Goodbye Catalans, I never really knew you...

Today saw something historically unusual, the expulsion of a member party from one of the European political groupings, as PdeCAT (the Catalan European Democratic Party) were the subject of an extraordinary ALDE Party Council meeting in Brussels.

As I’m no longer one of the Party’s Council delegation due to not being Welsh (it’s a long story...), I wasn’t there, but there is an element of sadness to what was an overwhelming vote to expel them. There seems to be little suggestion that they have become anyone other than a liberal grouping, but the links to their discredited predecessor movement, accused of serious corruption in office, were seemingly too great to be ignored.

I’m not an expert on the politics of Spain, although there were always thought to be issues retaining Ciudadanos and any pro-Catalan independence group in the same organisation. And, if forced to choose, big picture politics would tend towards favouring the bigger of the two. I’m not suggesting that there was any pressure to choose a side, and suspect that, had there been any, the vote to expel would have been rather closer.

But the crossover between its predecessor, CDC, and the new grouping, with key figures in common, meant trouble as soon as accusations of corruptions became prosecutions. No wider political grouping wants to be tainted by association, and excision became the obvious outcome.

So, no more Catalans, and a marker sent out to any member parties who might have issues amongst their senior leadership. Let’s hope that ALDE doesn’t have to do such a thing again too soon...

Yes, Liam, international trade is much more complex than you thought...

The news that Russia has formally objected to United Kingdom proposals to divide the current quotas between the two according to the historical flows of trade in each product comes, sadly, as little surprise to anyone who has been paying attention all along.

In any negotiation where you seek to alter existing arrangements as a supplicant with a ticking clock, you start at a disadvantage. The other side can simply wait it out, knowing that, as your cliff edge gets closer, you’ll get more desperate, thus more likely to offer a good deal. Now under normal circumstances, that’s not a good place to be, but when you’ve put your entire economy on the line, it’s a pretty desperate affair.

Now, if you’ve got something great to offer, and demand is high, you might get away with it. Alternatively, if your negotiators are very good, and have a firm grasp of the potential options, the damage might be restricted.

We do make some pretty good stuff, but it isn’t unique, and it can for the most part be made elsewhere. As for negotiators, we have Liam Fox. You might suggest that we’re utterly screwed. I might not necessarily disagree with you.

Incompetence, combined with an astonishingly high level of ignorance and entitlement, has brought us to this state of affairs whereby, on 29 March, we will  possibly leave the European Union without any agreements on tariffs or access to markets. We have insulted some potential partners, i.e. Moldova, we’ve taken others for granted, such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia, and we’ve placed our faith in the likes of Donald Trump who will unhesitatingly shaft any potential trading partners for votes in Wisconsin or Indiana.

I take no joy in this, have no grim sense of “you get what you deserve”, for the worst affected will not be those whose idea this was, but too many of those who were persuaded to vote for it. Asking people simplistic questions on hugely complex subjects is seldom productive, but you should reasonably be able to assume that those asking the question, and particularly those espousing a particular answer, would have an understanding of the issues themselves.

As it turned out, neither of those assumptions could be relied upon. The Brexiteers have demonstrated that they really didn’t understand how the European Union worked, possibly because that might have caused them to think a bit harder, but worse still they had, and seem to still have, an astonishingly naive sense of Britain’s place in the world and a complete disregard for how Britain’s reputation abroad has become degraded since June 2016.

You can hardly blame the Great British Voter for what happened next.

And now we see the rush from accountability. An EEA option has emerged, already ruled out by Theresa May’s red lines, lines drawn to keep the Brexiteers onside and her in power. Ruling out a role for the European Court of Justice, ruling out freedom of movement, even with the provisions available for use, disregarding the Good Friday Agreement as an issue, despite it being a binding international treaty.

Alternatively, it’s the fault of those pesky Remainers, despite the fact that the European Union is negotiating with the United Kingdom Government, and nobody else.

There’s an irony here. I’d taken the view after the referendum that, whilst hating the outcome, you couldn’t really tell how bad it was going to be. Sensible people start off with a negotiating position which evolves as facts emerge and compromises become necessary. And, whilst the Brexiteers were wrong, they weren’t stupid.

Unfortunately, as time passed and the likes of Boris Johnson and David Davis exposed their lack of skill and knowledge, as the significance of the red lines became more and more apparent, as Theresa May painted herself, and the country, into a smaller and smaller corner, it dawned on me that they believed their own hype and that, unless they were stopped, we were screwed.

It’s going to take an series of acts of astonishing altruism on the part of our trading partners to salvage something. And that ain’t going to happen, because such things only happen in fairy tales, or in Liam Fox’s dreams...

Keeping myself busy, and vaguely useful too...

Ah yes, constitutions. Wonderful things, in the right hands. Admittedly, in the wrong hands, a thing of peril, but they are at least reasonably certain. And, for someone like me, used to working in a rules-based, legislative system, a cause of work within a party political environment.

