A short history of correspondence with my family…

When I was (much) younger, messages to my family were sent on something that looked like this, an aerogramme. They were designed to be lightweight (to keep the delivery cost down) and easy to use - you folded over the gummed, protruding edges to seal it closed. But, with telephone calls expensive, and even middle class Indian homes not always connected to the telephone, they were how you kept the family in touch with what you were doing.

Of course, the advent of the internet meant that aerogrammes were increasingly irrelevant, and it appears that the Royal Mail gave them up in 2012. I admit that I hadn’t noticed.

In truth, I am at best an erratic correspondent, even with e-mail and social media. I mark family birthdays when they are noted by others on the family WhatsApp groups - there’s one for the Valladares’s and another for the cousins and second cousins - and I’ll occasionally exchange messages for significant events, but it’s a bit haphazard.

Ros encourages me, but she knows that it’s a bit of an uphill battle and I sense that her expectations are low that I will actually deal with the matter in good time. This year is a bit different though.

Inspired by the family gathering earlier this month, and aided by Ros’s prescience in purchasing a goodly supply of charity Christmas cards, I have handwritten seventeen cards and matching envelopes, ready to be posted to Canada, India, New Zealand and the United States, one for every cousin and second cousin (and their families) on my father’s side, plus the surviving members of my father’s generation - and there aren’t many of them left, sadly.

It may seem a little sentimental, and maybe it is, but seeing so many of my family up close and personal did bring back some memories. And nothing says that they matter as much as a handwritten card with a brief but heartfelt message. I now also have a full set of addresses for the first time in a long time, which means that I have no excuse not to repeat the process next year.

I will say this though, it’s not a cheap thing to do at £3.40 per card, and you can quite see why people increasingly revert to e-mail these days.

I’m not expecting anything like a full set in reply. After all, most people don’t have Ros to organise them, and life is hectic and complex. But I will have a warm sense of satisfaction that I have reminded my family that I care about them enough to wish them a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, wherever they may be.

A pleasant dinner, interrupted by someone being murdered…

I’m always open to the idea of a good meal, and when Ros suggested dinner at the Suffolk Food Hall, I warmly welcomed the notion. There was the small detail that the dinner was part of a murder mystery evening, but that didn’t put me off particularly.

And so, last night, we set off into the dark of a typical late-November evening towards the south bank of the Orwell, just below the bridge which carries the A24 towards Felixstowe.

Whilst we were early, we were far from alone and, before long, were encouraged to find our dedicated table in anticipation of the puzzle to come. As more of our fellow guests arrived, a small clutch of people in 1920s outfits began to mingle amongst us, setting the scene for what would follow, an investigation into the death of Sir Edwin Chelmsford, the High Commissioner to India.

I had ordered the pork as my main course, and began to suspect that I could expect more pork by way of ham acting but, let’s be honest, you’re not expecting Olivier at these things, are you?

In fairness though, the co-ordination of the meal with the sleuthing was very well done, and an excellent three-course meal was successfully combined with the task of attempting to identify the killer and their motive. Combined with an enthusiastic troupe of actors playing the dramatis personae, it all made for a thoroughly enjoyable evening, even if I entirely failed to spot the key clue and thus drew an incorrect conclusion as to the identity of our murderer.

Before we knew it, three hours had passed, and it was time to return to the darkness and make our way home. All in all, not a bad way to spend an evening…

Looking at a polar bear, exit stage right…

To London, for dinner with Ros and a visit to my parents. And that means a trip on newly-nationalised Greater Anglia, with its fairly new, quite nice, Stadler rolling stock, with a hot cup of tea to drink and some Viennese whirls to keep me going until dinner. Well, I say that, but Greater Anglia offer, as entertainment, what I tend to describe as “the first class lottery”, in that you can never be sure if your train will have the scheduled first class carriages, regardless of what they’ve sold you even an hour before.

But I digress.

One of the things I enjoy most about train travel, and regular readers will know how much I like train travel, is looking out of the window, watching the world go by. Naturally, I like to do this in comfort, one of my rare extravagances.

The first half of the journey south and west to the capital is something I look forward to, although you do cross into Essex just before Manningtree. It does have one unusual feature though, i.e. polar bears. Now I acknowledge that polar bears are not native to Suffolk - at least, I don’t think that they’ve been native for a very long time - but the recent addition of polar bears, the first rescued from a zoo in Sweden that was closing, with others following from Nuremberg Zoo, means that Suffolk boasts the largest dedicated polar bear enclosure in Europe. And, as trains pass by, it’s something to look out for.

I do acknowledge that there are many people who don’t really approve of keeping such animals in captivity, and I do wonder how captivity affects the animals concerned, but where an animal cannot easily be returned to the wild, it seems logical to at least give them the best environment possible for them to live out their lives and to give the public an opportunity to put these creatures into context more readily.

Today, one of the bears was lying on its stomach, seemingly watching the trains. I wonder what it was thinking? Are polar bears potential trainspotters?

Time to bask in the glow of achievement... for now, at least...

I have been gloriously re-appointed as Suffolk's member of the National Assembly of the National Association of Local Councils (NALC), representing our county on the national stage in the town and parish council sector, and I ought to thank my fellow colleagues on the Board of the Suffolk Association of Local Councils for giving me the chance for what may be one last go-around in the role.

