A genteel demonstration in the county town

I am not, by nature, the sort of person who enjoys demonstrations. I’m increasingly less keen on crowds as I get older (and I wasn’t wild about them even when I was young) and chanting isn’t really my thing either.

But I’d received an invitation to a demonstration outside County Hall at lunchtime and, given that my office is less than ten minutes away on foot, it seemed churlish not to show some support. The subject of the protest was sewage pollution of our rivers and coastline and, as this is both a Party priority and a matter of local interest in the Gipping Valley, it couldn’t do any harm to play “fourth spear carrier” for a few minutes.

Our County Councillors formed a joint Group with the Greens and Independents, and are the “official” Opposition, so were putting a motion to Full Council calling for action, and the demonstration was part of the publicity effort.

I arrived to find a collection of familiar faces, including my own (Green) County Councillor, Keith Welham, and a group from Mid Suffolk, and took the opportunity to get a few “politics” things done, whilst the Greens (and the odd Liberal Democrat) sang songs in a very “knit your own muesli” sort of way. Something else I’m reminded of - I’m not wildly enthused by communal singing unless a certain, albeit modest, level of alcohol has been consumed first.

That gave me an opportunity to escape, the media having taken their photos anyway and only really wanting to talk to the Group, so I walked into town for a little light food shopping before heading back to the office for a solid afternoon of compliance.

I don’t think that I’m going to change my mind on demonstrations…

Compromise is the hardest thing to do…

There are certain advantages to being a councillor on a very small Parish Council with an equally small budget. For one thing, the things you consider are not likely to be hugely contentious. You’re hardly going to argue about whether or not to maintain the play area, or the streetlights. It’s more likely that disagreement is personal, rather than political, given that party politics seldom impinges on micro-councils. And, heavens knows, a disagreement in a small village is likely to be as much about personalities as about strategy. People bring their agendas with them when they run for public office, and whilst that’s usually not a problem - you can often give them responsibility for that aspect of the Council’s activity - you occasionally get someone whose agenda is narrowly focussed on their own regard.

I’m lucky in that, whilst my colleagues have issues that motivate them to get involved, all of them work for the best interests of the village and its residents. And, as a result, we can discuss any given issue with mutual respect and common purpose. What that means is that, if we don’t entirely agree, we can reach a mutually acceptable compromise without any difficulty.

It seems to get harder to do that the further up the political ladder you get. Compromise increasingly seems to be taken by others as a sign of weakness and grounds to seek further concessions. If I win, you have to be seen to have lost, a stance which discourages anyone from taking the first step and exacerbates the confrontational nature of our politics.

You could reasonably argue that, as a Liberal Democrat, I would say that. A member of Britain’s perennially third placed political party, burned by the coalition years (even as I still believe it was the right thing to do), our position near the pivot point in the political spectrum means that broad-based political endeavour probably means that we should have a part to play regardless of which of the two bloc parties are in power. Our voting system means that, in reality, that isn’t how it actually works.

But I believe in broad-based political and societal change and it’s harder to achieve that if a minority can, and does, impose its will on a nation. It’s why I believe in fairer voting, in devolution of power to states, regions, communities, in transparency in government and a whole bunch of things that only seem to matter to people who understand how government works and see the possibilities.

That also makes me a bit of an idealist. Not, I hasten to add, in a naïve way but in terms of how a public body should operate. I’m not a policy dogmatist - I simply think that better decisions are made when the process is transparent and inclusive. It means telling people what is happening and why, being willing to justify your stance. I actually believe that, by operating in such a way, you get better governance.

It does make you more vulnerable as a civic leader. You have to be consistent in terms of your approach. But, in the long run, it’s probably better to adhere to a set of principles that reflects who you are and the community you hope to represent.

Do Liberal Democrats appreciate bureaucrats?

Thirty-five or more years as a bureaucrat, both professionally and on a volunteer basis within the Liberal Democrats has, to be honest, taught me that the answer is no, not really.

Given that, in my experience from five Local Parties, two Regional Parties, my State Party and a Federal Committee, most key administrative tasks are performed by busy people who, on the whole, would rather be doing something else, that leads me to wonder how vulnerable political parties are to organisational failure.

Most people join political parties because they either want to be something or change something. If you're lucky, they want both, because that means that you can fill the roles that need filling. That's primarily seen as being either a candidate or a campaigner, because what is a political party if it doesn't run candidates for public office? But, behind them are a small corps of people who enable, for want of a better word. They're the ones that ensure that your group is compliant with the law, like Treasurers, or the Constitution, like Secretaries.

And, unlike your candidate, who at least theoretically has a chance of getting elected and holding power, your Treasurer and Secretary are probably doing it because "someone needs to" and they're the ones too slow, or too nice, to escape. There is no glory, little gratitude, and a swathe of hassle from those who would rather criticise you for doing what they perceive to be a bad job than offer to do it themselves. You probably don't need to travel much though, so that's a good thing at least.

Then there are the organisational roles which are required by the Party's rules, with good reason. Neutral returning officers, members of disciplinary and appeals panels, for example. If you thought that there was little glory or gratitude to be had from holding local office, trust me when I say that there's even less in holding one of these positions. They can take days and weeks out of your life and, whilst occasionally, someone says thank you, it is perhaps a mark of how often that happens that I am pleasantly surprised when someone does. This year's Young Liberals fall into that category, for example. And, in normal times, you are expected to travel, though please keep the costs down.

