If Suffolk is truly special, how about treating us as such?

 

When a person passes a comment that so-and-so is ‘special’, usually accompanied by a wink or knowing eyeroll, it’s rarely an unalloyed compliment. Trust me on this.

It can strongly hint in certain social contexts that the intended target is, well, a bit odd, difficult maybe, or just downright dodgy. In spite of the neutrality in its use in the education sector, ‘special needs’ frequently conjures up an emphasis on difference and not, alas, one on similarities. 

Yet there are advantages to being thought ‘special’. In fact, I rather think it’s about time that Suffolk was given that designation – the equivalent of a very large Post-It note slapped across our collective forehead. Less for our own benefit, you understand (after all we don’t need reminding), but as a useful prompt for the dim-witted and lazy Civil Service, cozily ensconced in Whitehall or more likely clocking up 15-hour weeks from their gardens, living rooms, their local boozers, or perhaps even a foreign beach. 

More on that suggestion later. 

But what has got my libertarian senses twitching are the industrial level (39) of Government Bills included in the King’s Speech. Sir Keir Starmer’s party is clearly going to legislate its way to growing the economy, making us better people and igniting the funeral pyre of tobacco products. No hint of removing legislation already on the statue books, please note. Just another sedimentary layer of rules and regulations that our society is already struggling under. Same old Labour. 

Yet, you may be surprised or disenchanted depending on your worldview, to read that some of the proposed new laws do meet with my approval – or, at least, fail to trigger a need for wailing and a gnashing of teeth (mine). 

I’m not normally in favour of dogmatic re-nationalisation (or privatisation for that matter) but the new Government’s intention to gradually snaffle up the train operating companies, like a legislative Pac-Man, as their franchises expire, might be quite a good idea. 

Especially if the gradual return to public ownership of the rail network means that we’ll get tables and First Class seating on all intercity services between Norwich and London Liverpool Street? 

I know that this is trivial to most people, but my increasingly ancient frame does require both something to lean on and a decent width of seat. Just saying. 

More seriously, it will be fascinating to see how quickly the new Secretary of State for Transport, Louise Haigh, and Rail Minister, Lord Peter Hendy, will take to give the go-ahead for the Ely/Haughley Junctions works. This is something I’ve been rattling on about for ages – not least in the face of years of Conservative dithering and delays. 

These are two projects that would greatly benefit both the local AND national economy – plus contributing to cleaning-up the environment, with fewer container lorries on the A14. 

Talking of the environment, I note there was no mention of farming in the King’s Speech last month. For the rural economies of the Eastern region, with many constituencies voting in a Labour MP for the first time since the Peasants’ Revolt, this is a kick in the turnips, and a blatant indication of the new Government’s metropolitan focus and woke obsessions. 

I’m not sure whether it was bold or reckless for Ed Miliband, secretary of state for energy security and net zero, to disregard the Planning Inspectorate’s objections to the vast Sunnica solar farm without demur. 

Whilst being a strong advocate for an energy mix that boosts our national security and ability to ride out prices hikes elsewhere, the Sunnica decision undermined another security priority – that of food production, as it will involve the loss of good agricultural land for decades to come. 

Surely, it is not beyond the ability of Mr Miliband and Steven Reed OBE, secretary of state for the environment, food and rural affairs, to ensure that both imperatives are balanced wherever possible? 

Suffolk, of course, is host to a growing network of energy infrastructure, not only associated with Sizewell C and the offshore windfarms, but further inland as the electricity transmission system adapts to the geographical shifts as to where the power is generated. 

National Grid is looking to build a transmission line between Norwich and Tilbury.

Furthermore, Ofgem has just announced that it will start consultation for the Nautilus Interconnector to land at Friston, the very place at which the infrastructure needed for the Scottish Power Renewables wind farms, the Sea Link subsea HVDC link, the LionLink interconnector is scheduled to land. 

And all of this explains why Suffolk is indeed ‘special’. So much of the infrastructure needed to secure the country’s future energy needs is either located within Suffolk (or will be) or it passes through swathes of the county (or it will do). 

Yet there is no coordinated grand plan. Everything seems very fragmented and confused. Individual planning applications seem to take no account of others – or what has gone before. 