I do have another set of roles to decide upon, which offers some interesting questions. NALC elects its officers and committees for a two-year term, something that I will not be able to complete, as my eligibility comes to an end in May 2027 unless something extraordinary happens - a new Ipswich Town Council may have elections then, but I'd have to run (and win) in a town where Liberal Democrats are not often elected.

It would be foolish of me to count upon such happenstance...

On the other hand, I appear to have the respect of my colleagues on the National Assembly (which never ceases to surprise me), and I think that I add value as the current Chair of the Smaller Councils Committee and Co-Chair of the Micro Councils Network (we may be small, but we're often perfectly formed...).

I have a fortnight to make up my mind.

As encouragement perhaps, I find myself in the rather unusual role of panel member for a discussion of Local Government Reform at the Liberal Democrat East of England Regional Conference in Colchester on 15 November. Unusual, mostly because I really wouldn't consider myself to be an expert. Luckily, I'll be in the company of Chelmsford City Council Leader, Stephen Robinson, and NALC's Head of Policy and Communications, Justin Griggs, who both know more than I do and can look and sound intelligent whilst I try not to panic.

As I write this, it dawns on me that there isn't a woman on the panel - note to self to have a word with the Regional Conference Chair on this point.

I also ought to think about what I want to say, and an opportunity to do that is offering itself in just over a fortnight.

In the meantime, there's stuff to do, and I really ought to get on...

If I die, can I come back a Valèncian?

I’m at an age now where, if I can avoid a very early morning flight time, I will. Of course, that does potentially mean that my choice of destination may be limited as a result. And so it was with the getaway I’d organised for this weekend.

The original idea was to try for somewhere in “classical” Spain - not Madrid, or Barcelona, but rather Seville, Granada or Cordoba. But the flight times weren’t right, or the fares were a bit stiff and so, after a bit more research, we ended up picking València, somewhere I had been once before, for four hours, unplanned, three years ago, and whilst it seemed nice enough, I had my reservations - would there be enough to keep us occupied for five days? But I found a good hotel, got flights on British Airways, and we were set to go.

And so, you’ll be wondering how it went.

València is marvellous, with fascinating architecture, pleasant back streets to walk in and dotted liberally with good cafes and neighbourhood restaurants. It has an excellent public transport system, the largest aquarium in Europe, large sandy beaches, and a marina with water so clean that rays can be seen gliding beneath the water’s surface. And the weather’s pretty good too…

We started off with an exploration of the area around the City of Arts and Sciences, with its spectacular architecture which gives you the decided impression that you should be impressed - València is no provincial backwater. Building big structures in white would be bold in England, but on the Mediterranean shore under blue skies, it all looks that much more spectacular.

Days 2 and 3 were dedicated to gentle strolls, some astonishingly good paella and an exploration of Valèncian beach life. València has a beach which reminded me of Rimini - it’s a long way to the sea but the beach stretches far further along the coast.

A València Card includes free public transport, and with buses, trams and a metro system, you can get anywhere you need to go efficiently. There’s also a bus which circles the inner city core which is helpful.

But, on top of this, cafes and bars are priced in such a way to encourage you to stop and linger, and a reasonably priced beer is entirely welcome on a day when the temperature is in the mid-eighties.

Sadly, our last day was impacted by the weather which caused severe flooding in the Balearics but, luckily, we’d already decided that the day would be spent at the aquarium. The shark tunnel alone was enough to justify a visit.

So, all in all, a successful trip. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if we went back…

The road to power starts with a single step

I have, mostly by dint of being too polite to say no, risen a surprisingly long way in the genteel world of Town and Parish Councils. I represent my county on the National Assembly of the National Association of Local Councils (NALC), and chair a national committee and a national network.

And now, my various terms of office are at an end and I find myself rather wanting to be re-elected. To that end, I attended a meeting of the Mid Suffolk Area Forum of the Suffolk Association of Local Councils (SALC) this evening where the first order of business was the (re)election of the Chair, i.e. me, and three Vice-Chairs.

We had rather more attendees than usual, as the other item on the agenda was a presentation from each of the competing proposals for local government reform in Suffolk - we’re being “unitaried” by Labour in the current round, and the prospect of a contest made me slightly nervous. After all, my representative “house of cards” is built on being either Chair or Vice-Chair of the branch.

Luckily, however, the withdrawal of one of my rivals meant that I was re-elected by a simple show of hands (or, perhaps, inertia), which means that I’ll be at the SALC Board on Monday, where I hope to be re-appointed for another year as Suffolk’s representative on the NALC National Assembly.

It’s a hectic week or so for me, as I’m due to chair a meeting of NALC’s Micro Councils Network on Friday and, subject to a vote on Monday, attend a National Assembly meeting on Tuesday.

