Prosperity not austerity

I go to Manchester today to make the case again for prosperity as the driver of policy. Ownership for everyone, tax cuts for all should be the aim.

The Economy day needs to set out how we can have a more prosperous UK after our exit from the EU. Taking control of our money allows us to spend more on our priorities. Taking control of our taxes will allow us to remove VAT from items like green products and fuel. Taking control of our laws allows us to repeal damaging regulations like the fishing ones which destroy jobs and damage our seas. Taking control of our trade policy allows us to cut tariffs, taxes on imports we need from the rest of the world.

We need a green policy which is friendly to prosperity, not an unrealistic one centred on many more taxes and regulations to price people on lower incomes out of personal transport or a  holiday. We need ownership policies to make it easier for more people to own their own home. We need tax and employment laws which encourage setting up your own business, working for yourself or growing a small company.

We also as Conservatives need to explain why Labour’s 2030 net zero carbon target entails unacceptable levels of tax and regulation over our lives, with many job losses in traditional activities that require energy use. We need to ask why the Lib Dems call themselves democratic given their main aim is to overturn a democratic majority in the UK’s largest ever democratic vote, and why they call themselves Liberal when they propose a vast raft of higher taxes and extra regulations to stop people doing what they want to do.

Both these parties want to tax us into personal austerity  and regulate us into their idea of enforced lifestyle. They run down the UK, think we cannot govern ourselves, they seek to stifle innovation and want to block enterprise. Labour now want to steal shares and properties from people who have worked hard and saved to own them. They want us all subservient to their state, and wish to enforce equality by preventing people doing well by working hard.

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

140 Comments

  1. Stephen Priest
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    As always the Liberal Democrats will be trying to overturn the biggest democratic vote in our history. In their warped view of democracy Dame Margaret Beckett should be Prime Minister.

    • Andy
      Posted September 30, 2019 at 6:43 am | Permalink

      If they win the general election – which is clearly unlikely – they will have a mandate to stop Brexit. It is how democracy works.

      It is no different from the Brexit Party saying they would impose no deal if they win. No deal was not what was promised in 2016 anymore than stop Brexit.

      The difference is that Farage has zero chance.

      • Michael Wood
        Posted September 30, 2019 at 7:55 am | Permalink

        Why should he?

        Surely the remain principle would apply: loser wins

        • Hope
          Posted September 30, 2019 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

          JR, in the telegraph today an article by MEP highlighted at the heart of Mayhabs servitude plan how Hammond as chancellor and board member of EIB happy to give away 7.5 billion euros of our taxes in the bank and an interest free sum for twelve years! Our taxes. Please explain how this fits in with the false low tax Tory narrative? This on top of contribution and other give aways for nothing, literally no concessions or leverage in negotiations!

      • Antony
        Posted September 30, 2019 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

        It’s quite strange when people cannot differentiate between referenda and elections, and precendence.

    • Martin in Cardiff
      Posted September 30, 2019 at 7:04 am | Permalink

      I’m not commenting on the LD policy – with which I disagree, but if there were another vote, with an even higher turnout, and which overturned the result of the previous one, then would you accept its result?

      If not, then by what democratic principle would you not?

      • Jagman84
        Posted September 30, 2019 at 7:27 am | Permalink

        Firstly, implement the 2016 result and then schedule another vote for say, 3 years time. Would you accept this new vote about re-joining the EU, if the majority decided to continue as an independent nation? I somehow doubt it.

        • Martin in Cardiff
          Posted September 30, 2019 at 9:41 am | Permalink

          Answer my question, do not pose other, unrelated ones.

      • Alan Jutson
        Posted September 30, 2019 at 7:39 am | Permalink

        Martin

        If the questions were the same Yes. But would the politicians ?

        If it was Mays deal or Remain No, because they are both a type of remain and worse than a so called “no deal” in my view.

      • Michael Wood
        Posted September 30, 2019 at 7:57 am | Permalink

        Why should he?

        Surely remain principle applies: loser wins

        • Martin in Cardiff
          Posted September 30, 2019 at 9:42 am | Permalink

          You’re getting mixed up with the last US presidential election, Michael.

          • libertarian
            Posted October 1, 2019 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

            Martin

            Youre getting confused over how elections work

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted September 30, 2019 at 7:58 am | Permalink

        As an indication of just how tiresome this is all becoming I would refer back to a comment posted on this blog nearly three years ago:

        http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2016/10/09/the-cbi-and-the-eu/#comment-835753

        In that comment of October 9 2016 I recalled that the government had sent an official referendum leaflet to every household in the country, and that MPs had actually had a debate on that leaflet and a chance to object to its contents before it went out, but not one MP asked whether people were to take it literally when the leaflet promised:

        “This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.”

        or in fact it would be Parliament that decided how to respond to a vote to leave the EU; and as an overwhelming majority of parliamentarians see their primary allegiance as being to the EU, not the UK, they might well decide to prevent the Government keeping that promise.

        So what kind of promise would you make in the leaflet for your second referendum, Martin?

        Would it be:

        “This time we really mean it”?

        Or:

        “It is your decision, and provided you make the decision that we want then we will implement it”?

        If anybody believed what politicians said before the referendum they will have learned differently over the past three years, they now know that both Houses of Parliament are packed with liars and cheats, and so how do you Remoaners propose to repair the massive damage to public trust that you have caused?

        Yes, that you have caused, not those who voted to leave the EU, but those who have been working to negate the referendum result.

        Was that destruction of public trust really worth it for the sake of your beloved EU, about which many of you know so little anyway?

        • Pominoz
          Posted September 30, 2019 at 9:39 am | Permalink

          Dennis,

          Excellent post.

        • DLP
          Posted September 30, 2019 at 9:58 pm | Permalink

          Dennis Cooper, I totally agree with your comment. The remoners did not think in their wildest dreams that the leave vote would win in 2016. They were so smug and arrogant, recent events have proved this beyond any doubt. They refuse to accept the majority vote of 17.4m people. The vote didn’t go how they wanted so they insist upon another vote in the vain hope that it will go how they wish and they will keep doing this until it does. This somewhat mirrors the underhand tactics of the eu in past voting procedures. Their only aim is to revoke article 50 (which they voted to enact) and remain part of the oppressive eu. Every underhand trick in the book is being used to thwart leaving to the extent that the judicial system is being used to interfere in politics when it has not previously done so. There was no precedent that the Supreme Court judges could base their judgement on, so they basically summise what they thought the pm’s thoughts were. Hardly a sound base for a judgement of such importance. Pro remain legislation has been railroaded through parliament and the courts at the speed of light, whereas anything connected with leave has hit a parliamentary and legal brick wall. Hopefully we will have a general election sooner rather than later, we the public have had our eyes opened to the double talk of so many mp’s who have not only gone against the manifesto on which they were elected (to the extent that some have jumped ship to another party) but have also totally ignored the majority vote of their constituents. What they fail to realise is that their actions have done irreparable damage to the parliamentary system of the uk and above all have further increased the mistrust that the public have in our parliamentary representatives. Perhaps if they gave so little faith in the uk being able to stand on its own two feet then they should up roots and move to one of their beloved eu state countries where they can then remain on the eu gravy train.

