Category: Blog

Yesterday when the trains were fully booked and many internal flights were cancelled, to cap it all the authorities closed two lanes and then the whole southbound M40 for the whole day.

As someone trying to get to the Midlands and back that day I experienced the chaos for myself, as thousands of cars were routed through the narrow roads of Banbury and headed south on roads suitable for light local traffic only, leading to very long delays and annoyance to people living near the roads.

??I understand the authorities had to allow access for lifting gear to put a lorry back on its wheels and get if off two lanes of carriageway, but surely it cannot take from very early morning until evening to do that?

??I was part of a Bill Committee which charged the authorities with the simple but important task of re-opening blocked carriageways as quickly as possible. It did not work well yesterday. We need the Highways Agency and the other authorities to have a much greater sense of urgency, with lifting gear on standby contracts to remove heavy debris or vehicles as quickly as possible.

The government and the BAA together have given air travellers a dreadful year, and they are still at it over the Christmas period.

Over the last two days fog at Heathrow has created scenes reminiscent of the badly managed security measures in the summer. There are some simple steps which the government and the BAA ought to take to help people in such a situation.

??

1. Tell people in overseas airports flying to London that they may not be able to get a connection out of London, allowing them to re-route.

2. Work with the airlilnes to agree a schedule of flights that can take off that day, and?? cancel the others early, notifying all passengers. At least BA had the sense to cancel all its domestic flights and tell everyone that was happening, to give it more chance of meeting passenger demands for long haul.

3.BAA to work with other airports to try and divert more Heathrow planes to the nearest open airports with capacity, laying on surface transport.

It has also highlighted the continuing cost of not providing enough transport capacity of all kinds. The railways were telling people they did not have the capacity for people to rebook at popular times to go?? by train instead of domestic flights. The roads were congested, and the runway and terminal capacity once again woefully inadequate. It has served to highlight the complete failure to build any new main transport facilities in the last ten years, save completing the Channel rail link and the M6 tollway in Brimingham,?? projects initiated under the previous government.

??

It is important the Competition authorities take action to deal with the way the BAA monopoly is run. How many more times have people got to sit around for hours in tents outside the terminal building proper and sleep on floors and hard seats in our leading airport before something is done to sort the problems out?

<font size="3"><font face="Tahoma">Crisis, what crisis??, ask government ministers, as the police circle Downing Street?? over cash for peerage allegations. Crisis, what crisis? echo the Liberal democrats, as they are investigated?? for?? their biggest election donation from someone in prison for perjury facing fraud allegations.?? Crisis, what crisis? ask some Conservatives, as they look at the massive ??35 million debt on their balance sheet. </font></font>

<font size="3"><font face="Tahoma">The game is up for raising large sums of money from a small coterie of donors. It is not doing the parties any good, and it is not doing the donors any good any more either. Who wants to have their private affairs and emails rifled just because they decided to give some cash to their favourite political party?</font></font>

<font size="3"><font face="Tahoma">The parties are in denial about?? big money politics. The penny hasn’t?? dropped that the public is as suspicious of how the parties spend the money,?? as they are of?? how politicians come by it. The writing has been on the wall for all prepared to read it for some eight years now. The?? statistics of the electoral decline of both major parties since the 1990s are stark. </font></font>

<font size="3"><font face="Tahoma">Labour polled 4 million votes fewer in 2005 than in 1997, 4.5 million fewer than the Conservatives when they just won in 1992. The Tories were still more than 5 million votes adrift on 13 years earlier. Only two in five of all electors voted for the two main parties combined in 2005. Surely that should tell us all in politics that the audience doesn’t like the show, they are avoiding the political theatre in their droves.</font></font>

<font size="3"><font face="Tahoma">Polling after the election showed that the main national campaigns did more harm than good to the parties spending all that money on them. Twice as many voters?? in?? 130 Labour marginals were put off by the Labour campaign than were attracted to it. The Conservative campaign did almost as badly, with many more put off by it than wooed by it. Why should we go on taking risks with how we raise the money, if spending it puts the punters off?</font></font>

<font size="3"><font face="Tahoma">Twentieth century elections attracted many more voters to the polls. Politicians had to engage on doorsteps and in public meetings. They had to take the rough with the smooth, deal with the heckler and the opponent, recognise that they could not airbrush disagreements out of their campaign. They spent modest sums on posters and hiring halls to speak in, but did not go in for high budget PR driven programmes backed up by sophisticated computers, target marketing and voter research. Voter research was done the hard way by canvassing door to door. Candidates accepted that the media had to balance their coverage and you could not manage all the footage.</font></font>

