5 Tory MPs write a book

   My colleagues Kwasi Kwarteng, Priti Patel, Dominic Raab, Chris Skidmore and Elizabeth Truss have sent me a copy of their  publication:  After the Coalition: A Conservative agenda for Britain.  We need to take note of what five intelligent newly elected MPs are saying about how they see the future and wish to shape it.

    The good news is in the title. They may be recently elected Tories who have been through  modernising as candidates, but they are no Lib Dems in drag or Coalition mongers who fancy another five years of political marriage to another party. They want to help mould the agenda, and want to be part of a majority Consevative government one day.

So how do they measure up to this big challenge? They combine something old and something new, something borrowed and something blue.

Michael Howard would be proud of them. The word “Responsibility” which he placed at the heart of his 2005 election campaign is central to their values, as it is to David Cameron. They wish to see the idea of responsibility infuse  welfare, housing and social policies.

They borrow a lot from the current government’s programme, liking the health and education reforms and  many of the welfare proposals. They wish to go further in some cases. They like free schools, but favour allowing for profit ones as well as charities. They think the private sector could have a bigger role in delivering good quality health care free at the point of need.

They do have some bold and  blue ideas in critical areas. They would cut the 50p tax back to 40p as they see 50p as a revenue loser. They would deport more foreign national criminals convicted here. They would legislate to require a majority of union members, and not just a majoirty of those voting, to be in favour of a strike before taking action.  They would build three new south-east runways to help UK competitiveness and the aviation industry, and build new road capacity after years of neglect.

They oppose the intrusion of the European Court of Human Rights into UK law, and wish to legislate a UK solution. They do not like female quotas for Boards, and attack  some equality measures which they see as outdated or unlikely to work.

They wish to negotiate a different deal with the EU. They seek a two speed EU, where the UK opts out of much more of the common government. They want to get fishing, social policy and justice back for starters, and wish the UK to be able to make its own case in  international trade talks.

My main quibble with them is their belief that we need a carbon tax to tackle “climate change”. It seems to me we have more pressing priorities to put food on the table and a roof over everyone’s head. It will be difficult to compete with China if we have a carbon tax and they do not.

This entry was posted in Blog. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

71 Comments

  1. Samuel
    Posted September 27, 2011 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

    You’re absolutely right about the carbon tax. How can we be competitive internationally if businesses have crushing burdens upon them? Especially when man-made climate change is a total fallacy, made up by anti-capitalists from Eastern Europe.

    • lifelogic
      Posted September 27, 2011 at 9:38 pm | Permalink

      Agreed a carbon tax is clearly mad.

      Indeed anyone who believes in a Carbon tax has clearly not understood the science or reality of world politics of the whole global warming religion. In short they have missed the plot completely. The BBC, school and university has clearly infected their brains with carbon tosh.

      I assume none are scientists or engineers – indeed not – I have now looked them all up – History, Law, PPE, Economics.

      Just look at the recent measured satellite temperature figures – no statistical increase despite still increasing C02 concentrations.

      Anyway:

      1. If we really had to cool the earth removing C02 would be one of the last ways to do it far better methods exist.
      2. The money is far better spent on real problems where we have real and proven solutions. Such as clean water, inoculations, good nutrition, basic medical care, good safety systems and similar.
      3. Much of the world is at war or very nearly so – it is rather unlikely they will do much about agreeing C02 emmisions.
      4. Huhne’s windmill and PV solutions demonstrably do not work in CO2 terms anyway. Has he given us the figure for his toy windmill yet or is he a bit shy?
      5. The weather cannot be predicted for three weeks on Wednesday (at the BBC is always demonstrating) let alone for 100 years. It is a chaotic system with countless influencing factors and feedback systems many of the factors are not even knowable. Examples are future volcanic activity, population growth/decline, future technology changes, genetics of plants, meteor impacts, solar activity and many other factors over the next 100 years.
      6. Hotter is probably better than colder anyway.
      7. Could these MPs just grow up and look at the real science of predicting the future (the butterfly wing and chaos theory). Let them try a simple task like predicting the outcome of six dice from their starting positions & velocities first. Then perhaps the weather in half an hours time.

      When they have mastered that let them try the predicting the climate in 100 years time but do not ask me or any real scientist to believe them.

      Still on the rest and the extra runways they sound a bit more promising than the LibDems or Labour do – not hard though I admit.

    • Bob
      Posted September 27, 2011 at 9:58 pm | Permalink

      And Western Europe!

  2. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted September 27, 2011 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    Apart from advocating a suicidal carbon tax, do they have any good ideas for the most important topic – the economy, which, despite more than one year of coalition government, is still subject to excessive, and rising, government spending paid for by taxation and borrowing? Are they responsible when it comes to inflation or do they want to print more money and watch it rise and rise?

    Reply: They are tax cutters and supporters of enterprise, but do not go into the details of monetary policy.

  3. Disaffected
    Posted September 27, 2011 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

    A short sharp message would win the election; Cut spending, cut taxes, stop immigration, change criminal justice system for the benefit of victims and change our contract with the EU.

    Liberal Democrats are no longer a threat and neither is Labour as long as Milipede is in charge and balls alongside him. The public hold them to be as guilty as Brown.

