Catholic Care, a Leeds based adoption agency, yesterday scored a High Court victory against the law which would have obliged it to consider gay couples for adoption. The granting of this exemption is a perhaps surprising, but nonetheless welcome development and in my mind a clear example of common sense prevailing over political correctness. There have been cases of other Catholic agencies closing as a result of the Equality Act 2006.
Those who pushed for the agency to be obliged to consider gay couples for adoption will doubtless be disappointed. However, if gay couples wish to pursue adoption then there are other non-Catholic agencies which they can use. They must also recognise that at the very heart of Catholic Care lies its Catholic beliefs and therefore, had they been forced to follow the letter of the law they would have gone against their founding principles.
Thursday 18 March 2010
Monday 15 March 2010
A Tax on Aspiration
There is a piece in today’s Daily Mail reporting that Ed Balls, seen by many as Chancellor in waiting should Labour win the election, is pushing for a reduction in the threshold for the 50p tax rate. Since early last year those earning over £150,000 have been subjected to the 50p rate. However, Mr Balls now intends to include all those who earn over £100,000 per annum. This, the Treasury claims, would generate £1.13bn in tax revenue.
All this seems to suggest that the issue of tax will play an important role in the up coming election. Labour appear to firing out an early shot in an attempt to sweeten those on lower incomes. However, the idea that an increase in the amount of those paying a 50p rate would help the economy seems far-fetched under closer inspection.
Firstly, it is thought that up to two thirds of those currently liable for the 50p rate will avoid paying because they can afford to pay professionals to manage their money in a tax efficient way. Would they be quite so prepared to pay for these money managers if they didn’t stand to lose so much income in tax? Secondly, increasing the rate on high earners drives them out of the country, thereby deny the UK of the overall economic benefits that their wealthy presence brings.
The state of the UK’s budget deficit dictates that some fairly radical measures must be taken in order to reduce the burden. But even if all those liable for the tax ended up paying it, it would at best only produce a fraction of the revenue, the claimed £1.13bn, necessary to balance the books. That said, one can see why Labour are interested in pushing a “tax on the wealthy” agenda because the alternative, admitting to the cuts in public services that will inevitably have to be made after the election by whoever wins would hit their core vote hard. Surely, the way forward is to encourage a culture of aspiration where individuals and business are incentivised into as much wealth creation as possible, rather than the current state of affairs where they are penalised.
All this seems to suggest that the issue of tax will play an important role in the up coming election. Labour appear to firing out an early shot in an attempt to sweeten those on lower incomes. However, the idea that an increase in the amount of those paying a 50p rate would help the economy seems far-fetched under closer inspection.
Firstly, it is thought that up to two thirds of those currently liable for the 50p rate will avoid paying because they can afford to pay professionals to manage their money in a tax efficient way. Would they be quite so prepared to pay for these money managers if they didn’t stand to lose so much income in tax? Secondly, increasing the rate on high earners drives them out of the country, thereby deny the UK of the overall economic benefits that their wealthy presence brings.
The state of the UK’s budget deficit dictates that some fairly radical measures must be taken in order to reduce the burden. But even if all those liable for the tax ended up paying it, it would at best only produce a fraction of the revenue, the claimed £1.13bn, necessary to balance the books. That said, one can see why Labour are interested in pushing a “tax on the wealthy” agenda because the alternative, admitting to the cuts in public services that will inevitably have to be made after the election by whoever wins would hit their core vote hard. Surely, the way forward is to encourage a culture of aspiration where individuals and business are incentivised into as much wealth creation as possible, rather than the current state of affairs where they are penalised.
From 2010 to 2020, Prophesy or Daydream?
Introduction: A sorry state of affairs
Recently I was day-dreaming about what I might write on the subject of the first ten years of a Conservative government, if it happens, of course, and if I’m still around in 2020. So here goes, but just in case some eager Labour party researcher spots this, these are mine and no one else’s musings and they are only that!
Taking power for the first time in 13 years, the Conservative government had its work cut out. First of all we had the attitude that we wanted a society built on freedom, responsibility and aspiration. Our aim, our commitment was nothing less than balancing the budget during our mandate. With Public Sector Borrowing Requirement at £175 billion and the deficit running to £848.5bn as of January 2010, the financial outlook was bleak. Our deficit was equivalent to 59.9% of total national output and we were determined to undo the damage New Labour had inflicted on our economy and our communities. The main task facing our new government was how to neutralise the risk of both the IMF and Moody’s downgrading our AAA credit rating and the associated devaluation of sterling. Alistair Darling ignored the demands to cut more, and faster, and so it was up to the new chancellor to grab the bull by horns. It was never going to be easy, but with swift and decisive implementation of the right policies in the right places, we were confident that we could bring about a fundamental change in the way we spent taxpayers’ hard earned cash, and the way this country was governed for the better.
Cutting back the public sector – the battle for Britain’s soul
The first thing the new Conservative government had to do was come clean with voters and publicly acknowledge that the public sector had become a great, greedy and financially unsustainable monster. Basic economics dictates that you cannot have less and less people in the private sector labouring under a huge financial burden to pay for the sky-high salaries, gold plated pensions and bloated administrations across the public sector from Whitehall to Town Halls. Therefore we held an emergency Budget within 50 days of taking office to set out a credible plan to eliminate in large part the structural current budget deficit over a Parliament. This led to the first step we took towards taming the public sector which was a progressive reduction in the deficit by freezing and reducing budgets. This was only implemented in 2011/12 so as to make sure that the economic recovery was cemented before spending was cut back. We insisted that Permanent Secretaries delivered the same level of frontline services whilst dramatically reducing costs by an overriding insistence on efficiency savings. IT projects were scaled back and projects piloted properly, back office functions shared and above all, complexity, particularly in benefits, reduced. As complexity reduced error and fraud was contained.
The public sector pay freeze for all those earning over £25,000, excluding those in the armed services engaged in active duty, caused great consternation and, as predicted, all sorts of threats and promises were made by wealthier public sector workers who’d had it too good for too long. Local authority Chief Executives were particularly vocal in their opposition. One of our greatest achievements was that we stood strong in the face of huge pressure from the unions and were able to deliver consistent reductions in the cost of the public sector to taxpayers, which also contributed a large amount to cutting public sector debt. Everyone agreed that executive pay in the public sector was out of control when we came into power, and so we took the step of guaranteeing that no public sector employee could earn more than the Prime Minister – their job may be demanding and important, but no one has more responsibility than the person running the country, and the public and frontline staff alike wanted to see an end to public sector managers earning far more than they were worth simply because they had become adept at exploiting a disorganised and bloated system.
A fierce battleground in the war to tame the cost of the public sector was public sector pensions. Early 2010 figures put council pensions liability alone at £53 billion, and with so many private sector companies seeing their profits exploded by the demographic time bomb, the Government had to drag the public sector kicking and screaming towards realistic, fixed contribution schemes and away from their unjust fantasy land of final salary pensions which had been gobbling up budgets and overburdening taxpayers. This was immediately implemented on all new public sector contracts whilst existing contributors were protected.
Another area that was overdue for the axe was the ever expanding quango state. 12 years of Labour government had created an inconceivably large number of these faceless, unaccountable and expensive bodies. The cost of these bodies to the British taxpayer was estimated to be £2.7 billion and rising towards the end of Labour’s reign, and it was considered that there were some amongst their ranks who were more interested in protecting their jobs than they were in performing any useful public service. Our long promised “bonfire of the quangos” took time to deliver. David Cameron stayed true to his pledge to make every single Semi-Autonomous Public Body justify their existence and earn their keep, and many were found wanting during the evaluation process and so were immediately disbanded.
Changes at home and abroad
The NHS was one of the biggest issues in the run up to the 2010 election. It had been an open secret across the medical world that the NHS was failing badly by trying to do too much, and therefore not doing certain things properly. All political parties had pledged to ring fence both NHS spending and the UK’s aid budget. Both policies were honoured. However, in the face of economic reality in the months after the election the Government ordered a Royal Commission on NHS productivity and the cost neediness of its aid budget.
