Creeting St Peter - a village can dream?...

I'm still trying to work out how we can hold our Annual Parish Meeting without breaking the law given the problems I outlined a month ago.

And so, I turned to my copy of the Nineteenth Edition of "The Parish Councillor's Guide" by Paul Clayden (what do you mean, you don't have one?) and promptly allowed myself to be distracted. You know how it is, you look up one thing, and then see something quirky and interesting and before you know it...

Well, what I found was a reference to Town Councils. Now, if you want to become a City, you need to get the reigning monarch to grant you city status. You don't need a cathedral, although it does offer a certain historical cachet. And, in truth, no matter how ambitious I might be, bidding for Creeting St Peter to be a city, when the likes of Croydon, Doncaster and Dudley have done so unsuccessfully, might be a step too far.

But to become a town is actually quite easy. According to Section 245(6) of the Local Government Act 1972, all that we have to do is pass a resolution;

The council of a parish which is not grouped with any other parish may resolve that the parish shall have the status of a town and thereupon -

(a) the council of the parish shall bear the name of the council of the town;

(b) the chairman and vice-chairman of the council shall be respectively entitled to the style of town mayor and deputy town mayor;

(c) the parish meeting shall have the style of town meeting.

Well, that all seems rather easy and surprisingly painless and, best of all, nobody can stop us.

That leaves the question of mayoral regalia...

A banana republic without bananas?

One of the things that one should be able to take for granted in this country is that corruption is minimal and broadly disapproved of, that there are rules to ensure a level playing field when bidding for contracts. And, to be honest, we've been fortunate in that regard.

Why is it important? Let me offer up an example of what happens when you have a public procurement system that has a known element of corruption. If you know that, by influencing a key official or politician, you increase your chances of bidding successfully, you might be minded to do just that. You'll raise the price if you can to cover the cost of that influencing, thus the public ultimately pay. And then, your competitors will realise that they have to do the same to compete. The premium needed increases, and you suck money out of the legal economy, filtered out into offshore bank accounts and properties.

It doesn't happen overnight, it happens gradually, as the accepted norms are stretched and warped, until corruption and bribery are rampant. We joke about corruption in places like Nigeria, although it really isn't a laughing matter.

Here, it was traditionally more subtle than that, with "good chaps" shaking hands with other "good chaps" to do quiet deals. What is being alleged is that such a process has become rather less subtle, with friends of senior politicians having preferential access to procurement officials by bypassing the usual channels and, when large sums of money are being spent with the focus on speed rather than accuracy, the chances are that some very lucrative contracts will be offered to those who've positioned themselves at the front of the queue in order to make things happen.

And, if they're able to deliver, that might be excusable in a crisis like a pandemic. However, if they can't, and were never really qualified to be able to do so, whilst other, better suited bidders were excluded or ignored, that offers us a problem.

If it is perceived that friends of Government ministers have been profiting from public procurement contracts that they didn't merit winning, and that there was no credible process in place for determining whom best to award contracts to, then the concept of conflict of interest is in play.

It does surprise me that so many instances of potential conflict of interest have arisen, and that there doesn't appear to be any acknowledgement that perhaps Ministers should have left some clear distance between themselves and the procurement process. But that requires the setting of an example from the top, and the Prime Minister isn't terribly respectful of process, nor of truth. If he sets the tone, he's not likely to set a particularly good one.

It appears that there is an ethical weakness somewhere at or near the centre of British politics, and whilst one is loathe to call for an enquiry into anything one doesn't like, any enquiry that does take place into the Government's handling of the pandemic will need to take a cold, hard look at whether or not the VIP channel helped or hurt Britain's response to this crisis, and just how much money might have been wasted because of it.

A memory of Jonathan Fryer...

It is somewhat difficult to think of Jonathan as being dead, and his sudden demise on Friday produced an outpouring of sorrow, second only to that which took place when he announced that he was terminally ill only a few weeks earlier.

Many will remember him for his writing, others for his commitment to internationalism, yet others for his campaigning and leadership, and all with good cause. I'll remember him partly for his insatiable curiosity about the world and partly for his sense of humour.

And so, perhaps to offer an unexpected insight into someone I was lucky enough to know, here's a piece that he wrote nearly a decade ago. There may be goatherds involved...

A European Super League - have they learned from the American experience?

I wrote a piece for Liberal Democrat Voice which went live this morning, in which I suggested that there wasn't an awful lot that Government could do if a collection of the "richest" clubs across Europe decided to form their own league. Naturally, a slew of politicians then suggested that, not only could the Government act, but that it would. I'm yet to be convinced that it's anything but words in the run-up to a bunch of local elections, but we'll see...

