I have long been putting the case that the main net zero policies being pursued by successive U.K. governments are damaging to our economy and add to world CO 2 output. I have pointed out that getting our own gas out instead of importing LNG saves a large amount of CO 2 whilst generating jobs and tax revenue at home. The last government accepted this view and proposed more domestic gas and oil, only for this new government to stupidly cancel the policy.

I pointed out that trying to phase out and then ban new diesel and petrol cars prematurely would damage U.K. car investment and production. It will probably lead to people importing nearly new petrol cars instead. More people buying EVs will increase CO 2 for their manufacture and lead to more gas being burned in power stations to recharge them. I have set out the damage heat pumps will do. The  last government did push back the ban on new petrol cars but failed to lift the penal and damaging tax on selling the wrong types of new car.

My critics say I should spend my time rebutting climate change theory. As an MP I did not see it as my job to change people’s beliefs. I did not seek to make Muslims of Christians, Catholics of Anglicans  or atheists of all. I recognised I had two groups ,two powerful minorities on climate change, deniers  versus fanatics. My arguments were designed to tackle the practical issues and consequences of net zero policies. Pointing  out how absurd key policies are in CO 2 terms as well as the jobs and tax arguments was designed to win over moderate climate change believers, as it did partially with the previous government.

I will continue to make the case for urgent and important policy changes to arrest the damage to industry,jobs and investment the key net zero policies of this government are doing. This case is also environmental. I have always allowed freedom to both sides in the climate debate to state their case here. I have on various occasions raised important questions about climate change theory myself. The immediate need is to alter policy on power generation, EVs, electric heating and the accelerated run down of everything from steel to cars, from petrochemicals to nuclear power. That  requires maximising support from both sides of the climate divide. I will restate my thoughts on the weather issues tomorrow.

This website does not talk a lot about the Conservative party any more following the big defeat. It rightly concentrates on the government, as it did when Conservatives were in office. However, we do need a good Opposition and so I am doing a piece about the Conservative Leadership race. The choice of the best candidate to become Leader of the Opposition does matter, as he or she will have the first right of reply to government in the House, have five questions every week to the PM  and the right to choose the debates for Opposition days. They will also need to decide how the Conservative party deals with the 7 million voters who left it for Reform or to abstain.The 5 Reform MPs will also develop their own role as an Opposition party.

How have the four Conservative candidates performed in Opposition?

Perhaps the best test of them is to see how they have spent their first three months in opposition and to see how successful they have been.

Robert Jenrick has made a number of successful attacks on Labour policy despite not being a Shadow Cabinet member. He has provided a good critique of the Prime Minister’s conduct, of the migration failings, of the bad international negotiations and of the freebies and donations.

Tom Tugendhat shadows the Security Minister. He sent him a good will message on appointment and has failed to attack him for anything that comes up on a Google search. Indeed many people do not know the name of the current Security Minister, Dan Jarvis because his faults of commission and omission are not highlighted by his Shadow. He is responsible for  reducing organised crime and for counter terrorism. There are plenty of issues over foreign criminals, illegal migration, the handling of the Middle East and UK self sufficiency in protection and defence items to pursue.

Kemi Badenoch shadows Angela Rayner. She has been spoilt for choice over whether to highlight the freebies and lifestyle, the failure to come forward with planning legislation despite the urgency, the lack of understanding by Rayner of the importance of mortgages and interest rates to the housing market and the likelihood Rayner will not hit her ambitious housing targets. The only Google result is a general condemnation of Rayner for not having “a clue what she is doing”

James Cleverly shadows Yvette Cooper. He did engage when Cooper sought to exaggerate the costs and minimise the advantages of the Rwanda scheme. He has not followed through more recently in detail.

How did they perform in government?

Robert Jenrick tried hard to control legal and illegal migration. Frustrated by a lack of support from the rest of the government he resigned over the need to firm up the policy and did good detailed work on the backbenches putting to government practical ways of delivering Conservative promises on immigration. He showed he had got it before the electorate passed their verdict on broken promises.

Tom Tugendhat did not use his post as Security Minister to make important changes to the control of our borders or to tackle organised crime. Nor did he use his power to speak and influence on defence matters to increase our national self sufficiency in weapons or seek to give us a better Iron Dome type defence. I never heard him express any views in private that wanted change to a government that was clearly letting the country down.

