Latest Newsletters >>

Next Newsletters >>

Expenses meeting report/Euro-election/funny leaflets/Sri Lanka/local events

30 May 2009

Hi all –

First, thanks to all those (over 200 of you) who came to the meeting on MPs' expenses on Thursday. The atmosphere was friendly, serious and constructive – all things missing from some of the national debate. After some modifications to the proposals that I want to put to the Commission of Standards, the elements of the package gained broad approval: rented properties only, reformed salary and pensions, shared Communications Allowance (though we didn't take a specific vote on that) and a modified "recall" option (requiring specific allegations of wrongdoing which the MP could challenge in court). There was also a lot of interest in electoral reform as one of the ways forward. If anyone who couldn't attend would like a copy of the detailed briefing distributed at the meeting, let me know.

Particular thanks to LibDem councillor Steve Carr, who got the most applause of the evening for saying "We should be proud of our MP for his honesty" – it's nice when goodwill crosses party lines, especially in times like these. There was also warm applause for the secretary of Beeston Amnesty when he said, "Of course the issue of expenses needs to be sorted out. But we mustn't forget that compared with some of the things happening in the world it's not actually as important." It's an unfashionable view, but a point to consider, and partly with that in mind I'm commenting on the largely-overlooked Sri Lankan situation below.

First, though, several of you have asked for this, to match the quick guide to the County elections last time:

1. Quick guide to the European election

The system is that we elect 5 MEPs for the whole East Midlands. Each party puts forward up to 5 candidates, and get seats for the top people on their lists based on proportional representation according to the number of votes for each party. So, if party X gets twice as many votes as party Y, probably X will get its first two candidates elected while Y will only get its top one.

At the last election in the East Mids, the Conservatives and UKIP shared top place with 26% each, followed by Labour with 21%, the LibDems with 13%, the BNP with 6.5% and the Greens 5.5%. As an example of the pitfalls of celebrity politics, UKIP did especially well because of the prominence of TV showmaster Robert Kilroy-Silk: I'll leave to you to judge whether he's been in frequent touch with you since he was elected (I understand he lives much of the time in Spain).

Recent polling is hard to read, but there has been a shift from Labour to Green and LibDems, enough to put the LibDems ahead of Labour but probably not enough to give the Greens a seat. The likely outcome is in my view two Conservatives, one UKIP, and any two of LibDem, Labour and the BNP (in that order of probability) . The polls suggest the BNP will fall short (they need to get about 13% to have a chance), though there is a tendency for polls to understate them, since some BNP voters don't like to admit it. It's also possible that further UKIP momentum will give them the second seat instead of the Conservatives, but I think the missing Kilroy factor may hurt them in our region.

There are also lots of small parties on the ballot paper, such as a Christian party and a `coalition of independents' called the Jury Team – none of those not mentioned above have (in my opinion) any chance of a seat, though of course you might want to show support for them anyway. As you would expect, I hope that you will vote Labour, not least to help us to hold off any late BNP surge.

2. Strange leaflets

A curiosity about the BNP campaign is that their main leaflet features `ordinary people' speaking up for Britain, but it turns out that all but one of them are actually foreigners who have never said any of the things attributed to them. The one exception is a Scots Guardsman, pictured in uniform: he is a real Scots Guardsman but is outraged, and says he regards the party as "scumbags". The full story is here:

http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2009/05/bnp-voters-dont-exist.html

Another odd leaflet, though not nearly as outrageous, comes from the Conservatives in Beeston South and Attenborough. This says indignantly that I've made `false allegations' about local Conservatives over the approval of the food defence scheme along the Strand. My `allegation' was that they were against approving this route, describing it as a `Berlin Wall', until the survey of the area which I conducted showed an 8-1 majority in favour, whereupon they were suddenly in favour of it too.

Well, it's important to have truthful representatives, so it's worth checking who is telling the truth here. Please judge who is right for yourself. Here is a quote from the Conservative candidate Ms Soubry's blog on September 16, in which she wrote critically and at length against the Environment Agency's proposal, concluding:

"I can see no merit in the proposed route".

If you're unsure whether I might be making this up, you can see her discussing it with me on TV (skip 4 minutes in):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/7877528.stm

Don't get me wrong. If parties make a mistake they're right to correct it – I've been wrong in the past too and have changed my mind. As (I think) the late Cardinal Heenan once said "If my knowledge of the facts changes, I change my mind. What do you do?" But I've not then had the nerve to accuse anyone of making `false allegations' for pointing out that I used to think differently. It's silly, since it gives the impression that they think Attenborough residents have the memory span of elderly gnats.

Moving to a grimmer subject:

3. Should we support UN action over Sri Lanka?

As you'll have seen on TV, the civil war in Sri Lanka is over, with the separatist Tamil Tigers defeated and the area that they controlled overrun. There has been a long-running (impressively peaceful) demonstration in Parliament Square by Tamils, drawing attention to alleged massacres of civilians. It now appears from UN and other independent sources that a great many civilians, perhaps 20,000, were killed in the final stages, and that a very large number of Tamils are now in detention camps in unpleasant conditions, while the authorities vet them for possible Tiger sympathies. The Tigers in turn were noted for their ruthlessness and readiness to use terrorist methods. What should our attitude be?

First, I think we need to be careful in judging the evidence: it's still quite fragmented and partial, and it is horribly likely that civilians will be caught in the crossfire in the final stages of a civil war with both sides partly at fault. Nor should we taking sides in the conflict – it is not up to us to decide, and the fact that the war seems to be over is potentially a good thing in itself. However, it does seem to me that we need to encourage the UN to take the most active possible stance in urging that the detention camps be administered humanely, and that civilians are released from them as quickly as possible, so that the long road back to normality can be started. It must be in the Sri Lankan government's interest to show some magnanimity in their moment of victory, and amid all our other preoccupations we shouldn't fail to exert pressure over this,. Otherwise, six months from now we may be asking ourselves why Parliament turned a blind eye while a humanitarian disaster unfolded, and "we were busy talking about our expenses" will not seem a sufficient answer.

4. Local events and opportunities

I've been asked to pass these on:

The 'Spotlight on Youth' Marching Band Competition, on Sunday 7th June 2009, 10.00am to 6.00pm at the Harvey Hadden Stadium, Wigman Road, Bilborough. With 15 bands, hot food, refreshments and stalls, there is lots to see, taste and hear! To find out more, please visit the competition website at www.spotlightonyout h@synthasite. com. Tickets start from just £3. "Come along and support young people making a positive difference!" , say the organisers.

Sunday 7th June
9am – 1pm
Chilwell School Partnership presents:
Outdoor Car Boot Sale
Chilwell School, Queen's Road West
Sellers – cars £5, vans £7.50
Set up from 7.30am - no need to book

Sunday 14th June
7.30pm
Paradiso Cinema presents:
The Fall
Chilwell Arts Theatre, Chilwell School
Tickets £4.50, £3 (conc) on the door
Refreshments from 7pm
www.chilwellartsthe atre.co.uk

Study theology part time at St John's Nottingham
This one-day-a-week course is a great way to gain experience of theological study, especially for those who have other commitments in their lives. It is particularly appropriate for those with leadership responsibility who need to be theologically equipped for their ministry.
To find out more, call Louise Williams on 0115 968 3203 or email: admissions@stjohns- nottm.ac. uk www.stjohns- nottm.ac. uk
St John's College, Chilwell Lane, Bramcote, Nottingham NG9 3DS

Best wishes

Nick

Time to take a stand...

9 May 2009

Hi all –

As the expenses issue rolls into its third week, blotting out public discussion of anything else, I’d like to discuss some implications for democracy on a wider scale and suggest ways in which a stand needs to be taken.

I’d be grateful if you’d read this one even if you usually just skim my stuff: I’m going to suggest some things that I want to do, but also some things that I’d like to ask you to do. It seems to me that the entire political class is ‘behind the curve’ at the moment, and we need leadership and a certain amount of courage at local as well as national level: too many people are cowering behind their desks, hoping the issue will go away.

