Send me a questionnaire and I’ll either complete it there and then or return to it late at night if I’m not on deadline. I’m particularly fond of those that claim to tell one something about one’s self/views/life/personality. Before the web got all clever and interactive I used to enjoy those things in newspapers and trashy magazines. You know the kind of thing; Answers mostly ‘a’ - your ideal job is an airline pilot, mostly ‘b’ - cardio vascular surgeon, mostly ‘c’ - personal shopper. I liked these things because they are largely harmless and difficult for even the semi-literate to take seriously whether it is Heat magazine or one of the so-called qualities. On the web I’m as interested in how the software does the math or what kind of questions might be asked - OK, most of my friends know that I’m a number crunching nerd - some don’t seem to mind!

It was one of those so-called ‘qualities’ that first brought Vote Match to my notice. Although the name suggests that Vote Match could be a dating agency for politicos who need to get out more, it is not. At the general election the Telegraph on line presented a Vote Match questionnaire that claimed it would, based on your answers to its questions, indicate how you should vote.

According to its own claims: “Over 1.2 million people completed our last general election version. The Independent’s John Rentoul described Vote Match as a “digital democracy breakthrough”.The Good Web Guide commented that “The beauty of this site is its simplicity.” Ekklesia: “Vote Match… is helping to change the electoral landscape in Britain”. They have to blow their own trumpet, of course, but this is surely taking themselves too seriously.

My own outcome at the General Election illustrates exactly why Vote Match is best not taken seriously. Vote match works by questioning a person’s views on a spread of policy issues and weights the replies according to the ‘issues’ that the respondent rates as most and least important. I was advised by a margin of a mere couple of per-cent that I should vote Labour with the Liberal Democrats a close second and the Conservatives not far behind in a fairly even split (I was less than 50% sympathetic to any party’s programme). This is hardly surprising - I’m socially libertarian, economically free market (but with a left critique of the workings of markets), believe that major systemic reform to our democracy is long overdue and long since got bored with parroting party soundbites.

Of course I wouldn’t have dreamt of voting Liberal Democrat because I regard them as deeply untrustworthy, fundamentally dishonest on policy (as they never believed they would have to implement it - and just look how much they were prepared to ditch) and, frankly, a bunch of oddballs and misfits. You would cringe if your daughter brought one home.

Vote Match, though great fun, doesn’t understand that people don’t really vote on policy and they don’t vote according to what they tell pollsters are the ‘most important’ issues either. People vote according to how they feel about the parties, their competence, their leaders, the state of the country, the performance of the government, the ‘vision’ thing and, ultimately, fitness to govern.

So until someone devises a web based tool that can weigh emotional judgements alongside policy we’ll just have to make up our own minds. The electorate at the last election, wisely in my opinion, perceived Labour as tired, the Prime Minister as unfit for the office, the Conservative narrative unconvincing but their leader personable and the Liberal Democrats both unlikely to succeed and weak under scrutiny. Result, no result. What happened afterwards is of course a different matter.

Now ‘Vote Match’ has turned its hand to the Labour leadership contest. The replies to questions on the same basic premise are set against replies from four of the five contenders (Andy Burnham didn’t get his act together - shame, I think he would have done OK on this format).

By their reckoning of my replies I am 56% in accord with the views of both Miliband D and Miliband E. I’m still trying to discern the tie breaking factor that makes them suggest I should vote Ed. I’ve read all the literature of the candidates carefully, I’ve read the detail of the answers given in this survey carefully, I’ve listened to them speak. Over the piece, I struggle to find much difference between these brothers over policy - they agree on half the questions in Vote Match’s survey and in only a third of the questions are their differences much more than nuance. From my limited experience of siblings I’d say that far from a family schism that represents a near miraculous level of harmony!

So what is the tie break? Once again it is about how you feel about the candidates. I’m reassured that my feelings about Ed Balls - that he was too much of a ‘guilty man’ in the debacle that was Gordon Brown’s dreadful leadership, is backed by differences on policy despite his ability to catch a headline and trash a Tory (but then he is batting on a flat track against Michael Gove bowling long hops). But between the Milibands it comes down to competence, experience and which of the two come across best.

Here there is a clear winner. DM comes over best. He speaks much better - it still matters. He has better experience in government having held more serious posts with harder briefs. He has more experience in Parliament. On the small amount of hard evidence we have he would seem the most attractive option to Labour supporters and voters.* When parties reject the option more attractive to the electorate it rarely goes down well. He looks the most electable of the bunch and, though they both look a bit dorky, David looks less so - in fact if he stopped slouching and did something about the hair he could yet improve. Young men in bad suit might claim this doesn’t matter, but sorry boys, it does.