So, wish me luck and we’ll meet again on the other side…

The field for President and Vice-President is set - some more thoughts…

So, with nominations closed, Babarinde vs Bray and Collins vs Hussain are the two contests at the top of the “bill”. Time, so think, to start the process of deciding how I might vote…

I’ve already given some thought to the choice for President, a contest made infinitely more edifying by the absence of Natalie Bird who, despite making protestations of having a campaign, never seemed to get beyond insisting that Liberal Democrat Voice publish her thoughts. Perhaps her failure to obtain the required two hundred nominations suggests that her particular viewpoint is not a widely shared one…

But now that it’s Josh against Prue, I can be confident that we might have an offer of two different philosophical and practical approaches to the role. And whilst I suspect that the average member, as opposed to those who are far more familiar with the inner workings of the Party, will vote for the MP over the long-term committee hand (and yes, there’s far more to Prue than that), I still want to be reassured that there is a candidate who will fulfil what I see as the basic requirements of the role.

Firstly, will an incoming President be willing to tell uncomfortable truths to the Leader if required? Given that I know Prue far better than I know Josh, I have firsthand evidence that Prue will at least try. Josh may have competing pressures upon him, although that is entirely conjecture.

That brings me to an interesting aspect of both contests, i.e. how little personal experience I have of the other three candidates. That isn’t a criticism of them, far from it, but perhaps a reminder that, as someone who has been increasingly semi-detached from the day to day work of the Party of late, I don’t really follow what our MPs are up too - my attention is more focussed on events at the other end of the Palace of Westminster, for perhaps obvious reasons.

Secondly, how does each see their role as Chair of the Federal Board, a body with perhaps more power than its predecessors? And in terms of steering the Federal Party in its dealings with the States and the various key committees?

As someone who has served in a variety of administrative roles on myriad Party committees, you wouldn’t be surprised to find that I have some pretty strong views on that, although not necessarily those oòyou might predict of a self-confessed faceless bureaucrat.

So, in that sense, Josh and Victoria, as well as Kamran, are more of a blank canvass for me to fill in.

The campaigns have caught my eye, mostly for the “shock and awe” tactics that Josh employed, but also the stream of endorsements that have reached me via social media, and I do look at the endorsements to see what those I trust are thinking.

But I haven’t made my mind up yet. Whoever wins the Presidency can only ever be the second-best holder of the post - my bias on that point is well and truly on my sleeve - but I do want whoever wins to succeed.

Turning to the Vice-Presidency, something that I’ve never had to do before, I guess that as a minority member of the Party, of part-Indian origin, I should take particular interest in the role. But, as most people would never guess that I am, I don’t experience the same issues that visible minorities do. At least, I don’t think that I do, even if my surname does occasionally create expectations that I don’t meet.

At some point, I’m going to have to find the time to read the campaign material, see what it says to me and to those roles that I have in the Party, and whether it makes sense. As a Returning Officer, I’m on a less “glamorous” part of the frontline in the fight for a more representative Party, and I want to see that our leaders understand what levers might be pulled in terms of candidate recruitment, approval and selection.

As I say, I’m going to have to read their material before making a decision…

ID cards: so remind me, what did you vote Labour for, exactly?

Mandatory ID cards are the latest idea to come out of the Labour brains trust, something so vital that it wasn’t actually in the manifesto they published just over a year ago. It does seem that the Starmer administration now resembles a rabbit caught in the Reform UK headlights or, perhaps worse, a pointer towards another ultimately authoritarian Labour government.

I have little in the way of fundamental problems with the concept of a Government-backed ID card. As a non-driver, having a widely recognised form of ID other than my passport, one I can carry with me without effort, could be useful. Given that opening most new financial products, for example, requires me to produce a range of documents, some of which are not readily available, being able to show a digital ID which demonstrated who I am would be easier than finding a utility bill with my name and address on.

I acknowledge the concerns about what an ID database could be used for by an incoming regime, although given the amount of information that authorities hold on us, let alone the information that many of us voluntarily put online via social media, you might wonder if that argument hasn’t effectively been conceded by stealth.

And I really don’t think that I’d be keen on the authorities having a right to insist that I produce ID on demand - others have made the case against that far better than I could.

There are the obvious problems - digital exclusion, data security - before we even start to talk about cost of the ability of Government to deliver what would be a huge project. But the Government does have to answer one fundamental question, which is, “what is the problem that this is going to solve?”.

So far, we are told, it will supposedly curb illegal immigration by making it harder for people without status to find jobs, but it’s already illegal for employers to employ those without the right to work and it’s obviously illegal to use false documents to circumvent those checks. If the Government really wanted to address that problem, a more joined-up approach between HMRC, DWP and the police would probably achieve more at far lower cost and be more visible, presumably one of the benefits of such a crackdown.

In other words, this looks like what I like to call a “Daily Mail policy”, i.e. something needs to be done, this is something, thus it needs to be done, regardless of whether or not it is needed or works.

It is, however, indicative of a sense of panic amongst Labour ranks, or perhaps a response to an evident lack of philosophical purpose. With a huge majority and still nearly four years until they have to go to the country again, you do begin to wonder why they can’t just get on and simply try running things better. After all, after the increasing shambles of Conservative administrations post-Brexit, you would have thought that was quite a low bar to set, but this administration does seem capable of shooting itself in the foot with unerring accuracy.

Spending significant sums of money to look as though you’re achieving something, rather than spending it on something that will actually make the lives of our citizens a bit better might buy you a little positive media coverage (although it probably won’t) but the long-term effect of voters looking around them and thinking that things are a bit better can’t be beaten.