One of the suggestions as to why a European Super league has emerged now after years of talk and little actual action is the suggestion that American-owned clubs see this as being no different to the way that the NFL or NBA work, in that those leagues have no promotion or relegation and, in that sense, they're right. The absence of such things has no apparent impact on the success of the sport and, indeed, it does allow teams to plan over a period of years, creating stability and a narrative for a team, even if it isn't doing particularly well at any particular time.

I'm a Tampa Bay Buccaneers fan which, at the moment, is a fine thing to be, given their success in the most recent Super Bowl. However, I've followed them since the sport was first televised on Channel 4 in the mid-eighties. Why the Buccaneers? Simple, they wore orange, like my football team, Luton Town. And, to be honest, like most of the teams I've supported, they sucked most of the time. But you keep hoping, right? There is an irony, in that they're owned by the Glazer family, who own Manchester United, but they are widely believed to have been thoughtful and committed owners in Florida, and that perhaps speaks volumes.

And the thing about the NFL is that, at its heart, is the rather socialist notion that a more equal league is actually a good thing. Thus, the player draft, where new talent is selected by teams in the reverse order to which they finished in the previous season (although slots can be traded for advantage or later reward). Baseball has a luxury tax, whereby if a team spends more on player salaries than an agreed limit, it pays 17.5% of the overspend into a fund, part of which is used for player benefits. That amount increases if they breach the limit in consecutive years, and discourages teams from spending much more than their competitors.

Most major US sports have a salary cap too, albeit at levels that many would think absurd, but, combined with luxury taxes, a genuine sense of competition exists. For example, twelve different teams have won the Super Bowl in the past fifteen years, compared to the seven teams that have won the Premier League in its twenty-eight seasons to date. Your team may be awful one year but, in a few years, it might credibly be a winner.

So, the land of the free is, for sports purposes, a bit of a socialist paradigm. I don't see a European Super League going down that route - the cult of personality is too important to allow that, I'd suggest - and thus the pressure to spend more on players will not change. Who wants to support the team that comes bottom, even if it is in a Super League, season after season? More importantly from the perspective of the owners and shareholders, who's going to want to buy the shirts, or pay to watch the games on pay-per-view or satellite TV?

But, if they can make enough money, they probably won't care...

County Council elections - what's happening in Mid Suffolk? (part 2)

Yesterday, I looked at Bosmere, Gipping Valley, Hartismere, Hoxne and Eye and Stowmarket North and Stowupland. Today, it's time to look at the rest of Mid Suffolk's ten County divisions...

Stowmarket South... where to begin? Once Liberal Democrat (1993-2001), lost to Labour in 2001, it became a Conservative/Labour marginal in 2005 when a new Liberal Democrat candidate, Keith Scarff, came third with a respectable 22.4% of the vote. It's probably the most consistently hard fought of all the Mid Suffolk divisions - in 2005, the Conservative candidate won by 130 votes or 2.8%.

Keith was back in 2009, losing to Conservative Ann Whybrow by just 73 votes. In 2013, he got within forty votes of winning, and came third, with the UKIP candidate, Stephen Searle beating Ann Whybrow by just one vote. 2017 saw the Conservatives win the seat back through Nick Gowrley, with Keith in second place again, this time 132 votes adrift as the UKIP vote unravelled.

Since then, Nick Gowrley, who was the Conservative Leader on Mid Suffolk, lost his seat in 2019 to... Keith Scarff, and they face off again this time. We can probably discount the Labour candidate, but the wildcard is the Independent candidate, David Card. David was the Conservative District Councillor in Barking and Somersham for a year or so, resigning within a year to cause a by-election which was lost to the Greens by two votes - I was the slightly unexpected Liberal Democrat candidate who lost by 58 votes (was it really that close?) - over the Conservatives decision to borrow £100 million to dabble in commercial property.

I'd expect David to base his campaign on attacking Nick Gowrley, which might on the face of it benefit the man who's been working the Division for sixteen years. And Keith's a lovely guy, so I'd love to see him win.

One of the weird things about Suffolk, if you're an outsider, is the names of some of the County divisions. Where, for example, is Hartismere, or Thingoe? The answer is Saxon Hundreds, which were the administrative divisions of Suffolk from Saxon times up until the end of the nineteenth century. And, because we're not used to getting rid of anything useful, some of the names have carried on, which brings me to Thedwastre North and Thedwastre South...

I'm hoping that Thedwastre North will be the more interesting one, with another former blue on blue contest. Jane Storey was a bit of a highflier in local Conservative circles but, in 2019, lost her District Council seat on revised boundaries to the Greens. Last year, she was de-selected as the County candidate, appealed and lost. And so, she's fighting the seat against her successor, Harry Richardson, who is the District Councillor in Thurston, the other main settlement in the Division. The Green candidate, Andy Mellen, won a District Council seat in Bacton, having painted his sheep with "Vote Andy", and is the potential interloper in this contest. There's also a Labour candidate, Ursula Ajimal.

