I’ve received a considerable correspondence characterised by bitterness and unpleasantness, Happily, it isn’t from my own constituents. Strangely, most of it appears to come from Scotland. I think stems from an account in the Glasgow Herald about a question I asked in the Commons a full a week before their article.
The gist of the correspondence is that I am a fool (and that is putting it rather more charitably than the emails do) for having voted for Brexit, only now to complain about bureaucracy at the borders.
I’m afraid they’ve got quite the wrong end of the stick. My complaint was one about our own lack of urgency in implementing time-saving digital systems to replace paper. After all, we have -as part of our international development effort- implemented those systems in Africa to promote seamless trade within that continent.
We can get our own house in order, then we’d be in a position to challenge Europe’s level of ambition.
For the avoidance of any doubt, my support for Brexit is undiminished.
Ukraine 2
Several correspondents have written to demand the imposition of a ‘no-fly zone’ over Ukraine as we did to prevent Saddam terrorizing the Kurds in Iraq.
The difference is simple: Saddam did not have Putin’s capability to press the nuclear button and vaporise us in nanoseconds.
A NATO no-fly zone over Ukraine would require us to shoot down Russian aircraft that violated it: we would be at war with Russia, with all the consequences that Putin has indicated will follow.
One of the military mysteries of the Russian invasion, thus far at least, has been the very limited use they have made of their huge superiority of their air force in both numbers and technical sophistication. Suggestions to explain this range from a shortage of precision weapons (after a prolonged campaign in Syria), to lack of training in the complex field of mounting a large-scale operation co-ordinated with ground forces. In this respect operations in Syria have been confined to single aircraft or pairs of them, which is how they are being deployed in Ukraine. They have yet to mount operations to take and maintain control of the skies.
Similarly, the use of their superior numbers in tanks and other ‘state-of-the- art’ armoured vehicles has also been unimpressive. They have been snarled-up in huge traffic jams on roads, bogged down in mud when off-road, breaking down and running out of fuel. It is tempting to conclude that they just aren’t particularly good.
In the nineteen seventies our intelligence was that we faced the USSR’s highly trained and motivated military machine and that we had no hope of halting their advance -that’s why NATO would not subscribe to the undertaking of ‘no first use’ of nuclear weapons: We believed that our only chance of holding the advance was to use our battlefield nuclear capability.
When the USSR disintegrated internally, the shortcomings of our intelligence was exposed: their military was nothing like as formidable as we had been led to believe.
Perhaps that is still true of the Russian Bear.
Pay Rise
I have received quite a correspondence condemning the 2.7 % pay rise for MPs.
My reply is simple: “Not me Guv”; For over a decade MP’s pay has been set by an independent body using a formula linking it to the level of pay in the public sector.
Is the independent body making a reasonable fist of it, or is it being too generous?
Well, if you average out the pay increases they have awarded us over the last decade it works out at 2.9% per year, which may be generous but not excessive. The important thing is that it is significantly below the rate of inflation. Hopefully, this will give a lead in pay negotiations: it is essential not to build inflationary expectations if we are to bring inflation under control.
As an aside, given the column inches given to the MP pay award in the newspapers, when David Cameron’s Coalition Government came to power in 2010, with very stretched public finances, it immediately cut all ministerial pay by 5% and then froze it for 5 years. This received no press coverage at all -funny that.
Northern Ireland Protocol
In my column of 12 June last year Making Beds (desmondswaynemp.com) I explained the rationale for agreeing the Northern Ireland Protocol in order to leave the EU with a trade agreement, despite knowing its faults. Basically, it was workable with goodwill and flexibility , but unfortunately neither have been forthcoming.
I am surprised at the venom of correspondence from constituents who voted REMAIN and now demand that we forgo our right to unilaterally override the Protocol under the provisions set out in Article 16. It would appear that they still identify with the interests of the EU rather than the UK. They demand that we stick rigidly to the Protocol which we agreed to. What they fail to appreciate is that Article 16 is part of that very Protocol and we have every right to make use of it.
Furthermore, a close reading of the Protocol reveals that it was always designed to be open to replacement by new arrangements and new use of technology.
The current way that the Protocol is implemented is undermining the stability of Northern Ireland, and that we cannot allow to continue.
Ukraine
Russia is continually being warned by western powers that invading Ukraine is massive strategic error. That will depend however, on what his strategy actually is, and the extent to which we are successful in responding.
It is worth considering our own strategic errors.
The first was Ukraine’s own decision to unilaterally give up its nuclear arsenal in return for a guarantee of its territorial integrity and sovereignty in the Budapest Memorandum signed in December 1994.
I grant that it would have been extremely difficult and expensive for Ukraine to have held on to those weapons, which it had inherited from the former Soviet Union. Nevertheless, had it retained but a fraction of the arsenal it would not be facing its own extinction as an independent nation state, because the assurance of mutual destruction would be a sufficient deterrent to their attacker. There is a lesson for us in this.
Our own strategic mistake was, together with our allies, to fail to define our objectives in Afghanistan and an exit strategy from the very start of our intervention there. The consequent chaos and humiliation of our withdrawal sent a powerful message to both Moscow and Beijing about our weakness, divisions and lack of resolve. That perception in Moscow has had consequences for Ukraine.
