Local Government finance: it seems that I may have been right all along...

It would be fair to say that I am a fiscally cautious soul. I've loathe to borrow in order to fund expenditure, I believe in balancing the books as far as possible, although I do endorse the notion of investing to save. And as a Parish councillor, I am not bound by legislative restrictions on precept increases, unlike principal authorities.

As a result, most town and parish councils are in modestly good financial shape. The same cannot be said for our principal authority counterparts, many of whom are showing increasing signs of financial stress.

Here in Suffolk, our County Council is looking to make £64.7 million worth of savings over the next two years, and has borne the brunt of increases in costs of children's services and social care. And that has meant something of a slash and burn across the non-statutory services - funding for the arts and culture will be reducing to nil in 2024/25, for example. It hasn't been popular, to say the least.

I am sympathetic... to an extent. The Council is where it is, and to continue spending as it had would be catastrophic in pretty short order. Hard choices have to be made.

However, the Suffolk Conservatives brought this upon themselves with their rather fanatical devotion to freezing council tax under the leadership of the likes of Colin Noble - they didn't increase council tax at all between 2010/11 and 2015/16. By doing so, rather than essaying modest increases in council tax charges year on year, they effectively denied themselves income in each successive years by increasing amounts and, with the Government's cap on council tax increases squeezing increasingly tightly thereafter, it was inevitable that the financial settlement would get more and more uncomfortable.

There were those of us who warned of that at the time but we weren't heeded - the desire for electoral success trumps financial reality most of the time.

And Suffolk is far from the worst affected authority. Counties didn't get involved in commercial property for the most part, and the series of calamitous failures that have dotted the past two years or so tend to feature Boroughs, Districts and big city Metropolitans, but they're now sending up distress signals ever more frequently.

There's no obvious signal that the Government is going to appear over the horizon like the Seventh Cavalry, and an incoming Labour administration may have plenty of other calls upon the resources it can muster. Which means, I fear, that life in our communities will become that much more basic, and councillors will be reduced, effectively, to delivering services specified by Central Government. So much for local democracy.

There is a small (very small) consolation, in that some of the slack may be taken up by Town and Parish Councils. And we've seen recently some of the fruits of that, with nineteen Local Councils successfully bidding for grants under the Community Ownership Fund - the first time that they've been able to do so. That had to be actively sought through the lobbying efforts of the National Association of Local Councils, something that Ros played a leading role in as part of her role as its Honorary President.

But, regardless of what happens this year, an incoming administration needs to think seriously about giving local authorities the freedom to make their own choices, to raise funds according to their needs and to encourage them to innovate, rather than apply centralised shackles. And whilst I'm not convinced that the control-freakery tendency within the Labour Party will want to relinquish that power, I would suggest that, if they want much local democracy to survive, it is a road they need to travel.

The first (of many) evenings about Ipswich

1780 map of Ipswich, credited to
http://www.ipswich-lettering.co.uk/map1780.html

When Ros suggested that we might join the Ipswich Institute, and take a course on the history of Ipswich, I was, I admit, slightly sceptical. But I was persuaded and, this evening, the first part of the course, on Saxon and early medieval Ipswich, took place, led by the former head of the County's Archaeology Unit, Keith Wade.

I'm not a historian, although I do have an interest in history, and I was somewhat surprised to be told that there wasn't much documentary evidence if Ipswich prior to the seventh century, but I presume that there wasn't much documentary evidence of many places where the Romans weren't until they became properly established.

But it is clear that Ipswich was an important place in the pre-Norman period, as both a point of entry for East Anglia and as a community. And, unusually, Ipswich is pretty much where it has always been, with a modern town plan heavily influenced by developments prior to the Norman Conquest.

As a relative latecomer to Suffolk, most of what I know about the county and its history is what I've picked up as I've gone along - the wool trade of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the fishing industry of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, for example - so there was clearly a lot to learn about our county town.

Keith took us through the development (or, in some cases, the regression) of the town through the Saxon and Norman periods, noting that Ipswich had suffered from Viking predations and then, after William the Conqueror came, from royal vengeance in 1075. He also told of how Ipswich's influence in the region declined as other centres (Norwich and Thetford) emerged as competitors.

And, now that we live in the heart of the town, the logic of the street layout makes perfect sense - why streets run as they do, why key thoroughfares are where they are. What did surprise me was that Ipswich developed on both banks of what was a very wide river, far wider than the current River Orwell, as that seems quite unusual based on my experiences of European geography. Keith suggested that the Orwell may have been bridged more than 1200 years ago which seems remarkable to me, albeit logical.

All in all, it was a fascinating two hours or so, and if the other ten weeks are as interesting, I'm going to be much better informed about the place I now call home. Next week, we look at churches, something that Suffolk is famous for...

A very interesting question indeed...

In preparing the Liberal Democrat Voice preview of the week ahead in the Lords, I had noticed an intriguing question from one of the new Labour Peers, Lord Sahota, on the question of tax return processing. Intriguing, because it isn't that often that the Lords addresses the management and effectiveness of HM Revenue & Customs. And, given that I didn't even know if there was a Treasury Minister in the Lords, I was also curious to see who would have to get up and defend us on behalf of the Government.

The answers turned out to be:

• criticism of HMRC's handling of telephone calls

• Baroness Vere of Norbiton

In fairness, the decision to direct as many callers as possible to HMRC's digital offering has been the subject of much criticism, especially at what is the busiest time of year for Self Assessment tax return completion. That said, we do allow a relatively generous amount of time for returns to be completed and submitted (nearly ten months compared to, for example, three and a half months in the United States) and, whilst human nature tends to leave unpleasant tasks to the last minute, most people have the information needed to complete their returns by mid-summer. And yes, I've been guilty of leaving it until late in the past too.