People do not join political parties to enforce rules - they generally join to make rules, or change them. And thus, anyone willing to be the arbiter of them is likely not to be stampeded in the rush to do so. My Party “career” is a fairly good example of that - seldom opposed and often left to get on with it unmolested by interference.

At the moment, I’m reminded of that. I’m on Returning Officer duty at the moment, for a decent seat on the East of England, and having to reacquaint myself with the Selection Rules. Who knew about candidate compacts? And who do you have to talk to in order to get things done? But it all seems to be coming together, so we’ll keep our fingers crossed.

We’re in a constitutional review phase too, seeing what was missed in the recent Governance Review and what has been “shaken out of the tree” as a result. Personally, I find myself wondering why the Federal Board nominates members to its various subordinate committees. Each of the committees is represented on Federal Board, so can report upwards and convey the wishes of Federal Board back down again. It implies an effective lack of trust and places people in position without an adequately defined role. What is the Federal Board representative on, say, Federal International Relations Committee, for? What is their intended role?

I’m not a believer in form over function, so I tend to the viewpoint that every Committee member must be there for a clearly defined reason to carry out a broadly defined role. Otherwise, what are they for, and how much value do they add?

I’m also of the view that a member of Federal International Relations Committee should sit on Federal Policy Committee, instead of the other way round as at present. FIRC advises the Party on international policy, not the other way round, yet there is no official representative - the Chair attends in an invited, advisory capacity.

I often think that the Party bureaucracy is designed to reflect a cynical but widely held view that nobody is to be wholly trusted with authority, and that the more people you have supervising any particular body or activity, the better. We talk a good game about proportionate supervision and regulation, yet seldom demonstrate it in our Party’s organisation. I guess that that’s ironic (don’t you think?).

So, having been asked to consider the question of possible constitutional amendments by our Committee Chair, Robert Woodthorpe-Browne, I have the slight advantage of having already given the matter some thought.

And, finally, I’ve got an English Appeals Panel “gig”, tasked with interpreting an element of the Party’s Constitution. Luckily, it’s a paper hearing, saving me a journey to London, but nonetheless it has to be done right.

I guess that all that Constitution Reading is paying off...

Brexit - the land border that nobody seems to be talking about...

There’s only one land border for the United Kingdom to consider in its negotiations with the European Union, right? And, admittedly, it’s a serious problem, courtesy of the Good Friday Agreement.

Ah, but what about Gibraltar? Yes, it’s a very short border, with only one crossing point, but for the Gibraltarians, dependent on 10,000 Spanish workers to fulfil a whole range of economic activity, anything that adds grit to the carefully oiled machine is of serious concern.

There is, however, one more rather more complicated land border, that of the Sovereign Bases in Cyprus. Akrotiri is relatively simple, in that it is an enclave with the Republic of Cyprus to the north, the Mediterranean Sea to the south. Dhekelia is more complex, as it cuts the Republic in half, and you have to cross it if you’re travelling from Larnaca or Nicosia to, say, Ayia Napa.

And, even more interestingly, Dhekelia has a border with the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus, which has a status all of its own, inside the European Union but not really. And there’s a border crossing there, effectively an external land border of the European Union, and the only one that the United Kingdom has responsibility for.

It struck me that we’ve heard very little about this, despite the fact that it’s a pretty serious business for the Cypriots, and I asked Ros if it had come up at all. She hadn’t heard anything, so said that she would ask her noble friend, John Sharkey, who knows a fair bit about Cyprus. It turned out that he didn’t know either, which led to a Written Question;

To ask Her Majesty's Government what changes they anticipate will be needed to the arrangements for crossing the border between the Cypriot UK Sovereign Bases and the Republic of Cyprus after the UK leaves the EU; what preparations are being made to make any such changes; and what discussions they have had with the EU and the Republic of Cyprus on the issue.

The answer, from Lord Callanan, was not entirely reassuring...

The UK and the Republic of Cyprus are engaged in ongoing constructive discussions on the future of the SBAs. We aim to ensure that those living and working in the SBAs, in particular the 11,000 Cypriot residents, are not adversely impacted by the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. We are confident that an agreement can be reached which respects the Treaty of Establishment, and safeguards both the lives of citizens, and the effective military functioning of the bases.

It appears not to consider the impact on Cypriots living at the eastern end of the Republic, and you can’t help but wonder if their Government might not want to extract some concessions in return for support for whatever deal emerges. If I was in their shoes, I probably would...

@ALDEParty - I’m still helpful after all these years...

I’ve spent the day mostly in Brussels, in my capacity as a member of the ALDE Party’s Financial Advisory Committee, fulfilling a slightly different role to the one I’ve traditionally filled, that of institutional memory and provider of context.

The Committee is undergoing a process of transition at the moment, with the five original members (including myself) on our way out - two this year, three next - and six new members coming in. And that means that they have a bit of a learning curve, just as we did when we started.

Questions of why we do what we do, and how we do it aren’t entirely written down, as our role has evolved somewhat, and whilst the minutes record faithfully our decisions, it isn’t always obvious why. Given that our role, whilst low profile, has significance for both the Bureau and the Secretariat, who we advise and scrutinise to some extent, we also act to ensure that member parties are protected from reputational risk by association.

