Fear, loathing and level crossings

A campaign has been launched in mid-Suffolk against proposals for closures of level crossings on the East Anglian Main Line, which passes through Needham Market and Stowmarket on its way to Norfolk. And, as a regular user of the level crossing at the north end of Stowmarket Station, I have naturally taken an interest.

Unhappy residents at Stowmarket station

The group, called Suffolk Crossings, claims that level crossings at Stowmarket Station, Stowmarket Regent Street, Mellis, Haughley, Needham Market Town, Bacton, Finningham, Gislingham, Old Newton with Dagworth and Gipping are to be closed, and that another eleven are threatened, although Network Rail deny that there are any specific proposals yet.

Interestingly, the consultation document issued by Network Rail, as part of its planning for the next thirty years, "Anglia: Route Study", makes no reference to any level crossing closures at all. However, one might imply that some are likely in order to allow greater speeds on what is otherwise level, straight, uninterrupted track north of Stowmarket. Given that the aim is to allow trains to run from London to Norwich in ninety minutes, anything which restricts speeds is potentially an issue.

And, of course, any proposal to close a level crossing requires a proper consultation process, with input from local authorities and interested parties, so, on the face of it, one might suspect that the campaigners are jumping the gun a bit.

From a Stowmarket perspective, the two level crossings at the station and at Crown Street are actually fairly close together. Closing the crossing at Crown Street would make life difficult for residents of Cardinalls Road - it would become a rather narrow cul de sac with no turning circle for large vehicles - but vehicles and pedestrians could use the one at the station without much inconvenience. Close the one at the station, and that would be a rather different matter, as the bridge over the railway at Navigation Approach requires either a detour through Cedars Park or, more likely, a short cut through Creeting Road West, which is a bit of a nightmare at the best of times.

There is, long term, a looming problem, in that Network Rail are working on the basis that eleven trains per hour in each direction will be required by 2043 - passenger numbers on the line are predicted to increase by 32% by then, and the Ipswich to Haughley Junction section is part of the key Felixstowe to Nuneaton freight route. If the crossings are to be closed sufficient to allow the passage of twenty-two trains, the gates aren't going to open that much anyway, making them as much of a problem as a solution.

There will be a meeting at the Stowmarket Community Hub, Crown Street, tomorrow evening and, according to a Suffolk Crossings spokesperson, "we expect a packed hall of outraged residents". It should be interesting...

Musings on coming home...

Today, I went to London to drop off my Indian visa application, a process which was fairly lengthy - I arrived at 10.45 and left at 1.15 - but no worse than I had expected and, having nothing else to do, headed back to Liverpool Street to catch a train back to Stowmarket. Having boarded the 2.30, I sat back with a good book as Chelmsford and Colchester came and went and, as the train approached Manningtree, I put the book down.

The Stour Estuary just east of Manningtree
station. This is the Essex bit, you understand...

The late afternoon sun was still shining, and as the train pulled away, over the bridge which crosses the Stour Estuary, a smile came to my lips, coming with it the knowledge that I was back in Suffolk.

For those people who have known me for many years, the thought of the bureaucrat as country dweller would have been unthinkable ten years ago, and yet I tend to find London fascinating as somewhere to visit, but I couldn't imagine living there now unless it was absolutely necessary.

I am. one must admit, pretty lucky. I live in a village where people generally get on, surrounded by working countryside filled with deer, game birds, badgers and the like. My commute is gentle and personable - where else can you expect to chat with your bus driver, make pleasant conversation with the station staff and have a view of a river valley from your seat on the train. There are even field mice near the platform at Needham Market should I choose to travel to or from there.

The pace of life is pleasant, with none of the rushing around that I used to do in the big city. If my train is late, I have a book to read, or music to listen to - why worry, after all there isn't another train for a while, but one will come eventually.

And, at the end of the day, I come home to a cosy little country cottage, equipped with a comfy wingback armchair, a kitchen full of pork, a decent wine rack (should I feel so inclined) and a computer with which to broadcast my opinions to the world. Best of all, I have Ros to share it with.

Life is good...

The end of the "cost of living crisis"?

For those of us who have been around for a few years, the news that UK inflation has fallen to 0.5% is almost unbelievable, given what inflation rates were when we were younger. In the 1970's, the inflation rate surpassed 20% at times, and was ranged between 3 and 8% through the eighties. You did kind of get used to it. Since then, inflation has seldom tested 5% at its upper limit, and even then not for very long.

