Congratulations to Boris Johnson for successfully overcoming the incumbent Ken Livingstone by 139,772 votes. Boris polled 53% (1,168,738 votes) to Ken’s 47% (1,028,966) of 1^st and 2^nd preference votes.

Boris has been likened to Marmite. You either love him, or hate him. You either see him as a highly intelligent, capable man; or you see him as a bumbling buffoon who makes more gaffes than Gordon Brown. I personally believe him to be the former, and as such admire him greatly. People have always made grand comments such as “Boris for PM”, and “I would vote for the Conservatives if Boris was leading them”. This is now so much closer to being a reality than ever before.

How has this come about then? Boris has been known for years mainly because of appearance on Have I Got News For You (HIGNFY), as well as for the repercussions of many statements made in his articles. Liverpool and piccaninnies ring a bell? But I believe it is his ambition that has driven him on. He gave up his position as editor of The Spectator to take his place on the Shadow Cabinet. This shows the direction he wanted to take his career.

He set about the task of running for Mayor with a seriousness that took a lot of people by surprise; implementing policy idea after policy idea. Now that he is in office he needs to establish himself and consolidate himself in the minds of Londoners as a serious heavyweight in both Local, National and International politics. I have no doubt that he will do this with the animated enthusiasm that he always shows.

Where better an institution to take a group of budding politicians, than the centre of British democracy that are the Houses of Parliament? On February the 13th a dozen members of Bath Conservative Future made the trip to London accompanied by Bath’s next MP (well, we are optimistic) Fabian Richter, to be treated to a guided tour of the Commons and the Lords by former MP and chief whip of the Lords, Lord Cope of Berkeley.

Standing at the dispatch box where David Cameron regularly humiliates Gordon Brown at PMQs, and admiring the ostentatious chair that is host to the Prime Minister’s saviour, Mr Speaker, was a true privilege that shall stay in our memories for some time. Such a building so steeped in tradition and placarded with British military success on the walls and ceilings serves to stir up national pride in even the most liberal of Britons.

Following our guided tour, in typical Bath CF fashion, the society enjoyed a hearty meal and one or three of alcoholic beverages whilst discussing politics, sport, and how much one appreciates Bath after spending the day in the Capital. Slightly ironic was the pub we choose to dine at, the Red Lion in Westminster happened to be the location for the foundation of ‘New’ Labour.

A thoroughly enjoyable trip that was enjoyed by all was the consensus on the journey home, as we eagerly await visits from Liam Fox, and hopefully Boris Johnson and William Hague in the forthcoming few months.

At any of our events, a large topic rears it’s head when discussion gets flowing. Europe is the largest part of our daily lives that fails to be widely discussed, apart from during Conservative Future meetings. Over recent years the debate has inexorably changed from “What is the UK’s role in the EU?” to “Should the UK be a part of the EU?” Pro-European members are increasingly difficult to find and a large part of Bath CF believe that we would be much better off out. The Eurosceptic role is becoming harder for me to follow as the other countries in Europe plunger towards ever-closer union. I find myself wondering what the role of the EU actually is.

Originally the idea of a united Europe was created by Winston Churchill post-WWII in order for European countries to put aside their differences as the only way to fight the spectre of communism. Interestingly, Churchill did not envisage a role for the UK within this union. We did not need to take part in political machinations whilst we provided the tripwire defence. Since then the EU has slowly spiralled towards political integration. We give money and power to the EU and what do we get in return?

The largest part of EU spending goes towards the reviled Common Agricultural Policy. It is perceived that this subsidises farmers to give the result of cheap food, which is good for everyone. However, the CAP gives money to landowners, not farmers. Our Queen takes a tidy sum from the EU each year as part of this, does this really make farmers richer? Of course not. Another problem with the CAP is the interference from Brussels. Cheap food is wanted, but not too cheap, we can’t have that. A great example from the 1980s was the ability to be paid for not producing wine. There was too much production and so prices would have to drop, which was great news for consumers, but bad news for the French, wishing to preserve their way of life. Instead of consumers having a great variety of cheap wine to chose from, the EU meddled to reduce demand and prop up the crooked system. Today they are still at it, with proposals to rip up new vineyards. This enterprise has been blossoming in the UK (an excellent effect of global warming) and threatening the business of our European neighbours.

The other part of EU spending goes towards developing the poorer nations in Europe. The main benefactor from the EU in this regard has been Spain. This is the point of the EU I find the most difficult to comprehend; why do we give £8bn each year to our closest competitors on the world market? Surely this has cost us massively over the past decades, alongside successive incompetence on the part of our governments.

More sinister has been the gradual erosion of legislative power towards Brussels and Strasbourg. We elect MPs to represent us, only to have their decisions overturned by people we didn’t elect. The main thrust of European legislation is to standardise across Europe. I’ve simply got to ask; why? I can only see it as being a series of gradual steps towards the formation of a single superstate. The simple fact that we are different is worth preserving. We would be in dire straights indeed if everywhere in Europe were clones of each other. Why are more and more countries joining the EU, at immense cost? Simply because they want a slice of the monetary pie whilst it’s still hot.

