Category: Blog

The Sunday Times did not tell all the story in their page two article “Cameron’s MPs want more private health care”. They reported that they “contacted all Tory backbenchers to ask whether they had private health insurance”. They say “Most refused to answer” but name four who said they had insurance. Why I wonder did they not include in their story those of us who said, as I did, we do not have private health insurance? Every word of the article strains to set up Labour’s anti Tory story on health, without the evidence to back it up. Their only quote came from a Conservative MP who is retiring and not fighting the next election, and that quote merely said we need a debate.

Today I am writing an open letter to the Prime Minister.

Dear Prime Minister,

The Scottish Parliament will meet to debate the decision of the Scottish Justice Minister over the Lockerbie bomber. When you first took the highest political office in the UK you stated that you wished to restore the Uk Parliament to a more central role in our democratic life. You cannot be serious unless you today recall the UK Parliament, to meet later this week.

Since we were last allowed to convene and do our jobs as MPs, the government has endorsed a substantial increase in so called quantitative easing, has revealed a larger deterioration in our fiscal position than in the budget, has shown that whilst competitor economies on the continent are growing again our economy has continued to decline, and has watched helpless as many more people lose their jobs. We need an urgent debate on the state of the economy.

Since we last were allowed to meet several good Committee reports have been issued, including some worrying criticisms of parts of our health care. Labour figures have been keen to whip up a specious debate about Conservative attitudes towards the NHS through friendly media. Wouldn’t it be better to allow a proper Parliamentary debate on the state of the NHS and how it can be improved and reformed, so claims and counter claims can be tested in a proper forum free of the behind the scenes distortions of the spin doctors?

Since we last were permitted to do our jobs more of our troops have been killed in Afghanistan. There have been recent leaks about the state of our military procurement, along with Minsiterial denials that this has had any bearing on the lives of our soldiers. We need to cross examine Ministers on this. At the very least poor procurement has had a big impact on the state of our budget deficit. We need to ask Ministers to explain what their strategy towards Afghanistan will be once the new government is up and running. We understood the need for the British army to help create a peace sufficient to enable voters to get to the polls. What is the mission now? How do we define success and how long is the new mission to last?

Today we also want to know more about the UK’s relationships with Libya and the USA. The conduct of foreign policy remains a Union responsibility. What actions did the UK governemnt take in the run up to the important Lockerbie bomber decision by the Scottish administration, given its importance to those two relationships? What action is the Uk government now going to take given what has happened?

As far as many English people are concerned, these recent events reinforce what a lop sided and unfair system of devolution we have. A powerless UK government allows the Scottish government to make this decision, washes its hands of the foreign policy consequences, and doesn’t even allow English MPs to have a voice on that foreign policy, whilst Scotland not only makes the decision but has a functioning democracy to debate it.

You should recall Parliament immediately.

Yours

John Redwood

The old battle lines are being redrawn as if it were 1979 all over again. Let me surprise you with my answer to the question. Some daring commentators suggest we need a new dose of Thatcherism. Labour are out to portray their old caricatures and lies about the Thatcher era. My answer to the question is “No, we don’t”. But then, I never saw myself as a “Thatcherite”.

Don’t misunderstand me. This is not some latter day conversion on the road to Damascus, not some repentance for past sins which I only committed in the fertile imagination of my opponents. I admired Margaret Thatcher then, and defend her still, for two great qualities she brought to the job of Prime Minister – honesty and courage. She was the best boss I ever worked for. If only her successors as PM had half her honesty in tackling problems and half her courage we would be in a much better position today. She was not driven by focus groups and by the best spin. She wanted honest anslysis of problems from her advisers, and serious debate of options for tackling them. She would back a course of action if she believed it was right, even if it were unpopular. I hope our next Prime Minister will share those caracteristics, as they will be much needed.

The reasons I do not think we need another dose of Thatcherism are two fold. There are presentational reasons, ever popular in today’s debased politics, and reasons of policy.

Thatcherism was a creed defined as much by its opponents stressing what they did not like as by its supporters turning it into a cannon of truth and light. I have never written essays defining or defending Thatcherism, as in a way to do so is to accept the opposition baggage that was deliberately heaped on the idea. Labour were always good at spin, even when they were losing by a mile. They endowed Thatcherism with the negatives – cuts, get on your bike, there is no such thing as society. Some of their imputations were lies, others selective half truths that misrepresented by failing to point out the purpose or the greater good being served. The current crisis facing our country is different from that in 1979. We do not have time to waste fighting the presentational battles of the past.

