Ten questions for Johnson’s reshuffle

7 Sep

  • What does the Prime Minister do about economic policy?  His instinct is for government to spend a lot; Rishi Sunak’s is for it to spend less.  Boris Johnson would clearly be reckless to lose his second Chancellor in less than two years, and we don’t believe that he will try to move him. Furthermore, it isn’t at all clear who would play Anthony Barber to the Prime Minister’s Edward Heath.  But Sunak’s public pitch for loyalty over social care yesterday only confirmed the tensions between him and the Prime Minister. Johnson will be brooding over the future of the man who is favourite eventually to replace him.
  • Who runs Downing Street?  The Prime Minister frets about the unresponsiveness of the official machine.  He has lost Dominic Cummings.  He is installing a Delivery Unit.  He is beefing up his own political operation.  Does he take the radical option of creating a Prime Minister’s department?  Or the established one of relying on the Cabinet Office?  Either way, who does he put in charge?  Does he keep Michael Gove?  Move in Dominic Raab.  Or else send for Oliver Dowden – just as David Cameron’s former Deputy Chief of Staff is enjoying his own place in the sun in his own department (and perhaps eyeing Education)?
  • What about the Home Office and the Foreign Office?  Some in Number Ten share our panel’s lack of confidence in Priti Patel; Raab has been in place for almost two years.  Gove has been punted for both posts but, for all his talents, there is only one of him.  And if he moves out of the Cabinet Office, who will take the lead on Scotland?  Our bet for Foreign Secretary were the shuffle to come late would be Alok Sharma, now that he has globetrotting experience wearing his COP26 hat.  Will Johnson really promote the Cabinet League Table-topping Liz Truss, who he is bound to see as a potential rival?
  • Who does Johnson bring back and at what level?  John Whittingdale was brought back to support Dowden.  James Brokenshire was returned to help Patel.  When his illness worsened, another former Cabinet member, Damian Hinds, replaced him.  The message is: keep your nose clean, and there’s a way back.  But is the Prime Minister prepared to do the same at Cabinet level – summoning Liam Fox or Jeremy Hunt or Iain Duncan Smith or Geoffrey Cox or Robert Halfon or other members of the Alternative Cabinet?  For given the scale of the foreign and domestic policy challenges, there’s a lack of experience at the top.
  • Which women…?  The optics will be an inevitable feature of the shuffle, whenever it comes.  Johnson will want to increase the number of women at the top table.  Anne-Marie Trevelyan must be top of the list to return, but she only recently started her job as Energy Minister.  The Prime Minister will be keeping a watchful eye on the ambitious Penny Mordaunt.  Kemi Badenoch must be on any list for promotion, but is she ready to run a department?  Look out for Lucy Frazer, a potential future Justice Secretary; Chloe Smith if her health allows and, if media deployment is any guide, Helen Whateley. Will Tracey Crouch return?
  • …Ethnic minority members?… Nadhim Zahawi is being punted for co-Party Chairman, but he could also slot in at Education, where he has served as a junior Minister, or perhaps at Culture.  James Cleverly has been out of the domestic media eye at the Foreign Office and must be due to go back in it again.  Kwasi Kwarteng has only recently been appointed and will presumably stay where he is.  Lower down the ranks, Claire Courtino will go up sooner rather than later; then there is Ranil Jayawardena and, down in the Whips’ Office, Alan Mak.
  • …And Red Wallers…?  If promoting ethnic minority members is playing identity politics, so would be favouring white working class people.  MPs for the new Conservative northern and midlands seats aren’t necessarily working class – nor Red Wallers, strictly speaking – but they are yet another group that Johnson must consider.  Cabinet promotion from the 2019 intake would be drastic, and Johnson is more likely to turn to the trailblazers of 2017.  That might mean, say, Lee Rowley, the Tory Deputy Chairman, but the name most frequently raised is that of Simon Clarke, the former Business Minister.
  • P.S: what about appointment on merit?… Beware, Prime Minister, of the backlash from your average Conservative MP: male, white, and (in his view) overlooked because of political correctness.  “With one exception, those promoted in our intake have been women, ethnic minority members, or gay,” one 2019er complained to ConHome.  What about the Kit Malthouses and Edward Argars?  (The latter has had much to do as a Health Minister during the pandemic.)  Is there a quota on Old Etonians that keeps out Jesse Norman?  What about able backbenchers, such as Richard Fuller?
  • …And communicators?  The Government is short at the top of people who can get on the front foot on TV, if that’s quite the right way of putting it.  There’s Sunak, Gove, the Prime Minister himself, a more relaxed Grant Shapps, and Kwarteng.  And that’s about it.  Which is why Cleverly is due a return, and perhaps Brandon Lewis too.  He would fit in at Housing were Robert Jenrick to be moved, but on balance this is unlikely.  Jacob Rees-Mogg has been confined to the Commons as Leader of the House, and were he appointed Chief Secretary, he would be restricted to the Treasury.
  • What’s the least bad timing?  The infallible rule of reshuffles is that the anger of those sacked outweighs the gratitude of those promoted.  A shuffle this week would refresh the Cabinet before the conference season.  But one later would ease moving Raab, Ben Wallace or both: besides, it isn’t yet clear that Covid has run its course.  We assume when the shuffle comes Gavin Williamson will be moved, and at least two Cabinet members fired.  More, and Johnson will risk a “night of the long knives”.  Fewer, and what’s the point?  P.S: the promotion of the Johnsons’ old mucker Zac Goldsmith is a possibility.