Thedwastre South has been Liberal Democrat held since the 2007 by-election, and has been closely fought ever since - Penny Otton won the by-election by 94 votes, and hasn't bettered that in three attempts since (33 votes in 2009, 38 in 2013 and 83 in 2017). The Conservatives have picked someone from Bury St Edmunds, as opposed to a local resident, although that doesn't necessarily signify much. Penny will be fighting just as hard as ever though, which gives her every chance of retaining the seat.

Thredling is the seat of Matthew Hicks, the Conservative leader of Suffolk. He'll cruise home, I suspect, despite opposition from the Greens, Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

And finally, Andrew Stringer won Upper Gipping in 2009 for the Greens from a stopgap Conservative candidate (our former District councillor here in Creeting St Peter) and, amongst others, me. He won by 500 last time, and the Greens have only strengthened their position across the Division since. The Conservatives are running a candidate, as are Labour, but I suspect that Andrew will be the only one actually campaigning.

So, that's how Mid Suffolk looks from the perspective of an interested observer. There could be a number of upsets across the District, which currently looks like this; Conservatives 7, Liberal Democrats 2, Greens 1. I wouldn't be surprised to see it end rather differently when the votes are counted on 7 May...

County Council elections - what's happening in Mid Suffolk? (part 1)

I am, I admit, a bit remote from local politics in Suffolk for a slew of reasons too tedious to mention here. However, that does offer me some time to look at the contests with the slightly jaundiced eye of an outside observer. So, what's happening?

We'll start with Bosmere, Ros's old division, which was lost to the Conservatives in 2017, and again in the 2018 by-election which followed the death of Ann Whybrow. And this time sees a repeat of the by-election contest, which Kay Oakes won by just twenty-one votes over Steve Phillips. It would be fair to say that Suzanne Britton, the Labour candidate, is expected to be a distant third, given that their vote has consistently declined over twenty years to around the 10% mark.

It'll be a seat that the Liberal Democrats will be anxious to win back, and given the issues that recently overtook Kay Oakes, you'd have to think that Steve, who is currently the Mayor of Needham Market and one of its District Councillors, would have every chance. But the ward is made up of a fairly even split between the town of Needham market and a collection of outlying villages to the west and south-west, and how the votes split in the hinterland may well prove to be vital.

Gipping Valley is a Liberal Democrat defence, although John Field is standing down after twenty years, which offers something of a challenge with a new candidate, Adrienne Marriott. It may be to her advantage that the Conservative lives in Ipswich and that Labour probably won't fight this one too hard - this is another ward where their vote has steadily declined over two decades.

Jessica Fleming not only writes murder mysteries in Cabot Cove but, in her spare time, is the Conservative councillor for Hartismere, which runs along the Norfolk border to the west of Eye. Admittedly, she doesn't live there, or even in a neighbouring division, but apparently in our neighbouring parish of Creeting St Mary. That probably won't stop her describing herself as the "local" candidate, and she'll probably win against Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green opposition.

Two years ago, the Liberal Democrat candidate in Eye lost by forty-nine votes, after a bundle check shifted fifty votes from his pile to the Conservative candidate. Tim Glenton is back this time, contesting the once Liberal Democrat-held division of Hoxne and Eye. Veteran Conservative councillor, Guy McGregor, having been deselected somewhat acrimoniously, is fighting the seat as an independent, hoping to displace the official Conservative candidate, Peter Gould, who was the winner in the District Council elections in 2019. Is this a chance for a now battle-tested Liberal Democrat candidate to benefit from some blue on blue action? Once again, we can probably discount the Labour challenge, given that the candidate lives in Ipswich.

And, finally for this part, Stowmarket North and Stowupland, the division which covers my own beloved Creeting St Peter. Last time, Conservative incumbent Gary Green comfortably beat the Greens Keith Welham into second place by about twenty percentage points. The absence of a Liberal Democrat candidate this time - I wasn't asked and I wouldn't have run had I been - may favour Keith, who is now a highly regarded District councillor for Haughley and Stowupland. He was certainly popular in Creeting St Peter, and I'd expect him to do well in the non-Stowmarket elements of the Division.

Turnout is traditionally fairly low, under 27% in both 2013 and 2017, and probably favours the more established communities of Stowupland and Creeting St Peter. It'll be an uphill struggle for Keith, but I think that he has a decent shot at this one.

Tomorrow, I'll turn my attention to Stowmarket South, a seat with a lively recent history, the Thedwastres (North and South), Thredling and Upper Gipping...