Admittedly, the Secretariat has been equally zealous in ensuring compliance with both the legal and organisational frameworks of the European Parliament, and has explored ways of raising funds without cutting ethical corners. They take this very seriously, which should be a reassurance to us all.

We make suggestions, examine proposed actions, probe expenditure patterns, and act, I suppose, as an audit and compliance board would. It is an important function, and an enjoyable one at the same time, as it allows me an opportunity to work with the management team and the staff, and to get a better grasp of what they are doing.

But the end is drawing near, as my final term ends next year, and I’ll pass the baton onto Birshen, Mats, Claus, Gaëlle, Adrian and Iztok. They’ll do just fine...

Cabaret night - Needham Market style...

Three times a year, the Barrandov Opera holds a short series of gala evenings and Ros and I usually attend one of them. Now I’d be the first to admit that opera is not entirely my first musical choice, but the opportunity to hear emerging talent from around the world in little old Needham Market is not one that can be missed.

And so, last night, with friends, we were there for a night of culture, with a Serb soprano, Polish mezzo-soprano, Korean tenor and Polish baritone, singing a selection of arias, accompanied at the piano by Peter Bailey, the one constant over the years.

I’d also admit that the image of opera as consisting of robust, slightly immobile people singing about absurdly ludicrous plot twists is one that has stuck with me - opera can feel like it’s being done to you from a distance. But, at the Barrandov, set out dinner style, with the performers moving amongst you, gives a completely different feel to the thing. And, as was the case last night, when the performers actively engage with the audience, and give the impression that they are utterly relaxed and enjoying themselves, it brings home to you that music is as much about context as it is content.

Our guests had heard of the Barrandov Opera, but how one gets tickets is not entirely obvious - there is a website but numbers are very limited (about 150 per evening), and regulars like ourselves tend to book more than a year in advance. They were, quite reasonably, expecting a stage, so when, during the opening number, the soprano wandered down a flight of stairs into the audience, laid her hand on our friend’s shoulder and lingered for a few moments whilst she sang, it was clear that this wasn’t your normal concert experience.

The performance is broken into three parts, between each of which part of a buffet supper is served - nothing overtly complex, salads, quiche, salmon and local ham carved from the bone, plus lots of dessert and a cheese board should one be so inclined.

There’s a bar, so you can ensure that you’re suitably refreshed, with quite reasonable bar prices none of your Royal Opera House “how much!” sort of thing.

And there’s no sound system, what they sing is what you get, but as you’re never more than twenty yards away from the action, and opera singers can really project, it is opera in the raw.

So, if you happen to be free in mid-April, mid-September, or the weekend before Christmas next year, and you’re in the area, you might want to sort out your tickets now...

The practice of supreme power and how it doesn’t apply on a good Parish Council

So, I’m four months or so into my reign of terror term as Chair of Creeting St Peter Parish Council. No-one has died yet, the Council is still at full strength, and our Clerk is still talking to me. So far, so good.

In those four months, we’ve seen the introduction of a 20 mph speed limit, the erection of a new noticeboard and the installation of a defibrillator. I take no particular credit for any of this, as what we do is entirely a team effort, with decisions made by consensus, trust placed in our Clerk, and a willingness amongst councillors to roll up their sleeves and do things as required.

Meetings have been briskly efficient, and whilst I’m not a dictatorial Chair, I don’t like to allow meetings to drift - people have homes to go to, and families to enjoy, after all - so I tend to move the business along.

The July meeting lasted fifty minutes, including an impromptu site visit to the location of a planning application. I take the view that a look at the physical space is more useful than poring over diagrams, and we were able to reach an agreed position quickly and efficiently, with the assistance of our esteemed District Councillor, whose expertise in planning issues is greatly appreciated.

This month’s meeting ran to just forty-six minutes, although I could probably have trimmed that to half an hour had I really wanted to. However, Council meetings are pleasantly chilled, with no sense of internal dissent or ill feeling, and a little bit of “anecdotage” puts people at their ease.

In short, it all seems to be working, I’m enjoying myself, and stuff is getting done. Perhaps I should be advising the Prime Minister...

Drifting through the voids of British politics...

It’s been a long time since I ventured into the blog. Yes, I’ve written a few things for Liberal Democrat Voice as the mood, or a sense of vague obligation, has inspired. It hasn’t been easy though.

I had begun to wonder if I wasn’t beginning to drift into mild depression but, whilst there is much “out there” to despair over, it is, to a great degree, one step removed from my day to day existence. After all, Ros and I are happy together, work is alright (and does not dominate my life in any sense), and life in the village continues on its quietly satisfying way. I have much to be grateful for.

Beyond that though, it is hard to feel inspired. Our politics is not unsatisfying, it is broken, our nation led by the inept and incompetent, the Official Opposition equally uninspiring, the loudest voices being those who would be better silent. Closer to home, local government appears to be a desperate battle to preserve even a semblance of the services that our communities have taken for granted until now.

