Jottings from the North West of the County

Merry Christmas

2008-12-28T12:22:00.004Z

Some readers may be interested in a paper I've just published with the Centre for Policy Studies advocating wholesale reform of the police, health service, schools, universities and local government to reduce bureaucracy, enhance freedom and restore power to the electorate to chose how you want your local area run.

http://www.cps.org.uk/latestpublications/ takes you to the site where you can download a free copy.

We received positive coverage in various national newspapers including the Telegraph and News of the World...

I attach an article below I wrote for eGov Monitor explaining why I wrote the report:-

"I worked for Sir David Arculus when he chaired the Better Regulation Task Force, which in 2003 published Regulation – Less is More.

This was adopted by Tony Blair, as the radical proposals we offered for cutting back the administrative costs of regulation appealed to his desire to do good. When I left the BRTF, I was pleased with what we had achieved but concerned at the destructive effect which excessive bureaucracy and regulation was having on many parts of society. Having explored in The Costs of Regulation, some of the reasons why regulation is so corrosive of society, I came together with Jonathan McMahon to develop some practical proposals for enhancing public services without excessive regulation or bureaucracy. We recommend reforms which we see as crucial if the next generation of British citizens are to experience a society which, rather than being broken, is both free and resilient.

In our report for the Centre for Policy Studies, Jonathan McMahon and I have set out how huge layers of bureaucracy and regulation can be swept away. We challenge a notion of central control that is deeply embedded within the consciousness of too many involved in politics and working in Whitehall. In particular, we do not accept the idea that for the public to have the standards they want, policing, medicine, education and social care need to be run centrally from Whitehall. We do not accept that we need tens of thousands of bureaucratic functionaries to check that standards are appropriately set and met.

In writing our report, we have spoken to many senior and junior professionals within the public services. We were depressed at the tales of enveloping bureaucracy inhibiting dedicated people from doing their best for fellow citizens but heartened at the reception we received and encouraged by the fact they wanted to help us set out a vision of a better future. We were struck by how many senior and junior public servants were convinced that, if they were given freedom to manage, they could use the same resources so much more creatively to deliver better results for our citizens.

In our report, Jonathan McMahon and I offer an alternative of high quality public services without the “nanny state” which has developed in recent years. Our alternative is premised on trusting those who are qualified, trained and also passionate about providing public services to do the right thing because it is the right thing and delivers the best result possible, not because some bureaucrat is holding a big stick over them. Our notion of trust is not a naïve one. Rather it is one which is based in local communities. We argue for local people to make democracy work for them by electing those who oversee the public services which are provided in their locality. These elected representatives would have expert support but would be accountable to their electors rather than the Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit. We are also supportive of efforts to create diversity of supply where it is practical to do so. In doing this, we are building on a corpus of old style liberal and conservative literature arguing for returning power (and budgets) to people and dismantling the overly powerful centralised state which is so corrosive of societal resilience.

Our measures are practical and could be picked up by politicians of any colour (we were, incidentally, most impressed by some of John Hutton’s statements when he was at the Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform). And, crucially in these hard times, they would save money – by as much as £15 billion by our estimates. But even more importantly, by creating a better balance between government and citizens, our public services would be significantly improved and our society as a whole would be enhanced.

Freedom for Public Services by William Mason and Jonathan McMahon is published by the Centre for Policy Studies."

St Richard's Hospital - Partial Victory ?

2008-10-19T20:01:00.002+01:00

I am optimistic that St Richard's may yet remain a major general hospital. I think (though I don't know) that the suggested administrative merger may well have been developed as a result of the robust line which your Chichester District Councillors have taken in supporting a judicial review of the Primary Care Trust's decision to downgrade St Richard's Hospital.

I am not going to comment too extensively as much is still uncertain. Our official press release summarises our position: (http://www.chichester.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=9466)

"District Council welcomes Fit for the Future 'suspension'

Chichester District Council has welcomed the decision by West Sussex Primary Care Trust to suspend the Fit for the Future (FFF) proposals. The suspension follows the announcement by St. Richard's Hospital and Worthing Hospital that they are considering a merger.
Myles Cullen, Leader of Chichester District Council, said,

'The District Council has always maintained that the FFF decision was fundamentally flawed and not in the interests of the residents of Chichester District. The District Council provided a very large volume of evidence to support the case for St. Richard's Hospital. '

'The Council pressed for the FFF decision to be referred to the Secretary of State and now that it has, the investigation by the Independent Reconfiguration Panel should continue, despite the suspension. In addition, the application for Judicial Review would continue.'

Myles Cullen added: 'We want to see the FFF proposals withdrawn by the PCT, not just suspended.' "

South Downs National Park - Another Letter Please

2008-10-19T19:54:00.005+01:00

As I thought might be the case, whilst Hilary Benn continues to be the cabinet minister responsible for national parks after Gordon Brown's reshuffle, we have a new junior minister Huw Irranca-Davies MP who will actually take the decision on whether Rogate, Milland and Linch will be part of the Proposed South Downs National Park or left exposed to development. Please could you take a few minutes to write to him to tell him to leave our villages in the park. His address is:-

Huw Irranca-Davies MP
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State
Defra
Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London
SW1P 3JR

I'd suggest saying much what you said in your letters to Jonathan Shaw last year (if you have them to hand in paper or electronic files). Alternatively please have a look at the South Downs Campaign Website (Go to http://www.southdownscampaign.org.uk/main.htm then click on "take action") for further information and suggestions on what to say.

We look as though, against the odds, we are winning on St Richards Hospital. Let's hope we can do the same with the National Park.

Cutting Regulation - Promoting Freedom

2008-05-31T15:34:00.002+01:00

Our country is suffering greatly under the burden of regulation. If we want to be a free society and lead worthwhile lives this needs to change. I've recently published a paper on how we must act. Please see http://www.brugesgroup.com/CostsOfRegulationPaper.pdf for the paper.

St Richard's Hospital

2008-05-31T15:27:00.003+01:00

It's hugely disappointing to hear the news about St Richard's hospital. I consider the decision to close large parts of it to be of questionable logic to put it mildly.

Please Email: john.wilderspin@westsussexpct.nhs.uk
<mailto:john.wilderspin@westsussexpct.nhs.uk> or mike.harris@westsussexpct.nhs.uk <mailto:mike.harris@westsussexpct.nhs.uk>
or Phone: 0800 707 6975 to protest.

The Executive Board of the District Council will be meeting early next week to consider what action we can take as a council to inhibit the closure of much of St Richards.

Please look at http://www.supportstrichards.co.uk/ for information on what you can say to members of the Primary Care Trust in support of the case we are all making against closure. To lose King Edward VII was bad enough. To lose it and St Richard's is little short of a disgrace.

Let's Welcome Boris

2008-05-03T11:21:00.005+01:00

I've enjoyed attending the Milland and Rogate annual parish meetings over the last month and talking to some of you. It's great that we have such vibrant local communities with so many different activities taking place which help make many peoples lives worthwhile and enjoyable. Here at least we still have a community.

We face many challenges with the South Downs protected status, the future of our schools and St Richard's Hospital. Many (though - to be fair - not all) of the difficult issues we face are indirectly caused by the Labour government in Whitehall which has shown nothing but contempt for England and Englishness in its eleven years in office.