While DM is not the finished article, he’s the most electable of the bunch. Unless one takes the approach that the next election is already lost, voting for the candidate most suited to winning an election is the way I have to go - with reservations and a belief that much of what the other candidates have said should be heeded. The conduct of the campaign encourages me that it might be.

Vote Match is a tool of Unlock Democracy - the former Charter 88 lot. Not surprising them that it lacks intellectual rigour. But it and its ilk are here to stay - so lots more fun for the likes of me.

* As well as YouGov’s Poll for the Sunday Times (15 July 2010), Bassetlaw CLP held a ‘primary’ - this approach is in my view the way ahead for Labour in selections and a range of internal elections. Interestingly, the local MP, John Mann had nominated Ed Miliband. Details here.

In a five candidate poll under first past the post 30% can be a winning total and 40% is usually comfortable. To poll more than 50% of the vote in a five candidate poll is a very good result indeed. Polling 77.5% as did Josie Gibson, the winner of Channel 4’s Big Brother 11, is something else entirely.

In what could be seen as a bad omen for Nick Clegg, the dying reality show abandoned the ‘eliminating ballot’ (AV - sort of) that had been the norm for its final show and went for a first-past-the-post vote.

Ms Gibson, whose common touch that most politicians would gladly murder their granny to possess, emerged from the House to her interview making two snappy points, promoting her charity and commenting on the level of ‘care’ provided to disabled service folk; a textbook lesson in how to take control of an interview.

Meanwhile, as their leadership contest grinds towards its final weeks what would Labour supporters give for a result even half as decisive as Ms Gibson’s victory? Though the bookmakers still price Milliband D as odds on favourite at around 2/5, Milliband E at around 2/1 means they are far from certain, but nobody is offering odds on the next leader being called Milliband.

In decisive leadership contests leaders usually come through to shine*. So far nobody has done so. There is no clear front runner, nobody looks unstoppable. Nobody is confidently predicting anything because nobody knows what will happen.

Big Brother’s ratings fell alongside Labour’s and now the show has run out of road too. If it were possible to persuade Endemol to hand the disused Big Brother House to the Labour Party the candidates could be persuaded to enter the house and we could just leave them there. After all, as long as they think they are on tele most politicians will be happy to stay forever.

 * Though not necessarily to win by miles. The Labour leader elected with the lowest share of the Electoral College vote to date was one A.C.L Blair

The smell of freshly baked bread is THE great smell of home - or it should be. But it’s a distant memory for most since, like many things in the aftermath of post-war austerity, the emergence of convenience shopping and commercial bread slicing the baby was firmly slung out with the bathwater.

It is easy to see the point of the 1950’s woman - bread making involved time, patience and a fair bit of physical effort. It was traditionally done around traditional ovens based on open coal fires. All of these things were done for by modernity and it’s hard to say that most of the consequences - not least clean air and the liberation of women from domestic drudge - were not genuine ‘progress’. Our collective rejection of bread making even found its place in the language as ‘the greatest thing since sliced bread’ - a phrase that says mass-produced bread is ‘better’.

I beg to differ. By comparison to an average home made loaf its mass produced competitor doesn’t even make the starting grid. But didn’t in-store baking at the supermarket provide an alternative to the commercial sliced loaf? True but home made bread trounces supermarket baking.

I’ve enjoyed home made bread for the past two years because:

1. It tastes miles better

2. You don’t need to eat anything like as much of it to feel satisfied

3. With a tiny bit of imagination there is fantastic variety at your fingertips

4. Generally speaking homemade bread stays fresher for longer, and

5. Making your own bread saves money.

My mother rejected commercial bread in the early 1970s and made her own by hand for as long as my father, who had declared it “better by a long chalk”, had lived. She did it all by hand, but people who work and don’t have a lot of time on their hands can still make their own bread with the help of a bread machine.

Bread machines do take up kitchen real estate but they are seriously productive gadgets. A half decent one will cost between £80 and £150 but that investment will easily pay back within the first year, after which a home made loaf (500g of flour) can be less than half the price of the commercial equivalent. You can choose whether you use the machine to do the whole lot including baking the loaf or just to mix and rise the dough which can then be transferred to the oven (better, in my opinion, as the oven is hotter). Either way, we are taking about five minutes work to weigh our flour, add yeast and water and flick a switch.

Good bread does, however, need good bread flour and it’s a question of finding a few that suit your taste. Bread flour is different to bog standard baking flour. It has a higher protein and gluten content that makes for better absorption of water and a more elastic dough - so it rises better. Some are available in good supermarkets but are also some excellent specialist sources on line.

