Will the right-wing media eat its own enfants terrible?

I admit that I've probably watched the Lawrence Fox drama play out with a certain sense of wry amusement. Perhaps that's because I understand that, with actions, come consequences. And, if you don't want to accept the consequences, your options might not be terribly palatable.

That means that there are certain rules to be adhered to. For example, the right to free speech is balanced by an acceptance of the consequences of expressing them. If you really are a free speech warrior, then that's actually quite easy. Say something vile, be thought of as vile by a bunch of people, some of whom may have the ability to alter your life. You may conclude that the benefits of being vile outweigh the penalties.

Alternatively, you can restrain yourself from expressing some of the things that you might otherwise want to say, in order to protect the things you care for - wealth, family, loved ones.

But saying something stupid and unpleasant and then apologising in order to protect what you have means that you're not a free speech warrior, you're actually more than a little cowardly. You've suddenly realised that you don't fancy the consequences and would really like to wriggle off of the hook.

It tends to come to all of the (predominantly) right-wing media exponents of extreme positions in the end. There's a buzz to being paid to say things that most people wouldn't either have the nerve to say publicly or want to espouse in the first place. And our media pay well for those who rise to prominence. The catch is that there are plenty of people who hold, or are willing to express, opinions that are provocative or sensationalist, and thus to maintain your lucrative position, you have to push a little further all of the time until you reach the tipping point where your viewpoints aren't just edgy but widely accepted to be offensive.

And that's when your average media company usually decides that their brand is more important than your salary, and you get canned. They need the advertising revenue and, in a world where social media campaigns can very effectively persuade advertisers to look elsewhere, standing by an offensive columnist is just not worth it financially.

How to replace that buzz of attention is the next problem, and that means attracting attention by being even more "out there", shouting into the void. And yes, you can probably make a living, for a while, appealing to a smaller and smaller, albeit more fanatical, audience until you end up like Katie Hopkins (remember her?) - reduced to travelling the world being ever more childishly outrageous in search of the next cheque.

Alternatively, you can row back from your more outré positions and attempt to re-enter the mainstream of commentary. But does that mean that your original statements were made simply to earn money, and that you never believed them in the first place? And what does that say about you as a person, or about your integrity?

And, as the media cycle gets shorter and shorter, and as technology allows more and more people to express themselves and their opinions, the time taken to go from enfant terrible to friendless embarrassment reduces too, and the financial benefits shrink accordingly.

So, Lawrence, was it really worth it? Only you can tell...

Au revoir, Creeting St Peter…

The moving bears* have come and gone, the uncertainty of a number of months has ended, and Ros and I are slowly adjusting to our new urban lifestyle. Time, perhaps, to reflect a little.

I loved Creeting St Peter, which wasn’t entirely expected, I admit. As a “big city boy”, having grown up and spent the first forty-five years of my life in London’s zones 1-4, the move to a village of seventy or so houses and no public transport was an unlikely one, and I wouldn’t have done it at all if Ros hadn’t been in my life. But I took to it like a slightly urbane duck to water, joining the Parish Council and becoming a part of my village community.

I never did learn to drive though - a combination of fear (me, in charge of a metal box on wheels, you are kidding, aren’t you?) and prevarication - which did make me vulnerable to an increasingly erratic public transport system, and the lack of facilities meant that the idea of “popping out” for, say, a pint of milk, was only going to become more undesirable as I aged. And so, the conclusion that we were going to have to move to somewhere with “stuff” began to loom larger.

A combination of budget and availability pointed towards Ipswich, and we eventually found something that works. I won’t bore you with the process stuff - now that it’s over, I’m hoping that it will recede to a dusty corner of my memory never to be recovered - but better it were done while we’re both mentally sharp and physically able.

So, instead of a twenty-five minute walk across the fields and through Gateway 14 to Tesco, it’s two minutes to Sainsbury’s, five to one of two cinemas, or a theatre, and there’s public transport galore (at least by the standards of most of Suffolk). I’m even five minutes from my office…

As for my Parish Council responsibilities, I’m still eligible to serve until 2027 and, whilst I’d happily hand over the chair to a colleague, and stand down as a councillor so that someone actually resident can take my place, Council has made it clear that, at least for the time being, they’d rather like me to stay on. I’ve done so on the basis that, if they feel that I’ve outstayed my welcome, I’ll resign without hesitation - I’m not going to be precious about it.

And so, it's time to move onto a new phase in our life - new opportunities, new challenges - and see where we go from here. Let the adventure begin...

* Ah yes, the moving bears... Our grand-daughter has been learning about moving house from a book, and the moving company is staffed by bears. We rather liked that, and so it's stuck.

Federal Council: Standing Orders cometh...

When last I wrote about Federal Council, I was perhaps slightly unfair to my colleagues and their failure to adopt Standing Orders after three meetings.

Having reflected on the matter somewhat, it seems reasonable to ponder upon the question of, when founding a new organisation, who should take responsibility for producing Standing Orders and ensuring compliance withy the constitutional niceties.

The previous constitutional review, during the Presidency of Sal Brinton, established a requirement for each committee to provide its own secretariat, and I do wonder whether or not this was brought to the attention of the new Federal Council after it was elected. That said, it would have required someone to volunteer to take on the role, knowing what was likely to be required, and acting upon that. And, having fulfilled that role myself when Federal International Relations Committee was formed, I did have the advantage that we were a continuation rather than a founding.

But, we are where we are, and given that the Party's Company Secretary effectively acts as our Secretariat, managing meetings, supplying documents and suchlike, it was entirely understandable that there was a hesitancy to act. Besides, very few people join Party committees to act as "house bureaucrat"...