And it is our communities which are shouldering disproportionate and vast burdens and impacts from these nationally vital schemes – with only minimal compensation or benefits. 

Equally, whilst I applaud the Government’s intentions in boosting housebuilding numbers, not least as we need as a county to attract more workers to fill roles in our growing sectors, I’m doubtful this can be achieved without a fundamental change. 

And that is to address the ‘landbanking’ by the oligopoly operated by the main developers who are sitting on up to 1m housing approvals but are only building out a fraction at a time to maximise prices and their profit margins. 

Perhaps it’s time the Government looked at referring the whole sector to the Competition & Markets Authority and busted open their control? 

Here in Suffolk there certainly needs to be a greater emphasis on building on brownfield sites, not least as they are less hobbled by Byzantine environmental rules. 

Which is why the new Government should recognise the need for a ‘Suffolk minister’ for the remainder of this Parliament. The role needs to tasked with ensuring that a proper balance is maintained between delivering better joined-up key schemes, and ensuring that local communities are speedily given funds for hosting the new infrastructure. 

After all, Suffolk is ‘special’ and needs to be treated as such.

First published www.suffolkfreepress.co.uk & www.dissexpress.co.uk on Thursday, August 01, 2024.

As trust runs out, night heralds in an era of democratic deficit!

 

Quoting David Dimbleby from 2016: “The people have spoken …” so may I start my latest column by congratulating Prime Minister Starmer on his party’s election success and wish ‘our’ new Government all the best in the months and years to come.

 

I’m writing this on the Saturday after polling day. Both nationally and locally, the results for the Conservative Party have been devastating. Reduced to their lowest share of the vote and Parliamentary representation since the Great Reform Act of 1832, the Party has been badly bruised, even here in ‘true blue’ Suffolk.

 

Labour picked up four gains and the Greens one, leaving the Conservative Party with just three seats. The Reform Party didn't win any seats but racked up some impressive shares of the vote - not least given the cut and run calling of the election by Rishi Sunak. 

 

Although he is on a different wing of the political right to me, I’m most saddened by the loss of Peter Aldous, who – in spite of his personal popularity – was unable to hold onto the Lowestoft seat. Peter was a very model constituency MP: knowledgeable, hard-working, and true to his roots. Sorry I didn’t make it up to Lowestoft to bang on a few doors for you, but thank you for your service, Peter.

 

I’m still a little frustrated by the own goal scored by the Labour Candidate for Central Suffolk & North Ipswich (CS&NI) , Kevin Craig, when he placed a bet on NOT winning the seat, best described as a #RookieError? What could have been, eh Kevin?

 

I wonder how many CS&NI Conservatives are regretting their choice after the rude behaviour of their new MP Patrick Spencer in not speaking to the press either before or after his count – how arrogant and entitled of him.

 

This overwhelming defeat and the very wreck of the most successful political party in the Western world has its roots in the baleful compromised decisions taken by its globalist elite whilst in Government.

 

Whether it be cosying up to the pre-woke Liberal Democrats during the Coalition years or the botching – possibly deliberate - of Brexit negotiations under the premiership of the hapless, pro-Remain, and now newly ennobled Teresa May. And also the over-reach of state power during the Covid19 pandemic and the coup d’etat against Liz Truss by her MPs and the coronation of the out-of-touch Rishi Sunak, the last 14 years have been characterised by a frittering away of initiative and trust. 

 

That said, in her case, the decision of her South West Norfolk constituents, cannot be disputed – sorry Liz! Her failure to show any contrition for the many failures of her short premiership will not gain her many fans.

 

We’ve ended up with a country that has never been so over-taxed, but which is getting less and less back by way of infrastructure investment, skills development, and secure borders – the three core functions of a limited state. And not to forget the day-to-day services the state, at whatever level, is obliged to provide, which are increasingly delivered in a begrudging and second-rate manner.

Yet, help is on the horizon.

 

When Liz Truss was deposed by her treacherous MPs in October 2022, I decided not to renew my Party membership. Out of some mis-placed loyalty to Dr Dan Poulter, and the Conservative Party I have voted for since 4th May 1979, I decided that at the next General Election, I would spoil my ballot paper and scrawl #NoneOfTheAbove across it.

