Thank you for inviting me to speak in this important debate and thank you for breaking your busy revision schedules to be here.

There are some shocking statistics about the UK. If you Google ‘racist attacks’, you will find some horrific stories. According to the Institute of Race Relations, there have been around a hundred killings with a racial element since the Stephen Lawrence murder of 1993 – that’s five a year.

But there are lots of positive facts about our country too. For example, young people from black and minority ethnic groups are actually slightly more likely to go to university than young white people, even if they’re less likely to study at some of our oldest institutions. The UK has record proportions of mixed marriages – on some measures, more than in any other European country. Whole areas of life are completely colour-blind, such as pop music. And sport: just look at Lewis Hamilton or the Premier League – sorry none of us is Stan Collymore, who (according to the Union website) was due to be here tonight.

So we on this side of the debate are not claiming that racism does not exist. Rather, we are claiming that Britain has made real progress in tackling prejudice – and that we should not be characterised as a racist country.

As a former History teacher who has taken pupils around a concentration camp, I know the horrors racism causes.

But my own academic research has focused on British fascism in the 1950s. It’s a topic worthy of study because it was fascists like Oswald Mosley who were the first people to try and embed racism at the heart of modern British politics. More than anything my research proved to me that racism in British politics is the province of the fruitcakes and the loonies. Let me tell you about those I studied.

• First, I looked at Arnold Leese, one of the leading British fascists, who taught his cat to give the fascist salute before eating.
• Then, I looked at RK Jeffrey, who funded the establishment of the National Front. He survived on walnuts, which he kept in a bathtub in case of a world shortage.
• And, finally, I looked at Colin Jordan, the British founder of the World Union of National Socialists, who in 1975 was arrested for shoplifting women’s underwear from Tesco’s in Leamington Spa.

Those who propose this motion are in effect claiming the views of such weirdos symbolise modern Britain. Well they don’t represent me and I hope they don’t represent you.

In 1968, Enoch Powell famously predicted there would be ‘rivers of blood’ flowing through Britain’s streets as a result of mass immigration. He found enormous support for what he said, and immediately became one of the most well-known and most popular politicians in the country. Thousands of workers flocked to Parliament to support him – and that doesn’t often happen to a Conservative. Powell even found support from the odd Afro-Caribbean migrant to the UK who claimed integration can not happen. But Enoch was wrong.

And everybody now knows he was wrong. No leading politician today would write a speech in which the argument is built around various quotes from racist letters. In a racist country, that would be lauded. Here, it would be career ending.

Yes, the English Defence League exist and, as I have written in the Cambridge News, they are the heirs of the National Front and the British National Party. But they represent nobody other than their tiny number of members. That’s why the recent EDL rally here in Cambridge was such a flop. Surely the proposition do not seriously believe the EDL are representative of Britain in this Olympic year as we get ready to host all the races of the world in London, a wonderfully multicultural city?

Sir Trevor Phillips, the Chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, doesn’t think so. He has written in a national newspaper: ‘I believe that Britain is by far – and I mean by far – the best place to live in Europe if you are not white. That’s not just my view, it’s an empirical truth.’ And he goes on to show some of that evidence.

Do not think I am downplaying racism by saying it’s not as much a feature of modern Britain today as the proposition think it is. A few years ago, I visited Rwanda. I went to a technical school which had never actually opened as a school. Just before it was due to open thousands of Tutsis fled there during the genocide of 1994. 50,000 were killed. Only a handful of people survived, including the man who showed me round. Today, they leave the place as a monument to the dead and the rooms are piled high with the skeletons of those who died. I defy anyone who has seen that to be relaxed about racism. But it is because such examples of genocide are so horrific that we have to be careful about when and where we apply such terms.

When I stood in Cambridge in the 2010 general election, I was told incorrectly by two people that Conservatives flirt with racism in the European Parliament. The first was the Labour candidate who said it in this very chamber. On election day, our vote rose by 8% and theirs fell by 10%. The other person who came to Cambridge and accused Conservatives of flirting with racism was the columnist Johann Hari, who has since had to resign his job at the Independent for making things up.

They were wrong because I stood on a ticket which was proud of Cambridge’s diversity. This city is most successful where it is most diverse.

