If only we could solve our problems by cutting taxes. 

Prompted, no doubt,  by the debates between the candidates in the Conservative leadership contest, a large number of constituents have contacted me to suggest their own proposals for tax cuts or to support those being pursued by the candidates.  

I reiterate what I have said previously: I am glad that the focus is on cutting the tax burden. I believe that we know best what our priorities are and how to pursue them, we need to be allowed to keep more of what we earn in order to do exactly that. The quid pro quo however, is that the state does less and takes less from us, but nobody appears to keen to engage in this important element of the debate.
If the burden of taxation is too high and we want to reduce it, then clearly there must be a commensurate reduction in government expenditure equal to the reduction in taxation. Either that, or we borrow the difference in the expectation that our children’s generation will pay off our debts – assuming, of course,  that financial markets would continue to lend to such profligate borrowers. 

The counterargument is that tax cuts will pay for themselves by stimulating economic activity so that the economy grows and generates greater tax revenues. I accept entirely that there are circumstances in which this will be the case, particularly where the tax cuts are aimed at stimulating investment to increase productivity.  The danger lies in the time that it will take for this stimulus to take effect. 

So, is the UK economy in a state that we can contemplate a tax cutting agenda immediately?
 We certainly need to encourage investment to increase our productive capacity because our economy has been dogged for years by low productivity.
In my postbag however, the demand is for tax cuts that will address our ability to spend and consume: my constituents want more money in their pockets now, so that they can restore their living standards in the face of rising prices. Whilst this is entirely understandable and would certainly be popular, it would be a disastrous course to take.

We already have inflation because of a too expansionary monetary policy that was pursued by the Bank of England for too long. This has been exacerbated by the impact on world commodity prices resulting from the war in Ukraine and very from significant problems with supply chains caused by the bumpy international recovery from the pandemic. The UK economy is already at full employment: we have shortages of both skills and key inputs to the production process. Tax cuts targeted at our spending power in these circumstances will do nothing to promote real growth in the economy, they will simply drive prices up further. We’ll be left with more inflation and more debt. 

Beware of any offer of easy answers: If it sounds too good to be true…then it probably isn’t true. 

I am often ribbed by colleagues on my form in not backing winners in Tory leadership contests. The criticism is misplaced: I’ve backed the winner from the outset in three contests; Boris in 2019, Ian Duncan-Smith in 2001 and Michael Howard in 2003.  In 1997 I eventually backed William Hague for his winning final round, having first supported Michael Howard, then John Redwood before they were eliminated. And in 2006 I eventually landed on David Cameron’s side, having supported Liam Fox in the first ballot.
In only one contest have I been on the losing side at the final stage, when Theresa May won in 2016.
I had spent the previous ten days trying to persuade any colleague who would listen, that she’d be a disaster. And was I right…or was I right?
I knew that my ministerial career depended on the result: Some time before, a number of my emails to David Cameron had leaked and filled two pages of the Sunday Times, including one in which I gave my rather too frank assessment of Theresa. She summoned me to what -in the Army- we called a ‘meeting without coffee’ and I knew I’d be ‘terminated’ if she ever won, and so it proved.

I have enjoyed the leadership contest and the commitment that all the candidates made towards core Conservative values, including significantly lower taxes. The principal dispute being not whether, but just when it would be prudent to reduce the tax burden.
I am very glad that the focus of political debate is, once again, on the great dividing line: the size and role of the state; the question of whether the problems that we face are to be resolved by government taking ever greater responsibilities for managing our lives and charging us ever higher taxes to pay for it. Or whether we can re-ignite private initiative, enterprise and productivity to address our challenges.

Of course, a number of constituents have complained about the measure of unpleasantness that has crept into the contest. Frankly, I tell them not to be so squeamish. This is more than a debate about  principle, policy, outlook and ideology. It is also about ambition: who gets the top job. The key supporters of each candidate have skin in the game too. If their champion wins they can expect the rewards of office. Of course, this adds an element where sparks may fly as each campaign seeks to maximise -what the advertising profession calls the ‘brand differentiation’ of their respective pitches.

