Thoughts on Theresa May Conservative Party Conference speech & what she is does not seem to understand

Being at Work I was unable to see Theresa May’s speech to the 2015 Conservative Party Conference in full. I have however seen the reaction to it and have seen some snippets. She cites the example of the Huguenot’s. This country took in 50,000 Huguenot refugees. Far more than the 20,000 Syrian refugee’s being proposed today. She also says that refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country – there is merit in that, but is Turkey safe?  Certainly not all of it.  

Are the Greek Islands the most suitable first refuge?

Many refugees only feel safe when they have successfully made that hazardous boat journey to mainland Europe. In the case of the Greek Island’s what are they supposed to do when they get there? Remain on the Islands?  Does Mrs May know how small the Greek Island are? Lesvos is the biggest. But there is also Kos.  Lets compare London, Lesvos & Kos. The maps below are to the same scale.

Lesvos

Kos

London area

The London area is far bigger than either Lesvos or Kos. One thing that the maps at this scale do not show is the landscape of the area. In the London area there is nowhere that could be classed as inhabitable. Lets look at Kos.

Kos from Marmari area

Kos up in the mountains

Kos from Zia village

Tigaki, Kos from Zia village with island of Pserimos

Mountains over Zia village

Tigaki, Kos from Zia village with island of Pserimos

Lesvos also has many similar mountainous areas that are not inhabitable. Just where are the refugees supposed to live if they are to remain on the Greek Islands Mrs May. In caves? On the beaches?

If sense prevails anyone can see that it is not an option for all of the refugees to remain on the Islands. OK take them to the mainland. Except the mainland also has a lot of inhabitable mountainous areas.  Even if geographical facts are overlooked how is Greece with its own economic woes supposed to support all of the refugees who arrive on her shores? As Europeans we should be helping out our fellow Europeans the Greeks in offering alternative refuge in just the same way we help them defeat the tyranny of Nazi occupation.

There is no such thing as "Can't"

In another part of Mrs May’s speech, she said:-

“…when immigration is too high, when the pace of change is too fast, it’s impossible to build a cohesive society.  It’s difficult for schools and hospitals and core infrastructure like housing and transport to cope.”

I agree – we have seen the effects of this in Lincolnshire & the Fens, where we have migrants from other parts of Europe who have come here for employment. Our Agricultural and Food processing businesses which feed the country would grind to a halt without them. Not only that, our health service would also suffer as there are many who are now employed by our hospitals. The area has been put under intense strain – but the reason is not extra population. It is a lack of investment into housing, schools, doctor surgeries. Local councils of all political hues have been pointing this out for years in Boston, Spalding and Wisbech just to mention a few.  

In an area where the indigenous population is ageing we needed the vitality that comes with young people who have chosen to come here and do work that many British people don’t want to do and by golly most of them work hard. There are of course some who cause problems with anti social behaviour, but the same can be said of some British. There are some who break the rule of law through ignorance or deliberately. We should educate those who are ignorant of our laws and punish those who commit deliberate acts. and in the worse cases seek to repatriate them to their country of origin. They would not get away with some of their actions at home, so why should they here? We should also look at whether it is reasonable to pay children tax credits & child benefit where the children are living overseas. However these are, I would contend, minority examples.

Most workers who have come from the Eastern Countries of Europe are law abiding, tax paying citizens. We should be encouraging them to integrate into Society by supporting the teaching of English and by allowing them to partake in our democracy by encouraging them to become British citizens.

History tells us that many Huguenots settled in the area. Many descendants are unaware that once their ancestors were considered outsiders and viewed with suspicion in just the same way that Mrs May's speech will fuel.

The inference of  the statement made by Mrs May is that “We can’t” Can’t is not a word that anyone with an entrepreneurial  spirit would recognise. We can build the core infrastructure and we must. We should not be peddling the language that stokes up racial tension & prejudice.

Holbeach development and long term effects on healthcare in South Holland

I am writing this just after the announcement that the application to build  900 new homes on the south western edge of Holbeach. Of these just 300 will be "affordable". Will that be enough? Time will tell.

Whilst it is pleasing to note that the planner will be contributing to a new school and other infrastructure improvements in Holbeach and that it has already been accepted that the Medical care facilities in Holbeach require an overhaul, I hope that the planned new medical centre is built before any significant development on the Manor Farm site begins. Indeed I believe it is right to ask the question whether the new medical centre will be sufficient to cope not only with a 3,000 increase in population that the latest plan means but also has capacity for at least three times the amount as the area west of Holbeach bounded by the A17 and A151 will be an obvious site for future development and clearly there will be some smaller scale development in close by villages over the next 20 years. If a new medical centre is to be built, it must be future proof.

The population of Holbeach Town in 2011 was 7,346 and that of Fleet was 2,136. A total of 9,482. The addition of 900 new homes over a period of time will increase that by a third. Here is another statistic. In 2001 the combined population of Spalding & Holbeach Economic zone was 72,721. This had increased to 84,126 by 2011. An increase of 11,500. The 900 homes proposed for Holbeach combined with long term plans for Spalding will probably mean that by 2031 the population could have increased by a further 10,000 plus. 

If we consider the population of the Boston economic zone, in 2001 it was 68,105 but by 2011 had increased to 77,532. Therefore Spalding & Holbeach are growing faster than Boston and this is probably due to proximity to Peterborough and the A1 as much as any other reason.

Why am I flagging this? It is clear that the resources of Boston Pilgrim Hospital are being increasingly stretched. An increase of 10,000 in Spalding & Holbeach plus the increase that Boston will also see - lets say its also 10,000 will result in a 20,000 total increase from 2011, or more strikingly 40,000 plus from 2001! This represents a 1/3rd overall increase in population from 2001.

The Johnson Community Hospital opened in 2009 already seems incapable of offering much in the way of diagnosis. It has no CT scanning facilities and the blood test facilities are limited. This means that people from Spalding & Holbeach have to travel to Boston for such diagnostic tests. Given that Boston Pilgrim is already showing signs of strain and given that population growth seems to be higher in Spalding & Holbeach, I believe that the time has come to consider whether it is now time to ensure that Johnson Community Hospital has more diagnosis facilities so that the residents of South Holland do not have to undertake the trip up to Boston.

It is time for the cost of Healthcare in the UK to be transparently funded

The National Insurance Act of 1911 had two strands – provision of medical benefits and provision of a time limited Unemployment benefit. It followed on from the Old Age Pensions Act of 1908 which provided a small non contributory pension for the over 70’s. The principles behind these two Acts formed part of the great Social Welfare Reforms of the pre World War One Liberal Government that have stood the test of time. The next inevitable step was the creation of the National Health Service and the post World War two Welfare reforms following the Beverage Report.

The concept that National Insurance contributions formed the basis of a savings pot for a basic state pension and also was to fund health care provision was a concept that clearly was embraced by the British public. This is why that National Health Service is such an important issue today. People care about it and want to see it protected & properly funded.

It is no secret that successive Governments have dipped into the pension element of our “pension pots” that have been built up from our National Insurance Contributions. It is the real tangible implication of Government borrowing. The new pension regime that the Labour Government under Gordon Brown introduced which the Coalition Government carried forward to implementation is testament to that. It ensures that contributions into the “National Employee Savings Trust” (NEST) or into funds provided by Personal Pension providers are protected from future Governments and they will no longer be able to borrow from our pension savings. This means that the pressures on our National Insurance Savings pots are reduced.

However  there is no transparent link between the cost of all elements of health care and the National Insurance Contributions that we pay. Given that we now have sophisticated Computer Accounting Software that makes it far easier and quicker to collate the costs of providing a service, I think it is time to completely overhaul the way our National Health Service is funded so that it can be transparent as to how much our health care costs are and that it is equally clear how they are funded from specific forms of taxation raised by the Government. Any reduction in funding would then be clearly seen.  Not just rhetoric about ring fencing the NHS budget but actually doing so in a way that it can be seen that it is ring fenced. In short, taking health care out of the political agenda

Firstly I think we need to look at how much the NHS together with all aspects of health care both physical & mental elements regardless of whether that is provided by the NHS, local authority or the voluntary sector and link that cost with specific taxes. The following list of taxes should automatically go to the health care budget.

• All forms of taxes paid by tobacco & alcohol companies as well as VAT & other duties collected at the point of sale.
• An element of road taxation and fuel duties to account for the cost of accidents.
• An element of taxation collected on the sale of unhealthy foods (high fat & high sugar). Perhaps even a small targeted increase in VAT to encourage companies to really look at the content of processed foods.
• All taxes paid by the pharmaceutical sector and on the sale of medicines.
• All taxes paid by private health insurance companies.

This would still leave a big hole. Whilst we have National Insurance, the concept of a direct link which was first conceived by Lloyd George's 1911 National Insurance Act has all but been broken. Not only that with the medical breakthroughs that there have been, the actual cost of treatments available are way beyond that envisaged during the Edwardian era. We need to modernise the concept of the 1911 Act.

