Author: johnredwood

This week end the Prime Minister was reported to say he would lead the Leave campaign if he does not get what he wants from the renegotiation. At a time when we see yet again how the government cannot hit its sensible target for controlled migration thanks to the EU the case becomes ever stronger for us to take back control over the things that matter to the British people.

Leaving the EU will make us freer, more democratic and better off. The UK will save its large financial contribution or EU tax which it currently pays. The UK will be able to decide for itself how much to award in benefits to whom. We will be able to settle who we invite in and to whom we grant citizenship. We will be able to decide our own energy policy and much else besides. The people you elect to Parliament will be able to amend our laws as the UK wishes, and no longer have to accept laws we do not like because they are part of the EU requirement.

Many of us think the PM asked for too little. Controlling benefits does not deal with the difficulties posed by freedom of movement. Nor does it deal with the mass unemployment of parts of the Eurozone, which drives people to the jobs in the UK.

Those who want to help the Vote leave campaign on the ground should go to their website www.voteleavetakecontrol.org where you can register as a supporter and receive their communications.

On Friday evening I set out the case for leaving the EU at a seminar in Oxford. I followed that with a speech to a Conservative dinner. I reminded them of the importance of offering and delivering the referendum, which all Conservative MPs voted through the Commons. I also told them about the work of Vote Leave reminding them that the official Conservative party is neutral, allowing members to join Vote Leave or the rival campaign if they wish.

On Saturday evening I attended a seminar on “Just war”, which raised some interesting legal and moral questions I would like you to comment on.

Let me begin by stressing to any mischief makers out there that I fully support our pilots over Syria and Iraq, wish them safe return, and agree they should carry out the will of Parliament, government and their commanders. This debate is not about them. Parliament on behalf of the nation voted to approve military action, and was told such action is legal.

This debate is about us and about today’s wars as well as about past wars. In a democracy war is conducted in our name, because MPs have had the opportunity to debate and vote on it. We accept majority decisions. The seminar speakers explained that over the centuries it has usually been accepted that only a sovereign can wage a just war. This used to be a King, and is now an internationally recognised government with whatever legal processes that government needs under its own constitution to enable it to kill the citizens of another country. It has also long been acknowledged that the international community wishes to place restrictions on how a sovereign may conduct war. There is a substantial body of international law and custom surrounding the treatment of prisoners, the killing of civilians and the types of munitions that can be used. In recent arguments the question of chemical weapons became an important consideration, and the indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations can be an issue. After the first world war there was a wish to restrict chemical weapons given the heavy use in that dreadful conflict. After the second world war when both sides used heavy area bombing of cities there was a wish to place limits on this in future conflicts. All in the west agree, for example, that hospitals and schools should not be targets.

Some of today’s wars raise the issue of how do you respond to violence by criminal gangs or “armies” that do not have recognition as sovereign countries with the right in certain ways and certain circumstances to wage war. Some say they should not be dignified with the title of states nor their actions called wars. They are violent criminals seeking to disrupt or overturn established states. Others say that when de facto violent people gain control of territories it is right as Mr Hollande does to say we wage war against them.

One of the big questions raised in the seminar was what legal and moral responsibility rests on the shoulders of the individual soldier or officer asked to carry out acts of violence against others. Governments and military commands like to stress the need for discipline. Normally the soldier or officer does not need to ask if it is right to kill the enemy, because they have been given clear orders by their superiors. The soldier would like to rely on the fact that the government and Generals commanding his army have taken proper legal advice, know what they are doing, and are issuing legal and sensible commands. Without discipline an army cannot function. In a battle you cannot suddenly ask or expect the soldiers at risk to hold a legal seminar as to how they should respond to danger.

However, under international law there are occasions when a junior officer or soldier does have to question a command or refuse to carry it out. If, for example, in a battle a senior officer orders soldiers to kill disarmed prisoners who have surrendered under the proper procedures, or if a commander wanted to use prohibited munitions he had captured, those asked to do this need to be aware that these might well not be legal commands. Junior officers and soldiers need to obey but they are not automata and they are not protected in all cases by the defence that they were only carrying out orders. Military training has to include understanding the laws and rules of war and the limits placed on authorised violence.