      • Edward2
        Posted September 30, 2019 at 8:19 am | Permalink

        The referendum has taken place Martin.
        It needs to be implemented.
        Why would people bother to vote in another referendum when Ithey now know the establishment will not take any notice of the result if isn’t what they want.
        General election first.

        • Doug Powell
          Posted September 30, 2019 at 10:05 am | Permalink

          Yes, the referendum HAS taken place! That fact and the result cannot be overstated.
          At a time when we are up to our armpits in hypocrites making fake claims that they own Democracy, it should be oft repeated that in the present situation, Democracy BEGINS with honouring the Referendum result!

      • Posted September 30, 2019 at 8:54 am | Permalink

        MinC – you speak of ”another vote” as if it would be valid if the first had not been honoured.
        By all means let there be ”another vote” in the course of time – but not until the result of the first is seen to be implemented. Otherwise, how on earth can the democratic process function?
        The real question is – if there were to be ”another vote” in the future, and the previous result were NOT overturned – would YOU accept its result?

        • Martin in Cardiff
          Posted September 30, 2019 at 9:47 am | Permalink

          The first vote was between a known and an unknown.

          A second vote could be between two knowns.

          It would be a precision, as to what was to be implemented re the first vote, with the option to change one’s mind.

          It would be the most logical part of the implementation therefore.

          If you believe in democracy, then you would support that. However, I suspect that you don’t really.

          • DLP
            Posted September 30, 2019 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

            Martin in Cardiff. Yet more of the remain BS we keep hearing time and time again. Have you no other argument to put forward. Do not talk about “democracy ” when you are opposed to accepting the result of a democratic vote that has already taken place. That is anti democracy.

          • dixie
            Posted October 1, 2019 at 5:35 am | Permalink

            The first vote (referendum) in 1975 and was, in your words, between a known and unknown, the unknown won.

            People changed their views over the years and we had an opportunity in 2016 to reflect on what had happened and chose again to go with the unknown.

            In a democracy why should we have expected the 2016 result to be treated any differently than the first or without alacrity.

            Precedent says you are woefully in arrears in delivering on the second referendum and you shouldn’t get another chance for 41 years.

          • libertarian
            Posted October 1, 2019 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

            Martin

            You have no idea what democracy is. Your patronising posts claiming people dont know what they voted for are pathetic. Using your own criteria we aren’t in the EU as the 1975 referendum was invalid as people voted for an unknown

      • graham1946
        Posted September 30, 2019 at 9:46 am | Permalink

        Why would a ‘second vote’ be more valid than the first? Why would anyone turn out to vote for ‘Remain or Essentially Remain’ as Labour wants?

        What if the vote was closer, or there was a smaller turnout?

  2. Ian Wragg
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 5:26 am | Permalink

    Non of this will be possible if Boris brings Mays surrender document back to the table.
    This seems to be his strategy. 9

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 30, 2019 at 8:52 am | Permalink

      I hope not, but I (and Farage) fear you are right. Boris is foolish to rule out a Brexit Party Deal/accommodation. It is surely his moral duty to do one to ensure we never have to suffer the appalling Corbyn. It would only be in seat the Conservative can never win anyway. So nothing would be lost by it and much to be gained.

      • Doug
        Posted September 30, 2019 at 9:13 am | Permalink

        Yes, if Boris does not ally with Farage, since Farage has but the one issue, then it is putting Party before country which is not quite so bad I guess than being a Remainer MP putting someone else’s country before everything.

      • tim
        Posted September 30, 2019 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

        Lifelogic– very wise, But. The tory party fear Nigel farage {charisma, winner, hero, Champion of the oppressed} more than Corbyn {the fool}.

    • Martin in Cardiff
      Posted September 30, 2019 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

      John suggests that Labour would “steal” property from people.

      That would be impossible, so long as the UK remains a signatory to ECHR, and/or has the Human Rights Act, as it would violate their Right To Peaceful Enjoyment Of Possessions.

      Labour has no intention of abandoning those, so it seems to me that my property would be far safer under Labour, than under a government which has.

      • DLP
        Posted September 30, 2019 at 10:14 pm | Permalink

        Corbin changes his mind more than he changes his underpants. If you trust anything the Labour Party says then you need to seek help.

        • Martin in Cardiff
          Posted October 1, 2019 at 11:36 am | Permalink

          Some things are possible, but in my many years of experience, I conclude that to be unlikely.

          HRA1998 was Labour legislation. Parties don’t often repeal their own.

      • Alan Jutson
        Posted October 1, 2019 at 6:52 am | Permalink

        Oh Dear Martin

        Do you really believe and trust Corbyn, would you put your life on the line for this man, because that’s what our armed forces would have to do !
        Oh no wait a minute, he wants to reduce them and their equipment !

        He stands for nothing, and is just an aged student protestor who has never grown up, who flips and flops about everything that may gain him publicity.
        How convenient that he is now thinking of giving up his leadership before he has to really prove anything or actually be responsible for his thoughts and actions.

        Most who love him at first grow up eventually.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted October 1, 2019 at 10:51 am | Permalink

        Well Hammond was already taxing profit that were not even being made for landlords. Effectively just stealing part of your assets off you. Corbyn proposed to steal off landlords and give the assets to tenants on he cheap or prevent you getting use of them ever again.

  3. Richard1
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 5:41 am | Permalink

    It’s odd that a main political party like Labour can propose ‘zero carbon 2030’ without the slightest idea how to get there. Absent the invention of some dramatically new technology – eg nuclear Fusion, batteries orders of magnitude better than those we now have – there is not the slightest chance of zero carbon 2030. Or 2050 in fact, though thats far enough off we can pretend it’s realistic at least for the next 10-15 years.

    Fortunately the actual rate of global warming observed is about 1/3 of that forecast when the great scare started 25-30 years ago, there is no evidence yet of an increase in extreme weather events, although of course such an increase continues to be forecast. And sea levels seem to be rising at approx the same rate as since the end of the last ice age.

    Perhaps we have a few decades or even centuries longer than now feared to ween the world from fossil fuels. That the green blob now relies on the hysterical rants of a child, who because she is a child can’t be contradicted, is perhaps a sign of how thin the argument for climate hysteria is.

    • Pominoz
      Posted September 30, 2019 at 6:00 am | Permalink

      Richard1,

      Am I alone in thinking from comments posted here that, in the main, ‘Remaniac’ = ‘Climate Alarmist’?

      A commentator here on Australian TV describes the indoctrination of kids that the world as we know it is ‘about to end’ due to climate change, as mass child abuse. When you think of the terror which is instilled in these young minds, it is easy to agree with him.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted September 30, 2019 at 7:50 am | Permalink

        Indeed there is a huge positive correlation between being:- Pro EU, Pro ever bigger government, Pro Socialism, Anti Democracy, Pro the dire monopoly NHS, Anti freedom of choice (in education/health for example), pro exaggerated Climate alarmism, Pro “renewables”, Pro ever higher taxation and government asset thefts, Pro endless PC drivel, Pro Magic Money tree economics, Pro rights without responsibilities, pro no deterrent policing and law and order, Pro identity politics & diversity regardless or merit, Pro open door immigration regardless of quality, Pro the evil politics of envy and also having zero understanding of engineering, science, reason, maths or real economics.