Today we do not face a problem of excess Trade Union power making it impossible for any government to govern. In 1979 we were very conscious that Trade Union power had gravely damaged the first Wilson government, defeating their Trade Union policy “In place of Strife”, had brought down the Heath government, and had brought down the Callaghan gvernment through the winter of discontent. The next government has no such bitter legacy, and would be wise to see modern Trade Unions as a force for the good whilst not being a push over when it comes to public service management.

Today we do not face an immediate inflationary surge as we did in 1979. The money taps were only turned on in late 2008, so it takes time. With broken banks it takes longer.

We do, on the other hand, face a spending and borrowing crisis on an altogether bigger scale than that of 1979. In 1979 we were a couple of years beyond the IMF visit and their enforced cuts, which started the process of sobering up after the big spend. In 2010 we will be at the peak of unprecedented waste and over spending. We need to tackle the immediate problem of malfunctioning, highly expensive and loss making nationalised banks, which were absent in 1979. Unless we get the banks to work better and return them to the private sector promptly, not much else will work. We need more banks, and more competitive banks. We need to split up the naitonalised monoliths as quickly as possible.

There is one important similarity. Just as in 1979, we face long months of rising unemployment, as the full impact of the disastrous economic policy is felt. To sort this out requires the maximum degree of common purpose throughout society. That is why another dose of Thatcherism would set the wrong tone. We need a new dose of a new medicine for the dreadfully damaged economy. Welfare reform and banking reform are essential ingredients. The agenda of popular capitalism, empowering more people in the economic life of the nation, will also be part of the answer. Everyman and woman an owner is a slogan for a future that could work.

I wish now I had blogged some weeks ago when it was fashionable to say maybe Stuart Broad should be dropped from the England cricket team. I have been a long term fan. I was telling my cricket friends I would keep him. He is a good batsman, often called on to rescue an innings when the specialist batsman have scored too little. As we saw yesterday, on his day he can also be a devastating bowler. For me he is the new Flintoff.

I was busy yesterday. I heard the lunchtime score and felt our chances of the Ashes were slipping away fast. When I turned the radio on again at 5.30 pm I couldn’t believe the transformation.Watching the highlights last evening, it was the most sustained spell of accurate and testing fast bowling England has produced for a long time. He has given our team a real chance of winning the Ashes. Let’s hope they take it.

Whatever the final outcome this has been a great Ashes series. Two games have seen a dominant and talented Australian side in full flight, and two have seen England on song. The tie breaker is proving compulsive.

One of the odd things is how much media power Labour still has. This week my phone has been hot with journalists acting as unpaid Labour researchers, wanting the low down on the great Tory health row that never was.

I tell each one the same thing. There is no row, debate or discussion going on amongst Tory MPs on the issue of health reform. If there were I would know. Fellow Conservative MPs often ring me up to discuss party policy. No-one has been trying to get through to talk about changing our health policy in recent weeks, even allowing for the difficulty in doing so for all the journalists on the phone.

Despite all the efforts expended to get a quote, to create tension against David Cameron, and to enlist support for Dan Hannan, they have failed to do so. You would have heard all about it if they had. There would be lurid headlines now about Tory splits, about Tory evil intents, and lies of how a Tory government would cut free health care at the point of need and make health more the preserve of those with health insurance.

One allegedely serious newspaper not only put their reporter on to me, but the Deputy Editor rang when he had failed to get anything they could use. I explained I had given the paper many good quotes about the real health story – how Labour was up to its usualy dirty tricks to damage the Conservatives and how it intended to close down all serious debate by going on another of its MCarthyite purges of improper thoughts towards the NHS. The Deputy Editor did not seem to think that was an acceptable viewpoint. I explained again it was my view, and as they thought my view so important they should report it. The parting shot was to ask if I had myself taken out private health insurance. That question confirmed what they are trying to do. Let me stress here to all who are thinking of going that route to follow Mandelson’s bidding that I do not have private health insurance. Nor do most Conservative MPs and voters. So stop lying about us. Conservatives use the NHS and are fed up with Labour lies.