In the current Iraqi/Syrian war the government has to ask what are legitimate targets as it defines the campaign. It appears that the Coalition is very careful in identifying legitimate targets that should reduce ISIL’s capacity to kill others, without wishing to kill civilians who live near by. To what extent is it right to destroy the economic capacity of the areas occupied by ISIL to cut off some of their money supply, given that many non combatants also live there? The targets can be chosen in advance and subject to senior scrutiny before sign off.

As the nations meet to hammer out a new global warming deal we learn that many new coal-fired power stations are under construction or being planned around the world. I read that China is building 368 plants and planning a further 803. India is building 297 and planning 149. Rich countries are also planning new coal plants. The nuclear disaster at Fukushima has prompted Japan to turn back to coal, with 40 plants in the pipeline and five under construction. The UK is committed to phasing out coal based electricity capacity under EU directives, but this aversion to a readily plentiful and cheap fossil fuel is far from universal.

The UK needs to press on with alternative sources of energy to meet both industrial and consumer requirements at affordable prices. It neither helps us nor the world if we overprice energy here, driving more industry abroad to countries that will burn more cheaper fossil fuels.

The Climate Change conference seeks to work from what the countries offer, rather than seeking a top down set of targets and controls. This is a more realistic approach. Previous approaches have resulted in major countries refusing to be party to the world agreement at all, or failing to hit the targets set as they have proved difficult.

The conference is also talking about measures to allow adaptation. If there are changes to the patterns of weather which have an impact on communities then it makes sense as these arise to take action to prevent damage. London built a barrier to deal with tidal surges and high river levels some years ago. Some places may need better flood defences where the danger is too much water. Others may need better reserves of water and new source of supply where the danger is too little rainfall.

We can be sure our planet is never going to run out of water, given the magnitude of the oceans, but the natural water movements and rainfall patterns may not always suit current settlements without further engineering adaptation. The UK government is embarking on major programmes to tackle flooding, and the water industry needs to review the adequacy of its future supplies.

Worldwide there are changing patterns to agriculture. Some countries have damaged their soils, others can face prolonged periods without rain. There are ways to combat soil erosion, to nurture better soils, and to irrigate lands that are subject to a shortage of rain. The Dutch have long kept their country dry despite much of it being below sea level by excellence in water engineering. I hope the world conference turns to these practical measures that can ensure dry homes and a decent supply of water. One of the worst features of our world is the continued absence of proper shelter and water supply for too many people in the poor countries of the globe.

The result in Oldham came as a surprise to Blairite Labour MPs and to many commentators. The Labour party vote surged as a percentage of the total, to an impressive 62%. UKIP, in second place at the General election, rose considerably less and ended further behind in percentage terms than in May. The Conservative vote was squeezed by the rise of the first and second placed candidates. As Labour was on more than 62% of the vote their victory did not rest on the disposition of the other party votes. The others came nowhere.

It is an interesting result against the news background of the last few weeks. High levels of migration have been prominent, and more recently the terrorist attacks in France and the debate and vote to bomb Syria have dominated the headlines. Blairite Labour will point out that Labour had a local candidate who was well known and popular, who campaigned on local issues. However, the electors of Oldham like the rest of us would mainly have seen, heard and read about the big national and international events, and would have been aware of the big split in Labour over bombing Syria. Clearly Mr Corbyn was not as unpopular as many pretend, and his opposition to the Syrian bombing did not annoy many voters in Oldham.

Mr Farage was asked to comment on the results yesterday morning. He alleged voting irregularities in the postal ballot. We need to see what evidence UKIP has. At lunch time we were told no official complaint has yet been made, but presumably one with proper evidence will follow. As the BBC pointed out, even in the extreme and ridiculous case that all postal votes were false and had to be cancelled Labour would still have won.They should also have said no voting fraud is acceptable whether it succeeded or failed.

The government has attempted to tackle the possibility of voting abuse by moving to a system of individual voter registration. Every Returning Officer department of each principal Council has to compile a register of voters based on an individual establishing their identity and residence to the satisfaction of the authorities. They are open published lists, so neighbours, political parties and others interested can always check and challenge if there are irregularities.

