Could UKIP supporters explain why it helped to prevent Eurosceptic Conservatives winning in 21 seats, so giving us a a more pro EU Parliament?
More importantly, could they explain why their candidate came third in Buckingham, when there were no Conservative Lib Dem and Labour candidiates? What do they deduce from this about their tactics?
England gave the Conservatives a strong popular vote and a majority of the Parliamentary seats. It is time for us Conservatives to speak for England. For too long we have criticised but had to accept unbalanced devolution which allows Scottish MPs to determine English issues at Westminister, whilst only Scottish MSPs can determine Scottish issues in Edinburgh.
The English problem shows just how untenable Gordon Brown’s position is. He has no mandate to be the UK’s Prime Minister as the leader of the second minority party, but it is even worse for England where he is seeking to prevent the Leader of the majority party from making the decisions the English now wish to be made.
Lop sided devolution on Labour’s lines was always going to be damaging to the Union. We see just how unfair it now is. The position is untenable. Mr Brown has to go.
PS I am pleased to report that Conservative MPs are going to Westminster to meet on Monday, even though the authorities are not opening Parliament.
1. Parliament should meet on Monday. Leaders need to hear directly from colleagues in the new Parliament as they negotiate. The new Parliament needs to have more teeth than the old, and to do that it needs to meet more often.
2. The Conservatives won a clear majority of all the seats in England. Given nationalist views, we should have a majority for the proposition that from now on it should be English votes for English issues. Pass such a motion, and then Conservatives could appoint Ministers to the English Ministeries like Education, local government and transport, and at least get on with sorting out those backed by a good English majority in Parliament..
Yesterday when I gave some interviews to the BBC I was impressed by the change of aproach. I have always been ready to criticise them here, so let me on this occasion priase them. They were courteous and thoughtful in their overtures. During the interviews on and off air I could see them struggling to understand the fact that I simply do not see the world through the eyes of 13 years of Labour spin as many of their broadcasters have done. The problem is, as readers of this site know, I disagree with so many of the conventional mistakes in analysis it takes time to explain the alternative view.
Two of the crucial issues relate to the public sector. I was asked why Conservatives wish to take £6 billion out of the economy this year. I had to explain we have no wish to take £6 billion out. We wish to spend and borrow £6 billion less in the public sector to leave more scope for private sector revival, and to try to stop a further increase in borrowing costs. Indeed, the £6 billion figure itself is suspect, as we have promised an accelerated reduction of the debt based on a faster pace of controlling public spending and raising the efficiency of the spend. Every penny the public sector borrows and taxes cuts private sector spending.
I was also asked about why we intended “Thatcher” style cuts. I had to explain Margaret Thatcher did never cut the overall level of public spending compared to the previous year. She had to control its growth and cut unrealistic plans. Further more I had to explain again that Conservatives do not come into office wanting to sack teachers, nurses and doctors – that is all absurb Labour myth.
So based on yesteray, let me give one cheer for the BBC. They sounded as if they did wish at last to understand a different viewpoint. The problem is Labour has not just messed up the government for so many years, but has spent much of our money on ensuring the circulation of distorted thinking and misunderstandngs galore about how the economy works and what Conservatives think.
We need to start to establishing that the eocnomy and the public sector are different things. The new jobs, new prospoerity and higher living standards we want are going to mainly come from an expanding private sector. The public sector has spent and borrowed too much and we cannot have a sustained recovery unless we sort that out.
The essential issue is the budget.The outgoing Labour government refused to hold a full spending review, or to supply the detail of their spending plans for the post Election period. Any new incoming government has to get on with that task quickly.
Mr Cameron is right to say to the Lib Dems that any agreement to work together has to start from the proposition that we need a new budget which sorts out the public spending, within the next fifty days. The Lib Dems at the very least have to agree to abstain on the votes to get that through, so we can start to reassure the markets that the UK intends to control its deficit before the deficit swamps us.
The Lib Dems could agree to support a Conservative Queen’s Speech programme which centred on abolishing ID cards and other attacks on civil liberties, and legislated for school reform. Not seeking too much legislation could be an improvement, and avoids the need for so many cliff hanger votes.