And so, Federal Council meets on Sunday to consider the work of a small working group tasked with drafting our Standing Orders. My sense is that they've done a pretty good job, reflecting the constitutional restrictions placed upon Council, although, like with most rulebooks, you only really know how good they are once someone has decided to test them. So, my working position is to adopt them, on the basis that, if there are any serious oversights or omissions, they'll emerge over time.

We have been given some choices though, and I thought that I might explain them and indicate how, and why, I'm planning to vote as I am.

The first question is related to Paragraph 2.9:

The Chair will share with the President and the Federal Council any reasons given by those members who requested a matter is called in and…

OPTION A: will respect and uphold a request by any member to keep confidential that they have or have not requested a call-in.

OPTION B: will, if a matter is called in following the request of 13 member, share with the Council a list of those members who requested the call-in. 

My personal sense is that, if I am to be held accountable by those who elected me to Federal Council, there should be a record of my actions (or lack of them). I acknowledge that there may be individuals who would rather not have their identity revealed, and I respect their preference, but I tend towards transparency and, if my choices are out of line with the membership, it is right that they have more than just a manifesto to go on. So, I'll be supporting OPTION B.

The second question is related to Paragraph 2.11:

A member may…

OPTION A: withdraw their call-in request before the meeting of the Federal Council at which the decision is to be considered by informing the Chair. If a withdrawal reduces the number of requests to fewer than 13 then the decision ceases to be called in (i.e. there cannot be a motion to overturn it) but may remain on the agenda as an item for discussion.

OPTION B: not withdraw their request to call-in a decision after the Chair has notified the President and Council that a decision is to be called in.

This is a somewhat more difficult question. Prior to our last meeting, a decision of the Federal Board had been called in by the required thirteen members (and no more). Accordingly, the President was invited to prepare and make a presentation to the Council in relation to that decision, requiring expenditure of time and resource to do so. Subsequently, one of the thirteen withdrew their request, making that item unnecessary.

On the one hand, before indicating that you wish to call-in a decision, you are beholden to your colleagues and to the wider Party to obtain as many facts as you can prior to submitting that call-in. On the other, more information may emerge after the deadline which satisfies you and gives you grounds not the want such a call-in.

However, I'm minded to choose OPTION B because, I think, having required a response from Federal Board, we should treat that response, and the effort expended in providing it, with the respect that it deserves. It also acts to focus minds and discourage "frivolous" call-in requests (I'm not entirely happy with the word "frivolous" in this context, but a better word escapes me for the moment).

And finally, perhaps the least contentious of the three choices is over whether to have one or two Vice-Chairs. I think that, as a means of encouraging a more diverse leadership of Federal Council, I'd plump for two, with some requirement to seek diversity amongst the three leadership roles. That shouldn't be taken as a criticism of the current leadership - I don't have cause for concern about the current team - but more a marker for future choices.

Hopefully, our meeting on Sunday will be uncontentious, although you don't always get what you want, and whether or not my preferred options are the ones chosen, ultimately, I'll be voting to accept the Standing Orders in their final version. Committees need a framework and rules to live by, and Federal Council is not exception.

NALC National Assembly - a reminder that my colleagues have legs…

It is occasionally hard to believe how long I’ve been a member of the National Assembly of the National Association of Local Councils - more than two and a half years now - and today I met my colleagues “in the flesh” for the first time.

There’s little doubt that meeting in person comes with certain advantages. For example, you can read a room rather better and decide whether or not you really need to add your voice to a debate - and the answer is often… well, no, not really. And you can exchange muttered comments with those around you, which offers a degree of entertainment and amusement.

So, I set off from my small, but perfectly formed, village on the Connecting Communities bus at a rather civilised 8 a.m. to catch the first off-peak train to London and, after a perfectly relaxed journey, I eventually found the new NALC headquarters between Holborn and Tottenham Court Road in time for a cup of coffee and an 11 a.m. start.

The meeting itself was an efficient one. Having dealt with minutes of our last meeting, we discussed our leadership and committee structures in the hope of encouraging both members of the National Assembly and the wider Parish and Town Council community to serve on our various committees. I admit that, to some extent, I’ve been guilty of standing back a bit, working on the basis that I don’t have a firm enough grasp of the inner workings of NALC to add value. There are, in all likelihood, people who have probably have more useful experiences or skills, or are more ambitious, and I’ve not been minded to stand in their way. 

However, there were vacancies on a number of committees that needed filling, and I concluded that, perhaps, my stance wasn’t sustainable any more, so I’d put myself forward to serve on the Smaller Councils Committee - they don’t get much smaller than Creeting St Peter, and I feel that the perspective of “micro-Parishes” can easily be lost amidst the talk of service provision and project funding. Our needs are less complex for the most part but, when we need help, it can feel a bit overwhelming. Large infrastructure projects, complex planning applications, these are often a major challenge to a small group of inexperienced volunteers with little professional resource to call upon. And so, I’ve got my first meeting of Smaller Councils Committee next Tuesday…

Our Chief Executive, Jonathan Owen, updated us next on some of the strategic work that is being done, both internally and externally. The Levelling Up Bill has allowed NALC to make some progress on its goals for the sector, enabling stronger ties with our Parochial Church Councils and allowing local councils to make Dependent Carer Allowance payments. Our President* and Vice Presidents have been extremely active in promoting our agenda in Parliament and achieved some success in persuading Ministers that we offer some quick, easy wins in terms of their agenda too, and the professional team who “provide the bullets for Parliamentarians to fire” can and should take pride in that success.

We also took a look at how the organisation is led and managed to ensure that we reflect the needs of our member councils and the County Associations. So, did we need to create new structures or tweak the existing ones, and how do we engage with a wider cross section of our members?

The pre-lunch session ended with a pleasantly brisk run through of a series of constitutional changes. And yes, many of them were tidying exercises, reflecting changes in the local government ecosystem, but nonetheless necessary. But my surprise was reserved for the adoption of STV for our internal elections going forward. There had been an attempt to make such a change earlier this year, which fell despite achieving a simple majority, and I expected some meaningful dissent, but it was passed with little opposition.