        The BBC are the propaganda outfit for all of these misguided agendas.

        • Scribbler
          Posted September 30, 2019 at 9:18 am | Permalink

          BBC journalists are far worse than those working for Pravda. They can resign, or just work until their contract expires, get another job, leave the country if they so wish whereas Pravda journalists pump out lies just the same and have to.

    • Roy Grainger
      Posted September 30, 2019 at 6:04 am | Permalink

      She’s not a child, they only dress her like one. She’s 16 which is old enough to vote Labour according to Labour. What is proposed is not zero carbon but zero net carbon which is not quite so impossible, it will only cost about £3 trillion or so, they will do it by investing massively in offsetting schemes like flooding countries like India with UK aid to improve the efficiency of their industry and then claiming the carbon reductions for UK. McDonnell has the added bonus that he can call this policy reparations for UK having evilly started the industrial revolution which has caused the problem. Plus reparations for colonialism of course. And slavery, in some other countries.

      • Edward2
        Posted September 30, 2019 at 8:23 am | Permalink

        Correct Roy.
        The figures will be fudged.
        If they can claim burning wood imported from Canada in the Drax power station is good for the environment then they can do the same thing with all the other green schemes.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted September 30, 2019 at 8:55 am | Permalink

          Burning wood imported is clearly insane. It is only done so they can pretend that x% of UK electricity production comes from “renewables”. What is coal but old wood after all?

          • Chris
            Posted September 30, 2019 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

            Ll, I think you are right. Another derangement syndrome? They seem quite mad to me. Sound science has apparently been abandoned to fit in with the man made global warming agenda. At least we now have 500 scientist and other professionals writing to the UN urging caution with their advancement of the green agenda, and demanding sound science forms the basis of proposed policies. See tweet below by Praying Medic:

            “500 scientists and professionals send letter the UN urging the organization “to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation.”
            6:58 PM – 25 Sep 2019

            https://clintel.nl/prominent-scientists-warn-un-secretary-general-guterres/

          • steve
            Posted September 30, 2019 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

            LL

            Good point.

            I never burn imported wood unless it’s scrap.

            A lot of my wood comes from palettes, redundant packing timber, discarded building site wood etc. It’s quite satisfying to get a Sunday roast done using free fuel.

      • Bob
        Posted September 30, 2019 at 9:00 am | Permalink

        Rumours circulating that Bercow will assist Parliament to ram through votes for 16 year olds while the Tories are away at Conference.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 30, 2019 at 6:44 am | Permalink

      .Batteries just store energy, and so do not help with “zero carbon”. The energy still has to be generated and the batteries themselves need huge amount of energy to mine the rare earth elecments and to manufacture the batteries.

      • Richard1
        Posted September 30, 2019 at 8:58 am | Permalink

        true. but the theory would be that if you had super efficient batteries renewables would play more of a role. but lithium ion is no basis for this. it would have to be some completely new concept.

      • Martin in Cardiff
        Posted September 30, 2019 at 11:12 am | Permalink

        Generated…or collected, from the sun, wind or tides.

      • steve
        Posted September 30, 2019 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

        LL

        Yes but look on the bright side, by 2030 or so they’ll have to dump all that redundant lithium somewhere. As usual cart before horse with these green idiots.

      • dixie
        Posted October 1, 2019 at 5:52 am | Permalink

        @LifeLogic, you are wrong.

        According to CEMAC (part of US Gov Joint Institute for Strategic Energy Analysis) in 2015 EV Lithium battery cells do not incorporate rare earth elements. EV batteries use lithium, nickel, manganese and cobalt with graphite used for anodes. None of these are rare earth and EVs account for only 4% of worldwide lithium usage and so only a minimal amount of energy and resources used for mining and processing.

        This puts you in the same category as the BBC which also believes copper and gold are rare earth metals.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted October 5, 2019 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

          Sorry not technically “rare earth” just fairly rare and expensive to mine and purify.

    • dennisambler
      Posted September 30, 2019 at 10:38 am | Permalink

      “without the slightest idea how to get there.”

      Or even what it means.

      These MP’s who predict such dire consequences of leaving the EU and have spent so much time “debating” things that they really don’t know much about, happily nod through any legislation aimed at increasing the cost of electricity even further, allow destruction of grid reliability, allow destruction of the countryside with renewables, whilst pushing our money into EV’s and CCS, with no impact on global temperatures.

    • margaret howard
      Posted September 30, 2019 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

      Richard1

      “That the green blob now relies on the hysterical rants of a child”

      She is the same age as Joan of Arc was when she changed the history of France and saved it from English domination.

      Just hope they don’t do to her what we did to Joan and burn her at the stake at the aged of just 19!

      • libertarian
        Posted October 1, 2019 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

        Margaret

        Joan of Arc? Ha ha ha Read a proper history book .

        She heard voices from God, was used as a puppet played virtually no part in the war . She was not the liberator of Orléans for the simple reason that the city was never besieged. And the English had nothing to do with her death. I’m afraid it was the Inquisition and the university of Paris that tried and sentenced her as a witch.

    • steve
      Posted September 30, 2019 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

      Richard1

      “It’s odd that a main political party like Labour can propose ‘zero carbon 2030’ without the slightest idea how to get there.”

      Oh that’s easy, when you consider Blair stole everyone’s house deeds with his de-materialisation act, it follows that Labour will just take everyone’s cars of the road. Then they’ll say we’re zero carbon.

      Labour don’t like people owning things – fact. They also do as they like with other people’s property and freedom – fact. Why?…..because they’re as jealous as they are lazy arsed and don’t believe in working for things, better instead just to pinch off someone else who has done the work.

    • Stephen Priest
      Posted September 30, 2019 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

      “there is no evidence yet of an increase in extreme weather events”

      Haven’t you noticed? Every drop of rain and every ray of sunshine is deemed an extreme weather event these days.

  4. Mark B
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 5:47 am | Permalink

    Good morning.

    Have a safe and pleasent journey and conference Sir John. And please, for those that might miss it, can you please post the transcript and / or video link of your speech ?

    I think it better to concentrate on our local environment rather than global. We cannot do diddly-swat to global conditions when so much pollution is generated elsewhere. The UK historically has worked hardest to clean up pollution, witness the Clean Air Act 1956, long before our membership of the EU, a piece of legislation that did not need people to jet off, or sail, around the world to pontificate about but, had real and positive impact on our lives.

    A better local environment is a journey we can all travel together rather than be dragged along and bullied into. People respond better to well formed and reasoned arguments than to juvenil statements about stolen futures. I want to see policies on the environment that show that those advocating them have done their research and are just not empty talking heads throwing mindless policies which will cause more harm than good. I also do not want to hear about how bad the other parties are, I can see, hear and make up my own mind. I want to hear what the government of the day intends to do ?

