Mr Redwood’s intervention during Prime Minister’s Questions, 10 Sept

Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Assuming there is a no vote in the Scottish referendum, who in the Government will represent England in the new devolution settlement? Who speaks for England, because we need a voice and a new deal?

The Leader of the House (Mr William Hague): Well, there are many of us. Having represented Yorkshire for 25 years, I can claim to speak for England from time to time—Yorkshiremen are always keen to speak for a far bigger area than they represent. All these debates are to be had once the referendum is concluded.

The video is available here.

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

59 Comments

  1. John Wrake
    Posted September 11, 2014 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    It is a sad commentary on the current state of the government that a straightforward question only produces a non-reply.

    It is a clear indication that the government has not thought out the implications of a no vote in Scotland and hopes that the concessions offered, which have no backing from the electorate or the Conservative Party in the House, will just be forgotten.

    According to the Press, the P.M. had difficulty yesterday holding back his tears. Well, he needs to practise for what is to come.

    John Wrake.

    • brian
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

      An answer now would only muddy the waters of the Indy debate. We should expect an answer after 18th September.

      • cosmic
        Posted September 11, 2014 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

        Yes, but there’s much about this that suggests that a yes vote wasn’t in any way considered possible, and the prospect of one came as a complete surprise. Hence no contingency planning and we have the government taking serious decisions with far-reaching consequences, on the hoof.

        You can say nearly the same for a no vote, with Devo Max chucked in at the last minute, having previously been ruled out, and with all sorts of consequences, which literally weren’t bargained for.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

      Indeed a truly pathetic answer joke answer to a very serious question. Leaving this until after the referendum is clearly putting the cart before the horse. How can Scotland have an informed vote without knowing what will ensue, politically and economically, for both countries for each outcome?

    • Tad Davison
      Posted September 12, 2014 at 11:26 am | Permalink

      John,

      I was struck by something else during Wednesday’s PMQs, William Hague’s almost dismissive arrogance in the way he dealt with JR’s legitimate question. It was parried, made light of, and not properly addressed. This is a massive issue, and although a promise of a proper debate at a later time was given, we all know what that means! Procrastination, intimidation by the whips, guillotines and all manner of other devices applied with the specific intention of denying the public their right to democracy.

      Our host is ten times the man the former Foreign Secretary is, and personally, I’ll be glad to see the back of Hague and others like him.

      Tad

      • Richard Hobbs
        Posted September 12, 2014 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

        I can see what you are getting at. I too was angry at the Cavalier way in which a quite reasonable question was answered – and the smirk on the face of Mr. Hague did him no good in my eyes.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted September 13, 2014 at 5:01 am | Permalink

          Indeed Hague was pathetic, they clearly want to lose and are surely going to with this direction.

  2. cosmic
    Posted September 11, 2014 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

    Presumably you realised you were airing the point you wished to make, by the mere act of posing the question in the HoC, and had no reasonable expectation of receiving a satisfactory answer.

    More seriously, a no vote wasn’t supposed to result in a new devolutionary settlement, that’s something which was thrown in in panic in the course of the campaign, and wasn’t part of the question which was to be answered.

    Reply I am following up and pressing for a proper answer.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

      Indeed and Miliband and Cameron simply have no authority from English/UK voters to offer any new devolutionary settlement and concede these further powers.

      It is indeed thrown in in a desperate panic. Due to a total lack of proper government planning.

      • JoeSoap
        Posted September 12, 2014 at 11:58 am | Permalink

        One can imagine the wriggling which would happen if he were within spitting distance of an EU referendum -“Yes, but now we have this devolutionary settlement/independence for Scotland, that changes the basis upon which my EU referendum promise was made, just as the Lisbon Treaty made my earlier promise impossible to keep”.

        You can almost hear it.