Andrew Lansley’s team quickly came to realise that whether they froze the budget or not, the NHS had to become a lot more efficient in the way it spent taxpayers’ money. Thanks to New Labour targets, the number of non-frontline staff working in hospitals and surgeries across Britain had risen sharply in recent years, and up to 40% of NHS staff were managers, bureaucrats and pen pushers. The Tories realised that what taxpayers wanted, and what they thought they were paying for, were more doctors and nurses. When we started delivering more health professionals and cutting back on administrators, patient satisfaction increased, infection rates decreased and there was room to maintain the overall NHS budget and still deliver better quality frontline healthcare.
As for Aid, numerous reports had shown that the UK government’s distribution of aid was often not only ineffective in ameliorating conditions on the ground in some of the most deprived regions of the world, but could also be detrimental in that they did not employ the maxim that with donations come responsibility, and DfID funds were used for lobbying, advertising and sometimes downright dodgy administrations. The Conservatives took a more grassroots approach to aid, and only extended financial help to those schemes which could prove that they were making a real difference to people’s lives, had only minimal overheads and did not waste taxpayers’ money on swanky advertising campaigns in the UK when they should have been channelling funds into underprivileged communities on the other side of the world.
One area we felt it our duty to maintain was defence. After years of under investment in the armed services, we put our focus on getting our priorities straight instead of simply cutting the overall budget. In the run up to the 2010 election there were many stories of soldiers falling in battle due to insufficient equipment and a failure to invest in the correct technology to win the war and keep our boys safe. Even worse, while serving military personnel were moonlighting during their leave to buy proper body armour, Ministry of Defence bureaucrats were enjoying record bonuses. Like all other budgets the defence budget was frozen, but Dr Liam Fox wasted no time in re-orientating the Government’s priorities towards better equipment and protection for our troops and away from Whitehall.
The very specific situation in Afghanistan was causing an enormous drain on the defence budget. In order to remedy this on entering office we placed great emphasis on improving the political situation in the country and the diplomatic relationships between Pakistan and India by initiating talks between the relevant parties. These included some of the warring factions. Eventually this led to improved security within the country which in due course enabled us to reduce troop numbers, therefore saving money, whilst still maintaining our necessary presence with Special Forces.
Benefits – for families and communities
When the Tories took power, they found themselves with the unhappy inheritance of a number of nationalised and part-nationalised banks. The Labour government had felt the need to bail out a number of banks, but had been all too lax in ensuring that the banks kept their end of the bargain and extended loans and credit to hard-pressed families and the small and medium sized businesses that are the backbone of the British economy. The Conservatives turned this around, got tough with the banks and used them as a tool to put the town centre back at the heart of the economy. In 2010 it was estimated that three-quarters of the groceries bought in the UK in 2006 were purchased in one of the “Big 4” supermarkets, i.e. Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons. To try and change this and encourage free and fair competition for smaller, local producers, we introduced a number of policies. We encouraged local councils to create free parking on the high street, toughened restrictions in the planning act on the building of new supermarkets and also passed a Bill which required large supermarkets to source a percentage of their produce from the local area. Another key step was when we gave local authorities a new discretionary power to levy business rate discounts, allowing them to help local shops and services, such as rural pubs and post offices. This empowered local communities to decide what's best for their area, rather than being dictated to by a central government administration which could never fully grasp local needs and issues to the same extent.
Under Labour the size and scope of the welfare state had ballooned. Politicians of all stripes agreed that something had to be done to reduce the benefits bill, but most lacked the imagination or political will to implement the radical changes that our system so badly needed. The Conservatives had been saying for years that they wanted to get away from making people dependent on the state and encourage a far more self-sufficient, family oriented society in which people with the right work ethic could thrive and yet the vulnerable were still well looked after. Luckily, we were well prepared on this front. Building on the excellent work carried out by Iain Duncan Smith’s Centre for Social Justice, we integrated the Department for Work and Pensions far more closely with the Treasury and the Department of Health so that we could get to the crux of why we as a nation were spending so much, and yet improving so little. We froze all benefits except the state pension for 5 years, and targeted middle-class benefits for cuts. Too many people who could afford to live off their own income with no help from the state were receiving handouts which were adding billions to our annual expenditure. We knew this had to change, and started by making sure it was only the vulnerable and needy in society who received any benefits. We made work pay again by scrapping effective marginal tax rates for the poor of 96 per cent and we ended the couple penalty that left families worse off if the parents lived apart. Housing benefit was overhauled to give local authorities more autonomy to make sure they are getting the best value for money, and each claim for incapacity benefit was evaluated on medical grounds by independent doctors. These savings, along with providing tax breaks for married couples and encouraging a strong familial unit helped to reduce the effects of many of the social problems Britain was facing. We feel we have made a real difference to so many communities who found themselves in the quagmire of social disorder and apathy, and that taxpayers are getting better value for money, the vulnerable are receiving the attention they need and every child, regardless of background, now has a better chance of making a success of their life in today’s Britain.
A Taxing Issue
One of our key pledges in the run up to the election was to increase economic competitiveness. It was of great regret to all right minded people that so many businesses of all sizes were relocating to places where they felt they would get a fairer deal and would be allowed to hang on to more of their hard won profits.
We scrapped Labour’s proposal to implement a 50% income tax rate on high earners, after examining the evidence and realising that it would raise no meaningful revenue, would result in the flight of entrepreneurial talent that we so badly needed, and was more about political posturing than practical help.
There was a great desire in the Conservative party to make it easier to start and do business in our country. Even France, not a country known for its rampant capitalist spirit, had managed to create an environment in which it was quicker to start a business than we had. We turned this around and now enjoy one of the most efficient and entrepreneurial environments in the world. How did we do it? By cutting red tape and regulation, saying no to Brussels regulating our every economic decision, and encouraging those in our society with a get up and go attitude by not only extending preferential loans through our state owned banks as mentioned above, but also by giving businesses started between 2010 and 2015 a 5 year corporation tax holiday. We lowered corporation tax, lowered National Insurance contributions and made sure that no one in Britain would pay more than 40% income tax, no matter what their salary or pay structure.
We upheld our pledge on inheritance tax, raising the bar so that it only kicked in once you had amassed an estate worth in excess of £1 million, and then lowering the rate to a maximum of 15% on any estate regardless of its value. We believe that by taking these steps we were sending a message to the British people that we would in no way unfairly punish those who sought to do right by their children by putting money aside so that they can improve their lot and achieve their dreams.
Conclusion: Nothing worthwhile is easy
Every administration has its critics, and there’s no doubt that not everyone was convinced we would have the courage of our convictions once we gained office, or even that those convictions were the right ones in the first place. As a party, however, I believe we can feel vindicated by the fact that we have turned around an economy on the brink of collapse, and made Britain a place in which people can thrive again. We have empowered individuals to change their lives, built communities, cut red tape, got the public sector under control and rebooted our flagging economy. With every bold step comes risk but as we look back over 10 years of Conservative government I am confident that we can say we delivered real change that has vastly improved the lives of Britons every day, and that is something of which we should all be proud.
Recently I was day-dreaming about what I might write on the subject of the first ten years of a Conservative government, if it happens, of course, and if I’m still around in 2020. So here goes, but just in case some eager Labour party researcher spots this, these are mine and no one else’s musings and they are only that!
Taking power for the first time in 13 years, the Conservative government had its work cut out. First of all we had the attitude that we wanted a society built on freedom, responsibility and aspiration. Our aim, our commitment was nothing less than balancing the budget during our mandate. With Public Sector Borrowing Requirement at £175 billion and the deficit running to £848.5bn as of January 2010, the financial outlook was bleak. Our deficit was equivalent to 59.9% of total national output and we were determined to undo the damage New Labour had inflicted on our economy and our communities. The main task facing our new government was how to neutralise the risk of both the IMF and Moody’s downgrading our AAA credit rating and the associated devaluation of sterling. Alistair Darling ignored the demands to cut more, and faster, and so it was up to the new chancellor to grab the bull by horns. It was never going to be easy, but with swift and decisive implementation of the right policies in the right places, we were confident that we could bring about a fundamental change in the way we spent taxpayers’ hard earned cash, and the way this country was governed for the better.
