Category: Uncategorized

The Conservative party emphasises its values

December 29, 2025 67 Comments

Kemi Badenoch has made clear in a recent email to members that she stands for Conservative values. She wrote

“However, the real test of our renewal is not the buildings we work from, it is who we are and who we stand for. The three people we are sending into the Lords this week show exactly the kind of Conservatives Britain now needs.
I have ennobled some of the most resilient and powerful champions of Conservative values.
John Redwood has been a guiding force on Conservative economic policy and, a Thatcherite stalwart for nearly half a century. He has flown the flag for fiscal conservatism longer and more forcefully than almost anyone in our party’s history, and continued to do so even during times the party veered off course.
(Etc Ed)

Moving closer to the EU will damage growth more, not boost it

December 28, 2025 73 Comments

The government’s policy of ever closer relations with the EU will damage our slow and stuttering growth more.

It means sending more money to the EU which in turn means putting up taxes further. It is Labour’s massive tax rises to date that have slowed growth, destroyed jobs, slashed vacancies and put up unemployment. Why do more of the same?

It means adopting the higher carbon taxes under the EU emissions scheme, putting up the costs of energy. Far from helping abate the cost of living crisis they talk about, it will make it worse.

It means adopting a version  of the EU  carbon border  tax or tariff, designed to make things we import from outside the EU dearer if they have used fossil fuel energy in their production and transport. That might invite retaliatory damaging tariffs from the US and others.

It means accepting more young migrants from the EU keeping wages lower and taking job opportunities our young people need.

Far from boosting our exports it is more likely to boost our imports and displace imports from non EU. This will not increase our GDP and will help push up the cost of living.

After a partial climb down on high taxes of family farms, we need some more moves to lower taxes

December 27, 2025 60 Comments

The Family farm tax is very damaging. It was troubling older farmers greatly, threatening splitting up farms and making the less viable. Now some of the smaller family farms have been exempted. Still many small businesses and some of the larger family farms are being attacked by IHT, making it difficult for them to pass them on to a new generation of owner/managers. It puts people off building businesses here in the UK or leads to early closure.

More damage was done to more people by the Jobs tax of the first Labour budget, the hike in Employers National Insurance. As some of us forecast there has been a fall in vacancies, and  a rise in unemployment. There are  especially acute problems for young people looking for their first job. Putting the Minimum wage up at the same time as the big tax rise exacerbated the problem, leading more employers to cut back on recruitment or to slim their workforces down. The catering and hospitality sector was particularly hard hit, and shops also suffered another blow to their chances of survival. The addition of big rises in business rates, against the government promise of helping pubs and High Street shops, was another unexpected hit when they had been promised rates reform to lower their bills.

The language Labour used in its Manifesto to avoid tax rises on  working people and to  boost living standards has been blown away by a run of anti growth tax rises, managed price rises, and the overriding policy of dear energy to speed net zero. Many more people are now on benefits, and many more young people are not in training, education or work. The government struggles to define a working person, and finds plenty of people to tax more that look like working people to the rest of us. The Chancellor says she is concentrating on getting the cost of living under control, yet she grants large wage rises to a wide range of public sector activities and allows through rises in energy prices, rail fares, Council tax bills and other public sector activities.

As Labour criticise their leader and examine other options, their attention goes to things that will make the situation worse. Every deal with the EU entails paying the EU more money for no advantage, leading to yet higher taxes. The Erasmus deal costs far too much and will if like the last time we were in it pay for more EU students to come here than it will help UK students to go abroad. The idea of joining the Customs Union would mean putting many more tariffs back on imports to the UK, pushing up prices and making UK business less competitive with dearer imported raw materials and components. They have given far too much of our fish away for 12 more years, preventing the good growth of our local fishing industry. They have still not lifted the ban on getting our own oil and gas out of the ground, which bring us more tax revenue and well paid jobs. They still are wedded to closing down all our petrol and diesel car plants by 2030, which means more closures and job losses soon.

To get the econo0my growing again, to help create more jobs, to get the numbers on benefits coming down will take more than a small tax cut on family farms, welcome though that is. They must reverse many of their bans that stop us making and growing things here. They must bring down the costs of employing people, especially young people,  by cutting their Jobs tax. They need to review taxation of small businesses generally and create a better climate to encourage new and growing businesses to stay and flourish here.

The government has carried out one sensible U  turn on its farms policy. It says it wants to get back to growth, to controlling the cost of living and to encouraging investment. To do that it needs more U turns on its tax rising agenda. It needs to grapple more successfully with runaway public sector costs. it needs to concentrate on getting many more people back to work, whilst issuing fewer sicknotes for life.

