Good(ish) news for Stowupland bus passengers

Following on from my story last month, it would appear that Galloways have decided that they might be able to run a bus service to Stowupland without subsidy, and will be introducing a new route 387 to replace First Group's route 87.

There are some particularly interesting features, with some extra buses in the morning to provide a half-hourly service during the morning rush (hourly otherwise), although the last bus leaves something to be desired if you're working regular office hours - it will run at 4.35 p.m. There will also be a Saturday service, again hourly, and again with a last bus from Stowmarket at 4.35 p.m.

Worse still, the last bus from Stowupland will leave at 2.45 p.m (Monday to Friday) or 3.15 p.m. (Saturday), which is not ideal. It is, however, better than nothing.

There are, it should be noted, a few later buses from Stowmarket on Galloway routes 384 and 456, but nothing to help if you want to leave Stowupland.

That leaves passengers dependent on the Suffolk Links Gipping North service, which I strongly recommend, which offers a demand responsive service, if not one that allows for spontaneous travel.

Editorial: think not what local government can do for you, but what you can do without...

This is a cross-posting from the Creeting St Peter Journal...

Recent announcements by both Mid Suffolk District Council and Suffolk County Council to the effect that they are both going to need to make hefty cuts in their expenditure to deal with reduced income from Whitehall can only mean one of three things. Either they will need to cut waste, raise Council Tax levels in real terms, or cut services.

Raising Council Tax levels isn't that easy. The insistence that any increase above a certain, arbitrary, centrally-defined amount triggers a referendum of voters means that local councillors are loathe to even try - running a campaign against an increase in your tax bill is pretty easy, and most local politicians would rather tell you what they think you would like to hear, i.e. you can have services and someone else will pay for them.

Naturally, if the media are to be believed, there are huge levels of waste in government which could be attacked to protect front line services. Sadly, whilst there is waste, it isn't necessarily caused by bad management, but by the fact that people want services supplied that, were they to have to pay for them directly, they might think twice about keeping.

And as for cutting services, well, most councillors would rather cut their own throats than tell you that's what is necessary. Even were they to be that honest, a political opponent will campaign against them promising to save whatever it is.

As an example, people like libraries. If perceived to be under threat, hundreds will demand that they be saved yet how many of them actually use them regularly? How many of those thousands of books are actually read by anyone? And in an era of Kindles and other e-readers, are library user figures likely to go up, or down? At what point do you accept that the cost of providing a service is too great for the benefits gleaned?

We have grown used, as a society, to the idea that someone else, usually government, will do things for us. Government will keep the streets tidy, so that we don't have to, it will maintain parts of our countryside for public use, build roads to make it easier for us to get places. Littering increases because, it doesn't matter, someone will come and clean the street, we take less care about our surroundings as someone else will, we grow used to having a direct route to places and worry less about the economic viability of having three routes out of a village.

And yet, we complain about the size of government, about its cost, about its remoteness from our communities.

Eventually, we will be forced to accept that, in order to maintain the services that really matter - health, education, social welfare, to name but three - peripheral services might have to go. The prize then goes to politicians who are willing to be honest with their electorate and engage them in the debate about what is core and what isn't. Here at the Creeting St Peter Journal, we're not holding our breath...

A village gathers in anticipation of pie

Last year, our Parochial Church Council varied their usual village pub night, introducing homemade pie. Real ale, rabbit and pigeon pie, what could be better?

And so it was with some pleasure that I spotted, on the carpet at the bottom of the stairs a few weeks ago, a slip of paper announcing that there would be another one. I admit to having anticipated the event for some time and, this time, Ros would be able to attend too.

We were so enthusiastic indeed that we invited Ros's sister to join us, and at 7.30 p.m. sharp last night, we set off down The Lane, with plates and cutlery (as requested) in expectation of some very fine homemade pie indeed.

Unfortunately, there was no rabbit and pigeon this time, but the substitute venison pie, with a rich gravy, lived up to my fondest hopes, and the shepherd's pie was almost as excellent. Beer, supplied by Bartrams Brewery in Rougham, accompanied the pies well, and a good evening was had by all.

I'm not a baker of pies, more a consumer of them, but it was an excellent evening, with five pies to choose from - fish, chicken and vegetable, vegetable, shepherd's and venison - and if you ever happen to be in the neighbourhood for a future event, I highly recommend it.

Editorial: is this the first step towards the Business and Enterprise Park?

This is a cross-posting from the Creeting St Peter Journal...

The announcement of the initial public consultation on the Mill Lane Development Brief ends a lengthy 'phoney war' over what would happen to the area on the Creeting side of the A1120 link road, opposite the Tesco supermarket at Cedars Park. And, whilst it was inevitable that the emergence of the UK economy from recession would lead to increased activity, there were hopes that the entire project had gone away, perhaps for good.

However, the proposed development brief is broadly in line with the steer given by the Area Action Plan, including tiered warehousing as tall as 15 metres at the south-western corner, tapering to a relatively small 6 metres at the northern extent. As indicated three years ago, the current route over the A1120 on Creeting Road will be closed to vehicular traffic, with a link road joining Mill Lane just north of the Clamp Farm area to the A1120 link road opposite Tesco.

A wetland area adjoining the River Gipping is included, although access from the village will only be possible via often blocked footpaths to the river itself, or by walking (or driving) through the industrial estate, hardly likely to attract local foot traffic. In addition, phase 2 appears to cut off vehicular access to the Creeting Lakes fishery, something that may not suit Quiet Sports, who own it, or the residents of Braziers Hall, whose only access it currently is.

