Iain Dale: Stop this utter selfishness and pathetic whinging about not having a normal Christmas to look forward to

30 Oct

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and the For the Many podcast with Jacqui Smith.

Again, it feels like the calm before the Covid storm, doesn’t it?

As more and more swathes of the country go into Tier Three lockdown, it’s clear that, by this time next week, most of the north and parts of the Midlands will have joined Merseyside, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire in that tier. It’s only a matter of time before London does too, I suspect.

This week, even Germany has gone back into a partial lockdown.  Spain has declared a state of emergency.  France has announced a further draconian lockdown – and Coronavirus in Belgium is seemingly out of control.

At some point in the next two or three weeks, the Government will be forced to take a very difficult decision. No one wants a second national lockdown, but I’m afraid it is looking all but inevitable.

We could of course, take a different pah, ignore the scientific consensus and let the virus take its course – or let it rip, might be a more accurate way of putting it. I cannot see any responsible Government taking that course of action.

In the end, we are going to have to learn to live with this virus. But until our test and trace system is worthy of the name, or a vaccine becomes available, it’s very difficult to see any degree of normality returning to our lives in the next six months – or maybe for longer.

– – – – – – – – – –

After the political debacle about the provision of free school meals, and yet again being comprehensively outplayed by a young Premier League footballer, the next challenge for the Government is how to counter the pathetic accusations about the government ‘cancelling’ Christmas.

Those who make the accusation claim to be those who don’t have a Scooby Doo about what Christmas is all about. It’s not some quasi-materialistic present giving binge; it is a religious festival that celebrates the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.

There is nothing the Government can do or will do that could cancelsthat celebration. Yes, it may mean that family gatherings are more limited in number. Yes, it may mean that we don’t do as much present-buying as we have done in the past. Yes, it will be different.

But for God’s sake, if people don’t understand the seriousness of the situation the country may be in by Christmas, then there is nothing anyone can say or do which will shake people out of their utter selfishness and pathetic whinging.

I can say that. The Government can’t. But somehow, they will need to take on the view that somehow we should all be given a free pass on Christmas Day to let the virus rip.

– – – – – – – – – –

Arzoo Raja is 13 years old. She lived in Italy with her Christian parents. She too was brought up as a Christian. On October 13, she was abducted from outside her house. A few days, later the Italian Police said they had received marriage papers, which stated she was 18.

Her new “husband” was 44 year old Ali Azhar, who also stated Arzoo had converted to Islam, and her new name was Arzoo Faatima.

Her parents provided her birth certificate to the Italian and Pakistani authorities to prove that she was 13. This cut no ice with the Sindh High Court in Karachi, which ruled that she had converted of her own volition, and that she had entered into the marriage of her own free will. The court even criticised the Pakistani police for “harassing” Arzoo after her abduction.

In effect, the court has validated both forced marriage and rape. There have been protests on the streets of Lahore and Karachi.

Countries like the UK cannot stand by, and trot out the well-worn narrative that we can’t interfere with the judiciary of a sovereign nation.

No, but we can turn off the aid tap. We can call in the Pakistani High Commissioner for an interview without coffee. We and other countries have both the power and influence to stop this.

Imran Khan, the Pakistani Prime Minister, has a daughter called Tyrian. He should think how he would have felt if his daughter had been abducted like this when she was 13.

Just for reporting this news on Twitter I have been accused of being islamophobic and “not understanding” the culture. Utter tosh. If we are meant to keep quiet about child abduction and forced marriage, we have come to a pretty pass. I, for one, will continue to speak out, no matter what the backlash.

– – – – – – – – – –

On Thursday morning we all woke up to yet another terror attack in France, with two people being beheaded and another murdered in the name of “the religion of peace”.

Apparently, it is politically incorrect to point out that while the barbarous acts were taking place, the perpetrators were joyfully shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’.

Muslims quite rightly point out that these acts are ‘not in my name’, but the uncomfortable fact is that this is not the view of the terrorists.

In his autobiography, David Cameron says he regrets maintaining that these kind of terror attacks were nothing to do with Islam. He argues that adherents of mainstream Islam have tried to disassociate themselves from the attacks without ever really understanding what has driven the terrorists to assert that they do their dastardly deeds in the name of their religion. He is right.

Matt Vickers: I know from experience why the retail sector matters. So have your say on rates today.

30 Oct

Matt Vickers is the MP for Stockton South.

The debate around the challenges facing the retail sector, and particularly our high streets, isn’t new. Sadly, the current pandemic has only exacerbated the situation. As a former Woolworth’s employee and a keen Pic and Mix eater, I know only too well the high street titans who have been lost in this battle.

While the pandemic has left many industries in a state of flux, it has added to the challenges facing the retail sector rather than acting as the sole source of disruption.

Although we cannot deny that lockdown restrictions in the earlier part of the year were necessary to protect the health of the nation, they have had a devastating effect on the already dwindling footfall that many high streets and retail centres have experienced over recent years.

With people being asked to stay at home, more and more of them have turned to online traders to meet their needs. Complacency has meant that we have learned to live with online and physical retailers living in parallel. While we have known for some time, that online shopping has exercised a greater dominance, Covid-19, it feels, is giving online retailers full superiority.

From the incredible bum-wiping bonanza of 2020 that saw people stocks piling toilet rolls (which they probably still haven’t got through) to the huge demand for hand sanitiser, retail and supply chains were put to the test.

While recent figures from the British Retail Consortium show retail sales to September rebounded since re-opening in June, they remain significantly lower than sales at the beginning of the pandemic.

More worryingly, these figures indicate potentially permanent changes in consumer behaviour, since working from home has been normalised for many, and online sales continuing to boom despite shops being open. City centre retailers in particular have not benefited from increased footfall, as office blocks stand empty.

In less than six months, we have seen an industry worth nearly £400 billion, that directly employs three million people, encounter a seismic shift; the result of which could be hundreds of thousands of livelihoods destroyed.

