Tuesday (early hours of the morning) -The response to my 999 call was first class. After an hour or so in A & E my wife was transferred from a bed to a chair because of a shortage of beds and was subsequently moved to the Medical Decision Unit. At one point patients on ambulance trolleys were queuing in the corridors!

My wife remained in the chair for 7 to 8 hours before a bed was made available. During this time the portable oxygen cylinder ran out and as there was no replacement she was crammed between to hospital beds to get access to the 'piped' oxygen supply. This resembled a corridor the width of a chair and frankly bordered on a shambles. Once settled in bed a drip was rigged up, a length of bandage being threaded through the loop of the plastic container and hooked over the end of the curtain rail - No drip stand!

The following morning (Wednesday) I was asked by a nurse if I could bring in two of the items on my wife's prescription because they were not available from the hospital pharmacy. When I returned to the hospital I gave the tablets to the nurse who taped them to the Medication Chart. That morning I learned my wife was to have an Ultrasound and when I asked, when, was told 'when a porter turns up'. At this point I decided to talk to Pals (Patient Advice & Liaison Services) who subsequently put me in touch with the A & E Matron. I explained my concern at the apparent haphazard way things were in the Department. What appeared to an outsider as being chaos was typical of what happens in A & E it seems. Many of the problems stem from the fact that you cannot close the doors to A & E which means unless you can maintain a steady flow of patients through the system and out the other end chaos will ensue. To get patients out the other end, in many cases, you need beds and they are simply not there.

That afternoon the Matron, on checking, assured me the Ultrasound would take place at 10am the following morning - in less than half an hour of making that statement a porter arrived to take my wife to have her scan - perhaps there was a cancellation! After the Ultrasound my wife was seen by a doctor who said it would be about 2 hours before the scan results were available. 43 hours later I was advised the results were NAD (Nothing Abnormal Denoted).

On Wednesday evening my wife was transferred to the Medical Assessment Unit (MAU) and later
that night she was transferred to XXX Ward. My daughter visited the hospital at 9.30am on Thursday and when I arrived at approximately 10.15am she was walking the corridors looking for her mother! She had reported to the MAU and told that Mrs X was not in the area. It transpired that no one seemed to know my wife had been transferred to XXX Ward and that in effect she was temporarily lost! A number of staff was involved in tracking down my wife's whereabouts and soon my daughter and I were reunited with Mrs X.

During the afternoon I asked the nurse dispensing medication whether she had the tablets that had been taped to the Medication Chart. She said no and that she had ordered the necessary medication from the hospital pharmacy. I responded by saying 'this morning you lost the patient and now you have lost the medication I had specifically been asked to bring in'. Before leaving the hospital that evening I checked for the results of the Ultrasound and they were still not available.

I arrived at the hospital at 9am on Friday and requested to see a doctor who hopefully could give me the results of the Ultrasound. Two and a half hours later I met a doctor who was debating whether he should take responsibility for my wife or whether another chest specialist (who my wife had seen as an out-patient some 9 months previously) should be involved. This doctor said if my wife came under his care he could tell me anything from this point onwards but could not comment on any matters arising before this time. That afternoon my wife had a CT chest and abdomen Scan and I was told the results would not be known for 24 hours. I telephoned the hospital at 12 noon the following Monday and was told the results of the CT Scan were still not known. Five minutes after that call my wife telephoned to say she could come home. I went to collect her and again enquired about the CT Scan results. When I was told they were not known I asked whether it was right for my wife to be discharged without knowing the outcome of the Scan. The nurse said Mrs X had not been discharged and then queried it with her. My wife explained that a doctor, who she had not seen before, had said 'Would you like to go home' to which she said 'yes'. The nurse went away and on returning said yes it was alright to go home and that the CT Scan was NAD!

Between my wife and I we survived the week but it certainly was not without incident! I have total admiration for many of the staff but there are fundamental issues that need to be addressed and in my view a starting point would be to listen to the Matrons etc who I am sure can see ways for improvement and who are doing their best with the resources provided.

OBSERVATIONS
It appears to an outsider that:

- The records held on a patient in a variety of handwriting and umpteen pieces of paper could lead to inefficiencies
- It is easy to mislay a patient
- It is easy to lose a patient's medication
- The hand over procedures from one medical team to another is inadequate.
- Full time Staff dedication is difficult to maintain when Agency staff are paid substantially more for similar work.
- The cost of Agency staff could be diluting the available funding for necessary expenditure in the hospital.

There's no singing for her supper - which is probably just as well - but maybe it would at least stop those pesky letters addressed to ‘Mr' Anna Pascoe. This week South West Devon's Lib Dem Prospective Parliamentary Candidate Anna Pascoe has been running around as usual, at work, campaigning and to prepare for the Plympton charity 10k.

Monday, March 1
March already and although it's scary how fast the year is flying by, the prospect of light evenings starting this month put a smile on my face. The week began with a busy Monday at work, with the phone ringing off the hook all morning. Then it was off to Yealmpton Parish Rooms for our South West Devon team campaign meeting, finalising the General Election timeline. Only 66 days to go if it's called for May 6! Arrived early enough to grab a pint of orange juice and lemonade and a packet of salt and vinegar in The Volunteer in lieu of dinner and was amused to be asked if I'd turned up for singing club! I reassured everyone that I wouldn't be inflicting my tone-deaf warbling on them.

Tuesday, March 2
Worked on campaign admin in the morning and awaited the customary arrival of more lobbying letters on my doormat. Try not to get offended if more than half are addressed to "Mr" Anna Pascoe again. Also discovered via an email from a friendly American, with the same surname as me, that many lobby groups have presumably just been guessing what my email might be and sending him correspondence intended for me! Any lobby groups wondering why I haven't replied, it's because you have accidentally emailed a bloke in Colorado. Thanks.