Lidl

Like most other stuff stocked by the shopping equivalent of Ryanair, availability can be hit and miss, however, this discounter stocks an excellent range of German flours that include rye and multi seed options. The brands are random and frequently unpronounceable - but with beer so with bread flour - if it is German it is almost certainly decent and it’s 99p a kilo!

Doves Farm Organic

(www.dovesfarm.co.uk)

Doves Barleycorn Bread Flour is a personal favourite as is their White Spelt. Not the cheapest at £1.59 a kilo but well worth it. Available through most of the major supermarkets including Asda, Morrisons, Sainsbury, Tesco, and Waitrose.

Shipton Mill

(www.shipton-mill.com)

Organic and based at Tetbury and with reputation for high quality bread flours, Shipton Mill offers a range of bread flours including white, French flour, wholemeal, light rye and three malt with sunflower (highly recommended). Prices range from £1.30 per kilo to £21.50 for £25kg. Delivery is £5 or free above 24Kg.

Wessex Flour Mill

(www.wessexmill.co.uk)

Based locally at Wantage supplying locally grown flours. Stocked locally at The Herb Farm, Sonning Common, Wickcroft Farm, Theale, The Spinney at Pangbourne and Lockey Farm at Arborfield. Try six seed bread flour - £2.30 for 1.5 kilos or strong white at £1.70.

The Flour Bin

(www.flourbin.com)

A good and apparently award-winning source of all kinds of baking flour around £2.10 for 1.5Kg. Unfortunately the website is just dreadful.

At every World Cup expectations of the final are high. Frequently it disappoints - but this was a real battle; hard fought, passionate, tactically excellent, maybe a bit rough at times.

OK, so there was only one goal but there was great goalkeeping. Appreciating football requires an attention span greater than that of a bluebottle - that’s why most Americans don’t get it. Most Latino Americans do.

Both Spain and Holland had proved themselves good sides - not just at this tournament but over many matches before getting to South Africa. In the end the better side playing the better football won, and did so with a moment of supreme skill. Those who say the teams under performed miss the point. Each team played as well as the other allowed them to. Spain were tremendous on the ball and pretty good without it. Holland were excellent when they didn’t have the ball - but when you have to play like that it saps the energy. In the end possession told; Spain, with 56% to Holland’s 44% during normal time, found themselves playing extra time against a team running on empty. At the World Cup it is ALWAYS about how well you keep the ball.

Sensible refereeing made the final all the better. Howard Webb missed a few - most absurdly Holland’s ’should have had corner’, but he resisted the urge to ruin the game by reaching for red until he had no real choice. Anyway, football is a physical contest. Pompous BBC pundits who’ve been know to make some pretty fierce challenges in their time whining on about how cynical the Dutch were is all a little hypocritical. In any case, Spain were hardly holding back themselves and were also lucky to have 11 on the pitch though there was an awful lot of rolling around from both sides.

Which recent final was any better? You have to go back 24 years for a really decent contest. Since Maradona beat West Germany in Mexico City we’ve had four negative matches and two mismatches - the best being France’s dismantling of the out-of-sorts Brazil.

But however many times they do this, and whatever had happened on the pitch, FIFA always make a hash of the presentation. This one appeared to be going pretty well with a jovial bunch of not at all  pompous Euro-Royals congratulating, commiserating and generally entering into the spirit of things. Until it comes to the presentation of the trophy when the unbearable Sepp Blatter, FIFA President, barely allows Jacob Zuma, President of South Africa, to touch the trophy he is meant to be presenting. He’s the President of the host nation for goodness sake, give the lad his moment! I bet he wouldn’t have done that to Nelson Mandela.

Zuma seemed to take Blatter’s egomania with good grace. Maybe because he knows that South Africa has a lot to be proud of. The stadia were completed, the infrastructure seemed to work, the predictions of doom, disorganisation, violence, security problems, death, pestilence and general mayhem predicted, largely, by white European journalists turned out to be so much nonsense. Had they cared to notice that South Africa had previously hosted a rather successful rugby union world cup, regularly hosts visiting cricket tours (and their travelling support) without mass murder, or even any murder at all seemed to have escaped the notice of these scribbling Casandras. It would be wrong to say this was just racism - but it was mostly racism. Other places with no track record of hosting major football tournaments that also had unfortunate crime rates, no go areas and a history of racial intolerance have staged the World Cup - like the USA. At least the South Africans actually LIKE football - pity they didn’t have a better team.