Having first supported Suella, then Kemi, I’ve now given my backing to Rishi. I find him the better performer at the despatch box and  the more natural communicator generally.
The key policy dispute comes down to when we can reasonably start cutting taxes. On this question my heart is with Liz Truss but my judgement is with Rishi’s more cautious approach. I addressed the issue of inflation in this column on 15^th May Inflation-2 (desmondswaynemp.com) . I am doubtful that any tax cut will increase productivity swiftly enough  to avoid inflationary effects at a time when we are already at full employment. I know that Patrick Minford, one of Maggie’s favourite economists, takes the view that interest rates are too low and an increase to, say 7%,  necessary to prevent the inflationary consequence of a tax cut, would itself result in more efficient allocation of capital. Nevertheless, I fear the consequences for so many mortgages, and of servicing our debts of such a policy choice.

In any event, we can wait and see if my score in backing the winner improves

I was opposed to the reform of the Conservative Party leadership election rules when William Hague introduced the final selection by ordinary party members, once MPs had narrowed the field to a choice between two candidates.

We are a representative democracy where MPs, elected for the purpose, take decisions on our behalf. Inevitably MPs will be familiar with the candidates in away that ordinary party members cannot possibly match. MPs will have seen them perform and they will know their strengths and weaknesses. In the last week I’ve had any number of enquiries from party members asking for my assessment of particular candidates, about whom they freely admit they know nothing at all.

Political parties need to have confidence in their leadership if they are to function effectively in either government or opposition. The final choice of leader by a wider party membership however, raises the possibility of a leadership choice that a parliamentary party decidedly didn’t want.
This is exactly what befell the Parliamentary Labour Party after Ed Miliband’s resignation in 2015.
Labour MPs voted very decisively against Jeremy Corbyn but their wider party membership chose him anyway, with all the unhappy consequences for them that followed.

Against this possibility of ending up with a dud chosen by the membership,  the parliamentary voting rounds are skewed to engineer who ends up in second place and not just who comes first: Subterfuge is almost designed into the system.

A parliamentary ballot can be organised in hours, but involving the party membership adds weeks. Hustings and debates have to be organised in addition to the logistics of the postal ballot itself. This delay may paralyse effective government at a time when events demand swift and focussed leadership.

Can we get this genie be put back into the lamp?
It is always harder to take something away than not to have conceded it in the first place.
One of the benefits of party membership that are ‘sold’ to members is their role in influencing the choice of party leader. I can‘t see them giving it up willingly.
 Nevertheless, in the five Conservative leadership contests that have taken place since William Hague’s reforms, in only three of them have the membership actually had that deciding vote. This is because the second placed candidate in the parliamentary stages has chosen to withdraw before reaching the membership ballot stage. This happened in 2003 when the parliamentary party ensured that Michael Howard was unopposed. It happened again in 2016 when Andrea Leadsom withdrew from the contest against Theresa May.
Last week Boris  hinted that it may be the case again this time when he taunted Keir Starmer at Prime Minister’s Questions that it might be their last outing together because his successor could well be chosen by ‘acclaim’  this week, avoiding the prolonged process entirely. It doesn’t look likely, anyway it would infuriate the members.
I fear that we are stuck with this system however unsatisfactory.

I’ve had a large number of emails from constituents expressing their anger at the resignation of the Prime Minister.
I have always had some sharp policy differences with Boris but I supported him for the leadership and at the recent confidence vote. I was against his forced resignation at a time when I considered him to be making a critical difference in international affairs. I did not think it wise to initiate a new leadership contest, with a completely unpredictable outcome at this time of international tension and domestic economic uncertainty.
Nevertheless, I was exasperated by what the tennis commentators call ‘unforced errors’, the last of which was the Pincher business. If only he had said at the very start how sorry he was that he given the fellow a second chance, but he had been let down when he got drunk and behaved so disgracefully at the Carlton Club. There would still have been a frightful row, but I don’t think it would have been terminal. (I should point out that it is my understanding that the historic incident that took place in the Foreign Office was not of the same order as the events in the Carleton Club. The Foreign Office complaint was subject to a formal Cabinet Office investigation which concluded that no disciplinary action should be taken. That certainly would not have been the outcome had the complaint been anything like what happened at the Carleton).

