Latest Newsletters >>

Next Newsletters >>

Is politics more international than we realise?

18 September 2007

Hi all -

I'd like to make some wider-ranging comments than usual on the
internationalisatio n of politics, but first a couple of local notes:

* I went to my annual grilling by Beeston Amnesty last night - always
scrupulously polite and extremely searching, it's something I look
forward to. The group is the only Amnesty group in Greater Nottingham
but they are very active: if you'd like to do something to 'save the
human' as they put it, see http://beeston.amnesty.org.uk/ - note
there is no "www" in there.

* The locally-based Priory Celtic Youth Football Club is celebrating
its 40th anniversary with a big bash (3-course meal, disco, speeches
by a former Priory and England player, auction, etc.) at the East
Midlands conference Centre on Sept 28 from 730pm. See
http://www.priorycelticfc.co.uk/ and follow the link top right for
details.

* Many thanks to everyone who has responded to my survey of
Attenborough residents on the proposed flood protection scheme. We
are currently analysing the results street by street and will be
passing the results to the councillors on the Development Control
Committee who will be deciding (probably next month) what to say to
the EA. I'll report back fully when the position is clear.

Moving to the wider theme:

Only one of you has asked me to comment on Northern Rock, so just
briefly - while the guarantee for people with deposits is being
criticised as state intervention in a free market (it's called "moral
hazard" if you let people take risks and then bail them out if it
goes wrong), I think it made sense in this case and is likely to cost
the taxpayer nothing (since promising to cover the customers if there
is panic selling removes the need for panic selling).

To summarise what happened: Northern Rock essentially built its
business on borrowing from the apparently stable interbank lending
market to issue mortgages at slightly higher rates. Because of
problems in America, the market dried up, leaving NR exposed. It's a
good example of the dangers of a company putting all its eggs in even
the most secure-looking basket.

There is also the wider issue of banks being too eager to lend
money at extreme multiples of income, as Northern Rock does, and
although that wasn't the real problem it's likely to make lenders a
bit more cautious and dampen the house price boom, which is probably
not a bad thing for most people.

But what strikes me about recent major issues is that they have
all without exception been international. Northern Rock's problems
are rooted in how American banks lend money. Terrorism is an entirely
global issue, with the most unlikely countries now subject to almost
random attacks. Whatever one thinks of climate change, it's clear
that any British action will have virtually no effect unless
accompanied by similar action in other countries. Foot and mouth is a
current domestic problem and obviously a tragedy for the farmers and
animals affected, but its biggest significance for the economy is the
impact on exports.

I don't think that politics has really caught up with this
internationalisatio n of most issues. In any crisis, each country's
governments are primarily measured by how they react themselves,
rather than on how far they succeed in promoting international
action. If you take climate change: there is intense debate on such
things as Labour's encouragement of wind farms and the proposed
renewal of nuclear power stations, or the Tories' proposed tax on
shoppers' parking and ban on supermarkets offering free parking. But
the effort to get international agreement on carbon trading and to
persuade the Chinese in particular to turn away from their drive for
new unfiltered coal power station is going virtually unreported and
undebated, and consequently it's not being pursued with the urgency
it needs.

Should the West, for instance, be offering cheap or even free
filtering equipment to China and India in the interest of the planet
as a whole? You can argue that they're fast-growing economies so can
afford it themselves, or that we're still much richer and it's in our
interest. But so far as I can see, it's not even being discussed.

One reason for this is that international negotiations are
complicated and far away - there is a practical problem in the
British media even having a reporter on site. But there's also a
democratic issue. If you've got a view on climate change, you know
how to talk to me about it; you can write to the minister and get a
formal reply; but do you know how to influence discussions at OECD
level? Do you know who our delegate to the UN is?

Some people respond to this by arguing that we should pull back
from all this international involvement and centralise decision-
making in Britain - an obvious option being to withdraw from the EU.
But quite apart from the pros and cons of this, the problem is that
it won't work. The money markets are international; the trade system
is based on international treaties; immigration is a continent-wide
phenomenon; environmental issues can't be solved one nation at a
time; all kinds of standard questions from minimum wages to animal
welfare are undermined by differences between countries.

This trend isn't necessarily a bad thing in the long run. The
world is vastly more productive because most parts of the globe are
now actively involved in world trade, and the old resignation that
China and India would routinely be mired in famine and poverty has
given way to fear that they might out-compete us. Ultimately an awful
lot of problems will ease if the world becomes as prosperous as
Europe is today. But in the short run it means that the *primary*
duty of any British government should be effective promotion of
international agreement.

When a crisis arises, such as Northern Rock's problems, the main
requirement of politicians is level-headed action to deal with it.
(That applies locally too - when Boots and Hardy and Hanson were
taken over, I felt the first thing to do was talk to the new owners
about guarantees for the people affected, and I suppressed the
temptation to denounce them in advance.) But once a crisis is over we
should expect politicians to follow up with serious efforts to
address the issues internationally rather than just pat themselves on
the back and wait for the next one. Being an "internationalist" used
to be seen as something vaguely idealistic and starry-eyed. In
today's world, I'd argue, it's the central test of national interest.

Feedback, as always, is welcome. I'll be at the Labour conference
from Sunday so as usual it'll be appreciated if you let me know if
you don't need a reply.

Best wishes

Nick

What do floods imply for us?/Boots changes/rail news

20 July 2007

Hi all -

Some practical notes: I'm away on holiday for a week from Sunday until
August 6 (I may take another two weeks in September). I may have email
access intermittently, but would quite like to take a little break, so
if I may I'll treat all responses to this as "no need to reply" unless
you say otherwise. I'm still interested in feedback but will just read
it when I get back and would like not to feel I need to write 300
replies - otherwise I'll take forever to catch up. I hope that's OK! If
you need help urgently in the meantime, my office on 0115-9430721 will
be glad to do all we can.

1. What do the floods imply for us?
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~

We've got off lightly so far - I know of two houses in Trowell that
were flooded, and there have been intermittent problems with overflow
in several places, but nothing on the scale of a few years ago.
Nonetheless it has to be a wake-up call.

This has immediate implications, since in a couple of weeks Broxtowe
Council has to decide whether to approve the Environment Agency's
proposed flood defences for Attenborough. The stakes are high: it's the
final piece in the planning approval chain for a huge scheme protecting
the whole of Greater Nottingham. If it goes through, it will give much
better protection not just to Attenborough but also to the high-risk
areas of Rylands and other parts of Broxtowe, as well as other parts of
the conurbation.

However, there is a vigorous campaign in Attenborough against the
current proposal, led by residents on The Strand and users of the
cricket and bowls pitches. The issue is this: the proposed defences
include a wall along The Strand, and quite explicitly foresee the use
of the sports pitches as reserve space for flood water in emergency.
Campaigners argue that the wall will be obtrusive, obstruct the
pleasant view across the fields, and mean that the sports fields, which
are an important part of village activity, will be waterlogged on a
recurrent basis. Instead, they urge the council to tell the EA that
they approve the scheme but reject the proposed line of defence in
favour of an alternative running behind the fields.

The bowls club writes: "A concern expressed by our Green Committee
Chairman for over twelve months is that once the wall is constructed
the Environment Agency will be prepared to flood the village green more
regularly to protect property further down the Trent Valley. This will
increase the flood damage potential to Attenborough Village Green, on a
more regular basis, and therefore the Bowls Club will lose more playing
time than at present; with the potential that this will mean the club
cannot survive into the future."

It is almost certainly true that the EA will be prepared to flood
the fields to protect homes. In my opinion they would need to - I wish
the club well, but frankly I couldn't face Attenborough or Rylands
residents who have been forced out of their homes with the argument
that the bowls green needed to be protected.

The campaigners are of course not against protection altogether,
though. Their alternative route has obvious attraction, since it
protects the sports fields and residents' homes as well. The difficulty
is that it runs through a site designated for protection (rare plants
etc.), which the EA has a statutory duty to avoid if there is a viable
alternative; moreover, the EA really wants to have the fields as a
reserve for floods. So far, the EA has flatly refused to change the
route, despite powerful and detailed representations. The thing we just
don't know is whether, if the proposed route is turned down, the EA
will then accept the alternative that they've rejected up to now.