Lunch gave me an opportunity to tag along with a building tour to show a small group of National Assembly members the office space and the building facilities in NALC’s “new crib”, following the disposal of its old headquarters building. I’m of the view that, not only are the financial implications important, but the impact on our professional team is too. Does a hybrid working arrangement work for them? Are we taking advantage of the opportunities on offer? I also asked if an ergonomic assessment had been carried out because working on fixed desks with laptops doesn’t always work, especially for those of us who are, and I put this politely, more advanced in years and vulnerable to musculoskeletal problems.

The afternoon was occupied with presentations linked to our Net Zero agenda, talking about some of the actions our sector is, and will be, taking to support it. Given that even a micro-Parish without premises can make a contribution to the Net Zero agenda - Creeting St Peter recently replaced its ten aging streetlights with new LED ones which use far less electricity, cause less light pollution and reduce our expenditure significantly - our sector should play its part where possible, setting an example for those we serve.

The afternoon continued with a series of committee reports, culminating in a very detailed and thorough financial report. I’d been surprised by the relatively ad hoc nature of financial reporting when I first joined the National Assembly but must acknowledge that my concerns were not only listened to but acted upon, and I’m now comfortable that I can properly fulfil my scrutiny function based on the information at my disposal.

We ended our meeting with a discussion of a proposal from the Devon Association of Local Councils to produce a medal that might be awarded to long-serving Parish Councillors in recognition of their commitment to their communities. I’d consulted my County colleagues, who had mixed feelings about the idea, and it seemed that they weren’t alone. We agreed that this sort of recognition might be more effective coming from a county level, and thus County Associations might consider acting upon the idea.

And with that, we were done. A few of us retreated for drinks and an opportunity to reflect on what had happened, which I found particularly useful and interesting. One of the problems of operating in effective isolation from those you work with is that you lose the spontaneity and occasionally random conversations that add context to our efforts, especially if you’re relatively new to an organisation, as I am in this instance.

I think that I’m going to have to come to a few more of these…

ALDE Party Congress - is your journey strictly necessary, sir?

I am not a morning person, as Ros will testify. And so, rather than catch the very early morning flight on the Friday, I’d booked myself onto the mid-afternoon flight the previous day, allowing myself a leisurely journey from the Gipping Valley to Heathrow’s Terminal 5, plus a decent night’s sleep in Stockholm prior to the Congress.

And all had gone well, to the extent that I arrived more than four hours before my flight, having stopped at Westfield Stratford to buy a hat, leaving me time to have lunch (and perhaps a glass of something sparkling) in the British Airways lounge. I was settled and relaxed.

That is, I was, until 3.30, when there was a flurry of activity and the announcement that the 4.40 to Stockholm had been cancelled for reasons unknown. It suddenly became a bit chaotic, as we were first directed towards a gate and then advised to leave the airport.

So, what was a bureaucrat to do?

The first priority was to rebook my flight but, with thousands of people trying the same thing, and the British Airways app rather out of commission, I rang their call centre, taking advantage of my Silver status. They weren't able to get me on the evening flight, but there was a seat on the (horribly early) 7.05 the next morning.

Next priority, a room for the night. The Intercontinental Hotels Group app came up with a hotel within a short bus ride of Terminal 5 at a rate I was willing to pay, so I could then inform the hotel in Stockholm that I would be a day late.

And finally, clothes, given that my luggage was trapped somewhere in Terminal 5's baggage handling system. A quick trip to Richmond and a raid of Marks & Spencer did the trick before dinner and a gentle bus ride or two to my hotel.

I awoke early the next morning, far too early, and set off to the airport for attempt number 2. As advised, I called in at the assistance desk, arranged for my luggage to be linked to the new flight and checked in. Back to the lounge for breakfast and a glass of consolatory prosecco, and fingers crossed.

My expectations were not great but, with some good fortune, I arrived in Stockholm pretty much on time, as did my luggage, giving me time to get to my hotel and arrive at the Waterfront Congress Centre just in time for our first delegation meeting.

It was time to get to work...

Post-Federal Council, some musings on internal Party democracy and accountability

At the end of Federal Council last week, I raised with my new colleagues the question of reporting back - how, and to whom. I wasn’t trying to start a debate, more an attempt to give them something to dwell on.

My personal view is that, having been elected by the members (at least, those engaged enough to want to take part), I have some obligation to tell them what I’ve done and why, so far as is appropriate. Naturally, I will do that in my own mostly light-hearted way - I’ve never been one to take myself too seriously - but I will respect the responsibility that has been placed upon me.

That isn’t always easy. There have been those, many on the committees concerned, who are uncomfortable with transparency, and I do get that. Indeed, I take the view that there are some things too sensitive to be aired publicly, in which case I will not mention them or do so in a neutral manner designed to indicate that the subject has been discussed but no more.

I will also adhere to whatever rules that Federal Council decides upon in terms of confidentiality. There are some issues that require discretion, especially where they relate to individuals, in particular, staff. As a Federal Council member, I have an obligation to treat others with respect and courtesy, as made clear by the Member Code of Conduct.

This disappoints some people, who think that liberal principles require us to be utterly transparent. I judge that to be naïve, knowing as I do that our opponents would never make the same mistake. And, given that our strengths include hard work and an element of surprise, why give anything away that might jeopardise either?

My personal policy has survived the best part of two decades now, from my time on the London Liberal Democrats Regional Executive, its East of England equivalent, via English Candidates Committee to Federal International Relations Committee, and I’ve tried to be pretty consistent throughout.