1. Public meeting in Beeston

First, although I’m grateful that lots of you have written to say you think I’m honest, I’m conscious that there will be people out there who barely know who I am and have no idea whether I’ve got a moat and a Ferrari and have been ripping off the taxpayer for years. So I’m calling a public meeting next Thursday with a triple agenda:

a) Describing the system up to now, the types of use, abuses, evasion and outright fraud that have come to light, and the exact scale of the problem. See analysis of this below.

b) Presenting details of the expenses related to my rented flat in London in detail, and inviting any questions that anyone wants to ask about it.

c) Putting forward my provisional proposals for Kelly’s Committee on Standards in Public Life, which is soliciting input for their recommendations (which all parties have in principle agreed in advance to accept, whatever they are), and asking people in the meeting to vote on the proposition: “If the proposals on housing are adopted, we will feel that the issue of future second home expense claims has been properly addressed”. More below, again.

It’s on Thursday May 28, at Roundhill School, Foster Avenue, Beeston (by the Town Hall), from 7 to 9. There is no charge, thought we’ll have a whip-round to cover costs. There is no connection with the election campaign and taking part has no implication of support for any party. The meeting will be chaired by Charlie Walker of the Evening Post. Come if you can – there is a lynch mob atmosphere towards politicians in general at the moment, and it’s important for a sensible discussion that the audience is not solely composed of people who want to string us *all* up.

Which takes us to…

2. Voting for individuals at the County elections

Some of you have told me that they’re so disgusted that they plan not to vote at all on June 4. With respect, this is bonkers. What we’ve seen quite clearly is that each party has a mixture of decent people and people on the make. If you don’t vote, you explicitly waive your annual opportunity to influence this in favour of the decent ones. It’s as though you’d had a disappointment in love, and decided to let the patrons of the pub down the road decide whom you should marry next. Moreover, if abstention is widespread, there’s a real possibility that you will shortly be represented at both County and European level for the next 4 years by folk who think the main problem about Broxtowe is that it has too many black people in it. Moreover, it’s a huge disincentive to people who go into politics for the right reasons – if you’ll treat them on exactly the same level as someone sleazy, why should they bother?

To help the choice, I’ll try to give a brief truthful assessment of the outlook, to help you decide if you want to vote tactically for a good local person:

Beauvale: Nail-biting finale last time saw veteran Conservative David Taylor take the seat by just 16 votes from Labour, with a big BNP incursion. Everyone is trying again and it makes sense to vote either for David or Labour’s Jen Cole, who is fighting hard to get the seat back.

Beeston North: Sitting councillor is the LibDem Steve Carr, who won the seat originally from Labour but has built a large personal following through hard work. If the national polls are correct, the Conservatives could be close to gaining this one and it’s possible that some Labour and Green voters will go tactically for Steve. There's a separate borough by-election in the northern part of the ward, with Steve's wife Barbara up against former councillor Wayne Kirkham for Labour.

Beeston South and Attenborough: I’ll declare an interest as the sitting councillor, Labour’s Pat Lally, works two days a week for me. This is almost the mirror image of North; the Conservatives are on national polls close to gaining this, but there is also a strong BNP effort (their candidate is the likely GE candidate against me) and Pat, who with his wife Lynda has been working for Beeston for many years, may get support from LibDems (who are not really campaigning much here) and Greens.

Bramcote and Stapleford: LibDems Stan Heptinstall and Brian Wombwell seem likely to see off all-comers, though Labour’s Geoff Ward and Stapleford champion John McGrath are working hard. A UKIP candidate, but no BNP.

Chilwell and Toton: similarly, Tories Richard Jackson and Tom Pettengell, two of the most respected local Tories, look safe, but both BNP and UKIP are standing, as well as my Labour colleagues Ed Jacobs and Atul Joshi, plus LibDems and Greens.

Kimberley and Trowell: Particularly interesting multi-party battle – don’t vote tactically here as almost anyone could win. The friendly LibDem councillor, Ken Rigby, who has a huge personal vote in Trowell, is being challenged by the famously indefatigable Richard Robinson, who has held the seat before for Labour and has an equally huge personal vote in Kimberley. There’s also a strong effort from Shane Easom for the Tories, and there are BNP and Green candidates too in an area near BNP strongholds – it’s likely to be a real nail-biter.

Nuthall: Almost uniquely in Britain, this is a duel, with sitting Conservative Philip Owen facing the current Broxtowe mayor, Independent Sue Wildey. Labour and the LibDems have not put up candidates here so Sue has a clear shot: although Philip is possibly the most formidable Conservative councillor, Sue has a strong following wind as ‘the lady in the white dress’ pledged to bring a fresh non-party flavour to the county council: she’s likely to get lots of tactical votes.

Last but not least there's the European election. Last time lots of people tried the 'vote for a wild protest candidate' idea, and we've had 4 years represented by Mr Kilroy-Silk, who I understand lives in Spain, though he attends Strasbourg often enough to collect his pay. He's not standing again...

Apart from voting, would you like to help in the final stages of these elections to help ward off the lunatic fringe? If so, let me know!

3. The Westminster scene

There’s pretty general demoralisation on both side of the House, frankly – MPs on all sides discovering that old friends have apparently been milking the system, and waiting to see who gets the next bullet. I regretfully stuck my neck out to call for the Speaker to step down (see http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/Notts-MP-wants-Speaker-s-head/article-1002269-detail/article.html) but that’s not because I think he was the core of the problem – he’s a nice man for normal times but just didn’t rise to the occasion. It is absolutely essential that we don’t regard his removal as ‘solving’ the problem, which goes back to much broader questions of attitude.

The Telegraph is continuing to recoup the reported £150,000 they paid for the disk by spinning the story out with a few revelations each day. I’m sure it’s doing wonders for their sales, but it would be in the public interest if they got on with it and published the full list quickly, rather than drag it out for months. The cases they’re reporting fall into separate categories that in my opinion need to be treated differently, but there’s a common factor to many of them: the belief that anything legal is OK. It’s that underlying attitude (and I’m sure MPs are not unique in it) that in my opinion needs to change. Categories:

a) People who deliberately lied

Any MP who appears to have deliberately deceived the Fees Office by claiming non-existent mortgages or the like should be deselected by their parties and face a full police investigation. This is, if proved, the equivalent of tax evasion and should be treated in the same way. This category appears to be small – around three cases so far.

b) People who bent the rules for profit

Several dozen MPs have found ways to make money out of the system, typically by ‘flipping’ – first declaring one house to be the ‘second home’, doing it up, then changing the designation and selling it. This wasn’t illegal but it was a blatant abuse (equivalent to tax avoidance – e.g. having your salary paid in the Virgin Islands). Some apparent cases do have good reasons for a change in second home – they were appointed as Ministers (which used to *require* you to designate London as your main home), a family member died, etc. But a full explanation is required.

c) People who bought luxury items

The rules say that all purchases should be necessary to do the job and live in London and unnecessary extravagance should be avoided. The last bit has evidently been almost ignored – the general Fees Office culture has apparently been that anything that makes life comfortable in the second home is OK, so some MPs have got everything from wall-hangings to moat-cleaning to huge TV sets to luxury fittings to the latest, the duck island. Wealthier MPs in this category have generally declared London as their main home, so the extravagant expenses have gone on improving their country homes.

I can’t see any justification for any of this, except that the vagueness and lax enforcement of the ‘no unnecessary extravagance’ rule has led people to think that the allowance was an entitlement to give themselves a great environment. As it happens, I’ve always simply rented furnished flats, but I did buy a sofa and mattress from IKEA to replace the weather-beaten ones from the landlord. I paid for them myself – I don’t think the idea that I could, let alone should, have claimed for them ever crossed my mind. Similarly, a couple of months back I decided to buy a set-top box so I could get more channels on the London TV – why not? But again I paid for it myself.

d) People who have messy records

Many MPs seem to have made honest mistakes. The Tory whip who was highlighted yesterday as ‘claiming a non-existent mortgage’ turns out to have had that precise mortgage on his second home, but he absent-mindedly kept entering his main home as the address instead. As he’s made no money out of it at all, this seems credible.