    We need to put an end to gesture politics. Should we Leave the EU on 31st October, and by that I mean without signing the WA, parliament and the government will, upon the stroke of 11PM that night, will have all the Competences returned to it that it surrendered to the EEC/EC/EU in the decades previously. It can, and should, make the laws that benefit our country including those like the said act above. We have clearly done it before, and we can do it again. It just needs political will.

    • a-tracy
      Posted September 30, 2019 at 8:08 am | Permalink

      ‘People respond better to well formed and reasoned arguments than to juvenil statements about stolen futures.’
      I agree and the Tories need to give the children a positive message this conference of what has been achieved since 2010 and in the last half a century to combat climate change and what they have coming up in the next five years. I went to infant school in the smog some winter mornings with day-glow orange and grey armbands so that the few cars on the road could see us. We were told not to paddle in the sea. We had power cuts. Most people only had one if any car, no mobile phone etc. With technology comes more energy use but it is a lot more efficient now and concentrating on just he bad and none of the good changes that BRITAIN has been responsible for is just irresponsible.

      • dennisambler
        Posted September 30, 2019 at 10:44 am | Permalink

        “what has been achieved since 2010 and in the last half a century to combat climate change”

        How have we combated climate change, what change in climate are we talking about and from when and what evidence is there that the climate has changed in the last 30 years?

        Your latter comments are quite correct but nothing to do with climate, but reflect as you say, technology and infra-structure improvements.

        • a-tracy
          Posted October 1, 2019 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

          I’m quite confused about climate change Dennis and I don’t want to get my information from an obviously distraught young girl who has been brainwashed into believing she hasn’t got a future “doomed I tell ya”, although I guess if she read other scientists/geographers papers I’ve been told they would be happy with a population cull and not just an animal cull so perhaps her doomsday scenario is true? It depends on which side of the cull she is on.

          “Global warming has become an undisputed fact” I read! “our planet is warming up and WE ARE definitely part of the problem!”

          Off the top of my head; I’ve heard, climate change in the UK = more rain so water levels are rising and this is causing more floods – although others say – the floods are being caused by bad husbandry from the environment agency and cost-cutting none dredging which should be done? I don’t know?
          Then I’m warned ‘Global warming leads to rising temperatures of the oceans and the earth’ surface causing melting of polar ice caps, rise in sea levels and also unnatural patterns of precipitation such as flash floods, excessive snow or desertification.’ If these floods filled up the Southern rain free Countries such as Africa won’t that make them greener? What is the actual volume of water that will be produced by the melting of the above-ground ice caps? You can’t create water from nowhere!

          So do we need a big population reduction?

          In my opinion, we just exported our industry to China, India, Bangladesh etc. and now they are spewing out the toxins that we used to but don’t anymore. “Electricity generation. Around 20% of the UK’s CO2 emissions in 2017 came from burning coal, oil and gas to produce electricity. This is down from 34% back in 1990. Coal’s share of this mix has fallen precipitously since 1990, down from 67% of total generation to only 5% today.” But it will be if we exported our industry and production to the third world. Plastic bag use in the UK is down 90%. Now we just need to get rid of those pesky plastic drink bottles and milk bottles! Do any children actually take these to school anymore or are they pariahs if they do?

          Then we’re told we should cull our dietary animals (why are we allowed none functional house pets and say horses if we are to kill our milk and meat producers)? I wonder what the take-up of non-meat food teenagers buy at school from the vegan/vegetarian sections? then I wonder what will happen if they’re short of Iron and B12 and zinc. to their health. Using children to effect change has been done before hasn’t it when they started the anti-fur campaigns, I just fear whether they will be happy at all in their new world.

  5. Shirley
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 6:25 am | Permalink

    Future promises are worthless and a waste of time while ever we are in the EU, regardless of which party is promising them. EU law has priority over UK law.

    We must first leave the EU, and then work to make the UK great again. A GE would be most helpful. Is there no way of forcing a GE upon Parliament?

  6. Ian Wilson
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 6:48 am | Permalink

    The Conservatives would be more convincing in denigrating Labour’s 2030 zero emission plan if they abandoned their own farcical zero emissions legislation. It was reported a couple of days ago that gas heating in new homes will cease from next year. Believe it or not, that’s Conservative policy, not Jeremy Corbyn’s.

    The danger for the Party is that if they continue with what Sir Bernard Ingham calls “crackpot” climate and energy policies the Brexit Party with their better balanced policy will pick up a damaging number of votes from those of us who despair of Conservative policy.

    • Chris Dark
      Posted September 30, 2019 at 7:32 am | Permalink

      I’ve had some first-hand experience of this electric-powered heating in a relatively-new property. It is abominable. My son currently rents a small flat near his work; it has only a couple of electric panels on the wall for heating. There isn’t even an electric fire. The heat given out is pathetic. Many folk are going to be in for some bitter cold winters.

    • dennisambler
      Posted September 30, 2019 at 10:51 am | Permalink

      The problem we have is the legacy of the last Labour government, the Climate Change Act, which set up the “independent” Climate Change Committee. We now have no debate about climate policy, the recommendations of this panel of “experts”, who are all dependent for their livelihoods on the measures they are recommending, are just nodded through because of the CC Act.

      For example, Drax have received hundreds of millions in subsidy and carbon credits for their tree burning operation and are represented on the committee. Offshore wind is also represented on the committee.

    • Julian Flood
      Posted September 30, 2019 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

      Not damaging votes going to TBP, healing votes. The beginning of the cleansing of the body politic.

      JF

  7. agricola
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 6:50 am | Permalink

    The first thing you need to do is nail austerity. It is currently spoken of by Socialists as if it were a right wing invention to subjugate the lower half income strata for purely political reasons. A sort of hate weapon invented by Conservatives. You know as well as I do that it was a result of Gordon Brown’s overspending the UK’s income, a lot of which was moved off book, PFI comes to mind, just to minimise the realisation of the overspend. It ended with Liam Burn’s note to his successor in the Treasury that the money had run out. Nail that one in forensic detail, after which all you say about creating the foundations for personal and national wealth make sense.

    • A.Sedgwick
      Posted September 30, 2019 at 7:43 am | Permalink

      Absolutely, there will always be a percentage of the population that is struggling for a variety of reasons. The national debt doubled to £1.5 trillion 2010-15, some austerity.
      Obesity is plainly evident in our shops and streets, which costs the individual and the NHS. My main safety concern on the streets is not vehicles but smart phone users, head down, oblivious to the less mobile.

  8. Kevin
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 6:53 am | Permalink

    There is another aspect to setting up a small business, suggested by the case
    of Mr. Johnson’s prorogation. It does not appear to be possible to know with
    much certainty what legal regime applies to your undertaking until you have been
    made to appear before the highest court in the system – and then they finally tell
    you. This is not a hospitable environment for the management of a start-up.