Put in some gym and swim training for the Plymouth Round Table run and then headed off to work.

Wednesday, March 3
Another day at work ensued, working on our application for the Observer Ethical Awards and nursing an energy drink. Put in another gym session straight after work to stretch out those aching limbs. Then it was time to freshen up for a friend's birthday meal and tuck in to some curry and garlic naan. Was nice to chat to one of her workmates about his support for the Lib Dems - unfortunately he was moving to Manchester at the weekend so unlikely to benefit from it any time soon!

Thursday, March 4
Got stuck in to the campaign admin first thing, and by lunchtime there were almost what you might describe as inroads made into my email inbox. I'd set aside the afternoon to finally pay a visit to some relatives for the first time this year, so after a spot of leafleting, went to see Aunty Thora and catch up. Then it was time for a training run before the dusk set in and then over to my Nan's place. Nan is always one step ahead of me with the local knowledge, as she grew up in Brixton and then moved to Laira before travelling for my grandad's naval posting. It always makes me smile and think of my Nan when I pass by the aptly-titled Memory Lane in Plymstock.

Friday, March 5
A Plymstock team meeting started off the day and then it was onto the campaign trail, meeting local business leaders and workers to chat about how the recession has been affecting them. The journey to Yealmpton late afternoon to meet some residents there was cut abruptly short with yet another punctured tyre. And yes, Reader, it was of course the new tyre that had been replaced just a couple of weeks ago during the Ivybridge Filham by election. By the time I had waited for roadside rescue I had missed the NEQ Taskforce meeting in Ivybridge as well, not the end to the week I had planned for!

Saturday, March 6
The morning started with leafleting and a strength training session in the gym - just two weeks until the Plympton charity 10k! The afternoon/evening shift at work followed, via Aunty Betty's house, to pop in and say hello.

Sunday, March 7
Early to to rise before my shift at work to tackle some campaign work, and sure enough, another week was drawing to a close. Just time for a final run as the sun began to set and to look forward to another week of getting to know Plymstock, Plymouth and South Hams people (and hopefully no more punctures)!

(check out our text ads on Addiply or other ways to advertise and collaborate)

© People's Republic of South Devon, 2010. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

2. Patently finds it hard to distinguish between political satire and political reality.

3. Hatfield Girl thinks Europeans have got to sort out the Euro, not us.

4. Obselete says we should beware of those who lie for a living.

5. They Are Joking waves goodbye to basic freedoms abroad thanks to religious nutters.

The treatment in court of the three MPs charged with fiddling their expenses claims was not what they are used to

For the three MPs charged with fiddling their expenses claims, it may have been the unkindest moment. Their brief, Julian Knowles, wearing one of those vast chalk-stripe suits that possibly only lawyers may, by law, ever wear, asked the chief magistrate if the trio might be excused sitting in the dock.

The chief magistrate, district judge Timothy Workman, said in the mildest and gentlest fashion that it was usual for defendants to sit exactly there. So the MPs, who had plonked themselves on comfy chairs towards the back, had to file into a glass cage in the corner of the court. It looked slightly like the bulletproof conservatory the Israelis built for Adolf Eichmann. A tiny woman, a court attendant, locked them in, possibly in case they tried to flee in time for a crucial Commons vote.

This is not the kind of treatment MPs, who are kings of the castle in parliament, are used to.

Outside Westminster magistrates court a vast crowd of photographers had gathered, and a somewhat smaller crowd of protesters. What they lacked in numbers they made up in spray-gunned anger: placards denounced "Bakers, politicians, rozzers, grasping, corrupt, filthy pigs the lot ..." Some wore pig masks, others were dressed as Guy Fawkes.

Back in the Commons there was another mini-scandal on the way. It was They Just Don't Get It, episode CXXII. Having just spend £400,000 on refurbishing one of the bars, they plan to spend another £400,000 on turning it into a day nursery for the infant children of MPs and staff. This total sum, which would buy a family home in one of London's nicer areas, has not been vetted by the relevant committee - because, we are told, there isn't time. Tories suspect it's not been checked because it would be turned down.

Back at the beak's, the clerk, a young blonde woman, read out the charges. It took around 10 minutes. The MPs stood up in their glazed cage - Jim Devine looking truculent, David Chaytor anxious, Elliott Morley brick-red and cross.

Knowles explained how his clients were going to claim the charges were none of the court's business - thanks to article 9 in the Bill of Rights, 1689, what happens in parliament stays in parliament. Workman, mild as ever, said he declined jurisdiction and packed them off for trial at the end of the month.

Outside the court there was chaos. "Oink, oink, oink" yelled the people dressed as pigs. "Bye, bye, scum, bye!" said someone else - and he was a photographer. The three MPs and their brief somehow struggled into a cab which managed - just - to drive away without crushing a dozen cameramen's feet.

I pondered what MPs' children will be taught in the new creche. If they can't agree on finger painting or stories, a burly policeman will arrive and bellow "Division!" There will be instruction in expenses. "No, Jordan, you can claim for a Wendy house because you can sit in that, but not for a doll's house. Wayne, you're very naughty, claiming for a Matchbox lorry! Make that claim for a Tonka truck, but only if it's carrying Lego bricks deemed essential for your education under terms agreed with the Fees Office ..."

