GB News - is there really space for a platform for talking heads?

There’s been a lot of talk about Andrew Neil’s new venture, much of it unkind. I can’t say that I’m as surprised by some of the glitches of the early days of broadcasting - it takes time to bed things in and there will be errors as new staff work out how things are best done.

And, whilst the list of presenters doesn’t leap out and grab me, I don’t think that I’m really part of their hoped for audience, so that probably won’t cause their backers any great loss of sleep. But I do wonder if there is a sufficient market to allow GB News to survive and thrive.

There isn’t a huge audience for television news in this country, and what there is tends to repeat itself in thirty minute chunks - I don’t sense that people sit down and watch long chunks of news unless a major event is taking place. And whilst having presenters opine at length can work on radio, where you can do other things, television has to be watched, and concentrated on.

The other potential problem is that getting 1% audience share in the United States offers you a decent chunk of advertising revenue, it isn’t anywhere near as lucrative in the United Kingdom. And even the relatively low budget GB News needs to earn £25 million per annum to break even if reports are to be believed.

You can potentially square that circle by offering attractive advertising rates or audiences who are likely to have higher levels of disposable income, but that doesn’t necessarily sit well with a cast of professional provocateurs fighting the sort of culture war that Fox News does so well in the United States.

Indeed, what surprises me about the campaign to dissuade potential advertisers is not that its apparent success but why some of the companies who have announced that they won’t be advertising on GB News would have been doing so in the first place. If your target market is younger and more socially liberal, it doesn’t strike me that GB News is the best use of your advertising budget… at least, not now.

I have read the reviews, which appear to suggest that a number of the presenters are determined to fight a “war on woke” (whatever that means), which makes it easy for me to give it a miss. But, in a free society, the right to offer something different must be allowed to exist and, in a free market of ideas, to stand or fall on its own merits.

So, we’ll see if I’m wrong about whether or not there is a sufficient audience out there to make it work, or whether the management team will need to trim towards the political centre in order to make it sustainable. In the meantime, for those who are getting upset about it, I would suggest that they walk on by and save their anger. All it does is draw people’s attention to the very thing you despise…

Ros in the Lords: Remote Participation and Hybrid Sittings

Like me, Ros has been working from home since last March, and it's been something of an adjustment for both of us. Technology, and the willingness to use it, has changed how we operate. But there are always those who romanticise the way things were, and insist that nothing must change. The House of Lords has its fair share of those. Ros isn't one of them...

My Lords, that the House was able to continue doing its work almost from the start of the pandemic is nothing short of miraculous and is a real tribute to the commitment of a lot of people, including Members, who found themselves having to get comfortable — or at least able — to operate in a way that they would never have dreamt.

As a member of the sponsor body for restoration and renewal, I am well aware of the parlous state of the building and the possibility of some sort of catastrophic failure. If there is a silver lining from the last year, it is that at least we can feel that the Houses could keep going should the worst happen. As the Constitution Committee reported, there is potentially a link between restoration and renewal and new ways of working. The sponsor body is well aware of that, but I assure noble Lords that it believes that these are matters for both Houses, and it is certainly not for the sponsor body to tell the Houses how they should carry out their business.

But we have been genuinely innovative, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, set that out very well. We need to think carefully before we go straight back to the old ways of working because, first, the pandemic is not over, as the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, set out. The Indian variant shows that we are not out of the woods, so we need to take the time to make sure that we and our staff are kept safe.

It strikes me that many of the downsides which noble Lords have reported today and previously are down to the pandemic and not hybrid working per se. It is about the distancing and all the paraphernalia that comes with that. We need mentally to try to sort some of that out, because it is very difficult from this perspective to judge what hybrid working might look like if we were in a House that was operating more normally.

I hope that, for both those reasons, the House will decide soon to remain hybrid until well into the autumn. That would give time for the whole population to be vaccinated and for us to be assured that there was not to be a further wave. Crucially, it could offer a period where Members could make a genuine choice about whether to come in or to work from home. I think many people will come in; a lot of us miss the place. It would give us a chance to feel what hybrid working would look like in a more normal environment, so we could use it as a transitional period. We could choose certain functions, such as legislation, which would be done in the Chamber only, while others, such as committees, could be done virtually or hybrid.

