Creeting St Peter - a tricky planning application lands...

One of the joys of Parish Council life is our status as a statutory consultee when it comes to planning applications. Admittedly, some of them are pretty straightforward, for example the recent application from Muntons, the local malt business, who wanted to build a new staff car park. Given that you couldn’t see the site because it’s hidden from view by... a bloody great malt factory... there didn’t seem to be much for an issue.

However, a proposal last year to knock down a house in the centre of the village and replace it with five “executive homes”, leaving scope to extend the development into a neighbouring meadow, went down rather badly. Unfortunately the applicant failed to make any effort to consult, and their application drew a justifiably hostile response from the owners of neighbouring properties.

Indeed, nobody seemed to much like it, as it extended beyond the village’s planning envelope as laid down on the District Council’s Local Plan, thus potentially setting a troubling precedent. Highways didn’t like it, and it was rather emphatically turned down by Mid Suffolk District Council on the basis that it breached a large swathe of their planning policies.

Eventually, I was asked by the applicant for a meeting, in my capacity as Chair of the Parish Council. That made me nervous, as I prefer transparency, so I offered him an opportunity to present to a Parish Council meeting, should he wish to proceed with a revised application, an offer which was taken up.

It would be fair to say that the meeting which followed was... lively. It was, at least, mostly amicable, although tempers did occasionally flare. The views of the citizenry were made clear to the applicant and his planning consultant, and there was a sense that the message had gotten across.

Two weeks ago, a revised planning application was notified to the Parish Council. Five executive homes had become four bungalows, access to the meadow was now removed, and there was a sense that, whilst the unhappiness at the prospect of new housing remained, there had been an attempt to respond to some of the concerns.

There are a number of remaining problems, however;

• the development still extends well beyond the village’s planning envelope - would approval offer an opportunity to others to do likewise?
• the status of the village, defined by Mid Suffolk District Council as “countryside”, indicates that no new housing is permitted
• The absence of any facilities - shop, school, public transport - mean that new residents would be obliged to drive, contrary to policy encouraging environmentally-friendly means of travel

None of these have really been addressed by the new proposals, other than in effectively wishing them away.

And so, we held our first virtual Parish Council meeting to discuss it, inviting those residents that we could reach via social media - which is a surprisingly large number. Concerns were noted and recorded, the District Council planning guidance referred to, and civility prevailed.

Our Vice-Chair was prevailed upon to draft our reply, and life moved on. And then, Suffolk Highways intervened.

They noted that the access to the road was partly-owned by a third party, i.e. one of the neighbours, and that the access road itself wasn’t wide enough, and didn’t have a footway. Cue men with tape measures. Now, admittedly, there is an issue over access, and this does complicate matters somewhat, so we’ll see whether or not any alterations can be made to remedy this.

Ultimately, however, the rejection of the original application included the following;

The proposed development would be more than 2km from the nearest services in Stowupland and Stowmarket, resulting in the likely reliance on private motor vehicle use and increase in traffic, less integrated communities leading to poor social cohesion and failure to take opportunities to design for functional communities. There is insufficient access to public transport alternatives available within short walking distance from the site to otherwise outweigh other considerations of the location and poor access to services outlined. In conclusion with consideration of the above, the NPPF states that decision- taking authorities should approve development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay, actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable. 

As such it is considered that the proposal represents unsustainable development, contrary to the NPPF. In all circumstances the LPA is of the opinion that no residential development would be supported on this site. 

This new proposal doesn’t address this core issue, and I suspect that, whilst any other issues may be an obstacle, this particular difficulty might well prove to be Himalayan.

And so, we’ll see how it goes. Or not, as the case may be...

Creeting St Peter - a Chair suspects...

Two years ago, I was the victim of what I might best describe as a genteel ambush, and became Chair of our Parish Council. Let’s be frank here, and note that we’re not talking about an empire here - our annual precept is just over £5,000, and the population for which I am theoretically in charge of is comfortably under 300. But, regardless, it is a responsibility that I take seriously.

The idea, I was informed, was that I would do two years and pass the role onto my Vice-Chair. And, I will admit, I was perfectly relaxed about that - power is not to be hoarded, it is to be shared, devolved. That said, I’d enjoyed my two years, and had found an unexpected niche in village life.

Annual Meetings take place in April or May usually, and we generally combine the two into one evening, the Annual Parish Meeting first, where various local worthies, the Parish Council Chair included, submit reports for consideration by Parish residents. There then follows the Annual Meeting of the Parish Council, where we elect officers and, if appropriate, sign documents.

Coronavirus put a stop to that, however, leaving us the question of what to do with the leadership of the Council. It was quickly decided that I should carry on for another year which either means that nobody else wants the job, or that I’m performing adequately. Of course, both could be equally true...

It would be fair to say that I’m not a radical Chair. I like short meetings, but encourage participation, maintain a reasonably tight grasp on procedure but am not fixated by it, and recognise the efforts of my colleagues, our Clerk and our residents. That doesn’t sound like rocket science, and it isn’t, but I see my role as being one of listening to people’s concerns, reflecting on what might be done, and using the tools available to us to achieve things.

Walking around the village as part of my 10,000 steps a day habit doesn’t hurt either, especially during the spring and summer when people are out and about. Admittedly, it does mean that a walk tends to take longer than it might otherwise do sometimes, but I learn a lot from the conversations I have.

And, of course, I have access to the incredible knowledge and experience of Ros, who has probably forgotten more about local government than I will ever know. Any rash notions I might have are usually tempered by a few words of wisdom from her, which makes me a better Chair.