Our Cabinet League Table. Raab plummets from third from top in July to fourth from bottom last month.

5 Sep
  • Last month, Dominic Raab was third from top in our Cabinet League Table, on 73 per cent.  This month, he drops by 21 places to fourth from bottom, coming in at 6 per cent and narrowly avoiding negative ratings.  It’s one of the biggest falls ever in our table – almost on the scale of Theresa May’s dizzying fall from top of the table into negative territory in the wake of the bungled 2017 election.
  • Meanwhile, Ben Wallace moves up from ninth, on 51 per cent, to fourth, on 64 per cent.
  • The Westminster story of the last week or so has concentrated on Raab v Wallace – and this finding seems to show Conservative activists taking sides.  Our take is that it’s more of a verdict on how British servicemen and the Foreign Office have reacted to events in Afghanistan; and on Wallace’s robust take on Joe Biden and, perhaps, Pen Farthing.  The Defence Secretary seems to be morphing into a politician who, like the Prime Minister himself, is seen by many people outside Westminster as authentic.
  • Boris Johnson drifts up from fourth from bottom on three per cent to seventh from bottom on 13 per cent.
  • Otherwise there’s little change in the table, but it’s worth closing by having a look at Priti Patel.  Last month, she was tenth from bottom on 26 per cent.  This month, she is eight from bottom on 18 per cent.  As recently as May, she was among the top members of the table: sixth from top on 64 per cent.  You will have your own view on the reasons for her fall.  Ours is: channel boats.

Christian Wakeford: Why we need a Cabinet Minister for Net Zero

3 Sep

Christian Wakeford is MP for Bury South.

As the MP for Bury South, in the so-called “Red Wall”, I have no doubt about the need to drive down emissions.

I am a supporter of our Conservative manifesto commitment to Net Zero by 2050, and like many of my colleagues in Parliament, my focus is on finding practical and affordable policies which will allow us to live more sustainably.

Some have recently questioned our Net Zero commitments, but poll after poll shows increasing public concern over the environment and a desire for faster action.

85 per cent of the British public are concerned about climate change, while the environment is now the third biggest priority for the public, behind healthcare and the economy, with 33 per cent saying it’s the most important issue.

In my constituency, I held a pre-COP26 “environment forum” for local people. It was a great opportunity to hear their views, concerns and hopes about our efforts to tackle climate change.

However, throughout the forum it was highlighted that government of all levels is notoriously bad at working cross department and this leads to either duplicated working or watered down and overcomplicated projects.

This will only hold back the action they want to see. The suggestion of having someone oversee action on climate change, from a cross-departmental basis, was regarded as efficient and sensible.

My constituents are right. It’s clear that we will need a senior Cabinet Minister for Net Zero to oversee this transition – ​working directly with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. Every sector must become more sustainable – and government has a big role to play in setting the right framework.

You only have to look at the example of housing. According to Green Alliance, whose Net Zero Policy Tracker comes out this month, homes account for 16 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in the UK and require substantial reductions. We need joined-up policy to ensure home decarbonisation is fair, whether it is on retrofitting old houses or building standards for new homes.

