EU cannot be serious...

I consider myself to be a pretty moderate Conservative. Although I'm broadly against the vast amount of bureaucracy that hits us from Brussels on a regular basis, I also see the benefits of remaining within the European Union and so am not often prone to fits of Euroskepticism.

That said, they're really pushing my patience at the moment with the news that they are trying to increase member states' contributions to the EU by 6%. A 6% rise in the money we give at a time when the majority of the EU states are under immense financial pressure? Thank you Herman van Rompuy!

The proposed rise lead to interesting scenes in Parliament yesterday, when 37 Conservative MPs supported an amendment by Douglas Carswell to reduce our payment to the EU. In doing so these MPs defied the Government whip, which was calling for support for an amendment to merely freeze the payment (which later passed).

I understand the Government's position on not being able to reduce our payment to the EU. According to Treasury Minister - the excellent Justine Greening - under the EU's own laws, this is illegal (see what they've done there?!) At the very least, I am glad that this Government is taking a sensible stance on Europe. It remains to be seen how our MEPs will react (particularly, as the Spectator blog mentions, the Labour MEPs), but I hope that the EU finally sees sense. In the 'age of austerity' Europe currently finds itself in, this is no time to start taking more money from countries facing difficult financial decisions on national services.

+++UPDATE+++

Interesting. I see from ConservativeHome that Justine Greening actually wanted to go further:

"We want to see the 2011 budget cut. The problem with the amendment is that if we withdrew our money from the EU, under its terms that would be illegal. We cannot support an amendment that would make our action illegal, so we will have to reject it, but I can tell my hon. Friend that if he had worded the provision slightly differently, we might well have been able to support both amendments. It is with regret that we have to reject his amendment, despite agreeing with its sentiments."

A Letter to the Guardian - Part 94

A proper blog with my thoughts on Conservative Party Conference to follow shortly, but first more amusement in this week's Epsom Guardian, where my letter of last week seems to have struck a nerve with Dr. Ted Bailey of Larkspur Way:

I bashed out a vague reply on the train this morning. It will obviously be cut down extensively should I choose to actually send it in, but I thought I would post it here for posterity.

It would take too long to ‘fisk’ Dr. Bailey’s letter (‘Speed and depth of public cuts doom us’) in its entirety, but I do offer these brief points by way of reply.

I do not view my projections for the private sector as unduly optimistic. The private sector created more than 300,000 jobs over the Summer months. The lowering of business rates and cancellation of NI for the first ten employees of any new company point to this pattern continuing.

Dr. Bailey is also wrong to suggest that the UK has seen ‘already savage cuts’ since the election. I know of no Governmental cuts to Sure Start since May. As to the cancellation of the BSF, if he wishes to defend such a bureaucratic monstrosity good luck to him. He will have to explain the merits of a school building scheme where it can often take three years to negotiate the planning process before the first brick is laid on the building itself; a scheme that saw costs rocket from £45 to 55bn due to consultant spend and red tape; and a scheme that was already three years behind schedule in 2009.

The countries he mentions in his letter as currently heading toward ‘double-dip’ recessions make my point for me, in that they are examples of what can go wrong if high spending is not restrained over a prolonged period of time. Interestingly, I was going to use Ireland as an example of a country which successfully managed to heavily reduce its spending whilst increasing economic growth, in the 1980s, but was unable to do so for reasons of space. I welcome the chance to do so now!

A final note. Alistair Darling did not propose a slower cuts programme, merely a smaller reduction over the same time-scale; 40% structural deficit reduction in 4yrs, rather than total reduction as the current Government is planning for. However, with current interest rates on our debt coming in at over £100m per day, I believe cutting our debt completely in this time-frame is no longer an aspiration of an Opposition – it is a necessity of Government.

James Tarbit

Deputy Chair, Political

Epsom and Ewell Conservative Future

P.s. For the record, Conservative Future is the section of the Conservative Party for under-30 year olds. With a membership of approximately 20,000, it is the largest youth political organisation in the UK.

Conservative Future - Regional Control?

London Spin has the scoop on the new Conservative Future Chairman, Ben Howlett's plans to decentralise power to the Regional Chairman of CF.

