Author: johnredwood

Dear Mrs Merkel

I read that your visit to the UK is to improve relations between our two countries. You will find the UK willing to be a good friend and ally. You will also discover that many UK people feel the EU has behaved badly, petulantly and against its own interests over Northern Ireland, fishing, vaccines and other matters which it has decided to turn into disputes. All the time the EU does not grasp that we have taken back control and intend to make our own laws and decisions there will be pointless friction.

The EU’s attempt to control and prevent trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland is particularly provocative given the acceptance by both sides to the Protocol that the integrity of the UK internal market was as important as the integrity of the EU single market. Our substantial trade between GB and NI is no threat to trade between NI and the EU, as it is properly controlled and regulated to be internal trade only. The continuing wish to treat UK fish as if it were still a common EU resource is also an unfortunate aggression. The permanent pressure to get the UK to conform with all EU rules and regulations is a silly attempt to thwart one of the aims of Brexit.

You will have noted that the UK has seen a sharp improvement in its balance of trade since we left, as we do not need to rely so heavily on imports as we came to do during our period in the EU. The UK will have more options both to make and grow more for ourselves and to source imports from outside the EU as we open better trade deals with non EU countries and regions. The UK has been much more the customer than the supplier in our trade with the EU, so we expect to be treated well to keep our custom. The EU’s wish instead to treat us some naughty errant colony is a good way to hasten the search for substitutes for EU food and goods.

The EU is no longer able to control us through its Treaties and law codes, and we no longer answer to the European Court of Justice. Our two countries still have disagreements about the withdrawal details, where neither side can claim it is uniquely right in its own interpretation given the vagueness and contradictions in the texts. The truth is anything that requires enforcement and compliance in the EU is clearly under EU control, and anything needing it in the UK including Northern Ireland is under UK control. I trust you will understand the realities and wish to heal a bruised relationship. If Germany and the EU understand our intent to govern ourselves there is plenty of scope for trade, friendship and joint venture.

Yours sincerely

John Redwood

Tomorrow China will celebrate 100 years from the formation of the Communist party, and reflect a little on its history. I am inviting you to tell me what you think about how this party has governed over the last 72 years of uninterrupted power over the Chinese state. It has been a long time, meaning that modern China is the creature of the work and thoughts of its ruling party.

The first 30 years of the party were years of struggle, as it recruited mass support, fashioned the Red army, fought a civil war and helped the nation dismiss the Japanese invasion. The era of Mao in government or influencing government from 1949 to 1976 saw the experiment of the Great Leap forward from 1958-62 as they sought to nationalise everything and organise work in communes. This led to falls in farm output and many millions dying of famine. This was followed by the Cultural revolution, when young recruits turned against experts and denounced those who did not support the party sufficiently. This too proved disruptive to economic progress. These two movements are now seen as mistakes by many Chinese.

The 30 years from 1978 saw the Chinese economy make rapid progress from a low base, thanks to the Deng reforms. He decided that China needed small independent farms, small businesses, more competition and some privatisation to inject life and growth. The economy sustained growth of almost 10% per annum. More recently the growth rate has slowed, though the policy is still portrayed as Deng’s “socialism with Chinese characteristics”. There is some ambivalence today about how much further if at all the pro market and free enterprise reforms will be allowed to go.

China today has a per capita income and GDP of $10,000. This is one quarter the level of Japan, which decided to rebuild its gravely damaged wartime economy with more of the west’s free enterprise and democratic system. The Chinese level is less than one sixth of the US, adopting an alternative government and economic strategy. Those who want the state to control more of our lives should pause to ask why so far after 72 years in office Chinese communism has delivered so much less per capita income than the advanced democracies.

There have been two bad stories about national security over the last week. There was the surprise arrival of top secret papers at the BBC via bus stop, and there was the revelation that someone had been able to place a spy camera in a Ministerial office without the Minister knowing it was there.

