Author: johnredwood

By request I am republishing my May 2016 speech

Is this a puppet Parliament?
Or does it have within it the ability to take back control?
Is this puppet Parliament to remain a mere cipher for Brussels?
Or can it take back control to make our own laws and levy our taxes?

Was not this once great Parliament founded on the principle that there should be just laws
And redress of grievances before we grant taxation to government?
Was it not founded on the very principle that those who pay the taxes should have a vote and a voice over how they are imposed?
Was not this the principle that led to the foundation of the world’s greatest democracy, the United States of America,
Taking British ideas and adopting them in a neglected colony where we had foolishly ignored the public will?

Has this Parliament no collective memory?
Has it no understanding of the underpinnings of democracy?
Has it no shame?
Has it no sense of the struggles of those who went before us to establish our democratic rights?
Can they be so easily, needlessly and foolishly swept aside?

Are there no Hampdens and Miltons on the Labour front bench?
Is there no Cromwell who guiltless of our country’s blood
Can with words and votes cast off this monstrous EU intrusion on our democracy?

The Labour front bench are but marionettes, dancing to the tune of Brussels.
Many government Ministers are but players in a drama scripted and written by the EU.

This lackey Parliament tamely puts through law after law required by the EU.
The civil service instructs Ministers to implement every Court decision, regulation and directive.
Most UK governments decline to oppose things in Brussels we do not want, for fear of losing the vote.
Most UK governments seek to disguise how much power has gone.
They try to suppress debate and minimise fuss
So they use this Parliament to rubber stamp decisions made elsewhere.

Today the government accepts an amendment to the Gracious speech to stand up for the UK’s NHS
We were forced to move this because the EU does not share with us the details of the trade agreement negotiations
Why can’t this Parliament debate the terms and mandate the government?
Because these matters are initiated by unelected Commissioners
They escape proper supervision by 28 countries who disagree about what the Trade Treaty should say

Today we debate the dreadful pressures on our public services.
The Conservatives in the last general Election promised to reduce the demand by controlling migrant numbers.
How can we do this inside the EU?

To pay for our public services we need more revenue from taxation.
Where in this Gracious Speech is the measure to stop the loss of corporation tax revenue?
In the last parliament the UK had to repay companies more than £7bn of tax levied thanks to European court cases we lost.
The government forecast yet another £7bn loss this Parliament from more defeats by the EU.

You might have though the modern Labour party would show some solidarity with its sister party Syriza in Greece.
It might lift a voice if not more against the relentless and destructive austerity policies forced on that poor country.
You might have expected a demonstration or two over the mass unemployment of young people in Spain, Portugal and southern Italy.

But no. Because they are promulgated in the name of the EU the Labour front bench judge it prudent to keep quiet
To not rock the boat, to allow it go on.

I have at times in recent years think we happy band of brothers and sisters seeking to restore Uk democracy
Are fighting the English civil war again without the muskets
Just as they had to face down an unaccountable King
Taxing in ways that were unpopular, and promulgating unacceptable laws
So today we find ourselves having to fulminate against Brussels taxes
And EU laws many in our country do not want.

Will the people now speak?
Will they bring an end to this puppet Parliament?
Will they reveal the sham show. The pretend Parliament
Which strut on the stage as if in charge
But has long since given far too much power away,
The power to tax, the power to decide welfare, the power to control our own borders, the power to handle our own criminal justice system.
This is no Parliament
This is but a side show
A pale imitation of the real thing
A masque, a stooge, a lackey of the European sovereign

2017 can be a year of new beginnings on both sides of the Atlantic. The Brexit vote in the UK and the election of a new President in the USA offers  great opportunity. Between us we can promote prosperity. Faster growth, more and better paid jobs and more investment should be the watchwords in London and Washington.

The UK can develop a new foreign policy as we leave the EU. The Prime Minister has set out her wish for the UK to be a leader of free trade worldwide. That should mean we turn our backs on military interventions that can prolong or intensify civil wars and work with the new US Administration to reduce conflict and reduce tensions with Russia and Iran. I doubt that a negotiated lasting peace for all  is in sight in the troubled Middle East,but 2017 begins with a fragile truce in Syria which could be extended. 2017 could at least see the West recognise that past military engagements and regime changes have not helped stabilise the region. Everything the West does should be designed to ease the killings and help rebuild the shattered economies of the war torn countries. Many Middle Eastern countries may not be ready to settle all their disputes in the ballot box as we would recommend, but at least we can encourage them to choose jaw jaw over war war more 0ften.

