Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú

The Ministry of Defence is insisting today that no decision has been made but on the Moray Firth everyone is convinced that RAF Marham in Norfolk air base has been reprieved and it's now a battle of survival between RAFs Lossiemouth and Leuchars in Scotland.

Yesterday the Armed Forces Minster Nick Harvey visited the Lossiemouth area and met local councillors and business leaders. What he said to them depends on who you want to believe.

"He told us categorically that RAF Marham was safe, leaving it a battle between Lossiemouth and RAF Leuchars," says Callum McPherson, of Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

Another person at the meeting, local councillor John Divers, says: "I asked him where Marham had gone, and he came back stating there that though no decision had been made, it would not be financially viable to move personnel and equipment from Marham."

When questioned by local reporters Mr Harvey said: "I think they are overstating what I said. I simply made the point that the costs of relocating the RAF out of Marham would be very high and first and foremost the purpose of this whole exercise is to try and achieve financial savings."

And later on a terse statement from the Ministry of Defence declared: "The minister did not say that RAF Marham was 'safe'. He was explaining some, but not all, of the considerations taken into account, as part of UK-wide RAF basing reviews. No decisions have yet been made."

But if Marham has been ruled out it would tie in with the mood music coming out of Westminster.

This week the government said no decision would be made until the early summer - after the Scottish elections. That and other whispers coming out of the MOD has left Norfolk MPs feeling more positive, while Scottish MPs are becoming resigned to this now being a battle between two Scottish airbases.

The Save RAF Marham campaign says this is the most positive news yet but it will not give up the fight.

"Whilst the minister has acknowledged the tactical military advantages of Marham and the significant costs of relocating that I and other campaigners have been articulating, we cannot and should not assume anything until a decision has been made," says George Freeman, the MP for Mid Norfolk.

There may well be other twists and turns in this story but at the moment the smart money seems to be on the Tornadoes staying at Marham.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The consultation is only a few hours old but already a lot of people in the eastern counties appear unhappy about the proposal for the government to take a step back from managing our forests.

Campaign groups are being formed, MPs are being lobbied and marches planned.

Out of 350 text messages sent to a Radio Norfolk phone-in on the issue, all but four were against the idea of putting forests into private hands.

MPs from the region say the issue has dominated their emails and postbags for the last week and they've been taken aback at the strength of public outrage.

"We didn't see this one coming," said one. "People are genuinely angry."

"This reminds me of the row over NATS," said another, referring to the plans by the National Air Traffic Service to redraw the approach routes to Stansted and Luton airports, which provoked enormous anger. The plans were eventually dropped.

"Every once in a while an issue comes along that really takes politicians by surprise," says Ian Waddell, the rural officer of the Unite union. "It's a touchstone issue for people. They feel very passionate about their forests and I think politicians would be really stupid to ignore the level of protests."

Forests feature heavily in the landscape of the east. There are 70,000 acres of Forestry Commission land in the region. By far the largest is Thetford Forest in Norfolk (40,000 acres), the other large areas of woodland are Rockingham Forest in Northamptonshire (6,750 acres) and Rendlesham Forest in Suffolk (3,750 acres).

The government has been stressing that this is only a consultation and that even if land is handed over to the private sector it would only be on a lease, and public access, biodiversity and protection from development would be safeguarded.

"I live near Thetford Forest and I know what it's like and how popular it is with the public," said Environment Minister James Paice, the Cambridgeshire MP.

"We will protect all rights of access, public benefits, biodiversity through whatever form of transfer or terms of lease that we commit ourselves to."

But many people don't seem to be reassured.

"The government has guaranteed access on foot but we've had no guarantees about access for other users like horseriders, people who orienteer, husky racers," says Anne Mason from Friends of Thetford Forest. "The Forestry Commission also provided for disabled access, we have no guarantees that any other owner would do that."

"Ancient woodland is the UK's equivalent of the rainforest. New, tougher safeguards must be in place for our oldest and most iconic woods before any 'For Sale' signs are erected," says Sue Holden, chief executive of the Woodland Trust.

Labour is also joining in. Richard Howitt, an MEP for the East, is urging people to take part in the consultation declaring that there are "12 weeks to save Thetford Forest".

"A short-term dash for cash threatens public access to the forest, an end to high standards of environmental stewardship and European-level protected habitats for rare birds," he says. "We have to force the government to accept keeping Forestry Commission ownership means keeping public forests in public control."

MPs we've spoken to seem convinced by Mr Paice's assurances. But it seems a lot of the public still need to be won over.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

has been kicking up a fuss about fuel bills.

Many of you may have noticed that bills for domestic heating oil have gone through the roof... some Look East viewers reporting a £100 hike between their last bill and what they're being charged now.

The Conservative member for Suffolk Coastal, along with some other MPs, has complained about the recent domestic oil price spike to the .

He, in turn, has now written to the to see what can be done to alleviate the problem in the future.

Ms Coffey says: "This problem is particularly prevalent in Suffolk Coastal where many people are off the energy grid and I have been making this known in Parliament."

How bad is it?

Well, over the last six months the average 40-45p a litre mark shot up in November to just over 70p, hitting around 73p on 21 December. It is now starting to fall away to around but with the cold snap over, you might ask, why can't prices fall as quickly as they jumped?

Thousands of people who depend on domestic heating oil have been asking whether it is blatant profiteering.

The oil companies say the price rise was down to "a perfect storm" of an early cold snap, rising commodity prices, school holidays and Christmas. They also say winter prices make up for the lean times in the summer when demand and prices are relatively low.

The is currently consulting on proposals to prioritise looking at markets affected by high, rising and volatile commodity prices and the off-gas grid energy market is clearly one of them.

The Minister wants the Office of Fair Trading to speed that up and he is "looking forward to seeing its conclusions in advance of next winter, so the lessons from this winter can be learned and any necessary changes made".

In the meantime the has this advice. Form a syndicate... the more of you who club together to buy oil, the more you'll be able to bargain and beat down the price.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

For years Euro-sceptics have been trying to find a way to hold a referendum on Europe. Has Wellingborough's Peter Bone found the Holy Grail?

He is hoping to attach a rather complicated amendment to the Europe Bill currently going through parliament which could trigger a referendum.

At the moment the government's bill proposes holding a referendum on any attempt by Brussels to take more powers from Britain. Mr Bone's amendment proposes a second referendum, this time on leaving the European Union altogether, if the first delivered a "no" vote.

In other words if the EU proposed (and this is just an example) taking control of some tax raising powers from Britain, under the government's new bill a referendum would be held to see if the British people approved.

If a majority said no, under Mr Bone's amendment we would then all get a say on whether we wanted to leave the EU altogether.

"This will be the first time that parliament has had an opportunity to consider this question and we could actually get on statute a procedure where the British people - not politicians - get to trigger a vote on whether they want to leave the EU."

Mr Bone says at the moment its left to politicians to decide when to call a referendum and no government will do that if it feels the vote won't go its way.

In the past the politicians have been reluctant to do that even though the British people have clearly shown that they want one. This takes it out of the hands of politicians

"I have support from all political parties in the House (of Commons) so I'm hopeful we'll be allowed a free vote," he said.

So once again Mr Bone is trying to influence the debate on Europe - an issue he strongly believes in, as mentioned in earlier blogs. There are some in his party who call him a member of the awkward squad.

His reaction: "It's quite a compliment. Our job as parliamentarians is to scrutinise the government, not to be cheerleaders for the government."

• On 1 February Mr Bone's amendment was defeated by 295 votes to 26

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The issue of giving the vote to prisoners is shaping up to be the first big political row of the year and it's all down to a couple of Northamptonshire MPs.

The issue became a major talking point (and a potential crisis for the Government) when Labour's Jack Straw and the Conservative David Davis joined together to demand a full Commons debate on the issue.

This blog can reveal that their intervention was brought about by the MP for Kettering, , and his neigbouring colleague , the MP for Wellingborough.

Last week Philip Hollobone secured a Westminster Hall debate on the issue which was well attended - largely by angry Conservatives.

