Author: johnredwood

This week Mr Hollande assured Mrs Merkel that the French local election results would make no difference to France’s economic policy despite the poor showing for his party. He confirmed that France would try to  stick to the Euro disciplines. In practice France is finding it too difficult to hit the deficit target, but apparently wants to.  Meanwhile France and Germany signed up to further joint projects to reinforce the merging of their two economies within the Eurozone and its common framework. Both of them played down the threat to the Euro from Greece, saying they wanted the experts to make more rapid progress assessing Greece’s latest policy offering, and claiming  to be relaxed about the Greek visit to Moscow.

Stories circulate  that Greece may face capital controls and suspension of bank account convertibility if things get worse, or that Greece is even planning to nationalise the Greek commercial banks and issue a parallel or new Greek currency to pay the bills. The Greek government denies these rumours and has just tabled new proposals to try to comply with some of the requests of their creditors.  It seems to me more likely that Greece and the rest of the Eurozone will cobble together a compromise, as it seems clear Mrs Merkel and Mr Hollande do not wish to see an exit of Greece from the currency. Meanwhile the ECB lend more to Greece to keep the banks going.

All this reinforces a central truth for the UK. The Euro is driving relentlessly the process of political union for its members. They will volunteer for more and more joint projects, investments and shared networks as part of a deliberate policy to blur national distinctions and make more matters truly European.They are edging towards a proper banking union, where the ECB is still financing the Greek commercial banks as they are  under pressure. They will need to make more progress in achieving common welfare and larger transfers of cash from the richer to the poorer areas. The UK wants  no part of this, and will have to battle to stay out or get out of the intrusive features of political union to support the monetary union.

I just hope enough UK people understand the urgency of all this. The Greek drama is driving events at a fast pace. The UK needs a new relationship soon to avoid being sucked into the EU political union. Last night five of the parties present either pretended there is no issue with the EU, or affected to be  relaxed about all its current policies, powers, and direction. On this issue these five parties are out of step with a majority of people in the UK. The UK needs the renegotiation and the referendum which Conservative policy offers. Polls also make clear the public  is not about to elect a government pledged to leave without negotiation and discussion with the rest of the EU.

Voters who care about self  determination and democracy here in the UK need to ask how they can best further that aim in the election.

              There are  two “truths”  retailed today by the media about the debates that need to be challenged.

                The first is that politics has changed irrevocably to a multi party model, because we saw 7 leaders in the debate! Current polls suggest that the 2 main parties now command a better combined share of the vote than they did in 2010 – around 70% compared to 65%.They also suggest that 3 of the 7 parties are likely to win just a single figure number  of seats between them, as they did in 2010. The party likely to come third, the SNP, will not attract a single vote let alone win a single seat outside Scotland which has just 9% of the seats on offer. The UK does not suddenly become a multi party democracy because of a single tv programme. The voters will decide if they want several parties involved in a government, and in recent weeks the polls have been moving more in favour of the 2 largest parties.We have had a Parliament for the last 5 years where neither major party had a majority.

                The second media myth is that the leaders of the Greens, Plaid and the SNP did a great job challenging the “austerity politics” of Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem. This is a bizarre distortion of the debate. The 3 main parties of the 2010 Parliament all clearly want more jobs, higher living standards and a bigger UK economy. The debate is about the politics of growth, and how you best speed and secure it. Based on Labour’s  crash of 2008 and other past experience, all 3 parties agree that excessive public sector debts and deficits can create recession and force spending cuts.  Labour, Lib Dem and the Conservatives are having a debate about the speed of deficit reduction, and the affordability and priorities for spending as they are all persuaded that it would not be a good idea to go the Greek route of spending and borrowing beyond your credit worthiness. They speak for most people in taking this view. All 3 parties wish to boost spending on the NHS.

                    Plaid, SNP and the Greens may well want to spend more of other people’s money, and want to borrow more. They were not put under any serious pressure last night to explain why countries that run up excessive debts usually get into serious financial trouble and end up forced to make spending cuts we have no wish to make. Nor were the parties of the left last night willing to share any work on figures which might have exposed the huge gap between what they think they can raise in extra taxes on the rich and what they wish to spend.  The fact that some Labour voters prefer the Leader of the SNPto their own leader, and some Lib Dems prefer what  the Greens said last night, is not going to make much difference come election day. The former group cannot vote SNP even if they wanted to, and the Lib Dem vote fell off a cliff in the polls a long time ago.