Or how the rich and vacuous decide on which party to support

Lost in Showbiz doffs its chapeau to Vogue for doing our job for us this week with its Tom Wolfe-esque feature about who the "party people" will vote for in that general election thingummybob. Jade Jagger, Colin Firth's wife, someone called "model Poppy Delevigne" and other political bellwethers all put in their red cents and, believe you me, there were looks of terror around the Guardian's politics desk yesterday morning as they sensed their imminent redundancy.

To single out a favourite moment in the piece would be like choosing the best evocation of hell by Hieronymus Bosch. But one hot contender would be the tableau in which the writer interviews Jimmy Choo's Tamara Mellon about her political bent, while the two of them lie on sunloungers in St Barts with Marc Jacobs and his partner, "posing like Mr Universes in their Speedos". Astonishingly, Tamara believes that "Britain desperately needs the Conservatives". But what does St Barts need, Tammy?

Jagger fille agrees with Mellon, maintaining her family's reputation for really sticking it to the man (the man who will tax them more, mind). And her reasoning is sound - they live near her: "Dave lives round here in north Kensington" - this is call-me-Dave speak for Ladbroke Grove, readers - "They're both working parents, they've had a lot of heartbreak. I mean, which bit is wrong?" If Jade truly is looking for the wrong bit - aside from the fact that she, as a former single mother, would herself be classified very much as a wrong 'un by her chosen party - Lost in Showbiz could direct her to an earlier paragraph in the piece: "The Camerons and the Freuds are what can be called 'tight': their dinner-party gang includes Jeremy Clarkson, Alex James, Rebekah Brooks (nee Wade) and her horse-trainer husband Charlie, and Soho House founder Nick Jones and his wife Kirsty Young."

But don't worry if such political tastes differ from yours. Vogue wisely concludes that "as long as they've succeeded in inveigling their place at the [No 10] table, [celebrities] couldn't care less who the victor turns out to be". Fret no more, Mr Blair - your legacy lives on.

o John Pluthero in line for £11m under new pay plans
o Investors ready to vote against 'excessive' pay awards

Cable & Wireless faces a shareholder revolt over plans to pay senior executive John Pluthero up to £11m under a controversial incentive scheme that has already drawn fire from corporate governance bodies.

The company is also braced for protests against "golden handcuff" proposals that would lock in senior managers at one of the companies that is being demerged and separately floated on the stock exchange this month. Under the terms of the scheme, three executives would be in line for millions of pounds if targets are met.

Pluthero, a former boss of the internet company Freeserve, has already received £8m under the cash part of the company's long-term incentive plan (LTIP), but stands to collect another £3m by 2011 if he can boost the group's share price. Details of his pay arrangements are contained in the company's demerger document, which sets the stage for a breakup of the group.

Andy Kerr, of the Communication Workers Union, said: "John Pluthero is completely out of touch with both the business world and his staff. He should pay this bonus back and give Cable & Wireless workers a decent pay rise. This scandalous bonus culture for senior managers is disgraceful." The company has recently cut 1,900 jobs.

Investors say they are ready to vote against the firm's remuneration report at the annual meeting this summer because pay awards at C&W are excessive.

One shareholder who spoke on the basis of anonymity said: "C&W shouldn't be inflaming tensions at a time of heightened investor sensitivity to excessive pay in the wake of the world financial crisis.Executive remuneration has become an explosive issue."

But the company said: "We pay our executives what we consider to be a reasonable rate, in line with their duties and comparable packages at peer companies." It added that Pluthero, chairman of C&W Worldwide, and other managers had increased shareholder returns by 44% since 2006. Richard Lapthorne, group chairman, said that shareholders had "benefited" from the scheme, which had underpinned the company's revival. Shares are up 30% in three years.

The company has published a document that sets the stage for separate listings of its UK and international businesses, known respectively as C&W Worldwide and C&W Communications.

The document also outlined proposed modifications to C&W's LTIP, which last year paid out £32m to senior managers. Changes to the plan are designed to pave the way for big share awards for exceptional performance for Jim Marsh, chief executive of C&W Worldwide; Tim Weller, finance director, and Ivan Gunatilleke, chief operating officer. The proposed awards for Marsh and his colleagues reflect how C&W is trying to ensure that managers responsible for the turnaround of the British business stay at the company well beyond the demerger.

But the proposals, which will be discussed by the company with investors after the split, have angered activists who are concerned that C&W's pay policies breach best practice. Alan MacDougall, of corporate governance champions Pirc, said: "The fundamental problem here is that C&W is encouraging risk because if executives really want these rewards they could be tempted to make decisions that are not in the long-term interests of the company or its shareholders."

The demerger will begin on 22 March with the listing of C&W Communications. C&W Worldwide will follow on 26 March.

Opposition to C&W's pay plans has been the norm since 2006 when it introduced a private equity-style LTIP that was designed to pay executives cash of up to 10% of growth in shareholder returns. Shareholders said there was not enough downside and that hurdles were based on too short a timescale. The scheme could have paid out £220m in total if C&W's shares had performed even more strongly.

Last year, C&W suffered one of the biggest shareholder rebellions of the year when 38% of its investors failed to endorse its pay policy after the Association of British Insurers objected to its remunerationstance by issuing a "red top" alert.
Shareholder rebellions

Jan 2009 A majority of shareholders vote against the remuneration report of Bellway, the UK housebuilder. Widespread anger because management pay themselves bonuses despite failing to meet performance targets.

April 2009 Royal Bank of Scotland shareholders vote overwhelmingly against the remuneration policy proposed by the bank's board. UK Financial Investments, the body set up to oversee taxpayers' interests in the bank, puts its voting weight behind the protest, fuelled by the pension awarded to Sir Fred Goodwin, RBS's disgraced former chief executive.