Today is a great day because we can celebrate, with the election of Boris, the beginning of the end for the Marxist socialist clique which has done so much damage to our society and country. For the first time since 1997 we have a Conservative, dedicated to the interests of ordinary British people, in a position of serious power rather than a politically correct idealogue dedicated to "special interests". I've spent quite a few hours over the last month campaigning for Boris because having someone running our capital who doesn't loath the countryside and who thinks about hard working people who live in the country but work in London will be good for all of us.

Don't get me wrong, there is much still to do and many wrongheaded liberal and socialist ideas which still require challenge. The next two years will be tough - both for hard working people (as the credit crunch - caused in many respects by Labour's economic policies - bites) and for the Conservative Party as Gordon Brown fights like a cornered rat to stay in Number 10. Nevertheless, for the first time in a long time, we have someone civilised in an elected office.

It was so nice to see Boris confront an aggressive and ill educated BBC interviewer in the early hours of this morning with a lesson on the Arian controvesy. He has proved that getting elected no longer requires you to be a politically correct mouther of platitudes with strong links to the underclass. That is great for our democracy as we need intelligent people with a sense of history involved in public life. I wish him well as he tries to deal with some of the awful problems which confront London.

Rogate School II

2008-03-28T21:35:00.002Z

Further to my blog on the WSCC consultation on Rother Valley Schools, the District Council passed the following resolution at the Full Council meeting on 25th March 2008. This resolution constitutes the formal position of Chichester District Council on the Rother Valley Schools' Consultation by West Sussex County Council. You will see that the District Council formally asks the County Council to reconsider its conclusion that Rogate School is not viable,

"Accordingly the resolutions were as follows: That Council supports the restructuring of primary education in the Rother Valley to implement the change in age of transfer subject to:

(a) Appropriate supervision on school buses to ensure the safe transport of young children between home and school;

(b) Reassurance being given to all school staff and head teachers that they will be fairly treated in any redeployment that follows restructuring; and

(2) That Council supports the establishment of an academy to replace the three existing secondary schools subject to:

(a) In appointing the senior leadership team of the academy, the claims of the senior leadership teams of the three schools are given special consideration;

(b) The new local governing body contains strong representation of parents and the community; and

South Downs National Park Enquiry

2008-03-20T21:21:00.003Z

I gave evidence on behalf of Milland, Rogate and Linch at the South Downs National Park Enquiry in Worthing today. I summarised the points which I made in my letter to the Secretary of State (which may be found at http://www.westsussex.org/gpage1.html). Nigel Johnson-Hill also gave evidence on behalf of Milland Parish Council.

In summary, we argued that the Rother and Milland Valleys were special places, worthy of inclusion in the National Park on their own merits. We attacked the distinctly misguided statements which the County Council has been issuing against the National Park. I refuted some of the points that the inspector had made in his report on the National Park where he argued against the inclusion of both the Rother Valley and Milland Valley. I was impressed that he (he is chairing the enquiry in person) was prepared to listen to both Nigel and I. He appeared genuinely receptive to our points and arguments.

We need to continue to work to ensure that we make our feelings on the need to preserve our part of England known. I'm optimistic that right will triumph over narrow self interest and that we will secure the Weald and Downs for future generations of our countrymen.

Happy Easter,

William

Preserving Village Schools

2008-03-19T21:46:00.004Z

I know that many of you are concerned by the proposal by West Sussex County Council to close Rogate School. I attended the open meeting at Rogate School where we were addressed by the County education officer and was impressed by the degree of public support shown for the school.

To be clear, WSCC is entirely separate from Chichester District Council. I am your District Councillor and the County Council is i/c schools, not the District Council. Nola Hendon, your County Councillor, is leading the campaign to keep a primary school in Rogate. I support her campaign.

For my views on how I think our primary education may best evolve, please see my letter to Mr Dunn at the County Council at http://www.westsussex.org/gpage3.html

Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

2008-02-07T20:17:00.000Z

For me this verse from Matthew 22:21 captures what I think the Archbishop of Canterbury was alluding to today in his ill advised comments on Sharia Law.

To be clear - I don't support words which might give sustenance to our country's enemies but I think we need to stand up and tell our government that enough is enough. In its recent social legislation and restrictions on non-violent freedom of speech New Labour has sought to impose its totalitarian and unfree world view on the rest of the country. It has sought to take over the territory which rightly belongs to our conscience, or to put it in the words of St Matthew, to God.

In such circumstances, English law becomes something which many of a religious persuasion (not just Muslims but also those of other Abrahamic faiths) are likely to find it increasingly difficult to tolerate. The problem is that the government and (given the way the government likes to operate through legislation) English law is now trying to do to much and is restricting the freedoms for which our ancestors stood - back to the time of the Magna Carta and beyond.

The answer is not special treatment under the law for Muslims but less law and regulation so that those of a religious persuasion are not forced out of the public square by the atheist nihilists at the heart of the New Labour project. We need to entrench individual freedom of speech and thought in our constitution - not start running parallel legal systems to further divide our fractured nation.

Increasing Freedom - Less Regulation, Better Laws

2008-02-02T10:52:00.000Z

I'm delighted to have been asked to joing the board of the Arculus Review, commissioned by David Cameron to advise him on how the next Conservative government can make real changes which will mean that ill considered restrictive laws are abolished and not replaced. I'm leading the section on how to deregulate public services but all ideas welcome - please write in with them - your chance to make a real difference to what the next government (I hope) does to make our lives better: william@westsussex.org

For details see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/money/2008/02/07/ccview107.xml

Improving Local Policing in the Ward - Volunteers wanted

2008-01-27T07:24:00.000Z

Sussex Police recently briefed the Rother Valley Forum on its new policing strategy. It wants to form ward based groups to advise it on the type of crimes it should be focusing on. While a little more bureaucratic (setting up a new body rather than trying to work within the established local government frameworks of County, District and Parish), I think we should give this new initiative by Sussex Police a fair chance.

It would be nice for local police to be better able to understand our crime fighting needs and the more we talk to the police, the more likely the force's officers are to spend time fighting the crimes and general anti-social behaviour which we want dealt with rather than wasting time on the Home Office's politically correct paperwork.

I'm liaising with the police on the establishment of this new group which would probably meet once every 12 weeks or so. Please give me a shout if you'd be interested in joining - william@westsussex.org

Quiet Lanes ?

2008-01-27T07:11:00.000Z

Two entrepeneurial Rogate residents have suggested making all the roads in our ward North of the A272 (as well as Stedham, Iping, Chithurst, and Trotton to the East) into a network of quiet lanes. I think their intentions are admirable, in seeking to reinforce what a special area we live in and to make the roads more friendly for those using horses, cycles, and pushchairs.

They have some clever ideas (originally developed in Holland) such as removing all road markings to encourage drivers to drive more carefully - they are not simply interested in plastering lots of horrible new suburban signs alongisde rural roads. I'm not sure to what extent such things are legal in the UK, but to the extent they are, they are certainly worth considering.

