Latest Newsletters >>

Next Newsletters >>

Jim Kenny/Copenhagen/Farmers' Market/flood protection/holiday

19 December 2009

Hi all –

This is mainly just to wish every a happy Christmas. However, a couple of items first:

1. Jim Kenny

As many of you will have heard, Cllr Jim Kenny died recently. He was a councillor for Eastwood (outside my constituency but in Broxtowe) and had contributed to the community as a town and borough councillor for very many years. He was also a thoroughly nice man – it's customary to say something like that when people die, but I really never met anyone who didn't like him. I went to the funeral yesterday, and was pleased to find an enormous crowd (several hundred people) packing the church – a tribute to his local popularity that he very much deserved.

2. Copenhagen

Unlike some commentators, I do think that climate change appears to be a serious threat and that we have the capacity to mitigate it, so I'm sorry to see the summit end without more progress. While I wouldn't be totally negative about it – there was a lot of commitment shown and the gaps narrowed substantially – it's clearly not the deal that we need. There's a tendency for this sort of thing to descend into finger-pointing, but that's largely a waste of time. All we can really say is that we have collectively to pick ourselves up and keep working till a deal is reached.

3. Kimberley Farmer's Market

Just a word to thank everyone who made this such a success, especially the indefatigable Cllr Richard Robinson. I hope it will be possible to make this a regular event in the future – if we can make it worth in December, it ought to be possible in balmier times!

4. Attenborough flood protection

Since I've not heard anything for a while, I rang the Environment Agency to see what's happening. The project is making steady progress, but they are still reviewing the position in Attenborough to see whether they can after all protect the playing fields as well. They expect to complete the study of that in March. If they decide it can be done, they'll submit a fresh application after that. If they decide it can't, then they'll press ahead with the original scheme. (My position remains that I'll gladly support whatever leads to the fastest protection for Attenborough and other areas threatened with flooding, so whichever way they decide to go I do expect to support it.)

5. Holiday arrangements

I'm basically around till the 28th, though I plan not to check email on the 25th! We're going to stay over the New Year and in the first week of January in my cousin's little converted windmill in South Devon – it's lost its sails, sadly (it looks more like a lighthouse really), but it's a sweet place with three rooms, one on each floor. I'll be back on the 8th. I'll check for emergencies via my Blackberry. My team will have the office closed between Christmas and the New Year, but it'll be open normally after that. Again, we'll try to check messages from time to time – unfortunately, emergencies do happen more often at Christmas than any other time, since normal services become unavailable.

It only remains to wish you a very happy Christmas and a merry New Year (it's usually that way round in practice, isn't it?) ! I'll be in touch again soon after I'm back.

All good wishes

Nick

Climate change and Copenhagen/Class and Eton/Europe and van Rompuy

5 December 2009

Hi all –

Catching up on three national controversies, I'd like this time to talk about climate change, class and Europe. First this week's friendly note:

"I think people in the constituency are privileged to have the chance of keeping in place one of our MPs who is genuinely committed to the job and the constituents, fully deserving of our respect and admiration, and working to restore fairness and integrity to parliament and our system of government." Ruth Ledbury (longstanding Liberal Democrat supporter)

Trying to live up to that…

1. Climate change: what should Britain's position be?

This is going to dominate the news in the coming week. What should Britain's position be?

I understand statistics but I'm not a climatologist, so I'm not going to offer my own interpretation, and I'm slightly bemused by the way that some people read an article somewhere and become instantly certain that it's the only possible truth. But it's possible to make some objective comments:

• The overwhelming majority of climate scientists, though not all, believe that there is a global warming process in train, that human activity is mainly the cause, that its consequences will be catastrophic, and that it's still possible to ameliorate it, though not prevent it altogether.
• Scientists are not always right, and there are past cases where the overwhelming majority view turned out to be mistaken
• If the perceived problem is to be tackled, it needs to done globally. There are things that Britain can solve on its own, but this isn't one of them.

Given this starting point, what should British politicians say? It seems to me that we have to work on the assumption for now that the scientific advice is correct. If it's correct and we do nothing, we are quite literally betraying our children. If it's incorrect and we take unnecessary action, we are spending money that could have been spent on something else. That's a pity, but not catastrophic, and the actions generally have some useful benefits in themselves. For example, by switching away from fossil fuels, we reduce carbon emissions, but we also reduce dependence on imports of gas from places like Iran, Algeria and Russia whose long-term amiability it is…well… difficult to guarantee.