So, another year starts, albeit under rather strange circumstances. We’ve held our first virtual meeting to deal with another controversial planning application and some financial management issues, and that seemed to go well enough. The leaflet that we circulated around the Parish with contact details in the event that anyone needed help has led to a couple of requests that have been taken care of, which is nice, although most people here are either wholly self-sufficient or have neighbours or nearby family who are looking after them.

And I really ought to write an annual report for circulation, I guess. I might leave out any reference to the absence of a plague of frogs this year - can’t be too careful...

Matt Hancock tells me that I have a civic duty to follow the instructions. There's a word for that sort of person...

Look, let's be honest, I have no desire to catch COVID-19. Likewise, as someone who believes that community is important, I don't want to spread it either. I have responsibilities, as a public servant and as the Chair of my Parish Council, and should set an example. And so, I will.

But I will say this, it sticks in my throat that someone who is giving me instructions is, simultaneously, defending the right of the Prime Minister's senior advisor to disregard them as he sees fit.

And yes, you might reasonably say, I would be less than entirely friendly towards the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. I'm not a supporter of his party. On the other hand, I do talk to my neighbours who, for the most part aren't terribly party political. And their responses have been interesting, in that there is genuine unhappiness about Dominic Cummings - "one law for them, another for us" is the general (unbidden) response.

The good news is that his stupidity and lack of integrity isn't likely to change people's behaviour here at least - we're a cautious bunch for the most part. And, in truth, given that public opinion has rather led the Government rather than the reverse, perhaps that doesn't come as a surprise. But what it does mean is that people will have an excuse if they're asked by Matt and his mates to do something that they aren't enthusiastic about.

And what will the Government do if parents decide that they'd rather not send the children back to school in the absence of clarity over their safety there, or if people choose not to comply with the instructions of contact tracers? That's when the loss of moral authority bites, and with it the ability to persuade. Loyalty is a two-way street.

The public don't like hypocrisy, and they certainly don't like being treated as fools. And whilst the issue of Dominic Cummings' job security might blow over, especially given how desperately senior members of the Cabinet are trying to defend him, observers of the 1992-97 Major Government will remember what happens when the public first lose respect for, and then start laughing at, an administration.

And so, I will comply for now, for the sake of my family, my friends, my neighbours and my community. But I will not forget, or forgive, those who made it clear how little respect they had for our sacrifices.

A heady social whirl in Creeting St Peter

In truth, being locked down in the Creetings is not quite the same as being locked down in a town or city. Yes, we adhere to the “one outing for exercise” rule, and go shopping once a day only, but as most of us don’t shop daily anyway, and the village is surrounded by fields laced with empty public footpaths, it isn’t quite as onerous as it is for some. I’ve managed to keep up with my 10,000 steps each day - it allows me to check the Parish footpaths to see what condition they’re in - and we’re lucky enough to have benefitted from some creative thinking on the part of local food producers, so we’re eating well.

But it is nice to interact with the neighbours from time to time, and whilst one runs into people on the daily walk - maintaining proper distancing, naturally - the opportunity for a chat is limited. And so, the news that an online quiz night was to be organised was a pleasant surprise.

We’ve had the odd quiz night amongst the village pub evenings, but Ros and I hadn’t attended too many of late due to other commitments, so it was a nice to be able to take part via the medium of Google Meet. I’ll say this for the lockdown, I’ve learned more about video meeting software than I ever thought likely.

Each team was able to set a round of ten questions, and these ran the gamut of Suffolk music, Creeting St Peter, geography, musicals, food, Harry Potter and, our offer, politics, courtesy of Ros, amongst others. And it was pretty competitive too, with the lead changing hands regularly.

There were at least three rounds where Ros and I would have happily “phoned a friend”, but we managed a respectable third place finish, which I’d have been happy with at the beginning of the night.

There's talk of a virtual pub night next...

Leadership delayed - and that's why being Party President is difficult...

I see that the Party President has run into a mild storm - see, I can do understated - over the decisions to a) postpone the leadership election until next summer, and b) suggest that Autumn Conference might not take place, at least not as a physical event.

It is, perhaps, a demonstration that winning the job is sometimes easier than doing it.

Being Party President does often mean doing things that annoy/upset/distress/anger people. Mind you, not agreeing with the unreasonable and unrealistic demands of some is sufficient in itself to attract ordure if you're nominally in charge. Occasionally though, it is enough, when offered a gun, to demur from pointing it at your foot and pulling the trigger. And I can't help feeling that postponing the leadership election so drastically is one of those decisions that will rumble on for a while.

In truth, I have no fundamental objection to Ed Davey as Leader. I voted for him over Jo Swinson, although I had no problem with her winning. But leaving someone in an interim position for so long offers its own risks.

I used to manage internal recruitment schemes, and one of our golden rules was that a temporary promotion shouldn't last more than six months without damned good cause - it undermined any open competition for the permanent vacancy that might follow. That was especially true if the temporary vacancy had not been filled competitively.

We also have declared contenders for the post - Wera Hobhouse and Layla Moran have already publicly declared - and whilst I have no doubt about their loyalty both to the Party and to Ed, their every utterance will be parsed by some, including a normally unfriendly media, for dissent.

Yes, running a leadership election offers certain challenges under current conditions, and I know that there are some who enjoy a good hustings - I even chaired the first Clegg vs Huhne event in 2007 - but in truth, the artificiality of hustings do little to change people's minds and very few people will actually attend them relative to the size of the electorate. Indeed, it is my increasing suspicion that the resources lavished on them would be better used on personal contacts.