How we now respond to Russian action against Ukraine will be closely watched in Beijing and, depending on our resolve, may have consequences for Taiwan.
Another party…and a riot ?
I have always had constituents who are regular correspondents. Several send me a daily email. A couple send me several emails every day and one sends them throughout the night as well.
The number of repeat emailers has increased significantly during ‘party-gate’, presumably to wear me down until I agree with them, notwithstanding that -as I’ve said in this column- I’ll be keeping my own counsel.
When I first heard the PM tell the House of Commons that there were no parties, a shudder went down my spine. Not because I didn’t believe him, but because I was sure that, what he honestly considered to be ‘work events’, others would judge to be parties.
The extent of the gulf between these two very different perceptions will only be revealed when we have the facts. That is why I insist on reserving judgement until we get the full account of what took place: when the police investigation concludes and Sue Gray can reveal all the detail that she knows.
This week several correspondents have emailed me the latest photograph of the PM at a party; “banged to rights”; “guilty as charged”. How can I any longer hide behind the excuse of awaiting the outcome of the inquiry when the evidence is before my eyes and in full colour…”of course the photo proves he is a liar -there he is actually at the party!”
As I look at the photo all I see is the PM standing in an office together with two colleagues, one of whom is seated in front of a screen (apparently he was hosting a workplace Christmas quiz over zoom). It is true that the fellow seated is sporting a string of tinsel and there is an open bottle of Champagne on the table. Nevertheless, if this ‘shock new revelation’ is the best they’ve got, then the PM would appear to be off the hook: it was no party.
No doubt, there is plenty more evidence for the police to sift through and which Sue Gray has yet to reveal to us. I will be patient and await the outcome.
Public commentary on broadcast media is even more vitriolic than some of my emails. Take, for example, the furore over Sir Keir Starmer escaping from a howling mob, outraged by his alleged failure to prosecute Jimmy Saville and -by implication in the commentary- they were clearly orchestrated by the PM’s remarks.
Having examined the footage for myself, they were only a handful of anti-vaxers led by Piers Corbyn; I heard them shouting, demanding to know why Sir Keir hadn’t backed Julian Assange; why he has abandoned the working class; why he has embraced the ‘new world order’ -whatever that may be.
Yes, there was a shout about Saville, but the notion that the activities of this bunch had been motivated by ill-chosen remarks from the PM is a measure of just how hysterical our broadcast news reporting has become.
The Calculation
Previously In this column Parties (desmondswaynemp.com) I described my original detachment from the PM’s difficulties, because I voted against all the rules of which he had fallen foul. I also explained the confusion between regulation and guidance and how it applied differently between dwellings and places of work: I am confident that the PM is clear in his own mind that he attended work events rather than parties.
The difficulty is that the public perception is of serial rule breaking in Downing Street and even more important, that the PM has not been straight with Parliament about it.
I use the word ‘perception’ because we have yet to have see full facts from either Sue Gray or now, the Metropolitan Police. We are reliant on the hyperbole of journalists who were not present. A ‘prosecco-fuelled party’ might just have been a restrained glass of wine amongst properly distanced work colleagues in an office where they lawfully worked together. Access to the facts is important.
Also important, particularly for politicians reliant on the support of voters, is the public perception of these events, and that perception may already be settled opinion.
The calculation with which Conservative members of Parliament must wrestle is whether the PM is capable of regaining public trust and the authority to govern. He has, after all, managed it previously: My correspondence was equally large and angry following his failure to sack Dominic Cummings after his ‘eye-test’ at Barnard Castle. Yet he re-established a ten-point poll lead. Could he repeat the feat, or has he irretrievably trashed his brand?
They also need to consider the unpredictability of the outcome if they initiate the process of replacing the PM.
There remain dedicated and enthusiastic supporters of Boris in Parliament, in the voluntary Conservative party and amongst the Public: I know this because hundreds of them have emailed me. I recall, my own anger and bitterness when parliamentarians jettisoned Mrs Thatcher, which had consequences which lasted years.
A member of the public put it to me yesterday, that it would be absurd to remove a strong charismatic leader at such a time of national and international danger. It is a proper consideration.
Boris won a general election and delivered Brexit as promised. Does his parliamentary party owe him loyalty for having delivered them from the chaos of the 2017-19 Parliament, or has he become an embarrassment and permanent liability?
A number of my parliamentary colleagues are loathe to give satisfaction to the broadcast journalists who always opposed Brexit and are out for revenge. Equally, they know they are receiving a significant number of template letters whose authors claim to have hitherto always voted conservative – when they know full well that it often isn’t true.
All these things weigh on the mind.
