Westminster Watching

For keen ‘Westminster watchers’ one of the most interesting of recent events has been the questioning by Tony Blair and his supporters of the direction that Ed Milband is leading the Labour Party. For a decade Blair dominated the political scene. He was fortunate in taking over as leader at a time when the Conservatives had been in power for fifteen years and a change at the following election was almost inevitable but, nevertheless, once in power he kept his Party, perhaps against its better instincts, on the Common or Centre ground and, as a result, won another two elections. Now Miliband, perhaps because he is naturally someone of the Left, is pulling his Party in that direction and the polls indicate that the Opposition’s lead – which is almost inevitable in mid-term – is slipping.

In part this is, no doubt, a reflection of the fact that they have no alternative economic policy. Voters can immediately see that a policy of ‘we’re in debt and have borrowed too much so let’s borrow some more to get out of debt’ just doesn’t add up. We all know that if we ran our household budget on that basis things would only get worse. 

Parliament is both a workplace and, at the same time, a theatre. The theatricals can be witnessed every week at Prime Minister’s Questions and the workplace day in day out. This week, for example, you may well have seen a glimpse of PMQs on the TV news but the chances are you won’t have heard much about the debate on  Accident and Emergency waiting times, the role of reservists in the regular army, childhood obesity and diabetes, plug-in vehicles policy, or the effect of the weather on upland sheep farmers. These were just a small selection of debates from the last week – and that’s just in the two main debating chambers. Elsewhere committees, all-party groups and many others were busy trying to persuade or cajole government into a change here or a u-turn there in order to bring about what they are debating or campaigning about.

Sometimes visitors can drop in at Westminster and see an all-action bloodbath between the party leaders – though not this week as PMQs wasn’t all that exciting – and other days a polite exchange of views about the European Commission’s Fourth Railway Package – a subject debated last Thursday, and a well-mannered series of questions to Transport department ministers – another of Thursday’s sessions. Whenever constituents contact me to arrange a visit to Westminster it’s usually a Wednesday they want; to be there on for the Cameron v Miliband show but tickets are limited and allocated on the basis of each Member getting two tickets three or four times a year. So when arrangements for constituents to visit last Thursday were put in hand I explained that it might not be all that exciting. What I didn’t know until the day before was that it would be Prorogation Day and with it another of Parliament’s quaint rituals.

It’s the State Opening of Parliament in reverse but this time with no Queen, no Prime Minister, or any other leading players such as Maltravers Herald of Arms Extraordinary and all of the other weird and wonderful characters who appear for that event. Nevertheless Black Rod marches from the Lords to the Commons, has the door slammed in his face and once he gains entry politely commands that the Commons, that is the ‘Knights, Citizens and Burgesses in the Commons assembled’ to attend Her Majesty’s Commissioners (the leaders of the various parties in the Lords) to hear Her Majesty’s message and to hear the Royal Assent being granted.

It is noted that: My Lords, in obedience to Her Majesty's Commands, and by virtue of the Commission which has now been read, We do declare and notify to you, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled, that Her Majesty has given Her Royal Assent to the several Acts in the Commission mentioned; and the Clerks are required to pass the same in the usual Form and Words.

Then, after the name of each new Act of Parliament is announced one of the Clerk’s bows to the Commissioners, turns towards the MPs and says La Reyne le veult – the Queen wills it.  

We could of course dispense with this quaint ceremony and life would go on but we would lose some of the colour and gaiety that we all need and also we would lose the history of why we do things this way. Why do we slam the door in the face of the Queen’s Messenger? Why do we announce Royal Assent in Norman French? Why do all three parts of the legislature come together to take part in this little ceremony? and so on.................

Speaking of ceremony and ritual I was fortunate enough to be to attend Margaret Thatcher’s funeral service at St. Paul’s when we heard the traditional words of the King James Bible and the Book of Common Prayer – so much more dignified than the more modern versions. The Church of England and the military together know all there is to know about ritual and ceremony and can always be relied on to put on a dignified and uplifting event – and, as ever, they did not let us down.   

The Thatcher Years

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 who I most admire are those who 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 who 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.

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 18 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.

Alcohol

THE fuss in recent days over minimum unit pricing for alcohol is a classic example of the difficulties governments of whatever colour face when deciding the best way forward with some complex area of policy.