There was the usual cheap jibe at civil servants working at home (yes, Patrick McLoughlin, I did notice...), but I have to say that my personal experience was of being flat out on calls and hanging on to clear the backlog after regular working hours. And I can testify to Charlotte Vere's reply that contact centre staff are keenly monitored to ensure that their performance meets the targets set, regardless of whether they're working from the office or their home.

Whilst Lord Sahota referred to staffing numbers - dramatically understating them by claiming that there are 19,000 staff when there are, as of November, 66,256 - nobody seemed to conclude that, perhaps, there might not be enough staff to do what Ministers require of HMRC.

That's a question that's above my paygrade (in every sense) but, as in so much public administration, if you will the ends, you must furnish the means.

But it was brave of Charlotte Vere to admit that she had personally had to call HMRC earlier this week, and that she had waited about twenty minutes for her call to be answered. Most people wouldn't be terribly pleased to wait that long, although it seems to be increasingly standard for private companies too - don't start me about banks, airlines and furniture companies.

I'll be intrigued to see if there is any follow up as a result of the brief debate, but I'm not expecting much, based on experience...

Twitter, or X, and why I'm planning on hanging around for a while yet...

I've watched as a number of my friends and colleagues have given up on Elon Musk's train wreck. And there's no doubt that, for a variety of reasons, it isn't the site it was.

The quality of the advertisements - mostly for unknown companies selling things that I don't want or, occasionally, for scantily clad women - has certainly fallen off, and whilst blocking them gives me a certain degree of grim satisfaction, it is a bit of a nuisance. And the "For you" option seems to specialise in vaguely annoying people who paid for their blue tick status, thus demonstrating that they almost certainly wouldn't have earned it on merit.

I can see why some would find that sufficiently annoying to just throw their hands in the air and walk away. I certainly wouldn't be critical of anyone looking for a new "home".

It perhaps helps that I don't tend to follow anyone who is trying really hard to be edgy. I do follow my friends and acquaintances, and I'm happy to discard those if they become annoying rather than fun, but I've always tended to use it as a means of steering information towards me from sources that I'm interested in, or are useful for my various roles and interests.

That means that the feeds I follow are local government based - partly because of my roles as a Parish Councillor and with the National Association of Local Councillors - or sports based (I follow a range of mostly unsuccessful sports teams) so that I can keep up with their progress (or lack of it) without having to go to a website. I also follow a bunch of Liberal Democrats and a small, highly curated range of politicians from other parties.

What that means is that my "following feed" isn't anywhere near as annoying as the rest of X. That certainly helps to persuade me that it's worth sticking around. Not worth enough for me to pay Elon anything, you understand, but enough to stay, at least whilst the medium exists in a functional form.

But that, I fear, might not be true for very long at the rate things are going...

My e-mail from the Conservatives cometh...

Mark,

We have halved inflation. Reduced our debt. And now, we are able to focus on the long-term decisions to strengthen our economy.

We will CUT TAXES for 27 million working people, helping people keep more of their money. We are doing this by cutting the main rate of National Insurance Contributions (NICs) from 12% to 10%. For the average worker earning £35,000 a year, that means a £450 tax cut.

That means we can now CUT TAX for 27 million people. Rewarding hard work. With the largest ever NI tax cut.

Yes, I got my e-mail from the Conservatives - it took about sixteen hours but it did come. Do they have a bank of people in Bangladesh or somewhere hand typing them - that would be the sort of inefficient operation that they seem to be specialising in at the moment?

But nonetheless, it came. Such a pity that it contains so many inaccuracies...

Firstly, whilst the deficit may have been reduced, there is still a significant deficit, so debt continues to increase. You might argue that it has stopped increasing as a percentage of GDP, but that's a technical argument which hardly reflects what the ordinary voter will think.

Secondly, most of the long-term decisions being taken appear to be designed solely to box in an incoming Labour administration rather than to build a stronger economy going forward.

But the sheer gall of claiming that you've cut taxes when you've frozen personal allowances for the next five years, bringing more people into income tax, more people into the 40% rate band and more into the 45% rate band, really does take some beating.

By raising tax on some of the poorest working people, rowing back on what was a Liberal Democrat policy to take the poorest out of income tax - and what is so clever about taking money from people with one hand and giving back to them with the other, anyway? - and then gaslighting them in such an obvious manner, they deserve some comeback.

And when people get their April payslips and discover that, rather than getting lots more money, they see very little difference or, more likely, a decrease, they might decide that punishing those who mislead them is a good idea.

So I won't be accepting the invitation to donate money to the Conservative Party.

I was puzzled by one thing though. The small print at the end of the e-mail states:

You're receiving this email because you signed up on taxcuts.conservatives.com. If you'd like to unsubscribe, please click here.

I'm puzzled because, whilst I agreed to receive this one-off e-mail, I specifically didn't tick the box to say that I would like to receive more e-mails going forward. So why am I being offered an opportunity to unsubscribe?

I shall be watching my inbox with interest over the coming weeks... 

As Conservative Party campaigns go, this isn’t a very good one

As a service to my readers, I thought that I ought to test out this invitation from the Conservative Party…

https://x.com/rishisunak/status/1743568319582466303?s=46&t=XnCxlgeW8CvCxo3KZJE-5A

Naturally, I was keen to test their figures against my own calculation, given all of the suggestions from public minded users of X that I might be disappointed. And no, I did not accept the kind invitation to be kept updated by them as to their campaigning - my e-mail inbox is quite busy enough as it is.

