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 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.