Policies & Promises

“You say one thing and then do something else, never keep your promises”

As a politician I have, of course, heard that many times – sometimes justifiably, sometimes not. We are also told that, as seems to be the case at last week’s county council elections, politicians aren’t listening to the voters.

For the politician there’s a problem here; if a particular issue climbs up the list of concerns of voters should politicians listen and change their policies accordingly or should they say “we can’t change our policies because we promised something different?”

Then there’s the question of how much difference policies make to voters when they decide who to support? I ask this because so often there appears to be a conflict between votes cast and the policies being pursued.

Take last week’s results in the Lincolnshire County area; in Boston and the south of the county immigration, quite understandably, was the key issue but if we look at a couple of other UKIP policies – they want to see the return of grammar schools – but in Lincolnshire they never went away; Conservatives on the county council fought tooth and nail in the seventies and eighties to retain them and succeeded. On-shore wind turbines are almost always opposed by local communities and the county council has the most robust policies the law allows but it didn’t stop UKIP campaigning on these matters as if the exact opposite was the case. Just as an aside it must be noted that here, as we await the decision on the Able UK planning application for their South Humber Energy Park to abandon wind energy which promises so much for the local economy would be disastrous.

Another strange result was in Gainsborough where a long-standing LibDem councillor lost his seat to UKIP. LibDems are the most pro-European of the three main parties so why would anyone swop their vote from them to UKIP? I pose these questions not to criticise how the electorate cast their votes – they are the masters – but to highlight how difficult it is for politicians and parties to cope with the criticism that ‘they aren’t listening’. Actually political parties spend enormous amounts of money in trying to ‘listen’ and to find out what voters think; surveys, polls and so on; personally I prefer the supermarket queue.

Another mystery is why Nigel Farage, formerly of the City of London and public school educated, or Eton educated Boris Johnson seem immune from the ‘out-of touch, public school boy’ label that the Labour Party do their best to stick on David Cameron and George Osborne. Is it just that both Nigel & Boris are engaging characters – which they are – or is there more to it? When the General Election comes will it be charisma or competence that triumphs? At a local level will the fact that both I and Austin Mitchell oppose our membership of the EU lose votes from pro-European supporters in our respective parties? Or will it be that the only way to secure an IN/OUT referendum will be to elect a Conservative Government that makes the difference?

Westminster has, of course, been dominated by the Queen’s Speech which, after all the splendour, is followed by six days of debate on its contents. Some have criticised it for being light on legislation – which seems to assume that all legislation is good; which is certainly not the case. Undoubtedly the Immigration Bill will attract much attention. It deals with many of the issues that those voters in Boston were expressing their concerns about, such as limiting access to public services only to those who have contributed through their taxes and making it easier to remove people from the UK who abuse the ‘right to a family life’ section of the Human Rights Act.

There are Bills dealing with pensions, a new Energy Bill aimed at ensuring prices are fair; others dealing with consumer rights, adult social care costs, law and order matters child care and much more. But the focus is still on stabilising our economy and encouraging growth as it should be and it is the economy that, despite my earlier comments about Europe, grammar schools and the like, that will determine whether or not the Government retains the confidence of the electorate in just two years time.

Perhaps it will be the Party that sets out a programme for dealing with the multitude of issues that face the country rather than parties that outline the problems but offer no solutions.

Sunshine & Spending

THE sun has been shining on Cleethorpes in more ways than one; last Saturday we celebrated Armed Forces Day by cutting the ribbon on the magnificent new memorial. Thousands lined the streets in tribute to our Forces and at the same time gave a boost to the local economy. To have the Royal Marines Band, added greatly to the occasion. I particularly enjoyed the sunset ceremony, which is always moving and has enormous dignity.

The day emphasised that despite the difficulties caused by the Hatfield landslip blocking the rail line between Scunthorpe and Doncaster, Cleethorpes is very much open for business and later in the week we heard the good news that the line would be open for business again from the start of this week. Great news; since it means normal business by the time of the school holidays.

The main events at Westminster since my last column have been the Spending Review and the Government's plans for major investment in our infrastructure. Though more is needed we should not forget that we've already benefited from the Humber Bridge tolls reduction, upgrading the A160 access into Immingham Docks, enterprise zones and successful bids into the Regional Growth Fund.

None of us like austerity but the overwhelming majority acknowledge the reality that no individual, business or country can go on living beyond its means year after year.

The scale of our problem can be seen just by looking at the level of government spending. When the Labour Party came to power in 1997, total spending was well below £500 billion a year and it increased modestly for three years. That's because, as you may remember, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown made much of the fact that they would stick to the spending plans adopted by the outgoing Tory government.