Having entered my details into the e-form - name, approximate salary and e-mail address - I was told that I could expect an e-mail to tell me how much more I would have to spend. But no such e-mail has come. And I am disappointed, assuming therefore that either I won’t be better off or, worse still, worse off than I previously was.

Either way, it’s a pretty poor show and, in the event that a Conservative campaigner comes to my door, I will make a point of noting that, if that’s the best they can do, no wonder the public are minded to give them a thorough electoral kicking.

Home again… to sleep, perchance to dream?

Yes, we’re back from another family trip to see our granddaughter (and her parents, naturally). I even found some time to visit my own family in New York, which was as wonderful as ever.

But all I want to do now is sleep. It’s one of the things about getting older - jet lag hits harder and for longer. And I know the advice, try to get your routine back to normal, but the temptation of some horizontal oblivion is just too much.

Luckily, having travelled on a Friday night/Saturday morning, I’ve got a weekend to recover, catch up on laundry and generally feel myself back into the day to day.

So, if you’ll excuse me…

Might the US Supreme Court actually rule that Trump is in breach of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

So, with Colorado and Maine currently ruling that Donald Trump is in breach of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the dilemma which has probably been keeping the judiciary awake at night has finally reached the U.S. Supreme Court, as we probably all knew it would.

And, with three members of the Court owing their appointment to Donald Trump, the pressure upon them is probably greater than it has ever been. If you’re a partisan Democrat, do you really believe that Justices Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are impartial, or that Justice Thomas, whose wife is a high-profile proponent of the theory that the 2020 Presidential election was stolen, could vote any other way than in favour of his wife’s bestest friend?

Partisan Republicans will assume that the perceived 6-3 conservative majority in the Supreme Court will favour their man, but what if they don’t?

It would be a terrible situation for nine impartial judges, but when most, if not all, of the Justices are seen by a sizeable minority of the population as unreliable, if only because they don’t see the world in the same way, it is a recipe for the sort of reaction that the extremists, particularly hardcore Trump supporters, keep threatening.

I tend to the view that there’s enough “wriggle room” for the Justices to rule in favour of Trump, and that they’ll be extremely loathe to take such a conclusive step unless a lower court, probably Georgia, determines that his behaviour was such as to represent “insurrection or rebellion”, and even then they would bend over backwards not to exclude him.

What that tells you is that the bar for exclusion is a high one, as it probably should be, but it leaves space for extremists to push the boundaries ever further until, inevitably, the guardrails that protect American democracy break. As an outsider, that worries me, as a potentially fractured United States offers risks for allies and enemies alike.

It also raises questions about a multi-polar world where the United States becomes ever more insular and transactional in its relationships, whilst the European Union struggles to establish a consistent voice and Russia and China undermine the democracies at every turn.

We watch, nervously, for the Supreme Court…

How you (don’t) end up with a May General Election

There’s been a lot of debate about when Rishi Sunak will choose to go to the country, and a range of theories have been offered, many of them entertaining, credible or logical. And, evidently, with the Conservatives holed beneath the waterline, opposition parties would really like to get on with things.

But, the more I think about it, the harder it gets to formulate a credible path to a May election.

Yes, it’s entirely possible that things get worse as time passes, suggesting that a May election might limit the scale of the seemingly inevitable defeat to be suffered. But we’re already talking about the loss of half of the current Conservatives’ Parliamentary Party so, how much worse could it get?

And the key decision maker is Rishi Sunak, who has been in post for little more than a year. Why would he give up some of the time available to him for so little personal advantage?

Ah, but yes, I hear you reply, he isn’t loved by his own party, and the MPs could get rid of him in order to go in May. Theoretically, they could, but the idea of a leadership contest in the run-up to a spring election would make them look even more shambolic. There’s also the question of whether or not such a process could be concluded in time, and that becomes less likely with every passing day.

The May local elections are likely to be bad for the Conservatives, with their position relative to 2021, when these seats were last fought, a pretty poor one (they then polled 36% against Labour’s 29% and our 17%), but it’s been a while since a ruling Party concerned itself terribly with its local government base when thinking about electoral strategy. So, I don’t see that as a factor in decision making either, even if they might retrospectively regret that.

But for me, the best reason to expect an October election is the human one - hope. This Government is increasingly unlikely to see any substantial improvement in the economy anytime soon - GDP has flatlined, inflation, particularly as it impacts on the less well off, is still an issue, and mortgage payers will see their payments increase as their fixed rate deals expire. But you never entirely know what will happen, and an early election means that you’ll never find out.

So, I’m hoping for a quiet April, with some potential light leafleting in Ipswich, where we elect in thirds, and are defending St Margaret’s ward. We’ll see if I’m right soon enough, I guess…

By Amtrak to the Big Apple…

Due to a technical complication with our flight home, our journey takes us not to Boston, but to New York, and so the question of how to get from Dover to New York arose. The typical answer is to look at flights, and that was an alternative, but luckily, Dover has that rare joy - its own Amtrak station. And I do enjoy a train ride…

For some rather absurd reason, Amtrak recommends that you arrive thirty minutes before your train is due to depart. Not because it will leave early, but simply because. So, Dover, with its limited hours waiting room, complete absence of places to sit and total lack of shelter, tends to encourage you to disregard that advice. Nobody ever said that Amtrak was entirely customer friendly…

I’d shelled out for business class seats for the first leg to Boston’s North Station, which gets you a reserved (and slightly more comfortable) seat plus free non-alcoholic beverages. It’s not particularly expensive, and does make the journey a little less stressful. And the wooded scenery of New Hampshire and Massachusetts passed smoothly enough, albeit slowly - it’s barely competitive with buses, let alone cars, but it is mostly predictable at least.