To give you an idea, I was once barked at by a European Parliamentary candidate for not approving their manifesto (we used to do that once) within five hours. And they were right, in that I hadn't. The fact that I was on holiday in Argentina, and it had been sent at 3 a.m. my time was an irrelevancy - it was assumed that their urgency trumped respect for a volunteer.

My sense is that Liberal Democrats don't really approve of bureaucrats. They are, at best, an obligatory element of running a political party, but that lack of approval runs further than that, in that I've often found myself bridling slightly when Liberal Democrat politicians talk about the Civil Service. Admittedly, that doesn't happen perhaps as much as it should - when was the last time you heard a Liberal Democrat talk about Civil Service recruitment and retention, or pay and conditions, or how Government Departments might be better managed and led?

Perhaps a look a the 2019 manifesto might enlighten? Actually, no it won't... The 2014 Policy paper "Protecting Public Services and Making Them Work For You"? I'm afraid not.

Now, before the cavilling starts - "we're really grateful", "thank you for everything you do" - and for those of you who do, and have, thanked your friendly neighbourhood bureaucrat over the years, please don't feel the need to do so now, I wouldn't suggest that the problem is unique to Liberal Democrats, far from it. However, Labour and the Conservatives have the advantage of a pool of paid professionals who can handle much of the arduous bureaucracy.

And, when push comes to shove, the unglamorous, arduous bits of politics are just as unvalued across the political spectrum, which is why most politicians discussing bureaucracy are generally critical rather than constructive.

I am, perhaps, more resilient than most. In my professional life, I seldom expect to be thanked, or even liked - that would be a bit weird, if I'm honest. But, as a volunteer, doing a job that very few people want to do, you do need to receive a little respect and gratitude, commensurate with the effort outlaid if you're doing a decent job.

So, when your next AGM comes round, and your Secretary, who has been hinting that they'd really like to be relieved, is being urged to do "just one more year", perhaps it might be a good idea to do some succession planning in advance? At the very least, thank them for their service, lest they decide that a midweek evening is more pleasurably spent in front of a television scheme or with loved ones.

Religion and political parties - not entirely a comfortable fit...

It would be fair to describe me as a not particularly devout Catholic. I don't attend Mass, I don't support my local Catholic church. I feel vaguely guilty about that, but see guilt as being part of the basic underpinning of Catholicism and so don't feel so bad about it. And, in truth, I have problems with a faith that discriminates against a majority of its own membership, let alone the rest of the population.

It would also be fair to say that, as a political activist, wishing people a happy (insert religious festival as appropriate) makes me slightly uncomfortable. In the multicultural society we live in, the sheer range of religious festivals to be marked means, that if you want to be seen as properly inclusive, you risk issuing so many messages that they become a bit of a cliché. Are you marking a particular festival because you care, or because you simply feel that you ought to?

Now I do accept that religious observance is still important in our society, albeit less so than once it was. In my own community, the Anglican Church plays a central part in community cohesion that it didn't obviously do in the London suburbs - or perhaps I wasn't looking for it. But I tend to the view that how you live your life and, as importantly, how you are perceived to do so, is more important than overt displays of religious tolerance and inclusion.

I sense, without much of a theological education to rely upon, that most religions have, at their core, similar philosophical positions - that you should help those in need, that you should respect the world around you and the people in it and that you should attempt to uphold what are generally accepted virtues. Do those things, and most people will see that you are at least trying.

But politicians want to be liked which, in a profession which centres on the ability to win organised popularity contests, perhaps shouldn't come as a terrible surprise. That does engender some degree of suspicion as to motive given how little trust is placed in them and so I find myself wondering how much value there is for a non-religious politician to mark religious festivals. Those who practice the particular religion might think it good to be included, whilst others will question the sincerity of the author.

For those who are publicly devout in their faith, I see rather less of a problem. And yes, as Tim Farron has discovered, being devout can bring with it a whole different set of problems, but that goes with the territory of having opinions - you have to be able, and willing, to justify them if challenged. But referring to religion when you are an active adherent feels a bit more justified to me.

Ultimately, it is for individual politicians to judge whether or not to mark religious festivals within their communities and to deal with the consequences of the stance they take. And, as long as political parties don't use it as an opportunity to attack each other, it probably does little harm overall. But, from a personal perspective, I will keep my religious beliefs a predominantly personal matter and respect the rights of others to practice their faith as they see fit...

Are Liberal Democrats too busy talking to themselves to reach out to the electorate?

I have to admit that I drafted this a month ago for Liberal Democrat Voice, but decided not to publish it at the time - I wasn’t sure that I wanted or needed the grief that would probably come from offering it up to a (probably) larger audience than it would get here. But, the nagging thought in my mind won’t quite go away... so here it is. It isn’t necessarily my final word, nor is it a perfect distillation of my views, although it does seem to reflect the views of our new leader, perhaps unexpectedly.