Cutting back the public sector – the battle for Britain’s soul
The first thing the new Conservative government had to do was come clean with voters and publicly acknowledge that the public sector had become a great, greedy and financially unsustainable monster. Basic economics dictates that you cannot have less and less people in the private sector labouring under a huge financial burden to pay for the sky-high salaries, gold plated pensions and bloated administrations across the public sector from Whitehall to Town Halls. Therefore we held an emergency Budget within 50 days of taking office to set out a credible plan to eliminate in large part the structural current budget deficit over a Parliament. This led to the first step we took towards taming the public sector which was a progressive reduction in the deficit by freezing and reducing budgets. This was only implemented in 2011/12 so as to make sure that the economic recovery was cemented before spending was cut back. We insisted that Permanent Secretaries delivered the same level of frontline services whilst dramatically reducing costs by an overriding insistence on efficiency savings. IT projects were scaled back and projects piloted properly, back office functions shared and above all, complexity, particularly in benefits, reduced. As complexity reduced error and fraud was contained.
The public sector pay freeze for all those earning over £25,000, excluding those in the armed services engaged in active duty, caused great consternation and, as predicted, all sorts of threats and promises were made by wealthier public sector workers who’d had it too good for too long. Local authority Chief Executives were particularly vocal in their opposition. One of our greatest achievements was that we stood strong in the face of huge pressure from the unions and were able to deliver consistent reductions in the cost of the public sector to taxpayers, which also contributed a large amount to cutting public sector debt. Everyone agreed that executive pay in the public sector was out of control when we came into power, and so we took the step of guaranteeing that no public sector employee could earn more than the Prime Minister – their job may be demanding and important, but no one has more responsibility than the person running the country, and the public and frontline staff alike wanted to see an end to public sector managers earning far more than they were worth simply because they had become adept at exploiting a disorganised and bloated system.
A fierce battleground in the war to tame the cost of the public sector was public sector pensions. Early 2010 figures put council pensions liability alone at £53 billion, and with so many private sector companies seeing their profits exploded by the demographic time bomb, the Government had to drag the public sector kicking and screaming towards realistic, fixed contribution schemes and away from their unjust fantasy land of final salary pensions which had been gobbling up budgets and overburdening taxpayers. This was immediately implemented on all new public sector contracts whilst existing contributors were protected.
Another area that was overdue for the axe was the ever expanding quango state. 12 years of Labour government had created an inconceivably large number of these faceless, unaccountable and expensive bodies. The cost of these bodies to the British taxpayer was estimated to be £2.7 billion and rising towards the end of Labour’s reign, and it was considered that there were some amongst their ranks who were more interested in protecting their jobs than they were in performing any useful public service. Our long promised “bonfire of the quangos” took time to deliver. David Cameron stayed true to his pledge to make every single Semi-Autonomous Public Body justify their existence and earn their keep, and many were found wanting during the evaluation process and so were immediately disbanded.
Changes at home and abroad
The NHS was one of the biggest issues in the run up to the 2010 election. It had been an open secret across the medical world that the NHS was failing badly by trying to do too much, and therefore not doing certain things properly. All political parties had pledged to ring fence both NHS spending and the UK’s aid budget. Both policies were honoured. However, in the face of economic reality in the months after the election the Government ordered a Royal Commission on NHS productivity and the cost neediness of its aid budget.
Andrew Lansley’s team quickly came to realise that whether they froze the budget or not, the NHS had to become a lot more efficient in the way it spent taxpayers’ money. Thanks to New Labour targets, the number of non-frontline staff working in hospitals and surgeries across Britain had risen sharply in recent years, and up to 40% of NHS staff were managers, bureaucrats and pen pushers. The Tories realised that what taxpayers wanted, and what they thought they were paying for, were more doctors and nurses. When we started delivering more health professionals and cutting back on administrators, patient satisfaction increased, infection rates decreased and there was room to maintain the overall NHS budget and still deliver better quality frontline healthcare.
As for Aid, numerous reports had shown that the UK government’s distribution of aid was often not only ineffective in ameliorating conditions on the ground in some of the most deprived regions of the world, but could also be detrimental in that they did not employ the maxim that with donations come responsibility, and DfID funds were used for lobbying, advertising and sometimes downright dodgy administrations. The Conservatives took a more grassroots approach to aid, and only extended financial help to those schemes which could prove that they were making a real difference to people’s lives, had only minimal overheads and did not waste taxpayers’ money on swanky advertising campaigns in the UK when they should have been channelling funds into underprivileged communities on the other side of the world.
One area we felt it our duty to maintain was defence. After years of under investment in the armed services, we put our focus on getting our priorities straight instead of simply cutting the overall budget. In the run up to the 2010 election there were many stories of soldiers falling in battle due to insufficient equipment and a failure to invest in the correct technology to win the war and keep our boys safe. Even worse, while serving military personnel were moonlighting during their leave to buy proper body armour, Ministry of Defence bureaucrats were enjoying record bonuses. Like all other budgets the defence budget was frozen, but Dr Liam Fox wasted no time in re-orientating the Government’s priorities towards better equipment and protection for our troops and away from Whitehall.
The very specific situation in Afghanistan was causing an enormous drain on the defence budget. In order to remedy this on entering office we placed great emphasis on improving the political situation in the country and the diplomatic relationships between Pakistan and India by initiating talks between the relevant parties. These included some of the warring factions. Eventually this led to improved security within the country which in due course enabled us to reduce troop numbers, therefore saving money, whilst still maintaining our necessary presence with Special Forces.
Benefits – for families and communities
When the Tories took power, they found themselves with the unhappy inheritance of a number of nationalised and part-nationalised banks. The Labour government had felt the need to bail out a number of banks, but had been all too lax in ensuring that the banks kept their end of the bargain and extended loans and credit to hard-pressed families and the small and medium sized businesses that are the backbone of the British economy. The Conservatives turned this around, got tough with the banks and used them as a tool to put the town centre back at the heart of the economy. In 2010 it was estimated that three-quarters of the groceries bought in the UK in 2006 were purchased in one of the “Big 4” supermarkets, i.e. Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons. To try and change this and encourage free and fair competition for smaller, local producers, we introduced a number of policies. We encouraged local councils to create free parking on the high street, toughened restrictions in the planning act on the building of new supermarkets and also passed a Bill which required large supermarkets to source a percentage of their produce from the local area. Another key step was when we gave local authorities a new discretionary power to levy business rate discounts, allowing them to help local shops and services, such as rural pubs and post offices. This empowered local communities to decide what's best for their area, rather than being dictated to by a central government administration which could never fully grasp local needs and issues to the same extent.
Under Labour the size and scope of the welfare state had ballooned. Politicians of all stripes agreed that something had to be done to reduce the benefits bill, but most lacked the imagination or political will to implement the radical changes that our system so badly needed. The Conservatives had been saying for years that they wanted to get away from making people dependent on the state and encourage a far more self-sufficient, family oriented society in which people with the right work ethic could thrive and yet the vulnerable were still well looked after. Luckily, we were well prepared on this front. Building on the excellent work carried out by Iain Duncan Smith’s Centre for Social Justice, we integrated the Department for Work and Pensions far more closely with the Treasury and the Department of Health so that we could get to the crux of why we as a nation were spending so much, and yet improving so little. We froze all benefits except the state pension for 5 years, and targeted middle-class benefits for cuts. Too many people who could afford to live off their own income with no help from the state were receiving handouts which were adding billions to our annual expenditure. We knew this had to change, and started by making sure it was only the vulnerable and needy in society who received any benefits. We made work pay again by scrapping effective marginal tax rates for the poor of 96 per cent and we ended the couple penalty that left families worse off if the parents lived apart. Housing benefit was overhauled to give local authorities more autonomy to make sure they are getting the best value for money, and each claim for incapacity benefit was evaluated on medical grounds by independent doctors. These savings, along with providing tax breaks for married couples and encouraging a strong familial unit helped to reduce the effects of many of the social problems Britain was facing. We feel we have made a real difference to so many communities who found themselves in the quagmire of social disorder and apathy, and that taxpayers are getting better value for money, the vulnerable are receiving the attention they need and every child, regardless of background, now has a better chance of making a success of their life in today’s Britain.
