Response to the Autumn Statement

The chancellor's statement (see the key points here) this afternoon once again reiterated how little he understands just how much ordinary families, particularly in the north east, are struggling. Whilst hard working families need help with their bills now, the best the chancellor could offer was a pledge to kick them slightly less whilst they are down.

It would be churlish to admit there wasn't some welcome news.

The increase in personal income tax allowance to £10,000 from April 2014 will help most in work retain more of their wages. It is nevertheless disappointing however that he won't commit to increasing this further and work towards removing all earning the minimum wage from paying income tax altogether.

The increase of £2.95/week in the basic state pension is also welcome. However, this is hardly news - following the changes announced in 2012 the increase was already guaranteed; the announcement was akin to being cheered to the rafters for declaring tomorrow to be Friday.

We also, finally, had confirmation of the married couples and civil partners tax break to be introduced from 2014. Granted, this only qualifies as good news if you are married or in a civil partnership - if you are single, cohabiting, or widowed this announcement might well be considered a waste of £700million (which, don't forget, we don't have so needs to be borrowed).

Oh, erm, this is rather embarrassing. That seems to be all the good news I can find.

What we also found out is that, despite the much publicised government announcement of a £50 saving, the average energy bill will still rise by £70 this winter. Already exorbitant rail fails will, on average, rise by inflation (ie by more than your wages are rising). Fuel duty will once again be frozen, but that is hardly a help if you already cannot afford to fill and run your car.

Of particularly concerning news for the north east is the announced increase in state retirement age, to 68 in the mid-2030s and to 69 in the late-2040s. Given the Healthy Life Expectancy for the North East is 59.7 years for men and 60.2 years for women - the lowest of any region of the UK - and the disproportionately high number of employees engaged in heavy manual labour in the region, increasing numbers of us will be forced to, literally, work until we drop.

Although it has been patently obvious for some time now, this government of millionaires really does not comprehend how increasingly difficult the average family is finding it to get by. For 40 out of the 41 months of this government, inflation has outpaced the rise in incomes.

Put another way, for 40 out of 41 months of this government we have been getting poorer. Much poorer.

Indeed, figures publicised by Labour today show that the average household is £1,600/year worse off than when this government came into power. (NB I use this figure with a caveat: as is Labour's way, this figure is incredibly simplistic as it only compares inflation directly with wages and fails to take into account changes to tax allowances, benefits, etc.).

What is clearer than ever is that this country, and particularly the North East, needs support and a change of government priorities. What is clearer than ever is that the Conservatives and Lib Dems have no intention of delivering that change.

What is also clear is that Labour can never, ever be trusted with our economy again. Although the ConDem coalition have proved to be poor stewards, it would be sheer lunacy to throw Labour the keys to the economy they crashed so spectacularly.

Only one party pledges to cut your fuel bills, not just marginally slow the rate of their increase; only one party pledges to cut taxes and business rates across the board for every small and medium sized business in the country; only one party pledges to put the poor of our own region ahead of those in foreign countries.

And that party is UKIP.

Please help save the 2nd Battalion, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

This weekend I was privileged to meet Major Chester Potts, chairman of the Fusiliers' Association in Northumberland (although he was far too modest to actually mention this fact) at UKIP's inaugural North East party conference. Major Potts had just finished addressing the conference about the planned sacrificing of the 2nd Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, amongst others, in June 2014.

In 2011, the Government announced its intention to cut the size of the British Army from 102,000 to just 82,000 by 2020 - its smallest level since the Napoleonic Wars, and to such an extent our entire army would be able to fit into Wembley Stadium.

It plans to replace those sacked soldiers with 30,000 reservists, conveniently ignoring the received wisdom that only 40% of reservists are at a state of operational readiness at any one time. In other words, they effectively plan to replace 20,000 combat ready and hardened soldiers with 12,000 reservists.