The expectation is that inflation may fall further still, and even if real wages are going up by less than 2%, that means that many people will be, for the first time in a few years, slightly better off. You might suggest that this is handy as a General Election draws closer, although I couldn't possibly comment.

It does also explain why Labour have stopped talking about a 'cost of living crisis'. And how could they, given the circumstances? David Cameron and George Osborne would love the political debate to focus on the economy, and so would Liberal Democrats, even if we do it with the slightly queasy sense that the Conservatives will glean all of the credit somehow.

As a strategy, it was always an odd one for Labour to choose in any event. Unemployment has been falling for some time, and despite Labour activists claiming that most of the jobs were on zero-hour contracts or were part-time, most of the newly employed were full-time. And yes, the salaries might not have been much to write home about, but at least people were back in work and social security benefits were in less demand.

Inflation has been low for most of the Coalition's period in office, at least, in historic terms, and low inflation rates have allowed many who would otherwise struggle to service their debts to do so and, if means permit, to pay off some of those debts - I'm not sure that everyone who could do so, has, but that's a different story.

Worse yet, Labour haven't really offered any suggestions as to how they would improve matters. What do they think is an appropriate target for inflation, and how do they propose to create jobs that pay sufficiently to negate the need for social security payments? How would they deal with the pressure on household budgets that would ensue if interest rates started to rise, given that compulsion isn't really an option?

It is at this point that the shallowness of Labour's approach to the economy and public finances starts to hit home - the "we don't agree with these cuts, you're evil for making them, but we won't overturn them" argument. I'm not optimistic that they're going to do much better in the months ahead...

West Suffolk Independents: interesting, but perhaps a bit misleading

The news that one of Forest Heath's Independent councillors has formed a group called the West Suffolk Independents, with the intention of supporting independent candidates in this year's District Council elections, is interesting indeed.

Simon Cole, who represents Exning, has said;

The aim of WSI is to bring more common sense – and less party politics – to our district, town and parish councils and act in the best interests of the whole community. There is no party whip so members are truly independent and can act as they consider fit and proper for the benefit of residents.

Frankly, I object to his assumption that independents bring more common sense to the role that those who fly a political flag - they may do, but there's no inherent reason why they should. Many district councillors want to serve their community, and their political affiliation gives the average voter an indication of their likely approach if elected. Independents, on the other hand, offer you no steer as to the philosophy they will apply in office unless they decide to tell you.

Besides, what common sense may tell you, and it will tell different people different things, may not be what the law permits, or what central government deems necessary. Common sense tells some people to close libraries to protect social care, and others that they are a key element of a civilised society and must be retained. Both arguments may be right, even if they are contradictory. Common sense will tell you to balance the budget, but Eric Pickles tells you that any rise in council tax at or above 2% will trigger a referendum, which you can't afford.

And, Mr Cole, what sort of independents will you be supporting? Any kind, or just the type you approve of?

We'll see what this actually means in due course, although the prospects for independents in a General Election year are not great. In the meantime, one can only welcome a new player in the local politics of West Suffolk, and may the best candidates win!

Is Douglas Alexander made of the right stuff when it comes to Europe?

Despite the fact that I am usually eighty miles from London, I do read the Evening Standard fairly regularly - the 18.25 service from Ipswich to Stowmarket (the 17.02 ex-Liverpool Street) is usually littered with them.

Yesterday, my eye was drawn to a piece by Douglas Alexander, calling for the City of London to take a lead in fighting for our future within the European Union. And whilst he doesn't say an awful lot about what the Labour Party will do in any future referendum campaign - presumably, if they win on 7 May, there won't be one - he is at least headed in a direction that pro-European liberals might approve.

His key paragraph is;

From day one in office, a newly elected Labour government would set about enhancing the UK’s influence in Europe and reset relations with other EU leaders after five years of Mr Cameron’s failed approach.

Alright, it is merely a less childish version of, "Yah boo, you smell and you've got no friends!", but it is better than the Conservative approach of saying, "You really need us, don't you? What's it worth?".

Naturally, one might be suspicious of Labour's commitment towards working with, and engaging fully in, the European Union, based on their performance in Government between 1997 and 2010. We'll see, I guess...

