EU Associate Membership? I can see why that might annoy the authoritarian right...

I see that the Conservative MP for North West Leicestershire, Andrew Bridgen, is unhappy about suggestions that British citizens might be offered the option of some form of associate membership of the European Union. Diddums.

By throwing his toys out of the pram in such an ostentatious manner, he demonstrates what I have always suspected about Conservatives, which is that when they talk about choice, it is the choice to do things that they approve of (not that much, after all, they are conservatives), and that when they talk about freedom, it is with the caveat that they are to define the limits of that freedom.

In truth, the concept of associate membership is an interesting one, albeit one that I would want to have far more information about before I committed myself. But, for those who feel that it brings advantage and opportunity, I can see no reason why it shouldn't be on the table. It is, after all, about individual liberty, freedom and choice.

Mr Bridgen also demonstrates another feature of the Brexiteer mentality, which is to look at the relationship between Britain and the European Union through the wrong end of a telescope, discounting their views in favour of his desires. It is, for him and his friends, all about us. The nasty Europeans should give us everything we want, regardless of the cost to them. It is a selfish, narrow-minded view of international relations that impoverishes us all. Well, except people like him, of course.

So, remember, when Andrew Bridgen and his ilk talk about liberty and choice, they don't mean it. What they mean is that those that have should get to keep it, and that the world should cast itself in their image. They don't care about you, unless you agree with them, and even then, it's conditional. Their commitment to freedom is that of a mayfly.

So, I say this to Mr Bridgen, if the European Union wants to make me an offer, and it's an offer that I wish to take up, I'll take it up. And if you want to take it away from me, you'll have to make me a better offer. And frankly, bacon sandwiches are likely to grow on trees before you can come up with one.

"Connecting Communities" - a better service at a lower cost, says our Conservative County Councillor...

At last month's meeting of Creeting St Peter Parish Council, I raised an issue under 'Any Other Business', having been newly co-opted (and I'm really pleased to be back), i.e. the new demand responsive transport service for Mid Suffolk, which comes into effect on Monday week.

The new contract is a worry, for a range of reasons. Funding for the service is to be cut each year for the next five years, and one of the side effects of the change to smaller vehicles is that bus passes will not be valid - a real blow for the rural elderly who face potential isolation. Fares have also gone up due to the withdrawal of return fares - my daily return journey will rise in cost from £2.60 to £4.00. We are also yet to see what effect the combination of three free-standing services into one combined one will have on vehicle availability.

I merely noted that the impact of the new contract would need to be monitored, when our County Councillor, Gary Green came up with the line that is the title of this post. It was a familiar line, in that it was the line spoken by the County Council's Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport when the new package was announced. He is, as ever, on message.

I did wonder at the time of that announcement how you could cut the costs of the contract so dramatically without there being some impact on passengers, and now we know. The service providers now provide their own vehicles - they previously used vehicles supplied by the County Council - so the risks are now placed solely upon the contractor. The existing staff have had their contractual hours reduced, which implies that there will be less cover for sickness and holidays. And, as noted above, the elderly will use the right to use their bus passes.

My fear is that, if the elderly abandon the service, or use it less, it will become less and less viable, to the point where the County Council can walk away from providing such a service all together, a fierce blow to the small villages dotted across Mid Suffolk.

For me, the increase in the fare will be a hit to the pocket, but one that I, at least, can afford. I'm not sure that most of my fellow passengers will be able to be quite so sanguine...

And you complain about the hike in your train fare...

As a non-driving village dweller, I have become rather reliant on my local Demand Responsive Transport service, Suffolk Links - Gipping North, which carries me from my home to Stowmarket Station and back, most days when Ros is away, and most of the time when she's at home too. Compared to the cost of a taxi, it's extremely reasonable, and I have become part of a cosy little circle over the past two years. 

However, on ringing Margaret, who organises the schedule with incredible efficiency, to organise a bus for today, I was somewhat surprised to be told that fares were going up by 20%, on the instruction of Suffolk County Council. There had been no announcement of such an increase and, upon checking the Suffolk Onboard website, there was no indication of the change at all.

In fairness, my return fare for the three mile journey to Stowmarket Station is still only £2.60, and the service is reliable, safe and friendly. Besides, I'm lucky enough to be able to afford it. However, for those who aren't as fortunate, it will come as an unpleasant surprise - in my case the additional cost will be £2.50 per week, an increase of 23.8%, and I assume that this will be reflected across the board.