Then Gordon Brown took the brakes off and spending began to rise. If the economy continues to grow all's well but economies don't always grow; there are economic cycles and despite Mr Brown's misguided belief that he had conquered boom and bust I suspect that deep down very few really believed him. Of course, we wanted to, but by the time the downturn came spending had hit £700 billion and still rising.

One of the other significant debates from last week focused on High Speed 2 – the proposed new rail line from London to the Midlands and North.

Opposition comes in two forms: those living along the route fear loss of value to their property and those who oppose the cost. Then there are those who say why spend all this money to knock half an hour off an already pretty quick journey time. Though speed is a factor the proposal that this Government inherited from the previous Labour administration is about capacity; our rail network is full and demand goes on rising.

At the time the railways were privatised in the mid-90s there were 750 million passenger journeys per year; now there are 1.5 billion and freight is also on the up.

So why should I, as an MP in this area, support it?

Unless the new line is built, the chances of northern Lincolnshire and other areas off the main lines getting improved services is very limited.

Also remember that, measured by tonnage, 25 per cent of all the freight moved in the UK starts or ends in Immingham. So many jobs here depend on it.

Then, of course, there is the potential for Tata Steel in Scunthorpe. Already the production of rail is a major part of its operations. I'm constantly pressing ministers to ensure that everything possible is done to make sure that British-based businesses get the benefit of the enormous orders that will come forward as a result of the project.

The other big news is that on Friday, despite opposition from Labour and the Lib-Dems, the Bill to enshrine in law that there must be an In-Out Euro referendum before the 2017 deadline passed its first hurdle. Great news; whichever side of the argument you are on, it's only right that the people should determine whether or not we have ever closer union and for the avoidance of doubt I will vote the same way as in 1975 – NO – the sooner we leave the better.

Trains & Boats and Planes

It’s just turned 10 o'clock on Wednesday evening and I've just arrived at Doncaster bus station to be told the next bus that will get me to Scunthorpe before rejoining the train isn't for another hour.

I’m returning twenty-four hours earlier than usual so as to visit the Lincolnshire Show and in doing so show my support for our farming community and all of those who work in the rural economy that is still an important part of the business and social part of the community in my constituency.

But I can’t help reflecting on a certain irony; this afternoon I met with the Transport Secretary Patrick McLaughlin as part of my campaign to restore a direct train service between London and Grimsby/Cleethorpes and after our 7 o'clock vote and a quick dash to King’s Cross I find my planned 19.52 service is cancelled but I have three minutes to catch the 19.33 and be in Doncaster in time for the bus and train that will get me home soon after eleven. As we pull out the guard tells us that all trains are subject to delay because of an attempted suicide at Peterborough.

I and my fellow-passengers will never know what drove this man to attempt to take his own life but it puts things into perspective; what’s an hour’s delay in comparison?

My meeting with the minister went well – there are no promises of course and we must remember that there is always a Plan B. If the main East Coast franchise doesn’t include a service to Cleethorpes there is an Open-Access Operator currently discussing providing services on the route via Scunthorpe and Doncaster with a view to starting the services during 2016.

There can be no doubt that a direct train service to London will provide a considerable boost to our local economy.

Talking of the local economy and the link with train services it’s good to note that the Hatfield landslip is well on the way to being cleared and the line between Scunthorpe and Doncaster re-opened ensuring that our main route to South Yorkshire and beyond is back in action before the school holidays allowing visitors from what has always been the main Cleethorpes market for visitors to the resort ready access.

On Wednesday the Prime Minister reported back following the G8 summit and had some positive news in respect of ensuring that multi-national companies pay their fair share of tax but the subject that generated far more questions and showed what widespread concern exists in Parliament was the potentially extremely dangerous policy of arming the Syrian rebels. As the Government has made very clear they have made no decision to do so and their aim in suggesting it as a real possibility is to bring pressure to bear, and as such to do anything other than make clear it is a possibility would undermine the threat.

It’s a perfectly logical position to take though I have to say not one that I’m persuaded by. I am one of the 81 Tory members to have signed a letter to the Prime Minister urging that whatever decision the Government come to it must be put to the vote in the House of Commons. I will certainly need a lot of convincing that we should pour yet more arms into an already highly volatile country. Indeed I find it hard to believe I could be persuaded at all.