Modern democracies have to launch consultations on contentious policy issues, which is all very reasonable and proper, but of course opposition parties love to play politics.

The alcohol pricing issue is a classic example; one minister, perhaps because his area of responsibility is Health, reflects the view of many in the medical profession and says that on balance he or she favours trying to reduce consumption by increasing the cost whilst another more inclined to personal freedom and encouraging individual responsibility or maybe has many constituents employed in the brewing industry – all perfectly legitimate considerations – says it is best left to the market to determine.

The immediate response is accusations of chaos and confusion, shouts of U-turn and other nonsense. It's as if ministers weren't allowed to have opinions of their own and play a part in influencing decisions.

Of course, when a policy decision is taken, collective responsibility comes into play and ministers must stick to the agreed policy without which government would become completely unmanageable.

My preference is not to interfere with the free market but to encourage a more robust approach by the police supported by the courts.

In questions on this subject last week it was revealed it cost more than £60 to process an arrest for being drunk and disorderly, but that doesn't seem too bad if fines started at £500 and ranging up to £5,000 plus costs were to be imposed.

Week in Westminster

It was in the mid-80s that I first spoke in a debate about Humber Bridge tolls. That was in the days of the old Great Grimsby Borough Council.

It’s been quite a marathon but last Tuesday evening I was able to speak in another debate; this time in the House of Commons when the latest Humber Bridge Bill was passed without a vote.

That doesn’t mean it is, as yet, the law of the land but it is arguably now passed its first major hurdle. Second Reading debates are when Bills receive or not, as the case maybe, approval in principle. From there it is to a Bill Committee that will scrutinise it line by line. It may well emerge from that stage with a few minor amendments before passing into the House of Lords where it will go through a similar process.

So, in just a few months time the new Bridge Board will be in place and with it the authority to decide what concessions to grant and, of course, the one we all want to see is free crossings for those seeking medical treatment.

A long haul, but it’s very satisfying to be there from start to (almost) the finish,    

Also last Tuesday I took part in a debate about planning policy and ‘its impact on urban views and our high streets.’

I rather suspect that this was not something that provided a great boost to the viewing figures. Partly this would be because it took place in Westminster Hall – that’s the smaller debating chamber where localised or more specialised debates can take place – which means it was only webcast, though the BBC’s excellent Parliament Channel will no doubt fill the small hours with it over the next few days.

Planning is one of those dreary subjects that we all moan about from time to time when we spot what we consider to be some hideous building blotting the landscape. But consider also how our favourite views can be spoilt by a poor planning decision. I write this on Thursday evening as my train is passing through Lincoln and look up at the magnificent cathedral, truly one of those views that must be protected at all costs.

During the debate I was able to sing the praises of Cleethorpes’ ‘high street’ – Saint Peter’s Avenue where we have a range of shops that offer top rated service and variety; we are very fortunate when compared with many of our towns. How long we can retain them is a matter for us. If the growth of internet sales continues at its present rate then there will be further change.

Changing shopping habits over the last thirty to forty years with the growth of the superstore has already resulted in an excess of retail units. Travel around any of our towns and shopping parades of years ago are boarded up dragging down the whole area. Some high streets have migrated to the out-of-town centres where the big supermarkets are surrounded by other stores providing for our almost every need.

Councils and governments can react to these changes but this will always be after the event. The more forward-thinking are able to manage change better but the future of our high streets are in the hands of the consumers – us.         

Turning to broader horizons; the Italian General Elections have produced a result that looks unlikely to produce a stable coalition government. If you look at elections across the democratic world they seem to indicate that support for the established parties is declining. Is that a symptom of the difficult financial situation and a reaction against governments for prescribing nasty medicine or is it the early stages of the terminal breakdown of the party system?

The British first-past-the-post voting system is designed to elect governments rather than a representative assembly – and remember it’s less than two years since the electorate overwhelmingly rejected changing the system in a national referendum. If more votes go to minor parties or independents in a system not designed to accommodate them we will end up with a series of hung parliaments and more coalitions delivering bits of their manifestos which creates yet more disillusionment.        

Like most institutions in this fast-moving world when change happens at an unprecedented rate the parties are indeed changing but such is the level of cynicism of the political process that the change seems to be going unnoticed.  

