The rise and fall of Liberal Democrat blogging - it isn't getting any better...

This time last year, I was idly browsing Lib Dem Blogs and found myself thinking, "it's all gone a bit quiet in here". So, I had a look through the archives and produced a table showing the number of active blogs, taken on 26 January in each year as follows;

• 2006 - 55 (I joined the next day...)
• 2007 - 107
• 2008 - 222
• 2009 - 186
• 2010 - 231
• 2011 - 235
• 2012 - 230
• 2013 - 177
• 2014 - 127

So, with a General Election just 101 days away, you might expect the greater interest in politics to create a bit more of a buzz. And, the number of Liberal Democrat bloggers on the aggregator yesterday was (drum roll, please)...

** 109 **

That isn't encouraging, I must say. Yes, Twitter and Facebook are easier and more immediate, but they perhaps don't offer the same platform for ideas that a blog does.

And then I wondered, perhaps there might be fewer bloggers, but they're more active. So I checked;

• 2006 - 55 blogs produced 48 posts; 0.87 posts per blog
• 2007 - 107 blogs produced 63 posts; 0.59 posts per blog
• 2008 - 222 blogs produced 46 posts; 0.21 posts per blog
• 2009 - 186 blogs produced 87 posts; 0.47 posts per blog
• 2010 - 231 blogs produced 105 posts; 0.45 posts per blog
• 2011 - 235 blogs produced 91 posts; 0.39 posts per blog
• 2012 - 230 blogs produced 97 posts; 0.42 posts per blog
• 2013 - 177 blogs produced 51 posts; 0.29 posts per blog
• 2014 - 127 blogs produced 40 posts; 0.31 posts per blog
• 2015 - 109 blogs produced 44 posts; 0.4 posts per blog

So, there are less of us, and we're quieter than we once were, which feels to me to be an accurate reflection of the Party generally, a bit loathe to put its head above the parapet for fear of being shot at.

But, at a time when there are more noises, coming from more directions, it is a little disappointing that we appear to be conceding the field...

How faithful do you have to be to a party's policies to be a member?

I see that the position of Alex Carlile as a member of the Liberal Democrats has been brought into question by one of my former colleagues at Liberal Democrat Voice, following his signature on Lords amendments intended to bring back the 'Snooper's Charter'.

Having spent quite a lot of time examining the voting records of Liberal Democrat peers, it has to be said that, whilst his overall voting record isn't brilliant - he does do other things, it should be noted - he is not a frequent rebel against the Party whip. And yes, the right to privacy is core to the beliefs of liberals, but so are many other things - equality, freedom, internationalism and, perhaps more relevantly here, freedom of association.

I am reminded that every political party is formed of a coalition of interests, and that, to succeed, getting more people involved and attracting more voters, some of whom might not have defined themselves as being liberal or socialist or whatever, is key. We don't insist that our voters agree with every dot and comma in the manifesto, so why do we get upset when some of our members disagree with individual planks of our policy?

After all, if a political party is to be a group of purists, how does it change and develop policy? Are those seeking change to be cast into the outer darkness if they are challenging a point of principle to be worshipped as though a holy relic?

Political parties do not, in my experience, spend a lot of time investigating potential new members for ideological purity, nor do they spend a lot of time debating ideas - there is too much campaigning to be done for that - but one would be reasonable in assuming that new members agree broadly with your message and, most importantly, with more of it than with any of the other choices out there.

So, how much of your party's policy should be supported in order to remain a member? 70%? 80%? 99%? And what is essential? After all, there are key Labour Party figures that believe in allowing the market into public services, Conservatives who support European integration (up to a certain point) and Liberal Democrats who are sceptical about Europe.

Yes, lobby individual representatives if you don't agree with them. Tell them why, remaining courteous. But if it's an offence to disagree with things that matter to you, do bear in mind that, one day, it might be you facing the mob. And please don't come to me for sympathy - it will be in short supply...

