Family life is the bedrock of Society
The proportion of children born outside marriage has doubled over the last couple of decades to 40%.  This matters because children born inside a marriage stand a significantly better chance of not having to live through the experience of their parent’s relationship breaking up: By the time they turn five years of age, over half the children of cohabiting parents will have seen their parents split up, but only 15% of the same age cohort among children of married parents will have to live through that experience. 

One of the worst things one experiences as a Member of Parliament is the petitions from parents seeking assistance in what has become a war with their former partners in which access to children has become one of the weapons.
Recent law reform delivering ‘no fault divorce’ is designed to remove the adversarial aspects of splitting up, together with the anger and blame that goes with it. If it is successful in doing so, it will be at the very margin.
Yet, the impacts are much wider:  Irrespective of whether couples are married or just cohabiting, splitting -up is the swiftest route to poverty. Of the problems that are regularly brought to my ‘surgery’, whether they be debt, housing, schooling or whatever, once you scratch the surface, in nine out of ten cases, the underlying cause is family breakdown.
 A quarter of our families are now headed by a lone parent, nearly all of them women (90%). Half of all the children in England now have to live across more than one household.
These sobering statistics compare very poorly with our neighbours – for children in single parent households they are twice as bad as the European average. 
I’ve often said in this column that there are few levers that governments can pull to solve our problems and that we need to take greater responsibility for our own lives. Nevertheless, the economic and social costs of this disaster in family life should prompt the new PM to ask, ‘to what extent government policy in the design of the tax and benefit system has placed the traditional two parent household under financial strains that are much greater than in similar jurisdictions?’ 

In essence the answer is that we place a much greater tax burden on them. 

When I set out my prejudices about energy price in my blog on 11^th August …There’s a war on (desmondswaynemp.com) , I made it clear that whilst Ukraine is in a lethal war with Russia, we are in an economic war. Whilst Ukraine must put up with death and destruction and economic hardship, we have only to put up with the economic hardship.
As energy prices rise exponentially, of course, the Government will have to come forward with more schemes to assist the most vulnerable. The war however, demands a sacrifice from us in terms of significantly reducing our energy consumption. It will be painful, but the notion that we can carry on consuming and expect the Government to borrow the money to pay our bills is the economics of the madhouse.
Recently constituents have emailed make their own suggestions to me. Here are three:
“The Government should ‘freeze’ energy prices”. This is a bit like King Canute trying to stop the tide coming in.  If we froze prices consumers would be paying £30 billion in total for energy, but the energy suppliers would be buying it on international markets at twice that amount. They wouldn’t last very long. We’ve already had to pick up the bill for all those that went bust because they were paying more for it than the capped price consumers were paying last year.
Another suggestion is that we nationalise the supply companies. Nationalisation changes the ownership from shareholders to taxpayers. It does nothing to alter the price they will be charged for the energy and the price at which they sell it. The economics won’t have altered even if the ownership has. All we would have done is saddled ourselves with the cost of nationalisation and the ownership of the companies as they become bankrupt.

Whilst the costs of extracting oil and gas have risen with general inflationary pressures, the price at which they sell these commodities has risen very much faster. The suggestion is that it is only fair to have a windfall tax on their profits where they operate within our jurisdiction. I’ve already set out my objections to this policy in my blog of 24 March Windfall (desmondswaynemp.com) and 4 April Energy Bills (desmondswaynemp.com). It is a short-sighted policy that jeopardises vital investment in internationally competitive markets.
Third, The Government could reduce its own contributions to our energy bills – VAT and green levies. It could indeed, but this reduction in tax revenue will increase government borrowing, so we will only be deferring the bill at a time when out debt is already alarmingly high and interest rates are rising.

So, in the end it comes back to this: Hard times. Hard, because we chose to confront Putin’s aggression with economic warfare, but have we the true grit to see it through?

 With respect to their proposals for relieving rising energy prices, the focus of the Conservative leadership contest has come down to a difference between Truss, who favours tax cuts, and Sunak, who favours direct interventions. 
 Whilst one can argue about the technicalities of how effective tax cuts or direct cash interventions can be when addressing the needs of stressed consumers facing exponential increases in their bills, ultimately the consequences of either will be inflationary.  The proper response to a price rise is to reduce consumption. The purpose of the proposed tax cut, or cash rebate, is to maintain consumption at the higher price level. Given that both of them will have to be funded by borrowing, the consequence will be to put even further pressure on prices, prolonging inflation.

