Cancelled A12 widening work leaves homeowner 'gutted'
"We lived in our bungalow for 21 years and we had just one neighbour who lived there for 51 years," Ms Strathie added."My husband ran a business from our property and now everything has come to an end, and they are not going to do the A12."
The scheme was set to widen a 15-mile (24km) stretch of road from Chelmsford to the A120 at Marks Tey. Rishi Sunak's government approved the project in January 2024, but the current government cancelled it, accusing the previous Conservative government of promising infrastructure projects with "no plan to pay for them".Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander had told the BBC: "Only those projects that are fully costed, affordable and will deliver a return on taxpayers' money will be given the green light under my watch."Ms Strathie added: "We now live in another house in Maldon, and we are not settled."My husband had a heart attack just after Christmas this year through the stress."If they are not going to do the A12 then give us our home back, where we are happy."Ms Strathie said she would "not give up" trying to move back to her property in Kelvedon.
In an interview with BBC Radio Essex, Dame Priti Patel, Conservative MP for Witham in Essex, said the decision had "been a long time in the making"."This will have implications for the whole of the county," she said."We are the economic powerhouse and backbone of the British economy."Talking about the government's decision to stop the project, she said: "They are happy to proceed with the A66 and as a result of this I have written quite a scathing letter to Heidi Alexander."In response to Ms Strathie's story, she said: "I would be more than happy to meet with her and try and help in whatever capacity I can."This goes right through my constituency. There are a handful of constituents that have been heavily affected."
Follow Essex news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
39 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Policing must be seen to be even-handed
The first of Robert Peel's nine principles of policing, set out as long ago as 1829, is 'to prevent crime and disorder as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment'. The then Home Secretary was responding to the great fear of the authorities in the aftermath of the French Revolution: the mob. Once disorder gets a hold, dealing with it becomes increasingly difficult, requiring recourse to the Army, as happened in Northern Ireland in 1969. The simmering resentment felt in parts of the country about the way illegal migrants have been imposed on communities with no consultation whatsoever is not yet at that level. But as Nigel Farage said this week, we may be on the edge of serious civil disobedience, yet no longer possess the means to contain it. We depend on the police to keep matters under control, though in truth much of the fault lies with the Government. Labour promised that hotels would no longer be employed to house illegal immigrants and yet they are now being used more than ever. In Epping, a hotel has become a target for local protests by people no longer prepared to accept scores of young men being foisted on them. The residents are exercising their rights to object to a set of circumstances over which they have no control and about which they were never consulted. When they hear themselves described as racist thugs they are entitled to feel aggrieved. Essex Police, which has been criticised for the way it has handled days of protests, claims to have been even-handed. But by escorting pro-migrant demonstrators to the hotel, essentially to confront local people, the force's impartiality is open to question. Moreover, it has unwittingly encouraged extremists from the Left and Right to descend on Epping to cause the very trouble the police are meant to prevent. The force must be seen to act in an even-handed way while ensuring the two sides do not end up fighting one another in the streets. No one pretends this is easy but it will require the sort of adept policing that has not been the forte of Essex constabulary, to put it charitably. In the end, the fault lies with the abject failure of the Home Office to find realistic alternatives to hotels for migrants who have crossed the Channel. It is time the ex-military camps, that were once going to be used to incarcerate and process the arrivals, were reopened.