Phase 2 will, if built, also cut the footpath that joins the village with the edge of Cedars Park, something which appears to go unmentioned in what is, admittedly, only a first draft. Indeed, the vaunted cycle/footway to replace Mill Lane and Creeting Road East will be an rather unattractive journey between warehouses and... more warehouses. It appears, on the face of it, to be designed to maintain the pretence that a right of way exists, whilst making it unlikely that anyone will want to use it.

There is an opportunity for villagers to examine the plans more closely at an exhibition, unsurprisingly located at the Cedars Park Community Centre, a building probably little known to residents of Creeting St Peter, as the District Council clearly don't believe that it is a matter that they should be concerned about.

However, forewarned is forearmed, and as many residents as possible should attend the exhibition at Cedars Park Community Centre, Pintail Road, Stowmarket, IP14 5FP on Saturday 19th October from 12 noon to 4pm.

Take the last bus to Stowupland...

Last week's news that the Stowmarket Shuttle, or bus route 87 as it is more prosaically described, is to cease operating in November, is bad news for the residents of Stowupland in particular. It was bad enough when the through service to Needham Market and Ipswich was lost, even though the timetable did theoretically allow for a connection in Stowmarket to route 88, newly extended to Ipswich Hospital, but this does come as a blow.

An 87 bus in Stowupland, soon to be history?

Whilst campaigning in the village two years ago as part of my candidacy for the District Council, I highlighted the loss of the Sunday and evening bus service and its impact on those people who had moved to Stowupland precisely because of its transport links - better than most other mid-Suffolk villages.

At one point, buses penetrated into the side roads of Stowupland - curiously, the bus stops remained long after the buses had been withdrawn - and it did seem strange that, given the number of elderly residents, a service using smaller vehicles had not been tried, rather than the full size buses used by First Group.

First Group have run the service without subsidy from the County Council since they changed the routes around last year, with the main route 88 linking Stowmarket with Ipswich, and route 87 now linking Violet Hill, Combs Ford and Stowupland with Stowmarket using a clover-leaf route every hour. They indicate, and I have no reason to doubt them, that serving Stowupland cannot be done on a commercial basis, thus their decision to withdraw.

What this means is that bus passengers in the village will have to rely on an occasional service between Mendlesham and Stowmarket, or switch to the Suffolk Links demand responsive service, unless the County Council can come up with some money - not something that inspires hope given the pressure on their budget.

Given that the Suffolk Links Gipping North service covers a swathe of villages across mid-Suffolk with only one vehicle, I fear that this means increased isolation for a number of elderly, potentially vulnerable people, so one can only hope that a solution can be found, and quickly.

Editorial: thank heavens for the Parochial Church Council!

This is a cross-posting from the Creeting St Peter Journal...

What makes a village community is the people who work to make it a better place. Parish councillors, community activists, church volunteers, all of them take an interest in their village and, hopefully, help to create a lively, more inclusive, atmosphere.

St Peter's, Creeting St Peter

As a relative newcomer to the village, I have been particularly impressed by the work of the Parochial Church Council, currently led by Alice Matthewson, whose attempts to maintain the fabric of our parish church, the only community building in the village, have led them to branch out into being the commnuity social organisers. Monthly coffee mornings, frequent pub nights, concerts - there is no end to their efforts to entice the rest of us to abandon our armchairs and socialise with our neighbours.

And yes, the funds raised do go to maintain the fabric of a building which, I must confess, I don't enter often - I'm a Roman Catholic, no matter how tenuously. But even a rationalist like myself accepts and appreciates the value of maintaining one of the cornerstones of our village life - Creeting St Peter would be by far a worse place without a church to call its own.

However, what might have started out of necessity has blossomed into something which makes me proud to be a resident of our village, as the enthusiasm with which the myriad volunteers organise the events, and welcome us to share them, acts as an example to us all.

So, thank you to Alice and the team, and may there be many more opportunities to say so...

George, debt, the deficit and despair...

I'm a mathematician by training. I respect numbers. And when I hear intelligent people confuse 'deficit' and 'debt', I shudder a little inwardly. I find myself thinking, "Perhaps that's why so many apparently well-off people struggle with their personal finances?". But when I see politicians, people who want to run the country, make the same mistake, in writing, I am even more troubled. Stumbling over the words 'debt' and deficit' when speaking happens - I get that.

This afternoon, my Twitter feed included this;

.@George_Osborne is in cloud cuckoo land. He's talking about a surplus when the deficit has increase on his watch! #clueless #cpc13
— Deborah Sacks (@deborahsacks) September 30, 2013

Deborah, or Debbie, as I called her when we were at university together, was a friend, and I follow her out of a vague sense of interest in how she's got on. She was bright, a Labour activist but not a tribal one, and was the lucky beneficiary of one of my more distracted moments as a Returning Officer - it's a long story but revolves around the fact that I calculated an STV surplus transfer incorrectly. Now, she's the Labour PPC for South Norfolk, one of neighbouring constituencies.

I politely pointed out that the debt has increased, whereas the deficit has fallen year-on-year, and studiously didn't point out that calling someone clueless whilst making such a glaring error oneself is hardly confidence inspiring. I also suggested that balancing the books had some merit, inspiring the reply;

.@honladymark Quite agree balancing the books "has merit". Just sounds a bit silly coming from a man who is failing so completely to do it!
— Deborah Sacks (@deborahsacks) September 30, 2013

I have to admit that I'm quite pleased that he hasn't succeeded yet, as the cuts introduced so far would have been a mere aperitif compared to what we've seen so far. However, being an inquisitive soul, I asked how she would balance the books - how much more tax, how many more cuts?...

@honladymark No it's about building a strong economy with more people working and paying tax. Not cutting the public sector out of ideology.
— Deborah Sacks (@deborahsacks) September 30, 2013

It's just a slogan, as opposed to some actual ideas, the sort of oppositionism for its own sake that gives politicians a bad name, and it makes me just a little more depressed about the future of this country than I might already have been.

