UNCERTAIN TRUMPETS

The Commons tuition fees votes are done. Well, the votes are done but probably not the aftermath for the Libdems. I am going to focus in this post on Cornwall MPs.

There were two votes yesterday (divisions 150 and 151) on raising the cap, the maximum that undergraduate students can be charged, to £9000 a year and raising the basic fee to £6000 a year. The three Conservative MPs from Cornwall voted yes; one of the Liberal Democrats, Stephen Gilbert, who is a whip, voted yes; two Liberal Democrats, Andrew George and Dan Rogerson, voted no. These fees apply only to English universities as the devolved governments are responsible for university fees there.

All three Cornwall Libdems had signed a pledge to vote against any rise in tuition fees. George and Rogerson kept their promise; Gilbert didn’t. None of the three Conservatives had signed that pledge.

The pledge and keeping it/breaking it is an issue about which the Libdems as a party have damaged themselves seriously; repeatedly shifting ground by the party leadership as the party tried to get itself out of a hole of its own making compounded the damage. The Libdem party has forfeited trust. Despite the twenty one Libdem MPs who voted against the rise, many people who voted for the party will feel let down and be very reluctant to believe the Libdem party again.

I have looked at the Libdem MP websites. Gilbert’s explanation for voting for the rise doesn’t mention his signed pledge. He focuses on the minutiae of the government’s proposals and says they are an improvement on the present arrangements. He says he believes “higher education should be free”. Andrew George, for whom the sticking point appears to be raising the cap, also says, “If we were in power we would…get rid of tuition fees”. Rogerson says briefly his concern is “the government’s contribution to tuition”. I assume he means the cap should remain at just over £3000 or possibly that the division of costs between government/taxpayers and students should be different from the present and proposed arrangements.

I am presently unclear whether the abolition for tuition fees is still Libdem policy or is effectively a disregarded relic from the past, a dead clause 4 or hanging-and-flogging awaiting eventual erasure from the party agenda.

Incidentally, after three years at university a graduate will owe £18 000 or perhaps
£27 000 in tuition fees; if he had a loan for maintenance as well his total debt might be around £38 000. Two graduates marrying, a usual occurrence, might well have a combined couple debt of £77 000.

I mention these scary figures because the supporters of the new fees avoid mentioning them.

The Libdems nationally have struggled with this question. They have tried in the past to portray themselves as righteously different than other parties: it’s time to put an end to broken promises, for promises to be kept, Nick Clegg said in his video, comparing his Libdems with Tories and Labour. It turns out they are just like the others.

This is an ideological argument as well as a practical one. The Conservative party appears to believe in a significant shift in the balance of funding university education from society collectively through taxes as the major funder to individuals through much higher fees for individual students. The Tory Libdem government’s cutting of the university teaching grant by 80 percent in the comprehensive spending review has left universities with a funding gap and raising tuition fees is seen by the government as a way of plugging that gap (though arts and humanities courses are seriously imperilled). This tallies with the Tories’ notions of individualism.

Libdems generally have gone along with the 80 percent cut but some have then baulked at the fee rise, not a credible position, I think. As I said, I don’t know whether the party still seeks the abolition of tuition fees; and I am unclear where the argument from some Libdems about current economic circumstances making abolition unaffordable and increases unavoidable fits in.

Labour, who introduced tuition fees and increased them, appears to have no current worked-out policy though an undefined graduate tax seems to be the preferred view. I think had Labour won the election in May it would be putting up fees.
____________________________________________

WILL CORNWALL SPILL OVER?

qSee Addenda at the bottom of the post

The Tory Libdem government is set on reducing the number of UK MPs from the current 650 to an arbitrary 600 (Hansard 5 July 2010 column 24). It also aims to have all seats contain approximately the same number of electors, apparently about 75 000 with a 5 percent leeway (columns 44 and 25). The number basis will be the December 2010 registers (column 37).

At present all six constituencies here are wholly within Cornwall and the boundary commission respects historic county boundaries generally. As I noted here, the equalisation of the size of the electorates in constituencies and the limited leeway, presents the possibility that Cornwall will have a constituency shared with Devon. Dan Rogerson, Libdem MP for North Cornwall, raised this question in the Commons on Monday (column 37).

Nick Clegg’s answer was clear: the only two exceptions to the number constraints would be Orkney-and-Shetland and the Western Isles. For the rest the boundary commission would have equal size electorates as “the predominant requirement…of greater weighting and importance than any other considerations” (column 37).

