Author: johnredwood

 

 It was inevitable that the privatisation of the Royal Mail would come up on Any Questions, with the head of the CWU on the panel.  It is strange that it has become such a divisive issue, as Labour tried to do this towards the end of their period in government. They believed then that the Royal Mail needed to be able to borrow and raise money like normal companies, freed from the tighter controls that operate on public sector businesses.

             The fear of private business in the Royal Mail is particularly odd, as the Post Office itself has thousands of offices or branches which are of course private sector businesses operating under a common public franchise. No-one seems to worry about this arrangement, or demand that they be nationalised. No-one suggests this means they cannot provide a good service.  I have never had an email or letter complaining that the local sub Post Office has failed because it is private, and demanding the state  takes it over.

      Two main worries are voiced about privatisation of the Mail. The first is the private company might put up prices more. That would be difficult, given the huge increases  put through from time to time by the nationalised industry. It would also be impossible without the approval of the regulator, as these prices will be controlled in future.

       In 1997 when Labour took over government the second class stamp cost 20p. It costs a stunning 50p today, an increase of 150%. If it had risen in line with prices generally it would be just 31p. Not much sign of nationalisation helping the customer.

          The second is the false claim that it will mean the end of the comprehensive six day delivery to anywhere in the UK for the same price. This has been written into the law, so it will remain unless some future Parliament wishes to change it. Clearly this government wants to guarantee the service and has done so. It is the nationalised industry that has removed twice a day delivery and does not always give the early morning delivery that business likes.

             I am glad the employees will become shareholders. I expect motivation, quality and efficiency to improve in the private sector. It is good to know in future taxpayers will not have to pay for any losses. There have been many job losses under nationalisation.

 

           The Unions have been much in the news this week. There has been debate in the Commons about the government’s proposal that there should be some independent check on the accuracy of their membership lists used when balloting members on industrial action and other matters. There has been discussion of Mr Miliband’s  attempts to negotiate a new settlement with the Unions for the Labour  party.

           I welcome Mr Miliband’s proposal that Trade Union members should have to opt in to the Labour party political levy if they wish to do so. It will give everyone a clearer view of the true level of individual member support for Labour. It is a pity members cannot choose to opt into membership of other parties if they prefer, if the movement stays with a political levy at all. It should be up to the members to decide this matter.

            If a large number of people currently paying the political levy to Labour no longer opt to do so, the Unions will be richer and the Labour  party poorer as a result. The one advantage of the old system of the levy was it gave Labour money direct without the Union leadership deciding on the gift. Under the new system Mr Miliband will have to negotiate with or at least talk to the Union leaderships about sending him larger lump sums from the Unions themselves.

            I would be interested in your views on whether  you prefer the new system to the old, and what you think should happen about large grants from Unions to Labour. In the interests of fairness it is also important to discuss the receipt of money from rich individuals and companies, something which all 3 main parties enjoy.  Money these days mainly comes from entrepreneurial companies where the owner/Director is in effect giving his own money. Large quoted companies tend to be international, avoid making UK political donations, and understand if they wished to they would need wider shareholder support.

               I strongly favour private money from volunteers rather than state money from taxpayers to fund political parties. Clearly there have to be rules, and each party has to ensure it cannot be said to have traded policy for money. If a rich person gives money because they like a policy you have adopted and generally agree with your stance, that is fine. If a rich person says I will give the party money if it changes its policy in a way which clearly benefits the donor that is wrong and probably illegal.

 

 

On Tuesday David TC Davies held a debate on global warming and government policy in Westminster Hall.  A DECC Minister replied.

It was well attended for a debate in Westminster Hall, as an increasing number of MPs are concerned about the impact of dear energy on household budgets, industrial development and our economy generally.  Andrew Tyrie, Peter Lilley, Philip Davies and Christopher Chope who had disagreed with the Climate Change Act in 2008 were joined by some newer colleagues who spoke about the damaging impact dear energy can have on industrial jobs. Just two Labour MPs, the Minister and the front bench Labour spokeswoman defended the UK legislation and the EU framework of anti global warming measures.

Graham Stringer, a thoughtful Labour MP with a scientific background was critical of some of the so called science published on the subject of global warming. Several MPs sought to establish that there has been no global warming this century, and asked at what point the government would expect scientists to revise their models in the light of this evidence. Mr Davies pointed out that as the proponents of global warming stress climate change is a long term business, shouldn’t they show graphs going back hundreds of thousands of years and not just concentrate on the last 150 when there are better records?

The global warmists were asked if they accepted that there were plenty of other potential causes of global warming than manmade CO2, which had caused past periods of global warming? If they accepted this obvious truth, how could they be sure any recent warming was down to human CO2 and not one of these other factors. They were asked why they concentrated on CO2 and not on water vapour.

The so called “deniers” roundly rejected any idea that they denied the fact of climate change. All said they accepted the climate has changed a lot in the past and will doubtless change again in the future.  They accepted that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and can have an effect, but that in order to model and predict accurately all sorts of other influences on climate and weather need to be taken into account.  They asked why we did not adapt as and when the climate changed, as a cheaper and more effective option than trying to prevent it.

To me the most powerful part of the sceptics case was the practical one. How can  making energy especially dear in the UK/EU help, when it leads to industry shifting its jobs and processes elsewhere rather than stopping them? If there is to be no global agreement to curb man made CO2 what is the point of a relatively small producer putting itself at a massive competitive disadvantage?  The US, Japan, China and others do not accept the Kyoto process. Australia has just voted down the carbon tax. We want more and better paid jobs in manufacturing in the UK, so we need realistic energy prices.