There is a legitimate debate to be had in this country about the role of government, what sort of society we live in and how to finance those activities that would go towards building it. But if our politicians are going to regurgitate clever soundbites written by others, rather than express their own thoughts, and we, the public, are going to eschew the notion of gathering data and making an objective choice based on that data, we get the body politic we deserve.

It increasingly seems that, in the search for the illusive swing voters in the key seats, the spin doctors have forgotten why most people go into politics in the first place. It isn't to be 'on message', it is to change things for the better. Regardless of political philosophy, most people in the political sphere want to do that. The machine politics drives that individuality out of too many people, making them just another grey voice in a grey, sensible suit.

It's not for me, I'm afraid...

@MidSuffolk District Council - really that useless?

Ros approaches with a piece of paper.

"I thought that we'd paid this already.", she says, slightly irritated.

"What is it?", I ask, puzzled.

"The Garden Waste Collection Scheme renewal.", she replies, waving two pieces of paper, one of which bears a hand written note in my writing, indicating that it was paid in mid-August.

I stare at it, slightly perplexed. I then check our bank accounts, confirming that no such payment has left our bank accounts. I prepare to go back to their Customer Service Direct website to pay it again, but something tells me to check. There'll be an e-mail confirmation of the transaction, won't there?

I check my back e-mail and there, in my unfiled old e-mail folder, is an e-mail from them, confirming that, yes, I did attempt to pay, and yes, they would be processing it. How long does it take to process a payment? Is a week reasonable, or a fortnight? Perhaps, but forty-six days (and counting)?...

So, I have written a slightly annoyed e-mail to them, with a copy to my invisible District Councillor. Let's see how long it takes them to respond...

Cuba: the scenic route to a market economy

A few months ago, I noted how Cuba has opened up its economy to capitalism in an unusual way, starting from the bottom by allowing individuals to operate effectively as sole traders.

France 24 reports that another step has been taken on that road this week, allowing individuals to sell agricultural produce, act as telecommunications salespeople or sell real estate (property, it seems, is not necessarily theft...), amongst eighteen professions now made legal for individuals to take up.

Raul Castro - bringing capitalism for the masses?

One of the things that I noted on my trip to Cuba in February was that there appeared to be a lot of agricultural land unworked, the reason being that the lack of fertilisers made it harder to work it effectively, especially without any personal incentive. And perhaps, if a profit motive is introduced, it might encourage people to start to grow some of the foodstuffs that Cuban consumers want.

It also potentially offers an alternative for other Caribbean nations. Anyone who visits a resort in the region will note that much of the foodstuff, even the most basic items, are shipped in, often from the United States. If Cuba were to become a breadbasket for its neighbours, it might mean that the drain of profits to developed nations might be reduced somewhat, and I believe that the potential is there.

So, good luck to the Cuban people, whose government might have found a socialist route to capitalism, albeit perhaps through necessity...

* hat-tip to Andrew Emmerson for bringing this to my attention

Published Elsewhere - Film Review: InRealLives

This post was published earlier today on Liberal Democrat Voice...

Released this week, InRealLives takes a look at how the internet has impacted upon the way we live our lives, and flags up some issues that should cause us to reflect upon questions of privacy, personal relationships and sexuality.

Director Beeban Kidron might be best known for "Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit" and "Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason", but here she delves into the lives of five young people as they talk variously about their use of pornography and its effect on their ability to connect emotionally, addiction to social media and computer gaming, cyber bullying and building relationships online.

Woven around these individual stories is an examination of where data is kept, how much of what we do is recorded, and the question asked is, do we have real privacy any more?

Kidron carries out the interviews off camera, allowing you to focus your whole attention on the interviewee, in their own homes, and asks the sort of questions that generate some thoughtful, and thought-provoking, answers. In doing so, she provides an insight into the impact of the internet on the next generation - just what are they doing with their smartphones all day?

The film addresses some difficult issues but also offers some optimism - I challenge anyone not to feel for Tom as he comes out on line and forms a relationship with Daniel.

All in all, this is a film for parents and grandparents who might learn why social media is so huge, and for young adults who might not entirely appreciate the loss of privacy that might ensue. Unfortunately, its 15 certificate does mean that some of those who might benefit from seeing it won't be able to do so, but nonetheless, it achieves its aim of challenging the way we see the online world with humour, honesty and integrity.

InRealLives was released on 20 September, and is produced by Dogwoof Productions.

Like Frankenstein's monster*, my village blog lurches back into life...

In 2011, I put my village blog to bed. Frankly, the hassle that I was getting from certain elements within the Parish Council meant that it just wasn't worth it. I had intended it as a means of covering village life and, almost as much as anything else, as a means of recording events - a shared diary if one will. And, if it was of use to anyone, that was all the better.

It has now dawned on me, however, that as I'm no longer a parish councillor, and therefore not covered by the somewhat absurd 'social media policy' for councillors (shorthand for "Mark, please stop writing about this"), I could resurrect it. So, I have. Think of it as a means to cover local events, debate issues of interest to the local community and to provide an insight for those of you who live in a more urban setting as to what life in a small village is like.

Yes, there will be references to the mobile library service, but I might actually do some 'proper' journalism from time to time. And with planning applications, a solar farm, issues about public transport and the never-ending entertainment that is the Parish Council, I'm sure that I can keep it ticking over.

* Many thanks to Jennie for noting that it was Frankenstein's monster who lurched, not Dr Frankenstein himself...

