Conference supports

a)the principle of net neutrality, through which all content, sites and platforms are treated equally by user access networks participating in the Internet

b)the rights of creators and performers to be rewarded for their work in a way that is fair, proportionate and appropriate to the medium

Conference therefore opposes excessive regulatory attempts to monitor, control and limit internet access or internet publication, whether at local, national, European or global level.

Conference calls on the Federal Policy Committee to commission a new policy working group to draw up a full policy paper on Information Technology and related aspects of intellectual property which should, in particular, consider:

1.Reform of copyright legislation to allow fair use and to release from copyright protection works which are no longer available legally or whose authors cannot be identified (orphan works).

2.The ‘common carrier’ concept, under which internet service providers would not be liable for material that they may carry unknowingly on their networks.

3.The creation of a level playing field between the traditional, copyright-based business model and alternative business models which may rely on personal copying and legal filesharing.

Alex recorded the debate which you can hear over at Liberal Democrat Voice (including my own speech, third person in).

In a leaked circular about the Digital Economy Bill sent to music industry interests by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), the following comment features:

The debate has been given an extra twist with a Talk Talk sponsored survey today, which says that 71% of 18-34 year olds would continue to infringe copyright, in spite of the Bill provisions, and would use "undetectable methods" to do so. Whether MI5 helped pay for the survey is not clear.

For the record, it is not clear whether or not Mossad, the KGB, Millennium Elephant or my offshore chocolate amortisation fund have been funding such market research either.

You judge a set of tax proposals by who gets what money. It sounds obvious, doesn’t it? Who could possibly object to that? Well, for a start – me.

The reason is highlighted by Will Straw’s analysis of the key policy goals laid down by Nick Clegg. Looking at the Liberal Democrat proposals to raise the basic threshold to £10,000 and so take millions out of the income tax system all together, Will judged it on the basis of who gets what in their pocket (or rather, a promise of a shortly to be published analysis of that). But that’s not the whole story.

There is a major benefit which doesn’t get counted in pounds and pence in your pocket from being taken out of the income tax system – if you are the sort of person who struggles to handle complicated bureaucracy, who moves in and out of jobs through the year, who doesn’t have the financial cushion to see them through while tax takes are adjusted and over/under payments come and go. Or indeed, if you’re the sort of person for whom all of that applies.

Among the millions who would be taken out of income tax all together with a £10,000 threshold are many who fall into those descriptions.

People who will benefit from having the hassle of struggling with the tax system lifted from them. People who will benefit from not having to worry about how tax is under or over-paid if they move between jobs or different pieces of part-time work. People who will benefit from not struggling to make ends meet because, while there is a tax adjustment coming down the line, they aren’t getting the money in their bank account right now. People who just don’t have the financial resources and bureaucratic experience to see themselves through dealing with an at times complicated, unforgiving and slow moving tax system.

Making bureaucracy simple for individuals is a much under-rated policy goal. Business and red-tape hogs the limelight in this respect – with the result that we end up with well intentioned policies such as the Office of the Public Guardian mired in over-complicated, expensive bureaucracy that turns what should be a great service for the most vulnerable in society into a service for those with money to spend on lawyers.

So when judging a tax policy – and above all, when judging it by the progressive yardstick – don’t just look at the theoretical implications. Look at the bureaucratic reality too.

With print coverage from the Mirror and (bless ‘em) Daily Mail, the original video has now had more than 60,000 views.

That’s more than the last five WebCameron videos put together.

Anyway, here's the relevant text again:

Conference agrees that:

(i) in the event of any substantial proposal which could affect the Party’s independence of political action, the consent will be required of a majority of members of the Parliamentary Party in the House of Commons and the Federal Executive; and,

(ii) unless there is a three-quarters majority of each group in favour of the proposals, the consent of the majority of those present and voting at a Special Conference convened under clause 6.6 of the Constitution; and,

(iii) unless there is a two-thirds majority of those present and voting at that Conference in favour of the proposals, the consent of a majority of all members of the Party voting in the ballot called pursuant to clause 6.11 or 8.6 of the Constitution.

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.

However, I think the post (or rather the people who the post reports on) underplays two important issues. First, social media and TV aren't competing promotional tools - whether for parties or for companies - but are complimentary. The impact of the party leader TV debates will be felt, but that impact will be played out not just in the pictures on our TV screens, but by the texts, tweets, status updates and more that people send whilst watching the debates - and the immediate online debate, discussion and touting of views, facts and clips once each debate finishes.

Second, though, TV is a national medium. There are regional TV shows and both national and regional TV feature individual constituencies at times. The direct impact on constituency campaigns is fairly muted compared with the ability of good local campaigns to insulate themselves from the national picture. In a close election - which is the most likely looking outcome - it will be the local campaigning on the ground that makes the difference in the clutch of seats which determine who ends up Prime Minister. In that local campaigning, social media will be extremely important - and TV, any eye-catching individual candidate blunders aside, very much the also ran.

Straight after he comes off stage, he’s keen to answer questions sent in from people who are unable to attend the conference.

When: 13 March at 15.25

Where: Online, answers will be posted on his website, Facebook and Tweeted shortly after.

How to take part: Post your questions on Facebook: Here, Twitter: Here or email: