It is Worth Banging On about Europe

Those Conservatives in favour of securing significant reform to the EU as a condition of continued membership have taken a couple of knocks recently. The demand for an extra £1.7 billion of our taxes to be swallowed up in the labyrinth of the EU finances was an open goal for UKIP.  Then, Liberal Democrats have stabbed us in the back, yet again, by refusing to support a private members bill that would have given us a referendum on our future in Europe.  Meantime, on "Planet Riddell" in the Daily Telegraph, Conservatives are portrayed as blustering xenophobes, foaming like the Tiber (yes, she really stooped to that)!

Worse, the Planet Riddell view of European history would have us believe that "our culture, our democracy and our rule of law are woven through our bonds with Europe" and that we would be "foolish indeed to make foes of our most valuable friends." Would these "friends" be the same countries that vetoed the UK application in the first place, showed such consideration over our difficulties with immigration, dragged their feet over liberalisation of the market for services and jealously hacked away at the City of London competitive advantage (to name but a few)?

Propaganda is a selective presentation or omission of facts to encourage an emotional rather than a rational response to a particular situation. The oft re-cycled slogans like, "50% of our trade is with EU Members, the net benefit of membership to the UK is £90 billion a year, or £3000 per household" is seductive but highly selective - it is propaganda.  But even Mary Riddell recognises that "the arguments of the ledger book will have little traction on hearts and minds."

What can she be worrying about? Even with UKIP surging in the opinion polls, a majority of us, apparently, want to stay in the EU. Perhaps it is the proposition that the majority of us would not want to remain in the EU at any price that causes her concern?

Labour should fear that, in the privacy of the polling booth, voters will, actually, behave rationally, even recanting their emotional reaction to opinion polls.  There are significant doubts about the extremes of the argument.  Voters will pause and noting no clear path to the sunlit uplands, will opt for caution.  Herein lies the opportunity for Conservatives as the calm but firm voice on our future.  We must promise 2 things: tough, uncompromising negotiations and an unequivocal recommendation for a referendum if we do not achieve our desired position.  By being tough, I mean emphasising that we will not shrink from making that "out" recommendation to the electorate, if necessary.  And whilst on the strength of the UK negotiating position, I wonder who should be more worried about a UK withdrawal, the Nissan workers in Sunderland or the Mercedes workers in Stuttgart?

All of which should make Mary's final salvo all the more ridiculous:

 "Britain is heading out of Europe, and Ed Miliband looks suddenly like the only leader who can deflect it from that suicidal course."

What a load of piffle - let's get out and tell the voters the positive good news about Britain's future!

From Localism to Regionalism

Before we get carried away with debate about devolving more powers to the regions, how about taking stock of where we already are with localism?  Earlier this year, Selby & Ainsty with Elmet & Rothwell CPF responded to the CPF Questionnaire on Local Government.  I see that forthcoming Yorkshire & Humberside Regional Conference will be held Saturday 1st November 2014 and will include a Panel Discussion on Local Government.

As a starting point for this debate, it may be worthwhile to rehearse our Group thoughts?  When we were asked, "how can the Government further incentivise communities to take up the rights we have granted them," we concluded, rather bleakly:

None of our group claimed to be completely familiar with the extent of the "rights" on offer.  Neither were we sure how these rights might be taken up by "communities." Nevertheless, we were aware of, and considered important:

• The concept of general power of competence
•  A community right to bid for local assets of community value
•  A community right to challenge to provide better or more efficient services
• The influence of the neighbourhood on planning
•  The concept of "weight of community opinion" on planning processes.

We considered that our understanding and, presumably, the majority of the general public's, was incomplete because:

• Communication from central government was not as effective as it should be
•  There was a lack of expertise amongst lay people such that the full opportunity on offer could not be understood or grasped
•  Dissemination at community level was inconsistent and, in some cases, ineffective
• There was inertia and an aura of negative fatalism that stifled initiative
• There was not always "one button to press," ie some issues spanned competing Authority interests.

This strikes as a pretty sorry state of affairs and, although we were only discussing matters at a community level, it seems  a very shaky foundation from which to devolve further power to regions.  I wonder whether, as citizens, we are ready for more self-determination - if we do not know how, or choose not to exercise the power we already have, to check on our affairs at local level, what chance might we have of holding a regional authority to account?