That means that my reports aren’t “official” - that would require me to be the Chair, which I’m not. And they represent my perspective, based on what I know, which means that they might not be perfect - I may have missed nuance, or be unaware of institutional history/memory. But they’re mine, and I’m accountable for them.

So, when (or if) I choose to run for re-election, voters will have rather more than a brief, carefully curated, manifesto upon which to judge my worth. It is for my colleagues to decide how, and if, they do something similar, and I wouldn’t criticise their decision either way - they’re busy people with their own priorities and personal styles. Some will be more restrained, others not used to blogging or other social media. We are all different.

ALDE Party Congress - where your correspondent did go to the (meat)ball…

The world turns, and things change.

For many years, going to an ALDE event meant being led by the suave, and occasionally cynical, Robert Woodthorpe Browne, whose almost legendary ability to cut deals meant that our influence somewhat outweighed our numerical strength. And now, we have a new leader, David Chalmers, whose first Congress this was.

Naturally, David operates rather differently, although he clearly gets that, in a post-Brexit environment, Liberal Democrats have to work harder (and smarter) to get things done. And, whilst he’s still trying to assess the strengths and weaknesses of his core delegation, and work out whether or not individuals can be trusted, he’s being cautious in terms of how much room for manoeuvre he can grant us. Discipline is the watchword.

There is a logic to that, in that we’re obviously not in a position to freelance - we’re bound by Party policy, of course, and there are relationships with other sister parties that we want to maintain.

In truth, it affects me less than some. I’m not much of a policy wonk, at least I know that I’m not expert enough to assert much. And my “specialist subject”, i.e. the inner workings of the ALDE Party, is seldom of critical import, or, if I’m frank, of interest to my colleagues. Except when it is…

And this Congress was one of those rare events, with some rather significant proposals on representation of non-EU member parties, the abolition of the Individual Members in their current form, and a clearer structure for the appointment of future Secretary Generals. Having served on a small working group appointed by the Bureau to look at the Individual Members and Secretary General issues, I at least had a grasp of what was happening and the background before it.

There were a lot of policy resolutions - forty-three in total, plus six urgency resolutions - far too many to allow any meaningful discussion, although they had been ranked in order of perceived significance to ensure that some of the most far reaching ones got debated.

But I did at least have a job of sorts. There was a time when Returning Officers mattered. With paper ballots, a count was required and ALDE’s somewhat bizarre elections rules - first past the post but with a stipulation that voters must vote for as many candidates as there are vacancies - meant that you did at least have to think a bit. Now, with electronic voting, once polls close, the ballot technician pushes a button, the results are displayed, and that’s it.

But the rules still state that a Returning Officer is necessary, and my German colleague, Daniel Obst, and myself are apparently acceptable to the Secretariat - I don’t imagine that the Bureau care much - and so we are informally approached in advance, agree to resume our double act and all is well.

All that was required was to get to Stockholm…

Mid Suffolk elections 2023 - if you thought that 2019 was bad for the Tories...

The 2019 District Council elections saw our local Conservatives take something of a hiding but, with the aid of the friendly "Independent" from Combs Ford, they retained control of Mid Suffolk District Council on the casting vote of the Chair.

Now you might have thought that they would then display a degree of humility and at least show some respect for the combined opposition parties following such losses but alas, it was not to be. And thus, on Thursday, they paid the price, courtesy of our local Greens.

In truth, everything favoured the Greens in Mid Suffolk, with an invisible Labour Party fielding just eight sacrificial lambs in predominantly unwinnable wards at the best of times, and the Liberal Democrats effectively trying to do little more than retain their five seats won in 2019 under the disadvantage of losing four incumbents to well-deserved retirement. And, apart from two Reform UK candidates who barely stirred public consciousness, that left twenty-nine Greens facing twenty-eight Conservatives.

And, when an early result saw the demise of the Conservative Group Leader in the Stonhams, Friday promised to be grim for Mid Suffolk Conservatives. As it turned out, grim really wasn't sufficient to describe their fate.

Stowmarket went from three Conservatives, two Greens, a Liberal Democrat and an Independent to six Greens and a Liberal Democrat, whilst Conservative councillors were also ousted in Claydon & Barham, Debenham, Eye, Palgrave, Thurston and Walsham-le-Willows.

Amongst the Conservative losers were Tim Passmore, the County Police and Crime Commissioner, despite moving to Palgrave from Claydon and Barham, and Nick Gowrley, the former Group Leader, who lost his Combs Ford seat in 2019 and re-appeared in Claydon & Barham in an attempt to return. The Deputy Group Leader bit the dust too, effectively decapitating the Conservative Group. 

From a Liberal Democrat perspective, the loss of one of two seats in Needham Market (to a Green) means that the town has a non-Liberal Democrat District Councillor for the first time since 1991, when Ros was elected as a rookie councillor.

So, Mid Suffolk ended up:

• Greens - 24 seats (up 12)
• Conservatives - 6 seats (down 10)
• Liberal Democrats - 4 seats (down 1)
• Independents - no seats (down 1)

which makes it the first Green majority administration in the Northern Hemisphere and only the second globally.

It will be interesting to see what they do with power, having very little experience of it anywhere, and having never had to have sole responsibility for decision making. If I were a member of the Liberal Democrat Group, the prospect of constructive opposition to a ruling Group with whom relations are good would be a potentially enticing one, offering a possibility of gains for those we represent that probably didn't exist under the Conservatives.

Finally, these elections results represent an outcome that the "Local Conservatives" thoroughly deserved. They don't campaign in any meaningful way, relying solely on the historic record of Suffolk voting Conservative. And even though they knew that the Greens were coming for them, they still seemingly couldn't be bothered to do anything about it. If the Greens dig in as I expect them to, whilst they'll probably lose seats in 2027, they may not face much organised opposition.

