Queen’s speech – what do you want in it?

 

        Parliament legislates too much. I am not looking for another long list of Bills regulating too many things. Indeed, top of my list are the Bills I do not want to see get the light of day.

        I do not want a Bill to enshrine levels of overseas aid in law. These should be settled each year in the Budget like other spending. I want us to get the deficit down before committing more cash to this cause.

      I do not want a Communications Bill offering government surveillance over our use of the internet. The authorities should snoop under warrant on those who may threaten our society, not on everyone else.

     I do not want a Bill to impose a minimum alcohol price. Whilst too many  getting drunk does cause problems for our society, a minimum price only stops the poor and honest from getting drunk, not the rest.

     I do not want a Bill to regulate cigarette packets.

     I do not want a Bill to undertake the next stage of HS2. I want this delayed until the structural  budget deficit has been removed.

        I would like a Referendum Bill, a Repeal  Bill to remove needless and costly regulations, and a Bill to free us to have an energy policy based on cheaper energy.

       Government needs to spend more time sorting out public sector management, standards, quality and extent of its functions rather than adding more laws to the Statute book. It needs to redouble its efforts to curb spending to get the deficit down.

          What would you like? And Yes, you can say repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act.

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

167 Comments

  1. Robert K
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 5:16 am | Permalink

    Being entirely lazy:
    Repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act.
    A Referendum Bill, a Repeal Bill and a Bill to free us to have an energy policy based on cheaper energy.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 9:42 am | Permalink

      I think that I might have to say “Repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, conditional upon approval of the Act of repeal in a national referendum”.

      Because although Parliament approved all subsequent EU treaties without a single referendum on any of them – Single European Act, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice, Lisbon – we did have a retrospective referendum on accession to the EEC; and although the eurofederalists won that 1975 referendum through lies and deceit, scaremongering and smearmongering, ably assisted by almost all of the mass media, and even by employers sending letters to all of their workers saying that their jobs would be under threat if the result was “out”, it would in principle be better to have that referendum result overturned through another referendum.

      However it would not break my heart if Parliament did decide to repeal that Act without bothering to ask us in a referendum; I would not be joining any campaign demanding that as a matter of principle there must be a referendum to reverse the result of the 1975 referendum.

      After all, our enemies don’t bother about matters of principle, exactly the opposite, and so we can place limits on how far we will concede to them when they find it more convenient to make claims about principle, the rule of law, “pacta sunt servanda”, etc etc, rather than unscrupulously ignoring all those considerations in order to get their way.

    • Disaffected
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 11:51 am | Permalink

      Repeal the Climate Change Act 2008, the world is passing us by and it will take too long to build sustainable power stations to meet the UK requirements. Do not shut coal fired power stations to suit an EU dictate. Stop all wind farm production and contracts. Infrastructure spending on shale gas exploration and all forms of nuclear power ASAP, the UK cannot afford Lib Dumbs political pro EU green ideology.

      Cancel ECHR. Contrary to Clegg’s “poppycock” the UK is UNsafe as a consequence of the EU not by leaving it. We could control our borders and boot out whoever we wished. The EU arrest warrant allows citizens of this country to be arrested for offences that do not exist here. And Clegg thinks it would make us less safe by leaving the EU!!

      Where is the EARLY legislation for right to recall MPs, this might help to focus the minds of the lemmings, lazy and corrupt.

  2. Mark W
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 5:18 am | Permalink

    As I only have time for a brief contribution then your last paragraph is top of my wish list. No referendum, no fuss. Just leave the EU now.

    It’d be rather fitting if Boston, Lincs does for 21st century Britain what Boston, Mass did for 18th century America.

    • Sue
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 10:08 am | Permalink

      A commitment to invoke Article 50 immediately and being negotiations for leaving the EU. That’s what I want.

  3. lifelogic
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 5:26 am | Permalink

    I would like a Referendum Bill, a Repeal Bill to remove needless and costly regulations, a Bill to free us to have an energy policy based on cheaper energy, repeal the 1972 European Communities Act, an easy hire and fire bill, and a halving of the state sector bill and sensible tax rates bill. The pointless expensive HS2 is needed like a hole in the head.

    Perhaps some bill to prevent future Prime Ministers from ratting on the electorates, so easily, and without going back for new mandates.

    I see Nigel Lawson, an ex fan of the absurd ERM/EURO experiment that buried the foolish Major, has seen the light on energy, the AGW exaggeration and now the (fig leaf, jam tomorrow if I am re-elected) stance of the PM on the EU.

    No one will be taken in by ratter Cameron now, a UKIP deal is the only, very tiny, hope.

    • lifelogic
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 10:56 am | Permalink

      I see the Queen’s speech still goes on about tackling climate change do they thing they are Gods?

      More of the same big state, fake green, pro EU, high tax and ever more regulation drivel.

    • Disaffected
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 11:55 am | Permalink

      UKIP is the real deal, with Cameron the Tories have no hope.

      I note the papers are pointing out his contrasting comments on an EU referendum. Before the council elections he could not bring forward legislation because of the coalition, after the election all options were open. Which is correct, the letter to his MPs or his announcement? Anyone believe him on his track record to date?

  4. David Price
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 5:27 am | Permalink

    Dissolution of the coalition please.

    • Jerry
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 9:48 am | Permalink

      @David Price: “Dissolution of the coalition please.

      …followed shortly after by a General Election, on current polling trends, Labour will be please!

      • David Price
        Posted May 10, 2013 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

        Maybe, but at least there won’t be Libdem fig leaves available for Cameron to hide behind, the Libdems will have fight their own corner and we’ll see just how much real support UKIP has in a general election.

        The current government isn’t governing it merely acting as a rubber stamping bureaucrat for the EU. In any case no one voted for the coalition or it’s policies.

  5. James
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 5:41 am | Permalink

    Wanted
    A bill to limit levels of taxation and government spending and to prevent deficits over a Parliament.

    • Jon Burgesd
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

      How about a bill to forbid the Government from borrowing at all? Link the budget to a percentage of last years total receipts (80% has been mooted here previously).

      At a stroke this would compel all Governments to balance the books and repay the national debt with any surplus.

  6. Old Albion
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 6:12 am | Permalink

    A bill to create a Parliament for England.
    And a bill to “repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act”

  7. Jerry
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 6:16 am | Permalink

    Another article that I am in all but in full agreement with, there are already enough laws and regulations to prevent us from doing anything other than breath if they were all actually enforced! There really is no need for much legislation at all, I would suggest that much of the Queens speech could be made up of Repeal Bills – although Cameron won’t be giving us an option to vote on repealing the 1972 European Communities Act apparently (according the this mornings DT), UKIP saw to that in 2010 when they split the vote on the right and thus made the coalition inevitable – or a very unstable period in UK politics just when that was the last thing the economy needed.

    But isn’t it strange how the LibDems actually behave once in government, for years they have told us that not only were they the party of liberty but also that they would favour a In/Out referendum -if for no reason than to ‘clear the air’, remove all the doubt- but one that and the one big issue key to our countries and personal liberty now they are in government they change their minds as to what their party stands for…

    Now to my one disagreement;
    I do not want a Bill to undertake the next stage of HS2. I want this delayed until the structural budget deficit has been removed.

    I think you are wrong on HS2, never mind simply not taking this to the next stage just yet, how about just scrapping it altogether? The UK doesn’t need more high speed passenger lines, what this country needs is a dedicated, north-south low(er) speed freight route that removed this traffic from the existing ‘medium’ speed passenger routes, better still how about reversing some of the Beeching closures that would then allow for a nationwide network of both freight and low speed passenger feeder routes that could (and probably would) share track infrastructure.

    • stred
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 11:06 am | Permalink

      The freight line idea was also in my bit last week. Much easier to build and far less expensive and lower energy than Hs2. Has anyone in the DOT even considered it? Could JR ask them please?

    • Mark W
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 11:07 am | Permalink

      You make a useful point about rail.

      One thing I think is a great idea is the mix of road and rail that is used for the Channel Tunnel.

      Starting with freight (I think there used to be a version of this on a small scale). Having hubs where lorries just drove on to trains to save them using the motorways on big north south journeys. This saves the limitations of rail penetration and all the unloading and distribution.

      So lorry boards train at Bristol and gets off near Glasgow.

      This could be extended to cars too in the end. I would be very happy to drive onto a train at Reading and get off at Plymouth when going to the West Country.

      It works on the channel tunnel.

    • nicol sinclair
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

      Jerry: Is my opinion (and memory) “The UK doesn’t need more high speed passenger lines…”

      It is my opinion that HS2 is part of the EC’s ‘TEN’* Network. If that is the case, then we are screwed and will have to provide it whether we like it or not. Did we sign up to that? I haven’t a clue but I suspect that it was hidden in the ‘dross’ from the EC.

      *Trans European Network.

  8. margaret brandreth-j
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 6:19 am | Permalink

    I would like a bill for minimum pricing of alcohol. The devastation caused by alcohol and drug abuse causes untold physical harm to the suffers , relatives and high levels of spending in the NHS.

    The Queen’s speech usually starts on an ethical note. I would like ethics infiltrating every aspect of all bills in order for considered care to illuminate the future messages. There is too much unrest in the world especially in consideration of racial mix and she is always good at presenting a cooperative umbrella.

    I would like a bill however to address levels of inward migration and aid outward migration of those who came to escape their regimes.

    How easily could the 1972 E Communities act be repealed ?and what other considerations are there apart from law? what would life be like with simpler treaty obligations?

    • Mark
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

      Why not simply re-institute magistrate court fines for being drunk and disorderly? That applies the extra price for alcohol in exactly the right way.

      • margaret brandreth-j
        Posted May 8, 2013 at 10:41 pm | Permalink

        The alcoholics you don’t see are the ones who slowly kill themselves at home. They can just about stumble to the nearest off licence, they have large swollen abdomens, they are yellow, they bleed very easily , they have repeated admissions to hospital for blood transfusions, they loose coordination of limbs , they cannot think clearly, they have personality changes which breaks the hearts of their families , they become incontinent of faeces and urine and bleed in the bed they find it hard to get out of and no one ever knows they are drunk and disorderly.

    • Jerry
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

      @margaret brandreth-j: “I would like a bill for minimum pricing of alcohol.

      Yeah, why not penalise the working poor, or pensioners etc…

      Someone more than a few bottles down the road to being a alcoholic is not going to worry about price, they will either starve themselves so to drink and then when the money is all gone they will simply (attempt to) steal it.

      Better would be to restrict the supply in a way that prevents impulse or the easy purchase, the laws of “Off-licence”, as applied to shops, needs to be revised so to take all sales of alcohol back into Pubs or separate specialist retail stores (this would not stop the internet trade in wines for example). What ever is done alcohol should not be sold opposite the cornflakes.

  9. lifelogic
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 6:20 am | Permalink

    Now I reed that almost two million buy-to-let property owners will be responsible for checking the immigration status of potential tenants, with fines running into thousands of pounds for those breaking the law. Higher fines for employers too. Another mad way to attack the problem from the wrong end.

    One assumes, like everything else in the UK, this will be made absurdly complex to do in practice. They will then, one assumes, just rent in someone else’s name and live there anyway, sublet unofficially, stay in hostels/hotels or squat in commercial building perhaps. This, as for some mad reason, commercial properties were exempt from the new anti-squatting laws. At least the Tories have done one thing useful, in the three years, albeit only in half measure.

    • stred
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 11:17 am | Permalink

      Maybe they will have to carry a Certificate of Illegal Entry. Or landlords could have a tick box system. Beware of Commonwealth overstayers. It could be extremely expensive. Anyway unscrupulouslandlords are always loaded and could easily afford the fines. Dave and Dummy know how to solve the immigration problem- give up with the Borders Agency, promote the boss to run HMRC and let the buytolet rogues sort it out.

      • lifelogic
        Posted May 8, 2013 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

        I assume landlords making any mistakes will be accused of racism and fined.

        • zorro
          Posted May 8, 2013 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

          Of course lifelogic, how else will another breed of no win-no fee lawyer spring up to take advantage of claims?

          zorro

      • zorro
        Posted May 8, 2013 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

        Indeed, the UKBA or whatever it is called tomorrow can visit all the private landlords and fine them for letting to illegals……..Yeah, like that is going to happen when they can’t police the borders properly anyway….

        zorro

    • Disaffected
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

      Lifelogic,

      Or increase legal aid bills for discrimination cases. A winner for the lawyers not the economy or taxpayer. Thousands of ECHR cases in the making. Poorly thought through as usual to grab a headline. The commissioner made it clear he is going to make it easier to come here. Cameron cannot stop it. Osborne is reportedly taking the EU to court to stop the transaction tax.

      When Qualified Majority Voting comes in full swing next year with the Lisbon Treaty, the UK will have less influence NOT more, as claimed by Clegg and the Europhiles, in the EU and the UK will be in a straight jacket to do anything in its own national interest. Don’t believe me, watch Cameron on Youtube explain the follies of the Lisbon Treaty and why we should not join it, including the EU having the right to make treaties for the UK without the UK’s consent.

    • Mark
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

      Presumably this will provide an excuse for harassment, while failing to prevent NHS tourism, and ignoring illegal immigrants anyway, while exploiting their status with higher rents. Does it apply to councils and HAs too?

      Rather, we should be checking the nationality of those buying property. By not renting, they escape the system. I’m not convinced that money laundering checks work too well on foreign citizens either.

    • zorro
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

      Another bonkers idea from Cameron I guess to try and pretend to be ‘tough’ on immigration…..Of course, the only way he can think of doing this is by adding an expensive regulation which will be difficult to enforce and encourage more identity fraud. The fines on employers hiring illegals should be raised as the job is the carrot luring the illegals to the UK. But as you say, there are others ways to crack this nut……

      zorro

      • Electro-Kevin
        Posted May 8, 2013 at 9:51 pm | Permalink

        Zorro – Turning landlords and doctors into immigration officers.

        “We must give aid to Somalia to decrease immigration to the UK.” Mr Cameron said yesterday.

        We are told that recent wars have been fought to protect our borders from terrorists.

        So why no proper UK border protection at home ? Why so little spent on it ?

        Does Mr Cameron really think that this is going to be enough and that we are going to be duped again ?

        • lifelogic
          Posted May 9, 2013 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

          Does Mr Cameron really think that this is going to be enough and that we are going to be duped again ?

          It seems so.

        • zorro
          Posted May 9, 2013 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

          Yeah, like giving aid to Afghanistan and Iraq, or supporting rebels in Libya and Syria has led to a drop in asylum seekers……I think not.

          The aid to Somalia will finds its way into someone’s hands, and will allow more Somalis to be able to leave their country…..

          Just like the massive presence of US and UK troops in Helmand and other provinces has not led to a fall in the production or export of heroin……

          It sounds a little like Cameron using danegeld to try (unsuccessfully) to keep out the Danes. It just feeds their desire.

          zorro

  10. Kevin R. Lohse
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 6:29 am | Permalink

    I would suggest that the problem is not that Parliament legislates too much, but that the legislation is not debated enough. Parliamentary terms are getting shorter – a deliberate act by the Blair government to stifle opposition and enthusiastically pursued by Cameron’s metropolitan elitist Modernisers. There should be limits placed upon Government use of Statutory Instruments, which have become the preferred way for the Executive to deal with tricky legislation. Again, a practice started by Blair and continued by the Modernisers.

    I would like to see a Bill repealing the special terms given to wind turbine generation, and the funds saved directed towards the development of frackable gas. I would further like to see action to remove the Government from all market activity apart from regulation, but this is impossible in the present political climate.

    I would like to see the restoration of the transferable personal allowance for married couples with children or elderly dependants when one partner is the carer. I have mixed feelings about this being made available to civil partnerships, but in equity they would have to be included.

    At the moment, the banks are in an impossible position in that they are being told on the one hand to build up capital reserves, and on the other to lend more. Can we have some joined-up policy in this area?

    The repeal of the 1972 ECA goes without saying, as does withdrawal from the EU Human Rights Act. Alien legislation which interferes with the government’s duty to protect it’s subjects should no longer be tolerated. Our judiciary is quite robust enough to prevent State abuse of the rights of the British Subject within the limits of our own constitutional protections.

    The establishment of a Royal Commission to investigate Corruption in Public Life.

    • Robert Christopher
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

      “The establishment of a Royal Commission to investigate Corruption in Public Life.”

      I won’t be surprised at their findings!

    • uanime5
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

      The repeal of the 1972 ECA goes without saying, as does withdrawal from the EU Human Rights Act. Alien legislation which interferes with the government’s duty to protect it’s subjects should no longer be tolerated.

      Firstly the Human Rights Act has nothing to do with the EU.

      Secondly all the Human Rights Act does is require that all UK laws are interpreted in a way that conforms to human rights. Thus even if this bill is repealed people will still have human rights which they can enforce through the courts.

      Thirdly given that Winston Churchill helped create the European Convention on Human Rights it’s not alien legislation.

      • Edward2
        Posted May 8, 2013 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

        Uni,
        The only bit of your post that is correct is your very last sentence.
        But Sir Winston would look on in astonishment at the way the lawyers have developed his concept of human rights for their own advantage.

      • Electro-Kevin
        Posted May 8, 2013 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

        Quite right, Uanime5

        All of these problems are generated by our own political class – especially the Tories and not the EU.

    • Mark
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

      Joined up policy on lending would restrict it to the productive economy in preference to creating house price bubbles.

  11. lifelogic
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 6:34 am | Permalink

    So Cameron has said that his Coalition deal with the pro-European Liberal Democrats means the Government cannot introduce legislation paving the way for a vote on Europe after the next election. They clearly cannot either after the election as they will booted out in John Major or probably even worse style.

    The Libdems used as a pathetic fig leaf, yet again, for the jam tomorrow serial ratter.

    • zorro
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

      Indeed, the fudge today, jam tomorrow ratter, rotter, and within two years router!

      zorro

  12. alan jutson
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 6:45 am | Permalink

    Whilst I understand the need to work to a plan, why do we need advance notice of Bills at all.

    Why not just get on and do the job in an order of priority.

    The problem we seem to have is that we have too much legislation, by too many people, for too many things which is then badly drafted and so needs further legislation to clarify.

    Whilst there is no such thing (because it means different things to differtent people)I wonder if we could invent a commonsense bill if a bill is needed at all.
    It could work on the premise that if a law has not been enacted or used within the last 20 years, it would automatically we wiped from the statute book.

    But then I suppose some jobsworth would be trolling through the list after 19 years to make sure someone somewhere would enact it, just to keep it live for another 20 years !

    Getting back to your point

    A Bill that forbids any Government to borrow in the peoples name, unless in time of war to DEFEND the HOMELAND.

    A Bill that limits Government spending to 80% of the known tax take of the preceeding year, the 20% balance going to pay off our debts.

    A Bill which limits the governments ability to raise the tax level above 30% of GDP of the previous tax year.

    A Bill to simplify the tax system, which must be understood with only 100 pages of explanation in clear and simple English.

    Enact article 50, and withdraw from the EU, and govern ourselves.

    So many others, I will leave you to ponder the above.

  13. Brian Taylor
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 6:48 am | Permalink

    All of the above, plus repeal of the 2008 Climate Change Act also the the carbon tax that came into force this year, why do we pay this when the world price has collapsed? Which allow Germany to take advantage of cheap coal by building 20 new coal fired stations which they need to take up the slack when renewables don’t work!!!
    In any repeal or bill on the EU would it be possible to incorporate Article 20 from Lisbon Treaty it has been reported that if invoked the EU must negotiate a new arrangement with any country that do this, and this could take up to two years if needed?
    Would you please clarify this for me.
    Thank you for your work.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 9:49 am | Permalink

      It’s Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, about voluntary withdrawal of a member state from the EU, and it can be read here in the consolidated version of that treaty:

      http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0013:0046:EN:PDF

      It starts on page 43:

      “1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements … “

    • MartinW
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 10:56 am | Permalink

      I endorse your excellent suggestion that the Climate Change Act 2008 must be repealed. It is potentially by far the most ‘expensive’ piece of legislation ever passed by Parliament, and the carbon tax manifestly crazy.

