Four months later

It has taken me this amount of time to come to terms with the fact that, 4 months ago, 40% of the British electorate chose to vote for a party led by a crypto-Marxist terrorist sympathiser, a man who winks at anti-Semitism in his own party and who has as his political hero one of the most cynical, treacherous old hypocrites who ever attained high office.

After the election it was easy to assume that this was a protest vote. A message being sent to a Prime Minister who had called an election that was not needed, having previously said that she would not do so. An opportunity for disappointed Remainers to re-run the referendum (despite Mr Corbyn being well-known as a Brexiteer, no matter what his people said). The polls suggested a Conservative landslide, so some voters decided to try to prevent that. Others stayed at home, thinking they didn’t need to bother to vote. All very easy and comforting assumptions to make.

But it is now clear that there was in fact a positive swell of support for Labour. If you are a voter under 50 (as I am -just) then you are far more likely to vote Labour than Conservative. Those born after 1975 will have no memory of life before Thatcher, no memory of how the country was the last time Corbyn’s policies were given a fair outing. Voters under 30 will have no real memory of the IRA atrocities. So simply calling Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott IRA sympathisers won’t and didn’t work.

Thankfully the next election is nearly 5 years away. During that time the Conservative Party must address its lack of appeal to those presently under 50. The last election proved that they will go out and vote if they are given a reason to, so the old assumptions about younger voters will no longer hold. We cannot simply look after the interests of the retired. And it’s no good just saying that Corbyn’s policies won’t work. Action is required. We have 4 years to show, not tell, that Conservative policies can work for the under 50s.

We need to answer the aspirations of younger people. We must a find a way to make home ownership affordable once again to those in their twenties and early thirties. That is going to mean, first and foremost, a massive house building project with the focus firmly on starter homes. This is particularly needed in London and the south-east where house prices have far exceeded the levels at which anyone without help from the Bank of Mum and Dad or a City salary can hope to get a foot on the ladder. It is going to mean being realistic, locally, about where we can build. It means higher density in our towns.

We have far too many private monopolies. They are as bad as state monopolies. They are run solely in the interests of the providers, just as state monopolies were run solely in the interests of unionised labour. In both cases the customer loses. If you don’t like the service provided or you think you are being over-charged you have nowhere to go. If I want to go to London and don’t fancy driving I am stuck with South-West Trains (sorry, South-West Railway). My water comes from one private organisation. I can change gas and electricity supplier, but there are few to choose from and their price structures are remarkably similar. And the national gas and electrical network is a monopoly. The energy and water companies should be broken up, not nationalised. New suppliers should be permitted to lay new pipelines. As with football clubs, there should be a maximum percentage of the water or energy market that can be held within the same ownership. We should push ahead with a high-speed trans-Pennine rail link before building HS2.

It also means that the Cameron modernisation project must continue. I have a huge amount of time for Jacob Rees-Mogg, a thoroughly principled and honest politician who is much the same today as he was at Oxford 25 years ago. I admire the strength of his religious faith and the clarity with which he expresses his views. However, Jacob’s preferred way of living his life does not reflect the way in which the majority of Britons wish to live, and, like it or not, the public prefers to have a Prime Minister who seems to be in sympathy with their aims and aspirations. David Cameron did this extremely well, despite coming from a similar background to JR-M.

We do not need a change of leader, despite the best efforts of the Press to whip up signs of discord in the parliamentary party and to portray any speech by a potential successor as a bid for the leadership. Theresa May has a mandate to negotiate Brexit. No other politician can claim that. She should be supported in this hugely difficult task, and the party must use the remainder of its energies in demonstrating that it has the interests of younger voters front and centre of its programme for the current Parliament.


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

A stark choice

At the start of the campaign it was assumed by just about everyone that the result was a foregone conclusion. Theresa May would win by a landslide and Jeremy Corbyn consigned to the dustbin of history. But things have not quite turned out like that. Corbyn has, by and large, had a good campaign whereas the Conservatives have not. Nevertheless the eve of poll opinion surveys suggest a comfortable win tomorrow.

In fact the true story of this election campaign is that only one leader has been honest with the electorate and that is Theresa May. The Conservative manifesto was said by some to be uninspiring. That is because, on anyone’s case the next two or three years as we exit the EU and re-establish our position as an independent nation are going to be difficult times. As a result the Conservatives have made an honest offer to the electorate. We will get the best deal possible, and we will make a success of it. But we can’t offer lots of freebies. And we need to look at difficult issues, such as dementia care. Amid all the fury which dishonest parties sought to stir up, let’s not forget that at present if you require chronic long term care in your old age you will need to pay for it yourself until virtually all of your savings are gone. The proposed cap of £100,000 is a vast improvement on the current situation. Some tax.

