Clacton is likely to deliver Ukip its first elected MP. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

How do we breathe new life into our coastal towns, which are now key Ukip targets?

 Ukip will throw the kitchen sink at coastal towns next year, such as South Thanet, Folkestone and Skegness. How to dodge the purple rosette?

Britain’s economy is recovering faster than any other developed country. These are not the words of George Osborne but analysis from the International Monetary Fund. Unemployment is at its lowest level since 2008, small businesses are set to create nearly 2m new jobs by the end of the year and even housing starts are at their highest number for seven years (albeit from a very low base).

Yet, many people across the country are not feeling the benefits of economic recovery in their back pockets. Polling carried out by Lord Ashcroft in May and September this year found an increase in the number of people saying the economy is recovering from recession (up from 58 per cent to 62 per cent). However, the number saying they feel better off as a result was unchanged at 12 per cent. Interestingly Ukip voters were the most likely to say they thought the economy was still not recovering.

The rise of the purple rosette is of particular concern for Conservative MPs and strategists. The by-election in Clacton may well lead to their first member of parliament since Bob Spink defected from the Tories in 2008, giving the party greater credibility among the voting public. Ukip has stated that they will throw the kitchen sink at specific constituencies next year, notably coastal towns such as South Thanet, Folkestone and Skegness. Labour is also under threat with the party losing its incumbency factor in Grimsby when Austin Mitchell steps down in May. The question for the main political parties is how to prevent a repeat of the anti Westminster/anti Establishment rhetoric that characterised the SNP’s campaign in Scotland. Believe me, Nigel Farage will have been taking notes.

One of the key issues that has to be addressed is the feeling of isolation that many people in these once vibrant towns are feeling. We live in an increasingly interconnected world. Low cost air travel, a globalised workforce and the success of the UK economy has led to a surge of people from across the wold coming to these shores to seek a better life for themselves and their families. According to figures from the Office of National Statistics, net migration into the UK increased by more than 38 per cent to 243,000 in 2013-14. This leads to fears that Britain public services will be overstretched and that ‘British workers’ will be unable to compete with foreign arrivals. Immigration is cited by voters as one of their key concerns and UKIP has played on people’s fears of globalisation. Nigel Farage’s argument that Britain is losing control of its borders resonates with large swathes of people who feel they and their children do not have the skills to compete for local jobs.

Politicians do need to address the elephant in the room. However, instead of talking about limiting the number of people coming to this country (almost impossible to do while being part of the EU), the focus should be on understanding people’s legitimate concerns and addressing them through a focus on training, jobs and wages. This is especially true when it comes to vocational qualifications, an issue that Policy Exchange will be discussing on the Monday morning of Conservative party conference at an event with Skills Minister, Nicholas Boles, the Mayor’s economic adviser, Dr Gerard Lyons and the CEO of Travelodge, Peter Gowers. Attending university was seen as a panacea under the Blair government and whilst it was right to encourage people from all backgrounds to consider the academic route, the focus on university led to technical courses being seen as inferior.

It is encouraging to see this government recognise the important of vocational qualifications through the introduction of the TechBacc, something incidentally Policy Exchange called for at the start of 2013. The government needs to further encourage employers to work closely with FE colleges and Technical Colleges – as well as school leavers and the long term unemployed – to develop training programmes that provide long term career opportunities for young men and women who do not want, or are not suited, to an academic higher education. In areas of the country that feel particularly isolated by the growth of London and other major cities, sectors like tourism, catering and hospitality can provide life changing opportunities for people who don’t feel they have a stake in what the Prime Minister refers to as the ‘global race’.

The economic recovery is something that Britain should be proud of but it is critical that as many people as possible, wherever they live, are given the chance to feel the effects of an outward looking, free market economy through training, jobs and ultimately a secure future. If the Conservatives are able to show people in coastal towns that there is light at the end of the tunnel for themselves and their families, they should be rewarded at the ballot box.

Nick Faith is Director of Communications at Policy Exchange. Policy Exchange and Travelodge will be hosting their fringe event, ‘Unlocking the skills and growth potential of unexploited sectors in the UK economy’, at 10am on Monday 29th September in the Novotel, Birmingham.

Nick Faith is Director of Communications at Policy Exchange

Getty
Show Hide image

Is the Great Fire of London a blueprint for how governments deal with disasters?

Visible leadership, an established authority, and a common external enemy: an enduring defence mechanism 350 years on.

In 1968, the science journal The Lancet ran a report into human behaviour. When populations are confronted with disaster, it recommended, effective “communications, coordination, and control, and the establishment of a recognised authority” are of utmost importance (advice that should have been heeded immediately after the Brexit result in June this year).