 

This changed the moment Dr Dan defected to Labour and from that day, I didn’t owe him, or the Conservative Party, any loyalty whatsoever, but what really made me decide to vote for Reform UK was Nigel Farage declaring he would stand in Clacton.

 

The election of Nigel Farage and a handful of Reform MPs shows that a ‘so-called’ populist policy platform that wants to make Brexit work for Britain and dismantle the self-serving establishment elite has significant support. From the polling that I’ve seen, Reform out-performed or at least equalled the Tories in support from the under-44s.

 

Even the performative knicker-wetting by the Tory establishment about Farage’s Russia comments didn’t seem to have had an impact at the polling stations.

 

For what it’s worth, I like Farage’s straight talking and let’s be honest, whilst despising Putin, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I do think the eastern ‘advances’ of both the EU and NATO did have a significant effect on Putin’s decisions and actions. I see this as a major and unforgivable diplomatic failure of ’The West’.

 

For me now, my key interests will be to see how the Conservatives go about selecting a new leader, to see how Farage and Reform UK perform in Westminster (not just Parliament), and to see whether both parties can work together to rebuild a centre-right movement – or coalition - based on a small state, strong borders an defence, and personal freedoms.

 

From what I’ve heard and read so far, a meeting of minds is a long way off.

 

The Tories received a good kicking, with around 100 ‘decapitations’ by Reform candidates. Some votes have been lent elsewhere, and significantly, some votes have not been used, resulting in a record low turnout.

 

With just over one third of the votes cast, this result is hardly an endorsement for Sir Keir’s Labour.

 

But I’m saddened to see that 12% of voters are more impressed by waterpark hi-jinks, than by serious policy discussion. However, you do have to admire the electioneering strategy of the Lib Dems in focussing on winnable seats with locally targeted campaigns – the legacy of Paddy Ashdown lingers on.

 

I’m also worried by the appearance of sectarian independents, obviously encouraged by mixed messaging from our new Prime Minister. Let’s hope he’s clearer, and more concise on international matters in the future. Oh, hang on … our new Foreign Secretary is David Lammy … hmmm.

 

The ‘minor’ parties and independents, seat wise, now account for 30% of votes cast, almost as much as Labour, but hold just 7% of the seats, highlighting the inequity, and unsuitability of the First Past The Post system for an increasingly multi-party state. This will not change in the foreseeable future!

 

Welcome to the democratic deficit!

First published www.suffolkfreepress.co.uk on Thursday, July 11, 2024.

What exactly was the point of belated switch to Starmerism?

 

As regular readers know, I always try to focus my columns on relevant issues to local people, and hold them up to scrutiny through the prism of a libertarian perspective, where people should be trusted more and state institutions should, in short, get lost.

Although I am an individualist by conviction, I’ve rarely focused on the actions of one particular person. Curious that. But I intend to make partial amends this time around.

Because I’d like to reflect on the actions of one particular, but influential Suffolk resident (all these comparisons are relative), in order to tease out some bigger truths. Or perhaps just to spread some invective around. Whatever.

And the principal boy, in what has become a most unseasonal pantomime of late, is none other than Dr Dan Poulter, the (now) Labour MP for Central Suffolk & North Ipswich.

At one level his political career has a pleasing symmetry for those who like patterns: a self-confessed supporter of Tony Blair in the 2001 and 2005 General Elections, then subsequently a local Conservative Councillor, first in Hastings then in Reigate. He was first elected as the Conservative MP for the constituency in 2010, rising to the heady heights, for two-and-a-half years, as a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department for Health, to switching sides, and a possible health adviser role for the Labour Party after the next General election. Nice work.

And Dr Dan does work hard. His entry in the latest Register of Members' Financial Interests (as at 29 April 2024) lists his roughly 720 hours a year employment at a London NHS Trust from 2015 until earlier this year and his current role at the Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust.

It was apparently his concern about what his non-Parliamentary work colleagues might think of him that prompted his late-stage conversion to Starmerism. He was widely quoted as saying “I could no longer look my colleagues and my patients in the eye, as an MP, knowing what this Conservative government has done to our NHS.”

No mention here of his staff, both those who work in his Parliamentary office, and those who front up the constituency end of things. Putting to one side Carol, his poor mother, I’d imagine that the situation has been pretty awkward for many of them, not least those who are also active in the Conservative Party.