<font size="3"><font face="Tahoma">Today some of the sharpest?? and youngest campaigners agree that we need to return to local candidates campaigning on local issues, building up just such a picture of their patch through door to door work supplemented by low budget website entries and?? leaflets. The message from the new Conservative MPs in 2005 who won with the best swings was just that we did it, they said, despite the national campaign.</font></font>

<font size="3"><font face="Tahoma">It’s not just at election time that national parties spend their money badly. Parties now spend large sums on polling and focus groups. They tell us this is to help them with honing the message. The public thinks spinning is allied to lying. The present government tells the public what they want to hear, whatever the reality. They often fail to follow through, or find the idea does not work so they just change the words. No wonder people are so cynical about the whole process.</font></font>

<font size="3"><font face="Tahoma">Indeed it is a fatuous exercise to ask the audience what the answer is and then play it back to them. As a democrat I respect the electorate. They are the bosses. I also seek to understand what they know and what they do not know. They know what the problems are. They can tell us where the local schools are not good enough, where the transport system is inadequate, where the Council tax is too high, and where the hospital does not see you quickly enough. </font></font>

<font size="3"><font face="Tahoma">We should not expect them to tell us the solutions as well. It is the job of elected politicians to spend wisely on?? advice, to find the best remedies. It is the duty of parties to offer the public choice, choice about what the priorities are, and choice about the types of solution.?? The issues need to be debated openly, so the public can make up its mind. It is up to governments and alternative governments to come forward with detailed proposals that can work.</font></font>

<font size="3"><font face="Tahoma">Party politics is today at a low ebb, thanks to a government that has concentrated on spin and failed to deliver on all the finely worded promises. The public now wants party politicians to raise less money, and waste less, both during elections and between elections. We need a???? cap on general election expenditure. It should be ??7.5million or less rather than the ??12.5m being mooted. Individual donations should be limited to ??50,000 each. </font></font>

<font size="3"><font face="Tahoma">It would be a huge mistake to make up the shortfall by forcing extra money from the hard pressed taxpayer. It would be absurd and insulting for politicians to argue that because they cannot any longer be trusted to raise big money from a few people, they therefore should simply take?? money off everyone through the tax system. There are two answers to the money shortfall from the large donors. The first is to spend less. Spend less on market research, computers and?? fancy campaigning get back on the streets with a volunteer army.?? The second is to enrol more members . If you persuade every member to give ??10 for an election not a big ask you can have a ??7.5million campaign from just 750,000 supporters, far fewer than?? used to belong to the Conservative party. That’s still more than enough money to annoy voters if you spend it badly!</font></font>

Today I have set out in the <em><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=NWF1F1KX543SZQFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ0IV0?xml=/opinion/2006/12/20/do2002.xml">Daily Telegraph</a></em> why party funding is such a problem. Politicans are just beginning to realise that people do not like the way so much money is raised from so few people, companies and Unions, but most still have have not accepted that people also dislike the way so much of it is spent.

The last election produced more negative than positive reactions to the campaigns of the main parties. It is not suprising. If you spend money on finding out what the public already think, and then play it back to them, they will be cynical about the exercise. If you add to that iron discipline over what every candidate is allowed to say, to pretend that everyone thinks the same, the story is just not credible. You can only form a worthwhile cabinet or shadow cabinet if people do disagree about some things, to make it useful to meet and hammer out a common view.

People want a more honest, local politics where they feel they have some influence, and can get something other than the national spun response to their queries. If we had fundraising llimits and a stricter national camapign epxenditure limit that would help. Let’s limit donations to a maximum of ??50,000 each, and let’s limit national election camapigns to ??7.5 million. It would be an important move in?? the direction of a more honest politics.

If anyone suggests spending less than Labour from taxation and public borrowing, the government always counters by saying that means they wish to cut teachers, nurses and doctors. It is a crude misrepresentation of the true debate. I know no MP who wants fewer teachers, nurses, or doctors, but I do know that many of us?? want less waste and unnecessary expenditure.

I am sure many of you must have good examples of how public money is being wasted both locally and nationally, and maybe you could share them with me. My own target list of waste and undesirable public spending includes:
<ul>
<li>The national identity computer and ID cards</li>
<li>All unelected regional government</li>
<li>The excessive use of consultants throughout local and national government</li>
<li>The overbloated ranks of advisers and spin doctors clustered around Ministers</li>
<li>The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, who now enjoys an expensive office with few real functions..</li>
</ul>
What’s on yours?

I have been asked??by a number of readers if??I would post my thoughts on the West Lothian Question and the establishment of a separate English Parliament.