The Labour manifesto offers all sorts of goodies: free university tuition, more money for the NHS and schools, more police (with no idea of how much they will cost, as Diane Abbott demonstrated), reversal of Conservative public expenditure savings and of course the re-nationalisation of the railway system and the energy and water companies. All of this is allegedly costed – but only if you believe that increased taxes inevitably lead to increased tax revenue. They do not, and if allowed power a Labour government led by Corbyn would run out of our money quicker than its predecessors did.

There is another serious reason why the present Labour leadership should be allowed nowhere near the levers of power and that is their long-professed support for terrorist organisations. Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott all defended the IRA when they were murdering civilians and soldiers alike. They support Hamas and Hezbollah whose stated aim is to destroy Israel and kill every Jew on the planet. The Labour party is shot through with anti-Semitism to such an extent that they are likely to take less than 20% of the Jewish vote.

Given my interest in education, the proposals to bring free schools back under LEA control and to charge VAT on private school fees give me yet another reason to oppose Labour. Have they not asked themselves what the cost will be if significant numbers of private school parents decide they can’t afford the fees and send their children to state schools? Rather than being demonised by the hard left it should be noted that they pay twice over for education – once through their taxes and again to the private sector.

Tomorrow I shall be back in Kingston & Surbiton supporting James Berry who deserves to be re-elected and then tomorrow evening I shall be watching out keenly for the results in Grimsby and in Scunthorpe, both of which could fall into the Conservative fold tomorrow. Fingers crossed for the right result.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized


Twenty odd years ago I went for my usual 6-monthly dental appointment. My dentist at the time was based in the Isle of Dogs and I took the Docklands Light Railway from Bank Station. As the train left Canary Wharf and headed out towards South Quay it brought me over the place where, a few weeks earlier, the IRA had exploded a massive truck bomb.

The wreckage was quite shocking. It was the first time I had seen the consequences of a major explosion. I will never forget the huge newly built tower blocks, with every window blown out and the blinds, still attached to the frames, flapping in the breeze. The terrorists had given a warning so the area was largely evacuated. Fortunately, only two people were killed but scores suffered relatively minor injuries. The insurance costs ran into hundreds of millions of pounds. The visual shock of the scene of devastation was no doubt what the republicans had wanted to achieve.

Before this atrocity, during it and afterwards, the man who now seeks to be Prime Minister was regularly talking with the political representatives of the terrorists. In doing so he gave them a public platform and some spurious legitimacy. He defended his actions then – as he does now – on the basis that he was trying to encourage dialogue, to push for peace. But it was always clear whose side he was on, to paraphrase Billy Bragg’s famous song (about the miners’ strike). He, and his allies John McDonnell and Diane Abbott, were arguing that the military defeat of the British Army in Ulster was a thing to be desired. He was the terrorists’ friend.

Corbyn carried on this tactic with his leadership of the Stop the War movement. Claiming to be a peace-loving organisation, Stop the War has for years been run by the hard left, the anti-Israel, pro Palestinian, pro-Assad factions. The only war they want to stop is any war which they see as furthering the interests of the West or of Israel. They have no interest at all in stopping the war being waged by Hamas and Hezbollah against the Jewish state.

And that is where Corbyn has always stood. He is happy to talk to Irish republican extremists, but never goes to speak to Loyalists. He calls Hamas his friends but never engages with the Israeli authorities, never tries to understand their point of view. He is very selective in who he deals with.

It is for this reason that this man must not be allowed to hold any position of responsibility in this country. Behind the carefully cultivated avuncular and honest personality lies a devious and dishonest supporter of many dangerous terrorist groups. Had the victims of the recent Manchester bombing been British soldiers rather than innocent children, I very much doubt he would have condemned the bombing in the terms which he has recently employed. As Theresa May has said, any vote for anyone other than the Conservatives is a vote for chaos. And thus despite the weakness of the Conservative campaign so far, there is no alternative. Britain needs a Conservative government with a good working majority.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Brexit, and other weighty matters

Theresa May has now delivered the letter triggering Article 50. This country will formally leave the EU on 29th March 2019 and the next two years will be largely taken up with negotiating the terms of Britain’s exit. Nothing meaningful is likely to happen until after the French presidential elections in the Spring and the German federal elections in October. I have not been triumphalist about the referendum result as I voted to leave with a heavy heart and with some misgivings, but thus far I still believe it was the right decision to take.

