Creeting St Peter: someone has stolen our signpost...

I was back in my beloved Creeting St Peter on Monday, in my capacity both as Chair and Responsible Finance Officer of our small, but perfectly formed, Parish Council. In fairness, it couldn't be described as an exciting one. Efficient yes, thrilling... no, not really. We're pretty effective in a low-key way.

Our finances are healthy, our relationships with our County and District Councillors thriving - they give us money from their locality funds too - and we're making progress on our next big community safety investment, a Speed Indicator Device (or SID to the highways cognoscenti), in that we've secured the funding and are working with the County Council on installation. We're also moving our website to a gov.uk domain, as recommended by our recent internal audit.

It was reported that we have peregrine falcons in our parish too, although they nest just across the river on one of the chimneys of the Muntons plant - we're very keen on protecting the environment in Creeting St Peter, although there are concerns about an apparent falling off of the owl population.

Having completed the meeting by noting that my Vice Chair will be covering for me at our next meeting - it clashes with the Liberal Democrat Federal Conference - I needed to head back to Stowmarket to catch a train. My council colleague graciously offered to drop me off and we were catching up when, as we reached the T-junction where Pound Road meets Mill Lane, I spotted something. Or rather, didn't spot something. The signpost that has been there for years... isn't. Now, as you can tell from the picture above, it was in pretty poor shape. I'd reported it for repair, only to be told that there were no funds available to replace it.

But, at a meeting earlier this year, our County Councillor, Keith Welham, had advised that he had a budget to replace one road sign and, as neither Stowmarket not Stowupland had a need for it, the opportunity was ours effectively by default. So, we asked for the sign to be repaired, which he agreed to take forward. And now the road sign is gone. Does this mean what I hope it means? We await with baited breath...

Puberty blockers - a reminder of prejudice-based decision making

A few days ago, I wrote something optimistic about the incoming administration, suggesting that they might actually be governing, something that I approve of. I also noted that, regardless of whether or not I agree with them, the fact that they are governing is, in itself, a good thing.

And then, Wes Streeting came along.

Now, before I continue, I will freely admit that, when it comes to medical science, I know almost as much as I know about the tactics of lacrosse, or oceanic navigation. What I do have though, is a set of liberal principles that guide my approach. They may not be your liberal principles, but still.

I belong to a political party which has taken a stance on trans rights. It's a stance that I'm comfortable with, on the basis that I firmly believe that people should be free so long as, in exercising that freedom, they don't inhibit the freedom of others*. And given that I believe that people should be judged on the basis of their behaviour rather than on a generalist fear of "others", you might not be surprised to hear that I fundamentally disagree with some of the arguments offered by so-called "gender criticals".

But I don't have obvious skin in the game. I'm a man. And, given that almost the entire debate on trans issues revolves around male to female transition, the idea that I might somehow feel uncomfortable around trans men seems absurd. On the other hand, I'm a minority, and the concerns of any minority group should at the very least engage my attention. Is the inherent logic of the arguments used to repress them likely to be used on others at some point? On me?

So, over the years, I've paid attention. I've been horrified to watch as access to treatment has been effectively withdrawn from people who suffer as what they know to be true about themselves is denied, leaving them tormented. I read the statistics on suicide rates in the trans community, especially amongst teenagers, and despair that their lives have been shortened due to political decisions rather than medical ones. It is, effectively, a political choice to deny freedom.

The decision to place a blanket ban on the prescribing of puberty blockers for under-18s - which strikes me as an effective "across the board" ban - in cases where gender dysphoria is a possibility without provision for some proper research strikes me as being a political decision rather than a medical one. It feels like a decision made with one eye on the right-wing media rather than on the needs of a group of individuals who have to live with the consequences.

There are very good grounds for the funding of research, should a minister feels that they require reassurance. But by applying a presumption that the current treatment is too dangerous to be permitted, pain and suffering is caused to those who want treatment and who, in all likelihood, will have jumped through a series of hoops and suffered psychologically even to get to the point where they might be considered for that treatment. It is then not unreasonable to ask why a politician feels the need to act, and who they have consulted before making such a choice.

But if someone wants to proceed with a course of treatment in full knowledge of the risks, and a trained medical professional agrees after due consideration, I don't believe that politicians should interfere. Indeed, we will have created a situation where the right to treatment is limited to those who have the personal means to override the legal restrictions here, hardly an endorsement of the principle of equality of opportunity.

A number of Liberal Democrat MPs have already gone public with their opposition to the ban on puberty blockers, and have taken a fair amount of abuse for doing so, including from some within our own Party. It would be easier, undoubtedly, to "walk by on the other side of the road". They will have their own reasons for taking such a stance, which might not be entirely the same in each case. But I admire their willingness to take a clear stance. It is one of the reasons why I have broken my public silence on the subject. And, indeed, if I were in their shoes, I'd vote as they apparently intend to do.

I don't claim to be an ally. Indeed, I am mildly distrustful of some who claim to be an ally, as I tend to think that it's for others to award that epithet. And I'm never going to be someone for whom trans rights are anything more than a facet of my liberalism. It isn't personal to me. But justice and freedom are universal values, or they are nothing.

* It's more complex than that, but if I expanded upon the basic argument, we'd be here all day.

Is it me, or do we have a Government that's actually... governing?

