Category: Blog

Let me say something you would expect a Conservative to say. If some one is guilty of a crime of violence they should be put in prison. Prison is there to protect the public from future violence, to act as a deterrent to others and to punish the criminal.

Let me now say two things you might not expect a Conservative to say. Prison does not work very well. We send too many people to prison.

I was pleased this week to read the Conservative document looking at how the rate of re-offending might be brought down, and how a future government would want to reduce the rate of increase in the number of prisoners. The government is now suggesting there could be a further growth of a quarter in the prison population by 2020, taking it to 100,000. The Conservatives would like to get it below that for the best of reasons – by reducing the amount of serious crime.

The truth is that half of all crime is committed by previous offenders. All too many people in prison are sad or mad – the simply bad are often in the minority. There is a high prevalence of people who cannot read and write to an employable standard, people who are on drugs or heavy drink, people who have disturbed personalities and find adjustment to civil society difficult or impossible. Conservatives propose much more emphasis on rehabilitation, working to get people off drugs in prison rather than allowing prisons to be places where more pick up the habit; working to teach the prisoners skills they need to hold down a job and run a more normal life out of prison. The prison and Rehabilitation Trusts would get more funding if they succeeded in returning prisoners to civilian life without re-offending.

It is worrying that all too many prisoners leave prison with no home to go to, and with no great help to find a place to live or a job to pay the rent. To some prison is the least bad option, providing heating and meals each day. Others leave still with a drug or drink habit, making it impossible for them to hold a job and with an expensive habit they have to feed. They are bound to offend again and likely to be caught again.

I am all for trying new ways of rehabilitation. I also like the idea of a minimum sentence and a maximum sentence for each prisoner, laid down by the court, where the prisoner has to earn the shorter sentence by demonstrating that he will be able to fend for himself legally when he leaves as well as showing good behaviour inside.

I also think we should look at other ways of reducing the prison population. More than 10,000 out of the 80,000 in our prisons at any given time are foreigners. We should have a policy of returning many more offenders to their home country when they have been found guilty. Both parties are now looking at this for the minority that come from non EU countries. Surely we should do the same for the majority who come from EU nations? I was never happy about the loss of partial control of our borders that this government signed up to. Isn’t it time to renegotiate this item , or to put in place arrangements which allow us to cut this unwelcome pressure on our prisons?

Maybe we should also look at the question of financial crimes that do not involve violence or the threat of violence against people. I have no wish to create a class divide: violent rich people should have to suffer prison like violent poor people, but maybe both poor and rich thieves, whether thieving by stealing a car or getting up to something illegal in accounts should on a first offence have financial penalties. Why not make them pay financial compensation to their victims, strip them of the profits of crime, and make them pay the police and court costs? As someone who was burgled years ago before I put in proper security I would have liked the criminal to have been found and to have bought me new replacements of what I had lost. I did not feel it essential to send him to prison. In practise, I was not told he was ever found so probably nothing happened. Thieves are clearly motivated by the wish to have more money or better things, so a financial punishment would suit the crime. Putting a petty car or TV thief in prison may turn him to a life of crime, as it will prevent or break his links with the world of work and family that provide some stability to most people’s lives.

I would be interested in your thoughts about prison. No-one looking at the big increase in numbers, and the poor record on re-offending can be happy with the current position. It is time for some new thinking.

Yesterday was another bad day at the office. Labour voted down a referendum on the EU Treaty, breaking their election promise. The Lib Dems made themselves look ridiculous. Three of their top team resigned by breaking a three line whip to abstain! The very Lib Dems who walked out in juvenile protest when we were debating the Treaty sat petulantly in their seats watching their own car crash as the rest of us voted.

Labour this morning have clearly decided they are now so steeped in denying the public what they want that they will now press ahead with ID Cards. Everywhere we hear the smack of autocracy, as an out of touch government continues its battle against the British people and their liberties.