But Labour seems determined to go down the route of doing authoritarian things because, if they don’t, Reform UK will do them. It’s hardly an argument to energise progressive voters, let alone liberals, and the polls seem to back me up.

And with the Greens heading leftwards and the Conservatives drifting rightward towards irrelevancy, there’s an increasing large space opening up for liberal politics. Only time will tell if the Liberal Democrats can take advantage of this opportunity…

Federal Council: not letting the door hit me on the way out...

Three years ago, when I ran for a place on the inaugural Federal Council, my aims were to:

• Establish the Federal Council as an effective scrutiny body, engaging all of its members in its work and using their strengths to establish its credibility
• Build a relationship with the Federal Board based on mutual understanding and respect
• Represent and engage with groups across the Party and Federal Conference to ensure that we focus on what matters to members rather than simply promoting any narrow agenda
• Create reporting channels that allow members to hold us accountable

And now that I'm not planning to run for re-election, and because I really ought to anyway, it seems like I ought to report back. Did I succeed in my aspirations?

The answer is no.

I'd like to think that the goals were reasonable ones, but as it turned out, Federal Council turned out to be the worst committee that I've ever served on. And remember, I've been doing this for the best part of forty years.

Federal Council seems designed to fail in its responsibilities. As Article 9.16 of the Federal Constitution states:

Any decision of the Federal Board called in can be overturned by a vote in favour by at least 27 members of the Federal Council.

Bear in mind that Federal Council has forty members, and that is a very high bar to clamber over, especially when attendance is patchy at best. To put that more explicitly, I cannot find a record of a meeting since I was elected in a "by-election" where twenty-seven members were actually in attendance. Add to this the "minor detail" that, of the twelve scheduled meetings, only nine took place, you might begin to suspect that this first cycle of the Federal Council has been almost entirely an exercise in futility.

So, I would suggest that, as an effective scrutiny body, Federal Council has, at least in this cycle, failed. It is a paper tiger in that, if the members elected to it don't feel a desperate urge to attend, it cannot fulfil the role that Federal Conference assigned to it. I do not criticise individual members of Federal Council - I do not know their personal circumstances except to note that they are all busy people with myriad other commitments. For the record, I appear to have had a 100% attendance record, for all the good it did.

Our relationship with Federal Board was entirely courteous. El Presidente answered our questions as required but, if we're being honest here, when a scrutiny body is as ineffectual as Federal Council was, we're not really a threat to the control of the party that Federal Board theoretically exercises.

I admit now that the third bullet was more of a reference to those who ran for Federal Council to promote a gender-critical agenda. They were effective in that Federal Council spent more time arguing amongst ourselves, or more accurately, dealing with the fixations of a minority than we did actually scrutinising much. But, given that Federal Council got fairly little notice of its potential agenda, again part of the design of the thing, and that much of the work of Federal Board is of restricted circulation, it's hard to imagine how any one member of Federal Council could effectively consult beyond their personal circle of friends and colleagues.

As for reporting channels, there didn't seem to be much of a desire to report back to members although, given how little there was to report, that might have come out of a sense of vague embarrassment as to our general ineffectualness.

So, all in all, a frustrating period on Federal Council, which is why I am not going to run for re-election.

There must have been some positives though, right? Well, I did get to "meet" (all of our meetings were online) some colleagues of whom I didn't know much previously. Chris Northwood impressed me greatly, showing a sense of drive and common sense that will hopefully take her far, within the party and beyond. Caron Lindsay and Chloe Hutchinson were always good company, and a lifebelt to cling to when listening to the Reigate One was more than a gentle bureaucrat could bear.

My fear is that the same divisions that hurt Federal Council so badly will spread across the Federal Committee structure in the next cycle. I acknowledge the right of "Liberal Voice for Women" to run candidates and get them elected, but I do wish that they showed, or even pretended to show, an interest in the rest of the spectrum of the Party's work or activity. Heavens, even Militant Tendency had a political agenda beyond simple control of the party machinery.

Finally, if you're reading this, and are thinking of running for a place on Federal Council, you may wonder what you're letting yourself in for. Don't make the mistake of assuming that Federal Council is irredeemably broken, or that there is no value in trying to make it better. It could be that it was the wrong group of people at the wrong time, or that a different leadership might have taken it in a different direction, or simply that some of us, myself included, were less effective than we ought to have been. 

With a new Committee comes new possibilities, and you might be just the person to help Federal Council fulfil any promise it has. I wish you, and Federal Council well...

This is not a manifesto...

It's that time of year when a young man's fancy turns towards getting the nominations required to run for a Federal Committee. And in each Party electoral cycle since 2010, I've been a contestant.

I had a little bit of a past, in that I'd been elected to English Candidates Committee in 2005 and 2007, but in 2010, both Ros and I ran for a place on the Party's ELDR Council delegation. Ros got a vast number of votes - being Party President probably helped! - and I got elected with her, benefiting from a significant proportion of her surplus.

Much to my own surprise, I was re-elected in 2012 and 2014, and even more surprisingly, won a place on what was then the International Relations Committee in 2014, which I retained in 2016. I lost my seat on what was now the ALDE Council delegation by dint of not being Welsh, and was narrowly shaded out of both positions in 2019. I ended up back on both though due to resignations but, in 2022, I decided that it was time to move on a bit. I'd done all that I thought I could on Federal International Relations Committee, but wanted to stay on with ALDE, so managed to get re-elected to that.

