.. DS Blog – Page 2

Sir Desmond Swayne TD MP

Sir Desmond Swayne TD MP

Twitter

Funding Workshop

By

I am often asked for advice about fundraising by local good causes and charities. I’m afraid that I have not been much use to them: it’s an area where I only have my own limited personal experience and certainly no expertise.
Recently however, I’ve been badgering the government to raise the sales cap on lotteries for hospices and similar good causes. My involvement with this has led to several contacts with the People’s Postcode Lottery which has been quite helpful with my campaign.

 

Players of People’s Postcode Lottery have raised over £1 billion for good causes.
The trust funded by PPL offers funding of up to £25,000 and can be for a specific project, or just general core costs.
They have now agreed to run a ‘virtual funding workshop’ for charities and good causes based in my parliamentary constituency of New Forest West and I’m delighted to partner with PPL to help voluntary organisations receive funding for all the brilliant work that they do.

This workshop will offer the opportunity to hear from the People’s Postcode Lottery team about the funding that is on offer to good causes. The workshop will also include a question-and-answer session where you can ask PPL’s charity experts any questions you may have about the funding on offer, or about anything else.

The workshop will take place at 2PM on Thursday 14 September over Zoom. To register, please email funding@postcodelottery.co.uk , they will provide further details including the Zoom link.

Please feel free to share this invite with any voluntary organisations based in New Forest West you think might be interested and I look forward to seeing them at the ‘workshop’

My political activity is no more the business of my bank than what I do in bed

By

 I have had a high regard for Nigel Farage’s political and campaigning abilities and I shared his most important objectives. Nevertheless, I often found myself in disagreement with him.
My principal concern was that the success of his political party was dependent upon the destruction of my own Conservative Party.
I have always regarded it as a strength of our voting system that it requires broad coalitions to come together as a political party to have any chance of success at the ballot box in a general election. Narrow, ‘single issue’ political parties have never succeeded in building the necessary breadth of support to triumph in our elections. My fear was always that significant support for Farage’s political party would be at the expense of the Conservative Party and that, whilst it would deny the Conservative Party the opportunity of winning and forming the Government, far from delivering success for his own party, on the contrary, it would deliver victory to parties with agendas that could not be more opposed to his own.

Nevertheless, though his political party was never in danger of winning, Nigel Farage has had a key role in our politics. Were it not for the threat that he posed to the success of the Conservative Party; I have no doubt that David Cameron would not have included a commitment to an in/out referendum on EU membership in his 2015 election manifesto. That commitment was designed explicitly to prevent Eurosceptic voters peeling off from the Conservatives to Nigel Farage.
I believed that the commitment to a referendum was an absolute necessity if we were to have a chance of winning, but we wouldn’t have offered it were it not for the danger posed by Farage.
I think it is safe to say that we would not have regained our national sovereignty had it not been for his intervention in our politics.

Now, by being denied continued banking services by Coutts and Nat West Farage has, by the tenacity of his campaigning, exposed a growing threat to our liberty. It is an absolute outrage to discover that large public companies are acting as Orwellian thought police and withholding commercial services on the basis of their investigations.
 What I might believe is no business whatsoever of my bank. Its only proper concern is that my account is in credit, or if it isn’t, that they are being paid handsomely in recompense.

It is astonishing that the board Nat West Bank, so ready to trumpet its standards and values, should express its full confidence in its chief executive, after she has divulged client confidential (and false) information to a BBC Journalist to undermine Nigel Farage’s campaign. The board, by backing their chief executive, have made themselves culpable and should also resign.

I doubt that shareholders in Nat West had any idea that the bank which they own had taken upon itself to censor the politics of its customers.

If my memory serves me correctly, it was in 2007 that we passed regulations that prevented any commercial undertaking from discriminating against customers on the basis of their sexual orientation. Clearly, we now need to go further and prevent enterprises from discriminating on the basis of a customer’s lawful political activity: My politics is no more the business of my bank, than what I do in bed.

Well Done, Nigel Farage

Lords Reform -Forget it

By

Our last week or so before the Summer recess was plagued with repeated votes on matters that we had already dispensed with weeks ago, when we went through detailed scrutiny of the Illegal Immigration Bill. The reason for the repeat performances were the wrecking amendments sent back to us by the House of Lords. I use the word ‘wrecking’ because they fundamentally undermined the purpose of the bill by tying any deportation up in interminable legal knots and appeals.