Be afraid, be very afraid?

So, who, or what, am I supposed to be scared of this week?

Well, obviously, Greeks bearing gifts for one thing. Syriza's triumph in yesterday's election means that the Eurozone will experience a massive loss of confidence, plagues of locusts will sweep up through the Balkans and the European Union will then collapse.

Or, more likely, someone will point out to the new administration that, if you don't pay your debts, nobody will lend you any money. Talk to the Argentine government about what that means, why don't you? And without more money, you can't fulfil your promises. Oh, and by the way, take a look at Francois Hollande and his renunciation of austerity - because that worked so well. I'm guessing that this will not end well.

I should, it seems, also be afraid of a Labour/SNP coalition, according to David Cameron and Grant Shapps. Now that the SNP have said that they will vote in certain matters only pertaining to England, or England and Wales, we can look forward to the constitutional vortex that will be a political party with no policy on non-Scottish, non-federal matters having to make decisions on the basis of the consequential impact on Scottish services. It might be an extremely effective way of persuading the English that they would rather cut the Scots adrift, but with oil at under $50 a barrel, that might not be great timing.

That said, the sheer fascination of watching what happens when a Labour/SNP coalition have to cut services, get tough on welfare and savage local government would be huge, whilst at the same time ghastly for all concerned. Also, the rapid disenchantment of those people who apparently believe that the Labour Party is going to undo all the cuts of the past five years will be massive. See, we told you that it was difficult, and you didn't want to believe us.

We would also find out just how left-wing the SNP are (or aren't), which will come as a shock to a number of people.

It was once said that there is nothing to fear but fear itself. Perhaps it might be more accurate to say that there is little to fear but fear spread by politicians with nothing positive to say about their own policies. There are 101 days until polling day...

International Relations Committee meets. Nobody gets hurt.

So, having worked out which day we were actually meeting (it wasn't yesterday, it seems), I made sure that I was in good time for a prompt 6.15 start, and was pleasantly surprised to find that there were a number of us from beyond the M25 present.

But you don't care about that (well, not much, anyway), so let's get on with the report...

We opened with a presentation by Martin Horwood MP, outlining what the key international themes are likely to be - there won't be any great surprises, you won't be shocked to hear - including Trident, FGM and international development and the good the United Kingdom is doing around the world, saving lives, fighting disease and educating children. In truth, it is unlikely that international affairs will be at the heart of the election campaign generally, especially given that immigration is seen as a domestic policy issue, but we will have a good story to tell, which will emerge over the coming weeks. We did make some suggestions in terms of possible emphasis, and I was keen to note that our international development work, enhancing democracy and nurturing economic growth, will create political stability and a resultant fall in demand for military intervention.

There was a brief discussion about Spring Conference, and the increased level of interest amongst the diplomatic corps - perhaps a sign that they think that we might be relevant in the post-General Election environment, who knows? The cost to AOs and SAOs of holding fringe meetings was noted with some dismay - it would be nice if the benefits of a lively fringe could be nurtured, but one does understand the limitations of finance.

Next came the reports from relevant bodies, Liberal Youth, whose international work is really impressive, from Liberal International British Group, and the Liberal Democrat European Group, from the ALDE Gender Equality Network and, last but by no means least, from the International Office itself. Harriet Shone reported on work done in Bosnia and Serbia, as well as in South Africa and Botswana, passing on skills in terms of the mechanics of campaign organising, and on LGBT issues and how to address them.

Finally, we discussed the difficulties surrounding the forthcoming ALDE Council meeting, scheduled for 8/9 May, in Oslo. We aren't expecting a huge turnout from our delegation, due to the clash with some General Election or other on 7 May, but we will have a presence - I'll be there and I certainly won't be alone. There was a brief mention of possible review of ALDE's membership fee structure, and we also gave some thought towards submitting more resolutions for ALDE to consider - we've been a bit reactive, rather than proactive, in recent times.