  9. Lifelogic
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 7:00 am | Permalink

    We need tax cuts, cuts to the vast amount of government waste, cheap reliable energy, easy hire and fire, cut in the damaging red tape that is everywhere, cut the government to 25% of GDP rather than nearly 50%. Also we need quality only immigration, nearly all schools to become private with education vouchers that can be topped up. We need to cull all the pointless university degrees and the soft debt they incurr perhaps 2/3rds of them. We need to encourage more private health care with tax breaks and vouchers rather than the dire state monopoly NHS.

    This is all obvious Labour idiotically want the complete opposite of all of the above.

    The only way to zero carbon is a vast increase in Nuclear Power. Renewables make virtually no difference at all, are intermittent, need back up and are far too expensive.

    House sales in parts of London have dropped by more than 40% it seem over the last three years it seems (thanks to Hammond’s up to 15% transfer tax SDLT and his extentions to CGT and his attacks on Non Doms and lack of vision & project fear). Well done Philip Hammond! Never let him back please.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 30, 2019 at 7:07 am | Permalink

      Tax simplification would also be a huge advantage to the economy. But what really matters is how much government spend and waste and how appallingly they spend it.

      Undo all the vast damage down by chancellor’s Brown, Osborne and Hammond. The vast increases in tax rates and tax complexity. Even the taxing of “profits” that have not even been made which is hard sustainable.

  10. Lifelogic
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 7:09 am | Permalink

    UK governments are so inefficient they cannot even organise an effective vaxination programme for children.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 30, 2019 at 7:36 am | Permalink

      or even vaccination programme.

      • Railway
        Posted September 30, 2019 at 9:09 am | Permalink

        Would a parent wish their child injected never mind vaccinated by a person employed and organised by a nationalised industry? They might. But run the risk of their child’s ears turning up at the corners

  11. Everhopeful
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 7:12 am | Permalink

    Trouble is this govt has not acted like a conservative govt.
    Whispers of a policy to virtually force landlords to give property to tenants.
    All the stuff Cameron did. Heir to Blair.
    Any true conservative PM would have reversed all of Blair’s horrors.
    Double Jeopardy should be brought back and no Supreme Court!

    • Richard416
      Posted September 30, 2019 at 9:19 am | Permalink

      I agree, when the public changes its mind the incoming government should not carry on with the discredited policies of their predecessor.

    • Al
      Posted September 30, 2019 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

      Sajid Javid’s pledge on the National Living Wage (up to £10.50 from £8.21) means we certainly won’t be hiring anyone for the foreseeable future. That’s a ten percent rise in costs without any expected rise in productivity.

      For any company paying the actual current minimum, a 27% rise from the current level will wipe out many positions, and those that go will be the roles low-income people perform. Boosting Labour’s client-state vote while destroying jobs is pointless. Has anyone done the math for the costs of whole families out of work and on benefits versus income support for lower paid positions in SMEs?

      • Mark B
        Posted October 1, 2019 at 3:07 am | Permalink

        The Conservative Party seems to have forgotten the old maxim, one man’s wage rise is another man’s price increase.

        This mission creep of government into the private sphere, and especially business, is most alarming. We are going back to the 60’s and 70’s with a Command Economy.

    • steve
      Posted September 30, 2019 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

      Everhopeful

      “Any true conservative PM would have reversed all of Blair’s horrors.”

      I have yet to see any government undo the damage of it’s predecessor.

      Blair, for example promised to reverse all of Mrs Thatcher’s privatisations, but actually pimped out more than she did.

      The problem is there are potentially five years before we can sack them. I think general elections should be annual, that way they’d have to pull their socks up and behave themselves, and we could get them out before they cause too much damage.

  12. marcus
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 7:28 am | Permalink

    Some days it’s all about ‘should’s’ we should do this- or we should do that! but today it’s about ‘need’- we need to do this or we need to do that- am beginning to wonder if this is being generated all by a machine? Even as he goes to the conference today our host knows very well that the brexit project as the public knows it has been lost- all talk about the simplistic world of taking back control that he has painted since the beginning of time is just that ‘simplistic’ and will never happen- the world has moved on since the the empire day’s of the 1950’s and our betters know we have to fit in somewhere, somehow- all people who are anyway grounded know this- of course when it comes to our well off deluded stock am sure you can still afford the luxury of careless thinking- so dream on JR- but the DUP is buckling- it’s near blinking time

  13. Alec
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 7:29 am | Permalink

    We need a general election to sweep the Remoaners away. A house clearing of epic proportions and not just in parliament. Whitehall is as bad or worse. Sir Humphrey needs to be sent on permanent gardening leave along with all his chums.

    • Chris
      Posted September 30, 2019 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

      AGreed, Alec. I fear we will not get that with Boris.

  14. The Prangwizard
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 7:36 am | Permalink

    And if reports are to believed that May gave control of our armed forces to the EU from 1st November this agreement must be revoked immediately.

    That to me is more important and more urgent than anything else.

    • Martin in Cardiff
      Posted September 30, 2019 at 11:18 am | Permalink

      Why don’t you find out whether it is true or not? What is the matter with you?

      Why do you think that the internet was invented?

      It is not true, just like most of the other things that you seem to believe are not either.

      Choose better sources.

      • libertarian
        Posted October 1, 2019 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

        Marty

        Says the man who has failed to check the internet about a large number of his factually incorrect posts

    • Chris
      Posted September 30, 2019 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

      The Conservative MPs have allowed this to happen, quietly. Why, I have no idea.
      Quite extraordinary.

  15. Alan Jutson
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 7:45 am | Permalink

    I hope the media pick up on your positive message JR, although most of them only seem to seek out and promote sensationalist stories or even rumour.

  16. HJ
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 7:55 am | Permalink

    I’m a bit puzzled as to why you’d want to remove VAT on ‘Green Products’ (and who would define what is a ‘green product’?) and fuel.

    These would surely have opposite effects. If you cut the price of fuel then people have less incentive to use less. The fact that many domestic fuels currently have only 5% VAT (as opposed to 20% on most other products) is an anomaly.

    If you want people to use less fuel, then increasing VAT to 20% is the way to do it. You then protect the poorest through the benefits system while giving the biggest users of fuels – better off people with larger houses – a bigger incentive to use less fuel. Why should the wealthiest who use most fuel get to pay no VAT?

  17. David J
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 8:17 am | Permalink

    2030 net neutral carbon in the UK. The technology does not yet exist, and in not going to turn up any time soon. Of course we all want a cleaner world for our children and their children.

    However, just to tax penalise industry, manufacturing and regular people getting to work is economically devoid of practical sense. It just makes the UK less competitive. The result will be to further force manufacturing, jobs, and therefore wealth creation offshore to countries that damage to the environment magnitudes far higher than the UK could ever do, thereby INCREASING global emissions

    Turkeys voting for Xmas to be cooked over a log fire?