It is, I suppose, typical of the utter disrespect for residents shown by the Conservatives on the County Council that there should be no attempt to inform voters of the change. Luckily, I've got my county councillor coming to a meeting next week, and he might like to come up with a justification... especially as he's up for election in May...

Creeting St Peter 0, Tory District Councillor... well, what exactly?

Recently, in response to a planning application by local concrete products company, Poundfield Products Ltd, Creeting St Peter Parish Council submitted an extremely negative reply, noting;

• the impact of noise pollution to the local surrounding area and the Gipping Valley in general, especially from the loud bleepers. It is understood that noise is often heard at night and at weekends

• light pollution from the very bright lights on top of the cranes which can be seen from a long way off. This light pollution is affecting both local residents, the Gipping Valley in general and also the natural environment – owls, badgers, etc. There are many owl boxes nearby and it is thought that the lights and noise must have a negative impact on the wildlife in the area, including the Fen Alder Carr Nature Reserve in Fen Lane

• the cumulative impact of all the activities being undertaken at the site that, it is felt, is having a negative effect on the local residents and the wildlife in the area and surrounding natural beauty of the Gipping Valley.

• that painting the cranes grey will not solve the problem, as they will still be seen, particularly when lit up at night.

• that the site is generally becoming an eyesore from all aspects, and particularly when viewed from the nearby footpaths. It is felt that there has been continual abuse of planning clearance and that obligations under existing planning applications have not been fully met. The bund has not been fully planted with trees as we understand was part of the earlier planning permission, so the site can still be seen from the road (Mill Lane). A building constructed to house fertiliser has, it is understood, never been used for this purpose, but for housing cement products.

• increased traffic to and from the site is also of concern to local residents.

I have to admit that, despite our damning comments, added to those of local residents, I had little confidence that the Planning team at Mid Suffolk District Council would do anything other than approve it, given their historically poor performance record.

And so, this evening's news that the planning application has been approved comes as no great surprise. What does come as a surprise is that the application was apparently approved by the Planning Committee contrary to the recommendation of the planning officer.

Given that the council is run by the (evil) Conservatives, doubtless my local (Conservative councillor) will claim that it was not what she wanted, and that she is as horrified as anyone else, as is her usual response whenever something unpopular happens. This might be rather more difficult this time, as she is the Planning Portfolio Holder.

So, Caroline, what's your excuse this time, and why did you think that the planning officer knows less about what is good for the Gipping Valley than you do? Given that you live in Eye, some thirteen miles away, is the fact that it has no impact upon you personally rather coloured your cavalier disregard for our community?

Or is it simply that, as long as you have the support of Stowupland Parish Council, a surprising number of whose members signed your nomination papers last year, our little parish and its 214 voters don't matter to you?...

For the benefit of Iain Duncan-Smith: a definition of homelessness

This morning, on BBC's Breakfast Show, Iain Duncan-Smith was talking about the impact of his proposals on a benefit cap. He suggested that the 'scare stories' were exaggerated, claiming that the Shelter definition of homelessness was unrealistic.

When pressed, he stated that their definition of homelessness includes circumstances where bedrooms are being shared. At this point, Ros noted that he was being less than entirely accurate.

So, I thought that I ought to check. Given that Ros has plenty of knowledge on housing issues, and has held senior office at District and County level, I'd tend to trust her judgement. And here, for the benefit of the Secretary of State, is Shelter's actual definition;

"Homelessness means not having a home - most people who are homeless don't sleep on the street. Even if you have a roof over your head you can still be homeless. This is because you may not have any rights to stay where you live or your home might be unsuitable for you due to severe overcrowding or other reasons."

If I was being extremely generous, I would accept that he may have misinterpreted this. But I'm not. To my mind, most people would see severe overcrowding as being rather more than simply sharing a bedroom.

So, either he is wilfully misrepresenting the facts, or he is ignorant of them. And on that basis, he is unworthy of any faith that Parliamentarians might wish to place in his judgement. And that rather casts doubt on the quality of the legislation he is promoting...

Guy McGregor - ITWA (It's that weasel again...)

Yes, he's back again, and this time it's our local bus services that are under threat.

As Suffolk County Council continue their hapless mission to cut spending without any thought for the consequences, the latest news is that they want to cut £2.3 million from the public transport budget for next year. That would be out of a budget of £4.2 million, i.e. a 55% cut.

Apparently, young Mr McGregor is negotiating with officers and cabinet colleagues to save some of the routes potentially under threat, but he'll probably struggle. And, ironically, one of the places most at risk is Eye, in his own division, which may lose all of its bus services.

