I find in the book on Truss a  wrong assertion about myself

p 77  “John Redwood was a figure early on at Chevening until he made it clear he didn’t want to become minister for personal financial reasons, so he was replaced by Chris Philp, who was to succeed Clarke as Chief Secretary to the Treasury”

I was not offered any job by Liz Truss at any point. I made no statement on my finances.   When I went to Chevening Chris Philp was already part of the team they had assembled there. I went to offer her advice on what a first budget could look like. I included a number of tax cuts designed to speed growth though no income tax rate reduction. I proposed some offsetting  spending cuts and a much more modest energy support package than they adopted based on  helping those on low and no incomes. I  wanted to keep the deficit under control.

Anthony has agreed to correct this .

Today Parliament will take a vote on the principle of legalising the assisted death of terminally ill people who wish to die

I have no special insights into this topic and have not studied the two cases. Had I remained as an MP I would have widely consulted with constituents and voted in accordance with where I thought the majority lay. I would not have argued a case or adopted a view of my own. Today I have no need to decide as I have no vote.

As a result I am offering this unusual short opinion free blog as an opportunity for those of you who know more of this than I do or who have a strong case to make to do so.

The case for assisted death majors on the desirability of people having this freedom. The case against rests on the dangers of others placing undue pressure on a sick person and of a wrong diagnosis of how ill the person is.

The ONS upward revisions to past migration figures are huge. Some here have commented before that they did not trust the figures. With so many people entering and leaving legally, judgements have to be made about which ones are going to stay for a longer time, with or without permission. The authorities also need to enforce better where a person enters as a short stay visitor then embeds as a resident without the necessary permit.

The numbers reinforce the need which some of us stressed to the last government that policies had to change to make a very large reduction in legal numbers. Finally this January the government did put up the minimum  income level for a job, limit dependents coming with students and sought to limit the occupations qualifying for work visas. As a result legal migration is said to be down 20% from a very high peak.

Today’s debate should be about what further measures will this government take to cut numbers more? The income level needs to be raised higher. There need to be more sector work plans to get more U.K. non working residents to take jobs, as was done with drivers post Covid. This is implied by the government’s back to work policy but needs more detail and urgency.

The case for much lower has often been set out here. Too many low pay and no pay migrants leaves us short of homes, NHS capacity and other public facilities. It may be cheap labour for companies but dear for taxpayers.

The U.K. vehicle industry is in sharp decline. Honda pulled out of Swindon and announced all of Europe will be supplied from Japan given falling volumes. Ford quit assembling vehicles here sometime ago and is now cutting jobs in its component manufacture. Vauxhall is closing one of its two van making factories. Jaguar has lost a lot sales and is now rebranding with a policy of shedding up to 85% of its remaining customers and doubling typical prices. This is not likely to add volume.

The remaining car makers are lobbying hard to get a change in the deeply damaging battery car mandate. The last government put in fines up to 2030 for selling too many petrol and diesel cars as a percentage of the total. The targets  are unrealistic so the companies face a £15,000 a vehicle charge.Labour came into office and took five years off the time to go all electric making it impossible.

The Industry Secretary says he feels their pain and will make changes. However he is talking about change in January, after the end of the first year where the current law imposes these fines if they sold less than 22% battery vehicles. He also says he will not change the steep path of battery sales to reach 100% by 2030, which looks unlikely given consumer resistance unless the market is swamped with much cheaper Chinese imports.

This crisis is now. They have lost one plant  this week. Other plants are at risk if they fail to change rapidly. It is no good pretending everyone will switch to a U.K. produced battery car when more than four fifths of consumers say they want petrol or diesel. Keir Starmer said he would not tell us how to lead our lives,yet when it comes to the very important decision of what personal transport to have that is exactly what he is doing.

The Chancellor at the CBI when asked why she had not found some other way in the budget than burdening business with big taxes on employing people and taking money off pensioners said she was not hearing alternatives for righting the national accounts. Let us try again. Controlling spending is a better answer than the tax rises. I have pointed out 4 big targets. Bank of England losses. Productivity falls in public sector. Large numbers of people not working. Too many low pay and no pay migrants needing subsidised homes and public services.

Here are some questions about other wasteful or less crucial public spending.