To make matters worse, the combined impact of social media, the mainstream media and of a public prone to believe in short sentences delivered with passion regardless of the facts has served to increasingly drive out the rational, the genuinely doubtful, those inclined to listen to the argument before reaching a conclusion.

Government, under such circumstances, whilst not impossible, is difficult and constrained, especially given the ease with which the underpinnings of our democracy - an independent judiciary, the rule of law and a neutral Civil Service - have been discredited by the extremists and fanatics.

The question one asks oneself is, “Why bother?”. The answer should be easy - if democracy and civil society matter so much, someone needs to fight for them. The motivation to act on that urge is, however, hard to find. If the British public want to try out cliff-jumping to see if it might be enjoyable, is it for me to stop them, or should I work on the basis that people, and perhaps a nation, should bear the consequences of their actions?

What causes me to hesitate before I quietly amble away into the sunset is those people I know who are vulnerable, or different (which can sometimes amount to the same thing). If Brexit happens, and it goes as wrong as some people suggest it might, the great British public may well look for someone to blame. And yes, that may include politicians, but more likely it will include those who are different, those who stand out.

And, of course, if it does end badly, what will become of those who rely on support from the State? There’s hardly likely to be funds spare to fund the welfare system we currently have, and I doubt that the NHS will be sufficiently funded to keep pace with demand.

But I am not really a campaigner. I’m the person that enables campaigning by freeing up the rather more passionate to focus on that. I’ve always rather seen myself as the political equivalent to a village telephone switchboard operator, connecting people who should be connected, directing people with questions towards people with answers.

So, perhaps the solution is to focus on the stuff that I understand and can make a useful contribution towards. And, stop worrying about the other stuff...

Do Liberal Reform really want Manhattan on the Gipping?

I suppose that I ought to be wary when I see Liberal Reform pushing something supported by the Adam Smith Institute, but the suggestion that individual streets should be allowed to come together to build up to six stories high ranks as one of the more challenging ones.

In theory, building taller buildings for people to live in would increase housing density in areas of high demand. It would also create, if successful, a collection of ‘concrete canyons’ which would be pretty unfriendly and dark.

But, let’s take a look at this more closely, and I’ll take as an example my old stomping ground of East Dulwich. Made up of long terraces, occasionally broken up with small paths along the sides, with small, 30 feet long gardens and a minute front garden, the footprints of each home are rather small, and not really designed for anything much more than three stories.

And yes, you could extend them all, but if we’re talking about a whole street, or even part of one, the disruption caused by building work on a large scale, or even as a series of individual projects, would be highly disruptive.

The suggestion is that the street would decide for itself, which leads one to question how that decision would be taken, what would be done in the case of conservation areas (and it never ceases to amaze me how many of those there are), and what compensation would be paid to those negatively impacted by the development, and by whom.

Yes, you can devolve power down to quite small units, but in cities, the inter-relationship between streets and the impact on shared infrastructure, means that the level of sovereignty that this implies is to some extent limited. Increased housing density, unless matched by enhanced provision for schools, surgeries and the like, not to mention roads, public transport and drainage, actually causes more problems than it solves. And don’t start me on parking, unless you believe that having a car is unnecessary (which it could be, but feels like an effective restriction on choice).

Of course, the inference is that my street, here in the Gipping Valley, could do likewise. The notion of a clutch of six storey buildings in my quiet country village is risible, but I can’t imagine that anyone would seriously suggest the idea.

I note, however, that the article linked to by Liberal Vision suggests that parishes could develop their green belt. I welcome their suggestions as to how a parish like mine, with a population of 270 and an annual precept of about £5,000 could credibly carry out such a scheme.

Housing policy should be holistic, not hot air, it should take into account the needs of a wider community, not narrow self-interest, and I’m afraid that the only people likely to benefit from this are those who already own property and would benefit from the benefits of planning gain. As for everyone else, I wouldn’t get too excited...

I’ve been a little tied up...

It’s funny how you collect stuff over time. And it’s not as if I’m some out of control collector of “stuff”. I shop occasionally, if a little haphazardly, an occupational hazard of putting on weight gradually but significantly over a period of time, I guess.

So, I’ve started what promises to be a vaguely painful, but valuable exercise of going through my wardrobes to see what I’ve got and to reestablish some sense of order. And I started with something easy, just to gently lower myself into the water, so to speak - my tie collection. I don’t wear ties that often, so I couldn’t imagine that it would be a major task.

Fifty-two rolled ties later (plus another one which needs cleaning), I was slightly shell-shocked. Where did all of these ties come from, and why haven’t I worn a number of them in living memory? And there are bow-ties too, eleven of them. In other words, I could wear a different tie every day for more than two months and never repeat.

That’s a lot of ties.

There’s nothing for it, some of them are going to have to go to a good home, i.e. somebody else’s. Luckily, they’re all in good condition, so will be of use to someone, I hope...

