Author: johnredwood

I have nothing original or important to say about the murder in Woolwich. I do not wish to add to the torrents of publicity and commentary in the mainstream media. I will continue to provide commentary and analysis on other topics. I would be grateful if you did not send me generalisations arising from the Woolwich crime.

Some of you think I am too tough in editing out allegations and pejorative adjectives about people in power and in the news. The latest court decision concerning Mrs Bercow’s comment on Lord Macalpine should be a warning. The case has found you can libel someone without even making an allegation, and by just asking a question. I do not edit out opinions and comments I disagree with, and do not seek the shield Conservative Ministers from robust attacks on their actions and words in public office.
I make sure I do not libel anyone with what I write. I try to help bloggers on this site by editing out anything I notice that could be libellous. I could miss something, and you will have to face the music if the person affected wishes to take action.
I would urge you all to make my life easier and give yourselves more reassurance by avoiding allegations or pejorative language. If you have evidence that someone in the news has committed a crime or behaved badly then report them to the authorities. If you have no such first hand evidence then please remember the Bercow judgement. Publishing material here can be treated as if you were publishing in a well known newspaper.

At the European Council last week worried Heads of State and government for the first time highlighted dear energy as a major impediemnt to growth and jobs in the EU. One cheer for that.

It is perhaps appropriate as we reach for warmer clothing in this wintry May that the EU’s leading politicians fall out of love with global warming theory.

It is difficult to know how they had missed the damage done by dear energy for so long. After all, they and their predecessors had merrily signed up for directive after directive, policy after policy, designed to make EU energy the dearest on the planet. What did they expect from their renewables requirements, their big plant directive, their carbon taxes and the rest? Surely they knew when they did this it would mean our energy came out a lot dearer than the US, Japan, China and the others? Some of us had been warning them for a long time that making our energy so dear did not save the planet, it just sent the industry from us to cheaper places.

Apparently someone circulated at the summit a chart showing that EU energy prices are now 37% higher than the US and 20% higher than Japan. That means we wont be making much steel, glass, ceramics and other items in furnaces and kilns in Europe. Nor is it easy for any automated factory, given the high energy costs modern equipment impose.

The problem is they are finding it difficult to turn the supertanker back from China to Europe. The rest of the summit conclusions gave more of the same energy policies based around carbon control, renewables and dearer energy prices to enforce energy saving.

All the politicians were able to do was to put into the summit conclusions the requirement that the Commissioners undertake a study of why the EU has dear energy and what can be done about it, to be completed by the end of 2013. Then the leaders will get a policy discussion in february 2014. No cheer for that. It just means more delay. Meanwhile granny feels cold and cannot afford the heating in May, and businesses decide to set up energy using factories well outside the EU.

Nick Clegg’s lecture to Conservative MPs yesterday was far from helpful. His instruction that we should stop playing games about the EU and concentrate on “boosting business, creating jobs,helping with the cost of living” is especially rich coming from a Lib Dem who has promoted policies of dear energy for years.

The Coalition rightly stated at its outset that the overriding objective was to get the deficit down. Conservatives proposed a major slimming of government itself, cutting the overhead and cost of administration. To lead this, we proposed removing 50 MP posts. Surely if we are going to tell the public sector to do more with less, we had to show that we could do that ourselves by raising MP productivity. Mr Clegg has now voted that down, showing that he and his party have no wish to provide leadership by showing how we can cut our costs.

Mr Clegg has also been the leading exponent of diverting the Coalition away from its vital tasks of curbing the deficit and promoting growth. He forced upon the Coalition the idea of an AV referendum. Conservative MPs gave him his way and voted for the referendum. The British people rightly rejected the whole idea of AV. It was a big diversion of political and government energy. It was another needless public spending cost.

Then Mr Clegg decided to divert us all by trying for his version of Lords reform. The Conservative Manifesto had said we would see if there was a consensus for some reform, recognising it could only be done with cross party agreement and with the agreement of the Lords. Mr Clegg failed to secure the Lords agreement or the agreement of Conservative backbenchers. He rejected wise advice from Lib Dem peers to reform tenure, retirement  and conditions of peers’ jobs. He instead  went for a reform which was never going to pass the Lords. It ended in tears after further diversion of political and government effort.

Conservatives who press the government on the EU do so over issues like migration and energy prices which are very relevant to the central economic task that concerns most voters. What is Mr Clegg’s excuse for his diversions from these matters?  And how does he explain his refusal to put through a major freedom bill at the start of the Parliament, when he had Conservatives egging him on to do so? Why couldn’t we have enjoyed a great package of more cvil liberties and more economic freeedoms, as part of the recovery of our nation?

This week’s statement on Syria to the Commons worried many MPs. There is little appetite for us to become more involved in the dreadful Syrian civil war. MPs are united in condemning the brutality of the current regime in Syria. Many of us are also doubtful that the UK could help were it to supply arms to people there or to make moves with the USA and others towards military intervention.

