The forces of EVEL stalk the land!

So there we have it. The Conservatives, in the form of William Hague and John Redwood, have set out the stall for having 'English Votes for English Laws' - the forces of EVEL are loosed.

While it was vitally important to "cement" Scotland within the UK, he said a "balanced settlement which is both fair and better to the whole of the UK" was just as necessary.

"The United Kingdom is in greater danger if the legitimate arguments and expectations of English decision making, on decisions effecting only England, are not responded to," he said.

I don't think that Labour and the Liberal Democrats fully appreciate the challenge they face in rejecting EVEL. I watched Simon Danczuk, the Labour MP for Rochdale setting out Labour's real agenda - dividing the North of England from the South of England, balkanizing the country into 'city regions', 'regions' and such divisions. And Labour - in Danczuk's world - has no intention of giving this balkanized England the same authority in tax raising, over educatio or for health as they intend giving to Scotland and will support giving to Wales or Northern Ireland.

The West Lothian Question used to be an arcane debate that peaked the interest of but a few folk. But the Scottish independence referendum changed all that - not in Scotland where the constitutional settlement is a staple of political debate but in England where such issues were previously the purview of constitutional anoraks. Now - at least in Cullingworth - this issue, in the form of EVEL, is a subject of the Saturday night pub conversation (slipped in between discussion of football and such more important issues). And I don't think I speak out of turn if I say that most English people, from Carlisle to Canterbury and from Filey to Falmouth, want something that looks like EVEL.

The big problem for Labour is that people can see through its argument. It is not a considered argument seeking the best constitutional settlement for England but rather one based on an assumption about the likely outcome of next May's General Election. Labour is hoping that, on 35% of the national vote, it will squeak into an overall majority and put Ed Miliband in Downing Street. The problem is that the forces of EVEL would hobble such a Labour government for it's likely not to enjoy a majority in England.

A further problem for Labour is that, by giving Gordon Brown and others from the Scottish establishment such a high profile, they become the anti-English party, all set to deny English people the rights and powers they are keen to hand to Scotland and Wales. The famous Jack Straw quote about the English not being worth saving - however much it's taken out of context - will be shoved back in Labour's face time and time again. So far, Labour has managed to keep its English MPs in line by promising them goodies for their local areas in the form of more funding, more powers (mostly over bus routes and fixing up the roads) and the cosy little pseudo-democracies beloved of Labour's public sector establishment - combined authorities, economic partnerships and panels all made up of 'sector leaders' and the like.

But when members of the public start asking those MPs about England, start demanding more EVEL in the land, will they still hold the line? Or will they start badgering the party's hierarchy for something a little more substantial than "it's very complex so we need a big meeting" or "we want to give more power to city-regions"? Indeed, those English voters will want to know that EVEL is enough, that having more EVEL resolves the West Lothian Question. And Labour has no answer to this because, unlike the Conservatives over Scottish independence, that Party is too self-serving to put what is right above what is in the Party's interests.

I make no secret of my desire for an English Parliament that has the powers to make those decisions for England that need making. And these include the matters of regions, cities and counties - real issues about our nation that only the demos of that nation should have the right to decide. And let's make no bones about it, the nation we're talking about here is England not Greater Manchester, "The North" or the EU's standard regions. If the representatives of that nation's people wish to pass down powers to localities - cities, towns, counties or districts - then they should be able to do so (or not) without being fettered by the votes of others who do not represent England or the English.

Labour now seem to be scared rabbits as they stare at the idea of England and choose to reject that idea. After decades calling for devolution to the 'historic nations' Labour has been found wanting, found to be interested only in destroying England, chopping it into manageable bits that suit the Party's interests. I suspect Labour is in for a shock - the forces of EVEL stalk the land and their prey is Labour.

....

Finding a New England

Take of English earth as much
As either hand may rightly clutch.
In the taking of it breathe
Prayer for all who lie beneath.
Not the great nor well-bespoke,
But the mere uncounted folk
Of whose life and death is none
Report or lamentation.
Lay that earth upon thy heart,
And thy sickness shall depart!

A couple of days ago, I made the case that the only sustainable solution to the 'West Lothian Question' is an English Parliament based in Bradford. However, there are several challenges to this being achieved, not least the Left's continuing fear - even hatred - of the idea of England. It is this that lies underneath Labour's opposition to any resolution of what we should really call the 'English Question' far more than naked political calculation or the national ambitions of Scottish MPs on Labour's front bench.

Don't get me wrong here, all those Labour MPs will cheer on English national sports teams - especially when this is needed for the purposes of getting votes. But those same MPs are from a generation brought up to believe the myth of a white supremacist, flag of St George waving idea of English identity. A myth that was - for all that racists and fascists still try to claim it a truth - blown to smithereens, for me and millions of other Englishmen, by the sight of Ian Wright's celebration of England scoring. We'd been told that the idea of England was racist, something not for black or brown people, and suddenly that wasn't so.

Yet the left still hates England, is still ready to see the red cross on a white background as a symbol of something to be hidden away, something shocking. The left point to the lunatic fringes of the racist right, to the EDL, and say 'that is England'. But it isn't and it never has been, England was never about the hooligan or marches or flags as symbols of race. Indeed the English were never a race - I remember my dad talking about a school friend with a name like Seamus O'Toole who would gleefully thump anyone who tried to tell him he wasn't English.