Given that a division can take up the best part of twenty minutes, to have to go through the division lobbies 18 times in an evening, is quite a demand on precious time. Of course, the rejoinder to that is that we ought to modernise our procedures and adopt instantaneous electronic voting.
Well, such repeated voting happens very rarely, and the advantage of going through the division lobbies to vote is that it affords the opportunity to badger the PM and other senior ministers with issues that you want resolved.

Anyway, the repeated ‘ping pong’ as the amendments went back and forth between the Lords and Commons generated a considerable correspondence from constituents. The bill is a popular one: overwhelmingly, voters want to see the small boats stopped. The ‘unhelpful’ amendments by the House of Lords filled my email inbox with demand for Lords reform, or even abolition.

I am not an enthusiast for reform, and certainly not for abolition. More often than not, the Lords do a good job of scrutinising legislation in greater detail than the Commons ever have done for the last 25 years. We simply don’t give enough time to it. Overwhelmingly, most Lord’s amendments are accepted by the Commons without dispute.

There are four reasons why I don’t believe we will ever give over the time necessary for considered debate over Lords reform.
First, there are always more pressing issues to deal with on the political agenda.
Second, whilst a part hereditary, part appointed House, is nothing that any of us would have designed were we starting from scratch. Nevertheless, it is there and, for the most part, works satisfactorily.
Third, there is nothing approaching consensus of any kind with respect to what a reformed House of Lords should look like. The reality will never find sufficient agreement.
Fourth, MPs are jealous about their constituencies: they would never welcome an elected member of the Lords on their patch also claiming  to represent their constituents.
Fifth, were we to elect the Lords, then the elected peers would have a legitimate demand for real political power. They would not be satisfied with being a mere revising chamber, as is the case now.
That political power could only come from the Commons. The notion that we will be prepared to share power with the Lords, is for the birds: Dream on.

Lords reform?
Forget it!

Inflation -4

By

In this column on 21st June Inflation -3 (desmondswaynemp.com) I expressed my concerns that that the Bank of England was in danger of causing a recession by driving interest rates too high.
 I have always believed that the real source of inflation was disproportionate growth in the quantity of money relative to the goods and services available for it to buy. Money, like any commodity, has a value inversely proportional to the quantity available of it. It was for precisely for this reason that primitive societies quickly abandoned experiments using seashells as a form of money.

Since the banking crisis of 2008 we have increased the quantity of money by 50%, with half of that increase taking place in response to the Covid pandemic since 2020.
It is quite technical, but the increase was almost exclusively engineered by the Bank of England’s policy of quantitative easing, euphemistically referred to as ‘printing money’ but, in reality, buying up debt in the form of corporate bonds to make credit readily available.
It was almost as if we had become addicted to it: it went on for years
The purpose of the policy was to prevent the economy going into recession following the banking crisis and then the pandemic, but it just kept being extended.
Many companies which, in ordinary circumstances, would have folded when their business models no longer responded effectively to changing consumer demand, remained afloat and were kept alive on cheap credit. In a properly functioning market they would have been liquidated and their resources would have gone into more productive enterprise.

Though, I quite understand the Bank of England’s motive in seeking to avoid recession, the task that it was primarily charged with was the control of inflation. My belief is that, on the contrary, its monetary expansion was the principal driver of inflation.
Now however, after putting the policy into reverse with a bout of ‘quantitative tightening’ -selling so many of the bonds it had earlier purchased – the money supply growth is firmly back under control. This should, after a time lag, bring inflation down. After all, it took a considerable time for inflation to result from the earlier monetary expansion.

The danger now is that, by continuing to raise interest rates, the Bank of England, is making mortgage holders and debtors so much poorer, which will drive the economy into recession quite unnecessarily, instead of waiting for the monetary contraction that it has lately engineered, to take effect.