I've got two votes on 6 May. Only one of them will be for a Liberal Democrat...

So, the candidates for the County Council and Police and Crime Commissioner elections on 6 May are known. And here in Creeting St Peter, which falls within the Stowmarket North and Stowupland division, it looks like we've got an interesting contest. I'll come back to that in a moment though.

The Police and Crime Commissioner contest sees four candidates enter the fray;

• Elizabeth Hughes (Labour)
• Tim Passmore (Conservative)
• Andy Patmore (Green)
• James Sandbach (Liberal Democrat)

As it's an AV election, my first preference is an easy one - I'll be voting for James, obviously. As for my second preference, it will be a question of Green or Labour, if I choose to cast it.

Frankly, I'm sure that Tim Passmore is a decent enough person, but his record as Police and Crime Commissioner is mediocre at best, and I suspect that he only got the nomination as a consolation prize for not getting the candidacy in Central Suffolk and North Ipswich. He's certainly not as bad as some other Conservatives holding similar positions elsewhere, but can we do better? Of course we can.

However, if James doesn't win, are either of the other candidates good enough to be worth entrusting the county's constabulary to? To be honest, I don't know yet, having heard nothing from them, so we'll see.

The County Council election is a different kettle of fish though. The incumbent Conservative councillor, Gary Green, has been our representative since 2008, when he squeezed home by 53 votes against a strong Liberal Democrat challenger. Since then, he's been elected pretty comfortably, albeit on relatively low turnouts - 25% in 2013, 26.5% in 2017.

His primary opponent, again, is Keith Welham, one of the Green District Councillors for Haughley and Stowupland. Highly respected in Creeting St Peter during his four years as our District councillor before boundary changes separated us from Stowupland, he'll hope to do better this time than he did in 2017.

The third candidate is Will Howman, a Labour Town councillor in Stowmarket, although I suspect that he's there to make up the numbers - Labour have been little more than background noise in Mid Suffolk for some time now, with no presence on either the District or the Mid Suffolk delegation to the County Council.

There isn't a fourth candidate, which means that, in this instance, I can't vote Liberal Democrat... again. In the 2019 General Election, the Liberal Democrat candidate was stood down as part of the national deal with the Greens. This time, I don’t know why we aren’t running a candidate. 

On the plus side, this does mean that I can organise an online hustings for the village with a clear conscience, as I don't have a dog in this particular fight, and I've already invited all of the candidates to join me on 21 April for a night with Creeting St Peter. Hopefully, they'll come.

So, who wants my vote?

Do Liberal Democrats appreciate bureaucrats?

Thirty-five or more years as a bureaucrat, both professionally and on a volunteer basis within the Liberal Democrats has, to be honest, taught me that the answer is no, not really.

Given that, in my experience from five Local Parties, two Regional Parties, my State Party and a Federal Committee, most key administrative tasks are performed by busy people who, on the whole, would rather be doing something else, that leads me to wonder how vulnerable political parties are to organisational failure.

Most people join political parties because they either want to be something or change something. If you're lucky, they want both, because that means that you can fill the roles that need filling. That's primarily seen as being either a candidate or a campaigner, because what is a political party if it doesn't run candidates for public office? But, behind them are a small corps of people who enable, for want of a better word. They're the ones that ensure that your group is compliant with the law, like Treasurers, or the Constitution, like Secretaries.

And, unlike your candidate, who at least theoretically has a chance of getting elected and holding power, your Treasurer and Secretary are probably doing it because "someone needs to" and they're the ones too slow, or too nice, to escape. There is no glory, little gratitude, and a swathe of hassle from those who would rather criticise you for doing what they perceive to be a bad job than offer to do it themselves. You probably don't need to travel much though, so that's a good thing at least.

Then there are the organisational roles which are required by the Party's rules, with good reason. Neutral returning officers, members of disciplinary and appeals panels, for example. If you thought that there was little glory or gratitude to be had from holding local office, trust me when I say that there's even less in holding one of these positions. They can take days and weeks out of your life and, whilst occasionally, someone says thank you, it is perhaps a mark of how often that happens that I am pleasantly surprised when someone does. This year's Young Liberals fall into that category, for example. And, in normal times, you are expected to travel, though please keep the costs down.

To give you an idea, I was once barked at by a European Parliamentary candidate for not approving their manifesto (we used to do that once) within five hours. And they were right, in that I hadn't. The fact that I was on holiday in Argentina, and it had been sent at 3 a.m. my time was an irrelevancy - it was assumed that their urgency trumped respect for a volunteer.

