CentreRight

By Douglas Carswell MP

The modern British state has many of the characteristics of a parasite; it grows and feeds off each of us.  Far from nurturing, it infantilises us and stifles society.

Ever more tax is collected from us to pay for the livelihoods of remote officials whose sole purpose is to tell us how to live our lives.  Tax is not simply too high, but at times seems designed to punish those who try to do the right thing.

Savers, taxed once on their income, must pay tax on their prudence.  Older folk, forced to pay for their long term care, find virtue penalised and a lifetime’s thrift ignored.  And after all that income tax, national insurance, road tax, VAT, license fee, petrol tax, what’s left over?  For many families, little more than pocket money.

Neither friend nor “facilitator”, what does the parasite state do for us in return?

By Douglas Carswell MP.

From yesterday, you're allowed to know how much crime there is where you live.  But you're not allowed to do anything about it.

In yet another example of British government officials mindlessly aping American public policy, the Home Office has decreed that we shall all have "crime maps".  Yet what works in America often works precisely because it has been allowed to evolve as a local solution to a local problem.  Merely taking a US public policy solution to a particular problem and imposing it centrally across the UK, is unlikely to achieve the same success.

Pioneered by local US cities, crime mapping over there is a vital tool in allowing local people to assess for themselves the success (or failure) of their local criminal justice system.

While crime mapping in the US has helped revolutionise policing, it's not going to have anything like that effect in the UK. 

We might have crime mapping now, but we've absolutely zero mechanism to hold chief constables to account.  Americans are able to assess how effective their police bosses are - and then vote them out of office if they're not happy.

Theresa Villiers is one of the most highly respected Conservative colleagues in Westminster. Thoughtful and diligent, she's also in her quiet way, rather bold and radical.

Theresa is, however, coming in for some flak over the party's policy on a third Heathrow runway, most recently on Iain Dale's blog.  I respect Iain tremendously, but on this I respectfully disagree. Personally, I think that the party's opposition to a third runway at Heathrow is right (believe me, if I didn’t think so, I say so!). The reality is that there comes a time when we can no longer keep cramming more and more 'planes and passengers into the same crowded corner of south east England.

Yet for taking this rather sensible approach, Theresa is taking on a lot of powerful corporate interests.

Stuart Tootal, former commanding officer of 3rd Bn Paras, writes in today's Telegraph of how repeated demands for more helicopters in Afghanistan “fell on deaf ears.” He explains how this shortage “increased risk for his paratroopers” since it meant they had to “drive into combat when we should have been flying”. He writes about soldiers trapped on minefields without enough helicopters to come to the rescue.

In Thursday's Commons debate, I highlighted how this helicopter procurement scandal had left British soldiers waiting on minefields in Afghanistan , and of how “the price of protectionist procurement was paid in English blood in Helmand”.

Rather than rhetoric, I outlined the facts I’ve uncovered after months of research. And they do not paint a pretty picture.  I quote from Hansard in the two sections below:

"In 31 July last year, Lord Drayson admitted that the MOD had not run a competitive tender process to replace the Lynx [helicopter]. It was, he wrote, “the judgement of the department that a competition...would cause delay”.  Thus the alternatives were never fully considered.

Thus a £1 billion contract to build helicopters was awarded for a helicopter that cost almost 50 per cent. more than the alternatives, and which would not be ready until at least 2012."

Jack Straw today says that the justice system needs to "get tough" with criminals.  Find me a Home Secretary who hasn't talked tough on crime over the past twenty years.  But it's always precisely that. Just talk.

The criminal justice system is failing law abiding people because it's not accountable to law abiding people.  Those supposed to chase criminals through the street or through the courts, or "manage offenders" answer to remote officialdom – not to you and me.

As a result, criminal justice has been hijacked by those with unconsciously leftist assumptions.  Policing?  PCs are so PC in some areas they resemble social workers.  The CPS?  Their interpretation of "public interest" isn't one most members of the public would recognise.  Probation Service?  A triumph for behavioural psychologists.