Boris was a fantastic communicator and campaigner. We will certainly miss his charisma in what can often be a rather ‘grey’ political scene. His legacy will be the successful 2016 Brexit campaign that he led – LEAVE would not have won without him;  He followed this with his decisive parliamentary and electoral intervention to break the deadlock in 2019 and finally ‘get Brexit done’. 

Over the last couple of years I’ve often been asked who I think should be the next Tory Prime Minister and I have responded by telling my questioners that they probably won’t recognise the names because I believe that our best talents are among the newer MPs who have not had sufficient public exposure. Anyway, the two names that I have given have been Suella Braverman and Kemi Badenoch. Two highly effective ministers at the despatch box with a clear Conservative vision. Both, for some reason -probably fear, are singled out for particular attack from the opposition benches, but give as good as they get.
I was somewhat surprised, but nevertheless delighted, when they both announced their candidatures.
Suella was first off the block, so I immediately gave her my support. She has been a robust and effective Attorney General and I have no doubt that she could be a magnificent PM in the mould of Margaret Thatcher. 

Following the ruling made by the USA Supreme Court that there was no federal constitutional right to abortion and that it was a matter for individual states in the union to decide , a number of constituents emailed me to demand that the new Bill of Rights proposed by the Government should be amended to include a right to abortion here in the UK.

Unlike the USA, we do not have a written constitution, so we do need a Supreme Court to interpret  the meaning of such a document.  Our own -relatively new- Supreme Court has the quite different purpose of being the final court of appeal in determining the intent and purpose of our own common law and statute law as it applies in different situations.

Each and every act of Parliament has the same status, we have no special constitutional laws that have a higher value. No parliament can bind its successors: Parliament can amend or repeal any law that it made previously. The Courts cannot strike down laws made in Parliament, all they can do is point to any contradiction between our laws and statutory rights. It is up to Parliament choose when and if to remedy any supposed conflict.

The law on abortion in the UK makes it clear that there is no general right to abortion services. On the contrary, the default position is that abortion is a criminal matter unless two doctors sign a document about the necessity of the procedure for the sake of the health and safety of the mother to be. Even then, these provisions are circumscribed by the length of the pregnancy, with abortion being permitted in only exceptional circumstances after 24 weeks.
These conditions were debated and decided in Parliament with the intention of balancing the needs of an expectant mother with those of a child growing in her womb. They remain controversial. The 24 week limit was last reset in 1990, since when medical science has progressed, so much so, that the life of a child prematurely outside the womb is now viable at fewer than 24 weeks. Accordingly, many will argue that the law should change to reduce the time in which abortion can take place. Equally, clinicians have presented studies indicating that the child in the womb can experience pain much earlier than was previously thought, perhaps this should be a factor in changing the law.
These are matters over which people argue passionately and about which there is rarely a consensus.  They need to be settled in a democratic and accountable forum, which means in Parliament. We should not contemplate handing such decisions to judges.

I have the honour of being the parliamentary champion of the Britain’s rarest reptile: the Smooth Snake. I am also fortunate to receive briefings from the dedicated experts Tony Gent and Owain Masters. 

 The range of the smooth snake (coronella austriaca) is limited to our lowland heaths like much of the New Forest.  Britain accounts for 20% of the World’s total lowland heath.
The smooth Snake is what is known as an  ‘umbrella species’ because it serves as a flagship for promoting conservation of its own habitats and also that of many other species. Smooth snakes are recognised as a conservation priority in Britain, are fully protected by law and identified as key feature in many sites with conservation designations. 