Take, Mill Road – the most cosmopolitan and most interesting street in Cambridge, with numerous independent shops, the mosque and a proper community spirit at events like the Winter Fair. I am delighted that Cambridge has recently elected Shapour Meftah, who runs a shop on Mill Road, to be a Conservative councillor.

Yesterday, I was reading a new book celebrating the 50th anniversary of Cambridge becoming the premier high-tech cluster in Europe. I was certain the book would have evidence of the multi-cultural nature of this great city because its success relies on attracting the brightest and best from all over the world. But nowhere in the book could I find a chapter dedicated to celebrating this diversity. It took a while for me to realise why. It’s because diversity is so embedded within Cambridge that it is taken completely for granted that success depends upon it.

A couple of weeks ago, on the same day that Cambridge was electing Councillor Meftah, London re-elected Boris, who celebrates the diversity of our capital, and rejected Ken, whose record is more questionable.

If, in those recent elections, the BNP had won seats, then perhaps I’d have to accept things are going in the wrong direction. But on the same day that Boris won, the BNP lost every single seat they were defending.

Do I think we have some real problems of prejudice? Yes

Do I think we live in a wholly racist country? No

And those who do are the doom mongers. We must not define ourselves by the fruitcakes and the weirdos. When you look in the mirror, do you see Enoch Powell and his rivers of blood or do you see a tolerant, welcoming and unprejudiced nation?

There’s a strong field, with all three main parties standing in every set. The Greens are in most – surprisingly not all – too, and there’s a smattering of others in different wards. (The popular anti-party blogger Richard Taylor, who has been talking about standing for years, has once again not put his name forward, which is a shame.)

This election matters because it is a real opportunity to change the whole complexion of local politics in Cambridge, which has been a bit one-dimensional in recent years. There is a good chance that wards will change hands this time.

The Conservative candidates come from all sorts of backgrounds and have huge and varied experience between them. Come the election, they will be a formidable force holding the Council to account on behalf of all local residents.

I’ll be helping them when I can:

1. because the City Council needs to be held to account more closely – for example on spending taxpayers’ money;
2. because Cambridge residents deserve better representation than they have had in recent years – the current crop of councillors are quick to blame all problems on anyone but themselves; and
3. because I know the candidates personally so know how dedicated they are to doing an excellent job.

If you want to get involved, contact me via the website links and I’ll put you in touch with the local campaign team.

I’m pleased to see my 2010 article on the issue has now got free access at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13619462.2010.518413.

For background on the piece, see http://nickhillman.co.uk/2010/10/16/harold-wilson-anthony-crosland-and-public-schools/.

The Fleming report aimed at a closer relationship between independent boarding schools and the state by recommending state-funded boarding bursaries.

My article is, I think, the first to show that the prime mover behind the modest scheme of county scholarships that was set up was the Labour Minister of Education, Ellen Wilkinson – not, as is often supposed, the Conservative RAB Butler.

The experiment limped on for decades after her death but no other politician ever gave it a similar push. So there is an interesting contrast between ‘Red Ellen’, who is generally regarded as having been on the left of the Labour Party, and New Labour, which abolished assisted places in independent day schools.

My article can be accessed (at a cost to those without institutional log ins) here. The abstract is below.

‘This paper assesses the origins, conclusions and consequences of the Fleming Committee, which considered the relationship between Britain’s leading independentD boarding schools and the state. In 1944, the committee recommendded one-quarter of the places at these schools should be assigned to a national bursary scheme for children who might benefit from boarding. The author emphasises the role that Ellen Wilkinson played in implementing a Fleming-style scheme in the early years of the Attlee Government. Despite promises to the contrary, the Conservative Government that was elected in 1951 did not expand the scheme, which lingered on in a desultory form. Failure stemmed from a lack of political will, which was reinforced by a shortage of public finance, inconsistent support from independent boarding schools and local education authorities and problems over the selection of pupils.’

Anyone interested in this general topic might also be interested in another article of mine on the Public Schools Commission, as this new piece is a prequel to it, as well as a recent BBC Radio 4 programme.

Readers interested in higher education might also be interested to know that it was the same Section of the 1944 Education Act that enabled county scholarships at public schools that enabled local education authorities to pay higher education awards for maintenance and tuition fees.

Dear Sir / Madam,

If there was one thing that united the mainstream parties in Cambridge at last year’s general election, it was an understanding that the city’s cosmopolitan population is one of its greatest assets.