I did not defend Mr Hancock’s conduct and thought he had to resign because he had broken rules and guidance which he told the rest of us to obey. If the recordings of his meetings and activities in the office was confined to photos revealing his unwise decision to kiss an adviser then there has been no harm to national security. The spying could also have been used for other purposes, and could give people the idea that maybe they too could place a camera to learn more of government decision making and thinking. Ministerial offices should be secure enough so Ministers and senior officials can think the unthinkable aloud, discuss a range of options, ask themselves what a worse case looks like without every more extreme case appearing in the newspapers. They should also be secure in case matters of national security or commercial confidentiality come up in their talks. In return for having secure offices Secretaries of State should of course keep their romances for private rooms elsewhere, and conduct any family or private business to the extent allowed away from government buildings.

The dumping of important papers in Kent and the decision of the BBC to tell us much of their contents even though they were confidential and in one case had a special top secret designation is extremely worrying. Only a very limited number of Ministers and top officials would have access to such papers. They were very recent, as we are told one went into detail about the recent voyage of a naval vessel close to Crimea. There must be a successful investigation to find out who removed these papers from a secure location or who copied them. We should also expect a better statement from the BBC about why they did not simply return the papers to their rightful place in Whitehall. It can only damage the UK to put out some details about the sensible arguments in government about the conduct of defence and foreign relations. The correct democratic approach is for the government to explain its policy without offering up secrets or counter arguments to opponents, and for the Opposition when it judges it necessary to offer an alternative strategy or to criticise the policy and execution. An Opposition saying a foreign policy could go wrong or is not well done is democratic. A government expressing its own inner doubts about a policy it is still defending is unhelpful. A government with no doubts about its policy is arrogant or foolish.

Dear Saj

Congratulations on your appointment as Health Secretary. I am glad you intend to make your main priority bringing the pandemic and the special measures it has required to an end. The great success of the vaccines and the vaccination programme make that possible soon.

I have been working on a number of suggestions helpful to combatting and treating the virus, and to seeing off future pandemics which I have put to your predecessor, other Ministers and senior officials. I would be grateful for your thoughts on progress with them.

1. Drug trials of drugs that may have therapeutic value in treating CV 19. After a relatively early breakthrough with dexamethasone, there was a long delay before reaching a positive conclusion on Regeneron. We are still awaiting more news on ivermectin, vitamins C and D and other established drugs.
2.The use of intense UV light cleaners with suitable safety precautions as a means of disinfecting health settings against the virus.
3. The modification of air flow systems in health buildings to ensure early extraction of virus bearing air to cut cross infections in a General hospitals or care homes
4. Improved protocols for the discharge of patients from hospitals to control transmission of infections
5. Designation of some hospitals in populous areas as pandemic hospitals and others as non CV 19 hospitals to make greater use of isolation to cut cross infection

I am also keen to see progress with the restoration of non covid work in hospitals, where there seems to be a substantial variation in rates of non covid work now being achieved.

With best wishes to you in this important new task.

John

The airwaves are alight with the demands of anti Brexit MPs and commentators to let more economic migrants into the UK to take low paid jobs in hospitality, care, agriculture and other sectors that got used to a steady stream of eastern European migrants to carry out the less skilled work. We are told of shortages of people to pick crops, serve in cafes and clean care homes. At least it provides a welcome refutation of all those anti Brexit forecasts of mass unemployment we used to get.

One of my main motivations coming into politics was to promote prosperity and wider ownership for the many. I have always sought to propose and support policies which would help more people find better paid work and to acquire a home and savings of their own. I do not like the cheap labour model. I have also recognised that we cannot simply legislate for everyone to be better paid. Each person who wants higher pay has to go on a personal journey, acquiring skills, experience, qualifications that justify the higher income. Every company and government department has to go on a journey to help promote higher productivity to provide the higher pay people rightly aspire to. One of the crucial debates in the referendum was the debate about free movement and low pay, with Brexiteers saying they wished to cut the flow of people accepting low pay from abroad, to help raise pay here at home and promote more people already legally here into better paid jobs.

