I read speculation in the press about a Ministerial reshuffle. I think Mr Cameron has been wise  not to hold an early one, or to make them annual events. Ministers need to time to master their brief and to learn to work well with their departments.  For everyone a Prime Minister makes happy by promoting, he makes another miserable by sacking them.

         Clearly Mr Cameron is aware of the difficulties of managing the party and the expectations of many MPs when he does not have a majority and when Lib Dems take a larger share of the Ministerial posts than their Parliamentary strength would justify on its own, to ensure they have representation in every department. 

          Some people have been briefing the press that there will be a September reshuffle, but only Conservative MPs who have always voted with the government will be considered for promotion. Some have also suggested that there could be a further reshuffle before the 2015 scheduled General Election.

           In the past Prime Ministers have appointed a mixture of loyalists and more independently minded people to government. The old idea was that a government needed to reflect the broad forces of opinion within the governing party and in turn in the wider country. Margaret Thatcher appointed “wets” to her Cabinet though she disagreed with them. They did vote against her when not on the payroll. Tony Blair invited Gordon Brown to be Chancellor, only to see him running a domestic government within the wider government, and building a Brown faction within the Labour party.  Both Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair appointed some rebels to the government. John Major appointed Michael Heseltine to prominent roles, knowing he wanted to be Leader.  They took the view that they needed to listen and argue with some they disagreed with, around the Ministerial table.It also meant those particular rebels had to vote for the agreed government line once it was settled.  What is the point of a Cabinet if all agree on the main issues of the day?

            Mr Cameron has a particular problem in managing the votes and ambitions of the 2010 intake. As this accounts for half the Conservative Parliamentary party, it is a very large voting group. The government has expected loyalty from them, because they are new and because many of them have legitimate ambitions for office in due course. It has not worked out quite like this, with many of the best of the new intake of Conservative MPs showing early independence of mind and spirit, and voting against the government on important issues like the EU, a referendum,  and Lords reform.

            I think it is a strange idea that the possibility of office can buy the full support of most MPs. People come into politics with views and  campaigns in mind. They wish to represent their constituents, and to stay true to promises they made their electors. They are swayed by argument and by policy circumstance. The best way for the government to get its business through is not by offering possible jobs at some unspecified time in the future, but by adopting popular policies and persuading MPs to vote for them on their merits. The main reason this government is at odds with many Conservative backbenchers is its refusal to demand a new relationship with the EU. If they would change that they could make the Conservative party much happier with its leadership.

           There is another reason why the patronage approach to party management is difficult to make work in this Parliament. The reduced number of Ministerial posts available to Conservative MPs is compounded by the government’s stated policy of a substantial increase in the number of women Ministers. Bright men MPs can do the sums, and see they have little chance of preferment. If preferment is a constraint on free thinking and independent voting for some, the poor arithmetic of gaining it offsets this feeling. 

           I would be interested in your thoughts on a reshuffle and the composition of the government, but please do not write in about me as I have no wish for this to be about me.

             Many policy roads lead to the EU. The Treasury blames the Euro crisis in no small measure for disappointment over UK growth. Our dear energy policy is partly fashioned in the EU, with all sorts of requirements placed on the UK to prevent UK industry having low bills like the USA or Asia. The EU controls immigration to the UK from the rest of the EU, now has a chain of EU embassies to flex its  muscles in foreign policy, is moving in on criminal justice matters, and of course regulates and regulates again across wide swathes of industry and services.

           Many writers on this site simply want to leave the EU. The issue they never seem willing to discuss is how this would come about. Either the present UK Parliament has to vote for a referendum on In/Out, and then the public have to vote in sufficient numbers for out, or at some future date the public has to elect a Parliament with a majority government pledged to pull out come what may. Neither of these eventualities looks very likely at the moment.  When I and just over a hundred other MPs voted to give the UK public a referendum, we were voted down by  a huge majority, as Labour, Lib Dem and Coalition Conservatives united against a public vote.  Only if the official Labour position or the official Conservative position shifts is a referendum at all possible.

          The reason I argue for a new relationship with Europe, is that we are closer to building a majority for renegotiation than we are close to the point where public and Parliament are going to demand pull out. The official Conservative position favours renegotiation were the Conservatives to have a majority. Conservative Ministers would make demands for repatriating powers if they were not currently in coalition with Lib Dems. Their backbenchers would push them further.