Week in Westminster

The Long-awaited and much-trailed political event of the last week was to have been the Prime Minister’s speech about our relationship with the European Union. But events in North Africa have intervened and, quite rightly, Mr Cameron has postponed his speech.

The recent headlines focussing on the benefits and welfare system point to one of the difficulties politicians have to face up to - how to face making difficult decisions that, though the decision they have reached, is popular in broad outline, the detail is less so. One of two biggest issues on the doorstep at the last election was the welfare state, in particular abuse and what were considered over-generous benefits paid to those undeserving of the taxpayers’ largesse.

The polls indicate that voters still hold to those views, but of course feel less enthusiastic if their particular benefit is reduced or withdrawn. Perfectly understandable of course but governments have, as they are very fond of telling us, to make unpopular decisions and in the present financial circumstances that’s absolutely true and it would make no difference which party was in power – you can’t pay out what you haven’t got unless you’re foolish enough to borrow beyond what you have the means to repay as Gordon Brown seemed prone to do.

I was an article in one of Thursday’s morning papers that contained figures that show action must be taken and can’t be postponed. I quote the figures not to pass judgement as to whether or not they should exist merely to show how unsustainable the present system is.

In the early part of the Blair years there was, thanks in part to the financial position he inherited, a period of unprecedented growth and yet the number of people in work and receiving benefits rose from 700,000 in 1997 to 4.7 million on the equivalent entitlements in 2010 and that figure rises to well in excess of six million if you include housing benefit. Latest estimates indicate that the bill for this, excluding housing benefit to be £22.5 billion. A lone parent with one child must earn above £34,000 before they cease to qualify for benefits, other than child benefit. I hear the voice of John McEnroe saying ‘you can’t be serious.’ £34,000 a year and still receiving benefit paid for out of the taxes of those earning much much less.

So all politicians of all parties across the Western World are wrestling with massive problems and there will have to be a lot more of those difficult decisions I referred to before we get ourselves back on an even keel.

I even heard UKIP’s Nigel Farage say on Radio 4 a few days ago that paying the winter heating allowance to wealthy pensioners couldn’t carry on. It’s unusual for politicians who know they’re are not going to be in power state something that’s unpopular. Why should they?

Talking of unpopular decisions brings me to the future of Grimsby’s Scartho Baths. Having succeeded in getting an Adjournment debate at Westminster to highlight the Council’s folly it was encouraging to hear the minister‘s reply and a couple of sections stood out.

He said: “The Government believe that it is for local authorities, in consultation—I stress, in consultation—with their communities to decide how to make best use of their assets, including the relative benefits and costs of replacing or refurbishing assets, because they are best placed to know what works and what is most appropriate for their local area, in a way that central Government cannot. To do that, local authorities must consult and work with local residents and take their views on board.”

Secondly, “Local authorities should consider the most efficient way to use what are ultimately scarce resources and, most importantly, that they do so in genuine consultation with the communities that they serve.”

The minister is in the same Department that provides the Council with most of its income – not someone you would want to fall out with if you were in charge of the Council’s finances!

Will North East Lincolnshire Council pause, consult and think again? I suspect not. 

On the Move

I like travelling, land sea or air, just being on the move I find interesting and fascinating. Having to spend half the week in London it’s just as well. The journey back and forth to King’s Cross can occasionally be tiresome but  watching great swathes of humanity getting from A to B and imagining why they are on the move always holds my attention.

On Thursday evening I boarded the 19.03 from King’s Cross as I do most weeks. More often than not the person who sits next to you opens their laptop and taps out replies to their emails or they open a book or magazine leaving only the imagination to guess something about their lives. Today though was different. It didn't take much to work out that my fellow-passenger worked for the Underground; the logo on his jacket was a bit of a give-away!

I was reading a pamphlet from Network Rail that I’d picked up at a Westminster meeting earlier in the week. ‘Do you work for the railways?’ he asked. ‘No’ came my reply, ‘but you obviously work on the Underground’ I responded.

We then moved onto a discussion about the merits or otherwise of High Speed 2, Crossrail and which of the London airports should expand. Eventually I was forced to admit that I was the MP for Cleethorpes and he reminisced about a visit he’d made some fifteen years earlier. He remembered the train passing the docks and the football ground.