As part of those cuts, the government announced a number of historic battalions were to be axed. Although not included in the original list, the 2nd Battalion RRF was added in 2012, in a pathetic politically-driven sop to save two poorly recruited Scottish battalions ahead of the Scottish referendum on devolution in 2014.

Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, had previously stated that those regiments having trouble recruiting would be the most vulnerable. The decision to include the 2nd Battalion RRF clearly puts the lie to that.

2nd Battalion RRF is the best recruited battalion in the country, and at the time the decision was announced it was only 9 soldiers short of compliment with a host of new recruits waiting in the wings. The North East alone provides around 2,000 recruits to the army every single year and has just two infantry battalions to fill.

By contrast, the Royal Regiment of Scotland was over a battalion and a half short of compliment when the announcement was made. The whole of Scotland produces only 800-1,000 recruits each year yet has 5 infantry battalions to fill.

In addition, the Scottish battalions saved by sacrificing 2nd Battalion RRF are heavily reliant on recruits from overseas and across the Commonwealth, with overseas recruits accounting for 20% of their overall compliment; the 2nd Battalion RRF has only around 8%.

The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers came into existence on Saint George's Day in 1968 through the amalgamation of the four remaining English fusilier regiments - one of which was the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers.

The Royal Northumberland Fusiliers was originally raised in 1674 as the 5th Regiment of Foot. They have fought in every major campaign since and lay claim to 9 Victoria Crosses and 1 George Cross. The hackle the RRF wear to this day is the traditional red over white of the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers, which dates back to the Battle of St Lucia in 1778 having been taken, as the story goes, from the headgear of fallen French troops.

It is a measure of the disrespect, if not contempt, with which this government holds our region's proud heritage that they are prepared to sacrifice the 2nd Battalion RRF in order to avoid upsetting the Scots before the referendum. (A sop we have seen repeated in recent days with the naval shipyard at Portsmouth axed to save the Scottish yards). But here is where you can help.

When the Conservative party won the 1970 election, the 1st Battalion, Royal Hampshire Regiment was within days of being disbanded and amalgamated. So much so new uniforms and even new Colours had been produced.

Within three days of the election, the new Government stated the disbandment and amalgamation need not go ahead. And it did not.

With the 2nd Battalion RRF not due to be disbanded until June 2014, we have more than enough time to save it, based on the experience of 1970. Whilst some MPs, such as Tory MP John Baron, are fighting hard to save the battalion, too many are all too disinterested.

This Wednesday, 20th November, Parliament is to debate the third reading of the Defence Bill. At least 20 Tory MPs have so far signed an amendment by John Baron who has said there was “a groundswell of support” for at least delaying the replacement of full-time troops (the government has been suspiciously reluctant to release the number of additional reservists recruited to date, and fears are we will have nowhere the required 30,000 in time).

Although a number of other MPs are said to be "sympathetic", it is a concern many of these may opt to abstain rather than support the amendment.

The 2nd Battalion RRF needs YOU to write to your MP to ask him/her to support John Baron's amendment, and to vote against the Bill in its totality if needs be; to ask him/her to save this historic, professional and extremely well-recruited battalion from the chop; and to tell him/her we will not see one of our best battalions, by any measure, sacrificed purely to avoid upsetting Scottish voters.

Please, donate 10 minutes of your life to the RRF and write to your MP - if you don't know their e-mail address you can contact them directly via http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ - simply pop in your postcode and then click on "Send a message to...." on the following screen.

Thank you.

