Eurosceptics were dead right about the euro

Back in 2000 the subject of hot debate was should Britain join the euro. This debate was held far and wide, from newspaper columns, to talking heads on the news, to parliament and even in the Conservative association in Basildon, where we had a debate on the matter.

The basic positions were on the one hand that the euro could not work without very large monetary transfers, which were specifically ruled out in the treaty, and on the other hand that if Britain stayed out that we would be sidelined economically and our prosperity would suffer. Actually the latter does not really represent the supposed Götterdämmerung that many pro-euro commentators stated as absolute fact would befall our country if we stayed out. There was also the truly stupid argument that wouldn't it be nice not have change holiday money when travelling to the continent. As if that was more important that the potential to wreck our economy with a failed euro experiment.

In general what was particularly noticable was how the euro-sceptic view on the euro was ridiculed by the BBC and their pro-euro fellow-travellers. It was conflated with a supposed hatred of foreigners by 'little Englanders' and treated with amused contempt. Well, who was right and who was wrong?

The key problem with the euro was, and is, that in the event that European economies diverged, and one or more nations went in recession while others did not, then the currency could not move to match the new economic conditions. It would either be at the wrong value for some nations or others. So, the euro is now at the wrong value for Ireland, Greece, Spain and Portugal while being right for Germany and France. Without the ability of their currency to devalue, then the smaller nations in trouble have to make cuts to wages and public services instead. They even risk getting into a situation that the cuts make their growth levels so low that they never get out of debt and so face generations of poverty. Meanwhile in Britain, Sterling has devalued by about 20% over the last few years, boosting exports at exactly the right time for our economy.

It has come to a situation where very serious people in the UK Parliament and abroad are discussing, or advocated, some nations leaving the euro. Frankly, in the case of Greece and Ireland that is exactly what they should do. However, expect a rearguard action by, well, the old guard who see the European project as more important than reality.

No apologies by the BCC and various pro-euro commentariat though.

Hell would freeze over first.

Localism in Action

There has been a lot of discussion, in political circles anyway, regarding Localism and what it means. A lot of this seems to be an attempt to provide a dictionary definition rather than anything to do with actual policy. From the perspective of a local Councillor, I have already seen the death of a great deal of government oversight and reporting, which frankly was a complete waste of time and money. So, I no longer have to sit and be lectured by government-appointed know-nothings from the Audit Commission on what's wrong with me, while the professional officers from the Council sit around me on overtime courtesy of the Council taxpayer.

However, the real change has been to the planning system. Now, this is a bit of a dry subject, which is why it gets little attention, but it is actually hugely important. Planning defines how communities develop and grow and for a dynamic place like Basildon Borough it is especially important. So, what's changed? Well the Regional Spatial Strategy, where a bunch of people who never set foot in Basildon decided how many homes we had to build, is history. Well, not quite. Some property developers have fought a rearguard action through the courts, but it is still a case of going, going, soon to be gone. Now, we decide how much housebuilding we need, via a streamlined Local Development Framework process. This used to mean sending documents off to the Government Office for the East of England, for another bunch of know-nothings to mark our work and send it back in a seemingly endless cycle of corrections and changes. Now, with Localism, we write the LDF and a central government inspector reviews it. The only result of this can be a yes or no: either it is accepted as a credible piece of work or rejected. This stops a Council producing a work of fantasy, ignoring population growth in order to appease the 'not one brick' brigade for example, but it stops the government from micro-managing local planning. The net effect is to cut years off the LDF process and to save hundreds of thousands of pounds of the Council's money.

Firing the empty suits who used to look over our shoulders must have saved a few bob too.

John Baron MP: Dale Farm eviction funding now complete

MP sends message to travellers and says eviction can now proceed

Today John Baron MP confirmed that after detailed negotiations the total potential policing costs arising from the Council’s clearance of the illegal Dale Farm traveller site have now been fully funded. Negotiations between various Government Departments, the Prime Minister’s Office, Essex Police, Essex Police Authority, and Basildon Borough Council have resulted in the £9.5m needed in a worst case scenario being met through a combination of sources [see notes to editors]. This removes the final obstacle in proceeding with the eviction.

John said:

Because the Prime Minister accepted this site had to be cleared and because of the goodwill of various parties to these negotiations, we have now pieced together this financial jigsaw and so guarantee all potential policing costs are met. The eviction can now proceed.

This funding sends a clear message that no one individual or group is above the law. Once again, I urge the travellers at the illegal Dale Farm site to now move off peacefully, as no one wants to see the misery of a forced eviction. If not, the eviction will proceed for it is only fair the law is enforced without exception.

I would like to thank Cllr Tony Ball and his team, Chief Constable Jim Barker-McCardle and his team, Essex Police Authority, and the Government. These negotiations haven’t always gone smoothly but we got there in the end. I would also like to thank local residents for their patience and trust.

Notes to Editors

Essex Police has costed various scenarios and requires up to £9.5m in a worst case scenario. If necessary, this funding will be met as follows:-

• The first £2.5m costs to be met by Essex Police Authority
• The next £2.4m to be shared equally between the Home Office and Basildon Borough Council.
• The next £2.3m costs to be met by the Home Office alone; and
• The next £2.3m costs to be shared equally between the Home Office and Essex Police Authority.
  

