Author: johnredwood

 

In the run up to the European elections we will hear the oft repeated claim from UKIP that they are going to “win” the European elections. They aim to obtain the highest share of the vote of any party and therefore gain the largest minority of the UK  seats on offer through the EU’s complex system of PR. UKIP followers who love to set out their case on this site have been “warning” us of this possible outcome for many months. Today I am giving UKIP supporters a free chance to make their case.

Last summer it was revealed that our current UKIP MEPs have the worst attendance and voting record of any party in the European Parliament. Four of their MEPs turned up for less than half the votes. As Mr Nuttall said at the time ” I’ll hold my hand up, as my attendance record is flaky to say the least”. The UKIP defence has been based around the proposition that they do not think it their job to try to amend or block new EU rules by turning up and voting. They prefer to draw the pay and support staff costs to help them campaign and take up issues  around the country. UKIP also enjoy the biggest loss rate of MEPs by a long way, finding it difficult to keep people in their party once elected to office.

It would be good to hear some answers from UKIP on what we could expect if UKIP MEPs are elected in 2014.

1. Would it continue to be UKIP party policy not to try to amend or block much EU legislation, leaving the detailed work of the Parliament to others?

2. Should people wanting an MEP to represent their view in Brussels look to MEPs of the other parties, given UKIP’s view on the irrelevance and undemocratic nature of the EU?

3. Would UKIP MEPs continue to draw  salaries and allowances whilst not wishing to be participating Parliamentarians in a full sense? What will the support money to spent on?

4. How would the presence of UKIP MEPs speed the UK’s exit from the EU ?  What have the current UKIP MEPs done to speed our exit?

5. How will UKIP MEPs be whipped to ensure the elected party sticks together and delivers in relation to its manifesto?

Some UKIP supporters seem to think voting UKIP is a kind of referendum on coming out of the EU, and that more people voting UKIP makes coming out of the EU more likely. The problem with this approach is that as UKIP will poll less than 50%, if UKIP insist on saying they are the only true Eurosceptics it means commentators can use their approach to say the UK wants to stay in the current unreformed  EU. It makes more sense to recognise the Europscepticism of the Conservatives, and to accept that it will take Conservative votes in the Commons to sort this problem out.

It would also be interesting to see how many possible UKIP voters like Mr Farage’s latest policy of more immigration from the Middle East.

 

 

 

 

                Many of us awake to the sounds of the Today programme on Radio 4. It likes to think of itself as an agenda setting news and comment programme. This week we are treated to “Guest editors” who so far have served to remind us that the professional team knows a thing or two about how to construct an agenda and keep the audience engaged, even if we are shouting at the radio, annoyed  at the continuing human made global warming big government EU friendly bias of their interviews.

            Sir Tim Berners Lee is a great man whose role in the development of the internet can be recalled and celebrated in various ways. Asking him to choose the items for Today produced a turgid show based around his one main interest. The regular presenters struggled to generate dispute, varied opinions  and criticism in the interviews and selection of guests.  Eliza Manningham Buller avoided the error of filling the entire programme with stories of a secret service reluctant to have much airtime to expose itself, but ended up producing a timeless and harmless magazine of a  programme with features on house plants and actresses which added nothing to the Today tradition of tackling more serious topics.

         I will tune in for the remainder of the week in  the hope that a Guest editor with something to offer appears – and will turn off much more rapidly than usual if the present pattern persists. I long for the day that the programme contains stories like the attitude of the French to EU migration, the problem of ultra high  youth unemployment in Spain, or  the growing resentment of the Germans in the struggling Eurozone countries. I have got used to the Today diet assuming that anything European is great.

             I long for a few stories which suggest public spending is too high, not too low, that taxpayers money is being wasted,  how  the public sector could easily become more efficient, or how we could gain a few million jobs by leaving the single market. I would like some audit stories to run back over campaigns and spending plans that have been pushed through with the encouragement of Today programme guests, to see if any of them worked as planned.

            I would like to hear about all the jobs that higher taxes and higher energy prices destroy. I would like to hear from climate change “experts” in response to yesterday’s report that our wildlife flourished last summer when it at last warmed up, and that wildlife is very capable of adjusting to different temperatures.  It would also be good to hear them answer how they are getting on with their predictions of sea level rise, disappearing islands, higher temperatures and ice levels in Antarctic.

             Indeed, many of us would welcome a day or two when the Today programme conducted all its interviews from the opposite perspective they usually adopt without thinking or realising the bias implicit in most of what they do. Big government is not always best. Higher and more  taxes are not always a good thing. More government action may make things worse. Overseas aid may go to the wrong people and causes. The EU may damage our wealth. The single market may be more about laws and less about free trade. The 3 million jobs that “depend” on the EU may be a ideological myth. The climate may change in unpredictable ways, and may change for reasons other than man made CO2. Some public services might run better with fewer people and fewer levels of hierarchy, not more. Maybe people could take more responsibility for their own lives, and we could look to government less in some areas. England has a right to self expression, just as Wales and Scotland enjoy on the BBC.

             I yearn for just a few of these ancient heresies, as I think we might need some of them back.  

 

 

               Yesterday the papers splashed a long range forecast which said the UK economy would soon overtake the French in size, and by 2030 would be larger than Germany. The reasons given were the UK’s relatively low tax regime compared to the continent, a younger and growing population compared to declining and ageing populations on the continent, and our avoidance of the Euro. All that makes sense.

