Trying to help settle Iraq, Syria and Libya is proving very problematic for the west. The politics of identity and religious loyalty is always complex and can become violent  if governments fail to carry enough of their people with them.

Perhaps we should  remember the UK’s  difficult experiences in Northern Ireland. No-one then suggested escalating the violence because some in the Republic supported the IRA, and no-one thought the UK  should  take action  against the USA because some  US citizens were  helping fund the Republicans. The UK state tried to keep it as a law and order matter in the province, seeking to enforce laws against violence whichever side in Northern Ireland perpetrated it. On the occasions when  the  police or army used too much force on the ground,  by mistake according to the  authorities,  it usually set back  a solution rather than helping. The more people who died on both sides, the more the bitterness intensified. Progress was only made when all agreed to sit down and talk about how to come up with a better future.

We need to ask what we learned from this difficult situation, and whether that knowledge can be deployed in places like Ukraine and Iraq where there are worse civil wars and terrorist actions within the state. The intervention of external forces may be well intentioned, but it is very difficult to see how military engagement can lead to a stable peace when there are so many struggling factions and when there are underlying power struggles between Shia and Sunni and between large regional powers surrounding Iraq. The barbarism of ISIL is rightly widely condemned, but other factions, armed bands and armies are killing people as well.

The west is going to find it difficult to help. We lack enough people with the language skills and with a deep understanding of the religions and politics of the area. It is asking a lot of our troops when we commit them to police a foreign country where they cannot speak to the people they are trying to help, where they do not automatically understand many of the local customs, and where attitudes towards the law and  obedience to the authorities are different to those in a western democracy. I am glad this time we are not putting boots on the ground. The boots that do the walking have to support the men that do the talking. It is going to take more talking and politics of a high order to bring some stability and peace out of the civil wars in current Middle Eastern states.

There are also worrying reports coming out of Iraq that ISIL forces are now well embedded with the civilian population and are involved in providing or taxing and controlling some local economic activity. This makes any military solution that does not also kill the people we want to help so much more difficult, and reminds us that as and when ISIL forces are defeated there needs to be recovery work on the ground to rebuild damaged facilities and assist in creating a new functioning economy and civil society. The unwillingness of Turkey to take action against ISIL for fear of helping Assad, and their worries about Kurdish separatism, provides further evidence of just how complex and difficult this situation is. Turkey is after all a member of NATO and should be a strong US ally, but on this occasion sees things differently to the USA.

 

Dr Cable effectively accused Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne of lying about future tax and spend plans. I would be interested in how you would describe this statement from the Lib Dem Manifesto of 2010:

“We will scrap unfair university tuition fees for all students taking their first degrees, including those who study part time, saving them over £10,000 each”

Dr Cable was the responsible Cabinet Minister who decided to keep Labour’s tuition fees, and put them up substantially. He then put both the Lib Dem and Conservative parties on a 3 line whip to vote for his scheme.

Under the Coalition agreement he could have asked Conservatives to draw up plans and could have refused to vote for them if he did not like them. Instead he chose to put up tuition fees.

Or how would you describe the Lib Dem promise to vote to reduce the number of MPs in the Commons as part of the spending reduction programme in return for the Conservatives voting to hold an AV referendum? You may remember Conservatives did vote for the Lib Dem referendum, but Lib Dems did not vote for the boundary review.

The main reason Lib Dems are struggling in the polls is the way they behaved over the tuition fee issue. I was summonsed like many other Conservative candidates in the 2010 election to a meeting of local sixth formers so the Lib Dems could offer them the abolition of tuition fees for university. I explained that my party did now back Labour’s tuition fees. I said we, like Labour if they were elected, would look at the forthcoming review of university funding Labour had set up and might reluctantly have to agree to increases in the fees. It was not a popular line, unlike the Lib Dems free gift promise.