My favourite spending  cut has been to remove our troops from front line duties in Afghanistan and to get most of them home altogether. I think they have done enough. The  Afghans can now do their own patrolling. I have pleaded with Ministers to put our troops out of harm’s way where possible by discontinuing UK patrols, with fewer troops remaining for any additional training and back up the Afghans may still need.

I now find msyelf urging caution over Syria. Just who are the opposition forces we wish to help? How can we distinguish between those opposition forces who believe in liberty and democracy, and those who wish to replace one tyranny with another? How could we ensure any arms supply went just to the people we can be sure have the right intentions? How do you stop the regime taking the weapons on or after delivery? How do you distinguish between the different opponents of the regime? How do you ensure that an apparently well intentioned opponent does not come less well intentioned should he receive arms from us? How do you get the arms into the country against the wishes of the Syrian government?

Many of Syria’s neighbours are rich and well armed states. Why don’t we leave this set of problems to the Middle Eastern powers to tackle?

             Many people think their energy, water and other utility bills are too high. We have often examined the EU and UK policy background to some of the high prices, with many of you joining my criticisms of the carbon levies, renewables obligations and the rest that is pushing up our energy costs.

            There is a further problem with our utility industries that the UK still has the power to fix. There is a lack of  competition in several major areas. People claim these great utilities are natural monopolies. Government buttresses their strong market positions  with statutory protections, and they rely on Regulators to avoid high monopoly prices.

           Unfortunately the absence of competition means a lack of innovation, a complacent reliance on older methods of production and delivery, and a lack of market test on the cost base.  In order to have better industries delivering more and cheaper water, more and cheaper power, and delivering more and cheaper public transport, we need to encourage or require more competition.

            John Penrose MP has recently written an interesting paper entitled “We deserve better”. It helps us realise that there are two essentials we need to improve the performance of the large utility areas. The first is the simple ability for customers to switch easily between companies supplying water, or electricity or gas or train travel or  banking services. The second is the easy ability of a challenger business to use parts of the existing pipe or cable or clearing network to link them to customers in their early days as they build up their customer base.

                There are many good examples of pipes and cables being used as common carrier systems. The UK needs to get on with providing easier access, as the means to create more competition. Once you allow more competition you will get more  capacity and plenty of new ideas. Just look at the way mobile phones took off once we broke the BT monopoly.

          I have long argued that the government should create a new relationship with the EU. I was pleased  Mr Cameron used this phrase in his important Bloomberg speech. The businessmen who have written today to a newspaper saying it is in our economic interest to stay in the EU on current terms, as always have failed to explain why. The problems with our current membership include the high cost energy, ineffective and expensive regulations and other anti enterprise measures which adversely affect us. The EU is anti jobs, exporting them to other parts of the world by making us uncompetitive.

           To me the phrase a new relationship  means that we want to create a relationship based around the important trade the UK does with other states in the EU. We also may well need to co-operate with the neighbours, through bilateral agreements over pipelines, ferry links, air routes and all the other issues that relate to the conduct of trade and the travel of people between our islands and the continent. I leave open the possibility that we will want to undertake other matters based on mutual  political co-operation, where it makes sense for us and them and where we have a veto over whether to do it or not, just as they would also enjoy a veto.

             I do not think we can mend this broken relationship which many in the UK now find unacceptable, by a few modest treaty amendments. After all, the whole Conservative party voted No to Nice, No to Amsterdam, and No to Lisbon. The Conservative party was forced into accepting Maastricht reluctantly by a past leadership, only accepting it on the basis that we were exempted from the main points of that treaty, by refusing to join the Euro.

              I find it bizarre that the media and some other critics now make out the Conservative party is once again divided on Europe and talking  about something that matters to few people. The party I know is united behind the proposition that we need a new relationship,  and  still united around the view that at least the last three treaties and arguably more were unacceptable in surrendering  vetoes and pushing the federalist agenda.

                  In a democracy one Parliament cannot bind its successors. To recover our democracy we need to be able to reverse EU laws previous governments have adopted, and need to be able to unwind treaties we voted against at the time. Far from banging on about a minor issue, we are seeking to sort out the big issues of border control, migration, extradition, energy prices, welfare eligibility and the rest where the EU now has the power to block or amend what we want to do.

On Friday night I spoke to the annual dinner of a Conservative Association. The 80 people present included professionals, senior business executives and entrepreneurs as well as retired people who had worked hard and saved during their working years. There was little old money, some new money, and a lot of people who just take responsibility for their own lives by working and saving for their retirement.

Just as in my own constituency, I found them well informed about the political and business worlds, concerned for the future of our country, and keen to offer public service. Several of them were Councillors, and many of them wish to see improvements in their local area which will help the many. I am happy to represent people like them, and to work with them to try improve the UK’s public services and economic performance.

It is true that they think we need a new relationship with the EU, because they see directly that in many areas now the UK cannot take the action it needs to take owing to EU law and controls. It is also true that there is a range of opinions about how to tackle it, from those who just want to leave tomorrow to those who wish to negotiate a sophisticated package that  enhances trade and allows good relations on a whole range of matters with the neighbours.

I see having people like these members as a strength for any political party. They are a source of good advice as well as people who do a lot to ensure the smooth running of their local communities.