Does Straw propose to change any of this?  Of course not.  He's actually proposing to make the system even less unaccountable.  He wants a new "victims commissioner" sitting along side the experts on the Sentencing Guidelines Council. Yet more quangocrats to represent you....

Election night in Toronto was fun. Conservatives consolidated their hold on government – and the left lost. If Tory leader, Stephen Harper, is disappointed not to win an outright majority, he can take heart that as an incumbent centre-right leader, he’s bucked the trend elsewhere.

It’s worth reflecting just how successful Harper’s Conservatives have been. Not unlike their British counter-parts, Conservatives over here suffered electoral wipe out in the 1990s (literally, as it happens). Since then, they’ve staged a remarkable recovery.

Yet watching yesterday’s results, I couldn’t help thinking that the centre right over here could be doing so much better.

Conservative gains yesterday were partly down to Liberal errors. Pledges to introduce new “green” taxes - please note carefully - cost the Liberals dear. Indeed, Liberal leader, Stephane Dion, isn’t much of a leader.

Yet for all that, Canada’s Conservatives have only ever managed to govern for 30 of the past 100 years. As the brilliant Tasha Kheiriddin and Adam Daifallah spell out in their blueprint for a conservative revolution, I can’t help thinking that Canada’s Conservatives have simply never been bold enough. They’re status quo conservatives - despite the fact that the Canadian status quo is deeply hostile to conservatism.

Reading Peter Hitchens, one bit of text leapt out:

Conservatives are "confronted with the dogmas of Fabianism, egalitarianism and now Gramscian/Marcusian cultural revolution …”.

“If conservatives cannot be bothered to understand, analyse or oppose these forces, then they will be overwhelmed by them. This is the reason for the famous 'ratchet', under which Tory governments never reverse any substantial part of Labour's changes, and instead learn to live in an increasingly left-wing state until there is nothing let to conserve. It is also the reason why so many Tory governments have been 'in office, but not in power'."

How true. While I don’t agree with all that Mr Hitchens wrote, I cannot disagree with that. 

Conservatism does indeed face a "Gramscian" threat - the long march, triumphant of the left through the institutions and the quangos.

As he rose to speak in the House of Commons yesterday afternoon, all eyes in the City were on Chancellor Alistair Darling.  Was he about to unveil a plan, or restore confidence? 

Nope.

From the time he rose to his feet, to the time he sat down 11 minutes later, the FTSE had fallen by 2 percent.

Thank goodness he only gave a short speech.  Where might we be if he'd kept talking all afternoon?   

Our Editor, Tim, urges me to join with Dan Hannan, repent for my lapse as an ObamaCon, and urge support for the US Republicans. 

So impressed have I been by Sarah Palin that I indicated a while back that if it was a Palin-McCain ticket, rather than a McCain-Palin one, I'd switch right away.

I'm not sure that many US election strategists are going to be too bothered by the views of someone who doesn't even get to vote in this US election, but for what it's worth, I'm going to sit on the fence on this one now.  If only to deny Hannan the chance to swank that he got there - and back - first ....   

The Olympics have begun, and as with each Games,  someone somewhere will try to grab the lime-light of world attention to make a political point.

And a good thing too. 

One should be free to shout "Free Tibet" in Tiananmen square, or indeed, "Free Scotland" in Trafalgar square at the next Games.  But I hope that legitimate concerns about the Chinese authorities don't turn into all out China-bashing. 

If anyone felt strongly that China shouldn't host these games, the time to object was several years ago. 

China is clearly an authoritarian country.  Her people do not (yet) enjoy the liberties we take for granted.  But is it right to describe China as a "terror" state, as does Edward McMillan-Scott MEP?  I'd need to see more evidence.

Education Minister, Ed Balls, still refuses to apologise for the SATS test cock-up - or even admit that the system is flawed.