An evening at the Suffolk Association of Local Councils Area Meeting

To Claydon this evening, for the quarterly meeting of the Mid Suffolk South Area of the Suffolk Association of Local Councils, the gathering of Town and Parish Councillors from the borders of Ipswich to a line south of the railway line to Bury St Edmunds.

I’ve been attending these for a while, in my former capacity as Creeting St Peter’s “Foreign Minister” (if it’s outside the Parish, Mark’s happy to go). It’s a useful opportunity to find out what’s happening across the District, and to get a heads-up on emerging issues. There is usually much talk about planning, highways and infrastructure, and whilst we don’t have much of those dots of things, we are impacted by decisions affecting our neighbours.

You also get to learn a bit about local representation and the responsibilities of a councillor, which can prove most useful.

I was slightly late due to a delayed bus, and the meeting was already underway, but there were some familiar faces, and a free seat, so I made myself comfortable and eased myself into the flow of discussion.

SALC has a new(ish) Chief Executive, who is immersing herself into the role and is developing a sense of what needs doing and how it might get done - there will be technology involved. She reported back on some of the developmental opportunities that are available to local councils, and we talked about how councillors might take advantage.

Much useful material is available via the website, but is password protected, limiting access to those who are given (and can remember) the means to access it. I suggested that we might move more of that information into the public domain, an idea that seemed to meet with some approval. At the moment, most information flows via the Parish Clerk, and whilst they usually pass that information on efficiently, not all Clerks are as enthusiastic or, worst still, competent in doing so. Whilst we’re lucky like that in Creeting St Peter, it isn’t so everywhere.

We discussed neighbourhood plans, which have run into difficulties due to the general unhelpfulness of Mid Suffolk’s chronically underresourced planning department - my fellow councillors are pretty scathing about their failings, it appears.

There was a brief discussion about possible motions to the County AGM, and I suggested two things, firstly for a SALC campaign to encourage younger people to come forward as potential Parish Councillors, the second to call for meetings to take place at more accessible times and in easier to reach places. By holding meetings during the working day, you exclude potentially good people, and send out a message that younger people aren’t really welcome.

We ended with a discussion of future guests/speakers. I suggested either one of the new Suffolk Constabulary Community Engagement Officers, or someone to talk about Suffolk Highways proposals to devolve some minor works to Parish and Town Councils. The other popular suggestion was to have someone explain what would be happening as a result of the merger of Ipswich and Colchester Hospitals, a matter of grave concern in some quarters.

It was a surprisingly good meeting, well chaired by Josephine Lea from Needham Market, and we were done pretty much on time, so I’d have to mark down the evening as a success.

Giving away surplus food is sensible, not radical. It isn’t original, either...

I was, I admit, somewhat disappointed when I saw the final shortlist for the Ashdown Prize. Yes, they were all terribly sensible, but radical? No, not really, unless you consider sensible to be the equivalent of radical. And, given that I am probably one of the least obvious to be described as a radical - I have some seemingly radical views on the importance of process, but radical bureaucracy is probably an oxymoron - if I don’t think that something is radical, it probably isn’t.

And of the three proposals, probably the least radical was to oblige supermarkets and the like to give surplus usable food to charities for distribution.

I therefore wasn’t terribly surprised to see it win.

It’s not a new idea, the French already do it, although I haven't seen anything that indicates how successful it has been. And yes, I understand that radical and original are not the same thing.

But I had heard the idea somewhere before. So, I dredged my memory and rediscovered this;

148. Another fiscal option already operated in some countries is to offer tax deductions for redistribution schemes. In the US, which has extensive networks for food redistribution on a far larger scale than European operations, Section 170(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code allows certain businesses to earn a tax deduction for donating food and can claim tax breaks on shipments of food if donated food is transported using spare capacity in delivery vehicles. Feeding the 5,000 noted that government incentives for diverting surplus food for human consumption are rare in EU countries, although France is reportedly moving towards tax breaks for businesses that donate their food for charitable redistribution. The idea of exercising such fiscal options was described by FareShare as potentially “transformational” if it succeeded in creating an economic incentive for private operators to redistribute food, beyond the current moral incentive.

Good, eh? And where did this come from?

The answer is, a House of Lords report called “Counting the Cost of Food Waste: EU Food Waste Prevention”, published by the European Union Committee, Sub-Committee D. Their conclusion was that;

there are fiscal tools available to support the redistribution of surplus edible food, ranging from value added tax (VAT) exemptions to tax deductions and tax breaks.

The report was published in 2014, and moved in the House of Lords by none other than the Chair of the Sub-Committee, one Baroness Scott of Needham Market, a name which seems strangely familiar. That’s right, the person I am astoundingly blessed to be married to.

And whilst I would be delighted to see the idea come into practice, and it will help some people who need help badly, it isn’t radical. Finding a way of helping people to reach a level where they don’t need food banks, now that would be radical...

Is Western democracy a nut to be squeezed between Trump and Putin?

It has been obvious for some time that Vladimir Putin’s Russia is no friend of the western democracies, enthusiastically supporting political forces determined to undermine the existing consensus, as a means of weakening our political structures and our economies.

