Regional Empowerment

According to a BBC Look North Poll, 80% of us think we need more powers locally.  They did not ask me so I do not know what the actual question was nor any of the background provided to those surveyed.  Doubtless, however, in its usual quest for balance, the BBC would have screened out any left or right field views from loony extremists.  Conveniently, all that would have remained would have nicely satisfied the BBC's desired narrative.

Our CPF group recently considered devolving powers to the regions and, in general, we were not impressed.  The arguments against ran as follows:

• Regional empowerment is superficially seductive but it is not a logical extension of English Empowerment, the English Votes for English laws issue

• Beyond the headline, it will be a difficult concept for the electorate to grasp and even more difficult to define and deliver.  Could this be another PCC fiasco?

• We have just been through a bruising Scottish Referendum campaign and the prospect of regional devolution turns  the "Better Together" argument upon its head

• Worse, regional devolution could represent the "Balkanisation" of UK, fomenting regional jealousies and playing into the hands of the Brussels centralising agenda

• Above all, the whole project is fraught with practical difficulties:

• Inevitable increase in bureaucracy and cost of government
• Regional competition for slices of a finite national cake
• Fruitless expenditure bidding for causes lost to neighbours
• Identity difficulties, for example:
• With whom would outside investors be dealing?
• How would financial guarantees be made?

• Undermines the National safety net for economically disadvantaged areas

In the run-up to a crucial election, our advice was to nod sympathetically but to recognise that regional empowerment is superficially attractive but a potential quagmire.  It would be best to consign the whole issue to the long grass of some "constitutional convention" (Ed Miliband does have some useful ideas)!

Unfortunately, there will be few votes in being seen as resistant to "radical change" in the cause of "rights and freedom" so temptingly championed by the BBC.  The bandwagon which has just left is conspicuously without a destination but watch with concern as our Yorkshire MPs scramble aboard!

Depth of Defence

Yesterday's Daily Commentary from the Royal Aeronautical Society makes depressing reading.  Howard Wheeldon writes:

"Suggestions in recent weeks that HM Treasury is pressurising for a further 7.7% cut in defence spending over the five-year period 2016-2021 would, if correct, be at complete odds with a clear need to increase spending on defence and the unambiguous promise from the Prime Minister, David Cameron, made at the time SDSR 2010 defence cuts were announced, that real time spending on defence would rise by 1% annually through the following 2016 -2021 period."

He later points out that spending on defence in 2015 will fall well short of what we are currently paying to service the National Debt.

Meantime, in what appears to be the economic policy of the mad house, we continue to borrow money to pour into the sacred NHS, Education, Welfare and, of course, Overseas Aid.

Privacy Is Not An Absolute Right

Whatever the reality of the reach and activity of intelligence gathering, there is a public perception of intrusion and excess which must be assuaged.  Indeed, we sense that  there is significant and damaging public perception of a dishonest state targeting all individuals, regardless of specific suspicion.  This anxiety is reinforced by revelations and suspicions about Government actions in, for example, the case for war against Iraq, international intelligence cooperation and "rendition" and, of course, the conduct of British security forces in Northern Ireland.  It is clear that some sections of the public see this as an inexorable drift towards the practices and cultures which characterise the very totalitarian regimes that we are trying to defend ourselves against!

The simple truth is that the harder the people make it for the state to gather intelligence, the easier it becomes for terrorists and criminals to function.  It should not need a terrorist triumph to change public opinion on the need for robust and effective intelligence gathering.

This case for security and the impact that it will, necessarily, have upon freedom and rights must be made robustly and more effectively at all levels. The apparent public perception that mass collection (capability) necessarily results in mass untargeted surveillance must be proved as false. The public must be reassured that this and other beguiling myths promoted websites such as "Liberty" are untrue.  The case must be made with current and relevant issues (recognising the constraints of disclosing sensitive matters).  For example, although MI5, GCHQ and MI6 all testified as to the catastrophic damage caused by the Snowden betrayal, we did not see a counter-offensive from our politicians.

Neither will freedom will not be enhanced by picking at the carcass of the state, indiscriminately gorging on titbits that appear to offer protection from intrusion and “rightful” civil rights.  These rents in the fabric only undermine the overall capability of the state to protect our collective freedom. Human rights crusaders should be encouraged to  reflect on the sacrifices that were made to put them in their ivory tower in the first place.  The Liberal Democrat position is untenable.

 It is necessary to assure the public that intelligence gathering is properly targeted, unwarranted intrusion is avoided, indeed, illegal, and that, when intelligence is shared with foreign Governments proper regard is paid to UK law and the protection of the rights of UK citizens.  In short, trust must be re-established.  Once again, this will involve the Government doing "the right thing."  This will involve some plain speaking and tough decisions; a course of action upon which, lamentably, David Cameron cannot rely upon Liberal Democrat support.