April 2009 More than a third of BP shareholders vote against the company's executive long-term incentive plan.

May 2009 Shareholders turn on Royal Dutch Shell, the multinational oil group. In one of the biggest investor rebellions over directors' pay, about 59% of Shell shareholders vote down the company's remuneration report. They objected to the discretionary award of bonuses for 2006-08, despite the company's disappointing financial performance.

May 2009 Investors vote against plans by Provident Financial to pay a bonus and double-digit salary increases to senior executives.

December 2009 More than 55% of shareholders vote against the Punch Taverns pay report in protest at grants of shares to directors and bonus payments to directors in the wake of dismal trading.

Progressives have been vindicated. The public are far ahead, and to the left, of government on the reforms we need

In November 2008, shortly after Barack Obama's election victory, his combative chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, revealed the new administration's approach to the sudden economic downturn. "Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste," he told the New York Times. "They are opportunities to do big things."

The left, however, never seems to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Social-democratic political parties across the west are in danger of allowing the financial crisis to "go to waste". Instead of seizing this once-in-a-lifetime chance to promote a radical, progressive and even populist political and economic agenda, much of the left has retreated into a familiar and introspective comfort zone, in which navel-gazing and self-flagellation become substitutes for action.

Since the crash of 2008, I have been deluged with an endless string of invitations to meetings, seminars and conferences on the future of the left. The titles tend to reflect the underlying doom and gloom: "Where next for the left?", "Whither the left?", "Which way's left?" For the past 18 months, these fatalistic congregations of British liberals and lefties have been accompanied by a slew of equally depressing books, articles and pamphlets. The latest offering this week is an ebook jointly published by the centre-left Labour pressure group Compass, and the leftist journal Soundings, and entitled After the Crash: Reinventing the Left in Britain.

In their introduction to the collection of essays, academics Richard Grayson and Jonathan Rutherford write that "the crisis has left the elites trapped in the discredited neoliberal orthodoxy of the past". But are they "trapped"? Or has the right, in fact, been oddly liberated - to advocate "swingeing" cuts to public spending, to defend a resurgent bank bonus culture, and to condemn "big government" - which, according to David Cameron, "got us into this mess"? Eighteen months on, few, if any, of the leading neoliberal ideologues have recanted their belief in the sort of market fundamentalism that unleashed the worst financial crisis in human history.

The irony is that leftist analyses, for example, of the fragility of financial markets and the corrosive effects of inequality, have been vindicated by events. Never before in living memory have such large swathes of public and expert opinion endorsed policies and positions long advanced by the progressive end of the political spectrum. The public is to the left not simply of New Labour, but the political and media classes as a whole.

You might not know it from reading the rightwing press. In January the Telegraph claimed the latest results from the respected British Social Attitudes survey revealed that: "The public has concluded 'enough is enough' for increased taxation and raised spending on key services such as health and education, with support at its lowest for almost three decades." True. But what the Telegraph failed to focus on is that the same survey revealed the most popular view, held by 50% of the public, was for taxes and spending to remain as they are. Only 8% supported cuts.

Meanwhile, specific taxes targeted at the rich have been welcomed by voters. The new 50p top-rate tax for high-earners and the tax on bankers' bonuses remain two of the most unequivocally popular policies this Labour government has implemented. So what do ministers go and do? Lord Mandelson promises the 50p rate will be abolished as soon as possible, and Alistair Darling makes the bonus tax a one-off, temporary measure. Whatever happened to New Labour, the party of opinion polls and focus groups?

The reality is that the public are far ahead, and to the left, of the government on financial and economic reform. Polling by YouGov in February, for example, revealed that 76% of those surveyed wanted the government to introduce a law to cap bonus payments; 51% said they backed the so-called Robin Hood tax, or Tobin tax, on financial transactions; and 68% said they supported rules to split retail and investment banking. The latter view is backed by the Trotskyist governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, and the former by "Red" Adair Turner of the Financial Services Authority.

Then there is the role of the state. The right could offer no real alternative to the de facto nationalisation of the banks in 2008 - and the late Michael Foot went to his grave having seen a key section of his 1983 "suicide note" manifesto implemented by a (New) Labour government. But the hankering for state ownership of the so-called commanding heights of the economy is not restricted to the financial sector. Polls show voters in favour of the renationalisation of electricity, gas, water, the railways and the telecommunications industry.

In fact, throughout the Thatcher era, more people voted for high-spending, tax-raising parties than voted for Thatcher. Despite three decades of tacking to the right, under Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown, the public has remained rather collectivist in its attitudes. Happily, recent events have only served to entrench this British mindset - and Labour's belated semi-conversion to a populist, Keynesian social democracy surely explains the narrowing of the Tory lead since the new year.

To talk therefore of a crisis of leftwing thinking is defeatist nonsense. It is the market-worshipping right that should be in crisis. But there is a serious question as to whether, after a decade-long Faustian pact with the City, Labour, as it is currently constituted, is capable of delivering the radical, progressive agenda voters crave. The party once sought to split the difference between free-market capitalism and democratic socialism by taking the "third way". In the end, under Blair and Brown, this turned out to be less a new route map for the left, than a neoliberal dead end.

So here the "where next for the left?" brigade has a point. But will the forthcoming election provoke a political realignment on the left that cuts across party, sectarian and geographical lines, and incorporates, say, the traditions and ideologies of smaller parties like the Greens and non-party, community-based organisations like London Citizens? The ubiquitous Jon Cruddas, Labour MP and former deputy leadership candidate, argues in his contribution to the Compass/Soundings ebook that alliances of this kind are not alien to the Labour party's own history.