In praise of... the Abbeygate Picturehouse, Bury St Edmunds

I may have remarked in the past about the difference between the cultural life of Suffolk and that of London, where I lived for so many years. In order to have one here, I have to be more organised, more disciplined, if you will, as there obviously isn't the range of opportunities so taken for granted in a big city. Luckily, as my sense of organisation or discipline is not ideal, Ros tends to step into the breach from time to time.

And so, this morning, we set off from Needham Market by train for Bury St Edmunds, to see the new release from Beeban Kidron, "InRealLives", a documentary about the internet, its effects on young people and the loss of privacy that impacts upon all of us. I'll deal with the film later though...

I'd not been to the Picturehouse before, and was surprised to find it almost lurking behind a rather attractive cafe-restaurant. We obtained our tickets from the bar, and went upstairs to what turned out to be almost a screening room rather than a 'real' cinema, seating about seventy, with plush chairs with drink holders and, between some seats, a small shelf for popcorn and the like. Establishing that, yes, you can bring beer into the cinema, I popped out for a pint of the old Cannon Brewery's Best Bitter for me, plus some sweet popcorn, before settling into my seat for the entertainment to come.

Film over, I headed downstairs to discover that the restaurant was still open, allowing us to have a late lunch and still make our train home. The sharing platter was very good, although my eye was drawn to their Sunday brunch offer of Eggs Benedict (in various styles), or open omelettes plus a ticket for the first movie showing for £13.50 (20% off for members). They even have 'build your own' burgers, with a range of carnivore (plus one vegetarian) options.

Ros and I were both impressed, and I suspect that we might be back from time to time...

Editorial: are the lights going to stay on?

This is a cross-posting from the Creeting St Peter Journal...

Last night's power cuts are a reminder as to just how dependent we are on utilities that we generally take for granted. The village's nine street lights fall into that category too, and yet their long-term future is in some doubt.

The impact of higher energy costs, combined with the relatively low efficiency of the elderly equipment, hurts the Council budget. Worse still, EU regulations on light bulbs make the required bulbs obsolete, and hard to obtain. But, more importantly, the equipment is the property of the Parish Council, meaning that the County Council has no obligation to act.

A while ago, a paper was submitted to Parish Council which raised the question of turning the lights off between midnight and 5 a.m., as is already the case across most of the county. By purchasing meters, significant savings could be achieved, and the cost of the meters recouped over a period of less than four years. Parish Council was not convinced, however, and it was decided to leave things as they were.

The subsequent electricity bill did generate a discussion on whether or not to turn off the lights altogether, but nothing came of it.

Replacing the street lights with new LED versions - hugely reduced running costs, twenty-five year guarantee, reduced light pollution - will cost about £650 per light, so what is the Parish Council going to do?

Here at the Creeting St Peter Journal, I'll be keeping an eye open when Council meets to discuss its budget for 2014/15, to see if there is a plan, either to raise the capital needed to replace the lights, or to invest in new meters which will at least buy time.

I acknowledge that, whatever happens, there will be cost implications, either in terms of an increased precept or lost services/facilities. But surely, it's better to have a plan than to cross your fingers and hope for luck...

Nuclear weapons: why I might vote for an amendment that I don't agree with

Nuclear weapons? What are they good for?...

I am a relative defence hawk. Many years ago, I proposed a motion at a Young Liberal Council meeting which called for major improvements in defence procurement thus allowing the resultant savings to be spent on... more weapons. I am not a tree-hugging, cheese-eating surrender monkey. Well, I am cheese-eating, even though it is bad for my diet.

So, naturally, I'll be supporting the motion currently being proposed by my former colleague in the East of England, Julie Smith, won't I? It is, I admit, wholly reasonable, and addresses two of my concerns - support for veterans, improved procurement. But it does leave an enormous, pointy elephant - our nuclear deterrent.

You see, my viewpoint hasn't fundamentally changed. I believe that the United Kingdom should seek value in its spending, and that nuclear weapons are the very worst means of addressing the threats that we face - terrorism, cyber or physical, climate change, competition for resources. They make no meaningful contribution to our diplomatic effort.

So, I'm not minded to support the retention of a nuclear deterrent.

I am, however, minded to invest in properly equipping our armed forces, to establish them at a level that allows us to fulfil our international commitments, contribute to UN peacekeeping, and support those countries suffering from natural and other disasters. I also believe that our international aid programme acts as an adjunct to our defence strategy, addressing potential failed states and causes of support for terrorism across the globe.

The amendment allows me to trash our nuclear deterrent, but it does not actually commit to doing what I believe is necessary, and I suspect that the movers are merely making the 'right noises' in order to win over enough waverers to ensure success.

So, I agree with what the movers want initially, but not necessarily with their version of the future.

What am I to do?

It looks to me that I should vote for the amendment, and then vote down the amended motion. It is a gesture, possibly a futile one, but it expresses a view of a strong nation playing its part in maintaining our collective security.

I can't imaginably be on the winning side here, but I can at least be true to my beliefs...

What if I want a Stronger Society in a Fairer Economy?

The Conference slogan, "Stronger Economy, Fairer Society" is the on-message mantra of choice for the go-getting Liberal Democrat this week. Luckily, I'm not go-getting any more - was I ever? - so don't have to be quite so faithful to the 'line'.

I think that it was Simon Hoggett who suggested that you should reverse a slogan to measure its worth...

"Weaker Economy, More Unfair Society"

No, doesn't really appeal, does it?

But, whilst I gently poke fun at my Party, there is a point, indeed points, to be made.

I find myself wondering what a stronger economy looks like. Bigger GDP? Greater growth? In a world where emerging economies demand greater equity, wouldn't a sustainable economy be a stronger one? Might not sustainable levels of public spending make for a stronger, more resilient economy?