One of the things about working in the public sector is that, for the most part, what you really need is a clear, decisive steer on what is required of you. Applying an existing legal framework to that gives you a platform for delivering whatever it is that you are asked to deliver, and allows you to, hopefully, make effective use of your time and of public resources.

And, if your leaders have a reasonably consistent and definable philosophy, even when you aren't given precise instructions, you can probably work out for yourself what they would want you to do.

One of the problems that the outgoing Conservative administration had was that they appeared to have no logical thread left. Decisions were made on the apparent basis of the prejudices of the senior figure calling the shots, and they became hard to predict. Combine that with a (very) thinly-veiled contempt for the people tasked with delivering, and a constant churn of ministers and you ended up with some pretty poor governance.

I should emphasise at this point that good governance does not equal "things that I support and/or approve of". That shouldn't be how public servants operate in a civil service ecosystem. Politicians govern, civil servants deliver*.

So, it is a promising sign when an incoming Prime Minister explicitly states that he has respect for the Civil Service. And, whether that lasts or not, it offers some hope that, in pursuing their agenda, a Labour administration will operate within the confines of the constitutional framework and the law, if you like, re-establishing the guardrails of our constitution so badly damaged by, in particular, the Johnson administration.

Governments have a vast array of tools with which to pursue any agenda. Much of the power they need already exists in legislation, or can be addressed by a simple change of priority. There is, I'd suggest, an argument for focussing on managing what already exists rather than writing new statute, although, as Ros often says, when you have the hammer of legislation, all problems look like nails.

The forthcoming King's Speech will give us a strong steer on how the incoming Government will operate over the next five years or so, but as someone who appreciates good governance more than most, the portents look more promising than they have at any time in the past five years. For that, I for one am grateful.

* terms and conditions, i.e. the Civil Service Code, apply...

General Election 2024: what happened in Suffolk

So, Ipswich set aside, how did we get on across the county last week?

I guess that we probably ought to go clockwise around the county town so...

There's no doubt that Tom Bartleet, our first time candidate in South Suffolk, clearly enjoyed himself, running something of a guerilla campaign, and I know that a lot of effort went into it. There may have been a bit of tractor driving too. But a seat that, according to some of the MRP data out there, was predicted to go Labour or Reform, was always going to be a tough nut to crack, and the result showed a narrow improvement in our position, increasing our vote from an notional 12.7% to 13.2%, good enough to beat the Greens for fourth in an area where the latter have done quite well in local elections in recent years.

South Suffolk was unusual in one respect, in that it saw the only successful candidate seeking re-election across the whole county in James Cartlidge, whose majority shrank to just 3,047, with a 18.3% swing from the Conservatives to Labour. Interestingly, the Labour vote didn't increase by that much - 7.5% - which might be explained by their almost total lack of a local government base across the constituency, one District councillor and no County councillors. That'll be a recurring theme here...

West Suffolk has been something of a black hole for Liberal Democrats in recent years, and the idea that Nick Timothy, whose efforts for Theresa May did so much to boost her popularity, might not win here was absurd, right up to the point when the exit poll was announced. I'd expected Reform to do well, given that their now former Vice-Chair, David Bull, was the candidate, but not sufficiently so as to overturn an enormous notional majority. But, again, Labour edged up enough to get within 3,247 votes, based on their support bases of Haverhill and Newmarket. They do at least have councillors in those towns, but little support anywhere else across the heathlands.

As far as we were concerned, Henry Batchelor managed to increase our vote by 0.2% to 9.3% which, given the likelihood that we would be squeezed by the "big three", must be seen as a decent outcome, and again we beat the Greens for fourth.

The first shock of the night was Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, where Will Tanner, Rishi Sunak's Chief of Staff, managed to shed almost half of the Conservative support from 2019 and lost to a Labour candidate who certainly wasn't on their list of battleground seats. It's fundamentally the seat that Labour got within 368 votes of winning in 1997 but faded away almost entirely over the next two decades.

Peter McDonald managed to save our deposit in a seat that we'd ceded to the Greens in 2019 as part of the "deal" we did with them, and I'd have taken that at the outset. The Greens will have been disappointed to have fallen back a little, but the next result would doubtless have made up for it.

Waveney Valley Labour were telling anyone who would listen that they were the prime contenders to take this newly-created cross-border seat from the Conservatives, putting out a bar chart suggesting that the Greens would come fourth. That was never going to happen, but I found it hard to believe that Adrian Ramsey and his crew could overcome the difficulties of a large rural constituency without much in the way of major (or even minor) centres of population. They were certainly determined though, and having apparently swallowed whole the entire library of 1990s ALDC literature, they knew what they were doing.

They squeezed the Labour vote from 18.6% to 9.4%, and the Liberal Democrat vote from 9.2% to 2.5%, a performance that any of our campaigners would have been proud of, and you have to say that, if Adrian does what we would do if the positions were reversed, his 5,593 majority might last a while.

A year ago, Lowestoft would have been seen as a Labour banker. The shrunken boundaries of the seat relative to its predecessor, Waveney, took a swathe of previously Conservative territory out, leaving the rather battered port town at the heart of what was left. The only catch was that it was fertile ground for Reform too, and with next door Great Yarmouth going turquoise, you wouldn't have bet against the same thing happening further south. But Labour managed to come from the left and win the seat with just 34.6% of the vote. Adam Robertson was caught in the squeeze, with a lost deposit and 3.6% of the vote the final tally.

