conservativehome--2020-01-17--Iain Dale: The time has come to dig up Cameron’s green tree

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and is a commentator for CNN .
After the election , I was chatting to a friend and said one of the ways that the Conservatives could show their commitment to people in the north was to open some regional branches of CCHQ .
Maybe in Manchester , Leeds , Newcastle and Birmingham ( OK , I know Birmingham is not in the north , but you get the point ) .
But not for one minute did I think they ’ d be seriously thinking about moving the whole of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they .
Moving the entire organisation out of London is a preposterous idea .
London is and will remain the centre of our politics and our government , so it makes eminent sense for the HQs of all political parties to have their central offices there .
To locate them anywhere else would be seen as virtue signalling and gratuitous .
To open regional offices with half or dozen or so employees would surely be the more sensible option .
This is the equivalent of the BBC deciding to locate Radio 5 Live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no other reason that it shut people up who alleged they had a southern bias .
5 Live has become a shadow of its former self since it moved to Salford and BBC Breakfast finds it difficult to attract live guests to Salford – and even if it does , it costs an arm and a leg to get them there by train and then provide a hotel for them .
I hope the Conservative Party consigns this proposal to the dustbin it belongs in , and instead comes up with a revised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to manage constituency agents and campaign managers and also have a research facility which can feed regional policy ideas into the centre .
It doesn ’ t really need to be more complicated than that .
Carrying on the theme of a new era for the Conservative Party and the country , it is surely time for the party to revamp the tree logo .
Well , when I say revamp , I mean replace .
I don ’ t think it ’ s a logo the party has ever taken to its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The tree has always been seen as a sop to David Cameron ’ s green agenda , although of late it ’ s taken on a Union Flag tinge .
Maybe ConHome should challenge its readers to come up with a new design ?
I have written before in this column about the iniquitous Loan Charge scheme , in which HMRC chase independent contractors for 20 years ’ back tax .
Jesse Norman has announced measures to combat some of the worst effects of the scheme , but they don ’ t go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is continuing to put pressure on him to go further , and I hope that it is successful .
But there ’ s another problem of a similar nature on the horizon .
In April , the Government is introducing changes to the IR35 legislation , forcing self-employed people to be taxed in exactly the same way as employed people .
This is utterly ridiculous , given that self-employed people don ’ t get the same benefits as employed people – such as holiday pay , entitlement , sick pay , maternity pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of people who will be forced out of business by this ridiculous change , which is driven by people who have no understanding of the enterprise economy .
For a Conservative government to impose these measures really is the last straw for many people .
It ’ s supposed to understand the needs and aspirations of the self-employed and those who run small businesses .
I do hope that Sajid Javid will think again , and in his March Budget announce a rollback of these measures .
Watching the Labour Party leadership contest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an imminent car crash but being powerless to stop it .
I shall be careful what I say , gsince I hope to be interviewing all the contenders on my radio show over the next few weeks , but so far can anyone really say that any of them have shown any real comprehension of why the Labour Party has landed up in the situation it finds itself in ?
It ’ s as if they are playing the role of an ostrich in a Christmas pantomime .
Some of them think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have failed to articulate any policy that is different to the one Labour fought the last election on .
There is no understanding of why so many former Labour voters switched to the Tories .
Four of the five are almost certain to want to change the party ’ s policy to one of Remain , but they don ’ t understand that this ship has now sailed .
Once we ’ ve left in just two weeks ’ time , that ’ s it .
There ’ s no going back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If they really want to fight the next election on a Rejoin platform , well , I wish them the best of luck , because boy will they need it .
So where will you be and what will you be doing to mark our departure from the European Union at 11pm on Friday 31 January ?
I fail to give a monkey ’ s wotsit about whether Big Ben will be donging or bonging at 11pm , but I quite agree that those who voted Leave are perfectly entitled to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s the culmination of a lifetime ’ s work .
As you know , I voted Leave and am just pleased and relieved that the people ’ s choice in the referendum will now finally be carried out .
Will I be celebrating ?
It will be a bit difficult , given that I will be driving up the M5 , where I will have been compering an evening with Jonathan Dimbleby at the Northcott Theatre in Exeter .
If you live in the South West and would like to join us , @ @ @ @ @ @

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and is a commentator for CNN.
After the election, I was chatting to a friend and said one of the ways that the Conservatives could show their commitment to people in the north was to open some regional branches of CCHQ.
Maybe in Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle and Birmingham (OK, I know Birmingham is not in the north, but you get the point). But not for one minute did I think they’d be seriously thinking about moving the whole of CCHQ somewhere else.
And nor should they. Moving the entire organisation out of London is a preposterous idea. London is and will remain the centre of our politics and our government, so it makes eminent sense for the HQs of all political parties to have their central offices there.
To locate them anywhere else would be seen as virtue signalling and gratuitous. To open regional offices with half or dozen or so employees would surely be the more sensible option. This is the equivalent of the BBC deciding to locate Radio 5 Live and BBC Breakfast in Salford – for no other reason that it shut people up who alleged they had a southern bias.
5 Live has become a shadow of its former self since it moved to Salford and BBC Breakfast finds it difficult to attract live guests to Salford – and even if it does, it costs an arm and a leg to get them there by train and then provide a hotel for them.
I hope the Conservative Party consigns this proposal to the dustbin it belongs in, and instead comes up with a revised proposal, which would enable regional offices to manage constituency agents and campaign managers and also have a research facility which can feed regional policy ideas into the centre. It doesn’t really need to be more complicated than that.
– – – – – – – – – –
Carrying on the theme of a new era for the Conservative Party and the country, it is surely time for the party to revamp the tree logo.
Well, when I say revamp, I mean replace. I don’t think it’s a logo the party has ever taken to its heart, unlike its Torch predecessor.
The tree has always been seen as a sop to David Cameron’s green agenda, although of late it’s taken on a Union Flag tinge. Maybe ConHome should challenge its readers to come up with a new design?
– – – – – – – – – –
I have written before in this column about the iniquitous Loan Charge scheme, in which HMRC chase independent contractors for 20 years’ back tax.
Jesse Norman has announced measures to combat some of the worst effects of the scheme, but they don’t go nearly far enough. A Parliamentary campaign is continuing to put pressure on him to go further, and I hope that it is successful.
But there’s another problem of a similar nature on the horizon. In April, the Government is introducing changes to the IR35 legislation, forcing self-employed people to be taxed in exactly the same way as employed people.
This is utterly ridiculous, given that self-employed people don’t get the same benefits as employed people – such as holiday pay, entitlement, sick pay, maternity pay etc.
There are legions of examples of people who will be forced out of business by this ridiculous change, which is driven by people who have no understanding of the enterprise economy.
For a Conservative government to impose these measures really is the last straw for many people. It’s supposed to understand the needs and aspirations of the self-employed and those who run small businesses. I do hope that Sajid Javid will think again, and in his March Budget announce a rollback of these measures.
– – – – – – – – – –
Watching the Labour Party leadership contest is a bit like having a premonition of an imminent car crash but being powerless to stop it.
I shall be careful what I say, gsince I hope to be interviewing all the contenders on my radio show over the next few weeks, but so far can anyone really say that any of them have shown any real comprehension of why the Labour Party has landed up in the situation it finds itself in?
It’s as if they are playing the role of an ostrich in a Christmas pantomime. Some of them think it was all about Brexit – yet they have failed to articulate any policy that is different to the one Labour fought the last election on.
There is no understanding of why so many former Labour voters switched to the Tories. Four of the five are almost certain to want to change the party’s policy to one of Remain, but they don’t understand that this ship has now sailed.
Once we’ve left in just two weeks’ time, that’s it. There’s no going back – not for a generation at least. If they really want to fight the next election on a Rejoin platform, well, I wish them the best of luck, because boy will they need it.
– – – – – – – – – –
So where will you be and what will you be doing to mark our departure from the European Union at 11pm on Friday 31 January?
I fail to give a monkey’s wotsit about whether Big Ben will be donging or bonging at 11pm, but I quite agree that those who voted Leave are perfectly entitled to a celebration. For many, it’s the culmination of a lifetime’s work.
As you know, I voted Leave and am just pleased and relieved that the people’s choice in the referendum will now finally be carried out.
Will I be celebrating? It will be a bit difficult, given that I will be driving up the M5, where I will have been compering an evening with Jonathan Dimbleby at the Northcott Theatre in Exeter. If you live in the South West and would like to join us, you can book tickets here.


conservativehome--2020-01-17--Stephen Baines: Residents in Calderdale deserve good frontline services, not wasteful vanity project

Stephen Baines: Residents in Calderdale deserve good frontline services, not wasteful vanity projects

