Built by Dave Cross.
Powered by Perlanet
For too long, people have told me they want to see more police on our streets. You have told me you want officers who are visible and part of daily life in Worksop. Not hidden away, but an active presence in the town centre, where people can see them and speak to them.
That is why I welcome the plans for a new police station on Bridge Street. It will put policing back in the heart of the town. It gives shoppers, visitors, businesses and residents more confidence that the police are on hand to keep the town centre safe.
The plan is for Nottinghamshire Police to move from their current base inside Queen’s Buildings to Bridge Street. Bassetlaw District Council has agreed to transfer the building to the police. There is still a process to follow, but this is a major step in the right direction.
I also want to be absolutely clear that this new police station will not come at the expense of policing in Retford, Harworth, or anywhere else in Bassetlaw. This is not about creating one single police station for the whole district.
Before the general election, I met with Police and Crime Commissioner Gary Godden. We agreed then that a stronger police presence would be a joint priority. I am pleased that this commitment is now moving forward.
We should also be honest about how we got here.
Over many years, local policing and justice in Bassetlaw has been hollowed out. The closure of custody cells in Worksop was a travesty. It meant people arrested locally have to be transported to Mansfield instead. I have heard first-hand from local police officers about the time this takes out of their day. An arrest can mean officers spending valuable time travelling to and from Mansfield, when that time could be better spent responding to crime and supporting residents here in Bassetlaw.
The loss of Worksop Magistrates’ Court created the circumstances for the prison cell closure because the costs of running them were shared with the police.
These decisions did not happen by accident. They followed years of cuts and a policy that expected towns like ours to make do with less. The result has been that important public services were taken further away from the people who rely on them.
The new police station is a chance to turn the page. It will not fix everything on its own. But it is a clear sign that Worksop is being listened to again.
Re-instating custody cell provision in Worksop remains a key campaign priority for me. I will continue to demand that we get this investment.
When someone is arrested in Bassetlaw, there must be the appropriate provision here in our area.
This new station is very welcome. It is progress. But it must be the start, not the end.
The post New Police Station Is a Win for Worksop, But We Must Go Further appeared first on Jo White MP.
Jeff Smith MP is joining Postcode Lottery, to host a virtual funding workshop for local charities, volunteer organisations, and community groups in the area. This session will give local organisations in the constituency advice on how they can apply for funds to make a difference in their community.
The live Zoom event takes place on the 10th of June at 11am. To attend contact funding@postcodelottery.co.uk.
To date, players of Postcode Lottery have raised over £1.5 billion for good causes and are now raising over £20 million a month for thousands of charities, covering every constituency in the country.
Over £114,000 has been raised for local causes in Manchester Withington, making a real difference to many good local organisations.
Manchester Withington MP, Jeff Smith said:
“I am pleased to co-host this funding workshop with Postcode Lottery to provide local charities with the tools they need to access funding. I know there are many charities in my constituency that would greatly benefit from additional funding, and I encourage them to attend the workshop to learn more about the opportunities available to them.”
Head of Public Affairs at Postcode Lottery, Nick Cook said:
“The money raised by players of Postcode Lottery is already having a huge impact in communities across the country.
We want to do as much as we can to help local charities and good causes successfully apply, particularly at a time when many are losing out on essential funds.
Our free virtual workshop is a useful opportunity for smaller, local charities to find out about the funding available, get advice on applying and ask us any questions they may have.”
George Freeman highlights that the UK’s most pressing national challenge is its persistently low economic growth and the structural barriers holding back productivity, enterprise, innovation, and investment. He calls on the Government to make a radical shift towards a “renaissance of enterprise and innovation,” including major reforms to regain control and unlock growth.
There is no more important issue for the country than the stubbornly low growth rate and the structural barriers to the growth, productivity, enterprise, innovation and investment that this country so desperately needs, solutions to which have defied successive Governments since the coalition and the political crisis that Brexit unleashed in 2016. It gives me no pleasure to highlight that, for my constituents in Mid Norfolk, the King’s Speech is irrelevant without real delivery on the ground. In Mid Norfolk, the small businesses on which we rely are shedding jobs; disposable incomes are falling; high streets in market towns such as Dereham, Watton and Attleborough are struggling; pubs are closing; farmers are moving away from farming food to take the Government incentives for solar panels and commuter housing estates; and public services are being overwhelmed by rising demand from new housing and an ageing population.
This is fuelling a surge in political anger, which explains a lot of the election results last week. Across Suffolk, Norfolk and the fens of Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire, rural deprivation, rural poverty and the disproportionate impact of high energy prices on the rural economy—where, according to Treasury figures, every cup of coffee, schoolbook, pencil, lesson and journey costs 20% more than in cities, yet rural areas are underfunded—are driving real anger, based on real grievances. People are now paying European levels of tax for American levels of public services, and they are fed up. Unless we—this Government, this Parliament, this media, this Whitehall—respect and understand the grievance and set out a truly bold plan to deal with it, I fear that the rich will continue to leave this country, that the middle classes, the engine of growth, will conclude that it is no longer worth putting the work in, and that the poor will turn to the black market and crime.