And as for a fairer society - and I must declare my sense of frustration over the casual abuse of the word 'fairer' - what does that mean and towards whom is it directed? Is taking a position supported by the majority 'fair'? And if so, what does that mean for minority members of our community?

A fairer economy (and that's still the sort of bastard phrase that might appeal to any weasel in a storm) might ensure that people are rewarded on the basis of genuine risk-taking and/or effort, might redistribute on the basis of genuine need. It might, whisper it quietly, punish the malevolent, the feckless and the corrupt.

A stronger society might, for example, engender greater personal involvement in one's community, encourage pride in that community, celebrate the achievements of its members. It implies a tangible change in the way we interact as individuals and within our wider community.

However, the people who write our slogans don't consult me, and they may possibly be a wee bit more qualified than I am, so...

The Financial Transaction Tax standing on platform 4 is delayed, due to a technical fault...

The news that the main legal advisors to EU finance ministers have concluded that the Commission's plan for a financial transaction tax infringes EU treaties is a blow for those who feel that it offered a relatively painless means to balance state budgets, whilst providing a disincentive against short-termism in the financial markets.

And it's been a good week for those who doubt the wisdom of EU intervention in the financial sector (I'm pretty certain that George Osborne is delighted).

The Advocate-General to the European Court of Justice has indicated agreement with the United Kingdom's position that the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) should be stripped of its power to ban short selling in emergencies, and it is apparent, according to the Financial Times, that Brussels will abandon any thoughts of handing direct oversight of Libor to ESMA.

I think, on the whole, that this is for the best, as it demonstrates that building alliances and using the existing framework and treaties can be effective, something that the British public need to know. It also strengthens the hand of pro-European Conservatives in arguing that an exit is not in Britain's interests.

However, it does mean that it is the task of the Coalition Government to develop a regulatory framework for our financial sector which protects the state, supports innovation and rewards sustainable practices. I have a funny feeling that, politically at least, George may yet wish that he'd left it to Europe...

'Bedroom Tax' - a good concept ruined by rotten politics

Whilst admiring the chutzpah of Michael Green Grant Shapps criticising a United Nations official for an inaccurate report, there is a danger of losing sight of the fact that Raquel Rolnik appears to make some interesting points in her report. And, regardless of your stance on whether or not it is appropriate for the UN to be examining a matter of internal state policy, it is intriguing to see what others make of our national choices.

For, even amongst my fellow Liberal Democrats, the idea that those in social housing should be charged a premium for occupying a property larger than their needs might indicate is a difficult one. So, when I admit to appreciating the concept, I do have an obligation to explain why.

I observe the long waiting lists for social housing with increasing despair. Families and individuals who lack stability in their lives tend do experience worse outcomes than the rest of us, bringing costs both in terms of personal loss and the implied need for intervention by state agencies. The most obvious, and rather attractive, option is to build more social housing, but when one sees the passion with which people, Liberal Democrats included, oppose the reality of major homebuilding, that begins to look like a long-term game plan, rather than a quick win.

An easier short term contribution is to make better use of the available housing stock. And that, for me, is where the concept of sticks and carrots comes in.

It strikes me as reasonable if, where someone is occupying a property larger than they need, that they pay a premium. However, they should have a real opportunity to downsize and not be punished because there isn't one. For that is where the current regime goes wrong.  The long-term failure to build sufficient housing, be it public or private, has created huge shortages of smaller properties, especially in villages like mine. Accordingly, there is no real choice, and the levy is, effectively, punitive.

I don't believe that people should be punished for having to rely on social housing. Indeed, I would have no fundamental objection to seeing opportunities to take up social housing be extended to a far broader range of potential tenants - it would create a better social mix and address the crisis brought about by the emerging ghettos of low achievement and aspiration that so concerned Caroline Flint when she was Housing Minister.

It's something that Liberal Democrats could, and should, lead on...

Travelling in style, Belgian style

I do like a good tram, and Brussels is an excellent place to find one.

Here's a shot of the interior of one of the new pre-Metro trams, which I took the opportunity to ride this afternoon. What it demonstrates is that you can build a public service vehicle which is efficient and stylish.

Compare and contrast with my friends at Greater Anglia, who continue to struggle with aged, decrepit rolling stock and poor infrastructure.

Depressing, really...

A slight detour on the road to Utopia...

I have, it might appear, taken a rather wrong turning en route to Glasgow. The beer is trappist, the time zone one ahead, although there may be more Liberal Democrats within a five mile radius than might be the case in my beloved Creeting St Peter.

I do have a good reason to be in Brussels though, in that I'm here to lend my intellectual weight to the Financial Advisory Committee of ALDE, Europe's liberal umbrella party. I've read my papers, submitted my thoughts on the ethics of political fundraising, mulled over accounts (I knew that the bookkeeping course would come in handy!) and puzzled over possible membership fee structures, so I'm ready to go.

There is a side benefit, in that I am obliged to spend an evening here, which means that I must eat good food and drink even better beer. Don't worry though, gentle reader, as I am bearing my heavy burden with as much equanimity as I can muster. Hell, there are people far worse off...

It does mean that I have to travel directly to Glasgow tomorrow afternoon, but the time zone change is in my favour.

But for the time being, I must leave you. My Rochefort 8 is calling, the sun has come out, and the busker across the square is surprisingly good...

Remind me about this Twitter thing again...

As the Liberal Democrat Voice Awards ceremony draws rapidly closer, my mind is drawn to the question of what makes an effective user of Twitter.

Now I've had a Twitter account for a while, which I use to broadcast my increasingly infrequent blog postings and, from time to time, respond to something on my timeline that intrigues me. Mostly, I use it to receive information from organisations that I interact with (local council, Greater Anglia, the Party, local Liberal Democrats) and things I have an interest in. But I'm not what you'd call terribly active.