As we come to the end of a leadership contest which feels as though it has lasted forever - and I admit to not having cast my vote yet - it has occurred to me that we seem to have spent a lot of time lately having leadership contests (or, in the case of Vince’s coronation, non-contest). Tim vs Norman, Vince vs the radicals, Jo vs Ed, Ed vs Layla. Four leadership elections in five years, and a lot of talk about what happens next.

Or not, really.

To win a leadership contest, you have to persuade members to feel good about themselves. That means that we talk about issues that matter to our members. It isn’t, however, necessarily the case that the campaigns talk about issues that matter outside that group, i.e. to the overwhelming majority of the public.

Now, some of you will be thinking that I have an unspoken agenda here. “Don’t talk about minority issues, talk about schools and hospitals, jobs and crime instead.”, might be running through your head. And, perhaps, you may have a point.

I’m proud of our opinions on minority rights, on social reforms that allow everyone (and I do mean everyone) to live their lives in the way they choose, subject to the restraints of law designed to protect us from harm. Our policies on those issues are well thought out, easy to articulate, and will make a real difference to lives. Making sure that we express those views when we’re talking to those who want to hear them, or those directly affected, is exactly what a radical, social reformist political party should do.

But, in spending so much time talking to ourselves over the last five years, we seem to have stopped talking about things that actually affect large numbers of people, many of whom just want to feel that someone is listening to them. Yes, we spent a lot of time talking about Europe - our members would want little else given the reason why so many of them joined. We tended to be unequivocal about how much better being in the European Union was, rather than arguing the case for working together. There was a worrying tendency by some to assume that those on the other side were racist or stupid, or both, rather than being ill-informed by our media, or despairing of the day to day grind of lives that weren’t so fortunate. But whilst we were focussed on that, we stopped expressing ourselves about the other stuff.

How much did we talk about housing, when so many young people are struggling to find a place they can afford? What did we say about the instability of work in an era of zero-hour contracts and the gig economy? What did we say about how the tax system and the finance sector distort our economy and encourage short-term investment strategies? Was it anything more than sound bites designed to attract a moment’s attention?

Can you remember? I can’t. And, perhaps, that’s the problem.

It seems to me that, where we’ve been successful over a long period, it’s because we talk to people about the things that matter, we offer solutions that resonate, and we have a passion to serve those communities. It isn’t where we take a purist approach, insisting that people sign up to the overwhelming majority of our policies. Hell, I don’t sign up to all of our policies, and I’ve been a member of the Party and its predecessor for thirty-six years.

So, whoever wins when the votes are counted, we need to talk to people where they metaphorically live. No, that doesn’t mean pandering to them, even if it’s tempting. It means addressing the things that, if fixed, would make their lives genuinely better, making the case for the changes we think will work, and being patient.

Being a Liberal Democrat isn’t easy. If it was, everybody would be one. We aren’t going to go from 6% to glorious victory in one electoral cycle, or even two or three. But, if we have any aspiration to do so, we need to start talking to them, not just us.

Mid Suffolk: the Boundary Commission proposes an unexpected outcome...

I had meant to mention the current Boundary Commission review of Mid Suffolk's ward boundaries, in which the District Council loses six councillors, going from forty to thirty-four, which requires, as you might guess, some interesting reshuffling.

Unlike in London, where redistributing means drawing entertaining lines of maps and crossing your fingers that the other political parties don't work out what you're doing (I do those who study these things a disservice here admittedly...), in Suffolk you have a set of building blocks known as towns and parishes. Rule one is, "thou shalt not split up parishes", which simplifies and complicates the process in equal measure.

The job of the Boundary Commission is thus to create a number of wards which have an amount of electors within 10% of the average number of electors per councillor. That can be done by means of one member or two member wards, but you don't want them to be too large in geographic terms.

There were three political proposals made, one from the Greens, one from the Conservatives and one from us. You'll notice that there wasn't a proposal from Labour, but as they don't actually have a councillor in Mid Suffolk, I guess that they weren't that bothered. Slightly bizarrely, our local Green councillor admitted that they had agreed a joint proposal with the Conservatives, but that the Conservatives had reneged on the deal late in the day. That does beg the question as to why the Greens thought that doing a deal with the Conservatives was a good idea, but it does perhaps indicate that the Greens are either more naive than I had thought possible or, more troubling my, that they might not be reliable in their opposition to the ruling administration.

In any event, none of the three proposals seemed to have an awful lot to recommend them. The Conservative proposal required there to be thirty-five councillors, i.e. one more than the specified number, which perhaps serves as a reminder as to the quality of some of the local Conservatives. The Green proposals, for there turned out to be two versions, seemed not to understand the importance of the 10% variance from the mean, as they often failed by producing wards that were too big or too small. The Liberal Democrat proposal was better, but still not ideal.

It appears that the Boundary Commission weren't wildly impressed either, as their draft proposals, issued on Monday, differ from all of them. And, from an initial look, I reckon that they've done a pretty good job.

From a personal perspective, the most interesting element is the one that affects me most. And it wasn't what I was expecting...

Brexit: why I worry about what comes next...

I'm an optimist by nature. And whilst that tends to help if you're a Liberal Democrat, there is a risk that one is blinded to the underside of politics. Being reasonable in the face of the irrational may help you to remain calm in the face of provocation, but reasonable involves measured, nuanced messages and an aversion to sound bites.