There are difficulties. Respecting historic boundaries throughout the UK matters to many people; and starting to redraw constituency boundaries with a strict electorate limit and strict leeway as predominant considerations might well disrupt that and cause much immediate local opposition. It will be interesting to see how support for equal size and a desire for county boundaries play out among people. Additionally, about 3.5 million people are apparently not on the electoral registers who are qualified to be and there is a question of whether these are mainly in deprived areas mostly represented by Labour MPs and how far the new equal-sized constituencies can reflect the missing people. The size question is also caught up with the proposal for a referendum on the switch to elect the Commons by the preferential alternative vote (which before the May election Clegg described as “a miserable little compromise,” scroll to the end of the item) and the contentious date of that referendum and the reduction of the number of seats.

It will be interesting to see what happens about constituency boundaries and not just in Cornwall.

Of course were I writing this in Plymouth or Holsworthy I should entitle it Will Devon spill over into Cornwall.

Addenda
I’ve come across this discussion of two kinds of alternative vote (10 July 2010). No doubt the government will clarify which it means. (10 July 2010).

Related posts
Boundaries 9 September 2010
Boundaries 2 15 September 2010
Boundaries 3 17 September 2010
Boundaries 4 11 October 2010
Boundaries 5 24 November 2010

STEPPING FORWARD WITH THE LIBDEMS

The trinity of Libdem MPs in Cornwall welcomed the June 2010 budget as “a step forward for Cornwall and the country ”.

Let’s see what a Libdem step forward looks like. The Tory Libdem budget among other measures…

* Raises VAT to 20 percent. “It is a regressive tax. It does, without question, hit the poorest more than it hits the wealthiest” – Andrew George, 24 June 2010. See Table 3 in this ONS study The effects of taxes and benefits on household income 2007/2008 but read the text and notes.

* Freezes child benefit for three years. “Freezing child benefit will hurt the poorest parents most rather than their riches peers” – Save the Children 22 June 2010

* “This is a disappointing budget for child poverty…The increase in VAT is a regressive measure which will impact hardest on poorest families…freezing it [child benefit] for three years won’t be a pain shared equally by all families. It will hit hardest the families who need it the most” Child Poverty Action Group 22 June 2010

* “Iain Duncan Smith [work and pensions secretary] admits the budget stymies bid to cut poverty” – Guardian 3 June 2010

* Cuts local housing allowance from the median to the 30th percentile of local rents

* Scraps the health in pregnancy grant from January 2011 and limits the Sure Start maternity grant to the first child only from April 2011

* Costs up to 1.3 million people their jobs – undisclosed Treasury estimate, Guardian 29 June 2010

* “Budget cuts will hit Britain’s poorest families six times harder than the richest” – Observer 27 June 2010 referring to the Don’t forget the spending cuts: the real impact of budget 2010 by Tim Horton and Howard Reed

*Scraps child tax credits for households earning more than £23 274 a year (an individual’s income or a couple’s joint income) from April 2012 (median pay in Cornwall for an individual is £21 522 pa: see the post Cornwall data on this blog).

* Cuts housing benefit from April 2013 for those who have been on job seekers’ allowance (£65.45 a week) for more than twelve months

These Libdem steps forward in the budget come as the Tory Libdem government scraps Labour’s planned extension of free school meals to children from low income families; ends the future jobs scheme; ends the building schools for the future program to refubish or rebuild secondary schools throughout England; cuts £450 million from the Homes and Communities Agency regeneration and affordable housing programs; and cuts £14 million (plus education cuts) in grants for 2010/2011 from Cornwall Council which will have a marked effect on services and jobs here. More Libdem steps forward presumably. Of course Conservatives support these too.

UPDATES
7 July 2010: Now there’s this: 10 000 jobs in the NHS disappearing despite a Tory Libdem promise – yes, I know, ‘Tory Libdem promise’ is a hoot – to protect frontline services and give the NHS especial protection.

24 July 2010: The Tory Libdem cuts in housing benefits mean nearly one million people, including pensioners, low-paid workers, and the unemployed, will lose an average of £12 a week in 2011/12. The figures come from a government analysis of the cuts. [Guardian 24 July 2010 ]

EDIT NOTES
9 July 2010: Cuts figure for Housing and Communities Agency amended to £450 million following the latest government decision on funding for the agency.