While we have painted a bleak, yet sadly accurate picture of the retail sector, there are potential solutions to reverse the decline. If we want to see our high streets flourish once again, where our memories no longer drift back to a bygone era of nostalgia of what we have lost, we must be embrace bold, innovative and forward-looking policies.

The Government must cut the burdens that restrict business, and allow the entrepreneurial spirit to blow the wind of change through our high streets.

Our retail workers have been on the frontline in this pandemic, whilst others sought safety in their own home. They alongside our doctors, nurses and health professionals, are the key workers in this battle. And while they battle to supply us with the goods we require, it is sad to see that in recent times an alarming trend has emerged with the number shop workers being abused and assaulted increasing.

A recent British Consortium survey found that more than 400 retail workers face violence and abuse every day, often as the result of staff challenging shoplifters, or more recently trying to implement Covid-19 guidelines.

Locally, in my constituency of Stockton South, I have spent a great deal of time meeting retailers, and even worked a shift in a local Home Bargains (another past employer of mine). I have been delighted to hear how so many of them have benefited from the various support packages since this crisis began, whether that in question has been the business rates holiday or the world-leading furlough scheme.

There is that old adage, ‘the customer is always right’. But while that may be the case, there could be no customers without the staff that work so hard to keep our retail sector going. It really is an industry for the people and run by the people. It is our duty as policymakers to cultivate a supportive environment to ensure the industry has a thriving future.

An integral way in which we do this in the months ahead will be the biggest consultation on the issue that affects the industry most – a fundamental review of business rates and then publishing the terms of reference for the review at the Spring Budget. This call for evidence seeks views on how the business rates system currently works, what issues need to be addressed, ideas for change and a number of alternative taxes.

When the evidence and recommendations come in, we must listen, and we must do all we can to support the heart of the British economy. So have your say today.

Syed Kamall: Rashford’s campaign calls for state action – but it equally highlights the power of individuals and community

29 Oct

Professor Syed Kamall is Academic and Research Director at the IEA. From May 2005 to June 2019, he was a Conservative MEP for London.

While Marcus Rashford’s campaign to provide free meals for children has gained much publicity and public support, it has also come under criticism for providing meals for children regardless of need and for even nationalising parental responsibility.

The campaign is built on the assumption that state intervention is necessary to solve societal problems but equally it has highlighted the power of private individuals to affect change, as well as the dedication of volunteers in our local communities.

The campaign perhaps should be seen in the context of our country’s long history of helping those in need. As far back as 1597-8, the Elizabethan Poor Laws were administered through parish overseers, who provided relief for the aged, sick, and infant poor, as well as work for the able-bodied in workhouses. The latter would of course be unacceptable today. In the late 18th century, this was supplemented by the Speenhamland system, providing allowances to workers with below subsistence wages.

By the nineteenth century, it is estimated that as much money passed through voluntary organisations to those in need as did through the poor law. Many adults belonged to an average of five or six voluntary organisations, such as trades unions and friendly societies, offering financial protection against sickness and unemployment as well as savings societies, literary and scientific institutes.

While charitable provision was diverse, it did not reach everyone in need, which led to calls for state intervention and the introduction of state pensions in 1908 and state social insurance in 1911. Voluntary organisations began to accept money from the state, becoming complementary or supplementary welfare providers, but no longer being seen as the first port of call for those in need.

The 1942 Beveridge Report recommended a single contribution and a single state benefit agency for social insurance. Beveridge wanted friendly societies to act as state benefit agencies offering additional services if funded voluntary contributions. However, this idea was rejected by the Government and led to the post-war welfare state.

Despite the growth of state welfare, the UK maintains a mixed welfare model with thousands of local civil society non-state projects in neighbourhoods across the country, providing support and signposting for families in need, long before we saw the inspiring help that volunteers have provided during the Covid-19 lockdown. However, even within these organisations, there are some who see their efforts as stepping in where the state should be acting, rather than as part of a rich tapestry of local civil society.

This bias towards state-intervention is one that sees multi-millionaire footballers become advocates for more government action, where local community groups may already exist and even do a better job than state agencies. When I was a politician, I was sometimes contacted by constituents asking me to find a taxpayer-funded local council or national government or EU grant or hoping I could pass a law to solve a local problem. When I offered to introduce them to a project that had solved a similar problem in their neighbourhood, some were inspired while others saw this as an example of state failure.

Poverty, especially child poverty, has a devastating impact and as a society we should do everything in our power to offer routes out of poverty. But government is not the answer to every problem, and in our rush to do something, we should not overlook or squeeze out alternative solutions.

While some critics may prefer that Rashford built a coalition of other millionaires and companies to support local civil society organisations or offer to pay more tax before calling for state intervention, they risk overlooking the incredible good this young working class man has done.

Whether he sees it or not, his campaign has demonstrated the power of local civil society non-state organisations to address problems in their neighbourhoods. He has also inspired others to – In the words of Gandhi – become the change they want to see.

He is also raised the issue of corporate welfare, which in some cases has also seen money given to companies who did not necessarily need it. Is it any wonder, that Rashford and others argue spending public money on school dinners would be a better use of the taxpayer’s money, especially when so much has been splashed around?

Finally, the campaign has reignited the debate over universal provision vs targeted help and whether a better way to help hungry families would be via Universal Credit, giving families in need the money directly to make the best use of it for their individual circumstances and not to assume that parents will use the money for non-essentials rather than food.

On such an emotive subject it is easy for the waters to get muddied, for political opponents to take polarised positions and to trade accusations of being uncaring or misguided. Maybe we should instead take a moment to applaud Rashford for his actions, for demonstrating that welfare beyond the state is very much alive and for igniting a debate on the effectiveness of the solutions he proposes.

Henry Hill: Tories claim Drakeford has turned Wales into ‘test-bed for left-wing socialist authority’

29 Oct

Tories claim Drakeford has turned Wales into ‘testbed for socialism’

This morning’s papers report that Boris Johnson is coming under pressure to convene a four-way summit to help ensure that the whole United Kingdom faces the same rules about visiting friends and family at Christmas. But at the minute any hope of reviving the ‘Four Nations’ approach seems rather remote.

