Is there a danger that our politics is spiralling into a moral void?

I don’t consider myself to be an exceptionally good person. I have, I admit, flaws. I have an erratic attention span, don’t always deliver entirely what I promise to, and could be better organised. But I like to think that I’m pretty loyal, prefer facts to rhetoric, and that I care about the people around me. If given a choice, I will tend to avoid personal attacks and make a positive case for the things I believe in rather than tear down my opponents.

And that, perhaps, is why I find modern retail politics so uncomfortable. I almost enjoy canvassing for myself, meeting voters and finding out what worries or concerns them. Putting out leaflets explaining what I think might be done reminds me that local government can potentially be a force for good. The problem is that, faced with opponents who make false claims, my first thought is to combat them with more positivity rather than confront their claims. The anecdotal evidence, unfortunately, is that such an approach doesn’t appear to work that well.

So, when my Conservative opponent in 2011 claimed to be the local candidate despite living miles away from the ward, I merely emphasised my local connections, leaving her misrepresentation to stand. I lost, albeit respectably, but I still lost. I am told that I should have raised the issue of her lack of connection to the ward early on, but it felt uncomfortable. Ultimately, my moral scruples may have cost me victory.

But I now find myself watching from the sidelines a contest where one side is running a campaign seemingly utterly lacking in moral scruples but without apparent consequence. Either voters have reconciled themselves to this, and polling numbers appear to suggest that, or the choices offered to them are so lacking in appeal that lying and misrepresentation are seen as legitimate tactics. That’s about as dispiriting as can be if you believe in politics as a potential force for positive change. For, if a politician is not tangibly punished for knowingly committing falsehoods, and indeed appears to be being rewarded for doing so, what incentive is there for others to play by the usual societal rules?

And thus, we see a political environment where those with integrity and decency are driven out, leaving those with the thickest skin, the least self-awareness or the greatest avarice left to “represent” us. Are such people actually what we aspire to in governance terms?

Don’t get me wrong. I still believe that many politicians are broadly decent and honourable. But tolerating such behaviour tarnishes the soul, and risks making you guilty by association. If your senior colleagues lie and dissemble, they are doing so in your name and, if you stay quiet, your complicity must be assumed.

I have no expectation that some of the more egregious committers of falsehoods will suddenly see the light and admit that they were wrong, indeed, I expect them to prosper, at least in the short term. But, in doing so they will coarsen our political debate, and the price will eventually be paid by us all, in poor government and resultant waste, inefficiency and expense. Because rules matter, and when times are tough, they matter even more...

Daniel Kawczynski - a sign that our politics is in critical condition?

There is much talk of treason in the air, most of it from people who define treason as being “a view or act which doesn’t concur with mine”. For, whilst I may disagree with those who want Brexit, I cannot easily conclude that they don’t have what they perceive to be the country’s best interests at heart. Wrong, maybe, but not malicious.

Yes, there are exceptions, I suspect, but they are only likely to be a very small proportion of those who still believe.

All of us want the best for the United Kingdom, most of us support the notion of Parliamentary democracy (even if many have a limited concept of what that might mean in reality). But young Daniel Kawczynski appears to think that it is acceptable to approach a foreign government, seeking to persuade it to oppose the settled will of the Parliament of which he is a member.

It does lead you to ask three questions;

1. In whose interests does he think he is acting?
2. Why should a foreign government allow itself to be overtly influenced by a Parliamentarian of another country?
3. Why the silence from those who claim that Brexit is intended to return sovereignty to this country?

Perhaps we have reached the end stage, where the delivery of Brexit is so urgent that it overrides one’s loyalty to the Parliamentary democracy which Brexit is intended to restore? Principles, what principles?

I am reminded, as so often over the past three years that our politics has been reduced to the base calculation that the means by which an outcome is achieved  don’t matter, that misrepresentation and exaggeration are perfectly justified if you win.

Trust, integrity, the notion of public policy making as a consensual, thoughtful exercise, these seem to be dead letters, with the damage to our democracy only too obvious. If you are an ordinary voter, seeking evidence upon which to base your voting choice, you’ve got no chance. Easier to appeal to the tribe and trash the opposition, whoever they are.