Crisis? What crisis? There is no need for postmortems; the patient is not dead. The left should be much more confident, triumphalist even; for this is a progressive moment.

Soldiers based in Musa Qala in northern Helmand to be redeployed, but 800 troops will remain in Sangin

Control of a key town in southern Afghanistan, twice captured by British troops and where 23 were killed, is to be handed over to the US marines, it was announced today.

Five hundred British soldiers based in Musa Qala, in northern Helmand, will be redeployed further south to join most of the UK's remaining 10,000 troops in the province, Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, told MPs.

However, 800 British troops will remain in Sangin, described by British commanders today as one of the most dangerous places in Afghanistan. Six British soldiers have been killed there since the beginning of March, some as a result of what military sources called "increasing accuracy" in small arms fire by Taliban fighters.

Military spokesman Major General Gordon Messenger described Sangin as a place which "matters to the Taliban" as an important transit route, near a major poppy route and a narcotics region.

He described the district as "one of the most enduring problems in Helmand". The Taliban were intimidating the population at night and British and Afghan troops are manning 30 patrol bases and checkpoints.

Messenger said it was possible that responsibility for Sangin could also be handed over to the US, though defence sources said that was extremely unlikely.

Musa Qala was taken by British forces in early 2006. In October that year, the British moved out after an agreement, pressed on them by the Karzai government in Kabul, with tribal elders. In February 2007 the Taliban took over the town. In December that year it was reclaimed by British troops, supported by Afghan forces, after a fierce battle.

Defence officials said today that the 500 British troops still there will be redeployed to "thicken and deepen" the British presence in central Helmand, closer to areas where thousands have been engaged in Operation Moshtarak with US and Afghan troops.

British troops currently make up 30% of the military force in Helmand, but are responsible for the security of 70% of the region's population, a state of affairs that has been described by British commanders as nonsensical. The 10,000 British troops in the province include some 500 special forces.

Lieutenant Colonel Harry Fullerton, commander of a Household Cavalry-led battlegroup, said today: "We didn't take over a disaster at the beginning, we took over a market system which was starting to be successful. We have seen the market enlarge. We have about 1,200 stall holders in the bazaar. It hasn't been without its cost but it has been a cost worth making."

Messenger said British troops were handing over "a going concern, a success story". He said Nato commanders were considering transferring other parts of Helmand, including Kajaki, to US forces.

Labour MPs and Tory peer plead not guilty and say workings of parliament should be dealt with by parliament

Three Labour MPs and a Conservative peer charged with theft over their expenses claims are to fight to keep their cases out of the criminal courts by attempting to invoke a 320-year-old law protecting them under parliamentary privilege.

Elliot Morley, David Chaytor, Jim Devine and Lord Hanningfield appeared today at City of Westminster magistrates court to plead not guilty to charges of false accounting under the Theft Act 1968.

The cases were committed to Southwark crown court after lawyers argued they raised issues of "high constitutional importance". If convicted, the four face a maximum sentence of seven years' imprisonment.

Julian Knowles, representing the three MPs, stressed the men were not saying they were above the law. "That would be quite wrong." But, he added, "parliamentary privilege is part of the law, and it is for parliament to apply the law in their cases".

The three MPs stood together in the functional reinforced glass dock of Court One at the Horseferry Road court, a short walk from the Palace of Westminster, during their 15-minute appearance.

A request they be allowed to remain outside the dock was refused by district judge Timothy Workman. Lord Hanningfield, who gave his name as "Paul Edward Winston Lord Hanningfield, previously White", appeared alone immediately after them.

Knowles said the three MPs "unequivocally and steadfastly maintain their innocence of the charges against them". Referring to the 1689 Bill of Rights, originally designed to protect freedom of speech, he said the MPs maintained "that to prosecute them in the criminal courts for their parliamentary activities would infringe the principle of the separation of powers, which is one of the principles which underpins the UK's constitutional structure.

"The principle of the separation of powers means that whatever matter arises concerning the working of parliament should be dealt with by parliament, and not elsewhere, and should be dealt with in a manner that is consistent with the way other members have been treated."

He added that parliamentary privilege meant that "proceedings in parliament cannot be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside of parliament".

"These principles mean that it is for the House of Commons alone to decide whether the conduct of Mr Morley, Mr Chaytor and Mr Devine has been such as to call for sanction."

Morley, 57, former agriculture minister and MP for Scunthorpe, is alleged to have dishonestly claimed £30,428 more than he was entitled to in second-home expenses between 2004 and 2007 on a house in Winterton, near Scunthorpe, towards a mortgage that was paid off.

Chaytor, 60, MP for Bury North, faces charges that he claimed almost £13,000 in rent in 2005 and 2006 on a London flat which he owned, as well as £5,425 in 2007 and 2008 to rent a property in Lancashire owned by his mother. He is also alleged to have used false invoices to claim £1,950 for IT services in 2006.

Devine, 56, MP for Livingston, is alleged to have claimed £3,240 for cleaning services and £5,505 for stationery using false invoices in 2008 and 2009.

All three have been barred as standing as Labour candidates in the forthcoming general election.

Hanningfield, 69, who was suspended from the parliamentary Conservative party and stood down as leader of Essex county council, pleaded not guilty to six charges relating to claims for overnight allowances, ranging from £154 to £172, from the House of Lords between 2006 and 2009 when records allegedly show he was driven to his home near Chelmsford.

The judge agreed with the defendants' application for the cases to be heard at crown court. All were released on unconditional bail to appear at Southwark crown court on 30 March.