Lies, damned lies and statistics used by politicians

I've just dropped in on a debate on Twitter between Kilian Bourke and a Labour activist, in which the Labour activist claims that the Coalition have privatised 70% of NHS services since 2010. Welcome to the dark world of political statistics...

My father, who built his career on a very astute nose for bullshit and a firm grasp of numbers, once told me that 69.3% of all statistics are made up. At the time, the joke evaded me to an extent, although years as a fully paid-up sceptic have led me to appreciate just how right he really was. Bar charts on leaflets are just the start.

So, for example, has the deficit been halved since the Coalition came to power? In actual terms, no, but in real terms, yes. Naturally, more cynical politicians use the statistic which best suits the spin they wish to impart, preferably by blurring or simply omitting the context.

So, let's say that £3 billion worth of NHS contracts have gone to non-NHS providers (that's a figure plucked out of the air, by the way, simply for illustrative purposes). To the public, that's a bad number, big and scary. On the other hand, it represents about less than 3% of NHS spending. That's a small number, and not really scary at all. And, of course, they're both true. So, which figure would you use to win an argument?

Let's take the argument further. You believe that NHS contracts should stay within the public sector (let's conveniently ignore the fact that you were quite happy to allow it to happen when you were in power). You might focus on the value of contracts that have gone to non-NHS providers. Your opponent might respond by noting the savings achieved or the extra activities that can be delivered with the money thus released. It all depends on context, but your thirty second soundbite doesn't allow you to provide any. It is, in intellectual terms, the equivalent of two men in suits of armour hitting each other with maces whilst the world watches on the internet.

I hold the view that, if you treat the electorate like idiots, they'll behave that way. And, you end up with infantilised, short-term politics which ducks the long-term reforms that this country needs. Dodgy statistics, in the hands of discredited politicians - hardly a prospect to lift the spirits, is it?

The campaign for Mid Suffolk 2015: vote for me, and I'll abolish myself?

Yes, District (and Parish) Council elections are rapidly approaching, and it's time to start thinking about ideas for the manifesto.

I'm not really convinced that such a thing has to be too detailed - centrally imposed restrictions mean that differences between the approaches of the different political parties are often limited to style, nuance and basic competence - so you're effectively talking about a few big things that will resonate.

Local government finance (yes, I know, but bear with me here...) is one of those things that very few of the public pay attention to, even though it determines so much in terms of local services delivered. And, here in Suffolk, we still have three tiers of local government - county, district and town/parish - an arrangement which comes with a degree of cost.

That cost, according to John Denham, was £26 million in the five years to 2014/15, plus £21 million per year in the following five years - money that could have been spent on protecting services if one was so minded. Of course, those figures were estimates, and the Government might have taken the opportunity to cut the central grant even further, but the implications are clear. I am told that, in Shropshire, the financial savings that accrued from moving to a unitary county were bigger than the original estimate, and Suffolk is not wholly dissimilar.

So, moving to a unitary Suffolk seems like a sensible, fiscally sound move - it's just that neither Labour or the Conservatives are willing to sacrifice power to achieve it...

Yes, let's have the Greens in the TV debates...

The news that David Cameron is insisting that, unless the Greens are included, he won't be taking part in the TV debates, is almost amusing. It is highly unlikely that he cares about the Greens very much - after all, he allegedly thinks that environmentally friendly policies are just so much 'green crap' - rather that it is a strategy to either avoid the debates altogether (can he possibly be frit of Ed Miliband or, more credibly, Nigel Farage?) or, more Machiavellian, he wants the Greens in to potentially leach support from Labour.

I've always taken the view with campaigns that, if you invite all of the candidates, giving them reasonable notice, a failure to show is your problem, not that of the organiser or the other candidates. There should be a risk in leaving your chair empty. And, making an assumption that nobody would possibly dare to carry on without the Prime Minister is, in an era where deference is anything but a given, highly risky.

There are some potential setbacks with increasing the number of participants, regardless of who they might be;

1. You need longer to fit a decent number of questions in - the attention span of the public is not brilliant, and the more broadly similar answers you get, the less enlightening it is likely to become.
2. The debate is harder to manage - both presenter and candidates have to very disciplined lest the debate deteriorate into people talking over each other.
3. It becomes harder to exclude increasingly smaller parties.