Joining the EU Customs Union – or the Single market – is a bad idea

December 26, 2025 40 Comments

The Lib Dems invent absurd figures of how much better off we would be if only we were in the Customs Union of the EU. They clearly do not understand that we are in free trade Agreement with the EU meaning we do not have any tariffs on EU imports or exports already so there is no tariff gain from joining. They do not seem to understand that there would be a substantial tariff loss from joining, as we would have to re impose tariffs on all those imports from non EU  where we cancelled the tariffs on leaving the EU. We took tariffs off all the things we cannot grow or make for ourselves, and off things needed for UK manufacturers as raw materials and components for their added value production.

The Lib Dems condemn President Trump for putting tariffs on, so why do they want to put more tariffs on our imports from non EU by joining the Customs Union? Why do they support the ruinous carbon border mechanism, a big EU tariff like charge coming soon to markets near us, and soon to be imposed by an unholy Lib/Lab alliance on UK consumers already suffering from rising prices? The carbon border tax will make many imports dearer.

They claim they want to negotiate fewer border frictions for our tariff free trade with the EU. The EU answers that we need to adopt all the extra rules and costs the EU has imposed on itself since we left, and reverse any repeals or simplifications of EU laws we have so far made to all the older EU law we carried with us into a half hearted  Brexit. Far from cutting frictions the EU would ensure there are more.

Some say they want us back in the Single market. That means we would automatically have to adopt all the extra rules and regulations they wish to introduce without a voice or vote over the laws they are making. I remember well as Single Market Minister how excessive those laws can be, and also that even as a voting member the best we could do was delay or dilute a bit. The EU always proceeds by excessive detailed regulation of everything business tries to do, making it a high cost low growth low innovation  zone. It seeks to make good new ideas illegal to protect incumbents.

Far from adding to our GDP and to our tax revenues joining the Customs Union comes with a triple cost. More money paid to the EU for administering it. More money paid by consumers in tariffs on non EU imports. Jobs lost as business can no longer import materials and components tariff free from non EU. Less trade with non EU as we have to cancel our free trade Agreements made as an independent country.

Facts4eu published their version of this piece with charts showing how the UK grew faster outside the EU than in it, and has grown faster than Germany, Italy and France since leaving.

Who can claim the sword of growth?

December 25, 2025 22 Comments

This is the text of my Christmas story which had its first reading on GB New last night