Cllr Stephen Baines is the Deputy Leader of the Conservative Group on Calderdale Council The General Election of 2019 has crystallised trends , both nationally and locally , that we have been seeing for some time .
Constituents are no longer voting based upon traditional class boundaries .
Under Boris Johnson , Conservatives in Calderdale have seen our vote hold up in traditional Conservative areas , whilst working class and deprived polling districts , previously Labour strongholds , have abandoned Labour under Corbyn .
People who traditionally identified with Labour have said ‘ No ’ to the divisive , polarising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far-left and increasingly London-centric party , ruled by the cosmopolitan elites .
On the doorstep , we heard the same messages again and again .
We want Brexit done .
The electorate wanted closure ; an end to the debate , an end to the parliamentary paralysis , an end to the division – not just nationally , but within local communities .
People felt betrayed .
For years we saw voter turnout decline .
There was growing apathy .
Often you will hear from constituents who don ’ t vote , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when offered the opportunity to more directly participate in democracy , as they did in the referendum , they turned out in droves – 71 per cent in Calderdale .
This was repeated again at December when they were asked whether they wanted more dither and delay or just to get it done , there was a 73 per cent turn-out in Calder Valley .
Locally , we have had fewer elected councillors than Labour from 2012 .
Since then we have suffered under a Lib Dem/Lab coalition and now overall Labour control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gone on a spending spree .
Racking up millions of pounds of “ prudential borrowing ” indebting future generations of residents by speculating on supposed investment returns that never seem to materialise .
Labour has paid lip service to the environment by creating a paid position as “ Cabinet Member for Climate Change and the Environment ” and by declaring a climate emergency .
Yet it has failed repeatedly for over a decade to tackle Air Quality Management Areas ( AQMAs ) where air quality fails national targets .
Calderdale ranks poorly in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caused as a result of air pollution , something compounded by the Labour Government ’ s promotion of diesel vehicles , and the failure of Labour locally to invest in our highways .
Disregarding this to the detriment of the health of the borough ’ s population , they have planned to build hundreds of houses in areas already suffering extreme traffic congestion and air pollution .
This is despite the local outcry over the loss of our Green Belt , the dangerous air pollution and pressure on local infrastructure and services .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the highest rates of empty houses in the North .
In 2015 , we saw how the Boxing Day floods were devastating for the Calder Valley .
Craig Whittaker MP managed to secure £30 million of central government funding , something for which Calderdale ’ s Labour Party and its councillors seem to perversely claim credit .
We see very little substance from the Council however when it comes to the basics of preventing flooding – culverts and drains are left blocked and there has been insufficient tree planting within the Borough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left neglected .
Begging and petty crime have increased , parking is costly and business rates remain high creating an environment where shops are left vacant or are given up to non-rate paying charity shops that attract few shoppers .
The Council cuts spending on maintaining the highstreet or pushes the costs onto businesses , making matters worse .
During the last decade , the Conservative Group has repeatedly voted to cut the cost of politics by reducing the number of councillors on the Council and reducing the payments they receive – something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrat and Labour councillors intent on keeping their perks and keeping their workload down .
These same Lib Dem and Labour candidates have presided over massive frontline staff reductions and an increase in senior management pay .
The Lib/Lab and Labour administrations here at Calderdale have been characterised by steep increases in council tax combined with deep cuts to front line services .
Labour has been very vocal about central government cuts and blames their inability to provide the basics that Councils were set up to provide , on these .
Yet despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at each Council meeting there always seems to be spare pots of money for local vanity projects .
Millions have been spent revamping the Piece Hall , Princess Buildings , and Northgate House .
Even the Mixenden Hub Project gets revived and exhumed around election time but it is yet to materialise .
In May there are 17 seats up for grabs .
Whilst we may not take control of the Council , we can make a substantial inroad into making Calderdale Council work for its residents rather than the other way round @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choices : A Labour Council that seems to want to dabble in national politics ; self-promote and cut rather than deliver frontline services ; borrow residents money to fund vanity projects that prop up the careers of its local politicians whilst forgetting what it is there to do .
Or a Conservative Council that will deliver the frontline services they ask for – bin collections , clean streets , working street lights , and filled-in potholes .
All whilst reducing the costs of local bureaucracy , including the cost of councillors ; reducing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Council Tax low .

Cllr Stephen Baines is the Deputy Leader of the Conservative Group on Calderdale Council
The General Election of 2019 has crystallised trends, both nationally and locally, that we have been seeing for some time. Constituents are no longer voting based upon traditional class boundaries. Under Boris Johnson, Conservatives in Calderdale have seen our vote hold up in traditional Conservative areas, whilst working class and deprived polling districts, previously Labour strongholds, have abandoned Labour under Corbyn. People who traditionally identified with Labour have said ‘No’ to the divisive, polarising, and patronising politics of a perversely far-left and increasingly London-centric party, ruled by the cosmopolitan elites.
On the doorstep, we heard the same messages again and again. We want Brexit done. The electorate wanted closure; an end to the debate, an end to the parliamentary paralysis, an end to the division – not just nationally, but within local communities. People felt betrayed.
For years we saw voter turnout decline. There was growing apathy. Often you will hear from constituents who don’t vote, that all politicians are the same. But when offered the opportunity to more directly participate in democracy, as they did in the referendum, they turned out in droves – 71 per cent in Calderdale. This was repeated again at December when they were asked whether they wanted more dither and delay or just to get it done, there was a 73 per cent turn-out in Calder Valley.
Locally, we have had fewer elected councillors than Labour from 2012. Since then we have suffered under a Lib Dem/Lab coalition and now overall Labour control. During this time the Council has gone on a spending spree. Racking up millions of pounds of “prudential borrowing” indebting future generations of residents by speculating on supposed investment returns that never seem to materialise.
Labour has paid lip service to the environment by creating a paid position as “Cabinet Member for Climate Change and the Environment” and by declaring a climate emergency. Yet it has failed repeatedly for over a decade to tackle Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) where air quality fails national targets. Calderdale ranks poorly in national statistics for the number of deaths caused as a result of air pollution, something compounded by the Labour Government’s promotion of diesel vehicles, and the failure of Labour locally to invest in our highways. Disregarding this to the detriment of the health of the borough’s population, they have planned to build hundreds of houses in areas already suffering extreme traffic congestion and air pollution. This is despite the local outcry over the loss of our Green Belt, the dangerous air pollution and pressure on local infrastructure and services. All this whilst the borough has one of the highest rates of empty houses in the North.
In 2015, we saw how the Boxing Day floods were devastating for the Calder Valley. Craig Whittaker MP managed to secure £30 million of central government funding, something for which Calderdale’s Labour Party and its councillors seem to perversely claim credit. We see very little substance from the Council however when it comes to the basics of preventing flooding – culverts and drains are left blocked and there has been insufficient tree planting within the Borough.
The local high streets have been left neglected. Begging and petty crime have increased, parking is costly and business rates remain high creating an environment where shops are left vacant or are given up to non-rate paying charity shops that attract few shoppers. The Council cuts spending on maintaining the highstreet or pushes the costs onto businesses, making matters worse.
During the last decade, the Conservative Group has repeatedly voted to cut the cost of politics by reducing the number of councillors on the Council and reducing the payments they receive – something that has drawn stiff opposition from Liberal Democrat and Labour councillors intent on keeping their perks and keeping their workload down. These same Lib Dem and Labour candidates have presided over massive frontline staff reductions and an increase in senior management pay.
The Lib/Lab and Labour administrations here at Calderdale have been characterised by steep increases in council tax combined with deep cuts to front line services. Labour has been very vocal about central government cuts and blames their inability to provide the basics that Councils were set up to provide, on these. Yet despite the grim sermons by the Labour Group at each Council meeting there always seems to be spare pots of money for local vanity projects. Millions have been spent revamping the Piece Hall, Princess Buildings, and Northgate House. Even the Mixenden Hub Project gets revived and exhumed around election time but it is yet to materialise.
In May there are 17 seats up for grabs. Whilst we may not take control of the Council, we can make a substantial inroad into making Calderdale Council work for its residents rather than the other way round.
For residents there will be two choices:
A Labour Council that seems to want to dabble in national politics; self-promote and cut rather than deliver frontline services; borrow residents money to fund vanity projects that prop up the careers of its local politicians whilst forgetting what it is there to do.
Or a Conservative Council that will deliver the frontline services they ask for – bin collections, clean streets, working street lights, and filled-in potholes. All whilst reducing the costs of local bureaucracy, including the cost of councillors; reducing borrowing against the borough; and keeping Council Tax low.


conservativehome--2020-01-16--Henry Hill: New decade, old story? Smith’s Stormont deal under fire from Tory MPs and Ulster parties