There is an opportunity to explore new ways of engaging with members, to experiment with new media, in short, to do things differently. And yes, that will take a little time, but perhaps we should allow the ingenuity of liberals some freedom.

On the other hand, there are some human factors to be considered. Being the Leader is difficult, demanding, and to have uncertainty hard-wired into the mix by having an indefinite term is unhelpful to say the least. Ed is owed that much for, regardless of whether or not you think he should be the Leader, he is a decent man, doing a decent job.

So, I would have gone for a three or six month postponement, with a review option for extension by agreement of the Federal Board and Ed. That way, you offer potential candidates a degree of certainty and, should the decision be taken to have a contest, time to organise their campaigns.

But, of course, hindsight is 20:20, I'm not privy to the information upon which the decision was based, and it is entirely possible that the decision is fully justified. I'd need convincing though...

Mid Suffolk Liberal Democrats have a new Secretary...

So, the absence from frontline politics lasted less than a fortnight before I found myself a new project, that of my own dear Local Party.

In fairness, I had made a promise to take over as Secretary, as our previous Secretary had served six years in the role and was keen to hand it on. Admittedly, she and I had made it a personal bargain, so much so that, at Thursday's AGM, it required drawing the attention of the Chair to the fact that it wasn't simply a case of re-electing the incumbent. And so, I have a new job.

One of my first tasks is to establish what our Local Party Constitution looks like, which isn't necessarily the simple task it sounds. The Mid Suffolk Liberal Democrats only came into existence on 1 January 2014, following a reorganisation of the County's Local Parties from Parliamentary boundaries to District/Borough boundaries. Ros and I may have had something to do with that...

There are two places where the Constitution should be;

• The Regional Party - a copy of the Constitution should be lodged with the Regional Secretary after each adoption/revision. Admittedly, that doesn't always happen...
• The Local Party Secretary - if they were handed one by their predecessor...

In our case, a copy turned out to have been held by our former Agent. It isn't entirely clear that what he held was actually adopted in that form, but we'll see. It can always be readopted at the next Annual General Meeting to ensure peace of mind...

Another task is to establish who is actually on the Executive Committee. Thus far, some people who probably think that they are on the Committee don't appear to be, which may lead to fun and games.

And, finally, I'm trying to create a directory for the Local Party, in the first instance for my own use, so that I know who to contact as and when, but perhaps for wider circulation if it appears to be of value.

So, I have my role, and an outline plan for delivery. Let bureaucracy commence...

Getting back into the rhythm...

So, I’m home after a pleasantly restful visit to the US, but despite the fact that I  hold only one minor post, I’m surprisingly busy with Returning Officer stuff. I’ve got meetings to go to, paperwork to organise, and even a ruling to make. 

And that’s fine, I guess, because a bureaucrat’s work is never done, is it?...

Dominic Cummings and me - merely a coincidence, your Honour...

It was entirely coincidental that, more than 3,500 miles apart, Dominic and I were both blogging about his suggestions about changing the way Government is done. Trust me, my typing speed isn’t really that quick, and my drafting far too cautious to allow me to have responded that quickly. But now I’ve had a chance to read his blog, and reflect upon its content a little, perhaps I ought to offer some thoughts.

Firstly, the sort of people he indicates that he’s looking for. Smart, “weird” people, he suggests. Bright, young, without any baggage. And in at least one sense, he’s absolutely right, of course. The Civil Service requires regular infusions of talent, people who can rise through the ranks quickly, and in due course be the leaders going forward. How you recruit them, and how you retain them, he’s rather less clear about.

He could tear up the existing pay scales, the merit-based recruitment systems that exist, and he might even be right to do so. Do the basic rules of supply and demand apply in the public sector? Should they, and if the answer is yes, no matter how qualified, is there a will to change things? Do Civil Service entrance processes actually test the right things, do they discourage talented individuals from under-represented groups, do they promote the best skill sets going forward? Are they actually reflective of current best practice? As a relatively junior official, I’m not privy to that sort of information, nor is there any reason why I should be.

The sort of people he feels are needed are, I think, the subject of broad agreement, although fashions are, how can I put it, just that, fashions. The long-term impacts of individual reforms are often never truly known because so little time is given to allow them to bed in, and the transition is often under-resourced. Perpetual revolution means instability and caution amongst those who might at any time become victims of said revolution.

And the problem with instability in one of the three legs of the structure of the unwritten constitutional settlement is that it risks destabilising the whole arrangement. Now, if what I read is to be believed, that’s what Dominic wants, at least in the short term. How the effects of change are managed, controlled and limited to the specific field of battle is something he may well have thought through, and one would hope that this was the case. But he is, as I said before, more restricted by a legislative framework than he was as a campaigner.

He’s also at the mercy of someone who needs to get re-elected, which can be an uncomfortable place to be, as Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill discovered. Does he really have carte blanche, or are there limits when push comes to shove?

The general response so far has been anger and ridicule. Anger that he proposes to tear up something that, in the minds of some, works pretty well as it is, and ridicule in terms of how he proposes to go about things.

I personally wouldn’t recommend either. Dominic doesn’t play by the conventional rules - he seems to think that many of them are absurd and protectionist. He also has a record of getting what he wants, and given Boris’s reputation for granting wide discretion to his advisors, there is no obvious reason to assume that he can’t get his way. And, just because he’s Dominic Cummings, that doesn’t mean that he’s necessarily wrong.

“Bombshell” - worth seeing, and an insight into how harassment can prevail

We had an awkward four hours or so between being “evicted” from our cosy hotel room and an appropriate time to head for the airport, and given the fairly frigid temperatures outside, catching a movie seemed like a good idea. Our choice, “Bombshell”, a dramatised version of the events which brought about the end of the career of Roger Ailes, the former head of Fox News.