To save anyone asking however, I’ll be keeping my own counsel
4-Day Week
The numbers of unemployed workers are back down to the sort of levels that we experienced before Covid-19 struck and the number of vacancies is at an all-time high.Nevertheless, before the pandemic we also had record levels of employment too. Now however, we have about a million fewer workers at work. If we accept rough estimates that some 500,000 Europeans have returned to the continent, then that leaves us struggling to explain why half a million people have become economically inactive.Is it that the experience of lock-down and furlough have left them disinclined to return to the stress of the workplace and that they place a higher value on their time away from it?Might a shorter working week tempt them back to work?The demand for a shorter working week with no loss of pay has been on the agenda of the political left for some time. Most people recognise however, that it is economic suicide unless accompanied by greater productivity in the worked hours to compensate.A shorter working week will not suit many enterprises: Most of us will have experienced the frustration of enquiring about an important piece of work, only to discover that the key person to speak to is on leave. Adding 52 further such days per year on which that might occur with a 4-day week, would not necessarily make for greater productivity.Nevertheless, there may be enterprises which could cope well with a shorter week. In 1976 I worked in a factory that operated a three-day week. Initially they had been forced to do so, as everyone had, during the Miner’s Strike of 1973-4. When the strike was over and the 5-day week was restored however, this particular company -having discovered just how much more productive they had become during the national emergency measure- carried on with just the 3 days working.
A trial for a four-day week is due to run for six months later this year if 30 or so companies can be recruited to participate. Employees will get 100% of their previous pay for 80% of their previous hours in exchange for 100% of their previous productivity. Academics from Oxford & Cambridge will monitor performance – but not nearly as closely, I expect, as the boards of directors will.I am sceptical because my experience was of a manufacturing unit. I ‘m not convinced that the model will work for our largely service based economy, but if firms are willing to experiment, the results may be interesting. Of one thing I’m certain however, it certainly wouldn’t work in the Commons.
Beastly Whips
I was surprised by the accounts of strong-arm tactics by Government whips. I know too many of them well and they are not unpleasant and aggressive ladies and gentlemen.
I was myself a whip both in opposition and in Government and over the course of the decades I witnessed the waning of their influence.
My whip asks me how I plan to vote rather than telling me. It’s not unreasonable for me to let him know, so that he can at least get the responsible minister to address my reservations and see if he can persuade me with reasonable argument.
That one might believe a threat to turn off government largesse in one’s constituency strikes me as highly improbable. Government expenditure just doesn’t work like that. You’d have to be quite gullible to believe any such threat.
Slightly more plausible would be a threat to stymie your prospects of becoming a minister, or other parliamentary career opportunity, were you flout the whip. Nevertheless, even that threat has diminished over recent years. There was a time when the Party Leader would focus on Cabinet appointments and leave the junior ministerial ranks to the Chief Whip to decide, but those days have gone. Equally, the appointment of so many serial rebels to high office has made nonsense of the notion that promotion is dependent on obedience.
The appointment to sit on Commons Select Committees, or to be Chairman of any of them was, until recently, entirely in the gift of party whips, giving them significant patronage and leverage. That however, was reformed under the Cameron premiership and those positions are now elected, removing another potential weapon from the armoury of the whips.
There have been other factors at work too which have led to more independence of mind among MPs.
First, the ease of electronic communication has given MPs much more exposure to the opinions and influence of their constituents. It also provides a useful network for like-minded MPs to encourage one another under the radar in any potential rebellion.
Finally, the opening-up of candidate selection processes to more democratic procedures, such as open primaries, introduced number of MPs who considered that it was more their own personal ‘brand’ rather than their party brand that won the day and, in turn, they exhibited a greater measure of independence. Though they were few in number, their attitude was very infectious.
The notion that whipping can influence a leadership challenge is just complete nonsense and it is secrecy makes nonsense of it. Whatever you may tell your whip, or anyone else for that matter, only The Chairman of the 1922 Committee ever knows if you really sent in a letter, and only you yourself will know how you voted in any subsequent ballot.
It’s a bit like the constituent who stopped me the other day and told me he’d only vote for me at the next election if I voted for a particular candidate after a leadership challenge. No doubt he trusted me to tell him who I voted for in any such ballot, but how would I ever know that he’d fulfilled his part of the bargain at the next election?
With whipping, I think we almost got to the position where, if you want to win, then you’ve got to win the argument. Which in a democracy, is no bad thing.
Parties
I voted against the regulations that deprived of us of so much of our liberty during the various iterations of lock-down over the last couple of years.
I also spent a significant amount of time explaining the regulations to constituents, advising them and answering their questions about what they were permitted to do. This was particularly the case for so many self-employed constituents who were unclear as to whether they could continue working. The principal difficulty was confusion between what was regulation and what was only guidance. This even confused police officers, with people being told to stop doing things which, in fact, they were entitled to do.
I rather think that Sue Gray’s inquiry into parties in Downing Street will focus on this distinction between regulation and guidance and, in particular, the fact that Number 10 is a place of work and not a dwelling, where the rules were quite different.
If this does indeed turn out to be the Monopoly “get out of jail free card”, I fear it just won’t wash because the distinction between regulation and guidance was never clear in the minds of the public in the first place.
As far as they are concerned it looks like one rule for us and another for everyone else.
A significant danger for the PM, were he to be exonerated by Sue Gray’s inquiry, is that some new allegation then hits the headlines.
I have received a huge correspondence on this whole business, representing a number of different points of view. I’ve said I will reflect on all that constituents have said to me -and I will.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- …
- 43
- Next Page »