The fight for a referendum now goes to the Lords. There the Lib Dems will probably revolt again, but in order to vote against the very referendum their MPs offered to get elected in order to get through the Election in 2005. If Nick Clegg thinks yesterday was a bad day, he should cheer up. It might look like a golden age for his leadership when his peers split in order to prevent the British people having a vote on the Treaty.

The visceral hatred of democracy and liberty emenating from the government is now nauseating. David Miliband gave a dreadful performance yesterday, unwilling to admit how much power is passing to the EU, and unable to explain why that would be a good thing. Labour is now talking to itself. No one else believes their absurd misrepresentations. Now today it is the Home Secretary’s turn to spin for Gordon. In her warped presentation of ID Cards, she tries to avoid all mention of the large computer database which is what it is really all about. Meanwhile, she tries to find ways of tiptoeing towards compulsion. Today she tried to pretend airport workers do not already have ID Cards, and to suggest that if she could get them on to the database we could all be much safer.

The only thing a politician lives by is his or her word. If you get to the point where they don’t believe a word you say, you have lost it with the public. Words are this government’s currency. they have now devalued them so much, they have become the main reason people have lost trust in politics.

Nick Clegg this morning on the Today programme wriggled and wriggled, faced with Sandra Gidley saying Lib Dems promised a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty in 2005 and should honour their pledge. He sounded even worse when the BBC managed to ask him if he would vote for a double referendum,dealing both with the Constitutional treaty and with In-Out.

Why can’t he bring himself to vote for that? Because he is Euro Clegg, and is petrified that the British people if ever given a vote on Europe will show how much they distrust federalist MPs like him. He wants to avoid a referendum at all costs.

So we now have this pathetic leader putting his own MPs on a three line whip to ABSTAIN! Worse still for him, a number of them will understand just how angry their voters are about their conduct, and will vote with the Conservatives for the referendum we all promised at the last election.

Lord what fools these mortals be! If you kept your word and said what you mean you wouldn’t get into these difficulties, Mr Clegg. Does he really think these contortions are the way to help restore faith in politicians?

What is going on? Commodity markets are surging as if the world was taking off for mad growth, whilst corporate debt and equity markets are falling, with people worried that there will be a major recession. They can’t both be right.

It is true that there is a big shift in relative economic power underway from the USA and Europe to Asia, and to commodity producing economies from the rest. The transition has been speeded up and made more painful for the West by the credit excesses in the major western economies. We have just lived through a long period of substantial borrowing by governments and customers in the USA and Europe. Much of this money has been spent on buying the cheap manufactured goods pouring out of China and the other Asian centres. Volumes have reached such a pitch that commodity prices are now exploding to feed the great factories of Asia. After years of ever cheaper competition, prices are on the rise in Asia, and those price rises are spilling over into the western countries that have been buying these goods. Agricultural products are in demand, as some are diverted for fuel use at the same time as the Asian dinner tables are filled with more meat and grains.

Some people now think the debt excesses have been so great, and the actual losses recorded by banks so large, that the USA will plunge this year into outright recession. This should mean a sharp slowdown in growth in Europe as well. It will also hit Asian export industries which have been feeding the USA debt burdened monster.

If this does come to pass, it is difficult to see a continuation of the commodity surges that we are becoming accustomed to. Whilst Asian demand is now an important component of global demand, the USA and Europe still represent over 40% of world output, so a move into recession in these two giants should take the heat out of the demand for commodities.

It is true that western banks have lost significant sums in the debt crisis. It is difficult to know how long it will take for them to mark the prices of all the debt instruments they hold down to realistic levels, and when the debt markets will start to function at better levels again. It is also true that there are huge sums available for investment in China and in the commodity producing economies. Both Russia and the Middle East have generated vast cash pools for private individuals, companies and states out of the soaring price of oil. Some of this money will be spent on large construction projects and on putting in more capacity to their growing industrial and service sectors. Some will be spent on recapitalising western banks and buying equity investments in western markets, dragged lower by the credit crunch.