The increase in energy and food prices is driven by the war in Ukraine. At the outset, I warned that sanctioning Russia for its invasion of Ukraine also meant sanctioning ourselves and that the public needed to understand the consequences that would follow.
Winston Churchill said in his history The second World War, that the British people were resilient and could endure enormous hardship if they understood why it was necessary. What they would not forgive however, was being taken for fools, being given false hope, promises that could not be delivered.
I hope that this fortitude and resilience has not deserted us in the intervening years. We need to understand that we have, with our allies, declared economic war on Russia because of its unprovoked attack on an independent democracy. This was the right course of action to secure peace and our future security. We have learnt from the mistakes of the policy of appeasing dictators that preceded the Second World War. But the consequence is our current economic hardship, which is bound to intensify over the coming winter. We need to resolve to steel ourselves for it and rise to the challenge.

As to false hope and promises that cannot be delivered, surely the notion that the Government can and ought to pay our energy bills for us has to be among the more ludicrous of them. Where on earth do we imagine the money is to come from?
It has to come from cutting expenditure elsewhere, or from borrowing which will have to be repaid -with ever increasing rates of interest- by higher taxes later which will stifle hopes for economic growth.

Perhaps the only even more ludicrous notion is that we should just refuse to pay our bills and carry on consuming. Nothing would be more damning for our reputation as a country in which to invest, let alone the longer-term consequences for our energy security. It would be a national disaster, an act of sheer madness.

Whilst we are not ourselves being bombarded and subjected to a brutal assault, we have chosen to stand by Ukraine. The price of our support in this endeavour to defeat barbarism, are the hardships we now have to endure: …There’s a war on.

After the scenes that we saw following the liberation of Ukrainian towns and villages earlier in the spring perhaps we should have been hardened. Nevertheless, images and reports of the sheer barbarity of some Russian military units continue to shock: whether it be the castration of a prisoner; the targeting of civilians; torture under interrogation, or the insatiable appetite for looting.
War has always had terrible side effects, sometimes bringing out the best in humanity, but often the worst. Notwithstanding, we retain high expectations of the discipline and restraint of our own armed forces. We require thorough investigation and accountability if they fall short.
What is it about the form that Russian forces have displayed in Ukraine and previously in Chechenia, that leaves their chain of command so apparently unconcerned?

 
At the Chalke Valley History Festival in June, I bought a copy of Anthony Beevor’s Russia: Revolution and Civil War 1917-1921. I was already familiar with the history, but I’ve always found Beevor’s accounts refreshing and gripping. Now that we are into the parliamentary recess, I’ve had the time to pick it up and read it. What I was certainly unaware of previously was the role of Winston Churchill -our Minister for War at the time-  and the extent to which he tried to persuade the Prime Minister Lloyd- George and his cabinet to expand our commitment to the  ‘Whites’ in the civil war against Bolshevism.
 What the book also brought home to me is the scale and cruelty of the killing. From Lenin down, there was a promotion genocide as a tool of policy, and of the idea that lives are entirely expendable. Given the mind-boggling numbers of people to be killed, time and motion would dictate that they be despatched as swiftly and efficiently as possible. But not a bit of it: ingenuity and blood-lust dictated that victims be killed in some of the most excruciating ways imaginable. Of course, this investment of time and energy in the means and the reporting of killing improved the effectiveness of terror as a tool of social control and obedience.

The excesses of the civil war were not ended by the triumph of Bolshevism and the creation of the Soviet Union. Stalin’s regime perpetuated the terror, populations were deported, starved, and exterminated. It is significant that when Khrushchev denounced Stalin’s crimes it was only in a secret session of the Politburo. The willing murderers and torturers enjoyed untroubled retirement. As Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov demonstrated, the habits of the regime survived till the very end of the Soviet Union. Putin, who was an official in the Soviet system, has sought to turn back the clock and to rehabilitate Stalin’s reputation.

After the Second World War the Nuremberg trials exposed and punished the servants of the Nazi state. The enormity of the barbarism of the Soviet regime over the last century has never been similarly exposed, denounced, and its operatives held accountable. Perhaps this might go some way to explaining the treatment by Russian troops of their enemies: maybe it’s just the way things are done, it’s “part of the system”.

President Regan described it as the Evil Empire

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.