The Future Homes Standard, for example, should be brought forward from 2025 to ensure new homes built today are the greenest they can be. Not only will it be better for the homeowner, it will also save the Treasury and taxpayer money in the long-run, cutting out the need to subsidise expensive retrofitting down the line. A Minister for Net Zero could ensure our transition to a more sustainable economy is as quick and efficient as possible.

Currently, Alok Sharma, who is doing a brilliant job as President Designate of COP26, sits around the decision-making table as a Minister in the Cabinet Office.

This adds extra weight to the Government’s green credentials and demonstrates that we are taking our climate conference hosting responsibilities seriously. But after COP26, he could be out of a job and there is a danger that the impetus generated by hosting the UN climate change conference will be lost.

As part of our COP26 legacy, a Cabinet Minister for Net Zero can show the world how to lead cross-government action on the matter. They can also help knock heads together within government and act as both a convener and an elected spokesperson.

Not only that, they will be answerable to Parliament, providing extra scrutiny and coverage of the most pressing and challenging issue we face as we build back better from the pandemic. My constituents approve – and I hope the Government will too.

Voters are suspicious of electric cars because politicians let them down over diesel ones. It’s not just a question of price.

18 Aug

As most people know by now, a large part of the Government’s plans for Net Zero involves convincing the nation to drive electric cars. The UK plans to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030 – so the consumer doesn’t actually have much choice in the matter.

That being said, the Government is having a number of issues selling its vision to voters around the country. None of this was helped over the last two weeks when Allegra Stratton, the spokesperson for COP26, revealed to Times Radio that she drove – shock, horror! – a third-hand diesel Volkswagen Golf.

Soon after Alok Sharma, President of COP26, was asked what he drove – to which he also answered diesel. Despite his assurance that he does not “drive it very much”, this has not impressed the electric car lobby, nor those wondering why they should buy electric if COP26’s most famous faces aren’t on board.

As COP26 draws closer, the Government will have to get better at promoting electric cars, as well as countering objections to them. The most obvious worry consumers have is the expense. Buying a car isn’t cheap, after all, so people will feel anxious about having to switch (especially when there’s been so much talk about people having to replace their gas boilers).

Then there’s the charging issue, which Stratton hit upon in her interview. She said she needed a diesel vehicle to visit elderly relatives “200, 250 miles away”… sometimes with small children in the car. “They’re all journeys that I think would be at least one quite long stop to charge”, were her words – sentiment that many people will relate to.

One underrated concern in all this is whether electric cars are another government fad, as was the case with diesel in 2001. Many will remember the “dash for diesel” in this period, during which Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor, introduced a new system of tax for petrol-powered cars, in the name of environmentalism, and slashed duty on diesel and reduced company car taxes on this type of vehicle

It led to a four-fold increase in the number of diesels, which has since been associated with thousands of premature deaths a year. Confidential Treasury files have since shown that Tony Blair’s government was aware of the damage these cars do to air quality – yet pressed ahead, mainly because the optics would look bad (through penalising diesel drivers).

At the time the files were discovered, Edmund King, president of the AA, said “This will only heighten the sense of injustice felt by millions of people who bought their diesel cars in good faith”. And it’s this sentiment that takes us back to electric cars. A lot is being asked of the consumer, so they need reassurances that electric cars are here to stay.

As James Frayne, who writes for ConservativeHome and has spent a long time researching public attitudes to Net Zero, tells me: “Cars are integral to most workers’ daily lives and they’re expensive to buy and run. People therefore really pay attention to political comment on cars and mistakes have consequences. Politicians’ u-turn on diesels is seared into the public memory and undermined confidence that Governments will see Net Zero policies through.”

So the Government needs to sell electric cars – and their longevity too. 

James Frayne: If ministers want to sell Net Zero to the public, they need to start making sacrifices

17 Aug

James Frayne is Director of Public First and author of Meet the People, a guide to moving public opinion.

This autumn’s global summit on the environment – COP26, to be held in Glasgow – will be many British voters’ first introduction to the politics of Net Zero.

When I’ve run focus groups on Net Zero, you might find one person in every three groups who has heard of it. While the environment is a tier one issue for many, the political and policy debates on Net Zero have passed the public by.

But it’s a huge issue that will define politics for two decades. COP26 therefore brings both opportunities and threats for this Conservative Government. I set out some thoughts on these here.

