Reports today that the Labour Party is considering re-nationalising the railways ‘North of the Border’ should re-ignite the discussion over the role of the state in public transportation. The last Conservative government’s performance in this area was far from ideal. In an admirable attempt to push through privatisation quickly in the mid-1990s, the Conservative administration decided to use the same model as that previously used for the privatisation of the utilities, i.e. one company owning the network (now Network Rail), other companies delivering services on that same network. The decision to privatise the railways was made primarily to allow private sector investment in an infrastructure sorely in need of funds. The Conservative government rightly believed that the funds necessary could not be found solely from the public purse. The private investment record since bears out that belief. The problem, however, is that the separation of track from rail has been far from successful.

Despite the problems of the privatisation model implemented, to re-nationalise now would be a step backwards. People often cite the French rail service as evidence of the need for a nationalised rail service. Although the SNCF operates an outstanding service, at what cost to the taxpayer? It has never made a profit. Japanese rail companies, however, are privately owned and no one can suggest that services there are less than outstanding (I speak from personal experience).

I have always believed that the railways should be divided (and owned) in a similar way to the pre-British Rail era, i.e. the same company owns the rails, trains and stations. Companies such as LMS, GWR and LNER were able to invest for the future, safe in the knowledge that they would retain the right to run train services in their region of the country. Government’s role could then be more strategic – insisting on the maintenance of local services, overseeing safety, etc.

Transport policy is slowly climbing the political agenda. With climate change at the fore-front of people’s minds, and the increasing density of living accomodation, the need for fast, effective and environmentally-sound public transportation can only increase. The Conservative Party can lead the way in this area by using the private sector to deliver the best rail services. By going down the re-nationalisation path, the Labour Party is offering us an open goal. Let’s make sure we are on target.

Hospital Doctor magazine has reported today that doctors were now more likely to vote Conservative. The figures indicate that a 43% majority of the 1442 doctors interviewed would favour a Conservative government over a Labour one, with just 15% saying they would prefer the Liberal Democrats to be in charge. Even more encouraging for us Tories was the finding that over 60% of the doctors asked did not believe that the replacement of Tony Blair with Gordon Brown as Prime Minister would be better for the NHS.

The Labour government came to power in 1997 claiming that there were “24 hours to save the NHS”. Since then, we have witnessed wasteful spending, little or no improvement in NHS productivity, cuts in services, and most recently, the disillusionment of an entire generation of junior hospital doctors by the inept implementation of the MMC system. Is it any wonder that doctors have become so dismayed by this government’s handling of the NHS? Today, it is the medical profession who are declaring their future voting intentions. At the next General Election, they might very well be followed by their patients.

The sorry spectacle of a British serviceman and woman selling “their stories” to the highest bidder leaves a bitter taste. One can, and should, have sympathy for their recent ordeal. They are, however, members of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces, and consequently, should behave in a way that respects the traditions of the army, air force and navy. The front-page of The Sun today is cheap, and certainly does not help Britain maintain the moral high ground in the eyes of the world.

One must remember that the former captives are professional soldiers, not volunteers, whose training and salaries have been, and are, paid for by the taxpayer. No one made them choose their profession, a job that I am sure they knew had inherent risks. To be profiteering from active service in the defence of this country is wrong. Where have the military values of personal discipline, honour and tradition gone?

Some commentators are suggesting that the captives’ disclosures are all part of the media war with the Iranian regime. I hope not. Those in the MOD who decided to allow the former captives to talk to the media should be subjected to heavy criticism. Not only for bringing our proud armed forces into disrepute, but for also portraying Britain in such a poor light. Until today, I am sure that most people around the world believed our story, and respected our servicemen for the manner in which they had behaved under significant duress.

The Defence Secretary, Des Browne, not a man of impressive stature, should be asked which member(s) of the government authorised this media approach. New Labour has a long track-record of media manipulation. Getting the ‘right’ story out ‘front and centre’ has always appeared more important to this government than protecting the hard-fought, outstanding, international reputation of our armed forces. Shame on those involved in this decision who thought that British soldiers selling ther stories to the tabloids was an appropriate way for them to behave.

It would appear that this Labour government is happy to continue damaging our international reputation. The unfortunate headlines from today’s papers will have undermined our standing in the whole Iran affair. We must, I feel, endeavour to maintain a prinicipled stand against the Iranian regime. For it is the regime that is the problem, not the Iranian people. It will be ideas and principles that will win over the quiet majority in Iran, not weapons and media manipulation.