    Sadly this leaves us with a weak Cameron who might want to continue his course of being a Liberal Conservative. Which is a bad combination of the other two parties. While I appreciate your John about UKIP, however they will become more appealing as I and many others feel let down by Cameron. People will become fed up with Cameron as he continues down the path of Tory destruction. I sincerely hope the new breed of Tory will take back the party. Unfortunately Cameron is trying to control selection of new Tory MPs from the centre to prevent a right wing crowd gathering. As it currently stands, I will vote UKIP as the Coalition has continued on from Labour and it will make me feel better not to be conned by the Tories again. My vote was wasted voting for Tories at the last election and voting UKIP will not be a waste any more than it would if I voted Tory again.

    • Electro-Kevin
      Posted September 27, 2011 at 8:07 pm | Permalink

      That would certainly win my vote, Disaffected.

      • Electro-Kevin
        Posted September 27, 2011 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

        A pretty mainstream way of thinking actually. Why are we derided as ‘nutters’ for holding those views ?

        • Electro-Kevin
          Posted September 27, 2011 at 9:08 pm | Permalink

          Will the book be printed in China btw ?

      • APL
        Posted September 27, 2011 at 10:38 pm | Permalink

        Electro-Kevin: “That would certainly win my vote … ”

        Problem is E-K we will still end up with a very large number of ‘Tory’ MPs who are nominally Tory, but in reality are sold out Europhilliacs.

        Each Tory MP needs to get our vote on his merits.

        For the UK, that means people who are not prepared to sell the UK down the river for a nice Euro pension. People who are prepared to put the United Kingdom before the party.

        Sadly there are not too many of those around just now.

    • lifelogic
      Posted September 28, 2011 at 11:00 am | Permalink

      Cameron is very good at presenting his indefensible big state, green wash, pro EU policies. Just imagine how much easier it would be for him to defend sensible small state policies and reap the rewards of the policies actually working. But so little time left now to him – having wasted one and a half years heading the wrong way.

    • Bickers
      Posted September 28, 2011 at 11:24 am | Permalink

      I was a lifelong Conservative voter who voted UKIP at the last election in a safe Tory seat. I’ve just joined UKIP, the first time I’ve joined any political party – that’s a sign of my frustration at Cameron and the Conservatives who would earned a significant majority at the last election if they had stuck to core Conservative principles and values.

      Most UKIP policies sit comfortably with main stream Conservatives. Unfortunately, the way our voting sustem is set up means Parties are chasing a small number of swing voters, meaning the majority are ignored.

    • Nick Kirby
      Posted September 28, 2011 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

      “…Cut spending, cut taxes, stop immigration, change criminal justice system for the benefit of victims and change our contract with the EU…”

      Those sound like… Conservative values that would have won an election! Why, why mr Redwood, didn’t Mr Cameron campaign on those basic, simple core values that Britain was screaming out for after a decade and a half of endless nannying , waste, profligacy and interference?

      • Nick Kirby
        Posted September 28, 2011 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

        Addendum I saw Ms patel on QT the other evening. Dynamicm, sensible and engaging. sadly she was demolished by the ignorant audience QT manages to find and the ‘keep spending! It’ll make things better, we promise!’ lies of the twit Harman.

        Carbon tax must be opposed and natively the state cannot ever take a life but corporal punishment might have won more support, especially for persistent, repeat offenders.

  4. oldtimer
    Posted September 27, 2011 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

    It was reading quite well until the last paragraph about controlling climate change. The idea than man can control climate change is a mark of extreme arrogance as well as of ignorance. Do they not understand that no one actually knows what drives changes in the climate? There are hypotheses around, some of which are plausible and are are supported by testable evidence (eg the influence of the sun and our orbit around it), but in essence the climate is a chaotic system which is unforecastable and is certainly beyond the control of man.

    The carbon tax is a political device to raise taxes; it is not supported by settled science – as some politicians have been heard to say. Even the Royal Society acknowledges that the contention that man made CO2 is a cause of global warming is no more than an assumption. Even the Met Office admits insert a conditional “if” in its discussion of the contribution of green house gases to climate change. Man made CO2 is but a tiny fraction of total GHGs. The idea that energy policy and taxation should rest on the CAGW hypothesis is as absurd as it is irresponsible.

    When the lights go out in the UK – as they will sooner than later on present energy policy – I used to think that the five politicians who should carry the most blame were G Brown, E Miliband, D Cameron, N Clegg, and C Huhne. It looks as though I should add these five to the list.

    • uanime5
      Posted September 27, 2011 at 8:48 pm | Permalink

      I take it that you haven’t read any of the peer reviewed science that explains how humans are influencing the climate of this planet. Don’t forget humans created a hole in the ozone layer by overuse of CFC and due to overfishing have depleted many fish stocks.

      Can you name the publication by the Royal Society where they says Climate Change is no more than an assumption?

      • oldtimer
        Posted September 28, 2011 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

        Look here and the link to the pdf:
        http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf

        This is a discussion of what is agreed and what is uncertain in climate science. The pdf includes a discussion of many issues, including elements on which there is agreement and elements where relatively little is known. As it states in para 3:
        “It lays out clearly where the science is well established, where there is wide consensus but continuing debate, and where there remains substantial uncertainty.”

        In para 9 it states:
        “In principle, changes in climate on a wide range of timescales can also arise from variations within the climate system due to, for example, interactions between the oceans and the atmosphere; in this document, this is referred to as “internal climate variability”. Such internal variability can occur because the climate is an example of a chaotic system: one that can exhibit complex unpredictable internal variations even in the absence of the climate forcings discussed in the previous paragraph. ” The models do not assume chaotic behaviour. This is something, I imagine, is impossible to model.