Ah, Suffolk Coastal, a seat that was hard to call, not just because of Therese Coffey's stunning levels of unpopularity, but because it really wasn't obvious who to vote for to beat her. The Greens and the Liberal Democrats both have a decent presence at local government level, whilst Labour had the potential advantage of a national swing. I'll admit that I thought that Dr Coffey would hang on but her vote share crashed to an astonishing 29.5% and Labour's Jenny Riddell-Carpenter sneaked home by just 1,070 votes.

Julia Ewart, fighting the seat for a second time for us, ran a gallant campaign but the tide ran against her, leading to a 1.1% fall in our support. I still think that 14.1% gives us something to build upon, and it will be interesting to see what happen in next year's County elections, given that Labour will have to fight territory that has been pretty stony in recent years if they're to build support for a 2029 defence.

And that leaves Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, which I had seen as the most likely Conservative loss given that it includes the north-western part of Ipswich, which lean Labour at the best of times. And, if Kevin Craig hadn't been caught betting against himself, it might well have fallen. But, in the absence of a campaign, and given that betting against yourself is generally frowned upon, Patrick Spencer held on by a relatively comfortable 4,290 on a turnout of 76.5%. Labour will certainly have their eye on that going forward but it was interesting that all five serious contenders gained 11.7% of the vote or better. Brett Mickelburgh dragged our vote up to that 11.7% level, and whilst fifth place doesn't look great in itself, it's a respectable performance in a constituency where the Greens are an entirely credible alternative.

So, no trees torn up by the Liberal Democrats across Suffolk, but we made a little progress across the county as a whole, saved six of our eight deposits, and can take vicarious pleasure in the success of Pippa Heylings in South Cambridgeshire and Marie Goldman in Chelmsford, the two constituencies where our activists were directed as part of the regional targetting strategy.

Attention now turns to next year's County elections, where a number of plot lines will collide. Will the Conservative vote collapse again, leaving opportunities for Labour, the Greens and ourselves? Will Reform play a significant part in the campaign or will their weakness in terms of local organisation offer relief to the Conservatives? How will Labour get on in rural Suffolk without the advantage of an overwhelming air war in the absence of an activist base?

We shall see, but the work for 2025 is already underway...

General Election 2024: what happened in Ipswich

The superficial conclusion from Suffolk's county town is that Labour swept down upon Tom Hunt and the Ipswich Conservatives and put them to the metaphorical sword. Except, as it turns out, they really didn't, increasing the Labour share of the vote by 4% and actually achieving a lower number of votes than they had done in 2019.

No, as in so many places, it was Reform UK who really did for Tom - increasing their vote share by 13%. And yes, Labour will have gained some votes from the Conservatives, but they lost votes to, predominantly, the Greens, up from 2.6% to 8.3% and failed to squeeze the Liberal Democrats, who edged up from narrowly losing their deposit in 2019 to narrowing saving it in 2024.

In truth, I have no issue with Jack Abbott, our new Labour MP - I actually don't know that much about him, and his campaign didn't bring him to our door as best I can tell - and a near 7,500 majority should give him a degree of leeway against a Conservative bounceback in 2029, should that even happen. It is, I suspect, highly unlikely that he could be as unlikeable a human being as Tom Hunt was, and we'll see how effective he is at making the case for the town in Westminster.

From a Liberal Democrat perspective, saving the deposit for the first time since 2010 is a positive, even though it would be hard to say that we've made serious progress. We did benefit from having, in James Sandbach, a candidate who was able to work with the Local Party for an extended period, as opposed to the parachuted candidates we've had previously - and I acknowledge here Adrian Hyyrylainen-Trett's enthusiastic efforts in 2017 and 2019 - and there is a sense that there is a space for Liberal Democrats in the town's politics if only we can seize the opportunity.

I think that the national performance of the Party will add momentum to local efforts and, whilst it's hard to envisage Ipswich appearing on a list of Liberal Democrat target seats any time soon, thoughts will now turn to next year's County elections, where the Conservative vote will be targeted pretty ruthlessly by their opponents. 2021 was a good year for Conservatives in local government, and Suffolk was no exception to that, so there will be prospects for the opposition parties across the town. Labour, in particular, will be confident of sweeping the board in Ipswich, whilst we'll be hoping to resist the tide in St Margaret's division where the new boundaries favour us significantly.

A bureaucrat takes a slow barge to Harwich

The "Thalatta" at Ipswich

I have to admit that, after a night watching the election results come in, even a good night’s sleep wasn’t entirely restorative, and I’d almost forgotten that we had plans for yesterday.

Many years ago, before Ros and I met, she had been invited to become the Patron of the East Coast Sail Trust. And, as is sometimes the case with these things, people change, and things get forgotten. Until recently that is, and Ros had been invited to spend a day on the water, aboard the "Thalatta", a 1906 coastal barge, owned by the Trust. And so, yesterday morning, we boarded "Thalatta" from the quayside in Ipswich on a squally day for a cruise down the Orwell towards Harwich and Felixstowe.

Whilst the weather wasn't terribly good, we made our way through the lock gates out into open water, fortified with mugs of hot tea and the occasional biscuit, and gently glided into the Orwell. And you run out of "urban" surprisingly quickly as you head south-easterly away from the town centre, past the marina at Woolverstone, past Pin Mill and on towards Levington. The banks are heavily tree-lined, offering tantalising glimpses of the cranes at Felixstowe's massive container port, and with an amazing number of sailing dinghys and motor yachts traveling up and down under the watchful eye of the Harwich Haven Authority.