The system is complicated enough to make genuine errors easy, and the understaffed Fees Office doesn’t have the time to analyse every claim. I discovered I’d overclaimed for council tax after moving to a new flat, and if I’d not reported it and offered a refund I doubt if it would have come to light. Similarly, I’ve just had a British Gas refund (because I used less electricity than expected) which I need to report. I saw an obscure negative direct debit “Brgas -£38” on my online bank statement, and went to my online British Gas statement and found they’d paid the refund, but again if I’d not noticed it nobody would have known. I’m not the most orderly of people and under constant time pressure, so I’d much prefer it if the rent, council tax and utilities were simply paid directly by Parliament – no fiddles, no mistakes, total transparency.

e) People who use the system as designed

Some of the criticism is simply that people claim allowances at all, even when they’re for the intended purpose. There’s an Evening Standard story this week contrasting a Devon LibDem MP with someone from Devon who lives in a tent – the implication is that the MP is being greedy for expecting a roof over his bed at all. Similarly, the Mail praises a Labour MP for sleeping on the floor in her office.

This goes further than I think is reasonable, but I’d be interested in your views. As I’ve reported before, I use the allowance to rent a one-bedroom flatlet very near Parliament, with a rent of £1750/month that’s typical for the area: it’s the smallest place I’ve ever lived in. It’s certainly true that if I moved to, say, Brixton, I’d pay less rent. The trade-off would be that I’d spend more time commuting, often late at night when I currently try to keep on top of the email flow. I’d argue that most people would make the same choice.

To take a local comparison: if you were assigned to do a job at Boots for a government agency that kept you working late most nights, and were told you could have enough rent allowance to stay nearby in Beeston, would you insist on commuting from The Meadows or even sleeping on the floor in the office, in order to save the taxpayer money? If so, I’m impressed, but I wonder if it’s really a reasonable requirement.

That said, the arrangement is about to bite me on the bottom, since the agreement that the party leaders reached last week caps rent claims at £1250. As I have a long break clause in the rental agreement, unless there’s some transitional arrangement this means I’ll be around £4000 out of pocket before I can move. It’s a fairly common problem – we’ll see if the Kelly recommendations solve it, otherwise it’s Brixton ho!

4. A reform package

One of Obama’s advisers likes to say “Never miss the chance to use a crisis as an opportunity”. We can use this to rethink how we do politics, and try to re-establish the idea of politicians leading and setting an example. That’s not as impossible as you might think – bear in mind that there are 646 MPs, and probably fewer than 10% have had any serious allegations against them. But we need to get ahead of the curve. What I plan to propose is this:

a) Basic accommodation rent-free, but owned by Parliament.

MPs from outside Greater London should be offered somewhere in a nearby block of flats (such as County Hall), to include a bedroom, a living room, basic fittings and kitchenware, a good computer with broadband connection, a TV, and utilities and council tax paid. These costs would be paid directly by Parliament. MPs would get no other living costs – that’s what the salary is for. (On the other hand, they’d be free to use the flat as they think fit – add personal items, have their daughter to visit, whatever.)

If MPs don’t like the flats, they are of course free to live wherever else they like, at their expense.

b) Fair salary

The salary should be set by an independent body, comparing with medium civil service pay, and its recommendations implemented towards the end of each Parliament without either Government or MPs having a chance to change them. New candidates would know what to expect for the next Parliament. There would be incentives for non-Ministerial roles which involve additional responsibility, such as taking part in Select Committees, so that MPs would no longer need to go the ministerial route to earn a better salary. With many of the allowances abolished, I think a higher salary might be justifiable, to be phased in after the current economic crisis.

c) Defined contribution pension

In accordance with current normal practice, future pension contributions would go into a defined contribution scheme, and final salary benefits frozen at the current level.

d) Shared Communication Allowance

At present, MPs can spend £10,000 a year on non-partisan communications – e.g. I’ve used some of mine to survey Attenborough residents about flood protection, consult Nuthall residents about a pharmacy, and alert people to proposal for Green Belt development. They’re commonly also used for ostensibly non-political Annual Reports, showing lots of photos of MPs doing community things. The information function is important (with 70,000 constituents, I simply can’t afford to print and post regular letters to everyone), but it does give an incumbency bonus. I propose that it be reduced to £8000, but the runner-up in each constituency should be given a £5000 allowance on the same basis (must be non-partisan) , enabling residents to see two views of what’s going on. If the runner-up loses interest (i.e. doesn’t plan to stand again), (s)he would be free to designate another person from the party that they stood for to inherit the allowance.

e) Recall

As in the US, if a large proportion of the constituents of an MP decide they wish to force an election, it ought to be possible – say a petition signed by 30% (about 21000 people). This would enable constituents of MPs whose behaviour fell seriously short of what was expected to avoid having them hanging around until the end of the Parliament, but it’d be difficult enough to avoid mass eviction whenever a party was temporarily unpopular.

The basic idea of the package would be to offer reasonable, stable terms and conditions for MPs, with useful information flow from both sides in every constituency and an emergency mechanism in case of serious disgrace. If something like this happens, won’t we all feel a bit better about our system?

Feedback welcome, as always, and I hope to see many of you at the meeting. Next email I'd like to get back to other topics, including a detailed assessment of the risk of the return of an open-cast mine project in our area.

As always, please add No Need To Reply if you don’t need an answer. I had a record last week with an angry constituent emailing me 33 times in a couple of days, including pictures he’d done of photoshopped MPs’ corpses – I’ve done something I’ve never done before, putting him on the spam list so I don’t see his stuff at all. I’m always willing to listen, but it’s a bit of a balancing act: if the line isn’t drawn *somewhere* it’s literally impossible to do the job!

Best regards

Nick

Gurkhas, expenses, your opinions (results)

9 May 2009

Hi all –

A report back on the last polls of your views below, but first comments on theGurkha and expenses controversies. Before I get into those, a passing plug for this thought-provoking little video on human evolution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL9Wu2kWwSY

Startling stuff!

1. The Gurhka controversy

As many of you know, I was one of the MPs who voted against the Government on this, but I'll try to summarise the arguments as I understand them fairly anyway.

Gurkhas have traditionally been recruited from Nepal on a contract as foreign soldiers, paid what is a good rate for Nepal but much less than British soldiers. They can retire at age 33 on a pension, which again is very small by British standards but not bad in Nepal.

Traditionally, serving Gurkhas did not acquire the right to live in Britain, and in fact up to 1997 apparently only six Gurkhas did so, all of whom happened to be wealthy and entitled to settle on the basis of being self-supporting. The current government introduced the right of settlement for all Gurkhas who served since Labour took over in 1997, which coincided with the date when Gurkhas started to be based in Britain, and it's also increased the Gurkha pension so the ycould afford to live here.

The current campaign is for Gurkhas who served before that to be allowed to settle as well, with their families (around 30,000 people). The argument in favour is quite simple, and was expressed by the LibDem leader, Nick Clegg: `if people are willing to die for Britain, they should acquire the right to live in Britain'. Moreover, many people like what they see and hear of the Gurkhas, and feel that they would be a valuable addition for the country. Finally, many of the people we are talking about are now quite elderly, so if we're going to do anything, we need to get on with it.

The argument against is partly cost: 30,000 additional mostly retired people will need both the higher pensions and health care: the possible extra cost is estimated at around £1.4 billion a year. Moreover, it wasn't part of the original recruitment deal, which quite clearly didn't include any right of settlement. Finally, it may be that establishing the precedent in the terms expressed by Mr Clegg will lead the courts to rule that all former combatants who fought with British troops are entitled to settle here. If so, we are potentially talking about several hundred thousand new pensioners from Australia, India, Pakistan, Canada and many other countries, at a cost of many billions.

That does seem to me to be something we shouldn't rush into, and the legislation needs careful drafting to focus on the Gurkhas. The government proposed to extend the right of residence to pre-1997 soldiers, but only if they were long-serving, had been stationed in Britain, had received medals for gallantry, or had fallen ill as a result of service.

I don't think the Government has a poor record on this, and Opposition critics of `unfeeling' Ministers have something of a nerve, seeing that previous Governments refused to allow virtually any Gurkhas to settle at all. But I felt it had now got to the point where we were quibbling, at the expense of some very vulnerable old people who have been good friends to Britain. So I voted accordingly, for the Opposition motion, and look forward to an improved deal.