The Lib Dem Manifesto for 2015 is taking shape. It is likely to send out clear messages:

Do not work hard and earn a good income – if you do we will punish you with higher income taxes

If you dare succeed and get a higher income, do not buy an expensive  house – if you do we will want to punish you with higher taxes

If you earn well and dare to save for your retirement, we will take money from  your pension fund with higher taxes

If you run your own business and want to sell it for a good profit, we will want to take profits with Capital Gains tax

If you save we will pursue you with higher dividend taxes

The Lib Dem advice is do not succeed and get a good income or make a business success. Or if you do, spend the money as quickly as possible. On no account save it or invest it. Saving, investing, building companies and buying dearer houses are ills that need to be punished.

What a depressing outlook.

 

 

Hi John

I am writing piece about where a potential English Parliament could be located if one was established.

I know you have proposed that the House of Commons could double up as an English Parliament, but I wanted to ask why you thought that would be the best location? Is cost a consideration? Why elese? Do you think any other locations should be considered, and if so, which ones? I have heard York, Birmingham and Manchester discussed. Is there an argument for locating it further north?

etc  from a named person at the BBC

 

Dear (X)

I want to find a good value  and easy solution to the problem of England which we can do quickly. We have capacity at Westminster in the building, and we have all the back up and resource we need to handle all the English devolved issues  with UK MPs from England doing both jobs. It would be a lot dearer to establish a new building and move all of us to and from it and Westminster to undertake our respective UK and devolved duties. It would be even dearer to have another set of MPs doing the English job.

Westminster is also the home of the English Parliament, and the English and Welsh Parliament, from the days before the union with Scotland and later with Ireland.  History, tradition, cost and practicality all combine to mean we should meet at Westminster.

I also look forward to the day when the BBC recognises England. I want BBC England to broadcast alongside BBC Scotland and BBC Wales. The overwhelming majority of people in England do not want to be broken up into regions for government as the North East referendum showed under Labour. Isn’t it time the BBC gave us  an English voice with BBC England?

Is the BBC also doing a feature on splitting Scotland into regions and moving the Scottish Parliament to Aberdeen or Dundee? If not why not? Why do you always have to seek to balkanise and split up England?

Regards

John Redwood

 

Syria, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan.  All four of these countries have been through brutal civil wars recently, and three are still  suffering from conflict. The UK’s approach to each is different.

In Afghanistan we fought a full war with our allies, put troops in on the ground, policed territory and are now handing over responsibility for security to local forces and taking our leave.

In Iraq we have fought two wars, and are now helping others fight another  war against a militant insurgency, limiting our military involvement to a few missions by planes flying on long round trips from Cyprus. Our previous wars have not produced a settled country.

In Libya we used missiles and bombs delivered from the air and offshore to help topple an authoritarian regime, and are now leaving the civil disruption and war to local forces.

In Syria we are not intervening at all, though the government did wish to last year. It then wanted to intervene to help bring down the unpleasant ruler. More recently it has been more inclined to intervene against the militant insurgents who are seeking to topple that same government.

UK interventions are sometimes helpful to Sunnis, and sometimes to Shia. The underlying religious civil war continues. The current tilt of UK policy is pro Shia, seeking to defeat the nasty ISIL forces.

What can we learn from these different approaches?

Some in the military say the Afghan model is the right one. They believe  the west does have to intervene, bring down   bad regimes, and then use its forces on the ground to offer protection to an emerging democratic process. Some say Afghanistan will now settle down to a better peaceful democratic future. Others think the west should keep forces there for longer and offer stronger guarantees of stability to the latest civilian government. This would of course require consent from the Afghan authorities, in a  country where some  may be weary of foreign troops on its soil as well as weary of war.

Some say the Libyan model was right. A short sharp military intervention ended a bad regime. Time might then produce a better answer as the competing forces try to sort out a new future. Others say that so far the breakdown in law and order has been most damaging to the Libyan economy, with death and destruction stalking the land.

Some say we need to be more wholeheartedly engaged in the Iraqi conflict. We need to be prepared with our allies to commit more force to destroy ISIL  more quickly, and will need to commit western troops on the ground yet again because local forces do not seem so far to be up to the task of defeating the insurgents.