Smith strikes Stormont deal… but questions raised over trade , veterans , and cash Earlier this week , the Prime Minister praised the “ huge progress ” signified by the return , after an absence of almost three years , of devolved government in Northern Ireland .
All five of the main Northern Irish parties have agreed to restore the Assembly and join the Executive – leaving just three MLAs to serve as the opposition .
But less than a week on , cracks are already starting to appear in the facade of the ‘ New Decade , New Approach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote earlier this week , the deal has troubling implications for other parts of the Government ’ s strategy .
The commitment to press ahead with legacy investigations has already sounded alarm bells amongst “ senior Tory MPs ” , including James Gray and Iain Duncan Smith , about the implications for Boris Johnson ’ s commitment to protecting ex-servicemen who served in the Province from ‘ vexatious ’ trials .
Johnny Mercer , the Veterans Minister , has acknowledged that there will be “ a lot of questions ” , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he will protect British troops , but it is difficult to see how that circle can be squared .
Likewise it isn ’ t at all obvious that the Government ’ s commitment to ensuring frictionless access to the mainland market for Northern Irish businesses can be reconciled with Johnson ’ s stated determination to go for a low-alignment Brexit .
But he is also facing a backlash from the Northern Irish parties themselves – inevitably , over money .
The Government ’ s pledges to the Province , including Barnett consequentials , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less than the £5 billion some are suggesting is the real cost of addressing Ulster ’ s challenges and less than the parties claim they were promised .
Of course , having already gone back into the Assembly there isn ’ t all that much said parties are likely able to do about it – and in the aftermath of the ‘ cash for ash ’ scandal it is perfectly just for the Treasury to take a close interest in what is spent on Stormont .
The Scottish Conservative leadership race is underway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ballantye are setting out their stalls for members .
I wrote last week about Carlaw ’ s bid to establish his credentials as the herald of a new , ‘ blue-collar ’ conservatism .
This has clearl struck a chord , as Ballantyne has this week penned an op-ed for the Scotsman in which she too promises such a ‘ revolution ’ .
Meanwhile Carlaw , who has served as interim leader since Ruth Davidson stepped down and is the front-runner , has started putting meat on the bones of his pitch .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Daily Record reports that his programme has shifted towards a heavier emphasis on devolved policy areas such as health , schools , universities , and broadband .
This is a welcome move .
Whilst the Tories have revived their fortunes north of the border by rallying around the constitutional question , a more detailed programme not only demonstrates a seriousness about Government but would also leave the Party much better equipped to attack the Scottish Government ’ s underwhelming record at the next Holyrood elections .
…as Johnson and Jack hold firm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Government is holding to its tough line on a second referendum , with Johnson telling the Nationalists to “ change the record ” when asked about it in the Commons .
Alister Jack , the Scottish Secretary , went even further , defining the Government ’ s understanding of “ once in a generation ” as that there should not be another referendum whilst Nicola Sturgeon is First Minister – or even during her lifetime !
In return the SNP have accused ministers of abandoning the Smith Commission agreement , drawn up in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make good on the constitutional retreat promised by David Cameron in his panicked ‘ Vow ’ .

Smith strikes Stormont deal… but questions raised over trade, veterans, and cash
Earlier this week, the Prime Minister praised the “huge progress” signified by the return, after an absence of almost three years, of devolved government in Northern Ireland.
All five of the main Northern Irish parties have agreed to restore the Assembly and join the Executive – leaving just three MLAs to serve as the opposition. But less than a week on, cracks are already starting to appear in the facade of the ‘New Decade, New Approach’ arrangement.
First, as I wrote earlier this week, the deal has troubling implications for other parts of the Government’s strategy. The commitment to press ahead with legacy investigations has already sounded alarm bells amongst “senior Tory MPs”, including James Gray and Iain Duncan Smith, about the implications for Boris Johnson’s commitment to protecting ex-servicemen who served in the Province from ‘vexatious’ trials. Johnny Mercer, the Veterans Minister, has acknowledged that there will be “a lot of questions”, and the Prime Minister has this morning signalled that he will protect British troops, but it is difficult to see how that circle can be squared.
Likewise it isn’t at all obvious that the Government’s commitment to ensuring frictionless access to the mainland market for Northern Irish businesses can be reconciled with Johnson’s stated determination to go for a low-alignment Brexit.
But he is also facing a backlash from the Northern Irish parties themselves – inevitably, over money. The Government’s pledges to the Province, including Barnett consequentials, add up to £2 billion – much less than the £5 billion some are suggesting is the real cost of addressing Ulster’s challenges and less than the parties claim they were promised.
Of course, having already gone back into the Assembly there isn’t all that much said parties are likely able to do about it – and in the aftermath of the ‘cash for ash’ scandal it is perfectly just for the Treasury to take a close interest in what is spent on Stormont.
Carlaw and Ballantyne compete for ‘blue collar’ programme…
The Scottish Conservative leadership race is underway, and both Jackson Carlaw and Michelle Ballantye are setting out their stalls for members.
I wrote last week about Carlaw’s bid to establish his credentials as the herald of a new, ‘blue-collar’ conservatism. This has clearl struck a chord, as Ballantyne has this week penned an op-ed for the Scotsman in which she too promises such a ‘revolution’.
Meanwhile Carlaw, who has served as interim leader since Ruth Davidson stepped down and is the front-runner, has started putting meat on the bones of his pitch. In addition to stressing his experience, the Daily Record reports that his programme has shifted towards a heavier emphasis on devolved policy areas such as health, schools, universities, and broadband.
This is a welcome move. Whilst the Tories have revived their fortunes north of the border by rallying around the constitutional question, a more detailed programme not only demonstrates a seriousness about Government but would also leave the Party much better equipped to attack the Scottish Government’s underwhelming record at the next Holyrood elections.
…as Johnson and Jack hold firm against the Nationalists
Meanwhile in London the Government is holding to its tough line on a second referendum, with Johnson telling the Nationalists to “change the record” when asked about it in the Commons. Alister Jack, the Scottish Secretary, went even further, defining the Government’s understanding of “once in a generation” as that there should not be another referendum whilst Nicola Sturgeon is First Minister – or even during her lifetime!
In return the SNP have accused ministers of abandoning the Smith Commission agreement, drawn up in the aftermath of the 2014 vote to make good on the constitutional retreat promised by David Cameron in his panicked ‘Vow’.


conservativehome--2020-01-18--The Commons should vote on the Big Ben bing bang bong bung

One might have expected a big noisy Vote Leave celebratory extravaganza on the evening of January 31 .
There will be a few private events from that quarter .
But no large public one .
Perhaps the mass of the pro-Brexit movement feels that it has gained the result it wanted – doubly so given December ’ s election result – and that it must be up bright and early , on February 1 , to roll up its sleeves to work on national renewal .
Which would not be easily married to partying late the previous night .
Or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ultra-Remainers ’ noses in it .
Or maybe there is a sense of exhaustion .
Who knows ?
At any rate , this is the context in which to see the campaign to ring Big Ben at 11pm on January 31 , with all the bing bang bong opportunities it has given to Fleet Street ’ s headline writers .
Mark Francois and company want to bung , ho ho , £500,000 to the body responsible for making a decision – namely the House of Commons Commission – the apparent cost of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that time .
We doubt the real bill is anything as high as that .
For as we all know , it ’ s wonderful what a committee can do when it ’ s willing .
The Commission says that there is no precedent for taking the money – although statues have sometimes been funded by public subscription and room found for them by public authorities .
But where there ’ s no will , as in this case , there is also no way – even though Boris Johnson has broken cover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ write , the whole business is going round in circles .
Francois is still raising funds and has reached roughly half his target .
The Commission points to the Government , with some suggesting that if the Prime Minister really wants Big Ben to bong , the taxpayer should stump up .
Meanwhile , the Government points back at the Commission .
It ’ s clear that the best means of resolving the matter is a Commons vote early next week .
On the one hand , we doubt very much that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pass , even if the £500,000 target is reached .
The Early Day Motion supporting it has 55 signatories , all of them Conservative or DUP .
That doesn ’ t look like nearly enough to win a free vote – let alone one that must produce the overwhelming assent that is arguably necessary for the project , like those statues or war memorials , to gain the consent required .
On the other , Johnson would presumably vote for the plan , which both Ministers and backbenchers would see as a bit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a question follows .
What are the Government ’ s own plans for marking the end of an era and the start of a new one ?

