We spent our first meeting as the main opposition agreeing government mandated changes to the way we operate, hearing who in the administration will be guiding which area of work, the “portfolio holders”  and deciding who in our Lib Dem team will be spokesperson on which subjects.   Not an exciting or world changing day but a necessary one.

I retain the Chair of the Public Protection Scrutiny Committee which covers the Fire & Rescue Service, Trading Standards, Community Safety and at present Health & Well being.

We have a programme of work laid out but would be interested in sugestions of significant areas where light could be shone to the benifit of  Suffolk Residents.

You may have seen what The Observer said on Sunday:

“So the status of flagship pro-European party falls to the Liberal Democrats…

“That is currently a lonely position, but the Lib Dems have a decent record of taking minority stands that are later vindicated. On the environment, on civil liberties and on the mounting debt bubble, the Lib Dems were quietly but consistently ahead of the Westminster curve…”  (You might draw that conclusion at County level as well  (John Field))

“This Thursday’s vote is being held in a uniquely febrile climate. It should be about Europe; it will be about the expenses scandal. On both counts, it is a moment to reward the principled consistency of the Liberal Democrats.”

A pleasant day for a very long walk but made even better by the greetings and good wishes from people out tending their gardens and chatting to neighbours.  Kay and my daughter Alison shared the activity and we had an excellent sandwich at the Bramford Cock.  Definitely to be recommended.

Contrary to misinformation distributed by Viscount Blakenham, I would like to inform you that all Mid Suffolk Liberal Democrat councillors voted in support of  a MSDC request to the Boundary Committee that seven Parishes (Akenham, Barham, Bramford, Claydon, Great Blakenham, Little Blakenham and Whitton Rural) should be part of a Rural Suffolk unitary if the Committee recommends two unitary councils for Suffolk. 

This was also in line with my personal input to the Boundary Committee that recognised this was the wish of these Parishes.

For our full policies, see        www.suffolk.libdems.org

In my view the current situation, in a much-summarised form, is that regrettably, the protest movement lost the argument against the development after triggering the spending of a claimed £500,000 of taxpayers’ money on an enquiry.  They forced a necessary but ultimately futile detailed examination of the planning issues.  However, the inspector excluded the critical business plan from the deliberations. 

The District Council, County Council, Local Businesses, Regional Development Agency and ultimately the Government were convinced that the development would bring an exciting symbol of entrepreneurial endeavour to the County and the associated building and operational jobs.  I believe that this fact did not help the case against SnOasis.

The developer still claims that the project will proceed and that finance is not an issue.  He has stated that the need to agree all elements of the final design, before work commences on any structure, jeopardises the project.  Mid Suffolk Councillors made that a requirement to ensure the development was as proposed.

My view, and that of many others, is that in the current financial climate, it is almost impossible to imagine that the project could proceed.  

The District Council is clinging to the view that it will continue despite having yet to receive any of the detailed planning documents they expected in January.

The full input I made to the the enquiry is on the left menu.  My previous input to County Council and was almost identical

I went to the PCT meeting to question the response to the consultation on Heart Attack Services, essentially a switch from thrombolysis by paramedics to Angioplasty (inflating a balloon with a stent round it in a coronary artery) at Papworth, Basildon or Norwich hospital as the primary initial treatment (intervention).  The language does not make these things easy to follow and the Strategic Health Authority  does not make sufficient evidence available for people to understand the issues involved.  That gives a feeling of secrecy, decisions predetermined and a focus on costs to the detriment of patients.

The claimed intention is to improve the “outcomes” for the 25% of the approximately 770 heart attack patients that go to Ipswich per year.  However people are concerned that the long journey times from rural Suffolk will be a major problem.  The significant improvement in outcome from the treatment change is reduced as the time to treatment increases and at some time becomes a detriment.  One of the objectors had some quite simple but convincing data on the issue.  Such evidence should be made public and I made that request.  The board appear frightened that it is too “technical” and will not be understood but I believe they underestimate people’s abilities.

We need convincing that lives in Suffolk will not be sacrificed so that others closer to the treatment centres can be saved.  If treatments must be different for those who would face long journey times we need to be assured that it will not be denied on grounds of equality of treatment.  The board was asking that contingency plans be in place to ensure that if an ambulance were delayed then thrombolysis or an air ambulance would be available as a backup.  They had spent an entire hour discussing this!!

Some residents are suggesting they should not vote to show the strength of their feeling about the MP’s expenses scandal.  They feel that we are all tarred with the same brush and should take the same approach to the County election.  I believe that while this is very tempting it is not the best approach.

Many MP’s have been taking totally unreasonable advantage of the weak, virtually non-existent control of their expenses system.  They clearly feel that they had a right to some £23,000 of expenses irrespective of the money they had actually spent carrying out their duties.  Some of the claims are outrageous and this is our money

However, the election on 4^thJune is for the County Council and Europe and the issues are radically different from those afflicting Westminster.  If you do not vote, you are leaving the selection of your Councillors and MEP’s entirely to those who do.  They may have radically different views to your own and in the worst case; they can be extremists with very unpleasant ideas. 

I would urge you to vote in line with your beliefs whatever they are although clearly I would like to see you vote Liberal Democrat. 

We do not have a ridged “whip” system so we can vote, and I have voted, the way the people we represent want us to, even when that is against the views of others in the group.  However as a national party Liberal Democrats can call for action across all levels of government: District, County, Commons, Lords and in Europe.  I believe that we offer the benefits of  local councillors making  local decisions but strategic reach when that is necessary

Our Gipping Valley www site shows our proioities in some detail