Earlier this week the war of words between the Government and the Welsh Government heated up when Brandon Lewis accused Mark Drakeford of turning the Principality into “a test-bed for left-wing socialist authority”. The Northern Irish Secretary launched the attack on the Marr Show whilst being questioned about the Government’s position on free school meals.

If you haven’t been following the story, this is about the First Minister’s decision to not just close non-essential shops as part of a ‘firebreak’ lockdown, but – in the name of preventing unfair competition – ban supermarkets from selling non-essential products too.

Even in a week with free school meals all over the papers, this has sparked fresh are at Cardiff Bay’s approach. Some critics have suggested it is inappropriate for Labour to be introducing a measure under Covid-19 regulations whose stated purpose is nothing to do with public health. Others, as we reported at the weekend, are increasingly angry that the British taxpayer is being asked to stump up for Drakeford’s overzealous policies. Would he be so quick to lock down if he had to pay for it?

Unfortunately, the clarity of this Tory attack has been muddied somewhat by suggestions that the Senedd group may have actually expressed support for the policy before it was implemented.

Salmond calls for Sturgeon probe to be broadened as SNP woes deepen again

They’re perhaps closer to breaking up the Union than ever, yet the SNP’s internal strife continues to deepen. This week Alex Salmond wrote to the man leading the probe into whether or not Nicola Sturgeon broke the Ministerial Code to ask “whether the First Minister would be investigated for potentially misleading parliament and failing to act on legal advice”, according to the Daily Telegraph.

Salmond suggests that the remit given to James Hamilton by John Swinney, the First Minister’s deputy, focuses on potentially ‘straw-man’ allegations and may be intended to distract attention from other issues. The former First Minister also appeared to criticise witnesses who are “are relying on their political party to finance their legal representation.”

Meanwhile Judith Mackinnon, a civil servant at the centre of the botched investigation, defended her role in front of MSPs.

Elsewhere this week, the Times reports that the Nationalists’ candidate selection efforts have “descended into chaos” as hundreds of hopefuls fight it out for 32 constituencies. Edinburgh Central is witnessing an especially fraught contest between Angus Robertson, the SNP’s former Westminster leader, and Marco Biagi, the former MSP. The Nationalist leadership were accused of trying to stitch up the selection for Robertson when they changed the rules to prevent Joanna Cherry, the prominent pro-Salmond MP, from contesting the nomination. Another SNP branch in Ayrshire has been put in ‘special measures’ after allegations that the sitting MSP “broke SNP rules and ‘bullied’ colleagues”, according to the Ardrossan Herald.

And all that’s just the political side! On the governmental side of the ledger, the Scottish Government is under fresh pressure after an official public health report confirmed that Covid-positive patients had been released from hospitals into Scottish care homes, which have borne a disproportionate brunt of pandemic casualties. One senior journalist branded its conduct ‘grotesque’ after the official response failed to even acknowledge this transfer of patients. Sturgeon has also faced a ‘backlash’ from MSPs over her new system of lockdown tiers.

Humza Yousaf has also been pushed into a u-turn after a furious row over his ‘Orwellian’ Hate Crimes Bill after it emerged that it might criminalise statements made ‘over the dinner table’ in private homes. The Press & Journal reports that the Justice Secretary has said he is ‘open’ to extending the “breadth and depth” of freedom-of-expression clauses in the draft legislation.

Consequences of the Irish Protocol get clearer by the day

Few of the Tories who attack Theresa May over her Government’s apparent willingness to abandon Northern Ireland to the EU seem to have struggled to forgive Boris Johnson for doing the same thing, but the case for at least re-examining the Irish Protocol continues to grow as its practical impact becomes clear.

Writing in the News Letter, Sam McBride has explored how the new rules are already leading to British products becoming unavailable in the Province, with the Food and Drink Federation warning that it may soon not be viable for many businesses in their sector to supply Ulster at all. The end result could be higher prices in shops or, worse, British supermarkets pulling out of the Northern Irish market altogether – further changing the texture of day-to-day life and alienating Northern Ireland from British culture. Internet shopping will also be affected.

Despite efforts by outriders for Brussels and Dublin to insist there are no ‘constitutional’ implications because the top-level sovereign status of the Province is unaffected, McBride rightly points out that this position is becoming “increasingly hard to sustain”:

What does Northern Ireland remaining part of the UK actually mean if many of its laws are not be set in London or Belfast, but in Brussels, and if the impact of that is to discourage trade within the UK and encourage trade with the Republic and the rest of the EU?

Those of us who have always opposed placing a border inside the United Kingdom were pointing out all the way back in 2017 that the volume of trade between Ulster and the mainland vastly exceeds that between Northern Ireland and the Republic and rest of the European Union put together, so anything which impacted that was going to have an outside impact.

By letting Irish nationalists shift the focus to ports and airports being more ‘practical’ (with the implicit threat of a revival of republican terrorism, coded as ‘defending the peace’), successive British governments allowed themselves to be boxed into a solution with much broader consequences for commerce than a land border which would have fallen overwhelmingly on a relatively low volume of overwhelmingly agricultural trade.

This is in no small part because of a persistent failure to develop and articulate a British understanding of its obligations under the Belfast Agreement to counter the maximalist interpretation offered by Dublin, or to reform a Northern Ireland Office which shows little interest in fighting the UK’s corner.

A Government committed to the Union simply has to do better. Perhaps Michael Gove’s new team of pro-Union PR experts could be tasked with making sure that the blame for all this imminent inconvenience to Northern Irish shoppers falls on those who insisted on a sea border.

Opportunity for the Tories as Wales’ last Lib Dem prepares to step down

Since 1999, Kirsty Williams has held the Senedd seat of Brecon and Radnorshire. She has done so whilst its Westminster counterpart fell to the Tories (twice) and the rest of the Liberal Democrat group got wiped out.