I've not commented on this either way up to now, since it's a
council decision, but there is now a new element. The national floods
have put enormous pressure on the EA to speed up additional protection
for other areas. I don't have the power to tell the council what to do,
but my sober advice after talking to other MPs is that if Broxtowe
refuses to agree to the proposal as it stands, there is a non-trivial
risk that the EA will divert the Nottingham money to other areas where
flooding has been more recent and there is no local opposition to the
proposed protection. My colleagues are going to be bombarding the
Agency with demands for their areas, and frankly will exploit any
reluctance on our part to take the protection, warts and all ('Look,
they don't even want it, give it to us!').

I sympathise with the point about the sports fields and their
importance to Attenborough, but ultimately the council does need to
protect homes first. I think that the committee should quiz the EA
closely on whether the alternative route would be something they were
willing to accept. If yes, fine - reject the current route in its
favour. If not, then I'm sorry to disagree with the campaigners, but as
the constituency MP I have to say that the risk of rejection is too
great for the constituency at large.

On the wider issue of flood plains, several of you have asked why
the proposal for additional affordable housing (to bring down the cost
of homes for young families) doesn't rule out it being built on flood
plains. The problem here is simply that we're a fairly narrow, mostly
flat, island surrounded by water, and nearly all the main employment
centres have been built within reach of the coast. It wouldn't address
housing needs to build thousands of new homes in, say, the Scottish
Highlands. What the proposals say is that local authorities need to
take into account the expectation of climate change leading to
increased flooding, so if housing is needed in an area that could be
affected, the cost of better flood protection needs to be built into
the plans.

2. Boots changes
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~

Two constituents have reported that they've been asked to make
substantial changes to work patterns, including work most Saturdays, to
reflect automation of part of the Beeston site. I understand that this
was negotiated with USDAW (the relevant union) and a one-off
compensation package has been offered. For one constituent, whose name
and email details I've unfortunately mislaid (she will see this -
apologies!), this was going to cause significant personal difficluties.
I've spoken to the Human Resources people, who say that they'll try to
accommodate people who have really difficult care issues, but would
need to look for volunteers to swap with them - it's worth asking,
though.

It's tempting to see this as part of the new management approach,
but it's presumably been planned for a while. I've checked the legal
position: one has a right to ask to be exempt from weekend shifts
without it being held against one, but if they've been negotiated with
the established union one can't insist on them. I've asked for feedback
from USDAW on their reasons for recommending the deal, and have told
management that I think their general commitment to social
responsibility ought to cover making exceptions where there are major
care problems.

3. Rail news
~~~~~~~~~~~~

I had an introductory meeting last week with Stagecoach, who are taking
over the Midland Mainline and Central routes in our area from November.
There are only a couple of MPs who are lobbying them, so we have
something of an inside track, and there is a real prospect of
improvements for Beeston, Attenborough and Nottingham services, as well
as for the long-discussed station improvements. In the longer term
there is also some possibility of getting a feeder bus from the Rylands
to the station and the proposed tram, and I'm working on this with Cllr
Steve Barber, in the same way as I'm working with Cllr Richard Robinson
to get a feeder bus from Awsworth, Kimberley and Nuthall to the Phoenix
park tram. I'll report further on all these things when there's harder
news.

I hope that's helpful. That's it for a bit - I hope everyone enjoys any
holidays they're planning and that we get a bit of decent weather for a
change!

Best wishes

Nick

New government/terrorism/Europe/local events

2 July 2007

Hi all -

OK, caught my breath after a hectic period. Obviously plenty to
discuss, but I'll just slip in brief plugs for

1. Upcoming events
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~

a) Saturday 7th July from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Annual Garden Party in aid of Cancer Research at the home of Kath and
David Jenkins, 21A Grasmere Road, Beeston. Cakes, Plants, Bric-a-Brac
for sale. Raffle. Tombola. Admission £1.00

b) Kimberley & Awsworth Labour Party: an evening with Dennis Skinner
MP (the "Beast of Bolsover") for Friday 14 September 2007 @ 7 30pm.
Venue is Awsworth Village Hall. A pay bar will be available. Tickets
£4 from Margaret Turner - 33 Ascot Avenue, Kimberley, Nottingham -
0115 9385101 e: margare1@btopenworl d.com Dennis came to Kimberley 3
years ago and the event sold out very quickly. To avoid
disappointment - please book your ticket early.

2. New government
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~

It's early days and you'll be forming your own opinion anyway, but
personally I welcome the somewhat austere and practical approach. It
was natural to have a festive and celebratory start in 1997, but I
think that people now simply want Gordon to tackle the new job in the
same serious way that he's handled the Treasury. He's resisted the
advice to try to become jolly and folksy, and in my opinion it's
always best not to pretend to be something you're not. Leading
Conservatives have claimed they are 'the heirs to Blair', and are
attempting to copy his style; I think they are fighting the last war,
so to speak, but we'll see.

I'm anticipating continuing as PPS to Malcolm Wicks, who has switched
from Science (which passes to Ian Pearson) to Energy. This is very
much what he was doing before and because of my interest in climate
change and conservation issues, I'm looking forward to getting back
to it.

3. Terrorism
~~~~~~~~~~~~

There have been some calls for drastic action following the recent
failed attacks; for instance, I've been debating on an online forum
with a well-known writer who wants to clamp down on Islam and ban all
immigration from non-EU countries, which seems pretty hard on (say)
the Canadians and Swiss. Another contributor points with apparent
approval to the Reformation, when Protestants used torture and
beheading to oppress Catholicism because of the fact that some
Catholics (like Guy Fawkes) plotted armed rebellion. This sort of
thing is frankly nuts, and we need to keep a steady nerve and a clear
mind.

A few general points:

* I don't think we should do anything in a rush, except give the
security services any additional help they need to identify the
plotters and watch for others. They have had a very large increase in
funding and staffing in recent years, but if they need more, I'd
expect to support it.

* We do not have a problem with peaceful believers in Islam: what
people choose to believe is entirely their business. We have a
problem with terrorists. It makes sense to crack down on terrorism,
and I'm open to argument on things like the duration of detention and
the use of phone-tapping evidence. It makes no sense to crack down on
an entire religion, pushing everyone who believes in it *away* from
the British mainstream. If Northern Ireland taught us anything, it
should be the danger of treating an entire community as suspect when
the actual problem is a small number of murderers within it.

* We should avoid the temptation to feel that it's in some way our
fault that people would like to kill random civilians. It's certainly
possible to argue against our involvement in Iraq or any other
policy, but people who respond with random murder are not people
with whom we should semi-sympathise or try to 'negotiate'. Since
similar attacks are being seen in countries as varied as Spain,
France, Egypt and Indonesia, it's clearly not particularly a British
problem.

* Since we are unlikely to be able to 'solve' the problem with any
short-term policies, we should do all we can to prevent attacks, but
not go into national crisis mode every time an attack happens - not
because they are not very important and terrible, but because it
encourages the attackers.

If any specific changes in the law are proposed in due course, I'll
consult the list on what you feel about them. In the meantime, I
think we should all pursue business as usual and treat each other's
religious or non-religious beliefs with the same calm tolerance that
is our national tradition.