At Boston, we switched from North Station to South Station for the rather more swish Acela Express service. A first class ticket buys you access to the Metropolitan Lounge, with free drinks and snacks in a rather unexpectedly stylish setting - a significant upgrade on the main train hall which is undergoing major refurbishment. There are even free gummy bears, a particular attraction for the travelling bureaucrat.

You also get complimentary red cap service, which enables you to board the train early, with someone to carry your luggage and load it onto your carriage - a plus if you’re a bit older or your luggage is unusually heavy.

Aboard the train, you’re offered a welcome (alcoholic, if you’re so inclined) drink and a menu, including real food. It’s a bit like what National Express East Anglia was like before Richard Bowker got his hands on the restaurant car service (I have a long memory for a slight…). There’s a steward, in our case, Cheryl, who looked after us efficiently and with good humour, and you can feel taken care of in a way that you don’t often get even in Europe.

And, because Amtrak have rather more control over traffic, the train actually travels at a speed familiar to Europeans, using proper trains rather than curiously underpowered locomotives. And that means that, even with a number of stops, Boston to New York takes three hours and forty-five minutes. Not spectacular, but competitive with the airlines, particularly given the centre city location of the Amtrak stations at each end.

All in all, I’d describe the Amtrak experience, on the East Coast at least, as worth a look. I’d certainly do it again, perhaps in daylight for preference so as to benefit from the views out of the left-hand side as you head south and west from Boston.

And now for New York…

A few things on the itinerary for the new year…

Yesterday’s post was a bit sombre, I guess, but as a way of feeling my way back into this blogging malarkey, it was a start. Perhaps a look forward might be interesting though - no promises, mind!

My role as a Parish Councillor became more “interesting” in 2023, as I’m now a remote councillor, following our move to (unparished) Ipswich in September. I would have been prepared to stand down and leave the opportunity to someone else, but Council want to keep me, and I’m content to stay so long as they want me. And whilst I suspect that this is at least in part because nobody wants to be Chair, I should celebrate the fact that they respect my ability sufficiently to feel it worth keeping me.

That means that, by extension, my role as Chair of the Mid Suffolk South branch of the Suffolk Association of Local Councils (SALC) and thus a SALC Board member remains ongoing as well as my place on the National Assembly of the National Association of Local Councils. I am perpetually surprised by the level of competence credited to me by my colleagues, but enjoy the intellectual challenge that the roles offer. I’ve learned more about communities in these various roles than I imagined possible, and it has offered food for thought in terms of my own roles and my view of the world.

My hope in 2024 is that I can continue to make a contribution, both in terms of ideas and support, at all levels, and I’d like to improve my communication levels in order to aid my community and spread the word about our sector - there’s some incredible work being done out there, and a real opportunity to make lives better.

Politics has been a bit of a drag in recent times. And, whilst a General Election will have a national impact, Suffolk politics is a bit predictable and not exactly inspiring. Yes, we’ll almost certainly get a new MP - and Tom Hunt really won’t be missed - but with little prospect of Liberal Democrat success in the county, I feel that I’d be better off contributing some time and effort to a regional target seat. That means Chelmsford or South Cambridgeshire, I guess.

My place on Federal Council brought with it a little frustration in 2023. Admittedly, coming to the show late may not have helped - I was the first to join via a by-election after a resignation as early as April - but I sense that not only is Federal Council still in search of a role, but that some of its members have an agenda other than that of broad scrutiny. By their manifestos shall ye know them… I did have an idea late last year which might be developable though…

I’ll be at Spring Conference in York - at least, I’ve booked a hotel - which will hopefully make me feel a bit more connected.

I’m still a member of the ALDE Party Council too, something I really rather enjoy. It isn’t hugely onerous - two meetings a year isn’t going to require massive exertion - and because I stood back from Federal International Relations Committee, I’m a step removed from the day to day international work of the Party. But perhaps I should be a little more engaged with the Liberal Democrat European Group (LDEG) and Liberal International British Group in the year ahead.

My other core activity is my day editorship of Liberal Democrat Voice - Monday is my day. It’s been a bit of a struggle of late to raise the enthusiasm to do the job I really ought to do, and I occasionally wonder if LDV really has a role any more. But we do retain quite a lot of credibility, offer an outlet for original and/or radical thinking, and maintain a space for courteous dissent from the leadership view of the world, so I’m going to try a bit harder to keep my bit of the show on the road in 2024.

There’s also my job, of which there is little I can publicly say. I can (theoretically) retire this year, but don’t see much to be gained by doing so - I’m likely to be a long time retired, and work provides a valued framework around which to organise my life. I also, curiously, enjoy my job, albeit it isn’t what I’d set out to do when I left university all those years ago.

But above everything is Ros. It’s sometimes hard to believe that we’ve been married for fifteen years, but Wikipedia says that it’s true, so it must be. I’m still not entirely convinced that she couldn’t do better, but I’m happy to count my blessings. We’ll doubtless continue to explore our new surroundings, travel and dote on our granddaughter, and contribute to making the world about us a slightly better, slightly nicer place than it might otherwise be. It doesn’t sound hugely ambitious, I confess, but in a world where there appear to be plenty of people whose ambitions run counter to that, it’s a contribution.

