Archive for the ‘Conservatives’ Category

(This is an open response to Cllr Reggie Jones, a Labour Councillor for Blacon in Chester)

Oh what a delight it must be to live in Labour Land, where the Government should interfere, spy on, and be treated to jubilation and praise by its ever thankful population.

Or so Cllr Reggie Jones would have you believe.

Allow me to go through his latest claims one-by-one:

1) Low income households will lose the most out of the budget.

£2.13 per week. I’m not disputing that for some it can represent difficult decisions, but this is the same Labour Party who scoffed at the £2.83 per week marriage allowance in the Conservative manifesto. If £2.83 is an insult, then in Labour Land £2.13 must be nothing? Moving on to…

1a) Using the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) report as a critique of the Coalition’s budget.

Labour criticised the IFS report in their April budget, saying it couldn’t factor everything in. In Labour Land they are right, everyone else is wrong and there’s no room for disagreement.

2) Claiming that David Cameron is stepping away from free bus travel, television licences, and winter fuel payments.

Bus travel is being increased to 65 for all – like the pension age for all. Similarly winter fuel payments, and there’s no change to the TV licence being free for over 75′s. I’m afraid Cllr Reggie Jones is scaremongering. Scaremongering is rife in Labour Land, what with Labour sending out targeted cancer leaflets saying people would die if they voted Conservative.

3) The Coalition is abandoning those in need with fixed term social housing.

Social housing should be in place for those who need it most. Is Cllr Reggie Jones suggesting that those reliant on benefits should play second fiddle to a couple who have, through their own success, worked their way up the ranks at work and earn over £60,000 a year? That’s what the Coalition’s policy is to prevent – along with a married couple having a 4 bedroomed house whilst a family of 5 squeeze into a two bed. In Labour Land this is fine, as each bedroom is the size of a small bungalow.

Reality bites, and it would do the Labour Party a great deal of benefit to wise up to the fact that people don’t live in cloud cuckoo land, they live in reality. A debt-ridden reality where people are grown up enough to understand and accept the difficult truth. Britain has no money left (don’t take my word for it, the former Labour Treasury Minister Liam Byrne MP said it!).

The state is a safety net – not a wheelchair. The nanny state is dead – long live freedom and society.

Ed Balls says that as a result of the IFS’ report into the emergency budget that:

“The government’s ideological assault on our welfare state and public services is not simply economic vandalism, I fear it will damage the very fabric of our society too.”

Right, so Labour don’t ideologically believe in spending more and taxing more, like, you know, the abolition of the 10p tax rate?

Getting people dependent on the state, rather than cutting taxes so that they can have more responsibility and control over their own life? Yes, they did that too.

Also, Labour attacked the Conservatives for having the audacity to offer £2.83 per week as tax relief for married couples, calling it an insult. They have also attacked the Coalition for taking a maximum of £2.13 per week away from families.

As for damaging the fabric of our society, why, under 13 years of a ‘progressive’ party, did the gap between rich and poor widen – and by so much?

Labour vandalised the economy – The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are fixing it.

Local Government

• Government will work with local authorities to freeze Council Tax for one year in 2011/12 if local authorities keep increases in spending to a minimum. The terms under which authorities will be compensated for a commitment to freeze or reduce Council Tax will be outlined by the Government in “due course”.
• The Government will monitor lending from the Public Works Loans Board more closely to “ensure the fiscal risks around local authority borrowing decisions are better understood”.
• There will be a two-year public sector pay freeze in 2011/12 and 2012/13 for those earning more than £21k per year, with a £250 flat rate pay rise each year for those earning less than that threshold.
• Local authorities will have a role in working with business to lead local economic development, further details of which will be outlined in a Government White Paper later in the summer. In addition, Regional Development Agencies will be abolished by through the Public Bodies Bill.
• Action will be taken to ensure that top public sectors workers earn no more than twenty times more than the lowest public sector earners.
• Housing Benefit will be capped at a maximum of £400 per week for a four bedroom house, saving £1.8bn by the end of this Parliament.

The Economy
• The UK economy is predicted to grow by 1.2% in 2010, 2.3% in 2011, 2.8% in 2012 and peaking at 2.9% in 2013.
• Consumer Price inflation will increase to 2.7% by the end of 2010, before falling back to target (2.5%).
• Public sector net borrowing will be £149bn this year, £116bn in 2012/13, £89bn in 2012/13, £60bn in 2013/14, £37bn 2013/14, falling to £20bn in 2015/16. Current Government borrowing as a share of GDP is 10%.
• According to OBR predictions, the structural current deficit will be eliminated by 2014/15, with a projected surplus of 0.8% of GDP in 2015/16.
• Unemployment is forecast to peak this year at 8.1% and then fall for each of the next four years, to reach 6.1% in 2015.