  14. APL
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 6:53 am | Permalink

    JR: “I do not want a Bill to enshrine levels of overseas aid in law. ”

    Such a thing would be pretty much unconstitutional, if MPs cared for such quaint notions.

    I would like a law to apply severe financial penalties to MPs that do not take their duty to scrutinize the finance bill seriously. Although perhaps the misprision in public office might be applicable.

    I would like to see a law that abrogates any law that gives MPs a privilege that doesn’t apply to other members of society.

    • lifelogic
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 10:41 am | Permalink

      “I would like to see a law that abrogates any law that gives MPs a privilege that doesn’t apply to other members of society.”

      Indeed and to address the EU worker special rights & tax laws etc. too, that help to subvert democracy.

  15. Deborah
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 6:58 am | Permalink

    Yes, in a nutshell:

    “Government needs to spend more time sorting out public sector management, standards, quality and extent of its functions rather than adding more laws to the Statute book. It needs to redouble its efforts to curb spending to get the deficit down.”

    I agree with John – and Martin.

  16. stred
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 7:07 am | Permalink

    The Bills you list as unwanted may well be presented. Mr Cameron seems to have recovered from the mauling last week and regaining his confidence to continue as before. If half the Conservative troops have gone, it is the half he dislikes which have gone and the new non-nasties are left. Two thirds of MPs are PRM clones and career politicians. The coalition and Labour are nearly identical. He will hang on until he is evicted and hands over to his opposite number. Then off to an untaxed non- job with the EU or other supra national mafia. You and the other real conservatives will have to get together with UKIP and arrange David Davis type by elections. Otherwise the Guardian readers will smooth their way to more disastrous policies.

  17. Robert Eve
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 7:23 am | Permalink

    The repeal of the 1972 EC Act goes without saying.

  18. Mike Wilson
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 7:31 am | Permalink

    I would like to see the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act.

    I would like to see an act that removes our first past the post system and replaces it with a fairer system of PR. (My vote has NEVER counted in my life).

    Before the last election I seem to recall a manifesto promise to slash the number of laws we are governed by. Like the bonfire of the quangos, this has not happened. We started out with 10 commandments and, in just the last 3 years, this government has added 5,000 pages worth of new laws. How on earth are we meant to know them all?

    Like many things these days relating to politics – completely insane.

    So, a bonfire of statutes and the promised bonfire of the quangos.

    I would also like to see legislation to reform public sector salaries and pensions – which are way too generous.

  19. JoolsB
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 7:44 am | Permalink

    How about a bill to recognise England as a nation and giving it equality with the rest of the UK where only it’s elected MPs can make decisions for it and even start standing up for it for a change and where those MPs not elected by it are banned from interfering in it’s affairs? Thought not.

    Cameron’s Tories are more interested in carrying on with the nanny state and giving our hard earned cash away to foreign despots rather than offering democracy and fairness to their English constituents, the only ones in the western world now without their own parliament.

  20. Anthem
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 7:45 am | Permalink

    I would like to see Her Majesty tear up all the law books and say, “Right. Let’s start again, shall we?”

  21. Forester126
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 7:49 am | Permalink

    Quite simply, repeal the Climate change act. All the major data sets now show that world temperature has remained constant for the last 17 years (one satellite shows 23 years) while CO2 has risen by 10%.
    Any pretense that there is a link between the two is in effect at an end.
    Lets get back to cheap energy and ditch paying huge amounts of money to windfarms and Solar energy, if they cannot exist without subsidy they should not exist at all.

    • Richard1
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 9:55 am | Permalink

      Seconded. Repeal the Climate Change Act.

  22. Bob
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 8:02 am | Permalink

    Mr Redwood

    Would it be fair to say that your political views are the polar opposite of your party leadership?

    I hear this morning that we will borrow another £50 million to flush down the DfID glugger to help Somalia pay for increased military and police personnel and a prison building program.

    Meantime, were laying off our soldiers and police officers, and we’re allowing dangerous prisoners to roam free due to lack of prison places.

    I imagine that the Queen’s speech will be stuffed full of Ukip inspired policies, but just like all of David Cameron’s utterances he will have no intention to stand by any of them.

    His true intentions are more aligned with the list of things you say you do not want.

    It’s called credibility, and he doesn’t have any.

  23. Andy Baxter
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 8:07 am | Permalink

    I do not want a Bill to enshrine levels of overseas aid in law.
    Haven’t we got enough of our own people needing aid?

    I do not want a Communications Bill offering government surveillance over our use of the internet.
    The Rule of Law is slowly and inexorably being replaced by The Rule of Tyranny. Watch it grow.

    I do not want a Bill to impose a minimum alcohol price.
    It wouldn’t work even if it became a statute: it’s contrary to EU legislation (our true masters) so no worries on that score John.

    I do not want a Bill to regulate cigarette packets.
    Again wishful thinking, the demise of tobacco advertising and its being hidden away behind plain labels and non- descript doors in supermarkets is EU regulation driven.

    I do not want a Bill to undertake the next stage of HS2. I want this delayed until the structural budget deficit has been removed.
    No chance John; HS2 is an EU driven integrated European communications project.

    I would like a Referendum Bill, a Repeal Bill to remove needless and costly regulations, and a Bill to free us to have an energy policy based on cheaper energy.

    Referendum: you’re having a laugh all 3 LIBLABCON are committed to EU membership
    Repeal: an even bigger laugh for as I’ve said before and I’ll say it again until we leave the EU we cannot ‘renegotiate’ one iota of EU imposed legislation via directives or voluntary adoption thereof of ‘decisions’.

    Energy: hahaha…we are the only country in the WORLD committed to decarbonisation of our economy by 2050 via legislation under the Climate Change Act 2008. The most expensive national written financial suicide note in the history of the world! I can’t find your voting record on this one John but the consensus seems to be you opposed it? meanwhile as China and even Germany build more coal fired power stations, were closing ours down to comply with EU directives replacing them with wood burning ones and importing the wood fuel from California!

    Government needs to spend more time sorting out public sector management, standards, quality and extent of its functions rather than adding more laws to the Statute book.
    Here here…and you’ll get a Hurrah….from me when we see pigs fly pigs fly past the window at the same time!

    It needs to redouble its efforts to curb spending to get the deficit down.

    It will never happen until Government is forced to submit budgets including borrowing for pre legislative approval followed by referenda to approve how much of OUR money it needs and what it is going to spend it on. For the simple reason Government is addicted to OUR money and will continue to spend it until the cows come home.

    What would you like? And Yes, you can say repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act.

    ECA 1972 repeal I see as a final SYMBOLIC act of a reinvigorated legislative that has taken back its sovereignty that was surrendered in 1972 and onwards with the various EU treaties. But we have a long road to travel before that happens…starting with invoking article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty giving notice to leave.

  24. Trimperley
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 8:22 am | Permalink

    I’d just like nothing to happen except repeals for the rest of this Parliament. Government underestimates the value of stability and a period with no changes or tinkering would be welcome.

  25. Normandee
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 8:22 am | Permalink

    So there we have it, from this mornings Conservative Home You hope to stay in the European Union, so now we have the truth that has been bubbling under all the tripe you have been talking about wanting to leave the EU. You are Camerons man, demanding renegotiation, and prepared to back it. So leaving yourself the famous “wiggle room”.

    Reply Untrue, and I have asked Conservative Home to take down the lie.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 10:39 am | Permalink

      Well, it still says, quoting from the Times:

      “Lawson: The Day After 3) Oh, Yes it Will. Redwood says renegotiation will work

      “I think the party leadership does have to listen to this very heartfelt plea from a large number of serious-minded Conservatives … If they cannot negotiate a good deal it would be better to leave, but I am an optimist I think we can negotiate a good deal. I want that lock on the door so the British people can say ultimately whether the deal is good or not.” – The Times (£)”

      So are you saying that the Times has misquoted you about the likelihood of negotiating a good deal?

      Reply I have corrected their account

      If that’s the case, maybe you should write to the Times and put them right?

    • Normandee
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 11:32 am | Permalink

      Then I apologise for my tone. “the Lie” is still there at 1332.

      Reply I am assured it has been taken down.

  26. Alex
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 8:30 am | Permalink

    I agree with all the above.
    I would add ..

    Shut down WRAP. We will, and should, recycle if it makes sense to do so, not at the behest of some highly paid bureaucrat.

    No more ludicrous nannying – for example http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10039352/Biscuits-could-shrink-to-cut-out-fat-under-government-plan.html
    Government to determine the size of biscuits??!! Are they serious?

    Whatever is needed to get more houses built.

  27. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 8:30 am | Permalink

    I agree with all the things you don’t want and, yes, I want the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act. I’m a little disappointed that you don’t but not surprised.

    Reply Of course I wish to end our membership of the current EU. I just know that most MPs in the current Parliament would not vote for such a measure. It might also be better to talk to the rest of the EU first about future arrangements before repeal.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 11:01 am | Permalink

      The Bill to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 would set date(s) on which its provisions would come into force once the Bill had been enacted.

      Obviously you don’t need me to tell you that the normal thing is for a Bill to have a “Commencement” clause and quite often that will say that the whole of the Act will come into force immediately upon the Bill being given Royal Assent; otherwise an Act will come into force subsequent to Royal Assent and possibly in stages, as with the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 to pick a recent example:

      “Subject as follows, this Act comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint; and different days may be appointed for different purposes.”

      So the Bill having been passed by both Houses and given Royal Assent the Act to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 could specify a period (or periods) of time before it (or specified parts of it) actually came into force, during which the new arrangements would be finalised; in any case there could be a final deadline, that all of the Act would come into force on a certain date irrespective of whether new treaty arrangements had come into force, in line with Article 50 TEU on the withdrawal of a member state from the EU which says:

      “3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.”

    • zorro
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

      It is sensible to ensure that we have some understanding if we plan to withdraw from the EU until we can renegotiate our trading interests.

      zorro

  28. me
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 8:43 am | Permalink

    Sounds like you want a UKIP Queen’s speech.