There is a place here for Britain setting an example and taking a lead, as we've done with the Climate Change Bill, but primarily we need to do all we can to broker a global agreement, since that's the only thing that will really work. So even if a deal in Copenhagen depends on us making painful steps ourselves, I'm in principle in favour of it (obviously we need to look at the details).

All the main parties agree on this – David Cameron commented similarly last week after a scientist was found to have written cynical emails: Cameron simply said that the overwhelming majority remained convinced of the danger. So it looks as though the policy will be similar whichever party is in power, and on this issue I agree with Cameron. But what about the sceptics? These are grouped on the Right – UKIP and the BNP are opposed to the whole idea, and David Davis and our local Conservative Euro-MP Roger Helmer have broken with their party's position on this. It's not obvious why this is – there is nothing especially left-wing about worrying that we're ruining the planet, since if it's true it'll be bad for everyone, left or right. But I think they react against the messengers on this issue – because the early campaigners were anti-capitalist greens, they feel the whole thing is just a ramp of what they see as eco-nutters and self-interested scientists after funding for their work.

One can never be sure about trends or about science, as I said above, and we should continue to monitor the latest findings. But I don't think we can responsibly ignore the advice: the downside if we did and it was wrong is just too large.

2. Does background matter?

There's been a lot of discussion of Eton and class in this week's press after Gordon Brown's throwaway remark at PMQs about Zac Goldsmith's taxes, and I thought it might be interesting to go a bit deeper.

To declare an interest, though I went to international schools myself and my parents weren't wealthy, my wider background is not very different to Cameron and his colleagues: my postwar family has included a general, an admiral, a viscount, a senior Tory MP, a senior judge and diverse other things that are generally seen as posh, including a Scottish castle. None of that is (in my view) something to be embarrassed about – you don't choose your family, and they're simply a fact. In the same way Cameron and Osborne and Goldsmith didn't choose where they went to school.

That said, one needs to be aware of one's limitations and possible blind spots. I'm well aware that I don't know anything from personal experience about growing up in hardship, not getting a decent education, suffering from prejudice, being snubbed or passed over for having a regional accent, and so on. So what I try to do is listen to people who do have those experiences, and to adjust how I deal with political issues to take account of them. Nobody can have experienced everything – the important thing, surely, is to be prepared to listen and take it in.

I don't think it's reasonable to have a go at Cameron over his schooling, and I'm sure it gave him a useful education. But there's a related political point that *is* reasonable. He and his associates seem to me not to have evolved after they left school, and to have difficulty in relating to people outside their circle of experience. Why, for instance, are the Conservatives still wedded to abolishing inheritance tax specifically in the £700,000-£1 million range, at the same time as proposing cuts to all kinds of everyday things? They know it's unpopular and the number who will benefit is small. But they will be affected and so, I suspect, will nearly everyone they know, so it looms much larger as "an important thing to do in the first Parliament". In the same way, when Goldsmith was asked about one of his tax avoidance tactics, his spokesman said "It only saved a small amount, £10,000 or something" – well, yes, I suppose that's small if you're a millionaire, but if you're trying to represent people it shows a tin ear to talk like that.

In short, it's not your fault if you're sent to Eton. But if you want to represent people, you need to grow beyond it.

3. Europe

I think there's something slightly ironic about the press deriding the choice of a Belgian prime minister "whom nobody has ever heard of". Why haven't we heard of the prime minister of our nearest Continental neighbour? Because precisely the same press never bothered to report anything about him, even when his apparent talent for promoting compromise prevented what appeared to be an imminent break-up of his country. He seems an intelligent, moderate chap who is good at bringing people together and doesn't have illusions of grandeur: I reckon he was a good choice as European president.

But I'm cheerfully pro-European, like both my opponents: my Conservative opponent went further than me at one of our debates and said she'd support joining the Euro if business wanted it (I might do as well, but only after looking at the overall impact in detail and a straightforward yes/no referendum). So if you're deeply sceptical about the EU I can understand your feeling a bit unrepresented. What can I say to help?