3. Europe
~~~~~~~~~

Three of you have asked whether I'll be calling for a referendum on
the draft EU agreement, as we promised there would be on any "EU
constitution" . It's argued that the proposals are so close to a
constitution that we really ought to vote on them.
Let me summarise the proposals and give you a link to the full
papers so you can decide for yourself.

* The EU would appoint a "Representative for Foreign Affairs and
Security policy" who would work with national governments to try to
coordinate foreign policy initiatives, on the basis that we will have
more weight if we are saying the same thing. At present, the EU has
both a High Commissioner for External Affairs and a Commissioner for
External Relations: these posts would be merged.

* From 2014, there would be a new system of majority voting on issues
not affecting national sovereignity (thus exempting tax, social
security, foreign policy, defence, etc.), with measures allowed to
pass if they get both 55% of countries and countries representing at
least 65% of the EU population. The argument for this change is to
avoid a single maverick government in the new 26-member union
blocking everything ('you can only have your new transport agreement
if Latvia gets more money').

* At present the chair (president) of the Council of Ministers
rotates every 6 months. Instead, the governments would agree to
choose a president for 2 1/2 year periods.

* The size of the Cimmission will be reduced, with member states
nominating commissioners two turns out of three.

* All EU legislation would require prior scrutiny by every national
Parliament, with Parliaments required to recieve proposals at least
eight weeeks ahead of their consideration by the EU.

* The Charter of Fundamental Rights would restrict any future EU
decisions (but, in a specific protocol required by Britain, would not
apply to any British laws)

* The Council of Ministers would now hold all meetings in public.

For more information, see:

Constitutional treaty:
http://eur-lex. europa.eu/ JOHtml.do? uri=OJ:C: 2004:310: SOM:EN:HTML

Presidency conclusions, including the mandate for the negotiations
leading to the Reform treaty:
http://www.consiliu m.europa. eu/ueDocs/ cms_Data/ docs/pressData/ en/ec/94
932.pdf

The proposals seem to me sensible, but I'm aware that a number of you
feel that they are just the latest slice of salami tactics in
successive Labour and Tory governments changing the EU from what we
voted for in the 1970s to what we have today. Because of this, I
think that in practice we would find a referendum moving into a
basic "in or out of the EU" debate, which the "ins" would probably
win in the end but which would cause a long period of uncertainty.
I am in favour of a Swiss system allowing people to force
referenda if they want, but given our system of "only for decisions
of great national importance" I think it's hard to justify for these
miscellaneous changes - they are certainly a lot less than previously
went through without a referendum under the Nice treaty that Mrs
Thatcher agreed. That's why the Conservatives are not really pressing
the issue, by the way.
Note that there is time to debate this - the deal will be further
considered in December, and then submitted to parliament after that,
so any referendum would be next year.

Best wishes

Nick

Floods urgent update, Broxtowe Park, local events

29 June 2007

Hi all -

Despite all the momentous national events I'm short of time to
discuss them today, so I'll just pass on things that I've been asked
to tell you as soon as possible, because some of you may need to see
the flood warning immediately (even though other areas are named as the most likely to suffer, there must be a risk here too). Apologies for the all caps in item 2 - no time to transcribe!

I'll also give a plug for the NRTA's meeting on Monday to discuss the
problem of motorbikes on Broxtowe Park. Sue Wildey and I have
productive discussions today with City officials and I think there's
a fair chance of progress in this eternal problem, even though we've
been disappoinmted before. I'm in Westminster Monday but Sue will be
able to update you.

1. Floods update from the Environment Agency

Flooding update for weekend of 30 June-1 July

A quick note to keep you appraised of the flooding situation. There
is the possiblity of further flooding incidents in your constituency
over this next weekend.

A severe weather warning was issued by the Met Office for this coming
weekend. It is expected that 20 -30 mm of rain will fall across the
Midlands area and there may be localised amounts of up to 50 mm.
These amounts of rainfall could cause already swollen rivers and
watercourses to further flood.

Our advice is that people in affected areas monitor the Weather
forecasts and listen to updates on local radio as well as phoning
Floodline(0845 9881188) and checking the Agency website -
www.environment- agency.gov. uk.

The area we consider to be at risk is Shardlow and Barrow on Trent.

Ourr incident room here at Trentside in Nottingham is monitoring the
situation and we will be doing everything we are able to do, working
with other emergency services, to respond to any situation that
occurs.

2. Awsworth event

ATTRACTIIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: - NORTHERN DEVILS P.T CRUISERS
(SPECIALIST CARS).
FUNFARE, BOUNCY CASTLES, STALLS, CHILDRENS ENTERTAINERS, ZOZO THE
CLOWN, JUDO DEMONSTRATIONS, FOOD STALLS, LICENSED BARS, TERRATORIAL
ARMY. FUN DOG SHOW, KWIK CRICKET, BALLOONS RELEASE, RAFFLE, BALLOON
RIDES, MOTIVATOR ACTIVITY BUS, ENVIRONMENTAL EXHIBITION BUS, DANCING
AND GYMNASTICS BY AWSWORTH PRIMARY SCHOOL. TABLE TOP AND CRAFT SALES
INSIDE VILLAGE HALL, for a table ring Bryan on 0115 8494761 cost
(£5.00) SOUTHEAST DERBYSHIRE BAND, NOTTS EDUCATION BRASSERY, HENLEY
FARREL BIG BAND, NOTTINGHAM SYMPHONIC WIND ENSEMBLY,
LIVE BANDS EVENING ENTERTAINMENT.
1. APACHE ROSE 2. COCKTAIL. 3. THE SUPERTONES.

CULMINATING IN A FIRE WORK SPECTACULAR FINALE.

ADMISSION £1.00 CHILDREN AND SENIOR CITIZENS 50P.

3. Advance notice of Chilwell event

Village Ventures at Chilwell School Theatre – diary date

"Slavery" by Jonathan Payne is coming to Chilwell School Theatre on
Thursday 8th November 2007 at 7.30pm. It is presented by Tara Arts
and tells the tales of American slaves through real stories and Negro
spirituals. The play is suitable for adults and for young people aged
14 and over. Look on the school website for more details –
www.chilwell. notts.sch. uk Tickets will be available in September from
Chilwell School on 9252698 or email office@chilwell. notts.sch. uk Book
early to avoid disappointment!

Please note – the school theatre is available for hire by local
groups. See the website for further details.

In haste!

Regards, Nick

Urgent flood warning

25 June 2007

Hi all -

A quick note that may be important to some of you: the Environment
Agency have issued a 'severe flood warning' that potentially affects
Moorbridge Lane in Stapleford. Unofficially I hear that the river
bank is still holding so it may be a false alarm, but there's clearly
a risk. They're also expecting a Rylands field and some roads
in Rylands to be affected as well as gardens in Attenborough, but
houses in these two areas are not at present, as I understand it,
expected to be reached, though that could change.

You can keep track by looking at

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/flood/?lang=_e

or ringing Floodline, 0845-9881188.

This reminds me that I've had some queries about the status of the
proposed improved flood protection scheme for Greater Nottingham.
Funding has been approved subject to planning, but there are
objections in two places, one of them Attenborough, where a large
group of residents feel the proposed wall along the Strand would be
unacceptably obtrusive, and hope it will be rejected and a barrier
behind the sports fields erected instead. The issue will be
considered by Broxtowe's Development Control Committee shortly.

There are obviously other issues to chat about but I wanted to get
the flood warning out quickly so will leave it there for now.

Best regards

Nick

Boots pensions settlement/badgers cull rejected/what would you spend?

19 June 2007

Hi all -

Just a quick note to let you know that the Boots trustees have reached
agreement with the KKR takeover team on the additional funding and
security that the trustees wanted. I've had a long discussion with the
chairman of trustees, and I'm sending much more detail to the separate
Boots email list: if you would like to be on that and are not yet on
it, let me know.

On a totally different note, an issue that I know many of you have been
concerned about has had what looks a good outcome; the proposed massive
cull of badgers seems off the agenda. Despite extensive pressure to do
this at once from the National Farmers' Union and the opposition
parties (a position that I described in debate as "If in doubt, kill
something"), the Government said it wasn't willing to undertake a cull
unless the scientists said that it would genuinely bring about a major
reduction in the spread of TB in cattle. The scientific study group has
now reported, and found that a cull would in most cases make the
problem worse, because infected badgers would move into the culled
areas, spreading the disease more quickly.

The study group recommend instead a big increase in testing of cattle
being moved around the country. This is expensive, and Ministers have
said they want to study all the findings before commenting.

Finally, Parliament is soon to come to grips with the next
Comprehensive Spending Review. To stimulate debate, the Treasury has
set up a simulation so that people can try the effects of different
levels of spending in each ministry. If you think that, for instance,
we should spend more on education and science but save money on defence
and cultural spending, the simulation gives you the chance to see what
the trade-offs would be and how they'd affect five general challenges
of ageing population, climate change, globalisation, technological
change and terrorism. It doesn't go very deeply into detail, but if
you'd like to try it, if only to see where your money goes, it's on

http://csr07. treasury. gov.uk/simulatio n/index.aspx

Best wishes

Nick

What do MPs do?

16 June 2007

Hi all -

I thought it might be interesting to give a picture of how an MP's
week is typically spent. First, though, a couple of meetings:

Thursday, 21 June, 6.30 pm to 8.30 pm at the Boundary Community