It helps explain why Cambridge delivers perhaps more world-class education than any other city of the same size anywhere in the world. And it helps explain why there is such a vibrant civic life – if anyone wonders what the ‘big society’ looks like, Cambridge is the answer.

As your recent coverage shows, the only group who seem to be ignorant of this is the English Defence League. There is room for reasonable debate about migration, Islamic extremism and inter-faith relations, but the EDL are not the people to lead it. They are as unwelcome as their antecedents in the National Front and the BNP and they should stay out of Cambridge – and everywhere else.

Yours sincerely,
Nick Hillman

I was campaigning for Tim Haire and Edward Turnham, the Conservative candidates in Cherry Hinton. They have been fighting an excellent campaign focussing on the issues people care about, such as public transport, council tax and bringing some balance back to the (Lib Dem-dominated) city council. And, specific to this ward, they have also been campaigning to have the beautiful but worn Cherry Hinton sign repainted. I have a particular fondness for this bit of Cambridge, not least because of the scale of support I got there in the general election last May, and it was lovely to meet so many people who had voted for me then and be able to thank them.

On the doorstep, many important national issues came up, particularly the size of the deficit, but what struck me most was how receptive the voters were to the idea that Cherry Hinton would benefit from more balanced representation rather than being represented only by Labour councillors. One sitting Labour councillor recently admitted Cambridge would benefit from Conservative representation and, if the voters I met today were typical, that could well be achieved on May 5th. I hope it will.

I also caught up with Andrew Bower, our candidate in Coleridge ward, who was also out campaigning. Andy is deeply committed to this bit of Cambridge, as anyone who has seen him in action at Area Committee meetings, grilling the sitting councillors, knows. He is the sort of candidate that deserves to win broad support, including from people who don’t normally vote Conservative, because he is so committed to securing a better deal for local residents and scrutinising what the council is up to. I’ll be back out next weekend trying to help ensure that this year is a winning one for him.

If you have a few hours to spare, do come and join the campaign. The Cambridge Conservatives’ website has contact details and further information on how to get involved, along with information on all the Conservative local election candidates in Cambridge.

1. The new road layout by Addenbrooke’s

The new road layout between the M11 roundabout and the area of the Trumpington Park and Ride and the new Addenbrooke’s road is very confusing. For example, there are now three lanes at one point, rather than the previous two, but the filtering where this happens does not work well and I am not convinced it is completely safe. I hope it will be resolved soon.

Like most politicos in Cambridge, I’ve had my run-ins with local blogger Richard Taylor. (He recently insinuated online that I had accepted a satellite telephone from a private company and has now refused to apologise even though it is 100% false, and he is currently taking the same absurd line as our local MP by implying that Cambridge University can remain world-class without graduates contributing to the cost…). I guess he is so prolific that his quality control is sometimes awry! But he does get a lot right and he has some interesting things to say about the Addenbrooke’s get-fined-to-drive road on his website, which I recommend.

2. Cambridge Station taxi rank

Rowan Pelling in last week’s Telegraph complained about ‘people who queue the wrong way, even when there’s a sign telling them exactly how to do it. At Cambridge station, people waiting for cabs routinely ignore such directions and meander across the station’s entrance like a herd of grazing bison.’

I agree that the taxi rank at Cambridge Station is nearly as badly organised as the bike parking there, though I don’t blame those in the rank (nor the taxi drivers who make the best of their poor hand), as the whole arrangements are so chaotic. Our MP is proud of the fact that he does not own a car, which perhaps explains his ridiculous opposition to the proposed improvements to the dangerous A14, but I hope he will focus on improving the facilities at the station for the benefit of pedestrians and cyclists.

3. Residents versus pay-and-display parking

Drivers around Riverside can find it impossible to find a residents bay, whereas no one ever seems to park in the pay-and-display spaces that are lined up vertically outside the newer homes on River Lane – see the photos, which were taken on a Sunday but are absolutely typical. I’m not sure why they are so little used, though it may be because there are some other pay-and-display spaces on River Lane (which are slightly more used) and there is of course lots of free parking for people shopping locally, as in the large Tescos a bit further along Newmarket Road. So it would make life much easier for local residents if the number of pay-and-display places could be reduced and the number of bays for residents could be increased, or if residents with permits were also allowed to park in the pay-and-display spots.