Today, as the flag and the idea of England is reclaimed by decent folk, the left has discovered a new problem. England is capitalist, we genuinely are that thing Napoleon thought was an insult but isn't - a nation of shopkeepers. More than that, we have taken that idea of self-reliance, independence, trade and the mutual benefit from exchange and made ourselves rich. Indeed the criticism of England is almost a cry of envy - how dare you make yourself rich by providing consumers with the things they want. And I know that we're not the only capitalists - everywhere is in the game of creating wealth, after all - but we are a nation that thinks capitalism is a damn fine idea, something to celebrate.

But to make this work we need a new England. Not a changed England but a rediscovery of some bits of that idea of capitalism we lost sight of along the way. We need reminding that capitalism isn't about the fix, is not a thing of exploitation, isn't some plaything for masters of the universe. We need to realise that capitalism is about trade and exchange, it works because I get more value from that thing you have than you do - and I will pay for that added value. So capitalism isn't about banks, it's not about macroeconomic and it's not about international oil companies. It's about hand carved shepherd's crooks, it's about craft ale, it's about barbers, bookmakers and the boozer. A million and one things that make our lives happier, healthier and more fun.

The left simply doesn't understand this and fears that a new England would reject its controlling, dictatorial and depressing philosophies. So bogeymen are invented to try and destroy English identity - stuff about racism or the rise of UKIP - in the hope that we don't create that new England. This is why rather than an English Parliament, Labour and the Liberal Democrats will try to push for regional government or a confused devolution of some powers to some local councils (but not to all of them).

At the head of this piece is a quotation from Kipling's 'Charm' - reading it brings lump to my throat because it's not about government but about England. Just as all those other things we cherish in England - church bells, the pub, afternoon tea, football on a Saturday afternoon - have little to do with government. Yet all those things are affected - and some are threatened - by government, by the left's petty little programmes of control, by their unchanging belief that they know better than you do.

To win the argument, England needs more than 'fairness', we need to form an ideological basis for home rule just as Scottish Nationalists created the idea of Scotland as a 'progressive' nation, we need to make the case for England as a conservative nation, as a place where those values of community, self-reliance, decency and looking out for the neighbours are held to our hearts. Not as justifications for government but as the values that all of us try to live our lives by. I could sell that in Cullingworth.

....

We need an English Parliament (in Bradford)

I remember, prior to the 2010 General Election, speaking with Eric Pickles at Party Conference about the 'West Lothian Question'. Eric's view back then was that the question wasn't really a problem and explained - accurately - that it wasn't exactly a burning issue on the doorsteps. You typical Tory voter wasn't going to add 'English Votes for English Laws' to the things they wanted from a new Tory government - certainly not compared to the urgent job of sorting out the economy and mending the train crash that was Labour's management of government finances.

I think that has changed. Not as much as people think following the sensible decision of Scottish people to reject the blandishments of Alex Salmond's rose-tinted independence. But next election, for the first time in a long while, the asymmetry of the UK's constitutional arrangements will be an issue in England especially if we assume that the process of delivering on the devolution promises to Scotland is under way.

Two questions need to be answered - probably on the same timetable as Scottish 'DevoMax'. Firstly are we content with constitutional asymmetry and secondly, having answered the first question, giving the precise details of any new constitutional settlement for the UK. In both these questions the real issue isn't about Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland but is about England. If we reject asymmetry meaning that all the devolved elements of the UK have the same powers and the same relationship with the UK government, then the question for England is whether we have a single English Parliament or a series of regional assemblies.

If we accept asymmetry then the picture for England is more complicated with options ranging from no change at all through solutions founded on English MPs 'double-hatting' to Spanish-style regional mayors or greater devolution to local councils. The problem here is that we retain resentments since one area gets more power or cash, or else we create a series of demarcation disputes between UK and English laws, between differential devolution to regions or sub-regions and between the devolved assemblies and areas without comparable levels of devolution.

Much though there is some appeal in 'home rule' for Yorkshire, I don't see regional assemblies as a solution - firstly because we immediately face boundary issues and secondly because devolution from a UK government to individual regions effectively abolishes England (at least in constitutional terms). If there is to be devolution to regions, sub-regions, cities or shire counties then that should be a decision for an English Parliament.

It seems to me that a 'four nations' solution matches local expectation but also opens up reforms focused on a more federal arrangement for the UK - this might include the numbers of UK MPs, the role (and means of election) for the House of Lords and the promotion of new locally negotiated arrangements for local government. Although giving English members of the UK Parliament a secondary role as an English Parliament provides a quick fix, it also raises some challenges in terms of administration even while it resolves the issue of law-making. Put simply there would be a Scottish government and a Welsh government but no English government - we could find the situation where a Scottish education secretary can't vote on the laws but is in charge of their implementation in England. The 'West Lothian Question' won't have been answered.

It seems that the Conservative Party is committed to seeking a resolution of the question - albeit with a preference for a Westminster solution rather than an English Parliament. However, neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats seem to want this with the former wanting some sort of gathering for the great and good to decide on a new constitution (or not) and the latter wanting to abolish England.