So, there you are, my first formal report, not ninety minutes after the meeting ended. I can't guarantee that I'll be as prompt in future, but one can only try...

The day I met Linda Lusardi

As The Sun appears to have withdrawn the topless women from page 3, today seems like a good day to reminisce. I am, after all, an old man these days...

There was a time, when I was young, when I used to travel around London for fun. Hard to believe, I know, but there you are. I could tell you how to get from just about anywhere to anywhere else, in short, a bit of an anorak. So, when an event was organised that involved travelling the Tube network, getting a card stamped at various stations and perhaps winning something - most of the details of this story are pretty vague, I'm afraid - I wasn't going to miss out.

To make things more interesting, celebrities were promised, not that this was terribly important to me. And so, I found myself at a central London station, Piccadilly Circus if memory serves, where one of the celebrities was Linda Lusardi, one of the most famous Page 3 girls of her era. By this stage, I was being helpful, rather than competitive, and found myself trying to protect her from a rather over-eager audience.

It is perhaps a sign of the times that men were rather keen to get very close to her, and it became clear that the security was non-existent, and so I found myself attempting to get between her and the crowd. It was quite scary, and she was clearly distressed by the attempts to touch her. I have to admit that I felt rather sorry for her, as it couldn't have been nice to be crowded by a bunch of strangers. Luckily, rescue was soon at hand, and she was taken to a safe place.

I have always thought that it must be terrible to be a celebrity in some ways, with the sense of depersonalisation and and that you are, somehow, public property. It must be worse still, if all you are to some people is a naked body to be ogled.

The end of Page 3 in its current format is, therefore, probably a good thing, even if it is only a small drop in a vast ocean of objectification of men and women. But, perhaps, by taking it out of the mainstream, it might make some people think a little harder about the issue in future...

I've had a comment, and I don't know what to do with it...

I moderate all comments on this blog. Not because I intend censor anyone particularly, but because I have legal responsibility for it, and like to know what is going up on it. I also have standards, as outlined in the sidebar. One thing that I don't encourage as comments irrelevant to the subject at hand - they're confusing, and nobody really reads them.

Yesterday, I got this;

Procedure By Which conservatives Could Control  Parliament 

If UKIP is Lucky, UKIP could get, perhaps, get five to ten seats in Parliament. Do not forget, the public still regards UKIP as a one issue party. To gain control of Parliament UKIP and (and friends) should form a new conservative party with a platform that is close to that of the existing Conservative party, omitting, of course, policies that are objectionable to conservatives. The purpose would be to make a bed that would be easy for conservatives to slide into, including the eighty percent of the Conservatives who left Conservative associations. UKIP and the conservatives should then form a political association in each parliamentary district. UKIP could merge with the new party, thus getting rid of the one issue problem.  

Every one who would have worked to form the new, conservative, party should be prevented from joining the new party for a period of time to prevent the impression that UKIP controls it. 

The two or three conservative parties should hold a primary election to determine who runs as the Parliamentary candidate, with the losers to help the winner. The cost of forming new associations can be raised by local contributors. It is suggested that the new conservative associations and the political party be controlled by the lowest level of conservatives, such as teachers, small businessmen, solicitors, professionals etc. If the above procedure can not be completed  in  time  to get candidates elected to Parliament, the new party must  wait  until after the  election  and  hold  a  petition demanding that the elected MP resign. Note: an MP represents every person in his district, not just members and supporters of his party. When the petition reaches fifty percent of those who voted in the prior election, the conservatives will be morally justified in demanding their MP"s resignation. Then the new party could run their candidates  in  the  following by elections.

To select a candidate, a local  association should  advertise  for applicants or the position of candidate for  Parliament, then  select   the   best  applicant  by using rigorous tests, including, most importantly, psychological evaluation. psychological evaluation is an absolute necessity as the psychological evaluation is the only way to tell who is honest and who is a con-artist; members of the public cannot. Testing could be required of the association officers, committee members and delegates, etc. 