Locally, I chaired the first meeting of Elmbridge BC’s new affordable housing working group last week. We have had a “members’ panel” devoted to affordable housing for some time, but this was a reactive organisation whereas the new Working Group is required to take an active role in housing delivery. I am delighted to undertake this new role, which dovetails nicely with the 6 years I spent as the Cabinet member for Housing. Our recently produced Strategic Housing Market Assessment has identified a need for 474 new units of housing per year between now and 2035, of which 70% should be affordable homes. And within the “affordable” umbrella, 80% of those should be available to rent at social rent levels – being 50-60% of the open market letting value. We now have a strong planning case for what we are trying to achieve.

We have County Council elections in May, and I am delighted that our excellent local councillor, Mary Lewis, has been re-adopted as the Conservative candidate. I enjoyed helping out on her stall at the Farmers’ Market in Cobham on Saturday. Mary has had a baptism of fire as a county councillor. The leadership of Surrey CC has been in the eye of a storm lately, having threatened to hold a referendum on a 15% council tax increase. This is due to national Government expecting County authorities to provide ever-increasing levels of social care to vulnerable adults whilst at the same time reducing the central funding available. Ultimately the sums could not be made to add up. David Hodge, the leader of Surrey’s ruling Conservative Group has been criticised for threatening such an increase but ultimately he had no alternative, other than to remove funding from non-mandatory services such as public libraries. His job was to stand up for Surrey and that is precisely what he has done. Although the details are not clear some arrangement has been arrived at which avoids the need for such a drastic hike, but if the Government is nor prepared to fund this service properly we may need to re-visit the referendum option in future years.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Councillors’ Expenses

On 7th December 2016, my colleague Andy Kelly and I led the opposition to a plan by the controlling Residents’ Associations and Lib Dems group to increase councillors’ allowances by 12%. Here is the text of my speech:

“Madam Mayor, I am delighted to second Cllr Kelly’s proposed amendment.

When I saw that the present proposal to increase the basic allowance by 12% had been endorsed by the current Cabinet. I knew immediately that if I voted myself a 12% increase when this Council’s loyal employees had only been offered 2% I would not be able to look any Council officer in the face again.

Now some might say that’s my problem, and with my own particular circumstances in mind of course it is. But all members here tonight ought to reflect very carefully on how this is likely to look to our superb workforce.

Since the financial crisis erupted in 2008, we have asked our staff to make significant sacrifices. In order to make the savings imposed on this council by the reduction and eventual termination of the revenue support grant we have for many years imposed either a wage freeze or allowed increases below the prevailing RPI figures. Both of which amount to real-terms wage cuts. We have reduced their work areas in size so that we can raise revenue by sub-letting part of this building. All of these measures were necessary, and our staff have carried on providing us with a first class service throughout these changes.

So before you cast your vote tonight, think about how you comfortable you will feel next time you need to deal with a busy planning officer, a hard pressed housing benefit officer dealing with the ramifications of Universal Credit – or any other member of our staff from the cleaners to the senior management team. If you decide to help yourselves to the 12% bounty, how do you think that will go down.

And then ask yourselves this. How many people living in Elmbridge on an ordinary wage will be getting a 12% increase this year? Or anything remotely approaching such a salary hike? How do you think this will play in the media? For those on the benches opposite: is this the reason you decided to form an administration? Is this the legacy you want to leave?

Now we have been told tonight that:

It’s the recommendation of an independent panel: of course it is. But their job is not to take the responsibility of what is at the end a political decision: that responsibility is ours, this is what the people of Elmbridge have elected us to decide.

Elmbridge’s allowances are on the low side compared to other Surrey boroughs. Are they? Good. I would be far more worried if we were near the top of the table rather than the bottom.

It will deter good people from coming forward to stand: No it won’t. Being a councillor is about public service, and the allowance is meant to compensate us for loss of income or additional expenditure incurred. It is not and never has been a salary. And I have not seen the quality of candidates dropping in my time here.

There are fewer of us now and our workload is increasing. Perhaps so. But I will make 2 points. When John O’Reilly first proposed reducing councillor numbers, there were some murmurings from the benches opposite about whether we would push up allowances afterwards. We promised you that we would not. Is it not now ironic that, only 6 months into their new administration, it is the leading members opposite who are now pushing forward this grab on the public purse. Secondly, we may be working harder but so are our staff – there are fewer employees than when I was first elected and they have not been offered anything like the increase we are being invited to take.

Madam Mayor, colleagues – tonight we have a stark choice. We can do the right thing and choose an option that actually reduces the total cost of paid politicians to the Elmbridge taxpayer. Or we can help ourselves from the public purse and reinforce every stereotype that there is about elected representatives only being in it for themselves. Let us show our electorate – cynical though they may well be about politicians – that we can rise above the temptation of personal gain. Think about this Council’s reputation. I urge you all to support this amendment.”

    What happened?

