Author: johnredwood

The unexpected reform in the Chancellor’s speech to the Conservative conference was his proposal on business rates. He has offered to local government the transfer of all business rate revenue. This £26 billion a year would replace all the current grant income Councils receive from central government.

The reform will be complex. In order to make it work the Treasury will need to identify additional spending areas to transfer to local government, as business rate revenue exceeds grants. These will need to be agreed with Councils and the necessary arrangements put in place for them to run this extra spending.

The Treasury will wish to keep an overall limit on the level of business rates. They were transferred to central government for that very reason, to prevent local Councils trying to extract too much from business, which can work in the short term but creates longer term problems as business leaves a high tax area or fails to come to invest there.

The Treasury will also need to provide a means of sending some of the business rate money collected in a successful and prosperous area to poorer parts of the country. The City of London is the most extreme example, with a huge business rate income but few overnight residents to spend the tax on. As now there will need to be some formula for evening out the money, and a  new mechanism to claw it back from Councils in receipt of it.

Areas with elected Mayors will be able to increase the tax for better infrastructure. This power will need careful use, as business is more worried in the short term by the level of the tax than by what the tax will be spent on.

Andy Burnham says the government is wrong to tell landlords not to let property to illegal immigrants.  He thinks landlords should let property to whoever asks to rent, for fear of showing discrimination.

I have owned my own home for most of my adult lifetime, and I do not have a property to let out. I wish to see property to rent, at sensible prices, kept in good repair and made available to any UK legal resident who needs it. By the same reasoning I want to see tenants look after the property they rent, pay their rent on time, and stick to tenancy agreements. It takes a decent landlord and a co-operative tenant to have a good relationship.

Problems arise if either side violates these principles. Bad landlords overcharge on the rent and service charges. They may  fail to maintain the property, might  allow in other tenants who interfere with the neighbours’ peaceful enjoyment of their rented home, could  overcrowd properties, and sometimes terminate tenancy agreements unreasonably or pressurise tenants into leaving. Bad tenants fail to pay their rent on time, may build up arrears, can leave without notice, some damage the property, and or prove to be bad neighbours.

MPs often   receive more complaints and problems to sort out with the minority of properties that are rented  than the majority that are owner occupied. Parliament provides a legal framework to try to regulate the conduct of b0th parties to a tenancy agreement. The state often stands behind the tenant with Housing benefit and other financial support to make it possible for them to afford the rents. The law tries to protect tenants from bad landlords who fail to maintain their properties or to offer the security of tenure the law requires.

Landlords are currently unhappy about tax changes affecting the eligibility of interest on rental properties they have bought with borrowed money. Asking landlords to help police our borders by requiring them to ensure a tenant is a legal resident in the UK to many makes sense. Some will worry with Andy Burnham about discrimination. Others will worry that it is another imposition on landlords that makes  it less worthwhile at the margin to invest in rental property. What is your view?

Lord Rose lost no time in getting down to threatening us all with dire consequences if we dare to vote for freedom in the EU referendum. He said yesterday we are “stronger, safer and better off inside Europe” rather than “taking a leap into the unknown, risking our prosperity, threatening our safety and diminishing our influence in the world”.

What a depressing and absurd view of the UK. Most countries of the world trade successfully with the EU without being a member. Switzerland and Norway are the most prosperous European countries but are not members. How is leaving the EU any risk to our prosperity? They will want to sell us their goods and will come to a decent trade agreement, as they do with other non EU members. Meanwhile we will be £10 billion better off every year we are out, the money we have to send to the EU and don’t get back.

How is our safety threatened if we leave the EU? Does he have such a low view of our partners that he thinks they will undertake military activities against us? That is absurd. They are peace loving democracies that wish to have peaceful relations with us. We will stay in NATO with most of them as fellow members, with the same mutual obligations and support for each other’s defence as before. The UK leaving the EU will not trigger a western European war.

How also will our influence in the world be diminished? It will be enhanced,  because at last the UK will be free to have her own seat at the World Trade Organisation meetings and at world conferences on matters like climate change, without having to tow the EU line or be represented by an EU figure. Leaving the EU should increase our diplomatic weight and range and enable us to follow UK interests more directly.

Lord Rose needs to tell us more about the wild ride to political union the EU is embarked on. He needs to answer these crucial questions:

How far will political union go, under the 5 Presidents scheme?

How would the UK as a non Euro member avoid being dragged into the political union?

As the Euro will need far bigger transfer payments from rich to poor in the EU, how can the UK stay out of the regional and banking policies which will effect those transfers? Wont the UK be expected to pay her share of the costs of the failings of the Euro?

Why did he and his allies get  the Exchange Rate Mechanism so wrong? Does he now agree that was a European project the UK should not have joined?

Why did so many in the Stay in campaign think the UK should join the Euro ? Does he now agree it was right to stay out?

If it was right to stay out of the Euro why is also right to stay in a growing political union designed with the Euro in mind?