I do strongly believe that England should be treated fairly within the Union and that we need new democratic arrangements to deal with all the English issues that are currently being put to the United Kingdom parliament.?? As early as 1999 I warned of the threat to the United Kingdom from Labour’s botched devolution settlement in my book, <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Death-Britain-John-Redwood/dp/033374439X/sr=8-2/qid=1166440997/ref=sr_1_2/202-3656065-9987009?ie=UTF8&s=books">The Death of Britain?</a>

However, while I agree we need to do something to remedy the anomoly whereby MPs elected for English constituencies cannot vote on many matters affecting Scotland, and MPs elected to Scottish constituencies can vote on everyone else’s legislation but their own, I do not favour the establishment of a new English Parliament in a new building at enormous cost to the taxpayer away from Westminster.

What I would like to see is the return of the English Parliament to Westminster.?? Everything which is an English matter, including health, education, local Government, planning and law and order, should be considered only by English Members of the Westminster Parliament meeting as the English Parliament.?? This would give England the same devolved powers as enjoyed in Scotland, create a stronger sense of English identity around the traditional Parliament of England, and avoid any extra costs and hassles associated with devolution in Scotland and Wales.

My view is that all of us elected to the Westminster Parliament for English constituencies should perform a dual role.?? We should work with colleagues from Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland on Union matters for part of the week, and for the rest of the week, the Westminster Parliament itself should be the English Parliament, where we, English representatives, settle all the matters that are devolved Scotland ourselves at Westminster, without the help or interference of our colleagues from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.?? The English Parliament at Westminster would therefore create a much more fair and balanced United Kingdom.

The??game is up for big ticket loans and gifts from rich individuals and companies??to the main political parties.?? It is extraordinary that Labour carry??on as if nothing has happened, with the police investigating their fund raising activities over the last two elections.?? Even if we assume that no charges are brought in the end, things will not be the same again.?? Parties not only need to be above suspicion, but to be seen to be above suspicion.

The tragedy of big money politics is that the public dislike the way the money is spent, as well as how it is raised.?? The two main parties ran very expensive General Election campaigns in 2005 which made it less likely that people would vote for them.?? Between elections parties spend too much on polls and focus groups, so they can craft messages based on what people already think or want.?? No wonder people are so distrustful of the main parties.

The answer is not more public funding of political parties.?? It would be a bad idea to say to the public, "because you cannot trust us to raise the money privately we will take it from you through taxation and give it to ourselves".?? The main political parties have to wake up to the reality of life – you only spend what you can earn.?? The parties have to adjust their budgets to what they can raise in voluntary subscriptions from donors, whilst no longer asking for a few mega grants and loans from the very rich.