His next comment took me by surprise as being a politician isn't necessarily a guarantee of appreciation and admiration! ‘I don’t know how you put up with it’ he said, ‘no one’s ever satisfied, you’re criticised from all sides, and (I am not making this up) you’re underpaid.’

I expressed my surprise. It turns out that he earns £50,000 a year, gets cheap travel that makes it worthwhile commuting to Peterborough five days a week and the 45 minute journey means he gets home quicker than some of his workmates who live in outer London.

He liked Mayor Boris but thought he’d be disastrous as a Prime Minister, thought the LibDems were out of their depth and that Labour had no chance of winning the next election because people would remember the mess they’d left behind last time and, apart from that, Ed Miliband just didn't measure up to leading the country.

As you might imagine I was beginning to warm to him by now. ‘Do your workmates think the same about Miliband?’ I asked. ‘Even the Labour supporters won’t vote for Ed’ came the reply.

Conversation then moved on, we covered the Humber Bridge, memories of the Humber Ferry, the complexities of major infrastructure projects, petrol tax, how amazingly successful the Olympics had been and aid to India. By this time we were pulling into Peterborough.

So in a nutshell my travelling companion’s manifesto for the Conservatives at the next election would be: build on the Olympics success by getting on with some major infrastructure projects, develop Stansted airport, freeze petrol duty, get Boris into Parliament (but no further), limit foreign aid to obviously genuine cases – Ethiopia yes, India no. For Labour the message is change your leader, face up to economic reality and hope that voters have short memories.  . For the LibDems I guess it could be summed up by staying at home and saving the money it would cost to print the manifesto.

Was my travelling companion expressing the views of the majority? Do you agree with any or all of what he had to say?

To take one of the points raised by the train driver, petrol duty; as it happens only a few hours before my train journey I had been speaking in a debate in which MPs from all sides supported a motion put forward by Robert Halfon the Chairman of the All-Party Fair Fuel for Motorists Group of which I am the Deputy-Chairman supporting an investigation by the Office of Fair Trading and the Financial Services Authority into the oil markets.

We all ask why, when oil prices go up, the price at the pump seems to rise almost overnight but when it falls it takes so much longer to go down? Is it an urban myth or is it true? The pressure is now on the oil companies to justify their position.       

Week in Westminster

A few weeks ago we passed the halfway point in this Parliament and I was reflecting on how quickly the political scene changes and the issues that had come and gone; some still with us, others. I suspect, forgotten by most if, in fact, they ever registered in the first place.

It is of course so easy nowadays to contact your MP. That in itself is good but an MPs postbag or inbox still represents only a tiny proportion of the electorate. One of the difficulties is that so many of the emails are generated by pressure groups. Of itself there is nothing wrong with that as they represent the senders opinion and I do my very best to respond to them all. But, are they representative of public opinion as a whole?

The biggest issues when measured by the volume of emails have been the level of Air Passenger Duty, Petrol Duty, NHS reforms, the takeover of BSkyB, the proposals to reform the Forestry Commission, Fish Discards, and a whole range of animal welfare issues of which the greatest number of emails have concerned the proposed badger cull and beak trimming of hens.

Does this mean that energy costs, our relationship with the EU, war and peace, crime and punishment, standards in education, climate change, civil liberties, housing, immigration and pensions – to name just a few – are not considered to be as important by my constituents. Clearly not and I suspect these issues, taken as a whole, will have a greater impact on the outcome of the next General Election than those in the first group.

So the inbox is not a guide to public opinion since, despite the ease of communication only a small proportion of the electorate ever contact their MP. I’m fortunate in being a local person and living locally as I still find the best measure of public opinion is the ‘feel’ you get from being part of the community. I rarely visit the shops, supermarket, football match or any other event without someone giving me the benefit of their opinion sometimes by accident as I was queuing up in the newsagent’s in Cleethorpes the other day and the woman in front of me, unaware that I was behind her, was castigating all politicians. But just like we all have opinions on who Roy Hodgson should pick for the England team we all have opinions on where this or any other government or council are going wrong – and rightly so. So keep the emails and letters coming and feel free to stop me in the street. It’s one of the precious blessings of our democracy that we can freely express our opinions.

What will be the biggest issues in 2013, of course the ever-present concerns will dominate but the unexpected always happens in politics – that is the only certainty.