• Employer's National Insurance Contributions should be abolished - they are seen as & are a tax on jobs. This also removes a tax on the NHS and other health care service providers to provide health workers.
• Abolition of NHS prescription charges. They are a punitive tax on being ill.
• Instead there should be a specific flat rate “Health Care Insurance” tax chargeable to all individuals (over a certain threshold) & Companies. The rate should be specifically linked to the cost of health care not covered by other taxes already highlighted thereby ensuring that if the cost of health care increased, the cost of that increase was automatically met by an adjustment to the tax rates covering health care.
• The part that private health care has to play must be recognised. If a specific tax was paid by employers, they should be able to offset the cost of health care insurance provided to employees against that tax. For the employee, the current status of private health care as a taxable benefit should be removed. How can health care insurance ever be considered a taxable benefit? It should be routine for employers to provide health care insurance to their employees.
• All Local authorities to receive so much a head of population to cover their element of health care services, with the amount being made publicly available. It would then be for the local authority to demonstrate what they have spent that money on and for councillors to defend their record on the decisions made.

This would then leave National Insurance. Whilst there would remain a need for National Insurance to cover entitlement to state benefits the actual rate payable should be reduced for all to account for the health care element being transparently funded. In addition the thresholds for paying contributions should be increased and should be set at the same threshold as the specific “Health Care” Insurance to keep it simple.

The overall tax totals raised may of course be higher than it is now because of the clear need to cover more areas than the NHS currently covers, but surely if people could actually see what they were paying for it would be a price that they would be happier to pay. 

He made sense.... Charles Kennedy 1959-2015

When I mentioned that one of the Liberal Democrat leaders who made sense was Charles Kennedy, little did I imagine that within a few days there would be a very big reminder of exactly why.

His decision to lead the opposition to the Gulf War was one that I respected and I had enormous doubts over the decision to go to War a second time against Saddam Hussein. The first time was one of principle - you cannot invade a neighbour. The second was regime change. It is not right for a country or group of countries to dictate to another country who they have as their leader. Even if that leader is a dictator and a brute towards his own people. Ultimately it is down to the people to rebel, if that is their wish. No country should inter meddle or interfere with the affairs of another independent state.

Today we have been reminded of Charles Kennedy the Politician and have also been reminded of human frailties. It is something that we should remember of all Politicians when we judge their actions. They are above all human. 

My thoughts to family & friends. They have not just lost a Politician and a campaigner for Social Liberalism & Justice. They have lost a father, brother, mentor & friend.

I have joined the Liberal Democrats

I have always had a keen interest in politics and am one of those people who sit up until the birds are stirring on Election Nights to get the results and find myself watching BBC Parliament and the late night political chat programme on BBC1, This Week. 

My interest dates back years but probably inspired by the way the Labour Government of 1974-79 changed the financial fortunes of my parents thanks to high inflation which whittled away the value of the money gained from the sale of the family farm. My father should have got £160,000 but actually got far less thanks to some quirk in the planning rules. The Peterborough Development Corporation were allowed to buy the land at agricultural values as opposed to building land values provided they undertook not to build on it for 10 years. Imagine agricultural land being allowed to go to waste for ten years abandoned to nothing but grazing for the horses of the local Gypsies. The land is now the site of Peterborough Power Station. For me it has always been fundamentally wrong that the land was purchased and just held as part of the land bank until the Development Corporation got around to developing it. 

Other things that happened were that the houses that my Great Grandfather and Grandfather had purchased were compulsory purchased at a knock down price the the Development Corporation and of course my father had to pay Capital Gains Tax on the lot!

No wander the election of Margaret Thatcher was seen as a relief. Out went the high taxation and investment income surcharge of Labour and in came a new era of enterprise and a plan to combat the scourge of inflation that whittled away the value of savings It was too late for my parents. The remnants of high inflation meant that the money had gone, but at least other families would be spared the same plight. As time went by, I found my way in the World of work, I was lucky enough to have John Major as my MP for a while and having met him in the 1983 election campaign and predicted that he would be the next Prime Minister the day Nigel Lawson resigned as Chancellor. 

However the Major years saw a new view from within the Conservative Party - espoused by only a few but enough to make a difference - Euro Scepticism. It was not something that I could reconcile with a party that believed in Free Trade. It seemed obvious to me that if you were going to embrace Free Trade you needed a common set of rules within the participating countries of what was still referred to as the Common Market. Yes there were some crazy things coming out of Brussels, but surely a democratically elected European Parliament would address this? I felt that Europe needed to be more democratic and accountable and this was a start. 

