The UK has battled to keep its banking and financial system out of EU regulation and taxation. We have been assured that the EU will not impose taxes on us against our will. We have been assured the UK will not have to be part of any future Euroland bail out. The UK government negotiated an opt out for UK banks from some of the regulations the EU requires of others. So far so good.

11 member states of the EU plan to press ahead with a Financial Transactions Tax despite the opposition of the UK and a majority of the member states. They will seek to impose this on some business in London as well as on business in Paris and Frankfurt. This week we read of legal advice concerning the UK’s partial opt out from banking regulations. The EU is  now claiming that banking is part of the single market, so the UK cannot opt out.

The federal ECB and ECJ continue in  their quest to harmonise and control most of EU life. The ECJ is often unhelpful to carefully crafted exemptions and opt outs which UK governments have successfully negotiated. It should make us doubly wary of what the EU might offer when the renegotiation gets underway. One of the issues in the negotiation must be the issue of trust, and how to avoid the Court overruling us when it suits them to do so.

The City has been a longstanding friend of the EU, believing it will increase its business reach. Now the City is increasingly in the front line in dispute with its new regulators and masters. The EU has taken a different view on remuneration, proprietary trading, short selling, the Financial Transaction Tax and banking regulation than many in the City wish. Will this start to change City enthusiasm for continued membership on current terms. The City will not disagree with the EU on the things that matter to more voters, but if the City ceases to be such a cheerleader for the EU it might make a difference to others in the debate.

EU environmental and dear energy prices led to the closure of two of the last three surviving aluminium plants in the UK. Wylfa closed in 2009, and Lynemouth in 2012. The UK  now has to import much of its aluminium requirement.

Dear energy is now eating into our ability to make our own cement. With a strong recovery underway in construction, the UK is being forced to import more of this bulky commodity to keep up with demand. In 2001 the Uk produced 11 million tonnes of cement. At the peak of the boom in 2007 it reached an output of 11.9 million tonnes, only to collapse to 7.5 million in 2009. Last year the industry managed just 8.2 million, with imports increasing then and this year to make up. The high costs of energy are cited as a major impediment to UK production.

In 1997 when Labour came to power the UK produced 18.5 million tonnes of steel domestically. This had slumped to just 10.1 million tonnes by 2009. Whilst the deep recession is part of the reason, the rise in energy costs over the last decade also led to a structural decline. Last year steel output had risen back to 11.9 million tonnes, way below the 1997 levels.

Dear energy has also hit glass making, ceramics, bricks and plastics. Many energy intensive processes are now too dear in the UK, especially at a time when the US is busily exploiting more and more cheap domestic energy. Now Germany is also struggling with dear and scarce energy, and even  the EU is worried about the unreliability of Russian gas supplies, it is high time for a radical change to EU and UK energy policies. The UK should press on for domestic self sufficiency. This is feasible given the large reserves of gas, oil, and coal which we have and the plentiful supply of water for hydro power schemes.

The government says it wishes to press ahead with more domestically produced oil and gas. It is also planning a capacity auction to see if that will bring forward more investment in gas fired electricity stations. The EU renewables requirement means we end up subsidising  both the dear energy from windfarms, and the cheaper energy from gas stations needed as stand by. Mr Davey is also offering incentives to industry to avoid using energy at peak times to try to balance the system.

I agree with the Prime Minister that Magna Carta is seen to be a seminal document of English history. I am happy that it should be honoured and remembered next year, its 800th birthday. It has come to represent the important assertion of the right to a free trial, an early statement of an Englishman’s liberties, and part of the long process to control the powers of the King or the executive government.

I disagree with those, including some who write into this site, who see Magna Carta as a timeless document setting out our liberties in a way which we can never amend or alienate. Magna Carta was a staging post on a long journey to liberty. It was a step forward in curbing the power of the Crown, but it can tell us nothing about our rights vis a vis the EU or the ECJ.

Magna Carta was a peace treaty between the barons and the Crown. It set up a group of 25 elected peers to try to ensure good conduct on the part of the King after signing. At its best it set out eternal truths and freedoms which we still value. At its worst it was unkind and partial. Often it now strikes us as being archaic and irrelevant, as many of the grievances it sought to tackle were rooted in a feudal system which no longer applies.

Few today would want to see its clause about women and justice enforced. “No one shall be arrested or imprisoned on the appeal of a woman for the death of any person except her husband”.  Nor would the right to give heirs in marriage “but  not to someone of lower social standing” pass muster.

Its comments on foreigners might be more popular with the UKIP tendency: “As soon as peace is restored we will remove from the kingdom all foreign knights, bowmen, their attendants and the mercenaries”, but difficult and contentious  to enforce today.

Removing all fish weirs on rivers is not such a central preoccupation as in 1215, as we have gone for windmills rather than  for water wheels on rivers and rely more on sea fishing that river fishing.

The first requirement  that the “English Church shall be free and its liberties unimpaired” has less relevance in a multi faith UK.  The second embedded a “fair” rate of Inheritance Tax which might  be to modern liking as it now  now seems low owing to inflation and only applied to Earls and Knights.