Yet beyond Westminster, many now recognise that there is something profoundly wrong with State-run SATS testing.  Teachers don't like being drawn into "teaching to the test".  Parents find that State tests tell them remarkably little about the progress their child has made.

Then, when it all goes horribly wrong, the Minister blames the quango, who in turn passes the buck. 

So why have State-run testing at all?

The government has now formally ratified the EU Constitution Lisbon Treaty. It did so despite having promised us a referendum, and despite the Irish "no" vote.

Shame on our government. With luck this episode will serve to further undermine the legitimacy of the EU project.

Yet what does this all say about the way foreign policy is made?

It seems undeniable that the driving force behind our Europe policy is the Foreign Office.

What difference has it made to Europe policy which Prime Minister has occupied Number 10 – Brown, Blair, Major et al? What does it matter which MP happens to be called Europe Minister? There is a continuity in Europe policy that can only be explained by Foreign Office mandarins calling the shots.

Rather like the QCA in education, or NICE in health, it is the permanent quangocracy of the FCO that really run things. Preening politicians only pretend they do (For a recent example of this see Ed Balls over the latest SATS fiasco).

How can changing Foreign Office ministers on its own change much, when the only choices Sir Humphrey Appleby permits them to make are on the wine list?

Conservatives wanting to change our relationship with Europe need to start thinking in terms of transformation at the Foreign Office - not just changing Ministers. Without making the institution of the FCO more directly accountable, more Eurosceptic policy outcomes are not possible.  That means something more than the bogus system of supposed accountability via Ministers to Parliament. 

As long as foreign policy is in the hands of unaccountable Foreign Office officials, it is rarely likely to serve the national interest.

That must be one lesson to draw from Lisbon.

Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice, believes that aspects of Sharia law should be adopted in Britain. Having recently read Milestones, a manifesto for political islamism by the radical Sayed Qutb, I could not disagree more strongly. Not merely wrong-headed, Lord Philips - like Rowan Williams before him - can only have encouraged those inspired by Qutb's teachings.

Setting aside the debate about sharia, what does this all say about our judges?

Many people will feel uneasy with the news that the most senior judge in the country advocates legal separatism. Yet surely this is not the first time that the behaviour of our judiciary should give us cause for concern?

Until a generation or so ago, judges in Britain tended merely to interpret the law. Acts of Parliament and the Common Law were the main sources of the law. Today, activist judges no longer merely interpret the law – they adjudicate on the basis of numerous charters and conventions that give them enormous scope for activism.

Judicial activism has not come about because of any conscious decision taken by Parliament, but at the behest of an expansive and ambitious judiciary. Judges adjudicated on the basis of the European Convention of Human Rights before it was formally incorporated into UK law - giving lie to the idea that judges are only doing what Parliament asked of them. The notion of judicial review, which did not exist until recently, is entirely the invention of our learned friends.

Should we be concerned by judicial activism?  Given the failure of the legislature to hold the executive in check, is there not a case for welcoming it?

Lazy BBC-types sometimes talk about whether a particular politician or political party is "pro-business".  What this means is not always clear.

Being "pro-business" is not necessarily the same as favouring free market enterprise.  Indeed, some big businesses are distinctly hostile to open competition.

I wonder if the biggest obstacles to free market competition today come not from bolshie trade unionists, or socialists firebrands, but from the corporate boardroom.

Corporatism - the alliance of big business with big government - is "pro-business" in the sense that it suits certain businessmen.  However, it is very often the antithesis of free market.

Here are some examples of what happens when big business and big government team up:

1. Household utility bills go up to fund some of the de facto subsidies that have paid for the massive increase in wind turbines.
2. EU regulation is introduced in a way that creates barriers to entry in certain markets – thereby suiting the interests of some established players.
3. Defence contracts see squillions of public money transferred onto the balance sheets of certain suppliers – yet somehow our armed forces don't get the kit they need.

The Conservatives must be staunchly pro-business – yet in the best sense of the term. We must favour enterprise and open markets. We must not favour grubby, lobby-for-favours, corporatism.