A general comment: it's easier for me to vote against the Government when I disagree with something now that I'm no longer a PPS so no longer so much bound by collective responsibility. The downside of that is that I am consulted less about Bills before they're proposed - essentially I've switched from an 'insider' to an 'outsider' role. There's something to be said for both, but I'm finding the independence of the backbench role useful; this is my second revolt in a couple of months and I'm also signed up to the opposition to the Royal Mail part-privatisation.

2. Expenses

More horrors are unfolding as I write, and I don't have anything to say in defence of anyone who perverts the system, especially as they drag us all into the mud with them. I am formally proposing to the independent Committee of Standards in Punlic Life my suggestion in a previous email: that we should buy the former County Hall on the Thames and assign the furnished flats rent-free to MPs, getting rid of any allowance to rent or buy anywhere else.

At a personal level, I went through my four years of invoices and I've found one error: a few years ago, I seem to have claimed £61.10 twice in successive months for the same anti-virus software. I've pointed it out to the office who examine claims, and asked them to check that it's actually the same payment (and not the same software for two different computers); while they're checking, I've refunded the money. I can't find anything else odd in my invoices; they'll all be published in July (or sooner if the Telegraph puts them all online) and you can review them for yourself. My second home has always been a small rented London flat, and I've never bought any furniture or fittings for it from expenses.

3. Survey results

Many thanks to all of you who took part in my survey on potential cost-saving measures. A summary of the results:

Trident: 43% agree with my suggestion that we should put the system into the disarmament talks. 37% would like to simply scrap it without further ado. 20% would like to press ahead.

Aircraft carriers: 55% agree with my suggestion that we should cancel the project and scale back our commitments to middle-sized power level. 37% disagree, and would like to continue the project. 18% would cancel the carriers, but seek to retain a global role in other ways.

ID cards: 59% of you would now scrap the project; 26% would like to continue but delay implementation; 15% would like to press ahead at once.

Schools and hospitals: 65% of you agree to slowing capital projects to free resources for other medical treatment. 27% disagree and want to press ahead with the current rate of building. 8% favour cuts in health and education.

Motorways: 46% are against further motorway construction in principle, 44% favour a slowdown to save money, but 10% want to press ahead with more motorways to give drivers a better deal.

Taxes on high incomes: 62% of you agree with me that it would be reasonable to raise tax by 2p above £50,000. 29% think this goes too far, but would be up for it over £100,000. 9% think the Government's existing increases over £100,000 are unfair.

Thanks again for taking part! I'll bear the results in mind and quote them to colleagues in Westminster when the opportunity arises as we tackle the later stages of the economic crisis.

Best wishes

Nick

Survey on spending reductions/NET: what happens next

24 April 2009

Hi all –

In this update, I'd like to brief you on recent meetings with NET about what happens next and to initiate a constructive (I hope!) discussion on savings in public expenditure (if you're only interested in local issues, just skip point 2). Before doing that, though, I'd like to correct a previous email.

1. David Watts

In my last e-mail I said that David Watts had said that we should have sent aid to the Taleban. I accept that he did not say this and what he actually said was that we should have sent aid to Afghanistan. I accept entirely that David was referring to the people of Afghanistan, and not to the murderous and misogynist Taleban, and I withdraw unreservedly my previous comment and apologise to David for the distress caused.

2. Public spending savings – what should we protect and what should we reduce?

It's generally agreed that the recession has opened a huge gap in public finances (all forms of tax revenue have declined, with e.g. stamp duty collapsing as few houses have been bought or sold) while the cost of support for people made unemployed is rising) which needs to be plugged.

The post-Budget debate divides neatly into two aspects. The first is the short-term one that I've discussed here before: should we initiate cuts in public expenditure immediately, or support the economy at the expense of a continuing deficit until it starts to recover? The Conservatives are arguing for immediate cuts on the grounds that it would make a start on reducing the deficit. The general view of governments throughout the Western world, which I share, is that the 30s Depression showed the dangers of `cutting your way out of a recession' – if you cut in mid-recession, you put more people out of work, further worsening the position, and get a vicious downward spiral.

There isn't much point in lingering over this aspect, since we won't be making the instant cuts but agree that serious restraint (to be precise, increasing spending by just 0.7% while the economy grows at the trend rate of 3.5%) is going to be needed as the economy emerges from recession (depending on whom you believe, either in 2010 or 2011). So I'd like to start a discussion on what happens then, a subject on which all parties are being annoyingly elusive.

The Government's position is that one quarter of the burden should be met by tax and NI increases on people earning over £100,000 (this should raise £70 billion over a 10-period), and the remaining three quarters by a near-freeze on new expenditure in the future. All the major Departments except education and health would be asked to make major efficiency savings every year for the foreseeable future, gradually reducing their share of national income, with savings through better use of IT and back-office operations, while front-line services are protected. This seems to me frankly vague. The Opposition's position is even vaguer: they say they would `stop government waste' and give examples like reducing the number of MPs. I suspect that might be popular, but it's not a serious contribution to the economic debate: if *all* MPs were dismissed tomorrow and Parliament were abolished, the total saving would be less than 0.1% of the deficit.

The problem, of course, is that all parties are scared of you: they think that if they identify specific major changes, you'll react in horror. The Government has at least bitten a quarter of the bullet with the announced tax rises for the wealthy, which as you know from my last email I recommended and support. Briefly on that point, I don't agree with the belief that many wealthy people move their homes because the marginal tax rate changes. I was close to that tax bracket with my previous job (which paid £90,000 a year in 1997, equivalent to £125,000 at 2009 prices), and frankly if you're doing that well you live where you'd most like to live, without basing it on whether the marginal tax rate is 40% or 50%. It's not a question of vindictively `soaking the rich' – I believe that people on £150,000 accept that it's fair that in a difficult period they can be asked to help more than people on £30,000 or less.

But I'd like to have a go at further detail: I think people react well to being treated like adults and I'd like to encourage an open discussion about the options, and to set up a consultation poll in my next email on what changes you'd accept. Here are some initial thoughts for your consideration, excluding ideas which save less than £1 billion (however desirable they might be on other grounds), since we are addressing a £175 billion gap. I don't favour them all (in particular I oppose cuts to the NHS and education), and there are plenty of other possibilities to debate, but I hope they'll give food for constructive thought:

• The current cost estimate of the Trident nuclear weapons system is around £20 billion. The initial order for the submarines is this September, so there would not at this stage be heavy cancellation fees. The current plan is for the system to be ready by 2024.

Now, the reason I supported the renewal of Trident is that we had a manifesto commitment against unilateral disarmament, and more broadly I felt it was part of the post-1997 deal with the electorate that we wouldn't do it. What I'd propose here is not instant cancellation, but an offer to President Obama to put the system into the arms reduction talks which he agrees with President Medvedev of Russia at the G20 summit. If we can get a further reduction in Russian nuclear missiles in exchange, and save £20 billion, that seems a reasonable option.
The counter-argument to consider is that we really don't know anything about the world in 2024. Perhaps by then there will be many nuclear-armed states and we would regret having given ours up (though we would be in no worse position than Germany, Italy or many other medium-sized states)? Keeping the current system is, by the way, *not* a viable long-term option – it's going to wear out and become unsafe to maintain eventually.

• The aircraft carriers will cost around £4 billion. A problem about these is that the initial orders have been placed, so I suspect the cancellation fees would be very substantial, and perhaps the saving would be only £2 billion, plus operational savings. There is a good discussion of the project here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_ class_aircraft_carrier

The argument for a swift rethink, apart from the savings, is that perhaps we should be scaling back our ambition to be able to intervene around the world (even in the best of causes), and settle for the status of a medium-sized European power. The counter-argument, again, is that it's hard to tell what the future world may be like, and perhaps we would regret it – for example, it would make it harder to defend the Falklands against any renewed Argentinian assault. I think the cancellation would make sense in that context of a general rethink of our global role (which would produce further large savings, at the expense of less influence), but probably not in isolation.