First, the opportunities…

1) The Government can promote green capitalism and green jobs

Boris Johnson is unusual: a centre right leader with a massive majority, who genuinely believes in the free market and protecting the environment. Rishi Sunak is similarly aligned.

As such, with the benefit of playing host, the Government has a chance to move green policy out of the hands of the left, where it has traditionally been held. The Government can chart a path to Net Zero compatible with centre-right politics: emphasising green jobs in a modernised economy and the role of technology in delivering clean growth.

This could be a distinctive role in global politics – particularly on the centre right – but could also help prevent the establishment of a policy link in the public mind between the environment and the hard left politics.

2) It offers an opportunity to do good

To date, Johnson’s Government has been defined by a few extremely divisive issues: Brexit and immigration, most obviously. This summit offers the chance to talk concretely about doing good – not just about protecting this country from the excesses of the weather, but protecting and promoting the environment globally. It also offers the first chance, post-Brexit, to work with international leaders on something positive.

3) It offers the chance to forge new alliances

Related to the above, the whole point of COP26 is to bring political leaders together. The Government has the chance to agree plans with other leaders, such as the US, that will strengthen ties in the same ways that security policy did in the past. After all, the US Democrats arguably now take climate change more seriously than foreign and defence policy. We should expect to see new alliances formed – and old alliances strengthened – over this issue.

(Covid should have facilitated global cooperation; the less said about this debacle the better).

4) Government could justify changes to the post-Covid tax system

Governments like to inject morality into the tax system. It allows them to create narratives that justify new or replacement taxes. This helps on different levels. Not only does it allow the Government to show it’s on the right side of public opinion, it provides a rationale to justify changes to the taxation system over many years.

There are fewer better opportunities than the one provided by COP26. when the Government will be able to craft a narrative that pollution should be paid for by higher taxes. When the country is struggling with massive debt post-Covid, this is a huge help. Net Zero is so large in scale, it seems likely the Government is going to have to shift to “taxing bad things to promote good” (watch out, alcoholic drinks firms).

Now, the threats…

5) There will be huge sticker shock

Successive Governments have been less than candid about the costs associated with Net Zero – both for the country as a whole and for individual families – and about lifestyle changes required. At COP26, all this will start coming out in the wash – and people are likely to be shocked about what they hear.

I have long believed the lack of any meaningful political opposition to Net Zero was a bad thing overall for the Government and the green movement: it has hidden all the negative stories that were going to come out at some point; and it has failed to get over the point that progress on Net Zero is good on balance.

Now people will hear the downsides – and it will look to many voters here that this Government’s policies are to blame. (“Why is Boris saying we need to pay more for x and y?”)

6) It will reveal huge political hypocrisy.

You can’t tell the public “we’re in a climate emergency” as you’re driving by in your diesel car. Sorry, you just can’t. As I wrote in the Sunday Telegraph, Alok Sharma, who’s leading on UK preparations for COP26, should replace his diesel car within a month, or drive it back to his new life in Reading West.

When politicians and policy experts are going to be telling us we’re in a climate emergency, and that everyone should face inconvenience and financial sacrifice, it’s imperative politicians are way ahead of the public in their own lives. It doesn’t look like most Government politicians are anywhere near. Allegations of hypocrisy will damage the Government’s green credentials, but could generally undermine trust in them too.

7) Lifestyle changes proposed will be vast, at the worst possible time

When COP26 is in full swing, the British economy will be struggling. While politicians are talking about future sacrifices, we might be hearing about the prospect of higher interest rates to curb inflation; the possibility of significant bill increases as the energy price cap moves; and about new taxes to pay off Covid debt. Talking about the need for additional green taxes will likely be met with a groan at best.

8) Many provincial towns depend on polluting industries

Derby returned a relatively rare Conservative MP at the last election (Derby North). Derby is one of the few cities in England that has kept a successful manufacturing base – making aero engines at Rolls-Royce, cars at Toyota, and trains at Bombardier. The corridor between Derby and Nottingham is full of SMEs who support these big manufacturers.

At COP26, the people of Derby will likely hear the need to radically tax flying and driving – and the businesses that make it possible. While people that live in these sorts of
towns are often realistic about the long-term prospects of manufacturing – and supportive of cleaner, greener, newer industries – at some point soon, the people of Derby will be asking some pointed questions of their MPs, just as they will across working-class seats around the country.