It is very frustrating to watch, but politicians gave up control of monetary policy to the Bank of England with Gordon Brown’s reforms in 1997. Perhaps it’s time to take back control

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

By

Last Monday the Commons gave a second reading to the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill.  The purpose of this bill is to give legislative effect to a commitment made in the 2019 Conservative election manifesto Viz.
“We will ban public bodies from imposing their own direct boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries”
I supported that commitment: Of course, whilst individuals and private organisations can suit themselves, I believe that foreign policy is the preserve of the Government and that we should not have local authorities or other public bodies pursuing their own foreign policies by boycotting countries of which they disapprove. It should only be for the UK Government, with parliamentary support,  to deploy sanctions.

In the days preceding the second reading debate I received a large correspondence divided equally between those asking me to vote against the bill, and those urging me to vote for it. In the event, I abstained, not because constituent’s opinions were equally divided, but because I have grave reservations about the way that the Bill goes about implementing the commitment, though not sufficient to enable me, in conscience, to vote with Labour against my own party manifesto.
I will need to see how the bill is amended at committee and report stages before reconsidering how I will vote at third reading.

Clauses 1 & 2 of the bill deny public bodies the power to boycott or disinvest. Clause 3 however, empowers a minister to make exceptions, that is, to name countries against which public authorities are able to implement boycotts.
But Clause 3, part 7 specifically excludes Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Occupied Golan Heights from this exception-making power. The message being sent is ‘these are places, alone in all the world, whatever they do, however bad it might be, we will never allow economic sanctions against them’

Were Clause 3, part 7 to be left out, the bill would still achieve its objective of preventing public authorities meddling in foreign policy and it would prevent them implementing sanctions, including against Israel.
Leaving the clause as it is however, sends a powerful message to Israel that we give them an absolutely blank cheque for their continued occupation of Palestinian territories. This is at a time of high tension when we have the most right-wing government of Israel ever.
 We still adhere to the policy of a ‘two-state solution’. But the policy of Israel has been to accelerate the building of illegal settlements in the West Bank of the Jordan to exclude the geographical possibility of any future coherent unified Palestinian State.

I support Israel as the only real democracy in the region and I support its right to defend itself. Its present policy however, is a block in the way of the peace process. The entirely gratuitous and unnecessary message we’ve inserted into this bill has no proper place at this time.

Perhaps even more bizarre, clause 4 of the bill makes it an offence for a person subject to clause 1 (presumably the leader of a council or other public body) to publish a statement saying that they disagree with it, or what they would do were they not subject to it.
Gadzooks! We only recently passed legislation guaranteeing freedom of speech, yet here we are introducing a vicious restriction on it. Of course, we have to obey the law but surely we have to remain entitled to say we disagree with it and what we might do had it not been implemented.

I’m an optimist: I’m confident that the Bill won’t get to third reading without being thoroughly amended.

Mortgage Charter

By

Last week in this column I set out my views on inflation and interest rates, including
my belief that the principal driver of inflation is too rapid growth in the quantity of money.
The measures of monetary growth now indicate significant tightening, but it takes time for this to feed through to reduced inflation. My fear is that by continuing with  interest rises, the Bank of England is unnecessarily driving the economy into recession.
Nevertheless, Gordon Brown handed responsibility for controlling inflation and the power to set interest rates to the Bank of England and subsequent administrations accepted that settlement. Right or wrong, we are stuck with the decisions that the Bank of England has arrived at.

The increasing rate of interest is a serious worry for many of us with mortgages.

What can we do?

  • – if you are on Universal Credit you can now receive help with your mortgage interest payments after three months of claiming the benefit 
  • The  Money and Pensions Service provide debt advice in England. Their debt advice budget is  £92.7 million for 2023/24. 

The most important thing is that, if you think you will have difficulty with making payments, contact your mortgage provider straight away, don’t wait. Asking what options are available to help will not impact on a borrower’s credit file.

The UK’s major lenders and building societies, working with UK Finance and the Financial Conduct Authority, have agreed a Mortgage Charter with the Chancellor which was announced in Parliament on Monday. The full details of the charter are available on the internet at
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mortgage-charter

In summary

  • With effect from 10th July customers approaching the end of a fixed rate deal will have the chance to lock in a deal up to six months ahead. They will also be able to manage their new deal and request a better like for like deal with their lender right up until their new term starts, if one becomes available.
  • Customers who are up to date with their payments will be allowed to switch to interest-only payments for six months or to extend their mortgage term to reduce their monthly payments. They will have the option to revert to their original term within 6 months by contacting their lender.
  • Lenders will provide well-timed information to help customers plan ahead should their current rate be due to end. 
  • Lenders will offer tailored support for anyone struggling and deploy highly trained staff to help customers. A range of other options like a temporary payment deferral or part interest-part interest-part repayment may be offered. The right option will depend on the customer’s circumstances.
  • If the worst comes to the worst a borrower will not be forced to leave their home without their consent, in less than a year from their first missed payment.  