          Some of you say it is pointless seeking  powers back or seeking a renegotiation, as you think one is impossible. I say, what is there to lose? If the EU is as inflexible as you say, then, surely that will radicalise the UK people.  If we  see no commonsense and no acceptance that we the UK have simply put up with too much power and money grab from Brussels, wont that persuade more people to demand Out and vote for Out? If Brussels gets it, they will offer us substantial powers back, with a view to rescuing a relationship which has gone horribly wrong and is no longer wanted in its current form by  a majority of the UK electorate.

          Some of you ask what have Eurosceptic MPs  achieved by staying in  the Conservative party and fighting from  within? I would say we Conservative Eurosceptics did much of the work to keep the UK out of the Euro, a crucial victory, and have now persuaded Mr Cameron to veto the latest integrationist Treaty. There is much more to do, but UKIP are not in any position to help, because they have no votes in the Commons. It’s votes in the Commons now that are needed to block an increase in the budget, to demand powers back, t0 vote against any further transfer of powers, and to require a referendum.

          Parliament is having a long and needless break until September. Clearly the government is not desperate to crack on with Lords reform, which might take a lot of debating time, as they are not shortening the summer holiday.

          I expect the Lords Reform Bill worked out by Mr Clegg to be quietly dropped this autumn. I would imagine government business managers have realised that they cannot rely on Mr Miliband to vote it through promptly and unamended. Though Labour may well wish to see a Bill carry in due course, they would also wish to see as much divisive debate and damage to the Coalition is possible before it passed. They would also doubtless vote with Conservative opponents in favour of a referendum on the issue.

       Business managers would also shrewdly work out that the Bill could be voted down in the Lords. Even some of the Lib Dem peers are against, let alone the Conservatives.  That would mean waiting a year and then trying to force it through the Commons under the Parliament Act, with the Lords complaining long and loudly that the use of the Parliament Act to abolish the Lords was an extreme measure. I cannot see them having the stomach for such a protracted and hazardous fight.

         Mr Clegg could then respond in the wider interests of the Coalition he helped form. He could see the Lords Reform delay for this Parliament as a parallel act by Conservatives to the Lib Dem slowdown and enforced changes to Mr Lansley’s  Health Reforms and their refusal to vote in support of Mr Hunt, and accept that these things happen in coalitions. Or he could seize what he thinks is his party’s interest, and demand that the boundary changes to reduce the number of MPs and make seats of a more consistent size be dropped. If Mr Clegg and the other payroll vote Lib Dems will not vote for the boundary changes then they too are dead, as Labour is strongly against them for party reasons as well.

           This will leave the legislative programme light . That is not necessarily a bad thing. The UK is not short of laws.  It would allow a repeal Bill to be put in, if the government wishes to increase our liberties and cut out some of the vexatious laws and regulations that bind us. Now there’s an idea that should appeal to Ministers from  both Coalition parties, but I  don’t see them limbering up for it.

             Those of us who want government to do less with less, and those who want government to do more with less, have a common interest. We want a more efficient and effective government.

             The best way to provide impetus and discipline for such an approach is to have a small number of simple rules which departments of government just have to accept. The government has promised some of them, and talked about others. Now would be a good time to reaffirm and reinforce these precepts:

1. Any job vacancy in the public sector should normally be filled from applicants within the public sector. Any job falling vacant has to be reappraised to see if it is still needed, or can best be combined with some other post.

2. Departments and quangos cannot add any more floorspace to their property portfolio. If they want a new building, it has to replace larger and dearer space, with a profit on the switch for taxpayers.

3. Any new regulation should only be permitted when regulations of greater or equal burden have been identified for repeal, concurrently with the passage of the new one. This should include all regulations resulting from EU legislation.

4. Every budget should entail scrapping at least one tax, to start to simplify the complex tax system.

5. Every time the EU takes more power UK regulators and government departments in that area should shed staff and controls to compensate. We have two governments for the price of three in many areas today.

          We are chronically overgoverned. The advent of a huge EU government has acted as an overlay to UK administration, and as a kind of misplaced spur to more UK government as well. As this Parliament wishes to remain in the EU, the least it could do is to put in some rules that mean there is a cost to UK government of signing up to so much EU government. They should be seen as alternatives, not as mutual reinforcers.

         The government has kept its promise to increase the amount of our money it spends on overseas aid.  Last year saw the Department for International development increase its spending to £7.87 billion from £7.48 billion the year before.