Telegraph
39 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour's grotesque lies about illegal migration are finally being exposed
Sir Keir Starmer is the worst possible Prime Minister at the most inauspicious of times. The lies, double-standards and moral blackmail fuelling our illegal immigration crisis threaten to tear this country apart, and yet Starmer stands frozen, unwilling as well as incapable of rising to the challenge. He is a cardboard cutout of a prime minister, an ideological automaton at a time when the public craves leadership, reassurance and change. If he truly wanted to defuse tensions, and if he were even a half-decent politician, Starmer would make the trip to Essex and, like de Gaulle addressing the crowd in Algiers in 1958, tell the law-abiding middle class protesters in front of the Bell Hotel in Epping that he understands them. He would order the transfer of the asylum-seekers to a better location. He would condemn extremists and agitators of all hues, far-Right as well as far-Left, and insist that all violence is intolerable. He would rebuke Essex Police, the wokest police force in the most Right-wing county, for escorting pro-migrant protestors to the Bell, stating that he opposes any notion of two-tier justice or treating one side of the debate better than the other. He would express his distaste at the booking of a four star hotel in Canary Wharf to house migrants, and demand cheaper pop-up sites be found. In the real world, we must make do with Starmer's platitudes and untruths. Why did his social media account claim that 'we will stop at nothing to tackle illegal migration' when that is the very opposite of what Labour is doing? Starmer refuses to pull levers that might work: his priority is not stopping the boats but maintaining the human rights orthodoxy at any cost. Yes, Starmer would love it were something to turn up and immigration, legal and illegal, were to drop – he may even get his way if Rachel Reeves bankrupts Britain – but he has no desire to pro-actively do anything radical about it. The PM refuses to pull out of the ECHR or of the UN Refugee conventions, he is wedded to the obsolete principal of non-refoulement and he scrapped the Rwanda scheme. He won't consider jailing illegal arrivals. He will never take truly drastic action towards the people traffickers. This newspaper revealed last week that a High Court judge, in a case brought against the Foreign Office by an Afghan living in the UK seeking to bring relatives to Britain, that 'family members' did not have to have a 'blood or legal connection' to the applicant. Down that road lies madness. Starmer's ludicrous, ECHR compliant plan for a ' thousands in, fifty out' pilot plan with France won't work, if it is ever signed off by the EU. He tells people smugglers he 'will destroy your business model, piece by piece', at the very time they drop off yet more boatloads. His idea to crack down on illicit activity is to 'share asylum accommodation locations' with food delivery services 'so they can take action if riders are staying there.' Downing Street officials believe that Britain's social fabric is 'fraying at the edges', and yet the best the Government can do is to demand greater integration and the restoration of trust, as if that were easy. Laughably, the Prime Minister reportedly believes that his policy to improve school attendance is already improving community relations. None of this is even close to being commensurate to the scale of the crisis. In The Vision of the Anointed: Self-congratulation as a basis for social policy, Thomas Sowell, the African-American economist, explained why politicians like Starmer lose touch with reality and end up despising their electorates. Sowell, who to her credit Kemi Badenoch often cites approvingly, divides the world into groups: the anointed elites, those we now call the woke Blob, ego-crazed idiot-savants who believe that simplistic social engineering can solve all of the world's problems, and followers of the 'tragic vision', who have the humility to understand the complexities and trade-offs inherent to human societies. The anointed include Labour, the Corbynites/Greens, Lib Dems and the many wet Tories. Followers of the 'tragic vision' include Reform, sensible Tories (including Suella Braverman, Robert Jenrick and Jacob Rees-Mogg) and the 53 per cent of the public who tell YouGov that immigration is one of the most important issues facing Britain. The anointed are sure they know best, and don't react well when their grand schemes to 'save humanity' – the ECHR, the Human Rights Act or open borders – go wrong. Much of this is narcissism: these elites don't care as much about the downtrodden as they do about feeling good about themselves. The anointed, Sowell explained, operate by picking a 'mascot', a marginalised group, to champion, such as small boat migrants, while simultaneously demonising a 'target', such as ordinary 'normies' who believe immigration has gone too far. The anointed are above all dogmatic. Their beliefs are not susceptible to auto-correction, to Popperian falsification, to feedback from reality: they simply dismiss all contrary empirical evidence. They consider themselves to be well-intentioned and morally superior, so any criticism of their axioms must be dismissed as false consciousness, prima facie evidence of racism. So deranged, so deluded are these elites that they cannot conceive that their critics could genuinely, for non-xenophobic reasons, worry about filling hotels in residential areas with young men with no passports and no real known identity, and the risk this could pose to young girls. They can't accept that voters might genuinely be affected by housing and public services shortages exacerbated by mass migration (in a world of sluggish supply), and not be merely driven by prejudice. They cannot understand that putting up migrants in costly hotels, at a time when taxes are at record highs, is insulting to millions. They fail to comprehend why, in this context, the fact that a school banned a 12-year old girl from wearing a Union Flag dress on Culture Celebration Day, could be considered a provocation. Starmer and Labour will never change, and neither will the rest of the anointed class. The only answer is to replace them. I have a feeling that the next election will be called sooner than many believe.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Angela Rayner's critique of Labour's performance is short on solutions