Inflation -3

By

In this column on the 8th, and again on the 15th of April last year I gave my analysis of the inflation that we were facing:


Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon, there is no such thing as cost-push inflation. (desmondswaynemp.com)

Inflation-2 (desmondswaynemp.com)

My fears were not misplaced. I expressed my view that notwithstanding the severe impact of the war in Ukraine and the post Covid supply glitches that were affecting the world economy, my view was that inflation was caused by the growth in the money stock (principally in the form of credit and bank balances) relative to the availability of goods and services: Control of the stock of money is an essential element in restraining inflation.

In 1997 Gordon Brown handed responsibility for the control of inflation to the Bank of England, and with it, the power -independent of Government – to set in interest rates. I voted against that decision because I believed that politicians are democratically accountable in a way that the Governor of the Bank couldn’t be.
It is now clear that the Bank has made a complete Horlicks of it, but of course, most people still blame the Government anyway. It is galling to see the former Governor, Mark Carney, making highly political statements putting the problem down to Brexit. What twaddle: if that were the case why are interest rates are at similar levels in the United States, in Canada, in Australia and in New Zealand and they are at the highest level in Europe for 20 years?
And Since 2016, cumulative growth has been 4% in Italy and 5.5% in Germany, whereas in the UK it has been 6.8%. The UK had the highest growth of any G7 country in both 2021 and 2022.
 Furthermore, In July last year, British exports to the European Union were the highest, not just since Brexit, but since records began.

Nothing to do with Brexit then, our problem is that the Bank, for too long, neglected the importance of restraining the money stock.
That’s not to say that politicians would have made a better job of it. Also, it can be said in mitigation, that the Bank placed a higher priority on avoiding a recession and in that it has thus far been successful, -even though the eurozone is currently in recession. (Though my present fear is that, with monetary growth now much tighter, it takes months for this to impact inflation, and the Bank, by pressing ahead with rate rises will cause the very recession that we have, so far, avoided).

Of course, one very significant contributor to our inflation is the level of Government borrowing.
We can certainly blame the Government for that. But, again, it was done to avoid the ghastly recessionary consequences of Covid lockdowns and then the need to pay half our energy bills following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The principal restraint now on any intervention to assist people with their rising mortgage costs is that we’d make inflation worse by increasing borrowing even further (equally it would be unacceptable to help out mortgages without extending that help to rents).

This is going to be a difficult time for families like mine. But voters should beware of political parties with big spending plans: they will multiply our misery.

Not Proven

By

I am confident that the judgement I have reached will please neither Boris’s supporters nor his detractors

That shameful behaviour took place in Downing Street during lockdown, is not in doubt. Boris has acknowledged this and apologised for it. Many believe that those at the helm of such a dysfunctional ship should have taken responsibility and resigned. I have some sympathy with that view. Nevertheless, this was not the issue that was before the Committee of Privilege and the Commons.

I do not impugn the integrity of the Committee, though I believe it was unwise to have allowed itself to be chaired by someone who had been so critical of Boris. Nevertheless, I do not question her integrity.
The procedure adopted by the committee and the Commons was the right one: only elected members of Parliament should determine whether another elected member be suspended or expelled.
I simply disagree with the Committee’s conclusions, as I am entitled to do.

Parliament is the highest court in the land and when it exercises its judicial functions this should be reflected in its proceedings. Unlike the measured and forensic method of the Committee, the debate in the Commons was highly charged and deeply political.

I have not served on a Jury but I have been a member of the board on half a dozen courts marshall where the procedure is, in essence, the same.
I was among sternest critics of the Government during the period in question when Boris was Prime Minister.
Had Boris come before my court I might have found him guilty of a number of offences had he been charged with them. Nevertheless, on the basis of the evidence for the crime with which he was charged, I would have had no alternative but to acquit.