        Para 15 comments:
        “Since variations in climate can result from both climate forcing and internal climate variability, the detection of forced climate change in observations is not always straightforward. Furthermore, the detection of climate change in observations, beyond the expected internal climate variability, is not the same as the attribution of that change to a particular cause or causes. Attribution requires additional evidence to provide a quantitative link between the proposed cause and the observed climate change.”

        To fill in the gaps, assumptions are made which may or may not be correct. These assumptions are built in to the models. The Met Office has not claimed that GHGs cause global warming. It is an assumption reflected in their model. We know that the earlier models did not reflect the fact that global temperatures have remained relatively stable since 2000.

  5. Geoff not Hoons
    Posted September 27, 2011 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

    Mr. Redwood, Doubtless they wish to follow in your shoes as successful writers, if the book is half the quality of each of your own they will be well on the way.
    On carbon tax; “a different approach to the EU”; the role of the ECHR; female company board quota’s; 50p tax; new runways and deporting foreign national criminals convicted here I suspect they may need to wait a long time if suggestions of the coalition running two terms were to come to pass.
    I suspect in the interveneing books two and three could be on the starting block more based on what on earth has gone wrong with the marriage from hell with, as Dr. Cable puts it, these right wing people who are descendants of those who sent young children up chimneys. I wish them well.

  6. Chris
    Posted September 27, 2011 at 7:46 pm | Permalink

    Some reason for hope apart from the carbon tax. Until the science behind the global warming theorists is subject to the most rigorous scrutiny and is shown to stand up, it is unacceptable to base huge tax programmes on what I consider to be a very shaky foundation.

    • uanime5
      Posted September 27, 2011 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

      The science has already be subject to rigorous scrutiny and is shown to stand up. Rigorous scrutiny is standard practise for all scientific literature.

  7. forthurst
    Posted September 27, 2011 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

    Generally tepid. Not out of the EUSSR fullstop, not out of the carbon ‘save the planet’ with useless windmills and other means of loading entirely unnecessary costs on business and households: fail.

  8. Caterpillar
    Posted September 27, 2011 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

    [This comment is slightly tongue-in-cheek]

    Now that the MPC/BoE have eroded my savings I have to watch my consumption. Here’s an offer, tighten monetary policy and I’ll buy a copy.

    ~£7 from Amazon … If “We need to take note of what five intelligent newly elected MPs are saying about how they see the future and wish to shape it” then perhaps the party should buy the rights and release a freebie pdf. If not then presumably the party has already put a value on the thoughts of the newly elected

  9. Posted September 27, 2011 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

    Does Elizabeth Truss MP really come across as being intelligent to you John?

    That worries me a lot.

    Try talking to anyone involved in education whose actually heard her speak on her specialist subject.

    • Posted September 27, 2011 at 9:52 pm | Permalink

      “who’s” sorry.

    • Richard
      Posted September 28, 2011 at 7:41 am | Permalink

      I think what you really mean is you dont agree with her views and she doesnt agree with yours.

      • Posted September 28, 2011 at 10:51 am | Permalink

        Well here are my views Richard, so you can judge.

        ACME is the advisory committee on maths education. At their conference this year around 150 leading professionals gathered to discuss emerging trends, issues and policy, including all the elected representatives of the key bodies in education and, of course, specifically in maths education, leading professions, academics and so on.

        There were some profound, inspirational and deeply insightful speeches.

        Elizabeth Truss got up and whittered on about how all the problems in maths education were to do with the lack of social mobility and so on as politicians tend to do.

        Because of her background in Reform, during the public Q&A I asked her directly whether the audience in front of her would be making any contribution to this government’s policy in mathematics education or whether it would be developed by think tanks like reform. Her response was that we were the reason why maths education was in such a horrendous state. And there has indeed been no interaction between the professional community and this government’s policy.

        There have been some sham consultations where we turn up at 7:30 in the morning and the questions discussed are so superficial there is no chance of any real consultation taking place. I’ve been to great lengths to attend and then found there wasn’t even any point in asking questions which drew attention to how ludicrous the whole charade was as everyone there knew and have simply been unable to stop the tears streaming down my face at the sheer vandalism going on.

        I have spoken directly to Liz Truss and seen for myself that she doesn’t even understand the language relating to the areas she is supposedly a specialist in.

        So her view is that our professional experts should be excluded from the development of policy in education.
        And mine is that they should be included.

        So yes, indeed we disagree.

        Here, for example, is my view on how we should learn from Chinese maths education:
        http://mathseducationandallthat.blogspot.com/2011/05/how-do-chinese-do-it-introduction.html

        and here is my view on how Ofsted should be reformed:
        http://mathseducationandallthat.blogspot.com/2011/08/ofsted-part-7-how-could-purpose-led.html

        I’d like to know which aspects of them she disagrees with and why it has been decided that instead we will learn from China by getting Ofqual to do a report on their exam results and we will reform Ofsted by randomly hacking at what it does while increasing its power.

        But my criticism is not about specific points, it is about this passion held by Liz Truss and many others that the development of education policy should be totally disconnected from the professional bodies who understand it and have to make it work. To me this is a deeply, deeply ignorant attitude.