Centre, Boundary Road, Beeston - discussion of council planning for
student housing, with speakers from the City Council and the
Nottingham Action Group on HMOs on the first Nottingham Student
Housing Action Plan.

Friday, 22 June, at 7.00pm in the New Venture Social Club (ex Plessey
Club, next to Beeston Station): the long-awaited Inconvenient Truth
debate on climate change organised by Beeston Labour Party. There
will be a showing of the film (which argues that major human-caused
climate change is taking place) followed by a debate. I like to
present both sides of any argument so we will have Roger Helmer MEP,
a well-known Conservative sceptic, putting his views, as well as
Professor David Cope, who advises MPs of all sides neutrally on the
science. There is a bar (real ale available) which will close at
11.00pm and I've no doubt the informal debate will continue long
after the main meeting closes at about 9.45pm. Although the show is
free, as we wouldn't want to exclude anyone, we will ask for a
donation of say £3 or more to go towards the debate expenses.

What do MPs do?
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~
This innocent question comes up often, so I thought it might be
helpful to give you last week's diary. The week was fairly typical, except that in this one there weren't any debates or question sessions that I contributed to - this varies a lot according to the issues (e.g. Tuesday's debate was on the abstruse issue of authorising prison detention for the ex-dictator of Sierra Leone - a good idea, but I've no other comment to make).

In general I spend less time than average in public debate and more than average on behind-the-scenes work - for instance, it was more useful to talk privately to Hilary Benn about Darfur than wait to make a speech in the Chamber when it's next debated. The subjects of course vary drastically - e.g. there was nothing on education or crime last week, while in another week these might dominate. Locally, this was a week when I wasn't doing any door-to-door visiting - I'm taking a short break from that after the local elections.

Note that there are substantial gaps between the meetings. I
generally work from 8am to midnight 7 days a week, but with breaks when I feel like it - one of the charms of the job is that you can organise most of your time. The gaps are mostly filled with preparation for the meetings or correspondence with or for constituents, or sometimes with private time out - for instance, yesterday morning I just spent time at home with my wife and walked the dog! I *try* to remember that there is more to life than politics...

Monday June 11:
1030-1300: Meet the five part-time team members at the Attenborough
office, discuss issues expected over the next couple of months.
1330-1600: Train and tube to London office (eat on train)
1600-1900: First pass through accumulated weekend correspondence in
London
1900-2000: Meeting with Amicus trade union on agency worker rights
2000-2030: Eat (there's a good, fast canteen)
2030-2200: Miscellaneous casework, wait for vote at 2200.
2200-2215: To London flat (it's very close to Parliament), then reply
to emails.

Tuesday:
1400-1430: Discuss Darfur and wider development issues with Hilary
Benn
1430-1700: Casework
1700-1745: AGM of all-party world governance group (works to improve
UN, WTO, etc.)
1745-1845: Act as private secretary (PPS) to Science Minister in
Joint Committee of Commons and Lords on Climate Change Bill
1845-1915: Meet Labour Party analyst to discuss electoral trends in
Broxtowe
1915-1945: Eat
1945-2200: Casework, possible vote doesn't materialise
2200: As Monday.

Wednesday:
1100-1200: Meeting of Public Accounts Committee to examine criticism
of senior civil servant in Private Eye for expenses claims
1200-1230 Prime Minister's Question - seek to raise question on
Darfur, but not called
1230-1300 eat
1300-1500 Correspondence
1500-1600 Meet USDAW union to discuss position of full-time carers
and the limits on what they are allowed to earn while working from
home
1630-1700 Act as PPS to Science Minister (he's deputising himself for
another Industry Minister) in short debate on equality rights
2200-2400: take part in all-party discussion on webTV broadcast
(www.18doughtystree t.com - it's run by a Tory and doesn't pretend to
be neutral, but all the more reason to contribute)

Thursday:
1230-1330: lunch discussion with Commons Library consultant on how to
make Parliament's work more accessible to people outside
1600-1700: meeting of the FRAME (animal experiment reduction) all-
party group - I'm vice-chair - partly to prepare for DTI-Defra
discussion on animal experiments.
1855: train back home (points failure closes usual route, so takes three hours this time)

Friday:
1230-1430: Meeting with NHS Healthcare Trust (mental health
management) to discuss priorities and current Mental Health Bill
1700-1830: Stapleford surgery (the constituents and I all arrive half
an hour late due to cloudburst!)

Saturday:
1030: look in on organisers of brain tumour charity event in
Kimberley on July 1, pass on wine bottle signed by Gordon Brown for the auction
1100: open Broxtowe Crossroads' new centre for carer breaks in
Eastwood
1400-1500: draft newsletter plan for next 12 months

Sunday (to come):
1500: visit Sandby Court, Chilwell to discuss tram issues

Is this pattern typical for all MPs? No - there is a great deal of
variation. Some spend much more time on local events like the
Crossroads one, actively seeking them out - I basically try to come
if asked, but that's it. Some specialise in a particular campaign and
spend a large chunk of every week on it. Some are more involved in
party work; some have second jobs (Ken Clarke, for instance, has lots
of directorships) ; some have larger family responsibilities (I have
no children). Few spend much time on email, but everyone has lots of
casework, which as you see takes large chunks of the week.

Who uses the time best? I don't know - there are pros and cons in
all the alternatives. If you feel I should be distributing my time
differently, I'd be interested in the feedback.

Best wishes

Nick

Two notes on Beeston and Chilwell leaflets/tram submission update

5 June 2007

Hi all -

Two items of limited interest outside Beeston and Chilwell!

1. Beeston Central
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~

I hadn't intended to add to my partisan support for Pat and Lynda
Lally in the last message, but am mildly provoked by LibDem leaflets
suggesting that they are the main alternative to the Tories in the
ward, offering as evidence (a) an anonymous resident who says
it's "obviously" true and (b) a barchart based on results from other
wards.

This is simply silly. I could write a Labour leaflet claiming that as
we're strong in Beeston Rylands we are the obvious choice in, say,
Bramcote, but my theory is that people actually don't like to be
hoodwinked, and I've refused to sign daft things like this from my
own party in the past. If the LibDems win in Beeston Central, I
promise to eat Ming Campbell's hat.

The objective reality is that the ward is Labour-held and there is a
strong Tory challenge which we hope local LibDem voters will help us
hold off. It doesn't mean you shouldn't vote LibDem (or Green or
UKIP) if you don't mind who wins the ward and just want to support
the party, but it would be unrealistic to do it in the expectation
that they'll win.

2. Tram submissions and BCBRA
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~

First an important point for those who have submitted tram comments.
In the standard reply, it asks if you want to speak at the enquiry,
and says that if you don't say you do, you'll be assumed to have no
further comments. If you say you do but later decide not to, you will
still be able to submit more comments.

I've written to the TWAO unit to suggest that they do accept further
written comment, even from those not wishing to speak at the inquiry,
but to be on the safe side, if you have made a submission and wan tto
add to it later, you should inform them now, saying that if necessary
you are willing to speak at the enquiry. Thanks to Nigel Collier of
BCBRA for pointing out this wrinkle in the procedure.

Meanwhile, I've had a note on behalf of the BCBRA complaining that I
reported the Advertising Standards Authority's ruling that they
breached the code on truthfulness on three points in a leaflet
critical of the tram. They say the ASA was wrong on one of these
points and they are appealing the decision.

They ask me to reprint their argument in full (which goes on longer
than I really want to, but you can get their full reasoning if you
contact them at committee@bcbra. org.uk). They also ask me to point
out that they made other claims critical of the tram that have not
been challenged. I'm sure that is true, but it's what I'd call the "I
don't always beat my wife" defence - it is not a good idea to make
mistaken claims, even if one also makes accurate claims. A senior
member has threatened to complain to the Parliamentary Commissioner
for Standards that I reported the ASA ruling, which he feels was an
attempt by me to influence the consultation on the tram unfairly.

Look, I don't want to belabour the issue or get into a long squabble
with BCBRA. In my opinion they do a good job of representing
objectors, but all campaigns slip up sometimes. My previous update
didn't comment on any of this except to say mildly that it's
important to ensure that one's facts are right. We all make mistakes,
but in general I trust the ASA to make fair rulings, and BCBRA's
argument should be with them, not me. If BCBRA's appeal is
successful, I'll report that too. I hope that we can now move on to
focusing on what actually matters, namely the inquiry itself.

On that, I've amended my own submission to reflect helpful feedback
from many sides, adding points about residents' parking, cycling and
noise protection. I won't inflict the whole thing on you again, but
if you'd like a copy of it let me know (I've sent a copy to all the
campaign groups).

Important though the tram is, I think I've given it a good airing
recently, and the next few updates will turn to other issues.

Best regards

Nick

Abortion Bill/Hemlock event/Beeston C by-election/Boots/draft tram submission

1 June 2007

Hi all -

After a few short but important notes, most of this one is taken up
by my draft submission on the tram. I've written a lot about this in
recent emails and I'm aware that at least half of you aren't affected
at all, but it has such significance for the other half, both
