[Insert title here]

Glory, glory...

It's been a good(ish) day for the Marketmen, as Needham Market drew 1-1 at home to Hampton and Richmond Borough in the Ryman League's Premier Division.

FT @NeedhamFC 1 Hampton & Richmond Borough 1. Great and deserved point for the Marketmen! They'll be fine with more performances like this

— Will Ridgard (@WillRidgard) October 17, 2015

A home draw, that's not that good, you might think. But they have started the season badly, and are beginning to look a bit more at home - the defence is tightening up, for one thing. Now to start winning a few games...

The extremely unlikely happens every day, apparently...

I rather unwisely put in my nomination paper to be one of my Regional Party's eighteen members of English Council (yes, I know, and despite that, I still applied). And now I find that there is likely to be a contest. In the name of all that is holy, what is this organisation, and what have you done with the Liberal Democrats I knew and loved?


Just another day on the internet...

Let's be honest, you should never assume that because one small element of a larger group goes rogue, the whole organisation is suspect.

Local Momentum branches have started endorsing calls for deselection. pic.twitter.com/xW3CwhM4lq

— Tyron Wilson (@TyronWilson) October 16, 2015

However, it does act as a useful reminder to all of us that one should really think before you allow anyone to play with social media on your behalf. One for the Colchester branch of 'Momentum' to consider perhaps, now that they have apologised for publishing it.

Mind you, there's a web design firm in Colchester who might have wondered what was going on...

Numbers, numbers everywhere, but not a drop to drink...

44% of UKIP supporters could envisage a situation where they would support a military coup in this country, according to a recent YouGov poll. I wonder what percentage of them could envisage a situation where they emigrated to another country? And what percentage would see the irony?

And finally...

We've had a new letterbox fitted here in darkest Suffolk. Those of you who appreciate these things will be pleased to hear that it is nice and wide, at a comfortable height and easy to use...

@UKIP Leader in the Lords demands LESS scrutiny of the European Union

Lord Pearson of Rannoch - not
acting in good faith or just not as
clever as he thinks?

In a somewhat curious intervention today, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, leader of the UKIP peers, sought to amend the recommendations of the Lords Committee of Selection (it elect and propose to the House the names of the Members of Select Committees, the panel of Deputy Chairmen of Committees, and any other body referred to it by the Chairman of Committees), reducing the number of sub-committees of the European Union Committee from six to two.

Now, whilst one might not agree with all the findings of the six sub-committees (and I declare an interest here, as my wife currently chairs Sub-Committee D), the idea that one-third as many people could properly scrutinise all that comes out of Brussels, let alone find time to suggest alternatives or, in some cases, rejection, is pretty absurd.

There are proposals coming out of Brussels, on energy union, or the circular economy, on capital markets, which are hugely complex and have potentially significant impacts on the way our economy works. And you may not like that, especially if you're a UKIP supporter. On the other hand, you may see the benefits of working together with your neighbours, and want to make the proposals as effective as they can be. I assume that Malcolm Pearson is in the former category.

However, his position is bankrupt, in that he does not want to simply oppose the works of the European Union in an honourable manner, standing up on the floor of the chamber to oppose whatever proposal it is, he wants to destroy the mechanisms by which those who disagree with him, or who are open-minded on the subject, might recommend better solutions, ones that suit our country better. It is, I suggest, mischief-making of a childish kind.

He did offer another proposal, which was to ensure that the various EU committees have memberships split evenly between sceptics and others. He insults his fellow Peers by suggesting that they do not have the ability to critical examine the work of the European Union, nor that they wish to. Given that the scrutiny work of the House of Lords is widely respected as being amongst the most thorough in the Union, he might want to reflect on whether or not he means that.

Scrutiny of the European Union, and of the Government's response to it, is too important to be interfered with by knaves with ill intent. Lord Pearson of Rannoch's disingenuousness is an underhand attempt to weaken Britain's influence and he should be called on it.

Nigel Farage and the Electoral Commission - "He doesn't like it up him, Mr Mainwaring!"