I think what I take away from all this is it is very difficult for the west, despite its massive force led  by the USA, to intervene successfully, to create stable and peace loving democracies. I am glad we are now leaving Afghanistan and support non intervention in Syria and Libya despite the obvious problems there. Sometimes you have to accept you cannot solve all the world’s problems. If more force is needed to kill more people in these countries the local powers with armies and airforces on the ground have plenty of ways of bombing, shelling and occupying territory.

When it comes to Iraq I remain concerned about our limited intervention.  Is the coalition giving the necessary support to local forces to recapture the territory lost to ISIL? Is there a good political strategy in place from the new government to win over Kurds and Sunnis to a unified Iraqi rule? Will arming the Kurds lead to demands for a separate Kurdish state, and how would this be accommodated? What is the strategy for dealing with the Syrian part of ISIL, and with Russia which retains influence in the region?

I am as appalled as any by the mindless evil of some ISIL people with the organised murders of humanitarian aid workers. I agree with the US and UK governments that discussing ransoms could encourage  more such detentions of westerners and would fuel the ISIL forces as it filled their treasury. It is tough having to tell families of those captured that it is likely their loved ones will die, but if the USA and UK does not know where they are being held it is impossible to rescue them. Usually with bullies the best approach is to hit them back.  These people are however both bad and mad. They are mad enough to deliberately provoke and take on the forces of the mightiest military coalition of the world led by the USA. I am not sure the usual rules of how to respond to bullies works with them.

 

 

 

I welcome both tax cuts announced by the Prime Minister for the next Parliament. I think it quite easy to answer Labour’s query, how will they be paid for? The answer incidentally will be set out in detail later this autumn when we see the next set of forecasts for spending and borrowing from this government which will give us revised base figures.

The Conservative leadership has ruled out one of the three possible ways to pay for the Income tax cuts – tax rises elsewhere. That leaves two ways to  pay for them – rising revenues from economic growth, and declining public spending.

These tax cuts are not like a cut in CGT from 28% or a cut in top rate income tax from 50% or 45% which pay for themselves because they raise more revenue. There will be a substantial revenue loss from raising the tax threshold and some revenue loss by raising the 40p threshold.

The first offset to the tax cuts will be increased revenue elsewhere. People with more spending money after tax will pay more VAT, fuel duty and other consumption taxes.

The second offset will be more tax revenue of all kinds as economic growth is likely to get a stimulus from the extra private spending power the tax cuts generate. It is likely to add to confidence and activity levels.

The third offset is some decline in benefits. As more people get into work, so there will be fewer on unemployment related benefits. As more people are on higher net and gross pay, so there will be reduced payments of top up benefits to make up their incomes.  A natural decline in benefit spending because people are better off will be a welcome spending cut.

We will need to see the official figures for how much  each of these categories contributes. The rest will need to be done by reduced spending.

In this Parliament the deficit has been reduced whilst large tax reductions through raising the Income Tax threshold have been pushed through. A Conservative government wishes to do more of the same. I welcome any move to cut Income taxes in ways which get more people into work and reduce the need to pay people top up benefits. I want people to be better off and benefit spending to fall as a result, which is what I understand this policy to be all about.

 

 

Today we hear the detail of what a Conservative government would do to put UK voters and their Parliament back in charge of human rights, welfare, criminal justice  and borders policy.  If elected a majority Conservative government will

 

Repeal the 1998  Human Rights Act

Restore the primacy of the UK’s own Supreme court in cases of human rights

End the ability of the ECHR to change British laws. Their judgements would in future be advisory.

Define in UK law where human rights apply, and restrict its application by reducing its reach into  trivial cases

Ensure that those who pose a threat to our country or have entered illegally cannot rely on Human Rights claims  to avoid deportation.

 

The new law would prevent people from using the right to a family life as a reason why they should for example be allowed to break our planning laws . It would stop non UK citizens  who had committed serious offences here from using the right to a family life as a reason to stay.