Now the MS, who is currently propping Labour up by serving as Education Minister in Drakeford’s government, has announced that she intends to stand down at next year’s election.

Some Tories have mused that she might have her eye on winning the seat back for her party at Westminster in 2024 (or sooner, if the Government gets round to repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act). But either way, it opens up an opportunity for the Welsh Conservatives. Absent a very popular incumbent they ought to have a good chance of picking this up – and perhaps of wiping out the Lib Dems as a force in devolved politics.

Gerald Howarth: To ensure post-Brexit success, the Government must bolster Britain’s military posture

29 Oct

Sir Gerald Howarth was the MP for Aldershot from 1997-2017, and Minister for International Security Strategy 2010-2012.

As a former Minister for International Security Strategy, I warmly welcomed a review intended to place defence and security within a foreign policy strategic context.

Entirely correctly, the Government has made clear that it wants post-Brexit Britain to play a key role on the world stage. That vision alone calls for a strong military posture because, like it or not, military strength tends to command influence.

It is that strong posture, built over centuries, which has enabled the UK to deploy soft power to significant effect. Loan service officers, joint exercises, training overseas military personnel and the Royal College for Defence Studies all help promote British influence, but our ability to deploy soft power is founded on our hard power – the nuclear deterrent, state-of-the-art kit, and, above all, superbly professional armed forces personnel who have distinguished themselves in recent battles from the Falklands to Afghanistan.

Indeed, the successful Falklands campaign overnight transformed the world’s perception of the UK from a nation in terminal postwar decline to one which once again commanded international respect and propelled Margaret Thatcher onto the world stage.

Increasing global tensions also dictate that we need to increase our defence capabilities – and certainly not cut them. Since the 2010 review in which I was involved, and which was Treasury-driven as a consequence of the £160 billion budget deficit we inherited, much has happened. Take just two examples: in 2014 Russia annexed the Crimea. It did so with complete impunity notwithstanding the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, signed by John Major, under which the US, UK and Russia agreed to respect Ukraine’s borders in return for that country destroying its nuclear arsenal.

In the South China Sea, the Chinese Communist Party has persistently annexed uninhabited atolls, ownership of which is disputed with other nearby nations, and turned them into military bases. Again, it has done so with complete impunity, so it is hardly surprising China has taken advantage of Western paralysis to impose draconian new laws in Hong Kong. Britain has a locus: following our withdrawal from East of Suez in the 1960s, the UK drew up the Five Powers Defence Arrangement with Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Malaysia to safeguard the interests of the latter two.

Our failure to strengthen our defence posture poses the real risk of further instability worldwide.

Britain has an impressive defence industry which a Conservative government should be keen to nurture. For over a century the UK has been a world leader in aerospace and continue to hold that position today through companies like BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce but sustained by a broad and innovative SME sector. We are the second largest exporter of defence equipment, after the United States, which not only earns us annual revenues of around £15 billion but enables us to offer tangible support to our friends and allies.

“Buying off the shelf” in reality means buying from the US which is our closest military ally but a formidable competitor in the defence market which has in the past blocked UK military exports containing US components through its application of ITAR (International Trading in Armaments Regulations) restrictions.

As Labour Lord Drayson’s 2005 Defence Industrial Strategy stated, the loss of sovereign capability leads inevitably to loss of operational sovereignty, to which add the loss of those defence exports. The UK is an equity partner in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme, yet the US continues to deny us access to the computer source codes.

Fortunately, the UK has recognised the danger. The Tempest aircraft programme, which is ITAR-free, will deliver a sixth generation optionally manned capability, exploiting new disruptive technologies essential to tomorrow’s battle-winning capability.

It is led by BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce, supported by Thales UK, Leonardo and missile manufacturer MBDA together with around 600 UK SMEs and institutions. It will generate valuable, new UK technology and employ tens of thousands of skilled people, many in the North of England and Scotland. It is a statement of national intent which also makes economic sense.

The special challenge today is how to maintain effective conventional forces (we cannot expose ourselves to the risk of being outmanoeuvred as a result of having neglected those forces) whilst also developing tomorrow’s technology. You do not win wars using old equipment so investing in future technology like cyber and AI is essential. Funding for defence research has endured a persistent decline in the last two decades; that must change.

[Through no fault of its own, apart from our excellent Defence Secretary Ben Wallace, this Government lacks senior ministers with knowledge of, or experience in, the military. This review must not be rushed and expert advice should be sought and heeded.]

Inevitably, Covid-19 has thrown government financial planning into chaos. Nevertheless, it would be folly, and damaging to the PM’s critical post-Brexit vision for the United Kingdom, if he fails to acknowledge the long-term requirements of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.

Abandoning the three-year Comprehensive Spending Review will cause major problems for the MoD which manages an equipment programme stretching over several years. For example, the Tempest programme requires multi-year funding to maintain the confidence of our international partners that the UK remains committed to Tempest. It will also ensure the UK remains ahead of competitor programmes.

Conservatives hold that the first duty of government is defence of the Realm. Money has rightly been found to deal with the pandemic; it now needs to be found to ensure our national security and give credibility to that post-Brexit vision.

Gerald Howarth: To ensure post-Brexit success, the Government must bolster Britain’s military posture

29 Oct

Sir Gerald Howarth was the MP for Aldershot from 1997-2017, and Minister for International Security Strategy 2010-2012.

As a former Minister for International Security Strategy, I warmly welcomed a review intended to place defence and security within a foreign policy strategic context.

Entirely correctly, the Government has made clear that it wants post-Brexit Britain to play a key role on the world stage. That vision alone calls for a strong military posture because, like it or not, military strength tends to command influence.

It is that strong posture, built over centuries, which has enabled the UK to deploy soft power to significant effect. Loan service officers, joint exercises, training overseas military personnel and the Royal College for Defence Studies all help promote British influence, but our ability to deploy soft power is founded on our hard power – the nuclear deterrent, state-of-the-art kit, and, above all, superbly professional armed forces personnel who have distinguished themselves in recent battles from the Falklands to Afghanistan.