Starring Charlize Theron, Nicole Kidman, Margot Robbie and John Lithgow, the film charts the story of Megyn Kelly, the news anchor who, after Roger Ailes was sued for sexual harassment by a former colleague, discovers that a series of female colleagues were similarly harassed by him, and that it wasn’t just her.

Her discreet investigation uncovers the scale of Ailes’s behaviour, whilst other colleagues, including female ones, attempt to rally support for him, pressuring co-workers to visibly declare his innocence.

Fox News is made out to be a pretty dysfunctional place, with female staff behaving out of fear of their CEO and for their potential careers, and a bunch of  men who, to put it mildly, appear to think that, even if he is guilty as charged, it doesn’t much matter.

Now there isn’t much of a plot to ruin, given that the script is based on actual events, well publicised. We know the ending and, as Roger Ailes died in 2017, most of the facts are presumed to be out there, although it should be noted that Megyn Kelly herself has indicated that the film contains material inaccuracies.

But it offers an interesting insight into how peer pressure, competition and egos can combine to repress any attempt to combat wrongdoing at the highest levels of an organisation.

And, for those who seem to think that whistle blowing is easy, or that taking on a corporate behemoth is what you should do because it is right, it should be recommended viewing. The notion that people’s actions have consequences is one thing, but what if those consequences impact on innocent parties - your co-workers, your family, your friends? Is it so easy then?

Is it a great movie? Probably not, but it is a good one. Will it appeal to those with a fascination with politics, the media and where the two collide? It probably will.

And I am reminded that we really ought to go to the movies more often...

Dominic Cummings vs the Civil Service - fated to end badly?

You can’t deny that, in terms of winning, Dominic Cummings has so far been very effective. Yes, he has driven a coach and horses through many of the conventions in terms of behaviour, and his tactics come with their own long-term issues, but I suspect that he is of the view that, in the long-term, we’re all dead, so that isn’t important.

The thing about a campaign though is that once it’s over, you generally move on to the next thing, preferably something interesting, where the results are visible. Civil service reform is seldom like that, because unlike a campaign, delivery of government happens day after bloody day. It operates within a rule-based structure which can be limiting rather than liberating to those both within it and served by it. Indeed, what most people want is not something radical, but something effective.

So, if Dominic really wants to change the way the Civil Service functions, he needs to take a holistic view across not only the Civil Service but Government too, and that’s an “interesting” challenge. If he thinks that civil servants are, for the most part, useless, cautious and obstructive, then perhaps he needs to consider why that might be.

There are issues of supply and demand, in that salaries for senior civil servants (and some relatively junior ones) are increasingly out of line with their private sector counterparts, especially in terms of skills such as procurement, IT and tax compliance. Do you really believe that you going to get, and more importantly, keep, talent if it is so easily lured away by the promise of higher salaries elsewhere? The pension schemes have been devalued somewhat by recent government reform, and you can’t live off of a knighthood, even were you to be far enough up the food chain to get one.

Another issue is the quality of legislation that emerges from Parliament. The House of Commons has an increasingly poor record in terms of scrutiny of new proposals, and whilst the Lords is far better, relying on increasingly partisan administrations to accept credible ideas for improvement is a gamble at best, a pipe dream at worst. Civil servants work with what they’re given, especially on the frontline, and if what they’re given is endlessly tinkered with as foreseen glitches begin to pinch, application of government intent is jeopardised.

A good point has been made about stability, i.e. leaving senior managers in post long enough to see through changes. Many frontline staff grow weary of a new senior appointment arriving, forcing through major changes against sometimes reasoned objections only to disappear before the effects are known. By the same token, attempts at cultural change tend to fall foul of corporate inertia - “if we wait long enough, leader X will leave, to be replaced by leader Y who will be enthused by something else”.

It is being suggested that there will be a focus on cutting out perceived deadwood. Removing the supposed feckless and incompetent has been an aspiration of ministers for the more than three decades that I’ve been employed, and the tendency is to apply blunt tools such as picking on, say, the worst-performing 10% of staff. Such broad brush approaches ironically punished relatively well-performing offices, leaving badly run ones roughly unchanged, because of the challenge in selecting 10% out of a broader pool including different types of work, in different offices, with varying managerial standards.

The answer, it is suggested, is a system of ongoing examination. That’s interesting, because it increases the risk of three things - an increased lack of stability, an aversion to risk and a disincentive to recruitment - that run counter to what Dominic wants. If you stick your head above the parapet, will you survive the experience? If you’re looking over your shoulder all of the time, can you take in the horizon? And if your job is as much at risk in the public sector as it would be in the private sector, why not just take the money?

I suppose that I am, in bureaucrat terms, something of a conservative, in that I want things to work, I want there to be a proper balance between state and individual, and I want the state to be a force for good in people’s lives. Ironically, that might be seen as radical in some quarters, and even more ironically, many junior civil servants would certainly support the first and third elements of my wishlist (the second is a bit esoteric, I accept).

So, we’ll see what Dominic and his friends have in mind for the bureaucracy. One can only hope that he can grasp the difference between resistance to change and genuine critique and alternative perspective. My door is always open though...

The beginning of another year arrives, so what do I do with it?

After more than a decade of being deeply engaged with all things Liberal Democrat, I find myself entering a new year with surprisingly little responsibility. Term limits meant that my time as a member of the ALDE Party’s Financial Advisory Committee came to an end in October after eight satisfying years, and I lost my place on Federal International Relations Committee which, given how surprised I was to have been elected to it in the first place, came as no great shock. At least I lost to some good people...