"The Electoral Commission is failing in all its key duties" says @Nigel_Farage http://t.co/kTs1AX0BB0
— UKIP (@UKIP) March 7, 2015

It seems that Nigel Farage UKIP policy is now to abolish the Electoral Commission, following Our Nigel's speech in Torquay yesterday. Apparently, it is the Electoral Commission that is responsible for the fall in the numbers on the electoral register, and it is failing to do its job in terms of ruling out joke or spoiler parties.

Perhaps Nigel should check on its remit in the first instance. Electoral registration is handled by local government - is that to be abolished too, Nigel? - and is good in some places, not so good in others. Perhaps he might encourage UKIP councillors to provide more funding for this...

And, as for joke or spoiler parties, is he referring to "We Demand a Referendum Now" or "An Independence from Europe"? They were, after all, political parties with MEPs (alright, ex-UKIP MEPs but whose fault was that?) and Mike Nattrass did pick up 234,000 votes. The 1994 European Parliamentary election in Devon and East Plymouth, in which a Literal Democrat candidate took 10,000 votes - Adrian Sanders lost by 700 - was a far more egregious attempt to mislead and led to the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998.

It is perhaps necessary to look at one comment from his speech in particular;

Yes, it is true that many of these impacts are specifically targeted at UKIP, but that is neither here nor there.

One is minded to ask, is there some relationship between Nigel being fined by the Electoral Commission over omissions from his financial reporting and his view that they should be abolished?

There is, I suppose, only one more question to ask Nigel UKIP - if the Electoral Commission is to be abolished, what are you proposing to replace it with? And no, the answer doesn't involve the words 'Europe' or 'immigration'...

Tax evasion and avoidance - is this another sign that Europe is taking it seriously?

I receive a daily e-mail from the European Parliament, of my own free will, it might surprise readers to know. Generally, they're all a bit... well, dull and far too vast to read. However, occasionally, there is something that catches my eye...

The European Parliament as a whole voted on Thursday to set up a special parliamentary committee to look into EU member states' "tax rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect" and make recommendations for the future. The committee will have 45 members and is established for an initial period of six months.

Result of the vote: 612 in favour, 19 against and 23 abstentions. The composition of the committee was approved by a show of hands.

Mandate

The committee will look into tax ruling practices as far back as 1 January 1991, but will also review the way the European Commission treats state aid in member states and the extent to which they are transparent about their tax rulings. It will also seek to ascertain the negative impact of aggressive tax planning on public finances and will come up with recommendations for the future.

The list of committee members includes Anneliese Dodds (S&D, UK), Kay Swinburne (ECR, UK) and Patrick O'Flynn (EFDD, UK)

Background

The committee is being set up in the wake of a series of investigations launched by the European Commission into tax rulings for multinational companies in Luxembourg, Ireland, Belgium and the Netherlands.

Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee plans to draw up an "inquiry" report (non-legislative, own initiative), on tax rulings will now lapse, because its remit would have overlapped that the special committee.

So, one Conservative, one Labour and one UKIP, and it will be interesting to see whether or not they intend to focus on solutions or soundbites. I particularly look forward to Patrick O'Flynn's thoughts on tax harmonisation and sovereignty...

I've had a comment, and I don't know what to do with it...

I moderate all comments on this blog. Not because I intend censor anyone particularly, but because I have legal responsibility for it, and like to know what is going up on it. I also have standards, as outlined in the sidebar. One thing that I don't encourage as comments irrelevant to the subject at hand - they're confusing, and nobody really reads them.

Yesterday, I got this;

Procedure By Which conservatives Could Control  Parliament 

If UKIP is Lucky, UKIP could get, perhaps, get five to ten seats in Parliament. Do not forget, the public still regards UKIP as a one issue party. To gain control of Parliament UKIP and (and friends) should form a new conservative party with a platform that is close to that of the existing Conservative party, omitting, of course, policies that are objectionable to conservatives. The purpose would be to make a bed that would be easy for conservatives to slide into, including the eighty percent of the Conservatives who left Conservative associations. UKIP and the conservatives should then form a political association in each parliamentary district. UKIP could merge with the new party, thus getting rid of the one issue problem.  