The 350th anniversary of the Great Fire of London this week seems is a good time to think about how we deal with disasters: over 13,000 homes were destroyed, 87 churches ruined and thousands of Londoners displaced.

For me, one of the most striking parts of the story of the Great Fire is not the fire itself nor the dramatic rebuilding programme that followed, but the state of flux in between.

When the fire broke out, England was at war with both the Dutch Republic and France. As soon as news reached France, the Venetian ambassador Alvise Sagredo, declared that the fire would be “worse than the plague and any other disaster, capable of making [the English] change their government and their principles”.

In England, even the London Gazette warned that England’s foes would try “to persuade the world abroad of great parties and disaffection at home against his majesties government”. Faced with unparalleled destruction and unprecedented disarray, how did the king, his advisers and civic authorities regain control of London?

With the Guildhall severely damaged and the Royal Exchange destroyed, the first step was to find a new base for civic and mercantile power. On 6 September, Charles II instructed the Lord Mayor and the city aldermen to resume governance of the city. Gresham College and buildings around Bishopsgate were taken over and efforts were immediately taken to re-establish trade. Vendors were granted permission to set up sheds in temporary markets at Bishopsgate Street, Tower Hill, Smithfield and Leadenhall Street.

“Honest and able persons” were selected to monitor the ruined city to ensure fire did not break out afresh, appeals were made across the country for charitable donations and neighbouring counties were called upon to provide sustenance. From the navy stores, ship’s biscuit was offered to the needy and canvas was provided so that the tens of thousands of homeless people stranded in the fields surrounding London could fashion tents.

The measures were not perfect. Visiting Moorfields, the diarist John Evelyn described, “the poor inhabitants . . . some under tents, some under miserable huts and hovels, many without a rag”.

Those stranded found food to be in short supply and many succumbed to the illnesses bred by a reduced condition in life, including aged playwright James Shirley, who died in October 1666.

But it wasn’t long before people started to disperse – either leaving London altogether, finding accommodation elsewhere, or returning to the locations of their former homes and shops to erect makeshift shacks above the ruins.

In the background, the trial and execution of French watchmaker Robert Hubert, who falsely claimed to have started the fire, provided a focus for any anger and rage.

With communication ruptured following the destruction of the London Gazette printing house and the General Letter Office, rumours of plots, arson and invasions had spread almost as quickly as the fire itself. Indeed, terrible violence had broken out during the fire, with mobs targeting any “strangers” or foreign-born Londoners. One French servant, for example, reported how gangs of “English women did knock down strangers for not speaking good English. Some of them armed with spits, some with bread staffs, and the captain with a broad sword.”

When the London Gazette was released the week after the fire – after only skipping one edition of its biweekly run – it provided readers with a detailed description of the catastrophe, emphasising its accidental nature and promoting the role played by Charles II and his brother and heir, James, Duke of York, in preventing the fire spreading even further.

Against protocol, the newspaper also allowed important tradespeople to advertise their new offices: the goldsmith-bankers, for example, informed readers that they had found premises along Broad Street.

By mid-September, the etcher Wenceslaus Hollar had already begun his survey of the city and plans had been submitted to the king from John Evelyn and architects Christopher Wren and Robert Hooke, to name just a few, as to how to rebuild the capital.

Writing at the time, Sir Nathaniel Hobart, believed that the “rebuilding of the Citty will not be soe difficult as the satisfying all interests, there being many proprietors”. As such, one of the most important innovations following the disaster was the establishment of a judiciary, known as the Fire Court, to untangle the complex web of formal and informal agreements between tenants and landlords. From 1667 until 1672 the Fire Court settled hundreds and hundreds of cases.

There were certainly many bumps along the way – for a while, the City of London was plundered and inhabited by gangs. Plus, anger towards foreign-born Londoners continued; owing to his Dutch background, one Johan Vandermarsh had to fight tooth and nail to keep hold of his property on Lime Street, despite helping to save many of his neighbours’ homes.

All of this considered, there was nothing like the widespread disorder that Charles II had feared and his enemies expected. On the contrary, the visibility of the king and his brother and heir – and the convenient suspicion that the fire had been started by an external enemy – worked to bind the people to their king and settle unrest. Although hard to believe at the time, there was also the promise of “a more beautiful city”.

Rebecca Rideal is a historian, factual television producer and author of 1666: Plague, War and Hellfire.

She will be speaking at London’s Burning festival on Friday 2 September – a contemporary festival of art and ideas produced at Artichoke to commemorate the 350th anniversary of the Great Fire of London. Free to the public, it runs from 30 August-4 September.