My life is not especially interesting, my opinions neither radical or unique, and I find it difficult to exchange views in 140 characters or less - I find soundbites to be a bit unsatisfying. I don't do public displays of passion, nor am I prone to extremes - life is too complex for that.

So, can I use Twitter more effectively? Can I, for example, entertain? Educate?

* wanders off to reflect *

More adventures in moderation...

And so I'm the new Readers' Editor for Liberal Democrat Voice, a fine body of men and women - an interesting challenge indeed, and one that may, or may not, keep me busy.

What has become immediately obvious is the dilemma of balancing the desires of those who lean towards freedom against those who lean towards community. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, in that there is a 'sweet spot' around which most can coalesce. The catch? The people who are most removed from that sweet spot are often the most challenging towards that consensus.

They aren't necessarily difficult, although they can be, and they can be the catalyst for improvements in the way things are done, if they are constructive in their criticism. Admittedly, the less constructive actions can also inspire change, not always of the type intended by the indivdual concerned...

I'm looking at the way Liberal Democrat Voice handles such knotty issues and it strikes me that there are three things to be balanced;

1. How to manage the site so as to ensure that the volunteer team enjoy running it - there's no point in taking the pleasure out of it or you risk not having a site at all.

2. Transparency - people need to know where the red lines are, and should have a broad degree of confidence that they will be consistently applied.

3. Inclusivity - people should be able to feel that they will be treated with respect by other participants.

So, how might that work?

That, I suspect, is the catch. Yes, I have some thoughts on the subject, but they aren't fully formed or, for that matter, necessarily the best. Therefore, I'm going to address the problem in bits, inviting our readers to give me the benefit of their thoughts and expertise, and then talk the results out with the team.

I'm just stepping outside. I may be gone some time...

Dave, Nick and Ed - thanks for nothing!

I am, I suppose, a bit of a liberal interventionist. I believe in a model whereby the international community defines certain behaviours as unacceptable, agrees on a range of possible sanctions, and then enforces them based on principles of evidence, justice and international law.

It's the word 'enforce' that presents us with the tricky bit. Enforcement means action, because unless you actually demonstrate that you really mean it, those minded to break the rules are encouraged to believe that they might well get away with it.

Last night, the Government showed poor judgment in calling a fairly meaningless, and probably unnecessary, vote on potential future action against Syria, a motion which positively invited a 'political' Opposition amendment, and was then lost to a coalition of the Labour Party, government rebels and minor parties.

In doing so, Parliament has effectively, although perhaps accidentally, turned its back on the cause of liberal interventionism in the case of Syria.

Oh yes, we've hardly been consistent in our approach. We only tend to engage with the approval of the US, but someone has to lead, and big countries with sufficient military capacity are required to demonstrate the existence of a big stick.

But, as a liberal, albeit perhaps an old-fashioned one, it's no good talking about the rights of man if, when push comes to shove, you only mean it when it's easy or convenient.

So, perhaps now would be a good time to take stock of our place in the world, and our obligations towards it?

Syria: an opportunity lost, an opportunity gained?

Parliament has spoken. And whilst it isn't entirely clear that what it appears to have said is actually what it meant to say, there are some serious questions that follow on from the outcome of last night's defeat for the Government.

Is the 1925 Geneva Protocol a dead letter, if nobody is willing to enforce it?

Written during the time of the ill-fated League of Nations, the Protocol outlawed first use of chemical weapons, and is still being ratified in various places - Syria ratified it in 1968, Moldova in 2010. It was widely accepted as applying to use anywhere, including domestically, although some signatories weren't entirely happy to share that view.

The Protocol was written in a simpler time, when technology limitations meant that access to chemicals was restricted, the means of delivery were few, and pretty obvious, and the idea of using such weapons against your own citizens was almost unthinkable. Besides, they weren't very accurate, being vulnerable to wind shifts and the like.

The world is a much more complex place now, and delivery of chemical weapons much simpler, so the idea that only sovereign nations might use them is a flawed one. That has implications for enforcement, and I'm not convinced that existing international bodies are best suited to dealing with the new environment.

So, if it is to be assumed that last night's vote rules out British involvement in Syria in the near term, does this mean that we have effectively chosen not to enforce the Protocol?

I hope not. But perhaps if the United Kingdom finds itself in a position to bring the UN Security Council together to address the question of treaty enforcement in an era where sovereign states are not the only players, this may be an opportunity gained, rather than one lost.

Of spurdogs and the Common Fisheries Policy

One thing about following Ros about the place is that it can be surprisingly educational. On previous outings, I've discovered what makes a successful in-house waste disposal and recycling programme (Teignbridge), what colour plants you should use in a care home for Alzheimer's patients (red and yellow) and at what point a modern pharmaceutical plant becomes profitable (10% of capacity, if it's in Pune, India). Last Friday saw another of those trips.

In Ros's new role as Chair of a sub-committee of the EU Select Committee, she is heading up an enquiry into the new Common Fisheries Policy, and I wondered out loud as to whether or not meeting some fishermen might not be interesting and informative. After all, Lowestoft isn't that far from home, and I'd never been. Ros agreed, and a meeting with the Lowestoft Fish Producers' Organisation was arranged.

The sun was shining as we headed for the coast, and we arrived in good time to meet the Chief Executive and the Chair at their office, filled with pictures of trawlers and of the port in its heyday. Then, the dock was crammed tight with fishing smacks, and fresh fish was distributed far and wide from the railway depot across the street. Now, sadly, there are just a dozen or so trawlers using Lowestoft as a base.

