His claims that you can tell Vince is being dishonest about not responding to cynical party games because he didn’t respond to Labour’s move last week, and because he’s really only responding to pressure from Downing Street.

The obvious problems with these reasons are:

1. The timing was part of Labour’s “cynical party political games”. It therefore makes perfect sense that Cable would wait until after the Lib Dem Spring Conference to respond. Unless Sunny is suggesting that Labour doesn’t ever play political games (and he’s never struck me as being stupid), it makes no sense to suggest that someone wary of a political trap should blindly follow the timing of the party setting that trap.

2. The trap being set was that Cable should either challenge his coalition partner on something that wouldn’t make it through Parliament at this time and therefore fail, or go back on his own policy and therefore fail. The only way to win that game is not to play. The fact that the Tories said exactly what we would expect is pretty much irrelevant, except to the extent that it highlight the reality of coalition politics: the coalition partners know that they need to pick their battles for what to push for.

Unless he honestly think that the targets of deeply cynical gambits must operate to the timetable of the party setting the trap (bet he wouldn’t if it were a Tory trap…), then he’s really made no case at all that Cable is being dishonest.

Oh, and the press release from Labour could have been written at the same time as the motion: “Nick Clegg and Vince Cable are letting down those they told they wanted a fairer tax system”. Utterly predictable.

Labour currently have no policies. That they have happened to suddenly find one, which just so happens to be a Lib Dem policy, is not honest or sincere politics. There’s absolutely no evidence they made any attempt to work with the Lib Dems to get their first policy idea in a long time through the system.

I honestly don’t mind a bit of political posturing and manoeuvres. But having had a blank sheet of paper for several years now, as a centre-left voter I really was hoping Labour would come out of the gates with something worthy of a party that aspires to lead again.

There’s been some talk amongst the commentariat that when it comes to sexual harassment, the problem is that some women need to toughen up. I make a minor concession below about understanding where that point of view comes from, but it’s still nonsense. Here’s some simple reasons why.

Bluster ain’t tough

There’s a lot of bluster coming from people talking about the need to be tough, or alternatively how bravely they are standing up for due process. Thing is, bluster ain’t tough. It can be loud and arrogant, but really it’s just giving in to temptation. Giving in to temptation just isn’t a tough thing to do.

One perfectly hard headed decision, on the other hand, might simply be: I’ve got better things to do than put up with this. Either the organisation does something about it when I raise the issue, or I’ll go off and have a more honest, better paid life doing something else.

It’s tougher to stand up for others than for yourself

It’s so much easier to leave it to everyone else to solve the problem. It’s much tougher if you have to actually confront someone on behalf of others.

To me, this is a defining feature of being liberal. The idea that taking responsibility ends once you’ve looked out for you and yours is fundamentally conservative. Liberalism challenges you to make an effort for others, too.

Proactive is better than reactive

Taking instinctive action, over a brief period of time, in reaction to events, might come from genuine toughness, and stem from an admirable personality. It’s still reactive, however. If you’ve got the right personality, it’s not that difficult. This is one reason, to be fair, why some people’s response to sexual harassment is essentially, “Can’t you just deal with it at the time?”

What is more difficult is being proactive, to take the time and make the effort to stop further incidents. Not everyone has that personality, and if you’re a leader you’d be better off with their contribution than their silence, or worse their departure. It is always, without exception, damaging to have senior figures regularly conduct themselves in a manner which disgusts promising talent. When their targets leave, probably having discussed their real reasons with a few others, both your talent pool and your recruitment opportunities shrink.

Don’t settle for less

Accepting sexual harassment is settling for less. It’s the easy way out that produces a poorer outcome. It’s not about whether those subjected to it are tough enough; it’s about whether those in charge are trying to build the strongest organisation and culture that they can.

Disclaimer

This post is inspired by allegations made regarding Lord Rennard, but it is not about whether or not the allegations are true. Lord Rennard is innocent until proven guilty via due process. I do however want to comment on the way in which the claims of the women are not being taken seriously in some quarters.

I’d also like to make clear that while this post is based on my personal experiences of assault and harassment, it is absolutely not intended to shift the focus away from sexual harassment in a kind of, “hey, what about men?” fashion.  Hopefully the piece as a whole demonstrates that I take sexual harassment as a serious women’s issue.

With regards to the Rennard case

This post isn’t about defining sexual harassment, but ultimately there is a threshold – either Lord Rennard crossed it or he didn’t.