The EU referendum was, as it turned out, not a place for the reasonable. Saying that there are positives and negatives to our membership of the European Union risked being shot by both sides, and it did become a rather unedifying contest. It would be fair to say that I wasn't as engaged as I might have been, as a result. I did have the excuse of a local by-election, which took more out of me than I had expected, but nonetheless, I wasn't as active as I might have been.

But anyway, those of us who felt that, on balance, our membership of the European Union brought more advantages than disadvantages lost. And yes, a small piece of me despairs that our country has changed in a way that will only emerge over time, some of the worst has emerged already.

We have sent a message to the world that we aren't keen on foreigners, that they are at fault for the state of our country. And some of those who campaigned for Brexit never intended that or, at least, claim that this wasn't their intent (and yes, Tim Montgomerie, I'm looking at you), but I'm afraid that it is the conclusion that many have drawn.

For those who voted for Brexit probably weren't racist on the whole. The catch is those who were now think that they're in the majority. In other words, they've won. But they're probably not finished. They have other fish to fry.

After all, Theresa May has promised to reduce net inward migration to below 100,000 per annum and eschew freedom of movement as part of any package relating to access to the European Single Market. That works both ways, in that our people surely can't expect to have the same rights to move to a European Union

In other words, less people leaving the country, thus even more people prevented from coming here - any net migration figure is dependant on those leaving the country too.

That suits the racists, especially as it will doubtless make it even harder for people from non-White countries to get those all important work permits. UKIP will doubtless start agitating to restrict the number of Muslims coming here, and a country thought to be threatening to minorities is a less inviting choice.

If the economists are right, and growth in the United Kingdom stalls, unemployment will start to rise, and there will be those who will call for foreigners to be sent home. After all, they'll be holding jobs to the exclusion of native British, which would never do. The fact that they will doing jobs that wouldn't otherwise be filled is neither here nor there, they will be the 'other' that must be removed.

And yes, crops will go unharvested, our elderly uncared for, patients untreated in the absence of the migrants who currently do these things. I'm sure that those who voted for them to be excluded will happily take up the slack.

The country will become a bit meaner, a bit more insular, a bit more populist, a bit less tolerant.

I may be wrong. I hope that I am. But it will take the engagement of the reasonable, the tolerant, the rational in order to resist such a trend. And in the face of a new post-fact politics, a stand at the barricades may prove to be too unattractive. For modern politics increasingly leaves no room for those with honest doubts or who are without the sort of emotional armour that is required to deal with the abuse that seems standard in our body politic - in other words, the very people whose voices we need to hear more of.

Simon Danczuk: a knave, or just another victim of a capricious media?

In the forty-eight hours since I posted this piece, there has been a deluge of further revelations from Simon Danczuk himself, his two ex-wives, the recipient of the text messages and miscellaneous 'passers-by'. In light of these, it is hard to retain much, indeed, any sympathy for Mr Danczuk, who appears to be a pretty repellent individual. But the principle that everyone deserves a fair trial remains a valid one, and I still believe that people who suffer from mental health issues deserve the support of their employers as far as is possible - MJV, 3 January 2016

The front page news in the Sun that Simon Danczuk, the Labour MP for Rochdale, was caught sending text messages of an unwise nature to a seventeen-year-old who had applied for a job in his office is just the latest in a series of bewildering events in the life of a man easily described as controversial.

What seems so strange about the affair is that, given his clear passion for campaigning on behalf of those abused in childhood, he should not see the contradiction in behaving as he did towards a young woman.

The Labour Party has, in suspending his membership, done the only thing that it can do, given the way an unsympathetic media treat such matters. After all, to be seen to dither on what appears to be an open and shut case leads to day after day of hostile coverage, as Liberal Democrats have learned in recent times. It merely allows 'senior figures' to comment, often unhelpfully, for or against the accused and, given that most such people rarely know how their organisations' disciplinary processes work, they mostly act to make matters worse rather than better.

However, the formal suspension out of the way, what matters next is what the Party leadership do.

Mr Danczuk appears to have been in difficulty for some time. The failure of his marriage, reported through the particularly distorting prism of the tabloid media, has been a car crash, and as both sides seem to have thought that disclosing the minutiae of their personal lives is the best policy, it has merely snowballed into the sort of reality show that entertains a particular type of audience. Let's be honest, little has changed in that sense since the era of 'penny dreadfuls' and public hangings.

At some point, it might have been better had wiser advice been given and taken to deal with the matter behind closed doors, but many of us are wiser after the event, aren't we?

He has been very honest about the impact of events on his emotional health, and perhaps he feels that, by talking about it openly, he can better face things. I have to admit that I don't think that it's working for him. But he is clearly in a bad place, because either the most recent events are a reflection of his true self, in which case he isn't fit to hold public office or, hopefully more likely, they are a symptom of his problems.

I sense that he needs support, and that is where his Party should come in. MPs in neighbouring seats can chip in with his casework, the Constituency Party leadership can help with his local office, and he can be given the time and space to sort himself out. Meanwhile, the disciplinary hearing needs to be processed quickly, fairly and tactfully, protecting those involved and punishing appropriately if punishment is due.