Creating Regional Chairmen was one of the most logical things that Michael Rock managed during his time at the helm. Mirroring the senior Party in this way ensured a much greater co-ordination between the two groups, and aided in the relationship-building that CF has managed with CCHQ/CRO.

Howlett's plans make a lot of sense. It has always been a Conservative instinct to avoid centralised control wherever possible, and the idea of allowing regional Chairs to get on with things is an attractive one. He will have to ensure, however, that they take up the opportunity he is providing.

As with any voluntary organisation, you get differing levels of activity depending on how much time people can afford to offer. As a result, at times certain regions have felt a bit bereft of direction, with RCs more than a little distant. The lack of opposition at a regional level in many areas during the CF elections is also cause for concern. People always step up to the plate where there is a bit of competition.

Let's hope that the RCs take the chance they have been given, and run with it. Activity and interest levels can only increase further if they do.

Impressive Ed

Ok, alright, I admit it. Ed Miliband has impressed me.

The election of the Shadow Cabinet was always going to be heavily scrutinised to see how much of a break with the past Labour MPs were willing to stomach in the face of such a forthright speech from their new Leader.

It's a curious situation to have to be in - wanting to take your Party forward, and to stamp your authority on your appointments, but still being hamstrung by Labour's rather torturous election regulations. Full credit, then, to Miliband Jnr. for acting to ensure that Nick Brown, one of the archetypal links to Gordon Brown, will not be contesting the Chief Whip position.

There were those that said that in electing Ed, rather than David Miliband, Labour were lumbering themselves with the more ineffective brother. This kind of ruthlessness, however, is hardly the mark of an ineffective leader. Instead, it is reminiscent of the swift changes David Cameron made to change the focus of the Conservative Party after he came to power in 2005. After a slightly lukewarm Conference speech, it seems the Leader of the Opposition is finding his feet. Interesting...

A Letter to the Guardian - Brown vs. Darling II?

This letter appeared in last week's Epsom Guardian:

Quite apart from the fact that they didn't have the courage of their convictions to actually sign their name (though I can probably have a stab at the author), I felt the letter warranted a reply. I wrote into the Guardian, and am hoping to have my letter printed tomorrow. For the purposes of space, I had to reduce my original argument by about half, so the longer version is included below.

Personally, I think it is extremely foolish for Labour to continue to frame their economic argument in the crass terms of 'cuts vs. investment', though I imagine those like Ed Balls will continue to do. Given Ed Miliband used his debut speech yesterday to state that the Opposition will not fight against cuts they think are necessary/right, it brings up an interesting point of conflict between the two. Balls' name is, of course, being widely touted for the Shadow Chancellorship. Surely Labour would not get themselves into another situation where the Leader is saying one thing, and the Shadow Chancellor is thinking something different?

Anyway - the letter:

I read with interest the anonymous contribution in your last issue, (‘Budget Will Put People Out of Work‘).

The letter, as with much of Labour’s reaction to the Emergency Budget, seems to be based on the fallacy – in part put forward by a recent Institute of Fiscal Studies report - that cuts in the public sector will automatically lead to vast, lasting unemployment. A closed argument that fails to take account of the Coalition’s welfare and business policies; the emphasis placed on getting people off benefits and back into the workplace, and on rebalancing our economy.

This economic recovery will be one fostered within the private sector, and to ignore this forms a circular argument that implies the public sector is the only possible workplace in this country. Given the grossly swollen public sector that they inherited, with its accompanying pension liabilities to the tune of £1 trillion, not included in any Labour deficit projections, shifting the balance away from the public sector would seem sensible, and crass attacks such as this are unhelpful.

The argument also seems to fly in the face of the figures. The UK’s GDP grew by 1.2 per cent in the last quarter. The additional cuts announced by the Coalition that your writer finds so unpalatable amount to 0.1 per cent of GDP by quarter. Cutting in this way is not a cut in economic revival, it is merely a cut in the size of the State. A European Commission study on defecit reduction found that out of 74 consolidations, economic growth accelerated in 43 cases. You need only look at the examples of Finland and Sweden to see the benefits of growth in this way.