Every one who would have worked to form the new, conservative, party should be prevented from joining the new party for a period of time to prevent the impression that UKIP controls it. 

The two or three conservative parties should hold a primary election to determine who runs as the Parliamentary candidate, with the losers to help the winner. The cost of forming new associations can be raised by local contributors. It is suggested that the new conservative associations and the political party be controlled by the lowest level of conservatives, such as teachers, small businessmen, solicitors, professionals etc. If the above procedure can not be completed  in  time  to get candidates elected to Parliament, the new party must  wait  until after the  election  and  hold  a  petition demanding that the elected MP resign. Note: an MP represents every person in his district, not just members and supporters of his party. When the petition reaches fifty percent of those who voted in the prior election, the conservatives will be morally justified in demanding their MP"s resignation. Then the new party could run their candidates  in  the  following by elections.

To select a candidate, a local  association should  advertise  for applicants or the position of candidate for  Parliament, then  select   the   best  applicant  by using rigorous tests, including, most importantly, psychological evaluation. psychological evaluation is an absolute necessity as the psychological evaluation is the only way to tell who is honest and who is a con-artist; members of the public cannot. Testing could be required of the association officers, committee members and delegates, etc. 

The platform, selected by new party associations, should be some what  vague in order to facilitate integration the platforms of the new associations into one platform. It is suggested that self forming cliques of those who are honest and trust worthy be formed; then form self forming cliques of those who have political skills and capabilities, within the first described clique.

The corruption in Ukip is a cause for concern. Information about the corruption may bee seen on the following websites:

ukip-vs-eukip.com

unfashionista.com 

eureferendum.com

John Newell

I've tidied it a bit to make it a little easier on the eye but, otherwise, this is as it was posted. I've not accepted it against the original piece you linked it to, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter, but have decided to bring it to a wider audience anyway.

It seems that Mr Newell is quite keen on this idea, posting it in other places too. I only problem is that, how can I put this, Mr Newell, I don't care. I'm not a conservative in any sense other than fiscal, and don't see much credibility in your proposal.

But thank you for playing, and for providing more evidence that UKIP supporters are, to put it politely, not necessarily on the same playing field as the rest of us.

Mark Reckless clearly didn't get the memo. It clearly can be racist, or stupid, to talk about immigration.

It's been a fairly normal day so far. My hot chocolate, served with marshmallows, whipped cream and chocolate flake (so shoot me...) at the station was served by a very efficient woman from Eastern Europe, before I boarded a train to London operated by a subsidiary of a Dutch rail company.

When I got to Liverpool Street, I remembered that I needed a haircut, so dropped into the barber shop across the street where another woman from somewhere else in Eastern Europe very efficiently trimmed what's left of my hair at a cost far in excess of what I'd pay at home in mid-Suffolk (well, it is 'that London' and they have overheads to meet).

And now, I'm on a Circle or Hammersmith and City line train, surrounded by people of a wide range of nationalities and races. Am I bothered? No, actually.

The supposedly shock news that a sizeable proportion of new passports granted to non-EU migrants is done so by the United Kingdom is, it seems, causing some controversy. Odd, really, because most of the fuss comes from people who purport to believe in market forces but want the votes of people who fear those very forces when push comes to rather uncomfortable shove. The fact that we have one of the strongest rates of economic growth in the EU, speak English and are the former colonial power for a vast swathe of the globe might be a contributory factor.

And for all the rhetoric of the "we're too crowded, send 'em all home" brigade, they offer no solution other than compulsion, no answer to the questions of who will do the jobs currently done by migrants, pay no heed to the utter hypocrisy of those who mourn the apparent loss of a country they would abandon the moment they had the means to retire to Spain (and in some cases already have).

I kind of like my country as it is - ever changing in an ever changing world - and I understand that standing still, regardless if how tempting it might be, is unlikely to allow us to stay prosperous in an interconnected, highly competitive global economy. It is, if you like, the difference between engagement and isolation.