Kemi Badenoch who now speaks eloquently of the need for less regulation and smaller government as Deregulation Minister took out the main measures  of repeal from the EU laws Bill that had passed the Commons . She  blocked many good ideas for less and better regulation put to her by MPs. She did not lead positively on the closure of steel works, the compensation and need for  improved management at the Post Office, or the impact of net zero policies on the car industry, usually leaving these key issues to junior Ministers in her department.

James Cleverly did put in agreed proposals to reduce legal migration which are now having an impact. He did not accept amendments to the law proposed by Robert Jenrick and others to get flights off to Rwanda sooner to increase the deterrent effect.

 

Conclusion

I recommend that MPs vote for Robert Jenrick and James Cleverly to go to the members for decision. I  expect Tom Tugendhat to be dropped in the next MP voting round, and think it likely Kemi Bademoch is dropped at the final MP round.

The car industry has been damaged by government bad rules, fines and taxes on new car sales. The industry itself has gone along with the idea that people should be forced to buy battery cars they do not want, and blocked from buying petrol and diesel cars they prefer. Now they want government to bail them out with tax cuts and subsidies on the electric product.

The idea that more U.K. battery cars helps save the planet is crazy. Were I to buy a new battery car today the U.K. would need to burn more gas in a power station for me to recharge  it. World CO 2 output goes up as a lot of CO 2 is created to make the raw materials , the  battery and the rest of the vehicle.

So now the industry wants 5% VAT on recharges instead of standard 20%. It wants most of the VAT taken off a new battery car purchase. It wants battery cars to escape higher rate Vehicle Excise Duty. All this is on top of battery cars avoiding fuel duty. All this is unaffordable if battery car sales expand  as a result.

Instead of wanting freebies from freebie loving Ministers the  industry should campaign for an end to the savage fines on selling too many petrol cars and too few battery cars. Let consumers decide what they want. The government is killing the U.K. car industry with this mad policy.

PS All the time we had a Conservative government I posted plenty of criticisms of them. Now we have a Labour government I regard them as responsible and will not be posting criticisms of Conservatives for policies Labour can change now they have such a big majority.

The gift of the Chagos islands to Mauritius was in the worst tradition of the U.K. Foreign Office. They hear the demands of a foreign country. They see it would make life  for them in that country easier if they agreed with them. They tell the Foreign Secretary it shows great diplomacy and world influence to accept the other government’s view. They explain it in terms of international law or international politics or some version of history that suits their case.

The Foreign Secretary is then meant to tell them that as skilled diplomats they need to push back on the other country’s view. They need to construct a U.K. case based on our national interest and sense of history. They need to set this out, as he will to Parliament, and to seek other international support where necessary. In some cases he should tell the officials there is no need to negotiate on the issue at all as we like the status quo.

David Lammy clearly did not grasp this need in this crucial case. He should have known the importance to the U.K. and US of the base on Diego Garcia and kept the freehold of that island. He should have pushed back on the legal arguments as these are international law subject to balance of political argument.

This came to light when Parliament is not in session with no prior statement or debate warning Parliament of a possible adverse conclusion to negotiations. This is a disgrace. The Opposition must demand a Statement and demand that any draft Treaty needs Parliamentary approval.

So will  David Lammy now encourage the Prime Minister to give in in negotiations with the EU? Will he give in to Spain and allow Spanish/ EU officials to take over border control into Gibraltar?

Our country is not safe with this government. They want to give away territory and powers important to our national security. Both Chagos and Gibraltar are crucial  military bases we need to control and look after.

When I was Single market Minister the Foreign Office and EU secretariat were always pressing for the U.K. to compromise to get a deal. It was important to be firm in identifying the numerous powers they wanted the U.K. to sacrifice that would not increase our exports but would further impair our ability to govern ourselves and to be flexible for our trade with the rest of the world.

 

 

 

The PM says he wants to re set the U.K. relationship with the EU. He has a very woolly shopping list of what he wants. He wants more defence collaboration which will mean us making a bigger contribution to continental defence whilst undermining NATO. He wants improvements in trade terms, without specifying which and without acknowledging how much the U.K. was forced to give for the free trade deal we already have. He wants better co operation on stopping illegal migration though we are already paying France a fortune to secure that under an existing Agreement.

