Browsing the Museum gift shop in search of Christmas presents a few weeks ago, I came across a contemporary postcard taken from almost exactly the same spot as one I already owned. Not sure of the date of the old one – I’m guessing 1970s/1980s:

… and here’s the modern view, as the park is now – for non-Mackems, the large glass building is the superb Winter Gardens – one of Sunderland’s millennium projects:

Across the two views you can see all three components of what was the first publicly-funded museum in the country outside London, and what is still one of the most-visited museums in the country.  Makes you proud to be a Mackem.

Quebec Referendum, 30th October 1995:

Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?

Yes, 2,308,360, 49.42%

No, 2,362,648, 50.58%

Turnout 93.52%

As you can see from the question asked to Quebeckers, the Salmond tactic of bamboozling the electorate on questions of sovereignty is nothing new.  The unity of Canada rested on just 54,288 votes – just over  one percent of Quebec electorate.  Given the ambiguous question being asked (no ‘economic and political partnership’ had been agreed, and there was no certainty the Canadian government would wish to negotiate one) what mandate would that have been to tear a country of 34,000,000 people apart?

As David Steel has warned today, confusion over the question asked in any Scottish referendum could deliver a result which does not reflect the will of the Scottish people, and  lead to a legacy of hard-feeling.

The Telegraph article I linked to above suggests that Salmond’s decision to offer the electorate multiple options “…increases the likelihood that Mr Cameron will end the confusion by taking control of the referendum and asking Scots a single ‘yes or no’ question on whether they want to remain part of the UK.”

In my view, that would be a mistake.  A referendum foisted on Scotland from outside is likely to lead to the exactly the same kind of hard-feeling, and any backlash could have profound results for the Union.  To misquote Neil Kinnock, you can’t play politics with the future of the country, let alone people’s lives.

Instead, Cameron should learn from the Quebec experience:

The narrowness of the Quebec result – coming 15 years after an earlier referendum, which while not a closely fought, raised similar questions over Quebec’s right to unilaterally secede and over the question being asked – prompted action from the Canadian Federal Government.

In a series of open letters, and references to the Canadian Supreme Court, the Government established that:

• The Quebec National Assembly could not unilaterally declare independence.  If Quebeckers expressed a clear will to secede, the Government of Canada would have a political obligation to enter negotiations on independence
• The Canadian Parliament has the right to decide whether a question being asked to Quebeckers is clear enough to trigger such negotiations
• The constitution of Canada remains in force (and by implication, the country united) until terms of succession are agreed upon by all parties.

These fairly basic principles were enshrined in a Bill – The Clarity Act – which sets out clearly the ‘rules of the game’ should any Canadian province wish to secede.  It’s this kind of law which I think we now need in the UK, setting out exactly how any part of the UK – be it Scotland, Wales, or even Cornwall – should proceed should it wish to test the will of its people to leave the Union.

It isn’t for Alex Salmond or any other sub-national politician to decide how this process should operate – it’s a matter for the House of Commons, where the interests of the whole country are represented. Cameron should rise above Salmond’s petty politics and set out clearly and openly the standards expected for a test of opinion and subsequent negotiations.

Whilst the Clarity Act proved controversial with Quebec nationalists, it has changed the terms of debate on Quebec – any future Parti Quebecois provincial government (and there hasn’t been one elected since  Clarity Act took force) would have clear standards by which their referendum would be judged.  Politically, nationalism in Quebec appears to be on the wane – the PQ’s federal cousins, the Bloc Quebecois were decimated at this year’s Federal Election in favour of the soft-Federalist NDP.  Similarly, at the provincial level the PQ are struggling in the polls.

Worth a try, I’d say, and far more favourable than a Tory PM foisting a referendum on the people of Scotland.