2010 GENERAL ELECTION CANDIDATES IN CORNWALL

These are the candidates for the six Cornwall seats in the 6 May 2010 general election

CAMBORNE AND REDRUTH
Conservative George Eustice, Green Euan McPhee, Labour Jude Robinson, Liberal Democrat Julia Goldsworthy MP, Mebyon Kernow Loveday Jenkin, Socialist Labour Robert Hawkins, UKIP Derek Elliot

NORTH CORNWALL
Conservative Sian Flynn, Labour Janet Hulme, Liberal Democrat Dan Rogerson MP, Mebyon Kernow Joanie Willett, UKIP Miriel O’Connor

SAINT AUSTELL AND NEWQUAY
BNP James Fitton, Conservative Caroline Righton, Labour Lee Jameson, Liberal Democrat Stephen Gilbert, Mebyon Kernow Dick Cole, UKIP Clive Medway

SAINT IVES AND ISLES OF SCILLY
Conservative Derek Thomas, Cornish Democrats Jonathan Rogers, Green Tim Andrewes, Labour Philippa Latimer, Liberal Democrat Andrew George MP, Mebyon Kernow Simon Reed, UKIP Mick Faulkner

SOUTHEAST CORNWALL
Conservative Sheryll Murray, Green Roger Creagh-Osborne, Labour Michael Sparling, Liberal Democrat Karen Gillard, Mebyon Kernow Roger Holmes, UKIP Stephanie McWilliam

TRURO AND FALMOUTH
Conservative Sarah Newton, Green Ian Wright, Labour Charlotte Mackenzie, Liberal Democrat Terrye Teverson, Mebyon Kernow Loic Rich, UKIP Harry Blakeley

Related post

Unitary and EU election candidates in Cornwall

Cornwall election results 2009

__________________________________________________

GURKHAS

Yesterday the House of Commons voted for a Liberal Democrat motion to let Gurkhas settle in Britain; an expression of a view and not binding. Frankly, the way the Gurkhas have been treated by British governments 1945-1997 is very poor. To its vast credit the Labour government since 1997 has done much more to treat them justly than ever happened before: between 1945 and the advent of Labour to power in 1997 only five Gurkhas were granted settlement here; under the present government six thousand have (Hansard 29 April 2009 column 997). It is disappointing that the government has so far failed to build on that achievement and find a way to be more generous and fair to all Gurkhas.

What we have now is a moral question. It is in terms of financial and immigration policies complex, but it is fundamentally about dealing justly and generously with people who are prepared to defend and die for our freedoms. As Chris Huhne said, it is about “the sort of people we are” (Hansard 29 April 2009 column 898).

At bottom, the Labour government yesterday opposed justice and generosity.

The Gurkha motion was supported by the Libdems, including all five from Cornwall, along with Conservatives. About a hundred Labour MPs either voted for the Gurkha motion or appear to have abstained, refusing to support their government. The Conservatives did damn all about allowing Gurkha settlement here when they were in power.

Later yesterday the government responded to the debate and vote (Hansard 29 April 2009 column 988) and it is clear pressure on them must continue.

I am pleased all the Cornwall MPs voted for justice and generosity to Gurkhas. Our corner of Britain owes them a debt of honour too.

Read the debate here: Hansard

UPDATE 21 May 2009
The government has today decided to let the Gurkhas settle in Britian if they wish. Yes, it’s a turnabout but it is right.

HOW CORNWALL MPs VOTE

The second reading of the Human fertilisation and embryology bill was debated in the house of commons on 12 May 2008 and approved by 340-78 votes: Hansard column 1145. Four Cornwall MPs, Colin Breed, Julia Goldsworthy, Dan Rogerson, and Matthew Taylor voted for the bill’s second reading.

I shall follow the progress of the bill and the speeches and votes of Cornwall MPs and post information here about what they say and do.

The bill regulates research and activity about the treatment of human illnesses and difficulties in conceiving. Aspects that are contentious include admixed embryos, saviour siblings, and the need for a declared father. Abortion is likely to be raised by amendments about the legal temporal threshold (at present twenty four weeks of pregnancy) and the need for two doctors to consent to an abortion.

Let me be candid so that you can detect more easily any bias in my posting on this question. I support the bill, oppose lowering the abortion time threshold, and support the abolition of doctor consent. Research and activity that the bill allows will benefit people here in Cornwall. Abortion is a procedure that several thousand women in Cornwall have decided to use; the scientific arguments about survival into a decent life point against a lowering of the threshold which is why I wish to see it remain at twenty four weeks.

I should like to see sex education improved and contraceptive availability improved – there are reported difficulties with obtaining emergency morning-after-pill contraception from some pharmacies on occasion and these difficulties should be removed.