As a Parish Councillor, if I mislead my electorate and get caught, it would be better to resign, as I have to live amongst them. And yes, the absence of party politics means that the tribal element is missing, thus reducing the sense of conflict to personalities rather than ideology, but I have to rely on demonstrating my integrity and general goodwill. I also need to persuade, rather than browbeat.

It’s so much more satisfying...

190 new homes in Stowupland - a challenge for honesty in politics?

The neighbouring village of Stowupland forms about 88% of my District ward, the one I gallantly fought and lost in 2011. Had I won then, I would now be faced with what appears to be a highly unpopular planning application to build new houses on the eastern edge of the village, on what is currently agricultural land.

There is no doubt that the planned development is quite substantial, proportionately at least. 190 homes equates to about 22% of the existing housing stock, and would have a sizeable impact on local infrastructure. The village has no doctor's surgery and poor public transport links, although it does have a post office, two schools (primary and secondary), two pubs and a butcher's shop, plus a fish and chip shop and a Chinese takeaway.

From the proliferation of signs along the main road through the village, the development is most unwelcome but, if one is to be entirely honest, there are some strong arguments for building new homes in the village, even if the location might not be ideal.

People want to live in Stowupland. It's convenient for the A14 to Ipswich, Bury St Edmunds and Cambridge, and for the railway station at Stowmarket, and the village itself is not unattractive. Undoubtedly, we need more housing in Mid Suffolk - the new developments around Stowmarket didn't lack for buyers, and I often hear people remark about the difficulties their children experience in finding somewhere affordable to buy. Increasing the housing stock might help with that.

The problem with Mid Suffolk District Council's strategy on housing in recent years is that it presumes that most new development will be in Stowmarket, and given that the town is pushing against its development limits, that offers increasingly little scope for dealing with population growth inspired demand. Most villages in the District have a planning envelope that prevents any new development at all. And so, if developers can find scope for profitable housing schemes, they will push for them.

Given that Stowupland is surrounded on virtually every side by open country, any development will be on agricultural land - the only other option being the allotments between the village and the A14 (and woe betide anyone proposing building there...) - there will be an impact on the cherished rural vista. But, inevitably, unless villagers are intent to closing the door to expansion, and can successfully do so, more housing is going to come, and the village will become a suburb of Stowmarket.

My problem is that I am prone to taking a wider view on such issues, whereas a more cynical politician would ignore the realities of rural housing needs and campaign for something locally popular but possibly against long-term interests. And I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if a more cynical person doesn't offer themselves in May's District elections...

Liberal Vision told to "resolve" accuracy issue or "it will come back to haunt us"

So, my cynicism regarding the return of 'Liberal Vision' is renewed by the stance taken in another piece demanding that the Federal Executive do something about Lord Rennard.

A piece containing two major inaccuracies designed to create a stir is published. It then mysteriously gets a prominent place in the blogs of the two leading Conservative commentators, neither of whom could be described as being entirely objective. Describing Liberal Democrat Voice as Cowley Street-backed and conflating Alix Mortimer's personal views with comments made by someone completely different does rather smack of an underhand attempt to force the agenda. And, given the author's undoubted media skills, you'd have to accept that it looks more like conspiracy than cock-up.

Oh yes, by the way Charlotte, saying that misrepresenting someone and, as a result, getting them plenty of coverage, is a good thing is a mite disingenuous.

Now, for the record, I'm not convinced that I've been wildly impressed with Alix Mortimer's approach to the expenses scandal - just a bit too willing to condemn first and consider the rebuttal later for my taste. However, I'm a bureaucrat and I tend to a 'shades of grey' stance rather than a 'fluorescent' one. And, of course, Alix wins awards and I don't, so I'll assume that she's doing something right (that's a compliment Alix, just so that you know...). However, rewriting someone's words, and quoting their private e-mail without permission does smack of abusing someone to do your dirty work for you. It is disrespectful and potentially impacts on Alix's ability to do what she does so well for LDV.

I don't know what will happen regarding the accusations against Chris Rennard and, at the time of writing, I don't know what happened at Federal Executive - you'll have to wait for comment from someone who was there. However, if people want to attack him, I'd rather they did it themselves. After all, we're all in favour of openness and transparency, aren't we?...