    What an amazing opportunity you and a few other sensible Tory bigwigs have, by leaving the Tory party and moving to UKIP you would cause a massive upheaval among the governing class of this country. Your name would go down in history as one of the key men who, by putting their country above themselves or their party, helped restore British sovereignty.

    If I were in your position I don’t think I’d be brave enough to do it, I like the comfort of the familiar, but maybe someone like David Davis. They’re must be some Tory MPs with the cajones to shake things up.

    • Mike Wilson
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

      I really, REALLY hope that NO conservative MPs defect to UKIP.

      I don’t want UKIP being seen as the home of the ‘mad right’ of the Tory party.

      As Nigel said the other day ‘what is right wing about wanting our country back?’ and ‘what is right wing about putting our own people first?’

      If right wing Tory MPs decided to throw in their lot with UKIP – it would destroy UKIP. The media and Labour would have a field day. UKIP appeals to anyone who is fed up with the endless LibLabCon mess. As such it needs to remain completely independent until the 2015 election.

      And then, without the labels hung around its neck that would be caused by right wing Tory MPs joining it, it can take votes from all the main parties and, hopefully, get our country back and consign the useless LibLabCon parties to the dustbin of history.

  29. Tad Davison
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 8:54 am | Permalink

    Over all, I would like our own parliament to be supreme, but one of the things I have been angling for, over the past twenty-odd years, is a complete overhaul of the criminal justice system, to provide effective deterrents, but we’re up against some real blockheads and vested interests.

    I have it in writing from the local Cambridge Lib Dem MP, Julian Huppert, that ‘deterrents don’t work’. In that case, they are not really deterrents, because by their very definition, a deterrent deters! The answer then, is to up the ante, and get to a level where ‘deterrents’ DO work, and even Clarke had to admit that the beauty with a deterrent, is, you don’t have to use them.

    Just think how much that would save the public purse each and every year, and how much more secure and peaceful society would be without criminals in it. The only winners from the present criminal justice system, are lawyers. But a reversal of the disastrous trend towards the short and even non-sentences the liberals prefer, requires out of the (very small) box thinking, and the bulk of the current crop of Westminster MPs are so wedded to liberal values, which don’t really benefit anybody, we need a revolution to change their minds. We came close to that with the riots of 2011, but if the liberal elite politicians think the antithesis and contempt felt by criminals towards officialdom and the rights of innocent people has gone away, they need to think again.

    They need to take it from a solidly working-class boy, born in a council house, who has lived and worked with them all of his life, not some contemptible cossetted old Etonian who hugs Hoodies! That didn’t make Cameron look compassionate, it revealed that he’s just another liberal who is out of touch with ordinary people!

    Crime CAN be solved, but not by the rubbish we now have presiding over us, who wring the hands they themselves have tied behind their own backs, by subscribing to a gutless, fanciful, liberal precept that delivers the least effective, but most expensive option.

    Get away from mamby-pamby sentences, and REALLY clamp down on crime, and that would be a big vote-winner, but I don’t expect this, or any other desirable and necessary anti-crime measure to figure in this or any other Queen’s Speech whilst we are tethered to the EU by Europhiles.

    Tad Davison

    Cambridge

    • uanime5
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

      In that case, they are not really deterrents, because by their very definition, a deterrent deters! The answer then, is to up the ante, and get to a level where ‘deterrents’ DO work, and even Clarke had to admit that the beauty with a deterrent, is, you don’t have to use them.

      Given that the death penalty and zero tolerance doesn’t deter criminals in the USA it’s clear that it’s not possible to “up the ante” any further.

      Crime CAN be solved, but not by the rubbish we now have presiding over us, who wring the hands they themselves have tied behind their own backs, by subscribing to a gutless, fanciful, liberal precept that delivers the least effective, but most expensive option.

      I take it you’re referring to prison, which is the most expensive way to deal with criminals.

      Get away from mamby-pamby sentences, and REALLY clamp down on crime, and that would be a big vote-winner,

      Given that it’s more expensive to keep someone in prison that it is to keep them in the Ritz don’t expect longer sentences to be popular when the public have to pay for it.

      Your right wing ideas on how to deal with crime have been shown time and again not to work. Which is why the USA has such a high crime rate, while Scandinavian countries achieve a lot crime rate by doing the oppose of what you’re calling for.

    • Electro-Kevin
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 10:00 pm | Permalink

      There are lots of people whose interests are vested in NOT having problems solved simply and cheaply.

  30. Chris
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 8:56 am | Permalink

    I would like a referendum bill, for straight IN/OUT before November 2014.

    Mr Redwood, can you confirm that what has been posted on Conshome is correct in the section “Lawson the day after 3)”?
    “The former Cabinet minister John Redwood also welcomed Lord Lawson’s “very important intervention” but said that his hope was that Britain would stay in the EU. “I think the party leadership does have to listen to this very heartfelt plea from a large number of serious-minded Conservatives…If they cannot negotiate a good deal it would be better to leave, but I am an optimist I think we can negotiate a good deal. I want that lock on the door so the British people can say ultimately whether the deal is good or not.”

    If this is true, I would personally be very disappointed. It appears that your basic thoughts are in tune with David Cameron: we are better off in the EU, and should do what we can to renegotiate to ensure a better deal. The only difference seems to be that you want an extra mandate referendum and would be prepared to accept the electorate’s views in a second referendum if they rejected the newly negotiated terms and would support steps to leave the EU.

    It would appear that there are indeed many shades of euroscepticism, and that yours, if the above is true, is significantly weaker than many in the group of 82. These nuances amongst the eurosceptic wing of the Party do not help the electorate at all.

    This is why the rise of UKIP, and the intervention by Lord Lawson, has been of such fundamental importance – it has finally made “eurosceptic” MPs declare themselves for what they are, and sadly I believe many have been found wanting.

    Reply No, I certainly did not say I wanted to stay in the EU. I made clear I want out from the common government of the current Treaties. As the quote shows I said I would vote for Out immediately if the choice is current memebrship or Out. I do want to negotiate a trade based deal, not continued memebrship of the EU. I will ask Conservative Home to alter their script.

    • Jerry
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 9:10 am | Permalink

      @JR Reply: Might I just agree with what John says he said, his comment above tallies with what I recall him saying in his interview on the BBC News Channel yesterday (which I listened to live, not any form of repeat or edited ‘highlights).

    • Chris
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 9:11 am | Permalink

      Thank you. I withdraw the criticism made on that basis.

      One further comment with regard to wanting an IN/OUT bill: Daniel Hannan has written in the D Mail today a hard hitting article stating that renegotiation is fantasy. As he has an intimate knowledge of the workings of the EU, I think his views should be heeded carefully, and no time should be wasted on setting up the charade of renegotiation. The electorate is so distrustful of David Cameron and the mandarins that they will, as Hannan states, see the claims of renegotiation for what they will undoubtedly be: a charade.
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2320945/The-Euro-charade-Nigel-Lawsons-absolutely-right-The-idea-renegotiate-EU-pure-fantasy–voters-fall-it.html

      • lifelogic
        Posted May 8, 2013 at 9:21 am | Permalink

        Indeed “see the claims of renegotiation for what they will undoubtedly be: a charade” (and a, rather transparent, fig leaf for “with all my heart and soul” Cameron).

      • Roger Farmer
        Posted May 8, 2013 at 10:00 am | Permalink

        I doubt Cameron’s sincerity in any re-negotiation, nor do I see Brussels taking it seriously. You cannot re-negotiate as a humble supplicant, it must be from strength. The strength of an out vote in a UK referendum might make Brussels enter into a trade only with peripheral cooperation in other areas. As parliament as currently constituted will not vote for a referendum, do it outside Parliament. Get Mr Gallop to run it nationally, financed by those who believe that it is necessary. I feel sure there is many a wealthy donor to the Conservative cause who is as equally frustrated by the drift to UKIP and Cameron’s connivance in denying the UK electorate their say in their future. It needs to happen in 2014 well before the next election so that the Lib/Lab /Con conspiracy is in no doubt as to what the British think.

    • Brian Tomkinson
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 9:16 am | Permalink

      Reply to reply,
      Why don’t you just say we should leave? If you only want a trade deal how and why should we stay as members of the EU? Everyone wants to have a trade arrangement with the countries of the EU (and the EU countries want to trade with the UK) you don’t have to be a member to have one.

      Reply I have pressed for an In/Out referendum and said I would vote for Out. Do try and listen if you are interested in my views.

      • Brian Tomkinson
        Posted May 8, 2013 at 9:40 am | Permalink

        Reply to reply,
        I am listening very carefully to what you write and say such as : “As the quote shows I said I would vote for Out immediately if the choice is current memebrship or Out. I do want to negotiate a trade based deal, not continued memebrship of the EU.” It would be much more straight forward if you just said I want the UK to leave the EU and have a trade deal with it.

      • me
        Posted May 8, 2013 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

        John, you’re right, people aren’t listening. Actions speak louder than words, UKIP policies pour from your mouth because you too have tapped the spring of common sense.

        Leave the Tory party now, join the only party that will put the interests of country before party.

        • Jerry
          Posted May 8, 2013 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

          @me: Leave the party now, and what, retire? All you UKIPers should be glad that he doesn’t take any notice of your suggestions, otherwise you would have even less elected people fighting your corner – UKIP need to win seats, not poach them – in both meanings of the word!

        • Mike Wilson
          Posted May 9, 2013 at 8:07 am | Permalink

          No, no, no! Mr. Redwood should not leave the Tories and join UKIP.

          UKIP must not become the home of disaffected Tories. That would be the death knell of UKIP! Before they have really got started.

          The Tories are hated by many. The ‘nasty’ party. (Puerile nonsense I know – but, there it is. Mud sticks.) UKIP need to be seen as the home of everyone who is fed up with what LabLibCon have done to this country. Not the home of the right wing of the Tory party.

          • Jerry
            Posted May 9, 2013 at 10:26 pm | Permalink

            Mike Wilson: “UKIP must not become the home of disaffected Tories. That would be the death knell of UKIP! Before they have really got started.

            Sorry Mike but I’ve got some real bad news to give you…

            For goodness sake, take those blinkers off, UKIP was created by disaffected Tories!