A Taxing Issue
One of our key pledges in the run up to the election was to increase economic competitiveness. It was of great regret to all right minded people that so many businesses of all sizes were relocating to places where they felt they would get a fairer deal and would be allowed to hang on to more of their hard won profits.
We scrapped Labour’s proposal to implement a 50% income tax rate on high earners, after examining the evidence and realising that it would raise no meaningful revenue, would result in the flight of entrepreneurial talent that we so badly needed, and was more about political posturing than practical help.
There was a great desire in the Conservative party to make it easier to start and do business in our country. Even France, not a country known for its rampant capitalist spirit, had managed to create an environment in which it was quicker to start a business than we had. We turned this around and now enjoy one of the most efficient and entrepreneurial environments in the world. How did we do it? By cutting red tape and regulation, saying no to Brussels regulating our every economic decision, and encouraging those in our society with a get up and go attitude by not only extending preferential loans through our state owned banks as mentioned above, but also by giving businesses started between 2010 and 2015 a 5 year corporation tax holiday. We lowered corporation tax, lowered National Insurance contributions and made sure that no one in Britain would pay more than 40% income tax, no matter what their salary or pay structure.
We upheld our pledge on inheritance tax, raising the bar so that it only kicked in once you had amassed an estate worth in excess of £1 million, and then lowering the rate to a maximum of 15% on any estate regardless of its value. We believe that by taking these steps we were sending a message to the British people that we would in no way unfairly punish those who sought to do right by their children by putting money aside so that they can improve their lot and achieve their dreams.
Conclusion: Nothing worthwhile is easy
Every administration has its critics, and there’s no doubt that not everyone was convinced we would have the courage of our convictions once we gained office, or even that those convictions were the right ones in the first place. As a party, however, I believe we can feel vindicated by the fact that we have turned around an economy on the brink of collapse, and made Britain a place in which people can thrive again. We have empowered individuals to change their lives, built communities, cut red tape, got the public sector under control and rebooted our flagging economy. With every bold step comes risk but as we look back over 10 years of Conservative government I am confident that we can say we delivered real change that has vastly improved the lives of Britons every day, and that is something of which we should all be proud.
Thursday 4 March 2010
An opportunity missed
Although I am very pleased that there is to be a direct quick link from Lincoln to Kings Cross station, it angers me that the so called improvement in rail services from Lincolnshire are nowhere near as good as their predecessors thirty years ago. It seems silly to miss this great opportunity to restore the old Grimsby Cleethorpes to Kings Cross line via Market Rasen and Lincoln. Even if there were only one train from Grimsby to London in the morning and one which returned from London in the evening while maintaining more regular trains from Lincoln during the day it would be a great improvement. The restoration of the Grimsby Cleethorpes to London train line would be good for the local economy as well as general transport between Grimsby and London.
Wednesday 3 March 2010
Diplomacy the way out of Afghanistan
There was an interesting comment piece in The Independent on Sunday by fellow Cornerstone member and member of the Defence Select Committee Adam Holloway on the subject of Afghanistan and “Operation Moshtarack”. Unfortunately he paints a rather bleak picture of the current state of affairs, but also offers a four step strategy on how we can potentially turn the situation around.
As we currently stand, he says, our continued presence has created and continues to fuel the insurgency. This is demonstrated in no uncertain terms by the fact that roughly 80 per cent of the young men who fight for the Taliban will live and die within 20 miles of where they live. How they directly affect our security in the UK is questionable. These men are fighting what they see as outsiders, NATO troops and Afghanis from outside their region. They have no qualms with the UK apart from the fact that we have placed soldiers in their country. And the fact that our soldiers are in Afghanistan has become a rallying point for Al-Qaeda to strengthen elsewhere, notably in Yemen and Somalia. This is where the real danger from extremists lies, not the wide expanses of Helmand province.
However, if we are to make progress, as Adam points out, we must try to restore the goodwill we created in 2001 when we rid the Afghanis of the Taliban before we became distracted by invading Iraq. Then we can consider exiting their country which by then should be in a more stable position.
He suggests a strategy with four main components which broadly speaking are as follows; 1. Warn President Karsai that he will be replaced unless he changes his ways and starts running an uncorrupted, authentic government. This is essential for the Afghan people to place their trust in the democratic process; 2. Set up a process of reconciliation with all parties, warring or otherwise. Like it or not, they will all have a role to play when we are gone; 3. Place heavy pressure on Pakistan and India to move to resolving their issues. Elements of the Pakistan government would resent a pro-Indian administration, such as Karsai’s, so are happy to allow insurgents to mobilise on the Afghan border in Pakistan and maintain the chaos; 4. Move away from big armies towards politics. Al-Qaeda would be delighted to hear of larger troop surges as this leads to greater Afghan casualties, more reaction from the population and more perception of an occupation. This can only fuel the jihadists.
That the situation has come to this after the missions’ positive start in 2001 makes me glad that I voted against the distracting invasion of Iraq, but we are where we are now and as difficult as it sounds, we have to accept that the answer to the problem of Afghanistan ultimately lies around the negotiation table.
To read Adam's full article please use the following link. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/adam-holloway-an-end-to-steelyeyed-killing-machines-1905729.html
As we currently stand, he says, our continued presence has created and continues to fuel the insurgency. This is demonstrated in no uncertain terms by the fact that roughly 80 per cent of the young men who fight for the Taliban will live and die within 20 miles of where they live. How they directly affect our security in the UK is questionable. These men are fighting what they see as outsiders, NATO troops and Afghanis from outside their region. They have no qualms with the UK apart from the fact that we have placed soldiers in their country. And the fact that our soldiers are in Afghanistan has become a rallying point for Al-Qaeda to strengthen elsewhere, notably in Yemen and Somalia. This is where the real danger from extremists lies, not the wide expanses of Helmand province.
However, if we are to make progress, as Adam points out, we must try to restore the goodwill we created in 2001 when we rid the Afghanis of the Taliban before we became distracted by invading Iraq. Then we can consider exiting their country which by then should be in a more stable position.
He suggests a strategy with four main components which broadly speaking are as follows; 1. Warn President Karsai that he will be replaced unless he changes his ways and starts running an uncorrupted, authentic government. This is essential for the Afghan people to place their trust in the democratic process; 2. Set up a process of reconciliation with all parties, warring or otherwise. Like it or not, they will all have a role to play when we are gone; 3. Place heavy pressure on Pakistan and India to move to resolving their issues. Elements of the Pakistan government would resent a pro-Indian administration, such as Karsai’s, so are happy to allow insurgents to mobilise on the Afghan border in Pakistan and maintain the chaos; 4. Move away from big armies towards politics. Al-Qaeda would be delighted to hear of larger troop surges as this leads to greater Afghan casualties, more reaction from the population and more perception of an occupation. This can only fuel the jihadists.
That the situation has come to this after the missions’ positive start in 2001 makes me glad that I voted against the distracting invasion of Iraq, but we are where we are now and as difficult as it sounds, we have to accept that the answer to the problem of Afghanistan ultimately lies around the negotiation table.
To read Adam's full article please use the following link. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/adam-holloway-an-end-to-steelyeyed-killing-machines-1905729.html
Thursday 25 February 2010
The Pope on Thought for the Day?
The news that Radio 4 is in discussions with the Pope about the Pontiff appearing on Thought for the Day during his upcoming visit to Britain is most welcome. As one would expect, the programme’s producers consider the Pope to be the dream ticket for the show. Let us hope that both parties involved can dot the I’s and cross the T’s on the necessary agreement which would no doubt add to what will be an historic and wonderful visit.
Wednesday 24 February 2010
A Pleasant Surprise
The Children, Schools and Families Bill, which had its’ third reading in the Commons yesterday, has received a welcome amendment from an unlikely source. The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families Ed Balls has tabled an amendment regarding the teaching of sex education in schools, specifically with regards to contraception and homosexuality.