positive and negative in varying degrees, that I think it's important
that I consult as fully as possible about what I say. So no
apologies, but I've put it on the end so you can stop reading when
you come to it if you don't care either way. After Thursday I expect
to park the issue for a while as it will only really come to life
when the inquiry starts around November.

1. Abortion Bill

There is a Private Members' Bill coming up shortly which proposes
three changes to the abortion rules. First, applicants for an
abortion should be given detailed counselling on the issues,
including any other options such as adoption. Second, a clear
distinction should be recorded between abortions conducted on
physical on mental grouunds. Third, there should be a compulsory
delay of at least one week, to require the applicant to give time to
consider whether she really wants to do it. A number of you (on both
sides) have asked me to vote on this.
I've no problem with the first point: people considering abortion
are often worried and under pressure and good neutral counselling,
not biased to any option, must be a good thing. The second appears to
have no immediate effect, but is presumably intended to prepare for
possible changes in the law if it proves that most abortions are
carried out on mentla health grounds. The third seems to me very
doubtful. It's common ground that if an abortion is done it's best
done early, for all kinds of obvious reasons, and imposing an
articfial delay if the applicant is sure she wants to do it seems to
set up a deliberate hurdle which will increase the pressure at a very
difficult time.
I'm therefore rather sceptical at the moment, but will only vote
on it if I've heard the arguments on both sides, and will try to make
sure I'm there for it. Like all private bills, it's unlikely to
become law, and the point of the vote is mainly to show the state of
Parliamentary opinion.

2. Beeston Central by-election

(Warning: biased paragraph!) This is next Thursday, and if you live
in the ward I do hope you'll vote. I've been helping the Lallys with
canvassing - apart from being Labour colleagues they are old friends
(Pat works for me two days a week) and utterly devoted to Beeston.
The Conservatives are working the patch zealously and see it as a dry
run for their General Election challenge - I've seen Tory councillors
from as far afield as Gedling and Nuthall pounding the doorsteps, and
glossy literature with a picture of Mr Cameron looking stern and
other national material is flooding in. There is less local material
than in Labour leaflets since the Conservative candidates live in
Trowell and Bramcote; the Lallys have lived in the ward for decades.

My work is made much easier by having the Lallys to take up
Beeston issues at council level, and I think if they lose it would be
a pity for Beeston too. There are also LibDem, UKIP and Green
candidates but it's very much a Labour/Tory race in this ward.

3. Boots

As you'll have seen, KKR's bid has been approved by shareholders.
I've sent another note on this to the separate Boots mailing list -
if you're not on it and would like to be, let me know.

4. Hemlock Happening

This is on Saturday June 9 and always a highlight of local
festivities. It's got its own website this year! - see
www.hemlockhappenin g.org

5. Draft tram submission

The deadline is next Thursday and I expect to finalise my comments on
Monday. What I'm trying to achieve is:

a) Make it clear that I'm starting from the viewpoint of someone who
supports the tram network as providing good, clean, reliable public
transport in Greater Nottingham. I know that some opponents think
it's none of these things, but I don't agree - the fact that it has a
serious impact for some of us shouldn't blind us to its advantages or
its evident popularity among current users. We've always said that we
can't get people out of cars and ease congestion and pollution by
just penalising drivers: we need to provide a good alternative which
is rarely held up in traffic.

b) Ensure that the inquiry is aware of all the major problems that
aspects of the route present for many of my constituents. There are
at least five points along the route where constituents are being
asked to make sacrifices for the collective good which go well beyond
what can reasonably be expected as part of the normal give and take
of everyday life.

c) It's up to the inquiry to decide whether these collectively make
the route unsuitable. But if the proposal is not completely thrown
out (and I doubt if that will happen), then each objection needs to
be examined and addressed, mitigated or compensated. I've therefore
tried in some detail to identify changes which would reduce the
impact, in particular for the elderly people in Neville Sadler Court,
who I think have the worst benefit-cost balance of everyone affected.

There will be opportunities to expand on all this in later
submissions - at this stage, one only has to outline the main issues.
In some cases, such as Sandby Court, I've been asked back to further
residents' meetings to explore the issues again; in others, the
meetings have already happened. But I wanted you to have the chance
to comment before I send it in. I expect that most people will agree
with some bits and disagree with others, but I have to try to balance
an overall commitment to community transport and the environment with
a duty to represent constituents who are at risk of considerable
personal sacrifices for the community. A nuanced approach is more
convincing and persuasive than megaphone tirades.

Best wishes

Nick

Proposed extension to Nottingham trams

One of the two proposed extensions, Line Two, runs through my
constituency in Beeston and Chilwell, and over the last few years I
have taken extensive soundings of local opinion about the project. I
should like to give evidence to the public inquiry.
It may be helpful if I outline my main points here, though I
understand that more detailed submissions will be required nearer the
time.

1. The NET system
There is in my view no doubt that Line One has been a very impressive
success, and that it has significantly improved public transport in
the city. It seems entirely natural to want to build on this success,
with the objective of eventually having the NET system covering all
the main transport corridors. As the MP for Broxtowe, I would not
like to see the borough excluded from the network, and believe that
the extension is therefore desirable in principle.

2. The route (general comments)
The link between city centre, University Hospital, Beeston and
Chilwell town centres and a park-and-ride available to M1 traffic has
obvious attractions. However, there are significant difficulties for
a number of my constituents with this route, and early in the process
I proposed an alternative, which would run by Queens Road West and By-
Pass Road, swinging up Swiney Way. NET's assessment conceded that
this would be superior in attracting local usage, but believe that
the longer route would reduce the attraction to motorists as well as
increasing the cost. As the inquiry is, I understand, not in a
position to revisit that alternative, I will concentrate on
identifying the main problems along the current route, which will
mean a number of my constituents will have to sacrifice more than
they can reasonably be expected to, without adequate compensation or
mitigation.

3. The route (specific difficulties)
a) Lower Road/Fletcher Road/Neville Sadler Court
I refer to the submission by local residents Sue Thurman and Jim
Smith of Fletcher Road, which effectively summarises the concerns of
many residents on these roads. I have spoken to most of the
residents, and while opinion is not all as critical on the two roads
(student residents generally take a relaxed view, and some of the
longer-term residents also see some advantages), the majority are
strongly opposed for the reasons cited in the above submission. In
particular, the position of the older residents in Neville Sadler
Court is extremely difficult. Some are in their 80s, and face lengthy
construction work in their immediate vicinity followed by in some
cases the need to move to a new block. This would be daunting at any
age; for the very elderly, it is far from adequate compensation that
the new flat might have additional comforts. If the route is
nevertheless chosen, I have some specific requests:
• I note the Court is effectively to be moved to the north side
of the tracks and (as with Sandby Court) welcome that it is not to be
divided by the tram. I would hope for covenants on the development
site to the south to ensure it is used for purposes appropriate to
the area.
• I would like to see a strict construction code adhered to
with severe penalties on the contractors for contravention. The
construction code to be fully negotiated with the residents.
• I hope that loss of amenity during construction is to be kept
to an absolute minimum. If necessary I would like to see temporary
accommodation for such amenities as the common room provided.
• I hope that the new flats can be built before the old ones
are demolished so that the residents do not need to leave the site.
• I hope that the Inspector will recommend that adequate
alternative accommodation be offered elsewhere to those residents who
may prefer it, and that other residents on the street be given
compensation for the very extensive disruption to their lives and
property.
• I would like a statutory compensation package for those
affected.

b) Beeston Square
There is a fair amount of relatively unfocused concern about the
potential impact of the exact route through the centre of Beeston.
While there are obvious advantages in having a stop in the shopping
centre, some shops will need to be displaced and traders are anxious
to have as much notice as possible of how they will be affected. The
Borough Council should be closely involved in coordinating the work
with the wider plans for regeneration of the centre.

c) High Road/Chilwell Road
The inspector will receive extensive objections from a number of
traders on the route, who have severe concerns about the impact both
during construction and on their long-term prospects. While some of
these concerns are speculative and may be allayed in practice, they
are backed by widespread local anxiety that the intimate village-like
atmosphere of the shopping street should not be irrevocably affected.
If the route is chosen, it is very important that as many traders as
are willing to work with NET are brought into the planning to ensure