 Smooth snakes will have been active since late March, when the warming weather would have brought them out of hibernation. Having mated from in April and May, the females will be basking in the sun with the next generation being born from mid-August to early October.
 Though there is the danger that welcome warm dry weather, brings with it an increased risk of heath fires, which can be devastating to local smooth snake and reptile populations. So don’t barbeque in the Forest.

Current proposals for Species Abundance Targets under the provisions of the Environment Act 2021 do not include any reptile species so I will have to keep badgering Rebecca Pow, the responsible minister, using the data provided by Tony and Martin as ammunition, in order to see that this deficiency is addressed. The key point being that reptiles are a ‘weathervane’ for so much else in terms of biodiversity and healthy habitats. 

The Snakes in the Heather project, run by Amphibian & Reptile Conservation and funded by the National Lottery Heritage Fund, started in 2019, has the smooth snake as its flagship species. The project is a volunteer-based wildlife survey to raise awareness of reptiles within local communities with both public events and school-based activities across the range of the smooth snake in southern England. The project is giving many more people an understanding and appreciation of smooth snakes and all of our native reptile species, leading to improvements in habitat condition.
 Over 200 people are now trained to survey for smooth snakes using the latest technology developed for the project. – Preliminary habitat suitability models have been completed for smooth snake, adder and sand lizards allowing us to ensure the survey programme targets potential gaps together with historic locations and known populations.

 Over 2000 children have received lessons about the UK’s reptile species. There has been coverage on the Countryfile TV programme.  A Snakes in the Heather children’s story book In Search of Old Uncle Blue has been published. We are looking at developing a campaign around raising the profile of smooth snake over the coming year, to involve a number, conservation organisations and schools – and hopefully local businesses.
Wildlife Conservation and habitat restoration needs to be high on our political agenda if our planet, as we have known it, is to survive.  

As I feared, the first flight with asylum seekers failed to make it to Rwanda. It was a brave effort and in my estimate it is essential that we redouble our efforts to get them there, irrespective of the objections of bishops, opposition parties other commentators, however appalled. We simply cannot go on accommodating a limitless number of refugees.
In the last year 60,000 have applied for asylum in the UK. The only proposal that opponents offer is that we provide ‘safe routes’ for applicants to get here, so that they don’t have to try their luck crossing the Channel in small boats.
Safe routes?
-We made safe routes for 20,000 Afghans and more (about 12,000 of whom are still accommodated in hotels), for 20,000 Syrians and doesn’t the Government expect 300,000 Hong Kong Chinese to come here over the next five years by the safe route we’ve provided  (beware, government expectations have always been underestimates  – and by a country mile). 60,000 Ukrainians have arrived in the last few months by a safe route.
In all, Migration Watch estimates that 250,000 refugees have come to the UK via ‘safe routes’ since 2004.
The reality is that ‘safe routes’ make no impact on the trafficking trade because a sufficient number, unable to make it by one of the safe routes, provide a continuing and unlimited source of demand for the traffickers.

Refugees, seek safety but  migrants pursue better economic opportunities. The refugees who arrive in UK unlawfully have passed through several safe countries before getting here. Their unwillingness to claim asylum in those countries, in my estimate, moves them into the category migrants. I do not blame them for that. On the contrary, were I one of them, I wouldn’t settle for France or anywhere else, I’d want to come to Britain too.
Nevertheless, safety is to be had in Rwanda, and a measure of economic opportunity too.
There has to be a limit to the numbers that we can accommodate here. Last year alone we issued 900,000 visas for people to come here entirely lawfully.

Our Continued adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights prevented the first Rwanda flight proceeding.
I  long argued that the Convention had outlived its usefulness and that we should leave it.
Addressing, the issue is an essential part of any reform of our own human rights legislation, to which the Government made a manifesto commitment.
Labour’s Human Rights Act 1998 makes the Convention rights justiciable in UK courts. Repealing it, whilst remaining within the Convention, merely means that appellants will have to go straight to the court in Strasbourg rather than trying their luck in British courts first. Repeal of the 1998 Act won’t alter the fact that what happens here can ultimately be determined in Strasbourg.

