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.'

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.