In 1997 the Conservatives were swept from power and the party that I supported, became dominated by Euro Sceptics. My vote was somewhat given grudgingly whilst having some relief that New Labour was not espousing the high taxation policies of old Labour.

However during the 1980's and 1990's something happened in British Politics. The old Liberal party that had made a terrible decision to support the Labour Government of 1974-1979 had changed. It was winning seats at council elections and the Bermondsey by election victory by Simon Hughes in 1983 at the subsequent General Election was proved not to be a fluke, unlike the 1962 Orpington by election that was still being talked about in election night coverage at that time. These Liberals & Social Democrats that appeared on TV media from Paddy Ashdown to Charles Kennedy and Menzies Cambell were making sense even if they would never be able to form a Government, they were a voice of reason, flagging up some of the things that the Thatcher Government was doing. They became a party that I admired and I found myself agreeing with them, most of the time. A few things I didn't like but generally I felt they offered an alternative.

I was not looking at manifestos closely, but I hoped that the rise of the newly formed Liberal Democrat party would be fuel for those within the Conservative Party to stop the right wing and anti Europe rhetoric that was being espoused. It never really happened though did it? David Cameron did modernise the Party, but he is not in the same tradition as Margaret Thatcher or John Major - he was a career Politician, he had never worked in the real World unlike past leaders. Indeed this lack of real World life was something that has been an issue with leaders from the majority of parties and is I believe a key factor in the disillusionment with all political parties.

It was during the first decade of this century that really made me think that the Liberal Democrats had something to say. Vince Cable warned Gordon Brown what was happening to the economy before the credit crunch, and the Liberal Democrats were putting the affects of climate change at the heart of  the political debate and were talking about fairness. Even I accept that owing to the credit crunch the Government had to raise more money in taxation and I agreed it had to be done fairly. Not by the methods used during the 1970's that decimated the savings and assets that families had built up through hard work.

In 2010 the Liberal Democrats came up with the policy to increase the Personal Tax Allowance to £10,000. David Cameron said the country could not afford it. That is not something that I expected to hear from a leader of a party with a tradition of taking people out of taxation. This policy combined with the clear difference on Europe led me to vote for the Liberal Democrats for the first time. In a safe Conservative seat such as South Holland & the Deepings, my vote would not affect the result, but at least my vote was a positive one.

In 2010, the Liberal Democrats did the right thing for the country. We needed a strong and stable Government as we were in a financial situation not too dissimilar from Greece. To be fair the Conservatives offered a genuine coalition and for the first time in nearly 90 years or political tradition the Liberal Democrats entered into Government. During that time they saw through the policy to increase the Personal Tax allowance, they introduced the Green Deal, they introduced the Pupil Premium amongst many contributions to the coalition agreement and they brought about a fair reform to Student Fees. The latter showed a willingness to be responsible and compromise. In my view the party has been unfairly tainted over Student Fees. It is just ONE policy where there had to be compromise. It is what Coalition politics are about. The Conservatives also had to compromise. The Liberal Democrats stopped the Snoopers charter, and they stopped any talk of a Euro Referendum for as long as there was a coalition.

On 7th May 2015, I did not expect to wake up the next day to see a party that I had admired, found myself in increasing agreement with and that had done a pretty good job as a minor voice in coalition 

Government nearly wiped of the political map of the United Kingdom on the 8th May!

We are now faced with a majority Conservative Government that:-

• Wants to take this country out of the European Convention on Human Rights something that a past Conservative Government helped create in 1950, 
• Wants to introduce a law that will allow the monitoring of Emails as routine. This is no different to the routine phone tapping undertaken in the old eastern block communist counties.
• Is promoting English Nationalism in reaction to Scottish Nationalism and risking the breakup of the United Kingdom as a result.
• Is holding a European Referendum that could lead this country sleepwalking of the European stage.
• Does not seem to want to accept Syrian War refugees and seemingly letting Southern Europeans countries such as Greece & Italy that can ill afford to deal with them.
• Has to continue to reduce that National Debt, but is unwilling to share the burden with the very richest in our Society in a fair way.
• Could put our economy at risk as result of the potential exit from the European Union and potential break up of the United Kingdom.
• Wants to force Housing Associations into selling houses at a discount, with no clear plan on how those houses will be replaced.
• Has been elected by a minority of the electorate and will almost certainly not consider introducing electoral reform that this country so desperately needs in light of the 2015 General Election result, meaning there will be even more dissatisfaction and disengagement with UK politics.

Having considered all of the above, I have arrived at an unavoidable conclusion. 

I agree with Nick. 

This country needs Liberalism more than ever which is why I have joined the Liberal Democrats.