For people like me, who have always believed in an elected House, the argument for the Lords as it is currently configured is that it is a House of experts: people are drawn from all walks of life and bring their expertise and professional backgrounds. Yet, once Members are appointed, everything about the way we do our business draws us into becoming full-time parliamentarians. For people outside London and the Home Counties, this is a particular issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, set out. Someone coming from Cornwall or Cumbria for a vote on a Monday and who perhaps has a Question or a committee on a Wednesday will end up spending the whole week in London for a relatively short period of active contribution.

In a system that awards peerages for life, we do need to think very hard about how the expertise that brings the Members to the House can be kept up to date, because it is difficult, if you are in Westminster all the time. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, made that point really well, that like many noble Lords, he is assiduous in building up these relationships outside. That is what keeps him current, but it is very difficult to do if you are tied up in the Lords. This is not just a matter of hybrid or virtual working; it is about a whole raft of procedures and practices we have established for ourselves that somehow mean you can only be a proper parliamentarian if you are based in Westminster.

The last year has given us a chance to think afresh about that — to have a look at whether or not this is the right way to do things. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, was entirely right: every large organisation is now looking at what it does and how it does it to see whether things should be changed. We will get much more respect for taking a step back and looking at that than we will for going straight back to the old ways we have always done things.

Creeting St Peter - let's play the music and Chair...

Three years ago, I was somewhat unexpectedly catapulted into a position of supreme power elected as Chair of our village's Parish Council. I hadn't sought the role - which is becoming something of a recurring theme - but wasn't quick enough to escape when I was the victim of an extremely genteel ambush by my fellow Councillors.

I had been led to understand that the Chair served two years before being replaced  by their Vice Chair, which turned out to be a ruse. But it was alright, and I had quietly enjoyed the responsibility for two years. And then the pandemic struck, and our 2020 Annual Parish Council Meeting was cancelled. It was agreed that I might as well carry on for another year, and I was happy enough to do so - not that I think that the village particularly needs an active Parish Council Chair - but to offer some stability.

Perhaps if I had known that we could expect the pandemic to last for more than a year, or that the business and enterprise zone long threatened on the edge of the Parish would turn up in the middle of it, I might have been less sanguine, but life can be like that sometimes. The past year has thus been a bit more stressful.

But you can't go on forever, in any event. I'm not one of those people who believes in holding positions for year after year, and Parish Councils need to evolve. That said, whilst I'd be perfectly happy to hand over the invisible chains of office to one of my fellow councillors, it had become clear that they, in turn, were quietly keen for me to stay on.

And so, on Monday night, at our Annual Parish Council Meeting, when nominations were sought for a Chair for 2021-22, I was duly nominated for a fourth year. I accepted, but gave notice to Council that it would be my last year - they now have a year to decide which of them wants to take the Chair going forward. I've even offered to give up the Chair for a meeting so that anyone who wants to "try it for size" can do so.

I do think that any of them could do the job. Not, perhaps, in the same way that I do it, but that need hardly be a bad thing. I'm keen on process and form, but with a Council made up of reasonable people - as ours is - different styles and approaches could work just as well, possibly better. And, in any event, I'm planning to stay on as a councillor, so the skills that I think that I offer are still available.

It has been an honour and a privilege to chair Creeting St Peter Parish Council, and I've learned a bit about myself in the process. But, in a year or so, it'll be time to hand the baton on to someone else and let them lead the band...

Ros in the Lords - Queen's Speech debate (day 3)

I particularly pick up on this speech because, as a bureaucrat, I understand that having rules that work, that can be applied and are transparent as to their intent, is important. This is what Ros said yesterday...

The Bills contained in this programme will no doubt receive the thorough and robust scrutiny of this House, but as we pass them we will no doubt be delegating dozens of new powers to government and government Ministers, because the volume of secondary legislation has grown enormously in recent decades. The process of EU exit and Covid-related emergency law has added to that.