Even so, despite a hard fought final, excellent semis and some half-decent games in the last eight, the World Cup wasn’t the greatest entertainment throughout. But then it rarely is. Our collective memories blot out the poor matches from past competitions - we remember the good stuff. This time the group stages were slow to get going - entirely normal. The group stages passed and the majority of sports journalists and TV pundits droned on and on about how good the South Americans were only to see them bomb out in the quarter finals undone by the wrong tactics and inexperienced coaches. This time we’ll remember Germany thrashing Argentina, Holland overturning Brazil, the climax of Uruguay v Ghana as well as Spain’s sublime passing. And what odds would you have got on the only unbeaten side in the tournament being New Zealand?

TV coverage? What was the point of James Corden? And how can they explain Alan Shearer’s dress sense. When will somebody take the lad to the shops - Mrs Shearer, Trinny, Suzanna, Gok - OK, well maybe not Gok, but surely someone can help him. Shirts that are too tight, collars that don’t fit, sleeves that don’t match the rest of the shirt, black trousers with brown shoes. It’s worse than Everton’s new away kit!

Finally, a word about England. I care little about England when there are no Geordies involved and I just can’t buy into all that collective self-delusion. This time, like last time, not to mention the shambles that was failed qualification for Euro 2008, England performed poorly and made a whimpering exit (though of course it could have been different had Lampard’s goal stood - no, really, it could have). No complaints, though when it turned out that Germany were actually rather good dumping out Argentina and narrowly losing to the imperious Spanish, everyone could feel a little better about it. And after all, we did better than the French and the Italians, and didn’t we “sacrifice the national team to have the best league in the world”. But can we really make the case that the Premier League is a better competition than La Liga, Serie A or even the Bundesliga? The Premier League produces some exciting football, but so does Division 3 (or whatever it’s called this week). Serie A provided more players in the later stages of this World Cup than the Premier League. It’s another bit of English the superiority complex where the evidence struggles to stand up the assertion.

Now it’s all over we English won’t miss it. We can get back to club football - we know that’s better anyway not least because when it comes to picking a team money beats nationality any day. And we can  get back to kidding ourselves that our club football is the best in the world, kidding ourselves that 4-4-2 is an effective system in international football, kidding ourselves that keeping the ball doesn’t really matter and kidding ourselves that next time will be different.

When I travelled round the south east for a living one thing I could rely on was the Indian restaurant in every one-horse town. But these days I think twice about Indian. Maybe I just overdid the curries back then, but somehow I think it is more just plain boredom.

The Indian restaurant ‘three pot curry’ formula lost its charm for me long since, but there is one thing I still find difficult to fathom: why, when Reading has such a rich ethnic mix, is it so hard to find an Indian restaurant that offers something different to the three pot norm?

At risk of upsetting some of my friends, while getting an acceptable meal is no challenge, the odds are that it will taste the same as the last one.

This selection of five includes two locals and three involving a journey - but each one is well worth it.

Chennai Dosa

73 Whitley Street, RG2 0EG www.chennaidosa.com 0118 975 8181

Cash only, no booking, formica tables, plastic cups and metal trays but quite simply the best and most authentic Indian food in Reading by a country mile and probably the best for vegetarian food too. The Whitley Street site hosted a sting of failed restaurants until the south Indian chain made it their first location outside London. It was a shrewd decision. At peak times expect to queue for a table and don’t expect a familiar menu - but ask advice and you shall receive. Try one of the many dosa dishes (a kind of south Indian crepe which you can get individually or in a six foot ‘family’ version) or any of the tiffin. And one of the best things is it is also Reading’s least expensive Indian food - expect to pay less than a tenner for three courses and soft drinks - the last time I looked there was no alcohol licence, but hey.

The six foot family dosa - quite something by the look of it.

Benaras

Berkeley Square, W1J 6BS www.benaresrestaurant.com 020 7629 8886

Atul Kochhar’s Michelin starred Mayfair restaurant is about as far removed from Chennai Dosa as you could get, but it has in common something different to the norm. Yes, you can spend a fortune if you feel inclined but you don’t have to as the Prix Fixe menu offers intriguing selections for a reasonable price (two courses £19, three for £25 including a cocktail, coffe and petit fours). So go to town and treat yourself.

Madhu’s

39 South Road, Southall, UB1 1SW www.madhusonline.com 020 8574 1897

If it’s authentic you want, then eat where Indian’s eat. A drive to Southall not only guarantees great food but also a great experience. You could just hit on any one of countless eateries and get a fine meal, but my favourite is Mhadu’s where the Keema Mutta is to die for. Booking is essential but chaotic, greeting is friendly but chaotic, service is attentive, friendly and chaotic, in fact the only thing that isn’t chaotic is the food where every flavour comes through. What you lose on the petrol from Reading you save on the price - less than £20 per head with drinks for more than it’s sensible to eat for a comfortable journey home.