Anna Arrowsmith, managing director of adult film company Easy on the Eye, will stand for the party in Gravesham, Kent. Under her pseudonym Anna Span the 38-year-old has produced around 300 pornographic films. She has specialised in "women friendly" films, with titles like Where's the Rent Boys aimed at female erotica enthusiasts.

Mrs Arrowsmith asked the people of Gravesend not to judge her on the sins of her industry and pointed to her background as a campaigner for women's rights. The Lib Dems finished third in Gravesham in 2005 with just 4,851 votes.

She said: "I have gone into the industry with a view to changing it and making it more female friendly. In this day and age people who live in a democratic society should be able to choose what they want to watch."

She added: "I have spent years campaigning for equal opportunities for female workers and I think this has given me an excellent experience for the coming campaign."

Named best director in the 2008 and 2009 UK Adult Film and Television Awards, Mrs Arrowsmith, who also has a degree in fine arts and a Masters in Philosophy, is becoming involved in politics for the first time. ...

A Liberal Democrats Party spokesperson said: "We are proud to have candidates throughout the country with a great diversity of backgrounds and life experiences. Anna will be a strong candidate for Gravesham and with her family links to the area we believe she is the best person to bring fairness to local people."

Anyone bothered by this? Thought not. As Lib Dem blogger Alex Wilcock once proposed – with tongue only slightly suggestively in cheek – perhaps the party should adopt the slogan, 'Liberal Democrats: the party that says sex is all right'.

The Spectator interview has stirred up Sunder Katawala at the left-leaning Liberal Conspiracy, who speculates that Nick's comments will "be a major talking point at the LibDem spring conference in Birmingham this weekend, where it may not meet with universal acclaim among party members."

Well, I won't pretend to be able to speak for party members – y'see, part of the point of being a liberal is that we're all individuals – but I'm wholly relaxed that Nick has spoken approvingly of the significance of Margaret Thatcher's actions in taking on the vested interests of overwheening trade union powers in the 1980s. Here's the relevant excerpt from the Sectator interview:

Age, he claims, has taught him the point of Lady Thatcher. And, indeed, he now seems to see her as something of an inspiration. 'I'm 43 now. I was at university at the height of the Thatcher revolution and I recognise now something I did not at the time: that her victory over a vested interest, the trade unions, was immensely significant. I don't want to be churlish: that was an immensely important visceral battle for how Britain is governed. And what has now happened to the British economy? It has gone belly-up because, once again, we have allowed a vested interest to run riot.' He is talking, of course, about the banks. 'They represent a vested interest. This is what I sometimes don't understand about the Cameron-Osborne act. A real liberal believes in genuine competition, a genuine level playing field and he is unremittingly hostile to vested interests.' As Thatcher was to Scargill, so Mr Clegg intends to be to the banks. 'What I find so striking is that the spirit -- dare I say it -- of the battle against the dominance of one vested interest, the trade unions, is exactly the same spirit we need now.'

I can see why some Labour party members might not like Nick's statement; but I can't see why liberals (with small l's and big L's) would have a problem with it. That's why we're in rival parties, after all.

As for creating a fuss among the party membership, today's Lib Dem blogs have scarcely been buzzing with discontent. If anything, I think most of us are rubbing our eyes in amazement to see the party leader attracting such a high profile even before the general election campaign kicks off.

I still think Nick is wrong not to rule out a coalition: the Lib Dem position, as I've stated on LDV before, should be cooperation not coalition. But credit where it's due. Nick's interviews suggest a confident, dynamic leader who's campaign-ready, and eminently comfortable in his own skin. So let's leave the last word to him, from the Economist interview transcript, in which Nick makes his ‘elevator pitch':

Everyone's talking about change; everyone's talking about fairness. What we're trying to focus people's attention on is these very hard, concrete pledges we're making on tax reform, on pupil premium, on reforms of banking, on a new politics, to get people to ask themselves the question we really want them to ask themselves: 'What's in it for me and my family?' We think and all our research suggests - it's amazing how much research goes into something which is, in a sense, as simple as that - that the more people asks themselves those questions, the more you get a dramatic falling away from the Conservatives and it benefits us enormously. People think, 'Actually I don't want the blather of change; I want something that really works for me'.

That's it, really. It shows, I hope, a combination of two things. Firstly, that in as much as elections are about a very crude question - do you want change or not? - we are unambiguously on the side of change from the Labour status quo, but that we think we contrast ourselves very favourably with what is a rather vacuous pitch for change, one without sincerity, one without authenticity from Cameron.

A recent report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee examined the provision of homeopathy through the NHS and called for funding by the NHS to be stopped. The Committee did recognise that many users derive benefit from its use and did not argue that such treatments should be banned.

The Liberal Democrats believe that, as a basic principle, individuals should have maximum freedom about how they choose to get treated, so long as the therapy is safe.  When it comes to NHS provision, we support a review by NICE into the cost effectiveness of Complementary and Alternative (CAMs) therapies, including homeopathy; as well as expanding the work of NICE to look at the cost-effectiveness of existing conventional treatments.

We know that many complementary therapies are popular with the public. The NHS budget is limited and we want to make sure that NHS funding is focused on treatments which are efficacious and cost-effective. NICE reviews of all existing treatments would give us the best possible basis for future decisions over funding.

Note: Kudos to James Graham for being quicker off the mark blogging on this story.

"Building on the global success of last year's Earth Hour event, momentum is building across the world once again and WWF is aiming to reach a billion people", said Stephen Williams. "By signing up and taking part we can all show support for strong international action to tackle climate change." 