When the Conservatives last left office, in 1996-7, the UK started work on 195,000 new homes that year. Net migration was running at just 50,000 a year. It meant that there were additional homes to allow for new household formation, as young people left their parents’ houses, and as some people divorced.

By 2009/10, the last Labour year in government, new homes started had slumped to just 124,000. Meanwhile net migration surged to well over 250,000. The UK was not building nearly enough new homes to keep pace with the rate of entry into the country by new arrivals, let alone to keep up with the needs of young people and  those wishing to live on their own who were already settled here .

Last year new homes started reached 160,000, still well below the level needed if we are to keep up with current migration levels. Fortunately Mr Cameron has made clear his wish to take further measures to get migration down to more manageable numbers. It will be part of his renegotiation with the rest of the EU if Conservatives win the election. The parties who do not favour limiting migration in the way proposed by Mr Cameron have to explain just how many homes they would need to build, and  where they might be planning to build them. It is also difficult to see how they would be financed.

The last coalition government did take measures to control students coming to bogus colleges. More can be done to limit non EU migration by controlling the issue of permits to come and work here. The EU may well agree to changes to rules concerning the payment of top up benefits to recently arrived migrants who have not paid in to the UK system. It seems to be accepting tightening of the rules about those without work who say they are seeking work. The renegotiation will also need to include discussion of access  to benefits for those seeking unskilled jobs and low skilled jobs which might be needed by people already here.

The measures taken to ease mortgage credit, help with deposits and reward those saving for a home of their own will assist. Some worry that any measure merely fuels further price rises. The main issue rem ains bringing supply and demand for homes into better balance. It is difficult to see how you can do this without some better controls on net migration.

When I and others opposed UK military intervention in Syria, we did so in part because we did not see a side we wished to be on. We were no admirers of Assad, spun then as the demon dictator,  whom Mr Hague wanted to oust from office. We were told there were moderate opposition forces who could take over and run  a western style democratic government, if we helped them dislodge the dictator.

I read about the opposition, and met some of them when Mr Hague invited them to London. It was already clear that parts of the opposition had more in common with Al Qaeda than with western liberal style democracy. One of the dangers lay in arming the so called moderate rebels, only to see the weapons get into the hands of the terrorist rebels either by agreement or by violence.

Today we learn of the capture of Idlib by Jabhat-al-Nusra, an important part of the Syrian opposition forces but scarcely a group of pro western moderates. Syria is now split between Assad in Damascus, Al Nusra in Idlib and ISIL in Raqqa.

Meanwhile conflict has spread to Yemen, with Saudi and other Sunni forces intervening militarily against the Shia interests. Libya remains badly war torn and split into warring bands.

I do not want the UK supporting either Sunni or Shia forces in these religious wars. I do not see how we could intervene helpfully to try to settle a democratic answer to the governing problems of Iraq, Syria, Libya or Yemen. The recent conquest of Idlib is a reminder of how complex these wars are, and how well supported on the ground some of the extremist movements still are.

Most of the time Labour wrongly claims Conservatives cut spending. Maybe Labour claims are an appropriate topic on April Fool’s day.  These claims usually become more extreme and absurd at election time. I thought a few facts might help inform the debate.

Throughout the Thatcher years in office, 1979  to 1990, Labour claimed  the Conservatives  were making deep cuts. Total managed expenditure was £315bn in 1978-79, the last Labour year (in 2007-8 prices). In her last year in office spending reached £358.6bn (in 2007-8 prices). In other words real spending, spending after allowing for inflation, had risen by 14% during the Thatcher years.

John Major was also attacked for Tory cuts, though less personally than Mrs Thatcher. By the time he left government  in 1997, spending had risen to £410.8bn (2007-8 prices), a further real increase of 14.6% over his period in office. Conservatives always increased real spending on the NHS, appreciating the popularity of the free at the point of use principle behind this service.

Labour continued with real increases in spending during their time in office, boosting the rate of increase considerably  in the later years after a more prudent start.  The Coalition has increased total managed spending from £669.7bn in the last Labour year to £732 bn in 2014-15, a small real increase and a 9.4%  cash increase. The Coalition, like its Conservative and Labour predecessors, always increased the NHS in real terms.

The issue we should be debating is not the quantity of money overall, but what we get for the money we do spend. Instead of having endless debates about how much real increase there has been, and who might offer the larger increase, we need debates about who can get best value for the money we spend. The debates should be more  about what public service  we want, not how much do we want to spend. When you go out to buy things for yourself you do not insist on spending up to budget, or insist on a real terms increase in your spending. You try to buy what you want for the lowest price, and are pleased if you get something better for less.