One might have expected a big noisy Vote Leave celebratory extravaganza on the evening of January 31. There will be a few private events from that quarter. But no large public one.
Perhaps the mass of the pro-Brexit movement feels that it has gained the result it wanted – doubly so given December’s election result – and that it must be up bright and early, on February 1, to roll up its sleeves to work on national renewal. Which would not be easily married to partying late the previous night.
Or perhaps there is an unwillingness to rub the ultra-Remainers’ noses in it. Or maybe there is a sense of exhaustion. Who knows?
At any rate, this is the context in which to see the campaign to ring Big Ben at 11pm on January 31, with all the bing bang bong opportunities it has given to Fleet Street’s headline writers.
Mark Francois and company want to bung, ho ho, £500,000 to the body responsible for making a decision – namely the House of Commons Commission – the apparent cost of ringing Big Ben on that date at that time. We doubt the real bill is anything as high as that. For as we all know, it’s wonderful what a committee can do when it’s willing.
The Commission says that there is no precedent for taking the money – although statues have sometimes been funded by public subscription and room found for them by public authorities. But where there’s no will, as in this case, there is also no way – even though Boris Johnson has broken cover to encourage an appeal.
As we write, the whole business is going round in circles. Francois is still raising funds and has reached roughly half his target. The Commission points to the Government, with some suggesting that if the Prime Minister really wants Big Ben to bong, the taxpayer should stump up. Meanwhile, the Government points back at the Commission.
It’s clear that the best means of resolving the matter is a Commons vote early next week. On the one hand, we doubt very much that a motion in favour of the plan would pass, even if the £500,000 target is reached. The Early Day Motion supporting it has 55 signatories, all of them Conservative or DUP.
That doesn’t look like nearly enough to win a free vote – let alone one that must produce the overwhelming assent that is arguably necessary for the project, like those statues or war memorials, to gain the consent required.
On the other, Johnson would presumably vote for the plan, which both Ministers and backbenchers would see as a bit of a signal. Either way, a question follows. What are the Government’s own plans for marking the end of an era and the start of a new one?


conservativehome--2020-01-18--David Gauke: As a non-Tory at the last election, my worry is that this Government won’t be Conservat

David Gauke: As a non-Tory at the last election, my worry is that this Government won’t be Conservative enough

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary , and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the recent general election .
The Government ’ s objective for the first 50 days of this Parliament is easily identified – passing the Withdrawal Agreement Bill and leaving the EU .
In many senses , the nature of the next Government will only become clear once we move beyond that , but we are getting some indications as to where it is going .
It may not come as a total surprise to you that I have one or two concerns .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ whip withdrawn , I resigned my party membership , stood as an Independent and argued that the country should not return a Tory majority .
And my concerns ?
That this Government might not be Conservative enough .
The Prime Minister described himself as ‘ a Brexity Hezza ’ .
However oxymoronic that phrase may be , it is an interesting insight .
Michael Heseltine is a great man .
He served with great distinction in a number of Cabinet roles and his commitment to ensuring that the entire country can prosper is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ try to emulate .
I also owe him a particular debt – he kindly endorsed me in the general election and spoke on my behalf .
At the age of 86 , he remains one of the best public speakers in the country .
When he speaks , people should listen .
( I would argue that a few more people listening to him in South West Hertfordshire in December would have been particularly desirable . )
But just as the views and actions of Margaret Thatcher have often been over-simplified and misunderstood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ does not justify the abandonment of all Conservative orthodoxy .
Let us take four characteristics that ran through the approaches of the Governments in which Thatcher and Heseltine served .
In each case , there is at least a doubt that Johnson Government will observe the same approach .
First , fiscal conservatism .
Thatcher ’ s Government placed greater emphasis on reducing borrowing than cutting taxes or increasing spending .
The tax burden rose in the years after 1979 and public spending was tightly controlled .
The current Government ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear .
Sajid Javid won an important battle to ensure that there were fiscal rules within the manifesto , but there were also plenty of spending and tax commitments .
Given the expensive demographic pressures on the public finances that the country faces , plus the significant short term risks for the economy because of Brexit , a fiscally prudent Budget on March 11 would be sensible .
It doesn ’ t look inevitable .
Second , as well as ensuring that we only spend what we can afford , we should also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entitled to expect that a Conservative government , in particular , extracts good value for money .
That should mean focusing on outputs not inputs and , where there are areas of significant increases in public spending , these should be matched by significant public sector reforms .
During the campaign , we heard more about extra spending or extra people but , in delivering on those pledges , it is essential that additional resources are deployed as effectively and efficiently as possible .
We need to hear more about this .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so that more is spent in the north of England , there is a good case for it .
But those rules shouldn ’ t be replaced by a free-for-all whereby multi-billion projects are determined on the basis of ministerial whim .
Rigour and the need for value-for-money must remain at the heart of all these decisions .
Third , be wary of supporting uneconomic businesses .
Of course , there was a divergence between the Thatcher and Heseltine approaches to intervening in the economy but let us not forget that it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pits .
As a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury , I am uneasy about the bail-out of Flybe .
Yes , it is not unheard of for a business to be given ‘ time-to-pay ’ their tax liabilities and , yes , regional connectivity is a legitimate policy objective .
But every time a private business is bailed out by the taxpayer , the pressure grows the next time there is a potential insolvency .
There is a case to be made for an interventionist industrial policy , even if that means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imperative is very often on government to ‘ pick losers ’ – in other words , preserve loss-making ‘ zombie ’ businesses .
This issue may become particularly acute as the year goes on .
Even if we get a deal with the EU , the Government clearly wants the ability to diverge from the EU , and there is no more talk of ‘ frictionless trade ’ with the EU – merely ‘ zero tariffs and zero quotas ’ , which is a very different thing .
This will mean that those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considerable problems .
It would be naïve to assume that this won ’ t threaten the viability of many businesses .
And , by the way , the risk of a WTO Brexit at the end of 2020 is , in my view , significantly under-priced .
I will return to that issue in greater detail in future .
I mention this not just to antagonise those ConservativeHome readers who continue to question why I am allowed to write on this website .
It is to make the point that there could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the adjustment to our glorious post-Brexit future will be painful .
Some of them won ’ t be able to make it , not without some taxpayer support .
Some of them might be able to make it but quite fancy a piece of the action if the Government is in the habit of providing financial support .
Of course , they will all say it is temporary and as long as the Government is sufficiently far-sighted , there will be no need to lay-off thousands of workers located in newly marginal seats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve got there , Prime Minister , we wouldn ’ t want anything nasty to happen here , would we ?
So for the sake of the taxpayer , the Government should tread warily in bailing out businesses .
The more you do it , the harder it is to stop .
And the pressures in the next year or so may be immense .
There is a fourth attribute common to both Margaret Thatcher and Michael Heseltine – a belief in free trade .
As with every major Conservative figure for generations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is of enormous benefit to businesses who are able to export and consumers who can better access imports .
The increased competition brought by reducing trade barriers helps economies become more efficient and drives up productivity .
We saw this in the 1980s when the consequences of membership of the Common Market played through and inefficient UK companies were driven out of business by European competitors , and efficient UK businesses were able to expand because of access to European markets .
Evidently , this country is about to go in the opposite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Customs Union will inevitably result in increased trade barriers with the EU .
Regulatory divergence will increase those barriers yet further .
Pretending that this can be fully compensated for by entering into trade deals with other countries is , sadly , delusional .
Margaret Thatcher once said that the facts of life are conservative .
I might no longer be a member of the Conservative Party , but I think this is broadly right .
The public finances have to be sustainable .
Taxpayers ’ money should be spent wisely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and not government should determine which businesses survive .
Free trade is a driver for prosperity .
The Conservative Party has changed .
It is a change that has enabled it to win a large majority .
But the economic facts of life remain the same .
I hope the Government will remember that .