Well, first, I'd like an EU that worked better and more transparently. While it's obviously difficult to look after 500 million people in a down-to-earth way that's easily accessible to everyone, I do think that the EU institutions are mainly comfortable in dealing with each other rather than engaging with the wider public. I'd actually like to see direct election of a European president – that would engage people and cross national boundaries much more effectively than any number of agreed joint
initiatives.

Second, the basic principle of the EU is `subsidiarity' , that decisions are taken as locally as possible (i.e. nationally or even at local council level). That seems to me a good idea, but not one that is always followed in practice. I'm opposed to `mission creep', moving the EU into deciding issues which are really better considered locally, and almost every human organisation in history has tried to expand its scope, so there's a genuine risk there.

But yes, it's best to be honest: I'm a pragmatist, and look at each issue on its merits, but basically I think it's a good thing that we have in the EU an institution that helps us take joint decisions for the good of the whole continent. And if the new arrangements and the Belgian president will help that work smoothly, I'm all for them.

As always, feedback welcome on these tricky issues, with "NNTR "(no need to reply), please, if you don't need a personal answer!

Best wishes

Nick

Sacking dissident advisers/Are the County cuts right?/Amusing Tory leaflet

16 november 2009

Hi all –

Finally catching up after an exceptionally hectic period. I'm on two committees which have been finalising very large reports, and that's left less time to answer emails. Since they come in at around 100/day, at one point 600 unanswered emails had piled up – apologies to everyone who had to wait a couple of weeks.

The committee reports are confidential until published, but I'll give you a brief preview below – they're both pretty interesting. I'd also like to discuss why I disagree with the Home Secretary about scientific advice, comment on the County Council's draft budget, and respond to an enjoyably bizarre Conservative leaflet. And with the election now less than six months away, I hope you'll forgive a small partisan innovation – I'll be starting each email with a comment or two from constituents who haven't up to now been associated with my campaigns, mostly people who've rallied to the Independents for Palmer banner.

1. Quotes of the week

Professor Martyn Poliakoff CBE:

"I shall be voting for Nick as I consider him to be a model constituency MP who strives to help with the problems of constituents regardless of their political persuasion." [For more about Martyn see tinyurl.com/ yg22mo9 ]

Sue Sambells:
I find Nick Palmer to be one of the few good guys around and even though I disagree with many of the policies of our current government I plan to vote for Nick, who I believe will best represent me and my family.

2. Why the Home Secretary is wrong about advisers

Irritatingly, most of the debate about the firing of Professor Nutt has divided on the issue rather than the principle. People who think cannabis should be treated as dangerous tend to sympathise with the firing, and people who think it's relatively harmless tend to oppose it. On the whole I favour maintaining the current classification of cannabis. But I still think it was a mistake to fire Nutt.

First let me put the case on the other side so you're aware of both sides. The issue of cannabis and ecstasy classifications came up a year ago. Professor Nutt advised that they should be downgraded as less serious, on the basis that many other legal things are more dangerous such as alcohol and even riding. The then Home Secretary decided she disagreed, because she felt that the wider risks of relaxing controls on drug-dealing were against the public interest. Even if Nutt's proposals were approved, the drugs would still ne illegal, and therefore only available from dealers, who would try to entice customers into more dangerous drugs. Moreover, in some cases, the drugs do have serious effects, and the fact that there are other dangers around doesn't mean we should necessarily add to them.

Professor Nutt disagrees strongly: he feels this is an example of illogical policy, and we always say policy should be evidence-based. A dangerous drug should have a high classification, a not very dangerous one should have a low one, he argues; otherwise, the system isn't credible.

So far, fair enough – one can see arguments on both sides, advisers advise, ministers decide. But after the decision, Nutt continued to oppose it in strong terms, attacking Ministers directly for not taking his advice. The then Home Secretary said to him that she felt it was hard to rely on him as a confidential adviser if he continued to campaign openly to reverse decisions he disagreed with, and warned him that she would expect at least prior notice of future attacks.

Some months passed and Alan Johnson became Home Secretary. The policy continued unchanged, and Nutt returned to the charge, writing an article again attacking the Governments policy, again without prior notice. Johnson then pointed to the earlier warning, said he'd lost trust in him and fired him.