And so, I’d better get on, hadn’t I?…

Welcome to a New Year: 2024

And so a new year begins, this time in Dover, New Hampshire, where Ros and I are on grandparent duty. It’s been a peaceful trip, with plenty of time spent with our nearly four-year-old granddaughter and her parents, plus my stepdaughter-in-law’s family. Not exactly intense, but enjoyable nonetheless.

One should count one’s blessings, really, especially given events elsewhere. The Israeli attack on Gaza has turned from simple retaliation into something rather more sinister - and if some Israeli politicians are talking about “relocating the Palestinian population”, then the phrase “ethnic cleansing” becomes more apposite. The Israeli government, if it truly isn’t intent on crushing the civilian population of Gaza, needs to explicitly state its “war aims” and quickly. It may already be too late in the eye of global and, particularly, regional opinion.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world needs to focus on what might happen next. The destruction wrought by the IDF will require vast levels of expenditure in order to simply put a roof over the heads of two million people, let alone restore the infrastructure needed to enable Palestinians to manage their communities effectively. But, if Hamas return and continue their strategy of using the local population as a shield against Israeli retaliation, is anyone going to want to do much more than provide basic shelter and sustenance? What is the strategy for a long-term solution and is there an audience for it?

Slightly closer to home, the Russian assault on Ukraine continues. I’ve always accepted the view espoused from the Baltics in particular that the Russians have to be stopped conclusively, and that Ukrainians are fighting on a frontline rather broader than just their own. The philosophical difference between the Russian approach - “we can outlast our opponents” - as opposed to a sense that we in the rest of Europe don’t value our free, democratic societies sufficiently highly, encourages the Russians to keep coming. And, at some point, you have to say that enough is enough, and mean it. We really do have to mean it now.

At home, 2024 promises a General Election. Given that we have a Government which appears to have no real competence - forget its policies (and I try to), it’s the inability to understand how governance works - and is now reduced to setting elephant traps for an incoming Labour administration rather than doing something, anything, that might make our country better, the sense that we must be rid of the lot of them is almost overwhelming. And it needs to be a crushing defeat in order that they might learn something from it.

Admittedly, my expectation is that the lesson the survivors will learn is that they weren’t right-wing enough and were too nice to the poor and vulnerable amongst us. The idea that the people who brought us Brexit and Rwanda, and who mainstreamed an approach to governance that should horrify reasonable people might conclude that a move towards the political centre is appropriate is… unlikely.

We will end up with a government which will mean well (mostly) but will chafe at attempting the sorts of reforms that we desperately need. In fairness, the financial inheritance will be poor, and a risk-averse Labour leadership will see little benefit in picking fights with pretty much anyone for fear of being a one-term administration.

From a personal perspective, I’m not really sure what goals I have for 2024. In career terms, I’m approaching what might reasonably be described as my “twilight years”, and my level of political activity is not what it was - it’s hard to be optimistic as a bureaucrat in a state run by people who not only begrudge your existence but actively undermine the integrity of government every day. That said, the rest of my life is pretty fulfilling and the move to Ipswich has simplified our lives immeasurably.

So, let’s see what a new year has to offer, and hopefully it will bring you, gentle reader, most, hopefully all, of what you wish for…

Migration to Suffolk - a celebration

Part of moving to a new location is about building connections in the community, and one of the great assets that Ipswich has is The Hold, the relatively new home of Suffolk Archives.

Last month, Ros took me to see the exhibition there marking the 500th anniversary of the birth of Thomas Wolsey and today saw the launch event of a new exhibition, celebrating migration to Suffolk. Now, I will freely admit that, before I moved to the county, I wouldn't have thought of Ipswich as being a town with a significant migrant population, but there's no doubt that the town has become more diverse in recent years. That's partly to do with the sort of trends we've seen elsewhere, with migrants coming to do the jobs that locals either can't or won't do, but the influence of the student intake at the University of Suffolk also brings people into the town from a wide variety of backgrounds.

But there was a good crowd at The Hold this evening, representing a remarkable number of groups, from across the spectrum, despite the clash with the turning on of the town's Christmas lights at the Cornhill.

The exhibition has been curated by the Suffolk Archives in collaboration with a number of groups representing migrant communities across Ipswich and Suffolk, and for those who might not be aware of the richness that they bring to our lives, and the work done to maintain their cultural roots, it's an opportunity to dip into their experiences.

It's not a big exhibition - there isn't the space for that - but it does cover a lot of ground, with a brief timeline of migration waves and policy making, a number of national costumes, and some history of minority communities in Ipswich and around the county. And it's free, which just makes it more accessible to the wider populace.

Sadly, there have been some objections both to the theme of the exhibition, but also to the fact that it has happened at all. I shouldn't be surprised, I guess, especially given the rabble-rousing that comes from our MP, the ever charming Tom Hunt. His rhetoric on migration encourages the racists among us to dial up hatred and fear in our communities, whereas an exhibition like "Arrivals" allows us to see our common humanity.

We also met the town's Deputy Mayor, Cllr Elango Elavalakan, who was there to give an opening speech. I was interested to discover that he's a civil engineer by training, and worked for Oxfam, delivering fresh water infrastructure across the globe. He's also Sri Lankan, and another incomer to the area from London, like I am. 

All in all, an interesting evening, and we'll go back and visit the exhibition properly at a later date so that we can listen to some of the stories - there are little boxes which, when held, play interviews with representatives of different communities. Luckily, we've got to mid-April to do so, and I'm sure that we'll find the time, especially as it's a short walk from our home.

Wolsey 550 at the Suffolk Archives

Probably Suffolk's most famous son is Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, born in Ipswich in 1473, and thus it only seems appropriate that there is an exhibition at The Hold, the still shiny and relatively new home of the Suffolk Archives near the University of Suffolk on the waterfront a few steps from the town centre.