We had a similar experience here in mid-Suffolk with David Ruffley and his well-documented mental breakdown in 2010, and the period he took to deal with his problems was dealt with quite smoothly, albeit that his story ended badly (and deservedly).

I fear that it won't end well for Mr Danczuk, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the matter. In a political environment where weakness is ruthlessly punished, even if he turns out to have been foolish rather than something more sinister, opponents both within his Party and beyond won't hesitate to use this as a stick to beat him with.

The lesson that some might usefully learn is that people are complex, and that sometimes they fail, or are flawed. And perhaps in understanding that, and dealing with politicians as the people they are rather than as your prejudices label them, we might get a better politics.

MP pay - is it really too difficult to read the whole story before engaging outrage mode?

Yes, it seems.

Oh, you want me to say more than that. Right. Ummm... let's see. Wait a minute, it's on the tip of my tongue...

In my day job, I spend my time examining all of the available data in order to define any areas of doubt and uncertainty and then, having done so, work out a fair and rational way of dealing with them. It is surprisingly enjoyable, especially as you learn more about human nature and about how people organise, and rationalise, their lives. You get to meet interesting people and get a sense of their worlds.

So, it would be odd if I spent five minutes looking at one particular piece of data, and drew my inferences from it alone, ignoring all of the rest. And yet, people seem perfectly willing to do just that when it comes to politics, politicians, and how our country is run.

Let's take MP salaries as an example. They have been awarded a 9.26% increase in their basic salary by IPSA, the independent arbiter of what an MP should be paid, as well as the rest of their package. 9.26%, or about £7,000, that's an outrage, right? In isolation, it is a lot of money, especially given the pay restraint to be applied to the public sector (and it amazes me the level of ignorance about that too, but that's a different story, for a different day perhaps).

Of course, it isn't the whole story. The personal contribution towards their pension will be increased, and the resettlement allowance for MPs who are not re-elected has been axed and replaced with a rather less generous 'loss of office' allowance only to be paid to MPs who fight their seat and lose - think of it as redundancy money, as paid to a lot of people when they lose their job. And there are other, reasonable reforms such as the abolition of the food subsidy currently payable if the House sits after 7.30 p.m.

The overall additional cost to the taxpayer? Nothing. Nada. Zip. Heavens, even the Civil Service paybill is increasing by 1% per annum.

There are some elements which might be questioned. Why, for example, should it right for future increases to be linked to the growth in average earnings, when the public sector will be pegged to something rather lower than that if the Government's own figures are to be believed?

But that isn't a cause for outrage particularly, especially if future increases are linked to those of average employees. It provides a realistic incentive to spread the benefits of economic growth rather more widely, even if taking the median figure for pay growth might be more credible than the mean.

Unfortunately, most people will read the first sentences of the story and never bother to get to the end. Indeed, attention spans seem so short now that getting to the middle appears unrealistic. It does not augur well for an intellectual renewal if our body politic, does it?...

I wonder if the Daily Telegraph's editorial team have bothered to read the Conservative Party's membership rules...

There appears to be an organised attempt by the Daily Telegraph to sabotage the Labour Party's leadership election by encouraging its readers to join the Labour Party and vote for Jeremy Corbyn.

Telegraph providing step by step guide on how to vote for Corbyn in order to help "doom" LAB. http://t.co/AJNWGAzdKM pic.twitter.com/Ii6XHxRtV5

— Mike Smithson (@MSmithsonPB) July 15, 2015

This is, of course, a remarkably stupid idea, especially as it will simply lead to retaliation - the Conservative policy, currently in abeyance, of having open selections will become so easy a target - and coarsen our body politic even further. Admittedly, the Daily Telegraph doesn't like democracy very much - its owners, the reclusive Barclay brothers, don't pay tax in this country and have an unusual approach to democracy on Sark - but such an overt attempt to subvert the politics of our nation is a new low even for them.

However, they might want to read Article 3 of the Conservative Party's membership rules which read, and I quote;

The Party is a political Party for the Nation, open to all who share its objects and values and who undertake to be bound by this Constitution. The Party shall consist of its Members. Membership of the Conservative Party is not compatible with Membership of or association with any other registered political party.

Now, of course, the Conservative Party will have to judge whether or not its rules mean anything, or whether or not it would be reasonable to expel someone who decided to join UKIP as well given the precedent they would be setting.

Far be it for me to interfere though...

 

Bosmere Liberal Democrats - thinking about what matters to us

It is odd, is it not, that I've been a member of a political party for more than thirty years, and yet in all of that time, the number of organised political discussions I've taken part in at Local Party level can be counted on the fingers of one hand. There might almost be a sense that policy is for conferences, specific setpiece affairs with a structure and a process, much of which excludes most activists.

And yet, we now have thousands of new members who have joined because they believe in something, in the idea of liberalism and its relevance in our communities. It might not be clear to them why they should be limited in such a way.

When word reached me that the neighbouring branch to ours, Bosmere (which covers Needham Market and the villages to the west and southwest), was having a meeting solely to discuss policy ideas, I was keen to join in.

And so, yesterday evening, Ros and I arrived at the Limes Hotel in Needham Market to see what would happen. One of our newer members, Stephen Andrews, had organised a room, come up with a list of topics, and dinner had been organised (fish and chips).