Let a thousand flowers bloom, and let some of them be prettier. Then the people who get the worst flowers can challenge local leaders, locally, and sack them briskly when they fail. – Libby Purves

Yesterday in The Times, Libby Purves called for a localisation agenda for England. She did this in the light of a recent decision by the Welsh Assembly to abolish prescription charges. This announcement has joined a number of similar pledges made by both the Prinicipality’s elected assembly and our friends north of the border over the last few years. To free prescriptions for the Welsh, one can add free residential care for the Scottish elderly and free university tuition for Scottish students at Scottish universities (note: not free for English students studying in Scottish universities!). All these commitments are to be paid for by the UK taypayer. To add insult to injury, the First Minister in Wales, Rhodri Morgan, declared that the English would be “jealous” of free prescriptions.

And let us not forget the ‘West Lothian question’ so eloquently asked by a Labour MP, Tam Dalyell, in November 1977 –

For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members tolerate… at least 119 Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on British politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

Yes. 1977. This is not a new problem. It has, however, been further exacerbated by the devolution imposed since 1997 by this Labour government. We now have a situation where Scottish MPs have voted on Westminster legislation, safe in the knowledge that it would not affect their own constituents. Furthermore, in the case of tuition fees, the absence of Scottish MP’s support would have led to the government failing to get the policy implemented in England and Wales. The audacity and inappropriateness of this behaviour was remarkable.

And let us also not forget the ‘Barnett formula’. This 1970s implemented policy has led to the present-day unfairness of regional public expenditure in the United Kingdom. On the basis of figures from the financial year 2003/2004 (source: HM Treasury Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis -PESA), the expenditure per head in England is £5,940. This compares rather unfavourably to Scotland where it is £7,346, Wales where it is £6,901, and in Northern Ireland where it is £7,945. Lord Barnett himself now views the formula as unfair. In The Scotsman in January 2004 he wrote “It was never meant to last this long, but it has gone on and on and it has become increasingly unfair to the regions of England. I didn’t create this formula to give Scotland an advantage over the rest of the country when it comes to public funding.” When will this formula be consigned to history? Not by a Scottish dominated Labour Party I suspect.

In Libby Purves’ article, she went on to call for a localisation drive in England. The blatant unfairness of the present situation should, she argued, be seen as an opportunity for the English local regions to reassert themselves. I have long been an advocate of localism in schools and hospitals administration. The “postcode lottery” that in the past we have been led to believe is so wrong, has now been introduced by devolution in Scotland and Wales. I welcome the different approaches by our Celtic friends, and would like to see more diversity in service provision throughout the United Kingdom. What I resent, however, is that the English, from whom the Exchequer extracts the most tax, are being short-changed financially. This must stop. The poorer regions of England need more money and we should be providing it. I believe future Conservative Party policy should be about empowering local areas to organise the public services they want. It is not only the right thing to be doing, it is also politically the most astute. And with regards to the democratic deficit, it remains to be seen how the English will respond to a future Scottish Prime Minister whose Parliamentary majority in Westminster could very well be solely due to the demographic over-representation of Wales and Scotland. Interesting times ahead I believe.

In the next week or two this House, the nation and the Right Honourable Lady herself will learn of what metal she is made – Enoch Powell

Following on from yesterday’s post, today marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Emergency Debate on the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands. The BBC Parliament channel repeated the three hour debate last Sunday evening. For those of us who are never happier than when wearing our political anoraks, it made for an interesting evening’s viewing.

The debate took place unusually on a Saturday morning. Unsurprisingly, it was very well attended by both sides of the House. Listening to the contributions reminded me of the importance of Parliament. It was undeniably a time of confusion and anger, and the Commons served to allow those concerned Members to vent their disgust at the invasion, their frustration about apparent government inaction in the weeks preceding, and most importantly, to express the views of the nation at large.

There were many distinguished speeches from the floor. The debate was begun by the Prime Minister, to which Michael Foot responded admirably – Foot had been an ardent supporter of those in the 1930s who had called for the end of the appeasement of Hitler. Memorably, Enoch Powell, then an Ulster Unionist, cleverly challenged Mrs Thatcher on her apparent pleasure at receiving her newly bestowed sobriquet, ‘The Iron Lady’ (quote above), in the light of events likely to follow. Edward du Cann, the then MP for Taunton, in response to Michael Foot’s speech, summed up the general feeling of the House most eloquently:

There are times in the affairs of our nation when the House should speak with a single, united voice. This is just such a time. The Leader of the Opposition spoke for us all. He did this nation a service when, in clear and unmistakable terms, he condemned what he called this brutal aggression and when he affirmed the rights of the Falkland Islanders to decide their own destiny.

Listening to the debate reminded me of the importance of Parliament during times of national distress. In the light of recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Kenneth Clarke was right to recently call for the House of Commons to be formally included in the decision-making process of this country going to war. On April 3rd 1982, the Commons successfully and strongly debated the events preceding the invasion at the same time as offering its full support for the government’s decision to send a task force to the South Atlantic. Future legislation regards the role of Parliament at such times should recall that historically, the elected representatives of this country, of whatever political colour, have displayed admirable qualities when determining the use of our armed forces in the defence of this nation. We would do well to remember that.