Originally the Bill proposed obligations on all schools, faith or otherwise, to teach children about contraception and homosexuality in a way that gave both sides of the argument. This ended the right of schools to opt-out of any type of teaching on either subject. However, it also prevented faith schools from explaining their faith’s position on the matter. What Mr Balls’ amendment does is to allow faith schools to teach on the subject “within the context and ethos of their faith”. In other words, for example, a Catholic school can teach that contraception is wrong, but they must provide its pupils with teaching about contraception.
This amendment is a fine example of common sense prevailing over the drive for political correctness and is the result of our long-term campaigning on the issue.
In a new and encouraging move Parliament has shown a willingness to work together with faith schools (who provide roughly one-third of the education in the UK) and been sensitive to their views.
Originally the Bill proposed obligations on all schools, faith or otherwise, to teach children about contraception and homosexuality in a way that gave both sides of the argument. This ended the right of schools to opt-out of any type of teaching on either subject. However, it also prevented faith schools from explaining their faith’s position on the matter. What Mr Balls’ amendment does is to allow faith schools to teach on the subject “within the context and ethos of their faith”. In other words, for example, a Catholic school can teach that contraception is wrong, but they must provide its pupils with teaching about contraception.
This amendment is a fine example of common sense prevailing over the drive for political correctness and is the result of our long-term campaigning on the issue.
In a new and encouraging move Parliament has shown a willingness to work together with faith schools (who provide roughly one-third of the education in the UK) and been sensitive to their views.
Thursday 11 February 2010
Gordon's gone bananas
It has been reported that Gordon Brown has taken to eating bananas instead of his favourite Kit-Kats in a bid to stay healthy in the run up to the election. This, coupled with his recent taking-up of jogging, hints that he has recognised the need to stay healthy in what must have become an increasingly stressful job.
Of course, the average life of a regular MP, with the regular meetings, long hours and frequent journeys to and from the constituency can also be stressful. And that’s even before the expenses scandal.
So to counter this, during the week come rain or shine (or, more recently, ice), I take a daily swim in the Serpentine in Hyde Park. I would wholeheartedly recommend this to the Prime Minister as an excellent way to start the day, even if my dog, William, doesn’t necessarily agree.
Of course, the average life of a regular MP, with the regular meetings, long hours and frequent journeys to and from the constituency can also be stressful. And that’s even before the expenses scandal.
So to counter this, during the week come rain or shine (or, more recently, ice), I take a daily swim in the Serpentine in Hyde Park. I would wholeheartedly recommend this to the Prime Minister as an excellent way to start the day, even if my dog, William, doesn’t necessarily agree.
Tuesday 9 February 2010
Debating the Equality Bill
Last Thursday in the Chamber I had the opportunity to question the Leader of the House, Harriet Harman, on the subject of the Equality Bill. I asked her that since the Government are not now overturning their defeats on the amendments to the Bill, could we take it that the Government now accepted the principle that the Churches must be allowed to regulate their own clergy according to their own conscience?
This suggestion that the Government were running up the white flag on the issue did not go down too well with Miss Harman. She replied that they had “never sought to, or indeed even unintentionally, propose non-discrimination laws covering bishops, rabbis, archbishops or priests” and accused me of trying to spread a misapprehension.
This is all very well if it had been the case, but the fact that the Pope, who of course picks his words carefully, felt it necessary to make an unprecedented intervention on the matter demonstrates that this clearly wasn’t the case.
His intervention was in relation to the amendment that would end the right to freedom for churches to discipline clergy who act outside of church ethos. Of course, the Pope’s interest lies in the welfare of his clergy who should be allowed to run their own lives and space in the way they want and he is not trying to impose his ideal on anyone else.
So despite the fact that the government have been unable to accept defeat in this matter it is encouraging that their amendments have not been passed, not least for the Archbishop of York, who, had they gone through, would have been deemed not to have the freedom to carry out his own work according to his own ethos.
This suggestion that the Government were running up the white flag on the issue did not go down too well with Miss Harman. She replied that they had “never sought to, or indeed even unintentionally, propose non-discrimination laws covering bishops, rabbis, archbishops or priests” and accused me of trying to spread a misapprehension.
This is all very well if it had been the case, but the fact that the Pope, who of course picks his words carefully, felt it necessary to make an unprecedented intervention on the matter demonstrates that this clearly wasn’t the case.
His intervention was in relation to the amendment that would end the right to freedom for churches to discipline clergy who act outside of church ethos. Of course, the Pope’s interest lies in the welfare of his clergy who should be allowed to run their own lives and space in the way they want and he is not trying to impose his ideal on anyone else.
So despite the fact that the government have been unable to accept defeat in this matter it is encouraging that their amendments have not been passed, not least for the Archbishop of York, who, had they gone through, would have been deemed not to have the freedom to carry out his own work according to his own ethos.
My Week
Even after 27 years I love my job. I still get a thrill of pride and a sense of history every time I walk into the Chamber of the House of Commons. But it’s also the feeling that you can make a real difference on the issues that matter and that you can help people.
Last Monday I chaired the Public Accounts Committee hearing on Dementia. We were grilling Sir David Nicholson the Chief Executive of the NHS. Our committee has done a lot to bring Cinderella type services like Dementia and Stroke to the forefront of NHS thinking: Today I gave a hard time to Sir David on his promise to me, repeated ten times during the last hearing, that dementia was going to be a national priority. It may still not be one, but it is no longer the hidden disease.
On Tuesday I spoke in the Chamber on the Constitutional Reform Bill. I was the only MP arguing that a fully elected second chamber would only reflect the political classes and be stuffed with ministerial job seekers. The House of Lords is filled with experts. The few remaining hereditary peers do a good job and should be left alone. I predict that whatever the major parties say in public, in practice that are quite happy to leave well alone.
On Wednesday it was back to the PAC. We meet twice as often as any other committee. I am proud that in the eight years of my chairmanship working with the National Audit Office we have made recommendations that, having been accepted, have led to savings of £4 billion for the tax-payer. Today we were interrogating the heads of the Naval, Military and Civilian arms of the Ministry of Defence on the £6 billion black hole in their budget. With the NAO we have proved that either a major programme must be scrapped or commitments scaled back, otherwise the black hole will balloon to £30 billion or more.
In the evening I hosted a Cornerstone Group reception for 70 MPs and PPCs (Prospective Parliamentary Candidates). We founded this socially conservative Group seven years ago with just twelve MPs and now have over 30 parliamentary members and an active website. It was a great honour to have Margret Thatcher joins us. She is an inspiration to all who believe in core Conservative values.
On Thursday I returned to the Chamber to make interventions on a Private Bill to regulate Peddlers. A small group of us have used, shall we say, long speeches; filibustering is out of order, to ensure concessions to protect this ancient trade which has no powerful trade unions to represent it.
On Friday I had a busy day working in the constituency. I visited some impressive projects of West Lindsey District Council providing real jobs, not just training schemes, in forestry. We had surgeries in Gainsborough and Market Rasen. I think it is through these surgeries that MPs really can help people with their tax, housing and planning problems and I met with the headmaster of the Grammar school to promise to help his campaign to refurbish his wonderful school.
Do MPs provide value for money? That’s for you to decide. But there are only 646 of us overseeing one of the largest budgets in the world, £600 billion and half a million workers in the public sector would. Would things be any better if the bureaucrats had no scrutiny? I don’t think so.
Last Monday I chaired the Public Accounts Committee hearing on Dementia. We were grilling Sir David Nicholson the Chief Executive of the NHS. Our committee has done a lot to bring Cinderella type services like Dementia and Stroke to the forefront of NHS thinking: Today I gave a hard time to Sir David on his promise to me, repeated ten times during the last hearing, that dementia was going to be a national priority. It may still not be one, but it is no longer the hidden disease.
On Tuesday I spoke in the Chamber on the Constitutional Reform Bill. I was the only MP arguing that a fully elected second chamber would only reflect the political classes and be stuffed with ministerial job seekers. The House of Lords is filled with experts. The few remaining hereditary peers do a good job and should be left alone. I predict that whatever the major parties say in public, in practice that are quite happy to leave well alone.