Changes to library opening hours throughout Stockton Borough

Following on from Stockton Council's decision in May to cut library provision across the borough, a review of the borough's library services has now been completed and the opening hours at five community libraries will change from Monday 6th January as follows:

Fairfield Library

	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
Current	10-7	10-7	10-7	10-12.30	10-7	10-12.30
New	10-1  2-5	Closed	10-1  2-7	Closed	10-1  2-5	10-12

 

Egglescliffe Library

	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
Current	10-12.30 1.30-7	10-12.30 1.30-7	Closed	10-12.30 1.30-7	10-12.30 1.30-7	10-12.30
New	10-1  2-5	10-1  2-5	Closed	2-7	Closed	Closed

 

Roseworth Library

	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
Current	10-12.30 1.30-7	10-12.30 1.30-7	Closed	10-12.30 1.30-7	10-12.30 1.30-7	10-4
New	1-7	9.30-3	Closed	9.30-3	Closed	Closed

 

Thornaby Library (Westbury Street)

	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
Current	10-12.30 1.30-7	10-12.30 1.30-7	Closed	10-12.30 1.30-7	10-12.30 1.30-7	10-12.30
New	10-1  2-5	2-7	Closed	10-1  2-5	Closed	Closed

At Billingham (Bedale Avenue) Library, opening hours will also reduce whilst the new Billingham Central Library is constructed in the town centre.  The pattern of opening will be as follows:

	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
Current	10-7	10-7	10-7	10-12.30	10-7	10-12.30
New	10-1  2-5	10-1  2-5	Closed	10-1  2-5	Closed	Closed

In addition, the current Sunday openings at Stockton and Thornaby Central Libraries will be discontinued from Sunday 22nd December – all other opening times at these libraries will be unaffected.  Ingleby Barwick Library will remain open on Sundays as normal, from 11am to 4pm.

Although the cuts are extremely disappointing, we have worked hard to ensure they are not as bad as first feared.  Our libraries are without exception well used and relied upon by very many people, and we will continue to campaign to prevent any further cuts to these vital services.

How Stockton Council is trying to manipulate its own planning committee

Yesterday evening, I was passed some papers evidencing how officers at Stockton Council are shamelessly attempting to influence the way elected councillors vote at next week's planning committee.

In June this year, Taylor Wimpey had an application to build 159 homes on Urlay Nook Road, Eaglescliffe overwhelmingly rejected by the council's planning committee, by some 9 votes to 2, contrary to the recommendation of council planning officers.

Predictably, Taylor Wimpey submitted an appeal against the decision (as reported in the Northern Echo here). In addition, Taylor Wimpey simultaneously submitted a near identical planning application for the same site, which is due to be determined by the planning committee next week.

The application is once again recommended for approval by council officers (you can find their report here). But officers couldn't leave it at that and run the risk of councillors again heeding residents' concerns and refusing the application for a second time; they decided to try and stack the deck in the developer's favour.

This week, council officers circulated to members of the planning committee a legal brief ostensibly relating to the appeal on Urlay Nook (which isn't due to be heard for some months yet). This document in essence states the council has no realistic prospect of winning the appeal and suggests the planning committee can "extricate the council from the very difficult situation it now faces" by approving the application at next week's committee meeting.

Not only that, the brief was circulated to members with a covering note saying that councillors are not allowed to discuss this matter with anybody outside of the planning committee and warned them (threatened them?) that to do so would be a breach of the Members Code of Conduct. Furthermore, members were told they are not even able to refer to the legal brief in next week's committee meeting; any discussion would need to take place in camera (i.e. in secret).

Well, so what?

The only possible explanation for this brief having been circulated to members prior to the planning committee meeting next week is that it is a deliberate and downright grubby attempt to unduly influence your elected representatives, to cajole them to approve the planning application contrary to common sense and the wishes of residents.

To my mind the public have an absolute right to know about such underhand manipulation of the planning committee, whatever hollow protests the council may come out with over the coming days. If I am subsequently found to have breached the code of conduct by putting this into the public domain then fine; a slap on the wrists is a price worth paying every single time to shine a little light on the way Stockton Council goes about its business.

The papers circulated to members of the planning committee can be found below. Share them with your friends, your neighbours, your family and help the truth to get out.

The Conservatives, in turning on Adam Afriyie, have revealed their true colours

Last week Adam Afriyie announced he was putting down an amendment to the EU Referendum Bill, which would set 23rd October 2014 as the date on which an In/Out Referendum would be held. In its current form, the Bill only promises a referendum to be held before the end of 2017.