"Many people up and down the land are furious that once again the Government seems to be bending over to the human rights lobby," said Mr Hollobone.

"Here's a golden opportunity for the Coaltion to say 'we're going to put Britain first'. If we have to pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights let's possibly do so. That would have a lot of support in the country."

During the debate Peter Bone expressed his frustration that this issue was not being debated on the main floor of the Commons.

We understand that after the debate Mr Bone, who is also a member of the backbench business committee, spoke with David Davis and Jack Straw, pointing out the strength of opposition displayed during Mr Hollobone's debate and persuading them to push for a full debate.

This they did a few days later.

Mr Bone will only admit to having had 'discussions' with Mr Davis and lays the credit for the Straw/Davis intervention at the door of Mr Hollobone for organising the Westminster Hall debate in the first place.

But another MP closely connected to the issue told us 'it was all down to Peter'.

Both Mr Bone and Mr Hollobone are on the right of the Conservative Party and both hold very firm euro-sceptic views.

Giving prisoners the right to vote is, they believe, a step too far. The fact that the move has been forced on the Government by the European Court of Human Rights just adds more grist to the mill.

They make no apology for speaking out.

And if the Government is forced into making further concessions or climbing down altogether over this issue it will be thanks very largely to the actions of Messrs Bone and Hollobone.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

One of the most interesting revelations this week has been that Mid Norfolk MP George Freeman has racing blood in him.

During the debate on the future of the racing industry he told MPs that his father, Arthur, won the 1958 Grand National on Mr What. Further research has revealed that it was quite a win - by 30 lengths.

Mr Freeman was racing for the Queen Mother during most of the 50s.

He also won the King George VI Chase on Lochroe.

His son, during the racing debate, revealed that apart from having a famous father he'd grown up on a farm near Newmarket and regularly went racing at Fakenham.

His godfather is Grand National winning jockey Michael Scudamore, his brother breaks and prepares horses in California and his mother once owned the future 1971 Grand National winner, Specify.

"Racing is not just an industry, it sits at the heart of what it is to be British", he told MPs.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

There is a crisis in British horse racing which this week will be drawn to the attention of parliament.

It's an issue which may have escaped the notice of many punters, but talk to those within the industry and they'll tell you that the most pressing concern is the future of the racing levy.

Some will even go as far as saying that if the issue isn't resolved this year, many stables and betting shops in the region will go out of business.

The racing levy has been around for 50 years.

Bookmakers have to pay a proportion of their profits to the horse racing industry which in turn uses the money to develop the sport - providing prize money, veterinary services, things like that

But with many people placing bets with companies based overseas and not paying the levy, the amount the industry receives keeps falling.

The whole issue came to a head at the end of last year when the bookmakers offered £48m to the racing industry for this year and the industry rejected the offer saying it was expecting something in the region of £130-£150m. The matter has now gone to Sports and Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt for adjudication.

It is now clear to both sides that the whole way that racing is funded needs reforming. So Newmarket's MP Matthew Hancock has secured a three-hour debate on the subject.

It will note that the horse racing industry supports employment of 100,000 people in Britain and contributes £3.5 billion to the UK economy each year and it will call on the government to bring forward proposals to improve the system of funding.

"I want a sustainable future for British racing which is some of the best in the world," says Mr Hancock.

"But the amount of funding that's been going into racing has been falling year on year as more betting goes offshore. That's why we need to reform the system.

"If we don't have that reform we will cease to attract some of the best horses and owners to Britain and the whole of the racing industry in this country will decline."

Among his four suggestions for reforming the system is to close the loophole that frees offshore betting companies from contributing to the levy.

"I think it's right that the government insists that those people who bet on racing make some contribution towards the way the race is run," he says.

But there are some who question how great a crisis this really is.

The Association of British Bookmakers points out that attendances are rising, as have corporate sales and sponsorship.

"British horse racing is in a pretty healthy state as far as we're concerned," says its Chief Executive Patrick Nixon. He says that once horse racing accounted for 40% of his members' profits. Now it's just 28%.

"The amount of profit we make on horse racing was down by 20% last year and therefore our capacity to pay the levy goes down with it."