Just inviting in hundreds of thousands of people from lower income countries in the EU is not a good model for them or us. Many of them live in poor conditions and sacrifice to send cash back to their wider families. They may not be able to go on a journey themselves to something better. It may work for the farm or business by keeping labour costs down, but only at the expense of pushing the true cost more onto taxpayers. Low paid employees may well qualify for benefit top ups for housing, Council Tax and general living costs which the state pays for. Each new person arriving needs GP and hospital provision in case of illness or accident. They need school places if they bring a family with them. They need a range of other public services from transport and roads to policing and refuse collection. The country has had to play catch up in many of these areas given the large numbers of people who have joined us in recent years. The EU once suggested a figure of Euro 250,000 was needed for first year set up costs for a new arrival. The biggest cost is of course the provision of housing where the state plays a big role for those on low incomes. The need to build so many more homes creates unwelcome political tensions in communities facing concrete over the greenfields.

There is also in practice a cost to the businesses they work for and a loss to the wider development of the economy. If a business has easy access to low paid labour it will put off looking at ways at automating or providing more computer or machine support to employees to raise their productivity. If farms find cheap pickers they do not provide the same support and demand for smart picking aids or machines. We live in a period of digital turbulence, when artificial intelligence, robotics and digital processing of data and messages are transforming so much. Harnessing more of these ideas could both power greater technological development and associated businesses here in the UK and could boost productivity and therefore potential wages in the businesses they serve.

The UK and the EU has spent the last two decades leaving much of the digital and robotic revolution to the USA. It is time to catch up. Successful harnessing of it will spawn more new large companies and offer the chance of higher pay from higher productivity.

(First published on Conservative Home)

There is a big divide in our society about people who cross the Channel by small boat to gain entry to the U.K. Some presume these people are asylum seekers or economic migrants from poor countries that we should help. Others are angry that the U.K. spends its resources on picking them up from the Channel and the placing them in accommodation with free board allowing them plenty of time to try to establish eventual legal entry. They point out these people cannot be asylum seekers as they are coming from France, which is a safe country. The migrants themselves are often frustrated that they are detained and not allowed to work whilst legal processes grind on.

Opponents say why cannot we return them, having made clear they are breaking the law by seeking passage without permission. They have often given substantial sums to criminal gangs to help them reach our shores, and have risked themselves and their families in unsuitable and overloaded boats. They have sought to cross on of the world’s busiest shipping lanes in very vulnerable vessels. They must have calculated the U.K. will rush to their assistance because they and the people smugglers have chosen to put them at risk.

Supporters of the arrivals say we have a duty to rescue people from their own deliberate mistakes, and should show sympathy for people who are so keen to join us.

I would hope most could come to agree that people putting themselves at risk like this is undesirable, and devoting so much sea patrol and rescue resource to this dangerous criminal Business unsatisfactory. The Home Secretary has promised new clearer law in the U.K. and a more united effort to crack the smuggling gangs and put them out of business. It should be an aim which unites most of us. I believe the Home Secretary wishes to do this, but has found the current law unhelpful for the task and is looking to amend it. She has also initiated an enquiry into the recent actions of Border Force in going into French waters to pick people up, when the French should have taken them back to safety in France.

There is a part of the UK establishment that is always keen to belittle and run the UK down, claiming we are small and unimportant now we have left the EU. They ignore the facts that we are the second biggest contributor to NATO, a member of the UN security Council, the fifth largest world economy, a member of the G7 and the Commonwealth, and an important influence on world events. This autumn sees the UK chairing the COP 26 Climate conference, shortly after we chaired the G7.

There is however one important area where I agree with them that we are small and not very important, and that is in the list of countries and regions that put out the most carbon dioxide. Ironically here the establishment seem to think it is the UK that has to do so much more, when all the figures show attention needs to be focussed on the Big three carbon generators, China, the USA and the EU. Between them they account for 52% of the world output compared to our 1%. In other words if the UK eliminated all its carbon dioxide output it would have the same effect on world figures as the Big 3 cutting their output by just 2%.