A minority Conservative government could insist on no new powers transferring to Brussels and could negotiate for the UK on any new EU legislative proposals. The fact that it could not guarantee to get any measure through the Commons would be an added good argument against agreeing to anything that did require new law or extra spending in the UK.
In the end Mr Clegg’s busy day will revolve around the extent and the credibility of Mr Brown’s offer on changed voting systems, and the degree to which Mr Clegg understands his responsibilities now to help the country through the next worrying phase of the rolling debt crisis.
It is unusual for the leader of the second largest minority party in the Commons to speak for the country and to represent us in important national discussions. Yet that is what is happening this week-end concerning the current phase of the sovereign debt crisis.
There are good practical reasons why it makes no sense. Let us suppose this week-end the Finance leaders of the main governments wish to discuss putting in place back up facilities for countries at risk, to talk about making larger contributions to the IMF capital, or some other financial commitment from their countries as a stand-by for any developing crisis. Or let us suppose they wish to discuss changing financial law and regulation in each of their countries.
How Can Mr Brown and Mr Darling promise or commit the UK to any such measure, as they have no idea what they could get through the House of Commons if anything from their much enfeebled voting position in the new Commons.
The sovereign debt crisis is serious. Markets world wide have a bad attack of the shakes over it. It requires steady purpose and wise decisions from here by the leading governments and financial regulators. I do not see what is the point of Messrs Brown and Darling pretending they speak for the UK when they do not speak for a majority in Parliament any more. On past form they have always showered public money at any such problem created on their watch. One of the messages from the largest party in the Commons is we no longer have big money to commit, thanks to the massive borrowings the last government ran up.
There are three features of the result that I find particularly worrying. The first is once again a largely Eurosceptic country has elected a Parliament with a federalist majority. UKIP played a minor part in again securing this unfortunate outcome by standing against Eurosceptic Conservatives , allowing federalists to point to their tiny vote and no seats to claim the Eurosceptic cause is a small minority one.
The second is the growing split in the politics of England from the politics of other parts of the Union. Scotland elected just one Conservative MP and saw a swing to Labour. Northern Ireland elected no Conserative and Unionist MPs. Even in Wales, where there was a modest Conservative revival, the country remained a Labour stronghold. In a hung Parliament the politics of devolution mean the non English parts of the Union demanding all immunity from public spending reductions as the price of their support for other measures.
The third is the election of a Parliament with an overall majority for putting off tackling the deficit. A majority of MPs in the new Parliament – though a smaller majority than in the old – probably think spending more public money will “sustain recovery” and see no threat from taxing too much, borrowing too much and regulating too much.
This is the bakground to political attempts to find a way of governing. If Conservatives compromise with the Parliamentary majority they will be placed under suspicion by their true supporters. If they refuse to seek a means of governing the country they are letting it down at a time when some important decisons do need taking, whatever the composition of the Commons.
Mr Brown is within the rules to stay as Prime Minister, and to seek to form that “progressive coalition” that we have been debating on this site for a few days.
The question which needs to be asked,however, is does he understand the mood of the country? It is within the rules to do as he does, but is it within the spirit of the election result? Does he recognise that if you lose around 100 seats and fall substantially in the popular vote, if you come a poor second , it is possible that the country does not want you to remain as Prime Minister?
Listening to him last night he was still speaking as a partisan politician as if he had a majority and an election to win. Surely the tone should be different if you are leading a minority which has just lost so many seats and votes?
It poses an interesting problem for Mr Clegg. Is there a deal which is too good to turn down? Just add a few nationalists and there could be a leftwards leaning coalition in a country which just swung markedly away from the left in the way it has voted. More to the point, could such a coalition start to tackle the huge fiscal and economic problems that now confront us?
I would like to thank all those who voted for me to continue as Wokingham’s MP. The election campaign has given me renewed determination to work for all the people I represent, and has confirmed in my mind the local and national issues which most concern electors. It is great to know more than half those voting gave me their mark, and important to reassure all that I will work for everyone, whatever their politics and viewpoint.