When this was debated in the Commons, I was (I think) the only Labour MP to criticise the decision. The point isn't that I think Nutt is right – the wider social issues seem to me important. But I believe it's absolutely vital that governments of all colours get fearless independent advice, without a hidden string attached that the adviser promises to shut up if overruled. The point that I made is that the public needs to hear from the advisers too. Most people don't really know the pros and cons in detail, and advisory bodies help inform the public debate. The right thing is not to try to muzzle awkward advisers, but to have a range of advisers with different viewpoints, so that it's clear that all the arguments are being properly considered.

I absolutely see that it's a pain in the bum for ministers if their advisers publicly contradict them, and a bit discourteous if no notice is given.. But the right response isn't to fire them but to explain why their advice is not being taken – then the public can reach a balanced view.

3. Why the County is wrong about the proposed cuts

The County Council is currently consulting on a range of very drastic budgetary changes. Many of you will be aware of the proposals, but if not you can find them summarised here:

http://tinyurl.com/yjftdla

with comments here

http://tinyurl.com/ycen5un and

http://tinyurl.com/ye2gnlv

I'm not in favour of councils blithely spending more every year. However, what seems to me objectionable is that the council is spending more on itself – refurbishment of offices, more paid positions for councillors – at the same time as it's focusing on the elderly and disabled.

There is also one cut that's attracted little attention – they propose to stop giving any public advice to people about their entitlement to benefits. I know from my work that the Benefits Advisory Service is a lifeline for people who find themselves in a desperate situation for the first time. I'm not talking about people who've lived on benefits for years and know the system intimately, but people from women fleeing from violent partners to people who suddenly lose their job and/or their home due to the recession.

Save money yes – freeze higher salaries, halt major new spending. But don't try to do it all at once, and don't focus the cuts on the elderly and vulnerable. I'll be submitting an objection, and you might want to comment to your county councillor too.

4. Two simmering committee reports

The first report, due out in a week or so, in Tony Wright's Parliamentary Reform committee. I was elected to this by secret ballot of all Labour MPs (each party elected its own representatives) , and we have a mandate to report on three things:

- Who controls Parliamentary business? How can we ensure that governments don't suppress debate by procedural means, and yet ensure that if there's an elected majority then it's not filibustered into impotence?

- How can the wider public influence what Parliament debates? If a million people want something debated that all parties find awkward (e.g. withdrawal from Afghanistan) , how can the public ensure that their issue gets heard?

- How can Select Committees be strengthened? At present, membership is usually decided by the whips of all parties, weakening their independence and credibility.

We had an intense few weeks on this, with some votes on especially controversial issues, but I think the outcome is good. You'll see it soon.

The second report, due out in a few weeks, is from the Justice Select Committee. We set out to answer the question:

Under what circumstances is prison the most cost-effective way of deterring repeat offending, and are there better alternatives?

We heard extensive evidence that short prison sentences for relatively minor crimes are worse than useless (the offender meets more serious offenders and learns how to get deeper into crime), but what might work better? Could the prisons be reserved for the more serious offenders who deserve longer sentences? We studied experience from many other countries, with penal systems from the harshest to the most liberal, and are coming up with interesting conclusions. Expect this report before Christmas.

5. Struggling to manage on £138,509

There is an entertaining Conservative leaflet going out claiming that I have a `huge financial advantage' and explaining that Broxtowe Conservatives have `only' had £38,509 of help from the central party, with other costs covered by three local members. To be more precise, my understanding from Conservative friends is that one of the donors has chipped in £100,000.

To put this in perspective, the largest campaign fund donation from an individual that I've *ever* had is £100, and the money I get from the national party is zero. The idea of their giving us £38,000 or an individual giving us £100,000 is an idyllic pipe-dream. But if it ever happens, I promise that I will never complain that my opponent has a `huge financial advantage'. It's on the lines of Goliath complaining that David has an excessively large sling, and frankly they're living on a different planet. There is a certain irony in being so well off as to be able to afford a special expensive leaflet to say how poor you are.

A second theme of the leaflet is that it's wrong that I employ supporters on my staff, including two councillors (2-3 days a week) and my wife (8 hours a week). The point I'd make here is that in their working time they are restricted to non-partisan work, primarily helping constituents who raise problems with me or helping me deal with local issues. It's very useful to have people inside the council for this, since a great many of the issues relate to the council – e.g. the whole area of planning – and they know who to talk to. My wife, who is a freelance editor, is able to help at weekends and late at night, which as some of you know is when I get most of my constituency correspondence and emails done. The Kelly Report has said this should be phased out, and of course we'll comply, but I admit that I think it's a pity, as it'll simply make me slightly less efficient.

