Figures carried on the Liberal Democrat’s national website reveal some quite shocking statistics. Over 70,000 young people have been admitted to hospital for self-harm related injuries in the last four years, an increase of 35%; 4,000 have been admitted for eating disorders, which represents an increase of 10%.

Defining self-harm can be problematic. I have seen websites which define it broadly enough to include smoking and the use of narcotics. A broad definition is not helpful because there are clear differences.

For example, a smoker or a drug addict will become chemically addicted to their particular vice (although they may be psychologically addicted too), whereas a ‘cutter’ is purely psychologically addicted. Nicotine and narcotics induce a bio-chemical response from the introduction of another chemical (and it is pleasurable, not intentionally painful - pain is an unintentional consequence) whereas cutting induces a neurological response from the act of inflicting pain.

Although a smoker or drug user is generally aware of the potential side-effects, they are not seeking to harm themselves directly. They do what they do despite the risks, not to actively induce the conditions that may result from their habit.

We can be pretty sure these figures are very much the tip of the iceberg because they only show actual admission figures. Self-harmers are often very adept at concealing their habit, as are those with eating disorders, and rarely seek help unless they tip over some kind of crisis point. Often there is a huge social stigma around seeking help which is not made any easier by the fact that those that do risk being branded as attention seekers.

The attention seeking myth is perhaps the most pernicious. Self-harmers demonstrate completely opposite patterns of behaviour to attention seekers. In general, they do everything possible to draw attention away from their habit and are deeply ashamed of it and themselves for doing it; so the last thing they will do is seek the limelight.

Causes and reasons for doing it vary. In general they are particular to a specific individual which is something that of course makes the problem hard to tackle. It can also be a symptom of wider problems which need to be addressed before the cycle of self-abuse can be broken. Breaking that cycle is as hard as it is to break any other addiction, and it is something that requires a strong support network. However, realistically, there is little on offer from government provided services. A survey by the Liberal Democrats found that the average longest waiting time for treatment for eating disorders is 203 days, with some having to wait 720 days.

Similarly, self-harmers face a wait of months unless their condition happens to land them in hospital though either accidental or deliberate escalation. In the meantime, they are heavily reliant on the support of those close to them (who may not even know), or voluntary networks like The National Self Harm Network, which offer advice and forums where self-harmers can talk to volunteers or other people who self-harm.

Of course, this is reliant on them finding such services in the first place and offers us a classic example of governmental failure to address a serious problem which only escalates the longer it is left unattended.

Educational and health services have a vital role to play in addressing this problem which is too often sidelined due to already pressing demands on resources. Widespread awareness of the importance of dealing with emotional and mental health issues is not being translated into governmental action; nor is it translating into increased resources to services being improved for young people the stage at which this problem needs to be addressed.

It is likely to become more prevalent as those that have ‘slipped through the net’ manifest more serious problems in later life. It is not an issue that can be swept under the carpet.

Whatever you might say about the Welsh Liberal Democrats we are tenacious. From standstill in last May’s Assembly elections; to summer chaos, as we attempted to forge a coalition with the wrong parties only to see Plaid Cymru walk away to join up with Labour; to a set of local election results in which we not only held our own but actually advanced on our 2004 high.

Of the 33 net gains by the Liberal Democrats on 1 May, 21 of them were in Wales. In three of the four Councils we lead we increased our representation and consolidated our position, whilst elsewhere we became key players in future administrations.

In Cardiff we gained three seats and confirmed our status as the largest party. Talks are now underway to form a coalition there, ending four years of minority control. In Swansea, we made a net gain of four seats and look set to lead a majority coalition with the independents. In both cases this is reward for the way we have turned around both Cities after decades of Labour neglect.

In Wrexham we now have three more Councillors and are the largest group. It is likely that we will once more be leading a coalition administration there. In addition to these the Welsh Liberal Democrats now form part of the new administration in Anglesey and could play a significant role in any anti-Labour alliance in Flintshire.

It is likely that the handful of seats we won in Blaenau Gwent, Conwy, Gwynedd and Torfaen, as well as our more significant presence in Merthyr, will lead to us either being part of the administrations there or having influence. It is also likely that we will play a major role in Ceredigion, where we defeated the Plaid Cymru PPC, and Newport, where there are two deferred elections for six seats, three of them currently held by us.

Although we are the smallest opposition party in the Assembly we continue to punch above our weight. We demonstrated previously how we could make a success of government at an all-Wales level, now we have a further opportunity to show voters in many more Council areas what we can do at a local government level as well.

* Councillor Peter Black AM blogs here.

I went to see Billy Bragg in August. Not canvassing, mind you. He’s one of a very few celebrities who doesn’t seem to have a house in my constituency. It was a gig at the Greenbelt Festival. He tried to play his entire first album in just nine minutes, but broke a string and had to talk instead (in the early days, I think he would have performed the next night as well without replacing the string).

What he talked about was why he was backing religion in general (Greenbelt is a Christian arts festival), because it was a bulwark against the single most destructive thing in society: cynicism and apathy. Which is really two things. But they’re obviously linked. Read more »

As the dust begins to settle, some of us holding our collective breath in anticipation of a Boris-run London - and Gordon licks his wounds and wonders if this was all to do with the abolishing of the 10p rate - I thought it may be a good time to start thinking about notions of equality. I wanted to start by looking at the commitment all the main parties have made to ending child poverty.

