MP Laing Talks Good Fight

How interesting it is to see Tory MP Eleanor Laing coming out with bold statements about the East of England Assembly ad its effects on the future of housing in the local area.

Labelling the assembly "an unnecessary and ineffective and unacceptable tier of government" (Guardian, November 25) is a great sound-bite but what is the substance of her an her Tory colleagues' alternative on regional assemblies?

Whilst it is easy to criticise and jump on bandwagons, surely it's time we heard some substance from Mrs Laing.

The Liberal Democrats position on this issue is crystal clear, we support the principle of elected regional assemblies and would give people a referendum on the subject.

In proposing the idea of elected assemblies, the Liberal Democrats believe we must open up the current system to enable bureaucracy to be cut along with costs.

We believe new elected assemblies should only allow elected representatives to have a voting say and ensure the views of all areas are heard.

What is interesting to note, however, is the beliefs of the Bow Group which according to their website is "the oldest in the country and one of the most influential centre-right think-tanks in Britain.

The group exists to develop policy, publish research and stimulate debate with the Conservative Party.

It has no corporate view, but represents all strands of the Conservative opinion."

In a policy belief for the Conservative party manifesto for next year's anticipated general election, it states, "A Conservative policy must be to devolve power from Whitehall.

We can have more localism and more regionalism at the same time. Indeed regional devolution may prove an indispensable bulwark for local government powers" (Devolution All Round, A Manifesto for 2005 A Policy Brief from the Bow Group, by Denis Whelan)

Forgive me but Mrs Laing's sound bite and indeed Eric Pickles' statement to the House on November 17: "The minister talks as though the vote in the north east was a hiccup on the road to regionalism rather that its death knell."

Does he not understand that denial is no substitute for a policy?

Confused? That's no surprise.