And so, to those who claim that, to talk about migration is to be branded as an extremist, I say, go on then, talk about it, let's see what you've got to say. But given that most of the arguments in favour of severe restrictions on inward migration are offered in a mostly fact-free environment, don't expect an easy ride...

Europe in my head, England in my heart...

I'm in Vienna, following a successful ALDE Party Council meeting, and reflecting on the European campaign at home. In my travels around the city, I've seen a lot of posters for the Social Democrats with the key message, "Europa im Kopf. Osterreich im Herzen.". It's a message which resonates with me, as it reflects a perspective that makes sense.

One of the key charges made against people like me by UKIP activists is that, by supporting United Kingdom membership of the European Union, I am somehow betraying my country. It is a simple message, easily delivered and very effective, regardless of its validity. And, whilst I wouldn't claim that all Liberal Democrats take the same view, I guess that many are proud of their country and believe that pooling sovereignty in some matters is in its best interests.

I am an Englishman by birth and, a bit of me likes to think, by the grace of God. I want my country to be influential and a force for good in an increasingly complex world, and I wouldn't be the least bit unhappy if other people looked up to us as an exemplar. I am accordingly, the sort of person who believes that, if we treat our partners in the international community with respect, we can win them over, if not entirely in our favour, at least to a mutually acceptable extent.

And, I guess, that's where I part company with UKIP. They believe in spending money on ships and guns, whilst I want to invest in poverty reduction across the globe and the building and strengthening of international institutions - out of interest, what are those aircraft carriers for, exactly, if you don't believe in interfering in foreign wars? I happen to think that investing in peace is, in the long run, cheaper than preparing for war.

They believe that the United Kingdom can go it alone in the world and, whilst I can't deny that it is true, I also believe that we are better off engaged in the debate about continent-wide standards that makes it easier to sell into our major markets and likely to extract better trading terms with other nations as part of a powerful trading block. These things have the potential to make us wealthier than we might otherwise be.

These are disagreements, based on our differing philosophies, and whilst I believe that my view offers better prospects than that of UKIP, they have the right to believe that the reverse is true. That, after all, is the essence of politics.

But where I fundamentally object is the claim by some UKIP supporters, seemingly inspired by America's 'Tea Party' contingent, that they want to take back their country. Given their views, I can only infer that theirs is somewhat different to mine, an exclusionary one where anyone who differs from them is wrong or bad. Funnily enough, it isn't their country and it isn't mine either, it's ours - mine, theirs and everyone else's. And that's how I demonstrate my love of country...

* If you're Scots, Northern Irish or Welsh, or identify as British, feel free to remove the reference to Englishman and replace as you see fit.

Reflections on Europe - can we be VHS to UKIP's Betamax?

The first debate is done, the dust begins to settle, and something that resembles a debate on Europe, our place in it and what we want from it has lurched into life. I'm not getting too excited, but it is an improvement on what has come before.

But it appears to me that there is an opportunity for Liberal Democrats to look towards the future, one where international co-operation allows us to make our lives a little easier, just as UKIP look backwards towards a time when there was more certainty and less interdependence - a time which is unlikely to come again.

Every morning, I get an e-mail from the European Parliament, telling me what they're up to in Brussels, and today's is typical, in that it isn't terrifically exciting, but points towards changes that will help.

The first item is an assessment of the implementation of the European Rail Traffic Management System, which sounds like a thrill a minute, doesn't it? And yet, by including a common standard, trains will be enabled to cross national borders, allowing a real European rail network, reducing the need for short-haul flights, lowering pollution and enabling trade and movement. It offers the possibility of Birmingham to Dijon, Barcelona to Turin, or Prague to Ljubljana services if demand exists, not limited by needing to change locomotives or rolling stock.

Further down the e-mail is a reference to a report on enhancing worker mobility by improving the acquisition and preservation of supplementary pension rights, something that is so much easier done at a supranational level than on a bilateral level.

These are not 'big' or 'sexy' topics, but they represent a fraction of the daily work of the European Commission and the Parliament. And, for the most part, they go utterly unnoticed. But what they do demonstrate is that, if you are minded to take up the opportunities that come from living in such a huge market, there is a body which is trying to help and support you - and it isn't the United Kingdom Parliament.

And, at the European Parliament, whilst UKIP don't turn up, or vote against everything discussed when they do bother, Liberal Democrat MEPs are busily getting on with the job of representing our interests and building a Europe that works more effectively and efficiently.

I don't claim that it's an easy sell, because Europe is complex and imperfect. But if we don't, or can't, make the case, you can't imagine that anyone else is going to, can you?

UKIP: regretting the use of the word regret

In what can only be described as one of the year's more bizarre contributions to political debate, one of UKIP's candidates for the European Parliament has called for the right of businesses to discriminate as they choose on grounds of ethnicity or gender. And no, it isn't a white, male candidate.

"I believe that all business owners, Christian, Muslim, gay, straight, should be allowed to withhold their services from whomever that choose whenever they choose."

"It's their business. Why should they be forced to serve or sell to anyone?", said Donna Edmunds, one of UKIP's candidates in South East England.

Now, she is entitled to her views, no matter how repulsive they might be, and voters are entitled to discriminate against her because of those views, but it is the way in which she has responded that is probably more depressing.

I regret what I wrote and can see how an essentially libertarian stance could be broadly misinterpreted. 

I in no way endorse any form of discrimination. I believe in cutting red tape for business and I also strongly believe in an individual's personal and religious freedoms, but I stand against any form of prejudice. 

I hope this remark has not caused any embarrassment for the party.

I have to say that "regret' is a rather weak word, especially when it is combined with the hope that she hasn't embarrassed her party. It is the sort of weasel-like semi-apology that brings politicians into disrepute. A proper apology might, for example, touch upon any offence that she might have caused. She might also like to reflect upon the implications of her claimed belief in libertarianism - some of my acquaintances may well scoff at her claims, given her desire not to accept the potential consequences of her actions.

What should her response be? Well, she might like to consider the suggestion she has made to Harriet Harman as a marker. After all, if resignation for allegedly taking an unacceptable view thirty years ago is a resignation matter, espousing one in 2014 must surely be one.

UKIP support Suffolk Tories and vote to cut children's services

Being childless myself, I am fortunate in that the inadequacies of Suffolk County Council when it comes to education don't directly affect me. On the other hand, when your local authority ranks 146th (out of 152) at primary level and 137th at secondary level, you have to wonder whether cutting expenditure on Children and Young People services is really that good an idea.

For a 6% cut in real terms is what our local Conservatives have come up with for the coming year, which can hardly augur well. Of course, it does mean that the council tax precept is frozen once again, which is fine for Suffolk council taxpayers in terms of their wallets, but not necessarily great for those of us who see education as an investment. But, to add insult to injury, it appears that the Conservatives intend to add the "Pickles bribe" to the reserves rather than to protect services. 

And whilst the Conservatives probably send their children to private schools, or are too old for it to matter any more, you do have to wonder why UKIP were so happy to support the Conservative budget for 2014/15. After all, as our nearby UKIP councillor was so proud to claim how pleased he was to be fighting for our country again, having underperforming schools is something he might want to oppose.

But, for those people who were so keen to vote UKIP to pull Suffolk out of Europe send a message, the idea that, as UKIP councillor for Oulton, Reg Silvester, said; 

the UKIP group as a whole supported the budget, and he felt the administration had done a good job.

what exactly was the point of voting for them when, if more cuts and unaccountability were wanted, one could just have voted Conservative instead?

I'm guessing that Stephen Searle won't be putting out a leaflet telling local residents what he has done (and now I come to think about it, what has he done?), as school cutbacks are hardly likely to be popular. And, if his colleague is to be believed, so much for the idea that they are independently minded and unwhipped.

It just goes to show, perhaps, that by voting UKIP you simply get do-nothings with a different coloured rosette. At least I know what their Conservative counterparts stand for...

So, are UKIP offering the British public the first ever blank manifesto?

With just four months to go until the European elections, the announcement by Nigel Farage that he is, seemingly unilaterally, junking the entire policy portfolio of his party is, I admit, intriguing. Describing the 2010 manifesto as "486 pages of drivel... a complete nonsense." does at least have the virtue of honesty, but does rather beg the question, "is UKIP a political party or the Nigel Farage Fan Club?".

In fairness, I don't suppose that it mattered that much in 2010 - they weren't terribly significant in terms of being likely winners anywhere - but, now at least, it does matter somewhat, for UKIP supporters and the rest of us.

If you're a UKIP candidate or activist, you find yourself reduced to glib sound bites when extolling the virtues of your party on the doorstep or in public forums, vulnerable to the "so what are you going to do about that?" question, let alone "how are you going to do that?". Apparently, you have spent three years spouting drivel at potential voters, assuming that you have been actively campaigning at all. It's all a bit embarrassing if you believe in ideas rather than just slogans.

And, if your leader can just junk your policy, demand the suspension of members and generally dominate party affairs like he does, what are you for? What influence do you actually have? It all rather assumes that you "agree with Nigel", rather than with UKIP. That's all very well if your leader is seen as relatively charismatic, consistent and resonates with a significant chunk of public opinion (or at least, a significant chunk of those going to vote). It allows you to gain votes from those who want to send a message, rather than those who want to see specific things happening, but it doesn't give you a basis on what you'll do, if elected, when confronted by political choices.

That's bad news for our democracy, bad news for voters, and, in the long term, not great for UKIP either, who need to decide at some point what they believe in other than wanting their country back. Because, as Liberal Democrats will tell you, there's no point in being a protest party forever...

UKIP and the Liberal Democrats: don't worry, be liberal!

Watching the media hunt as a pack on the question of "Whither UKIP?" is not my idea of a perfect Sunday morning. Fortunately, most of their attention is on the dilemma facing the Conservative Party. "Move to the right!", "Agree to a referendum on Europe!", "Get rid of the Old Etonians!", the cries are many and slightly silly.

For, in truth, UKIP are doing well because they aren't the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats or Labour, and the public don't like politics. Or, more precisely, politicians. And, in a world of difficult questions, easy answers are seductive.

There is a catch, however. It isn't enough to say that, if exposed to a little sunlight, they'll go away. They might, they might not. Instead, as political activists, we need to be true to our stated principles. As liberals, we have a particular view of the world, and we need to express that view., via leaflets, via a presence on the doorsteps - in other words, the things that we used to be good at. It also means that we need to tell people what the liberal solutions to their problems are.

We also need to take a view of affairs that extends further than a week. I worry that politics is about tomorrow's headline, about dealing with today's crisis. And so I find myself in agreement with Simon Titley (not something that I say every day, it is true) when he says that we should "stop worrying about UKIP and learn to love Liberalism".

I would be personally happier to espouse a positive vision for my village, my community, my county and my country, rather than spend my time attempting to scare people into not voting for someone else. By all means highlight their contradictions and their failings, but say what I'd do instead and why, and if my political adversaries want to publicise their own ideas, they can bloody well put out a leaflet, or knock on some doors and say hello.

It's time to renew a conversation with the public, to address their problems but not compromise in terms of our answers. You've got to believe in something in politics, and I just happen to prefer liberalism.

So, who is Stephen Searle, the new UKIP county councillor for Stowmarket South?

So, after a rather exciting morning at Trinity Park, and four recounts, Stephen Searle, the UKIP candidate, was elected as the new county councillor for Stowmarket South by just one vote, defeating the Vice Chair (and Chair designate) of Suffolk County Council in doing so.

I admit that, whilst I didn't have too many regrets about Anne Whybrow's loss (she is a Conservative, and their efforts to contract out key services haven't gone down too well), I do regret that it wasn't our candidate, Keith Scarff, who had the honour of being elected. Having narrowly failed twice before, he got within forty votes this time yet only came third. He'll be back, I suspect...