I also ran for a place on the new Federal Council, but came up just short again. And yet again, a resignation created a space for me, and so I was back in harness. I then lost my place on the ALDE Council delegation after a change in the way delegation sizes are calculated saw my spot disappear.

This time, I'm not planning to run. Federal Council has been somewhat disillusioning for reasons I'll write about another time, and I'm not willing to run for a position just because I can. If I don't think that I can add value, it's hard to justify attempting to persuade others to support me.

So, for the time being, I'm retreating to the role of a very minor spear carrier on an obscure Regional party committee and focussing on other things. It's been a good run, better than I had expected, but perhaps someone else should have a go...

If political assassinations are the answer, then I reject the question

Yesterday's murder of the American political activist, Charlie Kirk, is yet another warning to American politicians that, if you keep defining your opponents as evil vermin, you shouldn't be terribly surprised if there are those out there who see it as a challenge to act.

It isn't the first such incident by any means, as the murder of Minnesota State Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband, and the attempted murder of her colleague John Hoffman and his wife in June should have rung alarm bells at the highest levels. These heinous crimes were condemned by most right-minded politicians, who know better than most how vulnerable they are to attack, but the level of misinformation that followed represented a deliberate attempt to blame the "left" for them.

Those of us who have read their European history of the inter-war years will watch events with a degree of nervous trepidation. The collapse of the Weimar Republic was marked by a spiral of political assassinations by the extremists on both sides, leading to a justification of ever more draconian measures against the enemies of the state.

In this country, we have seen a surge in violence against minority populations by thugs claiming to represent the "silent majority", even though polling shows that they aren't silent, and they're certainly not a majority. But we're fortunate in that we have very strong gun laws, meaning that the risks are mitigated to an extent. The United States is not like that, with gun ownership at levels we find difficult to comprehend, and access to both weapons and ammunition far easier than I for one am comfortable with.

And, regardless of what you think about gun control, leadership means lowering tensions, not ratcheting them up for short term advantage. Given what I see of American politics and the unlikelihood of passing gun control legislation any time soon, one can only hope that politicians see that treating their political opponents with a modicum of respect whilst arguing their differences over policy passionately is in everyone's interests.

We don't know much about the apparent gunman in Utah, although that doesn't appear to be preventing an alarming spectrum of people from conjecturing baselessly. You can't stop people from doing that, but you can wonder what their agenda is.

Ultimately, we have to trust the authorities to find the guilty party, and for the judicial system to try them in a court of law independent of political influence. In a country where independence appears to generate suspicion from extremists across the spectrum and conspiracy theorists have platforms that allow them to reach millions, that isn't an easy stance but, if you want real justice, you have to test whether the protagonists can step up to the mark.

These are nervous times for our democracy, but holding one's nerve and standing firm for freedom of speech and belief is what is called for now more than ever. Thoughts and prayers, my friends, thoughts and prayers...

Party Presidency: the field begins to emerge

So, the starting gun has been fired, and the process of gathering nominations is underway in earnest. As far as I can tell, we have three candidates plus a potential fourth, so it's probably fair to start considering them in terms of potential pluses and minuses.

Josh Babarinde

An MP is not necessarily the best person to be Party President. They have a responsibility to their constituency electorate, although there's nothing to say that they can't juggle the two competing roles. There will be those who wonder why Josh is doing it, given that of the four MPs who have held the role, two went on to be Leader, a third lost contests for the leadership before and during his Presidency and the fourth was Robert Maclennan, who had already been Leader of the SDP.

There will also be questions about his ability to navigate the internal workings of the Party, given that I'm not aware that he has served on any Party committees and his local government experience is limited to two years on Eastbourne Borough Council. That's not to say that he hasn't got the skills required, but that I haven't seen them displayed.

On the plus side, he has a strong personality, is likely to be good in the media and is a proven campaigner, as his campaign for the Presidency has already demonstrated.

Prue Bray

Prue, on the other hand, I've known for a long time, given that we both operate with the field of candidate selection. She certainly knows her way around the Party, having served on a wide range of Party bodies over the years. She can certainly campaign, and I don't doubt her liberalism.

The questions here relate to both her media skills and her ability to influence the direction of the party and to be taken seriously by the Leader and his entourage. Whilst I have to accept that Mark Pack has clearly been effective as President, is he an exception, or merely the first of many non-Parliamentarians to fill the post?

Natalie Bird

I can't find a picture of her that I am happy to use, which perhaps suggests one of the core challenges to her candidacy. She has apparently announced in a private Facebook group that she is running but, until today's piece in Liberal Democrat Voice, there appeared to be no trace of a public campaign for the post.

She will doubtless be seen as a single issue candidate, acting as a champion of those who might be considered transphobes, and her first formal statement is rather policy heavy, not something that Presidents have traditionally sought to lead on. Her liberalism is not mine, and my only experience of hearing her speak was not entirely convincing, regardless of my views on the content.

I also suspect that name recognition will be a problem, given that most of those who will have heard of her at all will associate her with her legal action against the Party.