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary, and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the recent general election.
The Government’s objective for the first 50 days of this Parliament is easily identified – passing the Withdrawal Agreement Bill and leaving the EU. In many senses, the nature of the next Government will only become clear once we move beyond that, but we are getting some indications as to where it is going.
It may not come as a total surprise to you that I have one or two concerns. After all, I had the Conservative whip withdrawn, I resigned my party membership, stood as an Independent and argued that the country should not return a Tory majority. And my concerns? That this Government might not be Conservative enough.
The Prime Minister described himself as ‘a Brexity Hezza’. However oxymoronic that phrase may be, it is an interesting insight.
Michael Heseltine is a great man. He served with great distinction in a number of Cabinet roles and his commitment to ensuring that the entire country can prosper is something that the Government is right to try to emulate.
I also owe him a particular debt – he kindly endorsed me in the general election and spoke on my behalf. At the age of 86, he remains one of the best public speakers in the country. When he speaks, people should listen. (I would argue that a few more people listening to him in South West Hertfordshire in December would have been particularly desirable.)
But just as the views and actions of Margaret Thatcher have often been over-simplified and misunderstood, claiming the mantle of ‘Hezza’ does not justify the abandonment of all Conservative orthodoxy.
Let us take four characteristics that ran through the approaches of the Governments in which Thatcher and Heseltine served. In each case, there is at least a doubt that Johnson Government will observe the same approach.
First, fiscal conservatism. Thatcher’s Government placed greater emphasis on reducing borrowing than cutting taxes or increasing spending. The tax burden rose in the years after 1979 and public spending was tightly controlled.
The current Government’s commitment is, as yet, less clear. Sajid Javid won an important battle to ensure that there were fiscal rules within the manifesto, but there were also plenty of spending and tax commitments. Given the expensive demographic pressures on the public finances that the country faces, plus the significant short term risks for the economy because of Brexit, a fiscally prudent Budget on March 11 would be sensible. It doesn’t look inevitable.
Second, as well as ensuring that we only spend what we can afford, we should also spend it wisely. The taxpayer is entitled to expect that a Conservative government, in particular, extracts good value for money. That should mean focusing on outputs not inputs and, where there are areas of significant increases in public spending, these should be matched by significant public sector reforms. During the campaign, we heard more about extra spending or extra people but, in delivering on those pledges, it is essential that additional resources are deployed as effectively and efficiently as possible. We need to hear more about this.
As for changing the rules on infrastructure expenditure so that more is spent in the north of England, there is a good case for it. But those rules shouldn’t be replaced by a free-for-all whereby multi-billion projects are determined on the basis of ministerial whim. Rigour and the need for value-for-money must remain at the heart of all these decisions.
Third, be wary of supporting uneconomic businesses. Of course, there was a divergence between the Thatcher and Heseltine approaches to intervening in the economy but let us not forget that it was Heseltine who was prepared to close loss-making pits.
As a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I am uneasy about the bail-out of Flybe. Yes, it is not unheard of for a business to be given ‘time-to-pay’ their tax liabilities and, yes, regional connectivity is a legitimate policy objective. But every time a private business is bailed out by the taxpayer, the pressure grows the next time there is a potential insolvency. There is a case to be made for an interventionist industrial policy, even if that means ‘picking winners’ but the political imperative is very often on government to ‘pick losers’ – in other words, preserve loss-making ‘zombie’ businesses.
This issue may become particularly acute as the year goes on. Even if we get a deal with the EU, the Government clearly wants the ability to diverge from the EU, and there is no more talk of ‘frictionless trade’ with the EU – merely ‘zero tariffs and zero quotas’, which is a very different thing. This will mean that those businesses with complex supply chains face very considerable problems. It would be naïve to assume that this won’t threaten the viability of many businesses.
And, by the way, the risk of a WTO Brexit at the end of 2020 is, in my view, significantly under-priced. I will return to that issue in greater detail in future.
I mention this not just to antagonise those ConservativeHome readers who continue to question why I am allowed to write on this website. It is to make the point that there could be quite a lot of businesses for whom the adjustment to our glorious post-Brexit future will be painful. Some of them won’t be able to make it, not without some taxpayer support. Some of them might be able to make it but quite fancy a piece of the action if the Government is in the habit of providing financial support.
Of course, they will all say it is temporary and as long as the Government is sufficiently far-sighted, there will be no need to lay-off thousands of workers located in newly marginal seats. Nice little Conservative constituency you’ve got there, Prime Minister, we wouldn’t want anything nasty to happen here, would we?
So for the sake of the taxpayer, the Government should tread warily in bailing out businesses. The more you do it, the harder it is to stop. And the pressures in the next year or so may be immense.
There is a fourth attribute common to both Margaret Thatcher and Michael Heseltine – a belief in free trade. As with every major Conservative figure for generations, they recognised that removing trade barriers is of enormous benefit to businesses who are able to export and consumers who can better access imports. The increased competition brought by reducing trade barriers helps economies become more efficient and drives up productivity. We saw this in the 1980s when the consequences of membership of the Common Market played through and inefficient UK companies were driven out of business by European competitors, and efficient UK businesses were able to expand because of access to European markets.
Evidently, this country is about to go in the opposite direction. Departure from the Single Market and the Customs Union will inevitably result in increased trade barriers with the EU. Regulatory divergence will increase those barriers yet further. Pretending that this can be fully compensated for by entering into trade deals with other countries is, sadly, delusional.
Margaret Thatcher once said that the facts of life are conservative. I might no longer be a member of the Conservative Party, but I think this is broadly right. The public finances have to be sustainable. Taxpayers’ money should be spent wisely. By and large, the market and not government should determine which businesses survive. Free trade is a driver for prosperity.
The Conservative Party has changed. It is a change that has enabled it to win a large majority. But the economic facts of life remain the same. I hope the Government will remember that.


conservativehome--2020-01-18--Does Johnson have the guts to tackle the rigged housing market described by Halligan?

Home Truths : The UK ’ s Chronic Housing Shortage – How It Happened , Why It Matters and How to Solve It by Liam Halligan This is the only book I have ever taken into the Terrace Cafeteria at the Commons – where it is my custom to take a late lunch of jerk chicken and rice each Wednesday after sketching PMQs – in whose contents a member of staff has shown an immediate and passionate interest .
He told me he has no hope of ever buying a place to live in the district , just south of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Houses of Parliament , where he was born .
That district , once quite cheap , is now , like everywhere else in the middle of London , prohibitively expensive for anyone on a modest income .
If he is ever to get his own place , he will have to move a long way out , and the injustice of this rankles with him .
Liam Halligan sets out in this book what went wrong with the housing market : This is an enormous political opportunity for whoever becomes the next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stuck paying extortionate rents for year after year , unable , unless they have rich parents , to get together the deposit needed to buy a house .
And this used not to be the case .
Halligan was born in 1969 , in the suburban , semi-detached , 1930s house in Kingsbury , London NW9 , which his parents , who had both left school at the age of 16 without any professional qualifications and did not go to university , had been able to buy on a mortgage , after 25 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outright .
For a long time after Halligan ’ s parents put down roots , home ownership remained a realistic aspiration : “ When I left home back in the early 1990s , over 45 per cent of 25-29-year-olds owned their own home .
Since then , that figure has plunged to less than 25 per cent .
Even professional couples with impressive qualifications and relatively high incomes are increasingly ‘ locked out ’ of the property market as prices keep rising faster than earnings… “ Since the end of the Second World @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the UK ’ s free society – the ‘ British Dream ’ – has been that anyone who works hard and saves for a few years should be able to buy a decent home at a reasonable price .
As such , the chronic unaffordability of housing , in many parts of the country , is now the major economic and political scandal of our time .
It is disgraceful that over recent decades , a combination of cowardice and neglect on the part of successive governments means that , for countless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ownership is being cruelly denied.
” The language is not elegant , but it is hard to deny the truth of what Halligan says .
In the mid-1930s , 85 per cent of new houses cost less than £750 , equivalent to about £55,000 in 2019 .
After the passing in 1947 of of the Town and Country Planning Act , almost all new building required planning permission .
That , one could say , was the root of the problem , for it has led to an artificial shortage of building land @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grotesque inflation of house prices .
But Halligan thinks the 1947 Act worked well , for it provided for “ betterment ” – the greatly increased value of land once it had planning permission – to be paid to the state .
This kept land prices down , and gave local authorities the revenue needed to build the roads and other public services which the occupants of new houses required .
Landowners hated having to sell land at existing-use value , i.e .
cheap , and under the Conservative governments of the 1950s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was gradually dismantled , until under the 1961 Land Compensation Act , landowners gained the right to receive full value for all sites , including any prospective “ planning gain ” .
Land prices almost at once started to rise , and landowners , whether private or public , gained a perverse incentive to hold on to their land for as long as possible , in the confident expectation that it would become more and more valuable .
The market in land is horribly rigged , and favours owners over prospective buyers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ house-building industry , in which many small firms used to participate , is now dominated by an oligopoly of very large firms , who invest in a scarce resource , building land , which they do all they can to keep scarce , and on which they build an inadequate number of often shoddy rabbit hutches .
What is to be done ?
Halligan , who writes as an economist , wants the 1961 Land Compensation Act reversed , and has interviewed Sajid Javid , now the Chancellor of the Exchequer , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Communities and Local Government from 2016-18 , and described the reform proposals which were being developed under his leadership : Javid was “ frustrated ” when Theresa May removed this measure from the 2017 Housing White Paper .
He told Halligan : Boris Johnson has not yet said very much about housing as Prime Minister , but one hopes he agrees with the Chancellor .
For what they do about housing will give a good indication of where their sympathies lie .
Halligan says “ there has not been nearly enough resolve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefiting from the status quo ” .
He means house-building companies such as Persimmon , whose iniquitous behaviour he describes at considerable length , also quoting the memorable condemnation of them in the Commons by Robert Halfon ( Con , Harlow ) : This was in July 2019 , at Theresa May ’ s penultimate PMQs , and she said in her reply to Halfon : A new ombudsman is an empty gesture .
This distorted market , which enables house-builders to make vast profits from shoddy work carried out at the expense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ root and branch reform .
But Halligan underestimates the vested interests which stand in the way of reform .
Many an owner , or part-owner with the building society , of a small , shoddily built house ( I write as someone in that position myself ) enjoys thinking , with a certain ineffable complacency , of its enormously inflated value , supposedly several times what it cost to buy .
These prohibitive prices have to come down , and that is a message Johnson and Javid will be reluctant to convey , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Treasury officials believe that tackling the housing shortage “ will spark another banking collapse ” .
One of the happy side effects of the last banking collapse should have been a collapse in property prices , so that people of modest means could once again afford somewhere to live .
But instead , the property market froze , owners stopped moving house , and there was no proper correction to prices , which remain grotesquely high .
My inclination , as a conservative , is to believe that property rights are one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But since 1947 , the state has removed the right of the owner of a piece of land to build on it .
It was beyond Halligan ’ s scope to describe how some of the tawdry speculative building of the 1930s created a demand for planning controls .
In any case , he loves those 1930s houses , grew up in one of them and reminds us that their praises were sung by John Betjeman .
If the nation is going to control what can be built , the nation should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are reaped by landowners and developers who gain permission to build .
Some years ago , I examined for ConHome how Harold Macmillan managed , as Housing Minister in the early 1950s , to fulfil the Conservative pledge to build 300,000 dwellings a year , which Labour thought was impossible .
He did it by employing every lever , public and private , which was to hand , by sanctioning every single application to build council houses , and often by giving orders in the wartime manner .
His achievement paved the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for him to become Prime Minister in 1957 , and for the Conservatives to win again in 1959 .
He had demonstrated that the Tories were better than Labour at providing for the welfare of the people .
Not that everything he did was admirable , for as I remarked in that piece : Will Johnson evince Macmillan ’ s ruthlessness and flair , or will he fob people off with an ombudsman ?
On Tuesday of this week , I attended a reception held at the Commons by ConservativeHome for new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number who feel a burning desire to repay the trust which has been reposed in them by former Labour voters .
But as I entered the Palace of Westminster from the Underground station , I passed a number of rough sleepers already settling down for the night in the white-tiled tunnel .
What a shameful sight .
Something here is terribly amiss .
Those rough sleepers , so visible in most of our towns , have something to do with the intolerable cost of getting a roof over one ’ s head , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the intolerable cost of property , which in turn proceeds from the artificial scarcity of building land created by the state .
The buck stops with the Prime Minister .
Does he have the guts to act ?