My sense is that Liberal Democrats don't really approve of bureaucrats. They are, at best, an obligatory element of running a political party, but that lack of approval runs further than that, in that I've often found myself bridling slightly when Liberal Democrat politicians talk about the Civil Service. Admittedly, that doesn't happen perhaps as much as it should - when was the last time you heard a Liberal Democrat talk about Civil Service recruitment and retention, or pay and conditions, or how Government Departments might be better managed and led?

Perhaps a look a the 2019 manifesto might enlighten? Actually, no it won't... The 2014 Policy paper "Protecting Public Services and Making Them Work For You"? I'm afraid not.

Now, before the cavilling starts - "we're really grateful", "thank you for everything you do" - and for those of you who do, and have, thanked your friendly neighbourhood bureaucrat over the years, please don't feel the need to do so now, I wouldn't suggest that the problem is unique to Liberal Democrats, far from it. However, Labour and the Conservatives have the advantage of a pool of paid professionals who can handle much of the arduous bureaucracy.

And, when push comes to shove, the unglamorous, arduous bits of politics are just as unvalued across the political spectrum, which is why most politicians discussing bureaucracy are generally critical rather than constructive.

I am, perhaps, more resilient than most. In my professional life, I seldom expect to be thanked, or even liked - that would be a bit weird, if I'm honest. But, as a volunteer, doing a job that very few people want to do, you do need to receive a little respect and gratitude, commensurate with the effort outlaid if you're doing a decent job.

So, when your next AGM comes round, and your Secretary, who has been hinting that they'd really like to be relieved, is being urged to do "just one more year", perhaps it might be a good idea to do some succession planning in advance? At the very least, thank them for their service, lest they decide that a midweek evening is more pleasurably spent in front of a television scheme or with loved ones.

Cincinnati dreaming on such a winter's day...

I am, for reasons historic, a fan of the Cincinnati Reds. Since 1990, when my attention was first drawn to them, their successes have been few and far between. In that sense, they're like most of the teams I follow, broadly unsuccessful but enthusiastic.

I've even managed to watch them play a few times, notably the afternoon in Denver when they beat the Colorado Rockies 24-12 (the most runs they've scored in a game since 1911), but never at their new(ish) ballpark, Great American Ball Park. I had intended to do that last year but... pandemic...

Their Group Operations Manager very kindly refunded the cost of my tickets and gave me a credit on my account so that I could order new tickets at some point in the future. Hopefully, that will happen in August (yes, I know, I'm being a bit optimistic here).

And, as encouragement, the Reds have started the season rather well. Despite a slightly disappointing Opening Day loss to the St Louis Cardinals, five straight wins have followed and, joy of joys, they're scoring for fun. Twenty-seven runs in three games against the Cardinals, thirty more in three games against the Pittsburgh Pirates and we're top of the division. Only 156 more games to go...

The Appeals Panel for England - no, but yes, but no...

It's been slightly complicated, but my future as a member of the Appeals Panel for England suddenly doesn't exist.

As I noted a few days ago, the appointment is a matter for the Executive Committee of my Regional Party and, it seems, there was an apparent unwillingness in some quarters to simply reappoint the incumbent. I am, in fairness, pretty relaxed about such a principle - the appointment is in the gift of the Regional Party, represented by its Executive Committee.

However, there didn't appear to be a settled view as to how to proceed and, rather than see the argument over the basic principles of democracy and transparency (both of which I'm rather fond of) drag out when the focus should be on getting as many Liberal Democrats elected as possible, I've decided to withdraw from consideration.

Once the Executive Committee have decided on how to choose their next nominee, preferably after 6 May, they can then take whatever action is required. But, if you're curious as to what the role entails and how it is appointed, here's what the English Party Constitution says...

9.1 There shall be an Appeals Panel for England, which shall consist of:

(a) the current members of the Federal Appeals Panel elected by the English Council under Article 22.1 of the Federal Constitution, one of whom shall be designated as the Chair of the Appeals Panel for England by the English Council; and

(b) one person appointed by each Regional Party according to its internal procedures. 

9.2 Each member of the Panel shall hold office for five years, and shall be eligible for re-appointment: provided that no person shall be entitled to hold office for more than ten years in aggregate. No person shall be eligible for appointment if (and any member shall forthwith vacate office upon becoming) an MP, MEP or prospective parliamentary candidate or a member of the English Council Executive or the English Candidates Committee or an employee of the Party. The body making the original appointment may terminate the appointment because the appointee is no longer able to carry out his or her duties as a member of the Panel on account of ill health or for other good cause. Any casual vacancy on the Panel may be filled by the body making the original appointment for the residue of the term of that appointment.