    • Richard1
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 9:09 pm | Permalink

      Its right its the people of Scotland who decide whether Scotland should remain in the UK or not (although its absurd children have been given a vote as they would not be in a general election, and that foreigners who live in Scotland can vote but Scots who live abroad cannot).

      But we cannot have a whole new constitutional settlement imposed in the UK in order to accomodate the perceived wishes of less than 10% of the population. If there’s going to be devomax there must be a solution to the west lothian question before its even discussed. It must also be very clear that English taxpayers are not on the hook for whatever big govt socialistic spending promises a devomaxed govt would no doubt make. Tory MPs need to be right on top of this. The left will be wanting to give far too much away to keep Scottish votes at Westminster, and there is a danger the Tory leadership will think they need a centrist accommodating stance also.

      • Jeremy Hummerstone
        Posted September 12, 2014 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

        “its absurd children”
        That’s rather unkind.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted September 13, 2014 at 5:04 am | Permalink

          The children are not absurd but until they start seeing how much tax they pay when working they often have lefty magic money tree views.

        • Richard1
          Posted September 13, 2014 at 10:06 pm | Permalink

          Under our laws a person is a child until they are 18. They are not deemed competent eg to enter into a contract. Theres nothing unkind about it, there has to be a point at which we decide a person can make decisions for themselves. The nationalists succeeds in getting a voting age of 16 because they thought it would work for them. Mr Cameron should have stopped it.

  3. ian
    Posted September 11, 2014 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    Yorkshire is area that would like to break way like scotland, yorkshiremen in the bbc they think their there own country up there. born and breed a yorkshireman and proud of it.

    • JoeSoap
      Posted September 12, 2014 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

      And don’t forget the Surrey Hills !!! Beautiful, deserves independent status if anywhere did.

      http://www.surreyhills.org

  4. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted September 11, 2014 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    Other than your intervention I thought the most interesting and pertinent was this:
    Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con):
    Since 2012, my right hon. Friend and I have been supporting the policy of the Government not to offer so-called devo-max as a consolation prize in the event of a no vote in the Scottish referendum. If this is no longer the policy of the Government, when and why did it change, and what opportunity has there been for this House to express its view?

    Mr Hague:
    It has been the policy of the Government for some time to be open to further devolution—I gave examples of what we have done in Wales, for instance, during the lifetime of this Government. The statements by the party leaders made on this in the last few days are statements by party leaders in a campaign—not a statement of Government policy today, but a statement of commitment from the three main political parties, akin to statements by party leaders in a general election campaign of what they intend to do afterwards. It is on that basis that they have made those statements.

    Only a partial answer from Hague as usual. When are you MPs going to exert some influence over the three main party leaders (a misnomer I know)?

  5. a-tracy
    Posted September 11, 2014 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

    Typical William Hague a none answer and that’s what we’re blimin sick of now in England. Get your act together Conservative MPs or if we don’t start hearing about English devolution on Healthcare, Education, taxation and the other matters the Scottish and Welsh residents have whilst retaining Westminster representation there will be trouble ahead. What budget does Holyrood organisational costs and all the MSP’s come out of?

  6. ian
    Posted September 11, 2014 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

    After the English being let down by everybody there only looks like one party left for them to vote for UNITED KINGDOM INDEPENDENCE PARTY or should that be the UNITED ENGLISH INDEPENDENCE PARTY.

    Reply Alas poor RUKIP – they would need a name change if Scotland did leave. Interesting that Mr Farage is keen on devo max for Scotland.

    • libertarian
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

      Reply to Reply Yes Mr Redwood but UKIP aren’t the only party in need of a name change with a Yes vote. Hardly the Conservative & Unionist Party any longer either

      • Lifelogic
        Posted September 11, 2014 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

        Also the Libdems are anti-liberal & anti-democratic. Nor do many in the Labour party belief in much Labouring. Perhaps they should be renamed the State Sector Union (Protection of Income) Wing.