Public Spending
• There will be an average 25% reduction in non-protected departmental spending (i.e. all budgets except NHS and international development) over the next four years.
• No further reductions in capital spending were announced, although capital spending will be reassessed in the upcoming Spending Review.
• Detailed spending totals for each government department will be reviewed in the Spending Review and announced on 20 October 2010.
• Current spending will be reduced by £32bn per year by 2014/15. As part of this, £11bn will come from welfare reform savings.

Tax
• VAT will increase from 17.5% to 20% on 4 January 2011.
• The higher rate of Insurance Premium Tax will also rise from 17.5% to 20%, while the standard rate will increase from 5% to 6%.
• The personal income tax free allowance will rise to £7475.
• Capital Gains Tax will increase to 28% for higher rate payers.
• Corporation Tax Rates will be reduced by 4% to 24 pence in the pound by 2014/15 and small companies’ Corporation Tax will be cut to 20% next year.
• From January 2011 a levy will be imposed on banks, and the UK operation of banks from abroad.
• The Employer National Insurance contributions threshold will be raised by £21 a week above indexation in April 2011. National Insurance rates are available here.

Benefits and the Elderly
• A review of the increase of State Pension age to 66 will be accelerated.
• New and existing receivers of disability allowance will be required to undergo a medical assessment from 2013 onwards.
• The link between the State Pension and earnings will be reinstated from April 2011, and there will be a guaranteed annual increase of at least 2.5%.
• Benefits and tax credits will be linked with the Consumer Price Index, rather than the Retail Price Index, which will save £6bn per year by the end of this Parliament.
• Child Benefit will be frozen for the next three years.

I’ll offer my own thoughts on this later.

Yours?

I was having a conversation with some fellow Tories the other night about how I’m not really to the left or the right of the Party – totally across the range looking at each Department of State!

I’d label myself as the following, with some explanations:

Treasury: Right (Low tax, low spend)
Home Office: Left (Socially liberal)
Foreign Office: Left (Non interventionist)
Business: Right
Local Government: Right (More devolution of power)
Culture, Media & Sport: Right
Defence: Left
Education: Right (Love Michael Gove)
Energy & Climate Change: Right (Low tax – prefer the message of saving money by improving efficiencies)
Environment: Left
Health: Right
International Development: Right
Transport: Right (Privatisation)
Work & Pensions: Right (Love IDS)

Thoughts?

The new Member of Parliament for Chester has made his maiden speech at 17:17 on the 27 May 2010 under the Energy and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
debate; below it is in full:

May I be the first to congratulate my hon. Friend Nick de Bois on his entertaining and interesting speech? May I also thank everyone else who has made a maiden speech today? I have learned a lot and I hope that hon. Members will learn a bit from me too.

In the few weeks that I have been here, I have been absolutely amazed that almost every Member I have spoken to, on hearing that I represent the City of Chester, has delighted in telling me of their happy trips to my city. Whether they have been to Chester races, studied at the law college or been there for a romantic weekend away, they have all, without exception, left with a wonderful memory of their visit.

I am proud to say that Chester has always welcomed visitors. Our first recorded visitors were the Romans, who established the legionary fortress on the lower reaches of the River Dee, built the city walls, laid out the road network and enjoyed themselves at the amphitheatre so much that they stayed for almost 400 years. In AD 973, King Edgar came to Chester and established himself as the King of all England when he got the kings of the other northern kingdoms to row him up the river and he started to lay the foundations of what is now the United Kingdom. That marked the start of the long relationship between the city and the Crown that Chester has enjoyed for more than 1,000 years.

The Normans came to our city, built a castle and our magnificent cathedral and then used the city as the base for their conquest of north Wales. The English did not get it all their own way, however: several times the Welsh raided the city, destroyed the bridges across the river and burned down many buildings outside the walls. It is from that period that our famous statute came into force, which forbids Welshmen from entering the city walls after dark and allows those who are in the city at night to be legally shot with a crossbow. Apparently, that statute was never repealed. Fortunately, we live in happier times and, except for the one day of the year when Chester play Wrexham at football, we live in friendship with our Welsh neighbours.

Speaking of football, I must congratulate my predecessor, Christine Russell. When Chester City football club went into administration earlier this year, she was at the forefront of the campaign to bring football back to Chester. I am proud to say that at the start of this month the supporters group City Fans United established a new Chester football club, and we can now look forward to football returning to the Deva stadium in the autumn. Much of that is due to the hard work that was put in behind the scenes by the previous Member for the City of Chester.