None of this means we are against human rights. Upholding liberties and ensuring  high standards of fairness and legal process is part of a democratic and free society. The ultimate arbiter of this should be Parliament acting on behalf of the UK people. We do not want unaccountable and unelected judges telling us what laws we need to follow or revising laws we have chosen. That should always be a matter for Parliament, with MPs deciding. This leaves the power where it belongs, in the hands of British people, who can vote to change their Parliament and therefore their laws.

Chris Grayling, the Lord Chancellor, has done a great job in developing these proposals and piloting them through the Conservative Manifesto process. He has been encouraged by a group of concerned Conservative MPs who have highlighted the way European human rights law has made it more difficult to control our borders and our extradition system.

 

 

Many of us in politics came into public life to make things better. There is a lot of agreement between the three main parties, and probably UKIP as well, that the overarching aim should be to promote higher living standards and better lives for the many as a result of government action  or inaction.

Very often the main issue in dispute in a General election is which team would manage the economy better? Which team would provide a financial offer that could help you as a voter to a more comfortable lifestyle?

Yesterday Mr Cameron adopted a couple of tax policies that would help. Taking more people out of income tax altogether at the lower end of the income tax scale makes it more worthwhile working. Better that we let people keep more of what they earn than we tax them more to pay them more in benefits. If you insist on people on low income paying tax you then have a handling charge and have to return some of the tax money to them in the form of benefits. Its a dear and complex way of doing it.

Raising the 40p tax threshold is a policy I have campaigned for. Many of the people now dragged into the 40p tax rate are far from rich. 40p is a very high rate of tax. It is a crippling charge on many individuals and families trying to pay their own bills and take responsibility for their own lives. I am glad the Prime Minister has adopted this as his own.

Labour have said they will raise the Minimum wage. The amount they offer over the lifetime of the next Parliament is similar to the rate of increase this Parliament. I doubt they are offering much if any extra compared to what will happen anyway. Their Minimum wage scheme was based on an independent quango weighing up the issues around what is the correct rate. Set it too low and it has no beneficial effect. Set it too high and it destroys jobs. It is difficult to see Labour’s policy  as an effective way of delivering more pay to more people, given the likely cross party agreement to the likely recommended increases  anyway.

The best way of promoting higher living standards is for more people to have jobs that were out of work, and for more people in work to be promoted into jobs that pay more. Some of the average figures for pay and real incomes have been dragged lower by success in creating many more lower paid jobs which give people on benefits their chance of employment. For them the  lower pay of these jobs should still be an improvement on benefits. The next step for them  is to get promoted, train within the firm or move to another company that pays more. Some people are in jobs where the firm has not been able to afford a rise. As the economy improves so should the capacity of employers to reward their staff.

I want to see many more better paid jobs. The way to do that is to have a great climate for new companies to start up, to offer proper support for training and qualifications, and to work away at raising educational standards more. It is also important that once in a job you do not get taxed too heavily for it. All parties say they want more people to work and agree a job is the way to prosperity. Why then tax it so highly?

The best way to get a good job is to do well at a not so good job. The best way to rising living standards is to improve your skills and show your worth to employers.

 

 

The Prime Minister confirmed today that there will be justice for England to the same timetable as Scotland if the Conservatives win the General Election, with devolution for them both (and for Wales and Northern Ireland as they wish). The Chief Whip confirmed that talks are underway to see if English votes for English issues can be introduced this Parliament. I will keep you posted of progress.

 

If we take the wider definition of our public borrowings which includes the state owned banks, Network Rail and the rest, it is down just a little since 2010. It currently stands at £2800 billion. (This does not include the future costs of the state pension as we have often discussed before!) It rose rapidly from £743 billion in 2007-8 to £2870 bn in 2009-10, Labour’s last year in office.

Under the Coalition the level of state bank indebtedness has been curbed substantially. This has been almost entirely offset by continuing increases in state borrowings to pay for public spending. On the narrower definition of state borrowing excluding banks the total has risen from £956bn in March 2010 to £1432 bn in August 2014, an increase of £476 bn. This puts the idea of public sector austerity into perspective. The Coalition has continued borrowing at a similar rate to Labour’s increases, though the Coalition is gradually bringing down the rate of increase in the borrowing.