The UK can also develop a new domestic policy based on generating more better paid jobs, promoting more home ownership and assisting with improvements to education and training. Welfare reform is now seeking to help the disabled into employment, and prison reform needs to concentrate on reducing re offending and equipping prisoners for regular jobs. Not all of this will be new, but it will be aided by reflationary policies in the USA. If Mr Trump goes ahead with major tax cuts and tax reform it will be even more important than the UK does something similar to keep us competitive. The UK too needs tax reform and lower tax rates on work, enterprise and investment.

I wish you all a great New Year celebration, and a successful and prosperous New Year.

 

 

 

 

I was pleased to see Yesterday  Michael Gove put out a statement saying the EU referendum was like the civil war without the muskets.

I agree. My puppet Parliament speech on 24th May published here used just such a phrase to explain we were fighting democratically for our independence.

The outgoing President is using executive (alias prerogative) powers to try to stop many of the main changes Mr Trump wants to make to US policy. He has excelled himself with his intervention with Russia at the very moment Russia brokers a ceasefire in Syria without the US being involved. If he wanted to stand up to Russia he could have chosen a more appropriate time and Russian action to oppose. He is also out to stop cheaper energy and the development of the  US industry.

 

Imagine the outrage of the establishment if it had been an outgoing President Trump using executive powers in this way. It looks like the swan song of a President who messed up his policy in the Middle  East and was outwitted by Russia most of the time. After years dithering Mr Obama at last knows what he wants to do -thwart his successor.

Like many I was fed up with what the elites of Europe and the USA were serving up during 2016. I was unhappy with the policy of half hearted and erratic military interventions in a war torn Middle East. I was hostile to the austerity policies of the EU, creating mass youth unemployment in many parts of the Eurozone and leaving much of the continent  mired in slow growth or no growth. I disliked the way the UK was dragged into many of the EU policies that were hostile to growth, enterprise and expansion.

2016 for me turned out to be a year which has made so much possible for 2017. It was a year of sharp transition, starting with a Conservative victory in the UK General election, spreading to the Leave vote in the referendum and ending with Mr Trump’s victory in the USA. As yet we have little to show for these momentous decisions by the voters. Next year will see how the change we want pans out. Voters could not have been clearer. We want change.

My main memory of 2016 will be debating endlessly with members of the economic and business establishment, who were united in their disbelief at the attitudes of voters. So many of them could see no alternative to the austerity policies of the Euro, to the military policies pursued for more than a decade in the Middle East, or to the continuing squeeze of the commercial banks which kept growth sluggish at best. They were above all lost in incomprehension about why so many people did not believe their forecasts or their remedies, and why so many of us were so frustrated at the tyranny of their conventional wisdom.

The architects of the Exchange Rate Mechanism collapse and recession did not apologise and learn enough from their mistakes. The architects of the commercial banking collapse amongst the Central Banks and Treasuries of the West did not understand their culpability for the Great Recession, nor did they learn the right lessons from their mistakes. The western co-architects of the Iraq war, the Libyan splintering, the troubles of Afghanistan did not learn from their experiences or come up with a better formula for Syria.

Instead the EU and US elites banded together to lecture the Netherlands on how to vote about Ukraine, the UK on how to vote about Brexit, the US on how to vote down Trump and the Italians on how to back a constitutional reform designed to buttress the government. The people saw through them, and made their feelings clear. That is why I am full of hope for 2017. If the elite cannot learn from past mistakes, it is time for new direction and new people in power.

 

The latest Asda discretionary income tracker shows continuing good growth in average spending power, despite the recent rise in oil prices and the knock on effects to fuel. Food, clothing and other essentials still show little or no overall inflation, whilst incomes after tax are rising. So far there has been no squeeze on real incomes from a lower pound in the way so many forecasters predicted would happen this winter.

A successful government needs a vision. It also needs to decide which are the main steps it should  take to show progress towards its vision. It can only fight a limited number of battles during a Parliament. It needs to be mindful of the need to keep a majority in the Commons, which usually means not alienating the majority party. When you have a small majority there are even fewer you can afford to alienate. It needs  to keep enough public opinion on side for the specifics as well as for the broader aims. If a good majority of the public buy into the aims, the government has a  bit more leeway over the unpopularity of any particular measure needed to pursue the vision. A government can survive rebellions on its own backbenches where it can attract support from other parties or where the opposition is not united in exploiting the weakness of the governing party.