        If you want to see what the rest of the education community think of Liz Truss and co – come and chat to use on the discussion forums on Linkedin where we place bets on what ludicrously ignorant bit of patronising guff she’ll come out with next. The Top Trumps thread in the UK education group gives some insight.

        • Richard
          Posted September 28, 2011 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

          I only commented because I feel that in our democracy there will inevitably be many differing opinions, including some that will greatly annoy you and me.
          But I am always disappointed when the response is to attack the person rather than the opinion the person holds.

          • Posted September 29, 2011 at 9:13 am | Permalink

            ?

            In Elizabeth Truss’ case it’s very easy to attack the character of the person and I haven’t done that.

            One of her ‘so well considered opinions’ is that the ‘ecosystem in education is breaking down’.

            Not a hard one to diagnose if you’re the person carefully constructing fire blanket of ludicrous policy over and pouring the sulphuric acid of lack of any form of self-determination into the pond full of the elected representatives of all the stakeholders in education and those who understand the current systems. And let’s just add a good electric shock dose of pro-actively spinning all those dedicated individuals as being self-interested lunatic pressure groups. Voila – ecosystem destruction.

            Such incredible insight. Straight to the top of the class.

            Look John, if you think she’s gifted with w.r.t economic policy please ensure she gets a job there and stays away from education AT ALL COSTS.

            As I said – deeper discussion regarding the behaviour of the key figures in education at present available over in the UK education group on Linkedin.com. It’s a public group so you don’t have to join it to read it. You can just open an account on linkedin and read it straight away. Then you can join the group and comment if you want. The comments sections of blogs don’t allow fluent discussion.

        • lifelogic
          Posted September 29, 2011 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

          When ever I hear any politician talking about a subject that I know a little about (usually the tax system, business, employment rules, property, engineering and science it is usually abundantly clear that they do not have a clue what they are talking about . They are just mouthing the phrases they have been told to utter – with a few notable exceptions.

          Does Huhne for example know how many KWHours his toy turbine has produced yet. Indeed does he know what a KWH actually is and how many are in say a gallon of petrol? Or how many were used to make and install the toy. Does he know that storing electricity is rather expensive wasteful and difficult to do. Does he know that global warming seems to have stopped despite co2 rising? Does he know what entropy is? Does he understand the different nuclear power designs?

          Ms Truss is not the only one.

          • Posted September 30, 2011 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

            At least this government had the sense to eject the libdem’s energy policy faster than last night’s vindaloo when they gained power.

            Seems to me there was no-one with any real insight into education in either party to actually point out that the same fate should have been applied to Gove & co’s education fantasy.

  10. Alan Redford
    Posted September 27, 2011 at 8:07 pm | Permalink

    They support a ‘carbon tax’! That’s enough for me to dismiss the five MP’s, their ideas AND the book.

  11. alan jutson
    Posted September 27, 2011 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

    Difficult to make comment without reading the book, but I guess the most positive aspect is that they have put their heads together, to come up with some thoughts on alternative policies to those which are being followed at the moment.
    Clearly they think something is wrong or could be done better, otherwise why bother to put alternative ideas in the form of a book.

    Thrust they vote the way they feel, rather than just being lobby fodder.

    • alan jutson
      Posted September 27, 2011 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

      Oops Trust .

  12. rose
    Posted September 27, 2011 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

    Rather than a carbon tax, I would like to see a noise and pollution tax. People don’t need to make half the noise and pollution they make at present, much of it being for effect, and the quiet revolution should be carried through by the Conservatives as the responsible party which encourages thoughtful behaviour. I would also like to see an airport in the Thames Estuary rather than at Heathrow. Airports over cities are considered dangerously old-fashioned in the rest of the world now.

    • rose
      Posted September 27, 2011 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

      Sorry, I mean flightpaths.

    • Major Loophole
      Posted September 28, 2011 at 8:41 am | Permalink

      Rose

      Hear, hear to the Thames estuary airport–madness not to do it.

    • Henry
      Posted September 28, 2011 at 8:49 am | Permalink

      “Pollution Tax”? The Icelandic volcano’s eruption produced more CO2 in two weeks than the rest of the world put together since the Industrial Revolution. Who pays for that pollution? Note that this volcano’s eruption was only reported because it interferred with flights! Others are erupting on a regular basis that aren’t reported.

      • rose
        Posted September 28, 2011 at 10:13 am | Permalink

        I’m not talking about CO2.

      • wab
        Posted September 28, 2011 at 10:38 am | Permalink

        If you spent ten seconds googling then you would know that you are completely wrong. Volcanoes in total produce perhaps 1% of human emissions, and the Iceland volcano was no outlier in this regard.

      • lifelogic
        Posted September 29, 2011 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

        Do not worry I am sure the EU will pass a law against volcanic eruptions soon with fines and taxes for any violations.

  13. uanime5
    Posted September 27, 2011 at 8:40 pm | Permalink

    “They wish to see the idea of responsibility infuse welfare, housing and social policies.”

    I find this disturbing as it seems to imply that ‘welfare, housing and social policies’ will only go to those who the Government approve of, rather than the needy. I’d need to read more about what this entails.

    “They would cut the 50p tax back to 40p as they see 50p as a revenue loser.”

    So they’re going to ignore the research that showed that cutting the tax rate from 50p to 45p would cause the treasury to lose £2.4 billion each year.