Lord Rose is not defending some friendly status quo that delivers us from insecurity. He wants us to stay in the EU on its wild ride to political union. He so far has refused to tell us the truth about the EU project, and seems to want to run a negative and misleading campaign. His views on encouraging more people from Eastern Europe to come here to work long hours for low wages has already brought hostile criticism from the Independent newspaper of all things, not a known lover of the UK leaving the EU.

There is little meeting of minds between the Franco German controllers of the EU and its most detached and unhelpful member, the UK.  The meeting between Mr Cameron and Mrs Merkel did its best to bridge the large and growing gap between the UK and the continent, but the truth is the political Channel has just got a lot wider.

The British people do not want to join the common borders project, do not like complete freedom of movement within the EU, and want the UK to gain more control over its borders and welfare system. They support Mr Cameron’s refusal to join a quota system for accepting new arrivals to the EU from outside. They  support his wish to reform welfare in ways which would limit access to benefits for recently arrived people from the continent.

The British people do not want to join the Euro. Even Lord Mandelson, one of the main instigators of Euro enthusiasm in the UK, now accepts the UK is not simply waiting for a more propitious time to join the project. The people who have argued the pro EU case recently against  me in debate have rushed to criticise the Euro and agree with me over its present shortcomings. As the Euro is the main part of the present EU project this places a big obstacle in the way of our friendly membership, and will mean hereafter we will always be demanding exemptions and special treatment from outside the principal centralising force.

The Prime Minister rightly argues we do not want ever closer union. The German Chancellor and the French President made clear this week that they do want ever closer union, and they want it now. They also seemed to imply that if the UK does not want it, it would be best if we left.

The UK wants fewer laws and regulations. The main method of ever closer union is for the EU to take over more and more areas of lawmaking so it has control. It is a fantasy to suppose the EU is about to halve its laws and agree to return large powers to the member states as a whole, as that cuts against the thrust of centralising to back and protect  the Euro. Promises of deregulation in a few areas have been made before, but have never materialised. Usually some figures are trotted out purporting to show some old directives and regulations have been discontinued. Usually what has happened is a far bigger and more comprehensive regulation or directive has taken the place of several smaller ones. The trend is continuously for more and  more EU law which any given member state cannot change if it wishes.

The easiest way of solving the UK problem is for both sides to agree that all we want – on both sides – is a free trade agreement, along with a range of agreements on extradition, air traffic, telecoms and other interconnections similar to those we already have and similar to those we have with non EU members. I hope that is what Mr Cameron concludes.It is the logic of his position, which has included opting out of the Fiscal Treaty, seeking to reduce the EU budget, and asking for fewer laws which have all proved contrary to the wishes of most continental governments.

In the meantime I support Vote Leave, as we do need to explain to people how being out of the current EU will be so much better than being in. Germany and France could be liberated by the absence of the UK seeking to restrain their centralising push for ever closer union. We will be free to pursue our global agenda for freer trade and better relations between states. We will also be £10 billion a year better off, or £300 per family every year we are out.

Mr Fallon has told us that he is seeking to win over more MPs to the idea that the UK should join in bombing ISIL in Syria. He tells us it makes no sense for us to bomb ISIL in Iraq, but not to bomb them if they step over the border into Syria.

There are of course two ways of dealing with this apparent anomaly. We could decide to bomb them in both places as he wishes, or we could decide to bomb them in neither. At some point war in Iraq and Syria has to give way to a peace settlement. At some point people have to lay down their arms and turn to the much maligned arts of politics to seek a way of living together. When that happens in Syria a  thug government has  to talk to terrorist opponents, and the potential moderates have to find their voices and voting support in order to  offer some solutions that are more palatable.

There are reasons why the UK has  not rushed to bomb in Syria as well as in Iraq. Mr Fallon has to recall that when the government last wanted Parliament to vote to support bombing, it was to support bombing against Assad in  the name of his opponents. I refused to do so then not   because I have any love of Assad’s brutal regime, but because I could not see a friendly democratic opposition who could rise up, win the war and offer a peaceful transition to better government. I was worried that harming Assad more could either give opportunity to extremists to take over, or might just prolong the war and bloodshed further.

Iraq and Syria are different, not least because the Iraqi government has asked us to help them by bombing ISIL, whereas Assad does not. The UK sees the Iraqi government as different in kind from the government of Syria. Legally the case is easier for Iraq than for Syria. Politically and morally the UK government is happier to help the government of Iraq than the government of Syria.

In  other ways they are similar. Both countries contain entrenched warring factions. Both have terrorist problems not just from ISIL but also from groups like Al Qaeda and Jabhat al Nusra. Both are split between Sunni and Shia groups. Both have Kurdish areas where the people want an independent state.

The best the UK could offer might be to seek to lead a very difficult initiative to get the forces and factions on the ground and the great and regional powers circling the two conflicts to sit down and discuss borders, systems of government, and who is best equipped to lead. Russia’s intervention is clearly trying to move the forces in Assad’s favour in Syria, not something the west welcomes. The longer the west delays in seeking a negotiated solution, the worse the position on the ground may become.