Next week will be dominated by the Spending Review for the year 2015-16. Clearly there will have to be a further cuts, and we now know that a future Labour government would stand by the spending plans of the Coalition government. This at least is a belated recognition of reality by Labour but much too late. The economy, as always, will be the determining factor at the General Election; there are beginning to be signs of the economy picking up as indicated by many of the underlying facts and figures. The Conservatives are way ahead of Labour in the polls on their ability to manage the economy so why would anyone vote for the two Eds to become the next occupiers of 10 and 11 Downing Street? Surely the real thing is always better.              

Conservative Home article:

Turning the clock back to October 2011 when I was one of the 81 rebels who voted for an In–Out EU referendum I referred during the debate to having attended a Civic Service the previous day and, even for me, as a confirmed Euro-sceptic who voted to leave in 1975, being surprised at what I described as ‘the real people of England’ when every person I spoke to was urging me to vote for the referendum; I never had any doubts that I would do so but their support and encouragement spurred me on.

The weekend after the recent county elections I read and listened to more reports and analysis on them than is good for anyone. Then later, in need of some light relief, I settled down to watch the ‘Antiques Road Show  and couldn't help thinking that here again were gathered the ‘real people of England’ – loyal, hard-working and, whatever their voting habits, conservative by nature; many of them would have voted for UKIP – for most of them that would be a first – the challenge for the Conservative Party is to make sure it’s the last but with the European elections coming next year that is going to be extremely difficult. Vote for the same party twice running and it can easily become habit-forming.

My constituency takes in part of North & North East Lincolnshire Unitary Councils who had no elections this year, though in April UKIP secured their second seat in a North East Lincolnshire by-election – both in seats that more often than not return a Tory so on 2nd May my centre of attention focussed on the neighbouring Lincolnshire County Council area where UKIP scored spectacular, but, in the main, predictable gains.

The area around Boston was where the most spectacular gains came. These were the predictable ones; with immigration at the levels they have experienced in recent years. Large cities can absorb immigrants in a way that small provincial towns can’t. Local public services struggle, resentment grows.

The public look and see a link between ‘Europe’ and immigration, ‘Europe’ and the inability to deport known terrorists and criminals, the link between ‘Europe’ and an obligation to pay benefits to those who have not contributed. Whether these links are real or perceived matters not; they are deeply ingrained in the public consciousness.

The Prime Minister has set out a perfectly logical, sensible way forward, and with an in/out referendum guaranteed by a future majority Conservative government it should be a good package to sell to the electorate. The problem is that the public are ahead of the game and won’t wait for four years. They've been let down once too often.

Leaders of all parties have got to appreciate that millions of the British people regard our membership of the EU as being under sufferance with even many of those old enough to have voted in 1975 feeling resentful that they were deceived into believing it was a trading arrangement rather than a political project.

The project has developed and moved on without the people giving their consent; after every new treaty there should have been a referendum. I rather suspect that we would still be where we are now but without the widespread resentment that exists.

At the moment the political momentum is with those who identify with the public, share their frustrations and identify with so much of what they perceive to be wrong rather than those seeking to manage the realities of a complex world. In the battle between charisma and competence charisma is in the lead.

If we are to return David Cameron to Downing Street in 2015 we need to deliver a referendum or at the very least set the arrangements into statute. Elvis would say ‘It’s Now or Never’ perhaps we can’t deliver that but it certainly needs to be sooner rather than later.

Renewable Energy

With much attention focused on the potential for development of the renewable energy sector on our area it is understandable that there has been much comment locally about last week’s debate and vote in the House of Commons on the Energy Bill and MPs In-boxes have been filling up with ‘round-robin’ emails prepared by various campaign groups asking us to support a formal de-carbonisation target.

Though there were some longer versions most of these messages just asked that the Government set this target and all would be well. No thought seems to have been given to the impact on existing jobs or the inevitable increase in already high household and business energy bills. Like most issues this one is complex; not one that can be summed up in a couple of sentences.

Adopting the Target would have increased costs to every consumer in the country including the intensive energy users which is of particular importance here in northern Lincolnshire where, for example, Tata steel and the oil and petro-chemicals plants based along the Humber Bank employ thousands of people as well as hundreds working in power stations and the associated transport sector. Governments across the developed world are wrestling with the joint challenges of delivering energy security in a low carbon and affordable way. To deliver on those aims, we have to rebuild our energy infrastructure, making up for a dismal failure over past years to secure the necessary levels of investment. The Energy Bill that was approved last week is a vital instrument in securing that investment. Opposing a formal de-carbonisation target and supporting a low-carbon economy are not mutually exclusive. The case for the target is less about new low-carbon electricity generating plant - as there are other specific contractual measures in the Bill to deliver this - and more about the vital need to secure industrial jobs in the UK to build that infrastructure.