A number of local fishermen had come to meet Ros, who was keen to talk to them about the impact of the proposed discard ban. The more we talked, the more it became apparent that the mechanics of combining a discard ban with quotas are potentially very difficult, and that for smaller vessels, matters could be very tricky indeed. The science of fish survivability rates remains uncertain too, as factors such as technique used, water depth and air temperature all impact.

There was talk of spurdogs (spiny dogfish), which cannot be landed, but are very difficult to safely return to the sea alive, and the problems caused by bans on the catching of some types of skate but not others. It began to feel as though, in an attempt to address the problems created by huge seaborne fish processing factories, the European Union and the member states are applying an inflexible regime.

And yet, small trawlers offer relatively high levels of sustainability and low levels of discards, something to be encouraged, not buried in regulation and hedged in by unnecessary restrictions. In ensuring the survival and regeneration of fish stocks, we risk killing off an industry as a by-product.

All in all, it was a very enlightening meeting with a group of people I might never have met otherwise, on a subject I knew virtually nothing about previously. It does make me think that supporting a local industry by buying fish from local suppliers is worthwhile, and encouraging supermarkets to do the same might help. But, most of all, designing a fisheries policy towards sustainability of both fish stocks and local, small vessel, fishing fleets, might be the greatest thing of all.

CPI - another bank scandal... and five more years of texts and robocalls

Ros reminds me that, two years or so ago, she received a phone call from a financial institution that shall remain nameless, offering her protection against identity theft. At the time, she questioned its necessity and rejected their 'generous' offer.

And now, it turns out, it was fraudulent. The cover merely duplicated that already offered in the event of theft from a bank account. The expected cost of compensation? £1.5 billion.

A dozen or so banks have signed up to the proposed settlement scheme, evidence of the scale of the mis-selling. And this leads one to ask the question, "At what point are bank executives going to be held personally liable for their misconduct?".

This mis-selling scandal overlaps the PPI debacle, and it seems obvious to me that, having discovered the scale of that, a functioning management board of a major financial institution might reasonably ask the question, "Is there anything else that we're selling that is suspect?". There is, so far, no evidence that I'm aware of that says that they did.

As a start, Companies House should be considering action to bar some, or all, of those responsible from acting as directors in the future, and then we should start prosecuting people for fraud if provable.

Clearly, these people do not learn, and perhaps five years of having to compensate us every time we get a stupid robocall or annoying text from one of those leach-like 'compensation factories' might be justice for the rest of us.

Creeting St Peter: a little more on that solar farm proposal

I've not heard anything more about the solar farm proposal but, over dinner with a friend who has a renewable energy business, I took the opportunity to ask how many homes could be supplied with energy from an 10 MWp solar farm. His answer? About 3,650 households, or a county council division in these parts.

Now, of course, there are caveats, I presume - average levels of sunshine and of downtime, probably. I'm also guessing that the payment to the farmer for the rent of his land is equivalent, or more than, the expected profit that could be made from farming it, and certainly reduces the risk.

That leaves the question, does the perceived cost to the community overcome a broader need for secure supplies of energy? With the apparent crisis in energy supply looming ever larger, to what extent should local concerns trump a possible greater good?

These are difficult questions, especially for small communities, where any such debate can become potentially rather personal. We can only wait and see how it will turn out...

Is it still possible to have online debate without abuse?

I've spent the last day or so in a blizzard of moderation over at Liberal Democrat Voice for having the temerity to suggest that, rather than rush to judgement, it might be better to wait for the facts to emerge. As for the suggestion that the media might not always be unbiased or even factually accurate, and that a range of sources might help in reaching one's opinion...

And yet, in the real world, plenty of people are perfectly capable of jumping to a conclusion based on something which fits with their biases, conscious or sub-conscious. That is, I suppose, normal. After all, in our busy lives, who has time amidst work, families, housework and all those other things to find out more? We effectively trust our media to be reasonably accurate, even as we acknowledge their biases.

Except that we don't, when asked the direct question about levels of trust in journalists. Depending on which polling company is asking the question, only about 1 in 5 of us trust them. So, why is it that too many people who comment on political websites will start from the presumption that the story they have read, or use in support of their argument is true, accurate and without spin? And why are they so dogmatic about it, to the point of surprising levels of anger, aggressiveness and downright rudeness towards anyone who might have the audacity not to agree with them?

It seems to work for them, I must say. That said, whilst they tend to dominate any debate in which they participate, they appear increasingly to be talking to (shouting at?) just each other.

I also find myself bemused by the persistence of non-Liberal Democrats who seem to have remarkable amounts of free time to find Liberal Democrats to abuse. I understand that they're angry, but given their assumption that we're all morally bankrupt and operate in an ethical vacuum, what makes them think that we're suddenly going to conclude, "You know, Steve's right, I am ethically and morally loathsome, I think I'll give up any interest in society and play gin rummy and engage a seven year old to clean my chimney instead."? It seems somewhat unlikely, wouldn't you say?

I'm not under any illusion as to the popularity of liberal democracy as a political philosophy. It is, self-evidently, demonstrated by the absence of a wholly Liberal, or Liberal Democrat government since 1911, and the status quo has some pretty enthusiastic, and motivated, supporters.

I'd like to think though that, given the chance, and a fair hearing, people could lend us their support. I'm not likely to achieve that by standing on doorsteps, aggressively challenging people's integrity and morality.

So, why does the internet seem different?

The four-step approach: something to ponder over, perhaps?

According to Professor Veronica Hope-Hailey, Dean of Bath University’s School of Management, leaders need to demonstrate four key characteristics to really establish and maintain trust.