Home Truths: The UK’s Chronic Housing Shortage – How It Happened, Why It Matters and How to Solve It by Liam Halligan
This is the only book I have ever taken into the Terrace Cafeteria at the Commons – where it is my custom to take a late lunch of jerk chicken and rice each Wednesday after sketching PMQs – in whose contents a member of staff has shown an immediate and passionate interest.
He told me he has no hope of ever buying a place to live in the district, just south of the river and within easy reach of the Houses of Parliament, where he was born.
That district, once quite cheap, is now, like everywhere else in the middle of London, prohibitively expensive for anyone on a modest income. If he is ever to get his own place, he will have to move a long way out, and the injustice of this rankles with him.
Liam Halligan sets out in this book what went wrong with the housing market:
“The average UK home now cost eight times average annual earnings, over twice the historic norm. This crippling affordability multiple rises to twelve times across London and the south-east… “While the UK needs around 250,000 new homes a year to meet population growth and household formation, housebuilding has failed to reach that level since the mid-1970s. There’s a huge backlog shortage of homes, built up under successive governments over decades, which has seen property prices spiral way ahead of earnings. As a result, millions of young adults are stuck in shared, rented accommodation and have put their lives on hold.”
This is an enormous political opportunity for whoever becomes the next Labour leader. Millions of people are stuck paying extortionate rents for year after year, unable, unless they have rich parents, to get together the deposit needed to buy a house.
And this used not to be the case. Halligan was born in 1969, in the suburban, semi-detached, 1930s house in Kingsbury, London NW9, which his parents, who had both left school at the age of 16 without any professional qualifications and did not go to university, had been able to buy on a mortgage, after 25 years owning this little patch of Metroland outright.
For a long time after Halligan’s parents put down roots, home ownership remained a realistic aspiration:
“When I left home back in the early 1990s, over 45 per cent of 25-29-year-olds owned their own home. Since then, that figure has plunged to less than 25 per cent. Even professional couples with impressive qualifications and relatively high incomes are increasingly ‘locked out’ of the property market as prices keep rising faster than earnings… “Since the end of the Second World War, one of the basic features of the UK’s free society – the ‘British Dream’ – has been that anyone who works hard and saves for a few years should be able to buy a decent home at a reasonable price. As such, the chronic unaffordability of housing, in many parts of the country, is now the major economic and political scandal of our time. It is disgraceful that over recent decades, a combination of cowardice and neglect on the part of successive governments means that, for countless young adults, the dream of home ownership is being cruelly denied.”
The language is not elegant, but it is hard to deny the truth of what Halligan says. In the mid-1930s, 85 per cent of new houses cost less than £750, equivalent to about £55,000 in 2019.
After the passing in 1947 of of the Town and Country Planning Act, almost all new building required planning permission. That, one could say, was the root of the problem, for it has led to an artificial shortage of building land, which in turn has caused the grotesque inflation of house prices.
But Halligan thinks the 1947 Act worked well, for it provided for “betterment” – the greatly increased value of land once it had planning permission – to be paid to the state. This kept land prices down, and gave local authorities the revenue needed to build the roads and other public services which the occupants of new houses required.
Landowners hated having to sell land at existing-use value, i.e. cheap, and under the Conservative governments of the 1950s, that side of the 1947 system was gradually dismantled, until under the 1961 Land Compensation Act, landowners gained the right to receive full value for all sites, including any prospective “planning gain”.
Land prices almost at once started to rise, and landowners, whether private or public, gained a perverse incentive to hold on to their land for as long as possible, in the confident expectation that it would become more and more valuable.
The market in land is horribly rigged, and favours owners over prospective buyers. As Halligan points out, the UK house-building industry, in which many small firms used to participate, is now dominated by an oligopoly of very large firms, who invest in a scarce resource, building land, which they do all they can to keep scarce, and on which they build an inadequate number of often shoddy rabbit hutches.
What is to be done? Halligan, who writes as an economist, wants the 1961 Land Compensation Act reversed, and has interviewed Sajid Javid, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who served as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government from 2016-18, and described the reform proposals which were being developed under his leadership:
“When I was Secretary of State, we worked on a fifty-fifty split of the valuation between local authorities and landowners. “This would be an efficient and morally justifiable tax. The state is expected to create the infrastructure around new housing, and that needs to be paid for – so fifty-fifty makes sense.”
Javid was “frustrated” when Theresa May removed this measure from the 2017 Housing White Paper. He told Halligan:
“She just didn’t get the the impact of this housing crisis on ordinary families, ordinary working men and women – so the White Paper was gutted, all the strong ideas removed. It is vital we now take radical steps – once Brexit is done, housing is easily the most important domestic policy issue we face.”
Boris Johnson has not yet said very much about housing as Prime Minister, but one hopes he agrees with the Chancellor. For what they do about housing will give a good indication of where their sympathies lie.
Halligan says “there has not been nearly enough resolve to tackle the entrenched supply-side vested interests benefiting from the status quo”.
He means house-building companies such as Persimmon, whose iniquitous behaviour he describes at considerable length, also quoting the memorable condemnation of them in the Commons by Robert Halfon (Con, Harlow):
“On Saturday, I met a group of Harlow residents, many of them on Government Help to Buy schemes, who moved into homes built by Persimmon Homes that are shoddily built with severe damp and crumbling walls. In the eyes of my residents, Persimmon are crooks, cowboys and con artists.”
This was in July 2019, at Theresa May’s penultimate PMQs, and she said in her reply to Halfon:
“We have already announced our intention for a new homes ombudsman to protect the rights of homebuyers and to hold developers to account.”
A new ombudsman is an empty gesture. This distorted market, which enables house-builders to make vast profits from shoddy work carried out at the expense of people in desperate need, requires root and branch reform.
But Halligan underestimates the vested interests which stand in the way of reform. Many an owner, or part-owner with the building society, of a small, shoddily built house (I write as someone in that position myself) enjoys thinking, with a certain ineffable complacency, of its enormously inflated value, supposedly several times what it cost to buy.
These prohibitive prices have to come down, and that is a message Johnson and Javid will be reluctant to convey, especially as according to Halligan, senior Treasury officials believe that tackling the housing shortage “will spark another banking collapse”.
One of the happy side effects of the last banking collapse should have been a collapse in property prices, so that people of modest means could once again afford somewhere to live.
But instead, the property market froze, owners stopped moving house, and there was no proper correction to prices, which remain grotesquely high.
My inclination, as a conservative, is to believe that property rights are one of the most sacred guarantees of liberty itself. But since 1947, the state has removed the right of the owner of a piece of land to build on it.
It was beyond Halligan’s scope to describe how some of the tawdry speculative building of the 1930s created a demand for planning controls. In any case, he loves those 1930s houses, grew up in one of them and reminds us that their praises were sung by John Betjeman.
If the nation is going to control what can be built, the nation should also take some of the profits which are reaped by landowners and developers who gain permission to build.
Some years ago, I examined for ConHome how Harold Macmillan managed, as Housing Minister in the early 1950s, to fulfil the Conservative pledge to build 300,000 dwellings a year, which Labour thought was impossible.
He did it by employing every lever, public and private, which was to hand, by sanctioning every single application to build council houses, and often by giving orders in the wartime manner. His achievement paved the way for the Conservative election victory in 1955, for him to become Prime Minister in 1957, and for the Conservatives to win again in 1959.
He had demonstrated that the Tories were better than Labour at providing for the welfare of the people. Not that everything he did was admirable, for as I remarked in that piece:
“Some of the housing built at this time was so repulsive that to this day it makes people deeply suspicious of all new building.”
Will Johnson evince Macmillan’s ruthlessness and flair, or will he fob people off with an ombudsman?
On Tuesday of this week, I attended a reception held at the Commons by ConservativeHome for new Tory MPs, and spoke to a number who feel a burning desire to repay the trust which has been reposed in them by former Labour voters.
But as I entered the Palace of Westminster from the Underground station, I passed a number of rough sleepers already settling down for the night in the white-tiled tunnel.
What a shameful sight. Something here is terribly amiss. Those rough sleepers, so visible in most of our towns, have something to do with the intolerable cost of getting a roof over one’s head, which in turn has something to do with the intolerable cost of property, which in turn proceeds from the artificial scarcity of building land created by the state.
The buck stops with the Prime Minister. Does he have the guts to act?