  18. a-tracy
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 8:26 am | Permalink

    “We also as Conservatives need to explain why Labour’s 2030 net zero carbon target entails unacceptable levels of tax and regulation over our lives, ”

    Actually, I believe you should explain why your environmental policies are better than theirs in direct comparison, broken down, in easily understood statements.

    People aren’t as stupid as labour, the snp and the lib dems think they are. Watching the political soap opera play out is more ridiculous than any made-up car crash tv soap plot.

    The people crying the loudest on College Green about stopping Brexit are the ones that fly and travel the most, then the next week they are flying their we love Greta banners, most of us want pragmatic solutions to the ills we collectively face.

    • Bob
      Posted September 30, 2019 at 9:14 am | Permalink

      More than 500 scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have sent a “European Climate Declaration” to the Secretary-General of the United Nations asking for a high-level, open debate on climate change.

      ” “There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm,”
      “We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050.”
      “… it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions on the basis of results from such immature models…”
      “Current climate policies pointlessly, grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, continuous electrical power.”
      “We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation.””

    • Mark B
      Posted September 30, 2019 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

      Agreed. A good sensible energy mix based on cost, supply security and storage should be used. Wind turbines are fine for local small scale but for powering a large town let alone a city is just stupid. That is why they target kids, most of which still believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy.

  19. BOF
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 8:51 am | Permalink

    With about £50B promised so far would it be optimistic of me to think that to fund this lavish splash out, we WILL be leaving with no deal and so no payout of £39B or further payments to the EU and HS2 WILL be scrapped?

    Scrapping the zero emissions target would be another huge boost to the economy but that might alienate the snowflakes and the gullible, so that won’t happen.

    • Mark B
      Posted September 30, 2019 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

      HS2 will not be scrapped. And in any case, we have to battle, Boris Island and Boris Bridge.

  20. calnorth
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 8:53 am | Permalink

    I simply hope that parliamentarians are not listening to anything Climate Emergency. Too much disruptive big money and silly triggered people in this.

    A 500 scientist signatured letter was sent to the UN fiasco last week: (Monckton et al)

    “Global Climate Intelligence Group founded”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/28/global-climate-intelligence-group-founded/

  21. bigneil(newercomp)
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 10:33 am | Permalink

    I see our host’s recent pleas for shorter posts, less links and less multiple posts to this site is going well. Anyone would think some people have no respect our host’s time.

  22. BillM
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    Of course future prosperity is essential but nothing is more important than our leaving behind the protectionist State, the money grubbing principles and the jurisdiction of the Brussels Emperors on October 31st.
    If that does not happen, those specifically elected to carry out the job in accordance with the people’s decision, made in the 2016 National Referendum, they will have betrayed democracy and will face the wrath of the people by 2022, prosperity or not.
    What is more important to those that would defy the people? Their jobs and their honour or the vested interests in requiring this country to be permanently subservient to the latent Empire of Europe?

  23. jane4brexit
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    120 seats had UKIP come second to Labour in 2015, sometimes a close second. These were constituencies unlikely to vote Conservative, where voters obviously supported leaving the EU, which will most likely vote Brexit Party next time.

    I would like a ‘Leave alliance’ but otherwise a popular PM which Boris is at the moment, despite the msm lies and omissions, asking Conservatives who support full Brexit to consider voting for the Leave party most likely to win would be an informal way to achieve a similar result. Although this does require him to want a clean Brexit and not a rehash of the WA.,

    I have read the Brexit Party will not challenge Conservative MPs who fully supported Brexit, but do not know the details. If true, an informal alliance has already been started and will surely include MPs who voted against the WA each time, such as you Sir John. Hopefully that will help against Phillip Lee, who I note from his wiki was deselected from his previous seat.

    • jane4brexit
      Posted September 30, 2019 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

      Although thinking about that last sentence any Brexiteer voting Brexit Party when they have you as their MP would be crazy, but some might be undecided about voting Conservative for other reasons!

    • graham1946
      Posted September 30, 2019 at 10:31 pm | Permalink

      Actually, Nigel said he would not oppose Tory MP’s if they were for Brexit and in the case of no deal. If Boris tries to re-heat the May deal he said that offer was off and he would stand a candidate in every seat.

  24. Original Richard
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 11:37 am | Permalink

    All political parties want to be in power. To do this you need to win a majority of votes. If you are the party which says you are for the “poor, unemployed and illiterate” then it is perfectly obvious that you will want there to be more poor, unemployed and illiterate voters, not fewer.

    Once this is understood all left wing and globalist elites’ policies become completely transparent, including control though false climate change alarmism.

  25. forthurst
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    “We need ownership policies to make it easier for more people to own their own home.”

    What are they? Remove competition from landlords through the taxation system with restrictions on borrowing to fund a house purchase other than for primary owner/occupation. Reduce competition for housing by cutting off the flow of EU migration and the third world invasion; we did not vote to become an Asiatic or an African nation and since these countries apart from East Asian have generally dire GDP per capita (PPP), there cannot possibly be an economic benefit from it.

    Finally, stop banks creating money for home mortgage lending; force them to maintain separate loan/deposit accounts for home loans and maintain a queuing system for loans; that would also force them to pay higher rates of interest to private depositors. We need to get away from the current system where exceptionally high incomes often based on banksterism are necessary to fund a mortgage and many people are forced to live at home as mature adults. As the solution to spreading human happiness widely, neoliberal economics does not cut the mustard.

    How about a bit of radical thinking? Removing VAT from central heating controls when Tory policy is to ban gas boilers in order to savetheplanet is downright timid.

  26. Atlas
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 11:50 am | Permalink

    Yes, Sir J.,

    To be brief: All this zero carbon emission talk lacks credible solutions that can ‘scale’ to the size needed for the claimed goal.

  27. Davek6
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

    If the UK requests an extension delay of say three months to its departure date from the EU to sort out its own home grown politics troubles then I think it only right that they pay an additional say 10 billion on top of what is already owing.

  28. Peter
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

    I will avoid commenting on the likelihood of a genuine Brexit actually happening.

    The ‘prosperity’ talk seems like so much electioneering. I do notice Keynesian ‘pump priming’ is not mentioned though.

    I also notice the scourge of inheritance tax is not mentioned. Elites have this covered – even socialists like Tony Benn manage to avoid it. It is the people in the middle that will get clobbered. The ones who cannot employ expensive lawyers or afford to put assets in trust for seven years.

    You also say ‘We need ownership policies to make it easier for more people to own their own homes’. In that case you should address the problem of foreigners using the UK property market as an overseas safety deposit box. All those new apartments that we see on the way into Central London. Often they are marketed to foreigners and then snapped up by those foreigners who do not even bother to live there. Housing has now become a racket. Simple repayment mortgages of up to three times annual income were replaced by clever alternatives. All fine until the bubble bursts.

    I will not comment on green policy, certain regular posters are sure to go on about that ad nauseum.

  29. Ian @Barkham
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    The Green Polices so far aired from all quarters are just electioneering ‘sound bites’ they have nothing to do with cleaning up the Planet.