Likeable Labour MP, Tom Harris, blogs in defence of the House of Commons.  He contrasts "courteous", "polite" Parliament, with the "hate" filled blogosphere.  Ummm...

Without wanting to offend Mr Harris, I'm not sure he's got it entirely right.

The blog may be brash, and very occasionally boorish.  Yet, sites like this show that it works.  If only we could say the same for Parliament.

No matter how polite the Honourable Members might be, Parliament is monumentally useless at holding those with real executive power to account.  The self-regarding Westminster elite might not get it, but the disaffected electorate seem to.  As a legislature, the Commons today is supine and spineless.

The green benches need to find some of the passion, authenticity and verve that exist on-line.  Instead of defending the faux rituals of their “gentlemen’s club”, MPs need to use the internet to make themselves more directly accountable.  Even if that means having people say unpleasant things about you very occasionally...

Who would you rather won the US Presidential elections?  As a Conservative, I naturally felt I ought to want McCain to win.  And yet, I can't really find much reason why.

Conservatives like me who favour small government, the free market and decentralised power have often found ourselves willing on the likes of a Bush snr or a John Major.  We do so hoping that they'll be radical and break with the Big Government-knows-best consensus of the political establishment.  In the end, they only seem to gain office by accomodating themselves to the same old State centralism.

No. Until the US Republicans re-discover States Rights, the spirit of 1776 and much else besides, this UK Conservative is going to be cheering on Obama.

Does Obama believe in small government?  As with McCain, I really don't know.  But I do know that last week he became the first Presidential candidate since Nixon to refuse public money to fund his campaign.   

Instead of relying on State handouts, Obama's campaign will be funded by millions of people each giving small on-line donations.  In the primaries alone, the $133 million spent came via 1.5 million web donors. That's less than $100 each. 

Sounds pretty Edmund Burke.com to me.   

But, perhaps you disagree?  Maybe its heresy to not support a Big Government, high tax and spend, Establishment Republican, just because he's... um... a Republican?

The "no" vote has prevailed - and the consequences for the European Project are big. 

First, the architects of European integration must now admit that their European Constitution Lisbon Treaty is dead.  Not Lazarus dead, but dodo dead.   

Second, this result illustrates that the EU project has no democratic legitimacy.  None. 

Ireland has benefited from Euro squillions.  Her political / media establishment, like our own BBC, was almost universally behind the well-financed "Yes" campaign.  Yet still the Irish have said "no".      

As more details of this great victory for the people against Brussels unfold, do read Daniel Hannan's rolling blog about it.  Dan helped galvanised the Irish "no" campaign when it seemed a lost cause, made people realise that the Irish were voting on behalf of us all - and was once again way ahead of the Westminster herd. 

Over regulation is suffocating Britain. Business and society suffer from ludicrous "jobs-worth" rules and bureaucracy.

All politicians talk about "cutting red tape", yet it seldom happens. This makes it all the more vital that the next Conservative government actually makes it happen.

So, if you were in charge, which laws and rules, specifically, would you scrap? Which laws need to go?

I want your help to compile a list of laws that needs to be scrapped. Suggestions in the comment section, please.

The Today Programme asked a similar question a while back. Rather than cut and paste the ideas that their supposed "experts" came up with, or merely nominating whichever law most enrages you personally, it would be really helpful if you could list a law that you know specifically over regulates (various Health and Safety laws, perhaps? Trades Description laws?).

16:45 update:  Thanks for all of the suggestions so far.  It would be wonderful to have some new suggestions (ie laws you would like to see repealed that someone else has not already mentioned)

Today’s Telegraph reports that our forces in Afghanistan do not have enough helicopters. How come there is a shortage of helicopters when we are spending £1 billion replacing the ageing Lynx?

Simple. Because that money gets spent in the interests of a few defence contractors, rather than our armed forces.