Where I have an issue with the proposal is if it reduces speed limits for motorists in Milland and Linch. Milland (unlike Rogate and Rake) is quite a long way from any main roads and were all the busy residents of Milland to suddenly find that they weren't able to drive at more than 30 miles and hour to get to a main road, I think they might find they wasted a lot of time or routinely broke the traffic laws and ignored the new quiet lanes speed limit - neither are good outcomes.

In essence, I oppose the proposal if it is likely to reduce the current speed limits on the main roads the residents use to get to and from Milland to the local main roads to the North, South, East and West. I support it to the degree that some of the good ideas proposed to encourage people to be generally more considerate can be enacted without freedom reducing blanket speed limits.

If you'd like to discuss the proposals further you may like to write to Mairi Renne at mairirennie@talktalk.net

South Downs National Park - January Update

2008-01-27T07:00:00.000Z

Just a few lines to let you know that I hope to be speaking to the new South Downs National Park enquiry on the 20th March. As most electors know, I believe that if we are to have a National Park (a near certainty unless Gordon Brown's government totally implodes as the going gets tougher economically) we need a large park which includes the Western Weald.

I am not reassured by the legal advice West Sussex County Council has procured in support of the Western Weald continuing to be an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty outside the South Downs National Park once it is formed. As I read it, the legal advice says that we could (if ministers and civil servants wished it) remain an AONB outside the new national park. Sadly, it does not say that we must. You will appreciate there is a huge difference between what is legally possible and what actually happens.

To save you writing to ask, I voted against the Chichester District Council leadership when it voted to support a park even smaller than that with the government's inspector has proposed. I continue to oppose the official Chichester District Council and West Sussex County Council position because I believe our very special environment in Rogate, Milland and Linch will be under grave threat if we are outside the park.

South Downs National Park - A Hopeful Move

2007-11-04T08:36:00.000Z

I'm pleased to see that Defra have responded to all your hard work writing to it and signing petitions by agreeing to re-open the South Downs National Park enquiry in Febuary 2008. My reading of this is that it means we have done enough to be listened to and for Defra to feel insecure pushing ahead with a small park.

Sadly, my understanding of the suposedly reassuring legal advice about the AONB status of the Western Weald (Rogate, Milland, Linch etc) which West Sussex County Council has received is that it does not guarantee - in any way - that we will retain our status as an AONB if there is a small park.

WE WILL STILL NEED TO FIGHT HARD TO RETAIN PROTECTION FOR THE WEST SUSSEX WEALD. We have not won yet but we are making progress. I remain convinced that the best way to secure the future of our countryside in the face of massive pressure for development (caused in part by the very high levels of immigration into England) is to ensure that the Western Weald is in a large national park.

Save the Weald - Act Now

2007-08-28T20:00:00.000+01:00

WRITE NOW - Protect the Weald from Development

2007-07-06T22:05:00.000+01:00

PLEASE MAKE THE TIME TO WRITE IF YOU WANT TO CONSERVE OUR SPECIAL COUNTRYSIDE FOR THE FUTURE

The government's inspector has recommended that Milland, Rogate and Linch be removed from the national park because our landscape is not beautiful / valuable enough to warrant national park status. This poses a major threat to the high level of environmental protection we currently enjoy.

If you care about our environment please write to Mr Benn, the Secretary of State for the Environment at the address below by 24th September (Defra have extended the deadline from 13th August in response to our protests) to argue that the Secretary of State should stick with the original boundaries proposed for the South Downs National Park or that he should create a separate Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) for the Weald at the time he creates the park (The current one will be abolished when the park is formed).

If we are not an AONB and the Park is formed with Milland, Rogate and Linch outside the boundaries (as is now proposed), we will almost certainly come under significant pressure for residential development and quarrying for sand. We have been an AONB for nearly 40 years - this has protected us from almost all damaging development - if we lose this status as a result of the park being formed we are at risk of suburbanisation.

We need the minister to either include us in the park or guarantee that we will have a new AONB created for the West Sussex Weald (our Parishes and those to the East of us) at the same time as the park is created.

I'm sure you'll have better points than me to make to Mr Benn at Defra but if you are short of some, here are a few I've thought of in the brief time I've had since returning from holiday:

Rother Valley is a beautiful whole - to make the southern part National Park and the Northern part not does not seem compelling from the perspective of integrated conservation of the valley as a whole
Milland Valley is beautiful and sparsely populated - ideal territory to be within the National Park.
Public enquiry was run on the basis of the original proposed boundaries - to change it at the last minute with a consultation period of half the length the Cabinet Office recommends other government departments observe is curious to say the least.
Why is A272 such a popular touring route if not because of the outstanding beauty on both sides of it ?
There is much valuable flora and fauna (please specify what if you can) in Rogate, Milland and Linch.
The changes made to the National Parks Act 1949 by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (in the wake of the wake of the Meyrick Estate Management & Others v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs court case in Nov 2005) make it more rather than less proper for the woodland, arable land and pasture we have to be regarded as an asset in the National Park.
If we are not to be in the national park, we have been designated an AONB on solid grounds (suggest minister comes and sees for himself) and request we not be deprived of this status.

If it's helpful, my own letter may be found at http://www.westsussex.org/gpage1.html

You'll need to click on this link to obtain the response form http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/issues/landscap/natparks/sdowns/object-form.pdf. and then send it by e-mail, post or fax to one of the addresses below. You need to write about item 3 - the possible alternative boundary from North of Petersfield East across to Pullborough (there are four options on the form)

"Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Sponsorship, Landscape and Recreation (National Parks), Zone 1/03 Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6EB

By fax to: 0117 372 8250

By e-mail to: natparksouthdowns@defra.gsi.gov.uk"

ALSO PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION AT http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/western-weald/

Referendum Now

2007-06-23T14:56:00.000+01:00

Mr Blair's final days in office are marked by the decit which has become the hallmark of his premiership. He is conceding vast powers to the EU, an organisation which already has far too much power. He is pretending he is not doing so in an attempt to avoid giving us a democratic choice.

We need to push Mr Brown to give us the referendum we were promised on this constitution. The "concessions" Mr Blair has "secured" will be cut away by the EU bureaucrats and they are not as robust as they appear to be. We are far better off without this treaty than with it. It does nothing for our country or our people. We should have a vote on it and reject it. We need a new partnership with the EU, similar to those enjoyed by Norway and Switzerland - free to take the good ideas and reject the bad and merely average. Conceding yet more power to the EU threatens our already weak democracy. We must say yes to running our own affairs and no to this treaty.

Better Trains Campaign - Update

2007-06-06T20:24:00.000+01:00

Those of you who use the Portsmouth to London line will know that South West Trains has downgraded the rolling stock used on the line from 444 trains (designed for long distance work) to 450 trains designed for suburban work with fiendishly uncomfortable seats five aside seats in second class and second class style seats in first class.

Siemens, the manufacturer recommend that 450 trains be used for journeys of no more than thirty minutes whereas the journey from London to Portsmouth takes over and hour and a half. South West Trains asserts that it is using these trains to provide more seats which is a little bit of a nonsense given that the average adult male cannot fit into the seats provided. I'm told that the seats provide 17 inches across at the shoulder whereas the average English male is 18.5 inches across at the shoulder. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that South West Trains has decided to provide us with an inferior service to save money and enhance profits, having safely secured a long term franchise from the Labour government.