But having never encountered the new councillor for my neighbouring division before, I thought that I really ought to find out more about him. So, what does Google, and more particularly, Facebook, bring up?

Stephen Searle

He is a former Royal Marines Commando, now apparently working for Namco Funscape in Ipswich as a manager (think of a place to play games, go ten-pin bowling and watch sport on a big screen and you aren't far out). He's been married to Anne for thirty years, and is about sixty years old. He's pretty active, probably has a reptile of some kind, and seems like a perfectly normal human being.

So far, so harmless. If he has done, or said, anything embarrassing, there's no obvious evidence of it. In other words, he looks like just about anyone else who has run for local government in the past. Alright, he has no record, and we have no real idea what he believes in, but that in itself doesn't necessarily matter. After all, I've never been in local government, and I asked the voters of Stowupland to trust me to represent them in 2011. Admittedly, I did tell them what I was in favour of, rather than what I was against.

His only comment, other than an identikit quote to the local press, is on the UKIP Facebook page, where he says;

It superb to be fighting again for my Country, and my People.

Well, Councillor Searle, just a reminder, you're not fighting for your country, you're trying to hold a Conservative administration to account, and represent the people, not your people, whoever they might be. And, if you're up to the task, you might just get re-elected in 2017. If you're not, it won't just be the Conservatives coming to try and take it away from you...

In the meantime, good luck in your new role. Stowmarket deserves proper representation at Endeavour House, rather than someone to quietly wave through whatever the Conservative leadership come up with...

A quick and dirty analysis of results in Mid Suffolk...

Well, that wasn't anywhere near as painful as I feared it would be. So, without further ado, here are the results;

• Conservatives - 35% (5 seats, down 1 - Stowmarket South)

• UKIP - 23.6% (1 seat, up 1 - Stowmarket South)

• Greens - 15.6% (1 seat, no change)

• Liberal Democrats - 13.8% (3 seats, no change)

• Labour - 11.9% (no seats, no change)

Where we worked - held seats and Stowmarket South - we did well. Forty more votes and we'd have won 4 out of 10 divisions with just 14% of the vote (commiserations to Keith Scarff on coming so close again). Otherwise, we were massacred. So, where we work, we win.

The Greens made no real impression outside their Upper Gipping bastion, poor thirds in Hartismere, Thedwastre North and Thredling being the best of their rest. In Stowupland North and Stowupland, where they were pretty visible, they came fourth.

Labour are still pretty irrelevant - their best result was Stowmarket North and Stowupland, but they still came third behind UKIP there. Otherwise, they were fourth in most divisions and fifth overall.

What can you say about the Conservatives? The only seat that was genuinely at risk was Stowmarket South, and they lost it by just one vote. Their share of the vote fell dramatically, nonetheless. They'll lick their wounds, mourn the fallen in Ipswich, Lowestoft, Haverhill and West Suffolk, and blunder on. A majority of three, however, makes their ambition to contract out everything that isn't nailed down rather more difficult.

UKIP will be delighted with their share of the vote but, like the SDP/Liberal Alliance in 1983, will find that getting votes across the piece is one thing - getting them where they matter is another. Only time will tell whether or not their new councillors are actually capable of representing their newly won electorates.

Turnout was poor, which favoured a party whose message was, simply put, to give the rest of us a good kicking. Given the absence of a meaningful campaign, it is hard to say what else those voting UKIP wanted.

So, on reflection, we'll have to hit the ground running for 2015, but at least there are grounds for some limited optimism...

UKIP: even Diane James can't explain what their core philosophy is

Yesterday, I indicated some doubts about what UKIP actually stand for in terms of specifics. Today, Diane James, the UKIP candidate in the Eastleigh by-election, claims that "UKIP is more than a protest vote - we stand for something".

So, what is that something?

"It is a simple philosophy. We believe power should and must be devolved down to the people, where it belongs. Decisions made that affect any man or woman's life should by and large be made with their consent, with as little interference from the paid agents of the state as possible."