Many reports and debates in recent times have drawn attention to the shortcomings of both Houses when it comes to parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation, and that includes the excellent report published today by our Constitution Committee. Too often, the very good work carried out by the staff and the members of the Secondary Legislation Committee and the Joint Committee for Statutory Instruments passes by the House because of procedures that we have ourselves established and agreed. This House has a duty to carry out effective scrutiny, as well a responsibility to ensure that the legitimate business of government can be carried out.

But I am not alone in feeling that, increasingly, the Government are not carrying out their side of the bargain. We have to give this some thought. The Government are increasingly using secondary legislation for significant policy changes that ought to be in primary legislation, and would have been in past years. In its 52nd report, the Secondary Legislation Committee cited changes to the Town and Country Planning Act that were fundamental to our planning system and ought to have been brought forward in a Bill.

In recent years, we have also seen a growth in statutory guidance, which receives virtually no parliamentary scrutiny at all. Again, the SLSC cited the recent grass and heather burning regulations, which were noted because the instrument was passed even though all the detail was in statutory guidance which had not even been published at that point. So the Government are getting three bites of the cherry: the Act itself, the secondary legislation and then the statutory guidance. In effect, this allows for constant post hoc changes to the law, with no parliamentary scrutiny.

These trends have accelerated rapidly during the pandemic. We have taken a pragmatic view that the public health emergency justifies some sacrifice of parliamentary scrutiny, but I think the Government have now taken this too far. The Constitution Committee report highlights that 424 Covid-related SIs have been laid. These include fines of up to £10,000, lockdowns, business closures and quarantines. Whatever position you take on those issues, surely they deserve timely and effective scrutiny — yet 397 of those SIs were either made affirmative or made negative. In other words, they take effect before any scrutiny has taken place, and Parliament can only act retrospectively. The SLSC reported that two came into force before they had even been laid. The Government argue that time pressures in the pandemic make this necessary but, in the case of face coverings, the policy had been trailed for weeks, so it is very hard to see why the regulations in draft could not have been published.

The scheduling of SI debates in both Houses means that they are quite often completely superseded by the time we ever get to debate them. The pressure of work in departments is leading to errors and non-compliance with agreed processes. Preliminary figures from the JCSI show that it reported 194 instruments on 248 separate grounds, including defective drafting and doubtful vires.

We see increasingly important policy announcements being made at press conferences; they get reported in the media and become firmly planted in the public consciousness. When the regulations appear, they are often far less draconian than the announcement but, as a result, there is widespread confusion about what the Government see as desirable and what they see as mandatory. It is not just the public but public authorities themselves - the enforcement authorities - that are struggling with this, as reported by the Human Rights Committee. The Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services said that the difficulty for police officers was made much worse by widespread confusion about the status of government announcements and the law. A Crown Prosecution Service review found that 27% of cases had been incorrectly charged, and no doubt many people have paid penalties rather than go to court. This is grossly unjust. It is a drain on our criminal justice system and very unhelpful to maintaining trust in the police force.

There are times when the state has to control what individuals do, but surely it must be through properly enacted legislation that is thoroughly scrutinised and fairly enforced.

A country gentleman returns to Federal International Relations Committee...

And so, this evening saw my first FIRC meeting since my restoration, and interesting it was too. So, what happened, and what did I do?

Joining a committee part way through its term can often be challenging - every committee has a dynamic all its own, and if you’ve been involved in a previous iteration, there is a danger that you respond as though nothing has changed and create something of a culture clash. Frustrating for you, and for the committee you must hope to influence. So, in truth, I tended to stay out of things whilst I get a sense of how I might fit in and what I might contribute.

There have been some changes whilst I’ve been away, with sub-committees set up to look at the European Union and Brexit, as well as China, which seem to be a positive step, and a fundraising group, which I’m going to avoid, given my professional role.

The Committee is pretty high-powered too, with a clutch of Peers (of which I approve) and former MEPs amongst its number. I may be slightly out of my league here, but we’ll see how that goes.

It was a rather longer meeting than I am used to, and quite tiring as a result, but with a new Chair, Phil Bennion, and two significant deaths (Jonathan Fryer, the Chair of the Committee until last month, and Hans van Baalen, the President of the ALDE Party) to dwell upon, it should have been predicted. I must note at this point that Adrian Hyyrylainen-Trett said some very thoughtful things about Jonathan in his tribute, and I was touched by his warmth and emotion.