I attended a meeting of the local rail users group on 5th June at Rowlands Castle. Unfortunately South West Trains is still resisting our demands that the rolling stock we had in 2006 be restored to the line. Nevertheless, they have now provided one high quality commuter train in the evening - the 1815 from Waterloo which will doubtless become hideously overcrowded as everyone decamps to it to escape the misery of the 1800 and 1830 trains.

The meeting was well attended with about thirty commuters making their continuing disgust and frustration with South West Trains' actions clear. The rail users group may now take up the matter with the Office of Rail Regulation. In the longer term, the number of people (myself included) finding that we have bad backs as a direct result of the long jurneys on the 450 trains may put pressure on South West Trains to provide better rolling stock as individuals try making claims in court against them on health grounds.

It should not be an issue of robbing another line to get good trains. The 442 class (good express trains with c. 15 years of working life left in them) were recently decommissioned by South West Trains after it failed to agree a contract with the train leasing company. I understand these trains are now rotting in a siding while we have to tolerate trains totally unsuited to our long distance route.

If you want to add your voice to our campaign please log onto www.no450.co.uk and sign the petition.

Crime & Disorder

2007-06-04T21:09:00.000+01:00

While we live in what is in many ways a very peaceful part of the country we have been troubled by various unpleasant incidents this year. We don't have a large local police presence and we have become reliant on the state to deal with minor incidents which, in a previous generation, would have been dealt with differently, if indeed they arose.

Dealing with the social problems which underly some incidents is something which will take many years of resolute Conservative government, unafraid to challenge the 1968 liberal (or anarchist) consensus. Right now, given the priorities and prejudices of our current government, we can probably, at best, hope to treat the symptoms.

Various public spirited people in Milland and Rogate want to help improve the situation but they and I would welcome your suggestions. Do write if you have particular ideas to deal with particular issues: william@westsussex.org

Rubbish - What should we do ?

2007-05-05T19:51:00.000+01:00

One of the most talked about issues during the election campaign was rubbish collection. I'd be interested in knowing what you think the best solution is. We currently have collections every fortnight for rubbish and recycling. I find I fill up my recycling bin faster than my rubbish bin these days but several people have said they are less than happy with current arrangements.

We need to increase recycling to reduce pressure on landfill sites and the need for costly and unsightly incinerator plants. Nevertheless, there is more than one road to Rome and I'd like to hear your suggestions as to what we could do to improve rubbish collection & recycling in the Chichester District.

Interested in Planning ?

2007-05-05T19:44:00.000+01:00

If you live in Linch, Milland or Rogate and are interested in planning you may like to look at the advertisement I've just put up for a Ward Secretary to help me in my new duties as District Councillor. Please see www.westsussex.org

Thank you to Rogate, Milland, Rake and Linch

2007-05-04T17:00:00.000+01:00

Brief note to say thank you very much for electing me as your district councillor with such a resounding majority. I'd particularly like to thank those who gave their time and energy to help me deliver my leaflets, canvass and those who gave their time yesterday to man our polling stations. I'll look forward to continuing to work to represent your interests as a district councillor.

I'd also like to thank Mr & Mrs Campbell for a running a principled campaign on behalf of the Liberal Democrats which I don't think, at any point, descended into mudslinging or underhand tactics. I hope that they'll continue to provide a valuable contribution to Rogate's life.

Should we be a National Park ?

2007-04-22T07:18:00.000+01:00

As I've canvassed in Rogate, Milland and Rake over the last few weeks (and particularly at the Rogate village newcomers party last night), there has been more interest in whether we should support the proposed South Downs National Park than anything else.

On the one side, some people I know at all levels of local government are concerned that the National Park will make us into some form of playground for tourists, deprive local government of power and mean that local people have even less control of their own lives than they do now.

On the other hand, I can see a strong argument which says that becoming a National Park (while it only theoretically provides the same level of protection as being an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty - such as we already are) actually provides a greater breakwater against the tide of development sweeping Southern England. Sadly this tide of development is likely to be strengthened by the measures Brown plans (see earlier blog) to encourage landowners to become property developers.

At present the District Council is too often overruled, on appeal, when it refuses consent to what it feels will be a damaging development. My suspicion is that, rightly or wrongly, a South Downs National Park authority is less likely to be overruled. If that is the case, we may be better off with a National Parks authority than without.

Local democracy is another difficult issue. My understanding is that all ordinary planning applications are likely to remain with the District Council (with Parish Council input) in the first instance if we have a National Park. If this is the case then many objections to the National Park fall away.

What of tourism ? I suspect many of us dread the thought of Harting Down despoiled by a large coach park encouraging tourists to come and stare at the view. Whether such things happen will depend to a large extent on the National Park authority but I think we have to hope that those who give their time to such a venture will seek to preserve and enhance our natural environment rather than simply providing amenities for tourists.

I'd welcome your views on this topic. I incline towards welcoming a National Park but am open to arguments on both side.

More Taxes By Brown on the Countryside

2007-04-17T19:57:00.000+01:00

Labour Ministers in Whitehall are considering plans for new rural taxes on farming. Gordon Brown’s review into town hall taxes, published on Budget Day, not only recommends higher council tax bands, regular council tax revaluations and new bin taxes, but also contains proposals to hike taxes on rural England.•

Business rates on agriculture: The small print reveals plans to hit agricultural land and buildings with business rates – which are currently exempt for the tax. Unlike council tax, business rates are not banded or capped – the bill is calculated as a set proportion of the notional yearly rental value of the property.

In total, the Government’s report estimates it could raise £300 million a year extra in taxes.

Farm houses hit: These plans would also hit rural home owners. Currently, if a countryside home is adjoined by fields or farm buildings, these are classed as agricultural and not taxed. Yet under these new tax plans, this would be deemed to be a ‘composite’ property and have to pay council tax on the home as at present, and business rates on top for the land and any farm building.

Council tax revaluation on rural areas: Alternatively, if the field or farm land was designated as a garden or the farm building was converted to domestic use in order to avoid business rates, then the home would be hit in the council tax revaluation and have to pay higher council tax. The revaluation handbook of Gordon Brown’s council tax inspectors, the Valuation Office Agency, has special ‘value significant’ codes to record and tax agricultural properties, gardens, outbuildings, plot size and views of fields. Having such features will push homes into higher council tax bands; in turn, the Government is planning to increase the number of bands – thereby increasing council taxes even more.

This will result in a double whammy of business rates on farms and fields across Rogate and Milland and an under-hand council tax revaluation and re-banding on homes in the countryside. “Hard-pressed farmers in Rogate and Milland will be horrified by the prospect of a massive increase in taxation at a time when they can ill afford it. I fear this will further undermine our rural economy, and force farmers to sell off their land to unscrupulous developers. Conservatives will vigorously oppose these plans for higher taxes.”

How Can I talk of Freedom ?

2007-03-25T11:34:00.000+01:00

Somone sent a comment to my blog asking how I could reconcile standing up for freedom with working for the FSA. (It isn't published because I won't publish anonymous posts but I will try and respond to them if they have substance).