Christine also championed international development and improved child care, but she will be most remembered in Chester for her conscientious casework in the city and the help that she gave to so many local people. I have known her for more than 10 years, and although we had many disagreements over politics, I salute the good work that she did locally and I know it is not going to be easy to follow in her footsteps. I have also been delighted by the good will that still exists on both sides of the Chamber towards Christine’s predecessor Gyles Brandreth and his predecessor Sir Peter Morrison, and I hope to be a worthy successor to them all.

Chester is the jewel in crown of the north-west of England, but there is still much that we need to do. Our Gateway theatre closed down in 2007 and we need help to ensure that our dream of having a new theatre and performing arts centre in the city is delivered. I was particularly pleased to hear that the new Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport had promised that lottery funding would be restored to the arts, thus providing many opportunities for towns and cities such as Chester to improve their arts facilities.

We are also lucky to have in the City of Chester Chester zoo, which is one of the leading visitor attractions in the country and a world leader in animal conservation. It has big plans to expand to help to conserve more endangered species, and I look forward to championing it and its good work within Parliament.

Our ancient city walls, our amphitheatre and the mediaeval rows have all been neglected in the past and now need us to protect and champion our heritage. That is why I will be supporting a bid, put in by the local Conservative council, to obtain world heritage site status for the city centre.

In Chester, we have huge ambitions to bring investment into the city, and I will be playing my part, from Parliament, to help my constituents to achieve their dreams.

Chester is also a garrison town. We are the spiritual home to the 1st Battalion the Mercian Regiment-the Cheshires-and I am proud to have a former commanding officer sitting before me. We are also the current home to the 1st Battalion the Royal Welsh Regiment, and all of us in Chester are proud to welcome the battalion back from its recent tour in Afghanistan and looking forward to its homecoming parade in front of Her Majesty the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh in a fortnight’s time.

Chester has thrived as a tourist destination and as a shopping centre. Anyone can stand at the cross in the centre of the city and see visitors from almost every corner of the earth, and I urge all Members to come to Chester and to see for themselves why they, and I, love the city so much.

Chester is an ancient city, but it is also a modern city. Financial giants, such as Bank of America, Lloyds Banking Group and M&S Money, have major bases and employ thousands of people in the City of Chester. It is, quite rightly, a priority of the coalition Government to curb the excesses of the past few years and to re-regulate the banks, but I would implore the Government to remember that financial services create huge wealth for our country and for many places like Chester and that not all people who work in financial services are the greedy bankers of lore. We need to make sure that good financial institutions are able to expand and prosper and that new companies and products are able to enter into the marketplace and by doing so improve the service and reduce the cost of the financial services offered to their consumers. We need stronger and better regulation, but we also need to make sure that it is simpler.

Within the City of Chester constituency, we are also proud to host Urenco’s uranium enrichment plant at Capenhurst. We are all aware of the problems to our energy supply that we face over the next few years. Many of our older coal-fired power stations and nuclear power stations are due for closure. Since 2004, Britain has gone from being a net exporter to a net importer of natural gas, making us dependent on foreign sources and raising concerns over the security of our energy supply. We also, of course, have a duty to ensure that we reduce our nation’s carbon footprint. We want to ensure that all members of our society have access to affordable energy and to see a reduction in fuel poverty.

The 2006 energy review estimated that up to 25 GW of new generating capacity would be needed over the next two decades to fill the gap. That is 25 GW out of a current 76 GW generating capacity-a huge gap by any estimate. The UK is, quite rightly, committed to a renewable energy target of 15% by 2020, and renewables have an important role to play in the sustainability and security of Britain’s future energy supply. But, as the Secretary of State told us earlier, Britain currently generates only 6.6% of its energy requirements from renewable resources. The 15% target by 2020 is extremely challenging and will require a massive step change in the development of renewable supplies if it is to be achieved. Even if we do achieve that target, we will still have a gap of more than 10 GW of generating capacity to fill. As a Member of Parliament with a key part of the UK’s nuclear infrastructure in his constituency, I ask the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend Charles Hendry, to look favourably on the use of new nuclear power generation to help fill the gap.

Nuclear power is clean. It is a low-carbon source of electricity generation. We have secure long-term supplies of fuel. Modern reactors are incredibly safe, and it is a future technology in which Britain can still lead the world. Operators and owners of nuclear power stations have been jumping at the opportunities offered by the previous Government’s draft nuclear policy statement, and there are now 10 sites judged as potentially suitable on, or near to, existing stations. Those sites obviously have to be subject to the normal planning process for major projects, but the Government need to bring forward a national planning statement for ratification by Parliament as soon as possible.

Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to make my maiden speech during such an important debate for our country, and for Chester.