What I wouldn't do is employ unsuitable people because they were supporters. What often happens is that I recruit someone because they're good, and after they've worked with me for a while they become active supporters in their free time. It'd be a bit sad if it was the reverse (`now I've worked with him I know he's really rubbish').

Finally, the leaflet has a go at my use of the Communications Allowance. This has been available to allow MPs to send non-partisan circulars to constituents. You can find examples here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BroxComms/message/1

and

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BroxComms/message/2

A more recent example was the letter I sent out discussing how to handle the occupation of various sites by travellers. Now in one sense it's obviously true that the ability to do this gives the incumbent MP an advantage, but it's actually the advantage that arises from doing my job properly. I do know MPs who use the Allowance exclusively to send out glossy leaflets with little content, just lots of pictures of themselves, but to my mind that's a nonsense and voters see through it. My basic view is what I wrote in a letter in the Beeston Express this week:

"Whether constituents would like me to carry next May is something we should let them decide without hassle or exaggerated rhetoric. The bottom line for most voters nowadays is (in my view) that they like to be treated like serious adults."

6. Coming events

Friday 11th December
7.30pm
Village Ventures presents:
The Eduardo Niebla Experience
Chilwell Arts Theatre, Chilwell School
Tickets £8, £6 (conc), £24 family (2 adults + 2 children).
Available on 0115 925 2698 or 07827 996 223 and also at the Print Shop, 153 Attenborough Lane; Bookwise, 42, Chilwell Road; the Flying Goose cafe, Chilwell Road.
This is an amazing opportunity to hear a great flamenco jazz guitar virtuoso with his acclaimed trio; an evening of, "hot, dark Mediterranean passion."

Sunday 13th December
7pm
Paradiso Cinema presents:
Miracle on 34th Street
Chilwell Arts Theatre, Chilwell School
Tickets £5.50, £4 (conc) in advance on 0115 925 2698 or 07827 996 223 or on the door.
Come and enjoy mince pies and mulled wine while you watch a timeless classic that truly captures the spirit of Christmas. Film starts at 7.30pm.

And something that isn't an event but a local phenomenon: are you interested in libraries and reading? Have you joined Nottinghamshire Libraries and Archives Facebook page or Twitter stream yet? Find them at www.facebook. com/nottslibrari es or www.twitter. com/nottslibrari es and sign up to find out about events, resources and all the latest news direct from your local libraries.

6. Correction

In my last email, I reported that Tesco is removing Fair Trade products from its shelves in favour of its own Fair Trade lines. This turns out not to be true – the move is only for chocolate, with Divine chocolate being removed in favour of a Tesco equivalent. In any case, a constituent points out that the best fair trade outlet locally may well be Out of This World, in Beeston, which certainly pioneered fair Trade locally before everyone else joined in.

Best regards

Nick

A National Care Service?/the banking trillions

4 October 2009

Hi all,

I missed the Labour conference due to a minor bug (now gone), but have been looking into the idea proposed there of a new National Care Service and considering how best this would work. I wanted to discuss that with you and get your feedback, and also comment on something that often comes up in correspondence: exactly how much money did we give the banks?

Before that, a small follow-up to an earlier theme:

1. Britain's global role

You may remember that when I was discussing possible cuts in public expenditure, I suggested that a long-term adjustment might be a less ambitious military stance, concentrating on defence and collective action rather than the ability to intervene around the world. My own thinking on that is still evolving and I've been discussing it with several of you.

So I was interested to read an article in The Times that suggested quite the opposite: the writer argued that it was vital to punch above our weight, and we shouldn't shrink from using bribery to promote arms sales and other ways to push our global influence, since otherwise we would end up as `pointless' as Norway. As I disagree, I wrote a letter which they published today and you can click on here:

http://tinyurl.com/ybso4gs

2. The National Care Service proposal

One of the features of Gordon Brown's speech was a proposal for a National Care Service, which would aim to provide a general high standard for home care across the country, with specific attention to people with high needs who would otherwise need to go into a care home. This would differ from the current County-based system in two ways: first, not only health care but ordinary help with living would be provided free of charge for people in this category, and second, there would be a minimum guaranteed level of provision across the country, to end the current postcode lottery (Notts is actually better than most so this second aspect wouldn't affect us much).