Ros had been particularly keen for me to see it, partly because he had a significant role in developing Ipswich, and partly because of the link between The National Archives, where she's a Non-Executive Board Member and the exhibition - The National Archives have loaned some documents to be displayed. And so, as the exhibition is closing in a fortnight's time, we wandered over this morning.

And yes, it wasn't a big exhibition - The Hold has to fulfil a significant range of functions - but what there was focused on his life in Ipswich, and highlighted the steps in his rise to power rather than how his life ended.

He was, in today's language, a exemplar of social mobility at a time when, unless you were born into a rich or powerful family, you probably didn't make it very far from where you were born. He was the son of a butcher and innkeeper, a man not beyond a bit of bad practice, but his mother did come from a wealthy family, and his uncle paid for him to go to good schools and then to Oxford.

And there was an unexpected link to Creeting St Peter, as his niece married Sir William Ferneley in Creeting St Peter in 1517. I guess that it's possible that Cardinal Wolsey turned up himself, although unless a historical record turns up with a guest list, we'll probably never know.

Amongst the exhibits are his cardinal's hat, on loan from the library at Christ Church, Oxford, and some photographs and documents from the Wolsey Pageant in 1930, from which an Eastern Counties omnibus ran on the Wednesday evening back to the Creetings at 10.30 p.m. - probably the last time a bus ran to there from Ipswich! Edward, Prince of Wales was the patron of the event, and there's film footage of his visit.

Once you've seen the exhibition, the café is pretty good, so a cup of coffee and a toasted sandwich will hit the spot before a stroll along the waterfront, especially on a sunny day such as today.

 

A bus ride to Woodbridge

One of the advantages of our new home is that we can use public transport much more easily than we could before. Yes, we were a ten minute drive from the stations at Stowmarket and Needham Market but, even then, we were a bit limited. Whereas, from Ipswich, there are direct trains to Norwich and London, but also to Felixstowe and Lowestoft. And, when you add buses - and we’re now a gentle stroll from the Old Cattle Market bus station, there are buses to Colchester, Manningtree, Sudbury, Framlingham, Aldeburgh and Shotley.

Today, we took advantage of the opportunities, a sunny day and the £2 bus fare scheme to take a trip to Woodbridge. It’s only thirty-five minutes on the hourly bus service which runs on to Wickham Market, Saxmundham, Leiston and Aldeburgh, and compared to a train, or driving, it’s pretty competitive in terms of time and cost.

It was a lovely day to walk along the riverbank, eat cake and drink coffee at the Tea Hut, and take in the scenery. And Woodbridge itself is a lovely little town, population about 8,000 or so, with some surprisingly good shopping on The Thoroughfare, and plenty of places to stop and enjoy the surroundings.

Our bus driver did get a bit lost on the way, diverting towards Ipswich Hospital - he clearly isn’t a regular on the 64 - but we weren’t delayed unduly. First Bus have new buses with USB points to charge your phone - it’s an hour and three quarters to Aldeburgh so you’d probably welcome the chance to recharge your phone en route - and comfy faux leather seats.

We walked along the south bank of the Deben, which is mostly mud at low tide, but the levees built to prevent flooding offer a dry route and lift you above the water to enhance the views. And, on an unseasonably warm October day, we weren’t alone - there were plenty of people out with dogs or small children (sometimes both).

Returning to the town, we had a gentle stroll along The Thoroughfare before heading back to the Turban Centre, where our bus would take us back to Ipswich. It was the same driver, back in Woodbridge after an hour and ten minutes to Aldeburgh, a short break and the return journey. He didn’t make the same mistake twice, and we were home in time to throw open the patio door and follow the progress of Ipswich Town’s home game against Preston North End (it ended 4-2 to the Tractor Boys) by the noise drifting across from Portman Road - we’re that close.

A nice day out, all in all, and a taster for potential car-free days out going forward…

Haughley Junction upgrade: good news for Suffolk rail users

The announcement that some of the money to be saved by not finishing HS2 will be spent on doubling the tracks at Haughley Junction, just north of Stowmarket, where the line to Bury St Edmunds, Cambridge and Ely parts company with the East Anglian Main Line, is a welcome one, even if one has serious reservations about the axing of HS2, as I do. It's been a much-needed upgrade for a long time, as it acts as a limitation to freight and passenger traffic using this key route from the container port at Felixstowe to the distribution warehouses of the Midlands.

As a rail user myself, the prospect of an hourly service between Ipswich, Bury St Edmunds, Ely and Peterborough, as well as capacity to link Suffolk into the East West Rail project offers easier access to the rest of the country, rather than having to pass through London all of the time.

I hadn't realised, however, that the Haughley Junction upgrade is budgeted to cost just £20 million which, given the cost of widening the A14, is buttons. In that sense, it's disappointing that this didn't happen rather earlier. I guess that a safe Conservative seat isn't a huge priority for transport spending.

Hopefully, increasing capacity across Suffolk will encourage the transfer of container traffic off of the A14 and onto trains, and a half-hourly train service between Ipswich and Bury St Edmunds, serving the towns and villages in between, will encourage more people to travel to both whilst leaving their cars at home, or at their nearest station.

The next thing would be to double track the line from Kennett to Cambridge or, at the very least, improve the approach through Cherry Hinton to Cambridge. Perhaps that will come, and I'm sure that MARPA will be campaigning for further improvements.

Time to push the "cut Civil Servants" button again, it seems...