In response to the discussion on China, there was some thought given to whether what is being done to the Uyghurs. There is a degree of unease about describing it as genocide, but I noted that the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention pointed to Chinese treatment of the Uyghurs meeting the definition. It may be naïve to suggest that it would be easy to use this as a stick to “beat” the Chinese with, and one must be aware of the “realpolitik” of the situation, but I do think that if you give anyone a free pass on such behaviour, you shouldn’t be surprised if others see it as a green light to treat their minorities in a similar fashion. It will be interesting to see what policy stances emerge from the sub-committee though.

I’m pleased to see that Isabelle, the Party’s International Officer, has survived in post, given HQ’s low prioritisation of the post in the past. She’s not been in the office for a while, but she brings a sense of Nordic calm to her work, and it’s nice to be able to work with her again.

My successor but one as the Committee’s Secretariat (the role isn’t necessarily that of just a Secretary) announced her resignation in advance of our meeting, and a replacement was sought. No, it won’t be me, although I did think about it. I’ve done the job once, and whilst I could probably do it again, I don’t want to. The danger in doing the job is twofold - that you don’t really get to contribute to the international work of the Party except by freeing up others to do it, and that, if you do it the way I think it should be done, you end up frustrated and irritable - there is very little interest in process, rules or constitutions, regardless of their importance. Life is too short for that. That said, the Committee really needs someone, and if you think that you might be that someone, do get in touch.

I will say this though, I thought that Denali Ranasinghe did an excellent job in the role, and she will be missed. She is polite, helpful and committed, and other organisations will benefit from her evident skills over many years to come.

There followed a series of reports from various groups, all of which were quite promising in terms of things that are being done to improve Party knowledge on international affairs, and indicate that the internationalist wing of the Party is a vibrant place.

The meeting concluded with discussions on the crisis in Israel and Palestine, and on India. I warned the Committee that the BJP are intent on establishing control over things such as aid from overseas for political advantage. We do need to be careful about how we relate to the current Indian Government - India would make a valuable partner in our relations with China and, as a democracy, it offers potential leadership across South Asia and beyond.

So, all in all, an interesting and stimulating meeting. I’ll try to contribute where I can going forward, although I’m not planning to join any of the sub-committees yet - I’d rather analyse their work from the outside for the time being, especially as I don’t consider myself an expert in those fields.

We meet again on 19 July, although there’s an event in between...

And so, in a not entirely welcome turn of events...

Seventeen months ago, in a set of internal party elections whose outcome was not entirely unexpected, I lost my place on the Federal International Relations Committee (FIRC) and failed to be elected back onto the ALDE Party Council delegation, the latter despite a second bite of the cherry granted to me by the party's (relative) success in the December 2019 General Election.

I wasn't that far from success in either contest but, if you haven't won, you've lost. And, in fairness, looking at who had won, and indeed at some of those who had lost, I couldn't in all fairness have much complaint. I don't offer the electorate promises on policy that aren't actually salient - ALDE Party Council seldom discusses policy and is more like a rather large Finance and Administration Committee - and my reputation is as a bureaucrat rather than an internationalist (that'll teach me to care about structure and process, won't it?). And, the candidates who beat me could claim experience and knowledge that, in truth, I can't match.

Accordingly, I had reconciled myself to the outcome and was hardly pining for a return - life is too short, and there's a whole world out there for someone with a sense of intellectual curiosity and a desire to understand as far as possible.

A vacancy had arisen, following the resignation of one of the directly elected FIRC members, both from the committee and the Party, but I wasn't the runner-up, and you seldom see that many resignations, even in a three-year term. And so, Jonathan Fryer's untimely, and extremely unfortunate, demise created an unexpected vacancy on both FIRC and the ALDE Party Council delegation.

Having been consulted on how the vacancies should be filled, for reasons I don't entirely comprehend, I pointed the Committee to Jack Coulson, the Party's very capable Company Secretary, who handles such things in accordance with the Party's constitution, and left matters to take their course.