It is not electoral fraud for an individual to be advised by a parent or spouse or other relative in their household on how to vote, and the state cannot make individual voters come to their own decisions if they do not wish to. The state can and must ensure that every adult has their own voter registration, and has the chance to vote in person in a secret ballot at the polling station, or in private with their own postal vote form if they choose. It is clearly an electoral offence for another person to vote on someone’s behalf without their authorisation, to impersonate another, to print and fill in false additional ballot papers or to pre-empt and fill in a postal ballot form of someone they live with.

All campaigning members of political parties should know the rules, and have to say to anyone who asks for help filling in a postal ballot that they cannot do so for obvious reasons.

The debate to extend military operations in the Middle East to allow UK bombing in Syria was an important Parliamentary occasion. The government’s motion was approved by a large majority.

I was against the Coalition government’s proposal to attack the Assad government in Syria in 2013, which Parliament blocked. I approached this latest proposal with concerns. I attended various briefings and meetings to understand more of the complex and fragile position in Syria. I had private discussions with senior Ministers and their advisers about their plans.

My first priority is to improve the security of our homeland. I have urged the government to spend more money and effort on policing our borders, and on intelligence gathering so we are aware of movements of people and weaponry that could be used against us here at home. I am pleased the government has now announced extra people and money for counter terrorism research, and is promising better action at our borders. I am still not fully satisfied about border control in view of the way terrorists were able to cross EU internal and external frontiers so easily for the French attacks, and will continue to press for better action in this crucial area.

My second priority was to stress the need for any bombing campaign in Syria to be linked to a ground campaign by forces capable of dislodging ISIS from their strongholds. This force also needs to be able to supply well informed intelligence to those commanding the Allied bombers, both prior to attacking a target and afterwards to report the damage done and whether it was a success. Precision bombing is essential, especially in civilian areas, but is only as good as the intelligence that drives it.
During the discussions I was not satisfied that the Syrian Free Army does represent a competent and available force to recapture Raqqa and to help direct our smart bombs and missiles to targets. The position is different from that in Iraq where we are acting at the request of the Iraqi government and with their ground forces in support. I am not in favour of bombing without a winning strategy that can make things better.

My third priority was to draw government attention to the crucial need for diplomatic and political work to pursue a peace process. I am pleased that the main regional powers, Russia and the USA are now in dialogue. I understand how difficult it is going to be to find a peaceful solution to the Syrian civil war and to find a way of governing Syria in a peaceful and democratic way as one country. The West needs to show understanding of the local and regional forces and needs, and to consider what might be the basis for restoring some law and order and functioning administration in these areas. The Kurds who have proved effective fighters against ISIS will of course want some independent government in the areas they are taking in Iraq and Syria.

The government’s motion was narrow reflecting the concerns many of us had. It limits their action to bombs against ISIS only in Syria, and “acknowledges the importance of seeking to avoid civilian casualties” and accepts that a political strategy is important. I decided however, that without further work on the issues of a political settlement and without credible ground forces to steer and monitor any aerial bombs I was unable to vote for the statement authorising airstrikes immediately, so I did not vote for the motion. I share their wish to pursue peace in Syria and to take action against terrorism and the ISIS threat and agree with the rest of the motion so I did not take the further step of voting against. I left the Commons after the vote with the determination to continue to press for a better political plan for Syria and above all for better control of UK borders at a time of trouble for the Schengen concept.

Current UK monetary policy is in transition. The present Governor of the Bank of England inherited a mess of a policy, and an institution which had presided over the biggest disaster in Central banking since the 1930s. The Bank of England allowed or even encouraged an unsustainable credit and property boom prior to 2007, with over expansion of commercial banks balance sheets. The competition authorities reinforced the Bank’s mistakes by allowing mega banking mergers to increase risks in the banking system. The Bank then switched in 2008-9 to too tough a stance, starving markets of liquidity and undermining the very banks they had allowed to grow and inflate.

Since 2008 the Bank has sought to drive the UK economy with one foot flat on the floor with the accelerator of money policy, and the other foot hard on the brake with banking regulation. At first the brake won and the economy made little progress. More recently there has been enough monetary effect to offset the brake, and the brake itself has relaxed a little as banks repair their balance sheets. Now it is time to ease the brake more, and to apply less accelerator, to return to more normal driving.

Let me explain the metaphor. Today the commercial banks have much more cash and capital than in the dark days of 2007-9. The Bank now appears to be changing the pace of its demands for more, and may allow sensible increases in loans again to finance economic recovery. The UK needs massive investment in energy, transport , tech and industrial capacity. More  of that needs conventional bank finance.