For me, the answer has to be an English Parliament with the same devolved powers as those given to Scotland. And, of course, that Parliament should be in Bradford.

....

In which a Liberal Democrat describes conservatism but doesn't know it...

David Boyle used to live in Crystal Palace, a fact that automatically puts him in my good books. Except you don't live in Crystal Palace but in Penge, Sydenham or (if you're in SE20 and posh) Anerley. But David has moved down into the South Downs - he doesn't say where but he does describe the place and it will be familiar to many English people:

My town is outside the commuter belt, one of the advantages of being impossible to commute from, and it is in some ways a step back into a bygone age.  People are patient and polite in the street.  There are four banks in the thriving high street.  There is an effective and forward-thinking GP practice.  The local library is open six days a week.  There are more cubs, scouts and beavers than most people could count.

I sat in church on Sunday, marvelling at the full pews, the identically dressed, healthy-looking people on final salary pensions, the contingent in RAF uniform for Battle of Britain Sunday, saluting as we sang the national anthem.

David, welcome to Conservative England. It is a lovely place filled with lovely people who care about where they live and the people who live there. However, David denies this essential fact saying that the place isn't 'naturally conservative' because it has green action groups and solar panels. As if looking after the place we live isn't the most deeply conservative thing we can do. One of the glorious ironies about green politics is the manner in which it has been captured - and corrupted - by the metropolitan left rather than living in it natural suburban conservative home.

The place David describes could be one of a hundred or more small towns and market towns across the English shires. Places filled with people who, like David, have chosen to live there and who have the time, money and commitment to fill parish councils, voluntary groups and churches with vibrancy and activity. And overwhelmingly these people vote Conservative - indeed are conservative.

Since David fails to full grasp the essence of conservatism - preferring the urban liberal myth that somehow conservatives believe in plutocracy - I can help him with a quotation from one of the two great conservative poets, Rudyard Kipling. Sweetly this quotation is about the place Kipling loved more than anywhere - Sussex:

GOD gave all men all earth to love,
But since our hearts are small,
Ordained for each one spot should prove
Belovèd over all;
That, as He watched Creation’s birth,
So we, in godlike mood,
May of our love create our earth
And see that it is good. 

That, David, is what being a conservative is about and your new - conservative - neighbours demonstrate that love of place and people every day.

....

...if you're going to leave please don't slam the door on the way out

****

It's Saturday night, we're at one of the barrel-top tables in The George and we get to the moment in the evening when we talk about something other than the day's football results. It's a bit of a ritual - somebody will say, 'perhaps we should talk about something other than football' and we do. And often the topic is political - partly this presents a chance for me to get a gentle ribbing but mostly it provides a sort of half time breather before returning to the travails of Leeds United or the correct pronunciation of Louis van Gaal.

So we talk about the Scottish independence referendum. This isn't a detailed debate - more what d'you think, 'yes' or 'no'? And the consensus is essentially that we'd all rather Scotland didn't pack its bags and leave because, despite all the banter, we rather like the place. But, if Scotland insists on going could they not slam the door on the way out.

The problem is that we also know that Scotland - should the vote be 'yes' - has every intention of not only slamming the door but also kicking over the bins and pulling the gate off the hinges. And then coming back the next day to go round the house with little labels saying, 'that's mine, that's mine, I'm having that'. The idea that Alex Salmond would negotiate in good faith is as ridiculous an idea as believing that the moon is made of green cheese or that Newcastle United can win this year's premier league.

Today several thousand people have gathered in Trafalgar Square clasping their flags and slogans to - politely - encourage Scots to stay with the United Kingdom. In doing so, a lot of people who don't have a vote on Thursday about something that will profoundly affect their country are making the point to Scots that, whatever is said about oil, hospitals, bank notes and bagpipes, we really are stronger as a united kingdom.

Sadly an all too typical Scottish nationalist response is this sort of tweet:

Tory toffs gather in London to tell Scotland to get back in their place. #indyref pic.twitter.com/d0mZcL6y4d
— The Yes Man (@KristoferKeane) September 15, 2014

Tory toffs? I had a good look at the picture and saw a lot of ordinary people taking time out after a day at work to urge Scots not to be daft enough to vote for secession. But it suits that nationalist agenda to argue that anyone in a jacket working in London is a 'Tory toff' - a statement only an inch or two away from the related argument that all Tories are English and 'we don't like Tories do we'. And this soon slips into saying that all the English are Tories.

Some argue that it's not England or the English that Salmond and his pals dislike so much but this abstract thing called 'Westminster'. Except that such language is whistle-blowing in the direction of anti-English sentiment - if there is a problem with the sense of entitlement that goes with modern representative government, please don't tell me that it's resolved by moving the location for that sense of entitlement from SW1 to EH1.

In the end I'm with the view of most folk down here. I like Scotland and the Scots, admire the passion for place and the sense of nation but believe secession would be a grave mistake that future generations of Scottish people will come to regret. But if the Scots insist on going, do so quietly without demanding that the country you're leaving gives you everything you have now plus a whole load more. Independence means just that, it means the good and the bad, the tough choices as well as the promises of eternal happiness. What Scotland can't argue for - although this is core to the SNP argument - is for it to have its own apartment, car and wardrobe courtesy of an English sugar daddy.

....

What is the point of Magna Carta?

****

We have been regaled with the Magna Carta on its 799th birthday. And much of this has been to remind us of the document's seminal importance to England and to the English idea of liberty and the rule of law. An idea that became British, grew to be American and still sits at the heart of how that rather ugly concept "the anglosphere" sees itself.

So it is right that we understand what the Magna Carta means in practical terms and David Allen Green is on hand to remind us:

...as law, it is of little or no practical use. Nobody in modern times seems to have ever relied on it to determine the outcome of a case. It is not “live” in the way the Bill of Rights is in the United States or similar constitutional guarantees in other countries. It is ornamentation, not legislation.

Now I am not sufficient of a lawyer to explore whether or not this argument is sound. So I will take the good lawyer at his words and agree that the Magna Carta has no effective force in law. And for completeness, I will agree also that David Allen Green's conclusion - that this veneration of Magna Carta represents a problem:

What would be better than this sentimentality about a thirteenth century manuscript would be for the UK to have proper constitutional guarantees: to make it possible for a defendant to rely on his or her fundamental rights in practical case, and to make it impossible for Parliament and the executive to violate these rights. But this would mean that the UK would at last have a mature approach to constitutional rights.

However, our politicians and judges would prefer us to believe in a medieval myth which allows them to do to us what exactly they would do to us anyway. It suits them grandly that the charter is merely a “symbol”. 

Readers of the original piece from Mr Green will have noticed that I've left off the last sentence of his article - the part where he says that politicians and judges are celebrating the wool being firmly pulled over our eyes. I don't believe this is the case with those most ardent in their veneration of the Magna Carta, I believe these men - mostly politicians rather than lawyers - are absolutely sincere and that the document is extremely important and very significant.

One of the things about being a conservative is that we recognise a thread through history linking the institutions and events of times past to the truth of today's world. And, it's true that some of this is 'myth' but that doesn't change it's importance to our identity. The Magna Carta - the charter itself and its associated mystery - is such a thing, a symbol of our identity. Indeed, without that charter would we have had the Glorious Revolution? Would there have been the English Bill of Rights, the US Constitution and subsequent statements placing liberty above the power of leviathan?

It is this that we celebrate not the specific content of the Magna Carta, the idea of liberty and individual sovereignty. And it's also true, as David Allen Green reminds us, that a national myth is not enough on its own to protect our liberty. We've had the secret courts, the encroaching surveillance, the denial of free speech and much else besides. All things from which Magna Carta cannot protect us, all abuses of liberty loaded upon us by subsequent governments.

If in celebrating Magna Carta we must remind ourselves that it was a statement against arbitrary government and in support of a law that belonged to us all not to that government. The point of Magna Carta isn't to sneer, to get all lawyerly, but to point to document and to the government saying: "we want our liberties back." And when politicians say how important it is to them - and I note that here it is overwhelmingly conservative politicians doing so - we should ask 'how important'? Enough to guarantee again the rights those barons demanded of their king? Enough to reaffirm the Bill of Rights signed into law by squires and merchants in parliament?

If we take the Magna Carta and make its central idea of a law independent of government important again, point to it as the source of ideas like free thought, free speech and free assembly, and teach these myths to our children we will allow those children to claim those rights again, to challenge leviathan and to make those judges and politicians David Allen Green distrusts do the will of the people.

This is the point of celebrating Magna Carta. The point David Allen Green misses in his otherwise excellent article.

....

A thought on the end of England

Norman Davies in his 'Vanished Kingdoms' speaks of the impermanence of states and at one point of Britain:

"Having lived a charmed life in the mid-twentieth century, and having held out against the odds in our "Finest Hour", the British risk falling into a state of self-delusion which tells then that their condition is still as fine, that their institutions are above compare, that their country is somehow eternal. The English in particular are blissfully unaware that the disintegration of the United Kingdom began in 1922, and will probably continue; they are less aware of complex identities than are the Welsh, the Scots or the Irish. Hence, if the end does come, it will come as a surprise."

In some ways this observation is a convenience, a way for Davies to make topical a history of places that don't exist any more - the half-forgotten Europe of Burgundia, Litva and Rusyn. But it also reminds us that empires, alliances, unions and nations are fragile, requiring only a little nudge to tip from unity into fragmentation. We can see the obvious examples in Europe today - Catalonia, the Basque country, Venice, Flanders, Scotland. And the break ups of the recent past - Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union.

We should be reminded that modern nations only sustain where people want them to continue. And that simply drawing lines on a map doesn't define a nation if the people within those borders do not wish themselves part of that nation. I spoke recently with a Russian-speaking Jewish Ukrainian whose parting words at the end of a discussion about the situation in that benighted place were; "our home is in the wrong country."

Keith Lowe in 'Savage Continent' describes how a million and more 'ethnic' Germans were, quite literally, marched from their homes in Pomerania because the powers that be had decreed it part of Poland. And how the gap was filled, in part, by Polish Ukrainian-speakers who were uprooted from their homes in the East and scattered across the new part of the nation, banned from speaking their language and forbidden from gathering together.

It may be that these wounds are healed but the scar tissue remains, the memories of wrongs not righted, of what might have been and of what is no longer. And, for all our 'unity', Britain is no different. We have become used to nationalism - the SNP, Plaid Cymru, Mebyon Kernow, the republicans of Ulster, even the English Nationalists. But we don't seem to realise that these are movements that reject Britain, that want to continue the break up that began in 1922.

And while Simon Jenkins writes with a smile on his face in speaking of Yorkshire identity - how far away are we from its political manifestation?

I am sure Yorkshire's self-confidence has no need of a "cultural leg-up" from the Council of Europe. I doubt its people even regard themselves as a "minority" where it matters, which is in Yorkshire. But when it is payback for decades of London centralisation, their time may come. Then, who could deny "country" status to a proud land with the same population as Scotland, nearly twice that of Wales and 10 times that of Cornwall?

We should watch Yorkshire this year. It needs only another twist of the centralising screw from Cameron and Miliband. It needs only the emergence of a Yorkshire Alex Salmond and perhaps a cup final or county championship victory. Unthinkable thoughts may then stir in the noble Yorkshire breast.

Go to a rock concert in the county and you might hear this gentle chant at some point: "Yorkshire, Yorkshire". This isn't a nationalist exhortation but an exclamation of identity. But it is a very short step from the latter to the former.

Norman Davies believes Britain will break up - is breaking up (as is Spain, as is Italy) - not because of some innate failing but because that's what nations do. They tire, become inward-looking, obsessed with past glories and what might have been. And the world from before the nation wakes again, flags are cherished, new ones invented and flown with pride and before you know it Yorkshire - or Lancashire, or London -  becomes more important than England. And then England dies.

....

Sorry LGA, controlling stuff on social media really isn't the purpose of local government

****

The LGA is a lobby and support organisation for local government. Some of us have long harboured doubts about its value and on occasion its purpose. However, it is wandering into areas that really are nothing to do with local government, I'm guessing to get a headline:

"We believe social media operators have a responsibility to provide health warnings to user groups and individuals. The LGA is looking for these corporations to show leadership and not ignore what is happening on their sites. We are urging Facebook and Twitter executives to sit down with us and discuss a way forward which tackles this issue head on.”

In quick order:

1. Social media owners have no such responsibility
2. Even if they do it really is nothing to do with English local government

Mission creep pure and simple.

....

Another report on housing that ignores the planning system....

There is a growing number of people who think that the lack of housing - affordable or otherwise - in the UK is some sort of failing of capitalism and that, if we had a different system things would be all fine and dandy.

Here's a fine example of the genre from Michael Bauwens on the P2P Foundation blog:

The high cost of housing is draining money out of the productive economy, mainly through land and house price inflation, with damaging effects for national and individual household budgets. Many new homes are unaffordable to ordinary working people, some offer poor value for money in terms of quality or construction, design and energy performance, and cost pressures frequently drive out good design in the spaces between buildings and in the concept of supporting new neighbourhoods. Many new developments are socially, environmentally and economically obsolete from the moment they are conceived, let alone designed or built.

This is great but the author fails to adequately answer the question as to why housing is so expensive. Instead we have a straw man built for the author to attack:

...in Britain, only 0.6% of the population – 36,000 people – own about half of the land. This is a significant structural reason for soaring housing prices and continuing wealth inequality.

Now this is true but there's a big problem with the argument. This ownership structure has absolutely nothing at all to do with the price of housing. Take a peek at the map of the UK. Most of the land these 36,000 people own isn't about to be used to build housing. Indeed, much of it is of pretty limited value - agricultural land values remain at below £10,000 per acre (in Scotland the value is below £5,000 per acre).

 Residential land values are another matter altogether - in 2010 the English average for residential land was about £950,000 per acre. In simple terms land for building on is nearly 100 times the value of the land for growing stuff. And more to the point, those 36,000 people our author thinks are the problem don't own most of this building land.

The problem isn't a question of market failure but a consequence of intervention in the market. We told in the article how wonderful the garden cities movement was:

The most notable example is the new town of Letchworth, 34 miles north of London, which was created in 1903 when developer Ebenezer Howard acquired 4,000 acres of farmland. He worked with ethical investors, Quakers, philanthropists and others to build a town whose land values would be community owned. 

The essential point here isn't that Howard had a wizard wheeze but that he was able to buy farmland and build houses on that land. And in building houses on the land (and shops, pubs, hospitals, etc.) Howard made it possible to capture (in our author's slightly partisan words):

...both the “unearned increment” of land value increases as well as “economic rent” of land (the excess returns commanded by a finite resource), so that everyone, not just investors, could benefit.

Howard was able to go into the market, buy agricultural land at agricultural land values and then get more value from the land by 'farming' houses rather than wheat or sugar beet. In England today this is not possible for the simple reason that residential land is worth ten times what agricultural land is worth. It doesn't matter whether you're running a co-operative, setting up a 21st century new town corporation or a wicked capitalist developer, you will pay nearly £1,000,000 per acre to the land owner (and a great deal more than that if you're anywhere near London).

The reason for the huge gulf between agricultural land values and residential land values isn't to do with capitalism, it isn't to do with who owns the land and it isn't to do with the uneven distribution of wealth. It's because of this:

In recent years the idea that physical planning should be conceived as a national, rather than a local, responsibility, has gained ground. The establishment of a Ministry of Town and Country Planning in 1943 was followed in the same year and in 1944 by statutes which brought this goal nearer to fulfilment. But the main weaknesses persisted. The 1947 Act seeks to cure them by solving the financial problems of local authorities and at the same time erecting a new structure of planning machinery to ensure that planning will be centrally co-ordinated and also effectively executed. 

There were few planning constraints on Howard's development at Letchworth or the later Welwyn Garden City meaning that the 'collectivist' model he preferred was fundable without government support or involvement. Since the 1947 Town & Country Planning Act and the creation of 'green belts' the model proposed here - an updated garden city movement - is simply not possible.

The reality is that any discussion of housing that doesn't mention the planning system misses the main barrier to lower values and more construction - planning. And we've seen the outcry when pretty minor changes to the planning system are introduced as the National Trust, the CPRE and national media plonk their heavy guns on the government's lawns.

Mutual systems of housing ownership and housing finance are a fine idea (although we should be careful what we wish for) but the real debate should be about how to balance the desire to protect open country and community identity - the reasons for the 'green belts' - with the equally pressing need for new housing, especially in the South East. And any report offering solutions to our housing challenges that ignores the planning system - as our author does here - is simply a waste of paper.

....

Malnutrition and public health - it's not austerity that's the problem

****

Some "Doctors" have written a letter to the British Medical Journal expressing concerns about malnutrition:

In a letter to the British Medical Journal, David Taylor-Robinson from the University of Liverpool and six other academics warn: "This has all the signs of a public health emergency that could go unrecognised until it is too late to take preventive action."

They say they are particularly worried about the number of children with malnutrition because it can cause cardiovascular and other chronic diseases in adulthood.

And the newspapers and broadcasters lap it up without asking some simple questions - ones like "how many cases of child malnutrition are there?"

To help them, here are the figures from an answer to a Parliamentary question  - in 2008/9 there were 201 cases of children admitted to hospital where  the primary or secondary diagnosis was malnutrition. In 2012/13 this figure had soared to 205 admissions.

There is absolutely no evidence at all - other than anecdotes from teachers - to support the contention that child malnutrition is rising. The thing that should concern us is malnutrition among the elderly because this has risen significantly. The question is why?

Here's one stab at assessment that followed a report in The Independent earlier this month:

People with certain long-term health conditions can't always retain all the nutrients they need - particularly the elderly, who might also struggle to make the trip to the supermarket. With this in mind, the higher incidence of malnutrition might also reflect broader demographic trends, including the fact that the UK's population is ageing. The most recent Nutrition Screening Survey showed that those aged 65 plus were more likely to be malnourished than those who were younger. In addition, it may also be that hospitals are now more likely to screen a patient for symptoms of malnourishment. 

The reasons for increased malnourishment may be entirely unrelated to the current economic climate. Since the elderly are largely protected from the impact of welfare reform and make up the overwhelming majority of malnutrition cases, we should perhaps look elsewhere for the causes of the problem. There may be consequences from 'austerity' - reductions in social care visits, for example - that impact on the elderly eating properly but equally the rise may be a simple reflection of people living longer.

All this may not suit the political agenda of the people writing to the BMJ but we should perhaps pay more attention to the real challenges rather than write ill-researched and polemical letters that serve only to misdirect (and get a nice headline).

....

Things anyone who has played Kingmaker will know...

****

Alex Massie - to the point as ever - has this to say:

Moreover, if there is a geographical dividing line in British politics is should probably be drawn above the Trent not the Tweed.

This is true and has been for at least 600 year - hence Kingmaker where those bishops with a see north of the Trent receive 30 extra troops by way of protection from the rough and tumble of Northern politics!

....

In which the North/South divide proves (again) that "The Spirit Level" is bunkum

****

The Work Foundation (pdf), in one of those studies that seem much cleverer than they actually are, has pronounced that, the further you get from London, the more “equal” places become:

What you're seeing there is a near perfect correlation between distance from London by train, and inequality. The further away you are from the capital, the more equal your city is.

Which rather begs the question doesn’t it? For what we see here is that income inequality (as an aside this is not ‘wealth’ as the New Statesman rather ignorantly puts it) is much higher in London than anywhere else in England. And this really isn’t a surprise, not even a little one – there are relatively few multi-millionaires in Bradford but a significant smattering all across London.

The problem is that we’ve been told – relentlessly by acolytes of Wilkinson & Pickett – that more equal places are more successful. It seems to me that, in little old England, we have a microcosm of why “The Spirit Level” is so utterly wrong and probably misguided.

People in London and the South East live longer,

Life expectancy in the south-east is 79.7 for males and 83.5 for females, while in the north-west it stands at just 77.9 for males and 81.1 for females.

Although life expectancy has grown in every region of the UK over the past four years, in some areas the growth has been considerably faster than in others. 

Growing differences appear to reflect increasing wealth in the South - particularly in the capital.

And have better mental health:

Many of the risk factors for mental illness are linked to deprivation, so a general pattern occurs with the three northern regions (North East, North West and Yorkshire & Humber), showing worse measures than the three southern regions (South East, South West and Eastern England) and the two midlands regions (West Midlands, East Midlands) in between.

Only in crime rates does London top the pile and it would be easy to suggest that its size and the problems with policing in a large city make that inevitable.

Yet, in reporting on the Work Foundation’s little calculation, the New Statesman misses the point (quite staggeringly):

But the really interesting question is whether you want to reduce urban inequality. The "Spirit Level" argument – that high inequality causes a number of bad outcomes – has only been shown to apply on the national level. Is there anything bad about inequality in cities on its own terms?

It seems to me that the “Spirit Level” argument cannot be true at one spatial level and untrue at another. Since it isn’t true at the level of the city  - no-one would claim Liverpool or Newcastle as more successful, happier or better places than London (blind local pride aside) - it cannot be true at the level of the nation.

Not that this will stop people trying to argue that all the world’s ills can be laid at the door of the wrong Gini co-efficient.

...

In 2013 I'd just like it to stop raining

So 2012 has been something of a washout. It seems that, for the last several months we've lived a closed existence. We scuttle from one cooped-up place to another cooped-up place via the medium of a cooped-up car. And, all the while, we watch the rain fall and feel like Rob McKenna:

“And as he drove on, the rainclouds dragged down the sky after him, for, though he did not know it, Rob McKenna was a Rain God. All he knew was that his working days were miserable and he had a succession of lousy holidays. All the clouds knew was that they loved him and wanted to be near him, to cherish him, and to water him.” 

We could coin a thousand different names for this precipitation - not just the prosaic sounding "rain", "heavy rain", "light rain" and so forth but other more creative terms. "It's a soft morning," we might cry as we peer through the mist at the road before us. Or, on speaking to the neighbour, we observe; "a bit damp again today" while torrents of raindrops bounce off ever surface and dribble into every nook and cranny, discovering the weaknesses of sheds, garages and even the houses we live in. Words like drizzle, smattering, bucketloads and, of course the seminal, "pissing it down" all battle with stair rods, lashing and downpour.

And the rain never stops.

Out in the garden, on the rare occasions when needs must have driven us up the path, all is mud, puddle and morass. The pond merges into the lawn which, in its turn, becomes a sodden border - more water margin that herbaceous. Even the cats and foxes tiptoe gingerly across the lawn - a swathe of grass that, were I to walk across a few times, would soon revert to its original sticky boulder clay.

And still it rains.

One wonder at the limits to the capacity of the soil to hold this water. A thought that's stressed by the rivers flowing down the gulleys into the middle of the village. Every drive, each field edge and even the gutters of the terraces pour more water into the streams. Looking over the walls to the real streams there are deep, churning, brown waters that have replaced the sparkling little delights that once filled these valleys.

But no let up to the rain.

So we sit, fractious, annoyed and grumpy in our little coops - watching the world, as if in Ballard's dystopia, get ever damper. And we row, we pass coughs, colds and headaches from one to another unable to take those germs out into a clear, bright world and let them die in the fresh air. And because we have to go out sometimes, everything is damp. Boots, socks, coats our very souls - all not quite drying out from the persistent rain.

But no end to the torrents of rain.

Rain is good, it brings the growth, the green - the beauty of England is mostly down to the rain and the work of the water it brings. But just as with chocolate and pork pie, it's just about possible for us to have too much of that good thing. For a time to arrive when you wish it to stop, when you've had enough. That time is now.

In 2013 I'd like it to stop raining.

....

Going anti-clockwise round Coventry - a paen to England's roads

Today, for reasons that are unimportant to you, dear reader, we drove from the fine old town of Bath back to a very nearly drowned Cullingworth. The journey took in a new experience since, rather than the usual sclerotic motorways we opted for a pleasant drive – I would say meander but the one thing the Fosse Way doesn’t do is wander about – passed Malmesbury, Cirencester, Stow-in-the-Wold and Stratford. I say passed since – with the exception of Moreton-in-Marsh – all the places en route are safely by-passed by a well maintained and appropriately sized highway.

At the end of this little trip the navigation (Kathryn) announced that we were now going “anti-clockwise round Coventry”. This tickled me a little but got me to thinking about how we moan and whinge about transport, traffic and roads. Yet, over the years the assorted county councils (in the main) have, along with the Highways agency, smoothed the passage of traffic while allowing the various little market towns, spas and villages to breathe again.

So since we didn’t go through any town centres – a favourite topic on mine – I will comment on roads. Starting with the little windy country lanes that don’t seem to go anywhere but which are lovingly patched up and repaired by a combination of council workers, assorted contractors and the local farmer. The recent bad weather has bashed away at these roads washing away lumps of them, filling dips and hollows with water and strewing the surface with the debris from fields and lanes – a veritable flotsam and jetsam of farm life. And they – those farmers, the men from the water board and the council – were already out mending and making do. Allowing us to pass (actual thigh deep floods aside) from one place to another with the minimum of hindrance.

And then to the better roads – thousands of miles of them that we take for granted. Filled –sometimes to overflowing – with traffic, all going busily about its daily business. These are the arteries of England’s economy. Forget about those trains and planes, ignore the fancy urban tramways and underground systems – it is these A-roads and B-roads along with the wealth of England flows each day. Ten thousand and more vans, pick-ups, low-loaders, trucks, container wagons, car transporters and delivery lorries. Each one with its precious cargo – goods and expertise flowing from one small place to another. Each little trip making it possible for us to have bread on the table, heat in the house and a happy smile on the faces of healthy children.

So to those who look disdainfully at the car, who curse the van and the truck. For all you who hold forth about how all the freight can go on railways or even into barges. All of you are wrong. The future success of our economy depends rather more on those roads, on allowing the easy movement of plumbers and locksmiths, supermarket delivery drivers and truckers, computer salesmen and cheesemakers – all the producers that make us rich. And that means roads.

So if there is to be infrastructure investment let’s spend it on by-passes, new road links, road widening and road improvements. Let’s give councils the money to do the backlog of repairs. Let’s spend the money we get from road users – all £30 billion and more of it – on making life a little easier for those road users. And let’s tell all the tree-huggers and planet-savers that, right now, getting the economy moving is more important than their eco-scaremongerings.

Getting the economy moving means getting people moving. And that needs roads. Including the one going anti-clockwise round Coventry.

....

How come we're living longer?

****

Poor old nannying fussbuckets. After an unremitting torrent of statistical garbage about booze, fags and burgers and how they're killing us. Despite dire warnings of the "obesity crisis" and "alcohol pandemic". And following endless uncritical coverage from the BBC and national press...

...it seems us English are living longer, healthier lives!

Healthy life expectancy (HLE) increased by more than two years in the period 2008-10 compared with 2005-07.

The proportion of life spent in good health has increased in England and Wales, but fallen in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The ONS figures also show that more than four-fifths of a lifetime in the UK is spent in good health from birth.

Bit of a pity for the fussbuckets, eh? However, I'm sure they'll be back tomorrow with their calls for bans on this and new controls on that - all to to tune of "it's for the children."

A pox on them!

,,,,

Quote of the day...

****

From Tim Worstall:

...better England drunk and free than ruled by puritans.

Absolutely!

....

I love the Olympics...

****

Corruption, favouritism, private roads, brand fascism, a naff logo, oppresive security and bureaucratic incompentance - for the past couple of weeks the news has been filled with the impending disaster that will be the London Olympics.

Ever curmudgeon, cynic and hater of sport has sprung to life selecting his or her special example of the Olympic scandal. It has been a pleasure to read hundreds of blogs and thousands of tweet bemoaning the waste of money, the indulgence and the arrogance of the Olympic organisation.

But for me, all this has to be set against the truth - thousands of athletes who have trained for years for the honour of coming to London, one of the world's greatest cities, to compete in the Olympic Games. Less the big names, the top sprinters, the tennis stars, the football players, and more the lesser sports, the ones that get no attention in a world dominated by football - tae kwan do, archery, shooting, sailing, mucking about in canoes and  swashbuckling with swords.

Every four years we turn away from the normal round of sports and look instead at a difference collection of inspiring athletes, men and women who will do there best - even the ones who know they've no real chance of a medal. We'll see tears, smiles, rage, excitement and sheer exhaustion. And - for all our cynicism - we'll love the spectacle and marvel at the talent displayed. This is what the Olympics are about.

I hate the controlling nature of the organisation, if I never have to see Seb Coe again it may improve my temper. But I don't care. I love the Olympics and relish that these games are in my country - England - and in the city where I was raised - London.

So let the games begin. And I for one intend to enjoy - to savour - every bit that I can of these London Olympics.

...

An anthem for England?

I'm a proud Englishman, proud enough to believe that we might, on occasion, need an anthem that speaks of that Englishness. It would be wonderful if some musical genius had put a tune to this:

Take of English earth as much
As either hand may rightly clutch.
In the taking of it breathe
Prayer for all who lie beneath.
Not the great nor well-bespoke,
But the mere uncounted folk
Of whose life and death is none
Report or lamentation.
Lay that earth upon thy heart,
And thy sickness shall depart!

It shall sweeten and make whole
Fevered breath and festered soul.
It shall mightily restrain
Over-busied hand and brain.
It shall ease thy mortal strife
'Gainst the immortal woe of life,
Till thyself, restored, shall prove
By what grace the Heavens do move.

But since that isn't so we are told we should have Jerusalem, stirring but holding no magic of England and hi-jacked by the Church or "I vow to thee my country", a hymn filled with god and lifted from Holst's wonderful Planet Suite but not an anthem. Some point us to "Land of Hope and Glory" that stalwart of the Proms but is this no too tied with jingoism and wrapped more in the National flag than in an idea of England?


An anthem should be something people will sing, that will uplift and words that speak of town and country,of tradition and achievement. A song that is proud:

There'll always be an England,
And England shall be free
If England means as much to you
As England means to me.

Above all, a song that works:


I can picture football crowds singing this as easily as blazered grandees or dinner jacketed guests.

....