Indeed, the successful Falklands campaign overnight transformed the world’s perception of the UK from a nation in terminal postwar decline to one which once again commanded international respect and propelled Margaret Thatcher onto the world stage.

Increasing global tensions also dictate that we need to increase our defence capabilities – and certainly not cut them. Since the 2010 review in which I was involved, and which was Treasury-driven as a consequence of the £160 billion budget deficit we inherited, much has happened. Take just two examples: in 2014 Russia annexed the Crimea. It did so with complete impunity notwithstanding the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, signed by John Major, under which the US, UK and Russia agreed to respect Ukraine’s borders in return for that country destroying its nuclear arsenal.

In the South China Sea, the Chinese Communist Party has persistently annexed uninhabited atolls, ownership of which is disputed with other nearby nations, and turned them into military bases. Again, it has done so with complete impunity, so it is hardly surprising China has taken advantage of Western paralysis to impose draconian new laws in Hong Kong. Britain has a locus: following our withdrawal from East of Suez in the 1960s, the UK drew up the Five Powers Defence Arrangement with Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Malaysia to safeguard the interests of the latter two.

Our failure to strengthen our defence posture poses the real risk of further instability worldwide.

Britain has an impressive defence industry which a Conservative government should be keen to nurture. For over a century the UK has been a world leader in aerospace and continue to hold that position today through companies like BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce but sustained by a broad and innovative SME sector. We are the second largest exporter of defence equipment, after the United States, which not only earns us annual revenues of around £15 billion but enables us to offer tangible support to our friends and allies.

“Buying off the shelf” in reality means buying from the US which is our closest military ally but a formidable competitor in the defence market which has in the past blocked UK military exports containing US components through its application of ITAR (International Trading in Armaments Regulations) restrictions.

As Labour Lord Drayson’s 2005 Defence Industrial Strategy stated, the loss of sovereign capability leads inevitably to loss of operational sovereignty, to which add the loss of those defence exports. The UK is an equity partner in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme, yet the US continues to deny us access to the computer source codes.

Fortunately, the UK has recognised the danger. The Tempest aircraft programme, which is ITAR-free, will deliver a sixth generation optionally manned capability, exploiting new disruptive technologies essential to tomorrow’s battle-winning capability.

It is led by BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce, supported by Thales UK, Leonardo and missile manufacturer MBDA together with around 600 UK SMEs and institutions. It will generate valuable, new UK technology and employ tens of thousands of skilled people, many in the North of England and Scotland. It is a statement of national intent which also makes economic sense.

The special challenge today is how to maintain effective conventional forces (we cannot expose ourselves to the risk of being outmanoeuvred as a result of having neglected those forces) whilst also developing tomorrow’s technology. You do not win wars using old equipment so investing in future technology like cyber and AI is essential. Funding for defence research has endured a persistent decline in the last two decades; that must change.

[Through no fault of its own, apart from our excellent Defence Secretary Ben Wallace, this Government lacks senior ministers with knowledge of, or experience in, the military. This review must not be rushed and expert advice should be sought and heeded.]

Inevitably, Covid-19 has thrown government financial planning into chaos. Nevertheless, it would be folly, and damaging to the PM’s critical post-Brexit vision for the United Kingdom, if he fails to acknowledge the long-term requirements of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.

Abandoning the three-year Comprehensive Spending Review will cause major problems for the MoD which manages an equipment programme stretching over several years. For example, the Tempest programme requires multi-year funding to maintain the confidence of our international partners that the UK remains committed to Tempest. It will also ensure the UK remains ahead of competitor programmes.

Conservatives hold that the first duty of government is defence of the Realm. Money has rightly been found to deal with the pandemic; it now needs to be found to ensure our national security and give credibility to that post-Brexit vision.

Philippa Stroud: The Coalition stopped officially measuring poverty – which left its successor unsightedover free schools meals

28 Oct

Philippa Stroud is Chief Executive Officer of the Legatum Institute, and leads the Social Metrics Commission.

Marcus Rashford presents the Conservative Party with a problem. No Conservative believes that any child in this country should ever go hungry, but we also want to build a society in which parents are able to earn enough to support their own children and, where that is not the case, in which there is a welfare state that supports those in need. These are our long-term objectives.

So what happens at a moment of crisis when there is a short-term need, and why has the call for the expansion of holiday provision of food and activities to support an additional 1.1 million children in the short term gathered such momentum?

In 2016, the Government abolished the old measure of poverty as an official measure. This means since that year it has been walking blind. Policy decisions have been made in a vacuum without a tool that shines a spotlight on the needs of the most disadvantaged.

The Government has made some great decisions, but without the certainty that what they are doing is hitting the target. Has poverty gone up? Is it plateauing? Until there is an agreed metric that tracks this, who can say?

That is why I launched the Social Metrics Commission (SMC) in 2016, drawing from left and right, and have proposed a new set of poverty metrics: to end the war on poverty measurement so that we could put our energy into working towards an effective poverty reduction strategy.

By the SMC measure, until the start of Covid-19, Conservatives could rightly declare that work was the best route out of poverty and, with record high levels of employment, this strategy was clearly effective, with 90 per cent of households where both adults work full time being out of poverty.

But during this global pandemic, the SMC measure also tells us it is those in deep poverty who are being most significantly impacted by the virus. Two in three (65 per cent) of those employed and in deep poverty prior to the crisis have seen reduced hours or earnings, been furloughed, and/or lost their job.

Although these numbers are not tracked by the Government, the public instinctively feels this to be the case. Locally, Conservatives know this too and are responding with short-term fixes.

The London borough of Kensington and Chelsea for example has promised £15 food vouchers over half-term for its 3,300 local children eligible for free school meals. Councillor Josh Rendall, the lead member for family and children’s services, said: “This is not a long-term solution but this is an exceptional year and we know it has been a tough one for many families.”