      • David Price
        Posted September 11, 2014 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

        Maybe a name change is required but Farage’s policy is crystal clear in an article he wrote. He believes Scotland should be given devo max and there is not one word of England or English concerns. ANd this is someone who is supposed to represent English regional interests in the EP.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11087302/Scots-wont-get-independence-from-a-Yes-vote.html

        From this I would conclude that UKIP has no interest in supporting English issues or parliament, so why would I vote for them to sit in a parliament that ignores my interests?

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted September 11, 2014 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

          Of course you would come to that conclusion, or indeed any other conclusion that argued against voting for UKIP.

          • David Price
            Posted September 13, 2014 at 7:09 am | Permalink

            You assume I am an automatic Tory, but you are quite wrong. I am not a Socialist but do not believe Farage is a white knight nor that UKIP is the answer. In the past I have commended UKIP but I refuse to adopt a simplistic tribal position of Westminster = bad and UKIP = good when they are all equally “politicians”.

            UKIP have no current public position that I could determine on England and the rest having identical powers under a federal UK. I was responding to the tribal positioning of the OP.

        • Brian Tomkinson
          Posted September 11, 2014 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

          “He believes Scotland should be given devo max”
          Cameron has now, in panic, offered it to them having first refused to allow it to be a choice in the referendum. Clearly you didn’t read the article very carefully for in it Farage wrote:

          “In a week’s time, Scotland will not hold a referendum about becoming independent. Everybody is describing it as such. But what is being voted on – and only by those who actually live in Scotland – is separation from England. Understand that and much that is otherwise inexplicable falls into place.”

          “The Scots’ rejection of the way in which Westminster operates is not unique to them. The English and Welsh feel it, too. Millions of voters are rejecting the entire British political class. Next May, at the general election, these people have a wonderful opportunity to express their discontent.”

          • David Price
            Posted September 13, 2014 at 6:56 am | Permalink

            I read the article and Farage is clear on his view of devo max being offered to Scotland yet no position on English Parliament.

            There was a clear opportunity to state his and UKIP’s position and yet there was nothing.

            His only comment on the English is that he believes they are as upset with Westminster as the rest, that is not the same as promoting devolution for England. I looked at their website, UKIP have no position on this and will look vcery silly if they try to claim it’s their idea and others are merely followers.

        • Bob
          Posted September 11, 2014 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

          @David Price
          Nil points for your conclusion.

          UKIP supports the uk, not just England.

          Now explain why breaking up the uk would be better than devo max.

          • David Price
            Posted September 13, 2014 at 7:04 am | Permalink

            The problem is that England is conflated with the UK, we do not exist as an entity in Westminster’s thinking unless it has been abusively by Labour ministers such as Jack Straw.

            Devo max gives a greater degree of sovereignty than the other parts of the UK have, yet England will have to bear the brunt of budget shortfalls when Scotlan overspends.

            I have never advocated the breakup of the UK at any time. The unbalanced current structure and relationships cannot continue, England, Wales and NI must have the same individual powers under a federating UK. If you give devo max to Scotland then the same must happen for the other three.

            If UKIP continue blind support for the UK and do not reflect the needs of the separate entities to be equally separate then they are no better than the parties and establishment they criticise.

          • Bob
            Posted September 15, 2014 at 9:00 am | Permalink

            @David Price

            “If UKIP continue blind support for the UK and do not reflect the needs of the separate entities…”

            You are deliberately misrepresenting ukip policy as usual.

            Quote from the Express:
            The Ukip leader welcomed proposals for so-called “devo-max” – full fiscal autonomy for Scotland – following a No vote, saying he was “fully in favour of a federal United Kingdom with a new constitutional settlement”.

          • David Price
            Posted September 20, 2014 at 3:42 am | Permalink

            @Bob
            At the time of my blog there was no such policy stated on the UKIP website to misrepresent.

            Farage wrote that Telegraph article and therefore had a clear opportunity to state UKIP policies fully. He did not say anything about an English Parliament or equal devolution despite advocating devo max for Scotland.