I believe that, notwithstanding the weight of evidence cited by the Committee, it failed to identify and sustain the mens rea – the guilty intent.
The essence of the case was that the rules required that workplace gatherings, to be lawful, had to be essential. The PM authorised such gatherings for the purpose of thanking staff for their contribution and to sustain their morale. These purposes were not essential, and therefore the gatherings were unlawful. So, by repeatedly stating that rules were not broken Boris was Lying.

I disagree. However flawed the PM’s judgement may have been in reaching his decision about the essential nature of gatherings, it was his decision to make. Having made that judgement, he was entitled to believe that they fell within the rules. He may have wrong in his judgement but that is no basis on which to assert that he was lying.

In addition to the binary choice, guilty or not guilty, there is an additional verdict that is available to courts in Scotland which might have been appropriate in this case: ‘not proven’.

 

Boris – a holding answer

By

I had a rather impertinent email last Sunday evening reacting to the blog that I had only just posted.
My correspondent demanded to know why I had avoided the main event, namely the continuing Boris psychodrama.
 Well, hold on a minute. The wretched Privilege Committee report wasn’t published until yesterday (Thursday) and the debate on its contents isn’t until Monday…Talk about jumping the gun.

Anyway, this column cannot always lead on the top items on the political agenda because its primary purpose is to provide an article for publication in the Forest Journal. They require the copy on a Monday morning, for publication the following Thursday. Were I always to lead on the headline news events, whatever I wrote would, more often than not, be overtaken as the story moved on.

In any event, a few moments use of the search facility on this website will reveal any number of previous posts setting out my views on ‘partygate’.

I remember well the moment that Boris first told the Commons that there were no parties and that rules were not broken. That instant a shudder went down my spine because of the seriousness with which misleading the Commons is treated. Not that I believed that he was lying. Rather, I had no doubt that what he considered a ‘party’ would differ from most people’s definition, and that he would have a more flexible approach what constitutes obedience to rules.

I was prepared to vote against the formation of the Privileges Committee Inquiry. I believed that Sue Gray’s report was sufficient and that it largely exonerated the PM (as I said in this column at the time). Indeed, I was required by a three-line whip to vote against the Committee’s formation. Then, halfway through the afternoon we were stood down. I went to the Whips Office to remonstrate with the Deputy Chief Whip, Chris Pincher (remember him?). I asked how he now planned to vote. He said he would either abstain or vote for the Committee. So, I left in disgust. In the event, the motion was unopposed.

Subsequently, when Boris resigned as PM, I thought the Committee should discontinue its work. I took the view that being slung out of Downing Street was punishment enough.
Now the Committee has produced its full forensic analysis, I will take the trouble to read it in full and to listen to Monday’s debate before finally deciding.
Nevertheless, I do have concerns about the fairness of the Committees proceedings. And my prejudice is that the whole process is redundant, having already achieved its end, namely the removal of Boris from Parliament.  Boris, having been shown the tenor of the report, resigned: he has already gone. So, why take a vote on suspending him for a mere 90 days?
The only residual sanction is to deny him a former member’s pass, which seems to me rather ‘petty’.

A number of constituents have emailed to denounce the ‘Blob’, the ‘Remainers’, ‘the Deep State’ and any number of other suspects for their conspiracy to destroy our unblemished hero, Boris.
I have no doubt that there are many who are rubbing their hands with glee as they enjoy Boris’s fate.
But I am also confident that even if there was a conspiracy, which I very much doubt, it achieved nothing: Boris’s downfall was entirely of his own making.
Given his achievements of breaking the deadlock over Brexit, seeing off the pandemic, and marshalling the response to the invasion of Ukraine, it is a great shame but he has only himself to blame

Phonics

By

 

A triumph of Government policy driven through since 2010, championed by Michael Gove and the school’s minister, Nicholas Gibb (and in the teeth of opposition from education unions) was the widespread reintroduction of ‘phonics’ as the method for teaching Children to read.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating: our children have graduated from being amongst the worst readers in the western world to the very best.
I remember my frustration when my children came home with little cards with words them that they had to memorise, instead of learning the phonic code that would enable them to spell out any word.
I had to teach them myself. Now this simple method is back in the classroom, and it works.
“Simples!”