For the record, I tend to think that exposure to cross-examination might not be that helpful to the Greens or UKIP, in that their arguments are likely to be exposed for their weakness in a way that the media seem mostly unable, or unwilling to do.

But, I may be wrong, and the public deserve to have an opportunity to hear from the Greens, because that's how democracy works...

Boris Johnson plays whiff-whaff with civil liberties

I'm not particularly interested in this civil liberties stuff when it comes to these people's emails and mobile phone conversations. If they are a threat to our society then I want them properly listened to. 

I've always found the fuss made over Boris Johnson to be somewhat mystifying. I'm sure that he is highly intelligent, but then I expect that of people holding high office. But he has a tendency to act the fool, to contradict himself and to be vague on detail, and despite this, a surprising number of Conservatives appear to believe that he is the greatest thing since sliced bread. It is, perhaps, the triumph of celebrity over competence, although he has often been fortunate in his choice of opponents.

But what worries me most is that I can't really tell what he really believes in, apart from being on top. Is he in favour of civil liberties or not, for example, although on the basis of the quote above, the answer is yes, for nice people, but not for people we don't trust. Does that mean that he disagrees with the Government for, as the Tory/Lib Dem Programme for Government declared:

The [Coalition] believes that the British state has become too authoritarian, and that over the past decade it has abused and eroded fundamental human freedoms and historic civil liberties.

Personally, I suspect that Boris is playing to a very specific audience - right-wing Conservative MPs who distrust David Cameron. It is, after all, one of sufficient size to be worth pursuing, and one which is unlikely to want to back a husky-hugging, socially liberal leader any time soon. If Boris does want to be leader, he's going to have to win their support or, at the very least, have them onside.

From a liberal perspective, one could argue that the security forces are barely capable of managing the data they already have, and have been proven to have a relaxed attitude towards current legislation, in that they are willing to stretch it as far as it will go, and will always seek to have more powers.

And, ultimately, politicians like Boris Johnson, who are more interested in outcomes, and care far less about due process, are probably as big a threat to our civil liberties as terrorists are to our safety. Whilst they might not wilfully give up our freedom, they might do it by neglect or as a bargaining ploy. But the next time I hear Boris talk about liberty, I'll remember that he is, first and foremost, a bit of a fraud...

I'm not really Charlie, it's perhaps a little more complicated than that...

First, violence is never a justified response to satire, no matter how unpleasant one might find the material personally. That is, if you like, the easy bit, given that we live in a society that has determined that violence, whether committed by individuals or the State, is inappropriate except in self-defence.

My problem is with the 'right to offend' argument. I believe wholeheartedly in freedom of speech, but wonder why it is deemed appropriate to wilfully offend an entire community for having a world view that is different to yours simply for having that view. That hardly indicates a respect for diversity within your community, quite the reverse in fact. Perhaps, to be accurate, my problem is with the 'necessity to offend' and the accuracy of the targeting of that offence.

My family, or at least that on my paternal side, is part of a small religious minority in a city which has seen more than its fair share of sectarian, religion-based violence in recent years. Clashes between Hindu fundamentalists and the sizeable Muslim community in Mumbai have led to violence and death, and the attacks on the city by the Islamist terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba in 2008 did little to enhance trust on either side. So, perhaps, I am more sensitive than most about the notion of poking a community with a stick, just because you can in a free society.

In an increasingly interconnected world, material deemed offensive by a community can be shared and anger stoked up very quickly. That anger will express itself in ways that seem irrational to many of us, but are nonetheless predictable. And, if we have failed to fully integrate communities into our broader society, and make them feel inferior or threatened, such attacks feed fundamentalism and hostility towards the rest of us.

So, feel free to offend if you choose to do so but remember, the consequences may fall upon someone entirely innocent, somewhere far away. It was undoubtedly tragic that so many people, all entirely undeserving, died in such a terrible, terrifying way, for nobody deserves to die for a cartoon. Unfortunately, somewhere far away, a small Christian community are probably wondering what might happen to them tomorrow, or the day after. Nobody in the West will spend much time mourning for them, there will be no hashtag. Likewise, Muslim communities around the world will feel exposed and unsettled simply because they adhere to their faith, and some will suffer, as has been demonstrated in France already. Some will stand by them, many I hope, for most Muslims are as horrified by events in and around Paris as the rest of us are.