I am a civil servant. Yes, I admit it, albeit perhaps not what some might expect. I serve the Government, whether or not I agree with its policies, because that is my function. I will deliver my designated role with as much enthusiasm and skill as I possess, as my job is to ensure compliance with the law of the land as far as is possible. I even argued in my younger days that, if Government wants to reduce the number of civil servants, it's not for us to argue - it's for the Government to justify what will probably happen next, i.e. a collapse of service quality or compliance function.

And, after many, many years doing so, I am quite cynical about what elected politicians say as opposed to what they actually do when push comes to shove.

So, if it is to be the case that the Government intends to save money by freezing the size of the Civil Service, you might not be surprised if I greet the announcement with a slightly jaundiced gaze. Not because I oppose the idea that we need to deliver public services more efficiently - we do, and should. The problem is, in the nicest possible way, politicians and their enthusiasm for new laws - to be seen to be doing something.

Passing legislation, any legislation, tends to require someone to implement it, or enforce it, or support the public or businesses to understand it. That someone is almost certainly going to be a public servant, i.e. someone like me. You can contract it out, but private sector organisations have to compete in the free market for qualified staff, something the public sector increasingly doesn't bother to do. That costs and, once you've built in a profit margin (and private companies are seldom altruistic enough to want to provide a service at a loss), you may find it to be more expensive, especially if demand is not quite what you expected. A public servant can be reassigned to other work, whereby a contracted-out service will expect to be paid on the basis of the contract, not necessarily actual demand.

And, if a contracted-out service fails, or the contractor decides to walk away, Government is the provider of last resort.

Compliance is important too. Passing laws and then not seeking to ensure compliance tends to mean that bad actors won't, tilting the playing field against those who do comply. In areas of tax, as opposed to spend, you might actually want to increase the number of staff tasked with addressing attacks on the system, which can run to billions of pounds in lost revenue. 

But there is an easy way to cut civil service numbers. Digitise services so that most people deal with the issues using computers or smartphones rather than through talking to people. And, most radically, stop passing new laws and use the existing ones more effectively, even simplifying legislation where possible. Now, some things that matter might slip through the net, things that politicians think are important, but that might be a price worth paying. And the public might not appreciate having to deal with a Chatbot or guidance written by technicians for technicians.

Alternatively, you could look at public servants as part of the cost of managing an efficient economy. So, employing a few more civil servants to process asylum claims as a quicker rate would almost certainly reduce the number of asylum seekers requiring accommodation by the State, and bring about a modest reduction in overall expenditure, for example.

Freezing civil servant numbers is a blunt tool, albeit an easy to understand one. And there is no harm in asking departments to consider whether they can do what they do with less people or, if they do cut posts, indicate what won't or can't be done. For, if a minister pulls a lever of power, expecting something to happen, they might be unpleasantly surprised to find that there's nobody at the other end to carry out their wishes.

So, if it's a headline they're after, the Government have probably got one. They'll have unsettled most of the Government Departments in the process, something which tends not to aid productivity, but then most people will remember the headline rather than the results...

You live and learn... I live in an aspiring 15 minute town, supported by the Government...

Having written about the Conservatives and their conspiracy theory ideas about fifteen minute cities, I thought that I ought to find out more. And, much to my surprise, I am a guinea pig in just such an experiment. The map shown comes from Ipswich Central, the Business Improvement District for the town, and shows the area defined by the "Connected Town" project, launched with some fanfare in 2021 and supported by £25 million of public money supplied by... the Conservative Government. Indeed, the funding was announced by some chap called Rishi Sunak. I wonder whatever happened to him?

Yes, it was funded by the very same people who are now suggesting that 15 minute cities are designed to take our cars away from us and limit our freedoms.

Part of the project is to encourage the building of housing in the centre of the town to replace the retail and offices that lie empty or soon will be. We all know that, as online shopping has become an established way of buying goods, that retail outlets are failing due to the costs of shopfronts and sales staff that their online competitors don't have. And therefore, finding ways to revitalise our town centres and bringing more people into them is probably the most obvious way forward.

America offers a preview of what happens if your town and city centres decay -residents stay away as crime levels climb and the only people still around are the poor, who can't afford to move out to the leafy suburbs, and those who have no choice but to frequent the area.

Luckily, Ipswich has a town centre university, and a surprising amount of "stuff", all things considered. And, as I now live somewhere pretty central, I am no more than fifteen minutes from pretty much all of the good things indicated on the map (with the exception of Ipswich School, which is uphill). I can hear when Ipswich Town score, even with the windows closed, I'm three minutes from the waterfront (if the traffic lights on the gyratory are friendly).

That includes the bus station serving the wider county, Sainsbury's, my office, Christchurch Park, two cinemas, two theatres and Dance East, my new doctor's surgery and our mainline railway station, with its three trains an hour to London.

This strikes me as a good thing, allowing me to cut my personal carbon emissions significantly, enabling me to walk to most things I need, whilst buying me additional time to do other things and saving me significant sums. And all without denying me any of the freedoms that Conservatives seem so keen to take away from me whilst claiming to be doing the exact opposite.

Sadly, I'm expecting our local MP to jump on the conspiracy theory bandwagon, condemning the plans he so lauded two years ago, but given that the only weapon apparently left at his, and the Conservatives, disposal is scare tactics and culture wars, it will come as no great surprise.

I've never been a supporter of the Conservative Party, and I do not see the day when that will change. But the country needs a credible right-of-centre political grouping, socially and economically conservative, a balancing force in a healthy political ecosystem. Sadly, it currently resembles an extremist cult which hates the country it wants to rule. And when even the likes of Mark Harper pander to the conspiracy theorists and the zealots of the right, the hope that we might have a more rational politics in our country is a faint one.