Indeed, the best prospect for a Conservative recovery in four years time is for the national party to be thrashed in the next General Election and for an unpopular Labour administration to emerge from it. But I sense that it will come despite the quality of local Conservatives rather than because of it.

Now that we've found Federal Council, what are we gonna do... with it?

Well, I've now been a member of Federal Council for more than a fortnight and, due to the small matter of some local elections, not much has happened. I've got a meeting pencilled in for 8 June and I'm assuming that there's an outline meeting schedule for the rest of 2023 but other than that, Federal Council remains a bit of a mystery.

It's not as if I've not got a bunch of other things to do, so I can at least be more sanguine about this. In the meantime, I've read the Federal Constitution, which says of Federal Council:

9.12 There shall be a Federal Council which shall consist of the following voting members:

a. Twenty-one people who shall be party members elected by all members of the Party except that persons who, at the date of the close of nominations for election under this paragraph, are members of Parliamentary Parties set out in Article 17 shall not be eligible to be candidates for election under this paragraph. Casual vacancies amongst this group shall be filled in accordance with the election regulations;

b. Three members from each State Party, elected according to their own procedures;

c. Three principal local authority councillors, elected Mayors or Police and Crime Commissioners, elected by the principal local authority councillors, elected Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners of the Party;

d. Three members of the Young Liberals, elected according to their own procedures;

e. Three representatives of the Parliamentary Group as set out in Article 17.5; and

f. The Chair of the Federal Audit and Scrutiny Committee.

9.13 The Chair of the Federal Council shall be elected by its members.

9.14 Members of the Federal Board may attend and speak at meetings of the Federal Council but may not be voting members of the Federal Council.

9.15 The Council shall be responsible for scrutinising the work of the Federal Board, including ensuring that decisions are being taken in line with the party strategy as voted for by Conference, and may require a response on any issue from the Board.

9.16 The members of the Federal Council shall be sent the Board agenda, decisions and relevant papers. Within five working days of the publication of the decisions any 13 members can request that the Chair of the Federal Council call in any decision by the Federal Board to a meeting of the full Federal Council. The President of the Party will be required to attend this meeting and can bring any others they feel relevant in order to speak in favour of the decision. Any decision of the Federal Board called in can be overturned by a vote in favour by at least 27 members of the Federal Council.

9.17 The Council shall be considered to be a Committee of the Federal Party for the purposes of Articles 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 8.2, 8.5, 8.8 and 8.9.

I've also looked to see, as far as I can, who got elected to serve on it and whilst I have worked with some of them, or know them because of Ros, there are others who, to be honest, are more of a social media presence. That doesn't entirely surprise me, given that I've kept a relatively low profile within the wider Party for a while now.

And, finally, I've re-read my manifesto. This is what I said I would try to achieve if elected...

But what are my ambitions if elected to serve?

• Establish the Federal Council as an effective scrutiny body, engaging all of its members in its work and using their strengths to establish its credibility
• Build a relationship with the Federal Board based on mutual understanding and respect
• Represent and engage with groups across the Party and Federal Conference to ensure that we focus on what matters to members rather than simply promoting any narrow agenda
• Create reporting channels that allow members to hold us accountable

So, no great challenge there...

And on reflection, that did look rather like a manifesto for Chair of Federal Council, rather than an ordinary member. So, perhaps I ought to scale back my ambitions a little. How about this:

• Work with fellow Council members to establish the Federal Council as an effective scrutiny tool
• Engage with groups across the Party to ensure that I focus on what matters to members rather than simply promoting a narrow agenda
• Report back using my blog and, if appropriate, Liberal Democrat Voice

There are some things that matter to me - good governance, the Town and Parish Council sector, the Party's international work, for example - which I hope to promote during the next two and a half years. But I like to think of myself as being fairly open minded, willing to hear and consider the arguments whilst not assuming that anyone in a position of authority in the Party has a secret agenda that I should be deeply suspicious of.

And so it begins...

In the light of the Dominic Raab story, a civil servant writes…

I’ve been a civil servant for more than thirty-six years, and thus am rather nearer to the end of my “career” than the beginning. But, whilst my personal ambition has been limited, my belief in the power and value of public service remains undimmed. After all, I’m clearly not doing it for the money…

Now I ought to preface what comes next with an admission that I don’t know what happened between Dominic Raab and his civil servants. As someone who believes in due process and the rule of law, I tend to acceptance of the findings of independent reports and thus, if it was found that his behaviour was inappropriate, I lean towards the idea that it probably was.

But I’d like to mull over the relationship between politicians and civil servants, predominantly because, if all is well, a mutually respectful relationship between the two is more likely to lead to good governance and better decision making. Now I should emphasise that, by that phrase, I don’t mean “policy that I like and agree with”. No, governance is more nuanced than that.

The best “rule of thumb” for the relationship is “politicians decide, civil servants advise”. If a politician, particularly a minister, wants to do something, the role of the Civil Service is to determine how it might be delivered, what legislative change (if any) is needed, and what the possible consequences are. If the proposal is currently illegal, or will negatively impact on some, that should be explained, preferably with whatever evidence exists. That isn’t about opposition or obstructionism, it’s about offering a decision maker the information needed to make what they (the decision maker) believe to be the best choice from the available options.

In return, politicians need to be open to the possibility that their ideas might be flawed, unworkable or illegal. That requires, a sense of mutual respect that entertains the notion of honest doubt.

Increasingly, in recent years, politicians have blamed the Civil Service for the difficulties they encounter in making the sorts of systemic changes they believe to be necessary. They refer to “the Blob”, or to “the Establishment”, accuse civil servants of balking their pet projects, anything rather than admit that, when push came to shove, their demands couldn’t be met because the consequences of action were rather worse than the status quo. Thus, if a politician starts from the premise that his or her officials are a problem rather than the means to a potential solution, that suggests an ongoing relationship based on confrontation rather than collaboration. It’s not likely to end well.