In a liberal democracy, we have an obligation to respect our political opponents, whilst challenging their views or their actions. In a liberal society, we have an obligation to respect and defend all law-abiding, peaceful elements of our community, and not tar all members of a particular racial or religious group on the basis of the views or actions of a possibly unrepresentative minority.

The fanatic will always find an excuse to justify his barbarism, and we should not self-censor in the hope that we might dissuade them from violence. However, we should always ask ourselves if we are doing what is necessary to dissuade those tempted by fundamentalism from succumbing. I hope that, in declaring our faith in the right to freedom of expression, we remember that with freedom comes responsibility.

If I'm in a hospital full of sick people, and I have an appointment, presumably I might be sick...

I've had a persistent, hacking cough for months now, and it has been annoying Ros, my work colleagues and random strangers for almost as long so, this morning I went to my local doctor's surgery, where a very attentive young doctor checked this, shone a light at that and measured the other.

His conclusion? A chest x-ray was needed. My heart sank, "That'll be weeks...", I thought, but far from it. He gave me a form with some surprisingly legible handwriting on it (is this man really a doctor?) and explained that I should just turn up at Ipswich Hospital during the opening hours for the Chest X-Ray Unit.

And so, less than five hours later, I was in a slightly dreary room with two dozen or so other people, all waiting to have their innards photographed. The receptionists were very friendly, as had been every member of staff I asked for directions - Ipswich Hospital is a bit like one of those mazes you put rats in to bemuse them - so I was fairly relaxed at being told that I'd probably have to wait for about an hour to be seen. Not bad for our 'crisis-torn' NHS, really, and I'd brought a book...

And, before long, my name was called and I was ushered into a smaller waiting room with cubicles in it, given a plastic shopping basket with a remarkably unfashionable tunic and asked to strip to the waist and put the tunic on. Eventually, I managed this (regular inpatients clearly know how this works) and took a seat for the next wait.

My name was then called somewhat inaccurately - hell, I don't always get it right first time - and I was beckoned into a slightly dimly lit room full of interesting looking bits of equipment (you may have guessed by now that I have very little experience of hospitals) where a very nice radiologist asked about the surname and we made Johnny Depp jokes (he is, it seems, welcome to visit any time he likes...).

The procedure itself was over before I really knew it, and I was packed off again to dress and hand in my shopping basket. Apparently, my surgery will get the results late next week...

There is a corner of a Caribbean field that will be, forever... Latvian?

The history of colonialism is filled with the quirky and the unexpected, if you know where to look. And I am reminded, courtesy of Michael Palin's "New Europe", of one of the more unlikely attempts at establishing an overseas colony.

When you think of the Caribbean, you think of the English and the French, the Spanish and the Dutch, who, between them, stitched up a controlling interest in the various islands, growing sugar and attacking each other's shipping. And yes, the Danish had their little corner (now the US Virgin Islands), one which, obscurely, denied the Brandenburgers a Caribbean colony.

'Tis a pity about the design...
the Courland Monument in Plymouth, Tobago

Tobago was a particularly coveted island, which at various times in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries was contested by the English, French, Dutch, Spanish and even the Swedes. It changed hands thirty-three times.

But the first successful European settlers, who arrived in 1654, were there courtesy of an agreement with Oliver Cromwell, and they were Courlanders, from modern-day Latvia. In return for his support in the dispute between England and the Netherlands, Duke Jacob Kettler was given the right to attempt to set up a colony on Tobago, which probably would have gone fairly smoothly had it not been for the extremely unwelcoming Carib Indians and equally hostile Dutch, who set up a rival, and rather more successful, colony nearby.

Driven off by the Dutch in 1659, the island was returned to them by the Treaty of Oliwa in 1660 but, despite a number of attempts to re-establish themselves, the Courlanders sold Tobago in 1689. One can only wonder what might have happened had they been successful...

Calling for a pause, the new anti-strategy strategy

In the modern era of soundbites and short term solutions to long term problems, I have noticed recently that, if you really have no idea what to do about something you don't like, calling for a pause is an increasingly popular choice.

For example, Rachel Reeves is apparently calling for a pause in the rollout of Universal Credit whilst, well, what exactly? Labour activists in Camden called for a pause in work on HS2 rather than call for it to be scrapped altogether - perhaps because scrapping it would be unpopular with Labour politicians in the North and Midlands.

You may not be able to turn the clock back,
but you can apparently stop it.