What this means is that I only hold one formal role as a Liberal Democrat, that of the East of England member of the Appeals Board for England which, whilst not something which takes up a lot of my time, is quite onerous when my services are required. I do have three Returning Officer jobs to deliver in the New Year, but they shouldn’t detain me for too long, and there is my day editorship of Liberal Democrat Voice, which, if I let it, could expand to fill the time newly available to me.

There is a danger, therefore, that I rush headlong into some new role. And that would probably be a mistake, as there are things in the rest of my life which possibly merit more attention.

I could make some New Year resolutions, but why make commitments out of a sense of duty when it would be better to make changes because they would improve my life and that of those close to me. Besides, change should be organic rather than regimented.

So, I think that I’ll leave 2020 uncommitted for the time being. There’s much to look forward to, and much that would be better avoided.

And a Happy New Year to you all!

Here in Boston, we’re five hours behind most of you, but I wish you all the best, nonetheless. Sleep well!

India - a challenge ahead for HMS Brexit...

Declaring an interest as someone of half-Indian extraction, I’ve argued on occasion that, whilst much attention is given to China’s emergence as a world power, both military and economic, there should be more attention given to its democratic counterpart, India. It’s an uphill struggle, I acknowledge, but still an important one.

In terms of the domestic debate here, India falls under the category of “obvious trading partner” post-Brexit, i.e. someone we can increase exports to. Now, putting aside the fact that United Kingdom governments have treated Indian citizens in a manner akin to leprosy victims in terms of visa access over the years, the action of Theresa May in effectively vetoing the proposed EU/India Free Trade Agreement, is hardly an encouragement to the Indian Government to prioritise us over, say, the European Union.

But, of course, some of the more lacking in self-awareness supporters of Brexit believe that, as part of the (jolly old) Empire, the Indians will be only too eager to sign something - fifth largest economy in the world, you know, Commonwealth ties, old boy.

Except that, according to the Centre for Business Economics and Research, with its Conservative-friendly world view, Britain’s economy is already smaller than India’s, and with India’s trend growth rate far higher than that of the United Kingdom, the gap will grow fast. In whose interests is a trade deal then, who will be able to drive the harder bargain? Not a difficult question to answer, is it?

Any trade deal will require significant visa liberalisation, and thus more Indians coming to Britain to work and study - a tough sell to those who voted for Brexit, and indeed for the Conservatives, in order to reduce immigration. And the net figure will be worse still, as the chances are that few British citizens will wish to make the reverse journey.

It gets better though. By 2034, India is predicted to be the third largest economy, with the likes of Indonesia, the Philippines and Bangladesh in the top twenty-five. And they know that. The bargain will get harder, not easier, and the Hindu nationalist administration that runs India is hardly likely to hold back from  using that growing power imbalance to settle some old scores.

Meanwhile, the European Union will be keen to gain preferential access to the Indian market. It has quite a lot to offer, isn’t as attractive to Indians seeking to work abroad but offers plenty of opportunities for the rapidly growing number of middle-class Indians to spend money as tourists. It also offers access to a market six times larger and, in significant cases, wealthier than that of the United Kingdom.

Negotiations with the Modi administration should be interesting, and something of an eye opener for the Johnson-led Conservative Government. How they respond to the challenge may be a guide to the future economic prospects of the United Kingdom, and the ability of the Conservatives to deliver their rather generous promises.

They’d better learn fast...

More adventures in media choice...

I wrote, a fortnight or so ago, about giving up The Times, in part because of its recruitment of Quentin Letts, but in truth because it has become a source of anger rather than disagreement. The unremittingly negative coverage of transgender issues, the continuing employment of Rod Liddle, the increasingly desperate attempts to smear Jeremy Corbyn (and, for that matter, anyone who isn’t a Conservative Party politician), all added up to a conclusion that giving them £10 per week to annoy me was a pretty poor use of the funds.

So, how am I getting on? 

Well, it’s early days yet, and as my subscription doesn’t expire for another three weeks, I’m still taking advantage of it, but I’ve made two financial commitments and taken up one newspaper that is still free online and apparently not looking for money.

I’ve always enjoyed The Economist, and whilst it can be a little dry at times, its tendency to rely on facts and, where an opinion is being offered, its clarity as to the difference, is welcome in a time where the line between news reporting and opinion is increasingly blurred. For £215 per year, I receive my weekly copy of the dead tree version, plus access to the digital version online, as well as daily e-mails with stories that might interest me. I’m still £305 a year better off, and probably less annoyed.

Ros reads the New York Times, and is quite impressed with their coverage of British politics, but there seems little point in both of us paying for it, so I’ve signed up to The Washington Post. They ask a mere $30 for an initial annual subscription to the digital edition, rising to $100 thereafter, and whilst that may turn out to be more than I really want to pay, at that price, what do I have to lose? And I’m still £282 a year better off...

I know that The Guardian is free online, merely begging for money endlessly. A bit of me wants to give them some, for I am taking advantage of their largesse whilst only offering them potential advertising revenue. But, for the time being, I will resist the temptation to contribute towards Polly Toynbee’s salary. Instead, I’ve downloaded the app for The Times of India, a newspaper my great uncle once worked for. They appear not to want any payment, although that may of course change in the future. It offers me a very different perspective on the world, links me to the family home and is likely to give me an insight into what is likely to be one of the world’s top five economies before very long.

So, there you have it, three very different mediums, each offering a very different perspective, all of which are highly respected. We’ll see how it goes...

Some light music for bedtime...