conservativehome--2020-01-19--WATCH: Sharma says that ‘more scrutiny’ is needed over aid spending

Is the government committed to spending 0.7 % of national income on foreign aid ?
International Development Secretary Alok Sharma @ @ @ @ @ to spend money much more effectively ” # Marr https : //t.co/SumtW98sh0 pic.twitter.com/0Q4MODa3DY

Is the government committed to spending 0.7% of national income on foreign aid?
International Development Secretary Alok Sharma says, “We need to spend money much more effectively”#Marr https://t.co/SumtW98sh0 pic.twitter.com/0Q4MODa3DY
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) January 19, 2020


conservativehome--2020-01-19--WATCH: “What I do know is she’s currently being investigated by the EHRC”. Allin-Khan on Murphy.

`` What I do know is she 's currently being investigated by the EHRC '' .
@ DrRosena responds to @ @ @ @ @ Times that Jeremy Corbyn has nominated his former chief of staff Karie Murphy for a @ @ @ @ @ investigating Labour over antisemitism allegations.
# Ridge pic.twitter.com/qZCGndHw9S

"What I do know is she's currently being investigated by the EHRC".@DrRosena responds to a report in the Sunday Times that Jeremy Corbyn has nominated his former chief of staff Karie Murphy for a peerage. The EHRC are investigating Labour over antisemitism allegations.#Ridge pic.twitter.com/qZCGndHw9S
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday & The Take (@RidgeOnSunday) January 19, 2020


conservativehome--2020-01-19--WATCH: Cleverly says that bonging Big Ben on Brexit Day ‘is not the focus of the Government’

'It 's a good fun story , but ultimately it is not the main focus of government .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ he will not be donating any money to make Big Ben chime on Brexit day @ @ @ @ @ has n't asked him to .

'It's a good fun story, but ultimately it is not the main focus of government."@Conservatives chair @JamesCleverly says he will not be donating any money to make Big Ben chime on Brexit day – adding that the PM hasn't asked him to.
Follow #Ridge live: https://t.co/BzsNffg7Rl pic.twitter.com/z4aPuLJing
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday & The Take (@RidgeOnSunday) January 19, 2020


conservativehome--2020-01-19--WATCH: Phillips – “I’m definitely open to different models around decriminalisation.”

`` I 'm definitely open to different models around decriminalisation .
`` @ UKLabour leadership candidate @ jessphillips says she @ @ @ @ @ the conversation around drugs being decriminalised , adding that current policy is n't working .

"I'm definitely open to different models around decriminalisation."@UKLabour leadership candidate @jessphillips says she's "open" to the conversation around drugs being decriminalised, adding that current policy isn't working.
Follow #Ridge live: https://t.co/BzsNffg7Rl pic.twitter.com/uwfmSTvS5Y
— Sophy Ridge on Sunday & The Take (@RidgeOnSunday) January 19, 2020


conservativehome--2020-01-19--The Queen’s Speech in York, Cummings-style

Moving CCHQ out of London appears to be only a start for Number Ten .
According to the Sunday Times , it intends to do the same to the House of Lords .
In the case of CCHQ , Downing Street wants Conservative activists ’ ideas about where CCHQ ’ s new home should be .
In the case of the Upper House , it seems already to have decided .
It apparently plans a move for the Lords to that most beautiful of British cities , York – a mere two hours to London by train .
This site @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was to wonder how the plan would accomodate the Queen ’ s Speech .
The report asks the same question .
We propose a solution .
The State Opening ceremonial procedure begins “ with the Queen ’ s procession from Buckingham Palace to Westminster , escorted by the Household Cavalry ” .
We suggest that the magnificent state coach wends its stately way from the Palace to York along the slow lane of the A1 – via Finchley Road , Brent Cross and the Doncaster by-pass .
By car , the journey would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coach would necessarily take rather longer , especially since enthuastic crowds could be expected to cheer the Queen as she makes her way north .
After she has arrived at the new York-located House of Lords , Black Rod could zip down to King ’ s Cross from the city ’ s splendid railway station .
We see no reason for him to travel second-class .
He could then make his way by tube from King ’ s Cross to Westminster , making the short walk from the station ’ s main exit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and thence to the Commons .
Or else he could enter the Palace of Westminster via Porcullis House .
But these are details .
Our readers will remember that MPs then walk from the Commons to the Lords to hear the Queen ’ s speech .
The long march to York would thus take some 65 hours , or well over a working week , if they are not to plod away all night .
This is rather a long time for Boris Johnson to have been stuck with an uncommunicative Jeremy Corbyn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ train , second-class , or else by ( non-state ) coach , which ConservativeHome sees is advertised at £10 a pop .
The Queen might reasonably want an overnight break in York .
Or else the Commons could decamp to the city entire for the Queen ’ s Speech – and debate it there .
The Sunday Times suggests that the lower House may also go on tour , so that would make sense .
But the new Lords building would then need space for the Commons to meet too .
This would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enterprise .
Or else , reactionary thought , one might not bother to move the Lords at all , and save all this trouble .
We apologise to Dominic Cummings for our hestitation over this project .
O brave new world , that has such people in it !

Moving CCHQ out of London appears to be only a start for Number Ten. According to the Sunday Times, it intends to do the same to the House of Lords.
In the case of CCHQ, Downing Street wants Conservative activists’ ideas about where CCHQ’s new home should be. In the case of the Upper House, it seems already to have decided.
It apparently plans a move for the Lords to that most beautiful of British cities, York – a mere two hours to London by train.
This site’s first reaction to the news was to wonder how the plan would accomodate the Queen’s Speech. The report asks the same question. We propose a solution.
The State Opening ceremonial procedure begins “with the Queen’s procession from Buckingham Palace to Westminster, escorted by the Household Cavalry”.
We suggest that the magnificent state coach wends its stately way from the Palace to York along the slow lane of the A1 – via Finchley Road, Brent Cross and the Doncaster by-pass.
By car, the journey would take under four hours. The state coach would necessarily take rather longer, especially since enthuastic crowds could be expected to cheer the Queen as she makes her way north.
After she has arrived at the new York-located House of Lords, Black Rod could zip down to King’s Cross from the city’s splendid railway station. We see no reason for him to travel second-class.
He could then make his way by tube from King’s Cross to Westminster, making the short walk from the station’s main exit to St Stephen’s Entrance, and thence to the Commons.
Or else he could enter the Palace of Westminster via Porcullis House. But these are details. Our readers will remember that MPs then walk from the Commons to the Lords to hear the Queen’s speech.
The long march to York would thus take some 65 hours, or well over a working week, if they are not to plod away all night. This is rather a long time for Boris Johnson to have been stuck with an uncommunicative Jeremy Corbyn.
MPs could then travel back by train, second-class, or else by (non-state) coach, which ConservativeHome sees is advertised at £10 a pop. The Queen might reasonably want an overnight break in York.
Or else the Commons could decamp to the city entire for the Queen’s Speech – and debate it there. The Sunday Times suggests that the lower House may also go on tour, so that would make sense.
But the new Lords building would then need space for the Commons to meet too. This would presumably raise the cost of the whole enterprise.
Or else, reactionary thought, one might not bother to move the Lords at all, and save all this trouble. We apologise to Dominic Cummings for our hestitation over this project. O brave new world, that has such people in it!


conservativehome--2020-01-19--The Sussexes – out. Not half in and half out.  The Queen acts swiftly and effectively.