Malik’s

High Street, Cookham SL6 9SF www.maliks.co.uk 01628 520085

Highly rated by many, including Heston Blumenthal, Malik’s lives up to its reputation with good service to match the flavours. Dishes like King Prawn Suka - a sweet and sour Tamarind sauce - offer something beyond the average. As well as the flagship restaurant in Cookham there are two other Malik’s branches: at Marlow and Gerard’s Cross. Booking is essential. Three course with drinks will set you back £30 a head, but not overpriced for the quality.

Bina Tandoori

21 Prospect Street Caversham RG4 8JG www.binatandoori.co.uk 0118 946 2115

You get the idea from the music on the website, but I still think that the Bina is the best of Reading’s bunch if you are looking for the familiar. The last time I was there the Jalfiazi was rather good and the Biryani, a standard to be judged by, was reliably good. Prices are at little higher than many of Reading’s other restaurants but I’ve yet to have a bad meal there.

There were, at that stage, three men certain to contest the leadership. All three read PPE at Oxford. All three studied higher degrees at Ivy League Universities. All three, save for the odd bit of scribbling, earned their living as Parliamentary researchers before becoming MPs. All three were parachuted into safe seats. Perhaps the field was a bit narrow, the interviewees suggested.

But they shouldn’t have worried. The field was about to be expanded massively and the cosy consensus of dark blue alumni was to be blown apart.

The former Health Secretary, Andy Burnham, was to achieve the magic 33 nominations within the next couple of hours. Andy Burnham brings something different to the contest - he read English at Cambridge! He also broadened the life experience on offer - not only has he worked advising MPs, he spent 18 months outside Parliament. OK, so six months work as a parliamentary officer for the NHS Confederation and a year pushing paper for the Football Taskforce is hardly running Tesco, but in this life we should be thankful for crumbs, or so I’m told. It didn’t take him long before he found his way back to Westminster before getting himself selected for rock solid safe Leigh.

Andy Burnham doesn’t impress me much. He’s far too accident-prone and looks terrified on television. That’s not leadership material and I won’t be voting for him, but even if he’s not had much of a career he is at least from a background I can relate to - telephone engineer father and receptionist mother, went to an average sort of school. He supports Everton - I wonder what he thinks of their new away kit!

So all in all, though, not a lot better - sadly no women of ability in the field and a mind numbingly narrow spectrum of individuals and views. Estelle and Hazel, pretty much knew that Mr Burnham would make it but still appeared to be worried.

But the major blow for diversity had yet to be struck. Acting Labour Leader, Harriet Harman, had thrown her nomination behind Diane Abbott while telling us that she wouldn’t be voting in the final ballot but wanted to see a woman on the ballot. David Milliband then announced that he would be nominating Ms Abbott, and there she is - the fifth candidate to make it through to the ballot.

So now we have three Oxford boys, a Cambridge lad and a girl who went to Newnham College. Cambridge that is. Sent her kids to private school too. Collects appearance fees and fails to declare them properly. Absolutely ideal leadership material! Massive experience of the real world too - an administration trainee at the Home Office and a spell at the NCCL (during Harriet’s time) and off to various media jobs with Thames TV, the GLC and Lambeth.

So what diversity means in this contest is having a token black woman involved in the contest - even when she doesn’t really command the support of the necessary minimum number of MPs. Anyone who thinks this is a silly or restrictive rule is simply wrong. The job of Party Leader requires that person to LEAD the Parliamentary Party - the support of a reasonable cross section of MPs it therefore a reasonable test of their suitability for the job. The notion that David Milliband, Harriet Harman, Stephen Twigg, Jack Straw, Denis MacShane, Fiona MacTaggart and Phil Woolas actually support Ms Abbott is entirely absurd.

There is one argument for having a ‘ far left’, ‘Bennite’ however you care to describe it on the ballot - that is to ensure that they are subsequently trashed. Trouble is it is a dangerous game. The Labour Party is full of middle class people motivated by Guardian reading guilt. There is a risk, in a field where distinctions are hard to judge that, just as people who don’t really support her have nominated her, others at the grass roots will vote, or give supporting nominations on the ‘wouldn’t it be nice to have a woman/black person as leader’ ticket. I say so because I’ve heard this from people who should know better far too often. I do hope I won’t hear it too often this time.