On Wednesday it was back to the PAC. We meet twice as often as any other committee. I am proud that in the eight years of my chairmanship working with the National Audit Office we have made recommendations that, having been accepted, have led to savings of £4 billion for the tax-payer. Today we were interrogating the heads of the Naval, Military and Civilian arms of the Ministry of Defence on the £6 billion black hole in their budget. With the NAO we have proved that either a major programme must be scrapped or commitments scaled back, otherwise the black hole will balloon to £30 billion or more.
In the evening I hosted a Cornerstone Group reception for 70 MPs and PPCs (Prospective Parliamentary Candidates). We founded this socially conservative Group seven years ago with just twelve MPs and now have over 30 parliamentary members and an active website. It was a great honour to have Margret Thatcher joins us. She is an inspiration to all who believe in core Conservative values.
On Thursday I returned to the Chamber to make interventions on a Private Bill to regulate Peddlers. A small group of us have used, shall we say, long speeches; filibustering is out of order, to ensure concessions to protect this ancient trade which has no powerful trade unions to represent it.
On Friday I had a busy day working in the constituency. I visited some impressive projects of West Lindsey District Council providing real jobs, not just training schemes, in forestry. We had surgeries in Gainsborough and Market Rasen. I think it is through these surgeries that MPs really can help people with their tax, housing and planning problems and I met with the headmaster of the Grammar school to promise to help his campaign to refurbish his wonderful school.
Do MPs provide value for money? That’s for you to decide. But there are only 646 of us overseeing one of the largest budgets in the world, £600 billion and half a million workers in the public sector would. Would things be any better if the bureaucrats had no scrutiny? I don’t think so.
Wednesday 3 February 2010
Liaison Committee - 2nd Febuary 2010
Yesterday I had the opportunity to question the Prime Minister on the subject of Defence, with particular reference to the MOD budget and the situation in Afghanistan, during the twice-annual Liaison Committee hearing.
Firstly, I asked Gordon Brown whether during his time as Chancellor he had put heavy pressure on the Defence budget which had led to not only a fatal delay in providing the money necessary for the procurement of helicopters, but the real possibility of resignations from senior officers. This question was with reference to the evidence submitted by Lord Walker (Chief of Defence Staff 2003-2006) and Geoff Hoon (Secretary of State for Defence 1999-2005) at the ongoing Chilcot inquiry.
To this he replied that the MOD where given an overall budget and it was up to the senior officers to use it as they saw fit. This answer was in contrast to Lord Walker’s claims that the MOD had been given line by line instructions on procurement from the Treasury.
I then questioned the Prime Minister on the briefings from his office to the press regarding Defence spending. Despite a recent National Audit Office report highlighting a black hole of £6bn in the MOD budget over the next 10 years (even if there is an increase in spending of 2.7%!) No. 10 had still put out that they would maintain both the spending commitments to Afghanistan and the delivery of aircraft carriers. So I put it to Mr Brown, did he accept that this black hole was there, and that, if so, he simply couldn’t go briefing the press on maintaining spending commitments if the money wasn’t there.
He answered that the Urgent Operational Requirements (UOR) fund, taken from the Treasury reserve, would meet the needs in Afghanistan.
However, he neglected to mention the MOD black hole, so I put it to him that if he planned to ring fence Health, Education and International Development (as he had stated earlier, under questioning from Peter Luff) what was going to be done about the £6bn shortfall.
He once again reiterated that Afghanistan would be covered by the UOR and that regarding the Defence budget, there would be a Strategic Defence Review in due course, a white paper and a debate about future defence commitments.
Finally, I pushed him on whether he was still fully committed to the procurement of the aircraft carriers. This he did confirm, but emphasised that the priority was to make sure that the mission in Afghanistan was properly financed.
Although perhaps not having always been the case, it was encouraging to hear the Prime Minister emphasising the commitment to Afghanistan as his number one priority. However, his acceptance that there would be a Strategic Review in due course demonstrated that his briefing of the press about maintaining defence commitments across the board was more about scoring political points. After all, one could promise a whole raft of spending prior to the election if one knows that there will be a Strategic Spending Review soon after the election.
Firstly, I asked Gordon Brown whether during his time as Chancellor he had put heavy pressure on the Defence budget which had led to not only a fatal delay in providing the money necessary for the procurement of helicopters, but the real possibility of resignations from senior officers. This question was with reference to the evidence submitted by Lord Walker (Chief of Defence Staff 2003-2006) and Geoff Hoon (Secretary of State for Defence 1999-2005) at the ongoing Chilcot inquiry.
To this he replied that the MOD where given an overall budget and it was up to the senior officers to use it as they saw fit. This answer was in contrast to Lord Walker’s claims that the MOD had been given line by line instructions on procurement from the Treasury.
I then questioned the Prime Minister on the briefings from his office to the press regarding Defence spending. Despite a recent National Audit Office report highlighting a black hole of £6bn in the MOD budget over the next 10 years (even if there is an increase in spending of 2.7%!) No. 10 had still put out that they would maintain both the spending commitments to Afghanistan and the delivery of aircraft carriers. So I put it to Mr Brown, did he accept that this black hole was there, and that, if so, he simply couldn’t go briefing the press on maintaining spending commitments if the money wasn’t there.
He answered that the Urgent Operational Requirements (UOR) fund, taken from the Treasury reserve, would meet the needs in Afghanistan.
However, he neglected to mention the MOD black hole, so I put it to him that if he planned to ring fence Health, Education and International Development (as he had stated earlier, under questioning from Peter Luff) what was going to be done about the £6bn shortfall.
He once again reiterated that Afghanistan would be covered by the UOR and that regarding the Defence budget, there would be a Strategic Defence Review in due course, a white paper and a debate about future defence commitments.
Finally, I pushed him on whether he was still fully committed to the procurement of the aircraft carriers. This he did confirm, but emphasised that the priority was to make sure that the mission in Afghanistan was properly financed.
Although perhaps not having always been the case, it was encouraging to hear the Prime Minister emphasising the commitment to Afghanistan as his number one priority. However, his acceptance that there would be a Strategic Review in due course demonstrated that his briefing of the press about maintaining defence commitments across the board was more about scoring political points. After all, one could promise a whole raft of spending prior to the election if one knows that there will be a Strategic Spending Review soon after the election.
Saturday 30 January 2010
Debate in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill
On Tuesday I spoke in the Chamber on the debate on The Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill. The crux of the Bill, introduced by the Justice Secretary Jack Straw, revolves around measures designed to phase out, through a variety of different means, hereditary peers from the House of Lords. It also includes proposals for scrapping by-elections for hereditary peers.
As one would expect from the Chairman of the Cornerstone Group I am strongly opposed to the Bill. The logic of a democratic country states that we should have a democratically elected second chamber in tandem with the elected Commons, but if we put everything down to logic then the rich traditions and history of our country would be swept away. For example, the Royal family makes no logical sense, but they are part of what makes Britain great. As my Hon. Friend Gerald Howarth put it in the debate, “If they (hereditary peers) went, it would expose the monarchy as the only hereditary institution in the land. [Do I] believe that that would endanger the monarchy? I certainly do.”
The history of the Lords demonstrates that what we have ended up with is an example of a great British compromise. As so often happens with the law of unintended consequences in our historical development, we have ended up with a pretty good system. We have found ourselves in the enviable position of having members with vast amounts of expertise, who have worked all their lives in the professions or in business and who are not politicians. They speak only when they have to speak and vote only when they feel strongly. In short, they do a good job. And we mustn’t forget that there are only 92 hereditary peers, a mere 13% of their total number.
If one looks for a precedent for an appointed second chamber one need look no further than Canada. Do we really want to follow their lead and model our second chamber on the least effective second chamber in the Western world? I think not.
I worry that if we did get to the stage where there was a fully elected Lords then it would be stuffed with inferior Members looking for ministerial office. After all, Parliament is already stuffed with people looking for ministerial office, so why would the elected second chamber be any different?