Such a strategy is so much cheaper, and more effective, than military action, and whilst Russia has a nuclear arsenal, its conventional military is less of a threat then it theoretically was during the Cold War. And so, if you can level the playing fields by using the strengths of western democracies against themselves, why not? Vlad does enjoy his judo, after all.

What is more shocking though is that Donald Trump appears to have the same strategy, blatantly misrepresenting events across Europe so as to strengthen the nationalist and populist forces that undermine the open, tolerant societies of Europe. His intervention in German politics, so soon after the open confession of his newly appointed Ambassador that he would seek to support groups such as Alternative fur Deutschland, has been an unwelcome blow to Angela Merkel’s attempt to stabilise German politics after an inconclusive election.

We know that he is happier dealing with dictators rather than democratic leaders - a dictator can make a deal knowing that he isn’t accountable to anyone, whereas a democratically elected leader knows that he or she has to secure enough support to seal any bilateral arrangement. We also know that he doesn’t play by the conventional rules.

His working assumption seems to be that, for America and Trump to win, somebody else has to lose, and the currently preferred losers are America’s traditional allies. From our perspective, that’s deeply worrying. Europe is too dependent on America for its security to be anything other than fretful about the possibility of an isolationist Administration.

And yes, Europe does need to step up to the plate in terms of defence spending, but it also needs to be smarter, more collaborative, more disciplined than in the past. Multinational brigades, greater purchasing co-ordination to ensure that allied forces use similar equipment for ease of combined strike capacity, that sort of thing. Taking advantage of national specialisations, rather than each country attempting to cover the entire range of threats independently.

That means a European defence strategy, linked to that of the EU External Action Service, which would stray into territory that the British, Liberal Democrats included, have staunchly opposed over the years. Ironically, Brexit offers an opportunity for the rest of Europe to develop such a strategy, isolating Britain yet further from the core of European defence infrastructure.

Under other circumstances, one would seek to renew links to the United States leadership, overcoming the scepticism of an unenthusiastic American President. I’m not convinced that this is a credible option at the moment, given the stances that Donald Trump is taking, and the historical perspective of those from whom he takes advice.

And so, we British isolate ourselves further in a world of regional blocs. Depressing, really...

An unexpected encounter at dusk...

I have walked around the village quite a lot over the past two and a half years. My laps get longer in the summer, and cleave closer to the village core in winter, especially during the week.

But, as a result, the village is very familiar, and anything unusual tends to catch my attention. I ought to be our Neighbourhood Watch co-ordinator, I guess.

This evening, my evening constitutional was delayed somewhat by the England game - and wasn’t that a nerve-shredding affair? - so the light was beginning to fade as I wandered down Pound Road towards the bridge over the A14. And then I noticed something black, sitting on the gravel outside 7 Peterhouse. It wasn’t very big, but it seemed out of place.

Suddenly, it moved, and to my surprise, a small rabbit was heading onto the road towards me. It stopped in front of me, and clearly wasn’t a wild one. So, I scooped it up.

I knocked on the door of number 7, small, cute rabbit held tightly against my chest. It wasn’t theirs. But I had someone to help, as we knocked on doors to see if anyone had lost a rabbit. At number 11, we had our first lead, and I headed down the street. And yes, a rabbit had been lost, the rabbit in my arms.

I handed it over to a happy owner.

Job done.

It’s never dull in Creeting St Peter...

Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils to pilot pioneering developer contributions database

I don’t normally reproduce Council press releases, but this one might be of wider interest...

Residents and those in the development industry will be able to see how money collected from developers as part of planning agreements is being spent on providing infrastructure for local communities when a new database goes online. 

Both Babergh and Mid Suffolk are working with the software provider Exacom as part of a pilot exercise involving two other local authorities to hone this innovative, new database which will transform the way that information is held for developer contributions paid for by legal agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils Section 106 and CIL data will be used by the software provider in the launch of the Planning Obligations Public Facing Module across the country. This will be hosted on the Councils’ websites later in the summer and will enable people to search for information by district, ward, parish or infrastructure type with details of where monies are collected, allocated and spent. It will also allow people to see legal agreements secured as part of the planning process. The information will be updated daily.

Babergh and Mid Suffolk expect to be able to host this database on their websites in the summer. Today, their data was used as part of the national launch of the database by Exacom. 

The Public Facing Module, comprising of information on infrastructure funding in Babergh and Mid Suffolk can be viewed online at: http://pfm.exacom.co.uk/midsuffolkbabergh/index.php

Ralph Taylor and Geoff Kirby, Directors of Exacom, said:

We believe that this is a revolution in planning obligation transparency and will set the future standard in planning obligation transparency for the rest of the UK. We would like to thank Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Council for their assistance in launching this project with their planning obligation data.

Babergh District Council’s Cabinet Member for Planning, Councillor Nick Ridley, said:

This is ground breaking technology and we are sure that residents across the district will be interested to see how contributions secured from developers as part of planning applications are benefiting their local communities. We are proud to be the first local authorities in the country to demonstrate this database.