There is a lot of merit in such a proposal. Given our current level of contributions to the EU, delaying a referendum by three years until 2017 would see our handing over a further £50billion to those unelected eurocrats before we are even given a say on whether we wish to continue doing so. We are told by the usual scaremongers that the ongoing debate is causing uncertainty and risks damaging trade; not an argument I accept, but an early referendum would quash any uncertainty there may be.

And that’s not to mention that a clear, consistent and growing majority of people want a referendum – now.

The response to Mr Afriyie’s amendment from his own Conservative colleagues has been startling. Instead of supporting his call for an early referendum like the eurosceptics many of them purport to be, he has been roundly abused. He has been branded a “fantatist” who has “lost touch with reality” by Conservative MPs briefing against him, anonymously of course. Not to be outdone, the Conservative-supporting press have branded him “a wally”.
Even the erudite Jacob Rees-Mogg got in on the act. Writing for the Telegraph, Rees-Mogg sought to explain how the amendment wasn’t helping the Eurosceptic cause and called for Mr Afriyie to “pipe down”. His reasons were twofold.

First, he declares the idea of renegotiating our relationship with Europe and seeking to repatriate powers to be eminently sensible. Unlike the Prime Minister, he went as far as to name what he sees as the minimum aims for renegotiation: opt-outs from the common fisheries policy, financial regulation and most importantly the free movement of people. And therein lies the problem.

It is incomprehensible to imagine that the Prime Minister will be able to secure the repatriation of any meaningful powers, particularly as the Commission has clearly set its face against it. It beggars belief they will concede ground on the free movement of people when this is the very bedrock of the European federalist dream. It cannot and will not happen, and it seems crazy to argue in favour of three years of negotiations which you know from the outset will not result in a satisfactory outcome. That way madness lies.
Secondly, he argues time is need to negotiate our exit under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which would allow for transitional arrangements to be agreed thereby reassuring voters they have nothing to fear from voting to leave the EU. Again, these would be negotiations doomed to failure.

Make no mistake, the Commission want to see the UK remain part of the European project (or should I say they want us to continue to bankroll it). So why on earth would they risk damaging the prospects of an ‘in’ vote by agreeing to smooth our path towards the exit door? It makes no sense whatsoever. Instead, once an ‘out’ vote has been secured, we would be in a much stronger negotiating position as a net importer of goods and services from European countries. To borrow and paraphrase a recent quote, Mr Mercedes really isn’t going to want to stop selling us cars.

So why has there been such a vitriolic response to the calls for an early referendum? The answer is patently obvious.

Ever since the Conservatives reneged, in 2010, on their promise to deliver a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, there have been calls for an immediate in-out referendum on Europe, from within the Conservative party and from without. These calls were contemptuously and consistently rejected, right up until 2013. Why the sudden u-turn?

Between 2010 and 2013 something incredible happened: UKIP started doing rather well. From strong showings in parliamentary by-elections up and down the country, to gaining hundreds of council seats in local elections, we gained momentum. Whilst the Conservative party finally admitted its membership had halved during the years of Cameron’s leadership, UKIP’s had doubled in no time at all. That’s not to mention we now consistently poll ahead of the Liberal Democrats, making us the third party in British politics, and continue to punch above our weight whenever and wherever elections are held.

Suddenly, Conservative MPs with tiny majorities (such as James Wharton, the sponsor of the Referendum Bill and my own local MP) began to get twitchy and panic, and out of their terror the Bill was born. Not through any principled desire to give the voters the referendum they demand, but to kick the whole issue of Europe into the long grass until the next general election in a desperate bid to curtail the rise of UKIP.

But the electorate are neither stupid nor gullible. We may never know the real motives behind Adam Afriyie’s tabled amendment, but the Conservative party’s reaction to it tells us all we need to know about the party machine’s motives for the bill.

This article was first published on UKIP Daily.