As MPs directly employ their own teams on agreed pay scales, Dr Dan’s defection raises issues as to fairness and rights for those dependent on him to pay their bills. Not a very happy situation for them, I’d imagine.

It’s at this point I have a confession to make, a mea culpa if you like!

I had a role in Dr Dan’s selection ahead of the 2010 General Election, as I was chairman of the candidates’ selection committee. That said – full disclosure time – I didn’t vote for him during the open primary. I voted for the other guy, a most impressive Headteacher from Lincolnshire!

 The irony is that I’m pretty sure the other guy hasn’t defected to the Labour Party.

 During David Cameron’s time as Leader of the Opposition, local constituency associations were placed under massive pressure – and I do mean massive – to select from what was known as the ‘A List’ of candidates, many of whom had no track record in right-wing politics, or even any particular commitment to conservatism.

 This was a manifestation of Cameron’s ‘Hug a Hoodie’ phase and, apparently, was aimed at securing a Parliamentary representation that suited Dave’s purposes. Its success was questionable in that he failed to secure a majority and had to go into coalition with the un-Liberal anti-Democrats.

 Now don’t get me wrong, I had, or have no problem with any political party’s central administration forwarding potential Parliamentary wannabes. They need to come from somewhere!

 I also had, or have no problem with a party vetting applicants. After all, you can’t have the media adopting that role post appointment, as the Reform Party has recently found to its cost with numerous candidates having to stand down after various interesting social media comments came to light.

 But the anti-democratic top-downism of the whole A-Lister scheme relied on constituency parties sidelining or rejecting perfectly valid local candidates. Although, to be honest, the 6-person selection committee couldn’t agree on any of the ‘approved’ local candidates on offer!

 Most of the elected A listers turned out to be rather flaky, resigning and causing by-elections (Louise Mensch, anyone?) – that kind of thing. At least Dr Dan hasn’t done that.

But perhaps he should have done? Even the most personally popular MP, if they are being honest, would acknowledge that their vote tally is largely because of their political ticket.

Which is why I’d like to see an amendment to the Recall of MPs Act 2015 requiring a by-election be called when an MP defects from the party label they were elected under, subject to a minimum number of constituents requesting one within a particular period of time..

Sadly, most MPs hold onto their sinecures like gym-trained limpets.  And before you say anything, I think that Lee Anderson should have resigned and fought the resulting by-election – which he probably would have won. Bad show on him.

There are some honourable exceptions. One, of course, is Douglas Carswell a self-styled libertarian (hurrah!) and Conservative MP for Clacton from 2002-2014, who when he left his former political berth, opted to contest the seat in a by-election for his new party, UKIP. Which he won handsomely and retained it again at the following election.

At the time he was quoted as saying “When I changed parties it didn't occur to me to not hold a by election. If my own electorate weren't supportive, what was the point?"

What was the point indeed, Dr. Dan? 

What was your point?

That said, now Dan is no longer an MP, may I wish him all the best in his latest choice of career.

First published in the suffolkfreepress.co.uk on Thursday, 30th May, 2024.

From phones to cigarettes, PM is eroding right to choose!

From phones to cigarettes, PM is eroding right to choose!

 

These days, it seems to me that everyone has a personal strapline or slogan. I think it has something to do with the global rash of self-styled social media influencers.

Up to this point, I’ve avoided such a luxury. But no longer.

In light of the ever-tightening bullying of state institutions, desperate to justify their massive taxpayer-funded powers, I feel the need for a motto.

I would have used Atlas Shrugged, named after the book by the great Ayn Rand, libertarian extraordinaire. But I’m not sure if everyone would get the classical reference.

So instead, I’ve gone for alliteration: Ban the Banners!

And by banners, I don’t mean those big promotional hoardings or poorly crafted artwork carried by gobby, demonstrating lefties when they seek to intimidate Jewish citizens. No, I mean those politicians and state bureaucrats who seek to take away what remains of our rights to exercise choice as adults for personal good or ill.

There is nothing more these people want than a compliant country of neutered zombies unable to have control over their own lives – the easier to manipulate them for whatever the state wants to do with and to them.

