The Incinerator Paradox

The King’s Lynn incinerator is a sufficiently controversial subject that I would imagine that most people in West Norfolk have formed some opinion about whether it should be built or not. 65,516 have made their views very clear indeed. Don’t worry if you haven’t though because, whether you realise it or not, you’ve already taken sides. Both of them in fact.

Confused? Let me explain. One of the ways that the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk has come up with to fight the plan is the allocation of around £150,000 for legal fees. It is expected that this would be used at some point in the future for a judicial review against the way Norfolk County Council has dealt with the whole saga. So far so simple. However, any legal action would be taken against the county council, who would have to set aside money for their own legal costs. NCC is already fighting a separate application for a judicial review from the campaigner Michael de Whalley. The costs of the two will probably spiral into the hundreds of thousands, and may even reach into the millions. And of course, both of these will be funded by the taxpayers of Norfolk.

So every West Norfolk taxpayer is paying for, and therefore supporting, both sides. You see what I mean about a paradox. But there is a serious point here. What could be more absurd than our taxes  being squandered in contrary legal challenges that no one really wants, and shouldn’t even be needed, just because Norfolk County Council refuses to listen to the democratically expressed views of West Norfolk? Particularly at a time of deep cuts to vital services, it has to be asked why the county council won’t just do the decent thing and scrap the whole sorry idea.

Norfolk County Council admits it doesn’t have enough expertise for incinerator planning application

Recently there have been a number of calls for the King’s Lynn incinerator planning application to be called in. The arguments for this are quite simple; how can Norfolk County Council impartially judge whether the incinerator should go ahead, when senior officers and cabinet members have been promoting its virtues for over a year? Naturally, the county council has been desperate to prevent this happening, saying that as Waste Planning Authority they are the most appropriate body to take the decision.

So imagine my surprise when I found this quote in a planning submission from Norfolk County Council’s own employee, Ed Stocker;

“I also question whether we can base the Appropriate Assessment on the applicant’s conclusions of their own data. NCC does not employ anyone who is qualified to interpret the air quality data and predicted levels of impact on marine life, (primarily shellfish).

We would need to employ an expert to advise on that part of the Appropriate Assessment”

In other words Norfolk County Council lacks the expertise to determine whether the plan would have a significantly detrimental effect on ecology, and would have to employ external consultants. Inevitably that will cost even more (adding to the £5.2 million already spent by NCC on this project ), at a time when services for young people and vulnerable OAPs are being cut. Surely it would make more sense for the county council to support the call-in so that an entirely impartial inspector, with all the expertise needed available, could make the decision, eradicating all concerns about cost and objectivity. The question is, why won’t they?

Why are Lib Dems in government?

This may seem like a question that’s been posed, and answered many times before, but unfortunately it still hasn’t got through to the vast majority of the British public. Too many people hold the view espoused by Kerry McCarthy, the Labour MP for Bristol East, who tweeted this morning;

“Petulant response from Lib Dems to my criticism of Toynbee article just proves how much they’re in denial about their role as enablers.”

In other words, the whole Lib Dem party are weak, getting nothing done and propping up the Torie. This is, of course, largely nonsense, even if we have at times been too quiet in promoting what we believe in. At the moment Labour’s constant attacks, such as this one, are having a massive effect on voter’s attitudes, so the whole party needs to be spreading the word about why we are government in and what we are achieving.

That has to start with explaining the position of the three parties immediately after the election. A coalition with Labour would never have worked, quite simply because neither they nor the Lib Dems had enough seats, and a rainbow coalition would have always been a disaster. Lib Dems were left with two choices then; to carry on pottering away in opposition, allowing a a minority Tory government to push through their right-wing agenda, or to grab the chance, enter government and prove to the British public that they can make a difference in public office. It is also worth remembering that Britain was experiencing a period of instability, both political and financial. A tottering minority government could have only made this worse, while the coalition provided a strong majority in the Commons and reassured markets and analysts.

While there was no real question as to whether the Lib Dems should enter into coalition with the Conservatives, it has become rather popular among Labour supporters to criticise government policy, saying it is Tory dominated, and that the Lib Dems have had no impact. Once again, such statements are wildly incorrect. I’m not going to go through everything we’ve achieved in government, but William Summer’s excellent site http://www.whatthehellhavethelibdemsdone.com/ does if you’re interested. You only have to look at the Pupil Premium, the raising of the income tax threshold and the moves to an elected House of Lords to see what impact we are making.

