John Humphrys was sounding pleased with himself on the Today Programme the other day. Nothing unusual there, you might say. He was attempting to skewer a minister because civil service managers at the UK Border Agency were being paid a bonus.

At first hearing it seemed as though they were each getting in excess of £300,000 for doing their own job. It was only on careful hearing that it became apparent that the figure was the total bonus pool and that the bonuses amounted to little more than £10,000 a piece.

The justification for the payments was that they were clearing up the chaos of immigration files left by predecessor organisations. The proper line of questioning was: why did the Government manage its affairs so poorly? But the thrust of the interview was that here were public servants pulling one over on the taxpayer.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Today Programme celebrities can pull in that sort of money in a few – probably very few – speaking engagements. Their celebrity status has been earned at the licence payers’ expense. Their employer, the BBC, has itself become notorious for excessive salaries to senior managers who work in an organisation largely protected from commercial risk. It also blows millions on Ross dross TV.

The tests, surely, of whether bonuses or large salaries are acceptable are: (1) is the activity being rewarded desirable and (2) are the salaries determined in a free labour market?

Apply these tests to the UK border agency and the answer is that they bonuses are probably reasonable. If we apply them, by contrast, to the salaries of Chief Executives of councils then there is an element of doubt.

The tabloid press (itself prone to pay some very large salaries) suggests that no public servant should be paid more than the Prime Minister. This is superficially attractive until you remember that the majority of a prime minister’s earnings come after he or she leaves office. Blair, despite or because of his treachery over the Iraq War, is earning millions. So the comparison is disingenuous.

Apply the tests: is it desirable to have competent people running councils? Yes: a badly run council can literally kill people. Is it a free market? Probably not free enough. Councillors who set these salaries check what their main rivals are paying. Their main rivals will then do the same when they in turn come to set salaries and so remuneration levels tend to get bidded up.

And bankers? Apply the tests again. Desirable activity? Definitely not: by all means spend all your time in a casino but don’t come and demand a subsidy from me when you lose all your chips.

Is the market free? The bankers’ bonuses are affordable all and only because of state intervention. So letting them keep even 25% of their 2009 bonuses is far too generous.

Cllr Chris White (Hertfordshire County Councillor and St. Albans City Councillor - as well as being a member of the ALDC Management Committee) has written a piece for Liberal Democrat Voice on the archaic and centralised legislation that the government is trying to use to boss the Wirral around on libraries services.

Highlights include:

"It requires libraries to maintain adequate (a term it does not define) stocks of books and other printed matter, and pictures, gramophone records, films and other materials. So it does recognise that we have moved on from the codex – but is inevitably not so hot on the internet or DVDs."

and

"The Charteris report into the Wirral published this week is a classic case of central government interference of dubious legality – an expert who has been brought in to substitute her prejudices (unchallengeable at the ballot box) for those of elected councillors who were taking reasoned and reasonable political risks for which they knew they were accountable."

To read more, go to Chris White's article here at Liberal Democrat Voice.

Whilst members may wonder what the purpose of one day conference on policy that has no decision making powers is, the One Day conference “Creating a Progressive Society” held at the LSE on Saturday 17th January was certainly busy, provocative and interesting.

The two major themes of the conference were Poverty and Inequality.

Poverty
The Institute of Fiscal Studies briefed a session trying to “map” where poverty is worst in the UK, and how the poorest can be best helped. It also considered how Liberal Democrats should approach the issue of poverty and how far our current policy is adequate. The conclusions were both fascinating and revealing. The IFS are making the presentation available on their website www.ifs.org.uk shortly.

Inequality
Later in the day there was a discussion of social mobility in the UK following the reporting back of the independent Commission on Social Mobility. This was established in January 2008 by Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg and chaired by Martin Narey, Chief Executive of Barnardo’s and the Chair of the End Child Poverty Coalition. The commission investigated the reasons for Britain’s apparently low levels of social mobility and recommend policy changes to enable children from disadvantaged backgrounds to fulfil their full potential. Findings include:

1.that a child’s life chances are ‘dependent on the background and earnings of its parents’.

2.that increased education funding has failed to reach those children most in need.

Nick Clegg said “"We agree with the overwhelming majority of the reports’ recommendations, especially targeting resources in schools to those children who need most help, boosting vocational education for teenagers, and radically altering the tax credit system so it is focused on helping those families most in need. "Whilst we do not agree with some other recommendations, such as the abolition of the 10p rescue package or the use of admissions ballots in schools, the report will considerably strengthen the commitment by Liberal Democrats to providing equality of opportunity to every child to succeed in Britain. "This damning report shows that a child’s prospects are still tied to the circumstances of their birth. That is why we will make improving the prospects for all our children a key part of our election manifesto."

Not rocket science perhaps but an important message none the less and timely given the recent government white paper - New Opportunities: Fair chances for the future.  Copies of the commission report are available to download at www.socialmobilitycommission.org.

Copies of the government white paper are available to download at www.hmg.gov.uk/newopportunities/download.aspx