My answer is in two halves - partly principled, partly pragmatic:-

The pragmatic part - I have to earn a living and the FSA provides a means for me to do that.

The principled part - At the FSA I work to try and ensure that we have a level playing field in which sharks do not run off with pensioners' savings, in which insider dealing does not happen and in which fraud and identity theft are rare. Freedom without order is a nonsense - it is the rule of the mob and results in freedom for none but the biggest thugs. High quality financial regulation helps ensure that London has free rather than rigged capital markets. In order for there to be a free society, the state has, de minimus, to provide law and order for its citizens. I like to think that the way I earn my crust as well as my local political activity helps achieve that.

Slavery

2007-03-25T11:07:00.000+01:00

David Brown gave a very good sermon in church today about the role of William Wilberforce in the campaign to end the slave trade. Over the next few months we can expect and awful lot of self hating left wing criticism of England and its role in the trade. The reality was that while there was fault amongst many in the establishment, our culture and history allowed men such as Wilberforce and Granville Sharp to obtain a hearing and to win hearts and minds. Our record in abolishing the slave trade and slavery early in our empire (and earlier still in England itself) is one in which we can take some pride - our system of government enabled principle based reform and the Royal Navy ensured that its writ ran over the world's oceans to the benefit of many.

If anyone is truly interested in the subject, Simon Schama's book "Rough Crossings" gives a balanced account of our role in the trade. He shows how British thinking was ahead of American thinking and how the reality of our establishing a colony for free slaves was ahead of French revolutionary rhetoric (the revolutionary French briefly occupied and destroyed the colony).

A final thought - godless ideologies - Stalinism, Nazism (National Socialism), Marxism, Maoism, Communism have enslaved and killed tens of millions in the past hundred years. Next time someone blames the world's ills on religion, remind them that it was the evangelical zeal of Wilberforce and his ilk - men who believed that the love of Christ for all men was colour blind - which freed millions of Africans from slavery. The anniversary of the slave trade is a time to remind ourselves what a power for good the Church can be.

Why vote ?

2007-03-11T19:47:00.000Z

How many of you actually want to see Gordon Brown running our country, taxing you more and letting you do less ? I know the temptation is always to avoid voting in local elections but, if you want to send a message about preserving your freedom, please make sure you vote on 3rd May and send Labour a message - that you are fed up with their wasteful and damaging misrule.

The District Council Elections

2007-02-09T22:50:00.000Z

I would like to introduce myself as the Conservative Party candidate for Rogate, Milland, Rake and Linch for the Chichester District Council elections which will be held on Thursday 3rd May. Ann Janes who has worked hard for many years to represent your interests is retiring.

I grew up in the District and my family have lived here for several generations. I live in Rogate with my wife, young son and daughter.

As a member of the Rogate and Rake Parish Council, I'm in touch with the challenges our local villages face. John Prescott has robbed local councils of many of their powers so I'm not going to pretend that if you vote for me, Chichester District Council can right every wrong or cure every ill – I believe in honesty in politics. That said, if you vote for me, I will:-

Fight to protect our countryside from development – destroy it once and you don't get a second chance;
Advocate robust policing to make criminals run scared; and
Make the case for freedom; for you to be given more opportunities to run your own lives through low taxes and less nannying bureaucracy.

At present I lead a frontline team at the Financial Services Authority. I've previously worked in Whitehall where I wrote two widely acclaimed reports which set out how to cut red tape for businesses and charities. I've also given my time freely as a school governor and special constable. I would like you to give me the opportunity to use my experience on your behalf.

Empowering Citizens to Help those in Need

2007-01-26T10:39:00.000Z

Empowering Citizens to Help those in Need

The Problem
The state is an inefficient and ineffective provider of welfare services. While some state functionaries are well motivated, they are weighed down by the bureaucracy and uniformity which the state imposes in the name of conformity and equality. For example, they often have limited opportunities to build long term relationships with individuals in need of care or to adapt their approach to what suits the different needs of different people.
This system has profoundly negative results:-
- The most vulnerable in society are not helped to escape from deprivation and dependency to lead fulfilled lives; and
- The bulk of society sees social care and looking after the poor as not something with which it need concern itself. People pay taxes and then the state does the rest is the all too common mentality. The working classes and the affluent disengage from helping their fellow citizens and society as a whole suffers.
Two things are lacking – competition to improve services and freedom for organisations and staff motivated by a sense of mission to be properly funded to help those in need.

The Current Approach
The track record of the Third Sector (charities, religious bodies and other voluntary organisations) in achieving better results for those they work than the state is widely acknowledged[1]. Received wisdom amongst those in the Labour government who are even slightly open minded is that by contracting with the Third Sector the state will achieve better results for the poor than it will do through its own functionaries. The problem with this is that the state, once it becomes the principle funder of a third sector organisation (in lieu of the charitable fund raising which originally allowed the third sector organisation to function), imposes its regulations and paperwork on the third sector organisation (TSO), often with the result that the service the TSO is able to provide starts to look remarkably like the care previously provided by the state rather than the higher quality care which the charity was able to provide before the state started to interfere[2].
There is much mindless regulation which could and should be swept away by any government which wished to improve the quality of life of its citizens but even when this has been done much unhelpful bureaucracy will remain for so long as the state is using taxpayers money to provide social services.
Added to these difficulties is the fact that the state and many of its functionaries are viscerally opposed to providing funding to any charity with religious overtones, especially if these happen to be Christian. This is despite the strong evidence that the religious faith of those who work with those in need can often be the single greatest thing in helping the needy face up to the situations in which they find themselves with courage and hope rather than irresolution and despair. As Mother Theresa said, “The most terrible poverty is loneliness and the feeling of being unloved.”

A New Way
William Pitt’s introduction of the Consolidated Fund (all state revenue being paid into one pot) was undoubtedly crucial in helping the Royal Navy keep enough ships operational to defeat Bonaparte but, 200 years on, we should challenge the Treasury’s belief that all the funds that Revenue & Customs are capable of raising needs to remain in this one pot.
Income tax is a tax with which most people are familiar. Social spending by central government is currently £68.5 bn[3]. Income tax raises £124 bn[4], of which £80.2 bn[5] comes from income tax paid at the basic and starting rates. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to regard 19p of every 22p[6] paid at the basic rate as funding social spending.
Each year, rather than each of us paying all our income tax to the Treasury, we should be able to choose to which independent provider of social services 19p of the 22p we pay in basic rate tax goes.
In other words, while still making use of the HM Revenue & Customs collection systems, we should disintermediate the state from distribution of the money it collects for social spending.
How could this work ? There would be an approved list of TSOs committed to providing social services and we would choose which charities would receive the proportion of our taxes currently devoted to social spending. Having made the choice, we would agree to stick with it for three years to allow the TSO we were supporting some continuity of funding. Both religious and non religious TSOs would be allowed.
Once taxpayers had made their choices and it became apparent how much funding different TSOs would have, different TSOs would take responsibility for social services in different districts and boroughs. Each geographic area would have at least two TSOs providing social services so that the deprived were not forced to transact with an organisations whose principles were irreconcilable with their consciences. The location of the taxpayers who opted to support a particular TSO would be used to determine which TSOs provided services in which areas.
A large proportion of council tax is also used for the provision of social and caring services[7]. Here, as with income tax, council tax payers would be allowed to choose what charity (religious or otherwise) they wished to provide those services. A charity which received a viable amount of nominations (say 5% or 10% of council taxpayers depending on the size of the local authority) would be given funding to provide social and caring services. Thus local choice and democracy would be enhanced while the range and quality of social care would rise.