Lunch was fortunately timed to coincide with some of the worst of the weather, and I emerged back on deck to find us close to some vast container ships at Felixstowe.

We had to turn back though from the original schedule, having intended to round Shotley Point and make our way up the Stour a bit, but with a steady 20 knot westerly breeze, and gusts up to 35 knots, discretion was clearly the better part of valour. And so we retraced our steps back to Ipswich, arriving back in the town after seven hours afloat.

All in all, it was a splendid day out, despite the weather, which sprang one more unpleasant surprise as we disembarked, a torrential downpour which made our decision to wear rain-resistant outfits all the more sensible.

Life can be hectic sometimes, and in a world where so much happens so quickly, a day about a coastal barge acts as an antidote to the sense of chaos. Nothing happens quickly, and you can enjoy the scenery as it passes by at a steady six knots or so. We may have to do this again sometime...

General Election 2024: some pre-result thoughts from the non-heartlands

And so, the campaign is over (thank God, many may think!) and the waiting begins. Of course, as a non-candidate in a seat which would be so far down the Liberal Democrat target list as to require my distance glasses to find it, it would be fair to say that I’m a peripheral player in the big game.

I did manage to get to our two designated target seats - Chelmsford and South Cambridgeshire - and even delivered a few leaflets in my own ward here in Ipswich, so I can feel that I made a small contribution to campaigns that were well-run and will hopefully be successful.

My hopes for the outcome can be divided into three categories:

• My community - Ipswich
• My country
• My Party

As far as Ipswich is concerned, my fondest hope is that our Conservative MP, Tom Hunt, gets banished to the outer darkness. He might not be a racist personally, but he has pandered to those racists in our community in a shameless attempt to nail down their support.

Ipswich has problems and challenges both short-term and long-term, but Tom Hunt offers little in the way of meaningful solutions. Polling suggests that I will get my wish and, whilst I know little about his expected Labour replacement, Jack Abbott, he cannot imaginably do a worse job.

As a public servant, I have struggled with a government that appears to have no comprehension of the concept of governance. I don’t expect to agree with a Conservative administration, but I did expect them to know how to run things. And whilst my expectations of an incoming Labour administration are high, I pray that they at least understand how government works and show a little faith in, and respect for, those of us who deliver it.

And finally, the Party. As an agent in the 2005 General Election, I set myself four targets, the last of which was a “stretch” one. So, here are mine this time:

Defend all of our seats.

Double our number of seats to thirty - and I still think that if that had been on offer in March, most Liberal Democrats would have taken it.

Increase the number of Liberal Democrat seats to fifty.

Beat the Conservatives into third place in terms of seats - the fantasy “stretch” target.

All we can do now though, is sit and wait…

A committee debut looms for a liberal bureaucrat

I did mention that I'd intended to get a bit more engaged with things this year and, whilst that has been more of an aspiration than actual activity, I have made a few steps towards achieving that.

It seemed that, having mentioned the Liberal Democrat European Group (LDEG), someone noticed, and I was invited to become the Executive Committee member representing the East of England (the position had been vacant for a little while). And now, I have my first meeting on Thursday. The agenda doesn't look to be anything other than gentle, which allows me to hopefully ease my way in and get up to speed with what is happening.

In some ways, you kind of wonder why I haven't been more involved over the years. After all, I've been involved in the international work of the party for more than thirty-five years on and off, I've attended ALDE Party Congresses and Councils for so long, I remember when it was ELDR, and I've served on Federal International Relations Committee. Perhaps I was too busy, or minded to leave the campaigning element to someone else, but whatever the reason, I'm hoping to add a little value to the work of the group.

That might be through my links to Liberal Democrat Voice, by helping with the management of the organisation, or by building links within my Region - we'll see. It helps that I already know most of the Executive Committee, in particular Rob Harrison, who I first worked with at a meeting of the Liberal and Radical Youth Movement of the European Community (LYMEC) in Paris in 1989. Ah, memories...

So, I'd better read my papers, I guess...

Culture to the left of me, culture to the right of me…

I do flatter myself that I am a relatively cultured soul. That is despite the minor detail that I read little fiction, go to the cinema only on rare occasions, don’t tend to visit galleries or museums when I travel and, even when I lived in London, was hardly a devotee of the city’s vibrant cultural scene.

I do, admittedly, enjoy classical music, and travel to interesting and (often) faraway places. But I’m not a participant and, for the most part, haven’t been much of an observer either. That is, until now. With our new urban existence has come opportunities to engage with the cultural scene of our county town.

We have three theatres, two of which we’ve attended in recent weeks, there is a bit of classical music - we attended a performance of Bach’s St John Passion (admittedly, I prefer the St Matthew Passion) at Easter - and, thanks almost entirely to Ros, a few launch events at The Hold, Suffolk’s quite new archives and exhibition space.

We also have Dance East, on Ipswich’s waterfront, two multiplex cinemas within walking distance of the house, the Ipswich Institute, celebrating its 200th anniversary this year, and the Corn Exchange with its arts cinema.

However, whereas in London there are millions of tourists to support the spectrum of arts and culture, Ipswich, and Suffolk, have to be a bit more self-reliant. In other words, if you want a diverse cultural ecosystem, you have to turn up occasionally, and hand over some cash to support those who create and perform.