the minimum disruption and fair compensation for all concerned. I
welcome the financial assistance package for the traders as voted by
the County Council on 22 March 07. However I would like to see the
total amounts raised above the £850,000 per annum level so far
approved.
On a specific point, I support the concern raised by Anne Jennings
in her May 25 email regarding the proposed ban on right turns off
Middle Street into Chilwell Road and Devonshire Avenue. Ms Jennings'
proposals seem to me to offer a constructive response to NET's
concerns about tailback here.

d) Gwenbrook Avenue, Clumber Avenue, Holkham Avenue and further
home-owners directly on the route are understandably very concerned
about varying degrees of impact. I have been asked in particular to
press the concerns of Richmond Court's residents: if the route is
confirmed, they would like to be assured that reasonable steps will
be taken to reduce noise and visual impact, perhaps with a wall with
appropriate vegetation between the Court and the track. They would
also like to have a stop nearer to the Court, and point out that
students at the College are better able to walk a short distance to a
stop than many elderly people. Similar issues arise at Sandby Court
(who I am consulting further and whose comments I will discuss in
more detail in the inquiry) and Greenwood Court. There are also
concerns about the walking area which the route will cross: while it
is acknowledged that this was originally intended for a road, that is
a long time ago and it has become a useful green resource for local
residents.
The inquiry will be hearing from affected residents about all these
points in more detail, so this is mainly to ensure that all these
aspects are fully considered.

4. Public opinion
The inquiry will no doubt study NET's survey and other indications of
local feeling. My unscientific assessment, based on countless
individual discussions, is that most people not adversely affected
are broadly sympathetic to the proposals, with reservations about any
cost overrun implications that might be a future council tax
liability (an issue on which early clarity is desirable) and the
possible effect on bus services. Ideally, the bus companies will
develop feeder routes from areas like Beeston Rylands and will not
remove existing routes unless they completely coincide with the tram.
It would be helpful if the inquiry can throw light on their
intentions. In any case I would like the inquiry to emphasize the
need for adequate bus/tram interchanges at the nodal points, notably
Beeston Square and University Boulevard, so that the bus companies
find it easy in practical terms to feed the tram.
Whereas the typical view of my constituents is therefore mildly
favourable, those directly affected are in many cases intensely
opposed. I hope that their concerns will be given the fullest
possible consideration, and, if the project goes ahead, mitigation
and/or fully appropriate compensation will be foreseen where no
alternative is possible.

More on trams, plus lots of public service announcements

25 May 2007

Hi all -

Apart from more on the tram, I've been accumulating a long list
of 'public service announcements' - diverse appeals for time and
money by local groups. As this mailing list increases in size and
reputation (I'm now reaching 7% of all homes in Broxtowe) I'm getting
more such requests, and I'm happy to pass them on if they aren't
*too* numerous, but will try to bunch them like this, so that it's
easier for you to decide whether to read on. If you are already
absolutely fully committed for time and money and don't care either
way about the tram project, there's nothing in this update that you
need to read!

1. Tram - various updates

a) Nigel Collier on behalf of BCBRA (the main group opposed to the
proposal) asks me to add to my last note about submissions to the
tram inquiry, by noting that you do have to give your name and postal
address. As noted, your comments should go to
transportandworksac t@dft.gsi. gov.uk .
Nigel also notes that you can if you wish make separate
representations on the issue of listed buildings or conservation
areas potentially affected. Such representations should go to
planning@goem. gsi.gov.uk. If you'd like to correspond with Nigel on
issues in this context, he's on committee@bcbra. org.uk .

b) I understand that the process is as follows. You're encouraged to
mention the issues you're interested in at this point, but don't have
to go into detail. Nearer the time of the inquiry, you'll be invited
to give fuller detail, and if you would like to give evidence in
person you'll be asked what you plan to say. The Inspector will seek
to have people with similar views agree on a joint spokesperson, and
this will probably be helpful to whatever points you wish to make.

c) It's important that all points are factually-based. The
Advertising Standards Authority has just ruled against a BCBRA
leaflet on three points, while clearing them on a fourth. The ASA say
that it was misleading for BCBRA to have claimed that the tram will
not go to the city centre, since it clearly will; that it was
misleading to say it will lead to the cancellation of the 36 bus (as
BCBRA did not offer any evidence of this), and that it was misleading
to say that the tram was the reason for part of this year's council
tax rise or that it would cost £549 million (for which no evidence
was offered to the ASA). The ASA ruled that all three points breached
the advertising code on "Truthfulness" and "Substantiation" . On the
other hand, the ASA ruled that the BCBRA view that the tram was
for "the city, not the community" would be understood as simply
BCBRA's opinion, and was not a breach of the code.

Tempers are stretched over all this, and one or two of the
submissions I'm seeing to the inspector are very aggressive. As I've
advised the constituents concerned, I think this is simply counter-
productive. The inspector will not be a politician, or part of a
conspiracy; he will be a planning specialist with the job of deciding
whether there are factual reasons to reject all or part of the
proposals.

One of the constituents concerned is pretty angry at me for saying
this and pledges not to vote for me again, but honestly it's good
advice. My best guess is that the inspector will not reject the whole
project but may well require some changes and mitigation. I'm doing
my best for those constituents who would be adversely affected, and
that includes advising on how to affect the outcome. As in private
life, if one wants to persuade someone, it's unwise to snarl at them;
it makes them *less* likely to take the arguments seriously.

2. Volunteers for extended police station hours

Inspector Lees asks me to pass on a request from the police for
civilian volunteers to help with handling routine requests at the
local police stations outside current opening hours. The position is
that the police feel that the increase in officers is best used to
have more patrols and community policing, rather than having trained
officers sitting behind the desk waiting for someone to turn up.
Crimes in progress should be reported by dialling 999. However, it
would clearly be welcome if police stations were open for longer so
people could look in for less urgent issues, and volunteers who
couldn't be asked to do street patrols but wouldn't mind fielding
enquiries in the station would be given suitable training. If you'd
like to look into this, contact

John.Lees@nottinghamshire.pnn.police.uk (North Broxtowe) or
Richard.Stapleford@nottinghamshire.pnn.police. uk (South Broxtowe)

3. Volunteers for Inham Nook Community Centre

Former councillor Trevor Cast asks me to look out for fresh blood for
the management committee for this important Chilwell community
centre. If you might be interested (it will only take a few hours a
month), contact tgcast@ntlworld.com

4. Attenborough Colts sponsorship

A local football team, Attenborough Colts, is looking for sponsorship
to buy 15 or so kits for the kids. Your organisation would get its
name on the shirts. If you'd like to explore this, contact Dave
Baggley on 0115-9139598.

5. Beeston web forum

Cllr Steve Barber asks me to pass this on: There is an excellent
Beeston discussion forum at http://www.urtown.co.uk/forum/ . Recent
topics discussed include the Siemens and Boots sites, anti-social
behaviour and canal boat dwellers. As a direct result the police have
intervened to stop anti-social behaviour around the station and 3
illegal cars near the canal have been removed. The site is run by
volunteers but it does cost money to maintain. To raise funds,
regular car boot sales are to be held on the Boat and Horses car
park, Trent Road Beeston Rylands every Sunday, between 10.00 and 3.00
from 3 June. The cost is £10 per car phone 07932 780795 to book a
place. Please help this good cause which is doing great things in
bringing our community together.

6. Sponsored bike ride

Constituent David Marriott writes: "I am attempting to raise £1000 in
support of a charity called MoJo which in turn is attempting to raise
£500,000 to create a centre where people who have been wrongly
accused, convicted and imprisoned can be given special help,
counselling and support when they have their convictions quashed and
are released. You might remember that Sally Clark who was eventually
cleared of the murder of her children and released from prison, died
recently in tragic circumstances and at an early age, leaving her
remaining child without a mother. She had no specialist help or
support to try and readjust to normal life after suffering the
nightmare of a wrongful conviction. As part of this attempt to raise
money, I'm taking part in the Notts Bike Ride on 24th June. It is a
50 mile ride from Notts to Newark and back. I chose to do the bike
ride partly because it went to Newark and you may be aware of a
recent similar tragic and young death of the former MP for Newark,
Fiona Jones, who was never able to put behind her the wrongful
conviction - for wrongly declaring election expenses. MoJo is a
registered charity, based in Scotland and is supported by the
Scottish Executive. http://www.mojoscotland.com/ If you would like to
sponsor me on the bike ride please contact me by email
at mail@davidcm.com."

7. Sponsored brain tumor research effort

Another constituent, Deb Lee, is organising a big charity event at
Kimberley Leisure Centre on July 1. She writes: "I'm taking part in
the The Brain Tumour Charity Challenge on 01/07/2007 to raise money
for Brain Tumour UK and would really welcome your support. It's
