Whitehall decide who can say what in their books?

The modern, nimble answer is to use the prestige of the NHS to have the best-seller lists taken over by the NHS diet book and the NHS health-eating book. (It’s done elsewhere – have a look at one of the bestselling diet advice books in Australia at the moment).

Making laws and banning things has the appeal of being in your direct control – a few votes in Parliament and bish, bang, bong – issue done and dusted, next up, let’s move along. It’s quick – and sometimes effective. It’s politics of the West Wing variety, with the belief that no problem is so difficult you can’t think up before the next advert break a wheeze to solve it. If only life were that easy.

But at the other end, using government as a publicity bully pulpit is more tolerant, not so much big brother as nagging nanny. And for those who know me – you will know how highly I rate nagging – particularly as it is a middle-aged woman’s life skill!

That’s where our real search for a progressive consensus should be made – an active, inventive and innovatory approach that recognises there is much government can do, but that it doesn’t always have to be via rules and regulations or indeed legislation, legislation, legislation.

Up against the big economic forces, multi-nationals and Mother Nature we need a government to work with people. Sometimes that means tax and spend. Sometimes it means regulation. But there are alternatives – alternatives that are much more in tune with the rough and ready consensus out there in society.

Take a local example so beloved of our campaigns – graffiti is often left untouched on commercial property. Yes, we need councils with money to remove it, but we should also expect companies to take more responsibility for the state of their own property.

So what should we do about – to give one example – some of the shops along Stroud Green Road in North London where they’ve had a pretty poor record at cleaning up themselves over the last year?

Is the answer to send out inspectors dishing out tickets and fining firms who don’t clean up quick enough? Of course notthough it might distract from all the complaints about traffic wardens!

But why shouldn’t government (be it council or central) be naming and shaming such firms and putting pressure on them? Expecting companies to care more about their communities – that’s what you hear demands for in so many different ways from the public.

Government as a nimble lobbyist, and collective voice for the public, is an approach that would fit well with our beliefs in decentralisation, as that is what’s needed for the necessary flexibility and responsiveness. It is also the way to getting things changed without hanging around waiting for the arrival of a Liberal Democrat government. Shaming a supermarket into better practices brings quicker rewards than promising one day when Charles is Prime Minister to change a law.

It w
as the American President Theodore Roosevelt who coined the phrase “bully pulpit” to describe the White House. He used the platform it gave him to speak up and thereby lead and shape events. It’s a lesson we could learn from – and you don’t have to be in the White House to learn it.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2005. This article first appeared in Liberator.

A guy sat down across the gangway from me on Eurostar toParis. He was acting very strangely: constantly checking in his backpack, then clutching the arms of his seat in an extremely tense manner.Sweat was pouring down his forehead – and his chest was literally heaving withnerves.

I had woken that morning to the news of the alleged terror plot to blowup ten planes. I had been much relieved that I was travelling by train thatday, but now – well, I must have been staring in a very obvious mannerat the man, for the man turned to me and in a real Bronx accent said:

“I am so scared. I have to fly home on Sunday. It’s taken me ten yearsto take a flight at all. I’m so scared of flying anyway – and now this!I’m going to die. I phoned my mother at 3am this morning – but she can’thelp me. Can you help me? Am I going to be alright?” And he startedcrying.

Having now mentally established in my own judgement that he was not aterrorist but simply a 40 year old theatrical New Yorker, Michael – whowas literally terrorised – I did my best. Being pragmatic I said that Ithought flying on Sunday (today was a Thursday) would be safer thanusual given the current extra levels of security. Not much comforted wethen explored the possibility of him taking a boat back – but theinternet only delivered a cruise once a month. As the journey continuedMichael relaxed a little. I suggested that he try and enjoy Paris andthat the situation would be much clearer by the time he was due to fly.And eventually his breathing returned to normal and he did seem to relaxa bit. He thanked me for my kindness – and that was that. I am sure hemade it home just fine.

The postscript to this is that Michael was white Caucasian. Yet hisbehaviour was very suspicious, though in the event it was nerves abouthis own well-being rather than intention to cause harm to others thatwas the cause. I did what any traveller needs to be doing: observed – checked – and was reassured substantively enough not to need to relay my observations.

