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.
The PM
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.
Abortion
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.
The Smooth Snake
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.
Flights to Kigali
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
‘No’ is A Very Big Word
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.
Walking Backwards
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.
The times are out of joint
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.
WHO
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.
Inflation-2
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
- « Previous Page
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- …
- 45
- Next Page »