    • Lindsay McDougall
      Posted May 9, 2013 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

      Mr Redwood

      Do you acknowledge that the Maastricht Treaty was the first of 4 Federalist Treaties and as such cannot be part of a trade based deal?

      Reply. Rome was the first of the federalist treaties and cannot be part of the deal

  31. Electro-Kevin
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 9:03 am | Permalink

    A ban on kettle drums outside West End theatres would be nice.

    • lifelogic
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 9:31 am | Permalink

      I am not very keen on three hours of bell ringing practice when I am trying to sit in the sun either. It did sound like a rather lightweight, cheap joke, play though.

      • Jerry
        Posted May 9, 2013 at 10:36 pm | Permalink

        Lifelogic: This must be a recently built church (as churches go), otherwise why buy near a church if you don’t lie church bells?!

        Bit like all those who object to having an operational airport or railway etc. close-by even though the said infrastructure pre-dates their house, their period of residence or perhaps both…

  32. Denis Cooper
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 9:24 am | Permalink

    The Telegraph reports here:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10042596/David-Cameron-I-cant-legislate-for-an-EU-referendum.html#

    about Cameron writing to John Baron MP saying that the Coalition Agreement precludes a government Bill for an EU referendum.

    Which you mentioned weeks ago, JR, adding that because it was not official government policy civil servants would refuse to work on the Bill.

    But get this:

    “Last Wednesday, the day before the local elections, Mr Cameron said he was prepared to look at “anything we can do” to convince voters about his referendum promise, including Government legislation.

    No 10 aides said last week that Mr Cameron was even ready to introduce legislation on a referendum and see it defeated by Labour and the Lib Dems.

    But in a reply to Mr Baron dated April 30 – two days before his pre-election comments – Mr Cameron admitted that no such legislation is currently possible.”

    Yet Mr Baron himself was often quoted during the pre-election operation to dupe electors into voting Tory, and I don’t think he never mentioned this letter or its import.

    (And when it is stated:

    “The Telegraph has seen a copy of Mr Cameron’s letter.”

    The question immediately arises:

    When did the Telegraph see a copy of Mr Cameron’s letter?

    Before his pre-election comments, only after polling day, or just in the past day or two?)

    Now we have:

    “Some MPs still believe that Mr Cameron would support a backbench bill on a referendum if one were introduced. Such private legislation could fail in the Commons, but backers believe it would still send a message to voters about Conservative intent.”

    How many times does it have to be pointed out that John Baron has already introduced a Bill for an EU referendum to be held in the next Parliament, on February 6th, and because Cameron did not support it that Bill never got as far as a Second Reading in the Commons – initially the date for that was set as March 1st, but later that was quietly changed to April 26th when the House was not expected to be sitting – and his Bill died the death on April 25th when Parliament was prorogued?

    http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/unitedkingdommembershipoftheeuropeanunionreferendum.html

    “United Kingdom Membership of the European Union (Referendum) Bill”

    “A Bill to make provision for a referendum in the next Parliament on the question of whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union; and for connected purposes.”

    “The Bill failed to complete its passage through Parliament before the end of the session. This means the Bill will make no further progress.”

    Cameron could have tried to give that Bill time to progress; almost certainly he didn’t, but if he did try then he failed so why should it be any different with another such Bill?

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 11:04 am | Permalink

      That should not have been “never”, it should have been “ever”:

      “I don’t think he ever mentioned this letter or its import”.

    • Peter Davies
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 11:59 am | Permalink

      I read somewhere that in the 2010 election campaign the Lib Dems offered an EU IN/OUT referendum which has mysteriously disappeared. Anyone got a copy of this I wonder?

      If the Libs are so concerned about democracy, why cant they support a referendum bill?

      • sjb
        Posted May 8, 2013 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

        @Peter Davies
        The trigger would have been “the next time a British government signs up for fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU. ”
        -p67, Liberal Democrat Manifesto 2010

        In 2011, the Coalition introduced a lower threshold: any further transfer of powers.

        However, I recall some contributors on here being unhappy about a statement Hague subsequently made in the HoC claiming no further powers on particular matters (I don’t remember what) had been transferred; they thought otherwise.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted May 10, 2013 at 8:09 am | Permalink

          The Tories’ “any transfer of powers to the EU” formula was never the correct test; it should have been “any diminution of the powers of Parliament”.

    • Roy Grainger
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

      “You know, however, that this Government’s legislative programme is founded on the Coalition Agreement which did not include legislating in this Parliament for an In-Out referendum.”

      So what ? It didn’t include legislation on gay marriage either, and it DID include redrawing the election boundaries – who cares any more what’s in it ? Would the LibDems actually risk a snap election on this topic ? Anyway, wasn’t a referndum actually in their manifesto ? Cameron should just ignore them (no hope of that, of course)

    • Lindsay McDougall
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

      Whatever Bill is presented from the Conservative backbenches, we want it to be supported by the Conservative Cabinet and voted down by the LibDems and Labour. We don’t really need the Civil Service to draft the Bill. John Redwood and Bill Cash could do it.

  33. oldtimer
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 9:46 am | Permalink

    Repeal of the Climate Change Act and elimination of related regulations and quangos.

    Legislation for a referendum on renegotiation of the terms of UK EU membership.

    Legislation for a balanced budget and maximum permissable national debt.

  34. Douglas Carter
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    A replacement Defence review which is not scripted by the Treasury.

  35. David Morrison
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    To put it bluntly, we the people want stuff that the LibLabCon will never put in a Queen’s Speech.

  36. Thomas E
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    I really don’t see much need for new laws. We have a lot of laws as it is.

    I think the government should focus on actually implementing some of the reforms that it has actually made for a while.

  37. behindthefrogs
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 10:20 am | Permalink

    I would like to see a bill that reduces the amount of alcohol consumed on weekend nights and thus the disruption and costs to the NHS that this causes.

    If minimum alcohol pricing is a minor step in this direction then it should be made top priority.

  38. tiggertom
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 10:33 am | Permalink

    Local government looking at – it seems to be a real dogs dinner with too many different bodies involved. Make it all unitary I say! But then there’d be less seats for councillors to be elected to…

  39. Mike Wilson
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 10:50 am | Permalink

    It is interesting to watch the Labour and Conservative parties slowly destroy themselves.

    The Liberal Democrats are of no interest – they will be decimated at the next election.

    It strikes me as somewhere between possible and likely that, in fact, so many people will be so utterly fed up with Cameron and Miliband, that UKIP get 35% (or even more) of the vote – and form a government!

    Oh, dear Lord, let it be so. Once and for all rid us of congenitally useless Labour and Tory governments.

  40. Acorn
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 11:11 am | Permalink

    It would be nice to think that any suggestions on this site would be considered, and I agree with all yours JR, but they won’t. Alas we would not even be scratching the surface of the UK’s sclerotic democracy with its attendant sclerotic economy. We will continue with our Westminster “elective dictatorship” (Lord Hailsham 1976), and our Punch and Judy parliament where the “executive” always wins.

    There is no way back from where we are, short of being invaded. Ignorance and apathy has delivered exactly what we deserve, the severe polarisation of wealth and income that is the classic scenario of the decline and fall of every empire since day one.

  41. Gordon
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 11:39 am | Permalink

    Mr. Redwood,
    All of the above, plus a bonfire of the quangos, and abolition of the ridiculous Department of Climate Change.

    Slightly off topic but I heard you on Radio Five Live last Friday; excellent! The snowball is growing, well done and thanks for your sterling efforts.
    Gordon

  42. Peter Davies
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 11:54 am | Permalink

    A bill which makes all domestic UK Law primary over anything else including EHCR

    A referendum bill so we can see who votes for and against it

    • Peter Davies
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

      Add to that a bill obliging all political parties to honour their promises made during electoral campaigns if they get into govt. For example if you make a “Cast Iron promise” to do something, make sure you can legally fulfill that promise otherwise don’t make it in the first place!

  43. Denis Cooper
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 11:56 am | Permalink

    I bought a copy of the Times yesterday to read the article by Nigel Lawson.

    It also had the final part of a serialisation of a book which is being published today, “Five Days in May: The Coalition and Beyond” by Andrew Adonis.

    Two things stand out from this “insider’s account” of the discussions between the LibDems and Labour on whether they could form a coalition.

    Firstly, the repeated statements by LibDems that the Tories were offering them a much better deal than anything being suggested by Labour.

    Secondly, in the penultimate telephone conversation between Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg the latter explicitly said:

    “I’m basically finding out how far I can push the Conservatives on Europe. I genuinely take to heart what you said about that. We need some sanity on Europe. We can’t seek to renegotiate. I’m trying my best.”

    So Cameron offered Clegg a much better deal than Brown, and as part of that he agreed to set aside any plans for EU renegotiations that the Tories may have had.

  44. Rebecca Hanson
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

    Schools having the option to come under a regulator which aims to follow the regulators code and is subject to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act (2006).

    It’s important we look at this for healthcare too. If the NHS is to be further derregulated it’s essential we improve the quality of the regulator.

    • Lindsay McDougall
      Posted May 9, 2013 at 12:19 am | Permalink

      Welcome back, Rebecca. The NHS is a nasty Stalinist monopoly whose time has gone. What is supposed to be its greatest virtue, providing health care free at the point of consumption, is in fact its greatest vice. People will not fully take responsibility for their health if the consequences of obesity and heavy drinking are not penalised. Also, the interaction of the hypocratic oath, the drug companies and the nanny state have resulted in idiotic treatment of old age. Old people should be gently worn out. It is clearly better if old people die of physical causes before they get to the dementia stage. We can cater for the people who are chronically sick through no fault of their own by allowing GP groups and hospitals to set up charities. It works for hospices, so why not?

      • Rebecca Hanson
        Posted May 9, 2013 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

        Hello Lindsay 🙂

        • Edward2
          Posted May 9, 2013 at 11:22 pm | Permalink

          Are you still busy running the Michael Gove fan club Rebecca?
          If so please send me joining details.

  45. Roy Grainger
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

    Looking at that list of what you want John every single one of those is a UKIP policy isn’t it ?