And he points out that bookmakers are having to pay more every year for TV pictures of races - and the rights for those races are overseen by horse racing.

"Bookmakers are still paying more every year to racing. We're just doing it through a different channel."

He claims that every £10m rise in the levy will cost 1000 jobs in the betting industry.

Newmarket is the home of British horse racing. The Newmarket Trainers' Federation has warned that of the 85 trainers in Newmarket only 20 could survive unless this matter is sorted out soon.

That's why the town's MP regards sorting out this issue as one of his most important challenges this year.

After the debate in Parliament on the future of horseracing, Matthew Hancock said:

"The debate showed the strength of feeling in Parliament about the importance of racing, and demonstrated the will within Parliament to find a sustainable future for racing's finances. The case was clearly made from all sides of the House of the need for betting to support the racing industry on which it relies. There was very strong support for bringing offshore betting onshore, and many Members supported the call for a Racing Right.

"The motion called for the Government to put forward reforms to the funding of horseracing by the end of the year. I was delighted that the Government accepted the clear consensus of Parliament in support of this motion.

"We must urgently reform racing's funding so that betting pays a fair return. After today's debate I feel the momentum gathering."

Commenting on Matthew Hancock's parliamentary debate on the future of the Horseracing Levy, the Bookmakers' Committee have issued the following statement. The Bookmakers' Committee is the statutory body negotiating the Levy on behalf of the UK betting industry.

Will Roseff, Chairman of the Bookmakers' Committee, said:" The facts simply don't support claims that British horseracing is in crisis or that the funding from the bookmakers has fallen.

Attendances at meetings are up, not down. The extra money that bookmakers are paying to courses for live TV coverage of meetings more than compensates for any fall in revenue caused by a decline in betting on British horseracing.

Any rise in the levy is unnecessary, unreasonable and would put the future of 400 betting shops and 2,000 jobs across the country at risk.

Ultimately, we need to get rid of this 50-year-old subsidy and come to a modern commercial arrangement through which the betting industry can support British horseracing as it always has done."

*UpdateThe Government has agreed to increase the horse racing levy. Bookmakers will pay around eighty million pounds to the sport next year - much more than they had reportedly offered.

The Sport and Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt announced that the headline rate of Levy will increase by 7.5% from 10% to 10.75% for Licensed Betting Offices and telephone and internet betting operators.

The West Suffolk MP Matthew Hancock said:" This settlement is a small first step in securing the future of the sport. More important is the clear indication that the Government has given that it will act to reform the levy and put racing's finances on a sustainable footing. Security for racing's future cannot come soon enough".

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Richard Bacon, Conservative MP for South Norfolk, has been on the warpath again.

This time the member of the Public Accounts Committee has Private Finance Initiatives in his sights.

He's complained that the schemes, used widely under Labour but the brainchild of the Conservatives originally, aren't value for money.

"PFI has been used to build new hospitals and social housing, but many early PFI housing projects have suffered long delays and the cost of providing hospital services varies widely.

"There is no clear evidence that PFI has provided taxpayers with better value for money than alternative means of funding but many local authorities and NHS Trusts were not offered any realistic alternatives to the use of the Private Finance Initiative.

"Government departments must not chain public bodies to PFI then leave them to twist in the wind. Where PFI is used, the Treasury must make sure it has been assessed against all the alternatives and then only use it when PFI can be clearly shown to offer taxpayers the best value for money."

The Norfolk and Norwich Hospital is one of the landmark PFI schemes in the region and has come in for criticism from virtually day one. The former Lib Dem health spokesman and MP for North Norfolk Norman Lamb just last year was highly critical of the deal:

"The new Norfolk and Norwich hospital was constructed using PFI. Some years after construction, the private investors refinanced the deal - a bit like re-mortgaging. This delivered a windfall payment of more than £110m. The NHS got just 29% of that gain.

"I took the case to the National Audit Office and asked them to investigate the deal. The Public Accounts Committee subsequently concluded that the extent of benefit to the private partners was too high and the chairman described it as "the unacceptable face of capitalism".