From yesterday’s written answers:

Charlie Elphicke: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on what date the decision was taken by his Department to authorise public expenditure on an away day at the Brickhouse burlesque club; how much was spent on the away day and on which contractors and firms; what form the teambuilding event took; and what steps have been taken to reduce expenditure on away days. [59209]

Robert Neill: This away day event was authorised by the Department in February 2010, before the coalition Government took office. The booking was made under the last Administration, while the cost of the event was debited via the Government Procurement Card in May 2010.

Poisson Rouge, an events management company, were contracted to provide the venue and the event. The total cost of the event was £4,719.21 which comprised £3,417.71 of payments made to Poisson Rouge and £1,301.50 to the venue, the Brickhouse.

The event involved hire of a room during the day at the venue, for a review of work in internal audit. While I am informed the Brickhouse often features such figures as ‘burlesque chanteuse Lady Beau Peep’ and ‘showgirl sensation Amber Topaz’, the event in this instance did not involve civil servants watching, or indeed, performing cabaret or other eclectic entertainment.

No alcohol was consumed at the event. The purpose of the staff event was to review work carried out for 2009-10, identify areas for improvement, agree changes for the forthcoming year to improve service delivery and build the team. However, the final part of the day did involve a team building event involving drumming, organised by Poisson Rouge.

http://www.poissonrouge.co.uk/events-organisers/services/team-building/rhythm.asp

The policy on such events has changed significantly following the arrival of the new Administration in May 2010. Team review events now take place at no or very limited costs, for example through using rooms in the Department. New checks and balances have been put in place, assisted by the discipline of the Department publishing all spending over £500 and greater openness over the Government Procurement Card.

I am aware that Poisson Rouge has been used in the past by a number of public sector clients. Embracing transparency and reducing away day spending is a prime example of how both Whitehall and the town hall can make sensible savings to cut costs, protect frontline services and pay off the deficit inherited from the last administration.

In fact Vince had already laid the ground for my question, when in his speech to the conference earlier, he noted the contrast between newspaper coverage that oligarchs have been priced out of London and the fact that house prices in places like Middlesbrough and Newcastle are far from recovering.

So what would Lib Dems in the regions be able to present to the electorate in 2015 as the results of Cable’s Maoist tendencies?  What, I asked Vince, would success look like?

Vince was clear: “Significant healthy growth of private sector jobs in areas, regions of the UK, which have traditionally relied upon the public sector for employment.”

Dr. Cable acknowledged that “It’s difficult because of the history and its background” but argued the green shoots were already beginning to emerge: “I think that is starting to happen. I think in aggregate terms, despite difficult economic times, we [have gained] 400,000 new private sector jobs. And Newcastle is a good example of a city that is actually generating lots of start-ups and innovation”

At this point, I was tempted to chip in and point out Sunderland’s status as the country’s number one ” start-up boom town” but decided it was probably best not to inject north-east rivalries into the conversation.

Cable’s response is one I’ve heard before.  In fact, it’s becoming very familiar to those of us following the roll-out of the Regional Growth Fund.  At the IPPR North ‘Rebalacing the Economy’ conference in May, Sir Ian Wrigglesworth – a fellow Lib Dem, and vice-chair of the Regional Growth Fund Advisory Panel – delivered the same message : sustainable private sector employment is the panel’s top priority. At that event, Wrigglesworth was so uncompromising in his approach that he prompted questions from the audience about whether the panel would take any other factor into account.

So I asked Vince – is it just about jobs?  His response:

“I’d say that was the central thing, but obviously there are a lot of things around that like regeneration and so on. If people feel like there are jobs around where they live and particularly in the city regions, and they have a future there then this helps to stabilise the region and rebalances the economy, without everyone pounding into London and increasing the unbalance in the housing market. So yes, the centre-piece has to be jobs, and the only way we are going to get sustainable jobs is through private sectors which [means] largely small enterprises.

So there you have it.  I guess it’s the trickle-down effect – we get some private sector jobs into the regions, and everything else follows as a result.

I have some problems with this approach.  I think it ignores the investment that needs to be made in ‘place’, in order for jobs to follow.  There are still places in the north that lack the housing offer or infrastructure needed to attract private sector employment. Until those investments are made, we’ll still be running hard to stay still.