The rate at which national and local government is seizing responsibilities, which for previous generations were self-evidently best exercised at the personal or household level, really stepped up during the Covid19 pandemic.

You may recall that was the period of time when various police forces fined people for allegedly breaking the two-metre rule whilst walking together in the open air for goodness sake, and when there was a debate, straight out of Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels, as to whether a Scotch Egg counted as a meal or not!

Since then the emboldened state has gone into overdrive. In the last few weeks alone, there have been efforts to ban everything from sweeties, to mobile phones in schools, and to the bureaucrats’ long-term enemy, fags.

These ongoing putsches against personal choice have been made easier by the white flags being flown at every opportunity by the Conservative establishment. Once the party of choice and responsibility, it is now led by a cabal of well-heeled bullies centred around the current Prime Minister.

Since he was appointed – he was not elected, remember - to his current role, this silly man’s virtue-signalling has emboldened every crank with a cause.

One particular victim, whose plight caught my attention was Kevin Hilliard, who has run a pick ’n mix stall in Saxmundham for over 20 years. His pitch license was withdrawn by power crazed town councillors because, apparently, his brightly coloured bon bons and foam sweets presented an existential threat to civilization. Or perhaps it was because his day-glo offer didn’t align with their desire to create a ‘healthy’ market, whatever that is.

After an outcry, the ban was reversed, but the threat remains in the longer-term. Surely, it is up to customers – the free market - to decide whether they buy Mr Hilliard’s gobstoppers or not, and not petty politicians with agendas?

Trusting parents to make sensible choices is also something seemingly off the agenda. New Government guidelines have been published which seek to ban the use by pupils of mobile phones in school, even during breaks.

The Department for Education suggest that this is “to minimise disruption and improve behaviour in classrooms.” Interestingly, there is no mention of the role of teachers in this regard!

Surely, though, it is up to parents – in consultation with their children’s schools - to agree the best way ahead. Most parents would recognise that it is distracting to use phones in class. But it might be a different matter during breaks, or to check their online timetable or coursework status?

My grandson was diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes earlier this year, and in order for his parents to be alerted to any peaks & troughs in his blood sugar levels, he has to have his own  smartphone on or near him all the time. An absolute ban just won’t work for all.

So, onto fags. Now, don’t get me wrong. I’d rather that my grandchildren did not smoke when they are older. But then, I also hope that they don’t do many questionable things as they grow older, including take up extreme sports, seek employment with Putin-supporting mercenaries, or vote Liberal Democrat!

But it’s not for me to take away their rights as adults to make their own minds up, based on the evidence available to them. Sunak’s Tobacco and Vapes Bill will do just that.

As an article in the Spectator articulated the matter well: “adults should have the right to make personal choices about how they live their lives. Smokers will die younger on average, but this is a risk they are informed about on every cigarette packet. Since the ban on smoking in indoor public places was implemented, that risk has largely become a private choice, and personal lifestyle choices are not the government’s concern.”

Smokers are often stereotyped as low-information numpties. If only they could be made to see sense, they’d stop, wail the banners!

I’m writing this on the day that researchers from UCL examining data from nearly 200,000 adult participants in the Smoking Toolkit Study, concluded that the number of younger middle-class women who smoke had jumped 25% over the past ten years.

An interview on Radio 4 the same day with a woman who had taken up smoking in her 40s, showed that it was a conscious decision by her to have a cigarette now and then to help her relax.

The Banners must hate her. Time to ban them!

First Published in the www.suffolkfreepress.co.uk on Thursday 2nd May, 2024. 

State's heavy weaponry is trained on businesses!

 

I admit it. I’m tired and frustrated with thugs and gangsters.

Not ones that directly cause physical arm, thank goodness!

But I am tired, as a small business owner and employer, of always having to swim upstream against a self-evidently stupid state. Frustrated because no-one, either in Government or who wants to be in Government, ever seems to want to challenge the state’s vested self-interest.

Of course, you will say – well go and do something else instead. Put a stop to your nearly 40-years in business. Close it down. Retire.

I’m tempted to do that. But not before I again explain to my long-suffering readers, many of whom are business people, or who at the very least know that without business people, why the bloated British state would burst open and wither like a ridiculous party balloon.