Disadvantages ?
Statists would doubtless be critical of this radical reform. I show below why such attacks lack validity and set out how they might be rebuffed.

Complexity
The complexity of having more than one social services provider will be raised. The current reality is that social services are already immensely complex and there are already multiple state led providers on the ground as well as some TSO which have contracts with state organisations in certain areas. The charge that the scheme would add complexity is false – the funding would still come to the service provider from the Treasury – the choice as to which service provider it went to would simply be made by the citizen rather than the bureaucrat.
The second aspect of complexity is the breadth of services which any provider, whose name appeared as a choice for taxpayers, would have to provide. The reality is that TSOs are already adept at co-operating and forming themselves into plausible "best of breed" umbrella bodies to tender for government contracts. The system of taxpayer choice would give TSOs an incentive to ally with complimentary TSOs to offer taxpayers a credible set of service providers to support. Further, having been approved to appear on the list (approval would screen out organisations which had agendas, such as Jihad, hostile to British national interests or those which lacked any operational credibility), there would be nothing to stop organisations such as the English and Roman churches from sub contracting in areas where their own "in house" charities lacked breadth or capacity. Taxpayers would have a chance to "vote" on the success of any organisations service delivery every three years and would, at that point, have the option of transferring their financial support to another organisation.

Cost
One argument against the plan would be the cost to TSOs of communicating with the public on their operations, seeking support. This would undoubtedly be substantial but it would serve to heighten awareness of work with the deprived, strengthening understanding and social cohesion. Secondly, this would not be an additional cost but a substitute cost as it would replace the money which TSOs currently have to spend tendering and endlessly retendering for short term government contracts and then accounting in minute detail to bureaucrats for every pound spent. In fact, given scale economies it is likely that the costs of keeping the taxpayers who support them in touch with their work would be far lower than the cost of keeping the bureaucrats happy at present[8].

Scope
Difficulty in finding a place to draw the line will be one challenge hurled by those against reform. They will question whether, in talking about social services, we are including things such as the payment of housing benefit, and various other cash based forms of social security or whether we are talking of running hostels for vulnerable women, care homes, youth services with young offenders and drug addicts, to name but a few.
The answers is that what is included and excluded can be decided pragmatically. Given the evidence of state failure in welfare provision, most benefit would be derived if the scope were drawn as wide as possible. If we consider social services as a cohesive whole to be provided to a population in a geographic area (as opposed to dividing into categories such as "housing benefit" and "work with young offenders") then there would be merit in transferring everything to TSOs within a specific area. By doing this we would free the TSOs to reshape welfare provision, to innovate and to provide holistic effective care and support in their own way, rather than forcing them to provide care according to the categories devised by bureaucrats and to distribute payments with pre determined labels.
Old age pensions and unemployment benefit (to which we accrue rights through National Insurance contributions) would be excluded but all benefits which are not linked to contributions and "in kind" services would be in scope.
The above is clearly the ideal for which we, as Conservatives who believe that the state works best when it does least, should strive for. Political and bureaucratic realities may force us to settle for something less than this such as only including all "in kind" welfare services provided by TSOs with welfare payments remaining the preserve of the state. This would mark a failure to sell the vision but it would be a compromise which would still do much good for the deprived and should therefore be accepted if the alternative is inaction. It would be unlikely to effect council tax payer choice much as most local councils provide "in kind" services but it would mean that lesser proportion income tax would be available for allocation by income tax payers.

Tax allocation
As the statistics above show, an obvious result of assuming that social services are paid for out of basic rate income tax and council tax is that other taxes are relied upon for other forms of government expenditure. Given that a critical strand of this reform is choice and that income and council taxes are those taxes which taxpayers most readily identify with, it makes sense to impute revenue received from those taxes to social welfare expenditure. There is nothing innately wrong with other major areas of spending such as education, health and defence having to rely on other reliable taxes such as VAT, excise duties, higher rate income tax and corporation tax.

Less than Egalitarian ?
The most pervasive attack which the left would make on the proposals is that, through introducing choice, it would be inegalitarain and the service provided by different TSOs in different parts of the country would be different. These arguments are similar, in some respects, to the arguments put forward in favour of nationalisation and against the privatisation of the utilities. As Conservatives we should not be afraid to make the case in favour of choice, diversity of provision and competition because these are the things which have helped our society evolve since the Reformation.
If services provided in West Sussex are different from those in Birmingham that will probably be to the benefit of the deprived in both communities because the challenges faced are likely to be quite different. Further, the system would be established so that at least the two most popular social services TSOs would be capable of delivering social services in any area so choice would be offered, to a degree,[9] to the users of services. This element of choice would encourage TSOs to offer different approaches and to improve in response to what other providers found to be working. We could talk of competition but in practice, TSOs, given the lack of a profit motive are rather good as co-operating where they agree that a certain approach is best. That said, they are unafraid to try different things where they think these will do more good than the status quo. This combination ensures that the interaction between them is likely to continually drive up standards – a concept often all too alien when services are directly provided by the state.
It is highly likely, and we should not be afraid to acknowledge this, that the new system will encourage greater inequality of results for the deprived as different TSOs would have different success rates in different areas with different approaches and different populations to support. Whilst this might sound like a disadvantage, it is actually a sign of success when one contrasts it with the almost universally poor results obtained by state agencies. The inequality of results would come from many more of the deprived and needy being effectively helped to lead more fulfilled lives, it would be evidence of success, not failure. Given the low base from which we are building it is unlikely that outcomes would be worse that the current state led system produces for more than a few while the lives of many would be significantly improved – the main object of the reform.

Patronising ?
The Left would attack our reforms for being unfair because it would, "give the classes with incomes power over the poor and downtrodden." Why this should be worse than the overmighty state having and using the power so ineffectively that it keeps the deprived in miserable poverty I'll leave to those on the left of the political spectrum to explain. In any case, two aspects of this accusation are easily refuted:-
· The system would not give taxpayers choice as to whether to pay or not – only the choice as to through which organisation social services should be delivered.
· Elitism in the system would be eliminated by ensuring that a person only chooses where to allocate a proportion of the lower or basic rate tax he or she pays. Thus most members of the population would have similar, though not identical, spending power and patronage would not be handed to the wealthy as all higher rate income tax would continue to be paid directly to the Consolidated Fund as at present.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that part of the purpose of the reform would be to give workers (those who produce the wealth on which those in need depend for support) a stake in society and how care is provided to their less well off brethren. This might appear patronising to some but it is far more likely that the workers will continue to support a welfare system in which they have a stake and over which they exercise some control than one controlled by a distant state apparatus on behalf of deprived people of whom they know little. The reform will help secure a popular mandate for a high level of support to those in need, it is not a threat to them.