    On the whole it would be best if the government brought forward no new legislation at all.

  46. Ben Kelly
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

    I would like to see a maximum percentage of GDP that the government was allowed to spend without recourse to a plebiscite.

    I would like legislation so that anyone who chooses to move here from abroad who was not born of a British parent who then finds that their income does not meet their living costs to be entitled to no assitance at all. Free choice to come, free choice to leave if it is too expensive. The second stage of this bill (we could call it the contribution bill) would be to time limit any claims made by a British person on benefits (other than disability benefit or pension) to contributions made. Community service would count as contributions made.

  47. Normandee
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

    Have you noticed that the Spanish leader of a delegation from the European Parliament have told Argentina that the Parliament supports their claim on the Falklands.

  48. Simon Conway-Smith
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

    Where does one start?

    The repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act
    The repeal of the Climate Change Act, and an act banning ANY Agenda21 regulation, anywhere.
    An energy bill that bans subsidies to or mandates any sector, but provides limited R&D tax breaks (e.g. for Thorium nuclear development), and removes the carbon floor price and renewables obligation.
    The elimination of all green, i.e. CO2/carbon, taxes, e.g. APD, CO2 based VED, etc.
    The tax code scrapped and re-designed (based on simple, flat rates).
    No internet/e,mail snooper’s charter.
    No Leveson-style press regulation.
    A finance bill that prevents deficit creating budgets.
    All registration-type transactions to be made fixed price, e.g. VED, Stamp Duty, etc. and not banded with huge steps creating artificial barriers, such as on house prices.
    VAT removed from the building trade & DIY materials.

  49. David Saunders
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

    I no longer believe that voting Conservative leads to Conservative outcomes so the Queen’s Speech is so much rhetoric without delivery. Please do not refer to the constraints of Coalition since we all know whose poor leadership created that situation.

  50. Jon Burgesd
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

    In no particular order:
    Repeal of whatever it is that makes it illegal to open new grammar schools
    Repeal of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act
    Obviously repeal if the Treaty of Rome is a given, and from that control over our borders can be secured
    Repeal of that creepy fixed term parliaments act
    Re introduce the death penalty for murder and treason(!), along with changes to jury verdicts so that only unanimous verdicts can secure the death penalty
    Re introduce some qualifications for jurers – min age/property based/ life experience based.
    Nationalise the railways
    Ensure that prison sentences have to be served in full – not halved from day 1.
    Make prison inmates do boring repetitive work, make prisons austere (no telly and limited perks based on good behaviour) and enforce a no drugs approach.

    That should sort the country’s problems out.

  51. harry
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    I would like to see a bill that gives England the same level of self government that Scotland and Wales have,the British government can concentrate on international matters and leave us to govern ourselves.

  52. Bert Young
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    Dr. JR , you must be a very disappointed man . I do not get your blog before 1 pm , so there was no time for wishful thinking . The Queen’s speech content was a huge let down following the impetus injected into the political debate last week ; absolutely no indication that our position/relationship with the EU has been taken seriously . The only hope now is for some Private Member’s Bill to do the trick . Everything you wished for I wished for too . I am no fan of Nigel Lawson , however , he is a recognised individual , respected by many and whose stated position on Europe has drawn a weighty response from the media . If a few others equally respected , included your good self , also went public on this issue , it would demonstrate the mood of the electorate and do much to bring about an earlier ” In/Out” referendum .

  53. Felicity Grope
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    I would have like Denis Skinner to hire a better joke writer…

  54. Atlas
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

    Considering the quantity of dud legislation pushed through quickly – presumably to avoid scrutiny – a revisiting of some of the horrors of the Blair/Brown era would be an effective use of Parliamentary time.

  55. muddyman
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    An English Parliament Bill, A Bill for withdrawal from the EU, A Bill for the restoration of equal constituency sizes, A Bill to repeal all action on AGW- ‘global warming’ issues.

  56. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    I would like you to move, from the backbenches, a Referendum Bill seeking to give the Prime Minister and HM Government a negotiating mandate for a new relationship with the EU. The Bill would acknowledge the Prime Minister’s Bloomberg speech and translate the 5 principles of the desired new relationship into practical acts – repeal of Acts of Accession to Federalist Treaties and powers to be recovered.

    Of course the the LibDems and Labour are likely to vote it down. That is precisely my intention – to reveal them to the electorate as the Federalists they are.

  57. Denis Cooper
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

    The good news is that all these debates about whether we should repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and leave the EU are entirely misplaced, because through its negligence Parliament has allowed the legislation necessary for our membership even of the EEC to lapse and become null and void, let alone our membership of the EU.

    My research has now established this as a legal fact, and at this point I would like to acknowledge the help kindly provided by both David Cameron and his apologist “jerry” who comments here.

    Anyone who cares to look at that 1972 Act, as subsequently amended, can do so here:

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/68/contents

    and they will see that Schedule 1 listing the relevant “pre-accession treaties” still refers to:

    “The ” E.E.C. Treaty “, that is to say, the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, signed at Rome on the 25th March 1957.”

    while Section 1 still refers by name to all the subsequent treaties – the Single European Act, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon – together with all the treaties for the accession of additional member states.

    But on November 4th 2009 David Cameron explained that having come into force the Treaty of Lisbon no longer existed as a treaty; and in the past day or two his apologist “jerry” has elaborated on that:

    http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2013/05/04/the-actual-aggregate-results-of-the-local-elections-vote-share-have-not-been-published/#comments

    “You seem to be forgetting that the Treaty of Rome, and all other treaties before the Treaty of Lisbon no longer exist since 2009”

    Clearly as none of these treaties exist any more, Lisbon on the word of Cameron and all the rest on the word of his apologist “jerry”, the UK can no longer be bound by them, Parliament’s legislation to approve them is obsolete, and with that realisation many of us may be tempted to cry “Freedom, free at last!”.

    However, there remains one small problem … because whatever Cameron and his apologist “jerry” may pretend about EEC/EC/EU treaties ceasing to exist as treaties once they have come into force, the EU takes the more logical position that none of the treaties still mentioned in the European Communities Act 1972 as amended somehow evaporated at the instant they came into force, but instead they all still exist as treaties in force.

    And so the EU lists all of them as treaties, in its official collection of treaties here:

    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/index-old.htm

    for anybody to read if they wish to clarify (or further confuse) their thoughts about all this.

    Regarding the EU problem, Cameron’s decisive point of failure actually came nearly five years ago, in early June 2008; when the Irish people voted to reject the Treaty of Lisbon he should have seized the moment to speak out and make it clear that in his view the treaty must be dropped, and given a clear notice that if it wasn’t dropped then as Prime Minister he would put it to a UK referendum irrespective of whatever had happened in other countries and irrespective of whether it had already come into force.

    • Jerry
      Posted May 9, 2013 at 10:50 pm | Permalink

      Denis, the amount you quote from the EU, on your own reckoning, that makes you an apologist for the EU! If someone quote Hitler or 1930s German history does that also make them an apologist too…

      If Cameron has got it all wrong then fine, but stop shooting the messenger, I’m sure you would not want to be (metaphorically) shot for repeating the EU.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted May 10, 2013 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

        What on earth are you talking about?

        Don’t ever look at any primary sources if they happen to be on EU websites, just accept whatever garbage we get through second- or third- or n-hand reports and analyses and glosses and (mis) interpretations?

        • Jerry
          Posted May 10, 2013 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

          @Denis Cooper: Oh right, so you can quote people to institutions but if others do so (formally or otherwise) that is being “an apologist”. Glad that we have your ‘Heads you win, Tails we loose’ problem sorted!

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted May 12, 2013 at 7:44 am | Permalink

            I’m still not following you on this.

            I suggest you go back and re-read your comments on the earlier thread, link given above.

            Starting with:

            “As many people who mistrust Mr Cameron there is an equal (if not greater) number who mistrust Mr Farage – that said, the reasons are very different, UKIP supporters seem to mistrust Cameron because they don’t seem to be able to understand when a treaty becomes law and thus can not be ‘un-ratified’, on the other hand those who mistrust Farage do so on basic manifesto stomping/soap-box issues.”

            And ending with:

            “You seem to be forgetting that the Treaty of Rome, and all other treaties before the Treaty of Lisbon no longer exist since 2009, if the UK revokes Lisbon (just like had we revoked UK’s Treaty of Accession to the EEC in the 1970s) then we also revoke our membership of the EU (EEC).

            It really is that simple, thus I am totally mystified why you don’t seem to understand – unless it is just ‘political’ confusion!”

            I have demonstrated that this must be factually incorrect by looking at it from both ends, referring both to the treaties as listed on an official EU website and the UK legislation as presented on an official UK government website; how doing that could make me an apologist for either the EU or the UK government is beyond me.

            At least JR’s attempt to exculpate Cameron – “He believed it was no longer possible because the UK had given its word and had undertaken the necessary legal acts” – does not rely on brazen untruths, only on the unspoken assumption that if one British politician (Brown) betrays us by kowtowing to a foreign politician (Merkel) and foisting a treaty on us then another British politician (Cameron) should just accept that as a fait accompli.

            Reply One of my major objections to the Treaties is just that – one Parliament does n ow bind its successors. All a government hjas to do which wishes to cement a law against future repeal is to make sure it goes through the EU, so an incoming UK government cannot repeal it without the consent of all the other states.

  58. Vanessa
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

    How can you compete with the EU’s 1, 071 (or thereabouts) new “bills” for legislation? No wonder you have absolutely nothing to debate, it is all taken care of in Brussels.
    All that is left to you lot is “dangerous dogs” ha, ha, ha. Nobody tells the truth of how this country has been sold to the “dogs”.

    The waste of our money on stupid ideas like HS2 (which is in the wrong place) which is probably driven by the EU which controls our railways and timetables now just shows how lazy and ineffectual you all are in Westminster.

  59. Goldihew
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

    Most of the above. In particular I agree with Jerry – rethink the existing commitment to the entire route of HS2 before it does any more damage, or better still abandon the idea altogether. And what happened to the proposal to revive the former Grand Central Railway line (built I believe to the Continental loading gauge) as a high speed freight line to the Continent, thus helping to reduce the numbers of heavy lorries on our overloaded roads?

