Archive for the ‘Chairman »s blog’ Category
CPF Discussion Brief 2020/3 on Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic – BCiP Response 10th May, 2020
lundi, mai 11th, 2020Labour’s New Leader: Sir Keir Starmer
jeudi, mai 7th, 2020In the midst of this global covid-19 pandemic it has perhaps slipped under the radar somewhat that the Labour Party, Her Majesty’s official opposition, has finally rid itself of ‘Magic Grandpa’ Jeremy Corbyn – the man responsible for the Labour Party’s worst election performance since 1935 – and elected a new leader: Sir Keir Starmer.
Whilst from a partisan perspective we Conservatives might have enjoyed having Corbyn and his Marxist cronies McDonnell and Abbott sitting on the front row of the Opposition benches for the duration of this parliament and thus continually ruining the Labour Party’s standing as a respectable and electable force; as democrats we know that for the benefit of democracy and holding Her Majesty’s Government to proper account – this change has been long overdue.
Labour’s new leader comes with a glittering CV behind him.
Born in Southwark, London, 57 year-old Starmer studied at Leeds University and then St Edmund Hall, Oxford, graduated in 1986 as a Bachelor of Civil Law and became a barrister in 1987. In November 2008 he became Head of the Crown Prosecution Service and Director of Public Prosecutions, leaving in November 2013.
In December 2014 Sir Keir was selected to be the Labour Party representative for the safe seat of Holborn and St Pancras for the 2015 election, going on to win with a majority of more than 17,000.
After the Conservative’s gaining a surprise outright majority at the same election, leader Ed Milliband resigned as Labour leader. After Jeremy Corbyn’s victory in the leadership contest, Starmer was appointed Shadow Minister of State for Immigration. He resigned from this post in 2016 in protest at Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the party.
Oridinarily that would have ensured a lengthy spell on the back benches, but following Jeremy Corbyn’s re-election as Leader of the Labour Party and Britain’s decision to vote to leave the European Union in the 2016 referendum, Sir Keir became the Shadow Brexit Secretary. He was to stay in this post until after the 2019 general election which saw Boris Johnson swept back to power with a majority of 80 seats thus forcing Jeremy Corbyn to finally call it a day, knowing the game was up.
Sir Keir has a lot of internal party politics to firstly sort out. The Labour Party’s reputation was heavily damaged through the Corbyn years, with multiple claims of antisemitism throughout the party membership and through the extra grass roots support of Momentum. This has left a bitter taste with the electorate more broadly and will take a while for them to build trust up again.
Apart from this, what does Sir Keir stand for?
He describes himself as ‘soft left,’ however given that the grass roots of the Labour Party has fundamentally changed since the days of Tony Blair, he has had to swing further to the left to win the leadership election. Here is a snapshot of his pledges:
- Increase top rate of income tax by 5%.
- Reverse the corporation tax cuts introduced by the Conservatives.
- Abolish Universal Credit.
- Shift towards preventative healthcare.
- Abolish student tuition fees.
- Invest in lifelong learning.
- Put Green New Deal at heart of all policy.
- A clean air act and demand international action on climate rights.
- Introduce a Prevention of Military Intervention Act.
- Renationalise: Rail, Mail, Energy and Water.
- Give full voting rights to EU citizens and defend freedom of movement.
- Immigration system based on compassion and dignity.
- Repeal the Trade Union Act.
- Introduce a federal system to devolve powers.
- Abolish the House of Lords and replace it with an elected chamber of regions and nations.
This is quite a substantive list of pledges. It is indeed difficult to see where they differs from those made by Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.
Nevertheless, Sir Keir is a very polished media performer and may be able to articulate his positions in a more convincing manner than his predecessor was able to. It’s also important to recall that opinion polls do point towards many elements of the Labour Party’s 2017 election manifesto as popular with the wider public. That election, of course, cost previous Prime Minister Theresa May her majority.
However, Sir Keir was also responsible for the Labour Party’s rather incoherent policy on Brexit, as it tried to put a square peg in a round hole by pleasing its Party membership (pro EU and pro 2nd referendum) and its broader electorate (pro Brexit.)
In the end, it’s policy was widely ridiculed. How can a government in waiting promise to deliver on the referendum result by negotiating a withdrawal agreement with the EU, then present that agreement to the public in a referendum of Remain vs Agreement and not be prepared to stand by and support its own agreement in the referendum?
It shows to the wider public a government engaged in a process that they don’t believe in and have perhaps deliberately sabotaged. It shows a lack of leadership and contempt for voters.
This is partly where Labour fell to pieces in the 2019 election and the responsibility for it lies mostly with the architect of that policy – Sir Keir.
It’s also easy to see that the list of pledges will be rather pricy for the tax payer to fulfill. Given that the current government has had to seriously splash cash around to support the wider economy during the covid-19 pandemic, it is hard to foresee at this stage what the wider economic outlook will be in almost 5 years time when the next election is due. Money being available to finance Sir Keir’s projects may not be in existence.