I wish to thank all those helpers who worked on the campaign, and my Election Agent for tirelessly supervising the production of the literature and the work of the volunteers.
My wish is to help create a better and stronger Parliament that can hold government to account, and can help government make decisions which will foster economic recovery, restore liberties and encourage a civil society.
The Greek cuts should be a warning to us. One of the reasons they are so strongly contested, is that they come with a sharp decline in living standards attached. One of the reasons they have to be so large is the failure of the Greek and the wider EU economies to grow at a decent pace, despite the chance to recover from the recent recession.
It was worrying last night to see so much violence on the streets of Athens, to see senseless burning of cars and buildings. The Greeks need to create more wealth, not destroy it. It is no good going on strike against the money lenders, when you need to borrow so much money. The murder of three young bankers was alarming.
If you need to slim the public sector, there need to be job opportunities, the hope of a better life, in an expanding private sector. If you decide to make too much of the adjustment by tax increases rather than by spending reductions, you may cut private sector opportunity at the same time as depressing public sector pay and output, in the pursuit of equal misery.
One of the reasons so many UK people are telling pollsters they may vote for a party of the “progressive consensus” – parties in favour of high public spending and borrowing despite the financal backdrop – is they do not wish to experience any more pain and reckon if you refuse to cut spending all will be well. If only.
The Greek example shows us what can happen if you ignore the need to keep borrowing under control. You reach the point where no-one will lend to you on realistic terms. You literally cannot pay all the public sector bills, until you submit to an international plan to slash spending in return for a special international loan. There is no point going on strike against the IMF – you either borrow from them on terms you do not like, or you go bankrupt. It’s too late by then to seek pleasant options.
The UK has avoided this so far because it is outside the Euro and has more options. The UK government has chosen to cut the living standards of all of us by devaluing the pound, cutting by one quarter what we can afford to buy from abroad. It’s a crude device for getting things into balance, but has the advantage that people get poorer gradually without being able to blame anyone in particular. Indeed, people are most likely to blame the oil companies, as one of the most visible impacts is the rising price of petrol. It does mean the balance of payments starts to right itself as people cut expensive imports out of family budgets, seek UK substitutes or go without.
The UK government has prevented fears about its intentions making it difficult for the government to borrow by printing £200 billion to lend to itself. Despite this, the UK credit rating has fallen below Germany’s in the market.
We have to assume that most politicians think they can do no more of the same, that they must not print any more and they must at some point seek a stable pound berore the decline in living standards is blamed to them. So from here we will have more in common with the Greek situation.
If people are to be persuaded that we need to do more for less in the core public services, and less for less elsewhere in the public sector, it is important that politicians expalin why we can’t go on like this. It is even more important that they help create the conditions for strong economic growth in the private sector, so the economy can take the strain of adjustment, and so there are other answers for people who would like a state job or state benefits. One of the dangers for Greece, which is intensifying the political backlash, is the danger that the Greek private sector will be in no condition to respond positively as the public sector is cut. High taxes, the inflexibility of Euro money policy, and the bureraucratic impediments in the way of starting and expanding businesses are all against it.
If the UK is to succeed where Greece is failing it needs to use its advantages of its own currency and money policy to ensure more rapid private sector led growth. There needs to be hope. Hope does not come from high taxes and heavy regulations on the wealth creating sector at a time of compulsory slimming of the public sector. “The progressive consensus” who got us into this fine mess are right about this one thing – you can get into a vicious cycle of decline if you don’t stimulate the private sector when you cut the public. They are wrong that you can avoid cutting the public sector when you are borrowing so much – you need a stronger and bigger private sector to pay the bills.
Ps I don’t suppose all those pro Euro establishment figures will say thank you to the few of us in Parliament and in the commentariat who campaigned against joining it when the fashionable consensus thought it would be a great idea? Thank heavens for the commonsense of the British people which enabled us to persuade both major parties to put a referendum lock on the door of the pound, which worked.
Promoted by Christine Hill on behalf of John Redwood, both of 30 Rose Street Wokingham RG40 1XU