A Labour Shoe-In

What could be simpler for Ed, ahead in the opinion polls, to just sit back and rely upon his core vote to carry him over the line and into No 10?  The continued loyalty of the stalwarts can be assured by the usual offerings of banker and utility company bashing, price freezes, state intervention, and mansion taxes, all served with a liberal dose of old fashioned Labour envy

What could possibly go wrong? "Events my dear boy!"

Stand by for a barrage of cobbled together policy activity as Ed tries to shore up his defecting Scottish party and, simultaneously, appeal to the rest of the electorate he forgot to mention.

We all smiled grimly when told "go to bed with Nigel Farage and wake up with Ed Miliband."  Now, the hitherto grotesque thought of going to bed with Nicola Sturgeon is replaced by the altogether more delightful prospect of waking up with David Cameron!

Afghanistan

The 13 year combat involvement is officially over.  Looking back, the entire campaign has been conducted since I left the Royal Air Force in late 1997.  Yet, despite not being physically involved in any of it I feel as though I have been personally involved all along the way.  I have friends who have recounted their experiences, I have attended lectures and seminars, listened to soldiers and airmen, politicians and diplomats, followed on online forums, grimaced at mawkish ceremonies, been moved by the enormous dignity of the citizens of Wootton Bassett and Brize Norton, and like everyone else been deluged by press and TV coverage.  With my background and accumulated vicarious experience it would be very tempting, from the comfort of an arm chair, to sound off and pass a retrospective judgement.  Even to add my voice to the chorus of ignorance voting the mission a success or failure (tick one box only)!

I am going to keep my opinions to myself for 2 reasons.  Firstly, technically, it will be many years, if ever, before contemporary intelligence is made public.  Meantime, it is impossible to make informed judgements on policy.  Secondly, and more importantly, there are very many people struggling to live with the physical and mental consequences of the war - we should not make matters worse by prematurely raking over their memories.  Doubtless, there will even be politicians who will attempt to score points in the debrief - shame on them!  Better, it seems to me, for the whole country to pause and reflect silently until, in due course, history makes an informed and dispassionate judgement, affording participants the courtesy of the presumption that they did their honest best at the time.

Don't Mention the Debt

The Chancellor may have thought he had got away with it, at Conference, in an unusually candid assessment of the progress against the deficit reduction target.

The larger than life Senator for New Jersey, Chris Christie, is quoted as saying:

“Our founding fathers had the wisdom to know that social acceptance and popularity is fleeting and that this country’s principles needed to be rooted in strengths greater than the passions and emotions of the times.  Our leaders today have decided it is more important to be popular, to do what is easy and say ‘yes’ rather than ‘no’ when ‘no’ is what is required.”

The deficit, the difference between what we currently spend and currently earn, may well be a popular thing to talk about because achieving a reduction in the deficit is, at least, achievable, sometime in the future.  However, the low hanging fruit has been picked and the Chancellor, rightly, warned of tougher times ahead. I think he should have told us more.

The elephant in the room is the debt.  As I understand it, the National Debt has ballooned by 80% since 2010 to a whopping £1451 billion (and rising rapidly, despite deficit reduction austerity measures). According to Liam Halligan, writing in the Sunday Telegraph yesterday, the cost of servicing this mountain of debt will soon exceed the annual education budget.

Now, I find it strange that a political party that once cared so much for the planet and the legacy of global warming, that it promised to be the “greenest government” ever, should now hold back on an even greater threat to our children. In terms of morality, what is the difference between bequeathing an impossible legacy of debt, a maxed out credit card, or environmental catastrophe resulting from (alleged) global warming?  If ever there was something greater than the “passion and emotion of the times,” it is the problem of the National Debt.

Yet, with a few honourable exceptions, eg Carswell, our politicians say nothing, presumably in the forlorn hope that "something will turn up." That will just not do!  Quite apart from the overwhelming moral case that we should not inflict the debts of our excesses on our children what happens, in the meantime, if our creditors decide to pull the plug?

Can we afford to wait another 5 years, racking up debt at such an unsustainable rate?  Apart from the helping hand of inflation, the National Debt is not going to go away by itself. We are going to have to pay off the credit card accrued balance, not just the minimum monthly payment.  This means reversing the current account deficit more quickly, either by cutting expenditure or increasing revenue, or both.  With the fruits of admirable growth in GDP not being reflected in tax receipts, the impact of an increase in taxation being self-defeating, it is surely time to say 'no' to unaffordable spending?   Now that should stir the passions and emotions of the times!