We Need to Talk About Immigration

Just where do Conservatives stand on immigration?  If I was asked, on the doorstep, "what would your lot do about it," what should I say? Would there be a handy "lift card" to help me out?   Try Googling  "Conservative Policy on Immigration" and you will find a questionnaire with 5 questions, all seeking your views on clamping down on the symptoms rather than dealing with the causes.

I understand that the pledge to cut net migration to the "tens of thousands" has been abandoned.  It has been knocked on the head principally because we have no control of the numbers coming in from the EU but also because the number of our own citizens leaving is declining.

Before we go any further, let us try to remember Sir Andrew Green's ground rules for any debate on immigration:

• Stick to the facts
• Don't demonise your opponents
• Don't condescend to the public.

Perhaps, if you comment on this, you will abide by these rules?

If the current policy is a failure, what now is the target? We can probably agree that it is a positive number, something short of open house.  The trouble is, in defining that number, most protagonists immediately ignore the first rule and employ propaganda (a selective presentation or omission of facts to encourage an emotional rather than a rational response to a particular situation).  We can all think of examples that "prove the rule" - in my case, a recent walk down the High Street of a historic town in Norfolk.  However, although the experience was disturbing, my feelings are not evidence in this debate.

Indeed, there is a lot of powerful and emotional stuff out there which provides the fuel oil for the likes of UKIP.  They have mastered the art of highlighting local issues as evidence of a national policy failure.  Such selectivity is entirely unhelpful to level-headed debate.  That said, Conservatives should recognise the magnetism of the emotion created and not try to demonise UKIP for expressing it.

We saw Tony Blair weigh in to the debate last week, adopting his practiced voice of reason.  "Look" he said, border controls were important to ensure that people did not feel they had "lost control over their communities and their  lives."  Being "swamped" perhaps?

So far so good but then Tony breaks the rules book by proclaiming that stopping immigration would be a "disaster" for Britain - a condescending hyperbole designed to encourage the opposite emotion ie immigration is good.

Let us ignore Tony Blair and the rest of the hand-wringers and instead stick to the facts.  We cannot afford an open door, either socially or economically and if we seal our borders we will be taking the first step in protectionism, the inevitable escalation of  which could only have negative consequences for world trade. Try as we might, we cannot stop fellow Europeans taking advantage of our superior economic prospects - we are victims of our own success.  We can restrict the legal flow from the rest of the world by denying visas but that is a very blunt instrument because there are skills out there that we want, either for economic or cultural reasons.  Finally, we cannot stop our own people from staying - the anti-brain drain, if you like.

The most important fact that our policy should confront is that immigration issues are not uniform across the country.  The Westminster Village view of the great contribution of immigration to our economy and culture is probably not shared in some of our rural communities.  There seems to be a dislocation between the lofty principles of our ruling elite and their elitist language and the practical issues now being faced by local communities.  Our policy must recognise this divide and address it or risk the continued defection of voters. Whilst consistency is required at national level, constituency policies should tackle local issues, flexibly, within that framework.  The vast, and probably unquantifiable, costs of multiculturalism, distortions in the labour market and social division and tension, will all vary from region to region.  But addressing these specifics is a great opportunity for Westminster to re-connect to voters, reversing the tide of contempt in which national politics is perceived.  Indeed, if we are honest, understanding, practical and offer hope, we may even attract some voters back!

I do not think that we breaking any of the Andrew Green rules by concluding that doing nothing is not an option.  So, let us do something that:

• Recognises the economic limits of policy - how many people can we support
• Accepts that the wholesale dilution of traditional values, either locally or nationally,  is not acceptable
• Highlights that, if Europe is the problem, we need to do something about Europe
• Provides for immigrants with unique skills and attributes
• Gives hope that practical local issues will not be swept under the carpet of political idealism.

Whilst we must avoid any more knee-jerk policies, the urgency for doing something soon is palpable.  For reasons outlined above, UKIP are marching ahead and the further they go the more difficult it will become to claw back lost ground.  Perhaps there is something waiting at the press and ready to go and I am worrying unnecessarily?  Perhaps not, and in which case, the foot soldiers of the CPF should be delighted to contribute.   We spent a lot of time contributing to the CPF policy debate on immigration but we haven't seen much by way of a reaction yet!

Acknowledgements: I am most grateful for the editorial assistance provided by my RAF pal in Northumberland and my old school friend in York.

Tricky for Nicky

It is hard to feel any sympathy for Nicky Morgan. In an earier role in government she tells us she listened to the constituents who told her, in a ratio of ten to one, that she should vote against same sex marriage.  She is now apologising for that previous principled stance.  Presumably the electorate of Loughborough have now told they have changed their mind (how she wishes they had come out earlier and told her this) and that she should now concentrate on working hard to deliver the legislation to enable people to convert from civil partnerships to same-sex marriages?  The breathtaking agility with which she has been able to square her conscience is remarkable - so well done Loughborough for speaking out so decisively, albeit at the second attempt.

I could say quite a lot about what I think of Nicky Morgan's integrity but I shall content myself with wondering whether the Honourable Member hasn't got more important things to do with her time - continuing the once idolised education reforms of her principled predecessor, perhaps?