Author: johnredwood

 

The last few days have seen a  gripping struggle between England and Australia to win the most medals at the Commonwealth Games. For most of the time the BBC and some other media outlets have ignored this big story of the games, and have ignored many of the medal winners England has produced on main bulletins.

I am glad for Scotland, the organisers, that their team has done well and so far is fifth in overall medals won and fourth in golds. There are many individual performances in that result which produce justifiable pride.

In the main  battle for top slot, Australia have been dominant in the pool, winning 57 medals overall including 19 golds, to England’s 28 medals with 10 golds. More surprisingly Australia has also had a big victory in cycling, with 7 golds and 24 medals to England’s 5 golds and 11 medals in total.

England has had many successes. In terms of numbers of medals, it has been particularly strong in Athletics where so far it has won 11 more medals than Australia, in gymnastics, where it has 15 more medals, in Judo, with 9 more, and in shooting with 7 more.

Well done England.

 

Total medals won

 

England 149

Australia 126

Canada  76

India  55

Scotland  51

 

The UK has a long tradition of trading with the five continents of the world, of having state to state relationships with most countries, of seeking to improve understanding, communications and exchanges through substantial diplomatic activity. Much of the present day activity is designed to promote trade and cultural exchange with a large number of countries.

As a well armed member of the Security Council of the UN, with a substantial overseas aid programme, the UK also has a role in promoting and protecting the international peace and intervening against illegal seizures of power or the abuse of state force by others. The various interventions undertaken by the UK in conjunction with the US and others, often with UN support, in the Middle East in recent years have frequently proved contentious and have often been debated on this site.

We should not lose sight of the idea that foreign policy, backed by force you would rather not have to use, is in the first instance there to protect us and to advance our own country’s interests. If we look at the threats or challenges to the UK they do not primarily come from the Middle East, and they are not usually violent in nature. Many of them come from closer to home.

There are only two worrying challenges to our own family of territories – in the Falklands and in Gibraltar. It is true the Falklands did in the past involve military action to oust an Argentine invasion. Today the challenges to the British Falklands are diplomatic, based on challenges to trade, commerce, shipping and through  international fora. The challenge to Gibraltar comes from a fellow member of the EU, Spain. The issue is often used by Spain to complicate other negotiations going on about differing issues. The UK believes in the free determination of peoples. We have shown that in Scotland, offering the Scots a referendum on their national future. Gibraltar and the Falklands wish to remain with us and should be allowed to do so. If Spain wishes to show her belief in the free determination of people why does she not allow Catalonia a vote on their future? Why is Spain so keen to keep Ceuta, violating arguments she uses to advance her claim to Gibraltar?

The bigger challenges to our national interests come from EU common policies. For years the Common Fishing Policy has damaged both our fisheries and our fishing industry. The common energy policy is leaving us short of energy and pushing up energy prices in an uncompetitive way. The common policies followed in many other areas are also damaging to the UK’s interests. Many UK people dislike the common borders policy, the criminal justice policy and parts of the common foreign policy.  It is time to be thinking of these as a central preoccupation of foreign policy.

 

Ms Harman was disarmingly honest when she recently told a radio interviewer that she thinks people on middle incomes should contribute more through their taxes. So today I am looking at Labour’s various suggestions of who might pay more tax and how, inviting comment on these potential policies.

There is the Death tax, a levy on people’s estates to pay for care when elderly, which would be a surcharge on top of Inheritance Tax.

There is the homes Tax – or mansion tax – as an additional levy on dearer priced properties.

There is the idea of a higher rate of Corporation Tax on business.

There is the possibility of a Graduate Tax.

A rise in National Insurance  (a tax on jobs).

A resumption of Labour rises in  Fuel Duty.

A new tax on farms.

These taxes all represent ways of hitting those in the middle of the income scale as well as at the top. They are taxes on aspiration and hard work, taxes on achievement and prudence. Taxing business and employment more could get in the way of the jobs recovery we are now experiencing.

 

 

 

I have just had a week’s holiday and am back at work. I have asked the IT specialist who does the technical work for this site to improve the experience for posters, as I do not wish people to be told they are typing too quickly or to encounter technical restrictions.

I have also had a few complaints about not posting items. In some cases they are very long, so I leave these until I have enough time to read and consider them properly. Short postings should get posted more quickly.

In some cases delayed postings  make allegations about people or institutions that are not well based or might be difficult to prove. After consideration I may  just delete these now rather than try and edit them. That can help the poster as well as me, as most well known people these days have systems to pick up potential libels whoever writes them.  I apply this rule to anyone, offering protection to Labour, Lib Dem and UKIP representatives as well as Conservatives. I also may delete a posting where it relies mainly on a citation to someone else’s website which I have not read or do not know. It is easier for me and for other readers if you summarise what you like about some other web commentary in your response.

 

PS The problem should now be fixed – apparently automatic downloads of improved software to impede attacks on the site caused the problem and have now been amended.

PPS  I note that the cycling piece has now attracted a well above average number of replies, so those who say it was not an important issue and unworthy of attention  need to understand that others disagree.

 

The reports from Gaza and Israel in recent days have been harrowing. The US is seeking a ceasefire by both sides. This is proving difficult to agree and enforce, given the very different views of the crisis taken by the combatants. The UN too, with UK support, would like to achieve a ceasefire. There are many offers of help to broker a peace, but it will require changes of stance by both sides to end the violence and get around the table to discuss the deep rooted problems of the area.

