Month: August 2009

I understand why many of you are very sceptical about any proposal to shift the log jam – and the over taxing – on our roads. Many politicians are anti motorist, and do see motorists as an easy source of tax. You should know me better. The scheme I outlined does not increase the revenue take from the motorist for existing travel levels. It offers more motorists the chance of a better deal.

You win if you travel less than the average in your car.
You win if you travel on non toll roads.
You win if you travel on toll roads outside peak hours.
Everyone on the roads wins because there would be more capacity and better management of the roads.
You pay a user charge for using big roads at dear times of day instead of having to pay a tax which you cannot avoid

Our roads are grinding to a halt. They are very badly managed. The motorist is ripped off every day for a rotten service. The phones used to be like that. We were short of capacity and phone lines because they were part of the public spending exercise and rarely took priroity. After privatisation they provided much more capacity, and the companies concerned started paying tax to the Exchequer instead of needing subsidy.Prices fell.

Most of you tell me regularly the state is doing too much and should be smaller. Let’s get it out of the super highways business.

The government which gave you such a spectacular boom and bust in the private sector thanks to their crazy money and banking policies, now seems to want to repeat the experiment in the public sector – with the bust delayed until after the Election.

We learn that cuts will be needed after all. Some are pushing to scrap Trident. Clearly the defence budget is being singled out yet again for a mauling, with plenty of softening up with stories about poor and expensive defence procurement. Today Labour has adopted the populist mantle by attacking the so called Boomerang bosses – Council CEOs who earn too much, receive too large a pay off when asked to leave Council A, only to appear earning even more shortly afterwards at Council B. Readers of this blog will be well aware of the mis naming of some so called CEOs in local governent, who are not revenue responsible, and maybe cost irresponsible as well. The government has sanctioned the downgrade of benefits under the RBS pension scheme – is this a harbingner for their plans for civil service pensions as well?

Wouldn’t it be better to seek value for money now, instead of waiting for another year? Why does the mad over recruitment of so called managers have to continue? Why does the quango world need to expand more before it contracts?

Shortly before Labour tried to close down all serious debate on public service reform I promised you all some more ideas on how we could raise quality and save money on public services. Let’s get back to this, our agenda, on the day after Mr Brown himself concedes there needs to be cuts after all – after the Election!

The government cannot be trusted to run our roads. They have all the hallmarks of a monopoly – expensive, poor quality, and in short supply. You literally have to queue so often when you want to use them, and motorists have to pay many times over through taxes for the costs of provision and management. Government management these days often entails expensive and fiddling changes which end up making them them less safe with increased congestion. Stopping free flowing traffic seems to be one of the main aims of the car haters who design our road policy.

Meanwhile most UK people make it clear they like the personal freedom that car use brings. It is the main way people get to their jobs, to the shops and to their friends. The last time I spoke to six formers about green issues, the questions were mainly about how they got access to a car of their own.

So I have a simple proposal. Let’s franchise the main motorways and trunk roads to the private sector to run. Let’s do it in a way which sends them clear financial incentives to cut pollution and congestion.

The maths would be good for taxpayers as well. I would start by abolishing the vehicle Excise Duty, a tax on ownership, and replacing it with permission for the private sector to impose tolls on use of the main roads. The aim would be to impose tolls that yielded £5.6 billion a year at current usage levels, the exact cost of vehicle Excise Duty. This would be neutral for motorists as a whole, but would cost those of us who travel more a bit more, and those who travel less would benefit. People who travel less tend to be worse off. There would be regulation to prevent excessive charging, with clear stated maximum toll levels.

The main motorways and trunk routes would be put up for franchising in suitable packages. Where possible alternative routes would be in different packages, bringing competition between franchise holders. In return for access to the assets and the toll revenue they would need to pay the state a premium. We would need to raise around £110 billion, so that the state could pay off £110 billion of debt which would save it currently around £4 billion of interest. By the time the scheme came in I reckon it would save us about £5.5 billion of interest given the likely trend of government borrowing costs. This makes the scheme self financing in terms of its immediate impact on state finances.It gives the first franchise holders a running return of 5% on day one, rising as they improve the use and management of the asset.

The prices of the packages could be fixed to ensure the state received enough money to pay off sufficient debt. The auction would be based on bidding for length of franchise, as the state would want the road assets back at some point to do the whole thing all over again, to the financial benefit of taxpayers. Bidding for the duration enables bidders to work out how they can make money, without changing the state finances.

The results would be dynamic and favourable. Bidders would be expected to come forward with plans to enhance the assets. They may well want to add another lane, or to use the hard shoulder. Their interests would be to encourage more free flowing use of the road, so they could charge more and charge more users. If they ran a bad or congested motorway use would drop off, going to alternative routes.

