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.

I’ve had a huge email correspondence worried about developments at World Health Organisation (WHO). Given what we’ve been through with the pandemic and the fact that WHO has proven to be a deeply flawed institution in obeisance to China, I quite understand the suspicions of my correspondents.

Nevertheless no WHO agreement can impose changes to UK law. Parliamentary sovereignty ensures that any changes must be approved by MPs. Currently none of the concrete proposals that are on the table would compromise UK sovereignty, nor is there yet any legal mechanism by which the WHO could compel its members to do anything. The Government has been clear: if any such proposals were on the table, we wouldn’t accept them.

All the suggested amendments to the International Health Regulations – the only proposals which have a realistic chance of being implemented in the immediate future – have been tabled by the United States and are sensible and uncontroversial. They address issues surrounding information sharing and surveillance that arose at the beginning of the pandemic and seek to remedy errors that were made.

The Prime Minister and other world leaders made a statement in March last year on a proposal for an international treaty for pandemic preparedness and response.  All this is still further down the line but there is no plan for this new treaty to facilitate ‘global lockdowns.’ So, in my estimate there is no immediate cause for alarm. I see nothing sinister in “enhancing international co-operation to improve alert systems; data-sharing; research; local, regional and global production and distribution of medical and public health counter-measures such as vaccines, medicines, diagnostics and personal protective equipment.”
Preventing and mitigating future pandemics will require a transparent and co-ordinated approach together with other WHO member states on basic issues like information sharing and PPE procurement. What we must avoid however, is anything that limits our ability to respond to future pandemics independently.

None of this is to say that there have not been developments that give rise to proper concern. A WHO white paper titled ‘Strengthening the Global Architecture for Health Emergency Preparedness, Response and Resilience,’ proposes the establishment of a Global Health Emergency Council which would have a responsibility to “foster compliance with and adherence to global health norms and policies.” We must see- off this sort of interference and be vigilant in ensuring that any new treaty goes no further than proportionate and sensible measures.

I hope this goes some way to allaying the concerns of scores of people who have emailed me.
Nevertheless, it is never wise to be ‘too reassured’. Nor can we take too much comfort from the protection of our parliamentary sovereignty when lawyers come demanding compliance with ‘binding international obligations’.  My correspondents are quite right to be permanently on the lookout.

I’ve had some push-back on my column last week Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon, there is no such thing as cost-push inflation. (desmondswaynemp.com) in which I argued that inflation is driven by the quantity of money rising faster than the goods and services available for it to purchase. As against material and production cost increases being passed on by the producers to consumers in higher prices.

As any producer or retailer knows, you can’t just pass on your additional costs to consumers in the expectation that they will pay-up. There will be a price that the market will bear, beyond which consumers will reduce their consumption and switch to other products. A retailer needs to consider whether a price increase will actually reduce his total revenue, because a reduction in sales might be proportionately greater than the increase in the price charged.
Any enterprise facing increased costs needs to consider whether those costs are worth incurring given the price that consumers are willing to pay, or whether it is better just to pack-up and do something else instead.

In a consumption driven economy like ours, when external factors  (like war in Ukraine or the closure of strategically important ports in China due to Covid) send basic commodity prices up, consumers prioritise what they need to spend and reduce discretionary expenditure. Inevitably, there will be hardship and unemployment among the suppliers of those discretionary items.
Equally, workers -faced by higher prices, demand higher wages. Which, when granted, will reduce the demand for their labour resulting in further unemployment.

Such is our concern about unemployment that governments seek to generate additional demand in the economy, through increased public and private expenditure financed by credit (i.e. more money) in order to sustain full-employment at the higher level of prices. This is inflation: you need more money to buy the same amount of stuff; your money holds less value relative to what it can buy; Money, like anything else, is less valuable because there is more of it.

From the late sixties to the late seventies governments tried to control inflation by regulating prices and wages instead of dealing with the fundamental causes -which were their own policies of expanding the money supply in an attempt to cure rising unemployment.

Since the shock of the financial melt-down of 2008, governments have similarly stood by as central banks sustained economic activity through a new way of increasing credit (‘quantitative easing’). We enjoyed the party, but now we have the inflation hangover.

The whole world economy has endured the same oil and food price shock, but inflation differs in each developed economy according to the monetary expansion engineered over the last decade. Japan eschewed that policy; that’s why its inflation is only just over 1%.

We need stop drinking now, and recover from the hangover

Inflation occurs when too much money chases too few goods. Money is like any other commodity: the more there is of it, the less value it holds.