Conservatives have a good story to tell. Number 10 and 11 have worked tirelessly to put the entire resources of Government behind protecting the British people from Covid-19, including in the short term with increased support in the benefit system, the Job Retention (and soon Support) Scheme and, in the long term, through improved services for mental health and education, tackling the costs of housing and driving forward the levelling up agenda.

But in the absence of an effective poverty measure, we are unable to quantify the positive impact of all of these choices, gain credit for a comprehensive strategy on poverty, or identify whether there are short term challenges that still need to be addressed.

We need to be able to say that no child in Britain will go hungry on our watch – but we can’t. And we are allowing others to create a narrative for us, and in the absence of an agreed poverty measure and subsequent strategy, we always will. This does not need to be the case.

Had we had the SMC measure already in place, we would have been monitoring the impact of Covid-19 on the most vulnerable during this time of crisis. Had we adopted the SMC measure, we would have known in May that although the pandemic is hitting everyone, it is hitting those in deepest poverty the most and that short term measures may be required to see the poorest through this time.

It was Will Quince, a Work and Pensions Minister, who first announced that the department was taking forward the SMC measure of poverty and developing Experimental Statistics, back in May 2019. But even now, when accurate and timely data is needed more than ever, the work has stalled.

I know there will be some who will be nervous about a new measure of poverty, even one that has gained consensus across the political spectrum and already won the Government much political capital. But the measure is in effect a framework. It is the best way of capturing the “who” is in poverty – the “who” we need to be concerned about and looking out for. The Government can then decide where it wants to place its effort – so at a time like this it would have focused on those most impacted.

The Government could decide to focus on those who are moving in and out of poverty and close to the labour market (the top seven million). That is in effect what the £20 uplift has done in Universal Credit.

Or, it could decide to focus energy and resources on those in deep poverty – those who are 50 per cent below the poverty line (bottom 4.5 million). This is the most vulnerable group and where I would put my energy and effort at a time of national crisis. This is who many of the public thinks of as being in poverty, which is why they are so concerned now and why Rashford has received so much support.

I know that many Conservatives, like myself, came into politics because we were concerned about the long-term drivers of poverty. We feel deeply concerned about the most vulnerable in the nation. We know that poverty is about money, but that it is also about family, education and skills, debt, housing, sickness and disability, and employment. It is about the support being there when you need it so that you can get up and onto your own two feet again and find your own way out of poverty for you and your family.

This is a moment to take action in the short term – as the Government has been doing and still needs to do – but it is also a moment to get our house in order for the long term: to adopt the SMC poverty measure and build a comprehensive poverty strategy so that now and in the future we can say hand on heart, on our watch: no child went hungry.

Ryan Bourne: If you want to feed hungry children, don’t target food poverty. Aim to reduce poverty as a whole.

28 Oct

Ryan Bourne is Chair in Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute. 

Covid-19’s initial economic impact fell disproportionately on those least able to mitigate it. An Institute for Fiscal Studies paper in July found that single parents, low educated poor households, and ethnic minority groups suffered the worst relative hit. Since then, workers in low-wage services industries such as hospitality, transport, and retail, have faced both the worst of unexpected job losses and uncertainty about their income.

With this unique shock, it is unsurprising that a welfare state built around previous experiences has exhibited failures in protecting against hardship. Falling incomes, especially for those without savings or access to government benefits, have consequences. The Food Standards Agency reports greater food bank use, self-reported hunger, and families eating out-of-date produce.

That context is why the Government faces intense pressure over extending free school meals during school holidays through Easter 2021. Given the uncertainty around the efficacy of other government support, you can see the temptation to follow the advice of Iain Martin, who proposes caving to Marcus Rashford’s campaign again. Give the “£20m, handshake with Marcus R on steps of Number 10 on Monday and Royal Commission into child poverty,” Martin tweeted.

That defeat might seem a small price to pay to end the optics of opposing meals for hungry children, regardless of any questions you might have about the realities, or the desirability of extending the government scheme. As Isabel Hardman writes, the belief that Conservatives are insensitive to “food poverty,” coming first in righteous anger over food bank use in 2010-2015 and now “free” school meals, has hung around the Conservatives for a decade, whether fair or not.

Martin’s short-term solution, however, neglects that campaigners won’t be satiated by extending out-of-term meal vouchers to Easter 2021. Rashford’s campaign’s ultimate aim, remember, is to implement the Dimbleby Review, which would double the number of kids on benefit-triggered free school meals by extending eligibility to every child from a Universal Credit household (an extra 1.5 million kids.)

Crossbench peer Baroness D’Souza is already pushing for out-of-term meal vouchers to become a permanent feature. Combined, that would be billions of pounds, year on year, not tens of millions.

Come next year, no matter the labour market’s health, the Government will face the same criticism. If much of austerity taught us anything, it’s that even when acute need passes, wrapping up programmess will renew accusations that Conservatives “want to starve kids” by “snatching” their lunches.

Milton Friedman’s warning that “there’s nothing more permanent than a temporary government programme,” in part stems from recipients’ aversion to losses. A Royal Commission packed with do-gooders who examine food poverty in isolation will bring further demands for spending and diet control.

That is why, I suspect, some Conservative MPs vociferously oppose the Rashford campaign. It’s not heartlessness, or even this specific extension they oppose, but the precedent and direction of travel. They can foresee the vision of government this type of reflexive policymaking and its paternalistic particulars end with.

The problem for them is that they are on a hiding to nothing in claiming this specific measure risks creating longer-term “dependency” or “nationalising children” if the public think today’s needs are real. Conservatives who believe in a small, limited state have to have answers —about what responsibility the Government should have in dealing with hardship, what tools it should use, and what its role should be for those falling through gaps.

After ten years in government and riding cycles of support for the welfare state, there’s a lack of clarity in the Party’s position, with a mix of preferences among its MPs for income support, service provision, civil society solutions, and combinations of the three. There is a clear, principled alternative vision of how to deal with poverty if the Tories want it. But it requires getting off the fence.