• I've long supported identity cards as a sensible way of confirming identity in case of legitimate doubt. However, the project is actually in two parts. There's the enhancement of the passport data base, to include fingerprints, and we need to do this anyway or we'll be progressively unable to travel internationally since it's increasingly going to be a requirement. Then there's the voluntary ID card for everyday use, which would make life easier for banking and other areas where secure identity is important – e.g. it's been suggested that veterans could get additional benefits on production of an ID card confirming their status.

These things would in my opinion be useful, but there are concerns about possible misuse for surveillance purposes, and it's hard to say that they're something that's really essential right now. So perhaps the ID card part of the scheme should be put on ice for the time being? This wouldn't save the £20 billion that you sometimes see people claim (that figure comes from totalling all costs of passports and ID cards over a decade), but it would save £1.1 billion up front plus operating costs.

A counter-argument to consider is that it's a missed opportunity, since if we're supplying fingerprints for passports anyway, it's a pity not to offer the voluntary card as a side-benefit for consumer use.

• Major new buildings. Although the Government has committed not to reduce the health or education budgets overall, I think there's a case for looking at the division of how it's spent between annual capital investment (i.e. rebuilding projects) and treatment. The NHS and schools estates were in a ramshackle state in 1997 (one school, for instance, used to have to close for days each winter when the boiler broke down, and another school was in `temporary' huts built in 1915), but the massive refurbishment over recent years has radically changed that. At the same time, we're still pushing against the limits of the treatments that we can afford, with NICE still ruling out some drugs as simply not sufficient value for money. Perhaps it's time to slow the rebuilding drive, and use the money to meet the expanding medical and educational needs that won't be met by rising budgets. In the last resort, I'd rather get the best treatment in a 20-year-old building than a less good treatment in a shiny new one. There are, of course, some MPs who favour actual overall cuts.

• Motorway construction. £9 billion has been set aside for motorway building over the next 6 years. The quiet scaling back of he M1 widening (south of Nottingham it's turned into a hard-shoulder use with no extra lanes) probably heralds a rethink of this, and I think that makes sense. First there are the environmental issues associated with ever-wider motorways, and second the network is now reasonably good most of the time in most of the country, and again I think it's hard to say it's absolutely essential that we press ahead in the next few years.

• Other tax rises. Finally, should we completely exclude any tax rise for anyone under £100,000/year? There have been cuts in income tax in recent years which were absorbed without much excitement, and I wonder if an extra penny or two on rate tax in the £50,000-£100,000 range would not be a reasonable thing to ask.

Few of these ideas are going to be welcome in themselves - but if the next election is fought on evasive slogans ("Labour will see you through" vs "time for a change with the Conservatives" ), then neither party will really have a mandate for a proper rethink, and I reckon we're all mature enough to be able to have a sensible discussion of them. Please give your views in my survey here:

http://tinyurl.com/cpkjcr

or (if you don't like using tinyurl)
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=MWlDA3vL_2fk9L_2fxLu_2fsa2PA_3d_3d

As always, feedback and other suggestions welcome – preferably with an NNTR if you don't need a reply, but I'll look at every idea seriously.

3. NET: what happens now?

Following meetings with residents in Chilwell and at Neville Sadler Court (with more to come – e.g. I've asked to visit Sandby Court), I went to see NET to pose a range of detailed questions from the meetings, and to ask more generally about the outlook and how local people will be consulted at each stage. I'll be sending the meeting participants the detailed answers to their questions (mostly too specialised to list here, but I can email a copy if you're interested).
a) Program from now

July 2009:

- Expected completion of the financial details (this assumes the probably approval of the city's workplace parking levy, possibly with modifications) .
- NET invite large and small firms to express interest in all or part of the project.
- This is the period when we should lobby for major strategic elements in the tender process (e.g. specification of involvement of local subcontractors, but not the siting of a particular replanted tree)

November 2009:

- NET formally invites bids for the contract and starts discussions with major interested companies on how they'd tackle the work. The next 6 months are a highly-regulated process governed by fair competition rules, designed to get the best value for taxpayers to the required quality: the downside is that it takes 6 months!

May 2010:

- Companies submit final bids for the work

Autumn 2010:

- The winning contractor is announced, and detailed consultation start on each section of the route (at this stage, it does go down to individual tress)

Summer 2011:

- Construction begins, with each section likely to be dealt with for relatively short periods before the construction moves on to another section.

Once construction starts I am pressing NET to ensure that we do not have a repeat of how things were in Hyson Green where it is agreed the contractors left works idle for too long. There are three phases to the works: The first is more disruptive to pedestrians as drains, gas, electricity water and telecom services are moved away from the tramlines and repositioned mainly under the pavements. The second phase involves tracklaying: this will be done in 100m sections at a time and each section should be completed in a relatively short time (a question to be discussed in each consultation group – see below - is whether we want more disruption for a shorter time. The third phase is putting up the wires and commissioning. This is relatively non-intrusive but takes almost a year. The total time to construct the tramway is approximately 3 years but work outside any individual house or business should be for periods of 6 weeks or so. It is expected to open in 2014.

Meanwhile, other aspects to the redevelopment of Beeston will be going on: the Tesco negotiations will conclude at some point (they are currently still deadlocked, as the council is not willing to approve a megastore that would cause traffic gridlock), and the developers of Beeston Square has said that the indecision over the last few years has been a hindrance to their plans so we should be able to look forward to investment in that area – but again there will be consultation needed.

b) Consultation
I am pushing hard for more consultation. NET were reluctant to attend my public meeting and haven't so far attended CAT meetings. During our discussion, they agreed to come to CAT meetings along the route in future, regardless of the political colour of the Councillors. I also asked them to come to an event that I'll organise in September when they will present their plans on a large display and invite individual discussions so that everyone can raise the issues that concern them most – I'll let you know details when I've arranged it. Community forums are to be set up which will represent small sections along the route such as Sandby Court. I have pressed for these to be set up at the earliest opportunity and it is envisaged that they will be an early requirement of the successful contractor.

Best wishes

Nick

Economy update/smears/a personal commentary

19 April 2009

Hi all,

This update is going to be more `political' than usual (and quite long!), for reasons that I'll explain. But first…

1. Economy pre-Budget update

The impressions in my earlier updates on the tentative revival in the housing market seem to have been confirmed, and I'm now getting signs of improvement in some local businesses. My advice remains to be cautious this year, since even with the economy on the turn it will be some time before unemployment stops rising. Some moderately encouraging recent pieces in the run-up to the Budget are here:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking

and

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/budget/article6116044.ece

with Britain now expected to be one of the first countries to come out of recession. As yet it's quite fragile, and nobody can be really certain either way (beware of both politicians and journalists who say otherwise!), but it's starting to look more hopeful.

2. Website smears

A brief and blunt comment. I think the revelations that a special adviser and a webmaster were planning a website to spread unpleasant rumours about Conservatives are repulsive, and I've passed on my view that the people involved should have no further role at any level – I want them to keep their grubby hands off my party.

3. Why I'm Labour

I've been in the slightly curious position for many years that I get re-elected with the help of voters who don't regularly support Labour in other elections. Broxtowe is traditionally a Conservative seat, and I'm the only non-Conservative it's ever had, thanks to the 30-35% who vote Labour plus support `leant' by LibDems, Greens and indeed some Conservatives and UKIP supporters who are kind enough to rate me at a personal level. I'm sometimes asked whether I wouldn't be better off standing as an Independent, or joining some other party.

The answer is that I don't want to kid people into thinking I'm something I'm not in order to get re-elected. For better or worse, I come as a package – you get (I'd like to think) an honest constituency MP who works across party for the community and treats everyone with respect as intelligent adults, but you also get someone who is actually quite left-wing. My criticisms of the Government are mostly from the left/green side – for instance, I'd like us to raise tax over £150,000 to 50%, gradually reintegrate the train network into public ownership, reconsider the Trident and aircraft carrier projects, speed up planning approval for alternative energy and show more tolerance for refugees. But in this week where one damned thing after another has gone wrong for the Government, I thought I'd like to put the other side of the story and say why I'd like Labour to continue in government, and why I'm supporting Labour colleagues for the County and Euro elections.