The platform, selected by new party associations, should be some what  vague in order to facilitate integration the platforms of the new associations into one platform. It is suggested that self forming cliques of those who are honest and trust worthy be formed; then form self forming cliques of those who have political skills and capabilities, within the first described clique.

The corruption in Ukip is a cause for concern. Information about the corruption may bee seen on the following websites:

ukip-vs-eukip.com

unfashionista.com 

eureferendum.com

John Newell

I've tidied it a bit to make it a little easier on the eye but, otherwise, this is as it was posted. I've not accepted it against the original piece you linked it to, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter, but have decided to bring it to a wider audience anyway.

It seems that Mr Newell is quite keen on this idea, posting it in other places too. I only problem is that, how can I put this, Mr Newell, I don't care. I'm not a conservative in any sense other than fiscal, and don't see much credibility in your proposal.

But thank you for playing, and for providing more evidence that UKIP supporters are, to put it politely, not necessarily on the same playing field as the rest of us.

Are Labour beginning to fret about the Greens?

I don't follow vast numbers of Twitter feeds, predominantly because it gets harder for me to pick up the important bits as the volume of posts gets bigger. I do, however, follow two of my local Labour PPCs, Jane Basham in South Suffolk, and Deborah Sacks in South Norfolk. Deborah is an old university colleague from my days at UEA, and another North London emigre in rural East Anglia.

Jane, on the other hand, I first encountered when she ran as the Labour candidate for Suffolk's Police and Crime Commissioner. She very nearly won, something of a miracle given just how conservative the county is. Since then, her Twitter feed has become a distillation of what grassroots Labour activists are thinking, and very entertaining it is too.

In the past week, I've noticed that there are an increasing number of anti-Green posts, mostly retweets from others, but nonetheless, attacks all the same. The record of the minority Green administration in Brighton (if they're a minority, how have they remained in control?), the impracticality of their policies, the risk that a Green vote will let the Tories back in, all are fair game all of a sudden.

And I am reminded that Labour really don't like competition for what they see as the progressive vote that should be theirs, even if, in recent years, they have given people little reason to have faith. Civil libertarians have been let down by authoritarians such as David Blunkett and Jack Straw, and had, until the Coalition, found a home in the Liberal Democrats. Now, anti-austerity supporters are discovering that Labour have no intention of undoing the 'evil' cuts carried out by the Coalition, and so whilst Labour are probably hanging onto the former Liberal Democrat voters they won in 2010 and 2011, they are now losing some of those who thought that they were an anti-austerity party.

For the Greens, life is easy. They can wave the anti-austerity banner, knowing that it will gain them votes and supporters, in the certain knowledge that they won't actually have to take responsibility at any stage. In fairness, some of their activists genuinely believe that austerity is unnecessary, and that taxing the rich until they squeal is viable in a global economy where capital is highly mobile, but they aren't going to form a government.

And given the diet of statements from Labour politicians saying, "this cut is unacceptable and unfair, and we wouldn't do it", an expectation has been created that Labour will somehow preserve services without raising taxes very much and reducing the deficit at the same time. Anyone who believes that is pretty naive, and the Greens now offer an alternative for such people who increasingly believe that Labour can't.

So, prepare for more red on green attacks if Green polling numbers remain significant, as Labour realise that, without a positive agenda of their own, even the so-called "35% strategy" is vulnerable. Their only consolation is that the Conservatives appear to want to revert to picking on the 'enemy inside', thus driving moderates away.

It's going to be a grim four months...

Good on you, @ChukaUmunna...

I note that there is some fuss about Chuka Umunna's decision to walk out of an interview with Dermot Murnaghan yesterday morning on Sky, having decided not to put up with being ambushed on the question of Eric Pickles' letter to Muslim leaders across the country.