That alternative would say that “food poverty” is not distinct from poverty. Free school meal campaigners are broadly right that hunger is not usually caused by parental fecklessness.

Therefore, logically, food poverty largely results from insufficient disposable income for some families. If widespread hunger is evidenced, the debate should therefore be about whether benefit levels or eligibility are sufficient to meet basic needs—the goal of a safety net welfare state.

This type of limited support that trusts people to use top-ups for the betterment of their families is vastly preferable to a paternalistic state stripping us of responsibility, through demeaning out-of-term food vouchers akin to U.S. style food stamps.

In deep unexpected crises, the case for additional emergency income relief is greater. But if there really is a more structural problem of hunger, then it demands examining why wages plus benefits are insufficient to deliver acceptable living standards. Rather than just look at benefits then, we should examine living costs, too—the poor spend disproportionately high amounts on housing, energy, food, clothing and footwear, and transport.

My former colleague Kristian Niemietz wrote a free-market anti-poverty agenda back in 2011, which I’ve pushed MPs to adopt since. He showed that market-friendly policies on housing (planning reform), food and clothes (free trade), energy (ending high-cost green regulations), childcare (reversing the credentialism and stringent ratios), and cutting sin taxes to economically-justified levels could shrink poverty by slashing the cost of living for the poor, so reducing food hardship, homelessness and more.

Most of this agenda would require no extra spending or busybodying from government paternalists; some of the policies would bring the double-dividend of raising wages .

The Government has ambitious policies in a number of these areas. But why are they never linked to the poverty discussions? As they press for planning liberalisation, why is nobody highlighting how cheaper housing would lessen these tales of distress? Why is nobody identifying the discrepancy of some campaigning about food poverty while opposing trade deals that would make food, clothes, and manufactured goods cheaper, to the huge relative betterment of poor consumers?

Sure, there would be families who make bad decisions and find themselves in trouble, even in a world of cheap and abundant housing and an effective safety net.

But instances of poverty owing to lack of resources would be much lower and these thornier challenges (often stemming from addictions, loss, ill-health, criminality and more) are much better identified by local charities and civil society groups anyway, as Danny Kruger argued in the Commons last week in relation to hinger. Giving nearly three million kids “free” school meals year-round would be an absolute sledgehammer to crack any remaining nut.

In today’s emotive debates, it’s not enough to just oppose proposals when the need is perceived as urgent. Conservatives must be better at re-setting the debate on their terms—a task much easier if they held a clear vision of the role and limits of state action.

Daniel Hannan: We need the Government’s estimate of the cost of the lockdown to lives and livelihoods

28 Oct

Daniel Hannan is a writer and columnist. He was a Conservative MEP from 1999 to 2020, and is now President of the Initiative for Free Trade.

It often happens in politics that you have to choose between disagreeable alternatives. If you do X, bad things will happen, and if you do Y, bad things will happen. Whichever option you pick, the media will then point to those bad things as evidence that you should have taken the other path. Commentators make little allowance for the concept of the lesser evil.

When an epidemic hits a country, all its options are unappealing. The only real choice its leaders have is where the blow should fall hardest. How much poverty and suffering should the general population suffer to prolong each threatened life?

For a long time, it was not acceptable in polite company to acknowledge that such a trade-off existed. Anyone who tried to point out that we made precisely this calculation every time we assessed a new treatment – that there was even a generic measure for the value of medical intervention, the Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) – was treated as some sort of granny-murderer.

And so, perhaps inevitably, governments around the world declared that they would protect their populations from the coronavirus “at any cost”, not stopping to consider what was implied by those three words. Even back in March, a handful of dissidents argued that, setting aside the cost to liberty and livelihood, a severe lockdown would also cost lives as other medical conditions went untreated.

But few wanted to listen. A bullying, moralising tone dominated the public debate. However gently critics tried to point out that the issue was not “lives versus the economy” but “lives versus lives”, they were portrayed as eugenicists.

The only real surprise was that a handful of places – Sweden, Brazil, Tanzania, some US states – defied the pressure. Almost everywhere else, governments did precisely what the early nineteenth-century economist Frédéric Bastiat would have predicted, prioritising “the seen” (the Covid fatality count) over “the unseen” (the other deaths, as well as the joblessness, the lost educational opportunities and so on).

But the unseen doesn’t remain unseen forever. The impact of the closures, initially muffled by a generous furlough scheme and a general sense of solidarity, is now being felt. Public opinion, hitherto solidly pro-lockdown is (you can feel it) about to shift. In such circumstances, refusing to quantify the costs is bad politics as well as bad policy.

In any case, “you all supported this at the time” never works as an excuse. Opinion polls showed support for ERM membership right up until our departure. They showed initial support for the invasion of Iraq. A fat lot of good that did John Major or Tony Blair after the event.

After an early over-reaction, the Government is now trying to be proportionate. Although Delingpole-level lockdown sceptics will never acknowledge it, most prohibitions were lifted on 4 July. Even in the most restricted parts of England, shops, schools and (with restrictions) pubs remain open. Contrast this to Wales – a snapshot of what the rest of the UK would look like if Labour were in office.

In the circumstances, ministers would be well-advised to take up the idea – pushed by ConservativeHome – of publishing estimates of the cost of the lockdown. Not just the direct costs. We need some sense of the impact on education, mental health and so on. “When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers,” said the brilliant Ulster mathematician Lord Kelvin, “you know something about it”.

Necessarily, some of the calculations will be difficult, some speculative. We can put a figure easily enough on the furlough scheme. We can measure the decline in GDP. We can quantify the direct cost to the Exchequer (over £200 billion – a figure that makes the famous £350 million a week on the side of that bus look trivial).

But what about the impact of, say, lost education? What about the chance that other diseases might become more widespread because of fewer childhood vaccinations? What is the difference in impact between Tier 2 and Tier 3 restrictions?

These questions are hard to answer, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a go. One reads that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak, wants the Government to assess them and to publish its findings. Let’s hope he gets his way.