“ The future of the Sussexes condenses down to a single , simple point , ” ConservativeHome wrote less than a week ago .
“ When it comes to being a working member of the Royal Family , one can ’ t be half in and half out.
” And so it will be , at least in this case .
The outline settlement setting out their future as non-working Royals has been briefed to today ’ s papers .
There is a brief statement from Buckingham Palace .
The couple will no longer represent the Queen .
They will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will not receive public funds .
They will pay back sovereign grant spending on Frogmore Cottage , and will pay a commercial rent on its upkeep .
Some public money will be spent on their security , which is right .
To what degree will the Prince of Wales help to oil the wheels of this deal ?
He will reportedly continue to support the couple financially .
All this will have happened because Buckingham Palace reads this site , but because it is the obvious solution .
We hope that it works @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Duke and Duchess well .
The real significance of the decision may have less to do with them than seems to be the case .
For it sets out a pathway that future members of the Royal Family will be able to follow if they want to become non-working Royals .
As in the recent case of Prince Andrew , the Queen has acted swiftly and effectively .

“The future of the Sussexes condenses down to a single, simple point,” ConservativeHome wrote less than a week ago. “When it comes to being a working member of the Royal Family, one can’t be half in and half out.”
And so it will be, at least in this case.
The outline settlement setting out their future as non-working Royals has been briefed to today’s papers. There is a brief statement from Buckingham Palace. The couple will no longer represent the Queen. They will not use their HRH titles. They will not receive public funds. They will pay back sovereign grant spending on Frogmore Cottage, and will pay a commercial rent on its upkeep.
Some public money will be spent on their security, which is right. To what degree will the Prince of Wales help to oil the wheels of this deal? He will reportedly continue to support the couple financially.
All this will have happened not because Buckingham Palace reads this site, but because it is the obvious solution.
We hope that it works out for all concerned, and wish the Duke and Duchess well. The real significance of the decision may have less to do with them than seems to be the case. For it sets out a pathway that future members of the Royal Family will be able to follow if they want to become non-working Royals. As in the recent case of Prince Andrew, the Queen has acted swiftly and effectively.


conservativehome--2020-01-19--This curious contest for the Chairmanship of the 1922 Committee

As we wrote last week , the election for the Chairmanship of the 1992 Committee features two candidates from the centre-right of the Parliamentary Party .
Both are men .
Both are Brexiteers .
Both are long-standing MPs : one entered the Commons in 1997 ; the other in 2001 .
Both sit for non-southern constituencies ( one for a seat in suburban Manchester , the other for one in rural Herefordshire . )
Both were members of the previous committee .
Graham Brady is the incumbent .
His letter to Conservative MPs stresses experience , discretion and support for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to revive the traditional backbench policy committees that shadow Government departments ( a longstanding interest ) .
This would certainly provide a role for MPs who are interested in a subject but can ’ t get on the relevant select committee .
Since there are now 365 Conservative MPs , there will be a lot of them .
Bill Wiggin is the challenger .
The second page of his own letter has been tweeted , but the whole stresses i ) being “ on your side ” ; ii ) putting backbenchers first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ with dignity ” ; iv ) preventing “ important responsibilities such as candidate selection being taken out of the hands of the Party and v ) “ the full participation of the Chairman in the responsibilities of running a leadership election .
He also stresses contesting boundary changes : “ I have managed to conduct a civilised , subtle and successful campaign to preserve colleagues ’ seats ” .
The fifth point is a suggestive one .
Wiggin ’ s supporters are critical of Sir Graham for recusing himself from last year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he might stand himself .
( Cheryl Gillan , re-elected unopposed as a Vice-Chairman , oversaw the election with her “ beautiful assistant ” – Charles Walker , also re-elected unopposed as a Vice-Chairman . )
Theresa May ’ s opponents were critical of Brady for moving slowly – there was a kerfuffle about his stewardship of the rules – while her supporters were critical of him for moving quickly , as they saw it .
A question for today ’ s election is to what extent , if any , Conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – even the recent past .
ConservativeHome is told that the One Nation Caucus is supporting Brady .
( The centre-left of the Party has no candidate of its own . )
Some members of the new Tory intake are unaware the contest is taking place at all .
So the dispositions and timetable favour the imcubent , but with this electorate one simply never knows .

As we wrote last week, the election for the Chairmanship of the 1992 Committee features two candidates from the centre-right of the Parliamentary Party. Both are men. Both are Brexiteers. Both are long-standing MPs: one entered the Commons in 1997; the other in 2001. Both sit for non-southern constituencies (one for a seat in suburban Manchester, the other for one in rural Herefordshire.) Both were members of the previous committee.
Graham Brady is the incumbent. His letter to Conservative MPs stresses experience, discretion and support for fellow Tory MPs. He also wants to revive the traditional backbench policy committees that shadow Government departments (a longstanding interest). This would certainly provide a role for MPs who are interested in a subject but can’t get on the relevant select committee. Since there are now 365 Conservative MPs, there will be a lot of them.
Bill Wiggin is the challenger. A letter from him to fellow Tory MPs this morning stresses i) putting backbenchers first; ii) treating the Prime Minister with “the dignity with which their office deserves”; iii) preventing “important responsibilities such as candidate selection being taken out of the hands of the Party, iv) contesting boundary changes, and v) being “passionate about the full participation of the Chairmanship in the responsibilities of running a leadership election”.
The fifth point is a suggestive one. Wiggin’s supporters are critical of Sir Graham for recusing himself from last year’s leadership contest on the ground that he might stand himself. (Cheryl Gillan, re-elected unopposed as a Vice-Chairman, oversaw the election with her “beautiful assistant” – Charles Walker, also re-elected unopposed as a Vice-Chairman.) Theresa May’s opponents were critical of Brady for moving slowly – there was a kerfuffle about his stewardship of the rules – while her supporters were critical of him for moving quickly, as they saw it.
A question for today’s election is to what extent, if any, Conservative backbenchers want it to revisit the past – even the recent past. ConservativeHome is told that the One Nation Caucus is supporting Brady. (The centre-left of the Party has no candidate of its own.) Some members of the new Tory intake are unaware the contest is taking place at all. So the dispositions and timetable favour the imcubent, but with this electorate one simply never knows.


conservativehome--2020-01-20--This curious contest for the Chairmanship of the 1922 Committee

As we wrote last week , the election for the Chairmanship of the 1992 Committee features two candidates from the centre-right of the Parliamentary Party .
Both are men .
Both are Brexiteers .
Both are long-standing MPs : one entered the Commons in 1997 ; the other in 2001 .
Both sit for non-southern constituencies ( one for a seat in suburban Manchester , the other for one in rural Herefordshire . )
Both were members of the previous committee .
Graham Brady is the incumbent .
His letter to Conservative MPs stresses experience , discretion and support for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to revive the traditional backbench policy committees that shadow Government departments ( a longstanding interest ) .
This would certainly provide a role for MPs who are interested in a subject but can ’ t get on the relevant select committee .
Since there are now 365 Conservative MPs , there will be a lot of them .
Bill Wiggin is the challenger .
A letter from him to fellow Tory MPs this morning stresses i ) putting backbenchers first ; ii ) treating the Prime Minister with “ the dignity with which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preventing “ important responsibilities such as candidate selection being taken out of the hands of the Party , iv ) contesting boundary changes , and v ) being “ passionate about the full participation of the Chairmanship in the responsibilities of running a leadership election ” .
The fifth point is a suggestive one .
Wiggin ’ s supporters are critical of Sir Graham for recusing himself from last year ’ s leadership contest on the ground that he might stand himself .
( Cheryl Gillan , re-elected unopposed as a Vice-Chairman , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assistant ” – Charles Walker , also re-elected unopposed as a Vice-Chairman . )
Theresa May ’ s opponents were critical of Brady for moving slowly – there was a kerfuffle about his stewardship of the rules – while her supporters were critical of him for moving quickly , as they saw it .
A question for today ’ s election is to what extent , if any , Conservative backbenchers want it to revisit the past – even the recent past .
ConservativeHome is told that the One Nation Caucus is supporting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party has no candidate of its own . )
Some members of the new Tory intake are unaware the contest is taking place at all .
So the dispositions and timetable favour the imcubent , but with this electorate one simply never knows .