Many feel that the ‘coronation’ of Gordon Brown was bad for Labour - or so it has proved, but many of the same people took part in making that coronation possible are now involved in fixes of a different kind to make sure it doesn’t look like a coronation - and as ever with their own motives. I would welcome an able female candidate. Yvette Cooper, a woman of serious ability, explained in an excellent Guardian article why she wasn’t standing - mores’ the pity.

I haven’t firmly decided who I will vote for in this contest. I have real concerns about Ed Balls - anyone who walks out of the house regularly holding a mug of tea is either posing far too much or suffering from early onset Alzheimer’s. So their surname will almost certainly be Milliband - however when I do so it will be on the basis that they are the best candidate from those available, the only basis on which one should ever vote in an internal election. Even if the Milliband I eventually chose becomes leader there will remain significant issues confronting Labour. One of the most important throughout the Labour government was the Party’s failure to connect with what should have been its bedrock support.

The ‘traditional’ Labour vote has been shrinking for some time, nothing new, and it isn’t that New Labour failed to deliver policies that improved the lives and chances of people who shared my ‘working class’ background. However when people from traditional working class estates, from deprived urban areas, from the former industrial cities or in lower paid jobs in the private sector look at the Labour Party they do not see people like themselves, nor anything they believe they could be like. Labour just doesn’t connect on the right levels and the swelling ranks of university-straight from nursery to Westminster village to safe seat career politicians won’t help matters.

When traditional Labour supporters look at and listen to Labour politicians they need to see something that reflects not only their aspirations (aspirations, incidentally that are not and have never been that different to those of middle England) but also which they recognise something sufficiently like themselves, not least because if people are to aspire then they have to be able to achieve. Every time Labour parachutes a Westminster advisor or a minor celebrity journalist into a safe seat over the heads of local activists we make it more difficult for ordinary working people to see that they still have a place in the peoples’ party.

The statements talking of “personal tragedy” and of Mr Laws being a “good and honourable man” should be seen as what they are - part of a snow job designed to deflect attention from the first great embarrassment for the coalition government. From the language of spin to plain old English, “personal tragedy” roughly translates as “what a pity he got found out” while “good and honourable man” translates literally to “thanks for falling on your sword and getting us all off the hook mate”.

Credit where credit’s due. The coalition’s spin doctors handled this one very efficiently. Laws was doomed from the minute the Telegraph brought the matter into the public domain. Hanging in there was only going to make matters worse, create problems for both Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg, give an opportunity to Harriet Harman et al to ask awkward questions and the media to have a field day. No chance, no winners; he had to go and the sooner from the Government’s point of view the better. Better still if he was seen to make the decision himself so absolving the Prime Minister of that most difficult of tasks - firing a minister from your coalition partner. There’s also the chance that, at some future date, Mr Laws can resurface Mandy-like onto the front bench, maybe. Amid the wreckage of Mr Laws career Andy Coulson and Co will be deservedly patting themselves on the back for a job well done.

But lets just look at some parallels with Mr Laws ‘mistakes’. Benefits claimants, not having the means to buy their own homes, frequently rent rooms from others. They are obliged to disclose their personal circumstances. It is not unknown for claimants to give false information and, of course, the authorities investigate these matters. In doing so they poke into the closets of all sorts of people, regardless of sex, race or sexuality. Those without means find they have no ‘right to privacy’ when the state from which they seek funds has suspicions of wrong doing. In these circumstances ‘co-habitation’ does not rely on such detail as whether or not one has a joint bank account, but the ways in which one chooses to live. The right to privacy here is limited to the state and public representatives keep the claimant’s personal information confidential.

Furthermore, throughout public life disclosure of personal circumstances and where one may, as a public representative, have a conflict of interest is expected. It would seem Mr Laws never served in Local Government. Perhaps if he had he would have better understood how complicated conflicts of interest could be and how on occasion one can be seen to have an interest even when one’s personal involvement is marginal. Sex need not enter into the matter - ‘friendships’ are sufficient to require a declaration of interest on a whole host of matters before local councils.

By these criteria it is hard to see how Mr Laws case can be simply dismissed as an ‘error of judgement’ resulting from a desire to protect his privacy. It is hard to see how his privacy was at issue, given the veil of secrecy drawn over the work of the House of Commons Fees Office during the period in question. Private disclosure of Mr Laws’ circumstance would seem to me to have been perfectly possible - was he not obliged, at least, to have sought appropriate advice - even when the rules on these matters changed? The price for receiving public money is disclosure - simple as that. Had Mr Laws really wanted to keep this stuff under wraps then he shouldn’t have claimed from the public purse - and as a former investment banker with JP Morgan and Barclays de Zoete Wedd he can’t be short of a bob or two.