 

 

There have now been four occasions when a Commons debate and vote has decisively changed Coalition policy and actions and one when a letter signed by 81 Conservative MPs changed the government’s approach. It shows that this Parliament is a stronger Parliament than its last few predecessors, willing to challenge and if necessary defeat the government.  We need to ask why this is happening. There are lessons for government, for Oppostion and for everyone else interested in  the evolution of our democracy.

On 24th October 2011 81 Conservatives voted for David Nuttall’s amendment seeking an EU referendum, with 19 more abstaining.  The pressure for a referendum from Conservative MPs finally resulted in the Prime Minister’s Bloomberg speech and the offer of a referendum should there be a majority Conservative government next time.

On 10 July 2012 91 Conservative MPs voted against Lords reform, in a rebellion against coalition policy led by Jesse Norman. In  August the government announced it was dropping its Lords reform Bill.

On 31 October 2012 53 Conservatives supported Mark Reckless’s amendment to cut the EU budget. Labour also voted for his amendment, and the government was defeated. The Prime Minister then successfully negotiated a reduction in the EU budget.

On 5 June 2013 Andrew Bridgen sent a letter to the Prime Minister signed by 81 Conservative MPs urging him to hold a debate and vote before making any further commitment to Syria. The Prime Minister accepted this advice.

On 29th August 2013 31 Conservatives voted against the government’s motion on Syria with Labour, defeating the government after it had in effect accepted it had no majority for military action and would not  be bringing forward a second vote to approve a  missile strike as required by the amended motion.

This pattern of rebellions against the recommended line of the whips is unusual. Firstly, the rebellions bring far more MPs to vote against the government than in previous Parliaments. Secondly, they tend to be on the really big fundamental issues. Thirdly, they are not made bitter by personal rivalries or by people seeking to become leader. Fourthly, each one has been organised by a different MP. Everyone has been organised by an MP of the 2010 intake, not some  former rival of Mr Cameron . The Syria vote did not require a leader, as there was no amendment or rival motion involved. Nick de Bois, the Secretary to the 1922 Committee and a member of the 2010 intake, was one of the more active in the media on it.  Fifthly the personnel  varies considerably depending on the issue. It’s not just a hard core of anti leadership people.   Sixthly, the 2010 intake, whipped more energetically than more experienced MPs, is usually half the rebellion, reflecting their proportion of Conservative MPs overall.

I think much of this behaviour can be put down to the coalition. Too many talented Conservative MPs are free to think their own thoughts. They think the coalition has not pushed through enough Conservative measures and they remain truer to the Conservative Manifesto they fought on. The EU is the biggest source of disagreement, as most Conservative MPs want a new relationship with the EU as soon as  possible, and deeply resent the continuing increase in EU powers and laws, as more Directives and court judgements rain down on us.

The Syrian motion brought out some surpising rebels. Fiona Bruce, Tracey Crouch, Anne Marie Morris, Phillip Lee would not be head of most people’s lists of likely rebels.  When  usually loyal representatives of the middle of the Conservative party feel they have to help vote down the government, it should be time for a rethink on how whipping works and policy is formed and approved.

The modern Conservative party wants its Ministers and leaders to work with it, to persuade, to listen, to discuss. Most sensible MPs know that if MPs treat every vote as a free vote and object to anything that might be unpopular, you end up with anarchy. The party which opposed the Syrian war strongly, has given the governemnt good majorities so far for the Lobbying Bill, even though there are criticisms of it flying from both sides.

Anyone wishing to get a measure through this Parliament has to remember the arithmetic. If the coalition speaks for both its parties, they have a good  majority. If coalition ministers agree with Labour’s line they have a majority, regardless of Conservative backbenchers. If  Labour votes with rebel Conservative backbenchers on a measure Conservative MPs do n ot regard as sensible, they have the majority, as the larger rebellions see more than 50 Conservatives in disagreement with the government.

 

 

When Mr Kerry let slip that putting the chemical weapons out of use could prevent a US military strike, the Russians went into overdrive. They made a proposal to Syria to put their chemical arsenal under new supervision. Syria has a made a positive response to the  idea. We n ow learn that Mr Obama had also discussed this with Mr Putin at the G20.

I would urge the President and his Secretary of State to take this offer seriously, and sit down and discuss what it means,  and how it might be implemented.  The rest of the world will not be pleased if an apparently fair offer to deal with the issue that the US has highlighted is not properly examined.

Of course the US can  seek proper guarantees and assurances.  The UN might wish to make an independent and useful contribution, seeking to find a way forward which reassures all who do not wish to see chemical weapons in use that the Assad regime’s stockpiles cannot in future be used in this conflict.

It may be difficult to resolve this offer fully before the vote in Congress. It is a complication over the debate and vote. As the US administration says it sole concern prompting military action is the future use of chemical weapons, any sensible Congressman or woman would want this offer to be fully explored before thinking of  military action.  It argues for delay to the vote, or argues for a  conditional vote  in Congress, with Congress considering  later military action if the latest diplomatic initiative does not produce a negotiated settlement of the chemical weapons issue.

Meanwhile the Congress also needs to weigh the heavy news from Syria  concerning some rebel attacks on Christian settlements.The BBC has highlighted the plight of the Christians driven out of Maaloula,  reminding us that not all the anti Assad forces are benign democrats.