Now Michael was not (as far as visual profiling could tell) a Muslim.And my point is that the calls for racial profiling in order to speed upsecurity checks are dangerous. We all should be checking behaviour – notskin colour. Yes, we should be checking the behaviour of everyone andanyone. Nervous person with a backpack – yes, be vigilant and evensuspicious – whatever their skin colour. Non-white person speaking a foreign language – no, don’t be.

Racial profiling would lead to the persecution of innocent people. Thatmight be an acceptable price to pay if it actually helped stoppedterrorism, however I don’t think I would make much of a terrorist myselfbut even I can work out what I’d do if the security services startedusing skin colour (or similar) to decide who to be suspicious of. I’djust switch the appearance of those used in terrorist operations. Lookcarefully at the appearance of many of those arrested for terrorism -there are plenty amongst them who could easily pass themselves off witha different appearance, clean shaven and talking English.

It is regrettable, but not surprising, that non-Muslim travellers stareharder at those who look Muslim at the moment. That is what our Muslimcitizens are having to endure whilst we all, together, work out how bestto address catching terrorists without persecuting the innocent. But being terrorised and abandoning our beliefs such as being innocent until proved guilty and equality before the law – well, that’s just what the terrorists want usto do.

Make no mistake: terror is stalking our land – and no citizen ofBritain, Muslim or non-Muslim, can escape the consequences of the evilthat is being done in the name of Islam.

We are all in this together. To win, we need to bridge the schism thatterrorist atrocities have opened up. We need to disentangle theterrorists from mainstream Muslims in the British psyche – at the sametime as breaking down the walls of separation between Muslim communitiesand others.

I wanted to cry at surgery this week; in fact a tear or two did descend. A woman with a young, quadriplegic daughter sat in front of me begging for my help in getting her family re-housed. They have spent four and a half years in temporary – and unsuitable – accommodation. It started off as a stop-gap when the child was a baby, but proper accommodation has never been found in all the years since. As if caring for such a daughter was not enough in itself.

And this was the second case that had come my way since May. Both have been told that no houses have come up in the years since they applied.

It really makes me angry that for all the plans, targets, partnerships and acronyms, people such as this are so often let down. Even if Haringey Council’s Chief Executive had to go out himself to an estate agent to buy a property for this family, how many of us would begrudge this extra cost to help a family so much in need?

There are two other awful twists in the way the housing bureaucracy works. First, if you don’t take the first property offered to you, you drop right down the list again. So people are forced into accepting totally unsuitable properties out of fear of otherwise never getting anything.

Second, the rules keep on changing. People are allocated points based on their circumstances, how long they have been waiting etc, and when you accumulate enough points you get offered accommodation. But I’m endlessly told how Haringey Council is reviewing its points system. The targets keep on changing – so people keep on hanging on, thinking they are about to qualify for housing and keep on being let down. Dashed hopes year after year.

Now, if you were told at the outset that it would take (say) 15 years to get accommodation (or that you would never get it) – that would not be welcome news. But it would at least allow you to make a whole series of decisions about your life and what you will do with it for yourself and your family.

So here’s the conundrum. Social housing is desperately needed. Mayor Ken’s London Plan seeks to address London’s housing deficit. But the 19,000 new homes decreed as Haringey’s quota (although Haringey is trying to negotiate the figure substantially downwards) places an ‘anything goes’ developers’ charter on our area. And it’s become all a game about numbers of new homes. Quality and supporting services just have to go hang. Transport infrastructure, sufficient doctors and dentists, enough school places – all these get missed out in the dash to hit Ken’s target.

So too do sensible decisions about where to locate new housing. Developers know about Ken’s targets too – so they target the quickest and most profitable sites to build on, knowing how difficult it is for people then to say no. The result? Except in a few cases where brilliant local campaigns have said no it means far too much poor quality housing on badly chosen sites.

This is true across the whole borough, but particularly true of the most needy of areas where Haringey Council seems to believe that those in the more deprived areas will put up with anything in the name of more houses. We get badly designed proposals for high-rise prisons, using the poorest quality materials with no infrastructure to support the extra population. These buildings will last for decades, blighting the communities and letting down those who live in them.

So my message is that everyone deserves good quality housing, with sufficient public services within reach. Why should those who need council housing have to suffer anything less than this?