I know the local Green Party councillors would, quite rightly, want to encourage other forms of transport too and so it might not be a bad idea to convert a small portion of the space to some bike stands as well, though I admit I don’t know how strong demand is for that. (On another transport issue, I am delighted that one of our hard-working Green Party councillor, Margaret Wright, is now campaigning to improve the new pedestrian and cyclist crossing outside the newsagents on Newmarket Road. As someone who regularly cycles across the road there, I have always thought this new crossing has not lived up to the promises that were made and I am glad the Green Party have belated recognised this – they were originally big advocates of the revamped crossing.)

In the past, I wouldn’t have minded too much about any of these issues but it’s amazing how much having a child and commuting daily to London changes one’s priorities! A wise man once said a Conservative is a libertarian with children…

A big local issue for our part of Cambridge at the moment is the revised proposal for a new Travelodge hotel on the corner of Newmarket Road and Coldhams Lane. It is said that local residents’ associations are opposed to the plans. (I’ve not actually checked this myself but the local press says it is so and I attended my own residents’ association meeting some months ago when it was clear there was very substantial opposition to the original proposals.)

However, I am more in favour of the idea, especially in its revised form. I recognise the issue raises strong opinions and that there are good arguments on both sides but my position is as outlined in the letter below (which was published in a slightly abridged form in the Cambridge News earlier this week).

Dear Sir,

As someone who lives just around the corner, I am pleased that Travelodge have submitted an improved application to build a hotel on Newmarket Road.

Cambridge is desperately short of reasonably-priced hotel rooms given that our local economy relies on business people, tourists and students’ parents coming here.

The proposed site is currently an eyesore, so it is irrational to claim the local area would be damaged by the construction of a brand new hotel.

Most importantly, the building and opening of the hotel would bring much needed jobs to the area at a time when the economy is still recovering.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have no link to Travelodge. Indeed the last time I stayed in one of their hotels, the service was far from perfect – they gave me a room in which someone was already asleep!

As a local resident, I am pleased when major international businesses want to invest in our great city. Not all proposed developments are welcome, but we should judge this one on its merits rather than automatically opposing the whole concept.

Yours sincerely,
Nick Hillman

After a campaign led by Nick Hillman, the Conservatives’ general election candidate in Cambridge, Marks and Spencer have now agreed to alter their delivery and collection arrangements. The full story is covered in full on the website of our excellent local radio station STAR 107 here: http://www.star107.co.uk/news/review.php?article=294002.

Nick Hillman said:

“Until now, Marks and Spencer’s lorries have been causing havoc at Cambridge Station during the morning rush hour. The problem was not just an inconvenience. There was a real risk of an accident involving the thousands of schoolchildren who arrive each day.

“It’s fantastic news that Marks and Spencer have acted so quickly after I raised my concerns. It’s no wonder they are such a successful company if they always respond to complaints so quickly.

“I just wish National Express were equally responsive on the terrible bicycle facilities at the station. Cambridge Conservatives will continue campaigning for other sorely needed improvements at the station.”

I have written a lengthy article looking at the attempt of the Labour Governments of 1964-70 to integrate Britain’s leading independent schools with the state-financed school system.

The piece is published in a peer-reviewed history journal, and is thus behind a paywall, but it can be accessed here: ‘The Public Schools Commission: “Impractical, Expensive and Harmful to Children”?’

I have cut-and-pasted the title, abstract and key words below. Do contact me if you are interested in the topic or have any thoughts on my conclusions.

(Apart from a few small edits, this article was written before the general election and before I started work as a Special Adviser. Academic journals tends to have quite long lead-in times because of the peer-review process.)

The Public Schools Commission: ‘Impractical, Expensive and Harmful to Children’?

Author: Nicholas Hillman

Abstract

In the mid-1960s, the Labour government established a Commission to devise the best way of integrating Britain’s elite independent schools with the state-financed school system. Despite—and because of—the left’s scepticism of private education, the Commission faced enormous obstacles and their solution of state-subsidised boarding places was seen as unworkable, unaffordable and unpopular. Government papers help to explain the various reasons why the Commission’s proposals were not implemented: in particular, the public schools were regarded as a low spending priority. The lack of reform is key to understanding the continuing importance of independent schools in the UK.

Keywords: Harold Wilson; Anthony Crosland; Margaret Thatcher; Public Schools; State Education