In a ‘secret’ document revealed in today’s Daily Telegraph, Labour ministers are planning to slash the number of ships in the Royal Navy from 103 at present to 50 in 2027. While the purchase of two new carriers is confirmed, in others domains news are bleak to say the least. The numbers of frigates is scheduled to be reduced by 8 to just 9 units, of the present 13 submarines, up to 2 might not be replaced, the whole of the minesweeper fleet currently amounting to 16 units is due to be decommissioned and as far as the Auxiliary fleet is concerned, no less than 14 units will disappear.

In the present world climate, with the threat of Islamic terrorism, a resurgent Russia and an ambitious China, these cuts are ill advised to say the least. Before having a look at the offensive capabilities of the Royal Navy, it is also worth to remember that the Royal Navy must protect the home waters, but also waters around our overseas territories, the Falklands, Saint Helena, Pitcairn, Bermuda and twelve others places spread all around the globe. At present this task is devolved to our patrol ships, however since the 9 units are slated for removal by 2027 and perhaps much earlier, it is very fair to say that places like the Falklands will be defenceless by then. One of the reasons why Argentina attacked the islands back in 1982, was pencilled decommission of HMS Endurance, a patrol ship attached to the islands since 1967.

Click here to continue reading…

Everybody must have heard about the tube strike in London, affecting millions of commuters, tourists and visitors alike. While the strike itself was unjustified, it has the merit of putting the light on one of Gordon Brown greatest failures, the Public Private Partnership for London Underground. For Labour politicians, PPP must look like the best of both worlds and there undoubtedly something deeply linked, to the infamous ‘third way’ in the idea of public and private finance working together.

As usual the facts are not to the advantage of the Labour Party, since Metronet as gone bankrupt it is fair to assume that the PPP is on the whole a failure. Separating train and track is not working on the railways and, there is no reason why it should be working on the Underground. In fact separation is even worse in the case of London Underground, mainly due to the fact that there is only one type of traffic using the track, as opposed to several on the railways. If one look at the history of the tube and also at other metro systems in the world, separation was never attempted and systems were and are integrated, may it be under a public or a private company.

Since Metronet is now bankrupt, Transport for London should take over instead its responsibilities, instead of paying administration fees and even for drawing another contract with a new provider. The contract with the other provider Tube Lines, could then be ended one their approbatory period ends in 2010, thence bringing back all maintenance and renewal works under the aegis of London Underground ltd, subsidiary of TfL. Heavy works like signalling renewals and new trains would be put to tender, and offered to the most competitive bidder.

I would even go further, and say that the opportunity should be used to completely revamp the existing structure of London’s transport. If projects like Crossrail or new tubes line are to be build, a healthy and well working structure will be needed, far from the bureaucracy which comes with PPP contracts. Several options are possible. The first one being the creation of a Transport for London plc, this would entail a complete reintegration of the buses and train operations into a single structure; economies of scale would follow and, opening up the capital of the company to private investors could allow billions of pounds in private money to be injected into the system. The second option would be as outlined before, for several subsidiaries to exist, London Underground ltd being one, as an eventual London Rail ltd, taking over the operation of Crossrail and Overground lines.

So far it seems that Labour transport policy is a complete failure since 1997, it is however not too late to end the current lunacy based on bureaucracy, lengthily contracts and micromanagement. This is providing of course that pragmatism triumph over ideology.

Today’s announcement from the Russian president Vladimir Putin, on strategic bombers flights being resumed, is after a series of other earlier events, another reminder that the situation between the West and Russia has never been so tense since the end of the Cold War. This could very easily be dismissed, as a meaningless gesture on the part of president Putin, yet when at the same time the links between Russia and China are growing this could very well be a step toward a new cold war.

Russia’s transition from the USSR to the country it is today was far from smooth, with coups attempts and instability throughout the nineties. Indeed of all the old USSR countries, only the Baltic countries managed to have a near perfect transition to modern democratic states. It is fair to say that things would have been different, had not leaders like the corrupted Boris Yeltsin had been elected. But the truth is that the West and more importantly, the United States have some responsibility in what is currently happening.

Attempting to meddle in Russia’s partners affairs, like in Georgia, Uzbekistan and Ukraine was a big mistake. Not to accept Russia as a fully fledged partner of the Western world was another mistake. Russia would surely deserve to one the main members of the European Union, but the current EU renders this impossible. I would even dare to say that the same is true for NATO, since the issues we face are after all pretty similar.

Click here to continue reading…

Judging from the announcement of the East Coast railway franchise being awarded today to National Express plc, it seems that the DfT civil servants did not understood what happened earlier last year for this franchise. Indeed if the current operator GNER was forced to stand down, that was because they were unable to pay a premium of £1.3 billion over the course of their ten years franchise. The new agreement includes this time, a premium of £1.4 billion in the course of eight years.