Once upon a time not so distant the United Kingdom was in turmoil. Its recently elected government had become very unpopular. They had swept into power offering the fastest growth in the advanced world, but were mired in stagnation. They had promised an end to price rises, only to see inflation near double. They had told people with faster growth they could deliver better public services without putting their taxes up. Instead they had given every one a shock with their first budget heaping more taxes on a hard pressed people, promising them it would be one and done. They then put through a second budget, with even more bad news soaking the not so rich.
Realising they needed to do something the  ruling party agreed to hold a contest to see who should be the true leader to sort out the mess. Wanting to appear more rooted in historial traditions, they looked to how King Arthur had emerged as a popular and successful leader all those years ago. They decided on a modern version of the sword in the stone. Only the one who could pull the sword of growth from the anvil of a stagnant economy would be chosen to  lead the country to faster growth. They were needed  to rescue the struggling Labour knights squabbling around the cabinet table. Adapting the Arthurian words they wrote  “Whoso pulleth out this sword of this stone and anvil  by entering the growth code is the rightful PM of the UK”. They tried to make their inscribed stone look different to Ed Miliband’s 2015 show stopper. It was so modern they thought, that there was a digital lock on the anvil. Only a leader who was good with a smart phone would triumph in this radically modernised version of how the UK chooses its best leaders.
They decided to say the  UK, not England. They recognised that their policy towards the EU and the Republic of Ireland was going to end in Northern Ireland not being under UK rule, but they wished to hold on to Wales and Scotland where nationalist parties were doing better again as the UK government  become more unpopular. They saw no contradiction in associating and looking back to the great English legends, whilst themselves wanting to break up England into unloved regions as the EU had always done.
They fell to arguing over whether the code to unlock the sword should require the candidates to reveal a digital ID. They asked if they should have a double or triple lock on the device with an enabling code to proceed to be sent to the smartphone of the candidate. They were concerned that this most important of tasks could be disrupted by a cyber attack from a foreign power. They decided to leave it to candidates to guess what the system was to make it a more difficult competition to win.
Arthur they read had risen to greatness with the help of his special adviser Merlin. Merlin, ably assisted by Archimedes the owl, had  trained  Arthur for great things. He had turned him into a fish to see the world from a different perspective. He had helped him do the washing up creating chaos in the kitchen. He had assisted him in fighting off the wicked witch Madam Mim. Who was to be the Special Adviser who could help a new hero triumph? How could they defeat the wicked sorcerer, Nigel? Who had the magic power to trigger growth in a seemingly moribund economy? Was Archimedes now displaced by AI? Was Merlin someone they knew? What if Merlin were a Conservative after all? They decided not to go there as it was too awful to think about.
They realised the new Arthur’s education had to be updated. They couldn’t possibly let Merlin turn candidates temporarily into fish. After all they had just given most of the fish away to the French to kill. Worse still their failure to ban the murderous European super trawlers meant they wouldn’t stand a chance of survival if they met one of those during their time swimming in the Channel. They also wanted to avoid all those illegal boats coming across.
There was no shortage of challengers for the task of taking over the huge government they had helped create.  Angela strode forward. She had already won the title of Deputy Prime Minister, and fancied her chances as the natural successor. She took up the growth challenge by saying she would build 1.5 million new homes which would trigger so many jobs and delight so many people who could buy or rent a better property. She wielded her not inconsiderable sword to show she would know how to use the true sword of growth. She tried to scythe through layers of planners, quangos and local government bureaucracy to gain the right to build more homes. Meanwhile the government was making it  ever dearer to build a home through more extensive regulation. It was putting people off being landlords through rules that were too penal. It  had lost the confidence of markets who put up longer term interest rates affecting mortgages. Instead of Angela’s rich volcabulary  creating  a surge of new homes being built, the builders said it was too dear to build and they lacked customers. So housing output fell and the target of 1.5m homes looked impossible to hit. Angela then fell down over her own housing situation, failing to pay a tax she supported for others when buying one of her homes.
Rachel said there was no need to have a contest for leader, as she was going to ensure by her help that the current Prime  Minister did deliver the growth he had promised. Rachel believed that all she had to do was to increase public spending a lot. That should, after all, create more jobs and provide more public facilities. The Treasury told her that she could not just do that by borrowing more, so she was talked into more and more ideas to take more money in tax to pay for her public projects. As the private sector was more productive than the public sector, this meant taking money away from companies and people who could generate growth and giving it to a government that did not know how to. Government had tried spending to grow with its very expensive HS 2 railway, which turned into a cash sink with half the projected line cancelled and the other half so delayed it was no use to anyone.
They had managed to improve  half a rail  line from Oxford to Cambridge but the Unions refused to operate the trains in a dispute over manning.  Rachel became even more unpopular than the PM she was trying to help, and took more and more criticism for things going so wrong. Rachel proved you could not  tax your way to higher growth.
Ed was the most popular of the contenders with Labour voters. He knew the answer to growth. It was all a matter of colour. Green was for go and for success. He said he knew how to spend both more public money and more private investment to replace all our electricity generation with wind and solar farms. When asked what we did when there was no sun or wind, he conceded we might need a bit of gas backup. That  would need carbon capture and storage, another very expensive investment that brought no direct benefit to customers and taxpayers  who had to pay for it. Ed busied himself with closing down our oil and gas industry at home, with supervising the collapse of our petrochemical industry, and closing  our blast furnaces that made steel all in the name of green growth and less carbon dioxide. It was difficult to see how that helped our growth and was unpopular with all those losing their jobs.  He did get a number of solar and wind projects up and running, but unfortunately so many of the jobs they created were in China as the UK wasn’t very good at making all the things you need for renewable power. Ed had been the leader once, so he thought he could use the Arthurian strapline of the “Once and future King”, though this brought back bad memories for some. Would he go for another promise pledged on a big block of limestone?
David thought he had the code to the sword. Being one of the brighter Cabinet members in his new job in charge of prisons he had worked out that if he let more prisoners out early it would cut the number of embarrassments from officials mistakenly letting them out. More importantly he had seen how enterprising so many of the prisoners were, running successful illegal drugs and contraband businesses whilst in jail. Why not let them out earlier to use those skills to grow the economy? Rachel from accounts could doubtless get their efforts into the growth numbers with one of the many adjustments to official statistics they were using to make things look better. As Deputy to the PM he thought he was on a bit of an inside track. After all he had helped the PM with his main growth policy of giving more powers over us to the EU and giving plenty of money to foreign governments along with the odd island. Surely the PM was right that if we gave lots away to foreigners they would like us more and that must be good for growth.
Andy saw himself as the Wart or young Arthur of the contest. Not one of those sitting round the table with the PM, he pitched for the job from Manchester. He told everyone he had cracked the growth problem for his city by getting access to more of that tax revenue Rachel had thoughtfully snatched from the public. Some unkindly pointed to the private construction of lots of expensive flats that did not all have residents or buyers, but he glossed over these tiresome details. He would repackage what Rachel was trying to do, but just say he would do more of it. He needed to find a place that would elect him as an MP if he was to stand any chance of being PM. He was coy about that bit, as any constituency might take exception to being told to swap MPs when there was no need to.
Wes was the super champ of the tv studios. He saw off the PM’s attempt to dismiss his ambitions to take over, converting the PM’s attack into a chance to show just how much better he was. He took much of the extra tax money raised in those taxes for the NHS he was trying to run. He spent a lot of it on sacking top managers who he thought were getting in the way of spending the money more wisely. That didnt help with the Unions who all had votes.  He saw the need to do something about productivity as well as about spending. His trouble was the Labour party did not take so kindly to some of his more market oriented approach to growth and success.
There were also plenty of runners and riders to be the new Merlin. McSweeny had a reputation for wizardry, as he had helped the current PM win the election that had eluded them for 14 long years. He had swept aside Sue Gray, the civil servant turned adviser who had helped them prepare for government. As the PM slumped in  the polls some blamed the adviser. Rachel was required to listen to Torsten Bell who wanted to tax the pensioners more by putting up income tax, but letting people on moderate wages off by cutting National Insurance. Rachel and her friends allowed this to be tested out, only to discover people did not like it and saw it as a big break with their tax promises. The true Merlin has not yet revealed himself, so we cannot yet see who he is backing as the true swordsman of growth.
What we do know is what Merlin will be saying. He will be telling his new Arthur that the UK is overtaxed, with too many talented people and companies leaving. He will be saying government spending is out of control, and more people need to work rather than be on benefits. He will explain to his pupil that government has made itself very unpopular by failing to control the borders, and by interfering to close down businesses by driving up energy prices and imposing bans on fossil fuels.  Merlin clearly does not work for any of the runners and riders we have seen so far.
The sword of growth is stuck fast in the stone anvil. Only a new Arthur who can provide the magic formula for growth can unlock the digital lock which makes it unmoveable. I doubt any of the challengers above can do this. The UK is desperate for a new PM who loves our  country and knows how to run a competent government.
For Jacob Rees Mogg’s reading of this see www.Facts4eu