Internal by-elections are often quite hard to call, especially when you're effectively eliminating someone with a considerable number of first preferences. The way they split isn't easily predictable, especially if, in the original count, their preferences weren't transferred as part of the process. Looking at the original result, there were a number of candidates potentially in the frame, so I didn't get my hopes up. And, as already noted, I wasn't desperate to return.

The result was a bit of a surprise, in that I was now successful in both elections. There was, however, something unexpected, in that the Constitution says that, in the event of a recount, no previously elected candidate should lose their place, and, in the ALDE Party Council recount, exactly that had happened. And so, I appealed, knowing that, if my appeal was successful, I would lose my newly gained place.

I should be somewhat embarrassed by the fact that my appeal was unsuccessful - * long time bureaucrat in interpretation fail * - but sometimes you don't have all of the facts and it turned out that the interpretation of the constitutional validity of the initial declaration of the result of the 2019 election had not been widely known.

And so, I am back, at least until 31 December next year. I'm not planning to get comfortable, and I don't know if I'll even run for re-election - we'll see how it goes. But you can expect some coverage here about what I'm doing on the Committee and elsewhere, for there's little point in my representing those people who kindly voted for me, and indeed, those who didn't - I didn't take it personally, I promise - otherwise.

So, bureaucrat, parish councillor and international activist. It's an eclectic collection of roles, but each offers me the opportunity to contribute to making things better, even if only slightly. And, at the end of the day, if you're making things better, you are making a contribution towards the wider community, and isn't that something we should all aspire to?...

2021 County Council elections - looking beyond Mid Suffolk...

So, time to take a wider view of events in Suffolk...

Beyond the boundaries of Mid Suffolk, we entered the elections holding County Divisions in Woodbridge, St Margaret's and Westgate (Ipswich) and Peninsula (think the triangle of land between the Stour and Orwell estuaries).

We'd lost Peninsula before we started, as the sitting Liberal Democrat and former Group Leader, David Wood, had retired, and the seat wasn't even defended - it went to the Greens.

Woodbridge stayed resolutely Liberal Democrat, with Caroline Page scoring 63.5% in a two-horse race against the Conservatives, leaving St Margaret's and Westgate as a potential gain - we held both seats for the first eight years of its existence (2005-2013) and Inga Lockington has managed to fend off both Labour and Conservative opposition to hold one of them ever since - the second seat went Labour in 2013 and Conservative in 2017. Sadly, whilst Inga's personal vote held up nicely, the new Conservative candidate retained her seat and Oliver Holmes came fourth, behind one of the Labour candidates.

Elsewhere, there were respectable second places in Belstead Brook, Blything, Kessingland and Southwold and Stour Valley, but otherwise there wasn't an awful lot to get excited about. The Liberal Democrats are now the fourth party of Suffolk politics at County level, with Suffolk County Council now constituted as follows;

• Conservatives - 55 seats (plus 5)
• Greens - 9 seats (plus 6)
• Labour - 5 seats (minus 6)
• Liberal Democrats - 4 seats (minus 1)
• West Suffolk Independents - 1 seat (no change)
• Independent - 1 seat (minus 4)

The votes received were as follows;

• Conservatives - 124,969 votes (48.0%)
• Labour - 56,223 votes (21.6%)
• Greens - 39,283 votes (15.1%)
• Liberal Democrats - 25,885 votes (9.9%)
• Independents - 11,723 votes (4.5%)
• West Suffolk Independents - 1,959 votes (0.8%)
• Communist Party of Britain - 293 votes (0.1%)
• Burning Pink Party - 168 votes (0.1%)

The Conservatives did what you might expect, given that the polls favoured them, in increasing their grip on the County. But, whilst they achieved a net gain of five, two of those were merely regaining seats where the sitting Conservative councillor had been deselected and "gone rogue". They also took five seats from Labour, penetrating Suffolk's equivalent of the "Red Wall". However, they lost four seats to the Greens (Beccles, Halesworth, Stowupland North & Stowupland and Thedwastre North) and swapped seats with the Liberal Democrats (Gipping Valley for Stowmarket South). They did at least remove the last trace of UKIP from the County Council.