If he did, then the party did not take the necessary actions to ensure that those who were at risk, and those who might be at risk in the future, were protected and respected. That doesn’t mean that action wasn’t taken. I tend to believe that an emphasis on discretion often comes at the cost of an effective remedy, however.

If he didn’t, then the party did not give Lord Rennard the protection and respect of due process. He has been severely hurt as a consequence.

Either way, there is work to be done – and credit to the Lib Dems, that work has begun.

Brief description of my assault

I’ve had the pleasure of being assaulted, about nine years ago. That picture is me, the morning after a group of young guys attacked me one night. They punched me in the head til I fell down, and gave me a bit of a kicking for good measure until the police made them scarper.

My mistake was to walk home the way I usually walked home from the pub, in a generally quiet residential area of Reading, along a well lit road. In other words, I did nothing risky, nothing to invite an assault. It’s remarkable, however, how quickly you think to yourself things like, “Well, I was telling that story to my mate at the time with all these expansive hand gestures, I guess that could have been seen as threatening, maybe I should kind of take some of the blame.”

Long story short: I got assaulted, for no reason, and still there’s an instinct to wonder what it was that I did wrong.

The good thing about physical assault

“The good thing about physical assault” – there’s a phrase you don’t hear every day, eh? But it is possible, if you’re going to be attacked, to look at the bright side of a one-off assault:

• Physical pain is kind of external; it hurts but is easy to care for.
• It’s most definitely real; you are your own evidence.
• When your eyes are swollen shut, people tend to think it’s serious.
• No one thinks that if you’re a bit subdued at work the next day there’s anything weird about it. And your boss sends you home as soon as he finds you in a cubicle at the back, so your face won’t put people off their work. Actually, my boss at the time was very gracious about the whole business.
• It’s easy to make macho comments about, “I held my ground, out numbered five to one.” Or less macho jokes like, “You should see the other guy! Because I can’t, what with my eye being swollen shut…”
• It heals, and you can watch it heal, and I reckon that kind of helps you along the psychological healing process.

That last point is important. Because trust me, when someone else decides to force themselves upon you, in a way that you cannot prevent no matter how tough you think you are, then something is taken from you. And it’s hard to get back.

The hidden, lasting, internal pain of harassment

Harassment by a protected figure in your organisation, I can tell you from personal (non-sexual) experience, is even worse. There’s no physical injury, but it’s a drawn out process that’s even harder to fight:

• You won’t be believed. Multiple people being perfectly willing to beat you bloody with their fists is believable. The far less extreme idea of just one person being perfectly willing to wreak havoc on your performance and reputation is somehow laughable. They’re so well spoken, after all.
• Each individual lie, false complaint, rumour or nitpick is trivial. It’s not like you were outnumbered five to one, either. So if you can’t handle it, it must be your fault.
• If you leave, you’ll be a quitter. If you stay, because of the constant interference, you’ll be someone who can’t get things done.
• If you lose your temper, you’ll be blamed for that, too.
• If you stand up for yourself or others, you’ll be called confrontational.
• You won’t be supported. The other guy is charming, and he works *so hard* – why are you rocking the boat?
• There is nothing you can dab with TCP and whack a bandage over. Whatever pain you feel, you will deal with it in quiet moments, alone.

The intimate violation of sexual harassment

All the above is fairly bad. I think I’d rather get beat up and sent to hospital again, or burgled again. Letting your body heal or putting in an insurance claim are pretty straightforward processes.  They sure beat slow torture by lies and insinuations from someone granted “untouchable” status. Sexual harassment takes all of that, I would imagine, to a whole new level. Here’s my attempt to imagine what it feels like, on top of everything already mentioned:

• It gets inside your clothing as well as your head. It makes safe spaces unsafe, and waits for you in the office and in well lit places.
• As a woman you might even be resigned not only to its inevitability, but also that you’ll never directly witness a man being held accountable for it.
• You’ll have seen how the choice often seems to be between being thought of as a weak girly girl or a ball busting bitch.
• There’s a fear that the choice you have is to keep your dignity and leave, or keep your career prospects and simply put up with it.

For anyone thinking, “I know a few women who can handle themselves” – you know, I do too. For the women reading this, you may well be one of them. But let’s indulge in no illusions about men here. I’m pretty comfortable with stating that many women who can handle themselves are not always talked of in flatteringly terms, and are often less likely to be considered attractive.