Now clearly there may come a point where you're just too ill to stay at home, but most of us have had family members who had a rather agonising period when they'd have loved to stay on in their familiar home but there simply wasn't the support available. The cost of this is actually quite limited, since if the alternative is to go into a home with all the costs involved in that, it's not necessarily much more expensive to be looked after more intensively at home. It's simply a better way of using the same money, though Mr Brown envisages topping it up with reductions in NHS spending on advertising, consultancy and IT (a cautionary note here: I'd like more specifics of exactly what would be reduced – advertising, for instance, can be important in public health campaigns).

What does "high needs" mean? It's defined as needing at least 16 hours a week of personal care (washing, dressing, going to the loo, etc.). At present, if your total wealth exceeds £22,500, you are not entitled to any of this except at a relatively high charge which will quickly eat into your savings. 350,000 people are currently paying for this level of care at home. The new system will be in the Labour manifesto, to be introduced next September, if the government is re-elected (a big if at the moment, but we'll come back to that question when the election comes round!).

This seems to me a very attractive idea, but there are issues to be ironed out. The money that goes to councils who deliver the care needs to be ring-fenced for this purpose, as otherwise they'd have no incentive to help people stay at home. There also needs to be provision for counties that do provide more than the national standard to top it up easily, so that perhaps people with moderate needs could in due course also be offered free home care.

Moreover, the idea is intended to be a forerunner of a universal care system, free at the point of use like the NHS, in return for a payment at some point. I think I favour taking this payment at the time of death from the estate of the deceased (or the last survivor where there's a couple): this seems to me much more painless than charging people when they're 65. However, let me be honest about that: it would mean essentially more inheritance tax – what would be happening would be that you'd get free home care when you needed it, even at more moderate levels, during your life, but when you and your partner died and your home was sold if you had one, a substantial one-off contribution would be levied from the proceeds. I know this is a sore point with many, but personally I'd rather pay tax when I'm dead, and if I inherit some money I don't mind too much if a deduction is made for the availability of free care during their lives – we'd be clear that they'd got something for their money, if only peace of mind. (That's not party policy yet – I'm just considering whether I should propose it for the manifesto.)

In response to the Labour proposals, I understand that the Conservatives will propose a different approach this week: rather than free help to stay at home, if you pay £8000 when you're 65, you will be offered free care in a nursing home. The economics of this idea are based on the fact that only about 1 in 5 of us do in fact go into a home, so it would fund £40,000 worth of care, just like an insurance scheme (and it might in fact be privately administered by someone like BUPA). The attraction is that many people can put together £8000 each from savings, but £40,000 is out of their reach.

As with all insurance, though, there are small print issues. If you're already rather ill when you're 65, and perhaps need care imminently, do you still get to take part? If so, won't the scheme get lots of sign-ups from people who need the £40,000 package while people who feel pretty healthy may tend to give it a miss? But if you can only sign up if you *don't* have a pre-existing condition, as with most private health insurance, then it's much less attractive and people who are ill when they retire will still have to pay.

At any rate it seems to me a healthy debate for an aspect of life which really needs fixing – the current arrangements are too much of a lottery which can leave you in serious hardship if you're unlucky. I've tried to put the pros and cons of the both ideas fairly, and would be interested in comments.

3. What happened to the bank guarantees?

You may recall that in the midst of the banking crisis there were reports that we were giving the banks trillions of pounds, creating a gigantic debt which would take generations to repay. As we emerge from the crisis, I thought it might be worth looking back at what was actually done and whether it's worked. Two curious facts are that it appears in reality not to have cost very much but that we don't actually know how much. I'll explain.

Essentially the Government gave the banks three things:

* A guarantee of UK deposits if they go bust. Since the presence of the guarantee has stopped a run ion deposits, nobody has gone bust, so the cost of that has turned out to be zero.

* A large injection of capital in exchange for shares. At present, the Government is sitting on a paper loss on these shares because they fell through the floor during the crisis, but the loss is falling steadily as the stock market recovers. In the end it's likely to produce a profit, probably starting with Northern Rock. This isn't trivial, since even when, say, the Royal Bank of Scotland market price rises above what we paid for the shares, the Treasury can't suddenly dump 70% of the shares on the market without depressing the price again. But it looks as though this element of the apparent cost is going to go away in due course.