It was a pretty disastrous night for Labour - reduced to five seats in Ipswich. It's not their worst performance - they won just four in 2009 - but it's pretty close. Once upon a time, they held seats in Lowestoft, Haverhill, Stowmarket, Bury St Edmunds and Sudbury, all now an increasingly distant memory. In the rural Divisions, they are all but irrelevant, and it's hard to envisage a repeat of 1993, when the Conservatives were caught in a vice between Labour in the towns and the Liberal Democrats in the villages.

It's probably fair to say that the big winners were the Greens, trebling their number of the County Council from three to nine, and now the official Opposition, should they choose to end the partnership with the Liberal Democrats and Independents that existed before these elections. They have a few promising second places which might drive their strategy over the next four years, but they, like the Liberal Democrats and Labour grow weaker as you travel westwards across the county. Where the opportunities to really challenge the Conservatives come from is not easily spotted... yet.

The obvious route for the combined opposition is a "progressive alliance", but, as is usually the case, it is impossible to envisage Suffolk Labour taking such an approach - they still don't play nice, even in their current state. It probably wouldn't mean too much risk from their perspective, they're not competitive in much of the county, yet they run candidates who achieve little other than to make the Conservatives harder to beat, especially now that there is no other right-wing competition to chew away at their support.

Next year is a year off for most of Suffolk, with only Ipswich due to hold elections (it's a "thirds" council, before the Districts are all up in 2023. Will the Conservatives retain their current popularity, or will there start to be a gentle whittling away of their support post-Brexit and post-Covid? Will meaningful opposition emerge in the villages? That remains to be seen...

2021 County Council elections - so, what happened in Mid Suffolk? (part 2)

Yesterday, the first part of this review was a tale of Liberal Democrat disaster and Green triumph. Today, at least from a Liberal Democrat perspective, I offer you something a little more edifying...

If ever there was a message that persistence pays off, Stowmarket South provided a tale of triumph for Keith Scarff at the fifth attempt. His first attempt saw him come third in 2005, 540 votes adrift in a respectable third place. By 2009, he'd got within 73 votes in second, and got even closer in 2009, losing by 40 but coming third in a knife edge contest. 2017 saw a small step backwards, losing by 132 but, this time...

• Keith Scarff (Liberal Democrat) - 1,030 votes (40.3%)
• Nick Gowrley (Conservative) - 854 votes (33.4%)
• Emma Bonner-Morgan (Labour) - 380 votes (14.9%)
• David Card (Independent) - 292 votes (11.4%)

So, round 4 of the contest between Messrs Scarff and Gowrley brought the score between them to 2-2, with the Conservative triumphant in 2015 (Mid Suffolk) and 2017 (Suffolk), and losing both seats in 2019 and 2021. In two elections, Keith has beaten the Conservative Leader of Mid Suffolk, and the Conservative Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Housing and Enterprise.

I did deliver a few leaflets for him, but in all honesty, Keith has done the hard yards pretty much on his own, and all of the credit for his success must go to him.

The second blue on blue contest was Thedwastre North, and I did suggest that this might allow the Green to sneak through. Sure enough, Jane Storey's very respectable result left enough space for Andy Mellen to snatch the seat. It wasn't actually that close...

• Andy Mellen (Green) - 1,472 votes (40.9%)
• Harry Richardson (Conservative) - 1,226 votes (34.0%)
• Jane Storey (Independent) - 702 votes (19.6%)
• Ursula Ajimal (Labour) - 199 votes (5.5%)

It's another area of genuine Green strength at District Council level, and I suspect that, if Andy digs in, he'll be very hard to shift in four years time.

Penny Otton had her easiest contest yet in terms of winning margin, but it wasn't that easy in Thedwastre South.

• Penny Otton (Liberal Democrat) - 1,435 votes (46.0%)
• John Augustine (Conservative) - 1,321 votes (42.3%)
• Philip Cockell (Labour) - 364 votes (11.7%)

I'm pleased for Penny, and Ros and I did do some leafletting for her in Great Finborough but it comes down to years of hard work, as well as her solid support in Rattlesden, her District Council seat.

There was never any serious prospect of the Conservative Leader losing his seat in Thredling and, sure enough...