You can argue legitimately about whether or not the letter was the right thing to do, and I would expect that those who have read it (I am not included in that category, I admit) to have a view on it. On the other hand, it would be nice to see a little integrity on the part of those asking the questions.

For example, if you invite someone into a studio to answer questions on subject X, a well-organised politician will prepare, read up on party policy perhaps, as well as the news reports on the matter. They may even check what other parties are saying on the subject. At least, they will do if they want to provide the audience with meaningful answers. So, when you ask them about something completely different, you shouldn't be surprised if a sensible politician says, actually, I don't know enough about that to give you a proper answer. And yes, it could be just evasion, but it could be plain honesty - something that you, the media, keep telling us is good.

So, asking a Labour spokesperson to answer a question about a letter he hasn't seen is, effectively, asking him to give you an unprepared, ill-informed answer, so that you can attack him later. And I have a little more admiration for Chuka Umunna for deciding not to play.

Dermot Murnaghan, you might think that it makes good television, but you're wrong, it's just another nail in the coffin of decent politics in this country, and yet another reason why more and more decent people decide that, if that's what it's about, they would rather find some other way of contributing to their community.

Dear @normanlamb, thanks for your e-mail. Could I bring the transgender community to your attention?

It was very nice to get an e-mail from the Minister of State for Health, especially so soon after we met in Saxmundham, And I couldn't agree with him more that we should, as a society do more, if we can, to reduce suicide rates in this country.

Which brings me to the transgender community. I understand, from friends, that the suicide rate, particularly amongst young transgender people, is very high, far higher than that of the population as a whole. They are often poorly treated by the NHS, due in part to a lack of awareness but also due to insufficient resources to deal with their quite specialised needs.

It would not cost much to change that, but would make the world of difference to those who are vulnerable and, often, isolated. Ensuring that they receive treatment within the guidelines set out, enabling them to be treated overseas if that helps - the cost differential need not be that great - would prevent the needless waste of human life that delays and/or denial by medical professionals sometimes provoke.

I don't know too much about my friends amongst the transgender community, and have only a hint of their day to day experiences, fighting for the treatment they need. They will doubtless have a list of more specific suggestions that would be appreciated, and I hope that they will be given an opportunity to put them to you and your colleagues in the Department of Health. But it strikes me that we could do something that helps them and achieves your laudable goal at the same time.

Just a suggestion, Norman, but I would be grateful if you could think about it...

A red, red robin comes bob bob bobbing along...

Ros has taken to feeding the birds, now that we don't have neighbours - they had cats - and one robin in particular has become pretty bold. So, as I left the house this morning, here it was, seemingly waiting to be fed...

I am a sucker for small, cute wildlife, so I went to the box where bird food is kept, and scattered some across the patio.

Eat well, my little friend...

@Suffcross (Suffolk Crossings) jump the gun on level crossings in mid-Suffolk...

I don't, as a rule, attend a lot of public meetings - it's a pain to get home from them as a non-driving village dweller, so a taxi is inevitably involved. And, to be frank, if they are full of people who have already made their minds up, they don't tend to enlighten me much - I can surf the web and find out what I need to know.

And this is only the people in the hall...

However, having seen the signs in Stowmarket, apparently announcing the closure of the two major level crossings in the town, and being aware that there didn't seem to be a lot of hard information out there, I was keen to turn up at the Stowmarket Community Hub yesterday to find out what, if anything, was actually happening. I wasn't alone...

The meeting had drawn an audience from every community with a level crossing - Mellis and Needham Market, Old Newton and Haughley, plus plenty of people in Stowmarket itself, all keen to express how important their crossings were. They filled the hall, spilled out into the corridors and out of the building altogether. I was glad that I had come relatively early... It was very impressive, and a credit to the organisers.

There was only one problem, in that there appeared to be no firm evidence that any such closures were in the offing.