Private Finance Initiatives are a way of building infrastructure - our schools and hospitals, police headquarters and even part of the Foreign Office. Private capital puts in the initial costs and builds and operates the sites; a return on its investment is paid for by the government as annual fees.

Meanwhile, the government gets new development without having to pay for it up-front and some would say, more importantly, without the costs appearing on its books, so it doesn't count as public spending. So what's not to like?

Well, quite a lot actually. When John Major first introduced the model, Labour warned that apparent savings could be very costly in years to come. Nevertheless, PFIs proliferated under Labour and it fell to the Tories to complain.

Chancellor George Osborne, in opposition, had plenty to say about rethinking Labour's flawed policy. So did Vince Cable, now Business Secretary, who described the situation as ludicrous.

The reality, it may not surprise you to learn, is that the Coalition has so far done very little more than examine the cost of the outstanding deals.

Richard Bacon may be whistling in the wind.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Christopher Heaton-Harris tells me he doesn't mind being one of the less compliant new MPs.

"We have 22 Lib Dem ministers, so there's not many of the new intake who can look forward to being promoted, which in some ways gives us a bit more licence," he laughs.

And already he's made his feelings known. The new MP for Daventry is a qualified football referee and he likes his sport.

Before he stood down as an MEP for the East Midlands (he served two terms from 1999) Mr Heaton-Harris became the President of the , a group of approximately 40 MEPs who have an interest in sport and sporting issues.

So he was not impresssed by the government's plans to axe the School Sports Partnerships. "That was a big mistake and I told them so," he says.

Last week he argued strongly during the reading of the .

He called himself a pragmatic Euro sceptic but did not bring himself to vote against the bill on the grounds that you need to pick the right targets.

He told the House: "Maybe at some point in this parliament we can have a referendum on Europe ... I would love an "in or out" referendum.

"Based on where we are now and what we have, it would certainly be "out". I want the British people to have their say on our relationship with Europe and I also want them to be engaged in what is going on in their name in this place and in the negotiations."

He is not alone. A number of MPs, particularly in Northamptonshire, feel strongly -especially about Europe - and who are not afraid to speak out.

They're something of an awkward squad and seem to be proving more of a thorn in the coalition's side than the expected backlash from "progressive" Lib Dems.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

It is not often that we report the result of local council by-elections on this blog but the Humbleyard County Council result in Norfolk deserves a mention.

The seat on the outskirts of Norwich (named after the old Norfolk Hundred - the deanery of Humbleyard) has always been safe Conservative territory, and it still is, but look beneath the vote and there's an interesting story.

The seat was held by Daniel Cox, the former Conservative leader of . He oversaw the £10m of emergency cuts to this year's budget and set in train the £155m of cuts which the council will start to announce next month and then decided to resign to pursue a lifelong ambition to carry out charity work in India.

With the by-election taking place just weeks before the council confirms cuts to services and hundreds of job losses, Labour saw an opportunity.

The party has always done badly in Humbleyard. In fact, in the last two elections it came fourth, well behind the Greens. So the party wrote to every household in the ward saying the by-election was a referendum on the forthcoming cuts.

And Labour got its best ever result in Humbleyard.

Its candidate Marian Chapman polled 19% of the vote - more than double the 8% she got last time. She almost came second, just 14 votes behind the Liberal Democrats whose vote was quite sharply down.

"This is exactly what we wanted to do," says Ms Chapman. "I knew I could never win but I wanted people to show how strongly they felt about the forthcoming cuts and they have."

The Conservatives held the seat very comfortably with 46% of the vote, down from 52% last time.

"Yes, some people felt strongly about the cuts and they voted accordingly but not in sufficient numbers," says their new councillor Judith Virgo.

"This result is an endorsement of the Norfolk County Council Conservative policies. This is something people agree with and felt very strongly about."

As ever with a by-election it's possible to read all sorts of different things into the result. But this is the second time in four months that we have reported a good result for Labour in by-elections where they could have done badly.

Is this the start of a trend?