    • Brian Tomkinson
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

      Reply to reply,
      A rather childish comment from a leading member of what used to proudly call itself the Conservative and Unionist Party.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

      So, JR, are you firmly predicting that if Scotland left then the rest of the UK would change its name to something which did not start, and maybe even end as well, with the words “United Kingdom”? What might that be? Because if you were wrong with that prediction then obviously there would be no need for the “United Kingdom Independence Party” to change its name.

      Reply It was a joke! Relax occasionally.

    • The PrangWizard
      Posted September 12, 2014 at 6:44 am | Permalink

      Only one party speaks for England – the English Democrats. They want a true English parliament, not some cobbled arrangement favoured elsewhere. Nothing short of this will work. And of course there must be no further powers granted to Scotland after a NO vote, this would be yet another betrayal of the English by Unionists; England’s legitimate and pressing needs must be fully addressed and satisfied first.

      • David Price
        Posted September 13, 2014 at 10:08 am | Permalink

        I believe you are correct as to the situation up to now, but brace for incoming. If this aspect gathers momentum you will likely be acquiring more “help” and of a kind than you may like.

  7. forthurst
    Posted September 11, 2014 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps William Hague could have spoken for his home town of Rotherham; that is the problem with many of our polticians: they are too keen to meddle in the affairs of others without concerning themselves with safeguarding those to whom they owe the greatest loyalty.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

      The (usually) career politicians behave largely rationally from their personal perspective (given their position and how they gain/retain their seats). They pretend to represent voters near election and but mainly represent the party after elections or sometimes their “consultancy” providers.

      There are a very few honourable exceptions of course, perhaps 100 at best.

  8. Mark B
    Posted September 11, 2014 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    Thank you Mr. Redwood MP sir.

    I cannot find the link but, I read on the BBC Website sometime ago, two former Foreign Secretaries commenting on England and English nationalism. They were both condescending and sneering in their attitude. I cannot find the link anymore and so will not name them. But I am sure many could guess the identity of one of them.

    For those who wish to see and hear our kind hosts words, see hear. It is on the BBC.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29144197

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

      I can help you out on that.

      From January 2000:

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/596703.stm

      “English nationalism ‘threat to UK'”

      “Jack Straw and William Hague warn of nationalism”

      “Cross-party politicians have warned of growing English nationalism following devolution, airing their views in a BBC programme.

      Home Secretary Jack Straw says the English had used their “propensity to violence to subjugate Ireland, Wales and Scotland” on the Radio 4 programme Brits. The broadcast is examining what it now means to be British.

      Mr Straw will describe the English as “potentially very aggressive, very violent” and will “increasingly articulate their Englishness following devolution.”

      Also appearing on the programme is Conservative leader William Hague.

      Mr Hague will say: “English nationalism is the most dangerous of all forms of nationalism that can arise within the United Kingdom, because England is five-sixths of the population of the UK.””.

      “”Jack Straw is worried that nationalism will manifest itself in violence and wants a positive English identity created which will beat off the unpleasant side.”

      “The Tory leader will add that he believes there has been a “rise of an English political consciousness”.

      “Once a part of a united country or kingdom that is so predominant in size becomes nationalistic, then really the whole thing is under threat,” he will say.””

    • Chris
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

      William Hague and Jack Straw I would suggest, Mark B.
      See BBC website:
      http://english-passport.org/2013/12/24/bbc-english-nationalism-is-a-threat-to-uk/ English nationalism ‘is a threat to UK’
      “..Following the upsurge in English Nationalism, the two main British Political parties have been commenting. Cross-party politicians have warned of growing English nationalism following devolution, airing their views to the BBC

      Former Home Secretary Jack Straw says the English had used their “propensity to violence to subjugate Ireland, Wales and Scotland” Mr Straw will describe the English as “potentially very aggressive, very violent” and will “increasingly articulate their….following devolution.” (text missing on website).