Whilst I’m stuck in Philadelphia at present, I’m using the IT facilities here to catch up with news and emails – in the meantime, please watch this, and tell me it doesn’t excite you:

I have spent my whole political life fighting to open up politics.

So I’d like to make one thing very clear:

This government is going to be unlike any other.

This government is going to transform our politics so the state has far less control over you, and you have far more control over the state.

This government is going to break up concentrations of power and hand power back to people, because that is quite simply how we can build a society that is fair.

This government is going to persuade you to put your faith in politics once again.

I’m not talking about a few new rules for MPs;

Not the odd gesture or gimmick here or there to make you feel a bit more involved.

I’m talking about the most significant programme of empowerment by a British government since the great reforms of the 19th Century.

The biggest shake up of our democracy since 1832, when the Great Reform Act redrew the boundaries of British democracy, for the first time extending the franchise beyond the landed classes.

Landmark legislation, from politicians who refused to sit back and do nothing while huge swathes of the population remained helpless against vested interests.

Who stood up for the freedom of the many, not the privilege of the few.

And it’s that spirit this government will draw on as we deliver our programme for political reform:

A power revolution.

A fundamental resettlement of the relationship between state and citizen that puts you in charge.

Today I want to talk about how we’ll get there.

Three major steps, that will begin immediately:

One: we will repeal all of the intrusive and unnecessary laws that inhibit your freedom.

Two: we will reform our politics so it is open, transparent, decent.

Three: we will radically redistribute power away from the centre, into your communities, your homes, your hands.

Big, sweeping change.

Not incremental, not bit by bit.

Our democracy has suffered at the hands of encroaching centralisation and secrecy for decades.

Take citizens’ rights: eroded by the quiet proliferation of laws that increase surveillance, quash dissent, limit freedom.

Take executive authority: consistently increased by successive administrations to the point that we now have a neutered parliament and government that enjoys almost untrammelled control – over precisely the people who are meant to keep it in check.

Take the welfare state: one of modern society’s greatest liberators – now utterly different to that envisaged by Beveridge because of the sheer degree of centralised control and micromanagement.

Britain was once the cradle of modern democracy.

We are now, on some measures, the most centralised country in Europe, bar Malta.

So, no, incremental change will not do.

It is time for a wholesale, big bang approach to political reform.

That’s what this government will deliver.

I’m a liberal.

My starting point is always optimism about people.

The view that most people, most of the time, will make the right decisions for themselves and their families.

That you know better than I do about how to run your life, your community, the services you use.

So this government is going to trust people.

We know that, when people see a real opportunity to shape the world they live in, they take it.

Just think of the election we’ve just been through.

Thousands of young people rushing to register to vote before they missed the deadline.

When people have power they use it.

And when they are denied it, there is anger and disappointment.

We saw it two weeks ago when across the country hundreds of people were turned away from polling stations on election night.

I am eagerly awaiting the findings of the Electoral Commission’s review into this fiasco…

Not least as an MP representing a Sheffield constituency where it happened…

We must make sure this never happens again.

You must be confident that, come polling day, your voice will be heard.

And – more than that – that chance shouldn’t only come around once every five years.

You should be able to use your voice, to exercise your power, every single day.

Under this government’s plans, you will.

Three steps to new politics.

First, sweeping legislation to restore the hard won liberties that have been taken, one by one, from the British people.

This government will end the culture of spying on its citizens.

It is outrageous that decent, law-abiding people are regularly treated as if they have something to hide.

It has to stop.

So there will be no ID card scheme.

No national identity register, a halt to second generation biometric passports.

We won’t hold your internet and email records when there is just no reason to do so.

CCTV will be properly regulated, as will the DNA database, with restrictions on the storage of innocent people’s DNA.

Britain must not be a country where our children grow up so used to their liberty being infringed that they accept it without question.

There will be no ContactPoint children’s database.

Schools will not take children’s fingerprints without even asking their parent’s consent.

This will be a government that is proud when British citizens stand up against illegitimate advances of the state.

That values debate, that is unafraid of dissent.

That’s why we’ll remove limits on the rights to peaceful protest.

It’s why we’ll review libel laws so that we can better protect freedom of speech.

And as we tear through the statute book, we’ll do something no government ever has:

We will ask you which laws you think should go.

Because thousands of criminal offences were created under the previous government…

Taking people’s freedom away didn’t make our streets safe.

Obsessive lawmaking simply makes criminals out of ordinary people.

So, we’ll get rid of the unnecessary laws, and once they’re gone, they won’t come back.

We will introduce a mechanism to block pointless new criminal offences.

And, we will, of course introduce safeguards to prevent the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.