• Matthew Hicks (Conservative) - 2,084 votes (63.2%)
• Helen Bridgeman (Green) - 602 votes (18.3%)
• Kathleen Hardy (Labour) - 417 votes (12.7%)
• Mark Pearson (Liberal Democrat) - 192 votes (5.8%)

And, in truth, it would have been a real upset had Upper Gipping changed hands, given that the Greens dominate the area at District Council level, and Andrew Stringer had no trouble in defeating the Conservative sacrificial lamb.

• Andrew Stringer (Green) - 2,250 votes (63.3%)
• Kieren Lathangue-Clayton (Conservative) - 1,075 votes (30.2%)
• Julie Reynolds (Labour) - 231 votes (6.5%)

So, the final outcome across the ten seats in Mid Suffolk was;

• Conservatives - 5 seats (down 2)
• Greens - 3 seats (up 2)
• Liberal Democrats - 2 seats (no change)
  

From a Liberal Democrat perspective, it was a bit disappointing but not awful. I still think that Bosmere is entirely winnable, although work needs to start now, and campaigns launched in Ringshall & Battisford and that part of Onehouse that falls in Bosmere. Gipping Valley is, perhaps, less easily regained, given our weakness in Claydon & Barham. That said, the paperless candidate there gained 30% of the votes in 2019, so there may be a latent, and accessible, Liberal Democrat vote out there if someone wants it badly enough.

The Conservatives face a dilemma. Whilst Hartismere and Thredling seem pretty safe, winning back Stowmarket South and Thedwastre North may prove to be challenging. They have very little in the way of a ground war - leaflet deliveries are paid for and their campaigning material is highly generic. On the plus side, the default position is to vote Conservative in Mid Suffolk in the absence of an organised challenger.

The Greens can look forward. They may hope to gradually supplant the Liberal Democrats in their current strongholds, and they can look to Hartismere as a potential next target. They're also now the official opposition on Suffolk County Council, and it'll be interesting to see how they perform at Endeavour House. There are plenty of weaknesses for them to highlight.

And finally, Labour. They ran a candidate in every Division, averaging 12% across the board, but never achieving more than 16.1% anywhere. Their support is broad and shallow, and they didn't appear to be trying anywhere. Frankly, if you're looking for a Progressive Alliance to emerge, Mid Suffolk demonstrates that Labour have no interest in playing nicely. On the other hand, their vote is eminently squeezable - they did better in Conservative held seats - so that does suggest a route forward for Greens and Liberal Democrats.

2021 County Council elections - so, what happened in Mid Suffolk? (part 1)

I usually review the election results here in Mid Suffolk and this year is no exception. And it's been an interesting set of results too, with Mid Suffolk seeing four of its ten County seats changing hands. Here's what I said in my preview, just so that you can judge it for quality of prediction...

We start with Bosmere, a Liberal Democrat target. The result was;

• Kay Oakes (Conservative) - 1,357 votes (49.4%)
  
• Steve Phillips (Liberal Democrat) - 1,034 votes (37.7%)
• Suzanne Britton (Labour) - 355 votes (12.9%)

My fear that Liberal Democrat weakness in the hinterland would negate their strength in Needham Market came to pass, although I still believe that this is extremely winnable if sufficient work is put in over the next four years, especially as its hard to believe that the Conservatives will be riding as high in the polls in 2025.

Gipping Valley was, unfortunately, the first of the seats to change hands, with Chris Chambers successfully transplanted from his former seat in St Margaret's and Westgate.

• Chris Chambers (Conservative) - 1,478 votes (54.3%)
• Adrienne Marriott (Liberal Democrat) - 806 votes (29.6%)
• Terence Wilson (Labour) - 438 votes (16.1%)

It's a story of increasing decline across the Division, combined with the retirement of a stalwart and very highly regarded Liberal Democrat councillor. It's not so long that we held three of the four District seats that make up this Division. Now we hold one, whereas the Conservatives hold three. It's a long road back to regain this one.

I did say that Hartismere would be a shoe-in for Jessica Fleming, and whilst my only dealing with her was wildly unimpressive - her seemingly total lack of understanding of how contracts worked did not exactly endear her to me - she obviously makes a better impression up there...