I admit that, as a liberal, I have little problem with the first part of that, as far as it goes. Yes, I disagree that power should always be devolved downwards, looking forward as I do to the prospect of Creeting St Peter Parish Council debating our Free Trade Agreement with Mexico, but in principle, there is some common ground there.

However, I'm not sure how her views on consent and interference by the state tally with UKIP's expressed opposition to same sex marriage, for example.

And that is the weakness of her argument. It is a philosophy that defines how decisions are taken, not what those decisions might be. It is a philosophy that is everything to everybody, and nothing to anyone. It allows her to support selective education, even though that will reduce social mobility and life chances based on one set of examinations at the age of 11. Although, if the people were to vote against it in a local referendum, what would she do? What would be the impact of the reintroduction of selective education in a rural area like mine?

So, when Diane James claims that her Party's philosophy is comprehensible, I agree. On the charge of being simplistic, I suspect that she, and UKIP as a whole, are guilty as charged.

Cobbett, Hume and Locke would be spinning in their graves...

Does the rise of UKIP spell the death of politics as we know it?

As a relative observer in this round of elections - ill health and professional study commitments have limited my availability - I have watched with a degree of bemusement as UKIP have emerged as the key theme.

I am bemused because, apart from a desire to blame Europe for most things and claim that common sense is their driver, it is very hard to tell what UKIP would do if they were running Suffolk County Council. And yet if today's ComRes opinion poll is to be believed, better than one in five of those intending to vote will support them. Given that Liberal Democrats have done quite well in a three-cornered national contest with 25%, 22% in a four-cornered contest spells success far beyond the expectations of UKIP activists previously.

And whilst we'll see how accurate that particular poll turns out to be, it does perhaps lead one to fret about the health of our local democracy.

It was always said that the British National Party performed best in traditional Labour areas where the other major parties were weak/non-existent - Barking and Dagenham, parts of South Yorkshire, for example. The most effective way to defeat them was local campaigning, combined with a relevant message. However, given that the appeal of the BNP was always limited by the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of their core philosophy, and the fact that their leaders were slightly scary and intimidating, their threat was a limited one.

UKIP, on the other hand, offer a more reputable challenge. Saying, as the BNP do, that "we don't like coloured people", is generally accepted as being offensive. Saying that "we don't like Europe", is fairly mainstream - the European Union is hardly popular, and newspapers such as the Mail, Express and Telegraph are unrestrained in their attacks upon it. And when Nigel Farage talks about 'common sense politics', it resonates with a disenchanted public. It is after all, common sense...

How to defeat them in a fair contest? Well, the answer is exactly the same as it is when dealing with the BNP, but there is a catch. They are much more acceptable to public opinion, there are many more of them, and they have a passion that, whilst it will burn out as disillusion sets in, will carry their activists quite a long way in the meantime. Meanwhile, the old political parties are slowly dying, losing members and activists, relying increasingly on the air war and on technology, a trend that shows no signs of reversal, making genuinely local campaigning that much more difficult.

If you probe beneath the veneer of truism, trying to work out what your UKIP candidate will do if elected is quite difficult. What is his/her stance on highway maintenance? On public transport subsidy? On libraries? If they're in favour of more spending on X, does that mean less on Y or a rise in council tax? And on what basis do they make any such commitments?

For there is no philosophical core against which you can measure their utterances, no policy core that might indicate a direction of travel, no key statement which implies how they would relate to their electors. And, if you're a thinking elector, wanting the best for you and your community, you do want some clues to aid you in reaching a decision on how to complete your ballot paper.

So, hopefully, you'll have met, or heard from, all of the serious candidates in your county division before you vote, i.e. those trying to win. I don't exclude UKIP from that group - their candidates genuinely wish to serve their community, just as the other candidates do. Judge them by their words and, where they have served before, by their actions.

Of course, you may just want to give the Government, or even the Official Opposition, a good kicking. But do bear this in mind, if all you want to do is "send a message", you'll have four years to reflect on whether or not it was a good idea. And you'd be amazed how much damage can be done to your county in that time...