      Also commenting is Conservative Foreign Secretary William Hague.
      Mr Hague will say: “English nationalism is the most dangerous of all forms of nationalism that can arise within the United Kingdom, because England is five-sixths of the population of the UK.”

    • Chris
      Posted September 12, 2014 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

      Mark B: my earlier reply has apparently been disallowed, maybe because I quoted direct from the BBC website. However, if you put foreign secretary and English nationalism into a search you will find on the BBC website some comments by William Hague and Jack Straw about the English and nationalism. I make no further comment on what I think of Hague and Straw’s words.

  9. John
    Posted September 11, 2014 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    Hi John,
    Let me thank you for giving voice on behalf of the English nation. In every sphere of Brutish politics we have been downtrodden and denied democratic accountability. I hope that you can muster many more, so called English, MPs to rally to our defence. They could start by occasionally mentioning the word England when talking about issues which are devolved in the other countries, at the moment it it hard to tell that it is only the English being screwed by decisions made in the House of Commons (eg. The NHS when it is only the English health service they are talking about).

  10. Mark B
    Posted September 11, 2014 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    Ah ! Found it. This should prove most useful to our kind host if he so wishes.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/596703.stm

    • Martyn G
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

      Mark B – Great, thanks. These extracts from your link says it all and informs us as to why none of the current parties are willing to address the England issue.
      Mr Hague will say: “English nationalism is the most dangerous of all forms of nationalism that can arise within the United Kingdom, because England is five-sixths of the population of the UK.”
      “Once a part of a united country or kingdom that is so predominant in size becomes nationalistic, then really the whole thing is under threat,” he will say.
      In other words we, the English, cannot be trusted and must be, if not suppressed, ignored and not mentioned. Disgusting if not actually treasonable political behaviour in my view.
      It is quite clear to me that England, having been disappeared is most unlikely to ever be resurrected.

    • Martyn G
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 10:59 pm | Permalink

      So it would appear that ‘they’ are frightened of us, the English. A slur and calumny of the English peoples but nonetheless they are frightened of us. One wonders why and for how much longer that will continue to hold up in the face of increasing resentment on our part? Might it be that their very attitude to the English will trigger that which they fear?

  11. acorn
    Posted September 11, 2014 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

    Nice one JR.

  12. Mark B
    Posted September 11, 2014 at 4:43 pm | Permalink
    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

      Only fifteen years ago …

    • matthu
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 7:36 pm | Permalink

      [Hague] said it was unfair that Scotland now had its own law-making body, but still had a say at Westminster on legislation affecting England.

      “People will become increasingly resentful that decisions are being made in England by people from other parts of the UK on matters that that English people did not have a say on elsewhere,” he said.

      Good old Hague for expressing an opinion that he hoped would help him to win an election! I wonder how his views have changed now he is in government?

  13. ian wragg
    Posted September 11, 2014 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    Weasel words from Hague who is jumping ship at the next election. Ex Euro sceptic turned native in the F.O.
    I think you can drop the servative and just be the CON party John. I think most sane people have the measure of CMD and the posh boys by now.

  14. Chris S
    Posted September 11, 2014 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

    We are going to have to get very vocal, whatever the outcome next Thursday.

    Labour and the LibDems are absolutely determined to come up with a Devolution settlement that break up England into regions on the principle of divide and rule and I suspect that Cameron will be tempted to go along with the idea.

    If we are not to have our country destroyed, we will have to come up with a proposal for England that keeps our Country united, adds almost nothing to the cost of Government but takes proper account of the views and needs of the Regions. Nothing less will do.

    Wales and NI plus Scotland ( if still included ) already have their Assemblies and a minister responsible for each.

    We will need English MPs to sit as our assembly on three days a week as JR has suggested but we will need to go further : We will need English-only Cabinet meetings to formulate policy and make decisions for our country.