It's been a long time for many of my friends and colleagues, so here's something to soothe the troubled brow, "Ich will dir mein Herze schenken", from Johann Sebastian Bach's St Matthew Passion...

Liberal Democrats in Suffolk - how did it go?

Let's be honest, had there been any prospect of a Liberal Democrat gain in Suffolk, we'd have been in 1906 territory, but you do have to look forward some of the time, especially after a night like this one just past. And, if things go as badly as some suspect, Conservatives in local government may be the first harbingers of public unhappiness. And maybe, just maybe, if we do things better, we might persuade the electorate to turn to us.

So, how did we get on?

I'll start in Waveney, now part of East Suffolk District Council, as it has been a bit of a black hole for us for some years despite the gallant efforts of a small hardcore of activists. Our vote there over the three elections since 2015 has gone as follows;

• 2015 - 1,055 votes, 2.0%, fifth place (out of five)
• 2017 - 1,012 votes, 1.9%, fifth place (out of six)
• 2019 - 2,603 votes, 5.1%, fourth place (out of five)

We did save our deposit, which is great news, and it is a very "brexity" neighbourhood, with Lowestoft at its core, and thanks to Helen Korfanty for flying the flag.

Heading to the other end of the county, West Suffolk has no Liberal Democrat Councillors at County or District level, following retirements in 2015. Our vote there has gone:

• 2015 - 2,465 votes, 5.0%, fourth place (out of five)
• 2017 - 2,180 votes, 4.2%, fourth place (out of five)
• 2019 - 4,685 votes, 9.1%, third place (out of four)

That's not a bad result from Elfreda Tealby-Watson, who must be getting used to the place by now, having fought the seat on each occasion. And, another saved deposit.

We have a presence in Ipswich, with a county councillor and three borough councillors, but as it's a key marginal, voting Conservative in 2015, Labour in 2017 and now Conservative again, we tend to get squeezed;

• 2015 - 1,400 votes, 2.9%, fifth place (out of five)
• 2017 - 1,187 votes, 2.3%, fourth place (out of six)
• 2019 - 2,439 votes, 4.9%, third place (out of five)

Bad luck for the returning Adrian Hyyrylainen-Trett, who was forty votes short of saving our deposit, but selflessly led campaigning teams to Cambridgeshire to support our more likely prospects there. Thanks, Adrian, you were a star.

Next, I turn to South Suffolk. I've always felt that it was the sort of seat where, with the right combination of candidate and activist base, Liberal Democrats could win. But, for whatever reason, we don't. This time, we improved quite sharply;

• 2015 - 4,044 votes, 7.8%, fourth place (out of six)
• 2017 - 3,154 votes, 5.8%, third place (out of five)
• 2019 - 6,702 votes, 12.5%, third place (out of four)

David Beavan has dragged us back towards respectability, but it's a far cry from the 30.8% we achieved in 2010.

I can see Central Suffolk and Ipswich North from the end of our lane, and it's another seat where we had a solid vote prior to the Coalition, but not since;

• 2015 - 3,314 votes, 6.1%, fourth place (out of six)
• 2017 - 2,431 votes, 4.3%, third place (out of five)
• 2019 - 6,485 votes, 11.5%, third place (out of four)

I'm pleased for James Sandbach, in that he seemed to enjoy the campaign, and was a fine ambassador for Mid Suffolk Liberal Democrats.

The last seat contested was Suffolk Coastal, which probably saw more activity than in recent years past;

• 2015 - 4,777 votes, 8.6%, fourth place (out of five)
• 2017 - 4,048 votes, 7.0%, third place (out of five)
• 2019 - 8,719 votes, 15.0%, third place (out of five)

The Jules Ewart campaign was certainly busy and prominent, and there's definitely something there to build upon going forward.

You'll notice that I haven't mentioned Bury St Edmunds, my own constituency. We were stood down in favour of the Greens as part of the Unite to Remain alliance. I can't say that it went down all that well, but sometimes you have to compromise in search of an over-riding goal. The Greens came third, with 15.7% of the vote, and it's probably one of their best results in the country, but as Jo Churchill ended up with a majority of 24,988, it probably didn't affect much.

So, looking at it in the round, we're back in third place across the county, and whilst that might not seem like much of an achievement, it is at least progress in the right direction. Our vote share increase averaged out at 5.4% across the six contested seats, slightly better than the Party did nationally, and we averaged 9.7% in terms of vote share, a bit behind the national performance, but a reflection of the relative weakness of the Party in sleepy Suffolk.

Setting aside the Police and Crime Commissioner election, our next county-wide contest is the County Council election in 2021, which will be fought on new boundaries. Here in Mid Suffolk, our strategy is pretty obvious, I suspect, but it might be worth paying some attention to the boundary changes. The consultation phase ends next month...

Thanks to Quentin Letts, I suddenly have rather more money in my pocket...

I used to be a Guardian reader which, given that I'm a Liberal Democrat, might not surprise that many people. And yes, there were annoying aspects to it - Polly Toynbee, for the most part, but I could put up with that. But, about six years ago, I switched to The Times, newspaper of record and all that. Their sports coverage was quite good, and whilst I didn't necessarily feel comfortable with either their editorial line or, to be honest, their ownership, I took the view that I'm enough of a sceptic to consciously filter out their right-wing bias.

One of the features that I follow particularly closely is the parliamentary sketch, and I'd grown used to Patrick Kidd's style but then, a few months back, I noticed that he had gone, replaced by... Quentin Letts. I loathe his writing, his rather snide, sneering approach to people who, for all of their failings, are mostly trying to do a job of work, and their best of society. They're also paid considerably less than he is, I suspect, part of which comes from my wallet.