WWF's Earth Hour is a global initiative taking place on Saturday 27 March 2010 between 8.30pm-9.30pm. WWF is calling on individuals, businesses, iconic landmarks and local authorities to sign up to switch off their lights for one hour to show they care about people and wildlife threatened by climate change. The initiative has become bigger than ever, surpassing all previous years' events, with over 1,100 cities and towns across the globe switching off their lights in support of Earth Hour. 

Last year 88 countries got involved in the event and with 2010 seeing more than 91 countries taking part, a ripple will cross the Earth as landmarks in 25 time zones switch off. Many of the world's most iconic landmarks are on board including the Golden Gate Bridge, the Las Vegas strip, Table Mountain and the Burj Khalifa tower- the tallest building in the world.  

UK landmarks pledging to switch off their lights include Piccadilly Circus and the London Eye, which will be dimming its lights for Earth Hour. Other famous buildings pledging to plunge into darkness for an hour include the Royal Albert Hall, Manchester's Trafford Centre, Stormont, Inverness Castle, Wales Millennium Stadium and Portsmouth's Spinnaker Tower. Companies supporting the event include M&S, Coca-Cola and Ikea. 

WWF is campaigning for a strong global response to climate change after the Copenhagen climate summit failed to deliver a sufficiently robust climate deal. To help create the public mandate here in the UK, and worldwide, for governments to agree a strong deal, WWF is calling on everyone to get involved and take part in Earth Hour. There have been two Early Day Motions (EDMs) tabled regarding WWF Earth Hour.

First was EDM 765, entitled ‘Climate Change & The Earth Hour 2010 Campaign'. Not only has Stephen Williams signed this EDM, he was in fact one of the co-sponsors of it. It states: 

"That this House calls for cross-party support for WWF's Earth Hour 2010 campaign which seeks to persuade over a billion people worldwide to switch off their lights for an hour at 8.30 pm on 27 March 2010 to demonstrate to political leaders the far-reaching public desire for an urgent, fair, ambitious, binding and scientifically credible global deal on climate change; notes that the Copenhagen Accord failed to establish a sufficiently ambitious or binding framework capable of tackling the threat of climate change; further notes the urgent need for a legally binding global compact which sets stringent carbon emissions reductions targets at global and national levels; further notes that such a framework must include a mechanism for the independent monitoring and verification of progress; further calls on the Government to seek a new international mechanism to provide sustained and sufficient finance additional to existing commitments and which will be committed to support mitigation and adaptation and to prevent deforestation in developing nations; recognises the lead the UK showed at the climate negotiations in Copenhagen; and further calls on the Government to take a leadership role in securing jobs in the UK's green economy and in safeguarding lives, livelihoods and the planet." 

At the time of writing this EDM has already gained the cross-party support of nearly 150 MPs, including 42 Lib Dems: a figure that is likely to continue to rise. 

In addition, more recently Stephen Williams has signed EDM 1045, entitled ‘Earth Hour 2010 Campaign & The Palace Of Westminster', which was tabled by Liberal Democrat MP for North Cornwall, Dan Rogerson. It states: 

"That this House supports WWF's Earth Hour 2010; notes the event's record of persuading one billion people worldwide to sign up to switch off their lights for an hour at 8.30 pm on 27 March 2010; congratulates those individuals, organisations, businesses and local authorities which have already pledged to take part; further notes that many British landmarks, including Canary Wharf, Piccadilly Circus, Trafalgar Square and the London Eye will switch their lights off; and calls on the House authorities to ensure that the Palace of Westminster and all other buildings on the Parliamentary estate take part by switching off external floodlights and non-essential internal lighting."

Three Conservative committee members walk out claiming inquiry is pursuing Labour vendetta

A Westminster inquiry into the row over Lord Ashcroft's peerage was thrown into turmoil when the Tory MPs on the committee walked out and said they were boycotting it permanently.

In what is understood to be an unprecedented move, Conservative members have withdrawn from the public administration select committee, some following discussions with the party whips.

The committee, regarded as one of the most influential in parliament, announced an inquiry into Ashcroft's ennoblement in the aftermath of the peer's revelation last week that he has non-dom status. The billionaire described how he had renegotiated an undertaking he gave as a condition of his peerage to become a full British resident to allow him to retain his non-dom status and avoid paying tax on his substantial international earnings.

The disclosure ended 10 years of speculation about Lord Ashcroft's tax status and provoked a bitter row over whether he had broken the spirit of the undertakings he had given to secure his peerage.

The Tory leadership was also embarrassed after it was revealed that no one in the party knew of his tax status until the shadow foreign secretary, William Hague, found out a few months ago, and that he in turn kept David Cameron in the dark until last month.

Sources close to the committee have confirmed the three Tory members have walked out, claiming the inquiry is pursuing a Labour vendetta. Some are under pressure from their leadership via the party whips, one senior source claimed.

It also emerged that Lord Ashcroft failed to meet a 9.30am deadline today to respond to an invitation to give evidence to the committee next Thursday. Gordon Prentice, a Labour committee member who has campaigned vociferously against the peer, made the announcement on his website. The committee has no powers to order members of the Lords to give evidence.

The remaining members met yesterday and agreed the line-up for their one-day hearing on propriety in peerages.

Hague, who as Ashcroft's closest colleague sponsored his peerage and was subject to his promise to become a permanent resident, has been invited. Hayden Phillips, the senior civil servant at the time, has also received an invitation and Baroness Dean and Lord Hurd, who were on the scrutiny committee at the time of his appointment, are also understood to be on the list.