Last Monday I attended the 4 Children/Barnados conference, addressed by, among others, Nick Clegg (Lib Dem), Michael Gove (Tory) and Stephen Timms (Labour), where a pamphlet, ‘Turning up the volume on child poverty’, was launched. With contributions from Labour’s Ed Balls, Michael Gove and our own David Laws, the pamphlet calls for clear policy commitments from all three parties.

Nick’s speech focussed on education and the relationship between social mobility and parents’ income. He argued for a more flexible system, better maternity/paternity benefits and higher quality childcare available to all.
He proposed extending the childcare tax credit to workless families – “moving money from subsidies for the well-off to support the poorest - instead of the other way around.” And argued that language was a barrier for many immigrant children and that developing English language skills should be a priority for them.

Michael Gove suggested that child poverty was a relative term, his definition was being “excluded from the good life” he was interested in creating a society that was “more cohesive and more equal” and spoke about “moving away from social justice” - whatever that means. He referred to a new Tory metaphor (borrowed from Polly Toynbee) of society being a caravan moving through the desert; the important thing was that those at back did not fall behind. His vision was of a society where people were brought out of dependency, able to take control of their lives. He put a lot of problems down to absent fathers and reiterated that the Tories would “reward commitment”. He lauded the success of Academies and bemoaned the scandal of children not reading by age six. Tories would reward talent and enterprise and create a more meritocratic society.

Stephen Timms welcomed the strength of the End Child Poverty coalition. Labour had committed to the abolition of child poverty within a generation.
He emphasised the importance of a job as a route out of poverty. He also talked a lot about what the government had already done to take children out of poverty.

For me the most challenging speech came from Lisa Harker, co-director at the Institute of Public Policy Research.

While acknowledging that Labour were the only party to have implemented any policies to end child poverty, she criticised the party’s approach as being highly centralised and putting more effort into getting people into work - rather than looking for more flexibility in the workplace.

The Tories, she suggested, were interested in messaging rather than policy, identifying the root causes as addiction and family breakdown, rather than understanding the complexity of issues that lead to child poverty.

She took Liberal Democrats to task for having a hybrid model, focusing on education but with no significant pressure to tackle the wider issues, in particular redistribution.

She identified what she saw as the major barrier to change, namely deep underlying inequalities in society. For her the problem was the underlying
winner takes all culture; a place where working hard is just not enough.

Her solution was to redistribute to tackle the underlying inequalities. Sweden, for example, redistributes through the tax system (and in a much-publicised Unicef Report last year came 2nd in the league of child wellbeing in rich countries, compared with our bottom place).

Lisa saw a real problem with the need for public support which had hardened against the poor, 1 in 3 believing poverty is the result of laziness or lack of will power. Her concern was that in reality tackling poverty is just not a vote winner, although she speculated whether the outcry over the 10p rate would mark a shift in public attitudes.

Finally she challenged us all that we have a great opportunity to up the pace of change, but recognising that there is not a quick fix solution and that any solution requires public backing which is just not evident at the moment.

I left feeling exasperated. As a party we do have a commitment to improve outcomes for children, the pupil premium, more affordable housing, higher child benefit, but there is so much more we could do. The government’s Every Child Matters agenda looks at improving the wellbeing of children and young people across a range of indicators, but equality is not one of them.

I know it’s not a popular position, especially after our recent Tax Commissions, but I honestly believe we need to have a good hard look at what more we can do to contribute to ending this scandal. What was it Nick Clegg said about being radical and taking risks?!

* Linda Jack blogs at Lindyloo’s Muze.

A great set of local election results - but to say that we did “well” or “better than expected” is, in my view, an understatement.

On our resources, which do not include the money of (Lord) David Sainsbury (of Turville), or (Lord) Michael Ashcroft (of Tax Haven) or (Lord) Irvine Laidlaw, we’ve done fantastically. Apologies for the brackets, but I think we can say that their ‘titles’ are optional.

Can we do better? You bet!

Here in Cambridge, for example, I doubt that a single leaflet mentioned Nick Clegg’s name. I think they should have. Our local election campaigns should be building national momentum: raising the profile of our leader, his team and our policies.

Neither did we, here, highlight the Tory-Labour collusion on their tax policies for the super wealthy. We seem to be allowing them to feed their funding habit is a somewhat similar fashion to the way that the media supports the drink and drugs train-wreck lifestyles of various celebrities. If we can be certain of one thing, then it’s not going to be Rupert Murdoch who does the job for us on tax!

On this front, I do hope that by this time next year, a site expanding on something like politicalfundingwatch.blogspot.com is out there and we’re making it very clear who’s pockets the opposition is in. It’s certainly something I’m keen to move forwards.

And, to be clear, the need to attack this Tory-Labour collusion, is not just for our political gain, but more importantly, for the sake of:
- The vast majority of us who need the NHS: polyclinics look likely to benefit big business, not those who use the service;
- Those of us who rely on post offices and small shops;
- Those who need good public transport: we must break the regional monopolies of the bus operators, especially in light of ever increasing fuel prices;
- Those whose prospects are poor because their parents were poor: we want a society where every child born has equal opportunities based on their commitment and ability, not on the wealth of their parents;
- Our children and their children, who, unless we wrestle back control from what is becoming what I can only call a monopolist’s plutocracy, will be faced with a planet raging with conflict, on a path that was set for the short term gains of a few who lacked the compassion to see beyond their own desires.

These and more are being eroded, not because they’re not needed, or because we don’t know how to improve them, but because of the stupid situation that subverts our democracy.

So, my view: A great result? Yes. Can we do better? You bet! Let’s put power back where it belongs: in the hands of the people!

* Neale Upstone is Liberal Democrat councillor for Kings Hedges on Cambridge City Council.