I put up with it for a while but my sense was that the paper was drifting towards the knee-jerk right, and so, this morning, I rang the subscriptions department to cancel (interestingly, they don't appear to offer an option to do so online - at least, I couldn't find it). After pressing a few option buttons, I was put through to a very polite young (I thought) man, sitting in an office in Colchester.

"I'd like to cancel my subscription.", I said, politely. "Really,", he replied, "may I ask why that is? I see that you've been a subscriber for six years.". "Quentin Letts,", I said, "I really don't like his attitude or style.". (I paraphrase here...).

The young man tried to convince me to change my mind. "We do have some other excellent columnists - Melanie Phillips and Rachel Sylvester were the two names he used to persuade me to stay. He was unfortunate in his choice, in that I can't bring myself to read much of Melanie's diatribes, and Rachel Sylvester has not really drawn my attention.

No, I insisted, I'd like to terminate my subscription. He hesitated. "Let me talk to my manager for a moment. I'll put you on hold and get back to you.". I waited, patiently. After all, I'm a polite soul, and he was simply doing his job.

He returned. "I've spoken to my manager, and would a half-price subscription for three months change your mind?". No, I said, it's not about the money, it's about a principle. I don't like Quentin Letts and his works, you've employed him, and this is the consequence.". "Would six months at half price change that?". "No, as I said, it's not about the money.".

"It's sorry that you're leaving, you'll miss our excellent sports reporting and range of columnists. I'm sure that, in a few months, you'll be back.". "I'm afraid not,", I replied, "and as I think about it, adding Rod Liddle to the list, I'm almost surprised that I've lasted this long.".

Eventually, he gave in to the inevitable. I wasn't going to change my mind, and it was agreed that my subscription would lapse on 19 January. A reference number was generated, so that I could monitor whether or not they try to continue taking my money, and we brought our conversation to an end.

It dawns on me that many people in this country don't read a daily newspaper any more, for a range of reasons. And I don't have to either. There are plenty of free news sources online, there are more reputable options, and I can now explore those. And, best of all, I don't have to read the parliamentary sketches by Quentin Letts any more. 

Frankly, John Crace is much better...

Democracy - it seems as though they had to destroy the concept in order to “save” it

In elections, winning matters. There are very few politicians or political activists who would suggest with an entirely straight face that, by taking part, you influence the debate and that winning is thus not so important. Yes, I acknowledge that your better, more attractive ideas will be stolen by your opponents, which is on the whole fine, but it’s how you implement them that really counts. Someone who steals something shiny probably won’t understand the basic mechanics that make an idea truly effective.

So, winning matters.

But, in a democracy, you ideally want voters to be properly informed, able to make choices based on a range of fact-based ideas so as to elect people likely to make their communities better (the definition of “better” may not be wholly inclusive, of course...). And that makes the notion of truth important.

In advertising, you are obliged to be able to demonstrate that your claim for any particular product is true. The Advertising Standards Authority takes a dim view of false claims, and this is obviously in the interests of consumers - especially when a false prospectus can have serious effects. We label food products to prevent mischance, for similar reasons.

We have no equivalent for political campaigning, of course. After all, politicians are promising that, by doing X, Y will improve. There’s no certainty - economic circumstances are not wholly within the control of nation states, political theories are only really tested in the actuality - and so there’s quite a lot of aspiration involved. If taxes are raised, what will be the likely impact? And what will be the actual impact?

Many politicians have been blurring that for some time. “We will increase the number of nurses in the NHS by 50,000.”, for example, rather depends on there being 50,000 people who want to be, or remain, nurses. Appointing people and retaining them is difficult, especially if you don’t address the underlying causes of nursing shortages. So, you would be more truthful in saying that you believe that the NHS needs 50,000 more nurses, and here are my ideas for achieving that.

For people who care about process, that can be a bit frustrating, but given that most people are only really interested in direction of travel, that level of detailed argument is probably a pipedream.

Falsehoods are a different matter though. For example, claiming that homelessness had fallen sharply over nine years of Conservative administration, as Sajid Javid did, when the truth was the reverse, is a falsehood. Deliberate or accidental, only he can tell, although the fact that the error was clearly in his favour leads one to be sceptical about his honesty. But his error was then reported as truth by a mostly friendly media with little or no incentive to fact check him.

And then there is the out and out lie. You can, for example, sieve through every policy motion passed at a Labour Conference, put an estimated price on it - your estimate, mind, not necessarily an independent one - add them all up and claim that that’s what a Labour government would cost. No government ever does everything its members want it to, it trims its coat according to the available cloth - yes, even Labour governments. And, of course, the expectation is that additional means can be found to pay for additional spending.

Social media now allows something new and altogether more troubling - the co-ordinated mass lie. The story of the young boy lying on a bed of coats on the floor of the A & E department at Leeds General Infirmary was not a good image for an administration seeking re-election. But the number of Twitter accounts all suddenly claiming to have a close friend working at Leeds Hospital who knew that the story, and the image, were a set-up, was no coincidence. The fact that they were all the same smacks of cynical news manipulation, but it will be effective. Most social media users will only see one or two of them, whereas if they saw the same claim on a poster, for example, or knew that two hundred or more people were tweeting exactly the same thing, perhaps their suspicions might be aroused.

There are those who will claim that, in order to protect the country from X, there are no tactics that are unacceptable. They will argue that, if a Corbyn-led Labour administration is elected, the country will be ruined, and so must be prevented at any cost.