Everyone recognises – now and after appalling damage has been done – the role of a self-serving and unaccountable state in the Post Office scandal, an entity wholly-owned by the Government.

Its ongoing denial of its own mistakes and efforts to bully and crush innocent sub-postmasters (i.e. small businesspeople) is certainly one of the greatest injustices that the state has inflicted on its citizens in recent years.

My own experience of a monolithic, defensive and arrogant state (funded by us taxpayers in case we forget) is only slightly less traumatic.

As a result of the last round of business rates revaluations, my warehouse business faces a massive hike in its costs base – almost overnight.

It does this because the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) lazily assumes that my operation is comparable to that of a giant Amazon warehouse, or similar.

Therefore, as of this month, business rates will represent 12% of my annual sales turnover, or a quarter of my yearly wage bill! I feel like I’m working to feed the bloated, unaccountable, and inefficient state system at the cost of myself and prospective employees.

I won’t repeat my thoughts as to why the whole damn system is unfair and is perversely taxing inputs and not business outputs. Instead, let me take you through my thoughts on the maze of state-backed unfairness when I decided to appeal against this revaluation.

Firstly, what gives Government agencies, such as the VOA, the right to over-charge or over-assess a legitimate business, and then expect that business to have to appeal at their own cost, without recourse to compensation or expenses? 

Secondly, I believe that their excessive over-valuation of my, and other business premises, to be a vexatious attempt to bully businesses into paying-up. Business Rates Valuations are supposed to represent the open-market rent payable by the business in question, but the VOA ignores that basic principle. 

Yet, the  VOA, having conducted the most superficial desktop comparison – no site visits to ascertain exactly what we do – expects us to gather our resources and appeal. 

In short, this is pure gangsterism, with all the heavy weaponry held by the state and trained on us. 

The process itself is rigged. It allows just ONE chance to appeal the valuation – if you or your agent are unsuccessful, you will have to wait until the next valuation period in three or four-years’ time. 

And if you are successful, then much of the money saved is eaten away by your agents’ fees. They don’t come cheap. 

Furthermore, the state never likes to lose. There is a feeling around that if an appeal is successful and the state has lost out, then the business will be targeted even more sternly during the next valuation period. 

Such unreasonable behaviour is systemic across the state. 

As I was writing this column, I saw that Suffolk Chamber of Commerce had issued a report into R&D Tax Reliefs. 

In this case, it looks as if it’s His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC) that is doing the bullying. 

The report identifies that the lack of knowledgeable experts at the HMRC, plus the imposition of an overly strict compliance regime, is causing many legitimate companies’ most recent claims to be delayed and/or refused, with others fearful that previously successful claims from previous years might now be challenged.

Understandably, 46% of respondents to a Chamber survey are now deterred from making future claims based on their latest experience.

Sounds all too familiar to me. The state wants to squeeze money from us and make it as forbidding and painful as possible to argue for something fairer and sustainable.

And let’s not forget the army of self-employed citizens currently being threatened by HMRC with IR35 rules as to how how they run their businesses, with many having to fend-off costly and time-consuming retrospective claims for tax.

What will all those faceless and useless bureaucrats do when there are no businesses left to bully? I hate to think. 

Perhaps they’ll come after you next?

First published in the www.suffolkfreepress.co.uk on Thursday, 4th April 2024.

As the sun sets on Orwell, we need a plan to bridge the gap.

 I met Rachel Reeves recently and rather enjoyed our encounter. 

Yes, you read that correctly. 

 

I was part of a small Suffolk Chamber of Commerce delegation that had some facetime with the shadow chancellor of the exchequer. Actually, I was rather impressed, which if you know my generic contempt for virtually all of our political class, is praise indeed. Although she repeated the lines quoted in The Guardian that day, she came across clearly, with a strong voice, clear diction, and a real confidence which was encouraging, particularly as she’s odds on to be our next Chancellor of The Exchequer.

So has this libertarian gone all red? 

No way! But I do recognise opportunities for the betterment of Suffolk when I see them. My grandfather frequently said that our sector - warehousing and logistics - always did well under a Labour government. It's all the social control freakery and interference in the decisions always best taken by individuals and families that I hate.