For that to happen, Governments and Parliament must take back control, and successive Governments have divested themselves of that control by, as Simon Case said when he left office, giving more power to unelected and unaccountable bodies of all kinds and types. For the Government to act, they need levers to pull to make the kind of difference that my hon. Friend described, and Governments have less and less ability to do that, yet the King’s Speech does not address that fundamental need for a change of direction.
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The King’s speech that my constituents loved was the King’s speech in Washington, in which he spoke for the very best of this country. My point is that it is in all our interests—I say this as a friend of mainstream politics and democracy—that we tackle this challenge more boldly.
I welcome the speed with which newly elected Labour MPs have realised the scale and urgency of the problem of public and voter anger, stubbornly slow growth, rising unemployment and demand for public services exceeding capacity, but they are in danger of going for the wrong prescription. What we need is a renaissance of enterprise and innovation across the public and private sectors. Convenient though it may be for my party politically, the idea that the answer is a regicidal political infighting crisis and a leadership contest in office is for the birds. Take it from me: my party has tested that idea to destruction, and we have all paid the price. We do not need a Labour party beauty contest. We need a Parliament and a Government that get more urgent about the many laudable things they have set out to do, but we do not have 10 years to deliver it—we have a couple of years.
If the Labour party knifes this Prime Minister, he will be the seventh who will have been got rid of because of the structural deficit. I remember, when I first arrived here in 2010, the brilliant Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies explaining what the structural deficit is, and it is worth repeating. The normal deficit is when a Government do not earn as much as they are spending; because the economy has taken a downturn, they borrow a bit to keep spending and then pay it back. The structural deficit is that bit of the deficit that goes up every year even when the economy is growing, and it is driven by four things. In 2010, it was being driven by welfare, public sector pensions, and—the big one—health, and debt interest was remarkably low. After the coalition, we had capped off the rise in public sector pensions, incredibly painfully, and we had capped off the rise in welfare, incredibly painfully. Health has continued to defy reform, and it is bankrupting the public sector. We are now spending more than 50% on health, welfare and social support. That is simply not affordable.
We cannot cut, borrow or tax our way out of this. The only way out is to grow, not through dumping cheap housing across the countryside, but by backing the industries of tomorrow.
I might press my hon. Friend a little further. The other way of dealing with that is to improve productivity, as I said earlier. He is right, of course, that the cost burden is fundamentally important, but it can be made better through greater efficiency. Indeed, the Government themselves have said that, as successive Governments have, but we must put in place measures—very often, tough measures—to deliver that kind of productivity.
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I will make a slightly different point, which is that there are huge opportunities for good growth in this country. Speaking as someone who has had a 16-year career backing the industries of tomorrow, whether it is in fusion, SMR nuclear technologies, agritech, bioscience, the bioeconomy on Teesside, or the satellite economy in Glasgow, we have an opportunity to turn these into the industries of tomorrow. I welcome the Government’s industrial strategy commitment to do it, but it is at 50,000 feet; we need to drop down to some more tangible and bolder policies to back those industries.
I know the Secretary of State gave a tub-thumping speech about the 1980s, but the truth is we have made a lot of progress over the last 20 years. I was doing my work as the Minister for Life Sciences, for agritech and for Science and Technology following in the footsteps of Paul Drayson and David Sainsbury. In life science, fusion, AI and quantum, we have built an unbelievably competitive economy, but other countries are moving fast. Our competitors are more agile. We are terrible at adopting technology in the public services. Our scale-ups are not getting the finance they need in the city. Kate Bingham in The Times today is right.
How do we unlock this? I want to suggest a ten-point plan for renewal. I support the Government’s ambition. I say this because if all of us fail, the Benches to my left of pub populists who are promising everything will win, and we will see even deeper disillusionment. I am calling in this speech for, first, real honesty of a 1979 scale about the extent of the emergency; secondly, bold devolution to the people, cities and mayors who know how to do it better—frankly, they could not do worse than Whitehall—thirdly, serious Whitehall reforms, so that we end the juvenile process of His Majesty’s Treasury playing Departments off against each other for funding, which in the end comes very late and is taken back; and fourthly, a serious backing for the innovation economy.