Over dinner, Ros and I (particularly Ros, it must be said) chatted to some of the newer members, before Stephen took the floor. His idea was to open on a particular topic, the EU Referendum, or education, and get people to express their views as to what we should be saying or doing. It was quite lively, with some decidedly interesting views expressed about sovereignty and free trade during the EU debate, for example.

It will be interesting to see what Stephen's notes look like afterwards, but given that our membership in Mid Suffolk has gone up from 77 to 120 since polling day, we've got a whole bunch of people whose enthusiasm can be tapped, and a whole bunch of ideas to espouse. It is, perhaps, time to start taking our message to the people...

It's been a slightly unusual day on Planet Bureaucrat...

A few seconds of unexpected fame...

Today saw the Aviva Women's Tour cycle race come through Suffolk, as Stage 1 took the riders from Bury St Edmunds to Aldeburgh. What I hadn't factored for that I would get such a great view from my office window, as the race swirled down Museum Street, then took a rather awkward little right-hander into Princes Street before turning left again at the crossroads below the office.

I was lucky enough to get a good picture with my iPhone, and posted it on Twitter. Within a few minutes, I received a request from the BBC to use the picture and, ten minutes later, there it was, with the text of my tweet, and a photo credit, on the BBC Suffolk website. For the record, I did not receive, nor did I seek, payment for the material...

By mid-afternoon, I was on a train to London, in order to perform my duty as Returning Officer for our Parliamentary Party in the House of Lords. In truth, it isn't terribly complex, with an electorate of exactly one hundred, and there were three candidates for two positions, making my task a pretty straightforward one, but it is nice to be asked, and I like both Ros's colleagues and the team in the Whips Office. Oh, and yes, I did not receive, nor did I seek, payment for my services...

As has already been published elsewhere, Navnit Dholakia and Kate Parminter were the successful candidates, bringing both talent and diversity to our leadership in the Lords. And the fact that Navnit gave me an excellent character reference when I first started seeing Ros makes no difference to how I see him! Kate worked with Ros on the EU Select Sub-Committee D, and has real passion. So, given the quality on our red benches, no pressure on our team on the green ones, I suppose.

I made the 20.00 train home, which was a bonus, as it allowed me to start work on a presentation I have to give on Saturday. There is, it seems, no rest for the bureaucrat...

The adventure is over, for the time being. Now, the hard work begins...

In retrospect, leaving the country on 7 May has begun to look better and better, especially given the result of the General Election. Unfortunately, my employers take the rather conservative view that, in order for my salary to be justified, I have to come in and do some work occasionally. And so, I am back.

Today has been a day for catching up. I've got a Local Party Executive Committee meeting on Thursday evening, so a report has had to be written and accounts drawn up for the year to date. I've done that, so I'm alright so far.

Laundry and shopping have been done, the garden tidied and progress on this year's building work has been ascertained (so that's what a death watch beetle looks like...). The house is still standing, so that's alright too.

So, I'd better catch up on events over the past fortnight or so...

@ALDEParty Council - the urgency resolutions working group

So, I was minding my own business at last night's welcome reception when my pocket buzzed. Checking my e-mail, I was slightly surprised to find that not only were there urgency resolutions - seven of them - but that one of them proposed an asylum and migration policy for the European Union, courtesy of the FDP, and that they would be debated at 9.30 this morning.

Having told Robert Woodthorpe Browne, chair of our Party's International Relations Committee and delegation leader, that I would attend, I went back to my hotel room, read the resolutions and made a few notes for use in debate.

After a hearty breakfast, I arrived at the Council venue and took a seat. Vedrana Gujic, President of LYMEC (ALDE's youth wing), opened the meeting and we were under way. Resolutions on Greece and the Eurozone, protecting the European Single Market, mineral waste dumping in Norwegian fjords and the release of political prisoners in Russia, Belarus and Azerbaijan were pretty uncontentious. However, there was some debate on whether or not to push for visa-free access to the European Union for Ukrainians. Personally, I tend to the view that moving on this demonstrates to the people of Ukraine that we believe them, and want them, to be part of the European family, and is a good thing.

It was at this point that I realised that I was, in fact, the delegation. And therefore, given the absence of policy support, I will accept that the views expressed by me on behalf of the Party may not entirely reflect Party policy. However, offering visa-free access is a liberal thing to do, and I'm happy to stand by my support for it in this instance.

The next resolution was the controversial one. Springing a resolution on asylum and migration policy on an ALDE Council meeting with just twelve hours notice is unacceptable, and whilst I accept that some of the elements of the resolution did fulfil the requirements of the use of the word 'urgency' - strengthening Frontex, allowing asylum seekers to apply at embassies of European Union member states overseas, for example, suggesting that a points-based system was sound without considering the impact on Schengen and non-Schengen States is unduly hasty. I called for amendments to the resolution that would allow Congress to discuss the matter at greater length in Budapest in November, allowing us to consult with our members at home.

There is an acknowledged acceptance that the current Dublin system for allocating refugees is broken, and we need to replace it with something better. However, dumping refugees on communities that cannot cope, or who need to develop strategies for integrating them, risks creating pockets of isolation that generate future problems for both the community and those seeking to become part of our wider society. I intend to raise this with Liberal Democrats for Seekers of Sanctuary to seek their input prior to the meeting in Budapest.