    “They would legislate to require a majority of union members, and not just a majoirty of those voting, to be in favour of a strike before taking action.”

    Will the majority of constituents be required to elect Councillors and MPs as well?

    “They oppose the intrusion of the European Court of Human Rights into UK law, and wish to legislate a UK solution.”

    They’re living in a fantasy world. Unless they’re prepared to declare that human rights no longer exist in the UK and are prepared for long court battles they should stop promoting such nonsense.

    “They wish to negotiate a different deal with the EU.”

    I doubt that any of the other 26 members will agree to the UK getting special treatment. Also many people in this country will also object to ignoring social policies and justice (some of us do enjoy having rights that the Government can’t restrict).

    My advise to these MPs would be don’t go around condemning people’s rights and access to justice as many people realise exactly what this entails. All this will do is lead to your party being considered totalitarian and causes people to vote for any other party.

  14. Acorn
    Posted September 27, 2011 at 8:55 pm | Permalink

    The enthusiasm of the newly elected. Don’t worry, the whips will soon have them operating like good little lobby fodders. None of these five has the testicular fortitude to exist outside of the conservative party machine. They don’t make them like they uses to do.

    I need a hero
    I’m holding out for a hero ’til the end of the night
    He’s gotta be strong
    And he’s gotta be fast
    And he’s gotta be fresh from the fight
    I need a hero
    I’m holding out for a hero ’til the morning light
    He’s gotta be sure
    And it’s gotta be soon
    And he’s gotta be larger than life. (Bonnie Tyler)

  15. Andrew
    Posted September 27, 2011 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

    I would like Father Christmas to exist and for the sun to shine through blueskies every single day.

    I don’t care what policians say they want, I care what they do. Cameron said all of this and is currently a high-spending, terrorist-releasing, euro lapdog, who wages wars and ignores the fact that the lights are going out sometime soon. In other words, the Heir to Blair. And I voted for him.

    The reason is that he is a career politician and all career politicians say what is required to keep on the gravy train and make wealthy contacts, rather than taking on vested interests. The popularity of your blog is that you could clearly have your choice of real world jobs but choose to serve, unlike the rest, who serve in order to choose (their directorships).

    • Robert K
      Posted September 28, 2011 at 10:11 am | Permalink

      Neat

  16. oldtimer
    Posted September 27, 2011 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

    There is a revealing commentary about the genesis of the Climate Change Act here:
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/9/27/guilty-men-and-guilty-women.html?lastPage=true#comment15179893

    If this is how laws are made in Parliament then no wonder we are in trouble.

  17. Bob
    Posted September 27, 2011 at 10:20 pm | Permalink

    “They do not like female quotas for Boards”
    How about all women short lists?

    “but they are no Lib Dems in drag”
    From Wiki: “Truss was President of Oxford University Liberal Democrats and expressed anti-monarchist sentiments at the 1994 Liberal Democrats conference.”
    Sounds like a Libertory to me!

  18. Posted September 27, 2011 at 10:21 pm | Permalink

    The BBC appears to be making efforts to improve its performance but it has a long way to go (listen to the left wing bias on Radio 4 or World Service, for example).

    This book will not have a decent airing on the media and especially not on the BBC.

    If it was a Labour Party book it would be across the corporation. There is nothing the BBC likes more than to join its Labour friends in PLP naval gazing.

    In my view the left wing propaganda we all suffer can be measured: it is roughly a multiple of the amount pollsters add on for the ‘shy Tory’ effect. Shy Tories are those whose private thoughts differ from what they say in public. I would double it in order to account for those who have been indoctrinated: i.e. those who private thoughts have been turned and who actually vote a different way as a result of propaganda.

    The Right has one arm tied behind its back and I applaud any author who fights these odds.

    Good luck with the book!

    NB Alok Sharma MP uncovered Spanish practices (mainly at Labour Councils) where staff are being paid for doing no council work at all. The cost is estimated by Mr Sharma at £35M over three years. This has not been reported in the media as far as I can tell despite being raised in the House of Commons. I know these things happened in the 1970s but I thought we had grown up now.

    At least the Freedom of Information Act which he used to uncover this information may now start to recoup some of its tremendous cost – but only if this news story is publicized.

  19. Greg
    Posted September 27, 2011 at 10:32 pm | Permalink

    Well if that’s the best we can expect from new Conservatives we are even more stuffed than previously thought.
    No radical plans to deal with government profligacy, woolly waffle about “responsibility”, building more runways for an industry that gets less viable with every dollar on oil and no real tax cuts at all just a return to 40p tax rate.
    Rehash, re jig and don’t rock the boat.

  20. Martin
    Posted September 27, 2011 at 10:33 pm | Permalink

    Education – Instead of all this dogma about “Free”, “For Profit” and “City Academies” etc why not

    Teach more maths!

  21. matthu
    Posted September 27, 2011 at 10:35 pm | Permalink

    Why are we getting so worked up about the impact of a carbon tax?