A key funder of the arts in rural counties is local government, and Suffolk has been no exception. So, when budget proposals from the County Council were released, proposing to axe the entire arts grant budget, there was something of a wailing and gnashing of teeth across the sector. But, more importantly, there was a strong response from the public, sufficient to persuade the Conservative administration to row back on the idea - at least for now.

But local government finances aren’t likely to get any easier in the medium term, and thus it’s necessary to find and develop other income streams, be it through fundraising or by diversification. So, for example, Eastern Angles have their Copperfield Supporters programme, which allows you to make small(ish) regular donations to support their productions and their highly regarded outreach work, taking theatre to the smaller towns and larger villages across East Anglia.

So, I suspect that I might be attending a few more events in the coming months. I ought to get out more, I suppose…

Feed me! The Little Shop of Horrors comes to Ipswich

I’ve worked within walking distance of the New Wolsey Theatre pretty much since I moved to Suffolk and yet, for no particular reason, I’d never been into it, let alone seen a performance (and it does apparently have a decent café). But we’d had a strong recommendation to go and see the touring production of “Little Shop of Horrors” and, as we were free last night, and tickets (although not many) were available, we thought, “why not?”. And I’m glad that we did, because we would otherwise have missed an incredibly spirited and utterly enjoyable show.

It's a joint production by the New Wolsey Theatre, the Hull Truck Theatre, the Octagon Theatre Bolton and Theatre by the Lake Keswick, and features just ten performers, including the drummer. And the advantage of the New Wolsey is that you're never going to be very far from the stage, so it feels strangely intimate.

I won't recount the plot, partly for spoiler reasons if you've never seen the film or the stage musical, but needless to say that there isn't a duff tune in it and you'll find yourself humming one or more tunes as you leave.

So, whilst you've missed your chance if you want to see it in Ipswich, you can catch it as follows:

• 27 March to 20 April at Theatre by the Lake, Keswick
• 24 April to 18 May at the Octagon Theatre, Bolton
• 22 May to 8 June at Hull Truck Theatre
• 18-22 June at the Theatre Royal, Windsor

And, obviously, I'd strongly recommend it.

It reminds me that there's a strong cultural life outside of London too, something that, as a Londoner relocated to Suffolk, it can be easy to be sniffy about.

SALC Mid Suffolk meets - some thoughts from your host...

One of my less onerous responsibilities is being Chair of the Mid Suffolk South branch of the Suffolk Association of Local Councils. Let's rephrase that. The chairing is easy, although the rest of the role is quite responsible, intellectually challenging and engages my intellect in a way that I might not have expected at the outset.

My primary function as Chair is to manage/lead two out of the four branch forums which take place each year - the Chair of the Mid Suffolk North branch, Julie Bell, deals with the others - and tonight was my turn.

We had a guest speaker from Suffolk County Council, Matthew Ling, who gave us a quick whirl through the details of the new Local Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Fund, which is intended to establish on-street vehicle charging points, something badly needed in urban streets where off-street parking doesn't exist, and in villages, where it might not be easy to install personal charging points. There's quite a lot of money available (approximately £7 million) but, if you're going to motivate people to switch from petrol and diesel to electric, making it easier to charge up the vehicle is going to be key.

As a non-driver, I hadn't realised the scale of the price differential between charging at home, using an overnight tariff, compared to the cost of charging elsewhere, and with the proposed new charging points priced somewhere between fast charger points at supermarkets or service stations and the domestic cost, it will hopefully make the switch to electric a little more inviting.

There followed an enlightening discussion, with a series of really good questions emerging from those in attendance, and an offer from our colleague in Coddenham to find out more about what they're doing there. It's a sign of the times that Parish Councils are getting involved in such projects, but good news for rural residents.

We had a brief discussion about community engagement, and there are some emerging themes. There's a sense that we don't always use our websites as effectively as we might, and with new housing being built in so many villages, engaging with the new residents, who might not know much about what we do, active outreach is key. There is, on the positive side, increasing use of social media, although it takes time to build up followers and establish an exchange between residents and council.

Not unexpectedly, highways issues, including potholes and flooding, were raised during our information exchange. It's clear that whilst there is a lot of work that needs doing, and very little in the way of funding to do it, bringing communities together to focus on shared issues is a potential way forward and makes our voices louder. I'm not an optimist, but perhaps if we could focus on some of the key routes, we might at least mitigate the worst problems.

I flagged up the increasing pressure to move towards having gov.uk websites and e-mail addresses for town and parish councils - we can expect to see comments in our internal audit reports this year - noting that there is funding available to support the transition. I also pre-announced the launch of a new NALC network focussing on micro-parishes, something I'm ever so slightly proud of given that I've lobbied hard for it.

Our Chief Executive, Sally Longmate, gave us a brief whirl through what SALC itself is up to, and I was able to bring the meeting to a close almost on the dot of the predicted finish time, which was nice.

Our next meeting is on 4 June, and it'll be Julie's turn to chair, so I can relax just a little...

The Conference speech I didn’t get to make

In all honesty, the prospects for being called to speak in a forty minute debate on the crisis in local government finance were always pretty slim, especially in a Party whose strength in local government is very much on the up. But, given that I’d prepared a short intervention, and that nobody really touched upon the aspect I was going to, here it is…

Good morning, Conference, from one of the more unlikely Cinderellas you’ll ever encounter. I’m here to remind my fellow Liberal Democrats of the bit of local government overlooked by the motion in front of you today.