I welcome the £20 billion of R&D, but how we allocate it is key. We need to allocate it in a way that attracts private investment. Fifthly, we need a bold revolution of tax incentives for enterprises—a new deal for new business. There should be no national insurance or VAT for a couple of years for someone starting a company and growing it. Sixthly, we need regulation for innovation. That is not just cutting regulations, but leading in setting the regulation. I welcome the Government’s work in setting up the Regulatory Innovation Office. We then have skills and patriotic capitalism. I do not think it is communism to get the city investing in British business. Boldness—
An abridged version of this article ran in The Times on 3rd February 2025
In 2007, in the pages of this newspaper, I argued that Britain should seize the moment and move Heathrow to the Thames Estuary, freeing up the congested west London site for much-needed housing while creating a world-leading transport hub fit for the 21st century. It was an ambitious plan—perhaps too ambitious for a nation that has lost its appetite for grand infrastructure. Seventeen years later, what do we have? The same tired debates, the same dithering, and now, a third runway proposal that represents the absolute minimum of what could be done. It is not a vision; it is a concession to stagnation.
Throughout history, Britain built infrastructure that transformed cities and continents. The Victorians laid thousands of miles of railways across India and Africa. British engineers built the world’s first underground railway in London, the great docks of Hong Kong, and the vast shipping hubs that made global trade possible. Ours was once a nation that saw scale and complexity as challenges to be overcome, not reasons to prevaricate. Today, while China constructs floating airports in Hong Kong and Dalian, we are still arguing over a few extra miles of tarmac at an aging airport hemmed in by suburban sprawl.
The case for expanding Heathrow is undeniable. The airport operates at near capacity, with any disruption causing delays that ripple across the global aviation network. Additional capacity is needed. But the third runway is not a bold leap forward—it is an unimaginative compromise. The design is a relic of a bygone era when Britain was still willing to approve large infrastructure projects but had already begun its slow descent into cautious incrementalism. Surely for a solution we should be looking beyond the immediate horizon, daring to create something transformative.
Compare this to the grand infrastructure ambitions of Asia. Hong Kong’s Chek Lap Kok, which replaced the legendary but perilous Kai Tak airport in the 1990s, was built on reclaimed land. It was a marvel of engineering (mostly British), completed in just six years. Now, China is taking the concept even further: Dalian is constructing a floating airport, pushing the boundaries of what is possible. This is a country that doesn’t simply accept geographic limitations—it overcomes them. Britain, meanwhile, is paralysed by protest groups, endless consultations, and political hand-wringing.
A floating airport in the Thames Estuary—an idea proposed and swiftly dismissed—would have been a statement of ambition. London could have had its own Chek Lap Kok, a world-class hub unencumbered by the constraints of Heathrow’s location. Instead, we are left with a piecemeal expansion of an outdated site, in a project that will take decades and still leave Britain trailing behind.
The environmental argument against expansion is often cited as a reason for delay, but it is a red herring. Modern aviation is rapidly advancing towards lower emissions and greater efficiency. If the concern is air pollution and carbon footprints, the answer is not to stifle airport expansion but to embrace new technology, support cleaner aviation fuels, and invest in modern air traffic management. Britain should be leading these efforts, not using environmental concerns as an excuse for stagnation.
The economic cost of our hesitation is immense. Aviation is a key driver of trade, tourism, and investment. Heathrow’s constraints mean we lose out to European rivals, with airlines shifting long-haul routes to Paris, Amsterdam, and Frankfurt. The third runway, even if built, will do little to reclaim lost ground. By the time it is operational—assuming it even survives the judicial challenges that will inevitably come—other nations will have long since surpassed us.
What Britain needs is a fundamental shift in mindset. We must stop viewing major infrastructure projects as necessary evils to be endured and start treating them as national priorities. This requires reforming our planning laws, streamlining approval processes, and fostering a political culture that celebrates engineering excellence rather than recoiling from it.
The third runway at Heathrow is not the answer—it is a symptom of our decline. Instead of an afterthought tacked onto an aging airport, we should be considering radical alternatives: offshore airports, high-speed rail integration to regional hubs, and a renewed commitment to infrastructure that places Britain at the forefront of global connectivity. We were once a nation that built the world’s most advanced transport networks, that pioneered engineering breakthroughs others only dreamed of. We can be that nation again—but only if we stop settling for mediocrity and start daring to think bigger.
The world is not waiting for Britain to catch up. While we squabble over a single new runway, China is building entire new airports on water. The contrast is stark, and the lesson is clear: boldness breeds success, hesitation ensures decline. If Britain truly wishes to remain a global player, we must abandon the timid incrementalism of the third runway and embrace the kind of audacity that once made us great.
Kit Malthouse 1st February 2025
Christmas is a very special time. It's when we come together with friends and family to take stock, and give thanks for what we have.
Some years – in the best of times, this is cause for celebration.
Other years – it's more complicated if we're missing loved ones,
affected by illness, or facing money worries, homelessness, or loneliness.
Sometimes – let’s be honest, for many reasons, Christmas can just be about getting through it, and that's ok!
Because regardless of the year that’s been, or the circumstances you find yourself in, Christmas offers everyone a precious gift – hope.
The post Toby Perkins MP supports Chesterfield Hedgehog Rescue and Rehabilitation appeared first on Toby Perkins Labour MP.