 

And whilst I’m dubious as to whether Sir Keir Starmer has many core values (all those flip-flops), it’s certainly true that he’s moved his party away from the posturing rabble that it had become under the member for Islington North.

 

Back to my encounter with Ms Reeves.

I appreciated being right in front of a politician to give me the opportunity to articulate that economic, and so social, prosperity meant clearly defining what is the responsibility of the state and those areas where the state needs to, to put it crudely, butt out.

 

I believe that the state only has a legitimate role in the defence of the country and where significant market failure means the private sector cannot take on the burden of risk required.

 

This is particularly true of capital expenditure projects, such as upgrades to rail lines, new EV charging & digital networks, and improved road systems.

 

The inclusion of the last category will almost certainly have the zero-growth extremists in the Green Party taking up the online equivalent of similar shades of ink in anger. No more roads – ever, seems to be their mantra, regardless as to how a poor infrastructure locks-in inequalities, crushes competition, makes goods & services more expensive, and generally pits the environment against living standards.

 

It doesn’t need to be this way. Surely, what we need are better, not worse roads? And nowhere is this truer than here in Suffolk.

 

My question to the person who could be in charge of public tax and spending plans in the next Government was this:

 

“The Greater Ipswich sub-region, including the port of Felixstowe, suffers greatly when the Orwell Bridge closes. What are the Labour Party’s plans for sustainable road improvements that would mitigate future bridge closures, and would these include a new bridge, a tunnel, or perhaps even a northern route around the county town?

Before answering, may I remind you of the strategic importance to UK plc of, not just The Ports of Felixstowe and Ipswich, but also the critical need to have Sizewell C built, and on-line, as soon as possible.”

 

OK, not the shortest question: but the point was understood. Whenever the Orwell Bridge closes  - as it did for hours and hours last month thanks to an ‘incident’, the whole of the roads network from the A140 eastwards grinds to the proverbial halt. Obviously, Ipswich is worst affected, but the surrounding sub-regional roads system can’t cope either.

 

Not only are people inconvenienced, but businesses lose money. In my trade, the margins on an articulated lorry coming out of Felixstowe to, say Birmingham are in single figures. A protracted wait on the A14, or the B1079, or the B1113, means that that journey is a loss-maker.

 

And it doesn’t take too many fleet’s lorries being impacted each and every time there are Bridge-related or A14 junction issues to have a direct impact on a company’s viability. It won’t have escaped your readers’ notice that quite a few local hauliers have folded in recent months.

 

The Greens are utterly unsympathetic and seem to relish the chaos on Suffolk’s arterial roads.

 

With utterly mishandled discussions (was this deliberate, I wonder?) regarding a Northern Relief Route around Ipswich, the county’s Conservatives have created a policy vacuum of the worst sort.

 

The irony being that many of those campaigners most opposed to a relief road are the ones struggling to get out of their driveways as their local routes become gridlocked.

 

The Conservatives seem to assume that drivers will just have to put up with delays upon delays.

 

No, we won’t. And whilst, as expected there were no firm commitments from Ms Reeves, I enjoyed the chance to put the case for short to medium road improvements and the need for longer-term thinking, not least as and when the Orwell Bridge needs to be replaced.

 

I must say that I was also pleasantly surprised by the performance of Jack Abbott, who had arranged the visit by Ms Reeves. Labour’s Parliamentary candidate for Ipswich seems very grounded and pragmatic, reminding me of the industrious Peter Aldous, the current conservative MP for Waveney.

 

If we are ever to address our roads crisis in the county, we certainly need more representatives who speak for the majority, and not narrow vested interest groups.

First published in the www.suffolkfreepress.co.uk on Thursday, March 7, 2024.

 

 

Immigration: Sustainable solutions are within our grasp!

 

In my January column, I outlined what is wrong with this country’s immigration system when judged against core libertarian principles. 

In short, the system lacked democratic consent, was incoherent & muddled, and was riddled with gimmicky short-termism. 

No wonder it has been an issue of concern for the British people and the country’s political parties over many decades. 

In this article, I want to suggest some solutions based on those much-maligned principles: pragmatism and vested self-interest. 

Firstly, illegal migration, including those entering the country and claiming asylum. The current system is out-of-date and one big bureaucratic go-slow, marked by huge backlogs in both asylum applications and appeals. 