• Jessica Fleming (Conservative) - 1,900 votes (57.5%)
• Stuart Masters (Green) - 649 votes (19.6%)
• Eddie Dougall (Labour) - 532 votes (16.1%)
• David Appleton (Liberal Democrat) - 224 votes (6.8%)

Is this the next Green target - they hold Gislingham on Mid Suffolk, and had a good result in Palgrave, so with some effort in Rickinghall, who knows?

The Conservatives were publicly quite dismissive about Guy McGregor's prospects in Hoxne and Eye, and someone told me that he had much higher levels of support amongst voters who hadn't met him, but he did surprisingly well against his replacement as Conservative candidate, Peter Gould.

• Peter Gould (Conservative) - 1,467 votes (45.0%)
• Guy McGregor (Independent) - 806 votes (24.7%)
• Tim Glenton (Liberal Democrat) - 623 votes (19.1%)
• Paul Anderson (Labour) - 363 votes (11.1%)

It was a good run for Tim, but to have a chance in the County seat, there'll need to be more support in Hoxne and Worlingworth (held by the Conservative Leader on the County Council at District level) and Stradbroke and Laxfield, where our previous candidate, of whom I had some hopes, defected to the Greens. On the other hand, it sets him up well for a serious push in Eye in 2023, which he lost by just 49 votes two years ago.

And finally, for today at least, Stowmarket North and Stowupland. I did suggest that higher turnout figures in Stowupland and Creeting St Peter might help Keith Welham, and it looks like I was right. Turnout was up by five percentage points, and that helped push him over the top.

• Keith Welham (Green) - 1,512 votes (45.6%)
• Gary Green (Conservative) - 1,373 votes (41.4%)
• Will Howman (Labour) - 433 votes (13.0%)

In truth, had Keith started campaigning in earnest a bit earlier, I suspect that this wouldn't have been that close - the Conservative campaign was mediocre, and the incumbent absentee for the most part - not one leaflet reached us in four years, he didn't regularly attend the Parish Council meetings and his reports were embarrassing - written for him by the Conservative political assistant and with no Parish-relevant content whatsoever. The fact that participators on Nextdoor outed him as having moved away from the Division probably didn't help.

So, that's five seats reviewed, with one Conservative gain from the Liberal Democrats and one Green gain from the Conservatives. Tomorrow, I'll tell a slightly more cheering story...

Creeting St Peter: "What do you mean, there are elections tomorrow?"

It would be fair to say that, as election cycles go, it's been pretty quiet in my rural idyll. In terms of the County Council election, without a Liberal Democrat of my own to vote for, my choice comes down to Labour, Conservative or Green.

So, what have they done to attempt to lure me into voting for them?

Labour did put out a leaflet, one which included a pen picture of each of the candidates across the entirety of Mid Suffolk. Given that they don't hold any County divisions in Mid Suffolk (or any District wards, for that matter), they're little more than a means of splitting the anti-Conservative vote and, given that they're less likely to win any particular division than the Liberal Democrats or Greens, there's a sense that putting an X in the Labour box is little more than helping the Conservatives to get back in.

The Conservatives have failed to contact me at all, not a leaflet, a telephone call or a canvasser to be seen. This is a Conservative-held division, needing a near 10% swing for the Greens to take it, and they appear not to be at all bothered to defend it. And yes, I know, Creeting St Peter represents less than 2% of the division, but still...

The Greens have put out three leaflets of increasing sophistication, have found their way into my Facebook timeline, and have a candidate with a proven record in the Parish.

I've not seen a poster or a stakeboard in the village. I'd put a Liberal Democrat diamond up, but we don't have anywhere to put it where anyone would see it, due to the vagaries of our demesne.

Turning to the Police and Crime Commissioner election, I am pretty confident that the only candidate to put a leaflet through doors in the Parish is James Sandbach, conveniently the Liberal Democrat candidate. This could be because I delivered them myself, and it was in fairness a pretty good effort.

The Conservatives might have delivered a leaflet but for the fact that they had to withdraw theirs after it became apparent that it claimed to have increased the number of police officers by more than there actually are in total. Tim Passmore is very sorry - possibly that he got caught.

And so, that made my postal votes very straightforward...

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.