          Just under half was spent on country programmes administered by the Department, or £3.4 billion.  £1.8 billion was spent through its international finance programme, sending the money to the World Bank, regional development banks and global funds to spend. A further £1.7 billion was spent under the heading  “International relations” where the bulk went to the EU and the UN to spend for us. £0.8 billion was spent on research, including £0.2 billion on climate research.

           The Department mainly talks about the good work it does under its direct programmes. It is making progress getting children into school in poor countries, vaccinating  against disease, and tackling the scourge of malaria. Many of these are good programmes with noble aims.  It talks less about its reseach work and the money it sends via the EU.

            Under its country programmes, the biggest include India ( £268m), Pakistan (£216m), Nigeria (£172 m), Somalia (£103m) and Kenya (£94 m). Some of it is dangerous and difficult work. Last year £300,000 was written off for the loss of 5 trucks of aid in Southern Somalia from problems over authority for the mission. The Department is strengthening its anti corruption checks and systems, as it is aware of the dangers of misappropriation of these very large sums.

              What do you think of the priorities and the totals? Should the list of countries be shorter?

The government’s transport budget is largely  spent on the trains. They have a report which says that our railways are far less efficient and far costlier to run than comparable overseas systems. The government has said it intends to seek out better value for money. The need to control UK public spending demands more urgent attention to securing just that.

The first thing to address is the imbalance between the trains they run and the trains people want. They run too few trains with too few seats at peak hours on the popular commuting routes. They run too many trains with too many seats on many less popular routes and at less popular times of day. They need to increase capacity at peaks, and they need to get better at selling tickets for off peak and cross country.

The railway executives tell me they are now working on new signalling and braking systems which could increase capacity. Being able to run just 30 trains an hour on excellent routes right into the hearts our cities at peak times is a luxury we cannot afford. They must rapidly find ways to increase capacity by say 50%, increasing train frequency to 45 an hour from 30 an hour. Then they could provide a better timetable at peaks, and offer more seats so there was less overcrowding.  They also need to sort out the leaves on the line/wrong kind of snow syndrome, by adding more traction to commuter stop start /trains.

The approach to ticketing seems complex and expensive. Either tickets should be inspected on trains by on board inspectors, or checked at entry and exit from the platform. Combining elements of both systems is wasteful. Control onto and off the platform is likely to be the cheapest way of doing it, and can be done by automatic equipment in the main. If there is a problem checking first class tickets in first class carriages, this can be done by catering staff as part of the payment and checking system for the food and drink offer.

The cross country and long haul railway is probably most productively used for freight. The railway needs to be more interested in single wagon  marshalling and single load  business. Rail freight has grown since privatisation, and there has been improvement in the offer. The old nationalised industry was only interested in trainload contracts. A whole generation of new business parks was built with motorway access instead of branch line connections to the railway as a result.

            The UK state needs to get some cash back from  its investment in the banking industry. Progress has been made in getting the state out of special loans and guarantees offered during the crisis. Taxpayers have received money back,  interest and fees to compensate them. There remains the big issue of the large shareholdings in RBS and Lloyds. The lack of progress in this reinforces my view that we should have done all the work supporting broken banks through short term loans, guarantees and restructuring, rather than buying shares. I am not planning to go over that argument again today.

         Instead I want to talk more generally about what customers expect from their commercial bank. Fresh from the excitement of reading more about how Terry Leahy transformed Tesco, it seems to me that our commercial banks need a big dose of asking their customers.

          My commercial bank should know all there is to know about my finances. My  income I earn goes through the current account, and most purchases I make are itemised on a card payment system. The only thing the bank does not know is how I spend the smaller amounts of cash I withdraw to pay for car parks and other purchases that require notes and coin.

                  In contrast the large  food retailer I use from time to time knows much less about my financial life. They know what items I buy when I shop there. They use this data to full effect. I am sent coupons to buy more with a discount if I undertake a larger shop in a specified time. I am offered extra bonus points or discounts on products I have bought in the past. I am invited to special promotions at the store. I get 1% back on all my purchases through the discount card system. In other words, my food retailer knows I shop elsewhere and they want more of my business. They reward loyalty, and they encourage a wider relationship by intelligent marketing.

                 My bank hardly ever approaches me with an offer of any additional service. It does not notice if I have some cash that could be put into a savings product, or am short of cash and migth need a personal loan. It may see a customer  taking out a mortgage somewhere else, or buying a car, but fails to make contact to see if they can help. The bank I sometimes use in central London regards queues as part of normal retail life, and does not match the food retailers in opening sufficient counters when demand is high. The only welcome innovation in recent years is the single queue.