There have been too many cases of individuals being denied their rights…

And whole communities being placed under suspicion.

This government will do better by British justice.

Respecting great, British freedoms…

Which is why we’ll also defend trial by jury.

Second, reform of our politics.

Reform to reduce the power of political elites…

And to drag Westminster into the 21st century.

Starting with the House of Lords.

Did you know we’ve been talking about reforming the House of Lords for over 150 years?

It’s one of the areas where all the parties agree.

The time for talk is over.

This government will replace the House of Lords with an elected second chamber…

Where members are elected by a proportional voting system.

There will be a committee charged specifically with making this happen…

But make no mistake: that committee will not be yet another government talking shop.

This will be a dedicated group devoted to kick-starting real reform.

The same haste will be applied to fixed-term parliaments.

It’s just wrong that governments can play politics with something as important as a general election…

Cynically picking the date to maximise their own advantage.

So this government has already set the date we think the next election should be:

May 7th 2015 – no matter who is where in the polls.

That is unless parliament votes to dissolve itself first.

As we legislate to fix parliamentary terms the details will of course need to be worked out…

But we believe that the support of 55% of MPs or more should be required for parliament to opt for an early dissolution.

That is a much lower threshold than the two thirds required in the Scottish Parliament.

But it strikes the right balance for our parliament: maintaining stability, stopping parties from forcing a dissolution to serve their own interests.

Former Labour ministers who were once perfectly happy to ride roughshod over our democracy are now declaring this innovation some sort of outrage are completely missing the point:

This is a new right for Parliament, additional to the existing powers of no confidence.

We’re not taking away parliament’s right to throw out government; we’re taking away government’s right to throw out parliament.

Parliament’s power will be strengthened as we bring forward the proposals of the Wright Committee, put forward in November.

Starting with provisions to give MPs much more control over Common’s business.

And, in addition to strengthening parliament, we will of course make sure we’ve cleaned it up.

Which is why I have already commissioned work on introducing the power of recall.

If your MP is corrupt, you will be able to sack them.

You will need the support of 10% of people living in the constituency…

And your MP will have had to have been found guilty of serious wrongdoing…

But it happens in Switzerland, in Canada, in 18 US states…

And it’s going to happen here.

We will regulate lobbying in parliament.

Not all lobbying is sleazy.

Much of it serves a hugely important function, allowing different organisations and interests to make representations to politicians.

But let’s get real: this is a £2bn industry, where, according to some estimates there are MPs who are approached by lobbyists a hundred times every week….

And that activity needs to be regulated properly and made transparent.

Which we’ll do, for example, by introducing a a statutory register of lobbyists.

As long as money plays such a big part in our politics, we are never going to curtail the tyranny of vested interests.

That’s why David Cameron and I are determined to reform party funding.

All of the parties have had their problems…

And governments have been stopping and starting on this issue for years.

But so long as big money continues to hollow out our democracy…

Everybody loses.

So we will pursue a detailed agreement on limiting donations and reforming party funding in order to deal with this once and for all.

And we’ll act to tackle electoral fraud too;

Speeding up the implementation of individual voter registration.

There is, however, no programme to reform our political system is complete without reform of our voting system.

This government will be putting to you, in a referendum, the choice to introduce a new voting system, called the Alternative Vote.

Under that new system far more MPs will have to secure support from at least half the people who vote in their constituency…

And, hand in hand with that change, there will be new constituency boundaries, reducing the number of MPs overall and creating constituencies that are more equal in size.

David Cameron and I are very relaxed about the fact we may be arguing different cases in that referendum.

But my position is clear: the current voting system, First Past the Post, is a major block to lasting political change.

According to some estimates, over half the seats in the Commons are “safe”… giving hundreds of MPs jobs for life… meaning that millions of people see their votes go to waste.

Is it any surprise that, with a system like that, we end up with politicians who are seen to be out of touch with the people they serve?

New politics needs fairer votes.

This referendum will be our opportunity to start to make that happen.

The third, and final step, is the redistribution of power away from the centre.

It’s something the prime minister spoke about yesterday, and it is something we strongly believe. All politicians say they want to give people more control over their lives.

This government is going to make it happen.

In fact, if there is one area, where the differences between Liberal Democrats and Conservatives are almost impossible to spot, it’s here.

We don’t, unlike Labour, believe that change in our society must be forced from the centre.

Unlike the previous Labour government, we’re not insecure about relinquishing control.

So rest assured, you will get more control over the hospitals you use; the schools you send your children too; the homes that are built in your community.

In our legislative programme we will be setting out plans to strip away government’s unelected, inefficient quangos, plans to loosen the centralised grip of the Whitehall bureaucracy, plans to disperse power downwards to you instead.