The EU will want to grasp more control over us and grab more of our money and assistance. They want freedom of movement, now disguised as a young people’s scheme for the under 30 s. As most migrants coming illegally are under 30 that is another way of saying we should take more of the migrants entering the EU. They want to bag more of our fish after the poor Transition terms fall away. Why on earth would we want them to carry on plundering our seas and impeding the rebuilding of a U.K. fishing fleet? They want us to buy more of our weapons and energy from them, epseekin* to make us more dependent.

Never accept a deal with plenty of upside for the other party and only vague warm words for yourself. What exactly does the PM want to get? Why is it worth further sacrifice to the EU? Does he get how unpopular another fish grab and freedom of movement would be?

Mr Miliband is celebrating this week. He has signed off the closure of our last coal fired power station. He sees this as proud proof that the U.K. is leading the world in decarbonising. He and like minded  Greens are always telling us the U.K. needs to go further and faster in closing down power stations and whole industries that use fossil fuels as then the world will follow us . So here are some questions for Mr Miliband.

Now the U.K. has completed setting an example of doing without coal power stations when will China and India do the same?

Indeed, when will China and India, the 2 largest coal burners even stop building new coal power stations?

The loss of around  3% of our power capacity as the station closes leaves us more vulnerable to power cuts. What assessment did he make before allowing the closure?

He says renewable power will be cheaper than fossil fuel. So when will he replace  the lost coal capacity with wind or solar? How much does he think that would save?

 

If renewable power is so cheap and its quantities are clearly increasing why have you just put energy bills up by 10% instead of cutting them?

To reach his target of all “clean” electricity by 2030 how much more capacity does the Grid need to install over and above their £30 bn expansion by 2030 agreed under the previous government?

 

Yesterday I talked about why US national income per head is double that of the EU and why the U.K. is only 20% above the EU. Since 2000 the U.K. has allowed itself to waste too much money in the public sector, allowed public sector productivity to plunge since Covid, allowed a disastrous Bank of England to twice put us through boom/ bust money policies and adopted far to many laws, rules and high taxes.

If Conservatives/ Reform are going to oust this Labour government and get us back on the road to prosperity and freedom a lot has to change. One or other of the parties needs to carry most support or they need to do a deal. The agenda to win is easier to define than how to resolve the splits over the vote.

We need policies that make it easier to be self employed, to start and grow a small business, to save and vest at home, to exploit our own natural resources, to restore national self sufficiency in energy, to strengthen our defence and base national security on greater industrial capability at home, to help more people to buy a home of their own, to drastically reduce migration levels of people into low paid jobs and of illegals.

POPULAR CAPITALISM

 

I have been asked to speak at a meeting to discuss what Margaret Thatcher would have done today. I have also been asked to write an updated Introduction for a new edition of my book Popular Capitalism about the drive to wider ownership at the heart of the policy I took to Downing Street in the 1980s.  I reproduce some of this thinking below. 

          Popular Capitalism spread a long way from its  origins in 1980s UK. Much of the world is a wealthier place today , with more owners , higher living standards and amazing technological developments. Free enterprise capitalism has empowered people with the mobile phone and the internet, and transformed much business with the all conquering silicon chip, on line shopping, downloaded entertainment and new social media. Many countries transferred large industries from public ownership, backed privately financed infrastructure, encouraged wider ownership and helped  more owner occupiers with their own homes. The USA remained truer to free enterprise throughout and expanded its lead in many fields.

 

 

         

 

What is Popular Capitalism now?

 

           The idea that everyone should be owners remains a powerful positive driver of prosperity and success.  Many People want the freedom of owning their own home to be able to adapt, use and decorate it as they wish. It is so much better to reach retirement  with the mortgage paid off and no rent to pay from your pension. Many want to work for themselves and build their own small businesses, enjoying the fruits of their labours by pleasing the customers rather than a boss. Many want savings put by for life’s big events or for misfortunes. All want a decent income in retirement which is best assured by saving through a pension scheme. These impulses remain now as then, but in many places other government priorities have impeded their fulfilment for all too many people. High interest rates make home buying less affordable. High inflation erodes savings and living standards. Tax and regulation can deter people from working for themselves or from expanding a small business.