And it is here that Mr Laws ball has landed in the long rough of double standards. Had I, were I a Member of Parliament, claimed for renting room as a ’second home’ from a woman who it transpired, had I been outed as a heterosexual, had been my on-off ‘girlfriend’ for the best part of a decade it is highly unlikely that I would be seen as anything other than ‘on the take’. Perhaps I may have wanted to keep MY relationship private, for whatever reason, but there would have been little question that the matter should have been declared to the authorities, had I not there would have been little sympathy had I not done so - and quite rightly. Those who have rented rooms as ’second homes’ from siblings and from children have been subject to detailed investigation - does not equality demand the same in Mr Laws case if only to clear the name of this “honourable man”? Shouldn’t those proclaiming what an “honourable man” this is perhaps wait and see what any investigations might conclude?

So why the ‘tragedy’? Is it really a ‘tragedy’ 27 years after Chris Smith came out before the 1983 election in Islington South and Finsbury and following a whole raft of entirely splendid equalities legislation that it should become public that some Lib Dem bloke might be gay? I think not.

The fact, however, is you can’t have it both ways in public life. When you go into it you know, if you have any common sense, that you live in the media gaze and you just have to get used to it. So excuse me if I don’t join the wailing for the not-so-poor Mr Laws.

I took him at his word for a considerable chunk of my adult life with obvious consequences for my weight. Having belatedly learned my lesson and being less tolerant of dairy as I got older, ice cream is back to where it should be - a treat.

The best treat is ice cream that’s home made. The only real alternative is moving to Italy - which is expensive and inconvenient, but where the ritual of toddling off to the local ice cream parlour is an important part of life (especially in those pretty villages where there is nothing else to do). It is a sad fact that good gelato is hard to find in the UK. Most establishments claiming Italian heritage serve gelato not worthy of the name. This even extends to London - though there is a half decent place on Regent Street. 

Home made ice cream is something that many otherwise decent cooks find intimidating. Recipes can appear complex and the time and effort involved is off-putting. But a couple of years ago I stumbled on a recipe that I’ve adapted since and it is not only easy, but only takes about 15 minutes, no custard and no mess.

If you really can’t be on with making your own then buy the good stuff - because with ice cream less really is more. Eating less of it and eating it less often means there is less of you - so buy something decent that isn’t made with pig fat! 

Home Made Coffee Tortoni

There’s a myth that to make ice cream or sorbet an ice cream churning gadget is essential. It isn’t. There is also no need to take the stuff from the freezer at intervals to stir and avoid ice crystals. Not only does this recipe make all that redundant, it can also be the basis for lots of variants.  For the purists, it is really a semi-fredo rather than an ice cream, but that’s splitting hairs.

• 2 tablespoons desiccated coconut
• 30g flaked almonds
• 110g caster sugar
• White of an egg
• 250ml of double cream
• 1 teaspoon of instant coffee
• 1 tablespoon coffee liqueur

Dissolve the coffee in one tablespoon of hot water. Toast the coconut and the almonds till golden brown then zap in a food processor for a few seconds. in a metal bowl beat the egg white to sort peaks then add half the sugar gradually and continue to beat  to stiff peaks. In another metal bowl whip the cream then combine with the remaining sugar. Using a metal spoon fold the egg white mixture into the cream followed by the nut mixture and the coffee flavourings. Put the mixture into a one litre container or individual moulds, depending on the presentation that’s intended ,and freeze (allow 8 hours or overnight).

Booja-Booja Range

(5.99, 500ml)

Organic, diary-free, gluten-free, no refined sugar and apparently suitable for vegans. If all that doesn’t put you off entirely, it’s well worth a try if, like me, you struggle with diary but still crave an ice cream fix. Available locally from Garlands in Pangbourne.

Waitrose Seriously Creamy Range - Stem Ginger

(£3.49, 500ml)

If you really can’t make it yourself then this is a good alternative. Reassuringly brick like if left in the freezer for any time, it’s best eaten quickly.

Haagen-Daz - Pralines and Cream (£3.99, 500ml)

I don’t care if it is all banding and image, some things can’t be faked and while some of the range doesn’t work, pralines and cream always hit’s the spot.

Enhanced Vanilla

Not so much of a recipe as a serving suggestion adapted from a Jamie Oliver idea. You need: 

• Decent vanilla ice cream (Green & Blacks, Loseley, Carte D’Or or even Booja-Booja is you are particularly guilty)
• Maltesers
• Maple syrup

Smash up the maltesers and use as a topping for the ice cream, dribble over maple syrup and eat. Best late at night after a visit to the pub. Seriously bad for you, don’t say you weren’t warned.