The state, as a result , would benefit financially as well. The more toll revenue the franchise holders enjoyed,the more profit there would be for the state to tax. The state, as in all private businesses, has a share in success. The immediate future after the scheme was launched would also see some much needed improvement capital investment. Free flowing motorways are both our safest and greenest roads. We need to use them more to cut deaths and raise the fuel efficiency of travel.

This morning’s posting was delayed as I was asked in to the Today programme studio to discuss the high and rising contributions the Uk now has to make to the EU.

The programme highlighted the big increase in the UK’s net contributions to £6.3 billion next year, and correctly drew attention to the loss of rebate which Mr Blair negotiated away.

They invited Mr Macshane to put the case in favour of the new higher sums. He did so on two grounds. Firstly, he claimed there would have been no expansion of the EU without our surrender of rebate. Secondly, he said the spending by the EU was very good, citing an example of a new Polish motorway. Neither of these propositions was a credible response. For every Polish motorway there are dozens of marginal projects and much administrative waste and worse. The new member states would have joined even if the UK had successfully defended the Thatcher rebate.

The truth is we cannot afford the large increase in our net contributions, and need to be pressing for a lower gross contribution. It is not just the money we do not get back that should worry us, but some of the money we do get back where the EU decides what we should spend it on. We need to be masters of our own budget, and capable of weeding out cost and needless expenditure where it rests. Quite a lot of those two categories can be found in EU budgets.

Mr Macshane resisted the temptation to say that our partners would not agree to cuts and to seeking better value for money from this big spend. Had he done so I would have reminded him of two things. Firstly, he and other Labour Ministers and ex Ministers are always telling us they have influence in the EU. There would be no better way to prove this to us doubters, than show we could have more of our way on the budget. Secondly, the EU itsefl wisely tells member states to keep their public deficits to just 3% of National Income. When ours is now four times that level, and many other member states are exceeding their limits, surely the EU must see it needs to help all member states to cut spending by leading the way and cutting its own?

Many of us want the EU to do less and spend less. Now would be a good time to do so. Why do we need a system of overseas aid for relatively rich countries? Why are we paying so much of the bills?

Click here to listen to John’s discussion with Denis MacShane on the Today programme.

Last week I had to renew my tax disc for the car. I received a notification that I could now find an easy way to pay the new rip off levels of the tax. I rang the number late one evening. It proved as easy as advertised. The cash was taken from me effortlessly over the phone. I was not kept hanging on, nor did I have to listen to endless multiple choices requiring me to dial some other number. The new tax disc came by return of post well before the month end.

This week I received a follow up card. It told me I still had enough days left to pay my tax disc. If I had not already done so, I should try the new friendly phone line or the web pages, available any time of the day or night. If I had by any chance already paid I was to ignore this card. It was no marks for the system picking up quickly that the tax had been paid, but full marks for persistence, and fulll marks for ensuring the maximum take as quickly as possible.

It leads one to ask, if this government can be good at taxing us, why can’t it show similar skill and customer awareness when delivering services?If you want to contact a government department or many a Council department about what they are meant to be doing for you, you need to try in the minority of hours during the day when there is meant to be someone there. So often you are left hanging on, being told you are in queue. You may face ordeal by multiple choice, be lectured by a computer,or be told that all call lines are busy. If you do get through to a person, you may discover there is some other reason your query cannot be dealt with.

No wonder people are so cynical about government. It is good at taking the money off us, but so bad at spending it for us and providing value. There is one level of competence at milking us, and a far lower one for everything else.

The Sunday Times did not tell all the story in their page two article “Cameron’s MPs want more private health care”. They reported that they “contacted all Tory backbenchers to ask whether they had private health insurance”. They say “Most refused to answer” but name four who said they had insurance. Why I wonder did they not include in their story those of us who said, as I did, we do not have private health insurance? Every word of the article strains to set up Labour’s anti Tory story on health, without the evidence to back it up. Their only quote came from a Conservative MP who is retiring and not fighting the next election, and that quote merely said we need a debate.

Today I am writing an open letter to the Prime Minister.

Dear Prime Minister,

The Scottish Parliament will meet to debate the decision of the Scottish Justice Minister over the Lockerbie bomber. When you first took the highest political office in the UK you stated that you wished to restore the Uk Parliament to a more central role in our democratic life. You cannot be serious unless you today recall the UK Parliament, to meet later this week.

Since we were last allowed to convene and do our jobs as MPs, the government has endorsed a substantial increase in so called quantitative easing, has revealed a larger deterioration in our fiscal position than in the budget, has shown that whilst competitor economies on the continent are growing again our economy has continued to decline, and has watched helpless as many more people lose their jobs. We need an urgent debate on the state of the economy.