Apparently, it is clear that the DfT does not understand how a business should be run. In fact with yearly revenues of £600 millions; this premium would amount to an operational margin of more than 15% since some of the profits must be kept by the company. It is worth noting that this kind of performance, is not even achieved by the majority of businesses, except perhaps for very specialized companies. On the top of that, the agreement includes plenty of ‘targets’ whom Labour loves so much and as usual the taxpayer is set to foot the bill through higher than inflation fares.

Surely the time to end such lunacy on the part of the DfT must come to an end. Normal businesses do not need any targets, if they fail then they go bankrupt and everybody looses, if they succeed then everybody wins, customer feedback, shareholders pressure and external pressures are enough and are much more efficient than any profit target set by civil servants. The same thing should applies for the railways, thence scrapping the existing system of franchises, complicated arrangements based on contracts, to replace them with a few or even a single integrated plc independent of any governmental interference is the way forward.

What Ruth Kelly and the DfT only deserve is another franchise failure. As learning is by repetition, they will perhaps understand after a few more high profile failures, (the next one could very well be First Great Western) that they have to change something in their ways. But, I have some doubts as whether this will be enough for them. Moreover, if this ‘something’ means even more regulation, then the costs for cleaning up the mess are going to be pretty high and, guess who will have to pay the bill then? The taxpayer as usual.

While I welcome most of the proposals outlined today by John Redwood, I have to say that I am a bit sceptical on some points. The painted picture of weak and a crumbling infrastructure is undoubtedly the right one as, are the failures of Labour policies in that respect. Yet I think that simply just simply relying on some ‘competition’ to solve these problems is, very immature.

It is perfectly fair to say that red tape needs to be eliminated concerning businesses and, that the taxes affecting businesses should be reduced if possible, without further complicating the existing tax system. Concerning railways, I have said numerous times that excessive control from the government is preventing healthy growth and creates waste in the process. But the truth is that, while massive investments are needed if we want to have a world class system. Some of the investment WILL have to come from the Treasury, this is particularly true if large scale modernisation projects are attempted. Since returns on such investments are only apparent after up to twenty years, private investment will always be limited in scope and it is very foolish to assume the contrary. On the others points highlighted by John Redwood, like the lack of technical innovation, vertically integrated railways are the solution, however ones has to acknowledge that this means regional monopolies, free of governmental influence (like during pre-BR times) and not competition.

Click here to continue reading…

The changes in the United Kingdom economic structure, from a manufacturing based economy to a service based economy are often the subject of debates and are most often considered as positive. However, before making any conclusion on this, it is very important to have an historical look at what happened, far away from sentences like ‘the Tories sold off our industries’.

Britain created most of its current wealth thanks to manufacturing and, as most people know, the Industrial Revolution started here. The relative decline of manufacturing started much earlier than what is commonly thought. Indeed by the time of the First World War, Britain was outmatched by both Germany and the United States. The reasons for this decline are numerous, but the lack of technological investment was a major factor at the time. Real decline in the sense commonly understood, only started for good after the Second World War and accelerated once the seventies were reached.

Beyond statements like ‘Maggie destroyed our pits and our factories’, the truth is clearly not at the advantage of the ‘defenders of British industries’ namely, the Labour Party. One of the reasons of the decline, was the lack of properly trained workers. Indeed manufacturing requires skills which are very different from the ones required for white collar jobs, one of the aspects of the Tripartite system were Technical Secondary Schools. These schools very similar to the ones existing in Germany and to the French Lycées Techniques, had a very clear role, providing the engineers, scientists, machinists and technicians of tomorrow. They were nevertheless starved of cash by the Labour Party and its trade unionists cronies. Now let’s talk a bit about, the crazy mergers and then nationalisations made by Harold Wilson. Labour involvement in the motor industry had only one result, the creation of an unmanageable juggernaut, offering similar yet competing products whose dire fate was already sealed in the seventies, the same can be said for the steel making and the shipbuilding industry. Excessive taxation of profits and the free hand given to the trade unions, also did a very good job in wrecking what was working, in the few industries still in private hands.

Click here to continue reading…

The recent actuality is full of news concerning UK’s air industry, whose symbol of Heathrow airport is again under the fire from critics. This time it’s almost look like everybody is guilty in the affair, BAA for its management failures especially since its recent takeover by the Spanish firm Ferroviara and British Airways for having an appalling record when it come to delivering luggage.

Yet behind the scenes the current government is also guilty in the affair. Guilty for not having a clear policy toward airport expansion, guilty for granting Heathrow terminal 5 planning permission a few years late, guilty for supporting the ‘ecologists’ arguments that air travel is bad for the environment; when in fact it only account for at best 2% of the UK’s carbon emissions.

While it is very easy to lambaste British Airways when it comes to the lost luggage, when an airport such as Heathrow is completely saturated, understaffed (clear failures from BAA here) and mismanaged. There are clearly other factors at play, undercapacity being one of them. Thence, since air travel WILL increase in the future no matter what the green lobby twats think, we need to plan future needs in advance.

Click here to continue reading…