Unfortunately, extricating ourselves from the ECHR will now be complicated. We have used it to define competencies within our devolution settlements and  the Belfast Agreement. So, our best legal brains need to work on how we can lawfully limit the Convention Court’s jurisdiction without necessarily leaving  the convention itself. I’m confident that it can be done, after all, Parliament is supreme, but we need to get it done quickly and get those flights on their way to Kigali

At the Cambridge University Union I once opposed a motion ‘that this house has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government’ by quoting Winnie the Pooh, or was it Piglet, when he said  “no is a very big word”. My logic being that any confidence whatsoever constitutes a rejection of the ‘no’ in the motion. To be honest, I stole the line from Sir Anthony Selden at an earlier debate in which we were on opposite sides at a King’s College London.

I voted for the Boris in the confidence motion last night, but everyone is entitled to their doubts: I was one of his most vociferous critics on Covid-19 restrictions. Though I have to acknowledge that they had wide public support and that he rightly lifted the restrictions early and in the teeth of opposition from other political parties. Equally, as I have made it clear in this column previously, I have not been at all comfortable with the size and scope of his Government’s policies “wrapping its arms around the whole country” and I have been excoriating about some profoundly un-Conservative legislation. Yet, I had to temper that with the prospect of the prolonged and unpredictable process that would have been unleashed had I chosen to take the opportunity to ditch a Prime Minister with whom I had ideological differences. That self-indulgence would have occurred at time when the national situation demanded the full concentration of Government and, in any event, I might have ended up with a PM that I was even less comfortable with ideologically.

Many voters went into the polling stations in two minds in the 2016 EU referendum, they could have as easily voted either way. So also, many colleagues went into the 1922 Committee last night still weighing up the case on either side, a consideration of how much confidence they had.  They made their decisions and the result was far more decisive than ones on which most decisions are made, and certainly more so than the EU referendum result.

On the ‘partygate’ issue, on which so much of my correspondence has dwelt, I had no doubt whatever as to the right course. I sometimes wonder if my correspondents have read a quite different Sue Gray Report to the one that I had.  That report details a number of disgraceful goings-on but from which The PM is exonerated. I believe that the PM attended what were legitimate work events which, after he left, became parties of which he was unaware. As I have indicated in this column previously, there is a common misunderstanding that No10 is a house when, in reality, it is a door into a large estate of offices.
The fact that the police have not imposed fixed penalties on the PM for those events re-enforces Sue Gray’s conclusions.  The one fixed penalty which was imposed, was the occasion where the PM and colleagues, seated and working in the Cabinet Room, were interrupted by the PM’s wife bearing a birthday cake.  Frankly, I don’t believe it was a breach and the penalty ought to have been challenged in court.

The Standards Committee is still to deliberate on whether the Commons was knowingly misled about ‘parties and rule breaking’. As I have previously indicated, what happened was disgraceful, the spirit of the rules and guidance were certainly not being observed, but I have no doubt that the PM was unaware of that at the time he made his statement in the Commons and he was proportionate and honest in his assessment that he had attended ‘work events’.

A large number of my correspondents have written to inform me about their own anguish at not being able to visit dying loved ones or give them a fitting funeral. I have the greatest sympathy for them. The rules were inhumane and, I believe, disproportionate. That was the real mistake. 
The Public perception which has given rise such anger has been driven by an unfair and hysterical media narrative.

The PM was elected for a full term. We are only half-way through. The first half took the shocks of the pandemic and the economic consequences of war in Ukraine. The outcome of the next election will depend substantially on the progress that his government makes in the time that is left.

I’ve been reading Andrew Marr’s Diamond Queen (which he has updated for the Platinum Jubilee). I’m not normally a Marr fan, the thought of watching a political discussion on a Sunday morning is just too dreadful to contemplate. Surely people have better things to do?
Nevertheless, I found the book a terrific read and I couldn’t put it down.
I’ve received just one complaint about the jubilee from a republican. For heaven’s sake! Just look around: the notion that we might choose a politician to replace our Monarch as head of state is absurd, it would be an act of barking madness.

