An open letter to Grant Shapps: will you suspend Traditional Britain from the Conservative Party?

Just as Iain Duncan Smith suspended links with the Monday Club in 2001, so David Cameron must now take action against the far-right group.

Dear Grant,
 
It is with some alarm that those of us in the centre ground of British politics learnt this week of the existence of the Tory fringe group Traditional Britain. Today's Independent reports that the group’s vice chairman, Mr Gregory Lauder-Frost, campaigns for "traditional" values in the Conservative Party. You might be aware that he has caused deep offence with his recent comments about Doreen Lawrence: "we do not feel there is any merit in raising such a person to the peerage. She’s a complete nobody. She has been raised there for politically correct purposes. She’s just a campaigner about her son’s murder."
 
It is also reported that Mr Lauder-Frost believes that anyone living in Britain not of "European stock" should be offered "assisted voluntary repatriation" to their "natural homeland." I know you will find these views as offensive as I do. I am, however, shocked that such views are still alive in what I hoped was a modernised Conservative Party.
 
Secondly, I am sure you will agree that Traditional Britain, as a group, holds deeply offensive views. Its Facebook page calls for minorities to return to their "natural homeland" and refers to respected ethnic minority British MPs from the Labour Party and the Conservative Party as "Nigerian" and "foreign".
 
You will recall that the Monday Club held similarly offensive views and that in October 2001, Iain Duncan Smith was forced to finally suspend it from the Conservative Party. Do you agree that now is the time for David Cameron to show some leadership and suspend any links between the Conservative Party and Traditional Britain? Will you go further and make it absolutely clear that membership of the Conservative and Unionist Party is incompatible with membership of Traditional Britain? I know this will be difficult for you. Under your leadership of Conservative Campaign Headquarters, alarms bell apparently failed to ring when one of your backbenchers made enquiries about this group. As you know, that backbench MP subsequently spoke at a Traditional Britain dinner.
 
All of us are also aware of the plummeting Tory membership and I appreciate that you won’t want to lose yet more members on your watch.
However, I genuinely hope you will agree with me that these outdated and offensive views should have no place in a modern, mainstream British political party.
 
I look forward to your response.
 
Best wishes,
 
Jon Ashworth
Conservative chairman Grant Shapps speaks at last year's Conservative conference in Birmingham. Photograph: Getty Images.

Jon Ashworth is Labour MP for Leicester South. 

Getty
Show Hide image

The deafening killer - why noise will be the next great pollution scandal

A growing body of evidence shows that noise can have serious health impacts too. 

Our cities are being poisoned by a toxin that surrounds us day and night. It eats away at our brains, hurts our hearts, clutches at our sleep, and gnaws at the quality of our daily lives.

Hardly a silent killer, it gets short shrift compared to the well-publicised terrors of air pollution and sugars food. It is the dull, thumping, stultifying drum-beat of perpetual noise.

The score that accompanies city life is brutal and constant. It disrupts the everyday: The coffee break ruined by the screech of a line of double decker buses braking at the lights. The lawyer’s conference call broken by drilling as she makes her way to the office. The writer’s struggle to find a quiet corner to pen his latest article.

For city-dwellers, it’s all-consuming and impossible to avoid. Construction, traffic, the whirring of machinery, the neighbour’s stereo. Even at home, the beeps and buzzes made by washing machines, fridges, and phones all serve to distract and unsettle.

But the never-ending noisiness of city life is far more than a problem of aesthetics. A growing body of evidence shows that noise can have serious health impacts too. Recent studies have linked noise pollution to hearing loss, sleep deprivation, hypertension, heart disease, brain development, and even increased risk of dementia.

One research team compared families living on different stories of the same building in Manhattan to isolate the impact of noise on health and education. They found children in lower, noisier floors were worse at reading than their higher-up peers, an effect that was most pronounced for children who had lived in the building for longest.

Those studies have been replicated for the impact of aircraft noise with similar results. Not only does noise cause higher blood pressure and worsens quality of sleep, it also stymies pupils trying to concentrate in class.

As with many forms of pollution, the poorest are typically the hardest hit. The worst-off in any city often live by busy roads in poorly-insulated houses or flats, cheek by jowl with packed-in neighbours.

The US Department of Transport recently mapped road and aircraft noise across the United States. Predictably, the loudest areas overlapped with some of the country’s most deprived. Those included the south side of Atlanta and the lowest-income areas of LA and Seattle.

Yet as noise pollution grows in line with road and air traffic and rising urban density, public policy has turned a blind eye.

Council noise response services, formally a 24-hour defence against neighbourly disputes, have fallen victim to local government cuts. Decisions on airport expansion and road development pay scant regard to their audible impact. Political platforms remain silent on the loudest poison.

This is odd at a time when we have never had more tools at our disposal to deal with the issue. Electric Vehicles are practically noise-less, yet noise rarely features in the arguments for their adoption. Just replacing today’s bus fleet would transform city centres; doing the same for taxis and trucks would amount to a revolution.

Vehicles are just the start. Millions were spent on a programme of “Warm Homes”; what about “Quiet Homes”? How did we value the noise impact in the decision to build a third runway at Heathrow, and how do we compensate people now that it’s going ahead?

Construction is a major driver of decibels. Should builders compensate “noise victims” for over-drilling? Or could regulation push equipment manufacturers to find new ways to dampen the sound of their kit?

Of course, none of this addresses the noise pollution we impose on ourselves. The bars and clubs we choose to visit or the music we stick in our ears. Whether pumping dance tracks in spin classes or indie rock in trendy coffee shops, people’s desire to compensate for bad noise out there by playing louder noise in here is hard to control for.

The Clean Air Act of 1956 heralded a new era of city life, one where smog and grime gave way to clear skies and clearer lungs. That fight still goes on today.

But some day, we will turn our attention to our clogged-up airwaves. The decibels will fall. #Twitter will give way to twitter. And every now and again, as we step from our homes into city life, we may just hear the sweetest sound of all. Silence.

Adam Swersky is a councillor in Harrow and is cabinet member for finance. He writes in a personal capacity.