If it’s successful, the RGF might act as a short-term sticking plaster an alleviate the very worst effects of the public sector cuts.  But if the North is to succeed in the longer term, we need to be paying much more attention to what Vince called “things around that like regeneration”.

We came back to regional growth later, when Kelly-Marie Blundell asked Vince what he would have done differently in Government.  Amongst other things, he acknowledged the Regional Development Agency transition had been difficult: “I have commented… in the past… if the RDA transition had been managed in a more orderly way… we are where we are and we are now trying to get these local enterprise partnerships off the ground”

Reading between the lines, I do wonder how much worse things would have been without Lib Dems in government.  I criticise the RGF (and don’t get me started on LEPs) but we’d be unlikely to have either without Vince and Nick’s influence.  We should also place on record the fact that some local authorities – of all parties – have demonstrated throughout this process their fundamental inability to ‘play well with others’.

Vince said in reference to the RDAs that “we are where we are” – not a call to arms exactly, but perhaps a good summing up of the approach the party has had to adopt to a range of areas since Friday May 7th 2010.

About this interview

I’m really grateful to Mary Reid and the Social Liberal Forum for offering me the chance to take part in this interview.  Thanks also go to Mark Pack for moderating the interview, and to fellow blogger-interviewers Kelly Marie Blundell, Lee Dargue, Andrew Emmerson (even though he is a mag) and  Joe Jordan. Lots of thanks must go to Vince Cable MP for being willing to take part – I can’t imagine many previous holders of his office being willing to do the same!

Part one of my interview write-up – on Northern Rock – is here.

I’d given a bit of thought to what I wanted to ask Vince, and was determined to have a bit of a regional slant to my questions – hence my decision to raise Northern Rock.

As Lib Dem Shadow Chancellor, Vince Cable led the calls for Northern Rock to be nationalised.  Initially derided for it, others belatedly adopted the same position.  Given last week’s announcement that the Rock is to be privatised, what would Vince be calling on the government to achieve from the sale if he was still the party’s treasury spokesman?

Vince was quick to point out that the Chancellor is involving him closely in the discussions that are going on.  Given that’s the case, he was able to share with us his thinking, and was keen to play down any suggestion of  rifts – or even potential ones – over the destiny of the Newcastle-based business:

“I think actually what I would like to see – but this is not a difference with Osborne, he shares the same view – it would be good if we could get a mutual buyer”

Vince pointed out that there are “A couple of mutuals sniffing around”.  He named The Coventry (slogan : “TLC, not PLC”) as one who are keen to add the Rock to their existing network, but the press has also linked Yorkshire Building Society to the sale.  So while giving the Rock back to its customers isn’t on the agenda – a mutual home for the former Building Society is a serious option.

But while Vince admitted it would be good to “keep mutuality alive”, there are inevitably other considerations for Government – our duty to recoup the taxpayer’s considerable investment being one.  Here, Vince was characteristically blunt: [we must] “try and make sure the taxpayer gets as much back as possible” and again, later in the interview he stressed “we have to get as much money as possible”.

One thing that’s often forgotten in discussions about the Rock is its significance in the North East.  The Rock’s not just a Newcastle business – it swallowed up a number of other societies on its path to de-mutualisation, notably the Sunderland-based North of England, and much of its small branch network is still in its home region.  I was therefore pleased to hear Vince state that “We also have to look after the north east”.

It was also good to hear Vince name check the  Northern Rock Foundation as a factor to be taken into account in the sale.  Probably little-known outside the North East and Cumbria, the Foundation does a huge amount of good helping charities across the region – and continues to do so, even given the Bank’s reduced circumstances post-nationalisation.