Finally, there is a rumour that S R Forster is thinking about running for the position, according to an old friend who runs a private Facebook group on internal party elections. I'll be honest, I have no idea who that is, why they want to run or what their key priorities are. That does not suggest a winning campaign, but maybe more will emerge from her or anyone else who suddenly decides to announce their candidacy.

We'll find out how many candidates can persuade two hundred fellow members from at least twenty Local Parties or SAOs to nominate them, I guess...

UK-India trade deal: perhaps we should be a little more enthusiastic?

On Thursday, Calum Miller was quoted as saying:

We support the opening of trade, which is vital in the face of the tariff wars launched by Donald Trump. But the gains from this deal are a small fraction of what the Government could deliver for jobs and growth from a better deal with the EU.

I don’t deny that, at the moment, that statement is true. But, as a first step, this is a significant trade deal. India now has the fourth largest economy, having overtaken Japan this year, and the growing middle class has a craving for branded goods, the sort of things that we, as a nation, are pretty good at. And that market is growing rapidly. GDP growth is expected to be just over 6% this year, slightly lower than the previous two years, but at that rate, the economy will be larger that Germany’s by the end of the decade.

I’ve always been aware that the Party doesn’t really pay a lot of attention to India in terms of policy. That’s partly because, in geopolitical terms, it’s become a relatively quiet part of the world. Yes, there is historic tension between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, and an ongoing territorial dispute with China, but for the most part, those relationships are managed fairly discreetly and flare-ups are limited. In other words, these are disputes that continue below the radar of international media, despite their significance to the diaspora and to those directly affected.

Federal International Relations Committee has, in recent years, focused on China, which is undoubtedly a source of concern on multiple levels, and I appreciate that there is only so much capacity amongst a group of capable and engaged volunteer experts, but I do think that some thought needs to be given to how we could strengthen the UK’s relationship with India, not only in terms of trade but as a military and diplomatic partner going forward.

And yes, there are issues that might make us uncomfortable. The Modi Government is not entirely enthusiastic about democracy, and issues of equality are troubling from a western perspective, but a stronger relationship might encourage change that we could applaud.

In an increasingly complex world, where many of the perceived certainties are coming into question, building partnerships with significant regional and global powers is a way of making up for the influence lost as a result of Brexit.

It’s just a thought, but it would be remiss of me not to raise it…

A Presidential campaign kicks off…

I’ll freely admit that I don’t know much about Josh Babarinde, who launched his campaign for the Presidency of the Liberal Democrats yesterday. That isn’t a criticism - I may be one of the painfully few members of the Party whose attention is mostly on the other end of the Palace of Westminster (for perhaps obvious reasons). But I do know about successful campaigns for the post, having played a small part in one of the most successful Presidential campaigns in the Party’s history.

And, regardless of what I think about Josh or his ability to do the job, I’ve been impressed by the “shock and awe” impact of his opening gambit. Big name endorsements? Check. Support from across the Regions and States? Check. A clear statement of intent? Check. Getting out there early? Check.

I have said this over and over again. You can’t just turn up at Conference, gather the nominations and then persuade thousands of members, many of whom will never have heard of you before, to elect you to one of the two most prominent roles in the Party. Well, perhaps Paddy and Shirley could have done that, but really?

As a masterclass in how to campaign, I am impressed by Josh’s launch. Whilst I am not a campaigner by comparison with so many people I admire, I do have a firm grasp of how successful campaigns operate (mostly thanks to what I’ve gleaned from Ros, admittedly). And Josh, and presumably his campaign team, have done exactly what I would do in his situation. Now, any potential candidate is going to have to ask themselves the question, “Can I beat Josh, and if so, how?”.

And, with a lot of potentially key endorsers already committed (with, I suspect, more to come), the space for another credible campaign is squeezed.

That doesn’t make Josh unbeatable but it does mean that either someone pretty incredible is going to turn up, or run a sensational campaign, or Josh is going to have to screw up pretty sensationally. Any of that is possible, but is it probable? Frankly, I have no idea, and am probably one of the least likely people to find out.

Luckily, my endorsement isn’t ever likely to be highly sought - I’m part of the Party’s history and not its future - and Josh is representative of the new generation of leaders and activists who will take the Party into the mid-century, so I’m not going to have to make a decision for a while yet.

Therefore, I have the luxury of allowing the campaign to unfold, hear the arguments and ambitions of the candidates and judge who might do the best job as President. I had the privilege to have a front row seat for the Presidency which took the Party into government for the first time in seven decades, and perhaps my view of the role is coloured by that, but my vote will be an informed one nonetheless.

In the meantime, let the battle begin…

Jenny Randerson - a memorial

To London, for one of my infrequent visits to the big city. And, on a mildly unpleasantly hot day, it possibly wasn’t the ideal day to don a suit and tie. But, given the occasion, one does what one must.

Jenny Randerson passed away early in the New Year, and today was the occasion of her memorial service, held appropriately at the Welsh Church in Central London, a short stroll from Oxford Circus. And, having “worked” with Jenny - we’d been on Federal International Relations Committee together and been to a number of ALDE Party events together - I felt that I wanted to attend.