Finally, we discussed the situation in Macedonia, where the current government has been accused of massive levels of corruption and other criminal activity, up to and including murder. If passed by Council, the resolution now calls for the government to resign in favour of a transitional administration bringing together all political forces in the country and to impose personal sanctions against those individuals responsible otherwise.

Next, the round table on liberalism and fighting the extreme right...

Alright, it's virtually all over. It's been horrible. We're not dead though.

The War of the Triple Alliance, in which Paraguay fought, and lost to, the combined forces of Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay, saw the male population of Paraguay reduced by 70%. As a Liberal Democrat this morning, it feels a lot like that at the moment. And, of course, it isn't over yet. There are still local elections to be counted and it would be naive to expect any encouragement from those.

So, what now? What can, or should, Liberal Democrats do?

Firstly, don't panic. Yes, it's bad, yes, it's awful. There is no consolation sufficient to shelter behind. But, despite everything, something like 2.5 million voters still turned out to vote Liberal Democrat, even after five years of cuts, of having to make and defend some very difficult positions. That is a base upon which we can rebuild.

Second, we are in opposition. Even if the Conservatives come in search of our support in the Commons, we are better off out of it. There are going to be more cuts, more pain, and voters are about to discover what Conservatives are capable without having Liberal Democrats to restrain them. Personally, I hope that those on the left whose vitriol did so much to undermine us in Conservative-facing seats dwell on the outcome and learn the lessons. I'm not optimistic.

Next, policy. What are we actually about? We need a positive vision for our country, rethinking the very concept of the nation state (devolution, Europe), about what government is for (form and function).

We also need to decide if we are going to play the political game in the same way. Is 'looking like a party of government' something that works for us or against? For the record, I'd say that it doesn't - the media don't like us and never will. Our social media campaign was extremely good, and if there was a positive from the campaign, that (and fundraising) was it. We need to focus on our message and our ideas and talk about beliefs.

One last thing. Whilst the Conservatives will have a majority in the Commons, the position is very different in the Lords. One hundred Liberal Democrat peers will find themselves in a key position until, presumably, the Conservatives appoint enough Peers to change that. They'll need at least one hundred though. In the meantime, they represent an opportunity for us to hold the Government to account. It will be interesting to see whether the Party's approach towards our Parliamentary Party in the Lords changes.

And now, I'm off to face our European sister parties. At least they'll be sympathetic...

Creeting St Peter - @jemnicole1 has a leaflet put through our door...

When I ran for the District Council in 2011, one of the things that exercised me about my Conservative opponent's campaign was her claim to be local. Given that she lived, and continues to live, in Eye, a mere fourteen miles from Creeting St Peter, and eleven miles from the ward boundary, and both the Green candidate and myself actually lived in the ward, it did rankle somewhat.

So, having finally received a leaflet from this year's Conservative candidate, Jemma Lynch, I am not entirely surprised to see her described as "the local choice for Stowupland and Creeting St Peter". If only she lived in Stowupland or Creeting St Peter, instead of Needham Market, which is the case. In fairness, Needham Market does border the parish, I think, but her declared commitment to our community is somewhat puzzling given that I've never seen her in our Parish before.

I suspect that the Green candidate this time, Keith Welham, whose home looks out onto the Green in Stowupland, and who has served as a Parish councillor in the village for some years now, might object too. 

However, looking at Jemma's priorities for our communities;

"Ensuring that our views regarding the proposed developments in Stowupland and Creeting St Peter are adequately represented."

Like her predecessor did with Poundfield Products? Or with the proposed Business and Development Park? I do hope not.

"Providing strong, proactive local leadership, seeking to support the local community."

Leadership? Support? Aren't those mildly contradictory? And how is she going to be proactive given that her only likely contact with the wider community will be attending the odd Parish Council meeting?

"Working closely with our local PCSO to ensure that residents continue to feel safe, assisting where possible with community policing."

We feel safe here, Jemma. Given crime rates here in the village, and the fact that the Parish Council interact directly with Mid Suffolk Police - they either attend all Parish Council meetings or send a report (their attendance record was, as I recall, rather better than that of your predecessor) - your generous offer isn't likely to change much.

"Endeavour to empower the local community with tools to ensure that our environment is cleaner and greener."

As Conservative-run Mid Suffolk District Council did by charging to empty litter and dog waste bins, or Conservative-run Suffolk County Council by abandoning the local Nature Reserve at Fen Alder Carr and leaving its future in the hands of a village with just 260 residents...

To be frank, I am less than entirely impressed by what looks a bit like a cut and paste, somewhat impersonal missive which seeks to sweep under the carpet the poor performance of her predecessor. 

On the positive side, a Conservative did manage to find the house - by accident, I suspect - although they clearly didn't want to talk to us.

So, hardly a temptation to vote Conservative. I wonder if the Greens have anything better to offer...

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...

@AamAadmiParty - now that's what I call a landslide...

So, despite early opinion polls showing that the BJP, who rule at national level, were going to win, the Aam Aadmi Party's focus on the issues that mattered to ordinary voters in Delhi seems to have been overwhelmingly effective. For the first time in the history of the State, a political party gained more than 50% of the vote and with that 67 out of the 70 seats in the Delhi legislature.