really easy - you can donate online by credit or debit card at the
following address: http://www.justgiving.com/deblee

All donations are secure and sent electronically to Brain Tumour UK.
If you are a UK taxpayer, Justgiving will automatically reclaim 28%
Gift Aid on your behalf, so your donation is worth even more." For
more detials contact Deb on deblee67@btinternet.com .

Best wishes

Nick

A few thoughts on political leadership

11 May 2007

Hi all -

With all the current discussion of the transition, I thought I'd chip
in a few reflections on our political culture of leadership.

As most of you know, I've always liked Tony Blair personally, quite
separately from his policies (but there's a "but" which I'll come to).
He's pleasant, intelligent and attentive to talk to - make a comment on
anything and you get an intelligent reply. I stress "attentive" because
that's actually rare in the top levels of politics. Everyone is rushed
to death and constantly juggling tnhings to do (even ordinary MPs like
me, for that matter, which is why I'm writing this at 1030pm), and
senior ministers often listen to people with a barely concealed longing
for them to hurry up. TB *always* gives the impression that talking to
you is his most urgent current priority.

Moreover, he's considerate. When my wife was ill a year or so ago, he
wrote me a note wishing us well - in the middle of the Lebanon crisis -
and shortly afterwards Cherie wrote a separate one to my wife. That
sort of thing engenders personal loyalty - I might disagree with one of
his policies, but after that there was absolutely no possibility that I
would have conspired against him personally.

But...have you noticed how all three of our party leaders have
apparently unconsciously adopted the assumption that they decide policy
completely on their own? In his resignation statement, Tony repeatedly
stresses decisions that he personally made, with no hint that they were
decided jointly with others. Nobody seems to find this strange, and in
the same way David Cameron announces that the Conservatives used to
believe in X (tax cuts before public service improvement, for instance)
but now believe in non-X, simply because he says so, and so does Ming
Campbell for the LibDems.

Often, of course, a decision needs to be taken urgently: nobody
suggests that the prime minister should await the next party conference
before deciding how to respond to a terrorist attack. Other decisions
may simply be too complex or obsure to be suitable for widespread
consultation. Is the Justice Ministry best separated from the Home
Office or not? I don't know - it's a practical efficiency issue.

However, I think we've drifted into a presidential system without
explicitly intending it, and that seems to me undesirable. Firstly,
nobody is infallible, and secondly, it makes politics too
unpredictable, if the crucial question is whether one man changes his
mind. Last but not least, it's problematic in foreign policy, where it
tends to lead to a unilateral state of mind, and that's risky even if
one is right.

I had 15 minutes' private discussion with Gordon Brown earlier this
week, and he asked what the most important changes were that I'd like
to see. I just suggested three: a foreign policy much more based on
multilateralism (not necessarily refusing to act against evil
dictators, but doing it where we find a range of others of like mind);
public services based less on central direction and more on using the
expertise of the people working in them; and a clearer sense that
decisions are based on a collective Cabinet and Parliamentary direction.

As a Labour MP I think that we need to use the change of leadership as
an occasion to reflect on what people are saying to us. I'm perfectly
prepared to argue unpopular causes (I think we should be more willing
to give refugees the benefit of the doubt, for instance - the risk if
we get it wrong is in my opinion too great - but I know that many,
perhaps most, of you strongly disagree), but we need intelligent and
genuinely open-minded consultation as issues arise.

I've said a few times recently that there's never been a more
interesting time to be in the Labour Party, and had a few sceptical
looks (the Chinese curse "may you live in interesting times" comes to
mind). But interesting politics is about trying to find the best
policies (isn't it typical of piffling political reporting that the TV
news goes on about the positioning of Brown's autocue?), and it's a
good time to try to review our assumptions. If you'd like to give me
your own comments, I'd be interested, and will feed the gist onwards.

Best wishes

Nick

Film show "criminal conspiracy" - councillor/Boots news/Hilary Benn at Roundhill

19 April 2007

Hi all -

Startling news about the objections to Labour organising a debate on
the Al Gore climate change film - a LibDem councillor has reported me
and Labour candidate Steve Barber to the police for a 'conspiracy to
commit a crime'! It just gets weirder - more about this below.

First some more urgent matters:

1. The Boots bids
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~

Both bidding teams accepted my request for meetings with alacrity, and
I'm due to see KKR tomorrow. However, the Terra Firma/Wellcome team
have just rung back to say they are withdrawing their offer - basically
the increased KKR bid has knocked them out of the running. KKR have I'm
told in the meantime given a general assurance to staff that they
expect to maintain current staffing arrangements at all levels.
Here are the points that I want to press when I meet them - if
anyone has additional issues, please let me know:

1. How far are they committed to maintaining Beeston as their main base
of operationss?
2. Would they expect to sell off significant parts of the business, or
the site?
3. Would they plan any new investment, and how much and in what?
4. What can say about the prospects for the workforce?
5. How would they address the reported problems of the pension fund in
today's Telegraph?
6. Would they maintain pensioner discounts at shops?

2. Hilary Benn at Roundhill
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~

Sorry for the short notice, but Hilary Benn is speaking at Roundhill
School, Foster Avenue, Beeston, this Thursday at 5pm. The programme for
this is starkly simple:

a) More than a billion people, 1 in 5 of the world's population, live
in extreme poverty

b) Ten million children die before they reach age 5

c) What are we doing about it, and what should we be doing that we're
not already doing?

There will be time for questions. There is a token £1 admission fee. I
hope to be there, together with Maggie Garrett and Dave Emmett,
Labour's local candidates in the area. I'm sorry the time is not easier
for people, but we're getting him as part of a very tight schedule.

3. The "criminal conspiracy"
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~

You may remember that last week I reported that Broxtowe Labour party
had postponed the debate (to June 22) with Conservative MEP Roger
Helmer on Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth", because a LibDem
councillor had reportedly complained that it was illegal to show a
documentary film free of charge during the election.

Since then, the councillor concerned has assured me that he wasn't
taking this up on his own behalf, and that he personally would have
nothing against a debate on the film; he was, he tells me, only
representing an objection by a Conservative constituent.

Fine. Immediately afterwards, though, another LibDem councillor
escalated the issue in no uncertain terms: he wrote to Beeston's police
Inspector alleging that I had conspired with Beeston Rylands council
candidate Steve Barber to commit a criminal offence, namely by even
*proposing* to show the film this month.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but my comment on this is that it's a
ludicrous waste of time. First it's absurd that we can't have a debate and documentary on the environment without Tories and LibDems calling it a
crime. Second it's a distraction both for the police from catching
criminals (is this really what we want Beeston's police to be focusing
on?) and for me from doing my job for voters: I've had to take time out
from the Boots issue to deal with this, and await the police interview.
And finally I wasn't involved in making the arrangements for the film
and it's been postponed anyway.

Ironically, I have nothing against either councillor and think they
normally do a good job - I just wish the other parties would let me get
on with my job of doing my best for the constituency, and challenge me
in the normal democratic way at the next election. If you agree, and
were not sure how to vote in the local election next week, perhaps you
could bear this nonsense in mind?

Best regards

Nick

What's likely to happen about Boots?

19 April 2007

Hi all -

I spent much of the morning outside Boots talking to different media
about the developments, and thought it might be helpful to give an
update here, as I know that many of you will be concerned. The basic
information is

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6574555.stm

and comments from me and from others are here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/6574807.stm

Some main points to consider in the comming days and weeks, as I understand the position:

1. Is the outcome essentially decided?

Not yet. It seems certain that one of the bids will be accepted. The
KKR bid is favourite, since it's a definite offer, backed by a senior
manager, and the board recommends it. The Wellcome Trust bid (also
with a private equity firm) is not yet definite as they entered the
process later, but shareholders are unlikely to have to decide before
they know whether it is definite. There may also be a third bid
though these two are regarded as the only likely winners.

2. How do firms owned by private equity differ from others?

It's too superficial to say "they're evil, they're all about money".
Essentially nearly all firms, whether owned by shareholders or by
private investors, are mostly about money. However, private equity
firms tend to depend more heavily on borrowed money, which makes them
more eager to get on with making the companies more profitable
quickly. Sometimes this may be by injecting new capital and shaking
up sleepy management, sometimes by selling off under-used assets,
sometimes by laying off staff and closing units. KKR claim that they
approve of Boots' strategy and want to keep the current management