The Rwanda Plan is a joke: costing the Government by bleeding away its remaining political capital for a costly project that will have minimal impact on removing failed asylum seekers. 

The Government has also misdirected its efforts by speeding up the woeful asylum backlog, currently standing at 80,000 people. But this involves a further extension of the state through the hiring of yet more petty functionaries at the Home Office. In any case, the real issue lies further down the process. 

It is at the appeals backlog where those whose applications have been turned down, sit around, in either detention centres or hotels, for an average of 82 weeks, nearly 20 months, because of a shortage of legal aid lawyers. This quiet work-to-rule is probably an attempt at political defiance, reflecting much of the legal profession’s own agenda – in the face of the Government’s democratic mandate. 

So, as a pragmatic one-off, I’d like to see extra funds released to lubricate the legal process and a robust approach thereafter taken to removing those illegally here, back to their countries of origin. 

I’d also like to remove the nonsense of asylum seekers not being allowed to work whilst their claims are processed. However, before you shout me down, I’m not advocating a full right to work visa giveaway! Looking at the shambles of the ‘public realm’ in Suffolk, shows us that there is work to be done and the asylum seekers, with appropriate supervision, should be tasked to help do it. 

We should also be far less squeamish about the Royal Navy and Border Force  intercepting the small boats and turning them back to French waters – France, after all,  being a safe country for asylum applications. And if this means we are in a technical breach of the European Court of Human Rights – so be it, we should leave it, and ignore the howls of protest from the lefty lawyers and human rights activists.

And perhaps, given the understandable desire of people to seek a better standard of living in this country, there should be an effort to incentivise UK businesses to invest in operations in those countries, and of the Government itself to take a lead in peacekeeping operations where conflict is the major reason people flee.  

Ironically though, the impact of illegal migration is nothing compared to the unsustainable volumes of those arriving and staying here through legitimate channels. 

The annual net increase in those living here amounts to over 1% of the population: some 750,000 additional people! The sheer number is impacting on the availability and cost of housing and public services, in some cases leading to individual misery and social tensions. 

I’d advocate a number of measures to slow down – and eventually reverse - this unsustainable surge in numbers. 

My underlying principle – over the longer term – is ‘one in, one out’, albeit allowing for short- and medium-term variations depending on national need. Such a disciplined approach needs to be carefully and accurately monitored – something the current Home Office seems incapable of. 

How could we go about this? 

Firstly, we must tighten the criteria by which workers are able to bring over immediate family members and other dependants, including the period before which such requests can be lodged. Even then, preference should always be given to those working in strategically important sectors facing acute labour shortages. 

There should never be a presumptive right to bring over family members. This is true for other countries, so why not the UK? 

Next, there should be no automatic right for first degree students, who having completed their courses, to remain here. Period. It should be incumbent upon their places of education to ensure that they fulfil their visa requirements and leave the country. Universities and the like should face massive fines if ‘their’ students don’t return home. 

Obviously, if these graduates wish to apply from their home countries to return here, either before they return home or subsequently, to continue their studies or take-up full-time suitable/approved employment,  then all well and good, subject to the required criteria?

Finally, this approach should be the catalyst to address one of this country’s greatest own goals: the 5.5m people of working age who are on out-of-work benefits but are not technically unemployed. 

Research by the Learning & Research Institute suggests that had the UK the same level of employment rates as a basket of high performing countries, then our workforce would be 1.2m bigger than at present – dwarfing the current vacancy rate of 930,000. 

The same report showed that the lowest economic activity rates were to be found among those with disabilities and among lone parents. 

This country has it in its gift to provide much better policies aimed at helping employers make the adjustments needed to encourage those with disabilities into work. The Department for work & Pensions seems to be especially dozy in this regard: apparently, just 1 in 10 out of work disabled people get support to find work each year. Perhaps the private sector should take over responsibility? 

Equally, investment in improving access to inexpensive but good childcare is essential in encouraging single parents or guardians to return to the workplace. The alternative might be to  increase tax thresholds for such returnees (and for every worker come to that).

In short, we need a smarter and smaller migration intake. The most sustainable solutions are already within our grasp.

First published in the www.suffolkfreepress.co.uk on Friday, February 2, 2024.