Why spend on sending 450 people to COP 29?

Why offer trebling of U.K. grants to emerging economies for net zero?

Why increase the hotels for illegal migrants?

Why do nothing to get back £20 bn of lost public sector productivity?

Why give away the Chagos  islands then pay to lease back?

Why propose £19 bn of carbon capture

How much more will the government devote to HS2?

What will be the additional rail losses from higher wages?

Will investments in National Wealth Fund and Great British Energy cover all the interest charges on the extra  borrowing?

The site suddenly published 3 posts this morning when two were in the files for later. I will publish them when they are completed on other days.

Let me return to the madness of the government wanting to give these islands away to Mauritius and then to pay a large annual sum to rent back the naval base at Diego Garcia. Talks have resumed between the U.K. and the new Mauritius government over how much money we need to pay

The government should tell the new Mauritius Administration that they are not now proceeding. The protests of Chagos islanders living in the U.K. and elsewhere against Gifting to Mauritius has swayed with them. The deteriorating U.K. budget position thanks to the collapse of growth in the U.K. also means we cannot afford this policy.

Mauritius is more than 1000 miles  from Chagos. Mauritius never owned them. Mauritius is a friend of China. Mauritius could put people and activities on the other islands that impeded use of the naval base.

The advisory international law opinion made little sense. The only people who have a real case against the U.K. are the islanders who were moved away when the base was expanded. Many of them are now U.K. or Seychelles citizens . They are not proposing Mauritius ownership.

President Trump will doubtless be worried by the transfer of the freehold of  a crucial US base from the U.K. to Mauritius. Sir Kier says he wants to get on well with President Trump. Why not remove this disagreement from the list. The Chancellor could also celebrate at another large bill no longer falling due.

COP 29 was all about money. The COP did not chase up improved national plans to get to net zero,though the U.K. did table one. They now say they can get to an 81% reduction by 2035, without telling us what the cost will be or the extent we will have to change our travel, heating , diets and other CO 2 generating activities.

COP 29 opened with a huge gap between the developed countries currently offering $100 bn of payments a year and the emerging world demanding a minimum of $1trillion a year. After much wrangling a late nights they ended up agreeing a trebling to $300 bn a year by 2035 with the emerging countries saying they will be back for more at the next COP. China declined to join the developed countries in the pledge of a big increase.

The US was represented by President Biden’s people. Will President Trump go along with this? All just expect the US to be the largest donor. What is the UK’s share? Presumably it will mean higher taxes to pay for it? How can the main EU countries pledge large rises when they have large state debts and are under pressures to get their deficits down?

This is not a good time to ask developed countries to pay more. Most outside the USA are struggling with low growth and large deficits. US voters have just elected a new President on a pro fossil fuel policy.

Mind the gap. It is difficult to see big rises in payments in the next couple of years. The 2035 target looks hard to hit

It is a useful way for politicians to talk about illegal migration to say they want to stop the small boats or smash the people smuggling gangs. It maximises support as most people dislike those profiting from the unsafe travel trade across the channel. It leaves open opinions of the migrants themselves

If someone from abroad wants to come to the U.K. because they think they have a better chance of a job here or can get a better paid employment here, then they can apply to come by a legal route. If someone wants to seek asylum they should have their passport showing they come from a high risk country along with reasons and preferably some evidence that they were at risk there.

As the French Mayors have pointed out, North France has many migrants camping there waiting to get to the U.K. They do not want to stay in France, a safe country,  because France does not offer them a hotel and easy access to jobs and eventual acceptance of their right to stay. They wish to get to the U.K. because they hear it is easy to stay and once here to get a job.

The Home Secretary says the  right approach is to smash the gangs. The previous government tried that with limited success. She is trying it and so far arrivals have gone up. The last government was trying the Rwanda idea so an illegal migrant could end up in a different country. The idea was this would be a deterrent to coming. Some did start going to Ireland instead because of it. The legal system delayed it and the new government ended it, writing off the costs.

The evidence points to the need for a deterrent to cut demand for illegal crossings as well as measures against the boat organisers. The people paying the boatmen are seeking to break U.K. law and risk their own and their children’s lives. The government should listen more to the Mayors of Northern France.