This is, of course, a partisan view as well as an unfashionable one, but I'll try to make it as constructive as I can. I'm not going to focus on the past, good or bad: we've done good things and we've made mistakes, but the question now is whether Labour should be replaced by the Conservatives, who are both nationally and in Broxtowe the only practical alternatives. So I'm going mostly to look ahead.

Start with a fundamental question. What do we expect of governments? We expect that they give us protection at time of crisis (military, economic or social) and pursue a coherent long-term agenda to make the country better.

First, then, is the Government offering protection at time of crisis? We certainly have an economic crisis on our hands, and I'd contend that it's being dealt with more competently and with more attention to protection of the vulnerable than people originally expected. We've seen predictions that major companies would fall like ninepins (we've seen MFI and Woolworths go, but not a mass cull so far), unemployment would head straight for four million, the recession would last for years, mass repossessions would devastate the housing market, full recovery could take a generation. All those predictions are starting to look exaggerated. Can we be sure? No. But it begins to look as though the measures taken have averted the worst.

Recovery is clearly going to take some time. Can we avoid a relapse?
That brings us to the second aspect: internationalism. A Labour government is clearly going to pursue the new agenda initiated at the G20 summit with American, European and Chinese agreement, making life harder for tax havens and, more important, limiting and regulating the wild speculation which triggered the current crisis. Labour is, like Obama, actively keen on international financial regulation, to an extent that makes the nationalist and City-linked wings of the Conservatives queasy.

Third, we are midway through five projects that seem to me quite crucial for the long-term outlook:
• reducing child and pensioner poverty
• making the education system competitive with the private sector
• making the NHS genuinely comparable to best European practice.
• playing our part in tackling climate change seriously
• increasing overseas aid to the UN target of 0.7% of GDP

I think it would be so tragic if the long-term impetus towards these stalled or went into reverse, even if the current crunch means short-term setbacks (we are clearly going to have to limit our ambitions for the next couple of years as we balance the books as the crisis eases). One of the reasons many of us are personally loyal to Brown is that the five of these have been his main preoccupations for as long as we've seen him. All have made considerable headway under this government.

* The Child Poverty Action Group acknowledges the rapid progress until the current crisis on poverty (see http://tinyurl.com/c8hgz6), and the winter allowance and Pension Credit have taken the edge off
poverty in old age.

* I keep close track of schools and NHS facilities in our area and they have almost without exception improved very markedly (a bit more on this below).

* We have imposed binding carbon reduction targets on ourselves, and more important are working effectively with Obama to get a global agreement in December at the Copenhagen summit. It's not something we can achieve on our own.

* I know that some of you are sceptical about overseas aid and say that charity begins at home, but projects like the malaria programme are literally a life and death matter for millions. The average age of people in some countries is 30. To spend £1 out of every £140 (0.7%) that we produce to give a hand to such people is surely not an unreasonable ambition. Under the last Government, it was cut from 0.5% to 0.25%: it's now 0.55%.

Is extra money for the NHS actually doing any good? Yes - it's fairly well-known that nearly all cancer patients are now getting seen by a consultant within a fortnight, but less known that virtually no patients now wait more than 18 weeks from the first GP appointment to an operation – including all the tests and consultants' visits needed. That was quietly achieved last month; the wait used to be up to two and a half years. Long waits translate directly to more suffering and sometimes to early death, and 18 weeks needs to be shortened further.

To take another example, cancer patients now have their prescriptions free, and we hope to extend this is all serious long-term conditions (if you have a potentially fatal illness, it's crucial that you aren't tempted to save on the prescription charge), something which the Conservative health spokesman has curtly dismissed as a `waste of money'.

Would a Tory government abandon all these efforts? To be fair, no, I don't think they would. But they don't seem to be the Conservative priorities. Mr Cameron says vaguely that he'd work towards the aid target, that he wants the best for the NHS, and so on, but what was it that really got the party restless? The suggestion by Ken Clarke that scrapping inheritance tax for estates up to £1 million, a policy that will benefit just 4% of families, might not be a top priority. Within 24 hours, Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne gave in to party pressure and insisted that they were absolutely committed to it. It's virtually their only firm commitment on tax.

Now you might feel that it would be nice to be free from IHT if you accumulated £900,000, but even if you're in that happy position, do you think that it's *the* top priority right now? I want a government that sees the five objectives above as the central long-term priorities, not a government harried by its backbenchers into being preoccupied with reducing IHT, squabbling with the EU, scrapping stamp duty on share dealings and other things that seem to me at best peripheral and at worst undesirable. The Conservatives are, I think, being vague because they think you'll vote for them anyway because "it's time for a change", and it's always nice to have a free hand.

The policy vacuum is being filled by amateurish pronouncements by individual candidates. Locally, the Conservative candidate argues that the age when teenagers can buy unlimited alcohol should be lowered to 16; she thinks that earlier drinking will mean more responsible drinking (why should it?). The LibDem candidate told our debates that he thinks we should have sent foreign aid to the Taliban after 9/11. He pointed to the `love thy enemy' injunction in the Bible – well, yes, but it doesn't actually say `send thy enemy a cheque'. Much though I favour well-monitored foreign aid, the murderous and misogynist Taliban don't seem suitable recipients.
What about specific Labour things that go wrong? The McBride/Draper disgrace? The various resigning Ministers over the years? The failed public service reorganisations, reversed in later reorganisations? The Millennium Dome? I agree. I'm not arguing that the Government gets everything right and sometimes they do something seriously stupid. But I prefer decent priorities with intermittent mistakes to a vague seeking of power for its own sake.

Finally, I and the councillors I like working with add a personal element to this broad left/green outlook. We don't actually think that any of us have all the answers, and a useful working assumption is that most people in all the main parties mean well. What I *try* to do is to pursue a progressive agenda in Westminster and locally in Broxtowe with an open and undogmatic mind, and I work with councillors of a similar frame of mind without slinging mud at anyone. I will criticise a policy that I think misguided (as above), but you won't hear me attack anyone personally. That attitude will (I'd argue) be needed whoever is in power in Westminster and County Hall.

You will soon be able to decide whether this sort of representation is in fact what you want – on June 4 for my local and European colleagues, and within a year for me. As always, feedback welcome – please add an "NNTR" if you don't need a reply.

Best wishes

Nick

Tram decision - it's a yes - and MP expenses

30 March 2009

Hi all -

Two things I'd like to address in detail today, so I'll go straight into them.

(a) Tram decision
------------ ---------

As I predicted last week, the tram decision has been made, and it's a yes. The
Inspector's report has been published as well, and I understand has not
recommended major changes (I and other had proposed alternatives to parts of the
route), and the Government has approved the funding of 75% of the cost, both to
support public transport and as part of the acceleration of investment to help
employment with long-term public works during the recession.

Some obvious Qs and As:

1. When will it start running?

ETA is 2013. NET have done a lot of preparatory work so the initial planning
stage should be short, but it's a huge project so it'll take four years to
complete.

2. Does that mean four years of chaos?

No - if the Line One approach is followed, what they'll do is work on each
stretch for three months at a time. There are generally two phases: first they
have to move utility cables, then they have to lay the track. So each part of
the route in turn is likely to have two 3-month periods of disruption during the
time between 2010 (when actual building gets under way) and 2013.

3. Who pays for the 25% local component?

The remaining cost is mostly due to be funded from the proposed City Workplace
Parking Levy, which I anticipate will be approved as well - it's unlikely they'd
approve the project but not the means to fund it. However, in view of the
concerns expressed by constituents and businesses and the current economic
problems, I'm pressing for a delayed start to this (it was due to begin in
2011), ideally so people don't have to pay the levy until the tram extension is
actually running.

4. Who pays for any cost overrun?

The private partner. In return, if the system runs according to set performance
criteria for 30 years, they'll make a sizable profit.

5. What about people and businesses directly affected?

I'm asking NET for early meetings with each affected group so they know exactly
what will happen, when it will happen, and what help they'll get. There's
particular attention to Neville Sadler Court (part of which will be replaced by
a new building). This will be more disabled-friendly but the upheaval is highly
unwelcome to many of the mostly elderly residents there and they'll need lots of
support. It also affects people all along the proposed route, and traders on
Chilwell High Road, who should get a support package.