For those of you whose knowledge of parish councils is perhaps limited to Jackie Weaver and the Vicar of Dibley, there are nearly 10,000 town and parish councils across England, ranging in size from Salisbury City Council (which will spend approximately £7.5 million in this fiscal year) to my own Creeting St Peter, with its rather more modest budget. They are led and run by 100,000 mostly unpaid volunteer councillors, spending more than £1 billion per annum.

And the anaconda-like squeeze on local government finance impacts on us too.

The amount we spend is growing fast, as our sector attempts to absorb some of the non-statutory services that hard pressed principal authorities are having to divest or abandon. We aren’t capped in terms of precept rises, which offers obvious opportunities and challenges. But because we are often hyper-local, deeply embedded in our communities, raising funds through precept rises is uncomfortable.

To take on those services that principal authorities cannot fund, and that our residents value, we’re having to gain new skills, professionalise as councillors, access new funding sources. As an example, parish and town councils are now able to apply for funding through the Community Ownership Fund, following a lobbying campaign led by Baroness Ros Scott in her capacity as Honorary President of the National Association of Local Councils.

We perform our role with little help - unlike the LGA, the National Association of Local Councils gets no financial support from central government - and often have a sense that principal authorities aren’t very keen on us.

So, Conference, when you vote overwhelmingly in support of this motion, as I dearly hope you will, please don’t forget about us.

Ipswich's Jewish community

Having touched upon the subject of the Jewish community in Ipswich yesterday, and given that I've been studying the history of Ipswich at the Ipswich Institute for the past ten weeks or so, I thought that I ought to find out a bit more about the history of Judaism in the town, given the prominence of Ipswich as a trading hub in medieval times.

And sure enough, Ipswich has had a Jewish community at various points in the past, dating back to at least the twelfth century, during the reign of Henry II (1154-1189). But the initial community didn't last - there was a pogrom in Bury St Edmunds in 1190, with the survivors expelled - and was gone by 1290 as part of Edward I's expulsion of the entire Jewish population of England.

It was not until 1730 that a Jewish congregation was again to be found in Ipswich, and they met in a room in St Clement's until they were able to gather the funds to build a synagogue in Rope Walk, which opened for use in 1795. There must have been a decent-sized population, or at least the expectation of one, because it was designed to seat "no more than a hundred persons". There was a cemetery too, a little distance away off Fore Street, which is still there.

However, by the 1860s, the synagogue had fallen out of use, and was demolished in 1877, leaving no trace that I can ascertain, and I can't easily find an image of it anywhere. The Jewish community continued to fade away, with apparently only three Jewish residents of the town remained in 1895. But the cemetery remained, with its walls preserved, and when there wasn't a Jewish community left to look after it, it was maintained by the business which occupied the remainder of the site, R & W Pauls Ltd.

The cemetery is now maintained by the growing Jewish community in the area, and the walls are Grade II listed, which should help to protect the site for future generations.

For the time being, there isn't an Ipswich Jewish community as such, but there is the Suffolk Liberal Jewish Community, which describes itself as "a small collection of people living in Suffolk and surrounding areas, who have a shared interest in meeting other Jewish people and pursuing Jewish matters". Given that Ipswich now has a Hindu temple, a Sikh gurdwara and a mosque, perhaps there will be a place for Jews to gather once again before very long.

Learning something new about blue octopi

In apologising for attacking an innocent student on X, Baroness Foster introduced me to a concept that I had previously been utterly unaware of, that a blue octopus is a known antisemitic trope.

Now, I have to admit that, as a non-practicing Catholic, living in the county town of rural Suffolk with its very small Jewish population (there is a Suffolk Liberal Jewish Community, formed comparatively recently), this might well have passed me by. I did attend synagogue for a number of years, and perhaps it came up and I forgot about it. But one of the things about Ipswich is that we have a very prominent blue octopus, Digby, the litter picking octopus.

He's a bit of a thing here. You'll find him on street sweeping machines, on dustbins, and most obviously of all, on the wall of the old R & W Paul Ltd building at St Peter's Dock.

And it's not a recent thing, he's been there for more than a decade. He's so renowned in the town that, when they refurbished the children's playground in Holywells Park, they included a Digby the Octopus seesaw.

Now I may have views about the competence (or otherwise) of Ipswich Borough Council, but I don't think that they, or the people of Ipswich generally, are antisemitic. Sometimes, a blue octopus is just something funny and amusing, rather than sinister and offensive. And perhaps, just perhaps, Baroness Foster may have learned that it is better to check first rather than display her evident prejudices on social media.

An evening of passion in Ipswich’s heart

Ros and I took the short walk to St Mary-le-Tower last night, for a performance of Johann Sebastian Bach’s St John Passion. Not a piece that I’d actually heard before, but I do enjoy his St Matthew Passion, so what could be the harm, right?

The Choir of St Mary-le-Tower were joined by the Tower Sinfonia and, whilst the acoustics seem somewhat flawed, it was enjoyable enough to reward the attention of a decent enough audience. Daniel Joy, appearing as The Evangelist, as well as the odd additional aria, held things together rather well in what is an arduous role, and his placement above and behind the choir (in the pulpit, no less) was well chosen.