There are about twenty million voters in Delhi, and 67% of them took part, so this is no mere protest vote borne on a low turnout but a real shock to the Indian body politic.

The big question is, can a political party which has existed for only two years, led by a former tax inspector, with little experience of actually governing, really reform in the way it claims is necessary. Can they change the way an entire state government, and its bureaucracy function and, if they can, what message does that send out to the rest of India?

There are also some other victims. The Congress Party, still led by Gandhis, was wiped out across the capital, and shows signs of redundancy, whilst the fragmented opposition across the country, much of it regional in its strength, will sense weakness in the Modi administration that will need to be countered. Hopefully, the response that comes will give a nod to the anti-corruption campaign whilst continuing the work of opening up India as a place to do business.

There is a message for political parties elsewhere too. Campaign for real change as though you mean it, and address the issues that really matter to people, and you might bring them with you. Spend your time attacking the insurgent, as the BJP did in Delhi, and as is so often the case here, and you risk losing the enthusiastic support of your core vote. After all, what are you for?

It will be interesting to see how they get on, for heaven knows India has real potential as an economic powerhouse and a political partner for the western democracies if we only work with them and develop a sense of their sensitivities.

Hope? Yes by all means, but don't get carried away...

I read the piece by Maelo Manning the other day with some interest and found her thoughts on the question of hope intriguing. She is, of course, right - when times are hard, as they still are, giving voters a prospect of better times ahead is a means of convincing people that short-term pain will lead to long-term gain. There is, however (and you just knew that I was going to say that, didn't you?), a catch, in that such hope has to be based in reality.

Frankly, I fear for the Greek people. The decision of the incoming Syriza-led administration to unpick significant chunks of the agreed package of reform will frighten the markets - the Athens stock market is already in severe crisis. And, whilst the attractive option is to tell the markets to go screw themselves (that's a technical term, you understand), the fact that government spending is already dependent on the funds supplied in exchange for those reforms will inevitably lead to a gap between income and expenditure. You can, naturally, fill that gap by increasing income through taxation (slow and by no means guaranteed) or, more likely, through borrowing. So, let me ask you this, would you lend money to Greece right now? Could you be confident that Tsipras and his colleagues wouldn't renege on the debt? I wouldn't be.

You might say, "Ah, but Europe couldn't allow such a thing to happen, a deal would be cut, surely?". And yes, it is possible, but given the sacrifices that the likes of Estonia, Latvia and Slovakia have made to reform their economies, why should they give the Greeks an easy ride? And what message does it send to others if the Greeks do get to keep their bloated public sector and relatively generous welfare provision, neither of which they can afford?

But the message is equally true here. I won't bother with the Greens, as their economic policy is verging on laughable, but Labour's talk of cutting the deficit whilst apparently not making any cuts that will upset people is equally absurd. Saving the NHS by giving it more money is merely a short-term fix unless we are going to use that window to reform it in a sustainable way (Liberal Democrats please note...), and ring-fencing key budgets only means even greater pain for the remainder of the public sector if an aim to eliminate the deficit by 2020 is to be credible.

No, there will be more pain, more "blood, sweat and tears" to be endured over the next five years. The possible reward is an economy that can be sustained, a welfare system that protects the vulnerable and a public sector that delivers what we need, rather than what we desire.

How faithful do you have to be to a party's policies to be a member?

I see that the position of Alex Carlile as a member of the Liberal Democrats has been brought into question by one of my former colleagues at Liberal Democrat Voice, following his signature on Lords amendments intended to bring back the 'Snooper's Charter'.

Having spent quite a lot of time examining the voting records of Liberal Democrat peers, it has to be said that, whilst his overall voting record isn't brilliant - he does do other things, it should be noted - he is not a frequent rebel against the Party whip. And yes, the right to privacy is core to the beliefs of liberals, but so are many other things - equality, freedom, internationalism and, perhaps more relevantly here, freedom of association.

I am reminded that every political party is formed of a coalition of interests, and that, to succeed, getting more people involved and attracting more voters, some of whom might not have defined themselves as being liberal or socialist or whatever, is key. We don't insist that our voters agree with every dot and comma in the manifesto, so why do we get upset when some of our members disagree with individual planks of our policy?

After all, if a political party is to be a group of purists, how does it change and develop policy? Are those seeking change to be cast into the outer darkness if they are challenging a point of principle to be worshipped as though a holy relic?

Political parties do not, in my experience, spend a lot of time investigating potential new members for ideological purity, nor do they spend a lot of time debating ideas - there is too much campaigning to be done for that - but one would be reasonable in assuming that new members agree broadly with your message and, most importantly, with more of it than with any of the other choices out there.

So, how much of your party's policy should be supported in order to remain a member? 70%? 80%? 99%? And what is essential? After all, there are key Labour Party figures that believe in allowing the market into public services, Conservatives who support European integration (up to a certain point) and Liberal Democrats who are sceptical about Europe.

Yes, lobby individual representatives if you don't agree with them. Tell them why, remaining courteous. But if it's an offence to disagree with things that matter to you, do bear in mind that, one day, it might be you facing the mob. And please don't come to me for sympathy - it will be in short supply...