It is good for Ministers to challenge people to raise their aspirations and ambitions, and targets are part of that process, but they can only be relevant if we know how to meet them. The challenge with a de-carbonisation target for 2030 or any other date is that we cannot yet know how it can be met - or indeed, if it can be met. Nuclear may not happen on the scale hoped for - and it is hard to see how we can meet a de-carbonisation target without new nuclear. Many supporters of the target also oppose nuclear; the reality is that without nuclear the target, even if it could be achieved would be unimaginably expensive. Some of the emerging renewable technologies, such as offshore wind and tidal, may remain too expensive, and we don't yet know if their costs will come down to make them affordable for consumers. Carbon Capture and Storage, which could give a low-carbon future for coal and gas, has yet to be proven commercially. Unabated gas is relatively plentiful and is certainly lower in its carbon intensity than coal, but on its own would not enable us to reach the low level of emissions which the 2030 target would be likely to require. My difficulty with the target, therefore, is that we would be requiring it to be set without knowing that it can be met, and that cannot be a responsible decision for government to make, when the costs of getting it wrong would have to be picked up by consumers for decades to come. On the other hand, a target could clearly help secure the industrial renaissance a low-carbon economy could deliver. We all want to see jobs in the construction and the supply chain come to the UK, but companies are unlikely to invest unless they can see an order-book going well beyond 2020 and out to 2030.

Yet the de-carbonisation target does not deliver that certainty. Certainly, it says there needs to be new plant built, but no one can know which technology would deliver it. Investors will still require a clearer understanding of the likely market in the 2020s if they are to proceed, and so a clear agenda is more important than a general amorphous target. Moving on, I note that North East Lincolnshire Council is to reduce the number of council meetings and cost saving is given as one of the reasons. Sounds reasonable doesn't it? Or does it? Governments and councils don’t like scrutiny it shows up inefficiencies, is inconvenient, time-consuming and, if it exposes mistakes can be embarrassing.

When I was first elected a councillor in 1980, with the exception of some planning decisions almost every decision taken by a committee had to be approved or, equally important, rejected by the Full Council which met every month and meant that all councillors were involved in decision-making. During my time on the Council I always objected to more powers being delegated to committees or officers. When we elect our local councillor we hope and expect that he or she have some input into decision-making and preferably a vote on matters. Sadly accountability and democracy are being further eroded in North East Lincolnshire and that should worry us all

Achievements

It’s so easy to miss what governments and councils are actually achieving in their day-to-day delivery of services when the political headlines are dominated by who has rebelled on this or that issue or some piece of trivia picked up from someone’s Twitter account.

So here’s a list of some of the Government’s achievements that you may have missed:

·         The Deficit down by a third.

·         Net immigration cut by a third.

·         Crime down by a third.

·         Benefits capped so that no out-of-work household can claim more than the average working family earns.

·         1.25 million new jobs in the private sector.

·         A quarter of a million new small businesses created.

·         A record number of apprentices – half a million in the last year alone.

·         Tax cut by £600 for 24 million people and over two million taken out of income tax altogether.

·         Government funding to freeze Council Tax three years running.

·         Energy customers being forced to put customers on the lowest tariff.

·         A cut in the EU budget and a treaty that wasn’t in the UK’s interests vetoed.

·         6000 more doctors employed in the NHS and 6000 fewer managers

It’s quite an impressive list, particularly for a coalition. Coaltions by their very nature are always more difficult to manage than single party administrations – and they’re difficult enough! If you add the Europe Bill which guarantees a referendum if a new treaty that moves more power from Whitehall to Brussels it becomes even more impressive. There’s also the Academy and Free School programme being driven on by Michael Gove; on the whole pretty good going.

Something else you may have missed was a House of Commons debate last Tuesday about the ‘High Street’ and the impact of changing consumer habits – internet shopping, out-of-town developments etc.

It gave an opportunity for speakers to sing the glories of their own High Street. Here’s part of my contribution; “There is a danger that such debates can turn into a round of “knock the supermarkets,” but let us not forget that, as we heard earlier, supermarkets such as Marks and Spencer and Tesco actually grew from market stalls. Meeting the demands of the consumer is the key here. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe mentioned the Co-op, and I can remember being dragged down Grimsby’s Freeman Street by my mother to the Co-op, which was an enormous department store in those days. It dominated the whole shopping centre and was the Tesco of its day. So there has always been a department store, as it were, with everything under one roof, but the independent retailers must be able to compete with that.