So I will go fight Haringey for houses for the two desperate families with quadriplegic children. They are very special cases.

But the greater fight is to push up the standards of housing more broadly. It is about quality of design, quality of concept and quality of materials. The built environment is vital in terms of spirit and aspiration and those most in need of being able to lift their eyes above the daily miseries are those who are worst treated.

The hotel manager warned us. He said (and please read with a deep south USA drawl for proper effect): “Dontcha aw-ll wear any of yos jewellery and dontcha aw-ll carry any bags. If you is mugged givem yo ca-ash and dontcha aw-ll argue none.”

Having hired a babysitter for our three year old – which is a pretty daring thing to do in a strange country – my husband and I set out at 11pm down Bourbon Street in the French Quarter of New Orleans to hear Warren Zevon.

It was a fantastic night, strolling through the heart of Tennessee Williams country it felt just like it was meant to. The cast-iron, steamy scenes of Streetcar and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof sprang to life. And no harm befell us.

Having spent days staring unbelievingly at the devastation that has now visited that incredible city I was reminded of my sojourn there 18 years ago.

The lawlessness: was it always there, the nasty underbelly of a sub-class? Or do good people turn bad when survival is the name of the game? Or is it both?

I doubt whether I would have any qualms about looting for food and water if my choice for my family and myself was loot or die. And if there was no law and order and we were threatened and I had a gun – would I kill to protect my family? Or would my civilised upbringing kick in? Hard to tell until it happensbut I have always believed that civilisation is only skin deep.

Hurricane Katrina has raised some hugely challenging questions in her stormy wake. And her winds are still blowing – not just through the corridors of power in Washington as people struggle with some of the issues so brutally exposed by her destructive savageryand the collapse of the levees. (I had always wondered what that line in Don McLean’s classic meant – drove my Chevy to the levee but the levee was dry).

New Orleans and the Mississippi have seen flooding before and this particular catastrophe was meant to be catered for in disaster plans, tested out only recently. Yet we were left with the pictures of piles of unused buses and coaches whilst nearby those who couldn’t afford their own transport were left stranded and struggling – and often dying.

Given that London is a flood plain for the most part and that the weather the world is experiencing appears volatile and threatening, we have a lot of work to do to make sure that our house is in order before we look down our noses at the Americans.

Shocking too has been the racial divide – so many of those left behind black, so many of those troops, police and officials white. And so many of those officials touting guns. This wasn’t the aftermath of a terrorist attack. New Orleans was not a city at war. But the scenes of armed people looked more like a scene from war-ravaged Beirut.

Whatever the mix is of fear between different groups of society, a gun-loving culture and desperation born of disaster that triggered this outpouring of weaponry, it is a shocking commentary on the state of America.

So when we turn our thoughts to our troubles here perhaps we need to recognise what lies beneath. We see eruptions born of discontent from time to time – a riot here, a bomb there. Communication, action, engagement, respect and hope and a feeling that we all matter – that is what every citizen has a right to. The words these days are good – stakeholder, partnership, engagement, social inclusion – but the reality, whilst not on the level of the disenfranchised of New Orleans, is still at danger levels.

As liberals, the sanctity of freedom is absolutely fundamental. However, “freedom” is a concept and state prodigiously difficult to define.

In relation to the current international event – in particular in relation to Afghanistan and Iraq – we seem to increasingly measure freedom in the ability to elect your own government or political system.

George Bush (don’t worry, I’m not a particular fan) boasts about the continued growth of global freedom and democracy – ye ha! But before our government – and that of the U.S. – is able to preach about the need for democracy we need to decide how fair and representative our system is at home.

However perverse it may sound, the House of Lords is in fact more representative of the British electorate than the supposedly democratic House of Commons! Of the political members: Lab 48%; Con 36 % and LD 15%, comparing reasonably favourably to 35%, 32% and 22% at the General Election. Certainly rather better than the House of Commons does on seats.

So in a way the Lords is fairer than the Commons. There’s just one small, tiny problem – no elections to the Lords. Perhaps not the best form of fairness in a democracy …

And in a strange way, the Lord’s success corrodes our democracy. Here we have an unelected house, yet its make up better reflects public opinion than the Commons. It’s in the Lords that you find most of the meaningful votes (i.e. the ones which aren’t simply stitched up by the government’s whips). It’s in the Lords that on most topics you find the most genuine and well-informed debate on issues.