9) Lack of international agreement means many will ask: why bother?

As Paul wrote recently, there is at least a very good chance that emerging economies will drag their feet on environmental policy. They will likely argue that they’re still playing catch up with the developed West, and it’s not reasonable for the US, EU and UK to demand they slow their rate of growth when they’re only just establishing a mass middle class. And they have a point.

But the British public are already attuned to this problem; they know that Britain’s emissions are a relatively trivial amount of the global total. If one of their first introductions to Net Zero politics confirms their existing fears – that global progress isn’t viable, it’s possible more than a few will think “what’s the point?”

Which way will things go? How can the Government help to maximise the opportunities and mitigate the risks? I fear that the sticker shock borne of a lack of candour, coupled with stories of Ministerial inertia and hypocrisy in their private lives, will make for a difficult summit.

To give them a chance to get through this positively, the Government has got to start managing expectations fast – explaining that Net Zero is going to positive overall and on balance. This breezy assurance that it’s all going to be wonderful has got to end. And they’ve got to make sure that Government ministers can all, with a straight face, explain that they’re personally making the sacrifices they’re telling everyone else to make.

Chris Skidmore: Net Zero will mean nothing unless we can convince the highest emitting countries to change also

11 Aug

Chris Skidmore MP was Science Minister 2018-2020 and Energy Minister in 2019. He is a Senior Fellow at the Mossavar-Rahmani Center of Government at Harvard Kennedy School.

Two years have passed since the UK became the first G7 country to legislate for “Net Zero”. Since then, over 70 per cent of the world’s surface has made a commitment to neutralise their carbon emissions by 2050. Still disagreements persist as to how exactly Net Zero can be achieved, or even how it should be defined.

With the target likely to come under increasing focus in the run up to COP26 in Glasgow, now less than 100 days away, already research is demonstrating that companies’ “carbon offsetting” strategies are not only inadequate, requiring a land mass five times the size of India to plant trees, they may also end up causing more harm than good – as the carbon emitted from the wildfires burning in US forests especially planted to sequester carbon now becomes further part of the problem rather than the solution.

With these debates raging alongside this summer’s wildfires, it is clear an effective strategy to achieve Net Zero remains in a state of flux. It’s one of the reasons I’ve decided to take up a research post as a Senior Fellow at Harvard Kennedy School, looking in detail at how we can not only achieve Net Zero most effectively, but also to question whether the target is the right one, and what mitigating factors need to be put in place to account for unknowable events in the future— in the next 29 years, global change, war, natural disaster, could all sweep Net Zero off the map.

We need not only a strategy, but an insurance policy too. For every policy, policymakers must also have due regard to the fact that for every action, there will be reaction, just one of the plethora of unintended consequences that have to be guarded against. Having signed Net Zero into law as then Energy Minister back in 2019, I’m acutely aware that unless the idea of transformation and change works with local communities, the risk of a backlash to any green policies could end up causing delay and dither.

For the UK’s own Net Zero strategy, already we are witnessing the beginning of a transformation towards a green economy, with enormous potential to further regenerate post-industrial communities as a result- as has been highlighted by several contributors in ConHome’s series on Net Zero. But we all know that even if the UK achieves it’s own Net Zero ambitions, it will mean nothing unless we can convince the highest emitting countries to change also. And it will be in Asia that Net Zero will either succeed or be broken altogether.

One just has to look at the numbers to realise that without China and India onboard, the ability to tackle climate change will become a losing battle. With an estimated 70 per cent of global carbon emissions coming from cities, over 52 per cent of the world’s urban greenhouse emissions come from just 25 cities.

23 of those cities are all based inside the People’s Republic of China, with the worst being Handan, Shanghai, Suzhou, Dalian and Beijing, all with greenhouse gas emissions higher than 130 megatons of CO₂ equivalent. According to IQAir, a Swiss-based air quality organisation which works with the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), UN-Habitat, and Greenpeace, 148 out of the top 150 most polluted cities in 2020 are in Asia.

Alok Shama is rightly using his position as COP26 President to call for a global end to coal, yet Chinese and Indian buy-in to this programme will be essential for its success. While pledging in 2016 during the Paris Agreement to reach peach CO₂ emissions by 2030, China built more coal power plants in 2020 than the entire world retired.