9.3 The Appeals Panel for England shall adjudicate on:

(a) any dispute over the interpretation of these Articles;

(b) any claim that the rights under these Articles of a member or of a Party body have been infringed, provided that no appeal may be brought under this paragraph where there is another appropriate appeal procedure;

(c) any dispute between the Liberal Democrats in England and a Regional or Local Party, or between Regional Parties or between Local Parties in different Regions; and

(d) any matter expressly so provided by these Articles or by rules made hereunder.

Subsequent to the adoption of Article 22 of the Federal Constitution appeals relating to disciplinary matters shall not fall within the remit of the English Appeals Panel and shall be dealt with according to Articles 3 and 22 of the Federal Constitution.

If that doesn't rule you out, and you survive the additional restrictions set by the East of England Regional Constitution;

4.15 The Regional Executive shall appoint a member of the Regional Party who is eligible to be a member of the Federal Appeals Panel and is not and has not within the preceding year been a member of the Regional Executive or of the Regional Candidates Committee to be a member of the Appeals Panel for England. This appointment shall be subject to the ratification of the next Regional Conference. 

then look out for an announcement from the East of England Liberal Democrats in due course.

Religion and political parties - not entirely a comfortable fit...

It would be fair to describe me as a not particularly devout Catholic. I don't attend Mass, I don't support my local Catholic church. I feel vaguely guilty about that, but see guilt as being part of the basic underpinning of Catholicism and so don't feel so bad about it. And, in truth, I have problems with a faith that discriminates against a majority of its own membership, let alone the rest of the population.

It would also be fair to say that, as a political activist, wishing people a happy (insert religious festival as appropriate) makes me slightly uncomfortable. In the multicultural society we live in, the sheer range of religious festivals to be marked means, that if you want to be seen as properly inclusive, you risk issuing so many messages that they become a bit of a cliché. Are you marking a particular festival because you care, or because you simply feel that you ought to?

Now I do accept that religious observance is still important in our society, albeit less so than once it was. In my own community, the Anglican Church plays a central part in community cohesion that it didn't obviously do in the London suburbs - or perhaps I wasn't looking for it. But I tend to the view that how you live your life and, as importantly, how you are perceived to do so, is more important than overt displays of religious tolerance and inclusion.

I sense, without much of a theological education to rely upon, that most religions have, at their core, similar philosophical positions - that you should help those in need, that you should respect the world around you and the people in it and that you should attempt to uphold what are generally accepted virtues. Do those things, and most people will see that you are at least trying.

But politicians want to be liked which, in a profession which centres on the ability to win organised popularity contests, perhaps shouldn't come as a terrible surprise. That does engender some degree of suspicion as to motive given how little trust is placed in them and so I find myself wondering how much value there is for a non-religious politician to mark religious festivals. Those who practice the particular religion might think it good to be included, whilst others will question the sincerity of the author.

For those who are publicly devout in their faith, I see rather less of a problem. And yes, as Tim Farron has discovered, being devout can bring with it a whole different set of problems, but that goes with the territory of having opinions - you have to be able, and willing, to justify them if challenged. But referring to religion when you are an active adherent feels a bit more justified to me.

Ultimately, it is for individual politicians to judge whether or not to mark religious festivals within their communities and to deal with the consequences of the stance they take. And, as long as political parties don't use it as an opportunity to attack each other, it probably does little harm overall. But, from a personal perspective, I will keep my religious beliefs a predominantly personal matter and respect the rights of others to practice their faith as they see fit...

As I drift gracefully into the distant reaches of the Liberal Democrat galaxy...

It's funny really, in that I've been a Party member for more than thirty-five years now - I joined the then Union of Liberal Students in 1984 - and always had a role of some kind, even when I was busy doing other things. It would be fair to say that what I've done has seldom been glamorous, and certainly not front of house.

But, where constitutions have needed to be applied, or elections run, I've generally turned up sooner or later. For, despite my rather forlorn protests that I'd like to be more engaged with the "idea stuff", I also recognise that a decent, competent bureaucrat is a useful commodity in a political party. Note the use of the word "useful", as opposed to "valued".

There has always been a job to do, or a committee to manage but, suddenly, that appeared to be coming to an end. Yes, I've got a couple of Returning Officer gigs to finish off, a co-option for the Young Liberals and a Chair election for the Parliamentary Candidates Association (and there's an irony given my history with them...), but they are coming to an end and I'm not expecting to continue in either post.

Indeed, the only formal position left in my portfolio was that of the East of England member of the Appeals Panel for England. I was appointed to the latter position five years ago and, whilst it can be a bit stressful, someone who has been a Regional Secretary in two Regions and a senior Returning Officer, combined with relevant professional skills, is pretty well suited to the task.