    Put an end to the stretching beyond credulity of the ‘right to family life’ accorded to criminals who should have no right to remain in this country. And when a custodial sentence is passed let it mean what it says – not one half or one third of the nominal sentence.

    And if it’s not too late for a new leader, could we please have one who leads from principles and whose word we can trust?

    • Jerry
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

      @Goldihew: “And if it’s not too late for a new leader, could we please have one who leads from principles and whose word we can trust?

      I fear that, who ever the leader is they would not be able to do anything much different, to do so would require a working / workable majority in the parties own right – perhaps after the next election, assuming that UKIP don’t end up loosing that one for the Tories too.

  60. The PrangWizard
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    I watched your contribution to the Queen’s speech debate. Mr Cameron seemed to be listening to you very carefully. I hope he takes note of what you said. You have clearly listened to us on these pages.

    Thank you. I was cheering you on.

  61. Faustiesblog
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    A stonking speech in the HoC just now, JR. Very well done.

    Thank you for speaking up forcefully, comprehensively and honestly. Now let’s hope your “3-pint”* colleagues follow suit.

    * (c) Nigel Farage, 2013

  62. uanime5
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

    Bill to abolish the Work Programme (it’s useless).
    Bill to link minimum wage and job seekers allowance increased to inflation.
    Bill to replace the FPTP post system for electing MPs with an Additional Member System (used in the Scottish Parliament to elect MSPs).
    Bill to reduce the number of Lords to 300 and have them all be elected using PR.
    Bill that prevents public schools having charitable status unless 40% of their pupils do not have to pay fees.
    Bill to reduce tuition fees for university education.

    • Jerry
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

      @U5: That sounds radical even by the SLP’s standards! 🙁

    • Mark W
      Posted May 8, 2013 at 10:49 pm | Permalink

      Regarding public schools I’d suggest you take your complaint to the Labour Party for scrapping the Direct Grant element of some public schools and scholarships. Some still offer bursaries off their own backs.

      Oh uni you must stop sticking the ball in your own goal. If your left wing fantasy of putting public schools out of business took hold where exactly is the funding for the extra state places coming from.

      Lucky me got in a direct grant in the days of 11 plus. When merit counted.

      • Jerry
        Posted May 9, 2013 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

        @Mark W: “in the days of [the] 11 plus. When merit counted

        Not just merit, common sense too, not to mention proper funding for the education of vocational trades and skills for those who are not and never will be of an academic nature…

        • Edward2
          Posted May 9, 2013 at 11:25 pm | Permalink

          I’m afraid that’s non PC now Jerry.
          We are all very equal now, thanks to comprehensive Education.

  63. Chris
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

    I mentioned above that I wanted an IN/OUT referendum before the next election, but what I certainly did not want was money directed by Cameron (our money) on EU propaganda, which is what has apparently happened. How can David Cameron think we are so stupid that we would not notice this? Does he not see that this is going to anger people very considerably? It is tempting to conclude that he does not care, and that he is determined to promote the IN side of the argument, using taxpayers’ money.
    I refer to the European Union Approvals Bill. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2321369/Queens-Speech-No-referendum-pledge-backing-EU-propaganda-promoting-virtues-Brussels.html#ixzz2SiYg5ZNb

    “…Britain is to sign off taxpayer-funded ‘propaganda’ to promote the virtues European Union despite growing calls to quit Brussels altogether. Slipped into the detail of the government’s legislation plans for the next year was the European Union Approvals Bill. Described as a ‘minor technical Bill’, it provides authorisation for the UK ‘to support measures and programmes in the European Union’.

    Among three programmes listed, it includes Europe for Citizens which according to government briefing notes ‘aims to develop understanding of the EU, its history and policy-making processes and encourage civic participation in the EU’.

    It also aims to ‘promote remembrance of Europe’s history, particularly the wars and totalitarian regimes of the 20th century’. The scheme, which has a 229 million euro budget for 2014-20, claims that most Europeans ‘generally recognise the benefits of the EU’ and ‘want to see the Union becoming a more integral part of their national political landscapes’.

    UKIP leader Nigel Farage accused the government of backing EU ‘propaganda’
    It aims to increase trust in EU institutions, potentially reaching 5million people across the continent.
    The revelation is likely to infuriate Tory MPs demanding Mr Cameron take a tougher line with Brussels instead of backing a scheme which promotes it.

    UKIP leader Nigel Farage said: ‘Hidden beneath the folds of froth Cameron offers a Bill to approve UK taxpayer spending on EU propaganda. ‘He promises that he wants to fight Britain’s corner, but spends our money propagandising on the EU’s behalf to our children. By his acts not his words he must be known.’…”

  64. Melgee
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

    Can I just mention that David Cameron keeps on about having an EU referendum in 2016/7 when the Conservatives are returned to power. Has anyone actually told David Cameron that his chances of winning the next general election are Zilcho so would he kindly stop these false promises as they are fooling nobody.
    If the Conservatives couldn’t win the last general election outright when they were up against the worse Labour Government and Prime Minister in a generation how do they honestly think they will win next time around?
    I really am surprised that the Men in Grey Suits have not carted Mr. Cameron off to the Chilterns for gross incompentancy in running this Country into the ground but there again plain fag packets and gay marriage have a far overiding priority over important issues that the people of the UK want to see being implemented as a priority.
    I can’t wait for John Redwood to appear in a grey suit along with a few other MP’s and put David Cameron out of his misery.

  65. Chris
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 4:46 pm | Permalink
    • Melgee
      Posted May 9, 2013 at 8:54 am | Permalink

      Probably reinstated due to her veiled threat to join UKIP and it’s the last thing Cameron wants right now with all the problems he is facing from a very disgruntled Conservative Party especially the Conservative supporters.
      Still ,Nadine Dorries is hardly a political heavyweight is she but she did get one thing right about David and Gideon describing them as two Posh Boys who do have a clue about the real World beyond Westminster.

      • Jerry
        Posted May 9, 2013 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

        @Melgee: “Probably reinstated due to her [Nadine Dorries] veiled threat to join UKIP and it’s the last thing Cameron wants right now

        I doubt a veiled threat to commit political suicide carried much weight in the decision to return the whip! Mid-Beds has been a very safe seat for the Tories since 1931 whilst UKIP candidate polled less than 3,000 votes in 2010 (compared to almost 29,000 for the Tory candidate). Sorry but a 26k swing to UKIP is nothing but a pipe dream whilst a swing of other 10k to the LibDems (who came second in 2010) is almost inconceivable even without the flax they are getting from both left and right due to being in coalition.

  66. Jon
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

    What I gleaned from the paper on the way home it looks like they dropped a lot of the silly things that are not the most pressing issues we have so that is good. The referendum was omitted though.

  67. zorro
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

    John, all points in the right direction….although I would rather HS2 was dispensed with for good. WE need another Immigration Bill which allows us to actually control and not just ‘manage’ immigration.

    ‘Government needs to spend more time sorting out public sector management…’……Any particular proposals in how they could be effective in doing this?

    zorro

  68. Carol Hulme
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

    I do not want HS2., to be built. This vanity project, funded by borrowing money from the Chinese will not even be fully completed until 2030ish, when it will be out of date.In the meantime it will plough through farming land, towns, villages destroying beautiful parts of our green belt, and blighting people’s lives for years.I cannot understand how there can be cross party support for this scheme. I doubt whether MP’s have bothered to research the case for/against HS2., and they certainly haven’t looked at the flawed business case. I can only assume that the power of vested interests is why this project is being pursued so vigorously.Lets hope that all the legislation will fail to get through parliament before the next election. Maybe then MP’s will see sense and stop the wasting of in excess of 50 billion on this barmy idea.

  69. david
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

    The whole debate on Europe seems to be centering on the economy. However, there are many other factors that come into consideration and I think they are not being given an airing in this endless debate:
    -the ethical background of many immigrants does not fit easily with the British way of lfe
    -the judicial system under which we have successfully operated for hundreds of years has been under attack from Europe which has a system much different to ours
    -the quality of life, whether religious based or simply pastoral is being undermined and attacked under some ethereal concept of ‘multi culture’
    -values such as honesty,veracity,sobriety and monetary sense have been decried as being too difficult to harness.
    There are many other factors as well as this brief summary but can we not have an open debate about Europe without resorting solely to the economic aspects?

  70. Kenneth
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

    Now you mention it, I would also like the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act.

    Also agree with everything else in this post.

    Regarding laws that penalise the law-abiding, the government should tackle criminals rather than treat us all as criminals

  71. Mike Stallard
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

    Here in Australia, the government decides for itself about the climate change bill. It decides for itself about reducing the deficit and the debt. It decides for itself about bank rates (here controversially reduced to 2.75%!)
    No EU makes all the difference!

  72. Anthem
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

    Giving his response to the government’s package, Labour leader Ed Miliband said it would do nothing to boost growth, cut youth unemployment or tackle rising living costs.” From BBC News Website

    The sheer audacity.

    Boost growth – 50% of GDP going to the public sector at the height of the Blair government.

    Cut youth unemployment – The minimum wage has never done young people seeking employment many favours (remind us who brought this most stupid of policies in again, Ed).

    Rising living costs – Well… heating costs a lot because… well, we all know the answer. Transporting basic grocery necessities around the country costs a lot because fuel costs so much because… well we all know the answer to this one too.

    Opposition is one thing. Opposition for the sake of opposition is annoying. Opposing policies your own party foisted on the country which the opposition inherited is just stupid. Someone should tell him he’s stupid. Nigel seems a likely candidate for the job.

  73. Wokingham Mums
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 9:24 pm | Permalink

    Queens Speech, Weak, Weak, Weak and inadequate, we wanted something more.
    They just don’t get it.
    Silly, unworkable, u-turns coming, coalition trit, and ridiculous. “Back aspsration and those who want to get on, make our country competitive, cut our deficit, grow our economy,delivery a better future for our children!!!!!! And win the global race. Really!!!!!!!!!!
    To quote labour ” No answers, from an out of touch government, what we wanted was action to get people working, backing reform, growth moving, confront the cost of living crisis” what labour didn’t mention was confront the EU their happy to see the coalition blow it self to bits over that, or sorry do nothing for fear of, Oh blowing themslves to bits and forcing an early election. Anyway at least we know the labour position stay! But what is the Coonservative position? Cameron did not deliver.
    Is there something so awful coming that Cameron wants to lose the next

  74. Wokingham Mums
    Posted May 8, 2013 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

    I’m a nurse, someone turns up seriously ill, I say “I’m I able to treat you,, prove it , “oh your not, can’t, sorry” It’s the a governments job not mine to ensure boarder control.