I receive emails from supporters of the Palestinians and from supporters of Israel urging the UK to do more to create conditions for a peaceful settlement. I understand the strong feelings the current bloodshed is generating, but it is difficult to see what more the UK can do to bring about change. The advice I receive of course differs depending on which side the person writing supports.  There are limits to what foreign policy can do. People on the ground have to want to change the way things happen. The UK is stepping up its humanitarian aid in the meantime.

 

After the Coalition government was formed, but before he joined it as a Minister, Mr Boles wrote an interesting book entitled  “Which Way’s up?” At the time the press sensationalised one conclusion, that a second Conservativc-Lib Dem Coalition would be a good idea after 2010. This was a conclusion which the rest of the Conservative party did not share and was never going to be adopted as an aim.

There were, however, other surprising and more influential thoughts in the book . None more so than on the topic of migration. Here, arch moderniser Mr Boles said he had changed his mind on the subject when he became a Westminster Councillor. “I began to discover the downside of mass immigration” he wrote. “I had to help the council wrestle with the pressure on social housing from asylum seekers and other migrants” “It made it impossible for young adult children to find accommodation in the communities in which they had grown up…”  “It was  (also) plain that,for decades,  we had failed to integrate recent immigrants into our society or pass on our values to them and their children…”

He went on to say we could not afford to allow many more to join the NSH queue or require school places. He wanted more of the jobs available to go to people already settled here. He concluded “Britain needs a new immigration settlement, involving tighter controls on the number of people who can move into the UK every year (from both inside and outside the EU)….and more intensive efforts to ensure all who do settle in Britain adopt British values…”

Step by step this government is cutting the ways the system can be used or abused as Mr Boles wished. Yesterday the government announced further restrictions on access to out of work benefits for EU migrants, limiting it to three months of benefits after the first three months of receiving nothing. This follows reductions in eligibility for housing benefit. 750 bogus Colleges have been closed down. New arrivals cannot join housing lists when they arrive. Health tourism is being discouraged.

Some reading this want to go further faster with these changes. There are two main constraints. The first is EU law, which does intrude on our welfare and benefits policy and will continue to do so until we have a successful renegotiation or a vote to leave. The second is coalition with the Lib Dems who have been more reluctant to accept this is a major issue that needs tackling. Yesterday was another  step 0n a journey that many voters have said they wish to government to tread.

arrive

 

Cycling has become more popular as a means of travel as well as a leisure pursuit. In London especially there has been an explosion of bike use as many have taken to the roads to get to work or to visit friends.

The rapid increase has created safety and capacity problems on many local roads. Lorries  frequently in London warn cyclists that if they cannot see the lorries wing mirror the lorry driver cannot see them. Lorries also often have stickers on pointing out if a lorry is going to turn left undertaking it is a hazardous venture. Large buses also have problems detecting cyclists when they change lane or turn off the road they are on, sometimes leading to fatalities.

Sometimes the vehicle driver is careless or unobservant and causes the crash. Sometimes the cyclist breaks the rules by running across red lights or seeks to thread their way past slow moving or stationary traffic without thinking about their invisibility to the large vehicle driver. It often causes heated rows between cyclist and driver. Sometimes cycles weave onto and off pavements which can causes difficulties for pedestrians or surprises drivers who thought the cyclist would stay on the pavement.

So how should we handle the growing popularity of cycling? Should we seek to build more dedicated cycleways that can segregate cyclists from traffic?  Should part of the pavement be used for this where possible, also segregating the cyclist from  pedestrians? What further measures can drivers take to avoid blind spots that stop them seeing cyclists at risk? How can more drivers be tolerant and understanding of cyclists?

 

One of the struggles of our age is between the professionals who claim politics is all about responding to detailed polling, and the amateur democrats who believe politics should be about principles and judgement.

Some claim the way to “do politics” is to poll the marginal seats and the marginal voters, finding out exactly what they want to hear, or even want they want from government, and giving it to them. If you take this approach to extremes a political party that wants to win a General Election has its policy and its statements dictated by small groups of voters in highly marginal seats.

Others are high on principle but short of votes. They set out what they believe and want, and leave it to chance and to the electorate to see if they win any or enough seats.

As these  caricatures suggest, a successful party or candidate needs a bit of both. You do not win if you are unwilling to reach out beyond your core support. You are unlikely to be trusted to govern if you never compromise and merely represent a minority group of the electors. You are also unlikely to be trusted to govern if enough people think you are prepared to change your views and policies every time a poll shifts in crucial marginal constituencies.

People do expect some consistency of approach. Governing is different from crafting electoral messages. Governing well is the best way to get re elected. If you govern well much of the message takes care of itself. It still helps to have a good way of explaining what you have done and what you want to do next. Governments  also have to remember that a good record is only part of the offer. People are more interested in what you will do for them in the next Parliament than in what you have done for them in the last. If you have governed well they are more inclined to listen favourably to your offer. If you have governed badly it will be difficult to get their trust for what you want to do next.

One reason why polls often improve for a government as an election approaches is people change they way they judge. Between elections people tend to judge a government by absolute standards. Could they have done better? Could they have backed what I wanted ? Could they have avoided that mistake? As an election approaches people are reminded that it is a contest between two very human groups of people to govern. The contest is then an easier one for the government. The question shifts.  Not did they do well by absolute standards, but did they do better than the other lot?

Conservatives will win more votes from the success of the economy in generating jobs and fostering gr0wth than they will from any clever message. As always a party needs to balance its principles, its core voters, and its outreach to new voters it needs to attract. Polls are relevant background, but should not determine what the party does or says.