Back from conference, and thanks to Sue for the tip, I learnt that this blog has been named by Iain Dale as one of the Top Ten Underrated Blogs – that was on Wednesday – so I picked a great time, it would seem, to disappear into the wifi-less depths of Liverpool Hope University for the Green Party conference.

But I do have some good excuses for going quiet here – I think I can say without being unduly immodest that one of the highlights of the conference was the panel that I organised on Women Left Behind, which focused on women suffering from double disadvantages – of gender, and of being from ethnic minority communities, being asylum-seekers and refugees, and of being sex workers. The three speakers did a spectacular job, and held the hall spellbound – and Matt did a fine job of writing that report, so I won’t rehearse it here – do go over and check out the link.

But getting together three speakers, from Maidstone, London and Sheffield respectively, and assembling them all for a noon session was fraught with tension… might do it again in the autumn – the memories of the stress level will have faded a bit by then.

My other main policy contribution was on women’s income, pensions, savings and debt. I had been hoping to get a Fawcett Society speaker on that, but it didn’t work out, so instead I used its extensive research for a presentation within a fringe meeting on basic income, which actually worked out as a very good blend. Basic income – Green Party policy that everyone should be automatically paid an income sufficient on which to live, if frugally – has fascinating possibilities, but as I was thinking about the contribution it drove home how income is only a part of our financial position – all of those other things are important.

And a contribution from the floor raised an interesting question. Basic income would also be paid to children, but to whom would it be paid? Giving it to mothers would do what the current benefits system does – reinforce traditional gender stereotypes. But worldwide research shows that women tend to spend household income on their children, rather than themselves, far more than do men. It is a tricky question, and one that demonstrates the value of such informal discussions in working through policy.