Correction - Plan B advocates not economists, still Balls

Very good article on ConservativeHome on the background of those 'economists' who are suggesting a change to government economic policy. It turns out that a fairly large number of them are not economists, but soft-subject academics instead. So, we have expertise in History, Cultural Studies, Human resources and so on, but precious little in the subject that they are pontificating about.

A better headline to yesterday's media coverage would have been 'Labour unable to find actual economists to back Balls'.

Meanwhile the IMF have endorsed the government's approach, the key passage from their report being:

However, the weakness in economic growth and rise in inflation over the last several months was unexpected. This raises the question whether it is time to adjust macroeconomic policies. The answer is no as the deviations are largely temporary. Strong fiscal consolidation is underway and remains essential to achieve a more sustainable budgetary position, thus reducing fiscal risks.

Not exactly equivocal.

Plan B is Balls

A warning from economists that the government's economic policies are not working is reported in the Observer. The article, focusses on recent disappointing economic data, but the quoted arguments don't make a lot of sense. For example Johathan Portes, until recently a government economist, is quoted as giving this opinion on growth:

It isn't just about the international environment, it's because of the strategy the government has followed.

Most government cuts only started to kick in with the new tax year in April, for which there is no economic data yet. So, what is he talking about? He could argue that its all going to be a disaster, but the cause and effect that he implies simply doesn't exist.

The proposed plan B is the usual sort of stuff you get from left-wing economists. They want more government spending and higher taxes, because there is a long and rich history of nations taxing and spending their way out of problems with economic growth. Except that there isn't. The one thing that the government's policy has done is kept Britain out of the eurozone crisis, as a prime victim that is. There are still a lot of UK liabilities in foreign failing economies, but at least we haven't joined them.

Of course, up pops Ed Balls, who is incredibly complaining about government borrowing. Huh? He wants higher spending and where does he think the cash would come from? The tooth fairy?

Meanwhile, grown-ups will be aware that we won't be able to start making a balanced judgement on the outturn of last year's budget until the end of this year at least. By that time one or more European countries may well have defaulted on their government debt.

That will put the real issues into sharp relief and, hopefully put Balls back into his box.

John Baron MP welcomes Dale Farm eviction funding progress

MP says negotiations for the balance drawing to a close

John Baron MP has today confirmed that, after detailed negotiations, the Home Office is prepared to commit £4.65 million towards potential Essex Police costs arising from the Council’s clearance of the illegal Dale Farm traveller site. Essex Police estimate that approximately £9.5 million will cover a worst case scenario.

John said:

Negotiations with Government departments have not always gone smoothly. But after raising the issue both privately and publically with the Prime Minister, the Government has correctly come round to the view that it has a responsibility to ensure the site is cleared, otherwise we would all ask: what price law and order?

£4.65 million from the Home Office and £1.2 million from the Department for Communities and Local Government represents major progress. Negotiations continue regarding the remaining balance needed to cover all potential police costs, but I am hopeful we will have positive news next week.

I am determined that no one individual or group is above the law in the constituency. It is only fair and just that the law is enforced.

Conservatives level pegging Labour in new poll

These are the numbers on ComRes for the Independent:

CON 37%(+3), LAB 37%(nc), LDEM 12%(-3), Others 14%(nc)

There is a YouGov poll for the Sun that has Labour five points up, though the two polls have different methodologies. The point really is that the Conservatives are staying well in touch with Labour, this despite cuts and a contentious reform agenda from the government.

So, what it going on. Well, right now the Labour Party is in the throes of a very complicated policy review process, that has left their spokesmen and women with nothing to say on, well, anything. The idea that the Opposition can go off for two years to build a manifesto is a bit odd to say the least. A more sensible approach would be to develop some key themes early, otherwise you risk looking irrelevant.

The other factor is Ed Milliband, who is simply dismal. Modern politicians need some charisma at least and Ed is sadly bereft in that department. His speech-writer needs firing as well, unless he is accurately articulating what Ed thinks, in which case Ed needs firing.

Labour has no tradition of ditching poor performing leaders, but surely they must realise that they have picked the wrong one here.

Oh, hang on, they didn't pick him. The Unions did.

Save Our Gloucester Park Redux

Councillor Phil Rackley has posted a lengthy comment in response to my previous post on the Save Our Gloucester Park campaign. I think that it deserves a post all of its own.

For those that don't know, Cllr. Rackley is on the Labour front bench at Basildon Countil, and he is deeply in love with the Conservative Party and all of its works.

The point you seem to miss is that the various groups opposed to your administration's policy of selling off open space to fund the Sporting Village is that people value their open space and want to keep it.

I am very well aware that people value open space, especially open space adjacent to their homes. However, it is not engaging in grown-up politics to pretend that is the only issue. Most serious decisions in politics are a balance between a number of interests. What we haven't had from the Labour Party is what you would have done instead to deal with gradual decline of the Council's ability to offer sports facilities to residents. You are aware of course that just about every sporting organisation in Basildon Borough agrees with the Conservative Administration on this matter. Their voices count too you know.