Please don’t think that I think it’s important that women act to please men. Absolutely not. Yet I do think that most people would prefer to be attractive to their gender(s) of preference. Whatever it means to be feminine, it shouldn’t be defined according to whatever arseholes think they can get away with.

Let’s not be naive about the statistical correlation between attractiveness and career progression or salaries, either. Hard edged women are less likely to be promoted than hard edged men. Protecting yourself can come at a very genuine cost.

So what’s to be done?

We should talk about how there is a difference between simply unwanted attention and the abuse of power by a man over a woman. The point, however, is not to perfectly define that threshold. It is to recognise that a vast amount of talent, potential and plain human dignity is lost if we dismiss sexual harassment as a simply a man’s right to have a go [note: that Spectator article is pretty vile]. Sexual harassment is one person forcing themselves upon another – no matter how tough you think you are, if that one person tries hard enough or frequently enough, you cannot prevent being hurt in some fashion.

In terms of process, the Lib Dems most of all need to do the right thing, which is due process that treats with respect both the innocence til proven guilty of the accused, and the right to a fair hearing for the accuser.

There are quite a few Lib Dems who want to be bullish on this, too, to challenge the media feeding frenzy. Fine. Be confident, be strong. Use the circus as an opportunity speak out about the need for politics to clean up its act, to demand that other parties and businesses improve their standards, too. Build on the strengths of Lib Dem policy making. For instance, let’s develop a party policy that voluntary organisations have an explicit duty of care in law towards their volunteers.

But cut the crap about how the timing was suspicious, about “what is sexual harassment, anyway?” If you want to indulge in masculine clichés: man up, fer chrissakes. Wherever the truth lies, it looks highly likely we got it wrong. Let’s focus on getting it right in future, instead of finding ways to cast blame elsewhere.

The short version

Don’t encourage a culture of politics before people. That’s a breeding ground for harassment. And stopping that is what this news story is all about, remember?

(I spent Saturday waiting for my car to be recovered to a garage instead of pounding the streets as planned, and today keeping an invalid company. Still feel bad I didn’t make it down, though).

There will be much punditry about this, but my bet is that the constants from commentators on my side will be:

• Community politics: Hard work beats opportunism and tabloid rabble rousing.
• The real verdict is in: Enjoyment of this very effective rebuttal of received wisdom, namely that the Lib Dems were supposed to be toast.
• Oh noes, Tories! Much soul searching for the Tories about their abysmal performance, in every aspect of the campaign. Welcome to third place, guys.
• Hello, UKIP! Much joy on the left that the right wing vote has developed a major split. Farage might even have won if he’d gone for it.
• Keep your hands on the wheel: Despite the win, an insistence that the Rennard scandal is still a live issue to be resolved.

All of which is for the near future – I reckon Mike, Keith House and team have earned themselves as much rest as they can get this weekend :)

Regarding hard work and community politics: I’m newish to the party, so I’m very definitely talking about all the work I’ve seen other Lib Dems putting into their communities (no credit stealing here!).

It’s impressive – I’ve long supported the Lib Dems on civil liberties, but I’m increasingly coming around to the notion that the Lib Dems have earned their right to talk about high principle, based on hard slog. I’m glad to be becoming a part of it.

Fear ye NOT, for we are ROCK!

Seven Top Tips for gigging with a dep drummer:

1. Remember, the audience is less familiar with the correct arrangement than you
2. Like playing with a drum machine, it may not be quite right but only needs to be in time
3. Remember, the audience has been drinking more than you
4. The vibe is more important than the precision, just keep playing through the mistakes
5. Remember, the audience never gets hung up on mistakes
6. Look him in the eye, count out loud, and telegraph the changes with extravagant gestures
7. Remember, the audiences always loved Ringo Starr

Just embrace the idea that all the spaces, the bits where Rob does or doesn’t do that thing, will end up getting filled with things you’ve never heard before – and someone else will have to shout the count.

It’ll all be slightly different – so seriously, we’ll have fun, and so will the audience.

Jon.

P.S. not that I would want to do it every time!! It’s definitely a bit more effort than a regular gig. But, you know, RRAWWK!!!

As I commented online:

“The points about Tarantino’s explicit violence would be fair, if not for the denial that the glorification of violence and vengeance has existed elsewhere for a long time. Tarantino is undeniably explicit – the pornographic argument carries weight – but he is hardly new in celebrating violence.