Full Result:
Judith Virgo - Conservative 1015
Jacky Sutton - Lib Dem 438
Marian Chapman - Labour 434
Jan Kitchener - Green 170
Richard Coke - UKIP 133

Turnout 26%

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

After months of criticism over how much they pay their chief executive while at the same time proposing major cuts to services, has responded.

It's doing away with its deputy chief executive.

Paul Adams, who is also Director of Corporate Resources and Cultural Services, has been with the council for more than 23 years but axing his post will save the council £200,000 a year.

It's part of a package of changes to senior management pay which will save £2.6m, which the council has decided to announce before it finalises its plans to cut dozens of services and hundreds of jobs.

It reveals that a total of 44 senior posts will go, performance-related pay schemes will be scrapped and there'll be a pay freeze.

For some time the county council has come in for criticism from ministers because its Chief Executive David White hasn't taken a pay cut.

Today's statement from says that Mr White (salary £218,000) will take over his deputy's responsibilities but his pay will remain frozen.

In other words, he won't be taking a pay cut. He'll just be expected to work harder.

That, the council hopes, will keep its critics happy.

Of course other authorities in our region - - are also being attacked over their chief executives' salaries. Will they now follow suit?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Cynics sometimes claim that if you're a backbencher you have very little influence over government policy.

Today, in the course of a couple of hours, two of the region's newest backbenchers were able to claim small but important victories.

The first was Julian Huppert, MP for Cambridge and a long-standing supporter of the city's educational establishments.

He had expressed concern about the government's new rules for overseas students coming to Britain. Under the changes they could apply for a six-month visa but if they wanted to stay any longer would have to prove their competency in English.

Language schools had argued that the six-month rule did not allow enough time for students to reach the required standard.

They were worried the restrictions would deter students from coming here to study (some were already apparently choosing Ireland or America instead) and could lead to the closure of some language schools.

But after heavy lobbying from Mr Huppert, Immigration Minister Damian Green has agreed to extend the length of stay under a student visa from six to 11 months.

It's a small but very important change which Mr Huppert claims will safeguard hundreds of jobs and secure the future of language schools across the country.

Meanwhile Harlow MP Robert Halfon has been fighting his own battle to allow the job centre in his constituency hand out food vouchers.

Under current legislation JobCentre Plus staff are not allowed to hand out the vouchers which provide three days' food for people who are in sudden financial difficulty - perhaps because their benefits have been slow to come through.

Now the Employment Minister Chris Grayling has not only given his support to what they're doing in Harlow, he's asked JobCentre Plus to work with a charitable trust on a pilot scheme which could see the initiative introduced nationwide.

Two small victories which will get very little media coverage but which will make life easier for many people.

And they've been brought about thanks to some persistent lobbying by two of our backbenchers.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

As they return to parliament every MP knows there will be one main theme which will dominate the political year.

The economy.

"This will be the year that the cuts start to bite," Luton South Labour MP Gavin Shuker. "People are only just starting to get an idea about how bad things will be.

"My local authority has got to cut 47% of its budget over the next four years and that will have an effect on local services and jobs - and that will be replicated across the whole of the East of England."

Ministers are also admitting it will be a bad year, while insisting it's not their fault.

It's put most prosaically by the Huntingdon MP Jonathan Djanogly on his website: "The continuing dark clouds of our debt legacy and foreign banking crises hang over us with the potential to burst at any time," he says, before wishing his constituents "fortitude" in the year ahead.

This will be a make or break year for the coalition.

VAT and fuel duty have already gone up. In the next month our local councils will finalise their budgets for the year and in doing so, cut dozens of services and hundreds of jobs.

In April, child benefit will be frozen, while thousands of middle income families will find it harder to qualify for tax credits. (We should also point out that 900,000 low earners will be better off when they're taken out of the tax system altogether in April but overall there will be more losers than winners once the new financial year starts).

"The measures set out in the Comprehensive Spending Review.... will be difficult for the Government" according to Norman Lamb, North Norfolk MP and special advisor to Nick Clegg, but he believes that by the end of the year the economy will be improving and people will see that the pain has been worth it.

"When governments take tough decisions of this sort we're not courting popularity, I think it's a question of being resilient, being disciplined and keeping your eye on the bigger picture," he says.