St Mary-le-Tower has a solid choir, befitting of being Ipswich’s civic church, its own musical director - a bit of a step up from Creeting St Peter, I admit - and a series of lunchtime concerts (note to self, check for chamber music…). And funnily enough, I’d never been in the place, so the concert offered an opportunity to study the architecture highlighted a few weeks ago in an instalment of our course on the history of Ipswich.

So, what do I think of the St John Passion? On the whole, I still prefer the St Matthew Passion, which came three years later, but possibly benefits from a greater freedom to experiment. Nonetheless, it represents a pinnacle in the output of one of history’s greatest and most prolific composers, and I rather enjoyed it. And I note that there’s a splendid recent recording featuring the Monteverdi Choir and the English Baroque Soloists under the baton of John Eliot Gardner, whose recording of the St Matthew Passion I deeply enjoy.

So, live music adds another string to Ipswich life as I adapt to urban living. Who would have thought that what began as a means of simplifying and future proofing our lives would pay such additional dividends?…

Federal Council - the bureaucrat cut

I did promise in my manifesto for Federal Council that I would report back, and so I offer some personal thoughts on Wednesday night’s meeting.  

Our agenda revolved around three key items - a briefing on General Election planning and organisation, a review of the Federal Board’s decision making on the fate of Autumn Conference, and a briefing on the revisions to the Party’s disciplinary processes.

Bearing in mind that I’m really not a campaigner, and perhaps don’t match the classic definition of activist these days, I thought that Neil Fawcett explained the strategy with a level of credibility that you might (a) hope for, and (b) expect, from a hardened campaigner like Neil. There will doubtless be an inquest into the outcome, regardless of what it is, but decisions should only be made on the basis of the available facts and I think that, as far as medium and long term strategy can be deduced, I’m content that the decisions are in good hands. As for short term strategy, we can probably only hope that those in the campaign’s wheelhouse have the good sense to respond rather than react, and resist the temptation to chase rainbows.

There has been a great deal of unhappiness about the suggestion that Autumn Conference might be axed in anticipation of a General Election after the summer. And I do wonder whether or not the risks have been selectively placed before members. But I suppose the argument rests on a number of key points:

• Opportunity cost - does cancelling, or truncating, conference risk the loss of valuable media coverage?

• Staff cost - can our limited professional team cope with both an Autumn conference and a General Election?

• Financial cost - what effect would proceeding with Conference or cancelling it have on the funds available for a General Election campaign?

I was prepared to be swayed on the decision, and listened to the arguments as they flowed backwards and forwards. But overshadowing the discussion is the uncomfortable truth that we have a Conservative administration whose decision making is difficult to assign logic to. And with the media all over the place in terms of opinion, I don’t envy Federal Conference Committee in their choices.

It isn’t necessary to make a decision quite yet, but my suspicion (and it’s no more than that) is that some sort of glorified rally will take place if Rishi doesn’t go in May. If our campaigning is still ramping up at the end of the summer, will activists in target seats want to up sticks and head to Brighton for a few days? I’m not sure that I would. But I’d want the decision to be based on an airing of all of the facts, and I’m not sure that they’ve all been made available yet.

But Council have made some recommendations for any decision making process that follows, and hopefully that will help.

The disciplinary process has been an area of much concern in some quarters within the Party and, as a former member of the Appeals Panel for England, I’m more aware than some of the ramifications of getting it wrong. But political parties are increasingly bound by the impacts of legislation and case law, which place a potentially heavy burden upon them in an increasingly litigious society. Doing what’s right, philosophically and legally, becomes an increasingly costly “luxury” when placed in the context of financing political campaigning yet, if you yield to anyone who threatens you with lawyers, what hope is there for philosophical coherence or political unity?

Unfortunately, by the time we got to the presentation on it, we had overrun somewhat, and members were drifting off. That meant that a useful discussion was missed by some colleagues, and we may be obliged to address the issue further in the future.

I do wonder though if part of the problem is a sense of distrust in some quarters as to whether or not any disciplinary process might be used to ensure adherence to one particular view or other. Is that distrust supported by the facts? I’m not convinced that it is but must accept that others have a different perspective.

As someone who believes in an element of policy difference within a broader party canvas, I tend to the view that behaviour is more of a problem than policy disagreement, and respectfully arguing your case shouldn’t be, in itself, a reason for disciplinary action. But if, in expressing those views, you disrespect or otherwise mistreat others, then there probably ought to be consequences.

All in all, an interesting and occasionally challenging meeting, albeit we still feel reactive rather than responsive. But it’s for members to draw a conclusion as to whether or not we add value either collectively or as individuals, and we can only strive towards doing so.

Some old thoughts on the Israel/Palestine situation…

It’s said that those who ignore history are destined to repeat it, and whilst it would be difficult to compare the current crisis in Gaza with previous ones, if only because of the scale of the resulting deaths, those who have observed events there over decades will have shuddered at the prospect of an Israeli response of the type we have seen since 7 October.

But I am reminded that I wrote the following fifteen years ago…

To be blunt, most of those who entirely support the rights of the Israeli people to live in peace and security within recognised borders within our Party are rightfully uncomfortable with the results of the Israeli campaign. Most people will have no objection to Israel defending itself against attack, as long as that response is proportionate. However, the deaths of innocent civilians in large numbers is not something that many people can endorse with a clear conscience, and I would be disappointed if there was a Liberal Democrat who could find it in themselves to do so. 