We still like the emphasis on fair trial for those accused, and the system of fines proportionate to the offence.

So to those who worship Magna Carta and dislike what successive Parliaments have done to it, I suggest you first read it in full. Then write in and tell me what first attracted you to it, and whether there are on reflection some parts you think may no longer be appropriate.

I am glad Boris has come out today with regret for voting for the war in Iraq. Those who believed in it then do have to explain what they thought so  at the time, and what can be learned from the mistake. If only more Labour figures would do so, as they were in government, they sustained Tony Blair as PM, and they provided the necessary support for the war. How do senior Labour figures today respond to Mr Blair’s new  long essay of self justification? Conservative support made no difference to the outcome and had no impact on the decision.

I remember well arguing with Iain Duncan Smith not to support the war. I wanted the Conservatives to be whipped to oppose it, as I thought it was likely to miscarry at the time. I did not think the PM would spin  about weapons of mass destruction given the seriousness of the issues at stake, so I could see why so many thought we should do something.  I was concerned about how we would settle Iraq once victorious and how we would secure the weaponry without accident.

My mistake was to vote with the party whip once I had lost the battle within the party to change its view. I have learned that you can be too loyal.

The government has promised us a Statement of British values to inform School Governors and Headteachers as they guide and manage their institutions.

Today I invite you to tell me what should go into such a Statement.  For my part, it would include a belief in democracy, equality before the law, tolerance, seeking to resolve conflicts and tensions within a community by discussion and democratic procedures. It would encompass religious tolerance, the banning of bullying and violence, and the pursuit of excellence in both academic and non academic subjects. The aim of a school should be to find that spark, that enthusiasm for learning and for achievement which stays with the individual as they move into adulthood.

David Cameron gave his definition of British values as “freedom, tolerance, respect for the rule of law, belief in personal and social responsibility and respect for British institutions”. I will be writing more about Magna Carta later.

The Governor of the Bank grabbed the headlines on Thursday night for hinting that official interest rates may go up earlier than  markets expect. As markets expect a rate rise by the second quarter of 2015, that could bring it forward to later this year.

The Governor’s speech was more balanced and careful than the headlines suggested. It is true he said rates may go up “sooner” than  anticipated. He also said “there remains scope for spare capacity to be used up before policy is tightened”. He went out of his way to remind us the Bank wants to see a good recovery and does not wish to take action which is too early or too tough which could damage the progress being made.

He drew attention to fast rises in house prices. He said the Financial Policy Committee of the Bank and the banking regulators would seek to prevent a mortgage inspired house price bubble. New rules have already come in making it more difficult for people to obtain a mortgage, and further  action is planned to prevent banks being too expansionary in the mortgage market and to prevent people borrowing too much money to buy a property. He does not think the interest rate weapon is the right one to tackle this issue.

The Governor’s speech also drew attention to two longer term weaknesses of the UK economy. He pointed to the large balance of payments deficit, and to the need for more business investment spurring productivity growth. He inclined to an optimistic view of how the UK will respond to these challenges. He thinks in due course as the rest of the advanced world recovery gathers pace there will be more opportunity for UK exports. He also hinted that the current strong pound may reverse at some stage if the current account does not correct naturally. Business investment is now picking up and may in due course raise productivity. As I have commented before, the decline in North Sea oil output and the movement  of high earning people in financial services to lower tax jurisdictions has of course hit the productivity figures.

He did not comment on one obvious reason for a poor balance of  payments performance – high energy prices and shortage of domestic energy. The UK is importing increasing quantities of high energy using products, and is importing more electricity from France and other energy from abroad. Cement, for example, is often now imported despite the high transport costs because UK production is so expensive given energy prices here.

The outbreak of religious war in Iraq should not lead to UK or US military intervention. Many people living in  the west are unaware of the issues in dispute between Sunni and Shia Muslims, and are not on either side. We are not well briefed over the theological. social and political differences, which clearly mean a lot to those involved.

When Western Europe lived through its own religious wars, with Catholic fighting Protestant, issues of national identity and borders came up in the conflicts, just as the religious wars in the modern Middle East also pose these secular issues and power struggles. The revolt of the Netherlands against Spanish rule was both a religious battle, and a quest for national identity and self government. It was good that Islamic armies and navies stayed at home and did not come to Western Europe to help one side or the other or impose their view of the right answer on the warring factions. If they had tried to intervene there might have been more deaths and a more complex struggle.

In today’s complicated world the great western powers do have duties as members of the UN. Where the international community thinks international law has been breached by one side in the dispute and not the other, and where they think their military intervention could put right the wrong, then there is a case for doing so. The liberation of Kuwait is a good recent case. Most in the Arab world thought the liberation of Kuwait was a just cause. Kuwait herself wanted military assistance. The west was able to do it quickly and successfully.

The internal wars in modern Syria and Iraq, part religious, part power struggles, do not pose the same straightforward moral issues. Nor is their the same opportunity for western military might to enforce a new and better solution at an acceptable cost in human life and destruction of property. The government of Iraq can ask for  military help, and it may be that technical advice or supplies of equipment are possible and permissible. Going further would be unwise. The West has taken sides, backing the government in Iraq  but against the government in Syria. It has wisely fallen short of backing the opposition in Syria, given the varied nature of that opposition and the difficulty of knowing how stable government could emerge from the violent overthrow of an unpleasant regime. Sometimes the west has to accept there should be limits to its interventions.