I always found Jenny to be the sort of person with whom it was fun to be around. She wasn’t one to be overly respectful, and always had a smile and a wry comment about what was going on around us. But she knew her stuff and her internationalism was genuine and heartfelt.

Our “host” was Simon Hughes, but there were reflections from Caroline Pidgeon, Mike German, Jeremy Purvis, Joan Walmsley and, perhaps surprisingly, Nick Clegg, who also read a piece from Dylan Thomas. Family members spoke eloquently of those parts of Jenny’s life which were more private, whilst the Parliamentary Choir gave body to the singing of hymns.

It was, all in all, an opportunity to recall old stories, laugh at tales and let her family know how much she meant to so many.

There will be many who will be able to say what Jenny meant to them, and who will have tales of triumphs shared and victories achieved. I have none of that, but she was fun to be with, and I will miss having her to exchange a wry smile with and to gently mock some of the bigger egos in the room.

God bless, Jenny…

75 Years of local empowerment: Suffolk Association of Local Councils celebrates milestone with film premiere and vision for the future

I don't normally print press releases here, but as I'm a member of the SALC Board, perhaps you might forgive me on this occasion...

The Suffolk Association of Local Councils (SALC) has marked its 75th anniversary with a celebration and the launch of a new film showcasing the vital role of town and parish councils and parish meetings across the county.

Formed in 1950, SALC has grown into the trusted voice and support hub for over 400 local councils and parish meetings in Suffolk—the grassroots tier of the public sector. To commemorate this milestone, more than 100 attendees gathered in Bury St Edmunds for SALC’s Annual General Meeting, which was simultaneously live-streamed to audiences across the county.

 

A highlight of the event was the premiere of a new film capturing the voices and stories of councillors and clerks, shining a light on the people powering local democracy.

 

Sally Longmate, CEO of SALC, said:

This layer of government is closest to the taxpayer—hyper-local and deeply connected to community needs. It’s powered by individuals who step up to make a difference, supported by skilled clerks and officers. Our anniversary is a chance to celebrate their work and explain the impact they have. The film brings that story to life.

The event featured keynote speeches from Christine Luxton, CEO of Suffolk Wildlife Trust, and Baroness Ros Scott of Needham Market, President of the National Association of Local Councils (NALC). Both speakers underscored the power of community and the importance of collaboration.

 

Earlier this year, SALC was named County Association of the Year by NALC for its pioneering work with Suffolk County Council on guidance for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs).

 

Andrew Lewis, Chair of the SALC Board, added:

We’re incredibly proud of the SALC team. The mission set in the 1950s—to enable councils to be the best they can be—remains just as relevant today.

Looking ahead, SALC is actively engaged in local government reforms, climate action, digital transformation and the evolving role of AI in the sector. The Annual Report presented at the AGM reflects the last 12 months and outlines priorities for the future on behalf of town and parish councils and parish meetings across Suffolk.

 

Sally Longmate concluded:

Amid all the change, our core promise remains: to be there for our members. Whether it’s a quick call or an urgent email, that hands-on support is what our members value most—and that will never change.

Candidate selection changes - if the wheels have fallen off, what next?

Word has reached me that English Council, upon being invited to adopt the changes sought by the motion passed in Harrogate by Federal Conference, have chosen to do so, or not, as the case may be. There was a clear majority in the room, but not sufficient to overcome the two-thirds hurdle required to amend the English Party’s constitution.

This leaves things a bit pear-shaped, in that the suggestion that the English Party (or to be more precise, the English Candidates Committee) was the cause of much of the unhappiness with candidate selections has been somewhat reinforced. But, without the approval of the English Party, you might wonder how all of the marvellous things promised by the movers of F10 can now be delivered.

We are told that the Chair of the English Party will be consulting to see what might be done to find a suitable and acceptable solution going forward, and I don’t doubt that Caroline Pidgeon is working on that already (you know where to find me, Caroline…).

From my perspective as a veteran Returning Officer, former candidate assessor and a once upon a time member of English Candidates Committee, now repurposed as a member of my Regional Candidates Committee, there is a degree of uncertainty in terms of what we do now. It rather depends on whether or not there will be an attempt to reintroduce the proposal and, if so, how long that will take.

Attempting to pass the motion at the second attempt means that candidate selections, as well as all of the steps needed before they can take place, are likely to be delayed further. After all, if the new Joint Candidates Sub-Committee comes into being, it will have to:

• Develop and implement candidate diversity action plans
• Determine the criteria for candidate approval
• Adopt rules for the selection and adoption of prospective candidates
• Train Returning Officers so that they might understand and apply accurately the new rules

before we can get on with the selection of candidates.

Now I have been led to understand that the “shadow” Joint Candidates Sub-Committee has already been at work, although what it has done and who is doing it remains, if not a secret, then at least not widely known. However, without the approval of the English Party, they have no authority to act.

But, if you leave all of this to the supposedly ineffectual States and Regions, will all the good things be delivered? Presumably, there is little confidence in that happening, otherwise it wouldn’t have been necessary to change the Constitution, would it?

Now, I know what I would do if it were down to me, but whilst the English Party has already revised its Selection Rules, and has existing procedures for approving candidates, it is still to arrange Returning Officer training and, I presume, doesn’t have the confidence of the Liberal Democrat Campaign for Race Equality. Both of these things can be remedied, albeit some time will be needed to achieve that.