So there are three possible scenarios from here for the world economy. One is the doomsters are right. There will be a further ferocious leg to the bear market, as the credit crunch intensifies. The USA will go into recession. Europe will grow very slowly if at all, western property markets will become more distressed, and China and India will slow as the USA engine seizes. In these conditions commodity prices should keel over just as share prices already have.

The second is the muddling through scenario. The US authorities will do enough to prevent the collapse into recession. The US economy will splutter but it won’t decline. The big falls in the dollar experienced so far will allow more competitive US firms to export more, and to replace some imports with domestic production. The European economy will slow, but the Asian economies will continue to expand based more on internal demand. China in an Olympic year will have a great party and ensure her growth carries on. Her currency will strengthen further, helping her control domestic inflation a bit. The warning yesterday that inflation is serious in China and growth will have to be slower should still leave China growing quickly by world standards. The big money held by the commodity producers will gradually be used to recapitalise the west and to expand their own economies. People will start to buy shares again.

The third is the recurrence of inflation possibility. Some think the US is being too bold in cutting rates and making cash available to the banking system. They think we will soon be back to excess liquidity, which in the short term could power shares as well as government bonds higher along with commodities, until a proper bear market set in when the Fed realises its has overdone it and has to hike rates to try to control price increases. That, they argue might well be delayed until after the Presidential election at the end of this year.

Any of these is possible. To me it feels more like muddling through. Most economists expect 4% growth worldwide this year, whilst allowing for a sharp slowdown in the USA. The banks may have more to write off, but there are signs that the larger US banks are taking strong action to acknowledge past mistakes, appoint new management, and bring in new capital. The quicker they do that, the better the prospects for continued growth. The large moves in currency values will help US industry export and will bring the US balance of trade deficit down further. The higher level of the Euro will add to the forces producing slower growth in Euroland.

You couldn’t make it up.
A government Minister tells parents whose children do not have places at their first choice school to appeal, in places where the the allocation was made by lottery!
The whole point of the lottery was to stop parents who care about their childrens’ future or who live near to one of the better schools from automatically getting a place there.
It was Labour’s cruel idea of what to do about the fact that there are not enough places at good state schools to go round.
Instead of tackling the underlying problem – too few places at good schools – they decided to tackle what they think is the problem – “middle class” parents gaining the places at the better schools for their children. In Labour’s demonology anyone who works harder than the neighbours, earns a bit more, takes more trouble over their children’s future or moves house to be near to a good school is by definition a class enemy.
The Minister should today be saying he is delighted that so many parents have failed to get their children into the school of their choice – it shows the lottery system is working. He should tell them there is no chance of their winning on appeal, as all those places in the popular schools are earmarked for children whose parents did not covet them, to be awarded by lottery and government fiat.
All those of us who believe in choice, and who think people should be able to improve their lot in life and the lives of their children, oppose the lottery scheme. We want a government that uses choice, and frees the schools more, to drive standards up generally.If money follows parent chocies, more children will go to better schools.
The Labour way is to drag people down who are trying hard to make life better, so they can then claim greater equality. No wonder the parents in lottery areas are fed up. No wonder the Minister himself cannot live with the grim reality of his own policy, and is now trying to circumvent it by telling active and good parents to appeal against the unpopular allocations.

Yesterday I wanted to speak about the role and new powers of the European Parliament under the proposals of the Lisbon Treaty. Owing to the government’s unfair restricted timetable for consideration of the EU bill, it took the House until 10.25 pm to consider Clause 3 properly. That left just nine minutes before the government insisted the House stopped work for the evening to discuss the 40 areas of government where the European Parliament will receive enhanced co-decision powers – and it meant only the Minister and the Shadow Spokesman could speak before the government autocratically prevented more debate. It’s not the line by line scrutiny we were promised. Clause 5 and the Schedules fared even worse than Clause 4, receiving no attention at all and passing the House without debate or vote. No wonder people think Parliament is doing a bad job, and are fed up with the way this government runs politics.

This week we draw to a close of the proceedings on the European Union (Amendment) Bill.

Bill Cash and I have tabled four new clauses to reassert the supremacy of Parliament, which is being brought into doubt by the extent of the power given away in this Treaty, on top of the other five Treaties which predate it.