What this debate boils down to is the agenda of some to push for reform for reform’s sake. The House of Lord’s is an institution which provides an important balance for legislative process of Parliament. It does, and will continue to do, an excellent job and any reform of its entry procedure would not result in better legislation. The phrase, “if it’s not broke don’t fix it” comes to mind.
As one would expect from the Chairman of the Cornerstone Group I am strongly opposed to the Bill. The logic of a democratic country states that we should have a democratically elected second chamber in tandem with the elected Commons, but if we put everything down to logic then the rich traditions and history of our country would be swept away. For example, the Royal family makes no logical sense, but they are part of what makes Britain great. As my Hon. Friend Gerald Howarth put it in the debate, “If they (hereditary peers) went, it would expose the monarchy as the only hereditary institution in the land. [Do I] believe that that would endanger the monarchy? I certainly do.”
The history of the Lords demonstrates that what we have ended up with is an example of a great British compromise. As so often happens with the law of unintended consequences in our historical development, we have ended up with a pretty good system. We have found ourselves in the enviable position of having members with vast amounts of expertise, who have worked all their lives in the professions or in business and who are not politicians. They speak only when they have to speak and vote only when they feel strongly. In short, they do a good job. And we mustn’t forget that there are only 92 hereditary peers, a mere 13% of their total number.
If one looks for a precedent for an appointed second chamber one need look no further than Canada. Do we really want to follow their lead and model our second chamber on the least effective second chamber in the Western world? I think not.
I worry that if we did get to the stage where there was a fully elected Lords then it would be stuffed with inferior Members looking for ministerial office. After all, Parliament is already stuffed with people looking for ministerial office, so why would the elected second chamber be any different?
What this debate boils down to is the agenda of some to push for reform for reform’s sake. The House of Lord’s is an institution which provides an important balance for legislative process of Parliament. It does, and will continue to do, an excellent job and any reform of its entry procedure would not result in better legislation. The phrase, “if it’s not broke don’t fix it” comes to mind.
Wednesday 20 January 2010
"Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death"
I have a tendency to read two or three books at once and have once again fallen into this bad habit. I am reading George Orwell’s 1984 once again and Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall (about the life of Thomas Cromwell) for the first time. The later is a study of the past, whilst the former was written as a study of the future that has now become the past.
Wolf Hall highlights the degree to which government, both Protestant and Catholic, peered into men’s souls in Tudor times, which was frightening.
1984 is not just a satire on Totalitarianism; it is satire on all dominant political thought processes. Nowadays, ours is a kind of vapid centralist social democracy which is utterly dominant in both the so called right and left parties all over Europe.
In 1984 when O’Brien is torturing Winston Smith he says:
“We are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury, a long life or happiness, only power, pure power.”
It seems to me that today many of the world’s leading politicians are less and less interested in ideology, in moving the world in the direction of their own choice. They are focused on power, but not power to do something, just to be.
To obtain an office, to be on the top table with the President of the United States, to have their name inscribed in the lists of Prime Minister, to be someone, not to do anything.
They are empty shells.
As O’Brien says:
“The object of power is power.”
Newspeak is famously the corruption of language to eradicate free thought. Political correctness is the modern equivalent of newspeak.
Modern leaders for instance unashamedly draw back from talking about immigration because is leads inevitably into a language which confronts political correctness.
Thus when the Right seeks to speak out on its favourite theme it is quickly deemed guilty of “thought crime”.
In 1984 any lie can become truth. Two and two can be made to be five.
Now in the modern consensus all conservative heresies are gradually consigned to the dustbin because an opinion pool from some focus group has deemed that any citizen that confronts the notion of social democracy is dangerous or idiosyncratic. In other words the only yardstick to live by is that society knows what is good for me, rather than living by my instincts of what is good for me and my family.
The main component seems to be that people have to believe in something because it is deemed to be good by the dominant politics speak for society and not for them and their families. For instance, when David Cameron bravely speaks out for marriage, a bucketful of invective is poured over his head which argues that because not all marriages are good, we can’t support marriage. He must have the courage to carry out his convictions.
Most people know that the modern state is fantastically wasteful and incompetent but it is somehow bad manners to rise up in intellectual rebellion and demand a bonfire of rules and regulations, a dramatic cut in spending and the return of our own money in tax cuts.
I think that many people would in truth, like to send their children to a privately run school. They cannot afford it because they would have to pay for education out of their highly taxed salaries. They are brain washed into believing that state schools, many of which provide a very mediocre education, are actually best for them and their families. This may be right, but not in all cases.
Many people would like to top up their NHS prescriptions or spend their last days in a private home or a private hospital. However, they think they should want to end their days in a mixed NHS ward.
Many people think that much of the money which they give to charity is wasted in incompetence and corruption and that actually this has been a great cause of the corruption of the ruling classes which has led to the ruination of Africa. But they dare not say so.
Most people like the thought of living in their own country, with their own culture and their own religion in the broadest sense, but they are brainwashed into thinking it is good to live in society where their traditional identities are gradually being forgotten.
Most people would like to believe in marriage and in God, but because they are told that God’s existence cannot be proved and that belief in Him can lead to intolerance and extremism they substitute religious obedience for some vague subservience to the good of society and liberalisation.
This attitude informs the debate on “global warming”. People are told that they should want to live next to a huge, ugly wind turbine. That they must give up their comfortable car because this too adds to global warming. Unfortunately global warming has become a constant crusade by the Left to impose a new, thoroughly painful ideology on us, when their old ones have been demolished.
Is it any wonder that if you look around Europe the Prime Ministers, whether left or right, are generally instantly forgettable suits.
Is it any wonder that there has never been a time when politicians and political parties in Europe were more moribund, and there are increasing calls for state funding to fill the vacuum?
Wolf Hall highlights the degree to which government, both Protestant and Catholic, peered into men’s souls in Tudor times, which was frightening.
1984 is not just a satire on Totalitarianism; it is satire on all dominant political thought processes. Nowadays, ours is a kind of vapid centralist social democracy which is utterly dominant in both the so called right and left parties all over Europe.
In 1984 when O’Brien is torturing Winston Smith he says:
“We are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury, a long life or happiness, only power, pure power.”
It seems to me that today many of the world’s leading politicians are less and less interested in ideology, in moving the world in the direction of their own choice. They are focused on power, but not power to do something, just to be.
To obtain an office, to be on the top table with the President of the United States, to have their name inscribed in the lists of Prime Minister, to be someone, not to do anything.
They are empty shells.
As O’Brien says:
“The object of power is power.”
Newspeak is famously the corruption of language to eradicate free thought. Political correctness is the modern equivalent of newspeak.
Modern leaders for instance unashamedly draw back from talking about immigration because is leads inevitably into a language which confronts political correctness.
Thus when the Right seeks to speak out on its favourite theme it is quickly deemed guilty of “thought crime”.
In 1984 any lie can become truth. Two and two can be made to be five.
Now in the modern consensus all conservative heresies are gradually consigned to the dustbin because an opinion pool from some focus group has deemed that any citizen that confronts the notion of social democracy is dangerous or idiosyncratic. In other words the only yardstick to live by is that society knows what is good for me, rather than living by my instincts of what is good for me and my family.
The main component seems to be that people have to believe in something because it is deemed to be good by the dominant politics speak for society and not for them and their families. For instance, when David Cameron bravely speaks out for marriage, a bucketful of invective is poured over his head which argues that because not all marriages are good, we can’t support marriage. He must have the courage to carry out his convictions.
Most people know that the modern state is fantastically wasteful and incompetent but it is somehow bad manners to rise up in intellectual rebellion and demand a bonfire of rules and regulations, a dramatic cut in spending and the return of our own money in tax cuts.
I think that many people would in truth, like to send their children to a privately run school. They cannot afford it because they would have to pay for education out of their highly taxed salaries. They are brain washed into believing that state schools, many of which provide a very mediocre education, are actually best for them and their families. This may be right, but not in all cases.
Many people would like to top up their NHS prescriptions or spend their last days in a private home or a private hospital. However, they think they should want to end their days in a mixed NHS ward.