Let me turn to Cleethorpes, the pre-eminent resort on the east coast. It has a very successful high street, St Peter’s Avenue, which is only a mile and a half from Tesco’s out-of-town development. However, having a mix of shops, including independent shops, that meet consumer demand is the key. Those shops in Cleethorpes are thriving and successful, even in these difficult times.”

Of course there will be casualties and every town has more retail units than modern shopping habits demand but there will always be a place for the independent providing of course we – the consumers – use them.

Councils have a big part to play as planning policies must be used both to protect our town centres and recognise that most consumers want the benefits of both the traditional high street and those of out-of-town developments. As often in politics achieving a balance is difficult, sometimes even elusive.

The reason of course that most of what has been going on in parliament this last week has passed unnoticed is that the same-sex marriage bill has dominated the headlines and, despite it being a free-vote, it has been reported as a Tory rebellion. The great thing about these un-whipped votes is that you find yourself walking through the voting lobby with members of all parties and on these moral and ethical issues it’s usually the same group – sadly though we usually find ourselves in a minority.

Whatever side of the argument you were on – and I opposed the changes – it is these debates that often provide the best debates with passionate contributions from both sides.

Conservative Home Article:

As I have mentioned in previous columns I often write them on my Thursday evening journey from King’s Cross back to the constituency but on this occasion I’m on a different journey. The All-Party Rail Group that I chair is returning from a visit and I’m sharing the journey with a Labour shadow minister, and three Labour members of the House of Lords and it has caused me to reflect on the differing perceptions voters have of political parties and those who represent them. One of my travelling companions can trace his hereditary title back to the 15th century. We've heard about the problems faced by a previous generation of his family maintaining their castle and how they had to dispose of some of the country estate in order to do so. This weekend he was hoping to get out on his boat, Oh, and of course he went to Eton.

Though this may not be typical of Labour supporting families, certainly in Cleethorpes, I’m sure that had I described it without mentioning the party label many readers would jump to the conclusion that it was ‘typical Tory.’ It does nevertheless provide an interesting contrast to my own background and that of the vast majority of Conservative supporters. As a child I spent my early years in a terrace house in Fuller Street until my parents were allocated a council house in Grimsby. This though is much more typical of the average Tory voter – it has to be since there could never be a Conservative government without the support of the ‘working-class.’ This is particularly interesting in the week of Margaret Thatcher’s death. As has been made clear by the comments from the more thoughtful of her political opponents she changed the political landscape. Whether or not you admire, regret she was ever in power, or perhaps even despise her it is a fact that she did indeed change not only the Conservative Party but the Labour Party as well and her influence is still being felt across the political spectrum.

The politicians that I most admire are those that achieve real change; to do so at any level is extremely difficult; not only is the 'system' against you but, more often than not, a large part of your own party will be opposed.

Generally speaking, despite always critical of those that hold power, we don’t like change and one of the important functions of the political process is to do just that – manage change. The world is much more complex than ever before and change is coming ever faster. I suspect that this is one of the reasons politicians are much out of favour at the moment – the faster change comes the more difficult it is to manage.

But returning to my opening theme of ‘class and politics’ what Lady Thatcher achieved above all else was to broaden even further the Conservative Party's appeal to include more of the aspiring working classes. After eighteen years of Tory government many transferred their loyalty to Tony Blair’s Labour Party and, remember he even had to change the Party’s name to show how it had broken with its past and was prepared to take forward the 'Thatcher Revolution.'

It is undeniable that the Thatcher governments presided over a period of massive change much of which was particularly painful for those parts of the country that were reliant on heavy industry such as steel, shipbuilding, car production and of course mining. The problem was that what could and should have been a period of more gradual change had to be compressed into a much shorter time. That's because a series of weak governments had ducked the issues making the whole process more painful.

What is undoubtedly true is not just that she showed such determination to restore Britain's place in the world but that the great majority of the British people recognised that it was necessary and stuck with successive Tory governments. It's equally noticeable today that the vast majority recognise that, though the medicine is horrible we have to fight once again to balance the nation's books.

Returning again to my travelling companions. One of the great plus factors about the current crop of Tory MPs elected in 2010, particularly those elected to represent northern constituencies, is that they are from the areas they represent. Compare their CVs with many Labour MPs and you might be surprised. Not the country estate for us but the average semi. Good luck to the Labour lords and the Tory ones for that matter but I'm happy to be a 'working-class Tory.'