Something called the Defence Industrial Strategy (more reto 1970s than a space hopper) means that we have to build a new sort of helicopter, at twice the price - and which will not be ready until 2015.

2015 must seem a long time away if you happen to be in Helmand. Yet even when the tax-guzzling Future Lynx helicopter finally gets to you, don’t expect it to be operationally superior to the "off-the-shelf" alternatives available today from Sikorsky or Eurocopter.

Defenders of our monumentally useless defence procurement policy like to imply that somehow Sikorsky helicopters et al might not be up to the task of ferrying British troops around. Really? They seem to do a pretty good job ferrying those Americans about - but what do they know, eh?

It might enrage them to point this out, but the defence-industrial dinosaurs have much in common with Gordon Brown. That is, they want lots and lots of extra public spending, but without the reforms needed to ensure that the money is better spent. It is time to scrap the Defence Industrial Strategy, and have a policy that equips our armed forces with the best kit in the world.

The New Yorker has an interesting piece about the American Republicans entitled "The Fall of Conservatism". 

I don't necessarily agree with it.  Nor would I draw too many parallels with conservatism over here (we've been out of office this past decade, for a start ...)

However, it does underline that in order to succeed, conservatism ultimately needs intellectual verve and purpose.  Years of Big Government conservatism end in defeat and retreat - or a McClinton consensus, at best.    

All the more reason to read Douglas Murray.      

A few weeks back, I asked Gordon Brown a question at PMQs. Given that Mr Brown claimed “he had no knowledge of the dodgy loans used to fund the 2005 election campaign”, and since “Lord Levy has revealed that the Prime Minister knew everything. “Is Lord Levy lying?”, I asked.

All I got was an awkward shuffle, then a dagger-stare, followed by a gruff “I knew nothing of these loans”.

Ummm…

Knowing how Brown sometimes uses evasive semantics, I've been reflecting on the precise meaning of those six words.

In one sense, Mr Brown's reply has to be technically correct.  By definition, there had to have been a time at which Mr Brown did indeed know nothing of the loans.  The issue is at what point did he become aware of the said loans? When did the “I know nothing” become an “I knew nothing”?

A wonderfully refreshing report out today by Policy Exchange challenges various lazy assumptions about party funding.

"Paying for the Party" reveals that the notion of a funding "arms race" between the major parties is a myth. Often used to legitimise State-funded politics, the notion that without taxpayer funds, the costs of politics will spiral ever upwards, is simply wrong.

More interesting is the idea that the costs of doing politics might actually be coming down.  Given how the internet lowers distribution costs elsewhere, perhaps we ought not be surprised if we start to see the cost of politics starting to fall, too.

Despite the hype about "a new constitutional settlement", Jack Straw's plans to change the way executive power is exercised in Britain turned out this afternoon to be a superficial squib.

The draft Constitutional Renewal Bill would give Parliament a formal say over the deployment of troops.  In certain circumstances.  Sometimes.  Gosh.  MPs might decide what sort of protests might be held in Parliament Square.  Wow.  (Good to know those MPs willl at least hold sway over one part of Britain.)      

Westminster politics isn't working.  Angry voters recognise that the political Establishment is out of touch - and that the key decisions that affect their lives are taken by remote officials, not those they elect. 

Has Mr Straw offered to make the Quango State more accountable?  A right of initiative?  Recall?  Open primaries?....   Anything at all which might make the politicians more directly accountable to the people?  Nope. 

Instead he talks about holding elections on Saturdays, rather than Thursdays.

One thing you can depend on politicians to do is to make lots of promises about education.  Somehow, though, their proposals always seem to mean giving them -  Westminster politicians and officials - more control; ring-fenced school budgets, tinkering with the curriculum, more central diktat .... 

Perhaps education could be improved by giving politicians and officials less control?  That seems to be the gist of this thought-provoking article by Anthony Seldon. 

If politicians ran supermarkets, there would be a waiting list for bananas and catchment areas for breakfast cereals.  So why do we let them so mismanage our young people's future?