But it is perhaps typical of the value that the Party places on administrative skills that, having notified my Regional Party on 30 November that my term would be up shortly, I had heard nothing in response... until today, that is, when I received a telephone call suggesting that, if I was willing to continue, this would be arranged. Now, given my remoteness from Regional Party politics, how the constitutional niceties are handled is not something I would know much about. I assume that the Regional Executive will have a say and that, if there are any fundamental objections, someone will tell me. Mind you, if there are, that’s probably fine, after all, any benefits I receive from holding the position are hard to see.

And so, I think, I continue my supporting role in a little-known corner of the organisational complex that is the administration of a political party. You’ll barely notice that I’m there...

Creeting St Peter - a hint of illegality?

I am, perhaps unsurprisingly, not a huge fan of Robert Jenrick, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. Setting aside the suggestions that his integrity might not be wholly unsullied, my problem is that he doesn't necessarily understand how local government works.

As a small (but perfectly formed) Parish Council, we have been permitted to hold our meetings online, and it has gone fairly well so far. I am, admittedly, somewhat uncomfortable about the fact that online meetings effectively exclude those who either don't have, or don't want, the required technology. But, if you can't meet anyone from outside of your household, there is little option other than to abandon having the Parish Council meet at all. And, given that we've had three controversial planning applications in the past year, that really wouldn't be appropriate.

Our year revolves around two things, the setting of an annual precept, which we do in January, and the Annual Parish and Annual Parish Council Meetings, which generally take place in May.

The Annual Parish Meeting must take place between 1 March and 1 June and has a general power to discuss parish affairs and pass resolutions, although any such resolution shall not bind the Parish Council. In Creeting St Peter, it tends to be an opportunity for our representatives, including myself as Chair, to submit reports to the residents.

The Annual Parish Council Meeting must take place in May, unless it's an election year, in which case it must take place four days after the election or within fourteen days thereafter. Not unreasonably, for convenience, we tend to combine the two, running them consecutively. We elect our Chair then, although here, there doesn't tend to be a contest.

They're not generally very exciting affairs, which is kind of consistent with the fact that we don't do that much, but the whole village is invited and can attend if they see fit.

We're due to meet on 17 May, which complies with the legislative framework under normal circumstances. That is, if you ignore the small detail of a global pandemic, something that Robert Jenrick appears inclined to do. You see, I was going to get round to him eventually.

So, here's my problem. I must, by law, convene a meeting. The legislation allowing me to do it remotely expires on 7 May, so I could move the meeting forward by two weeks to allow it to take place virtually. Unfortunately, that means that our Parish Clerk would need to be available, and she isn't.

There is only one possible venue for any physical meeting, the Church Room which, conveniently, is in the village, rather than at the church, half a mile away. Unfortunately, the Church Room isn't that large, has only one narrow entrance, and would barely hold the Parish Council if the two metre rule is to be applied, which it must be until at least 21 June. I have to say that a risk assessment offers all sorts of unhelpful challenges.

It is suggested that we offer remote access to the public, but given that any technology would have to run off of the available mobile signal, and we'd need to have access to sufficient technology to make it work (and we don't), it does make rather a farce of the thing.

Thus I am left with the insidious choice of breaking the law either by delaying the meeting until after 21 June, by effectively excluding the public or by abandoning the two metre rule.

And all because the Government can't find the time to pass a simple enabling piece of legislation which would be utterly uncontroversial. It looks like we'll be seeing you in court, Mr Jenrick...

Boris wants me to return to my office... again. I'm sorry to have to disappoint him...

In September, I wrote about the Government's suggestion that I return to my office. Admittedly, I thought that it was humorous, but no more than that. But now, Boris suggests that I should stop slacking - I paraphrase, although not that much.

Well, I wish him the best of luck with that.

Admittedly, in my case, I don't really have an office to return to - my old office closed on 28 February, and its replacement isn't ready to be occupied yet - but now that I am expected to work no more than three days in an office even after things return to "normal" (whatever that is), I'm beginning to reconcile myself to a rather different work/life balance.

I've now been working from home for over a year and it has had some interesting impacts. The obvious ones - the reduction of my commuting costs from £2,000 per annum to... nil has been very nice. The improved access to snacks and drinks is certainly welcome, and I've even managed to lose a few pounds against the apparent trend.

I can also schedule my day to get in a little light exercise - a brisk walk mid-morning or mid-afternoon gives me the space to run a few thoughts through my mind in terms of case strategy and prevents me from squinting at my Surface Pro too much - we're advised that we should take short, regular breaks to maintain our health, both physical and mental.

And, if I need to do something during the regular workday, I can slip away for a little while to do it, as long as the hours are made up either at the beginning of the day or at the end.