Now I will admit that some of the county's bus services are a massive drain on the public purse. Ros, a former county councillor and Lib Dem group leader, notes that some of the subsidies were as much as £12 per passenger, a level of subsidy which would be hard to justify in good times, let alone the hard ones we're currently experiencing.

So, for example, route 453, which links the Creetings to Stowmarket on Thursdays (one journey in each direction), could probably go, given the introduction of Suffolk Links Gipping North, a demand-responsive bus service not bound by a timetable. Originally intended to be a market day bus, it links our village to a market that now barely exists. And frankly, I'd rather travel at a time better suited to my needs than at a fixed time and day.

On the other hand, core routes, such as the 87/88 route from Ipswich to Stowupland via Needham Market and Stowmarket, or the 384 which links Stowmarket and Bury St Edmunds need to be protected, so make sure that they survive.

And, just in case Guy has forgotten, there is a cross-subsidy between school services and the rest of the public transport system. Axing those services that use vehicles that would otherwise only be used twice a day would increase the costs of home to school services - we're a rural county, remember? - and likely have an impact on the education budget.

But returning to Eye for a moment, their plucky representative on the county council has suggested that the county might need to talk to parishes to see if they want to support community transport. Well, we might, but we're all agreeing precepts this month for 2011/12, and without proper data, no sane Parish Council would risk taking on a potentially huge (in relative terms) commitment.

To give you an idea, if Creeting St Peter had to find £1,000 to subsidise a bus service, that would be the equivalent of adding 26% to our precept. And, under the new Localism Bill, local residents will have the power to veto excessive council tax increases. You did talk to your friends about this, didn't you Guy?

Sometimes, the sheer inadequacy of our county council leadership is enough to drive one to despair. Oh, and yes, I'm still waiting for your wretched consultation document. Or did you decide that giving us the information required to represent our electors was too expensive?...

One of our County Councillors is a weasel...

Here are two pictures, one being a long-tailed weasel, the other Guy McGregor, the portfolio holder for Transport on Suffolk County Council. One of them is cute, furry and has a basic honesty of purpose, the other is a Conservative.

This week, it has been announced that the Safecam Partnership, which funds speed cameras across Suffolk, is in jeopardy because of budget cuts. If the funding is axed, the County will save £1.2 million but, and this is a big but, there won't be any speed cameras in the county.

Now, as a non-driver, I don't have an axe to grind on the subject of whether speed cameras are a good thing or not. However, I do know that, especially in villages, traffic speed is a very sensitive issue. And where those villages are on busy roads, such as the A140 which links Ipswich and Norwich, there are a sense that speed cameras save lives.

Ultimately, you have to decide whether the cost of maintaining cameras outweighs the costs of loss of life and serious injury when excessive speed causes accidents. Yes, you can argue that people should obey the law, preventing the need for cameras, but the reality is that some drivers will speed if they think that they can get away with it. The rest of us pay for their stupidity by paying for traffic calming measures, speed cameras and the like.

But Guy McGregor doesn't think like that. He is quoted in the East Anglian Daily Times as accepting that the SafeCam Partnership had been very successful, and hoping that it would be able to continue as a service provided by the police. Or in other words, it's a really good idea, and we hope that the police will take it off of our hands. Saving to the council taxpayers of Suffolk? Nil. That is, if they can afford it.

Because, lest Mr McGregor forget, Suffolk Constabulary will need to find savings of about £6 million each year for the next four years, all of this from a relatively small budget - Suffolk has some of the lowest policing costs in the country.

So, Mr McGregor, if speed cameras are worth spending money on, then let's face the music and pay for them. If not, then we won't. But please spare us the weasel words as you pass the buck to someone else...

And a warm welcome to our newest readers!

I have to admit to being astounded by the news that I've managed to upset our friends in Dulwich and West Norwood Conservative Association.

News reaches me third or fourth hand that the newly appointed leader of the Conservative Group on Southwark Council is unhappy about one of my postings. Now, putting aside the fact that I publish all comments apart from those that are clearly insane or commercial in nature, and that my identity, name and address are a matter of public record, I am disappointed that Cllr Kim Humphries apparently sees it necessary to run to our Group Leader to order that my comments be withdrawn. Bless...

I know that our gallant effort in coming second in Dulwich and West Norwood at the General Election upset him (especially as he was the Conservative candidate!) but I would suggest that if he has a problem, he should contact me, either via this blog or via my e-mail address.

I just thought that it was quite amusing. Ah, I get it, politicians aren't supposed to have a sense of fun. Sorry, Kim, if only you'd said so...