Angela Rayner has a reputation for being forthright – and, according to the 'readout' of the last cabinet meeting before the summer recess, she has had some punchy things to say to her colleagues about the state of the nation. Reflecting on the riots that swept the country after the Southport tragedy almost a year ago, Ms Rayner is blunt about the government's collective performance. The official summary, itself a bowlderised version of her remarks, records her comprehensive critique about the causes of the civil unrest: 'Economic insecurity, the rapid pace of de-industrialisation, immigration and the impacts on local communities and public services, technological change and the amount of time people were spending alone online, and declining trust in institutions was having a profound impact on society.' Those factors were certainly at play in the riots last July, and are still in evidence now, notably in Epping, the Essex market town where an asylum seeker has been charged with sexual assault. There have since been signs of trouble at another hotel requisitioned by the Home Office for migrant accommodation, in Diss in Norfolk. As has been noted, these are the kind of 'tinderbox' conditions that the authorities need to treat with great care, and which have already resulted, in the case of Epping, in agitators turning up, and in unjustified attacks on the police. Ms Rayner is right to confront her colleagues, and indeed her own department, responsible as it is for 'communities', about the frustrations felt by the public and the widespread disaffection that will continue to build unless the government 'delivers' some tangible evidence of the 'change' in their lives promised by Labour at the last general election. This is most obviously so over immigration, though not confined to it, and the slow progress in 'smashing the gangs', ending the use of hotels to house migrants, and clearing the backlog of claims the government inherited. Where Ms Rayner may be faulted is in making such concerns so public at such a sensitive time – in the context of a palpable sense of unrest and the threat of another round of summer rioting. That is the context of her words. Obviously, she has no intention of having her implicit warnings about more riots be in any way a self-fulfilling prophecy, let alone inciting non-peaceful protest, but that may well be their practical effect. The timing of what she said is unfortunate and clumsy. At a moment when Nigel Farage – who is shameless about exploiting grievances – is stirring things up with overheated claims that 'we're actually facing, in many parts of the country, nothing short of societal collapse ' – this is no time to be adding to the sense of unease. With no sense of irony, given the tacit encouragement Mr Farage offers to the protesters, the Reform UK leader talks about 'lawless Britain' where 'criminals don't particularly respect the police and they're acting in many cases with total impunity'. The Essex police, faced as they are with an impossible job of controlling a mob and in enforcing the law impartially as it stands, will not have thanked Mr Farage for his words. Still less will they welcome Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who intends to descend on Epping in the coming days, with all that entails. Ms Rayner ought not to be adding her voice to these sorts of tensions. The other, wider criticism of Ms Rayner's reported assessment is that she is long on analysis but short on solutions. She rightly says that Britain is a 'successful, multi-ethnic, multi-faith country', and that 'the government had to show it had a plan to address people's concerns and provide opportunities for everyone to flourish'. For her part, she is going to produce her own Plan for Neighbourhoods, but she must also take her share of the blame – there is no better word – for the government's collective failure to create a sense that it has a cohesive plan or programme for government to solve the various challenges she identifies. One year on, there is still a sense that the government lacks a 'narrative' of what it is doing and why. People wish to see progress and understand how the sacrifices they make in paying higher taxes will prove worth it. The tangled web of 'missions', 'tasks' and 'priorities' that Sir Keir Starmer weaved as he entered government last year has not so much unravelled as been forgotten. Irregular migration, stagnant living standards, the public finances and the NHS, again facing renewed and deeply damaging industrial action, are intractable challenges that successive governments have been defeated by, and they will inevitably take time and resources to improve. The public needs to be reassured about that. As Ms Rayner indicates: 'It is incumbent on the government to acknowledge the real concerns people have and to deliver improvements to people's lives and their communities.' The good news for Sir Keir, Ms Rayner and their colleagues is that, riots or not, they still have three to four years to show that this Labour government works. If not, then they know how disastrous the consequences could be, because they were inflicted on the Conservatives not so long ago.