However, this private sector recovery will not succeed if, as your writer alleges, the Government is ‘pulling the plug’ on business. I think a local example will serve to oppose this. When the local franchise of Puccino’s risked going out of business due to rent increases, it was the Coalition’s rate cuts that ensured it could keep trading. Cuts in business rates to small and large businesses alike are offering real support whilst the recovery gets underway.

In a week when the IMF has said the Government’s plans for defecit reduction are ‘strong, credible and essential’; in a month when Moody’s Investors Service has endorsed George Osborne and stated that not sticking to his plans could affect our AAA credit rating; in a Conference season where Alistair Darling comes out in favour of a strong deficit reduction plan, it seems a nonsense to view the economic measures currently being taken by the Coalition as ‘reckless’. What this country needed after thirteen years of fiscal profligacy and staggering beurocracy was a Government prepared to take the tough decisions in order to ensure economic revival. In the Coalition government, I feel we have it.

James Tarbit
Deputy Chairman, Political
Epsom and Ewell Conservative Future

P.S. There is one thing the writer and I can agree on, however; their analysis of why ‘most people join the Tory party’ – because they wish a smaller state. After thirteen years of beurocratic interference with front-line services and degradation of civil liberties, I think many people would sympathise!

CF Elections

For the past four months or so Conservative Future, the 'youth' wing of our Party, have been going through an elections process to decide who will form the new National Executive Committee. Given the Conservatives are now in power, these roles are not unimportant.

Today the ballot closed. The results were as follows:

Chairman - Ben Howlett

Deputy Chairman (Membership) - Clare Hilley

Deputy Chairman (Political) - Alexandra Swann

Appointed Officer - James Deighton

As I voted for all four of them I am delighted that they were successful in their campaigns, however the number of ballots returned for the contest left me staggered.

Take the Chairmanship; Ben Howlett gained 113 votes. Craig Cox, the second-placed candidate, got 60. That's 173 votes. Put more contextually, that's 173 votes out of an alleged CF membership of 20,000.

20,000 members - 173 votes

Let's have a look at another of the positions. James Deighton gained 72 votes. Patrick Sullivan, the second-placed candidate, got 70. Now I voted for James Deighton. If I had switched my vote, that would have meant an instant tie between the two...and they say that the Unions had too much power in the Labour Leadership contest!

That so few people were able to vote in this election is a travesty. Running an election over the University holidays automatically stopped 1,000s of members from voting. Added to that, there were huge issues with missing or incomplete data, with little or no responsibility seemingly being taken by CCHQ. I for one had to push extremely hard for my ballot, with several e-mails and phone calls before it came through last Thursday (the final day of posting to hit today's 12 noon deadline).

I am sure Ben will have many constraints on his time in his new position. One priority, though, must be to address these issues. Promising to run further elections in the Spring will solve the University problem, but a membership without valid membership data is no basis upon which to build a strong campaigning force. Best start updating Merlin...

Litmus - Rainbow Coalition Blogging

Coalitions come in many shapes and sizes. If the one put together in May took people by surprise, then how about a combination of Tim Montgomerie, Will Straw, and Dr. Mark Pack to add to the confusion. Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat hand-in-hand? Whatever next!

This powerhouse combination, though, is not holding sway at Westminster but rather in the publication of a new political magazine for the Conference season, Litmus.

Quite aside from the clever name, Litmus promises to be a very interesting publication. A partnership between three major blogs – Conservative Home, Left Foot Forward, and LibDem Voice, it has considerable clout when polling for contributors, with Tom Watson, Lynne Featherstone, Damian Green and Chris Huhne amongst the commentators on topics as diverse as Immigration, Climate Change, and Electoral Reform.

I was particularly interested to read David Boyle’s argument on income tax. Disregarding the LibDem insistence on progressive taxation, he instead called for a movement away from income tax to a programme of corporate reform and energy taxes.

“Increasing income tax these days just serves to entrench the separation of the mega-rich”

Indeed!

Thought has also evidently gone into distribution strategy. The first issue of Litmus is available for free if you promote it for them on Twitter; very savvy. With no cost involved, there seems little more to say other than go get it.