However, you are entirely right in one sense. Whilst my point about the use of conventional warfare methodology against terrorists said exactly what I intended to say, I could, and probably should, have expanded on that point. So I will. 

In recent years, we have seen a move away from wars of nation against nation towards more random attacks by small, ideology-driven groups of fanatics against predominantly civilian targets. The campaign by Hamas against Israel is, to a great extent, an example of just such a conflict.  

Hamas 'fighters' launch hit and run attacks, and are extraordinarily difficult to confront and defeat by the use of aircraft and artillery in an area such as Gaza. Their willingness to use densely populated areas and public buildings as a base for rocket launches means that any counter-attack using conventional methods will simply lead to collateral losses that are unaccepted to a viewing public easily swayed by pictures of injured or dying women and children. As integrated into their communities as they are, if Israeli forces attack, they can melt back into the populace and disappear, waiting for the next opportunity to probe at possible Israeli vulnerabilities. 

Lest we forget, we are talking about an organisation that has cynically played upon the heartstrings of the world's media. Accusations that Hamas have prevented the injured from being evacuated in order to generate more martyrs demonstrate that all that matters is the ability to generate undeserved sympathy whilst blackening the reputation of the Israeli people in the eyes of neutrals beyond the region. 

But enough of the context. What are my thoughts on how to proceed? Any successful attempt to combat terrorism is based on an effort to deny oxygen to terrorist movements, to cut off the flow of new recruits, to isolate them from the communities they purport to fight for and, finally, to persuade communities that these people present a risk to their peace and security. 

Such a campaign comes in three parts, political, moral and military. In the first instance, it is necessary to stop the bloodshed. Given the imbalance of casualties, it is perfectly legitimate to take obvious steps to achieve quick gains - one presumes that preventing the deaths of innocent civilians is a legitimate aim - and if cutting off the flow of armaments to Israel is one means of doing so, then I'm comfortable with that. If it requires a guarantee from the United States to defend Israel whilst the next stage proceeds, so be it. A ceasefire secured, action is then required to build a meaningful civil society in the West Bank and Gaza. It means investment in infrastructure, in building a politically neutral military and police force, in developing independent media and genuine political parties founded on ideas and not hatred. By building up the Palestinian economy, citizens will develop an interest in maintaining peace. Here, I plead the example of Northern Ireland, where investment flourished and wealth increased accordingly after the bombing stopped. 

Alongside this, work must be done to root out the terrorists. This is, perhaps, an opportunity for the Arab League to demonstrate their commitment to a two-state solution. Whilst a working civil society is being created, those within the community who seek peace need support to overcome those who believe in the bomb and the bullet. Whereas a wholly military answer is unlikely to succeed, an effective police action is far more likely to work. I believe that a contingent from other Arab nations could do the job effectively, if they are genuine in their willingness to find solutions. The European Union, if it can get its act together (and here I am less optimistic), can also play a major role. 

The reward for compliance? More investment, both for Israel and Palestine. In the long run, both sides will be better off, better able to protect and nurture their citizens and, perhaps one day, normalise relations and work together for the good of all. Alright, that last bit might be a bit naive, but it does at least indicate that there is hope for a positive outcome. In return, the Israelis can address those issues which have so inflamed Arab opinion. Illegal settlements can be dismantled, the wall demolished where it lies in disputed territory - there can be no objection to a nation building a wall on its own border. 

Establishing genuine peace requires a different mindset on the part of the two sides in this dispute. An eye for an eye has, so far, left both sides blind, and yet there are so many in both the Israeli and Palestinian communities who yearn for peace and a better life for their children. The regional powers and the United Nations have an opportunity to achieve something that has evaded us all for sixty years, and if preventing the Israelis, albeit temporarily, from shooting themselves in the foot is the price, then perhaps it is a price worth paying. Otherwise, we will, all of us, continue to suffer the costs of international terrorism and instability in a region that influences us all.

It is rather depressing that this might still represent some, perhaps many, elements of a potential way forward, although the prospects of US intervention are probably weaker than they have been in times past. On the other hand, a regional peacekeeping force might have greater credibility than it did given (at least until recently) improved relationships with neighbouring Arab nations, including key power brokers.

That Liberal Democrats are calling for an immediate bilateral ceasefire strikes me as something that is right both in humanitarian and political terms, even if our voice is unlikely to be heard by those with the ability to directly influence events. We’re fortunate to have, as our Foreign Affairs spokesperson, someone with a meaningful perspective on Gaza and who has been remarkably measured in her comments given the personal impact on members of her family.

It will be a long road to recover from the catastrophe that was 7 October and the events that followed. The people of Gaza and Israel will have their lives clouded by it for years and years to come, with lost ones to mourn, the wounded to live with physical and mental scars. But the rest of the world will need to find ways of encouraging a long-term peace in the region, which will include investments in essential infrastructure in Gaza, pressure on political leaders to adhere to international law, encouragement of steps likely to aid reconciliation and efforts to support mutual security moving forwards.

I am not an optimist in terms of the Israel/Palestine situation. There are too many people on both sides in key positions who appear to see no benefit in compromise - at least, no benefit until their side is in a dominant position over the other. And the fear and distrust that has been struck into so many ordinary people in both Gaza and Israel will be difficult to shake.

But the effort must be made, for if the international community is unable to influence events positively, it augurs ill for the future.