* Various guarantees insuring the banks against losses if they lend money to private businesses and don't foreclose too quickly on homeowners. These are potentially expensive if all the businesses collapse and all the mortgage-holders default, but as with the deposit guarantees the effect of having the banks not foreclosing is to make it much less likely that the defaults will happen. However, there is a cost, and we won't know what it is until the crisis is over and we see how many firms and home-owners defaulted. The banks are paying the Treasury for these guarantees, and are increasingly keen to exit from them – essentially it's an insurance policy they feel they no longer need. Given the general recovery trend the net cost seems likely to be relatively small - and in my opinion worth it (since otherwise there would be many more bust businesses and evicted ex-home-owners) .

There's a Labour political point that the Government seems to have got this right when others were suggesting it'd be disastrous – see

http://tinyurl.com/ybe8bbo

for a nuanced discussion of this and other matters. But the policy was put together in a frantic scramble (it's said that several high street banks were within hours of collapse), and the opportunity was missed to impose strict conditions on bonuses and lending policy as part of the package. The G20 summit was about trying to catch up with that, as you'll probably have seen in the papers: basically bonuses will only be payable if the apparent success has lasted for several years (rather than short-term speculative success).
The eye-watering figures for 'money for the banks' were basically worst-case assumptions - if all banks had collapsed, the government's shares would be worthless, and if all businesses defaulted, we'd be paying for all the loans. In reality, both Britain and the other leading countries have got through – touch wood! – with very little net loss. At a time when it's fashionable to rubbish governments everywhere, it's nice to record that the world got something more or less right.
4. Local news and events

• Friday 9th October, 7-9pm Roundhill School, Foster Avenue: walk-in discussion with NET on the practical implications of the tram. I've organised this in response to requests from numerous constituents for more information about how the project will affect them, and also for ways to raise specific concerns (e.g. parking and through traffic during the development) : there are a lot of people who simply feel in the dark. Having had a number of public meetings with speeches, I thought it'd be helpful to have one with a different format – nobody will make a speech, but there will be displays about different parts of the route and NET staff on hand to note concerns and give answers where possible. The only thing I'd ask is that we shouldn't go over the pros and cons of the idea again – this is intended to be simply a helpful `fill in the blanks' event. In the New Year, I hope to help set up groups of residents and traders along the route to discuss details with NET contractors as things proceed. I've arranged a separate pre-meeting for Chilwell traders to discuss with a Conservative County Councillor, Richard Jackson, their concern about the reported withdrawal of the transitional funding help expected from the County.

• Sunday 11th October 7.30pm Paradiso Cinema presents: Young Victoria Chilwell Arts Theatre, Chilwell School , Tickets on the door £4.50, £3 (conc)

• Wednesday 14th Oct. 7.30pm: Beeston Free Church have asked me to say they've organised a discussion on euthanasia and assisted suicide at their church in Broadgate – all welcome. There is a guest speak, Dr Andy Genmill, followed a Q&A and open discussion.

• Wednesday 21st October 6-7pm: Village Ventures presents: The Garlic Theatre: The Sorcerer's Apprentice. Suitable for age 4+. Chilwell Arts Theatre, Chilwell School. Tickets from 0115 925 2698 or 07827 996 223: £6, £4 (conc) or £16 family (2+2).

5. Do you know a resident vulnerable to crime?

Constituent Linda Whitt, known to some of you for her courses about preparing for retirement, passes on this note for people in Neighbourhood Watch areas:
Some money is available for Neighbourhood Watch members who are especially vulnerable to the activities of burglars/bogus callers. The amount of money is severely restricted and once exhausted will not be replenished. Persons who probably fall into this select category are the elderly, those who are less able and persons who live in older properties with little or no security, also those on low incomes. The target hardening includes the fitting and supply of locks, windows
> locks, shoot bolts, pad bars and padlocks and the reinforcement of lower
> door panels to houses/flats - not outbuildings or sheds. They do not fit or
> provide intruder alarms or security lighting. To suggest someone who could benefit and learn more call 0115 9670 999 ext 812 5650.

Feedback welcome on all these things – please add NNTR (no need to reply) if you don't need a personal response.

Best wishes

Nick

Bus pass update

25 september 2009

A quick update on my earlier message. The County have now officially said they will *not* be withdrawing support for bus pass users to use the tram. Both the BBC interviewer and I had been told otherwise yesterday, but I'm very glad to be able to say that the threat, if it was genuine, has been lifted.