Already China has nearly four times as many coal power plants than the next largest country, India. In 2020 alone, China’s coal usage accounted for 76 per cent of the global new coal capacity, adding 38.4 gigawatts directly from new coal plants. Moving forward China is currently building an additional 88.1 gigawatts of power from coal, with another 158.7 gigawatts of power from coal power plants having already been proposed to the central government.

These are the simple facts that anyone who wishes to reduce global carbon emissions faces. The geopolitical reality facing any Net Zero strategy is that China’s growth will continue to define the 21st century. There is no choice but to work together with China to achieve joint successful outcomes to reduce carbon emissions.

Playing the blame game on carbon emissions is ultimately pointless as it achieves nothing. It is not a weakness either to recognise that we all have a shared future on the earth, and we must build partnerships that share how we can deliver transformations that can prevent drastic climate change before it is too late.

If China fails to reduce its greenhouse gases, we all fail. If ever there was a need for a “Nixon in China” moment, we need COP26 to deliver it if Net Zero has any chance of success.

Matt Kilcoyne: Streamlined lawmaking would make the UK a richer, safer, fairer and better place to work and live

9 Apr

Matt Kilcoyne is Head Of Communications at the Adam Smith Institute.

We’re now over a year into the pandemic radically shifting the creation of legislation, from a long-winded process studded with Parliamentary scrutiny and debate to laws affecting so many now so often made on the fly.

Frankly if any Member of either House tells you that they know what each of 600 sets of regulations (plus primary legislation and 1014 Statutory Instruments (SIs) used to amend past legislation) does and how it has updated laws previously in place, including that of the 1833 St Helena Act, then they’re having you on. No one could understand or advise on what has happened in whole to the laws our Parliament makes, amends, and repeals.

Now a lot of the SIs that went on in Parliament, last year especially, were to do with converting the EU’s acquis into British law. These SIs were put in place to ensure the promise of Britain starting independence from a position of non-divergence was kept;

This past year could be seen as an exposé of what’s been happening more generally with our legal system for decades: Parliament dictated to by foreign bodies, impacted by devolved ones, and bypassed by executive order. No one could tell you what has occurred across all our laws and the tens of thousands of pages of additions. Yet ignorance of that law is no excuse, and it can cost dearly to not know.

Our Common Law system, uncatalogued laws with no search function, and the lack of understanding about case law specifics and Parliamentary reasoning all add to the cost of compliance for firms. In turn that adds up to lost innovation and productivity, lower wages, and fewer life chances. All told the cost of regulation was estimated by the National Audit Office to be over £100bn in 2017, and a large chunk is just checking you’re on the right side of the law.

But wait, wasn’t one of the reasons that we left the EU that we could look again at all the little laws and silly additions to our statute and start to rid us of these meddlesome interventions? Didn’t Boris Johnson in 2019 order a bonfire of red tape?

Well, yes and no. Johnson’s bonfire is as mal-quoted as his “f**k business” exclamation. The latter was a broadside at corporates pretending to speak for the whole market when they actually speak only and rightly in the interests of themselves and their shareholders.

Likewise, the ‘bonfire’ was actually an explicit attempt at introducing mercantilist procurement practices rather than having non-discrimination of bids by nationality – the vast majority of which have actually now been kept in place via the UK-EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement.

However there are some signs of life in the government’s plans for deregulation. Or as they’d rather call them, plans for better regulation.

Before alighting to lead preparations for COP, Alok Sharma set up a series of consultations and reforms across industries and sectors. Kwasi Kwarteng’s brush with the unions and the FT over an employment rights review put paid to any labour market shake-up, but all the rest continue.

Some of these were supposed to be of higher stakes than others — we’d all assumed the consultation on a new subsidy regime was bigger than the reform of audit, at least until a former Prime Minister’s relations to a certain financial services company started hitting the headlines.

Jacob Rees-Mogg has oversight of the vast bulk of Covid legislation because of the sunset clauses backbenchers forced the Cabinet to put in place on the emergency powers. I think it’s reasonable to trust the Leader of the House’s desire to return ancient liberties to modern Britons and so I suspect some simplification will be coming our way purely by the ticking of the clock.