So, we’re still at a bit of an impasse, the constitutional equivalent of a Mexican standoff, if you like. Until someone makes a move which clarifies a way forward, there’s an element of not wanting to do anything that is likely to be overturned sooner rather than later.

It would be fair to say that the prospect of selecting 631 prospective Parliamentary candidates by July 2027 is receding somewhat, but I can only hope that a resolution is close at hand…

#interrail 2025: Day 9 - it had to go wrong eventually, didn't it...

The day dawned bright and sunny and it was time to take a stroll through Mainz, the birthplace of Gutenberg and the seat of the Archbishop-Elector, a key figure in the Holy Roman Empire. There's a nice statue of Friedrich Schiller, which stirred me to hum "Ode to Joy", and the walk past the cathedral down towards the River Rhine is quite nice.

Time was short(ish) as my day's fixed point was the Eurostar back to St Pancras, and I wasn't intending to miss it. But what could be the harm in a short stop in Koblenz on the way? The train to Cologne stopped there anyway, right?

Koblenz is where the Moselle flows into the Rhine, and it attracts plenty of tourists, many of whom are on river cruises or wine tours. The city centre is modestly picturesque, although I merely intended to visit the confluence of the two rivers and head back to the station as a means of getting some more of my daily 10,000 steps.

It was when I got back to Koblenz Hauptbahnhof that things went wrong. The 14.16 to Cologne was on the platform, ready to go. We even had a driver. 14.16 came. 14.16 went. The train stood. My eighteen minute connection began to weigh heavy on my mind but, eventually, we pulled away, only to stop a mile or so further on. An announcement in German didn't really help but I eventually managed to establish that a signal failure at Andernach was to blame. I wasn't going to make that connection and, thus, my Eurostar back to London.

We eventually limped into Cologne, nearly an hour late. Finding the Deutsche Bahn ticket office, a piece of photocopied paper was thrust into my hand, and instructions given to catch the Eurostar (ex-Thalys) service to Brussels. What I was supposed to do about the train to London was left for me to discover at some point. The Eurostar pulled into the platform whereupon chaos ensued. I clearly wasn't the only person whose connection had failed due to Deutsche Bahn's general decrepitude. The train manager dealt with the horde with a degree of sangfroid and I found myself in a fairly comfortable standard class seat.

It was at this point that I realised that I could change my reservation to London using the Eurostar app and, whilst it cost €20, it meant that I could be much more relaxed about missing my original train. The consequences weren't entirely pleasant, but I could deal with that later. There are worse places to be stuck than Brussels Gare du Midi. You can grab a decent meal, drink some really good beer, and do some light shopping for the most important people in your life - beer and fine chocolates never go amiss.

The journey back to St Pancras International was blessedly uneventful, leaving me only with the task of getting back to Ipswich. Greater Anglia's contribution to my trip was to offer a rail replacement bus service from Billericay to Colchester but, despite their best efforts, I made it back to my own bed, walking through the front door just after midnight.

It was good to be home...

Enjoying the cultural side of the county...

I like to think of myself as a vaguely cultured soul. My fondness for sixteenth and seventeenth century music - I've recently discovered the works of Byrd, Dowland and Tallis, for example - brings me gentle pleasure. But I'm not entirely an active seeker of culture in the widest sense. As a Londoner, potentially exposed to some of the best art, music and theatre, I didn't really take advantage of it - there was always a sense that it was always there and that actually turning up wasn't urgent. And then, living in a small village, it became rather more difficult to actually attend any.

But, living in Ipswich, there perhaps isn't that excuse. A county town tends to be a focal point for the cultural life of the county, not exclusively, but nonetheless a focal point. We have some decent regional theatre, Dance East offers mostly modern dance, plus exhibitions at The Hold, Suffolk's archive, sport at Ipswich Town (least said the better just at the moment, perhaps) and some glorious ecclesiastical architecture. We also have some remarkable stately homes in the surrounding countryside.

And so, it was nice to actually partake of some of this over the weekend. On a (Ros-inspired) impulse, we went to see a matinee performance of "Noises Off" at the New Wolsey Theatre, a joint production of the New Wolsey with the Queen's Theatre, Hornchurch, The Theatre by the Lake and Les Théâtres de la Ville de Luxembourg.

I'm not always convinced by farce as an artform, but whilst the play starts somewhat slowly, the pace accelerates as chaos reigns and everything that can go wrong does. By the end, you began to wonder how the cast kept up with it all but a good time was had by all and we left having felt that it was an afternoon well spent.

It's playing the Queen's Theatre, Hornchurch from Wednesday until 7 June so, if you're anywhere near that part of furthest East London, it might be worth a look.

Today was a countryside day, a walk around the grounds of Ickworth House, the ancestral home of the Herveys, a mostly bonkers family who, despite everything, first built and then developed an amazing house just outside Bury St Edmunds. The National Trust's potted family history gives you a taste. There is a valley walk which takes you along the course of the River Lark through fields full of sheep with their growing lambs, which takes about an hour at our pace.

So, a nice weekend, all in all. I guess that I really ought to do more of this kind of thing...