However, his first performances at Prime Minister’s Questions have received ample praise from those that would naturally be sympathetic supporters but who had turned their back on Labour under Jeremy Corbyn. So it looks like the opposition is back!
Still, let’s not underestimate the Prime Minister’s own charm and vision for the future of the United Kingdom. However much elements of the British press try to paint Mr Johnson as a right-wing populist, nothing could be further from the truth.
As a student of Winston Churchill, who in turn was greatly influenced by his father Lord Randolph and Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, Mr Johnson remains a One Nation Conservative. This does not mean the dismantling of the welfare state, the NHS and enhancing crony capitalism; but indeed believing in the Union of our four nations as one, with social and economic programs that benefit the ordinary person. It was this vision after all, not just Brexit, that won him such a huge majority last Christmas.
The next 4 and a half years are going to be interesting.
Andrew Crawford.
Reflections on housing and house building in the UK
samedi, avril 18th, 2020Now that the question of Brexit has been settled following the general election victory, it gives us chance to discuss some incredibly pressing domestic issues.
Perhaps the most pressing issue is that of homeownership, and with it, home building.
As Conservatives we fundamentally understand that the best way to build a cohesive society is for the people within a country to own their home, lay some roots and feel part of their community.
Regrettably this aspiration for many people, particularly the youngest, is fast becoming a fantasy.
It is not an issue that has been born out overnight, it’s the result of over 30 years of changing legislation and economics that have created the problem.
Since the mid 2000s, Labour and Conservative governments have tried to help younger buyers get on to the housing ladder. Labour reduced stamp duty land tax to 0% for first time buyers. The Conservatives, under David Cameron, introduced amongst other things the ‘Help to Buy’ scheme.
Sadly, all the measures seem to have done is to stoke the demand side of the market without addressing the other issue on the probable lack of supply. As a result, house prices keep continuing to rise, and vastly faster than increases in wages.
As a result, in 1998 the average house price was 4 times the average annual salary. Today it is 8 times the average annual salary.
When discussing homeownership amongst the youngest, in 1991 67% of 25 to 34 year olds owned their own home. Today that figure has fallen to just 38% and given birth to the term, ‘generation Rent.’
Whilst the reasons for this phenomenon are complex, part of the issue is the lack of homebuilding. Changes in legislation and market forces often mean that large developers find it more profitable to sit on land rather than build.
Based on 2016 prices, the average price of residential land in the mid 1950s was £150k per hectare. In the mid 1990s it had increased to £1.3m and by 2007 £5m.
In England, land without planning permission is worth £20k per hectare. The same land with planning permission is worth £2m per hectare.
Coupled with these issues has been the extreme lack of new housing that has been delivered. France, a country with a comparable population and population growth to the UK, has completed 16.7 million new homes since 1970. In the same period, the UK has completed just 8.9 million.
It is good to see that our manifesto has pledged to close this housing gap by firstly pledging to complete 300,000 new homes a year. Additionally there is a pledge to provide support for builders using modern methods of construction and by making it easier for people to self build should they chose to.
It is still worth noting, however, that some analysts and commentators are very skeptical as to whether these measures go far enough. Further analysis, legislation and support will be required to the construction industry in the years to come.
The risk for the Conservative party politically is stark. As Labour elects a new leader the threat of socialism is still close at hand, whoever replaces Jeremy Corbyn.
Given that scores of 18-24 year olds flock to the left wing cause, and are very anti-Brexit, unless we are able to deal with issue and show that only a Conservative government can really help people achieve the simplest of aspirations, we may find ourselves out of power again for a duration similar to that from 1997 to 2010.
Andrew Crawford,
Secretary,
British Conservatives in Paris (BCiP)
Feedback from British Conservatives in Paris to Conservative Policy Forum (15 February, 2020) concerning the Queen’s speech
samedi, avril 18th, 20201.
· General: the overall balance between the international role of the UK on the one hand and the emphasis on a One Nation approach to “healing” the nation & the body politic is commendable
· Particular points we were happy to see included
o The points-based immigration system
o The “NHS Long Term Plan”
o The proposal to increase funding per pupil “to ensure all children can access a high quality education”
§ Cf we have recommended elsewhere that the cost of higher education puts an unconscionable burden on young people and invited policy makers to consider how things are done in certain countries on the Continent such as France or Germany (not to suggest that those countries have perfect systems: it is noteworthy however that in them there is a very broad consensus in favour of distinctly modest/virtually nominal tuition fees)
o The “Renters’ Reform Bill”
§ Again reference to what actually happens in France and Germany (legal regime, market conditions) would be instructive
· In France the renters may be over-protected: the system does however prevent much or most egregious abuses by landlords – of particular importance given the unaffordability of housing for own home purchase for a very large share of the (especially younger) part of the population
· In Germany there is a massive private rental housing sector which provides quality housing in attractive locations with protections for renters designed to allow them to make a choice in favour of longterm rentals
o Germans’ appetite for such rentals is sometimes blamed for the surprisingly low net worth of German private households
§ However again the point for the UK situation is the inaccessibility of housing on the buy/sell market and thus the need for remedial measures elsewhere
o The “Counter Terrorism (Sentencing and Release) Bill”
o Policy to invest in public services and infrastructure
§ Cf budget/national debt policies
· One might infer from the speech that tax increases somewhere will be necessary to maintain the financial equilibrium called for therein
o Clarification in this area will be needed – politically and practically – in the near future
o Levelling up across regions
§ Same comment as in preceding point re public finances
· NB: this is not intended to convey the message that we are lukewarm on this “Northern Strategy” policy – on the contrary!