It’ll be interesting to see how the sale develops, and clearly a mutual buyer is only one of many options available to the government.  Though I’d personally prefer a sale to a mutual, in practical terms, a sale to a start-up  (like Virgin Money or NBNK) may be better for the north-east, as they’d be more likely to maintain the HQ facilities and branch network.  An existing bank or building society may want to fold those into their existing operations.  So, a difficult decision – and the sort of thing Liberal Democrat ministers in government are clearly wrestling with every day.

As it was, our trip was a bit of a flying visit. The drive from Bulgaria into Romania was bad enough (car reversing down three-lane highway towards us? Check! Surly border police refusing to believe we could take hire car across the border? Check!) but entering Bucharest itself was possibly the tensest bit of driving I think we’ve ever done abroad. I say we – I was only navigating – but that was bad enough. Driving in Bucharest is like being inside a pin-ball machine as you are variously bounced this way and that by streams of traffic, all with horns blaring incessantly.

So it came as quite a relief to dump the car and get on with exploring on foot. With the exception of the Palace of the Parliament, which I’ll come to, there aren’t actually a whole lot of ‘attractions’ in the conventional sense in Bucharest. There are few ‘must-see’ museums or galleries, and it’s not somewhere you’d go to see ancient ruins, or even to shop. The point of a visit to Bucharest is just to wander down its streets and boulevards, soak up the atmosphere and take in the architecture.

As with a lot of the Eastern European capitals, the city’s political history was never far from my thoughts as we meandered from plaza to boulevard, arcade to lane. There’s the faded glory of the art-nouveau and art deco buildings of the early 20th century, through neo-classical buildings of the Communist era to the brash malls of the 1990s. Unfortunately it seems each era’s legacy is less attractive than that which preceded it.

Perhaps the most interesting of the plazas and squares which perforate Bucharest’s long avenues is Revolution Square, home to the building which housed the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Romania, from the balcony of which Ceauşescu made his final speech, before being whisked from the roof by helicopter the next day. The intimidating Central Committee building, now home to the Thick-Of-It-Esque Ministry of the Interior and Administrative Reform, makes a sobering contrast to the monuments to those who gave their lives in the course of the Revolution, the veracity of which is still under question.

Even Revolution Square, though, pales when set alongside the monstrosity that is the Palace of the Parliament.

Clearly designed to intimidate rather than to welcome, the Palace is incomprehensibly huge. It really beggars belief that such a huge building – second only to the Pentagon in size – was constructed by a country which at the time couldn’t feed its own people.

Ceauşescu intended to have his official apartments there, but also to accommodate his toothless Parliament, a theatre, numerous banqueting halls, the Politburo, etc, etc.  Nowadays, the Romanians seem to have an ‘asset’ for which they’re searching for a purpose.  Parliament is still there, but it’s joined by a clumsy mix of offices, random museums, and a conference centre.  The building’s also rented out to film-makers (it had just completed being used as a substitute Vatican when we were there!).  Basically, the intention seems to be to make the most of a bad lot, but the overall effect is County Hall on steroids.

One feature I did like was the superb Museum National de Arte Contemporana (MNAC) which anywhere else would be considered a really substantial gallery.  As it is, it’s hidden away in one wing right at the back of the Palace, its twin glass elevators the only clues to its existence.  It’s worth the (long) walk though, and its rooftop cafe reminds you just how recently the Palace was constructed, and gives some clues to the destruction Ceauşescu engaged in to create his ‘dream’:

Intrigued, we enrolled on a tour of the Palace itself, and were taken on what we were assured was a 2 kilometre walk through less than 10% of the Palace’s facilities.  The amount of marble and crystal on display is obscene.  The whole thing is quite shocking – just when you think you’ve seen what must be the biggest hall/chandelier/staircase/carving there could possibly be, you turn another corner and see something still more ridiculously opulent. The craftsmanship is extraordinary, but you feel almost guilty admiring it, knowing the circumstances in which it was put together.

Everywhere there are examples of the bizarre lengths to which Ceauşescu’s  paranoia was accommodated -such as the staircase which was remodelled five times before he was happy it didn’t make him seem short, or the holes in the ceiling to allow air to circulate –  he forbade the inclusion of air conditioning, fearing it would be used to poison him.