However, this post is primarily about Cornwall MPs not an extensive account of my views on the question. Of the several votes on the bill so far, I have selected the ones which I think are the most important.

Vote to ban admixed embryos (Hansard 19 May 2008, column 68, division 191), ban lost by 336-176 votes votes

Voted for a ban: Colin Breed
Voted against a ban: Andrew George, Julia Goldsworthy, Dan Rogerson, Matthew Taylor

Vote to allow saviour siblings (Hansard 19 May 2008, column 124, division 195), permission approved by 342-163 votes

Voted for permission: Colin Breed, Andrew George, Julia Goldsworthy, Dan Rogerson, Matthew Taylor
Voted against permission: none of the Cornwall MPs

Vote for “a father or male role model” for fertility treatment Hansard 20 May 2008, column 215, division 195), rejected by 290-222 votes

Voted for: Colin Breed, Matthew Taylor
Voted against: Andrew George, Julia Goldsworthy, Dan Rogerson

Vote to lower abortion threshold to twenty two weeks ( Hansard 20 May 2008, column 286, division 203), rejected by 304-233 votes

For twenty two weeks: Colin Breed, Dan Rogerson
Against twenty two weeks, ie for the current twenty four weeks: Andrew George, Julia Goldsworthy, Matthew Taylor

Some other votes
Threshold of twenty weeks, column 278, division 201, rejected by 332-190 votes: For Colin Breed, Dan Rogerson; against Andrew George, Julia Goldsworthy, Matthew Taylor

Threshold of sixteen weeks, column 274, division 200, rejected by votes 387-84 votes: Against Andrew George, Julia Goldsworthy, Matthew Taylor; no vote recorded Colin Breed, Dan Rogerson

Threshold of twelve weeks: Against Andrew George, Julia Goldsworthy, Matthew Taylor; no vote recorded Colin Breed, Dan Rogerson

I very much welcome the outcome of these votes and warmly congratulate Andrew George and Julia Goldsworthy, and largely Matthew Taylor, for their across-the-board progressive and liberal votes. I think most people in Cornwall will be glad too.
__________________________________________________
Original post 13 May 2008. Amended 20 May 2008 and 23 May 2008.

CORNWALL MPs VOTE FOR FREE SPEECH

The law of blasphemy, an unjustified restriction on free speech, has been abolished. Four Cornwall MPs commendably voted for abolition after a Commons debate on 6 May 2008: Andrew George, Julia Goldsworthy, Dan Rogerson, and Matthew Taylor. Colin Breed did not vote; I do not know whether this was an abstention or whether he was not available to vote.

You can read the debate in Hansard 6 May 2008 column 638 onwards. The vote for abolition was 378 to 57. Royal assent to the bill that included abolition (the Criminal justice and immigration bill) was on 8 May.

FORMULA UNFAIRNESS

People in Scotland are getting for free a range of public services that people in England are charged for. In England prescription charges are presently £6.85 an item and only off-peak buses are free for people over sixty. In Scotland there are free eye check ups, free dental check ups, and the arrangements for free bus travel for the elderly are more generous. Tuition fees are paid by students at university in England but Scottish students at university in Scotland do not pay them (though there is in Scotland a one-off flatrate graduate fee of about £2300 payable on graduation). In Scotland there are generally shorter NHS waiting list times and smaller school classes; some drugs are available on the NHS that are not available in England; the arrangements for personal and nursing care are more generous.

The Scottish government has just started a six month pilot of free school meals in some areas for pupils aged five to eight and hopes to extend it all over Scotland. It has also announced that prescription charges will be abolished for everyone within the lifetime of the present Scottish parliament and aims to abolish the university graduate fee.

I don’t live in Scotland and it is up to people there and their government to decide what happens in Scotland.

However, these improvements are possible because the Barnett formula gives a much higher percapita amount of UK identifiable government spending on public services in Scotland than in England. The formula, leading to the higher spending in Scotland and the free or more generous services, is increasingly seen as unfair to England. For 2005/06 the percapita public spending in England (including Cornwall) was £6762 and in Scotland £8265 (and in Northern Ireland £9088, and Wales £7666). This formula is unfair and untenable. It should be scrapped and a new arrangement made for spending UK taxes in the four constituent countries.