Back in March, there was little time for such assessments: decisions were necessarily rushed, and schemes were put in place for what many imagined was a crisis that would be over by the summer. Nor, frankly, did anyone want to discuss the trade-offs. Simply to run the numbers would have been to invite the accusation that heartless Tories somehow cared more about an abstract thing called “the economy” than about people’s well-being.

That is no longer true. Now, it is Labour’s enthusiasm for lockdown – a position abandoned even by the WHO – that looks ideological. Publishing the figures will underline that the government is striving to be balanced. Never mind how it looks, though: better statistics will lead to better decisions. The only thing more callous than putting a value on human life is refusing to do so.

Robert Sutton: Conservatives have abandoned free market principles in the quest for environmentalism

27 Oct

Rob Sutton is an incoming junior doctor in Wales and a former Parliamentary staffer. He is a recent graduate of the University of Oxford Medical School.

A trend over the last decade in British politics has been a convergence of the major political parties towards near-consensus on environmental issues. Their thesis is that our current economic system will lead us towards environmental catastrophe; that the only way to avoid such catastrophe is radical innovation of that economic system; and that it must be the Government which leads this radical innovation.

Despite the impression given by media coverage and the doomsayers of the Twittersphere, these clauses are neither internally undisputed nor natural consequences of each other. Global warming is a generally accepted phenomenon, with a strong empirical basis in historic climate data and a convincing theoretical basis in our understanding of the physical chemistry of the atmosphere.

What is much less well understood is the future trajectory, the range of possible outcomes, and what policy positions might be inferred from those uncertain outcomes (for those unclear about the distinction between scientific models and reality, the current pandemic has given us some important lessons.)

That has not halted the political convergence on the necessity for urgent action. But for the Conservatives, the adoption of the rhetoric of climate catastrophism and the unquestioning call for an eco-friendly planned economy puts us in an internal ideological conflict with one of our most valued principles: that no central economic control can outperform the efficiency of the free market in exchanging resources, maximising returns on labour and assigning value to products and services. Government interventions invariably introduce inefficiencies. The best way to encourage innovation is for governments to cut regulations and generally stay out of the way.

Yet this principle seems to have taken a back seat as the proclamations of the most pessimistic of environmental oracles dominates the policy conversation. The proposals suggested in the 2019 Conservative manifesto pointed towards an economic intervention of a scale not attempted by any government since the Second World War. There is an assumption that the principle of the free market is flexible if the goal of the economic intervention is sufficiently noble.

One red flag was the apparent interchangeability of the major parties in their pledges for the 2019 general election. The Conservatives stood for “reaching Net Zero by 2050 with investment in clean energy solutions and green infrastructure to reduce carbon emissions and pollution” and “investing in R&D; decarbonisation schemes; new flood defences…; electric vehicle infrastructure…; and clean energy.” These enormous government spending plans were proposed despite the simultaneous claim that “we believe that free markets, innovation and prosperity can protect the planet.”

Labour had similar prescriptions: “More rewarding, well-paid jobs, lower energy bills and whole new industries to revive parts of our country,” while scalding Conservatives for “leav[ing] the fate of whole industries and communities at the mercy of market forces.” The Liberal Democrats predictably followed suit, but with the added promises to plant over 100 trees per minute for the foreseeable future and an entirely unenforceable “legally binding target” on emissions for future parliaments to promptly ignore.

None of these proposals recognises the true economic or human impact of such an artificial remodelling of our entire society. Nor have they provided concrete plans for how these radical transitions might be carried out (with job losses being strategically ignored.) And those new jobs which are flaunted are unlikely to be efficient or self-sustaining. Once government support is pulled, they have a habit of promptly drying up as the reality of weak demand sets in.

The Government has a moral obligation to take sensible steps to build a regulatory environment which supports the protection of our natural one. But there is no amount of cutting red tape which will make buying a Tesla instantly affordable to the masses or will allow electric vehicle charging points to pop up on every street corner overnight. The mass repurposing of territory for solar, wind and hydroelectric requires that land be taken from someone and kept for the foreseeable future.

These barriers cannot be lowered quickly through deregulation alone. There are considerable economic, technological and logistical problems. However much some argue for state intervention on an unprecedented scale to rebuild our economy as an eco-friendly arcadia, there is no way this can be done on a short time-scale without great pain and waste. The bloat of a government attempting to rebuild our entire economic machine in an idealist vision would be horrifying to anyone calling themselves a fiscal conservative.

Green conservatism’s flaws are tied to the ideological fragility of one-nationism. In trying to be all things to all people, we have sacrificed free market economics at the altar of environmental catastrophism. We have abandoned a basic principle of our ideology for a policy position which has yet to be clearly articulated. To embrace the radical goals of the environmental lobby would require imposing further market distortions at a time when the economy is already haemorrhaging from the self-inflicted wounds of the Government’s severe and unremitting Coronavirus response.

The current government has struggled to articulate a positive vision for environmental policy. As such, we are forced to act as a brake on the radical proposals of left-wing organisations who have the media and public rapt, slowing the movement but inevitably drawn in their direction.

Conservatism is about more than tempering the madness of the left. We need an honest and consistent position on this most pressing of policy issues. Facing up to the absurdity of our current inter-party arms race to see who can come up with the boldest pledge to save the planet would be a good place to start. Net zero by 2050 sounds nice but is conveniently beyond reproach or scrutiny for at least the next six parliamentary terms.

A transition to a low-carbon economy will happen at some point. The limit to the reserves of fossil fuels necessitates this. But it must happen organically. Using state aid to drive the transition is incompatible with innovation. The British automotive industry of the 1970s was an example of the stagnation which occurs when a government permits market distortions in order to achieve political means: the workers, consumers and companies each suffer.

Some would argue that the dichotomy between environmentally-motivated economic intervention and free markets is a false one and that we can, in some unspecified way, have our cake and eat it too. This implies a flexible understanding of at least one of these principles. Conservatives should advocate for a realistic and distinct stance on environmentalism, and one which does not require the sacrifice of our key principles.