Summary
The Left has had more than 50 years to prove that state run and state funded social services are the best way the help the distressed and deprived. On almost every measure, the statist experiment has failed and through it, countless millions who might have led fulfilled existences have been left broken.
We can improve the lot of the vulnerable, the sick and lonely by using taxpayer choice to empower the voluntary sector (including churches and those of other faiths working to do good) to replace the state in the provision of social services. In doing so, we will strengthen society by reconnecting the working classes and the wealthy with the needy. In doing so we will help many of the currently needy rebuild, thrive and contribute to our common society. Unlike left wing reforms, this radical change does not depend on demigod administrators, a false understanding of human nature and a misplaced faith in regulation. Rather, it is something eminently achievable which would use the best Thatcherite methods to deliver Disraeli's vision of One Nation.

[1] For example, even p. 105 of the 2005 Labour manifesto stated, “In a range of services the voluntary and community sector has shown itself to be innovation, efficient and effective.”
[2] See p.22-23 of Better Regulation for Civil Society published by the Better Regulation Task Force in November 2005 for multiple first hand examples of the damage to TSOs caused by state regulation.
[3] This takes the £126.9 bn for 2005/6 figure HM Treasury gives for Social Security Benefits in Public Expenditure Outturns – National Statistics release 20th July 2006 and then deducts all contributory benefits (state pensions, unemployment benefit etc) from this. These came to £58.45 bn in 2005/6 according to DWP Table 3: Benefit expenditure, Great Britain, 1991/92 to 2007/08 (nominal terms).
[4] Calculated from HMRC table of Income tax liabilities, by taxpayer's marginal rate 2005-6.
[5] Calculated from HMRC table of Income tax liabilities, by taxpayer's marginal rate 2005-6.
[6] 18.8 pence rounded up. Equivalent figure for lower rate tax payers would be 8.5 pence.
[7] Local social spending came to £18.2 bn in 2005/6 according to Table 1: Expenditure on Personal Social Services (PSS), 2004-051 2006, NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre, Social Care Statistics. HM Treasury states that locally financed expenditure (E.g. Council tax and business rate receipts) totalled £26.6 bn in 2005/6. Therefore, council tax and business rates payers would be able to choose which TSO received 69% of these taxes.
[8] See Chapter 21, Better Regulation for Civil Society – making life easier for those who help others for full details of the huge administrative burden which current arrangements put on TSOs.
[9] Some services, such as mental health services or youth services where court intervention was required might not be able to allow the deprived individual choice.

Christmas Cards

2006-12-17T18:10:00.000Z

I'm pleased to see that many more of our friends seem to have sent us Christmas cards this year. It's not that we've suddenly become more popular, merely that fewer of our friends seem to be tolerating the politically corrent "Season's Greetings" care so popular in recent years. Its encouraging to see, that in at least some pockets of our country, we are not yet afraid to stand up for what is right and true against the politically correct atheists who seek to destroy our country and its values.

Local School Leaving Ages

2006-12-17T18:05:00.000Z

At present primary schools in North West West Sussex such as those in Rogate and Rake finish when children are ten years old whilst nearby ones such as Liss primary school finish at eleven. This restricts parent's choice, discouraging Hampshire parents from using excllent Sussex primary schools whilst making it difficult for West Sussex parents to put their children forward for equally excellent Hampshire secondary schools. I can't see good reason not to standardise school leaving ages at 11. Doing so would make our small local primary schools more attactive whilst increasing secondary school choice.

New Trains, New Lies ?

2006-12-17T17:59:00.000Z

Many of you will frequently have to travel to London from Petersfield, Liss, Liphook or even Haselmere. South West Trains (SWT), having clearly learnt a great deal from Labour's spin machine, is trying to make us believe that it is enhancing the line by making more seats available. Sadly, this is not exactly the case.

As of January 2007, SWT are taking most of the high quality White Siemens trains off our line and replacing them with blue trains. These blue trains are do technically have more seats on them but the seats are tiny (five aside rather than four aside) with hideously little legroom. These blue trains were designed for suburbia and they are now being imposed on our live, previously treated (quite correctly) as a long distance route.

This is yet another example of Labour's failure to invest enough in transport, especially in the overcrowded South East, making our quality of life appreciable worse. We need to campaign for real investment which will lead to more capacity on the line (double decker trains like the French have are my favourite) and not allow SWR and the neglectful Department for Transport to get away with arguing that switching us to uncomfortable overcrowded trains is a service improvement.

Spending Other People's Money

2006-12-17T17:54:00.000Z

When we earn money ourselves or raise it for charity we are very careful how its spent because we remember the hard work which went into acquiring it. One of the great challenges with public spending is that those spending it are not connected to those providing it so they tend to treat it rather more casually than they would do their own.

This isn't to say that all public spending is bad. There are some local projects which are better funded through taxes than through voluntary donations but we need to remember that public spending, because of its detachment from the struggle to acquire the money, is likley to be less economical and efficient than doing things ourselves through private and voluntary effort.

No to stealth suburbanisation

2006-11-20T20:42:00.000Z

There seem to be an awful lot of people who should know better making the case for more and more housing regardless of the environmental cost in terms of loss of countryside and green space.

We only have a limited amount of space in England and we should be taking measures to encourage net emigration to reduce pressure on housing rather than encouraging ever more immigration. We are simply too full and all our lives are the poorer as a result of the overcrowding which Labour is forcing on us.

At a minimum we ought to ban all significant new housing development in Southern England to encourage entrepeneurs to shift their energies and enterprises to areas such as Scotland which has been losing its population for many years.

Countering Global Warming

2006-10-29T18:26:00.000Z

There is undoubtedly an emerging problem with the climate changing. This may have severe consequences for us. One might take a risk and say the combination of general warming combined with the melting ice flows stopping the Gulf Stream will cancel one another out but it would be rather naive to think that such a benign scenario will actually come to pass. Given this, there is some onus on us to do something. If we can lower British emissions significantly we can act as a beacon to others and encourage much greater polluters such as the Chinese to improve.

How to do this is undoubtedly tricky. I agree with the George Osborne when he talks about switching the burden of taxation to discourage things which are bad such as burning fuel uneconomically and encouraging things which are good such as saving and income. I worry when Gordon Brown and David Milliband start talking about green taxes as they seem intent just on finding ways to raise yet more money to waste on their hopeless initatives and spin.

We need to think what being more green means in Rogate and Milland. The vast majority of us have cars and use them a lot. Being green should not mean not having cars (though do we really need at least two per family ?), being forced to use highly polluting buses, or having to drive at low speeds. It may mean running our cars on different fuels, fitting solar panels to our roofs and planting more trees (or even buying up a few acres of the Amazon if trees can be retained there for less money than it would take us to plant them here). There are lots of good things we can do to improve our treatment of the environment for the sake of our grandchildren without making our own lives intolerable. Lets hope politicans let us do this rather than mandating backwards, state centric solutions.

Supporting local producers

2006-10-22T19:09:00.000+01:00

Its naive to think that we can return to relying on local production in the same way as our grandparents and great grandparents did but its good if we can move a little way away from mass produced Asda and Tesco packaged food - good for us, good for the local economy and good for the environment.