6. What will the impact be on house and business prices?

The experience elsewhere has in general been that prices near the route go up,
though this is often after an existing business or resident who dislikes the
idea moves out and the property is bought by someone who sees it as attractive.
Businesses who benefit from the tram will include specialised shops (who can
attract more customers from further away); individuals are of course those who
often want to commute to town or to the QMC (which will have a dedicated
entrance for the tram).

7. Could the decision be reversed?

It's very unlikely - the contracts will be signed in the coming months, and it
would require either the City or the Government to do a complete reversal of
policy before then (the County's position is not as crucial). I certainly
wouldn't recommend it - despite my reservations about the route, I've always
said that if it was approved then we need to get on with it, as people have been
living in limbo for years, and I'd oppose any rearguard action to delay it. The
Conservative Party has campaigned against it, as they did against the original
Line One, but as with the Attenborough flood defence project I hope they'll
accept that there comes a point that we need to stop arguing and start work.

8. What's the bottom line?

This is the second stage of a transition of Greater Nottingham to be served by a
modern and environmentally- friendly public transport network. I've lived in
cities which had a network of trams and buses sufficient to avoid the need to
own a car at all (in London, it's eccentric to drive for most purposes, since
the tube is much faster and more reliable), and when we get to that point it
will do a great deal for the prosperity and attractiveness of the conurbation. I
expect further extensions, and am arguing for one to run to the north of the
borough (reaching out from Phoenix Park to Nuthall, Kimberley and beyond). In
the short term, though, it means considerable disruption, and it will be part of
my job to liaise with NET on behalf of residents to try to ensure it's
minimised.

(b) MP expenses

I entirely share the exasperation that I'm sure many of you feel with the
further revelations on this. This is what I said in Parliament when we were
debating disclosure of receipts recently: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090122/debtext/
(scroll down to 2.54)

In the same spirit of full disclosure, here are my expenses for the latest
financial year for you to consider. I'm going to go into boring detail to err on
the right side, but please feel free to ask me for further detail about any of
them.

Accommodation allowance: £23,057. Of this, nearly £20,000 was is the rent of the
furnished one-bedroom flat in Great Peter Street - this is what central London
rents are like. Since some MPs seem to have odd rental arrangements, I'd like to
add that the landlord is a property company with whom I have no connection. The
balance includes utilities and the additional council tax arising out of having
a second home. I don't claim for furniture, fittings, videos or anything else
out of the ordinary. When I eventually leave Parliament, I'll give notice on the
flat and will have made no money out of the arrangement. I normally stay in the
flat 3-4 nights a week: it's the smallest flat I've ever lived in, but it's
expensive because it's close to Parliament.

Office costs: £19,125. This is partly £9000 for the rent of my constituency
office, which is where most of my staff handle casework. We've had the rent
assessed independently by an estate agent to check it's the appropriate amount.
Further expenses include telephones, fax, office equipment (e.g. a shredder),
casework and anti-virus software, and office furniture (e.g. filing cabinets).
All receipts will be published in June so you can study each purchase and rental
arrangement.

Staffing: £92,719. This is the largest figure, reflecting the budget for salary
and NI for three full-time staff. In fact, I've chosen to have seven part-time
staff, working in Westminster and the constituency with different skills. All
the salaries are paid directly to staff in accordance with the recommended
salaries, which you can find on the parliamentary website.

Stationery: £450. This is simply paper and envelopes.

Postage: £1,606. This is the cost of the prepaid envelopes which I use when I'm
replying to a letter from you.

IT: £1,295. All team members have computers, and each year one or two get
replaced as they get older.

Staff cover: £189. This was to pay for cover for a staff member who was ill.

Communications Allowance: £9,995. This is to pay for non-partisan updates and
surveys, such as the recent letters on proposed housing developments in
different parts of the constituency. It also paid for one edition of my
newsletter "Positive Politics". This is only allowed when the publication has no
controversial material (attacks on other parties etc.)

Car mileage allowance: £1,961. This pays towards the cost of using a car in the
constituency (or occasionally to go to Westminster - normally I take the bus,
tram and train).

Rail: £5,893. This pays for the weekly commute to and from London.

Staff travel: £803. Sometimes one of my staff needs to travel to of from
Westminster, e.g. for a meeting to liaise with other staff. They made a total of
12 return trips between them.

European travel: £236. When I was PPS to the Energy Minister, I was invited by
Swiss MPs to Bern to hear what they'd been doing in renewable energy. This was
the cost of the flight and one night's stay.

As you see, it adds up to a good deal of money, though none of it goes into my
pocket. There have been lots of suggestions for ways to save money. The big
figure is staff salaries, but this could only be realistically reduced if there
was less casework - typically I process around 50,000 enquiries a year (mostly
email these days), and I work a 10 to 12-hour day, 7 days most weeks, so there's
no realistic scope for doing more myself. A normal case will be that a
constituent asks why payment of a pension has been interrupted: I'll write an
initial response and then pass it to a staff member to look into, writing a
follow-up letter as necessary until it's cleared up.

Most of the attention recently has been on the accommodation allowance. In my
view, it would be better if this never involved purchase of property, and we all
simply rented furnished flats as I'm doing. It would be an option to rent
outside Central London - that would reduce the rent but increase the travel
cost; more significantly, it would reduce the time available for working if I
was travelling late at night across London (I generally go to the flat at 1030
but resume answering emails till midnight). I'd favour Parliament buying the
County Hall building (now a Japanese-run hotel) over the river from parliament
with a one-off cost and putting MPs up there: the one-off cost would of course
be huge, and unpopular, but it'd eliminate the ongoing cost forever thereafter.

I hope this is helpful. If there is any aspect of my expenses about which you'd
like to know more, please let me know. My only request is that you don't judge
all MPs as the same!

Best wishes

Nick

Major economy update/tram decision imminent/flood decision made

22 March 2009

Hi all –

After a focus on local issues in recent updates, I wanted to concentrate on the economy again this time. In particular, I've written an extensive briefing for people who as individuals or businesses are looking for support and don't have an overview of what the Government and others are offering: let me know if you'd like it!

A few quick updates first:

1. Next debate

The last of the series of three-cornered debates with my Tory and LibDem opponent is next Friday, at the earlier time of 6 to 8, at the Methodist Church, Eatons Road, Stapleford. The format is similar to Question Time – hope to see some of you there!

2. Tram, WPL and bus decisions

Rumours of thickening that the decision on the tram extensions is coming within the next two weeks. This is closely linked to the Workplace Parking Levy decision, even though that's not expected for a few months more. If the tram extensions are given the go-ahead, the WPL is likely to follow, since it's how the city will finance its share of the cost: the idea was always a package of improved public transport (there are various proposed bus improvements as well) to match disincentives for inner-city car use. Conversely, if the tram extensions are turned down, the justification for the WPL largely falls away.

My best guess is that the answer will be a yes. I'm continuing to try to get concessions on the WPL for Boots (since that's not actually inner-city at all) and to interest NET in a further extension of the tram in the following stage, out to Kimberley and beyond. I'll let you know as soon as I know more.

In the meantime, the extension of the Phoenix Park and city buses to Greasley and Eastwood looks as though it will happen. As a by-product of the by-election the candidate and I worked up a petition to get a better bus service in Greasley, and it looks as though it's bearing fruit.

3. Flood defence decision

Broxtowe Council decided to approve the Environment Agency's proposals. The EA has promised to continue discussions on the exact route in Attenborough while going ahead with the overall scheme. I'll keep you posted as things develop. A separate issue is the caravan park in Rylands: the owner is pressing for this too to be protected. Local councillors and I have been discussing this with the EA, who are looking at the options of either protecting the site as a whole or improving the position of individual caravans.