o Reform business rates
o Consider constitutional issues raised by the Brexit “saga”
§ The role of the courts is a major question: does the UK wish to go the way of the US with “government by the judges” across the board?
· Hopefully not
§ Fixed-term Parliaments Act: has proved problematical in practice and therefore deserves to be fundamentally called into question
o “Integrated Defence, Security and Foreign Policy Review”
§ The state of the world as it is today calls for such a review: fundamental shifts are occurring on many fronts and on many levels
2.
· General: the thrust and most of the particular items in the speech were well received
o A handful of items encountered minority questioning
· Particular items with majority reserves
o Increase local powers to tackle air pollution
§ Problems
· Is the nature of such problems not inherently national (or wider) in scope (even if there may be local sources of pollution: these should be addressed in the larger context)?
· Even ignoring the first point: local authorities may lack the technical competence and/or political will and/or clout to effectively deal with such issues
o “animals as sentient beings”
§ In agreement with the principle of avoiding cruelty to animals
§ Cave: avoiding providing succour to animal rights extremists
3.
· General comment: there were some omissions we deemed regrettable
· Particulars
o Some indications were given as to areas of infrastructure spending (eg wrt transport) however a bit more here would have been helpful
o Withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights?: or meaningful threats at least to do the same (or suspend membership) to resist the politicisation of that instrument and of the ECHR, and their surreptitious partial capture/being subjected to influence by unrepresentative groups (cf recent serious of articles in Valeurs Actuelles on the subject; and the general evolution of ECHR decisions in recent times)
o On foreign policy major issues: perhaps at least some general indication of the direction of travel on specific subjects might have been helpful, eg
§ The recently presented US peace plan for Israel and Palestine
§ Libya
§ China
§ Etc
§ – taking care of course not to unduly tie the hands of the government for dealing with future circumstances
o “votes for life”
o Re financial services: what is the aim wrt the future relationship with UE/27 in this area?
o Addressing the housing shortage: a “mega issue” in our view
§ Cf
· Problems of social justice
o A major share of the population has “lucked into” vast housing wealth they never contemplated
o While another major share has “un-lucked into” a prospect of a lifelong housing poverty (at least in relative terms) – regardless of hard work etc
· Imbalances created by new trends in financial flows worldwide “distorting” or at least mightily impacting housing markets: why should the government consider it appropriate to sit by passively and “let the market do its work/worst”? ↘ Government has a responsibility to address big issues arising out of such massive disruption of economic flows and (im)balances
o Policy on GAFA et al
§ Including taxation
o Productivity levels in the UK – how to address the relatively poor performance of the UK in recent decades as against eg France, Germany & many other countries
Paul Thomson
Vice Chairman/CPF Secretary
BCiP
Political Promises & Responsibilities
mardi, octobre 29th, 2019Boris Johnson’s failure to follow through on his wonderful-sounding promises for Brexit , blaming his failures instead on Jeremy Corbyn, an unruly Parliament, the EU…. etc. , reveals himself as neither de Gaulle, nor Churchill, nor Thatcher, nor Reagan, nor Trump, according to BCiP member Evelyne Joslain, comparing e.g. President Trump’s seemingly successful manoeuvring with respect to Syria and the surrounding region in her article below.
The election of Boris Johnson is a bridge too far – Peter Huggins
jeudi, juillet 25th, 2019Nigel Farage & the Brexit Party.
lundi, mai 13th, 2019BCiP member Evelyne Joslain in her article below on the UK’s Brexit Party, is sorry that there is currently no equivalent « French Farage ».
BREXIT – How did we get here?
lundi, mai 6th, 2019How did the UK get to where it stands today with Brexit asks BCiP member Andrew Crawford, as he traces the tortuous path Britain has taken in his position paper below.
Antisemitism of the Extreme-Left in the UK.
mardi, septembre 4th, 2018Here’s the latest article from BCiP Chairman Jeremy Stubbs published in the Causeur magazine (www.causeur.fr) and addressing the antisemitism of the extreme-left in the UK.