Since we last were allowed to meet several good Committee reports have been issued, including some worrying criticisms of parts of our health care. Labour figures have been keen to whip up a specious debate about Conservative attitudes towards the NHS through friendly media. Wouldn’t it be better to allow a proper Parliamentary debate on the state of the NHS and how it can be improved and reformed, so claims and counter claims can be tested in a proper forum free of the behind the scenes distortions of the spin doctors?

Since we last were permitted to do our jobs more of our troops have been killed in Afghanistan. There have been recent leaks about the state of our military procurement, along with Minsiterial denials that this has had any bearing on the lives of our soldiers. We need to cross examine Ministers on this. At the very least poor procurement has had a big impact on the state of our budget deficit. We need to ask Ministers to explain what their strategy towards Afghanistan will be once the new government is up and running. We understood the need for the British army to help create a peace sufficient to enable voters to get to the polls. What is the mission now? How do we define success and how long is the new mission to last?

Today we also want to know more about the UK’s relationships with Libya and the USA. The conduct of foreign policy remains a Union responsibility. What actions did the UK governemnt take in the run up to the important Lockerbie bomber decision by the Scottish administration, given its importance to those two relationships? What action is the Uk government now going to take given what has happened?

As far as many English people are concerned, these recent events reinforce what a lop sided and unfair system of devolution we have. A powerless UK government allows the Scottish government to make this decision, washes its hands of the foreign policy consequences, and doesn’t even allow English MPs to have a voice on that foreign policy, whilst Scotland not only makes the decision but has a functioning democracy to debate it.

You should recall Parliament immediately.

Yours

John Redwood

The old battle lines are being redrawn as if it were 1979 all over again. Let me surprise you with my answer to the question. Some daring commentators suggest we need a new dose of Thatcherism. Labour are out to portray their old caricatures and lies about the Thatcher era. My answer to the question is “No, we don’t”. But then, I never saw myself as a “Thatcherite”.

Don’t misunderstand me. This is not some latter day conversion on the road to Damascus, not some repentance for past sins which I only committed in the fertile imagination of my opponents. I admired Margaret Thatcher then, and defend her still, for two great qualities she brought to the job of Prime Minister – honesty and courage. She was the best boss I ever worked for. If only her successors as PM had half her honesty in tackling problems and half her courage we would be in a much better position today. She was not driven by focus groups and by the best spin. She wanted honest anslysis of problems from her advisers, and serious debate of options for tackling them. She would back a course of action if she believed it was right, even if it were unpopular. I hope our next Prime Minister will share those caracteristics, as they will be much needed.

The reasons I do not think we need another dose of Thatcherism are two fold. There are presentational reasons, ever popular in today’s debased politics, and reasons of policy.

Thatcherism was a creed defined as much by its opponents stressing what they did not like as by its supporters turning it into a cannon of truth and light. I have never written essays defining or defending Thatcherism, as in a way to do so is to accept the opposition baggage that was deliberately heaped on the idea. Labour were always good at spin, even when they were losing by a mile. They endowed Thatcherism with the negatives – cuts, get on your bike, there is no such thing as society. Some of their imputations were lies, others selective half truths that misrepresented by failing to point out the purpose or the greater good being served. The current crisis facing our country is different from that in 1979. We do not have time to waste fighting the presentational battles of the past.

Today we do not face a problem of excess Trade Union power making it impossible for any government to govern. In 1979 we were very conscious that Trade Union power had gravely damaged the first Wilson government, defeating their Trade Union policy “In place of Strife”, had brought down the Heath government, and had brought down the Callaghan gvernment through the winter of discontent. The next government has no such bitter legacy, and would be wise to see modern Trade Unions as a force for the good whilst not being a push over when it comes to public service management.

Today we do not face an immediate inflationary surge as we did in 1979. The money taps were only turned on in late 2008, so it takes time. With broken banks it takes longer.

We do, on the other hand, face a spending and borrowing crisis on an altogether bigger scale than that of 1979. In 1979 we were a couple of years beyond the IMF visit and their enforced cuts, which started the process of sobering up after the big spend. In 2010 we will be at the peak of unprecedented waste and over spending. We need to tackle the immediate problem of malfunctioning, highly expensive and loss making nationalised banks, which were absent in 1979. Unless we get the banks to work better and return them to the private sector promptly, not much else will work. We need more banks, and more competitive banks. We need to split up the naitonalised monoliths as quickly as possible.

There is one important similarity. Just as in 1979, we face long months of rising unemployment, as the full impact of the disastrous economic policy is felt. To sort this out requires the maximum degree of common purpose throughout society. That is why another dose of Thatcherism would set the wrong tone. We need a new dose of a new medicine for the dreadfully damaged economy. Welfare reform and banking reform are essential ingredients. The agenda of popular capitalism, empowering more people in the economic life of the nation, will also be part of the answer. Everyman and woman an owner is a slogan for a future that could work.