I would like to thank Bill for his assiduous attention to the issue and for drafting the new clauses.

Our new clauses state:

New Clause 6

“Notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities Act 1972, nothing in the new Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of December 7th 2000, as adapted at Strasbourg on December 12th 2007, shall be binding in any legal proceedings in the UK, and shall not form part of the law applicable in any part of the UK”

New Clause 7

“Notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities Act 1972, nothing in Articles 68 to 89 of the Treaty (justice and home affairs) on the Functioning of the European Union shall be binding in any legal proceedings in the UK and shall not form part of the law applicable in any part of the UK”

New Clause 8

“Notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities Act 1972, nothing in this Act shall affect or be construed by any court in the UK as affecting Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689”

New Clause 9

“Notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities Act 1972, nothing in this Act shall affect or be construed by any court in the UK as affecting the supremacy of Parliament”

New Clause 6 seeks to prevent the European Charter of Fundamental Rights overriding Parliament’s decisions and interpretations of the public mood. As the government has sought to reassure us the Charter will not prevent democratic decision making in the UK, they should welcome this clarification.

New Clause 7 seeks to preserve the so-called red line on criminal justice and home affairs matters which the government says it has kept by allowing us an opt in strategy towards these measures. This formulation is stronger as it disapplies EU attempts to modify our law without our consent.

New Clause 8 reiterates Clause IX of the Bill of Rights, which states: “That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament”. There is a fear that some debates in Parliament can now be overruled, or some speeches could be prosecuted in European courts without this express protection.

New Clause 9 is the most comprehensive. It reasserts Parliamentary sovereignty, on the basis that Parliament has granted the EU certain powers within the UK, so Parliament can modify or repatriate those powers at a later date if it wishes.

We believe all of these are necessary, and if passed they would go a long way to reassure people that we can be in charge of our own affairs again if we need to be.
My worry is that the government will seek to prevent these big issues being debated, by restricting time. They will doubtless urge all their MPs to vote against them if we do reach them, giving the lie to their many promises that we have kept our right to self government and have preserved all our red lines. Lisbon is about another large transfer of power to the EU. These new clauses are about keeping a democracy in the UK. I urge my colleagues to vote for them if we are given the chance.

Out and about talking to people over the week-end, the clear message was “We’ve had enough”. Council Tax bills, income tax, threats of higher taxes and public sector charges, rail fare rises, energy bills and food bills – the squeeze is on, and much of it results from wasteful government.

Some asked me if it would be the same under the Conservatives. They were alarmed by the comments of Mr Lansley, misconstrued by some in the media. Let me explain why I am not concerned.

The Conservatives have said that in office they would share the proceeds of growth between extra spending and tax cuts. Let us assume the economy is £1.5 trillion in election year. Every one per cent of growth means an extra £15billion of activity, and an extra £6 billion of tax revenue on that activity.

If the economy grows at its trend rate of say 2.5%, that is an extra £15 billion of tax from just one year’s growth. So the Conservatives could decide that £10 billion of that was needed for increases in spending in priority areas like Health, and £5 billion was available to start tax cutting.

The Lansley remarks said that by 2023, if Labour’s plans went ahead, the NHS would take 11% of national output, instead of the 9% today. He did not promise to increase it to that level. Nor, over that time period would such a level necessarily pre-empt tax cuts. If at the same time the civil service was cut by natural wastage, regional government abolished in England, ID and other computer schemes scrapped and the quangos cut back to size, it would be possible to spend much more on health and pocket some much needed tax cuts.

We need spending discipline to get value for all the money being tipped into public services including health . We need to promise service improvements that can be delivered, not large sums of money for any particular budget.

The 10 constituency referenda have underlined what many of us have been saying in Parliament. By a large majority people want a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and by a huge margin they do not want the UK to adopt the Lisbon Treaty.
It is high time the Lib Dem and Labour MPs listened to public opinion on this crucial issue, and accepted the verdict of the people.
The people are right, and the MPs are wrong.
If the MPs do not vote for a referendum next week, they need to be repalced at the next election by those who would.