    Bishop Hill tells us that no lesser person than Lord Adair Turner told a meeting at the Royal Society of Edinburgh last night that “even if the Climate Change Committee’s prediction that their plans would not affect our lifestyles turns out to be wrong and we did in fact become poorer, it would not make us less happy. ”

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/9/27/in-which-i-catch-a-turner.html

    And how can he tell us this with such certainty? There was, he said, “no doubt” because the evidence for this was “overwhelming”. [ Where else have we heard the evidence for anything ever being described as overwhelming? Ah, that would be the evidence for catastrophic man-made global warming … ]

    But wait: this is what Lord Turner told a meeting at the London School of Economics as recently as October last year: “… even though increases in income create only slight or negligible increases in welfare, any reduction in income is “strongly negative” for wellbeing.”

    http://news.efinancialcareers.co.uk/News_ITEM/newsItemId-28882

    So how can something which is true in October 2010 be so overwhelmingly overturned by September 2011?

    Ah, you forget that this is the same person who so successfully oversaw the banks at the time of the banking crisis, who has been such a strong and consistent advocate for the UK joining the Euro, and has for so long been staunchly in favour of spending even more of the electorate’s money on expensive and wasteful renewable energy technology in order to save the world. (And no doubt to line his own pocket too: can you imagine he is not deeply invested in green technology?)

    Banker!

  22. Jon Burgess
    Posted September 27, 2011 at 11:10 pm | Permalink

    The fact that they’ve swallowed the Climate Change flannel is not a good sign. Couldn’t you get them a quick audience with Nigel Lawson? His daughter could provide the nibbles (not a spelling mistake, I can assure you).

    Renegotiating our relationship with the EU? Good luck with that one! I fear it’s in or out only, and if you’re in it’s one speed to financial destruction.

    How about a return to selection in education? Reintroduce grammar schools and burn down every soul destroying bog standard comprehensive.
    How about legislating to make it illegal for the UK Government to borrow money? Just manage with what you take in taxation.
    Dropping the 50p rate is a start, but what about abolishing CGT and IHT? Taking income tax down to 20p? Allow wealth creators to do just that.
    How about a return to police foot patrols?
    Repeal of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act?
    Making divorce more difficult
    Stopping abortion being used as a means of birth control
    advocating the conviction users of illegal drugs
    Supporting marriage in the tax system
    Gain control of UK borders and stop all inward migration
    Start investing in the armed forces again
    Recall all our troops from Afghanistan, Libya, Iran etc.
    Raise the personal tax allowance to £12,000 and stop paying job seekers allowance to recipients after 12 months.
    Force MPs to fund their own pension schemes – then do the same with the rest of the public sector.

    That lot might just tempt me back from UKIP.

  23. Steve Whitfield
    Posted September 27, 2011 at 11:32 pm | Permalink

    The news that 5 or 50 Principled Tory MP’s are going to resign because of the coalition’s anti-conservative , liberal policy’s would have been far more welcome than a book but I wish them well . Taking the groupthink position on the carbon credits scheme is a very bad sign.

  24. Posted September 28, 2011 at 12:15 am | Permalink

    As other posters have said OK until we get the Climate Change idiocy,IF they are so clever and prescient WHY do they not at least listen to the counter arguments.As I have said before on this subject about my own personal involvement on this ,It should be studied in detail WHY
    are all the LIES told by the Climate Change Zealots,in my instance I once again tell of the time in 2008 in Canal Walk shopping centre in Cape Town,at a stand displaying a map of our planet by the WWF showing the effect of a ONE METRE RISE in sea level due to MAN MADE CO2,there were areas shown UNDER WATER that could not possibly be due to ONLY A ONE METRE RISE, some of the areas shown were and still are hundreds of metres above current sea level,in particular one part of South Africa was shown which is still 1000 metres ABOVE sea level,I actually went to a major book shop and PURCHASED an ATLAS ,took it and used it to berate the staff manning the stand in front of about 300 people,when the AUDIENCE got angry security was called and I was ejected,my message STILL got over.Does this not sound EXACTLY like the very recent Furore about the New Sunday Times Atlas and areas of Greenland shown as ice free which equate to more than the size of the UK that actually Are Still under more than 500 metres of ice,and what about the claim now totally discredited that all the glaciers in the Himalayas would be melted within less than 50 years.When plain out and out lies are told to support something as potentially important to the whole Human Race as this, to just buy into it without questioning the lies shows breathtaking stupidity /Naievity,I expect intelligent sentient people to be otherwise. And if they do buy into the CO2 nonsense WHITHER the wealth that the huge gas field under Lancashire,WHAT also would they do with a huge find of oil somewhere in our waters STOP IT AS WELL.

  25. Big John
    Posted September 28, 2011 at 3:05 am | Permalink

    When are we going prosecute the people who keep pushing this global warming scam, and seise all their assets so we can try and recover some of our money back?

  26. lojolondon
    Posted September 28, 2011 at 4:28 am | Permalink

    John, I want to say, anyone in favour of carbon tax has not done any research, but that is slightly unfair for two reasons – firstly, I guess they are busy people and it can be pretty hard to find the message in the mainstream media. Secondly, Carbon has been so maligned by the media and supported by politicians and those who stand to make money for the scam that it can seem like defending an axe murdered – perhaps worse!

    I blame the BBC, who have genuinely taken the decision that ‘the case against carbon is so strong that there is no requirement to present any counter argument – ie. the Beeb have decided that in the case of carbon they have suspended their own requirement to present an unbiased, fair case, based on facts.

    It is a total outrage, and a very good example of why the licence – which is no more than a poll tax after all – needs to be cancelled, as it is in most western countries.