    To better represent the view of the regions, we will need something like a Grand Committee for each region consisting of its MPs and Local Authority leaders meeting in the Region, not at Westminster. The PM and the Chancellor would have to attend at least one of each Grand Committee’s meetings each year.

    The PM will also have to allocate a minister to represent each region in the English-only Cabinet. If a PM from one of the other Nations within the UK were to form a Government at Westminster, English MPs would have to chose one of their number to become de facto First Minister of England.

    Time will have to be set aside at Westminster for regular regional debates on the three days when English-only matters are discussed.

    If we get our act together and ensure that the feelings of the English Electorate are properly taken into account, we might just head off the Labour/LibDem demand for a Federal structure. It won’t be easy.

  15. AuntyEstab
    Posted September 11, 2014 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

    William Hague’s reply to Mr Redwood is typical,I live in Mr Hague’s constituency and recall several years a main road was closed for bridge repairs resulting in a long detour for local truckers to reach a quarry as the only other route had a weight limit, also it passed close by the house of Sir Timothy Kitson. A representative of the truckers went to see Mr Hague for help in getting the limit lifted temporarily, to save unnecessary waste of time and fuel, I’m told the response was ” we don’t want Sir Tim woken early by HGV’s”.

  16. JoolsB
    Posted September 11, 2014 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

    Hague’s reply, or non-reply, was pathetic and an insult to his constituents and every man, woman & child in England. Speak for England, he can’t even say the word. But what was even more pathetic John, was the begging and the pleading from your colleagues for Scotland to stay and yet not one word from any of the whole rotten lot of them re. the implications for England when Scotland gets it’s extra powers, not one word backing you up on who speaks for England, not one word about England getting a taste of the devolution Scotland already enjoys, not one word re. ending the Barnett Formula once Scotland start raising their own taxes and not one word demanding an end to 59 Scottish MPs still continuing to vote on English matters including tax rates for England which will be devolved to the Scots Parliament with no doubt similar powers devolved to the Welsh Assembly soon afterwards.

    Well done John (and you were brilliant by the way on News Night for putting that sh—-ster Hain in his place) but unfortunately you haven’t got the back up of Cameron or any of your colleagues with English seats for which they should hang their heads in shame and will hopefully pay the price next May. One thing is for sure though, when England does get it’s own parliament, not a single one of the incumbents squatting in English seats in the UK Parliament, except for Mr. Redwood of course, should assume they will take on the role of an English MP. They have proved they are totally unworthy and unfit to represent England.

  17. Margaret Brandreth-J
    Posted September 11, 2014 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

    Inappropriate dig there John.Yes, you do seem to be the only speaking for England and you are entitled to speak for your Country not just Wokingham.We do understand the lateral slight.

  18. Anonymous
    Posted September 11, 2014 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

    Thanks

    (I hope the Scots vote YES – the best of a set of bad outcomes.)

    • Anonymous
      Posted September 11, 2014 at 9:20 pm | Permalink

      Abolish the House of Lords. Turn it into the English Parliament.

  19. ian
    Posted September 12, 2014 at 12:20 am | Permalink

    The boys are going to bomb Syrian army huge escalation coming in the ME

  20. mick
    Posted September 12, 2014 at 6:32 am | Permalink

    Go get them John :))

  21. Robert Taggart
    Posted September 12, 2014 at 9:51 am | Permalink

    Sad to see ‘Billy Boy’ sticking to the established / prevaricative line – in view of his own plans (retirement from parliament at the next general election) – he should feel free to voice HIS opinions – ‘de-mob happy’ style !

    • APL
      Posted September 12, 2014 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

      Robert Taggart: “in view of his own plans (retirement from parliament at the next general election) – he should feel free to voice HIS opinions – ‘de-mob happy’ style !”

      Still in the Cabinet, still packing away the wonga. Unlike Carswell, Hague is going to pick up his ‘relocation’ backhander.

      Oppps!

  • 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