As far as Gloucester Park is concerned you have already taken a big chunk of it for the Sporting Village and rather than compensating the people, and not only those living in the vicinity, by returning the area around the swimming pool to parkland you are intent in flogging that off.

The development at the Southern end of Gloucester Park is a similar balance. In this case between the use of the land, which is all brownfield by the way, or the gradual decline of Basildon Town Centre. Houses here will help fund much-needed infrastructure in both Gloucester Park and the Town Centre, as well as adding to footfall in the Town Centre which the businesses there desperately need. The Conservative Administration view is that allowing Basildon Town Centre to continue on a downward path would be bad for the Borough as a whole, but especially for those residents in central Basildon. These are your constituents by the way. Right now the only policy from Labour appears to be that we should do nothing about this. In fact, according to your Leader there is no actual problem at all, which suggests that a proliferation of closed or charity shops is a good thing. Do you agree with this by the way?

As far as the political allegiances of those supporting the campaign is concerned, I'm not privy to information about their political allegiances but one thing is clear they certainly don't support the plundering of community assets being undertaken by your administration.

The leading light of the Gloucester Park Campaign, the chap who copies you on his emails and you have repeated been photographed in the local press standing next to, stood for Labour for Wickford in a Council election just over a month ago. Yet you are seriously claiming that you didn't know he was a member of the Labour party? Please pull the other one, it's got bells on.

On the Gloucester Park matter, how much do you think your proposed course of action would cost the Council? I would not imagine that you would be suggesting this without having some idea at least, and I think it would move the debate on if you would let us all know what your figure is?

There is a deal of hypocrisy in some of what else you say. For example, the last Labour administration gave Billericay Football Club planning permission for a stadium right where the Sporting Village is today. Arguments about loss of park space clearly did not matter when up against a privately-owned minority sporting interest. At least the current use is publicly-owned and caters to a huge amount of sports participation, as opposed to a few hundred spectators every other Saturday during the football season. For comparison, as of last Wednesday we had 25000 individuals, that is not counting repeat visits, at the Sporting Village. How may do you think would used Labour's alternative football stadium?

I am reminded in this whole thing about the new George Hurd Centre. This took up open space in order to provide a old age person's Day Centre and offices for charities helping the aged. We had a similar row backed by the Labour Party, until the facility was built when it was suddenly the best thing since sliced bread. What characterised that matter was a complete refusal on the part of Basildon Labour to even acknowledge that there was even another point of view. Then, like now, Labour essentially suggested that Conservative Councillors got out of bed one morning and then decided to do something evil before lunch.

Here we are again.

Basildon Labour take a vow of silence

We had a Full Council meeting on the 26th of May. This was the Council AGM, where the administration, which is run by the Conservatives, sets out its priorities and plans for the coming year. There was, as you would expect, a lively debate. The thing is, that debate was entirely confined to the Conservative Group. Astonishingly, the Labour Group did not say a single word, not one, on any of the agenda items. They just sat there like trappist monks. Now, you could argue that with a large Conservative majority they are not going to win any votes so what is the point? Well, the point is to try and win the debate, to probe for weaknesses in your opposition and to gradually build the political momentum that will help to frame winning arguments at election time.

Or, you could do nothing at Council meetings and hope electoral victory arrives by magic without you having to do anything. Labour seem to have gone with option two.

Well, it is less work I suppose.

Save our Gloucester Park

We have a local campaign with the aim, from its Facebook site, as follows:

We aim to try and stop the building of 500 house's[sic] in Gloucester park at the location of the old swimming pool site and surrounding parts...

The key point is the 'old swimming pool site', to which should be added the 'old car park' and the 'old tennis courts'. Put simply this is a brownfield site, which has been identified for development since at least 2007 in the Basildon Town Centre Masterplan, if not before. The point of the development is to both build much-needed housing and to kick-start the redevelopment of Basildon Town Centre proper, which really, really needs it. Good quality housing close to the Town Centre will also serve to increase the footfall in the Town Centre, which is critical for local businesses.

Now these 'local campaigners' do have a plan, which is that all of the land should be turned into parkland. So, they want the Council to spend a small fortune on clearing the site, it's anything but grass at the moment, and also to forgo the income from the site, which is already factored into the public finances. The estimated cost for this little venture is a bit of a guess, but I'm going with a figure of around £8m. Our good friends in the Labour Party didn't factor this into their alternative budget, which they tabled at the Council's annual budget meeting earlier this year. Why is this important? Well, most of the support for the Facebook group 'Save our Gloucester Park' seems to come from card-carrying members of the Labour Party, judging from the postings on the group. The leading light, for example, stood as a Labour candidate in the recent elections and Labour Councillors are enthusiastic posters.

So, we don't seem to have a broad-based popular movement against developing the brownfield site on one edge of Gloucester Park. We seem to have a campaign got up by the Labour Party because, err, they don't like Conservatives? Who knows?

All in all I find it depressing that local Labour acts like a pressure group instead of a political party, though it actually works for the local Conservative Party in political terms.

They may want to think about that.