And we are serious about giving councils much more power over the money they use, so they depend less on the whims of Whitehall, and can deliver the services and support their communities need.

We know that devolution of power is meaningless without money.

Our plans to disperse power also include strengthening devolution to other parts of Britain: Working with Holyrood to implement the recommendations of the Calman Commission…

Working with the Welsh Assembly on introducing a referendum on the transfer of further powers to Wales…

Supporting the continued success of the devolved government in Northern Ireland.

And, of course, asking what we can do about the difficult issues surrounding the West Lothian Question.

So, the repeal of illiberal laws, the reform of politics, and the redistribution of power.

Our very own Great Reform Act.

Not everyone will like it.

Not every MP…

Not the vested interests that want government to stay closed, opaque, easily captured.

But this new government, this new kind of government, creates an enormous opportunity for those of us who have spent our lives fighting for political reform..

This is a moment to step back and look at every shortcoming in our democracy…

Before we launch into the most radical programme of reform, empowerment, enfranchisement in over a century.

A programme so important to me personally that I will take full responsibility for seeing it through.

And as I do, I will be open, I will be ambitious, and I will listen.

I’ll still be holding my town hall meetings, that I’ve been holding for the last two years, around the country, where you can come and ask me whatever you like.

The next one is actually in Sheffield on Friday.

As I lead the transformation of our political system, I want you to tell me how you want your politics to be.

Power will be yours.

That is new politics.

Thank you.

Fire in my belly? And some!

Over.

Finished.

Kaput.

In the history books.

The May 2010 General Election is over, and the Conservatives are the largest party, 16ish seats short of a technical majority.

So what does this election result tell us?

1) Labour & Gordon Brown have been rejected by the Country.

2) The electoral system needs changing, firstly with a standardised size of constituency. Give Labour & the Conservatives 60,000 votes. Labour could win 3-4 seats, the Conservatives 2. If all seats are the same size, there can be no complaints.

3) People weren’t 100% by the Conservative message; think back to 1979-83 (ok, I wasn’t born, but bear with me!). The change in Britain was that drastic that people who remember the era may be harder to convince in the need for change. As such, the mandate given is for a Conservative Government, with a left-wing ‘nanny’ to make sure nothing too drastic happens at the moment.

4) People realised the Lib Dems couldn’t realistically form the full Government, and as such the Labour vote held up better than I had anticipated, particularly here in Chester, with the former Labour MP still polling 16,000 votes compared to Stephen Mosley MP’s 18,500.

Next up is the apparent agreement/full coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

Personally, I’m hopeful that a coalition is agreed, probably resulting in Nick Clegg taking the role of Home Secretary, and I hope that the following 5 Conservatives, above all others, remain in their appropriate departments:

Michael Gove, Education
William Hague, Foreign Office
Phillip Hammond, Treasury
George Osborne, Treasury
Ken Clarke, Business

(Gove MUST be allowed to complete his education reforms.)

The beauty of the possible coalition, at least for this Tory, is that the ‘leading’ Lib Dems have much in common (Google ‘Orange Bookers’) with the direction Cameron is taking the Conservatives. Think about it, keeping a nuclear deterrent, giving less powers to Europe and not giving an amnesty to immigrants are the only things off limits.

3 things from a combined 250+ page manifesto.

Both believe in low taxes, both believe in civil liberties (which, in my mind, is why Clegg could never work with Brown/Labour), and both believe in a smaller state. Both would be happy with a 10% cut in MPs and equal constituencies, and both favour reform of the House of Lords.

The only issue that could be a stickler to the Lib Dems is, according to the media, how votes are cast in elections. (I’ll discuss this in a seperate post)

My message to Conservatives and Liberal Democrats is this – factor in all the things where compromise would take place, prioritise tackling the economy. Agree a coalition to deal with all the above lasting 12-18 months (12 would mean an election taking place at the same time as local elections, including those here in Cheshire West and Chester), then hold an election outling PRECISELY what sort of voting system each party favours. Alternatively, develop a referendum for electoral reform to take place at the same time as the next General Election.

So simply this: Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, work together for the benefit of our country. We must put Britain before Party.

Substance vs Style… We’ve all heard it, generally from Gordon Brown over the last few years, but it’s been ramped up to 11 these last few weeks.

But what does it mean?

