The good news is the government wants to change the OBR controls. The bad news is they will probably put in new ones that are no better.
The OBR was set up in  May 2010. The underlying objective was to control the build up of state debt. There was no thought about how to promote growth or to control the tax level.

On its own terms  it has catastrophically failed. State debt has ballooned to 100% of GDP from 65% of GDP. The economic policy the OBR has required has also delivered high taxes and slow growth.

This is not surprising. The whole OBR construct was a Treasury officials structure to get the U.K. to meet its Maastricht Treaty debt and deficit requirements. Successive reformulations always kept the underlying EU control of wanting us to keep our annual deficit below 3% and our stock of debt below 60 % of  GDP. This bad framework failed in most EU countries with many running up even bigger debts than the U.K. and having  slower growth than we achieved.

I have long argued for the OBR to be truly independent, selling its forecasts to those who value them. I wanted a government twin aim economic policy based on a 2% inflation target and a 2% growth target. I have always proposed a lower level of total public spending setting out where I would reduce. Today the three big areas remain lower Bank of England losses, a strong policy to return to 2019 productivity levels in public services and a better back to work policy to reduce benefits and boost tax revenues.

OBR led controls have obviously failed yet the government remains wedded to them. Why does the OBR go on pretending this system can control debt and deficits when it has spectacularly failed and when their deficit forecasts are usually tens of billions out? .

 

I think tenants do need decent legal protections against bad landlords. They should not be evicted without good reason or against the terms of their lease. They should expect timely repairs and decent standards of accommodation. Rental increases should be set out in contract and relate to market conditions and costs.

I also think good landlords need protection against the small minority of bad tenants. If a tenant has money but refuses to pay or is misusing housing benefit there needs to be redress. If a tenant damages the building other than by accident or fails to keep their maintenance obligations under the lease there needs to be a way of resolving it.,

I see nothing wrong with a landlord and tenant being able to agree a short hold tenancy to be terminated by either at the end date without further reason. If the new legislation swings things too far against landlords then we know what will happen. More landlords will decide to abandon letting out property, cutting the supply of private rented homes. This will tend to take rents higher and cuts choice for tenants.

Scotland is already experiencing this unfortunate outcome. Paris discovered rent controls cut choice and drive rents higher. Of course if a landlord withdraws their property the property is not lost. However some will cease renting but keep the extra  home for family and leisure use. Others will sell the  property to a new owner occupier, cutting rental choice.

Sone thoughts on the debate.
1.       No science is ever settled. People who study climate and weather patterns produce models which seek to predict future temperatures. These can always be queried and improved as new data is collected and as researchers improve their understanding. There would be no point in hiring so many researchers and spending so much on this topic if we already have all the answers and perfect  forecasts.

2.    Geologists and earth historians have produced compelling evidence of plenty of climate change in earth history. Before any people were on the planet there were periods when the climate was much warmer than today, and much colder. Climate change continued with people on the planet before they burned a single lump of coal or any oil and gas. This means there are obviously drivers of climate change from natural causes that climate scientists should include in their models and seek to forecast.The idea that climate change is just driven by man made C0 2 is not good science.

3. CO 2 is a greenhouse gas. As China and India generate much more of it and are increasing their output so that will add to warming, before adding in other climate changing phenomena. The U.K. contributing  under 1% and falling is not making much difference to a growing world total. Those concerned about the role of man made CO 2 should concentrate on changing the behaviours of the big and growing contributors. The five largest producers are China, USA, India, EU and Russia.

4. To give us accurate forecasts of future temperatures model makers need to include volcanic activity, changes in water vapour and cloud concentrations, sun intensity and solar flares, shifts in currents and wind patterns and other crucial variables affecting weather and climate.

5. The temperature in 1990 or just before large scale industrialisation was not necessarily optimum. Some places suffer too much from the cold at 1990 temperatures, just as more  could suffer from too much heat if there is too  much warming. More CO 2 is good for plant growth. Earth history implies it is difficult to create climate stability given the strength of some natural forces that shift from ice age to warm period and back.

6 Adaptation to changing climate is an important option. Where there might be drought there needs to be more water storage and irrigation. Where there might be flood there needs to be better pipes, conduits and river containment to take extra volumes.

The government’s decision to give away the Chagos Islands including the crucial Diego Garcia naval base is a disgrace.
Mauritius is a friend of China with substantial borrowings from China to build infrastructure and a substantial trade with China. China is well known to be building her power across the South China Sea into the Indian Ocean.
Mauritius has been trying to annex these islands for many years without strong legal grounds. At the time of Mauritius independence the Chagosians were not Mauritians and the independence agreement made clear the Chagos  were distinct and many miles  away from Mauritius. Successive Conservative Foreign Secretaries were asked to look at the case and to talk to Mauritius about it. None were stupid enough to give the islands and the freehold of this important base away,

It is a disgrace that the new U.K. government has not talked properly to the descendants of the Chagosians who left the islands more than fifty years ago. They were not included in the discussions. They have a case about the way their families were treated. Some are now U.K. citizens living in the U.K. They were not people from Mauritius, settling there from Africa under French colonial rule.

It is bizarre that the government did not see the strategic importance of this Indian Ocean naval base to the US and U.K., and now argue that leasing it back from Mauritius is better than owning it freehold.
It is wrong that the government plans to pay lease payments for 99 years to get it back for a bit, when these payments are unfunded and the budget is tight.

Labour has sought to blame the previous government who rightly did not give in on this issue, They then seek to pretend it is a great result with the US in support. Of course the US is being helpful to an ally but they must be thinking what a mistake this is.
Parliament should debate and vote on this. The attempt to smuggle it through using prerogative powers was quite wrong. This needs an Act of Parliament to give away territory. Every  Labour MP should be ashamed of this proposal, uneasy about  the treatment of the Chagosians and alarmed at the governments cavalier approach to national security and to spending commitments for bad causes.

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?