Mid Suffolk District Council’s Cabinet Member for Assets and Investment, Councillor Nick Gowrley, said:

This exciting project is the culmination of two and a half years’ work which will bring together a range of detailed data on our website in the summer for the benefit of residents, people in the development industry, our Parish Councils, Councillors and community groups. This speaks to the Council’s agenda of openness and transparency and the database will provide information in real time in that it will update every 24 hours.

Pedalling frantically towards the cliff edge?

It may be because I am, at heart, someone who believes that you can affect real change only by building coalitions of interest, that I find myself increased perplexed by what this country has become in the past two years.

Winning a referendum by a relatively small proportion was hardly a staggering endorsement for leaving the European Union, but I did expect there to follow an inkling of the strategy that might lead us to a stable outcome. I was to be disappointed it seemed.

I then assumed that those tasked with guiding the country through the negotiations with the European Union would understand the issues, plus the implications of a range of choices. And, when negotiating with an institution that is extremely rule-bound, understanding what their red lines were likely to be. Again, I was to be disappointed, as minister after minister demonstrated an apparent absence of any knowledge of how the modern, interdependent world operates, where production lines cross and recross national borders, and where standards are increasingly set by multinational groupings or institutions.

It was all rather depressing.

I reassured myself with the thought that, regardless of any lack of knowledge or understanding, no government would be insane enough to drive the country off of a cliff by leaving the European Union without a pretty conclusive deal. After all, when 80% of your exports are financial or other services, and you’ve made your way in the world by encouraging international investment to your country as a gateway to the wider European market, wilfully cutting yourself off seems like the height of madness.

And I still don’t believe that the government intend to do that. The problem is that, as is so often the case in British politics, they seem to think that the European Union has;

1. More to lose than we do, and;
2. The ability to be almost infinitely flexible in pursuit of a deal.

The first argument has been pretty conclusively trashed - yes, the amount of trade at risk is weighted in cash terms in our favour, but in terms of relative proportions of each economy, we are much worse off.

But the second argument is undermined by the very different approaches to politics, which brings us back to the rules-based nature of the European Union. Yes, the European Union is often involved on last-minute bargaining amongst itself. The catch is, there is a status quo to revert to if a deal can’t be cut. That’s not true here, especially as any deal must be at least acceptable enough to all. That limits the European Union’s room for manoeuvre - there are a whole slew of things that simply aren’t negotiable.

Our negotiators seem to disregard that, which appears to demonstrate a terrifying naivety. Not only that, but our view of politics as a game is positively toxic in an environment where, if a government says it intends to do something, then there is a working assumption on the other side of the table that it will do exactly that, and that it understands and accepts the consequences.

The European Union will shake its head sadly, and walk away, having been given little alternative by a group of people will think that their opponents will blink first.

And then we’ll find out whether or not the whole “Global Britain” thing is credible or just fantasy. I hope, for our sake, they have a plan for that phase which doesn’t just evaporate in the face of reality...

I may not be what Mid Suffolk District Council expect...

I take my newly awarded responsibilities as Chair of my Parish Council seriously, as one should. 

In that capacity, I see myself having a role in lobbying for things that we need or want, and in attending meetings so that I might better anticipate things that might impact on us sooner or later. And so, the receipt of an invitation to attend a Town and Parish Council Liaison Meeting, organised by Mid Suffolk District Council, seemed like an obvious thing to attend.

I was, I have to confess, therefore somewhat surprised to discover that the meeting would take place at 10 a.m. on a Thursday morning, in Walsham-le-Willows.

In fairness, Walsham-le-Willows is a very nice place for a meeting, especially on a summer’s morning. It is, unfortunately, rather a long way from a railway station, and the only buses run between Bury St Edmunds and Diss every two hours or so, making it rather hard to get to if you don’t drive.

That is trying enough as a non-driver, but I find myself wondering what message it sends about the sort of people who might be Town or Parish councillors, that it is thought appropriate to hold a meeting on a work day, during regular office hours. I am, I suspect, fairly common in having a job, and for most people who have jobs, attending a mid-morning meeting requires the taking of leave from work. The assumption must therefore be that Mid Suffolk District Council expect most councillors to be retired, hardly an indication that they represent the broadest swathe of our community.

We’re lucky in Creeting St Peter, in that our councillors come from a broad spectrum of age groups, and I tend to think that this means that we have a diversity of views and approaches that makes us more effective than we would be if we all had a similar perspective. But Mid Suffolk District Council doesn’t appear to think that diversity of representation either exists or is important if it does.

The accessibility issue troubles me as well, although I acknowledge that, as one of the 10% of rural people who don’t drive, I am rather more of a minority that the under-65s are.

It sends out a message though, a message that I am not particularly welcome, and that younger councillors aren’t worth making an effort to engage with.

Trust me, I will be making this point loud and clear at the meeting, and will press Mid Suffolk District Council to hold at least some of these meetings in more accessible locations and at more convenient times for people with jobs. And, unless these events are designed simply to be convenient for the District Council, I expect them to at least understand why I’m annoyed.