Purely because Gordon Brown has been the King Levy of the Charge (Possible post for him if he’s not PM on Friday?!), let’s look at what he’s been upto: Elvis impersonator at a Labour ‘relaunch’ – yes, you can relaunch your party/manifesto one week into an election campaign. No, it’s not an excuse for more press and less interaction with non-Labourites, it’s a way that the people can see I’m a serious candidate for serious times. Whilst having ‘Wonder of You’ blared into my ear. Nice. Next up, Peppa Pig! Only she wasn’t. She scarpered. Mrs Duffy. Smiling and agreeing with her, then back turned and POW! – Gordon, you know the microphone that you requested Sky News clip on to you, so we could hear you interact with ‘real people’? It’s still on…

If you claim to be the candidate of substance over style, purely being style-less isn’t enough to get you on to this table. You need to go out there, speak to people, yes, even Tories, and explain why you are the right man for the job. Think about it, you see Cameron & Clegg attending local events – yes, there’s supporters there, but Cameron’s been egged & heckled and come out of it smelling a little eggy, but looking both statesmanlike and displaying a sense of humour; similarly Nick Clegg – he was taken on by a student this week, dealt with her (ish) and was able to crack a joke at the end of it. I’m not saying we want Michael McIntyre as Prime Minister, but being able to be personable, deal with the rough outside of Parliament, and generally having a slight likeability factor is what we want – not Elvis (despite my being a fan) and Peppa Pig (despite my not being a fan). Gordon’s problem is that he doesn’t want life outside his family and Parliament/the role of PM. He doesn’t want to interact with people he doesn’t know; he doesn’t feel comfortable doing it, but at the same time doesn’t have the courage to stand up to Mandelson et al and say:

“No. I want to campaign on my policies, that is who I am, that is what I do best. No media managing, no PR gurus, no spin doctors, nothing. Just me in a suit, at an event where the world and his dog are invited to come.”

It’ll never happen, and that is the reason he’s plummeted in the polls – coupled with the fact that the Labour Party screams dictatorship, wanting to tell us how to think, how to live, how to act – and now plans on reading our mail, but if people want that, good luck to them.

As far as the Liberal Democrats go, they say they’re the only real force for change. That’s fine, but where in your manifesto is this radical change? £10k income tax level, whilst not as high as I’d like, is progress from the current state of affairs. Similarly, Proportional Representation – whilst I disagree with it, I do accept the Single Transferable Vote as an alternative to First Past The Post. And that’s it. Removing Trident, joining the Euro, amnesty for all – none of these are especially radical in the way we do things in the UK – indeed, “It’s a healthy thing now & then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.” THAT is where the Conservatives are offering change – particularly in the Education System.

As someone who, until recently was a trainee teacher, I was able to see where the need for change can come from – I’ve been lucky enough to have a placement at a fantastic comprehensive school, just outside of Chester, where the staff and pupils seem to enjoy coming in. That said, I’m also aware that several groups within the realms of teaching, hate the prospect of a Conservative victory in the General Election because they will shake things up. Look back at the quote I wrote above – that was from Bertrand Russell, a 20th Century Socialist. We should ask questions of the way we do things; just because we’ve always done them doesn’t make them right, appropriate for right now, and allows us to leave them be whilst the ‘experts’ take over. Rubbish! The Thatcher Governments from 83-90 were radical – they shook up Britain, and dragged us kicking and screaming to a point where we were ready for the 21st Century. The Education system, the Health service, the amount of power Local Government has, the amount of people dependent on the public sector for jobs – all of this needs change, one way or another.

The stock argument I hear about the freedom to set up schools is that the children who attend won’t receive proper teaching. The fact you’ll still need to be a qualified teacher evidently carries little weight… The NHS – whilst the Conservatives have promised to increase spending on it year on year, I do hope this is on single rooms, cleanliness & drug advancement – not on ridiculous layers of bureaucracy. Having seen my mum work in the NHS all her life, and towards her retirement have three different bosses, all of whom wanted a say in exactly what she was doing, none of whom wanting to listen to her perspective from actually doing the job, I’m quite confident that the NHS is as bloated as can be. Indeed, across North Wales, until last year there were three Primary Care Trusts; they then merged to form the ‘Betsi Cadwaladr Trust’. Normally mergers result in efficiencies, savings across the board and general improvements in the way things work. How many less people does one NHS trust employ than three? 32. In 2009 the three Trusts employed 16,869 people. In 2010 they employ 16,837. Don’t be too surprised, this is the same NHS where Doctors can go on holiday (paid leave) and work as a locum (paid at above usual salary rate) in a different hospital being paid twice at the same time. This is the sort of practice that a change of Government needs to bring to the table; a change in Government that gives Local Authorities the power to do the things that they believe benefit their communities; who knows best, residents or Whitehall?