But the bigger picture is unlikely to be very clear by May when all of the region will get the chance to vote in the local elections. The Conservatives and particularly the Lib Dems are expecting a torrid time. Labour is more optimistic.

"This will be the start of the Labour fight back in the East," says Gavin Shuker, one of just two Labour MPs left in the region. "If you look at the elections we fought four years ago, we were at a very low ebb, so the only way is up. This year could lay the foundations for a big win for us in the General Election of 2015."

There will be other events which will impact on the region's politics this year: the AV referendum in May could pave the way for a big changes in the political make-up of the region. If it were to be adopted the region could, in the future, have fewer Conservative and more Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs.

And what about Afghanistan? More troops and airmen from our region are due to deploy there this year. Will it be for the final time? Ministers still hope the first withdrawal of British troops will happen this year.

"A political settlement must become more of a priority," says Bernard Jenkin, the Conservative Harwich and North Essex MP, and former member of the Defence Select Committee.

"We have found it to be far more protracted and difficult than we first thought. I expect we will now see a greater emphasis on a political solution to the conflict and less emphasis on the military," he adds.

Suffolk MP Matthew Hancock (Con) is hoping this will be the year that work finally starts on duelling the A11. While many MPs with rural constituencies hope the long promised investment in broadband will finally become reality.

But it will the economy which dominates. We will be watching for three important things this year:

• Will the public continue to accept that severe spending cuts need to be made or will the opposition grow?
• Will the private sector ride to the rescue? The government is banking on companies creating thousands of new jobs in 2011 and diluting the effect of the public sector job losses. If that does not start to happen this year the recovery will be in trouble.
• And finally, what about the Big Society? Will that step up to the challenge to take over the running of services which government and local authorities can no longer provide? If they might mitigate the effects of the cuts up to a point but if there aren't enough volunteers and charitable groups out there to help, it could get rough.

2010 was a momentous year in British politics; 2011 will be just as interesting.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Not many councillors find our a figure of fun.

Although it could be argued that he bears more than a passing resemblance to the likes of Stan Laurel, has cut a swathe through local authorities more akin to the antics of Atila the Hun.

The plain-speaking Yorkshireman has now been the subject of some plain speaking himself.

Mr Pickles has been called "a clown" by the boss of a South Yorkshire council.

Barnsley Chief Executive Phil Coppard has condemend the Communities Secretary's claims that budget cuts won't affect well-run councils.

Mr Coppard told Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Radio Sheffield: "You've got this clown of a secretary of state saying that in well-run councils, the public won't notice any difference. I mean what planet is this guy on?

"It's the big lie tactic that if you tell a big enough lie, and say it often enough, then people will believe it."

But Mr Pickles hasn't see the funny side. The response from the Department for Communities and Local Government said: "Driving down the nation's deficit is the government's biggest priority but we have made sure that extra money, powers and funding freedoms are available to protect frontline services and the public from council tax rises, offering real help to hard working families and pensioners.

"This was a tough but fair settlement ensuring the most vulnerable communities were protected.

"If councils share back office services, join forces to procure, cut out the non-jobs and root out the over-spends then they can protect frontline services."

As we face up to the deepest cuts in living memory, who do you think will have the last laugh?

**
Clearly not me, as one of you kindly pointed out I've mixed up my Laurel with my Hardy..

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Former workers from the Visteon car parts plant in Basildon are calling for a House of Commons investigation.

Eleven years ago they transferred from Ford to the car parts firm Visteon UK, which then went into administration.

Many of 170 workers based in Basildon lost almost half of their pensions.

The pension fund trustees have been meeting the local Conservative MP, South Basildon's Stephen Metcalfe, this afternoon, calling for a House of Commons inquiry into the affair.

One of them, Dennis Varney, a member of the Visteon pension action group, said: "An inquiry would be very beneficial in this circumstance to understand how the businesses deteriorated in respect of Ford and Visteon and why we were left with such a huge deficit, so 3,000 members of the pension plan either were left with a severely reduced pension or no pension at all going forward."

The former workers from the Basildon plant have. The struggle for pension payments goes on.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?