Marr’s book put me in mind of my own experience of the Queen. I had the rare privilege of being her Vice Chamberlain from 2012 to 2014.
The VC has four duties: To give the Queen a daily written account of the highlights of proceedings in the Commons -taking care to make it interesting; To accompany the Queen at her Summer garden parties; To be held hostage at Buckingham Palace against the safe return of the Queen when she is in Parliament (a reminder of times when the relations between the Crown and Parliament were not so cordial), I found the terms of my confinement very agreeable, quickly acquiring Stockholm syndrome; Finally, to carry humble addresses from the Commons to the Queen and to return her responses to the Commons.
This is a formal process. Immediately after prayers Mr Speaker announces the VC, who -in morning dress and carrying the wand of office- advances from the Bar of the House to the Table bowing twice. Having read the Queen’s message, bows twice more whilst walking backwards to the Bar, which feat is accompanied by roars of approval from colleagues.
When I presented my first humble address to the Queen at Buckingham Palace I was briefed beforehand by a courtier about the proper etiquette, he told me that on no account was I to observe the ‘former custom’ of walking backwards so as not to turn my back on the Sovereign. During these audiences you are entirely alone with the Queen without anyone else present to prompt. After I had formally delivered the address we had a more relaxed discussion, the Queen then asked me in a rather mischievous way if I was about to walk backwards. I replied that I had been ordered not to, would she like me to?
She chuckled, saying it that she didn’t mind at all either way and that it was entirely a matter of personal preference. So, I did walk backwards.

The VC’s wand is not the sort that a wizard might wield. It looks more like a billiard cue. In former times the Monarch would snap it in two to signify the end of the appointment. In deference to modern sensibilities, they’ve now put a hinge in the middle. One used to be able to hold onto the wand as a keepsake but these days the Government Whips Office charges £1000 for it, so I opted for a scroll instead.
When the Queen presented the scroll she said that it had looked rather dull so she had made it more presentable by tying a red ribbon round it. She didn’t say that she had caused a ribbon to be tied, she said that she had tied a ribbon and I don’t doubt it.

These are thin times for those of us who consider ourselves to be in in the classical liberal tradition that the Tory party inherited from the Whigs and which informed so much of Mrs Thatcher’s outlook.
Who believe that, on the whole, governments don’t do things well, and the less we require them to do for us, the better governed we shall be. Who believe that governments should be smaller and our taxes commensurately lower.  Who believe that social and economic progress is driven by private enterprise, initiative and effort. Who believe that individuals are the best judge of what is best for them and their families, not the officials in Whitehall.

Alas, our times are out of joint: government has taken on more and more responsibility for ordering our lives and, as a consequence, placed us under the highest tax burden we’ve endured in peacetime, in order to pay for all that it is doing on our behalf.
The herculean struggle under the coalition delivered the smallest civil service for a generation, but now it has ballooned and is larger than ever.
Government even took on previously unheard of powers to order us into the confinement of our homes; defined in detail the circumstances in which we might leave them; permit whom we may meet; where we may go and even what we must wear. I do not dispute that all this was done with the best possible motive, even though I believed it was quite misguided. Just how misguided we discover almost daily as the long-term damage that it did to economy and society emerges.

The Prime Minister tells us that the Government wrapped it’s arms around us to bring us through the greatest health emergency for a generation and that now it is wrapping its arms around us once again to bring us through the current ‘cost of living crisis’.
We should be in no doubt however, that the hundreds of billions of pounds spent on confining so many people to their homes and paying them to do nothing, and the further hundreds of billions now being distributed to help us with our bills, will be paid for by us either honestly through higher taxation for years to come, or dishonestly through prolonged inflation by the debasement of our currency.

Government has no money of its own. The more it takes from us to pay for what it does, the less productive we will become – if it carries on, we’re all going to be a lot poorer.