 

           Popular capitalism has also suffered some reversals in  business and the wider economy. The manifesto for popular capitalism is based on competitive free enterprise delivering energy, water and most transport. Many of these industries have been denationalised in a variety of countries but in recent years there has been a return to more regulation, direct clumsy interventions in service, price and  investment plans and in some cases renationalisation.  The old lessons that nationalisation all too often meant big losses for taxpayers, poor working terms for employees and bad service for customers are being forgotten. Monopolies normally serve you badly at too high a price. The world has seen peak tariff free barrier free trade, with the main blocs and leading countries now developing strategies based on tariffs, price controls, bans, subsidies and government directions. The world has turned again to excessive debt build up, when equity is a preferred way of financing to spread ownership.

 

       Europe and the UK have gone too far in regulating and centrally directing. Productivity growth has stalled despite the huge advances that US digital technology makes possible. Government favours the large corporation and  imposes taxes and rules that make it more difficult for challenger companies. They  drag more markets towards state capitalism or heavily regulated limited competition in a hollowed out private sector. The pursuit of net zero has led carbon reduction to replace greater prosperity as the main aim of many policies. Government and international conferences visit upon the world their view of what consumers want, only to find they are at variance with what the public wishes to do and buy. In order to travel the road to net zero there has to b e consumer buy in on a grand scale, which requires more innovation, choice and competition, not more prescription, subsidies and rules.

 

     Too few young people think they can afford a home of their own any time soon. Too few see working for themselves as a liberating opportunity. Too few hear or read the messages that freedom , enterprise and democracy are interlinked and mutually support each other. The tyrannies of Russia, Iran and North Korea to a lesser or greater extent tell people what to think, what to do, and what to buy. They erode or remove human rights, limit consumer choice and thwart democratic disagreements. They create poorer societies in every way.

 

 

      State monopolies hold back countries and frustrate employees and consumers. The  more people who own, who actively run businesses, who save and invest, the richer the society. The world needs another dose of free enterprise. There are too many state inspired wars, too many high taxes and state rules. That way poverty beckons. Excessive debts build up til taxpayers are overburdened with interest charges.  Governments are tempted to inflation to try to conceal their failures, only to make it worse. Everyone an owner democratises capital. More capital is needed to provide all the facilities and services we need for a good life.

 

 

I will attend the Conservative conference tomorrow.

At 11 am I will give a speech on what conservatism is all about at the Lyttelton Theatre , Birmingham Institute, 9 Margaret Street outside security. All are welcome. Mark Francois as Chairman of the European Research Group  and Sir William Cash will also speak.

At 5.30 I am on a CPS panel in the Conference centre  ( ICC Hall 4 Level 5) to discuss What would Margaret Thatcher do? I will concentrate on the pursuit of prosperity through wider ownership and lower taxes.

It is time to change the OBR driven control system. It is said to control the build up of debt and to keep the U.K.  state solvent. Strange then that over their years of influence state debt has grown massively, huge sums of money have been printed, we have lived through a nasty inflation, and debt interest costs as they report them have leapt up. To make it worse U.K. growth has been almost as bad as the EU’s, falling way behind the USA.

The central OBR control is absurd. Government has to set out tax and spending proposals to give a falling state debt relative to GDP five years out. So budgets revolve around an OBR forecast of a deficit in five years time. The figure is bound to be wrong as no one can forecast that figure reliably. OBR forecasts of nearer term deficits are regularly out by large margins. The five year target is a moving target, shifting out another year as each year passes, so the accuracy of the original target forecast is irrelevant. It does however lead to a permanent bias in official advice against any so called unfunded tax cut. There is no similar pressure against many unfunded spending increases. There is no pressure of any kind to get the Bank of England to lose less, and no effective power to cut the losses of nationalised rail or the Post Office.

We need a new system that controls current year and next year spending and borrowing better. The new government saying current spending and current revenue should balance is a start. Their wish to be allowed to borrow more to invest only makes sense if what they invest in goes on to make returns. Borrowing to do more HS2 or Horizon computer type projects is a very bad idea. Leaving utilities investment to the private sector is a better idea than effectively nationalising them and discovering the state  cannot afford the investment and are no good at running them.