    Take for instance pricing diesel vehicles off the road over time, why? The pollution they produce in day to day running is miniscule when compared to what they produced during manufacture and delivery. It is missing the point and the real issue for every replacement car there will be another humongous chunk of pollution produced no matter how green its eventual running costs turn out to be.

    A ‘sound-bite’ to win an election, yes persuades just those few that it takes to move camps and create a winning position. In terms of what it does to the Planet virtually nil.

    Far better but less able to score a ‘sound bite’ is ensure that all manufactured goods, cars, etc. have a very, very long life. The manufacturers wont like it but the Planet will.

  30. glen cullen
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    Just heard remain MPs discussing on TV that they might again this week use SO 24

    Could someone explain how HoC standing order 24 (emergency debate) can result in those same debates becoming law ?

    If the remain element in the HoCs are using this order in-order to effect laws surly that’s a misuse of the standing orders and power.

    Standing order 24 wasn’t written into HoCs procedures to effect laws or to remove government from its daily business.

    Reply They use an SO24 debate to amend a motion to let them control Commons business for the day, which the Speaker now lets them do.

  31. Ian @Barkham
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

    Net zero can’t happen by 2030. A mountain to climb on logic though for the Socialist and Un-Democratic, and the MSM has messed with its meaning.

    Every Home has to remove its central heating and open fires. Every family has to walk or cycle.

    Every Hospital has to do away with its lighting and heating. Every school has to do the same.

    Ah but the alternatives? The production and delivery of the alternatives create pollution so in fitting them you loose ‘Net Zero’

    The windfarm pollutes being manufactured, installed and maintained as does nearly everything we consume. Net Zero mean that if you are involved in any form of production you are a polluter so loose your job. A city worker may not need an office but they need a connection to it, a connection that pollutes to create and run.

    The again Corbyn’s new world order does require society to first be broken up to build it in his own image. Swinson her policies as always with the Un-Democratic’ s are whatever ‘sound-bite’ will get her in the limelight to day.

  32. villaking
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    Sir John, I agree with some of your comments on how Labour plans an unprecedented grab of private property, but I am less convinced about your idea of increasing public spending whilst lowering taxes. If we are still spending more than is being raised in taxes and thereby increasing the national debt from its historically high level of around 85% of GDP, is there still no limit to a government’s largesse? How high do you believe the national debt can go before we should be alarmed?

  33. mancunius
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    “We need ownership policies to make it easier for more people to own their own home.”

    I’d suggest providing some homes to start with. Unskilled immigration has impelled a lot of the recent BTL wave: since the beginning of the century, BTL has bought up everything affordable on the market in any halfway decent London area, except in council blocks, where you can, if you wish, buy a flat surrounded by sub-tenants who are themselves paying almost nothing for the same space and location, and where, when you come to sell, saleability is not high.

    Outside London, the picture is different. I looked just now at Wokingham properties, and the prices for small starter newbuild flats are startlingly low. Yet how many London professionals holding down high-pressure but not high-paid jobs could afford to live so remotely from their workplace, pay a big chunk of their income for transport, spend hours of a working day standing on a train, and be held to ransom by the vagaries of railway delays and strikes? Is everyone to become a banker or accountant just to earn a bare living?

    No, I’m afraid renting for life is the growing model, and we need to accommodate it by a) not over-regulating and over-taxing landlords, and b) providing more homes to keep the prices down. Land speculation (which is essentially what property-ownership is based on) is not the only form of wealth-accretion. For the Tories to bang on about home ownership as if we were all still living in the mid-1980s is pointless. It does not provide any social cohesion – many of the empty properties around here are owned by absentee ‘residents’.

    Reply Renting is often nearly as dear as the mortgage with the added burden that you keep on p0ayimng it all your life. Buying is much cheaper over your whole lifetime.

  34. Good Advice
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    Given the nature of our law. It should now be added to Law that a man may refuse to be left alone at work with a woman, or two women or more. He may have family, children, reputation and their income as a whole may depend on him.
    Politicians are most vulnerable. Refuse point blank interviews with The Times!!!!!! Trump does it with CNN. They have built a reputation and The Times has just started on the long road of insignificance.

  35. Posted September 30, 2019 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

    And increased government spending.

    You can do both and cut taxes and increase spending and destroy the deficit and national debt myths forever. That were from a good standard and fixed exchange rate world we no longer live in.

  36. acorn
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

    Patronising bullshit JR that will be lapped up by your regular flock of commenters. Yes; you can fool 17.4 leave voters all of the time; the next general election (GE) will prove so. But: don’t leave a GE too long; popular Trumpism looks like it may have a short lifetime if the current Austrian elections are any guide.

    • graham1946
      Posted September 30, 2019 at 10:36 pm | Permalink

      They are not. Trump will win a second term. Why else are the ‘Democrats’ trying to hard to impeach him, which will not succeed anyway as they need both houses to agree and one is majority Republican. All just more smear from a party bankrupt of ideas.

    • Mark B
      Posted October 1, 2019 at 3:24 am | Permalink

      acorn

      I fail to see what goes on in Austria has a direct bearing on President Trump or anywhere else ? No one on the Leave side has ever suggested that because the UK voted Leave that means everyone in the EU wants out.

    • Edward2
      Posted October 1, 2019 at 6:05 am | Permalink

      You didn’t read the recent post by Sir John asking for restraint of language when posting then acorn?

  37. Posted September 30, 2019 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

    John,

    Surely Japan is not about to make the same mistake as they did last time and increase the sales tax again ?

    What on earth are they thinking? Some neoliberal idiot probably told them the deficit was too big again even though inflation in Japan is under control.

    Bill Mitchell nails it again in his blog today.

    It destroyed the Japan economy for years the last time they increased the sales tax. The first thing the neoliberal EU advise when you break the EU austerity rules is yes you guessed it. Increase VAT.

    • Mark B
      Posted October 1, 2019 at 3:27 am | Permalink

      Japan has nowhere else to go. A country of few and limited natural resources that relied on both technology and cost efficiency, all of which is now matched or bettered by others, and an aging population with high social costs. They are also too big to default.

  38. Arnie from Newington
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

    A bold statement that sounds good but unfortunately your party is responsible for the tenant tax and the new government has made no mention of repealing it. I think therefore I will judge the government by its actions rather than its words.

  39. acorn
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    Many people struggle to take speeches by Mark Francois entirely seriously. The deputy chairman of the European Research Group is fond of a colourful turn of phrase or questionable military metaphor. So it was today, when, along with DUP leader Arlene Foster and former Tory cabinet minister John Redwood, he addressed the uber-Eurosceptic Bruges Group on the Conservative conference fringe.

    Much of what Francois said was characteristic, and much of it is already being mocked. That isn’t surprising. His forthcoming memoir, he revealed, is to be titled: You Couldn’t Make It Up! The memes write themselves. But there is a risk we overlook something quite important: Francois went out of his way to stress that he and the 27 other Conservative MPs who voted against the Brexit withdrawal agreement three times were open to voting for a deal.

    Assuming JR, you are still a member of the rapidly shrinking ERG; any comment?