I’ve never been anywhere quite like it, and doubt I ever will again (unless North Korea ever falls, where I suspect we’ll find numerous examples of this kind of megalomania). It’s really obscene.

Once you tire of the Palace, though, your options are limited.  I really wish the temperature had been slightly more accommodating, as I’d have loved to just wander from street to street and take in the architecture and atmosphere.  As it was, though my paper-like skin wouldn’t really take it, so that will have to wait for another visit, which I actually am really looking forward to.  Won’t take the car next time, though!

One highlight which probably wouldn’t be on everyone’s list was the National Palace of Culture (NDK):

Opened in 1981, so celebrating its 30th birthday along with me this year, it’s a huge multi-functional cultural and congress centre, a kind of Bulgarian Barbican, if you like, set in landscaped gardens, replete with fountains, promenades, etc. It was apparently the idea of Hungarian ruler Todor Zhikov’s daughter, but to be honest, Eastern Bloc countries seem to specialise in these kind of palaces – I’ve visited similar buildings in Warsaw and Riga, and even managed to sneak into the Palast der Republik in Berlin when it was briefly re-opened before demolition.

The NDK is more like the Palast than it’s older wedding-cake comrades in Warsaw and Riga. Like the Barbican, its foyers are open to the public to explore, and it’s as ‘interesting’ indoors as out:

Perhaps I’m guilty of dangerous Ostalgie, but I do think these buildings remain assets to their cities, and should be embraced rather than rejected.  Though the system of government in place at the time of its construction has been discredited and rejected, the architecture, craftsmanship and artistry that went into its construction retains its merit. The NDK is apparently still the largest such centre in south-east Europe, and still picks up awards. If it were in the UK, it’d almost certainly be listed, rather than being dis-figured with crass illuminated logos and big screens.  Quite apart from the building’s merits, I think to destroy the past – as Berlin has done – is to try and erase history, and is therefore fraught with danger.  Fortunately, there don’t seem to be plans to do that in Sofia, though like much of the city, the building and gardens were in need of a fair amount of cosmetic maintenance.

What else?  Bulgaria seems to have a pint-sized Parliament, which is quite attractive outside (no tours, but the Romanian Parliament more than made up for it, trust me…):

And there’s also the Eastern Orthodox Alexander Nevsky Cathedral:

I’m not at all religious – far from it – but I still found this building awe-inspiring, especially the interior, which – for obvious reasons – you’re not allowed to take photos of.

As I mentioned, Sofia benefits from some great parks and open spaces, including the City Garden which also hosts the excellent City Art Gallery of contemporary art and design.

There’s also some evidence of investment as a result of EU membership.  However, if Sofia is to blow off more of the dust, then Bulgaria will need to address the more fundamental problems it faces – the population is ageing and declining, as the birth rate falls and young people leave the country.  It’s a tricky circle to square.

I hope I haven’t been too negative about Sofia. I wouldn’t want to discourage people from making a visit, as it certainly isn’t all bad.  It’d definitely be worth a visit as part of a trip taking in other parts of Bulgaria or the wider Balkan region.  As a stand-alone city-break, I’m afraid I think it’d probably disappoint.

Here I am in Sofia on June 5th, outside the National Assembly…

…and in Bucharest on June 8th, outside the Palace of Parliament:

I’ll write something about both cities in due course, and I’m also planning to try and put together some kind of Euro-capitals top ten, though that’s going to take some cogitating!

For now though, I’m feeling quite satisfied, and amazed as ever at the beautiful cities and fantastic people in our diverse little continent.

So Labour looks set fair, whatever its own depressives think. Only mighty blunders of great idiocy can stop Miliband’s party winning the argument with enough voters

Polly Toynbee, The Guardian, Monday 13th December, 2010

Mighty blunders of great idiocy, eh?