    • Bob
      Posted September 28, 2011 at 7:27 pm | Permalink

      The TV licence is a much bigger issue than most commentators give it credit for. It allows for billions of pounds to be spent on promoting the The Labour Party’s political agenda; a propaganda machine which no other political party can come close to.

  27. Posted September 28, 2011 at 5:54 am | Permalink

    They would legislate to require a majority of union members, and not just a majoirty of those voting, to be in favour of a strike before taking action.

    Now that one is interesting. Personally I’m no fan of the Unions, but it is rather hard to see why the government should be able to set the internal voting arrangements of a private organisation. But that isn’t the important point. The principle is, however.

    I have been arguing for a considerable time that if every law were required to pass a referendum, with a pass mark of 50% of the electorate, not just of those who bother to vote, we would have been spared virtually all of the foolish legislation that plagues us, and indeed most of the legislation of the past decades. You would not have got the people out in anywhere near sufficient numbers to vote for, say, the smoking ban, which is high profile, let alone the myriad EuroRegs.

    You see this is a very interesting thing. Your friends want to impose a gold standard of democracy on the unions, so I wonder why they don’t want it for the general population. Even ignoring the direct democracy version, it is well known that we are normally ruled by a government voted for by a minority of the electorate.

    So before imposing such stringency on trades unions, I wonder why you aren’t eager to impose such stringency upon democracy in general. As one of “the membership” of the United Kingdom democratic system, I really would like to know.

  28. norman
    Posted September 28, 2011 at 7:13 am | Permalink

    The last two MPs I’ve never heard of but have read only good things about the first three so no doubt a lot of worthwhile things in this book.

    Let’s hope they’ve not scuppered their chances of a junior position at the tail end of this Parliament by writing this.

  29. Robert
    Posted September 28, 2011 at 8:38 am | Permalink

    You are going to need a new leader and a lot more anti EU MP’s if you hope to get any change on the ECHR and the EU from your party. You also need to get approval from the other 26 countries to agree to let the EU allow us to make these changes. How are you going to get their approval?

    • rose
      Posted September 28, 2011 at 10:37 am | Permalink

      There are problems with Clarke and Patten as there ever were. But the main problem is with the Liberals. Maybe by the end of this tumultuous year they will have gone quiet on the subject of the EU as they have on the single currency. Clarke and Patten will no doubt remain unreconstructed troublemakers, but they are getting older, as Heseltine has, and Patten is no longer officially in the government.

      So the younger more realistic generation may yet prevail.

  30. Stephen
    Posted September 28, 2011 at 9:16 am | Permalink

    Pleased to hear that the modneriser selection process has not filtered out all common sense from the new intake.

    UK private schools are delivering quality education. One obvious way to improve UK education standards is to increase the % of children attending them, via tax rebates and/or vouchers. If the value of these is set at the right level it could also leave those children remaining in the state sector better funded.

    I have not heard the new rules on charitable status, introduced by the last government and which threaten to rob not-for -profit private schools of their charitable status have been reverse. This is would be a small step in the right direction and should not be forgotten.

  31. Viv Evans
    Posted September 28, 2011 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    This, for me, is the deal-breaker:
    “My main quibble with them is their belief that we need a carbon tax to tackle “climate change”.”

    It shows not just that the writers haven’t made the intellectual effort to understand this shibboleth, it also shows that their words about tax regimes and ‘new deals’ with the EU are simply nice, inoffensive ways of making the ‘Tory’ brand acceptable to some Libs, even some Labs.

    We need our economy to pick up and grow. For that, we must get rid of superfluous taxation such as the ‘green’ ones on energy; we need to ensure that our energy supply is secure and cheap (think shale gas – and the various attempts to leave it where it is); we need consumers to have more in their pockets by lowering their energy costs substantially.

    As long as our energy policies are governed by the discredited ‘climate change science’ and the EU Directives based on them, we will founder. No amount of nice, inoffensive fiddling around by small cuts here, more private initiatives there will be of any use.

    No conservative worth their name should consent to such policies unless the climate change policies and their pernicious influence on all our lives have been scrapped first!

  32. James Reade
    Posted September 28, 2011 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    “My main quibble with them is their belief that we need a carbon tax to tackle “climate change”. It seems to me we have more pressing priorities to put food on the table and a roof over everyone’s head.”

    More pressing priorities, say like abolishing the 50p top tax band?

  33. Biffo
    Posted September 28, 2011 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    I was gung-ho until I got to the bit about climate change. Clearly they are not as clever as they think they are. Come to that, the bit about renegotiating our relationship with the EU, and having a two-speed EU, isn’t that bright, either. The only way of getting out of the EU mess is to leave altogether, assuming of course there is an EU still standing in 2015. So on balance, I am not overwhelmed by the suggestions of these five.

  34. Chris
    Posted September 28, 2011 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

    Having read the report of the interview with William Hague on Coffee House (Spectator) it would seem that the Cons Party very definitely needs new thinking/clarification of issues in order to bring it more in touch with the grass roots. So, this is a start by The Five. What I find puzzling is the following extract from the report which to me shows just how out of touch the top of the Cons party is with the electorate:

    “…He (Hague) tells me that no Cabinet colleague has ever told him that they favour either withdrawal or a radical renegotiation of Britain’s membership — a surprising statement since several Tory ministers will happily say such things to journalists. “People are not running around jumping to extremes,” he says somewhat sniffily….”
    From http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7272628/hague-the-euro-is-a-burning-building-with-no-exit.thtml

    For those who want to read an interesting posting re the EU issues e.g. i) how isolated the UK is and ii) how powerless the UK seems to be with evermore legislation tightening the grip of the EU on member states (with the March 25 Council Decision being highly significant, but apparently completely glossed over by David Cameron) see the comments by Denis Cooper at end of article.