    • Mark B
      Posted October 1, 2019 at 3:30 am | Permalink

      acorn

      If the Tories really are going to sell us out, which I think they will, and think people just won’t for, Corbyn etc, they are in for a shock !

    • libertarian
      Posted October 1, 2019 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

      Marty

      Says the man who has failed to check the internet about a large number of his factually incorrect posts

      • libertarian
        Posted October 1, 2019 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

        Sorry acorn, captcha playing up, this was trying to be posted under Martins post

  40. Fedupsoutherner
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

    Somehow our media seem more interested in whose thigh Boris groped 20 years ago. It just about sums up our media. No good at reporting real news.

  41. APL
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

    With the ‘Supreme court decision’ we see another instance of the failure of the Conservative party to conserve anything.

    Your party, John Redwood, has sat on its hands over the last ten years while the Judicial appointments commission, a Blairite invention, has packed the Judiciary with left leaning partial Judges, that don’t care a fig for British Law, illustrated by the Supreme court judgement.

    Once again, the Tory party colludes in the destruction of the United Kingdom·

  42. Oliver
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

    Sorry, off topic, but searching Hansard to see if Major ever said “don’t bind my hands”, i found this, from Sir Oliver Letwin, and it is not take out of the context:

    “This is the first time in history that a country has sought to remove itself from the EU. We are engaged in the most complicated game of multidimensional chess that any country has ever engaged in. To imagine that that can receive a legally binding negotiating mandate from Parliament, justiciable by the courts, is pure fantasy.”

    Hansard, 2016, July 12, column 267

    https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-12-07/debates/CA09D9B2-9634-41C8-8979-8B9CD82DBB8F/TheGovernmentSPlanForBrexit

    • Mark B
      Posted October 1, 2019 at 3:44 am | Permalink

      Great spot, Oliver

      He also said previously:

      “It is because once a law is passed that determines negotiation, the negotiation as a whole, and in every particular and at every moment, is justiciable. We will end up with the Supreme Court and lower courts being called upon to decide, from moment to moment, in judicial review after judicial review, whether the Government have sufficiently transparently made clear every detail of the negotiation to satisfy the Court that the mandate of Parliament in the law is being observed; and whether they have fulfilled the terms of the mandate, once everything is transparent. Any Member of this House who believes this country will have an advantage in the outcome from such a process is severely misguided.”

      We are in dangerous territory !

  43. APL
    Posted September 30, 2019 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

    “.. That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament; ..”

    Bill of Rights 1689

    Where does the Supreme court get the authority to instruct Parliament?

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp

    • APL
      Posted September 30, 2019 at 11:04 pm | Permalink

      “Where does the Supreme court get the authority to instruct Parliament?”

      It is a question, that would be worth an answer.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted October 1, 2019 at 5:06 am | Permalink

        And overrule the queen too.

        • Martin in Cardiff
          Posted October 1, 2019 at 11:39 am | Permalink

          It did neither.

          It prevented the Government from doing those things.

          • libertarian
            Posted October 1, 2019 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

            Martin in Cardiff

            I think enough law experts, professors, constitutional experts have now shown the SC was operating politically and outside its remit

          • APL
            Posted October 1, 2019 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

            libertarian: “the SC was operating politically and outside its remit”

            And in contravention of the constitutional restraint placed on the Court by the Bill of rights.

            Would our resident Parliamentarian let us know if when the Supreme Court was constituted, was there anything in the legislation abridging the bill of rights?

            After, all. It’s his full time job, you’d think a Parliamentarian who has sat in the House for thirty years would know this stuff.

          • APL
            Posted October 1, 2019 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

            Martin in Cardiff: “It did neither.”

            There is an explicit restraint on the Courts of the UK entrenched in the Bill of Rights.

            And the ‘Supreme court’ ignores it entirely. Does it have the authority to do so, or did it grab it up on the fly, as it did its whole verdict.

            If the latter the Court has exceeded its authority. And no one should be bound by it, least of all Boris Johnson.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted October 1, 2019 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

        The rule of unelected misguided group thing lawyers/judges. Is this much better than rule by unelected EU bureaucrats?

  44. alastair harris
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 7:10 am | Permalink

    Quite right!

  45. margaret howard
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

    My husband worked in Manchester in the 1960’s. It was a dump. Totally neglected and depressing.

    Then the EU invested millions in it and its progress has been astonishing. That’s why its citizens voted overwhelmingly to remain. They know a good thing when they see it.

    • Edward2
      Posted October 1, 2019 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

      The EU just recycles our money back to us.

      • Edward2
        Posted October 1, 2019 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

        When anything improves margaret, you say the EU has effected that improvement but if anything gets worse you say it the fault of the individual nations.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted October 1, 2019 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

      It was not EU money in the main. Even the bit that was EU money came for the UK tax payers then they cream off most of it and give a little back. Always insisting on loads of publicity for their huge ‘generosity’. It is easy to be generous with other people’s money.

    • a-tracy
      Posted October 1, 2019 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

      Where did the EU invest our rebate back in to Manchester? What projects?

      The over building of high rises with no retained green areas in the Central belt is totally depressing.

  46. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

    Imagine what the key policies of a ‘Government of National Unity’ would be, containing as it would no-nation ex-Conservatives, Labour, LibDems, Scot Nats and Greens.

    Would they be as keen on Corbyn/McDonnell’s proposals for a massive expansion of public expenditure, wholesale re-nationalisation, massive taxation and fiscal incontinence? The Scot Nats might because they get 19% more public expenditure per capita via the Barnett formula and the Greens might be because they are Marxist in all but name. But the LibDems and the ex-Tories?

    How rapidly would they sell out this country to the EU? The LibDems, the Scot Nats and the Greens would be prepared to revoke Article 50 without further consultation of the electorate. Laabour and the Ex-Conservatives might be willing to put something like the Norway option to a referendum test.

    What would their policy on defence and nuclear weapons be? The Scot Nats would want to expel our nuclear weapons from Scottish soil. Labour and the Greens would only consider using nuclear weapons on their own country. The LibDems and ex-Conservatives might think differently.

    What would be their policy on private schools, religious schools and religious education be? Would they abolish private schools, tax them to the hilt, force them to take more non-fee paying pupils or leave them alone? Would they ban all religious schools (could they in law?)? Would they outlaw the teaching of creationism – there is something of a gulf between those who believe that the sun and its planets formed about 4 billion years ago and those who think that the world began in 4004 BC.

    Perhaps we should call the idea a Government of National Disunity.

  47. Dunc.
    Posted October 1, 2019 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

    Like all comments on climate change /global warming/global cooling etc I can only suggest , as someone with a PHD in Geology, that you read L.H.Lamb’s Climate History Of The Modern World ,before you make any judgments on what is currently occurring with our climate.
    Then if you wish to discuss geophysical fluid dynamics or long wave radiative forcing with me , Im happy to oblige.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted October 1, 2019 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

      The history of the climate is not alas something they teach to our children or Greta it seems.

  • About John Redwood


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

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

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

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

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

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page