No Conservative voted for the increases. All of the Liberal Democrat group, without exception, helped themselves. Apart from the honourable exceptions of Cllrs Popham and Heaney, who abstained (as did the Mayor and Deputy Mayor), all the Residents’ Associations councillors grabbed the money.

Think about that, next time you have the chance to vote. Only Conservatives refused to put their snouts in the trough.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Grammar Schools

The Government’s commitment to allow existing grammar schools to expand, and to allow new grammar schools to be opened where the is demand, is hugely welcome. However, if the policy is to succeed the Government will need to answer two fundamental questions: firstly, how to deal with the issue of selection, and secondly, how to ensure that the schools for those who do not go to the grammar schools provide a first class education suitable to the needs of the non-grammar school pupils.

Grammar schools were the great drivers of social mobility in the middle of the 20th century. State school admissions to Oxford and Cambridge peaked in the 1960s and the universities did not have to fall over themselves, as they do today, in devising schemes to attract state school applicants. Grammar schools raised their pupils’ expectations of themselves and delivered the teaching necessary to allow children from modest backgrounds to compete on level terms with the products of the great public schools.

This then fed into the leading positions in government, commerce and the law. No public school product was Prime Minister from 1964 to 1997. Most of the Wilson and Thatcher Cabinets were former grammar school products who had made their way from there to the best universities. The British education system had led to a true meritocracy.

However there were two major flaws in the system. The first was the 11 plus exam. Those who failed the exam were branded as failures from an early age, and recovery from that failure was almost impossible as it was extremely difficult for someone who had failed that exam to show, by increased effort at a secondary modern, that the failure was a blip. Very few pupils moved from secondary moderns to grammar schools. The stigma of failure, once applied, was difficult to remove.

Also , it can be asked whether the 11 plus was a fair test of ability as evidence suggests that private tutoring can make a real difference to outcomes, offering an unfair advantage to the middle class parents who can afford extra tuition.

The second problem was the quality of the secondary moderns and the expectations which the staff had of their pupils. Most were expected to leave at the statutory minimum age as it was assumed that university was just to feasible for the pupils. Grammar schools received higher funding and, unsurprisingly, attracted the better teachers.

As a result the move to comprehensivisation was not a political hot potato at the time. Some comprehensives had been established before the Labour victory at the 1964 general election and the arrival of Tony Crosland at the Department of Education. Only a handful of local authorities actively resisted the requirement to produce plans for a comprehensive system. Strongly Conservative local authority areas – such as Surrey – converted their grammar schools into comprehensives. Some of those grammar schools (such as Kingston Grammar) went private. More grammar schools were closed under the reign of a certain female Conservative education secretary than under any Labour predecessor. Later, it is true, Margaret Thatcher regretted what she had allowed to happen, but at the time she did not question the direction of travel.

But the antagonism towards grammar schools from the Left-liberal elite is the one clear constant from those times to this. The Labour party is largely united around opposition to Theresa May’s proposals. For them, Tony Crosland’s promise to “destroy every fucking grammar school” is not an infamous statement made by a former public school boy whose disdain for those who had succeeded by their own efforts was total. Rather, it is a rallying cry. It is essential that the present generation of Conservative politicians stand firmly against that attitude. We must support Theresa May, but at the same time ensure that access to grammar schools is not closed forever at 11, and that those schools not in the grammar system are properly resourced and provide a first class education for their pupils.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Cobham Free School

Last week, the Governors and Headmistress of Cobham Free School (“CFS”) announced that they had finally obtained a site in Cobham for a permanent home for their secondary department. They – or rather the Education Funding Agency – have entered into an agreement to purchase Munro House on Portsmouth Road, next to the Rugby Club. This is an office complex which will now be converted for academic use.

I am absolutely delighted by this, which is the best news for Cobham in years. Finally, secondary education in the town will be a reality for local parents who cannot afford private school fees. There will also be a genuine choice for parents, rather than the current school places lottery which sees Cobham children parcelled out to schools in Esher, Walton and Leatherhead, often against their families’ wishes.

As regular readers of this blog will know, one of my main reason for getting involved in politics was to try to reverse the decline in the quality of state education in this country. Prior to the comprehensive schools experiment, social mobility was guaranteed by the grammar school system. Of course it was not perfect – not every child was able to shine at age 11, and more should have been done to pick up bright children who simply failed to perform at the 11 plus. The comprehensive system did nothing to improve social mobility – in fact it set it in reverse, with more and more privately educated children obtaining the best university places and with them, access to the best jobs.

Michaela Khatib, Howard Morris and the EFA team have worked tirelessly and over many years to secure a suitable site for the secondary department. Green belt options have had to be considered because nothing else was available. This inevitably led to some friction with local heritage and countryside groups. Finally, a result has been achieved which does not involve any use of Green Belt land. My congratulations to them all.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized