A big step forward - or just more hot air?

While there was much to applaud in George Osborne's autumn statement, there remains a fundamental disconnect between the Chancellor's aspirations for the Northern regions and the tools he is prepared to put at their disposal.

Here's this week's Journal column.

Transport powers the key to devolution for the North

This week's Journal column, focusing on the long-running saga of the A1 dualling project and what it tells us about the need for greater regional devolution.

http://www.thejournal.co.uk/opinion/paul-linford-dual-a1-give-7995809

At last: The beginnings of a regional economic policy

IN terms of the political big picture, Chancellor George Osborne’s autumn statement on Wednesday this week may well come to be seen as a pivotal moment in the next general election battle.

Whether the so-called mini budget will win or lose that contest for his party, however, is currently a difficult one to call.

On the one hand, the Chancellor was, against the expectations of most pundits and economists, able to reveal that the deficit is continuing to fall, and that government borrowing would therefore not need to increase after all.

On the other, he was forced to admit that the years of austerity would continue at least until 2018, that growth would continue to be sluggish, and that his original target of reducing debt as a proportion of GDP by 2015 would be delayed by at least a year.

Too much has been made of the fact that Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls, thrown by the unexpected news on borrowing, made an uncharacteristic hash of his set-piece reply to Mr Osborne’s Commons statement.

The truth is that only political anoraks get worked up about that sort of thing.  What will linger more in the public’s mind is the fact that Chancellor’s harsh medicine is still no nearer to bringing about a lasting economic recovery.

Of potentially much greater significance than Mr Balls’ incoherent ramblings is the risk that Mr Osborne’s failure to meet the debt reduction target will mean Britain losing its AAA credit rating.

Much of what Mr Osborne has done over the past two and a half years has been designed to stave off this very threat, and if the rating is indeed downgraded, it will surely be time for David Cameron to find a new Chancellor.

What, though, does it all mean for the North-East?  Well – and how many times have I had to write this line over the past 15 years? – there will be no dualling of the A1 north of Newcastle for starters.

Other proposals which failed to win the Chancellor’s stamp of approval included a £25m upgrade for the Tyne and Wear Metro, and a package of support for the region’s offshore wind industry.

Furthermore the proposed welfare cutbacks, with benefit rises for the next three years capped at a below-inflation 1pc, will also disproportionately hit those regions with higher rates of unemployment such as this one.

But amid all this, there are continuing signs that this government – more so than its recent predecessors – is starting to take the idea of regional policy seriously.

The most obvious indication of this came a few weeks when Lord Heseltine, the arch-interventionist of Tory politics in an era where the free marketeers held sway, published his ‘No Stone Unturned’ report.

The Chancellor has explicitly backed its call for a single funding pot covering housing, skills, transport and job creation as well new powers and funding for local enterprise partnerships.

Significantly, the government is to give each LEP the chance to nominate a single major infrastructure project which will then be eligible for a new concessionary public works loan rate, up to a value of £1.5bn.

In addition Whitehall will provide a further £350m towards the Regional Growth Fund, to provide support for jobs and growth across the English regions until 2015.

While the impact of those changes remains to be seen, a more immediate boost to the region came with the announcement that  - 54 years on from the opening of the Preston by-pass - Newcastle will finally join the motorway network, with all stretches of the A1 south of the city to be upgraded to motorway standard.

And the spectre of regional pay, which could have led to teachers and nurses in the North being paid less than their Southern counterparts, has also receded in what was a notable victory for both the unions and the Lib Dems.

It was surely coincidence that, on the day the Tories were pushed into fourth place by UKIP in the Middlesbrough by-election last week, Mr Osborne appointed a new adviser in Neil O’Brien who has previously warned that the party risks ‘pariah status’ in the North.

If the autumn statement is anything to go by, maybe he is already making his voice heard.

Ghost of Callaghan strikes again

With the election drawing ever closer, it is hard to say which of the three stories which have dominated the political agenda this week will have done Labour’s chances of a fourth term the most damage.

In a Budget week that was never going to be an easy one for the government, its cause was hardly helped by the revelations surrounding North Tyneside MP Stephen Byers last weekend.

The former Cabinet minister was forced into the humiliating position of having to refer himself to the parliamentary standards commissioner after describing himself as a “cab for hire” to an undercover reporter probing political lobbying.

As the headline on Monday’s Journal editorial succinctly put it: What a way to finish a political life.

By admitting that his initial claims to have persuaded Transport Secretary Lord Adonis to go easy on National Express after it defaulted on the East Coast rail franchise were fantasy, Mr Byers effectively fell on his own sword.

In one sense, he did the honourable thing. Not to have done so would have triggered a far bigger scandal that would certainly have forced Adonis’s own resignation.

Yet although Mr Byers is a politician who, in the words of the former rail regulator Tom Winsor, has an “ambiguous relationship with the truth,” there remains a nugget of suspicion that his claims may not have been entirely groundless..

The idea that he may have brokered a deal with Adonis over National Express does not seem all that fantastical to those of us who know how government really works.

By contrast with Mr Byers, Chancellor Alistair Darling is certainly not a man given to hyperbole or flights of fantasy – although he has occasionally been known to blow the whistle on his own government.

He did it when he spoke of Number 10 unleashing the “forces of hell” against him following a candid interview about the recession, and he did it again this week with his comments about the ‘Thatcherite’ scale of the cuts that will follow the election.

Given that Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been at pains to underplay the extent of the cutbacks, this stark message from his next-door neighbour was about as off-message as it was possible to get.

It reveals once again the tensions between a Chancellor whose focus is on sorting out the public finances, and a Prime Minister more worried about political positioning.

Pre-election budgets are traditionally a time for giveaways, as Mr Brown demonstrated in 2005 with his announcement of a £200 council tax rebate for pensioners.

Any such rabbits-out-of-the-hat this time round would surely have got a belly laugh from a cynical electorate, and Mr Darling was surely right to resist them.

That said, by playing safe, the Chancellor added to the widespread impression of a government that has run out of ideas and is reduced to nicking them from the Tories, as with the stamp duty holiday for first-time buyers.

It had, in truth, a rather fin de siècle air to it – much as the demise of a man once thought of as a future Labour leader provides an apt metaphor for his party’s decline and fall.

But if there is one thing that has really damaged Labour this week, it is not Byers or the Budget, but the unions.

The strikes by BA cabin crew and now the RMT rail union have revived bitter memories of the dying days of the last Labour government in 1979, and are certain to lose the party votes.

Throughout his career, Gordon Brown has fought shy of the parallel with Jim Callaghan, the long-time Crown Prince forced to wait for No 10 by a more charismatic rival.

Once again, though, it seems Mr Brown’s destiny to follow in his footsteps.

Region's ambitions derailed once more

Among the stories to catch my eye this week was one warning that the £16bn Crossrail scheme to link East and West London may have hit a potentially deadly snag.

An area of the capital destined for tunnelling as part of the scheme may, it turns out, be the site of a missing 16th century burial ground for victims of anthrax.

Since long-dormant anthrax spores can spread through the air and cause fresh infection if disturbed, this doubtless poses something of a dilemma for the engineers working on the project.

Nevertheless, transport secretary Lord Adonis said a compulsory purchase of the affected area, beneath a car park near the old city walls, was still expected to go ahead.

Given recent developments – or rather lack of them – in the North-East transport arena, this episode may well have brought some wry smiles in this part of the world.

While nothing must be allowed to get in the way of Crossrail - be it hell, high water or anthrax - it’s a different story when it comes to the region’s hopes of inclusion in the planned high speed rail network.

Work on the new 250mph line linking London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds is due to begin in 2017 – the year Crossrail is due to be completed.

But it won’t be coming to the North-East any time soon, if at all. Under the current plans, the 21st century will be into its fourth decade before there is the remotest chance of that.

You had to feel for poor old North-East minister Nick Brown, who has lobbied hard for the region to be included in the network, reduced last weekend to a lame pledge to do something about the East Coast Main Line.

The same Lord Adonis has refused to give any commitment to extending the high speed link to Newcastle, saying it was important to concentrate on a “deliverable” project.

This is despite a consultants’ study which found that extending it would create 95,000 jobs by 2040, and the government’s own HS2 team advising that including the North-East in the network made the “best business case.”

Neither should we supposed things would be any better with the Tories, who want a cheaper link from London to Leeds that would leave out the East Midlands as well as this region.

For those of us who have followed the debate about regional spending over a number of years, it’s a depressingly familiar picture.

It has long been clear that the North-East’s relative lack of good transport links are the biggest single obstacle to its competitiveness, and the biggest single reason for the endurance of the North-South divide.

Sadly, the die was cast on this years ago when the government declared, around the same time as it gave the original go-ahead to Crossrail, that there was no relationship between regional spending and regional economic prosperity.

It was, of course, a lie, but it was a lie that enabled ministers to claim that spending £16bn improving London’s transport system would have absolutely no adverse impact on poorer regions.

That, of course, is a nonsense. Between them, Crossrail and the new high speed link will dramatically widen the prosperity gap between those regions that already have good transport connections and those that have never had them.

Of all the many reactions to the high speed decision, perhaps the quaintest came from the chief executive of One North East, Alan Clarke.

“The phasing of the development of a high speed network is important and must not lead to areas of economic disadvantage,” he said.

“Lead to?” Wake up and smell the coffee Alan. Economic disadvantage has been here for decades – and it’s about to get worse.

Heathrow: the regional angle

Much of the criticism of the Heathrow decision has centred on what it says about the government's environmental credentials, but there is another angle worth exploring. Here's today's Journal column.

---

If the old saying is true that the first casualty of war is truth, so it is probably also the case that the first casualty of a recession is usually the environment.

The last time there was a serious upsurge of interest in environmentalism in Britain was in the late 1980s, when the Green Party looked briefly like it could replace the Liberal Democrats as the country’s “third force.”

It reached its apogee in the 1989 euro-elections, when the Lib Dems finished a distant fourth in terms of share of the popular vote behind the Greens.

Then came the recession of the early 1990s, and interest in green politics faded. It took years - and the prospect of runaway, irreversible man-made climate change - before it assumed the same kind of prominence on the political agenda.

Now, as Britain and the world once more face the certainty of tough economic times ahead, the environmental lobby is again struggling to make its voice heard.

Against the backdrop on the economic downturn, there was never any real doubt that Gordon Brown's Labour government would give the go-ahead to the £9bn scheme for a third runway at London's Heathrow Airport this week.

New Labour's three top priorities used to be education, education, education - but it is clear from what the Prime Minister has been saying over the past fortnight that they are now jobs, jobs, jobs.

And with unemployment set to head towards the 3m mark by the end of this year on some projections, most would say quite rightly so.

The government points out that construction work on the new runway could create 65,000 new jobs alone, in addition to the 100,000 existing jobs in the aviation industry that would be safeguarded by the project.

The additional tonnes of CO2 that will be belched into the atmosphere as a result are seen as a very secondary consideration, despite the government's pledge to reduce such emissions by 80pc by 2050.

In an effort to appease critics, Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon said airlines using the new runway would be required to use the newest, least-polluting aircraft.

Few will be convinced by that though. In reality, the Heathrow decision drives a coach-and-horses through any pretensions that Mr Brown may have had to “going green.”

But if the decision is hard to defend on environmental grounds, so too is it when seen from the perspective of regional policy.

In pure cash terms, it is another £9bn of public expenditure being channelled into the London and South-East economy on top of the £16bn already committed to the Crossrail deep tube link and heaven-knows-what for the 2012 Olympics – also hailed by Mr Brown this week as an important job-creator in the face of the downturn.

Vague talk of a more high-speed rail links between East and West and North and South to complement the runway project sounds suspiciously like political window-dressing designed to keep Northern Labour MPs quiet.

I recall that similar things were said by the Tories when the Channel Tunnel was given the go-ahead. Yet the "regional eurostars" that were supposed to link Newcastle to Paris were never used and were eventually sold-off for use elsewhere on the rail network.

Throughout the lifetime of the Blair-Brown government, it has taken the view that the prosperity of UK plc depends vitally on the economic health of London and the South-East and its ability to act as a "driver" for the economy as a whole.

Rather than seek to create a more balanced economy, it has sought to make a virtue out of the current very unbalanced one by pumping more and more resources into the capital.

However much the government may talk about regional policy, this is in fact no such thing. It is, rather, a national economic policy in which, in effect, one region is expected to deliver prosperity for all the rest.

The Heathrow decision takes this logic to a further level. If Heathrow is vital to the economy of London and the South East, which in turn is vital to the UK as a whole, then it follows that Heathrow is vital to the whole of the UK.

After 12 years in power, this particular leopard is unlikely to change its spots now, particularly as the financial centre of London and the South East is now as much in the eye of the economic storm as any other region.

Yet there was surely an opportunity here to address some of the regional economic imbalances that continue to bedevil the UK and its most outlying regions in particular.

Building a third runway with the possibility of a new North-South rail link as an afterthought was surely a reversal of what should have been the government’s priorities.

It was nice to hear the Tories talking in such terms this week, although it’s a shame they couldn’t have thought of that while they were busy creating the North-South divide in the 1980s.

The other point to be made about Heathrow is that it is on the wrong side of London. If you were building a new airport from scratch today, there is no way you would put it there.

The city's mayor, Boris Johnson, at least recognises this. His long-term dream is to move London's main airport to the Thames Estuary and retire Heathrow, enabling European flights to arrive without having to cross the city to land.

Since the outer reaches of the estuary are currently largely uninhabited, this would have had the additional merit of causing the least amount of disruption to people.

Instead, the third runway project threatens to make the communities of Sibson and Harmondsworth the modern-day equivalents of Dunwich, the lost village which fell into the sea in mediaeval times.

The political battle lines over the runway project are now clear, with Labour playing the jobs card and the Tories taking up the cause of the “little people,” threatened by noise, pollution and ultimately the loss of their homes.

But it would be naive to assume that the question of whether or not the runway will go ahead will depend entirely on the outcome of the next election.

Even if the Tories were to win, the future of the project would surely depend on what sort of state they find the economy in, and specifically what the jobless figures are looking like.

For all his supposed green credentials, it would be a brave Prime Minister Cameron who put the environment ahead of 165,000 jobs.

Is this one reason to vote Tory?

Setting tribalism aside for a moment, I have to applaud the Tories for thinking outside the box and refusing to go along with the conventional wisdom on airport expansion. Instead of a third runway at Heathrow, they plan to build a new high speed rail link to the Midlands and the North.

To hear the Conservatives actually advocating major investment in (a) rail infrastructure, and (b) the North of England was a real breath of fresh air and shows how much politics has been turned on its head since the 1980s and 1990s when both would have been anathema. Much more of this sort of thing and I might even vote for them.

My only criticism of the plan was that the Tories' proposed new high-speed rail route appears to run only from London to Birmingham to Manchester to Leeds. What about Newcastle, Dave?

The collapse of the "progressive consensus"

Do centre-left governments have any room for manoeuvre on tax anymore? Here's my column in today's Newcastle Journal.

***

Aneurin Bevan once famously described socialism as the language of priorities. It has been a fairly long time since the Labour Party talked about socialism, but at times like the present, it can't help but talk about priorities.

And few issues go more to the heart of what a centre-left government's priorities should be than the ongoing controversy over fuel taxes.

Is it the primary job of a Labour government, especially in times of economic hardship, to protect the living standards of the worst-off by trying to keep household bills as low as possible?

Or in this era of climate change, do governments of the left have a higher responsibility - to try to save the planet from the potentially deadly effects of the free market by curbing the use of fossil fuels?

The consensus of opinion within the wider public on this score has ebbed and flowed back and forth over the past decade.

Nearly eight years ago, in the autumn of 2000, New Labour's political hegemony was brielfy threatened by the eruption of the fuel protests, following the imposition of a "fuel price escalator" designed to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Public sympathy at the time was initially with the protesters, though it evaporated pretty swiftly once they started blockading power stations and generally behaving like a bunch of 1970s flying pickets.

And over the ensuing years, opinion swung decisively back in the direction of the "green" lobby, to the point where any government which failed to do something to tackle car use risked being seen as irresponsible.

But that was before the credit crunch. The environment, which at one time was a big enough issue to persuade David Cameron to start cycling to work, has now slipped back down to its customarily more lowly place in the public consciousness.

Instead, we're back on the old, familiar ground of "the economy, stupid."

When the proposed fuel tax increase was first outlined in last year's Pre-Budget Report, inflation was still well under control and the effects of rising food and fuel costs had yet to be seen.

But nine months on, it seems, greenery has once again become a luxury that the nation cannot afford.

The pressure had been on Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Chancellor Alistair Darling over the fuel tax issue since the start of the year when the business and motoring lobbies first begun to hone in on it.

At one time, it might have been seen as a test of the government's resolve. I myself wrote in this column that the question of whether ministers were still prepared to make the case for the tax rise would show whether the Brown administration retained a shred of self-belief.

In the end, though, it was no great surprise when Mr Darling announced on Wednesday that the increase had been postponed once again. He probably had little option.

Indeed, with another crucial by-election for the government coming up in Glasgow East next Thursday, perhaps the only surprise was that he didn't do it sooner.

It won't stop there, either. Now that the government has u-turned on the fuel tax rise, expect it to come under sustained pressure to scrap the planned changes in vehicle excise duty to discourage "gas guzzling" cars.

When this idea was first dreamed up, the government probably had the so-called "Chelsea Tractor Set" in mind - a fairly convenient political target.

But in yet another example of the law of unintended political consequences, it turns out that the cars most likely to be hit by the proposed changes are overwhelmingly owned by the worst-off.

In the end, backbench Labour MPs are no more likely to let this happen than they were likely to allow the government to scrap the 10p tax rate.

I recently saw the planned changes to vehicle excise duty rather unfairly but amusingly caricatured on a satirical website as a spoof news item about Labour's "master plan" to restore its political fortunes.

"Labour will today unveil a detailed plan to alienate its last remaining pockets of support. The central plank of the party's strategy involves identifying the ten most popular family cars in Britain and then making them a nightmare to own," it read.

A “Labour spokesman” was quoted as saying: "We're going for the double whammy of making them too expensive to drive, but also impossible to sell."

Silly? Maybe, but it was a light-hearted way of making the serious political point that Labour simply cannot afford to antagonise its natural supporters any more than it already has done.

But the vehicle taxation issues are an illustration of a much wider political truth, that the government now finds itself in a position on tax where it has virtually no more room for manoeuvre.

Both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have talked at length over the past decade about the need to build a “progressive consensus” in which people accepted that decent public services required taxes to be maintained at a certain level.

In fact the opposite has happened. People seem increasingly less and less happy to pay their taxes, with the result that the existing tax-take as a proportion of GDP is likely to come more and more into question.

It is this that has essentially brought about the Liberal Democrats’ near-total volte-face under new leader Nick Clegg from being a party of 50p tax rates to a party of tax-cutters.

Back in the early days of New Labour, John Prescott and others dreamed of using the tax system to bring about a major shift in public behaviour, making private transport progressively more expensive and using the proceeds to fund better and more accessible public transport.

However desirable this might once have seemed, the government’s inability to impose even small increases in fuel tax show that it has now become a political impossibility.

When Bevan talked about the “language of priorities,” there was a basic assumption that governments had the ability to choose between competing interests and concerns.

Increasingly, for this government at least, those choices no longer exist.

Eurostar launch highlights transport divide

For this weekend's column, I returned to an old hobby-horse - regional transport funding. The launch of the new Eurostar terminal at St Pancras is a reminder that, when the Channel Tunnel was first built, the whole of the country was meant to benefit from the project, not just the South. Yet if the North is to gain anything from the new improved link to the continent, it will require the construction of a new high-speed route linking into the St Pancras terminal, a project which the Brown government has put off for at least a decade. More for those who are interested in this sort of thing on the companion blog HERE.

More on road pricing

The ongoing debate on road pricing provides the main subject matter for my latest Week in Politics Podcast which is now live. A text version can be found on the Derby Evening Telegraph'sthis is Derbyshire site, HERE.

That petition, and some other ways to cut congestion

The last time I posted anything on road pricing, I was urged to "get a grip" by esteemed blogger Tim Worstall who reckoned I was paying insufficient attention to the "polluter pays" principle. Fair cop, guv, but what I was really seeking to point out was merely that the Government had paid the public transport network insufficient attention during its 10 years in power.

I didn't, in fact, sign the Downing Street petition against road pricing which has caused all the kerfuffle, for the simple reason that I think it could be part of the solution to the congestion in some large cities. But I don't support a national road pricing scheme for much the same reason I don't support ID cards - it could only work with the imposition of "spy in the cab" technology which would give the Government even more knowledge about, and therefore power over, our movements.

There are to my mind much more practical and far less politically problematic ways to cut congestion, and I will name two here. First, by radically improving school bus transport to remove the need for "school runs." When I were a lad, we all either got the bus to school or walked. If your parents gave you a lift you were a poof, which in those days was a general term of abuse directed towards the pampered or effete as opposed to the homophobic bullying it would be viewed as today.

The second is by encouraging a major growth in working from home. This is, of course, supposed to be how we are all going to work in future, but as a matter of fact, a lot of companies don't encourage it, mainly due to worries about people's laptops being invaded by computer viruses which they then bring with them into the office. Maybe a few tax breaks here and there might force them to reconsider.

The Big Idea

Transport secretary Douglas Alexander - and, presumably, Gordon Brown - wants to have a debate about using road charging to reduce congestion by 25pc despite a 1m-signature petition against the idea.

Well, it may or may not surprise Mr Alexander to learn that someone has already thought of a Big Idea for reducing the number of motorists off the road. It's called public transport.

It strikes me that there is potential for some very interesting political cross-dressing on this one if David Cameron wants to defend the cost of motoring as free at the point of delivery while at the same time underlining his environmental credentials by ploughing the proceeds of green taxes into trains and buses.

Could the Tories, the party of Dr Beeching and rail privatisation, really become the party of public transport? Stranger things have happened.