Some of the individual steps Margaret Thatcher took, like the abolition of the GLC, employment  legislation, the handling of  strikes and the disposition of budgets were highly contentious. Nonetheless she won three elections in a row, with levels of voter support more recent governments have been unable to achieve or sustain. The general strategy of promoting growth, individual responsibility and enterprise, and restoring the reputation of the UK at home and abroad was well supported overall. People said “We know where we stand with her” whether they liked her or not. Government policy was sufficiently predictable and consistent for many to want to follow it and for its opponents to know exactly what they did not like and what they were up against. You could work out many of the detailed policies from understanding the principles behind the strategy, without knowing the detail in advance.

Theresa May has been very clear about her high level vision. She wants to govern in the interests of all, especially raising the living standards of those who work hard but are not well off. She also has stated clearly that she will lead the UK out of the EU in a timely way, commencing with a formal letter of departure before the  end of March 2017. Her aims in the discussions that follow are equally clear. She will take back control of our laws, our borders and our money. She will offer and seek tariff free access to each other’s markets.

All this is vision enough. It is clearer and less divisive than the Coalition’s rhetoric about getting the deficit down and accepting austerity as a necessity for recovery. The issue is, how many steps can be taken for reform, in pursuit of a higher earning, wealthier independent UK?

As always there are plenty of other important topics that government has to deal with that are not central to the overriding aims. Jeremy Hunt wishes to press on with  his transparency revolution in the NHS, seeking to raise standards by greater openness in reporting results and mistakes.  Many want reform of social care, as frustrations grow with the lack of provision in some local authority areas. The government  is keen like its predecessor to make big changes in mental health care. The prisons are crying out for reform. The great welfare revolution with the introduction of universal credit is still incomplete.  Leaving the EU will require new agriculture and fishing policies.

2017 should be a time for the government to concentrate on its two main strategies. The sooner the EU issue is resolved the better. It will reduce uncertainties and boost confidence if it can be done quickly. The new industrial strategy, appropriate tax changes, and other measures to boost productivity, output and therefore  jobs and wages are needed by the Spring budget at the latest. Carry out the first aim and make good progress with the second is the sensible approach, to buy the right for the other reforms that may follow.

The SNP government’s tortured prose stumbled over the contradictions in their position. Maintaining full membership of the EU single market they see as crucial, but  the UK single market is even more important yet they want to leave the UK. They assume they would get full access rights to the rest of the UK market, but that of course in their ideal world would depend on the EU’s arrangements with the UK, not on them. They are happy to put at risk their membership of the market that matters four times as much to them as the EU single market, but not the EU single market. If the EU refuses tariff free trade to the UK, then an ” independent” Scotland staying in the EU has to accept the EU decision.

Even more bizarre is they do not want the UK to get powers back from Brussels which could then be devolved as appropriate to Scotland, but do think the rest of the UK should be willing to devolve even more power to Scotland to allow it to stay in the EU when we leave!

The truth is simple. Scotland voted to stay in the UK. The UK voted to leave the EU. When we leave the EU  major powers of self government will be returned to the UK from the EU. At that point there will of course be a decision to be made about which of these new powers should and can be devolved to Scotland. The rest of the UK will be more sympathetic to any Scottish case to delegate more if Scotland has helped the process of repatriating these powers. If Scotland persists in trying to make Brexit more difficult, it is speaking against more devolution for Scotland. Every power Scotland wishes to concede or leave with the EU in the forthcoming negotiation is a power we cannot share with Scotland, because neither government will possess it.

As I have remarked before, the SNP do not want an independent Scotland. They want a Scotland using the pound, sharing a Head of state with the rest of the UK, having border free access to the rest of the UK, with much of their law being made in the EU. They are truly muddled and not a proper independence movement.As someone who is happy for the Union of the UK to continue, I would find it easier to understand a movement which wanted Scotland out of the UK and out of the EU, with its own currency, Head of State and the rest.

People have often written in to thie site to complain about possible voter fraud. I am pleased to see the various representations made to the government about this has led to today’s announcement of pilots in 2018 of requiring voter ID proof in the local elections  as a prelude for the 2020 General Election.