The world I was born into was class ridden. Over my lifetime there has been substantial social mobility, with many more families entering the worlds of white collar work and property ownership. Meanwhile the old landed families have lost relative power and wealth as others have grown richer from trade, commerce and investment.

I loathed the Marxist reaction to the problems of class. I devoted much of my intellectual energy in the my early years to understanding and refuting the Marxist analysis, based as it was on bogus science and misunderstood history. In the 1980s I wrote the “Popular Capitalist Manifesto” as an antidote to the all too influential “Communist Party Manifesto”, and took that series of ideas to countries emerging from the autocracy and poverty of communism. They have prospered much more since throwing open their doors and windows to the global marketplace, and hurling out the restrictions of the Marxist era.

There are three principal solvents of class division: more wealth, more income, and better education for those who would otherwise be on the wrong side of the class divide. Socialists try penal taxation and regulation to take wealth and income away from those who are successful, to redistribute to others. Taken too far, it merely drives the successful and their money away from any country trying such an approach. Believers in freedom seek ways to liberate people, to promote greater social mobility and to generate more wealth and income throughout society. Both socialists and freedom lovers in the UK believe in free education for all, whilst allowing some to buy a different education in the market if they have the money and the wish to do so.

Gordon Brown’s speech this week-end claimed to want to create a society based on ambition and opportunity. I have no problems with such a vision. The problem is, the actions of his government seem to be pointing in the opposite direction.

On Thursday night I appeared on a Question Time panel with Charles Faulkner, Chris Huhne, Theresa May and the Head of Barnardos at Eton College. Rory Bremner chaired the proceedings. I accepted the invitation because they promised to raise substantial sums for charity, and because it was organised by the boys themselves. They made a good job of doing so, and showed enterprise and maturity in the way they handled it. It is the second time I have visited Eton in recent years, going to an evening event organised by the boys. I am impressed by what they achieve, and always leave knowing they have something special, an advantage for life. I went because the school was near to home, the date was convenient and I was happy to help them in their initiative. I would love to accept a similar invitation for a Thursday or Friday evening at a local Berkshire state school organised by the pupils.

The question we should ask, is how can we achieve more of that spirit in the state schools? Whilst praising those state schools that do put a lot in to events they organise, I have never received similar invitations from pupils at a state school. I am usually told by socialist friends that it is all a question of money. The fees are much higher at Eton than the per capita spend at a comprehensive, so it is bound to be better. Of course it is true that Eton can afford specialist sports coaches, and teachers for a wider range of subjects. It is also true that it needs to spend much more because it has boarders, who need some adult support and supervision 24 hours a day.

The two events I have attended at Eton did not require extra money. The boys organised the Economics lecture I gave, and the Question Time, by sending inexpensive emails and making short phone calls. They used the free hall and meeting room facilities in the school. In each case the main thing they offered was a large audience, underwritten by the Eton senior pupils themselves, but with invitations extended to other schools, to friends and family. None of these things are beyond the capability of state schools, nor beyond the ability of state school pupils to organise. In the case of the charity, they did also obtain some sponsorship, where their parents’ network of contacts probably helped, but this was to raise more money for the charity rather than being essential for the Question Time itself. In each case the audience was lively and interested, wanting to get something out of the event they had produced.

Like Gordon Brown, I want opportunities opened up for everyone. I want the Etons of this world to raise more money so that they can offer more scholarships to pupils with talent from low income backgrounds. That will help some more young people, and will help bridge the divide. Threatening good schools with cancellation of their charitable status is to regress to the old class war – finding ways to lift state schools to similar levels of performance would be the positive way ahead.

There have been some good postings, which I hope my colleagues will read. The mood against MPs is very clear. One of the best points is that the federalist majority has been so keen to give Parliament’s powers away. Some members of the public have noticed this, and are asking the very reasonable question do we need so many MPs, especially the ones who are dear to keep when more and more is decided and done in Brussels?