Eight hundred and forty-six days, and still counting...

When I started my original “Building a Better Walrus” programme at the beginning of 2016, the intention was to walk 10,000 steps each day. It was, if you like, an aspiration which soon turned into something rather more serious. And, as the days went by, the idea of not reaching my target became rather like an obsession. That was, until I contracted food poisoning in Cuba and was confined to a sofa for three days.

I’d managed forty-five straight days of 10,000 steps and was feeling quite proud of myself, and was determined to get back into my stride, so to speak. My first day back wasn’t pretty as a rather pale and shaky bureaucrat ambled slowly around our beach resort. That was February 18, 2016.

I haven’t missed a day since.

Admittedly, I’ve had to be pretty creative at times. Walking around the promenade deck of a small cruise ship forty-eight times was one solution on the day we didn’t go ashore due to the lack of shore. Airports have become a means to cover distances rather than buy duty-free. And I am often seen walking up and down station platforms if I get to the station early enough. You never know, after all, what might stand in your way later in the day, so better to get those steps in early.

And one interesting side effect is that, as I am able to walk further, I become more likely to do so, and have taken to walking journeys that would have seemed onerous before. For example, when I come to London for FIRC meetings, I walk from Liverpool Street to Westminster, varying my route according to the time available. Last time, I crossed the Millenium Bridge for the first time and followed the South Bank from there to Westminster - it’s a rather pleasant stroll.

Best of all, everywhere feels so much closer, something which became obvious after two Spring Conferences in York. The first time, one tended not to walk as much whilst, a year later and somewhat lighter, on the second trip, we tended to arrive at places rather earlier than expected.

Now I acknowledge that walking isn’t for everyone - friends of mine have a variety of methods for keeping, or getting, active - but if, like me, you’re not keen on rushing about, a gentle stroll is quite a nice way of stirring the blood. And if you happen to have some leaflets, all the better...

Highways maintenance: was I accidentally surfing a wave in the Creetings?

A couple of years ago, I decided to clean a road sign that was annoying me. It seems as though somebody was paying attention, because Suffolk County Council have concluded that this is something that Parish Councils should be taking on.

Suffolk Highways is currently developing its Community Self Help offer. The scheme will aim to enable local community groups, including town and parish councils, to undertake work that Suffolk Highways does not have the budget to undertake.

However, it seems that their intention goes a bit further than just cleaning the odd road sign...

So, how can our communities help? We know that many are willing and able to help in undertaking minor works in their areas. We have been considering what our community self help offer would look like. In order to ensure that our offer meets the needs of the community we approached town and parish councils across Suffolk to better understand what areas communities are most interested in doing for themselves. This is not about communities undertaking work that we are able to and do undertake, but about how communities can add to and undertake more, on top of what we provide.

I can’t say that I’m keen. With a total budget of about £6,000, and a disproportionate amount of road per resident, I can’t see that we could do very much other than to clean the odd road sign, and tidy away any foliage that might be obscuring it. And it does raise the question, once again, as to what the County Council does for villages such as ours.

At our last Parish Council meeting, I did ask our County Councillor if he had any understanding as to what this might imply for us, but he seemed to know as little as we did.

However, we are apparently going to find out at some point this month, and I look forward to discussing it at the Mid Suffolk South meeting of the Suffolk Association of Local Councils, scheduled to take place in a fortnight’s time. I have a funny feeling that I might not be the only person with concerns...

Creeting St Peter welcomes careful (and somewhat slower) drivers...

On returning to the Parish Council some two years ago, I was told that an application was in train to introduce a 20 mph speed limit in the village. And, subsequently, at every meeting, the apparent lack of progress was noted, despite the promises made by our County Councillor.

Well, in fairness, I should report that, on Friday, the Order was published confirming that traffic through the village will need to be a bit more cautious in future. The new speed limit comes into effect tomorrow, and all credit is due to my fellow councillors and to Gary Green, the Conservative County Councillor for Stowmarket North and Stowupland.

The speed limit covers the area north of the A14 bridge to the northern edge of the village, as well as The Lane, so not a huge inconvenience to those who drive through on their way to the great metropolises of Stowupland and Needham  Market, I trust.

I assume that there will be some new street furniture, with the 30 mph signs replaced by 20 mph ones, and some road markings will need to be redone, but I’m hoping that this will follow shortly.

There is a modest irony in all of this, in that I was once quoted by the BBC as being opposed to mandatory 20 mph speed limits in built-up areas, and I stand by that. Here, though, the village wants it, and thus I have no cause to oppose it. We don’t have pavements, so children, walkers and other pedestrians are sharing the road space with traffic, and having it travel more slowly is frankly in everyone’s interest. It also makes it a little safer for traffic emerging from The Lane, given that the hedge on the corner makes visibility a little tricky.

But it also demonstrates that a Parish Council with a strategy and a simple plan can achieve something for its community, and I think that that’s something we can all get behind...