Civil servants can’t really push back. For one thing, there is an ultimate acknowledgement that the politicians have a mandate and a basic right to make decisions as to how the country is run. The second is that we mostly operate under a set of guidelines that discourage open debate and are covered by the Official Secrets Act. And, ultimately, we still respect the fact that a politician, with a personal mandate, has certain rights and obligations that we as civil servants don’t.

So, if Dominic Raab had high standards, that’s fine. We want higher standards in government. If his management style was such as to distress his staff, then we have an obvious problem.

If you’re being criticised for doing your job as an advisor, you may stop offering information that your minister isn’t going to like, or soft-pedal that information so that it might not be seen to carry as much weight. That leads to unbalanced information in the hands of a decision maker and thus the risk of error in policy making. And given that all decisions in government have consequences, it might reasonably be concluded that the consequences of decisions made without all the facts are likely to be worse for all concerned.

It has been suggested that politicising the upper tiers of the Civil Service, in a similar manner to the way things are in the United States, would engender a more responsive bureaucracy. I suspect that, if you allow Ministers to appoint people who share the same beliefs, and who are entirely beholden to the Minister, the prospects of receiving independent advice become much lower, and you create a chasm between those who advise and those who deliver what is decided. You’d also reinforce the very suspicions that politicians have of their officials if an incoming government is welcomed by senior officials directly appointed by their political opponents.

So, to summarise, for good governance to flourish, there must be mutual respect between those involved in the process of governance and policy making. The Dominic Raab report appears to suggest that, at least in his case, that mutual respect wasn’t there, and his response to it doesn’t indicate that self-awareness has been triggered yet. If he intends to return to government any time soon, it might help him if he takes some time to reflect on what led so many civil servants to complain about him and why some political observers have characterised him as angry and slightly psychotic.

Federal Council: “Kind Hearts and Coronets” but without the murder…

One of the things about narrowly losing a Federal Committee election is that you’re potentially on standby to step in if a successful candidate implodes, resigns or, tragically, dies. Indeed, that’s how I found myself back on Federal International Relations Committee two years ago, after Jonathan Fryer’s sad demise. And that was not the only such loss, as FIRC Vice-Chair, Ruth Coleman-Taylor passed away last year. I miss both of them, if truth be told.

But given how close I got to being elected to Federal Council last year, and given the number of directly elected members, I had the sense that, merely by remaining a Party member in good standing, I might yet find myself promoted. And so it has come to pass, following the resignation of Alison Eden, first from the Party and then consequentially as a member of Federal Council. I won’t comment on the background to that saga, as I only know what happened as opposed to why, but it may not have come as much of a surprise to those involved.

There will be some catching up to do, and some cultural acclimatisation - every committee has its own rhythm in my experience and I’ve found it more effective in the past to simply go with it rather than fight it. But the Chair, Antony Hook, is someone I know and have worked with in the past, and the rest of Federal Council are, for the most part, people I have worked with in one of the myriad of roles I have performed over forty years of lyric bureaucracy within the Party.

I’ve swapped messages with Antony, discovered that there is a Federal Council Slack group, put the date of our next meeting in my diary and now await my first set of papers. In the meantime, I suspect that an induction pack might be coming - there was one when I rejoined FIRC - and I ought to read the constitutional stuff to refresh my memory of what it is I’m supposed to do.

I am kind of looking forward to a new challenge, and am optimistic that the skills I’ve picked up in my multiple roles in the Town and Parish Council sector will stand me, and my colleagues in good stead for the next three years or so.

So, wish me luck as I wave you hello…

They call him the Count… because he can’t…

My degree, for what it’s worth, is in Mathematics (with Statistics), and I am, by most people’s standards, highly numerate. This allows me to look at Rishi Sunak’s announcement that the Government is going to raise standards of maths skills with a soupçon of scepticism.

I’ve always been of the view that, at the level confronted by most people, maths skills are as much about confidence as they are about technique. I encounter people who will throw their hands up and declare how bad they are at it and yet, if given the time and space to work through a calculation, will come up with the right answer.

There is a sense that, with the advent of calculators and, these days, calculators in smart phones, that the ability to add up, multiply, divide and subtract is obsolete, although I’d argue that, without a basic grasp of numbers, the risk of missing a typing error is higher than I’m comfortable with. My confidence in my numeracy skills means that, if I make a data entry error, I’m likely to spot it before it becomes critical.

But Rishi’s announcement does have a feel of John Major’s national cones hotline about it, but without the same potential viability. We already have a chronic shortage of mathematics teachers and a recruitment and retention crisis due to uncompetitive salary scales, and the announcement glosses over these issues without offering any sense of what might be done to remedy them. Indeed, it suggests that whilst young Sunak understands how government should work, the reality of how things actually are escapes him.

In fairness to him, he has no real experience of actual service delivery, so perhaps I should be as troubled by the fact that his Secretary of State for Education doesn’t appear to have pointed out the flaws in his announcement, nor any member of the Cabinet. But then, there’s not much sense of practical awareness  amongst most of them either.

The irony is that, in isolation, the idea of boosting maths skills is a thoroughly good thing but making an announcement to deliver an outcome when the resources required to deliver it simply don’t exist merely reminds us that Conservative government doesn’t add up. Perhaps the subtraction of hundreds of Conservative councillors next month might suggest a solution in 2024…

Procession, peanuts and policy…

Crossing the High Street with care

It was the Needham Market Civic Service yesterday and, in my capacity as Chair of one of its neighbouring Parishes (but mostly as Ros’s husband), we were part of the formal party. That requires us to process up the High Street from the Community Centre to the Parish Church for the service.