For Labour, with a majority of the Scotland seats in the UK parliament and dependent on Scotland for its UK majority, this is an issue they will not tackle; nor will they tackle the related issue of MPs for Scotland constituencies voting for England-only issues in the House of Commons. The Conservatives sometimes rumble about Barnett unfairness but seem undecided whether to commit to tackle it. It is noticeable that the Liberal Democrat MPs for Cornwall complain about what they see as unfair public spending in Cornwall, point to the UK government, but do not mention the Barnett formula.

Slowly people in England are realising the unfairness of the present formula and the present House of Commons voting arrangements and eventually parties will not be able to ignore them.

The Times on 11 October 2007 quoted figures from the Centre for Economic Business Research that showed state spending by the constituent UK countries as a proportion of economic activity was lowest in England and significantly higher in the other three countries.

An earlier post on the Barnett formula is here.

LISTENING AND CONSULTING IN CORNWALL

In recent polls around 81 percent of voters in Cornwall opposed the county council’s proposals for a unitary council. In Penwith the figure was a massive 89 percent. See this post.

Nevertheless, the Liberal Democrat county council has decided to persist with its proposals. The five MPs for Cornwall, all Liberal Democrats, supported the original unitary proposals and have supported this decision to persist in the face of vast public rejection. Incidentally, the council’s decision to persist was supported in a vote by only thirty two of the eighty two county councillors.

The MPs have consulted stakeholders in each constituency – people like doctors and school governors. I do not know how many people were consulted and replied, six or sixty or six hundred. I don’t know what questions were asked but I see on one of the websites there is a survey for the public with a series of questions which asked if they supported more decisions being taken locally by “elected Cornish representatives” rather than by “unelected authorities” in the south west region which isn’t the point as people aren’t being asked to decide on an abstract principle but on actual on-the-ground proposals. I assume the stakeholders were asked the same or similar questions by the MPs. If one asks that general question mutatis mutandis anywhere in England one can pretty well guarantee the answer. The MPs got an unsurprising majority Yes vote.

To interpret this as a vote in support of the unitary proposals would be absurd.

An MP should listen to what his or her constituents say and, if consonant with his judgement and principles, accommodate them, but listening does not necessarily mean agreeing. I think if four fifths of constituents, or even nine tenths as in Penwith, take a particular view an MP is still free to stick to his contrary view; indeed it might be seen as his duty to since an MP owes his constituents his judgement not his compliance, but he has also a representative duty to tell the government that most of his constituents disagree with him and to explain to his constituents why he thinks them wrong.

The Liberal Democrat MPs apparently believe that half a loaf is better than none and that a unitary council could lead to many more powers than are on offer at present and a de facto devolved regional assembly for Cornwall – the summa summarum for Liberal Democrats here. I do not share their conviction and for all their trumpeted meetings with the government about this the MPs are not giving guarantees about more powers, but in the long term they might be right. However, this fails to address the seriously unsatisfactory aspects of the current proposals with which we might be lumbered for many a year.

In the meantime, Penwith district council has asked the government whether additional and serious powers will in fact be devolved to a unitary council in Cornwall so we should soon know the answer to that.

To sum up. 81 percent of voters in Cornwall reject the unitary proposals. The county council and five MPs still support the proposals.

In the light of the decisive rejection of the unitary proposals by people in Cornwall, the government cannot credibly go ahead with them. To persist would be to dismiss out of hand people’s views and in a matter of local government that is absurd. The final decision should rest with the people whose local government it is.

Oh, and I expect we shall sooner or later be told by the MPs and the Liberal Democrats generally on some issue or other that the government isn’t listening to people. The Liberal Democrat MPs and Liberal Democrat county council have established – and I agree with them – that to listen to people does not necessarily mean to agree with or to obey, no, not even if it’s nine tenths of people.

CORNWALL MPs’ TRAVEL EXPENSES

The categorised travel expenses claimed by MPs have now been published. The five MPs for Cornwall in 2005/2006 claimed just over £60 000, but how this is made up is interesting.

The six figures refer to the claim in £ for travel by car, third party vehicles, rail, air, cycle, and other, but ony categories claimed for are given:

Colin BREED: car 4822…rail 5878

Andrew GEORGE: car 6893…rail 5735…air 3266…cycle 9…other 120

Julia GOLDSWORTHY: car 2563…3rd party 420…rail 7845…air 382

Dan ROGERSON: car 4545…rail 5256

Matthew TAYLOR: car 6733…3rd party 112…rail 4229…air 1359.

These claims are for travel in the UK on parliamentary business. Third party vehicles mean cars not owned by the MP such a taxi travel or a hired car. Other means such things as tube and bus fares.

The official figures are here.