The meeting chair, Rosie Carter (I think that that's correct but apologise if it isn't), a local resident and someone who had, apparently, campaigned against closure proposals in 2000 (I didn't live anywhere near here then, so can only take her at her word), opened the meeting by explaining what the Suffolk Crossings campaign was about, a response to proposals to close level crossings across Suffolk but, in particular, on the main line between Ipswich and Norwich. There was, according to her, a secret list of crossings that would be closed, a list that Network Rail would not comment on.

There were, somewhat surprisingly, two representatives of Network Rail present, who had been invited to explain the position of their organisation. So, starting off by explaining that there was no such list and that they hadn't even started doing the preparative work required to draw up proposals for consultation on any possible closures rather challenged the whole raison d'etre of the campaign.

The problem, it seemed, was that the 'Norwich in Ninety' campaign requires a whole lot of infrastructure changes in order to achieve its goal, and as it is now endorsed by the Government, by both Norwich City Council (Labour led) and Ipswich Borough Council (also Labour led), the Liberal Democrat MPs for Colchester and Norwich South, local media, Chambers of Commerce and others, there is pressure to deliver.

It seems that the existence of a list is based on a piece on David Ruffley's website where he lists where level crossings might have to close. Unfortunately, he had listed all of them, without any basis of fact, and was assumed to know something. If only...

But people were angry, understandably. They had been told that their level crossing was to be closed, by people they trusted, and they weren't going to have two strangers from an organisation they don't trust telling them otherwise. So, the fact that there would have to be consultation, and that diversity impact assessments would be required and that public safety, the environment and community impact would all have to be taken into account made little impact on people who had already accepted that something bad was going to happen to them.

So, where are we?

Upgrading the main line between Ipswich and Norwich will require level crossings to be reviewed, as the proposed line speeds will be increased, impacting on the type of level crossing required and, in the case of level crossings that are public footpaths, potentially requiring footbridges - you need much better sight lines for trains travelling at 110 mph than you do for trains travelling at 90 or 100 mph. So, yes, level crossings will be reviewed on both safety grounds (as is already the case) and whether or not an alternative engineering solution would be better.

There are no specific proposals. At the moment, Network Rail is consulting on its Route Study, looking at what might be needed to allow more traffic on lines throughout the Region in order to meet increased demand - double-tracking at Haughley Junction, a passing loop at Witham, extra platforms at Ipswich. Once that is done, and the plan is finalised, then work will start on the infrastructure requirements. Part of that will be a review of level crossings which may, but only may, lead to proposals that may lead to the closure of crossings, and alternative arrangements will be put in place.

So, we'll see. There is no doubt that local people will have to pay close attention to what is happening, but there is no need to panic yet in the absence of any proposals. And, frankly, it will take some time before anything happens anyway.

What I found rather sad was that there was a willingness to believe the worst of an organisation whose staff had come to a meeting of their own volition, to try and explain to a somewhat hostile audience that they had been mislead. Having read the relevant documents, especially those highlighted by Suffolk Crossings, I conclude that, if you assume that authority is lying to you, you could get very angry. But if you aren't willing to entertain the possibility that the people making the claims aren't actually correct either, you might be lead to fear an imaginary spectre. And anyone making decisions on that basis may have cause to regret them later on...

Chest x-ray all clear... I aten't dead yet!

I rang my doctor's surgery today, as it was the sixth working day after last week's adventure in NHS care. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't worried about the outcome (after all, what's the use of worrying?), but family and friends were asking (I love you all too...). The result - I have a chest, there are no unexpected presences or absences, and I can resume coughing as I see fit. There is no suggestion that I should return and have anything else done, or administered, so I had better get on with it.

A fellow work colleague has suggested some time in a hot, dry climate, which sounds very inviting. However, I am bound, in less than a fortnight, for a hot, polluted climate, which may not be very helpful.

I'd better pack some cough sweets...