• Ability - demonstrable competence at doing your job.
• Benevolence - a concern for others beyond your own needs or motives.
• Integrity - adherence to a set of principles, such as fairness and honesty, that are acceptable to others.
• Predictability - a consistency of behaviour over time.

And, thinking about it, that seems like a pretty fair set of criteria for would-be political activists.

There is, however, a catch, in that they need to be accepted, and understood, by journalists and voters. After all, if you assume the basest of motives in all politicians, you're rather encouraging them not to adhere to them.

I can see that we're going to have a problem with this in some quarters...

Happy birthday, @BaronessRos

Yes, it is that time once again when we celebrate Ros's birthday.

Naturally, I have found an interesting and thoughtful gift to present to her, although that gets a little harder each year - we're at an age where we have most of the things that we want, and there isn't really much more room in the house. But, most of all, we have a pleasant day in the country planned, a nice dinner sitting in the refrigerator awaiting its turn in the oven, and the sun is beginning to break through.

So, happy birthday, my love...

Creeting St Peter: exactly how ugly is a solar farm anyway?

No sooner do I retire from the Parish Council fray than a front page headline appears in the Bury Free Press referring to a proposed solar farm on the south east edge of the parish. Apparently, an open house meeting had been held in the village to allow residents to find out more, but residents living near the proposed site were interviewed by the newspaper, voicing their concerns. And, according to the representative of those behind the project;

On Thursday July 25, MS Power Projects met with members of the local community and delegates from both Creeting St Peter and Creeting St Mary Parish Councils at a public exhibition. All the members of the local community and delegates of the respective councils were invited to attend the public exhibition, which was held at the Church Hall in Creeting St Peter.

This was, I admit, news to me, so I did a little research. There was some information on the Creeting St Mary parish website, with a helpful and quite interesting FAQ, but nothing on the Creeting St Peter site. The company behind the proposal, MS Power, on the other hand, has remarkably little information on its website, but appears to be credible enough.

The proposal itself provides an interesting dilemma. There is no doubt that our dependence on fossil fuels is a threat to our energy security as a nation, and sustainable renewable energy offers a means towards ensuring that we can generate our own power in the future. And when there are suggestions that capacity may be overtaken by demand within just two years, a project that could be up and running relatively quickly would appear to be a good thing.

There is, of course, an immediate impact on those people who live within close proximity of the proposed site, and I am sympathetic, to some extent. The views in this part of Suffolk, whilst not spectacular, are quite pleasant, whereas a solar farm, with two metre security fencing around it, might not be so attractive.

So, some obvious pros and cons to be considered. Fortunately, they'll be considered by someone else...

Parish Councils: not necessarily a place for this political activist

It has been four years since I was first co-opted onto Creeting St Peter Parish Council, and I have since survived an election. Throughout that period I have consistently used this blog to fret about issues of financial control, accountability and communication, mostly without any sense that I can actually do anything to improve matters. And I have come to the realisation that this isn't working as I had hoped it might.

Like many small, rural, parish councils, mine is non-party political and, in truth, non-political in any sense that I recognise. In some ways, that presents no problem as most of our duties are obligatory ones - the grass must be cut, the street lights lit, that sort of thing. It isn't very exciting, but then the life of most elected officials isn't exactly glamorous.

However, there is the question of how a council operates, how it communicates and how it is accountable. This, to my mind, indicates the expression of an underlying philosophy about how a representative democracy works. And this, for anyone with a political philosophy, offers an interesting challenge.

As a liberal, I believe that I should be able to express my personal stance on any salient issue in my capacity as a councillor, respectful of the will of Council and of the decision of the majority. After all, every four years, I will be up for re-election and, potentially may have to compete to retain my seat. My electors have a right to know what I have done and why, should they be interested enough. That isn't a view that some elements of Parish Council are comfortable with, and they have made that abundantly clear, as is their right.

As a seasoned committee hand, I strongly believe that advance notice of council business makes us more efficient. It isn't mandatory that an individual councillor read their papers, but that by doing so, meetings can be more efficient and decisions made with the benefit of reflection. Again, that isn't to say that they will be, but it certainly can't hurt. The idea that I can turn up at a meeting, be presented with a list of cheques to be signed without any meaningful context in terms of in-year spending does leave me a bit nervous.

I do also believe in communicating with those who fund the activities of the Council. Our website states that meetings take place on the second Tuesday of every other month, except that they mostly don't, and no notice is given of them other than a notice on the Parish noticeboard. Given that 25% of the households in the Parish don't live in the village, and mostly have no reason to enter it, they are effectively excluded. Meetings are not announced on the Facebook page, the Twitter feed, or on the website. I am actively discouraged from distributing newsletters that are not official publications of the Parish Council, even if it is clearly stated that they are issued by me in my personal capacity.

In other words, Creeting St Peter Parish Council is not a place for someone with a philosophical world view like mine. That isn't to say that my colleagues are wrong, or stupid, or any other pejorative you might think of. We just don't agree and, as a democrat, I respect that.

So, what do I do? Do I continue in post, simply occupying the position rather than carrying out my duties and obligations as I perceive them, or continue to try to improve the way that the Council functions? I'm not minded towards the former, as it feels wrong to do so, and I'm weary of trying the latter. And 2015, when the next elections take place, is a long way away.

Life is, I've always felt, too short to be spent being even mildly frustrated, especially when there are plenty of other things to occupy my time that bring me satisfaction, or entertainment, or both. And so, earlier today, I tendered my resignation as a parish councillor. As a result, how replacement street lights are funded, or how the budget is balanced, or the minutiae of planning applications that Mid Suffolk's planning department will never enforce anyway are no longer my active problem, unless I should choose to take a casual interest. What I won't know won't annoy me.

Now, where are those barbecue tongs?...