The three Tory members of the committee, David Burrowes, Ian Liddell-Grainger and Charles Walker, will not be attending any further meetings. An end of term lunch, scheduled for today, was cancelled after they failed to turn-up.

Liddell-Grainger, MP for Bridgwater, confirmed to the Guardian that he had walked out. "I've served on that committee since I've been a member of parliament. Tony Wright has been a good chair but three weeks before a general election is called they have decided to make this committee blatantly political. It has been totally politicised and is therefore not able to function as a proper select committee any more."

He denied he had been ordered to boycott the committee by the party leadership, saying he reached the decision himself.

Burrowes, MP for Enfield, confirmed that party whips had been involved in the discussion about the committee but said did not need the whips to tell him to boycott it. He said the inquiry would become a "political circus" and argued that Lord Paul, the Labour donor and non-dom, should also give evidence. Walker could not be contacted last night.

A spokesman for the Conservatives said: "We don't believe that it [the Ashcroft inquiry] is an appropriate use of the committee." He said that the central party had not been involved in the MPs' decisions to leave the committee.

Tony Wright, the Labour chairman of the committee, defended the decision to conduct the inquiry. He said: "We are not interested in the party political dimension of this but we are interested in trying to get to the bottom of an issue about propriety that has remained unresolved for the best part of a decade."

During the debate on de Brún’s report on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals, Nicholson was postively gushing:

Mr President, first of all let me begin by thanking the rapporteur for all her hard work on this report. What many of us felt at the beginning would be a dossier which would not cause us much of a problem turned out to be an awful lot more tricky than we thought.

Unfortunately the rapporteur had to take the brunt of most of the negotiations, but she certainly had to work very hard to ensure this report got through within the necessary time frame, which was very important as we were under pressure to secure the extension of her derogation which was due to run out in June of this year.

Even Diane Dodds voted in favour of the report.

I like photos of potholes. Or even empty pavements.

I like photos of candidates.

I like photos of candidates and potholes.

Looking glum or not.

But so often the ‘action' photo of the local campaigning ‘team' shows one static solitary person doing nothing much other than looking lonely and static.

The solution? Read this excellent set of advice on how to take better photographs – no fancy camera required.

It's only missing one piece of advice, namely my Rule Of The Left (And Right) Nostril which, unaccountably, hasn't yet made it big in the US.

In other words, have you ever seen a photograph taken for use in a political leaflet that was taken from too close up? There are loads taken from too far away but I've never seen one that makes me think, "I really didn't want to see quite so much of that left nostril". So however close you are, get closer. And then get closer again.

I have just been reminded of this when reading the words of Baroness Cox who has written to the Times today about their misrepresentations in reporting on Sunday's massacre in Jos, Nigeria. She writes:

Sir, The article by Ruth Gledhill and Jonathan Clayton ("500 butchered in Nigeria killing fields", Mar 9) portrays vividly the horror suffered by innocent civilians in the most recent outbreak of violence in what is becoming a deeply disturbing sequence of massacres.

Well, I am shocked – I say shocked – that Baroness Cox is obviously a jihadi and can only hope for her immediate deportation to Jihadistan!

"When the right won out, the reality was brutal. I remember very distinctly this sense that we were being told we should all place money above morality; put profit ahead of people; that we shouldn't worry about selling out. Because, at the end of the day, there was no such thing as society. But I looked around me and thought: no, there has to be more to life than this. There is more to us than this. Justice, fairness, community. We weren't ready to give in to that soulless, unforgiving Britain. That dog-eat-dog, get-rich-quick, look-after-number-one Britain. We didn't want to live in Thatcher's Britain.

"The false idols of trickle-down economics worshipped by Tories and New Labour alike have turned to dust."

So turn to this year and what is this in the Spectator?

Age, he claims, has taught him the point of Lady Thatcher. And, indeed, he now seems to see her as something of an inspiration. 'I'm 43 now. I was at university at the height of the Thatcher revolution and I recognise now something I did not at the time: that her victory over a vested interest, the trade unions, was immensely significant. I don't want to be churlish: that was an immensely important visceral battle for how Britain is governed.

"And what has now happened to the British economy? It has gone belly-up because, once again, we have allowed a vested interest to run riot." He is talking, of course, about the banks. "They represent a vested interest. This is what I sometimes don't understand about the Cameron-Osborne act. A real liberal believes in genuine competition, a genuine level playing field and he is unremittingly hostile to vested interests." As Thatcher was to Scargill, so Mr Clegg intends to be to the banks. "What I find so striking is that the spirit — dare I say it — of the battle against the dominance of one vested interest, the trade unions, is exactly the same spirit we need now."

Speaking after Cabinet Office Questions, Jenny Willott, said that the fund showed a lack real commitment by the Government to lead from the front in the fight against climate change. 

Cabinet Office Minister Angela Smith MP replied in the Chamber that the money would create additional savings, which could then be invested in further energy saving. She claimed that plans to reduce emissions from Government building were ‘on track'. 

Commenting on the Minister's answer Jenny Willott said: "The idea that less than £3 million will have any real impact on the emissions from Government buildings is laughable. Any savings made from this original investment will not be nearly enough to bring about the kind of changes needed to tackle the incredibly poor efficiency ratings of many Government departments. 

"It is astonishing how many Government buildings fall way below acceptable standards. Nearly a third of Government buildings were given the worst possible energy efficient ratings in 2010. Even Downing Street was only classed as an "E" rated building, way below the average. 

"If we expect private businesses to lower their carbon footprint to ensure the UK meets its targets for emissions reduction by 2020, then it is only right that the Government leads by example and makes the real investment needed to bring government buildings to up to scratch."