My employers are still fairly conservative in terms of the workday - roughly what one might describe as usual office hours - and that is one thing that hasn't really developed yet. You see, I'm not really a frontline employee, in that customers seldom call, or even write, and that leads to the question "does it really matter when I work, as long as I'm contactable by customers and my scheduled hours are worked?".

And that's an interesting point. Previously, I worked the hours I worked because of the availability of public transport and because that's when the building was open. You couldn't really get in before 7 a.m. and you had to leave before 7 p.m. because the alarm system was turned on. Working from home, I could theoretically wake up at 3 a.m. having had a eureka moment, go downstairs, walk across the patio to my home office, crank up the Surface Pro and draft a letter to an accountant or customer. I'm not saying that I would - I suspect that Ros would be less than impressed - but I could.

I am an owl, rather than a lark, and it might suit me, and my employer, if I operated when my brain operated more efficiently, rather than obliging me to fit an arbitrary schedule of their design. And yes, that would mean occasionally making appointments with customers and accountants to speak on the telephone or via video link but flexibility potentially benefits everyone.

And it enables my employer to use office space rather more efficiently, whilst improving our environmental impact through reduced travel.

It's not for everyone - many of my colleagues organise their lives around family and caring commitments and a predicable work schedule is probably easier to manage - but if the only things that matters are staff satisfaction and outcome delivery (and I think that the two are closely interrelated) then offering staff a greater degree of freedom in how they managing their work is likely to be a good thing.

But, going forward, I could envisage getting to the gym midweek when it's relatively quiet, using the commuting time saved to better effect, or slotting in an eye test at a convenient time, rather than having to have it at lunchtime or at the weekend. My employers get the time that they pay for and a better motivated employee, I get a decent work/life balance and everybody wins.

So, Boris, lay off with the snide comments about my workrate and productivity and give some thought as to how you can increase freedom by liberating people from the nine to five box, rather than sacrificing us at the altar of your commercial property owning mates.

A Liberal Democrat manifesto for Suffolk

Whilst I might be best described as semi-detached from party activity in Suffolk - you only really appreciate what's going on if you hold some sort of organisational position unless you work at it - I do still get the various e-mails, and today news reached me of the launch of the Liberal Democrat manifesto for May's County Council election. And, as someone who 'has views', you won't be surprised to hear that I read it with some curiosity.

I have to admit that I'm impressed - it actually looks like a programme for (local) government - and I particularly approve of the transport section, which reads;

Integral to our plan is providing a safe, carbon efficient, and high-quality transport system, and attending to our neglected roads, cycle routes and public transport. Our transport plans include:

• Introduce county-wide electric vehicle charge scheme by 2023, and no new home should be built without one.

• All council vehicles to be zero emission by 2029 by securing a pool of electric cars for staff business use.

• Support for rural public transport with a council owned bus company motivated by service, not profit, with buses to be ultra-low emission by 2025. We will start with a demand-scoping exercise on where priority demand is for bus routes.

• Re-enable the use of concessionary bus passes on community transport.

• Encourage cycling with electric bike grants and more cycle lanes, improve cycling infrastructure and maintain existing routes.

• Implement more 20mph areas where they are supported by residents and couple these to the Quiet Lanes project.

• Lobby for more direct rail freight network investment to our port.

• Investigate alternative options to relieve the northern traffic inflow into Ipswich, such as more park and rides into town, improvements for cyclists, better traffic management, and possibly a second Orwell crossing, rather than the expensive and environmentally ruinous Northern Bypass.

It makes perfect sense to start building infrastructure to support electric vehicles and, in a county where most households have at least one car, building new homes with their own charging point should be a no-brainer.

I like the idea of a council owned bus company, because one of Suffolk's weaknesses is that its bus network is highly fragmented, with First Group and Ipswich Buses competing in the county town and its environs, and the rural network split between a myriad of small providers until you get to the Cambridge hinterland, when Stagecoach dominate.

Naturally, I support the Quiet Lanes initiative - Ros "invented" them as part of her input into the 2000 Transport Act - and they may improve pedestrian and cycling usage.

But, perhaps predictably, my warmest welcome is for the reference to re-enable the use of concessionary bus passes on community transport. Here in Mid Suffolk, the County Council signed a contract which meant that the contracted provider didn't accept them, which seemed hugely unfair given the number of small villages without regular bus services and the number of elderly residents who would certainly benefit from the community transport option.

It's a bit of a longshot for the Conservatives to lose control here in Suffolk - the combined Opposition are coming from a long way back with the Conservatives holding 49 out of the 75 seats, with two more ex-Conservatives in the chamber - but you never know after what happened here in Mid Suffolk in 2019.

It is, I admit, nice to see a manifesto that offers a meaningful programme of change, and hopefully it will be a means towards arguing the case for more liberalism in a county that's been a bit short of it in recent times.