Mr Hunt is a breath of fresh air at the Department for Health. As a strong believer in the NHS, he wishes to raise the quality of the service and support high professional standards throughout our hospitals and surgeries. He has been shocked by reports of poor treatment and lack of care in some wards and some hospitals, and is seeking ways to ensure patients do not suffer in future as some have in the past from hospital infections, lack of food and water, or bad medical interventions.

The Secretary of State has decided the best way forward is to encourage and require honest reporting of incidents. Hospitals which fail patients need to record and report the problem, and then make sure it does not happen again. In the private sector many companies use quality systems which seek to design out any error in their process or performance. When someone reports an accident or mistake, the first issue is how do you put right what has immediately gone wrong, and the second is how do you redesign the process so it cannot happen in future. The main purpose of reporting is to improve, not to have a witch hunt over who made the mistake.

There are many parts of the patient expereience in some of our hospitals that needs improving. Do they control the drug round properly? Is eveything logged so the right medicine in the right dose is always offered? Is there a fail safe system to prevent the dispensation of the wrong mediicine, or the wrong quantity or at the wrong time? Do they control hospital stocks and supplies effectively, to ensure lower costs and shorter periods holding the items so they are fresher for use? Are staff used to best effect? How easy is it to transfer staff from less busy to busy wards or periods of the day? Are the staff effectively led and do they understand what good quality service looks like? Who checks that patients have the water and food they need? Who is responsible for ensuring reasonable patient requests are responded to promptly?

Shining a light onto poor performance is a necessary part of improvement. I would be interested in your obsaervations on the successes and weaknesses of our hospitals.

Behind the scenes work is advancing quickly on what should be in the manifesto for 2015. The Conservative leadership will want to have a good idea of what the party will be offering by this autumn. The Prime Minister will want his speech to conference to set the scene for the manifesto to follow. Doubtless Labour and the Lib dems are also well into the work on their proposals.

Central to the Conservative approach will be the renegotiation and the referendum on our membership of the EU. The other two main parties in Parliament think they can avoid discussion and much action on EU matters, offering a passive acceptance of all the powers that have already passed to the EU. Their line on a referndum is they will offer one only if there is a new Treaty transferring yet more powers. They say this knowing no such Treaty is currently planned. They will fail to set out how they think the UK can remain a full member of the EU when most of the EU is busily completing a political union to back its currency union.

Central also to the Conservative approach must be further measures to build on the economic recovery now underway, and to complete the task of eliminating the deficit. This is also likely to be distinctive as an approach, as both Labour and Lib Dems are likely to want to spend and borrow more despite the very high levels of borrowing already undertaken.

Today I would be interested to hear youtr ideas on what should go into the manifesto.

There is a general welcome for legislation to allow the recall of MPs announced in the Queen’s Speech. There is also a campaign email doing the rounds to say that the planned recall proposals do not go far enough. So today I am inviting comments on how a decent recall system could and should work.

The first issue to sort out is what is recall for? It should be a facility if an MP has behaved badly in ways which damage his work as an MP for the constituency. It should not be a chance to re-run the election in any given seat because people did not like the result. An MP who does the job should be able to do it until the next election, when people have the chance to persuade others to change the MP for political or other reasons.

The problem is how do you define bad behaviour. If the MP is convicted of murder or rape then we would all agree he can no longer represent the constituency and will go to jail. Of course there should be recall, though under the current system there would also be resignation followed by a by election in such circumstances. If an MP has to pay a parking or speeding fine then that would not presumably be a cause for them to face recall. Somewhere in between the different levels of lawbreaking lies a cut off point which the new law will enforce and lead to recall where the line has been crossed.

Bad behaviour does have to be proven. A system which allowed anyone to trump up an allegation against an MP they did not like and then force recall would create lots of by elections where the individual was innocent.

More difficult is bad political behaviour. Some constituents think an MP should face recall for breaking his or her word or reneging on promises made in an election. Tempting though this is, it could prove difficult to enforce and would probably lead to parties and candidates declining to make any promises at all that could later force their resignation.

Let us take the case of the Lib Dem promise to oppose tuition fees in the 2010 election. It was a clear promise. In the circumstances of coalition it was a Lib Dem Secretary of State who presided over the development and implementation of a tuition fee system. Should there have been 56 by elections immediately that happened, with a possible change of government and a period of instability? Or is the change of circumstance and the formation of coalition sufficient reason to change a party’s stance?

The issue also arises of who settles whether an MP or party has broken its word sufficiently to justify recall? Some say if a given proportion of an electorate demand a recall there should be one. In a marginal seat there might be 10% of the electors who feel very partisan in favour of the main losing candidate. Should they have the right to demand a re-run at the worst time for the incumbent MP?

Recall is a popular idea but the problems lie in the detail of how it would work. The fact that there has to be an election every five years at the longest means no-one is lumbered with a rotten MP indefinitely, if their neighbours agree with their judgement.