Of course, it’s not all been as good as this. Lib Dems have had to support policies that we don’t agree with (most obviously tuition fee rises) and compromised on some we do. But even here we are making government policy more liberal. We ensured that the earnings threshold for student loans was raised along with tuition fees. When we became concerned about the Health and Social Care Bill, it was modified so it was at least more acceptable. The list of occasions were we have taken a Conservative policy we don’t agree with, compromised, worked together and made it better goes on and on. One only has to look at the ranks of Tories chewing at the bit to scrap the 50p tax rate, or Cameron’s desired response to the riots to see why the Lib Dems are doing such a good job reining in the right-wing tendencies of Conservative cabinet ministers and backbenchers.

And it’s not just Lib Dems saying so. For once I was forced to agree with Nadine Dorries when she said at Prime Minister’s Questions last week,

“Mr Speaker, the Liberal Democrats make up 8.7% of this parliament, and yet they seem to be influencing our free school policy, health, many issues, immigration and abortion. Does the Prime Minister think it’s about time he told the Deputy Prime Minister who is the boss”

Which is exactly why the Liberal Democrats must be in government and must continue to influence government policy. It won’t all be rosy, but we have an unprecedented chance to change the future of this country and change people’s lives for the better. That is why we should not be ashamed about being in power, but go and explain to the electorate the why we are and what we are doing. We should admit that we haven’t done everything right, but we should also say what our reasons are, and how we are going to make up for them. If we don’t do that we will be heading for certain defeat in 2015. We should be proud of what we’ve done, and not be disconcerted by what we have not.

How much?

In yesterday’s Norfolk County Council Cabinet meeting, the framework was laid for a 1% pay increase for staff next year. It still has a lot of hurdles to go through, but it seems likely that it will be approved in next year’s budget. Normally, I would support such a move, especially when the costs of living are soaring, but no one quite seems to realise just how much this will cost.

In 2009 (the last year for which I can find figures) Norfolk County Council directly employed 20,211 people. There is not an easily accessible figure for the average salary of NCC workers, but the overall average UK salary is £22,800. County council employees would probably be higher than that because of the nature of their jobs, but we’ll use this figure as it’s the most accurate available. So a 1% increase on £22,800 would be £23,028, or an increase of £228. It still doesn’t look that big, but what if we multiply that by the number of employees (20,211)? Then we can see that the total cost of the increase would be over £4.6 million.

In normal circumstances I could support such an increase, but not when we are in such a time of fiscal austerity. Over the next few years Norfolk County Council will be cutting around £150 million from its budget, and is in the process of getting rid of a 1000 employes. Surely, it would be better to retain these staff on a pay freeze, so that more services could be maintained? Or to take that £4.6 million and use it to pay for adult social services or saving bus routes? It looks all the more sickening when you remember that the Chief Executive, who earns more than the Prime Minister, refused to take a pay cut. It certainly feels to me, and no doubt to everyone else in Norfolk, that the county council are giving a big wedge of money to their employees, at the expense of their electorate, and those who rely on their services.

Banking reforms must go ahead

Yesterday marked the publication of the final report and recommendations from the Independent Commission on Banking led by Sir John Vickers. Buried within it are some eminently sensible ideas. Banks would be required to ring-fence their retail divisions to protect them from shocks to investment markets for instance, and hold greater quantities of capital as a reserve.  Some new ideas have also been put forward to encourage competition in the financial services, and so reduce Britain’s reliance on a few, large banks that are “too large to fail”. Despite perhaps being too conservative in places, such as dragging the reforms out to 2019 and not completely splitting up retail and investment banks, overall the ideas are sound and properly thought through.

It was something of a surprise then to see people lining up to take chunks out of the proposals. It was obvious that the banks themselves would be opposed, simply because their short-term profit may be damaged, but to see so many Conservative MPs falling over themselves to destroy them was quite a shock. Their excuse? That such reforms would reduce the banks’ profits and damage the economic recovery and growth. To a certain extent this is true. Of course any changes will cost the organisations that have to implement them, including banks, and that may to a small degree harm growth. However, to delay, or even stop altogether, these reforms would be a grave mistake. We can not sacrifice long-term security for short-term profits. There will be another banking crisis at some point in the future, and when it comes we must be better prepared than we were in 2007/8. The idea that we can afford to wait until this recession is over because we will not face another financial crash for a while is also deeply mistaken. You only have to look at the last few weeks and months to see that threats abound for our economy, particularly from American and European debt, to which our banks are heavily exposed.

Which is why the Vicker’s reforms must be implemented as soon as practicable. But that will not happen if it is left to the Tories to decide, and their backbenchers to ruin. This is one of the best chances for the Lib Dems  in government to make a lasting difference to Britain, and one that would surely be recognised by voters. In particular, Vince Cable must continue to apply both private and public pressure on the Chancellor to see out these changes. However, Labour too has a part to play. Yesterday Ed Balls admitted that his government had not done enough to regulate the banks. This is his chance to put that failure right and compensate for the other mistakes of the Brown administration. This is too important an issue to be turned into a political football; instead all parties must work together to make sure that the next generation of banks are less prone to failure and that the economy is better protected, unless we want to suffer another catastrophic banking collapse.

What the Boundary Review means for West Norfolk

The Boundary Commission has just published its proposals for the revision of parliamentary constituencies, and for the rest of this week I’ll be trying to get to the bottom of what this will mean for Norfolk. For those who’ve forgotten, this report was commissioned in the wake of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act, which legislated to reduce the number of seats from 650 to 600 and ensure that all constituencies should have around the same number of voters. While the overall number of seats in Norfolk has stayed the same, there has been a considerable re-jigging of boundaries, so there may be plenty of consequences for both the public and politicians.However, I would stress it is a draft document up for consultation, so far from the finished product.

Today, I will be looking at the changes proposed for the two West Norfolk seats. North West Norfolk, the seat of Henry Bellingham, won’t be changing much at all. It’ll have a new name, King’s Lynn, and will gain three wards, Wiggenhall, St Lawrence and Watlington from what is currently South West Norfolk. This should make hardly any difference to the electoral make up of this constituency though. Although there seems to be a slight bias away from both Labour and the Conservatives in the new wards, at the most it will cost Bellingham 300 votes in a very safe seat.

Of far greater interest is what is happening to Elizabeth Truss’ seat, South West Norfolk, which has been torn apart and formed into two new, separate seats. The one we will look at here is Wisbech and Downham Market. This constituency would take up the wards from the borough of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk that were previously part of South West Norfolk (except from the three mentioned above),  but lose all thirteen Breckland wards. These would be replaced by thirteen from Fenland, meaning that the seat would straddle the border between Norfolk and Cambridgeshire. Not only would this bring an unusual cross-county dynamic, but would also make the constituency considerably safer, perhaps giving the Conservatives a 2 or 3% swing, especially when it is considered that it would significantly squash the Labour vote.

The really interesting thing is which Tory would be selected for the seat. The favourite would surely be Elizabeth Truss, as it’s the only real Norfolk seat she could be selected for (as Thetford and Swafham will be taken by George Freeman) but she may face stiff competition from Stephen Barclay, the Conservative MP for Cambridgeshire North East whose seat is also majorly affected. However, he could also stand for Peterborough South. Whichever way, it is likely to lead to a few internal struggles in the Conservative party and a very exciting new dimension to West Norfolk politics, although it looks like the Tories will still be firmly entrenched in safe seats. So, while perhaps there will be little change in the long term profile of these two constituencies, it could do a lot to shake up West Norfolk politics in the short term.

What’s wrong with the EDP?

The whole incinerator saga is, I think you’ll agree, a pretty big story for Norfolk. It’s not every day that 65,516 people in one borough unite to oppose a development proposal, and still get ignored by the county council. Unfortunately, we are still not sure whether the government is going to stand by the people of Norfolk or not.

So when David Cameron visited the EDP office yesterday you would have thought someone might have asked a question about the incinerator. But they didn’t. They discussed police commissioners and A11 dualling, phone hacking and the hunting ban, but not the one story that even the EDP describes as “Norfolk’s Burning Issue”. A chance to really understand if the Prime Minister believes in localism when it’s put to test was lost.

Why? Perhaps it was because of the EDP’s seeming aversion to criticism of Norfolk County Council. Sadly though, it seems that the root cause of this failure goes even deeper. When seen in conjunction with the leader published by the same paper two weeks ago, in which they argued that our councillors alone should take the decision over the incinerator, as we will never know “definitively what the people of Norfolk think about the incinerator”, a more worrying trend begins to appear. It seems to me at least that the EDP has taken a decision to support the incinerator, and to disregard both its readership and the people of Norfolk. Which begs the obvious question: if a local paper doesn’t represent its audience, then what purpose does it serve? For the time being, though, it would appear that for good coverage of this most important of issues the EDP just isn’t up to scratch.

It’s not my fault!

The dust has barely settled from the recent riots, but already politicians, commentators and the public as a whole are engaged in a full-on blame game. David Cameron suggested that “parts of our society that are not just broken, but sick” are behind the violence, while David Starkey pinned it on black culture and the Justice Secretary Ken Clarke placed the blame squarely on a rather mysterious “feral underclass”. Elsewhere the riots have been blamed on a multitude of different people and policies including teenagers, the welfare state, social services and an apparently “cushy” benefits regime. None of these are the true causes of the terrible violence and looting, and the cases for each hold little water under careful inspection. However, the fact that so many people have been willing to jump to conclusions and place the blame elsewhere is in itself one of the central causes of the riots across England.

When the rioters in London, Manchester and Birmingham, not to mention a dozen other towns and cities, went on the rampage, smashing shop fronts and laying fires, there was only one thing that drove them; self-absorption. That is not to say that there weren’t other, and more significant, triggers for the riots, but that it is clear that for the main part those involved were so engulfed by the pleasure (to their minds) of causing damage and rampant materialism that they were incapable of stopping, and considering the consequences of their actions. All sense of a collective social responsibility was lost. As one commentator put it, the I came before the We. The rioters became so self-centered that the damage and violence they inflicted was lost in the fact that they were enjoying themselves.

You may wonder how I can draw any link between such thoughtless vandalism and the reactions of people who have done nothing wrong and are sickened by the riots. However, the truth is that the same self-obsession that drove the rioters on the streets is also behind the desperate blame game being played now they are over. No one has accepted any responsibility for the riots; not politicians, not the police and certainly not the general public. Anyone who was not directly involved in violence or looting has tried to wash their hands of the problem and blame it on somebody else. Just like the rioters they are placing themselves above any common social responsibility. As long as they are OK, then it is a problem for everybody else, not them.

This is all the more worrying because we’ve all played a part, however small, in causing these riots. David Cameron’s membership of the infamous Bullingdon Club, which regularly smashes up Oxford restaurants has been well documented. So too have reminders of how MPs came close to, and even crossed, the line of illegality regarding their expenses and how bankers have laid ruin to our economy. People at the lower ends of society bear a responsibility too. Who has not seen someone drop litter in a public place and not pick it up or refused to help someone in the street?

Of course, these actions can not be compared with the dreadful events of last month in London and beyond, but when the very character of our society is called into disrepute, then we all most share some part of the blame. All the actions I note above are examples of a breakdown in the responsibility we should feel towards our communities and our society as a whole. The rioters should face the full force of the law and take responsibility for their individual actions – this is certainly not an attempt to excuse their actions – but they are not to blame for the general breakdown in a social conscience. That lies with everyone, rich and poor. Once the damage is repaired and the rioters punished, this is what we should focus on. Society is not broken, but it is damaged, not helped by the populist antics of Mr. Cameron. Unless he, the government and the entire population accept some responsibility for the social problems that allowed the riots to thrive we will never truly move on from those dark days.

The real problem with British politics

A few months ago the referendum on AV was hailed as a pivotal moment in the history of British politics. That it was given such attention is commendable, but the frenzy of activity around the referendum is in danger of obscuring a far greater and more immediate problem with our democracy; the complete lack of engagement between many people and the political system.

That is not to argue that electoral reform is unimportant, it clearly is, and I for one vigorously campaigned for a Yes vote in the referendum. However, it seems to me that we ignore the problems of low turnout and engagement at our peril. These are not only pressing problems, but also ones that affect all areas and sectors of society, and that have a realistic solution. It is my opinion that it is to this task that we should turn before any further attempts at electoral reform are made.

Why do we need public engagement with politics? Quite simply, because at it’s most basic level democracy is about the will of the people, and that cannot be truly gauged without higher turnout at elections and more interaction with local politicians. MPs and other elected representatives cannot truly claim that they have a mandate from the electorate when only 40% turned out to vote, and few people even know their name! Even proportional systems are unable to rectify this major problem with our democracy, which means in a large percentage of cases a majority of the population don’t even vote, let alone support the winning candidate. The AV referendum is a perfect example of this. The 68% No vote appears at first glance crushing, but when turnout is added to the equation we can see that just 29% of the population voted against AV. Our politics cannot be truly representative until this is changed.

However, the lack of engagement between vast sectors of the public and politicians is having a far more dangerous effect than simply this. With many people utterly uninterested in politics, we are in danger of creating a ‘political class’, much like the old aristocracy, that is totally disconnected from everyday life. That may sound extreme, but just look at the opinion polls showing a huge percentage of the public don’t trust their elected representatives or feel hugely detached from the ‘Westminster Bubble’. Many argue that the expenses scandal was the root of this anger; I would argue it was a symptom. As the divide between MPs and their constituents has grown, there can be little doubt that they have become less accountable to their electorate, and so more willing to misuse public money. Of course, this was not true for the majority of MPs, but it provides a grim portent of what could happen if the levels of engagement between voters and politicians continue to fall.

This may seem a complex problem, but at least some solutions are readily available. The most obvious is for politicians themselves to become more approachable. Community politics may be a primarily Liberal Democrat idea, but it is one that the other parties would do well to follow. This is not just an issue of surgeries and local media appearances, but a whole different way of doing politics, involving and not just consulting residents. Our elected representatives shouldn’t sit in their offices and wait for their constituents to come to them, but get out on the streets and meet the people who voted them in. This isn’t just a way of interesting and engaging people in what their MPs are doing, but also pays great benefits for the politicians themselves. The fabled Lib Dem success in by-elections and local government is based on just this principle. Voters, whatever their political persuasion will be far more likely to vote for a candidate who gets out and knocks on doors, than a counterpart who waits for them to come to him.

The localism agenda of the coalition government is also welcome. Giving ordinary people more power to influence what happens in their local area will inevitably encourage participation in politics. Too many people feel that they are disenfranchised by living in safe seats, or simply don’t feel that their representatives do enough to reflect what they think in the halls of power. Localism will give people the chance to change at least some of this, and question politicians’ actions throughout their term, not just at election time. The power to recall MPs will also help to convince people that politicians should work for their local area, and kick out those who do not. Hopefully, this will encourage more people to trust and engage with the politicians who do deliver the goods for their constituents.

However, these in many ways are mere cosmetic changes to the current system. To convince the millions of people who have become totally disenchanted with politicians that politics is an important factor in all aspects of their life a completely new approach is necessary. This needs to start not when people have already lost faith in the democratic process, but when they are forming their opinions; in school. The lack of knowledge about government and politics amongst many secondary school pupils is simply astounding. Some cannot name the Prime Minister, and few would be able to name their local MP or more than one or two cabinet ministers. What is needed is a new lesson that teaches pupils the basics not just of politics, but also of current affairs and law. This would reap far greater benefits than many extant lessons, particularly the various mutations of Citzenship classes. Of course, education does not necessarily precipitate involvement, but the more people know about the political process, the less likely they are to feel that their representatives are distant and remote, in turn encouraging political participation. If well taught this could have a transformative effect on the British political system.

If we are really serious about solving the major problems of our political system then it is to these rather than any more complicated solutions that we should first turn. Electoral reform will always be important, and I for one will continue to campaign for it, but even the best forms of PR will not truly represent the will of the population unless we solve the dilemmas of low turnout and engagement. Some may say that politics has always been this way, but that, even if true, is no defence. If democracy in Britain is not to suffer any further then we must act quickly to re-engage many forgotten sectors of society with political life.

Adapted from an article originally published on http://www.politicsstudent.co.uk/