4. Councillor switches in Kimberley

Mel Crow, the only LibDem representing Kimberley on the borough council, has switched to the Conservatives. Kimberley politics is quite a small world and this isn't a complete surprise, since her partner was selected a few months ago as Conservative candidate for the County election. Shortly after that, she resigned from the LibDem group, saying initially that she felt she could do a better job as an independent member attached to no group. I think it was generally expected that she'd want to support her partner in June, and on reflection she's decided to join the Conservative group. Ms Crow is a well-respected councillor and I'm sure will do her best whichever group she's in.

5. Royal Mail survey

Many thanks to all who responded. Interestingly, response was less than a third of that for other surveys that I've done, maybe because the questions were more complex, with scope to add comments and further ideas. Of those who did respond, the majority opposed any form of privatisation, but were open to a strategic partnership with a private company that didn't involve ownership. People were very keen on daily deliveries and universal service, not so bothered about the price of stamps being kept very low, and most didn't care about the time of day of deliveries. You can see the results here:

http://tinyurl.com/cvkc7k

6. Economy update – "Are we there yet?"

We're in that awkward phase of financial crises where a good deal has been done but the crisis hasn't gone away yet. It's hard for people to judge if that's because the measures aren't working or because it needs more time; that, in turn, makes personal decisions (Should I buy a house? Should I accept a voluntary redundancy package?) harder.

As the feedback for my lengthy discussion of this crisis in January

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BroxtoweInfo/message/475

had the best response for years, I thought I'd do an update. I hope it's helpful.

a) The overall picture

The Bank of England's central assessment is that we are more than halfway through the recession – this was confirmed again by one of the governors yesterday based on the latest data: see http://business.timesonline. co.uk/tol/business/economics/article5941450.ece.

Retail sales have remained surprisingly buoyant, new mortgage lending is rising, and inventories are falling more slowly (this is a prerequisite for recovery in orders – shops don't order more furniture, for instance, until they've sold some of what they've got). All of these are so-called `leading indicators' which hint at improvements to come elsewhere in the economy. On the other hand, unemployment continues to rise steadily, and the IMF remains highly pessimistic, predicting a 3.8% decline in GDP this year.

The reason for the discrepancy in predictions is that it depends very heavily on confidence at this stage. An unusual feature of this recession is that it's accompanied by very low inflation and interest rates (the last big recession under Mrs T had interest rates over 10% for two years, leading to mass repossessions of homes). This is bad for savers and not sustainable for the long term, but coupled with the VAT cut and pension rises, a good many people (especially those on variable mortgages) are finding they have some spare cash. What is unpredictable is what they'll do with it. There are three scenarios:

If (1) they repay their mortgages faster, it helps the banking sector (by freeing money to lend to others).

If (2) they spend it on consumer goods, such as cars, it helps industry (though some may be imports – conversely we benefit when other countries spend more and buy our exports).

If (3) they warily leave it on current accounts in the bank, the recession is extended, since banks can't do much with short-term cash.

The Bank of England thinks they're mostly doing the first two; the IMF expects the third. If the Bank is correct, there should be clear signs of recovery by the 4th quarter, and although unemployment is likely to keep rising this year as the effects of existing cutbacks feed through, the rate of growth should start to slow, and reverse during 2010. Conversely, interest rates are likely to start returning to more normal levels next year.

b) Should you buy or sell a house?

The detailed mortgage figures show two hugely contrasting trends. The January data shows a 60% drop in "net lending", but this is made up of a modest rise in new lending minus a massive £1 billion surge in repayments – i.e. case (1) above. Very few people who are coming off fixed-rate mortgages are negotiating new ones, since the variable rate is agreeably low and the building societies are charging a high fee for any fixed remortgage.

Meanwhile, prices continue to be relatively low, and the market is dominated by people who really need to sell, making deals with bargain-hunters. As I wrote in January, it doesn't look as though there will be a huge further drop in prices actually agreed, but there's a lot of haggling out there and if you sell you should expect this. Nobody can guess the exact turning point, but if you can put down a 20% deposit and are prepared to wait for the right deal, it's probably a good time to pick up a good long-term home.

c) What's happening with the banks?

The panic of a few months ago has comprehensively dissipated: nobody now expects any major bank to crash. The nationalised banks (who dominate the UK market) are having their bonus structures radically changed to discourage short-term speculation, and their business models will be more cautious in the future, with the advantages (less risk of recurrence) and drawbacks (slower to seize on new profitable ideas) which that implies.

Are they lending again? In crude terms, yes. All the nationalised banks are back to or above their pre-crisis 2007 levels. That's not the whole story, though, because a lot of loans used to be made by foreign banks (notably the Icelanders) who have disappeared. Moreover, businesses who have a less-than-certain market are running into cautious local bank managers. To take an extreme example, I know of a London firm whose allowed overdraft has been slashed to zero: their business is refurbishing luxury flats for the speculative buy-to-let market, and you can, um, see why the bank might take a cautious view about that. Other examples of loan refusals are much harder to justify, and I'm involved in several local cases helping businesses talk to their banks about their prospects.

d) What will happen to taxes and spending?

The short-term tax rebates (VAT and entry-level stamp duty) will be reversed when the economy starts to recover. There remain party differences on what happens next. Labour favours continuing public spending levels through the crisis, slowing to a standstill in 3 years' time. The next Parliament would under Labour be (in my opinion) likely to see a freeze on major new expenditure while GDP growth refilled the coffers. The Conservatives favour imposing cuts in spending outside education, the NHS and foreign aid, which would produce some painful effects (such as fewer police officers and the scrapping of the introduction of free prescriptions for cancer and other long-term illnesses) but say they would clear the way sooner or later for some types of tax cut, notably Inheritance Tax for estates over £1 million and duty on stock exchange dealings (to help Britain recover business for its financial sector). The Liberal Democrats favour major cuts in both public spending and personal taxation.

e) What is the international scene?

Most countries are in a broadly similar position. Governments are varying in their level of fiscal stimulus, with the US at one extreme (what Obama is spending on public works completely dwarfs we or any other European country are doing) and Germany at the other (Mrs Merkel reluctantly agreed to one large package of public spending, but is resisting doing more). As part of the more austere attitude to freewheeling financial deals, there is a general crackdown on tax havens, and Switzerland, Luxembourg and others have agreed to open up to tax inspectors chasing fugitive capital. A few countries, such as Ukraine and Iceland, have special problems which make the recession harder to handle, and we may hear of some countries going into major crisis.

The London G20 Summit is expected to move forward the effort to increase regulation of the financial markets and agree joint action to ensure that especially weak economies like Iceland don't go bust (because of the chain reaction that it could trigger). It shouldn't be seen as a dramatic resolution point – it's part of a process which is going to carry on every three months for the whole year.

The bottom line is that nobody knows for sure how quickly the crisis will be resolved, either internationally or in Britain, but the average view is that we should be pulling out of it by next year. At that point, interest rates are likely to be heading back to more normal levels (so don't buy a house whose affordability depends on current interest rates, but do expect an improvement in 2010 if you have savings income). I expect the employment market to remain grim for the next 12 months, so don't take a redundancy package if you have an alternative. However, some of the more extreme scenarios have political or journalistic motivations, and it's important not to let ourselves be talked into a worse crisis than we actually have.

I hope that was helpful – sorry it was so long, but it's complex! Finally, I've been asked to pass on some local events:

This year's Beeston Baptist Fair Trade Fashion Show will be held on Friday 27th March, 7:15 for 8 till 9:30pm. Tickets will probably be £5 including £2 voucher for spending £10 or more on the clothes and accessories. Further details at www.beestonbaptists.org.uk/whats-on/page2/ or via the church office tel 0115 925 8465.

Tuesday 7th April, 7.30pm
Village Ventures presents:
Annamations:
Tongue and Groove
Contemporary story telling with music
Chilwell Arts Theatre, Chilwell School
Tickets on sale now from the school on 0115 925 2698 or 07827 996 223
£7, £5 (conc), £22 family (2 adults + 2 children)

Thursday 14th May, 7.30pm
Village Ventures presents:
Hank Wangford & Reg Meuross in concert
Chilwell Arts Theatre, Chilwell School
Tickets on sale now from the school on 0115 925 2698 or 07827 996 223
£7, £5 (conc), £22 family (2 adults + 2 children)

Best wishes

Nick

previous newsletters >>