The problem is that lying is cumulative, that foul play is cumulative. And, if rewarded, sends out a message that, in order to win, you have to do the same. And thus, any hope of an informed democracy is destroyed, leaving a toxic wasteland of lies, misrepresentation and voter alienation.

And, if you’re willing to do those things, what else are you willing to undermine? The independence of the judiciary? The neutrality of the Civil Service? In other words, if winning is all that counts, have you actually forgotten what you were winning to protect?...

It's been a tough few weeks for supporters of the BBC...

I am, on the whole, a glass half-full sort of person. I have a worrying tendency to assume that people are acting for the best of motives unless there is evidence to the contrary. Most people are, after all, broadly honest, kind to animals and want the best for those around them.

But, and let's be honest here, this election campaign has been to truth what Attila the Hun was to good neighbour schemes. And it's not just politicians who should carry the blame - the media have their share of responsibility too.

Today's incident when Laura Kuenssberg tweeted that one of Matt Hancock's team was punched by a Labour activist turned out not to be even vaguely accurate was perhaps the nadir of the campaign. She claimed to have two sources, neither of whom she is even now willing to name, despite the fact that the video was out there, demonstrating that her report was untrue - and no, I can't give her the benefit of the doubt and suggest that it was a simple mistake.

I don't know who her two sources were, and she is within her rights not to tell, but it appears that she took their word at face value, and is happy to protect them from the consequences of their lies. In other words, she accepted the word of people who clearly had an interest in a particular slant to the story, and broadcast that to 1.1 million people without even a basic fact check. That isn't journalism, it's propaganda, and even if she didn't mean to promote the views of one or other party, that's exactly what she achieved. A lie, propagated by a notional credible, neutral source, was off around the world, and she is to blame.

She wasn't alone, of course, as Robert Peston was equally quick to point the finger. And yes, they have both subsequently apologised but the basic premise of journalism seems to have been lost by both of them.

And the sad thing is that, at a time when the BBC should be striving to be as neutral as a state broadcaster should be, and in the face of calls for it to be stripped of its state funding via the licence fee, such "mistakes" drive its natural supporters to shrug their shoulders and countenance a world without its key public sector broadcaster.

I would consider myself to be, in principle, a defender of a public broadcasting service, dedicated to entertaining and informing in equal measure. But what do you do if said institution turns out to be, in all honesty, as much part of the problem as it is the solution to media bias? Can politicians and political activists really defend the BBC against the charge that the licence fee is anti-competitive and, in an age of mass media, a subsidy from Sky TV viewers to those who watch BBC1 or BBC2? And, more importantly, will it be defended with any great enthusiasm?

And yet, there has to be an alternative to privately-owned media, free to pursue their own political agenda. For private media are, in the main, owned by the wealthy, whose interests tend not to be those of the general public. Most of our broadsheets are owned by people who prefer not to pay their tax here (or anywhere else, come to that), and thus have little interest in the quality of public services except as a stick to beat politicians with. They also tend to be less favourable towards redistribution, equality and diversity - all of which tend to work against their personal interests. And it is their right as private citizens to hold such views. It's just that they seek to persuade other people, whose interests might not be quite the same, to vote in a particular way, and have the means to do so. Not exactly an level playing field for political campaigners and perhaps worthy of scrutiny.

Today, the Leader of the Conservative Party brought into question the future of the licence fee, and there wasn't exactly a rush to defend it. In such ways do our institutions crumble and die...

General Election 2019 - the view from a comfortable seat on the sidelines...

Regular readers of this blog will know that I live and do politics in mid-Suffolk. And those of you who know mid-Suffolk will know that the district is split between two Parliamentary constituencies, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich and Bury St Edmunds. Creeting St Peter is on the boundary between the two seats, having been in Central Suffolk until 2010, and in Bury St Edmunds thereafter. As part of the deal making over the “Remain Alliance”, local Liberal Democrats were stood down in Bury St Edmunds in favour of the Greens.

And this “not having a candidate to support” is strangely disconcerting. There is no local activity to get involved in, no camaraderie of getting things done. It does begin to feel as though the election is happening somewhere else, even though it’s all over the media. I have at least been out and about with Ros - to Cambridge and North Norfolk - and attended campaign launches in Central Suffolk and, this evening, in Ipswich.

We’re not alone, of course. When I started this blog, I was living in south London, and was Chair of Dulwich and West Norwood Liberal Democrats. They've been stood down in favour of the Greens too.

I don’t need to be persuaded that the deals done with the Greens and with Plaid Cymru were helpful in maximising our prospects in seats we really could win - that’s a pragmatic response to the injustice that “first past the post “ doles out to smaller parties - but it does leave our activists in such seats with a dilemma. Do we campaign for the party we have stood down in favour of, or campaign for ourselves in our areas of strength just to remind people we exist, or travel somewhere more promising to lend a hand? Or, do we simply sit this one out?

The Party would (and does) urge people like me to go somewhere else, as there is never enough resource in key seats. And some of us will do that, travelling across the county boundary to deliver leaflets or canvass or whatever, whilst others telephone canvass if they can. Others will give generously to support campaigns both national and local. But some will simply stay at home because politics isn’t their lives, or because they don’t have the same stake in helping people that they don’t really know, or that travelling for a couple of hours to deliver a few leaflets doesn’t feel like a good use of their time. 

Of course, what happens with all of those Liberal Democrat campaigns out there matters deeply. Having more Liberal Democrat MPs speaking up for tolerance, decency and internationalism (amongst other things) must be a good thing. And I know (and like) some of our candidates personally, which does give me an interest which is not entirely academic.

So, the campaign continues, albeit somewhere else, and our road trips will do too...