The real big potential, though, is thought to be with Rishi Sunak’s Better Regulation Cabinet Committee, which has oversight across all departments and involves the likes of Kwarteng, Lord Frost, and Michael Gove all in one place.

Quite what is within scope is less certain than what isn’t. Anything ringfenced by the manifesto or which could go viral on social, such as environmental standards or labour standards, is out. But technically everything else is in, including how and what and when to diverge whole sectors from Europe, when to sandbox as the UK did successfully with fintech, and even the form and role of lawmaking at Westminster.

The Adam Smith Institute’s latest paper, Ignorantia Legis, tries to give the Chancellor some neat new ideas to ensure we get better laws, rather than just more of them.

The first thing is to stop the direction of travel towards more laws as a matter of course. A lot of this stems from process-driven regulation. This year the full cost of that way of thinking was laid bare with the precautionary principle and the vaccine in Europe. Expedited experiments where there is a clear cost-benefit case to do so would allow circumvention of onerous process-driven regulation, replacing it with clear result-driven approaches.

Higher risk, and higher personal responsibility and in ordinary times assigned liabilities, but with higher rewards. Moonshots if you will.

From moonshots to sunsets, so much of regulation is designed to stop the possibility of the very worst outcome happening. Often this is done where the potential for such an outcome is not known at first but becomes known over time. There are plenty of laws already on the statute relating to harming others, duplicating them time and again when new issues arise is unnecessary and often duplicates legislation.

To combat this, MPs should make more frequent use of sunset clauses when passing penalties and regulations, so that they can be routinely revisited and then set aside if and when the harms or moral panic they were designed to address have either been dealt with or failed to materialise.

Ministers will not win the war on wasteful legislation if they start looking for individual wins or headlines. They should instead commit to reducing lines of rules, pages of books, and issues contained within Acts. Doing so will cut the.bill the Government imposes to British businesses and each of us as citizens. That will make the UK a richer, safer, fairer and better place to work and live.

One, two, three – and now Truss tops our Cabinet League Table for the fourth time

4 Apr

The table now seems to be in set pattern established soon after Britian’s vaccination success became apparent.

The same Ministers remain at its top and the same too at its bottom.  Consider the case of Kwasi Kwarteng, up a place this month at fourth: his score, 64.7, is exactly the same as it was then.

There are a mix of small score and table movements up and down, but none of them worth expending many words about – though we pause for the Ministers at the very top and bottom of the table.

At the top, there is Liz Truss, on her fourth table-topping month – and a record high of 89 per cent.

That’s a reflection, in a minor key, of her decisive handling of the Equalities brief and, in a major one, of the rapid succession of trade deals: most of them rollovers, true – but accomplished more speedily than some anticipated.

At the bottom, there is Gavin Williamson – on minus 27 per cent.

That’s a dreadful rating, but less so than the -43 per cent he scored last month, or this – 36 per cent and -48 per cent during the previous ones.

Our reading is that his early and emphatic support for free speech during the Batley Mohammed cartoons row, which we haven’t heard the last of, accounts for his improvement.

Sam Hall: The Government must secure tougher emission-reduction commitments at this year’s COP26. Here’s how.

28 Jan

Sam Hall is the Director of the Conservative Environment Network.

It is hard to overstate the centrality of COP26 to UK domestic and foreign policy this year. It will be the most significant international summit of 2021 and the most important set of climate negotiations since the Paris Agreement in 2015. Having failed to plan properly for a global pandemic, the world still has time to mitigate this potentially much greater threat to our security and prosperity. At COP26, the UK has an opportunity to direct and shape this critical global effort, and in the process strengthen its own national mission towards net zero and post-Covid economic recovery.

The political context for COP26 is, on the whole, favourable. The Biden administration has made climate action a priority for American diplomacy. Last year, a slew of major economies followed the UK in setting net-zero targets, including Japan, China, South Korea, and the EU. But economics, rather than politics, are increasingly driving climate action. The costs of clean technologies, particularly solar, wind, and batteries, continue to fall, thanks to innovation, scale, and competition, and good green jobs are being created along the way.

That being said, there are a number of tricky challenges that Alok Sharma, President of COP26, must navigate. Despite new climate commitments from China and others, some big emitters, such as India and Russia, are still reluctant to up their game. And the finance flowing towards clean energy and nature-based solutions is still well short of what’s needed, undermining political support for climate action among developing countries whose fiscal resources have been badly depleted by Covid.