Many people think that much of the money which they give to charity is wasted in incompetence and corruption and that actually this has been a great cause of the corruption of the ruling classes which has led to the ruination of Africa. But they dare not say so.
Most people like the thought of living in their own country, with their own culture and their own religion in the broadest sense, but they are brainwashed into thinking it is good to live in society where their traditional identities are gradually being forgotten.
Most people would like to believe in marriage and in God, but because they are told that God’s existence cannot be proved and that belief in Him can lead to intolerance and extremism they substitute religious obedience for some vague subservience to the good of society and liberalisation.
This attitude informs the debate on “global warming”. People are told that they should want to live next to a huge, ugly wind turbine. That they must give up their comfortable car because this too adds to global warming. Unfortunately global warming has become a constant crusade by the Left to impose a new, thoroughly painful ideology on us, when their old ones have been demolished.
Is it any wonder that if you look around Europe the Prime Ministers, whether left or right, are generally instantly forgettable suits.
Is it any wonder that there has never been a time when politicians and political parties in Europe were more moribund, and there are increasing calls for state funding to fill the vacuum?
Monday 18 January 2010
I Believe
Education
As the father of six children I am very interested in education. My wife and I have tried a mix of all types of education for our children; state and private, English and French, day and boarding, faith and secular.
I am not an educational theorist, I am only a parent. I believe that at the end of all this, no type of education is consistently superior to any other.
I do believe in the maximum variety of provision to suit all needs, skills and ambitions.
So my conclusion is clear. Head teachers, both in the private and state sectors must be free to run their schools with the greatest possible freedom.
They should be free to hire and fire staff in order to get the best.
They should be free to set wage rates to get the best staff, particularly where teachers are scarce, such as in the teaching of maths.
Head teachers should set their own curriculum and not be bound by a rigid national curriculum.
We should move gradually to a situation where they are able to decide on which pupils join the school and on the criteria upon which this is based. In fact, the overwhelming majority of schools should always be broad based in their ability range.
Eventually I would like to see a time when the money for a pupil’s education follows the pupil. Any pupil at any school should attract the same basic support from the state, with additional support for special needs according to a statement. This would have to be brought in gradually, starting in year R and building up steadily starting in deprived post codes. Naturally traditional HMI inspections would continue to weed out any incompetence.
I believe that if we break down the divisions between the independent and state sectors, if we set our schools free and if head teachers had to respond to parents, not government targets, then we really could have the best education in the world.
As the father of six children I am very interested in education. My wife and I have tried a mix of all types of education for our children; state and private, English and French, day and boarding, faith and secular.
I am not an educational theorist, I am only a parent. I believe that at the end of all this, no type of education is consistently superior to any other.
I do believe in the maximum variety of provision to suit all needs, skills and ambitions.
So my conclusion is clear. Head teachers, both in the private and state sectors must be free to run their schools with the greatest possible freedom.
They should be free to hire and fire staff in order to get the best.
They should be free to set wage rates to get the best staff, particularly where teachers are scarce, such as in the teaching of maths.
Head teachers should set their own curriculum and not be bound by a rigid national curriculum.
We should move gradually to a situation where they are able to decide on which pupils join the school and on the criteria upon which this is based. In fact, the overwhelming majority of schools should always be broad based in their ability range.
Eventually I would like to see a time when the money for a pupil’s education follows the pupil. Any pupil at any school should attract the same basic support from the state, with additional support for special needs according to a statement. This would have to be brought in gradually, starting in year R and building up steadily starting in deprived post codes. Naturally traditional HMI inspections would continue to weed out any incompetence.
I believe that if we break down the divisions between the independent and state sectors, if we set our schools free and if head teachers had to respond to parents, not government targets, then we really could have the best education in the world.
Thursday 7 January 2010
I Believe
Social Security
If I am going to ask the people in my constituency to vote for me over the next four or five months, I think they have a right to know what I believe in and what I would like to see a Conservative government achieve.
I am delighted that the Party is focusing on aspiration and responsibility. Years ago during the last Tory government I wrote a paper entitled Responsible Individualism. I know that this is an untidy phrase but by it I meant empowering the individual not to be selfish and self centred, and by improving his lot to help society at large, particularly in education and social security.
I am a Tory because I believe in our history, our traditions. Some may argue that it was the eighteenth century rational enlightenment that was the cause of our liberal tolerant democratic society, but in my opinion so many of our institutions and our society as a whole grew slowly over centuries. It is important therefore to place an emphasis on our history and traditions if we are to keep developing as a nation.
I believe that reason, science and progress can march side by side with the personal reassurance given by religious belief and that religious participation (although worryingly in decline) and ethics has contributed to the undeniable advances against poverty. And it is the decline of religion that has made Western society a less happy place in terms of personal fulfilment and supportive family, despite the immense advances made against poverty. The point here is that despite the huge economic advances and the population being better off why aren’t people happier?
Despite this however, there has been a decline in the supporting structure of the family. Of course, families can take many forms and any one of them can be valid in itself, but for most people the model of a man and a woman making an honest attempt at commitment to each other for life is best. Tax and benefit policies should reflect this.
In truth tax and benefit policies on their own are not going to make people stay together, but they send out a message.
One thing is certain. Benefits can influence behaviour enormously for lower income groups.
If you are faced with marginal tax rates, greater than anything faced by the very rich, and you increase your earnings but end up receiving fewer benefits, leaving you less well off overall, then that is a powerful disincentive to work and aspire to self reliance.
For many years I have argued for a much simpler tax and benefits system.
One of the most successful benefits is child benefit. The level of fraud and error is minimal. This is because it is modest and non-means tested.
During the years of which I have been the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee we have published numerous reports outlining the worrying cases of fraud and error in the current system.
What a Conservative government must do is gradually simplify the system and reduce means testing. It will take enormous political will to implement and carry this out but given the £100 billion bill from social security, the harmful effects to the economy of not doing so would be harder to bear in long term.
Next week I shall share my views and beliefs on the subject of education.
If I am going to ask the people in my constituency to vote for me over the next four or five months, I think they have a right to know what I believe in and what I would like to see a Conservative government achieve.
I am delighted that the Party is focusing on aspiration and responsibility. Years ago during the last Tory government I wrote a paper entitled Responsible Individualism. I know that this is an untidy phrase but by it I meant empowering the individual not to be selfish and self centred, and by improving his lot to help society at large, particularly in education and social security.
I am a Tory because I believe in our history, our traditions. Some may argue that it was the eighteenth century rational enlightenment that was the cause of our liberal tolerant democratic society, but in my opinion so many of our institutions and our society as a whole grew slowly over centuries. It is important therefore to place an emphasis on our history and traditions if we are to keep developing as a nation.
I believe that reason, science and progress can march side by side with the personal reassurance given by religious belief and that religious participation (although worryingly in decline) and ethics has contributed to the undeniable advances against poverty. And it is the decline of religion that has made Western society a less happy place in terms of personal fulfilment and supportive family, despite the immense advances made against poverty. The point here is that despite the huge economic advances and the population being better off why aren’t people happier?
Despite this however, there has been a decline in the supporting structure of the family. Of course, families can take many forms and any one of them can be valid in itself, but for most people the model of a man and a woman making an honest attempt at commitment to each other for life is best. Tax and benefit policies should reflect this.
In truth tax and benefit policies on their own are not going to make people stay together, but they send out a message.
One thing is certain. Benefits can influence behaviour enormously for lower income groups.
If you are faced with marginal tax rates, greater than anything faced by the very rich, and you increase your earnings but end up receiving fewer benefits, leaving you less well off overall, then that is a powerful disincentive to work and aspire to self reliance.
For many years I have argued for a much simpler tax and benefits system.
One of the most successful benefits is child benefit. The level of fraud and error is minimal. This is because it is modest and non-means tested.
During the years of which I have been the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee we have published numerous reports outlining the worrying cases of fraud and error in the current system.
What a Conservative government must do is gradually simplify the system and reduce means testing. It will take enormous political will to implement and carry this out but given the £100 billion bill from social security, the harmful effects to the economy of not doing so would be harder to bear in long term.
Next week I shall share my views and beliefs on the subject of education.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)