The reason so few vote in Local Elections (approx. 35% in the 2008 CWaC election), is that they don’t see/know what difference a change in leadership makes. Often changes in local government simply reflect the national mood, operating as ‘mid-term’ elections on the National Government. If this wasn’t the case, why are there so few non-Conservative controlled Councils in England now compared to elections in the mid-90s? Giving local authorities greater autonomy from Whitehall, allowing them to set Business Rates, a Local Sales Tax (replacing VAT) etc will empower local communities more – they will have a greater choice at local elections, allowing them to realise that their vote really can change things for the area in which they live.

Finally, the public sector is not the ‘Economy’. The private sector is. Gordon Brown going around, telling anyone who’ll listen that the Tories are evil and will take £6bn out of the economy. He’s wrong. The Tories will be pumping £6bn into the economy. (Personally, I’d rather there were more cuts than the initial £6bn outlined thus far, but that’s my libertarian streak shining through…) We have become too reliant on the public sector – for services, money and jobs. Think about tax credits – we have to fill in half a dozen forms, wait a few months, then told actually, sorry, you’re not entitled to anything. Why not, as the Lib Dems have started to, talk about simply increasing the band of tax? I’ve mentioned before about doing away with it, but whilst the Government’s in debt, that’s not too realistic – £15,000 tax free for everyone. No need to be reliant on tax credits. With regards services, let the private/third sector have a greater say – let them pitch tenders to authorities to offer the services that we currently ‘expect’ our Councils to fill. If needs be, allow charges to be installed – should everyone pay tax so that some people might want to do/attend something? No. If you reduce Council Tax, people will have more money to spend; if they then want to attend something, they can spend their money on it. Jobs. Some parts of Britain are 2/3rds publicly employed. Why are private sector companies not moving there? As outlined, giving Councils the say over Business Rates and Local Sales Taxes, amongst others, would encourage competition – CWaC would rather, for example, Bank of America was based here rather than 6 miles down the road in Wrexham; as such, in the pre-unitary authority days, the Councils needed to pitch themselves to BoA.

I’m not saying privatise local authorities – far from it. What I am saying is that the public sector needs to be run like a business; every time a job becomes available, don’t rush to fill it. Ask the following question: “Do we really need to fill that position?” That is where cuts can be found without having to look for them. It’s not about firing people, or making thousands redundant; it’s about removing the reliance on the State that 13 years of Labour Government have sought to instil in each and every one of us. That is why when people talk about substance vs. style, Labour are the party of style; they are the party trying to win an election on fear, scaremongering, lies and reliance. THEY are the party that wants to keep everything the same for another 5 years. Substance is when you have party policies, like overhauling the education system, like increasing the tax band, willing to go out on a limb and say “Look, this is what we plan to do. It’s different, it’s new, but we believe it will work.” I’m not saying vote for change for change’s sake. I’m saying vote for something different. Let’s hang a question mark on the things we have long taken for granted.

Let’s change our Country – for the better.

Further to this post regarding my perspective on a right of recall for Councillors, I have received the following reply from a Conservative Activist:

The policy is the power of recall can be triggered by “proven serious wrongdoing”. The word “proven” could not be more important: constitutionally Jack is quite right, it is a very risky business and needs to be framed very carefully.

Cases are easily trumped up, simple mistakes (perhaps only committed by an intern and signed off by a negligent MP) could open the door to their being unduly pressured by political opponents (or an over-mighty executive), lynched by a hostile media frenzy or, worst of all, blackmailed by foreign powers pursuing their own political agendas. All of course, to the greater detriment of the British people.

To my mind recall should be limited to a conviction for misuse of public funds or abuse of power before an independent Court of Law…. See more

People may have a low opinion of their MPs right now but their independence and their freedom to take tough decisions in the face of vested interests is vital if we are to our emerge from this crisis and take tough decisions for the future on long term questions such as climate change, security and defence, civil liberties or pensions. Ultimately the independence of our MPs a part of the constitutional framework that guarantees the freedom of everyone living in this country. Let us hope this next election throws up a group of MPs more deserving of the trust that their independence necessarily entails.

Thoughts?

Last night, during the 2nd Leaders Debate, I was asked by a Liberal Democrat Cestrian on Twitter what my policy, and the Tory policy, was in regards removing Councillors, in light of the Tory Manifesto Commitment to offer residents a right of recall/removing their MP.

Conservative Policy is to remove the standards board ; my perspective, verbatim that I provided last night:

“Personally, if a Cllr is halfway through a term and 50%+1 of eligible voters request a recall, dependent on reason, then have a STV by-election: Should Cllr X be recalled; if so, who do you vote for? If 50%+1 vote yes, then FPTP on 2nd ballot. Only caveat with STV is that half of candidates go forward – typically 6 -> 3. Greater mandate & not enforced!”

Thoughts?