The Government’s primary goal at COP26 must be to secure tougher emission-reduction commitments from nation states. In Paris five years ago, countries agreed a set of climate goals: to limit the global temperature rise to well below two degrees, and to pursue efforts to keep it below 1.5 degrees. But the national pledges that countries made towards achieving those global goals were, and remain, insufficient. Despite lots of recent progress, we’re still on track for more than three degrees of warming by the end of the century, according to the UN.

To deliver the Paris Agreement goals, new national commitments must include both short-term targets, which are important for limiting the cumulative emissions that drive the greenhouse effect, as well as long-term net-zero targets, which are needed if countries are to stop contributing to climate change altogether. They must include concrete plans that deliver those targets while also creating green jobs and clean growth. Developed countries must also follow the UK in honouring their commitment to allocate an annual total of $100 billion for climate finance for developing countries.

Alongside targets and plans, the Government should champion some sector-specific campaigns – such as the phase-out of coal power stations or combustion engines, or the transition towards more sustainable agriculture. Thanks to successive Conservative governments, the UK has strong commitments in all these areas. COP26 is an opportunity to bolster support for these important international coalitions.

The most effective solutions to climate change are market-based. They harness competition and private capital to keep down costs for consumers, while avoiding the need to adopt economically damaging left-wing policy solutions. The Government should use COP26 to enable three of them in particular.

First, the Government should accelerate the growing momentum behind border carbon adjustments (BCAs). BCAs are carbon charges levied on carbon-intensive imports, and carbon charge rebates for exports. This policy – recently advocated on this site by Jerome Mayhew MP – is already being considered by the EU and the US. If implemented carefully, BCAs could unlock the use of higher carbon prices to enable market-based decarbonisation, without harming the competitiveness of UK businesses exposed to international trade.

Some countries regard BCAs as protectionist, but with careful design, this doesn’t need to be the case. With a transparent process for measuring carbon intensity, and by ensuring imports and domestically-produced goods face the same carbon price, the risk of a legal challenge at the WTO can be kept low. The UK should try to shape the international BCA debate, and build a supportive coalition at COP26.

Second, the Government should finalise an agreement on the rules governing carbon markets. Carbon markets enable countries to buy carbon credits from emission-reduction projects overseas and include them in their national carbon accounts. Carbon markets let countries find the most cost-effective pathway to net zero, and provide much-needed private funds for nature-based solutions.

Five years on, this element of the Paris Agreement (known as “article six”) remains highly contentious and is still unresolved. In previous iterations of carbon markets, carbon credits were of dubious quality, were sometimes double-counted by appearing in two different carbon accounts, and diverted investment from crucial domestic emission reduction projects. Using some of the findings from Mark Carney’s new taskforce on voluntary carbon markets, the Government could forge an international consensus behind scientifically rigorous, environmentally-ambitious carbon markets ahead of COP26.

Third, there needs to be much greater focus on the role of the private sector. The Government should urge as many companies as possible to commit to net zero, set a scientifically robust deadline for reaching it, and publish a comprehensive and credible action plan. As happens currently with nation states, we should ask these private sector actors to report against their commitments, and to review their targets every five years with a view to ratcheting ambition. Broadening the scope of the Paris Agreement framework to include the private sector would be a really significant legacy of COP26, and would encourage more businesses to take the lead on climate action.

Finally, the Government must engage its conservative counterparts elsewhere in the world on climate change, and extend the climate discussion to encompass more voices from the right of the political spectrum. Almost a quarter of global emissions comes from countries with centre-right governments. We won’t solve climate change without the support of conservatives, yet too much of the international climate movement remains dominated by the left.

This lack of conservative voices is in large part a result of the historic but shrinking climate scepticism on the right. It must now be rectified. The Government should focus on making the economic case for climate action to its overseas partners, highlighting the UK’s world-leading record on clean growth. The UK enjoys broad cross-party support for climate action – among all sections of the public as well as elected politicians. Thankfully, climate change is not a front in the culture war. We should try to export that model around the world.

This is an exciting year for climate policy in the UK. COP26 will be the culmination of the UK’s recent climate leadership, and a chance to internationalise our clean growth-focused approach. It could also pave the way for a more market-based approach to net zero. It might prove to be one of Boris Johnson’s most significant legacies.