  75. Amalio
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 12:57 am | Permalink

    The last thing we want are more empty promises. So much so that I must reiterate that my UKIP vote was not a temporary break from familial tradition but a permanent one. The Tory bloodline will cease at my generation and will not be transmitted to my sons as it was to me.

    This reflects the feelings of many I’m sure.

    The point of voting UKIP is not to fix things but to tell you why we’re not voting Conservative and to register that we really don’t want Labour politics either. Short of revealing something awful about Nigel Farage there isn’t much that a smear campaign against UKIP candidates will do to sway us. We all pretty much know that they’re a bunch of amateurs and buffoons and that in itself is a blessed relief from the slick, ‘professional’ PPE graduates who have taken our votes for granted and made such a mess of things.

    “Vote UKIP get Labour” is not a good enough reason for me not to vote the way I really want to. Such a campaign will not work.

  76. Ian B
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 1:54 am | Permalink

    A great repeal bill. And no new laws at all.

    The purpose of government is to govern, not necessarily to legislate. It seems that those in government have got these two things rather confused over the past century.

  77. tellboy
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 7:15 am | Permalink

    ban all chairman of quoted british industrial plc,from parliament that destroyed, our industrial base.

  78. Martin
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 9:21 am | Permalink

    Repeal IR35

    • Jerry
      Posted May 9, 2013 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

      @Martin: Sorry but there are far more important fish to fry than repeal (IR35) taxation regulations that would give some people yet more way of avoiding tax, doing so would be a gift to the left just two years before the next election, and only one year before by the time any changes came into effect.

      I suspect that you will have to wait until the Tories have at least a clear working majority so that they can do this within their first year or so, thus allow a chance for the dust kicked up by the left to settle.

      • Martin
        Posted May 10, 2013 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

        The point I am making is that IR35 was entirely Westminster inspired to stitch up flexible UK contract IT workers (initially by Mr Brown and kept going by Mr Osborne.)

        There are also those dodgy work permits dished out to commonwealth IT workers (by Westminster) to undercut UK IT workers but I have even less hope of getting the UK out of the job stealing “Commonwealth” than I do of IR35 being dumped.

        • Jerry
          Posted May 11, 2013 at 10:56 am | Permalink

          @Martin: IR35, of which I also disagree [1], was created to plug a tax loop-hole, not to stop employment within (the IT) industry.

          Oh and yes, work permits for those outside the UK (and EU all the time we are members of (Le Club”) should only go to those with skills that can not be filled from our own workforce – of course if the problem is that our workforce is uncompetitive due to their salary expectations they have effectively priced themselves out of the market, like in any free-market…

          [1] the typical Blair/Brown era sledge-hammer to crack a nut syndrome, rather than going after specific offenders they chose to use a very broad brush.

    • Andy
      Posted May 9, 2013 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

      Is it still active? If so, how did all those BBC folks with “personal services” companies get away with it?

      • Jerry
        Posted May 9, 2013 at 10:55 pm | Permalink

        Andy, in the same way as all the other’s with “personal services” companies did – oh sorry, forgot, it wasn’t a serious question, just another worthless right-wing rant against the BBC…

  79. John Eustace
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    I would like to see an energy policy that will keep the lights on at a cost that allows UK industry to compete without being hobbled by the ridiculous renewables policies being pursued currently.
    Assuming that’s OK with Nick of course.

  80. Bazman
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

    The banning of the cigarette packets was a good idea in reducing the take up and the attractiveness of smoking. The colour of the packets and branding is very important to smokers.The government have clearly been influenced by the tobacco lobby who quite rightly fear this legislation and this is why they fought it so vigorously and deviously. The idea that they are concerned about smuggling is laughable as much evidence says that smuggling tobacco ins very much part of the tobacco industries world business plan. How many smokers actually pay full price for cigarettes these days especially rolling tobacco. Person freedom. You forget smokers are in reality tobacco addicts who have little choice. There is no such thing as a smoker who only smoke a little. Like the occasional pint and alcohol pricing. Count on it. It’s interesting to note how many people defending smokers and their rights even smoke and how many in the industry at the top get high on their own supply? I smoked for 20 years and stopped 14 years ago. Ah! Ex smoker! Nowt worse. Well no. I just know the game. See how far you get. You will ram it.

    • Edward2
      Posted May 9, 2013 at 11:31 pm | Permalink

      In Australia, where this stupid idea has already been tried, people bought metal replica packets showing their favourite brands and just threw away the plain paper packets they were given.
      Nanny State in action.
      None so pious as the converted Baz.

      • Bazman
        Posted May 10, 2013 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

        Pious? I take it you do not smoke and never have? Glad to see the back of it would be more accurate.
        They still are quite committed smokers to buy a tin. Like a rolling tobacco smokers ‘baccy’ tin. As you have never smoked you do not really understand what you are defending. Or the idea of a ‘baccy’ tin. ‘Rights?’ Rights to smoke and nanny state. Really? Still you think Singapore is a good model for government and smoking is big and clever? I have news for you. It is… Confused as ever I suppose. LOL!

    • Jerry
      Posted May 11, 2013 at 11:38 am | Permalink

      @Bazman: Goodness, you really do come out with some utter crap at times! 🙁

      This “Plain Pack” idea is silly, smokers chose their ciggis due to the tobacco blend (taste/effect) not because one pack is a ‘nice blue’ and the other is a ‘horrid red’ thus all the time there are more than one blend smokers will simply ask for their brand by name – anyway, how buys tobacco by asking for “a pack of 20 – err – them their, in the Blue and White box”, no they ask for A packet of 20 [brand-name] cigarettes please (even more so, were tobacco has been hidden behind sliding doors)… If the pictures of diseased lungs, eyes or what ever printed on the face of the pack is not putting smokers off then a plain pack is hardly going to so!

      As for kids being influenced by the pack design, well perhaps in the days of magazine and other advertising, but I suspect that most kids who take up smoking do so by smoking what ever brand they can either steal or persuade someone to buy for them – beggars are rarely ever choosers, brand-name nor colour comes into it.

      Oh and before you ask (or attempt to simply dismiss me in the same ways as you have Edward2), I am not a smoker but have spent all my life -at home/family, socialising and working- with smokers [1], as an apprentice at work I was often sent to the shops to buy the ciggis for those older and wiser than me, thus I do know more than a little about the habits of tobacco smokers.

      [1] but if I was to be found to have lung cancer would it be due to passive smoking, the fumes from other sources that I have been exposed to in a lifetime, or simply because there is an (unknown) genetic disposition to such a disease somewhere in my family tree?

      • Bazman
        Posted May 12, 2013 at 11:06 am | Permalink

        It’s a bit like saying you know all about sex because you have researched for years even though you are a virgin.
        You have never smoked and do not understand the addiction part of cigarette smoking. The addiction comes three forms the nicotine, the the habit part like playing with your fingers and a base level part being the sucking a very important part of cigarette smoking. The other part is physiological addiction the pack being a very large part of this. The colour the shape and design being major factors. For smokers it is the taking of off the cellophane ritual or in my case the removal of the foil inset showing 20 perfect and identical cigarettes to be enjoyed or loathed like friends. The kids ask for what they see as the brand smoked as associate with this. How can they not? Stopping smoking takes a monumental effort to combat these forces and can be summed up in many who say in without irony it is easy top stop as I have down it a lot of times. I have got disapproving looks by saying that stopping smoking just show a total lack of commitment by ‘can’t do’ people. Which is absolutely true though as this is what is required.

        • Jerry
          Posted May 12, 2013 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

          @Bazman: “You have never smoked and do not understand the addiction part of cigarette smoking.

          Of course one can, stop being so daft! By your logic those who work with mental health patients would have to have a mental health issue themselves, those who work with class A, B & C drug abusers must be ex addicts, are all therapists who work with sexual abuse victims/abusers must either be survivors or reformed abusers themselves!

          Anyway, the last thing any government will want to do is reduce the purchasing of tobacco products, the Treasury simply takes far to much revenue from such taxes, far more than smoking related illness costs the NHS. Tell me Bazman, if smoking was banned, or drastically reduced, what would you cut or what taxes would you increase to compensate?

          • Bazman
            Posted May 13, 2013 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

            You clearly do not by saying that smokes are not influenced by packets. Explain to yourself what an ‘addiction’ is most do not understand this term. For years the cigarette companies successfully denied smoking was even addictive! As for defending smoking by the fact it raises taxes is regressive and retarded. In fact one could argue how much it costs the country in ill health and death. Like most defenders of smoking as I have pointed out you do not smoke and if you did or had done would not defend it. Nothing to do with pious or roads to Damascus just anding the addiction and seeing how addicted you were. Many feel they are weak as they cannot stop smoking, but this is not the case. The whole thing is very much in the fabric of the individual and the noose tightens as one gets older and carries on smoking. Ave a fag Jerry you know it makes sense.

          • Jerry
            Posted May 14, 2013 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

            @Bazman: Make your mind up, is the addiction caused by the drugs in the tobacco or the design of the packet. As it is, I have a feeling that ‘plain’ packs or the next best thing to them, a meaning single design have been tried before, I believe Army rations (and perhaps the NAAFI) used to supply such cigarettes during WW2, plenty of people got addicted to ciggis on those -including by father and uncles.

            Even if one can get addicted to a design it will be the addiction to the drugs within tobacco that will be the hardest to break, hence why heavy smokers (those gasping for a fag) will accept a cigarette from anyone offering regardless pack design.

            But heck Bazman, if you want to carry on digging(-in on this) that is up to you, I’ll see you again in another of John’s blogs, move on mate!

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • 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