This August  spending is up  by 3.3% on the previous year. Current spending is up by a little over 1%, and capital spending is up by more than fifth. Revenues are up by 3.2%, thanks to a strong performance from VAT, Stamp duties and Corporation tax. Income tax is not very buoyant owing to the substantial increase in Income Tax thresholds. Austerity originally designed for the public sector has become a term to describe the squeeze on living standards which started with a large fall towards the end of Labour’s period in office and has continued at a slower pace since 2010. The original plan to eliminate the deficit this Parliament has been delayed by less progress in increasing tax receipts than planned. The spending reductions were always going to be more towards the end of the adjustment process, and many of these have now been  delayed until the next Parliament.

The Chancellor is seeking £25 bn of additional spending reductions compared to current plans for the next Parliament. He has stated that “12bn will come from welfare changes, and £13 bn from general departmental spending including overhead costs. The Shadow Chancellor has said he merely wants to eliminate the current deficit, but would carry on borrowing for all capital spending, which means he needs fewer cuts to present plans. Total borrowing in the next Parliament could be reduced substantially by selling all the remaining shares in banks. This would be a good idea for a variety of reasons and would be the single biggest way of reducing the loan mountain. I invite your thoughts on the pace of deficit reduction and  the desirability or other wise of spending cuts.

 

I awoke this morning to a garbled version of my views on the BBC  on why big business should stay out of referendum debates . They did not phone me to check my views, nor invite me on to explain them. Readers of this site will remember my advice to big business to keep out of the Scottish referendum campaign, where I was on the same side as most of the businesses. Let me have another go at explaining it.

I have been the chairman of a large quoted industrial company. When in that post I never once associated the business with my own political views. I knew that I had shareholders, customers and employees who did not agree with my political stance on various issues. My job as Chairman was  to represent the company and the best interests of its stakeholders, not to pursue my own or my party’s political agenda through the company.

One issue came up which was going to have a substantial impact on the business – joining the Exchange Rate Mechanism. Even though I was sure such a policy would slash jobs, profits and output for the economy as a whole, I still not feel it would be wise to associate the company’s name with my judgement on that issue. Some other companies and business organisations, including the CBI, campaigned for membership of the Exchange Rate Mechanism, only to discover how much damage it did when their wishes were granted. I set out my own views on the ERM and watched in disbelief as big business as a whole got it comprehensively wrong.

I am told that in Scotland it is difficult calming things down after the intense and heated debates of the Scottish referendum. Those companies that did take a very public stance now have to deal with shareholders, employees and customers who are unhappy that their company spoke against their political wishes. If the CEO has just a small proportion of the shares, how can he or she speak for all the shareholders when pushing a partisan view on a very emotive issue? What does he say to those in the company or who part own the company who disagree with him?

Most senior business people know that expressing a corporate political view can be damaging to the company’s interests. We do not usually see large multinationals telling shareholders and employees how to vote in General Elections. We do not have lists of big companies declaring for Labour or Conservative. They do not do so for the reasons I have set out above. We therefore need to ask them why they think a referendum about people’s very identity and about who should govern them is cause for breaking  this simple unwritten rule of chairing or leading a great company.

As some large businesses will doubtless still wish to tell the UK whether to stay in  the EU or nor, we do need to examine the bad record of these large companies who have spoken out in the past on these big issues. They spoke for the Exchange Rate Mechanism. That dreadful scheme led to a recession which destroyed people’s jobs and  company trading success in the UK. These same political companies then decided to recommend that we surrender the pound and join the Euro. They had clearly learned nothing from  the ERM experience.

I have not heard them apologising for the damage their advice on the Exchange Rate Mechanism did. I have not heard most of them confess they got the Euro wrong. We were told that the City of London would be badly damaged if we did not join. Instead it flourished. We were told some industrial companies would pull out and go to a Euro area country. I do not recall any major investor in the UK doing that.

So please, big business, recognise you have not been good at judging the best interests of the UK. More importantly it is your job to keep all your shareholders, employees and customers happy. Why not try doing that by keeping out of the next referendum?