I’m sure that, in past years, the High Street was closed and we processed down the middle of the road, Mayors of the surrounding towns in their regalia and robes, their Consorts by their side but it all seemed rather more low key this time. We walked on the pavement, crossing the High Street at the pelican crossing and then entering the church. Progress, I guess.

There was a nice tea afterwards, and I caught up with Steve Phillips, one of our retiring District Councillors, putting our very small part of the world to rights.

These sorts of things feel rather cozy, but perhaps they act as a reminder of an era of civic pride which is increasingly anachronistic in a world where such things are frowned upon as old-fashioned and rather fusty. I do get that - how does it help the community and does it put newcomers off? - but tradition has its place, particularly in terms of community cohesion in rural and semi-rural communities. And in Suffolk, where what are now relatively small towns were once of national significance, these events are an anchor to its proud past.

Perhaps it’s regret, or perhaps I’m simply getting older and mistily nostalgic, but I’d be sorry to see these things fade out of existence…

Pay peanuts, get?…

So, apparently the Civil Service pay remit suggests an increase in paybill of 4.5% for 2023/24, compared to inflation at 10%. Pay levels are now so low at clerical grades that they’re being swept up with the National Living Wage. And yes, that means that the person you rang to ask about your tax problem is earning the same hourly rate as the person stacking shelves at your local supermarket.

And when even broadsheet journalists are noting the vast discrepancies between Civil Service pay rates and those for private sector companies competing for the same skill levels, you shouldn’t be surprised to find that the sort of person who might altruistically opt for public service rather than private profit becomes increasingly rare.

You get the government you pay for, I’m afraid to say.

A resolution (or forty-three) to consider

I admit that my one remaining function as a Liberal Democrat - member of the Party’s delegation to ALDE Party Council - is mostly far less onerous than many of the posts elected by the Party membership. After all, going to six meetings over a three year period isn’t exactly going to kill me. It isn’t cheap - the meetings have been held in cities such as Yerevan, Bratislava, Palermo and Dresden, to name but four - but it is intensive, with a whirlwind of activity in the weeks leading up to the events.

This time, we seem to have had far more resolutions to consider - whereas it’s usually no more than twenty, it’s over forty this time. Our delegation has to consider them both in their own right but by comparison to Party policy - you really wouldn’t want us to be freelancing on potentially controversial issues here at home.

I’d better start reading, I guess…

Creeting St Peter: hail to the Chief?

In recent times, the period around the close of nominations for local elections has been slightly more fraught than for most people. As a serving councillor, the concerns come in two parts:

• can I successfully submit my nomination papers?
• am I actually going to have to fight an election?

The second question is, I admit, more of a Parish and Town Council thing - principal authority elections are seldom uncontested - as many contests… aren’t.

Having handed in my nomination papers in person on Tuesday morning and had them vetted by Mid Suffolk’s Head of Election Services, I was pretty confident that I had been validly nominated (and how embarrassing would it be if an “out” bureaucrat screwed that up?). All that was left was to await the formal publication of candidates.

Having clicked on the link on the Mid Suffolk website yesterday afternoon, I was somewhat surprised to find that the total number of Town and Parish Council contested elections was… one. And it wasn’t Creeting St Peter.

And so, I am gloriously re-elected. Four years ago, I noted that it wasn’t so much an endorsement of my ability and hard work as a sitting councillor as a sense that I wasn’t annoying anyone enough to provoke a challenge. I suspect that this is less the case now after more than four years as Chair, including over the pandemic. People appear to know who I am and what I do, which is nice, and events of the past year have demonstrated that the role isn’t as easy as my colleagues think I make it look.

I even delivered upon the goals I set four years ago. The street lights have been replaced at far lower cost than I had feared (thanks must go to the County Council for offering us an exceptionally good deal) and the emergence of village Facebook and WhatsApp groups has allowed me to convey useful and/or important information to most village residents quickly and efficiently.

So, what are my aims for the next four years? It would be nice to support our Parochial Church Council in raising additional funds to refurbish the Church Room, and the recent discovery that they could apply for Section 106 funding is very encouraging. We also would like to improve our playground, especially given that we have a surprising number of small children in the village.

I’d also like to finish off the job of dragging Council into the twenty-first century in terms of how it operates. The appointment of a new Clerk and Responsible Finance Officer was a big leap in that project, but the work is still ongoing. As Chair, if they’ll continue to have me, that does put an onus upon me to actively engage rather than just acquiesce but that might not be a bad thing.

So, another four glorious years are launched. Maybe I ought to crack open a bottle of champagne?…

Creeting St Peter: might there be some tangible benefits from Gateway 14?

Well, work on the infrastructure needed for Gateway 14 is pretty much complete, and construction of the first (and largest) building on the site is approved and underway.

The next issue for our community is the distribution of the Section 106 (Town and Country Planning Act 1990) funds associated with the project, something that we have little experience of. Being a countryside village, as defined by Mid Suffolk District Council, we don’t get much development, and thus we’ve never been assigned any such funds in the thirteen years since I first joined the Parish Council.

I’d attended a Town and Parish Council Liaison Meeting last month, hosted by the District Council, where they updated us on key issues that might impact our sector and communities, and part of that was a presentation by the Communities Team. Their role is to interact with us to improve our relationship and help us to achieve benefits for our towns and villages.

I thought that this might offer an opportunity to deal with some of our key issues - the playground and the Church Room - and so I stopped Simon Lanning, the dedicated team member covering our area, and had a few very polite words. That led to an agreement that a more structured conversation might be helpful. And so, on Tuesday, we met on Teams, accompanied by Josh Holmes, one of his colleagues who specialises in grant applications.

My first question was to confirm the size of the pot, which turned out to be £190,000. Now, that does have to be shared with Stowmarket, but it was noted that Stowmarket do have access to other pots of cash, which means that, whilst we shouldn’t be greedy, a simple division based on population shouldn’t limit our requests.