team; they vehemently deny they are asset-strippers. However, I've
never seen a takeover that didn't lead to some restructuring, so I
want to see much more detail than a general reassurance.

The Wellcome Trust has a distinguished record in medical research,
making it an apparently more altruistic bidder. they too have private
equity partners who will want a good return, though, and they may not
be as interested in non-medical sides of the business, so we need
more detail from them as well.

3. Are Boots pensioners affected?

Boots pensions shouldn't be affected at all: they are in a separate
fund, protected by law. The position is less clear about pensioner
discounts at the stores: it's one of the aspects that we'll want to
know about from any new management. I think it's rather unlikely that
they'll want to annoy all their former staff by cheese-paring these
benefits, though.

4. Are jobs at risk?

Potentially yes. Some units may expand; others could be reduced,
closed or sold. The KKR commitment to the current strategy ought,
however, to mean that wholesale mass redundancies followin gthe
takeover are unlikely. This, of course, is the key demand that I will
be pressing together with unions.

5. Might the whole site be closed and sold for housing?

No. The area only has planning permission for its current use.
Neither of the Labour-led councils (nor any others that I can
conceive of) would agree to planning consent to level the
manufacturing site and build houses all over it. The issue arose in
the context of Hardy & Hanson, and Broxtowe Council told Greene King
right at the start that they would have no chance whatever if they
even thought of such a proposal.

6. What happens next?

Wellcome will race to complete their bid, any other bidders will
materialise or not, and shareholders will then be asked to vote. The
GMB union has asked the Government to enforce a delay in the process.
I don't immediately support that (though I'm open to argument) as I
can't see that it would achieve anything: people need to know where
they stand as soon as possible, and the end resulty seems likely to
be one or the other bid succeeding.

I'll report back to you as soon as I hear further, especially when
I've had the chance to talk to either or both bidding teams.

By the way, I have Harriet Harman and Hilary Benn visiting the conmstituency in the next week as part of Labour's local election campaign. Harriet will be here tomorrow Saturday and just helping canvass; Hilary will be speaking on overseas development, details to follow.

Best regards

Nick

An Irritated Apology/Thoughts on the Iranian confrontation

19 April 2007

Hi all -

Back from a week in Sweden, where we had a nice relaxing time, among
other things visiting an elk reservation. Did you know that elks
flourish on eating Christmas trees? Visitors were encouraged to
approach the elks, clutching branches, and watch them enjoyably
crunching away.

1. An Irritated Apology!

As many of you know, Broxtowe Labour Party organised a screening of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" in Beeston and invited both supporters and critics of climate change policies to come and discuss it next week. We feel that it's a good thing that Britain is leading on this in international talks and also trying to do our bit at home, but we invited Roger Helmer (Tory MEP for the East Midlands), who is noted for his strong view that human activity is not affecting climate change if it's happening at all, and hoped for a good debate. Although Broxtowe Council's impact on climate change is clearly limited, we felt that voters would be interested to hear the issue discussed and alternative approaches aired.

We also invited the Liberal Democrats, but unfortunately they've
responded by getting the event banned! They complained to Broxtowe
Council's legal department that it would constitute a corrupt act to
show the film without charge during an election: the argument is that
it's bribing the electorate to show a film. Under the antique wording
of the relevant act, it is illegal to 'treat' voters during an election campaign, and while showing a film about climate change seems an austere sort of treat, we can't really risk having the election overturned, so we've had to postpone it.

Excuse the partisan note, but I think this is pretty silly, frankly.
If another party had an open event about anything Labour had an
interest in, our reaction would probably be to come along and put our
case, not to try to get it stopped. I'm not saying this shows the
LibDems don't care about climate change at all, but I do think it shows they are more interested in electoral manoeuvres than having an
intelligent discussion.

Anyway, undaunted, we've rescheduled it for after the election, on
Friday 22 June at 7.00, in the New Venture Social Club, Beeston
Rylands, and Roger Helmer has agreed to come and put the other side of the case. Hope you'll come!

2. International affairs

While I was away the Iran sailors issue flared up with the outcome that
you know, and I'd like to offer a few thoughts.

* As pretty well everyone seems to agree, we should not let serving
troops sell their stories to the media - it makes a mockery of other
troops who are doing their best under difficult circumstances. That
said, I don't think it's the main issue we should be debating, and the
Daily Mail in particular has a nerve to first bid for the stories and
then denounce the Navy for allowing them to be sold.

* The main issue is surely something else. It's first whether we ought
to be patrolling the gulf against arms smuggling and infliltration, and
second how we should handle cases like this when they arise.

* On the first point, I think the answer is a flat yes. If weapons and
infiltrators are smuggled into Iraq, it leads directly to both our
troops and Iraqis getting killed. The elected Iraqi government has
asked UNO to help in this, there is an official UNO mandate to do it,
and numerous countries are involved. It's a separate question from how
long we should have ground troops in Iraq and in my opinion we should
get back to doing the mission as soon as possible.

* On the second point, I don't share the view that a number of people
expressed that we should have been much more forceful in our public
reaction, to the point of threatening military retaliation ("Maggie
would have sorted them out", as one constituent wrote to me). The
americans offered to ratchet up the international pressure with a
strong military presence offshore; Britain quietly declined, and
instead lined up potential sanctions by the EU while avoiding
inflammatory public statements. It got the sailors out without any kind
of apology or deal, and I strongly suspect that any more militant
response would have led either to their death or to a prolonged
standoff as happened to the American hostages under Jimmy Carter. I
know it's satisfying to rattle sabres, but on this occasion I think the
traditional British skill in quiet diplomacy made a welcome
reappearance. Sometimes we should be proud of our expertise at war-
fighting, but sometimes we should be proud of not having to use it.

Best regards

Nick

Hain/Toton/Bardills/elections/Iran/mosque email

April 2 2007

Hi all -

I'll be away from Thursday for 8 days (we're visiting friends in
Sweden) so just a few updates, partly on things we've discussed
before:

1. Peter Hain visit

Just a brief reminder that this is on Tuesday at the New Venture
Social Club, Beeston (on the HSBC ex-Siemens site behind the
station), at 7.30: admission £3. The title is "The future for the
Labour Party" but I expect he'll talk about Northern Ireland too, or
anything else that people want to ask. I'll be there too and will
interject from time to time.

2. Toton sleeper factory

The revised application was rejected by the Development Control
Committee, due to continued doubts over traffic and dust impact. It's
not yet known if the company will try again.

3. Bardills roadworks

Postponed till after Easter to avoid disrupting holiday traffic, but
will then have a massive impact on the roundabout and junction 25 for
19 weeks.

4. Local elections

Just getting under way with nominations about to close. There is a
BNP push evident in the north of the borough, with four tough-looking
blokes delivering leaflets in Greasley, Awsworth and Trowell, and
maybe elsewhere too. They're operating from a PO Box at an NG16
address. They're a legal party and perfectly entitled to stand
anywhere they like, but I'll be arguing the case for voting for
better choices (and not abstaining - extremists always vote,
moderates don't).

Incidentally, I continue to think that our asylum policy is not
too lax, as many peiople think (and the BNP trade on), but
excessively rigid. We are turning people back to Darfur at precisely
the time when we are condemning the Sudanese government for its
atrocities in Darfur, and returning people to Zimbabwe despite the
well-publicised oppression there.

5. The Iran hostages

I've not commented on this up to now, since it seems to me that we
should let quiet diplomacy have a chance to work: it's easy to second-
guess the negotiators, but with lives as stake they need to move
carefully, and the rest of us, including MPs, are speculating with
incomplete information. Meanwhile, contrary to some press reports, I
understand that EU-wide sanctions are in prospect, but only if the
diplomatic avenue has been shown to get nowhere.

6. More email fiction

Following the manipulative email recently about road charging,
there's an even more distorted one going around about a proposal to
build a new mosque in London. This claims, entirely falsely, that
it's a Ken Livingstone project and that it will be built with
taxpayers' money.

In fact, a concrete proposal doesn't yet exist: a group of Muslims
is discussing putting one forward to the local planning authority. If
they do, they'll need to finance it themselves.

Unless one takes the drastic view that it should be illegal for
Muslims to build places of worship with their own money, it comes
down to a planning issue (e.g. the building might be too big or not
fit into the suggested West Ham surroundings) , but the (anonymous)
email tries to turn it into a political issue. Suggest pressing
the "delete" key!

Many thanks, finally, to the 20+ people who cqame to the dinner
with Malcolm Wicks to discuss science and energy policy - we had a
lively time and raised over £200 for my newsletters.

Best wishes for a very happy Easter!

Nick

previous newsletters