Effectively, what is being said is, "We don't like this, but we aren't sure what we should do instead, in case this turns out to be popular.". And, I guess, that's fair enough, unless you were planning to be running the country some day soon.

And, before anyone says that I'm being unfair on Labour, I must note the performance of Liberal Democrats during the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill. The fact that a pause was required rather exposed the fact that the initial work of pre-scrutiny hadn't been done terribly well, and it was only when Liberal Democrat activists went ballistic that time was taken to look at it more thoroughly. It still wasn't that great a piece of legislation...

Our politics doesn't help. Opposition, rather than constructive engagement, is the order of the day in the Commons, whilst the Lords is rather better at scrutiny and amendment but suffers from a justified reticence to overturn the position of an elected House down the corridor. And pre-scrutiny takes time, when Ministers want to be getting on with things.

So, we can expect to see more calls for pauses, in the hope that opposition can be rallied against whatever it is, whilst the policy development concept withers on the vine across the political spectrum. Because opposition and legislation based on anecdote and prejudice is so much easier than developing a philosophically consistent view of the world...

Memories of Vanuatu, and a very dangerous post office

If you didn't get to see part one of "Kate Humble: Into the Volcano" on Sunday night (available on BBC iPlayer until 3 February), you missed a treat, especially if you like volcanology.

Deliberately not getting too close
to the edge of the crater...

Admittedly, I don't really understand it, but I have been to Vanuatu, where the programme was filmed and, in particular, to Mount Yasur, the volcano featured. I went there to climb the volcano in 2007, as part of my 'see all the places I ever wanted to go' phase.

What interested me about the programme, apart from being reminded just what friendly people the ni-Vanuatu are, was the complete absence of any reference to Volcano Post, one of Vanuatu Post's two unusual post offices. At Volcano Post - which is really a post box near the lip of the crater - you can have your postcard singed for that genuine 'posted from a live and active volcano' effect.

I only spent the day in Tanna - the trip was all a bit unplanned - but it was every bit as amazing as Kate Humble describes it, and whilst it is one of the most faraway places you can go from London - you have to get to Australia or New Zealand first before you can get a flight to Port Vila, the capital - if you were to get the chance, I would strongly recommend going.

And prepare to have a good time - Vanuatu was declared the happiest country in the world by the New Economics Foundation in 2006, and the locals seemed to be resolutely cheerful. The beer is alright, the sea is warm and blue, and life is blissfully unhurried.

But if you did miss part one, part two is to be broadcast on BBC2 on Sunday...

It's so easy for Indians to get a visa to come here, right?

And this is just the beginning...

I spent a slightly frustrating afternoon on Sunday, applying online for a visa to visit my family in Mumbai at the end of the month (this is, I acknowledge, surprisingly early for me to do this but that's Ros's influence for you...). A vast series of questions are asked, and data regarding my parents, my spouse, my job, where I've travelled in India (ever) and internationally (in the past ten years!) is required. It is, compared to most places where a visa is required, a bit of a marathon.

However, it is done, and now all I have to do is deliver the original form to London, with the right photographs, and a visa should be mine.

My frustration would have been much greater had it not been for the fact that I know what an Indian national has to do to get a visa to come here to make a similar trip. You can fill in the application form online. Unfortunately, you then need to supply;

• passport
• two photographs
• evidence that you have enough money to support yourself during your trip, eg bank statements or payslips for the last six months
• details of where you plan to stay and your travel plans
• a letter of invitation from the family member you are visiting
• evidence of their financial and employment circumstances, eg bank statements or payslips
• evidence of their immigration circumstances in the UK showing they’re permanently settled or have asylum humanitarian status in the UK, eg a valid visa or immigration stamp in their passport

But it does get better. You then need to get your fingerprints and photograph taken at a visa application centre - there are thirteen, in Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Chandigarh, Chennai, Delhi, Goa, Hyderabad, Jalandhar, Kochi, Kolkata, Mumbai (2) and Pune (you have to pay extra to use the one in Goa). There are parts of India that are a very long way from these.

There is no guarantee that your application will be accepted, as I have discovered - in the current environment, the Home Office are not minded to be generous.

The price is, interestingly, broadly similar to the amount that India charges UK nationals for a tourist visa - 8715 Rupees for a visa to visit the UK, £82 for a visa to visit India. The Indian High Commission in London are rather more efficient than the British counterparts, with a three working day turnaround, compared to the British target of ten working days.