Not looking good for the Commons so far is it? And hardly a great advertisement for democracy when the non-democratic performs so much better.

It makes the Lords not so much the last bastion of freedom as a running advert for the drawbacks of our Commons democracy.

The answer of course is not to populate the Commons with those recently de-housed hereditary Peers from the other place, but rather to heed the lesson and seriously improve our democracy.

That’s why we need to reform the first-past the post voting system so that we have a voting system which produces results that generally reflect the wishes of the people.Without reform, Britain will continue to undergo long periods of rule by a single party without a popular mandate, leading to political leadership that is arrogant, out of touch and disengaged from the people of the country.

Remind you of anyone?

But in the interim, it’s crucial to have a House of Lords that acts appropriately as a balance to the flaws of the Commons.

It doesn’t do a bad job of that. Not perfect, but pretty good in the circumstances.

Civil liberties is an area where the Lords have, in many ways, surpassed the House of Commons.

Take the recent example of the ping-pong game on the Prevention of Terrorism Bill between the Lords and the Commons.

The resistance in the Lords allowed for a debate and scrutiny of such things as control orders and house arrests and this indirectly lead to – some – safeguarding of civil liberties.

Perhaps just because they do not have to worry about being re-elected the Lords can focus more on the longer-term impact of issues and on the minority views on points.

But the Lords also has a wealth of technical knowledge – and its members expect the government to be able to make a coherent and expert case to get its laws through.

What a contrast with the Commons. One small example – the government wants to do more to tackle the carrying of imitation firearms. An admirable intent. But it wants to increase jail terms, and I’m dubious this will really achieve anything other than a few short-term positive headlines for Labour in the tabloids. So I asked Charles Clarke what evidence he had that longer jail terms would work in this area? His answer – oooh, there’s been lots of speculation. That was it. Speculation. Nothing else.

Now, that’s not the sort of sloppiness that is so much harder to get away with in the Lords than in the Commons.

With the speed this government is introducing contentious new legislation, the Lords is needed to even more than in the past. In these tinderbox times, we must not rush to judgement.Draconian legislation made in haste is often poor legislation that removes civil liberties at a stroke – so easy to remove – so hard to regain. The House of Lords has therefore become even more important.

As a new MP, I sometimes find it hard to stop and breathe let alone get to grips with a new piece of legislation – there is just not enough time! The legislation that is being thrown at us – with no end in sight – is not only extremely complicated but also lengthy and voluminous.

Often badly drafted, ill-conceived, not thought through and very often similar if not exactly the same as existing legislation unused by the powers that be.

Remember the fuss over anti-terrorism deportations over the summer? First it was the law had to be changed. Then it was that old laws could be pressed into use. Then it was, ‘oh, the current laws are fine after all.’ And now – well who knows what next week will bring.

Labour hate it when the Lords makes them stop and pause for breath – but on the evidence of this and many other examples, a few more such pauses are just what we need.

Now, before this starts to sound like an advert for the virtues of the House of Lords, I must highlight its obvious failings. As Tony Blair famously noted, there is a natural conservative (small c) and Conservative party bias that comes in the House of Lords.

On issues such as gay rights and fox hunting it leaves a lot to be desired. It obstructed the change of age consent for homosexuals as well as the abolition of the unnecessary and pernicious Section 28.

The Lords are known as socially conservative – and real people have suffered as a result.

Clearly the house of Lords has acted illiberally in certain respects but it has also helped to preserve the liberal country that as Liberal Democrats we seek to protect.

Although it may have acted sensibly in the recent passed as a revising chamber for the Government’s pernicious legislation, its fundamentally unfair nature must not be overlooked and as Liberal Democrats we must seek a solution that allows a combination of election and expertise.

Until then, the Lords will be the last line of defence against the Big Brother tendencies of our illiberal government – it is essential we seek to design a democratic successor that includes the Lords’ most enlightening principles.

So – the House of Lords has, ironically, become the last bastion of freedom for some of the freedoms that we hold most dear – but that is a sad consequence of a failings of our democratic systems.