China is still saying she intends to increase her massive carbon output further this decade before finding some ways to start to curb it. China needs to be challenged on her large and growing output. At 29% of world CO2 she is by far and away the biggest single source. If the UK eliminated all its CO2 that would not fully offset one recent year’s growth in output by China. The USA has just experienced four years under a President dedicated to increasing US output and use of cheap fossil fuel energy. He successfully boosted US output of oil and gas to help power an industrial renaissance by onshoring investments that had gone abroad and expanding US output. The new President thinks this was a wrong policy but has yet to announce the ways in which he intends to redirect US activities. We await a detailed plan with timetables on how to get US people out of their internal combustion engines cars, eating less meat and putting in electric heating. The EU too has a similar issue. Germany remains wedded to a major car industry which largely sells diesel and petrol vehicles. The country burns a lot of coal and says it intends to keep coal in its power mix at least until 2035. How is this compatible with the EU’s aims? The EU is around one tenth of world carbon dioxide production.

As Chairman of the Conference the UK needs to challenge the USA and EU to produce timely and convincing plans of how they will achieve demanding targets as early as 2030 as it is difficult to see them hitting them on current policy. All major participants need to see that if they do not get a much better offer from China and other leading emerging market countries world emissions will continue to grow. It is not fair to close down our industries and power stations whilst others carry on churning out the CO2.

The European Movement still will not accept the result of a big democratic vote. They have sent me and doubtless many others a glossy brochure designed to show what they see as the bad news of Brexit. They urge us “to build back our ties with the rest of Europe”, code no doubt for trying to rejoin. Had remain won I suspect they would have used such a win to justify every federal scheme and every further removal of power from the UK which the EU has in mind.

So what are their latest quibbles? Gone are the absurdly wrong forecasts of a house price collapse, a jobs collapse, a GDP collapse as the UK looks forward to its best year of growth for a long time now at last it is out. Instead of a jobs collapse the UK discovers it is short of people for all the jobs that are being created. They still want us to try to re enter the Erasmus scheme instead of backing the new UK scheme which will help many more UK students. They bemoan a loss of certain EU monies, when the UK has promised to spend more than we were getting under EU rules. They are worried about rights of refugees and of EU citizens settled here, yet this has all been taken care of.They are right to highlight problems with fishing and Northern Ireland, but these of course stem from having an Agreement with the EU instead of running our own affairs. They should blame their EU for those troubles.

When people ask me what have been the wins so far, I say the biggest win is the right of our country to decide for itself what to raise in tax, what to spend, what to pass into law, who to negotiate Treaties with and how to contribute to the great causes of prosperity and democracy worldwide. It is true that many of these freedoms have not yet been used. Much opportunity lies ahead, as a Brexit public seeks to educate an anti Brexit establishment into the joys and advantages of making our own decisions and making government accountable directly to us through elections in a way Commissioners never were. There are so many areas where we can do better now we are free to do it our way,which I have often set out here.

We have already seen the big advantage of attracting our own vaccine solutions and production capabilities, drawing on the excellence of UK science. We will create Free Trade Agreements with Australia, New Zealand and the TPP as well as keeping all the FTAs we and the EU held jointly. We have detached ourselves from the pressures to join the Euro or to send ever bigger transfer payments to relatively rich countries on the continent.

Dear Grant,

I am glad the railway has considered the issue of season tickets and discounts in a new era of flexible working where many full time employees will become part time in the office . I raised this early in the pandemic with Ministers and the industry.

The response of a 15% discount for eight tickets a month is disappointing and inflexible. It is in the railway’s interest to encourage more use of the excessive  capacity it currently provides. No one can be sure they want just eight returns a month.

The model to adopt should be a rising discount model. The more you travel your chosen route the cheaper the extra journey should become. The accumulating discount could be a quarterly system, or a longer or shorter period. The first time you went to the office it would be full fare. The second time there would be a small discount, with a progressively higher discount. Frequent  users would end up paying  perhaps just a 20% fare for an additional journey.

This would give most of the advantages of the season ticket which allows additional journeys over the basic five returns a week free, whilst always giving the railway marginal revenue from more travel. It also incentivises  travellers to go more often. If a traveller choose off peak the fare would be an off peak one. The railway will need to see if the peak changes and be ready to change peak  period pricing  to reflect travel reality.