From a personal perspective, I could see that India has a rather greater incentive to make the acquisition of a visa rather easier - it is a real deterrent for potential tourists, and given that tourists have choices, anything that puts them off is undoubtedly harmful to their economy.

But, nonetheless, with the emergence of an Indian middle class who are discovering travel - and you see more and more Indian tourists in places they weren't found ten years ago - it may become an issue for the British tourism industry too...

Open Europe's guide to the big events of 2015

In my capacity as a member of the International Relations Committee of the Liberal Democrats, I am trying to keep abreast of events in both Europe and elsewhere. Open Europe are, to my mind, an interesting source of news and views, and the piece by their Director, Mats Persson, on likely key events this year, is well worth a read.

Personally, I'd add the negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the possible impact if more facts emerge linking Jean-Claude Juncker to possible sweetheart tax deals that took place whilst he was Prime Minister of Luxembourg. Given that his party is in opposition there now, it may be that there is little desire to protect him.

Oh God, are we really going to have to endure four months of this?

Which twin is the Tory?

As I watch domestic politics descend into its regular pre-election contest to see who can offer voters the most 'stuff' in return for the least pain, I do find myself wondering, "where is the vision?". Is it unfair of me to suggest that responding to the media agenda tends to lead to the very worst excesses of short-termism?

This election, in particular, offers the prospect of demands for legislative action on a vast range of issues and attempts to claim that, despite an acknowledgement that the deficit must, and will be, eliminated over the next five years, you, yes you, Mr and Mrs Robinson, won't feel a thing. Trust me, ladies and gentlemen, you are being lied to. It will hurt, and you will lose things that you value. Whether you need those things is another matter...

The Tories are off to a flyer, accusing Labour of a black hole in their calculations, fiercely denied by Labour, whilst Labour accuse the Tories of taking us back to the 1930s. Well, no, of course neither of them are planning to do what the other accuses them of.

Firstly, both parties are committed to reducing the deficit. The Conservatives have sworn to run a surplus by the end of a five year parliament, Labour to borrow only for investment. To do either involves either cutting spending, raising taxes, or, more likely, a bit of both. Both parties favour a predominance of spending cuts, the difference being that the Conservatives appear to be relying solely on cuts, Labour have stated that "the broadest shoulders should bear some of the burden".

So, Labour will raise some taxes, for some people. The Conservatives will cut services, as will Labour. This is not rocket science, but appears to be being denounced as if it were revelatory.

The Liberal Democrats are, it seems, somewhere between the two, although given that we have little idea what either Labour or the Conservatives will actually do, that's not entirely helpful. "More caring than the Conservatives, more responsible than Labour" makes a good slogan, though it might not be entirely informative or even convincing.

As for the rest, they're mostly against sin, or immigrants, or in the case of UKIP, both (although UKIP appear to be quite good at sinning and then claiming that it's just one bad apple so why are we picking on them?).

It's going to be a really long four months, isn't it?...

Has Iain Duncan-Smith conceded the General Election?

Iain Duncan-Smith is to accelerate the rollout of Universal Credit so that Labour can't scrap it, or so it is said by the Daily Telegraph.

My first thought, when Ros told me this, was, "Is that the action of a politician who expects to be in power after 7 May?". Hardly. And it isn't as though Labour are fifteen points clear in the polls, without a cloud in the sky to spoil their triumphant stroll to power. Increasingly, talk is of a hung Parliament without any clear indication of how the chips may fall. Heaven knows, I haven't a clue what the outcome will be, and certainly won't be betting my life savings on it.

And, as I've already noted, cancellation of the Universal Credit programme is not an obvious step - it offers a (potentially) genuinely innovative means of cutting the cost of welfare without having to cut benefits (sort of).

What worries me is that, in order to protect Mr Duncan-Smith's legacy, he will cause the very thing he fears most, cancellation of a project which, due to entirely unnecessary haste, ends up failing and failing badly.

Government should be about having confidence in your actions, and not about making it impossible or extremely expensive to undo your commitments. Labour demonstrated how not to do this when ordering aircraft carriers in the run-up to the 2010 election.

So, more haste, less speed, appears to be the appropriate cliche here. Nonetheless, it's not a bad dictum for government...