There is nothing new about setting “fussy, lawyerly ground rules” for violence and torture. Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry being the archetype of the fictional authority figure able to exercise power with impunity because of a carefully set up justification. In reality, we have had plentiful stories of torture by the West in recent years, glorified by the fictional Jack Bauer in the TV series 24.

“In no major US film do white people exact racial vengeance of the sort Django does.”

This is a remarkable comment. There is a simple and obvious reason for why whites in the US are not portrayed extracting racial vengeance – they have never suffered racial oppression. Take out the racial aspect, however, and even serial killers become heroes. Reknowned actor Antony Hopkins played Hannibal Lecter in “Hannibal” as a kind of anti-hero who kills only those who are established as being deserving of it – he feeds people to farm animals, guts someone in the street and performs a lobotomy at the dinner table. There is also the successful TV series Dexter – all about a heroic serial killer extracting righteous revenge in various gruesome scenes.

If you object to the explicit nature of Tarantino’s work – fine, that would be an honest argument. Tarantino makes big budget pulp fiction, and is as clear as can be about that. If you disapprove of that, moralise at will – although bear in mind that it is his humour and dialogue that led to his success, and to ignore that is wilful blindness. However, don’t pretend to yourself that he has crossed boundaries in the hows and whys in which he uses to justify the violence. That has been part of our culture for many, many years – I hope you didn’t miss it because you don’t have such a problem with policemen and doctors carrying out such acts.

I’m also rather uncomfortable with the implication that it is nobler to wear one’s oppression with dignity than it is to stand up for oneself. Spike Lee is clearly standing up for his ancestor’s suffering. However, it’s not so clear that your message isn’t simply a white gentleman proclaiming that those lower down the social hierarchy should simply accept their lot with grace.”

The draft Communications Data Bill proposes draconian changes to the monitoring and storage of our internet browsing and communications records. Challenging it led one Reading Geek into the world of Whitehall and parliamentary process… Will the application of geek good sense win out and save the day for privacy, security and innovation?

Reading’s own Jenny Woods gave a great little talk last night at Reading Geek Night. I wasn’t able to stay for the full event (I’d have like to have heard the Q&A, and Runa Sandvik from the Tor Project). I was booked to be there on photo-taking duties, so here’s Jenny keeping everyone informed of progress challenging the Home Office’s Draft Communications Data Bill aka the Snoopers’ Charter.

Jenny has sent me some notes on what came up after I left, and what can be done. I’ll get those into a later blog post.

As well as issues surrounding this specific Bill, Jenny took some time in her 10 minute slot to talk a bit about engaging in the political process. I think this is important, as an individual, a geek, and an activist. People are generally disengaged from politics, despite the impact it has on our lives. Perhaps the only way that is going to change is by people hearing not from political activists (even though we are), but from people with shared interests. From the positive response, I think she did a great job of balancing references to the Lib Dems with talk about why it’s important this particular community should care, no matter their political preference.

Jenny’s progress on this issue is an impressive one, starting as a concern about what used to be called the Communications Capability Development Programme. From a general concern about internet privacy / security, she caught the reference in the press to the Queen’s Speech that managed to escape the attention of the Lib Dems in Gt George Street. She then pulled together a small team of advisors to draft (and pass) an amendment at Spring Conference, which it was my pleasure to be part of.

Her efforts gave the Lib Dems – including Julian Huppert MP and Paddy Ashdown – a strong boost in being able to stand up to this latest attack on liberal principles. Her amendment proved particularly useful for staking out a position in the media. She’d be the first to point out, though, that there were many others at work, such as Helen Duffet pulling together conference calls that helped bring in views from activists including Zoe O’Connell, Jennie Rigg, Mark Pack, Jonathan Calder, Mark Valladares, Richard Morris, and more whose names don’t spring to mind as I write this.

Quite how I got shanghai’d from giving advice on policy to taking photos I’m not sure :) But I hope I did her justice. Much of our future is digital; we need campaigners like her staking out the principles which need to be promoted and defended.

Getting back to Reading Geek Night, it was also nice to see representation from the Reading Lib Dems, including James Moore. It put me in mind of the speech I got the chance to make last autumn conference, on community politics. The “geek community”, no matter the self-effacing title, is an important one in a technologically advanced society. We need to ensure it’s one that we are engaged with.

Here’s a lovely little thing to get in the post – a personalised plectrum. Thanks, Chez.

For anyone interested, next little pub gig is a while off, Friday November 9th at the Shepherd’s Hut in Eton Wick. Or the very next night, Saturday 10th November at the Old Ticket Hall in Windsor.