At the same time savers deserve a return on their longer term savings and the artificial bubble in bonds needs gently deflating. Longer term interest rates are too low, and the stock of QE held bonds  needs to be gradually brought down. Irregular monetary policy has produced gross distortions and inflation in certain asset prices. The bond bubble has occurred alongside property price rises making  homes and commercial property too dear for many UK taxpayers to afford.

We should not wish to continue with the past pattern of asset price inflation, very low interest rates, and banking inability to finance investment for recovery. The UK needs a major expansion in investment capital, with new power stations, roads, rail capacity, water capacity, better digital technology for public service provision, better broadband and  much else, as well as substantial  capacity increases in manufacturing. Savers need to be offered a decent return on their savings to attract capital into more productive uses, and to expand the asset base to control asset price inflation.

Meanwhile the monetary madness remains the popular orthodoxy on the continent, with the European Central Bank likely to hit savers again and to carry on creating more money.

Yesterday the Commons completed its work on the new Immigration Bill. This Bill amongst other matters makes provision for the faster removal of illegal migrants from the UK. It strengthens the provisions against rogue landlords who rent out property to illegal migrants. It also makes clear to the courts and others that anyone who claims asylum and is refused needs to leave the country promptly.

One of the main points I have made in public and private to the government concerning Syria and terrorism is the need for stronger and more effective border checks and controls on potential terrorist seeking entry or seeking to return to our country after undergoing training in violence and radical extremism. The events in Paris have made many people ask are we safe enough? What more can be done to secure our borders and find the terrorists within our own society before they do us harm?

The government assures me the extra money,staff and intelligence they plan will be used to good effect. The aim must be to have better intelligence about those who do go to extremist training grounds or who go off to fight in Middle East civil wars, and to make sure they cannot come back here to harm us. If we and our allies are prepared to kill them by aerial bombardment in Iraq and Syria we must be prepared to take strong peaceful enforcement against them if they seek to enter our country. The border force needs to question and if necessary detain whilst making further enquiries those who arouse suspicions.

The government has now published its motion on the action they wish to take in Syria. It is very circumscribed, following the strong opposition in Parliament to a US/UK led war along the lines of Iraq and Afghanistan. The motion rules out troops on the ground in combat operations. It “acknowledges the importance of seeking to avoid civilian casualties”. The government will be under further pressure today to spell out the nature of the land forces available locally to undertake effective operations against ISIL, and to say how it can gather intelligence, locate targets and put sufficient pressure on ISIL.

There is a write in campaign at the moment urging MPs to support a sugar tax. Apparently a modest increase in the price of sugary drinks will abolish child obesity. If only things were that easy.

I find the demonization of certain foodstuffs a strange characteristic of modern political debate. Some spend their time denouncing fats. Others now spend their energy condemning sugar. Some dislike carbohydrates, others see the demons in alcoholic drinks. Whichever they attack, the answer is to tax it more. This route has been tried for many years with alcohol, yet there are still too many sad cases of people who become dependent on too many alcoholic drinks. I accept that taxing alcohol is necessary as part of the means to raise money for public services.

To me sugar, fat and carbohydrate all have a role to play in a healthy diet. You need to eat something, otherwise you end up with malnutrition. There is nothing intrinsically evil about the bag of sugar or the tub of fat on the supermarket shelves. A little of it each day is fine. Excess in any foodstuff can cause illness or harm. The balanced diet needs balancing too with the amount of energy you burn, which depends on how active a lifestyle you live and how well your home is heated. As a child I liked sweets, cake, chocolate, fizzy drinks and chips. My parents ensured these were treats, served in appropriate quantities when the occasion warranted and their budget allowed. More dependable foods were the normal servings for mealtime.

The case for taxing fizzy drinks with sugar includes the proposal that fizzy drinks sweetened some other way would be tax free. This invites experimentation with other sweeteners. Who is to say these will all be better or good for us? It still leaves open the point that trying to cut consumption by tax means fewer drinks for low income families but little constraint on high income homes.

I cannot see the merit of a tax on sugar or on drinks containing sugar. There are many ways of getting fat. Some are the person’s metabolism, others are the combination of diet and exercise, which is more complex than a few colas.