So, resetting our playground’s slide would be smiled upon, as well as some new equipment if needed. And, whilst the only community building belongs to the Parochial Church Council, as it is the key social hub for the village, funding may well be available to make it, say, accessible for disabled users. Some of the more desperately needed repairs might be covered too, which would be very welcome.

There was also news on the footpath which links the village to Gateway 14, in that funds have been set aside for a major upgrade. Simon and Josh have agreed to seek an update from the County Council in terms of what is happening and when, which is very kind of them.

So, we may see improvements to our village, which would be lovely, and a legacy to future residents.

Enter bureaucrat stage left with the early morning call for a separate vote

So, with a bit of help from my colleagues, especially Nick da Costa, the ever helpful Chair of Federal Conference Committee, I’ve managed to navigate the Conference Standing Orders (note to self - might be worth reading them at some point) in pursuit of my proposed change to Business Motion F3.

It’s been agreed by FIRC and the current Liberal Democrat member of the ALDE Party Bureau that I am right to be concerned, and that they won’t object to my proposal, and Nick has advised that he’d prefer a separate vote. And so, I lodged the request using the surprisingly user friendly webform by the deadline and all appears well.

I am going to find out what is required of me next. My working presumption is that I ought at the very least to be in the hall for the motion, and that I ought to prepare a few words of explanation so that Hannah Bettsworth (FIRC Vice Chair) can accept it on behalf of the movers.

Now you might wonder why I’m so vague about this. Curiously, I don’t think that I’ve ever tried to amend a motion at a Liberal Democrat conference - I’m not a policy geek and, usually, not that organised. I’ve amended my name to amendments from time to time, but only as “fifth spear carrier” and not with any intention to intervene myself. So, it will be a new experience for this bureaucrat.

I will, at least, hopefully be fortified by a decent cooked breakfast…

That'll teach me to read the Conference papers a bit earlier next time...

I'm a Liberal Democrat and I read constitutions. That makes me, it seems, slightly geeky, even by the standards of Liberal Democrats. However, occasionally, I spot something that makes me think and, having started the process of organising my diary for Spring Conference, I allowed myself to be distracted by the content.

That allowed me to spot agenda item F3: Business Motion - FIRC. It is, in the generality, a good thing, in that it tidies up the way in which the Party delegations to the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) and Liberal International are chosen and led, codifying what was done by custom and practice in the past. The problem is that I think that it contradicts the Internal Regulations of the ALDE Party. See what you think...

F3: Business Motion - FIRC

1. Our delegation to the ALDE Council shall comprise:

b) Any Liberal Democrat members of the ALDE Bureau, unless they already have their own place as Council members.

whilst the ALDE Party Internal Regulations say:

The following persons will be entitled to attend the meetings of the Council, with voting rights:

b) Members of the ALDE Party Bureau. Each Bureau member carries an individual vote and cannot take an additional proxy vote, either on behalf of another member of the ALDE Party Bureau or of an ALDE Party member party.

Now call me quirky and old fashioned, but that suggests that ALDE Party Bureau members can't vote on behalf of member parties, whilst the Business Motion puts any Liberal Democrat member of the Bureau in exactly that position. Doesn't it?

There is still time (just) to amend it, but I don't want to appear to be being awkward for the sake of it. Suggestions, Liberal Democrat hive mind?

National Grid: bringing power lines to a village near you whether you like it or not

One of the challenges of changing the energy mix is that you need infrastructure to support it. So, if you're going to build a swathe of new offshore wind power generation, you need to get that electricity onshore and to the places that it is desperately needed. And, in Suffolk, that means that we're a bit in the way. 

We get that, we really do. However, what we'd really like is that, if you're going to run overhead cables across the countryside, we'd like to be consulted and we'd like them not to run over the village. We aren't even a big village, so it wouldn't take an awful lot to meet our wishes.

I ought to admit that, when the East Anglia Green project was first mooted, I wasn't terribly engaged. In the absence of a Parish Clerk, I was rather more focussed on keeping the Parish Council show on the road and my "bandwidth" was somewhat limited as a result. But, now that I have taken a closer look at it, one thing stands out. Whilst, in the rest of the county, the preferred route for the new overhead transmission lines avoids villages, in our case, the graduated swathe (the purple stripe on the map) passes straight over us. And yes, the darker colours (where they would ideally route the pylons) are just to the east of the village, but they might well be very close to our small community.

So, because I'm curious like that, I rang the East Anglia Green consultation hotline three weeks ago. I reached a recorded message thanking me for my call but, at the end of that message, instead of encouragement to leave a message or, better still, a human being to talk to, there was silence. I waited for a while but nothing seemed to be happening. Perhaps there had been a glitch and I had been cut off so I rang again, only for the same thing to happen. This time though, I waited... and waited... and waited... for more than two minutes until, suddenly, another recorded voice invited me to leave a message.

A little bit later, I received a telephone call, apologising for the fact that I hadn't gotten through. A very polite woman listened as I explained the problem with their telephone line and assured me that someone would call me, either later that afternoon or on Monday, to answer my question and any others I might have.

Fair enough, I thought, and awaited a call. I'm still waiting for it.

My suspicions should have been aroused by what happened when I rang the hotline in the first place. It did seem as though, by accident or design, that it was a means of putting off potential questioners. And, if they hadn't noticed the problem already, it offers a sense that they don't really care.

I'm not opposed to having pylons. They've got to go somewhere, and the existing infrastructure means that a north-south route across Mid Suffolk is inevitable. But we'd like to talk about the type of pylons used - we'd quite like the more modern T-shaped ones - and we'd like to input our thoughts into the exact route.

But I have a nasty feeling that being reasonable is, in their eyes, the same as being a doormat. And they wonder why local communities are so opposed to major infrastructure projects on their doorsteps...