<p>People tell me they do not hear enough from the Conservatives about Europe.?? There is a strong Eurosceptic tide of opinion in Britain which I welcome. Many of us feel that Brussels takes too much of our money, wastes too much of it, interferes too much in our lawmaking, is far too bureaucratic and wrecks any industry like fishing that it gets its hands around completely.?? We want far less interference from Brussels, dislike the regional Government that is all part of the Brussels scheme, and would be delighted if Brussels took a few years off from legislating.</p>
<p>I do, however, find it extraordinary that well intentioned Eurosceptics can think the UKIP strategy is a winning one which will make the problem better. The last three General Elections have shown that neither the Referendum Party nor UKIP can win a single Westminster seat, however strongly and fiercely they put their case for disengagement or withdrawal from the European Union.?? They have also shown that by putting some of their better candidates and strongest efforts into opposing Eurosceptic Conservatives in seats the Conservatives can win, they may give us ??more federalist MPs by tipping the balance in favour of the pro-EU Liberal Democrat or Labour candidate.?? How stupid can you get?<br />
<span /></p>
<p>The facts of British political life are very simple.?? The Labour Party favours more unaccountable EU power, want the Euro in principle, ??would like to sign up to the European Constitution if given half the chance, and merrily give away power after power in the Treaties of Nice, Amsterdam and in a whole series of day-by-day decisions on directives and regulations.?? The Conservative Party opposes the Euro in principle, opposes the European Union’s constitution in principle, ??wishes to get powers back from Brussels and ??opposes many of the directives and regulations that come to vex us.?? Either of these two parties can form a majority Government.?? In recent years, partly because of the splits amongst the Eurosceptic majority, the federalist Labour Party has ruled the roost and has been able to effect a further substantial transfer of power from Britain to Brussels.</p>
<p><span /></p>
<p>The Liberal Democrats could ??hold enough seats to have important influence, should Britain ever vote for a hung Parliament.?? They are an even more pro-federalist party than the Labour Party.</p>
<p><span /></p>
<p>Eurosceptics are often asking me what assurances I can give them that the current leadership of the Conservative Party wants to reverse the slide to federalism.?? They say they do not hear anything from the Conservatives to give ??confidence.?? I find this particularly surprising.?? I am David Cameron’s advisor on economic policy, chairing his Economic Competitiveness Commission.?? In 1997 I published Our Currency, Our Country? (Penguin), exposing the dangers of European Monetary Union and setting out the case against joining the Euro.??In 1999 I published The Death of Britain??, a strong attack on the constitutional changes being forced through by Labour, preparing the ground for Britain to be a fully integrated part of the EU state. In 2001 I published Just Say No, One Hundred Arguments Against the Euro?, which ranged more widely, opposing federalist transfers of power generally. In my most recent book, I Want to Make a Difference, But I Don’t Like Politics?, an integral part of the case I make is that remote, bureaucratic unelected and unaccountable Brussels Government is part of the reason people are so turned off politics.</p>
<p><span /></p>
<p>Most Conservative MPs feel as I do.?? We make this clear in debate after debate and through our opposition to directive after directive.?? More importantly, the leader of the Conservative Party imposed a whip on the Parliamentary Party to vote for Bill Cash’s excellent amendment to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill last summer.?? ??New Clause 17, would have amended the European Communities Act of 1972 ??providing the legislative means to remove European burdens we do not like.?? It would fundamentally change Britain’s relationship with the EU in favour of democratic common sense.?? If Liberal Democrat and Labour MPs had supported us in the lobbies we would now be a sovereign country again, able to pick and choose from amongst the legislative ideas coming from Brussels.?? Britain would no longer have to accept rules and regulation which its people and Government opposed, where it had lost the argument or the vote under the Qualified Voting System.<br />
<span />Eurosceptic critics of the Conservative Party forget that we have now had three leaders of the party who have all opposed the currency and the EU Constitution in principle.?? ??They forget that the whole Parliamentary Party was whipped to vote against the big transfer of powers represented by the Nice and Amsterdam treaties, and we constantly made the case in the Commons that there was absolutely no need to strengthen central powers in order to invite in new trading partners amongst the Eastern European countries.</p>
<p>There is no pleasing some people.?? Every time a leader of the Conservative Party talks about some other subject, Eurosceptic critics shrug their shoulders and say, There you are.?? You cannot trust the Conservatives as he has made another speech on something other than Europe?.?? Many voters are more interested in the state of their local hospital, whether they have the choice of a good school, how much tax they are paying to Gordon Brown, whether their local environment is green and clean and whether there is a transport system that helps them get to work in the morning, than they are in constitutional issues surrounding the European Union.?? A great national party which wants to win the trust of the British people to govern again cannot ignore these legitimate concerns and has a natural interest in them anyway.?? Our stance on Europe, shown by our words and our votes, shows we understand that in some cases to do what we need to do at home we first have to remove EU obstacles abroad.</p>
<p><span />Many people now have a very consumerist attitude towards politics.?? Most people going into the local department store do not want to get involved in an argument about the company structure, the corporate governance of ??the shop, its stock policy, what contractual relationship it has with its suppliers, or what its staffing policy may be.?? They just wish to see a good choice of goods ??and will buy the ones that are attractively priced and to their liking.?? The same is true for many of politics.?? Whilst to the connoisseurs and the patriots the question of constitutional arrangements is fundamental, because it determines how all other matters are settled or resolved, to most voters the constitutional issue is unimportant.?? They are more preoccupied by their Council Tax Bill or by how long they have to wait to get a hip operation.</p>
<p>A big democratic party that wishes to do the right thing for Britain needs to take this on board and to talk to people about their problems.?? Sensible Eurosceptics will understand that we can achieve nothing in sorting out the relationship between London and Brussels unless we have a majority in the House of Commons.?? The hard facts of political arithmetic are very simple.?? UKIP is not about to win seats at Westminster.?? All it does is aid and abet the federalist cause by opposing good Eurosceptic Conservatives.?? If it really wished to be positive, it could use its base and support to help Eurosceptic Conservative candidates and to put its best and fiercest critics of this Government’s federalism into opposing high profile Labour and Lib Dem?? figures in seats they currently hold with a big majority.</p>

<p>International businesses are telling us that the UK is losing its competitive edge. That means less investment and fewer jobs coming to Britain. Top of their list of complaints is often taxation. It’s not just that the UK’s corporation tax rate is well above the most competitive countries in the world; it’s also that people in business detect a far more aggressive attitude by the Revenue, with little certainty about how the Revenue will judge matters and a lack of consistency in their treatment.</p>
<p>There is also growing concern about the inadequacies of our transport system, where we lack capacity on both rail and road; about high energy prices and shortage of supply, and about over regulation. The UK lives by foreign trade and investment. It needs to stay competitive to ensure enough jobs and deecent living standards here at home. If governemnt continues to place burden after burden on business through regulation and taxation, and fails to tackle the urgent problems with our transport networks, skills and energy supply, unemployment will continue to rise.</p>