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 aren't 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…