We have enjoyed picking our own fruit at Durleigh Marsh Farm this summer and we got a whole locally reared lamb this week which has the merit of being both cheaper and better tasting than supermarket lamb. It also takes up less space in the freezer than you might think. We also find the flour from Singleton Open Air Museum much better and cheaper than supermarket flour when baking wholemeal bread.

Lets hope than many more farmers can prosper by disintermediating the supermarkets and selling directly to us. National and local government need to ensure that Defra (Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) and Health & Safety Executive regulations are reduced to make buying locally produced food less expensive, thereby ensuring that more people can enjoy it.

The joy of harvesting

2006-10-21T19:08:00.000+01:00

Last week I went to a wood (with the landowner's permission) and cut some holly which I hope may last until Christmas. The weather this year, whilst difficult for water companies, has produced fantastic berries and the holly looks better than it has looked for many years.

Too many people in our country never experience the pleasures of picking fruit or growing food for their own tables. There is something quite special and immensely satisfying about it. Maybe some of our current societal difficulties stem from many never having been asked to husband any crops - it inculcates a certain type of responsibility which one doesn't get from buying food in shrink wrapped plastic in a supermarket.

Hunting

2006-10-21T19:01:00.000+01:00

I went to the opening meet of the Clinkard Meon Valley Beagles today (hunting within the terms of the much despised Hunting Act of course). It was good to see the hounds go out and the dedication of the masters and whippers-in - preserving something of our heritage in the midst of difficulties ranging from official antipathy, busy roads and too much local development - all of which make rural pursuits much more difficult than they once were.

Good local services

2006-10-19T18:39:00.000+01:00

We took our children to the Taro leisure centre play zone today. It was very well kept with charming staff and our children had fun playing with other children in the ball pit and on the in-door climing frame. A great way to entertain children while relaxing and an example of a good local resource. I'm not sure that such things need to be provided by the public rather than the private sector but its certainly nice to have them.

Enough space to live in

2006-10-18T19:22:00.000+01:00

I took two large sacks of garden cuttings to Midhurst tip today to be recycled. Midhurst tip is useful but I'm struck with the contrast with the French tip I sometimes use in Ernee in the Mayenne. There you drive up a ramp with your car and can, with the assistance of gravity, throw your recycling / rubbish down into the correct lorry sized skip. By contrast, you have to climb up steep steel stairs at Midurst dragging a heavy load behind you. You then need to find the energy to lift at shoulder height and tip into the lorry sized skip without loosing your sack - something of an art.

I thought about why we didn't have the French system here as it is infinitely superior and makes recycling a pleasure rather than an effortful chore. The only answer I can come up with is a lack of space. The area of the Midhurst tip is about a fifth of the one in Ernee (the towns are a comparable size) and much more space would be needed for a French style tip.

It brings home just how short of space we are even in this part of Sussex, probably the most rural part of the South East. We all feel constantly constrained by sheer weight of people now living here and it is much worse elsewhere in the South East. The roads are too crowded, the towns are too crowded and increasingly the countryside is too crowded. This lowers the quality of life for everyone. Some would say the solution is simply to build more houses and give up on preserving countryside in the South East. Unfortunately this will do nothing more than lower everyone's quality of life still further as well as destroying those green fields that still make England much more pleasant than much of the rest of the world.

Instead we need to have a conscious strategy of reducing the population in the South East by saying no to any new commercial development on greenfield land, thereby forcing the more entrepeneurial parts of our society to set up operations in less developed parts of the country such as Wales or run down former industrial areas such as the east of County Durham. In this way prosperity would be spread and our quality of life would improve. 100 years ago our national population was about 38 million (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/article.asp?id=653) and we have now just passed 60 million. That's more than 50% more crowded - and much of the growth is in the South East.

GDP growth stats don't capture the loss of happiness caused by overcrowding, in fact they don't measure wellbeing well at all. If we want to create a more content and happy nation we need to take urgent action to reduce population growth and to provide incentives to British citizens to distribute themselves more evenly around the UK, not simply try for ever more economic growth in the South East because the Treasury says so.

Let's preserve conkers

2006-10-17T21:28:00.000+01:00

Yesterday I went to one of the local playgrounds we are lucky enough to have as one of my children is particularly fond of swings at the moment. While we were there he, unprompted, discovered some conkers which had fallen out of their shells and sat gleaming on the grass. He collected several and put them in his pushchair deriving huge pleasure from the exercise.

I'm glad that our councils haven't been so crass as to cordon off our trees for fear that conkers might hit someone on the head. The reality is that the risk of their being successfully sued for a meaningful sum of money is negligible (see the worthwhile Better Regulation Task Force report Better Routes to Redress - http://www.brc.gov.uk/downloads/pdf/betterroutes.pdf - for some detailed analysis of this).

Even were the risk of being successfully sued to be greater than it actually is, do we wish to create a society where government tells people that they can't do the things their ancestors have done for countless generations because of some potential risk ? Do we wish our children to grow up so cosseted in cotton wool that they have had no worthwhile experiences and are singularly ill equipped to deal with the difficult venture called adult life ? I don’t think so. We need to both preserve our freedoms and ensure that our children are resilient in the face of adversity if we wish to have a society worth living in. Conversely, if we teach our young that they never need tackle a falling conker or acorn we will get the future we deserve.

Preserving beautiful woodland

2006-10-16T19:21:00.000+01:00

I went for a walk in Garbett's Wood today (http://www.wt-woods.org.uk/garbettswood/description.asp), A beautiful spot just to the south of Rogate village. As I arrived I found fly tippers had littered the gate leading from the wood to the lane with bricks, concrete and, most bizarrely, a painted plaster cast rabbit. It's a great shame that people see fit to despoil what others make an effort to keep beautiful.

What is the solution ? How do we go about inculcating respect for the environment ? Not sure I know the answer but I don't want it to be 24 hour CCTV survellance of woodlands. Can we not provide some carrots to encourage people and businesses to dispose of waste properly combined with serious penalties for those who do not ? I can't be right that it is currently cheaper to pay fines and fly tip than to dispose of waste at authorised waste recycling / disposal centres.

2006-10-15T21:01:00.000+01:00

Hospitals and control freakery

2006-10-15T19:34:00.000+01:00

I recently visited St Richard's to find a big banner proclaiming "smoking is banned". I didn't think anything of it as smoking on wards has been banned for some time to the best of my knowledge. On reading the small print I was shocked to find that not only was in banned in the hospital buildings but also in the grounds and in vehicles.

As it happens my reasons were going were pleasant but many people visit hospitals in dire circumstances to visit a desperately ill friend or relative. To be told that, in moment's of intense stress and distress you cannot pop outside and have a cigarette strikes me as very wrong. As for the legality of telling someone they can't smoke in their own car, I question it.

I would like to record that my reaction was to light up a good Havana (I am a non smoker) immediately outside the administration offices but sadly I didn't have any with me. Surely these health and safety fascists should be told where to get off (Mariana's trench would seem a good place to start). How many relatives will be unable to relieve intense anguish and how many patients will die because surgeon's weren't allowed a quick smoke before going in to undertake a difficult operation ? Further, in a cash strapped NHS, how much time and money is being wasted on this initiative ? Smoking may be bad for many people’s health but surely we should be entitled to make up our own minds.