Best regards,

Nick

Tram: support for traders refused / by-election result

25 september 2009

Hi all,

1. The County's tram decisions

I've been asked by lots of people about the implications of yesterday's County Council vote on the tram. They have gone further than the expected decision not to contribute to the cost of the project, and withdrawn the expected transitional support for traders in Chilwell; I understand that they are also seeking to ban the use of pensioner bus passes on the tram for anyone living in the County. This would currently mainly affect people in the north of the borough who use the tram from Phoenix Park, but also means that when the extension comes to Beeston and Chilwell pensioners won't be able to use it free as expected. The County position, as I understand it, is that although they're reluctantly going along with the project, it's now a City matter and people who want financial assistance etc. should address themselves to the City.

The snag about that is that the City is very unlikely to fork out the £2.1 million in support which had been expected for Chilwell traders: it's not realistic for the County to dump the problems of County businesses on them, since in the real world each council will give priority to its own residents. Without the County support there is a real danger that most of the traders will go under, not because of any long-term tram impact but simply because of loss of business during the months when the road is blocked due to construction. Regardless of politics, someone needs to help them.

What can be done constructively about all this? As far as the traders go, I'll approach NET and do my best to get a package of help for traders from them: it's not in NET's interest that shops should close down all along the route. As far as the bus pass goes, I want to investigate whether the County can actually do this without the consent of the borough council – Broxtowe certainly wouldn't approve. I'll keep you posted on both points (for the moment pensioners should be able to go on using the bus pass on the tram while it's clarified).

I'm going to depart from my usual practice and add a sharp political comment. The Conservatives campaigned in the County elections on two themes: (a) vote for us and we'll stop the tram and (b) we'll stand up for local traders. They've now reneged on both. The tram will go ahead, and the traders will be let down, the casual stab at pensioners by seeking to disallow the bus pass from trams being an unexpected extra. I really think they've been cynical about this – they knew perfectly well before the election that it was too late to reverse the tram decision. The current decisions won't hurt the tram project: they simply pettily punish local traders and pensioners.

I suspect they'll try to rerun the tactic at the General Election, by claiming that a Conservative Government "might" cancel the tram altogether. Since the Conservatives nationally are strongly pro-tram (their transport spokesperson has attacked the government for being too slow in extending tram networks), this isn't plausible, and once the election was over we'd get another "Oops, sorry, it was too late to reverse it" statement. These are examples of the tendency in politics - not restricted to the Conservatives - of taking any old line that gets votes and worrying about the consequences later - but sometimes, as in this case, completely innocent people are affected badly.

2. Toton and Chilwell Meadows by-election

A pretty quiet outcome in this traditionally safe Conservative ward. Turnout was down by a quarter to 31% and all parties lost votes, especially the BNP, who lost nearly three quarters of their support. A widely-circulated leaflet by an anti-BNP group had shown the candidate attending what was described as a German Nazi festival, in front of a poster showing steel-helmeted soldiers in heroic poises. I've not seen a denial of this, and if a party is seeking to garner support with a claim to be super-patriotic, it's probably a tiny bit unwise to appear to be sympathising with the army that tried to conquer us. (For details of the allegations see http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/09/438530.html )

The full result (comparisons with average vote last time in the multi-member ward): Con 1081 (-265), LibDems 474 (-230), Labour 298 (-102), BNP 59 (-147). UKIP, who had 149 votes last time, didn't stand this time.

There was a 4.5% swing from BNP to Conservatives and a 1% swing from LibDems to Labour. The Conservatives lost ground to the BNP last time and this makes it up: their share of the vote is now back to around its 2003 level. They were disappointed in the drop in their majority against the national opinion poll trends, but in fairness there was a strong view among local voters, including many who didn't support them, that they'd chosen a good candidate: Ms Hegyi has a strong local record and I think she'll be a good councillor. We were pleased to improve our share of the vote in national conditions that can modestly be described as suboptimal for Labour, and to see off the attempt by the BNP to overtake us. I'd like to say thanks to my Labour colleagues, especially Atul Joshi, for all the hard work and to Ms Hegyi and her team and the LibDems' Bob Pemberton and his team for a very fair campaign.

Best regards,

Nick

previous newsletters >>