We’ve seen energy prices rise because the demand has exceeded supply as the world economy recovers from the Pandemic at the same time as the situation in Ukraine has led to the sanctioning of Russian oil production.
We can respond to the higher energy price by cutting our consumption of energy, or if that is too painful, by paying the higher price and instead, manage our limited finances by cutting our consumption of something else. Collectively, as millions of us make these decisions, there will be either a reduction in the demand for energy, or a reduction in the demand for other commodities. Prices will fluctuate accordingly: The price of energy will ease as demand for it at the higher price falls, or if we just can’t do without it, then the prices of other goods will fall as we cease to purchase them because we are now spending so much on energy instead.
This will be an uncomfortable process in an economy like ours which is so reliant on consumer expenditure. Our higher energy bills will inevitably squeeze other aspects of economic activity that we can no longer afford. There will not however, be any increase in the general level of prices. The higher price of energy will be offset by the falling prices of goods that we can no longer afford.

A general rise in prices can only be sustained if we try and avoid the pain by inflating the economy to accommodate the higher level of prices  by ‘printing’ and circulating more money. We have been doing this in a number of ways for years. Understandably, governments -fearing recession and unemployment due to the banking crisis in 2008 and the pandemic more recently- increased their own spending, borrowed more, and extended credit throughout the economy.
Initially, this did not drive-up prices because demand remained suppressed. Now however, we are at full employment, there are huge world-wide supply chain problems and we have had the oil price shock.  We are in a situation where too much money is chasing too few goods.
The only blunt tool the Bank of England currently has with which to remedy this, is to increase interest rates to try and squeeze some of the excess demand out of the economy. This will hurt, but it will pass.

What we must not do is feed the monster by creating more demand in the economy through reduced taxes or increasing government expenditure to ease the short-term pain. Such policies will drive prices up further and -most damaging of all- create an expectation that inflation will continue. That would lead to excessive wage demands,  which would reduce employment, and -so proceeding-  give rise to further demands to inflate the economy with more spending and credit to mop up that unemployment…and so the cycle will continue.
We’ve been here before: welcome to the 1970ies.
Best to grit out teeth and take the painful medicine now, than perpetuate if for decades.

Having been sanctioned by Putin’s regime I will be unable to spend all the roubles I’ve been saving up under my mattress.
The accusation states that I have been involved in ‘whipping- up’ anti-Russian hatred. The reality however, is that there is no need for anyone to whip-up such sentiments because their actions speak for themselves. The real question is why their armed forces behave so ruthlessly. Perhaps it’s because they have themselves been governed ruthlessly for generations. Furthermore, no-one ever atoned for the millions murdered by the Soviet regime. Khrushchev’s speech listing Stalin’s crimes was in secret session and not for public consumption. With the exception of Beria, Stalin’s cronies enjoyed the remainder of their lives and the crimes of post-Stalin regime resumed. Putin has increasingly rehabilitated Stalin’s reputation. Unaccountable ruthlessness is part of the system, just ask Navalny, or the residents of Salisbury.

A number of constituents have responded to my blog of 17^th April Fixed Penalty Notices (desmondswaynemp.com) with comments along the lines “so you support a liar”. Either they didn’t read it or have difficulty understanding, because the whole thrust of the piece was an explanation precisely why I though the PM hadn’t lied and, however misjudged, genuinely believed that the gatherings at Downing Street he attended were ‘work events’.
Had the PM invited his friends and family to a gathering then the level of outrage that has been expressed would be justified. The gatherings however, were populated by civil servants and officials who were at their place of work, with the people with whom they worked daily. Far from being the PM’s mates, they probably didn’t even vote for him.
I can understand the anger of people who lost loved ones during all the restrictions of lock-down, but the PM was also among them.  He was himself hospitalised without the comfort of visitors just like everyone else.

Half a century ago I had to summon up courage to reach up to the top shelf for a copy of Health & Efficiency, then endure the disapproving glare of the newsagent as he placed it into a brown paper bag. Now -apparently- porn can just pop up on your mobile phone spontaneously.
How excruciatingly dreadful it must have been to be Neil Parish at the centre of the media frenzy, with even colleagues demanding instant execution. Imagine the humiliation and embarrassment of attempting to explain it to your wife, or your mother.
There are people, including children, who are addicted to online pornography. I recall an excellent and hilarious play about the condition, but it is no joke. My former colleague Claire Perry campaigned tirelessly against it and I remember being summoned to a meeting at Poulner Baptist  Church to be cross-examined about what we were going to do about it. Not much yet, is the answer to that one, although we expect the Online Harms Bill to be in the Queens Speech on 10^th May (though there are many legitimate reservations about the bill).
We can sometimes be understanding of addictive behaviour such as gambling or alcoholism.
Watching Porn in the Commons reveals a lamentable want of judgement. Perhaps some of the coverage has revealed a want of charity too.