Possibly one of the great British films, one of the great comic films and up with Dr Strangelove (and Catch 22 on paper) as the very best in the black/war comedy genre. The most significant post 9-11 work since “24″. I could go on at length about why, but I’ll spare you the pHD.

A multi-cultural work with great performances from some of Britain’s best young acting talent: Waj (Kayvan Novak), Omar (Riz Ahmed), Hassan (Arsher Ali) and Fessal (Adeel Akhtar) along with the not so young, zeal of the convert fake, Barry (Nigel Lindsay). Funny from end to end: “he’s like a Sufi on speed”, typical of the muslim on muslim gags and funny for that reason - because THEY are allowed. Up with Father Ted, Billy Connolly, Kevin Smith or Goodness Gracious Me at their best in that respect. Pythonesque conversations and Tucker-like outbursts in Urdu. Only funny when THEY tell ‘em. Set in Sheffield in a climate of worklessness and denied opportunity created by the Tories and their allies during the 1980s alongside the illuminated consumerist dome of Meadowhall. The police are clueless and get the wrong guy, barge into the wrong house. The intelligence is always imperfect, the Special Branch negotiator is just as much a fake as Barry. Why do they do it? Why did the Red Army Faction do it? Deformed ideology, unstable personalities and a climate of hate - just a best guess but we can’t really know, we weren’t there.

Great satire but genuinely scary at times. Most frightening, the scenes of Omar and his family. More frightening when the same M.O. appears on the news in a real terrorist case this evening. Watch, laugh, learn and be somewhat afraid.

Sometimes you just have to hold your hands up and say “fair cop”.

In rather a long time in politics I tried to avoid second-guess the electorate. It is very bad form for a practicing politician to do so. They normally bite you in the bum for doing so. Since I left public life I should care less.

Before the polls closed I genuinely had not expected the Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition. After they closed it quickly became obvious that it was one of the only two outcomes that were likely.

Why did I not say so? Simply because I was on holiday by the time the votes were counted. Part of not being quite so sad and having a life is not feeling the need to justify what I think. Nonetheless, it was the most civilised election night I’ve spent in a long while - results coming in from about 4pm through till seven, a break for dinner and back to spend the evening drinking wine and listening to Today at 10pm.

I got it somewhat wrong for two reasons. I genuinely did not believe that the Conservatives would fail to get their majority - they were not far off, after all - another dozen seats and they could have stitched up a deal with the Unionists of Northern Ireland that would have allowed them to govern. Secondly, Labour did much better than I thought they would. I had expected Labour’s vote to crumble toward the Liberal Democrats - particularly in the South and this would let through the Conservatives in at least sufficient number.

It didn’t come about. Instead of the 200 or so Labour MP I had expected the Labour ‘ground war’ in enough of the marginal seats was sufficient to hold the line and the result was broadly in line with the national swing. The Liberal Democrats were unable, as has normally proved the case, to win seats in significant number from Labour.

In one respect I was indeed right. The Liberal Democrats did not end up with the realistic ability to choose with whom they would make a deal - the numbers just didn’t work out that way. This is where their inability to coalesce with Labour foundered whether or not they had wanted to.

Labour was right to try to make a deal with the Liberals - because Labour supporters expect their party to do everything it can to keep the Conservatives out. There is no disgrace in having tried and failed. That said David Cameron was quite right to say that Labour had lost the election and, while he hadn’t won it, his party had more votes and more seats. So the Liberals took the only stable deal that was on the table. When I took off from LAX Gordon Brown was still the Prime Minister, (having done very well at flying round ash clouds), when I landed he had flown off to Scotland and Cleggaron had been installed. Having lost and lost badly it was almost certainly better for democracy that Labour did not lead a coalition. Mr Cameron grabbed the opportunity potentially to sink the Liberal Democrats in the longer term and to govern without being hostage to the awkward squad in his own party. Nadine Dorries and friends can do little more than seeth quietly. The Daily Mail will prove less quiet.

What will happen next? Perhaps crystal ball gazing is unwise - none of us know. Not all Governments prove to be unpopular - the public likes the idea of politicians working together, on the other hand there are many thousands, possibly millions of voters who supported the Liberals as a tactical vote to keep the Conservatives out. This has been happening for many years in the South of England. It is hard to see many of those people remaining with the Liberals, so the result could yet be more Conservative MPs and the diminution of the Liberal Democrats, but who can say? Most probably there will be a bit of both, but what goes around tends to come around.

We continue to live in interesting times.