A night out with Norman Lamb in Suffolk Coastal

Having been invited to attend a public meeting in Saxmundham last night, organised by the PPC whose selection I managed a few months ago, it seemed churlish to refuse, especially as the guest speaker was Norman Lamb. And besides, it's always helpful even if all you are doing is boost the numbers.

James Sandbach, for it was he who organised the event, lives in Saxmundham and had promoted the event locally and, it became apparent, very effectively too, as the chairs that had been set out quickly filled and extra chairs had to be fetched - I vaguely remember a David Steel story which included that line - as interested local residents streamed through the doors, filling the hall.

It had been arranged that Norman, who was coming from London, would be picked up at Ipswich station, and conveyed by fast car (fast being an entirely relative concept here in rural Suffolk) to the meeting. What perhaps hadn't been allowed for was that it takes about forty-five minutes to get from Ipswich Station to Saxmundham and so, as the start time for the meeting approached, I was detailed to await Norman's arrival outside, in the company of the Press (BBC and the East Anglian Daily Times) and a small group of protesters campaigning to 'save mental health services in Norfolk and Suffolk' some of whom were clearly there to be seen by the media and who left when Norman arrived - perhaps if they listened to him, they might be better informed?

Norman Lamb, answering questions

Time passed, and James kicked off the meeting in the expectation that Norman would make it before he ran out of speech and, just in the nick of time, a car pulled out and Norman leapt out of it. Stopping only to give a brief interview to the BBC, he strode into the meeting to be introduced by James and spoke to the assembled audience without notes before taking a series of pre-written questions from a cross-section of the audience, including quite deliberately, some from those of the protesters that had actually decided to take part (I know that because Julia, James's wife and a local GP, and I selected them).

He got through a lot of questions, and got a pretty good response from an audience which was anything but hand-picked, including Liberal Democrat activists from at least four constituencies. All too soon though, the entertainment had to end, and Norman received a thoroughly well-deserved round of applause from most of the audience (you can't please everyone, can you?).

It was a bravura performance, and I suspect that those people who had come to the meeting with an open mind will have concluded that, whilst they might not agree with him on every point, Norman genuinely wants to achieve better outcomes for patients suffering from all kinds of ill health, be it physical or mental, and that equality of priority for mental health funding is something that he has, and will, work hard to obtain.

Much kudos must also go to James and Julia, who put an awful lot of work into organising the event, and to Marian Andrews, who chaired the meeting. Hopefully, people will spread the word about the event and perhaps speak kindly of Liberal Democrats and, in particular, James. He will have a tough struggle to keep the yellow bird of liberty flying in Suffolk Coastal, especially given our poll ratings nationally, but it won't be for lack of hard work and imagination.

@greateranglia find another way to shred their reputation...

I am a fairly patient soul as a rule, and a tolerant one much of the time. So tolerant, in fact, that I tend not to seek compensation when Greater Anglia fail to convey me to my destination in a timely manner if the problem has been caused by an infrastructure problem (I know, I really should, but it's such a hassle...). However, last month, after I turned up at Liverpool Street, bought a ticket and then discovered that they had cancelled the next train to Stowmarket due to a train fault, I collected a 'Delay Repay' form, completed it, inserted the ticket and sealed the form so that it formed an envelope - that's what the instructions say - and posted it to Norwich for my refund.

Abellio Greater Anglia promise a response within ten working days, and so I wasn't surprised when it took longer than that. However, I received an e-mail confirming receipt of my application, and waited for the formal letter with the Rail Travel Voucher that would follow.

Yesterday, I received a letter from them, asking for the original ticket. "Funny,", I thought, "I know I made sure that it was enclosed.", so I picked up the phone and rang the Customer Services Helpline. On getting through, I explained to the operative (I won't name her, she'll probably get into trouble if I do) that I had indeed enclosed the ticket with my application.