 

Christmas

December 24, 2025 55 Comments

I have posted today my Christmas Eve poem. Tomorrow at 8 pm GB News will be screening a reading by Jacob Rees Mogg of my Christmas story  this year. Tune in to watch it. I will also post the text of it.

Feel free to send in what is on your mind as some of you usually do regardless of my topic of the day.

Will Santa come for me? Christmas Eve

December 24, 2025 11 Comments

Will Santa come for me?

May you all feel the excitement of Christmas.

 

WILL SANTA COME TONIGHT?

“Will Santa come? Will Santa come tonight?”

“He might. He might.

If you are good, he might.”

“Can I stay up and see?”

“No. He will not come for you or me

if we do not sleep . He’s too busy to meet us all.”

“And will he come for us?

If you go to sleep – he does not like fuss.”

Tonight, by the lights of the tree,

there is, at last, some grown up time for me.

The cake is iced. The wine is spiced .The carrots diced.

The pudding’s steamed. The brandy butter creamed.

The turkey prepared awaits. And yes, I did clean the plates.

The tree is up, the table laid,

the cards are out , though the credit card’s unpaid!

So shall I soon with gifts a plenty

mount the stairs to deliver twenty?

Do I dare to tread the stair?

And will it creak?

And will it make a noise that upsets all those Santa ploys?

I need to know if they slumber before I arrive with my lumber.

If they are still awake what dreams will go?

Or do they know? And is their belief just all for show?

So tonight by the magic tree there is need of more time just for me.

I will wait – and struggle to keep open my eyes

And wrestle with the morality of eating Santa’s mince pies.

My adult mind is full of Christmas chores

The cooking times, and the cards through neighbours’ doors

Drinks with friends to come – but not that cheap red

Which would give me a headache as soon as I got to bed

I was once a child too excited to sleep with a torrent of thoughts about what I might be given

Hoping that it was a toy that could be ridden

Should I peep? –Not more socks or hankies, preferably something to be driven

So could Santa still come for me? Drowsily I dream as if I were eight

Hoping that Santa would not be late

Like every little boy there is of course a much wanted toy

So will Santa come tonight? He might, He might.

If you sleep well and if you believe

Only if you believe. And only if in your family Love fills the hours you will be spending.