             However, what the forecasts and figures also reveal is the growing irrelevance of Europe to the progress of the world economy. The individual large EU economies will lose out to China, India and other emerging market countries, as they surge. According to UN population forecasts Europe’s overall population will shrink from 728 million in 2000 to 632 million by 2050. Meanwhile China’s population will grow to be more than twice that of Europe’s and India’s will be more than 2.4 times Europe’s. As India and China get bigger and as they raise their living standards and output per head, so they will come to dwarf the economic output of the main European countries.

            Mrs Merkel has wisely asked the question how can such a small part of the world’s population in Europe account for one quarter of world output and one half of world social spending? It looks as if the answer to the question on the share of world output will be answered by Europe’s share contracting over the next two decades, as the emerging economies outgrow the west. Our living standards can only remain substantially higher than those elsewhere if we continue to develop the companies, the products and services with high value added that command good prices around the world. This is going to get more difficult as the rest of the world catches up with brands and technology and as EU government does its best to undermine enterprise.

             Whilst some of the high proportion of the world’s social spending will be eroded by the same process, by growth elsewhere, it looks as if the brutal logic of the Euro will continue to put downward pressure on social spending, forcing higher retirement ages, lower pensions and meaner social benefits. That is what Mrs Merkel implied in her remarks.

            Europe will make its position worse by continuing with high energy prices, relatively high taxes, and an excess of poor regulation. EU government specialises in  the hammer of regulation to miss the nut, and will probably continue with more of the same. This will compound Europe’s difficulty in earning a good living and boosting value added and real wages. The pressures from EU government are mainly in the other direction, forcing EU companies to do less with more.

             And what of the UK?  If  the UK could cut lose from the EU’s dear energy and excessive regulation it could grow faster still. It has an advantage from being out of the Euro, and another from relatively low corporate taxes. If it added more competitive personal taxes and dug itself out of the excessive burden of so called single market regulation it could do even better. Above all it needs a more plentiful supply of cheaper energy, which is probably beneath our feet as we think about it. Lots of cheap gas would power an industrial recovery, which would add to the present recovery underway.

 

 

 

 

              David Cameron and Enoch Powell are or were very different kinds of politician. Dr Cable’s recent abuse of the Conservative party was designed to equate current Conservative  thinking on migration with the “rivers of blood” extremism of Mr Powell’s most infamous speech.  It shows a lack of respect for the Prime Minister he serves, and a lack of knowledge of Mr Powell’s general work on government and the EU.

              As always with people like Dr Cable his rude remarks are loaded with contradictions and errors. Two years ago Dr Cable was happy to sign up to a government decision to put off for another two years opening our borders fully to Bulgarians and Romanians. Why was it the case that two years ago this deed was neither damaging to our relationships with eastern European countries, nor Powell like?

               Now that Mr Cameron and Mrs May are trying to find legal ways to prevent overloading our welfare system by too many new arrivals, Dr Cable changes tack and accuses them of Powellite tendencies. They are seeking to implement the Coalition agreed policy of curbing immigration, something he signed up to at the beginning. How does he propose to hit the government’s target for reduced migration, as he disagrees with the measures needed to achieve it?   Where does he think the UK is suddenly going to get a large amount of extra public cash to provide generous public services and benefits to more new arrivals?  What is he suggesting we cut in our public budgets to make this extra cash available? One of the left of centre think tanks is already saying we do need to give more cash to local authorities likely to receive new  migrants.

                 Dr Cable is also clearly against the UK government seeking to change the EU rules to give a country like the UK more control over its own benefit system and  borders. Does he not read his emails or talk to his own constituents? I cannot believe his voters are keen on all this close EU integration that many people write to me to complain about.

 

       Thanks to all the contributors. Enjoy your day.

Sleigh Ride conjures images of Christmas, set to infectious music. It tells us “ These wonderful things are the things we remember all through our lives”. That song is part of the magic of Christmas. I always look forward to hearing local schoolchildren play it at the annual Carol concert.

On my recent visit to Bearwood School questions on the role of an MP soon became a more lively exchange about Christmas. Young eyes fired when I asked them for their view of Christmas. They all thought it was a time to be happy, to relax in the warmth of their families and to enjoy the special treats and presents that the season brings in most homes. As children get older so they learn the rhythms, traditions, words and music of Christmastide. It stays with them for the rest of their lives, though the wonder is probably brightest when it first fills a young mind.

All accept that at Christmas we should be friendly to others. We should say thank you for all those who have worked hard for us and our community. It is a time to remember service. It is also a time to extend friendship and kindness more widely. Visiting elderly neighbours or relatives who might be lonely, inviting people with no warm home to go to into our homes, ensuring young people who lack family support have presents and some cheer is all part of the tradition of the season.

I still love Christmas. Making the puddings, enjoying the turkey, decking the house, seeing the reflections of the tree lights in the bay window, exchanging presents and cards are all part of a special time. Betjeman painted a picture of Christmas that included some of his wry irreverence, but even he expressed the joy as well. “And girls in slacks remember Dad. And oafish louts remember Mum. And sleepless childrens hearts are glad. And Christmas morning bells say “Come””

I wish you and yours such a happy Christmas. Small acts of kindness, acts of love and memory are more important than the cost of the present. Christmas is a time to be generous to others in spirit, and to recognise the good in others. Let’s all try to add some magic and do something wonderful, so we will all share great memories of a Christmas well spent.