               Customers want to feel the bank is on their side, but all too often feel it is not. A healthy dose of getting to know the customers, and offering us the services we want at good value prices would be most welcome.

The Energy and Climate Change Committee of the Commons has complained that the Treasury is undermining renewable energy. They say a lack of Treasury guarantees for future subsidies and revenues is going to make it dearer to put in renewable capacity, and therefore dearer for energy consumers in the future.

The Treasury are asking the right questions. They are attacking the high level of subsidy which some renewables attract. They point out that the price of supplying solar panels and even of windmills is coming down, so surely the subsidy should as well? There is  an argument within government between the Energy Department, reluctant to bring the guaranteed prices and subsidies down quickly, and the Treasury, impatient to get them down to provide consumers with a better deal. Sensible people should be on the side of the Treasury. If the guarantees from the Treasury are essential to the finance for such capacity, it means there is a worrying liability on taxpayers.

There is a more fundamental weakness in the situation which even the Treasury seems unable to counter. The EU renewable targets and carbon dioxide policies does mean substantially dearer energy for compliant European countries than for Asian and American competitors. No-one seems to discuss repealing or altering the EU frameworks, which are doing damage even to German industry as well as to the UK. Apparently the EU thinks it makes the world greener and cleaner if we hobble ourselves with high prices, large subsidies paid for by consumers, and  high carbon dioxide taxes, whilst the US drills for shale and Asia buys the cheapest fossil fuels it can find.

I am all in favour of more effort being put into fuel efficiency , insulation, smart industrial solutions and the rest. What seems stupid is for the EU to make it too dear and too dificult for higher energy using industries to prosper in the west, exporting them to the east. The Treasury needs to push back not just on the UK Energy department over subsidy levels, but also tackle the EU elephant in the energy room. We need cheaper energy all round. We need to save more on the subsidies.

Let the games begin! The UK will be a good host. We welcome our visitors and wish the athletes well as they reach for new heights of sporting achievement.

Last night’s opening ceremony produced a superb forging of the rings and ended with a spectacular sequence to unite the flames.Many in the worldwide audience will have enjoyed the misbehaviour of Mr. Bean and the way the Queen and Mr Bond appeared to drop in, avoiding surface transport.

I will leave any more contentious issues about the historical and cultural presentation to a later day. I would be interested in your reactions now. Eurosceptics will I am sure appreciate that our various European visitors respected this Eurosceptic isle by leaving their EU flags at home.

          Lee Rotherham’s latest publication “The EU in a nutshell” (Harriman House) is an excellent guide to the history, costs and law making of the EU. He sent me a copy of it to review on this site, which I am happy to do. 

         From the opening remarks of David Starkey, reminding us of England’s history seeking independence and distance from the continental powers, to the country by country guide, it is packed with useful information.It could, for example, be a useful source book for trying to answer the crucial question ,what are the costs and benefits of UK membership?

       The UK’s total payments into the Union, after deducting the rebate, amount to a mighty £170 billion so far. We have also paid more for our food, though have benefitted from some tariff reductions on other products.  A Treasury study under the last government is said to have concluded that the total costs of EU membership amounted to a massive 28% of UK GDP. This comes from adding 7% costs of EU protectionism, to 6% costs of overregulation, to 3% transatlantic barriers to trade, to 12% being  the EU’s competitive gap with the USA. This combines imposed costs with missed opportunities and can be criticised for that. It is however, undeniable that the extra costs of EU regulation and protectionism are real, and limit our ability to compete with the rest of the world.  

        We have run a large balance of payments deficit during our years of membership with the rest of the EU, whilst often running a trade surplus with the rest of the world despite the extra costs and regulations imposed on that trade by the EU.

        The book also charts the rise of EU powers and law making. It demonstrates just how many different views have been expressed by the various authorities over how much law is now EU derived. All the figures point to it being an important amount, and some suggest it is the large majority in many areas.  It analyses the viewpoints of the differing countries, and stresses just how different the balance of costs and benefits are for the various states of the Union.

        If you want to be reminded of how the Euro came about, know how voluminous the law codes or or just browse through the vast array of EU institutions and quangos, this book is for you. You will not find much evidence of benefits to the UK,  but I do not suppose that will surprise most of you.