"Rural bus services are crap,", says Labour shadow minister, "so we'll reallocate the blame to someone else..."

Michael Dugher has, somewhat belatedly, realised that subsidies for bus services have been cut, resulting in a loss of services, especially in rural areas, according to the Guardian. Well spotted, that man (apologies to anyone who doesn't really approve of sarcasm)!

Unlike Mr Dugher, the MP for Barnsley East, I am a non-driver living in a rural community. I actually experience the problems caused by the absence of public transport but also have an awareness of the costs of providing bus services that are sparsely used.

The bus from Stowupland
- subsequently axed for lack of subsidy

Firstly, bus services in rural areas have been relatively sparse for decades, compared to urban areas. And the problem is, because of that, people in rural areas buy cars. As more of them buy cars, there are less people to patronise the bus routes which, accordingly, become less profitable, until eventually, they only run with public subsidies. People who can't drive drift towards towns, and rider figures drop further.

As a local authority, you can increase the subsidy, but convenience will always determine the means by which an individual chooses to travel. Indeed, Ros noted from her time as Deputy Leader of Suffolk County Council that, on some routes, it was cheaper to pay passengers to take taxis than to pay for an infrequent bus to run. And, with local government budgets squeezed year on year, if you have a choice between cutting libraries or social care, and a bus service used regularly by a dozen or so people, which would you choose?

Mr Dugher's solution?

The bus market is clearly broken and the way local services are provided is not fit for purpose. Labour would change that and hand cities and county regions greater control over local bus services. We will ensure people get the local transport system they need.

Look, control is not the problem, money is the problem, and you can provide more bus services if they are financially viable or if someone is willing and able to pay for them. You could allow cross-subsidy again, but, to be honest, who wants to run loss-making services? Of course, the classic Labour solution of compulsion hovers nervously in the background.

The solution is to spend what money there is more efficiently, not to make meaningless promises on the basis of an apparent lack of awareness as to what it is like to live in a rural community. Demand responsive transport, for example, would make a huge difference to those affected by rural isolation.

I look forward to my Labour candidate turning up here in April to tell me how he or she is going to ensure that I get the local transport system I need. I live in a fairly isolated village, three miles from a town with buses and trains. That's three miles across country, on roads that wind around without pavements, or across public footpaths that are ankle-deep in mud in winter. Perhaps they could offer to drive me to the station every morning...

Is it hubristic to say that you'd quite like to win a blogging award?

I have, over the years, been notable for my utter and complete failure to win any of the Liberal Democrat Voice blog awards (or any others, for that matter). And, I have to say, looking at the list of past winners, they have been of a quality that I aspire to, in terms of the depth and breadth of ideas, or humour, or sheer wonder of the writing - well, mostly (ooh, something controversial - who could he mean by that?).

And I found myself, on a drab, grey, rather soggy Saturday afternoon, finding myself thinking that I might enjoy a little acclaim myself. So, an award would be nice. There are some obvious barriers between me and a thoroughly deserved award, fame and fortune, I guess.

Grey, not an award winning colour, is it?

I'm a bureaucrat. No bureaucrat has ever won a Blog of the Year Award to my knowledge - if it did happen, the award was probably in multiple shades of grey rather than gold. And gold is pretty...

I don't do angry. Being MILDLY IRRITATED doesn't really cut it, it seems.

I don't do design. I know a man who does - he has three kids, lives in North London, might vote Green if they had a chance of winning (you know who you are...). Eye-catching probably helps. That means not using grey, doesn't it (see above).

I am easily... Is that a rabbit? Where was I, oh yes, distracted. I could be arranging my next adventure, or doing a jigsaw, or making a bacon sandwich, instead of sitting down with my blog. That doesn't make me a bad person, it just isn't award winning.

I'm rather partial to loyalty. You get more attention if you're attacking what is notionally supposed to be your own side. Dan Hodges, for example, who seems to make a very good living out of attacking the Labour Party from right-wing newspapers. I'm afraid that, at heart, I rather like the Liberal Democrats, and a lot of the people I might otherwise attack are friends. And friends don't do that to friends, do they?

Not promising material, is it?

Ah well, I'm just going to have to work a bit (a lot) harder, that's all. If you feel that I should be encouraged, or have ideas to improve this little corner of the blogosphere, feel free to suggest them. Alternatively, just click on the adverts if you're around. My advertisers like that, apparently...