It could be the true Santa on the stair

Or it could be someone from an empty chair.

So will Santa come? He will. He will.

 

UK should ban imports of food from EU where they have lower animal welfare.

December 23, 2025 102 Comments

There are a number of areas where the EU has lower animal welfare standards.

 

  • Sow Stalls: The UK banned the use of sow stalls (cages for pregnant pigs) in 1999, 14 years before they were partially phased out in the EU . The EU still allows some use of these cages.
  • Foie Gras Production: The production of foie gras by force-feeding is prohibited in the UK. The EU allows it.
  • Fur Farming: Fur farming has been banned in the UK since 2000. The EU  allows it. 
  • Live Exports: The UK has banned the export of live animals for slaughter or fattening from or through Great Britain. The transport and export of live animals is still legal within and from the EU, although some individual countries may have their own bans.

The UK should have high standards. It should not allow EU imports to undercut our farmers by relying on lower standards .The danger of the government’s new animal welfare proposals is it will stop some UK production to be replaced with imports from places where animals are treated worse.

Can anyone save the UK steel industry?

December 22, 2025 61 Comments

There were wild responses to my X questions on steel yesterday. Most critics were wedded to the idea that nationalising steel will provide the answer and will save the Scunthorpe blast furnaces and jobs. I fear they will be badly let down. They will send huge bills to taxpayers before closing the furnaces down anyway.

Some queried my aims for steel. I would like to keep steel making in the UK, including some blast furnace steel as well as recycled. To do this requires many changes. I have consistently called for  a proper business plan , for ending penal taxes and charges on energy , for a deal with the previous Chinese owners of Scunthorpe and for well negotiated  purchase  contracts for public steel for rail, defence and construction public spending.

The first necessity is to acquire Scunthorpe from its Chinese owners. I suggest buying it for £1 whilst ensuring past debts rest  with the previous  owners. Taxpayers would  take on future liabilities including responsibility  for  jobs and wages.

The second is to change energy taxation and subsidy to get UK industrial prices closer to US and Chinese ones.

The third is to review how long the business can run the Scunthorpe blast furnaces and when they might need major maintenance with a difficult temporary shut down .

The fourth is to develop the work in place on public sector demand for steel and see how the gap between import cost and domestic cost can be bridged.

It is obvious there needs to be some combination  of subsidy and lower tax demands to price this steel back into wider use.  It is also clear our steel industry is being sacrificed on the altar of extreme net zero polices. These are self harming, and result in more CO 2 worldwide as we close down our industry.

A new government defines itself by its first few big legislative changes

December 21, 2025 72 Comments

President Trump in 2025 was busy defining his new Administration with his one Big Beautiful Bill built around tax cuts and cheap energy. It is true some of his other policies were less helpful, but the thrust towards more growth and investment was clear.  The relatively new Labour government also defined itself by key legislation in its early months . The two Finance Bills to implement the 2024 and the 2025 budgets set course for a dearer public sector, for more borrowing and for much higher taxes. The Employment Rights Act decided to grant the Union bosses most of their requests to make it dearer and more risky to employ people. As a result of these measures the UK sentenced itself to much lower growth than the US, and to rising unemployment.

It is difficult to comprehend how PM and Chancellor thought they were following a growth strategy when they decided to make such a large increase in the cost and difficulty of employing people, allied to an attack on successful small businesses and farms through an Inheritance tax raid. They seemed unaware of the huge success of the US digital giants out competing the UK and turning  so much of our computer expenses into revenue for the USA. They seemed to think people and companies would stay here despite the large deterioration in the tax regime relative to lower tax jurisdictions including the US, and assumed businesses and farms would struggle on despite the more hostile atmosphere for them. Instead many people left the UK, jobs were lost  and businesses shut down. There was a surge in more people living on benefits.

The government’s growth theory is based on expanding public sector investment in rail, energy,  and public services. They are discovering that to afford this they need both to raise taxes and to accept higher interest costs for all the extra money they wish to borrow. They do not seem to have realised this attempt to re direct day to day activity and investment away from the competitive private sector to the public sector is likely to lower our productivity and lead to more losses and waste. Preventing a new gas well or a new gas fired power station but pressing on with HS2, Post Office computerisation and the Ajax military vehicle means a big bill for taxpayers and a less productive economy.

The impact of higher National Insurance and the Employment Rights Act is already being felt in more employment intensive activities like entertainment and hospitality, where there has been a big job loss. We will also feel the expansion of the state in our pockets as the bills come flooding in for railway losses, steel losses, Bank of England losses, Post Office losses, MOD cost over runs  and the rest.