    • Andrew
      Posted September 28, 2011 at 10:05 pm | Permalink

      ‘Jumping to extremes’.

      I would call a two trillion bailout fund pretty extreme, Mr Hague, as would you have before you entered government. Withdrawing from the EU into EFTA is far, far less ‘extreme’ than that.

      It is incredible how the civil service mindset overwhelms even the brightest of political minds in such a short space of time.

  35. BobE
    Posted September 28, 2011 at 9:25 pm | Permalink

    John, Im afraid that in 3,5 years time we will get a labour government.
    Why?
    Because the Lib Dems will be deserted by their core vote, the young. They won’t switch to Conservative but will probably go to fringe parties and also some to labour. This gives a shoe in to the labour party.
    Personally I no longer trust conservatives with the EU and so my vote is to UKIP. (Im in a safe tory seat so no democracy for me.)

  36. BobE
    Posted September 28, 2011 at 9:30 pm | Permalink

    Actually how to win the election.
    Put in the manifesto a real garanteed EU referendum.
    ……………………………………………………………………….
    “Sould we stay in the European Union….. YES/NO
    ……………………………………………………………………….
    Garanteed election win for any major party.

  37. RDM
    Posted September 29, 2011 at 11:02 am | Permalink

    Just a few suggestions;

    Could they at least start by discussing the future direction of politics within the UK, Liberal Democracy Vs Social Democracy, or thier alternative?

    Because DC missed the target at the last election!

    There is a huge gap between the State, Parliament, and Politicians on the one hand, and the People on the other.

    Would the People except anything other then a Representive Democracy? Politicians are no longer in a position to govern all?

    A Representive HoL? A framework for the Executive, Administration, and Legislature?

    Shouldn’t there be a new covernent forged with the People? Including a re-sizing of the state, and it’s function?

    Shouldn’t there be an understanding of where the Rights and Responsibilies of the Individuals lay? A British Bill of Rights?

    Individuals need to know that a Framework is in place that allows them to build an independent life for themselves? To be in a position to take what ever Opportunity life affords them? i.e access to Capital and Bank lending that matches the needs of a modern life style, the Information age and solving problems with Technology?

    The “World of Work” is a Social Democrats’ response!!! With the politicians and a big state taking responsibility to provide Work? There are far more Opportunities for self-employment then there is for any other form! But there is not a complete (across the regions) framework or culture in place to encourage the people to take it up?

    What is the point of a Union between the home country’s if there is no benefit to the Peoples through the United Economy’s, and the concrete realization of it, the Banking system. Far too many people, within the regions, are excluded from access to the Banking System, can’t get Mortgages, Startup Loans, or even Project Finance?

    etc …

    Regards,

    A Disenfranchised (A Welsh) Tory! And unemployed!

  38. Ferdinand
    Posted September 30, 2011 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

    It’s good to see new recruits coming in with clear ideas. What worries me is that they have not checked the facts about CO2 and climate change . How many other facts have they not checked ?

  39. Anne Palmer
    Posted October 4, 2011 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

    You wrote, ” My colleagues Kwasi Kwarteng, Priti Patel, Dominic Raab, Chris Skidmore and Elizabeth Truss have sent me a copy of their publication: After the Coalition: A Conservative agenda for Britain. We need to take note of what five intelligent newly elected MPs are saying about how they see the future and wish to shape it”.

    After all those years with New Labour -about thirteen wasn’t it?-and just about a year and a half of this Coalition, I do not see a future for any of those three Political Parties at all.

    With the extra layer of EU Governance through the EU Regions being set up by the Conservatives at present and the extra layer of EU Governance we have paid dearly for, in every way since 1972, I simply do not see, especially as this Government is to serve five long weary set, I do not see any need for a British Government set up by those three Parties ever again, no matter how many books are written, now or in the future.

    We haven’t really had a true Government since 1972, in truth, have we? The “end time” to any British Government will/may coincide with the end of the first five years term which, in the making of the five year term, which for the first time in history side-lined the very Monarch all have made their allegiance to over those years, the present Prime Minister said, “I’m the first Prime Minister in British history to give up the right unilaterally to ask the Queen for a dissolution of Parliament. This is a huge change in our system, it is a big giving up of power. Others have talked about it, people have written pamphlets and made speeches about fixed term parliaments, I have made that change. It’s a big change and a good change”.

    Sadly, HE did nor give anything up for his Monarch, he took away from his Monarch one of the Duties and tasks the Crown should and must do, part of that mystery that makes this Country so very different from other Countries and the envy of so many of them.

    The previous Government gave the power of the Royal Prerogative -which they will come to bitterly regret- one coming day, when they ratified the Treaty of Lisbon, in giving “LEGAL PERSONALITY” to the EU.

    What I wonder, would have been the reaction of the First Queen Elizabeth had all this happened in her day? As it is at present, I predict the future for those that brought this sad situation about, will not turn out anything at all like they think it will.

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, He graduated from Magdalen College Oxford, has a DPhil and is a fellow of All Souls College. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page