The "15 minutes city" debate is an important one for our towns and cities, and for the rural communities that they service. It could be a major contribution towards achieving Net Zero, improving public health and wellbeing, and growing the economy (or perhaps, helping us to adapt to a low economic growth future). Is it the answer? Possibly, we'll have to see. But mainstreaming the anti-New World Order, anti-World Economic Forum conspiracy theorists threatens our civil democracy and drives the reasonable and the genuinely curious away from the public arena, and Conservative supporters should be ashamed that their leaders are not only enabling this, but positively encouraging it.

15 minute cities: what is it with the Tories and stupid?

I've spent the past decade and more living in a small village. Not exactly a remote one - it's not as though Creeting St Peter is out in the wilds or anything, but it is small. And one of the things that persuaded me to leave was the question of access to facilities.

You see, in a small village, the chances are that, in order to do anything, you need to leave the village. There is nothing within a fifteen minute walk except the church, which isn't exactly useful in terms of a pint of milk or a loaf of bread, and that means that residents are pretty much reliant on something with an engine.

Buses? We hadn't had one of those since 2011, when the once a week market day bus left the village mid-morning to head to Stowmarket and returned in the early afternoon. As far as I know, it wasn't terribly well used - my then colleagues on the Parish Council didn't seem to know that it existed - and probably required significant subsidy for very little value.

So, medical treatment, shops, schools, all of the things that we take for granted, none of them within fifteen minutes on foot, and often more than fifteen minutes by car.

And now, I live in the heart of Ipswich, with everything except a hospital within a fifteen minute walk. As I get older, I appreciate having things within easy reach, and the knowledge that, if neither of us (i.e. Ros) could drive, we wouldn't risk isolation or reliance on others.

Designing communities so that they have most key facilities within easy range is a sound idea, allowing us to use our cars less (if we want to), reducing air pollution in centres of population and thus improving public health. And nobody serious is suggesting that you can't drive around, or that you're going to be limited in terms of where you can go.

Which makes me confused as to why the Conservatives appear to want to side with the conspiracy theorists on the question of urban planning. Our historic town centres were never really designed for the motor vehicle until, in some cases, we tore down vast chunks of them to drive highways through. Finding incentives that encourage people to use their cars at home and use other means to travel to work or leisure opportunities makes sense, unless you want to use potentially valuable space building car parking.

There has never been a war on motorists, quite the reverse. Politicians have tended not to want to mess with the car lobby, weighting the economic argument in favour of cars and against public transport over decades. But, ultimately, trying to deny the direction of urban development is going to make us worse off, as urban centres hollow out through retail closures. Encouraging people to live closer in, providing the facilities to support them, and creating more lively communities will be the salvation of town centres, and as a liberal, I would like to see policies that reflect that aim.

But culture wars need to have tropes, I guess, and even if there isn't any factual evidence to support your claims, conspiracy theories will have to do...

So, about the local politics...

So, I don't live in Mid Suffolk any more, thus goodbye Greens, hello Labour, who run Ipswich most of the time - there was a Conservative/Liberal Democrat administration from 2004 to 2011 but nevertheless...

In truth, I've never paid much attention to the politics here. Ipswich has surprisingly little impact on its neighbouring authorities, even though it is the county town and largest centre of population, and it is, in a traditional sea of electoral blue, a red island, albeit a real bellwether parliamentary seat, swapping hands as power has done nationally.

At the moment, the constituency is held by Conservative Tom Hunt, whose manner and attitudes don't exactly attract my sympathy. Mind you, as Labour need a 5.5% swing to take the seat next time, he may not be around long enough to bother me unduly.

His Labour opponent will be Jack Abbott, who was the county councillor for Bridge (which we now live in) from 2017 to 2021, and my old friend, James Sandbach, is the Liberal Democrat candidate. It doesn't look as though the Greens have picked a candidate yet, although they haven't really made a breakthrough in the town at local government level, and this may not be a priority for them with Waveney Valley so close by.

At County level, as noted above, we're now in Bridge division, which is geographically quirky, with a small sliver of the town centre north of the Orwell, but the bulk of it south through Stoke and Maidenhall. Turnouts are quite low, and, whilst the Conservatives got within 91 votes in 2021, that would be hard to imagine being replicated in 2025. Coming third would be progress for the Liberal Democrats...

At Borough level, we're in Alexandra ward, which covers most of the town centre, the waterfront and up the hill past Alexandra Park as far as California. It's been a safe Labour ward for some years now, with the Conservatives in second place, increasingly pressured by the Greens. The ward includes a chunk of the University of Suffolk, has a high population churn, and is a devil to deliver as there are significant numbers of flats and some doors are hard to find. That might explain why the turnout is usually around 30%. This isn't Liberal Democrat territory these days, although we did hold the ward over a decade ago, on what I sensed was a combination of a strong candidate and the collapse of the Labour vote at the end of the Blair/Brown years.

I will admit that, at the moment, I'm not minded to get too involved in town politics. Yes, I'd like to know how it works, the players and the key issues, but I'm happy to be a Liberal Democrat spear carrier for the time being - if I didn't really have the time to be a District councillor, I certainly don't currently have the time to be a Borough one.

I don't doubt that the issues that drive politics here in Ipswich are quite different to those of Mid Suffolk, and whilst I have plenty of experience of city politics from my days in London, Ipswich doesn't feel the same. So, time to get a sense of what's going on as I potter around the town...