It is even more curious that against a poll background where Labour is consistently 10-15% behind the Conservatives there is only one Conservative supporting newspaper, the Express. You would have thought these newspapers would start to ask themselves how good their Conservative sources are in case the Conservatives win the next election. They might start looking at what the Consertvative stories are, as well as the Labour crude spin. I explained patiently to them all who rang that our main story is the run away deficit and the need to take action to limit the build up of debt. The leadership thinks this is the main issue, as do I. I listen in vain in the morning in the hope that the BBC will start to take this seriously. Doesn’t it rate as many mentions as global warming and the health “row” that never was? Those journalists who want to understand what Conservatives are talking about and thinking about should read this website and Conservative Home. Maybe then they will ring us and talk about something we are talking about and wanting to change, instead of trying yet again again to place us in one of Labour’s pathetic and predictable traps.

I look forward to some phone calls to expalin Conservative views on the economy – or even on the surveillance society. I am not expecting the phone to be red hot on those. Such remains the power of Labour’s distorting media operation.

Today we hear from local government that some schools and shops with a monopoly are over charging for school uniforms. Councils are told to require three solutions – access to competing shops, second hand markets and offers of school insiginia and badges at sensible prices so people can turn lower priced clothes into uniform. Great ideas!

So why can’t Councils apply this logic to some of their own services, where the monopoly service can be both expensive and not of the quality we want. I look forward to the day when I can choose from a range of car parking providers using Council land for car parks who compete on price and service, and to being able to select a refuse disposal service that meets my needs at a sensible price. I am going to have a long wait.

Today we learn that the government is thinking about stopping private car park owners from wheel clamping those who break the rules. If it’s wrong for the private sector, why isn’t it wrong for the public sector as well?
I can accept that in busy places the public sector needs the power to remove a vehicle that has parked dangerously or in a way which blocks an important route. I cannot see a good reason for clamping. It delays the driver and adds to the cost of getting back to normal. Above all it means the car occupies the offending spot for longer, when the aim of the parking regime is for the person to park there for a shorter time.
The government has many ways to get money off the illegal parker, and has a record of the car and the address of its owner. That should be quite enough to get the money out of the offender, without needing to clamp the car as well.

Yesterday the BBC cleared its lunch time programme to run the whole speech of the Scottish Justice Minister, setting out in agonising detail his thought process over the release of the man the Scottish courts found guilty of the Lockerbie mass murder.
As some of you may have missed it, and as it was very long, I thought it might be helpful to capture its essential elements more succinctly:

“Today for the first time a Scottish Minister can command the UK airwaves to set out a decision which the BBC will run and run. I intend to make the most of this opportunity. I will tell you how many people I have met and how deeply I have considered all the angles.
I have the power to send a Libyan prisoner back to Libya to complete his sentence. This power comes from an agreement the London government negotiated. The Scottish government told them at the time they had done a bad job with this Agreement. I will tell them again they did a bad job. The Americans said at the time of this deal they had been promised it would not apply to the Lockerbie bomber. The UK government denies this. I believe the Americans and will not use this power to send him to a Libyan prison.
I also have the power to release him on compassionate grounds. This is a tricky one, as whatever I do some people will dislike my decision. So I will tell you the Lockerbie bomber offered no compassion to his victims, and then let him free to show just what a compassionate government we have created in Scotland.
May I conclude by saying what a great day this is for Scotland. All this shows that Scotland should be self governing, and reminds us what a mess they always make of things in London”

The following came as an email:

“These lies (about health care reform) create fear and anger, and we’re seeing the results around the country. Frightened crowds have flooded Town halls, and the office of Georgia representative was defaced …. While Americans watch their pay cheques dwindle, their (insurance) coverage disappear,and their businesses struggle…”

They should know!

Today’s borrowing figures are horrendous. July is usually a month when strong revenues exceed monthly spending. Instead the UK government borrowed another £8 billion in the month. In the April-July period last year the government borrowed an extra £16 billion. This year they have borrowed an extra £50 billion. It means we are on course to exceed the eye wateringly large sums they forecast for this year’s total borrowing.

Spending is up a massive £19 billion on last year in the first four months, and revenue is down a predictable £21 billlion thanks to the VAT cuts and the fall in activity. No wonder the Governor thinks we ought to print some more money – who is going to lend us all this? Interest rate increases to get people to buy more governent debt will be the inevitable result of this failure to hit very relaxed targets for spending and borrowing. This will be the mother and father of all crowding outs, as the cash has to go to the public sector to meet these huge bills. The private sector will continue to be squeezed.