It transpired that this happens quite often, as the gum holding the form closed isn't very good, and tickets fall out in transit, a problem that Abellio Greater Anglia know all about and haven't done anything to solve. It was suggested that, in future, I should staple the ticket to the form but, on this occasion, my application would be processed as though the ticket had reached them which was, I suppose, kind of her.

It isn't the first time that this has happened to me, but on the other occasion, I assumed that it was my fault. I won't in future... And, due to the cynicism of their management, I am far more likely to claim compensation in future, regardless of the cause of the delay.

In the past, I have been quite sympathetic towards Abellio Greater Anglia, given the shortness of the franchise, the almost total unreliability of the infrastructure and the age of the rolling stock. And, whilst in some respects they are much better than National Express ever were, it seems that their managers are equally willing to 'nickel and dime' the travelling public. I fear that this will come with a price...

@BaronessRos responds to the consultation on the Local Government Finance Settlement 2015/16...

It gives me great pleasure to publish here Ros's thoughts on local government finance and, more generally, on the Conservative Party's view on localism and accountability...

I am writing in response to consultation on the Local Government Finance Settlement 2015/16 and the statement from the Local Government Minister Kris Hopkins MP on council tax and parishes.

The Minister has invited views on “whether the highest spending parishes should be subject to the same referendum principle as the rest of local government” and “whether town and parish councils whose failings have been highlighted in a Public Interest Report should be included”.

As a Liberal Democrat it is my strong belief that far too much power remains concentrated in Westminster; ours is one of the most centralised countries in the Western world and that has to change. Only by returning power to the communities, villages, towns, cities and regions of England can we drive growth, improve public services and give people the freedom to run their own lives.

To this end parish and town councils are an important part of our local democracy and I was heartened to see the Minister reiterate this in his statement. Much has been done by the Coalition Government over the course of this Parliament to empower communities and parishes and I want to see this continue.

However I simply do not believe any parish or town council, irrespective of size, location, budget or activity should be required to hold a referendum on increases to their precept.

This is unnecessary interference by Government and only serves to convey a lack of faith and trust in those people elected to serve on parish councils to improve their area and make locally accountable decisions. From my own experience parishes are closer to local issues than anyone, and work hard to engage with local people about how they can improve their area using the precept, communicating and justifying any (usually small and modest) increases accordingly. Indeed I remain supportive of removing the requirement to hold local referenda for council tax changes completely.

I also cannot support the notion of applying referenda principles to parishes with a Public Interest Report. I would much rather see a system whereby the parish sector takes the lead in helping parishes who have experienced difficulties, with action by Government as an absolute last resort. I would urge you to explore how this might be achieved with bodies such as the National Association of Local Councils, who I know are committed to high standards of governance and financial accountability and sector-led improvement.

I also wanted to comment on the situation regarding council tax support funding, which I know is causing real problems for parish councils up and down the country.

It simply cannot be acceptable that funding being provided by Government to parishes, via billing authorities, is not passed on to them. I would strongly urge the Minister to step up his efforts to resolve this issue as I know the number of councils not passing on funding to parishes is increasing.

This is likely to have an inevitable knock-on effect on local services and the parish precept, which I am sure the Minister does not want to see happen. I am also concerned about the overall impact such funding shortfalls will have on localism and community empowerment, especially at a time when Government and principal councils are encouraging more partnership working within local government, as well as devolution of services to the local level and parishes.

In conclusion I do not support the extension of referenda principles to parishes and urge more action to ensure council tax support funding is passed on to parishes.

Ros ScottBaroness Scott of Needham Market

Fear, loathing and level crossings

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

Unhappy residents at Stowmarket station

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

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

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

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

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

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

Musings on coming home...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Life is good...

The end of the "cost of living crisis"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

West Suffolk Independents: interesting, but perhaps a bit misleading

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

Simon Cole, who represents Exning, has said;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His key paragraph is;

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

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

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

Lies, damned lies and statistics used by politicians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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