Bremainers Ask ……. Nick Harvey

Bremainers Ask ……. Nick Harvey

May 31, 2024 | Bremainers Ask, News

Nick Harvey became CEO of European Movement UK in July 2023, having formerly served as a Liberal Democrat MP for North Devon (1992-2015) and Minister of State for the Armed Forces (2010-2012). 

Nick was also CEO of the Liberal Democrats, and in Parliament served on the Home Affairs Select Committee, the Standards Committee and the Commission which runs Parliament. He was knighted in 2012.

Since leaving Parliament, Nick has served as Chair of the Joseph Rowntree Trust, as a director on charitable and company boards and has worked on capacity-building projects in developing democracies funded variously by the UK government, the EU and the UN.

Helen Markwood : Do you honestly think that we have a chance of becoming a member of the EU once more under a Labour government?

Yes – I genuinely do, but not in their first term. They have not made this part of their election platform, and indeed have ruled out EU membership or even the customs union or single market. So they could not claim any mandate. However, I do expect this election to be a game-changer, and to see a new government press a RESET button on our relationship with the EU. Some of the issues EMUK have been highlighting, such as Erasmus+, saving environmental standards, musicians and performers touring, market access, border and visa issues, can now be resolved if a positive, progressive government sits down with the EU and looks for mutually beneficial solutions. Each time the British public sees that happen, and our government proudly owning the outcome, the politics of the European issue will detoxify and normalise, and by the time of the 2029 election manifesto I believe they could be much more ambitious. 

 

Ruth Woodhouse : Should the Liberal Democrats be bolder about pointing out to voters the negative contribution that Brexit has made to the current sorry state of the UK?

We would like them to be, and it would help them carve out a more distinct political position. But I do understand why they are not. They were wiped out almost entirely in 2015, but the party now stands a good chance of getting back into business in the next Parliament. They won 11 seats in 2019 and have gained 4 in by-elections since. They are now in serious contention in about 20 more seats and should overtake the SNP to resume their historical role as the third party. However, half their target seats and three of the four by-election defences are in areas which heavily voted Leave. Voters seem to have forgiven them for the coalition, but ramming an anti-Brexit message at them too boldly just now might steal defeat from the jaws of victory. 

 

Steve Wilson : The Tories’ reign has subjected the country to perhaps the worst prime ministers in living memory. Which of them, in your opinion, has done the most lasting damage to our democracy?

My personal view – not that of the European Movement – is that all five Conservative Prime Ministers since 2010 have been, in differing ways, disastrous. David Cameron was the most able and politically gifted, but sadly the old-Etonian/Oxford pedigree manifested itself in hubris. Holding an unnecessary and unjustified EU referendum was foolhardy, and blithely assuming he would win it was catastrophic. Theresa May, a decent and intelligent woman, mishandled Brexit comprehensively – she should have steered from the outset towards a softer Brexit as the logical mandate from a narrow 52:48 vote. Mercifully, Liz Truss only lasted 49 days and must have done more damage per day than any PM anywhere ever in history. Rishi Sunak has been out of his depth from day one, and clearly has little political acumen. This leaves Boris Johnson, who in my view is the worst PM in British history. Morally unfit to hold the role, appalling in office and a vandal of the British constitution – the most egregious example being the attempt to prorogue Parliament to stop it discussing Brexit.

John Curtice recently suggested that a further referendum on EU membership was possible/likely by 2040. Do you believe another referendum is necessary/advisable, and is that timescale realistic?

A referendum has no constitutional force or justification, but it may be politically necessary. Otherwise, Europhobes would say that ‘the people took us out and the political elite forced us back in.’ It needs to be won 2:1, like in 1975 – 52:48 the other way is no good in putting the issue to bed. It should come after the UK and EU have agreed accession terms – so people know what they are voting on, unlike 2016. Before our government would dare apply, and before the EU would let us back in, polls would have to show an overwhelming lead for joining, over a period of years. The earliest would be towards the end of a second Labour term – around 2033. Perhaps a Conservative government will end up taking us back in – there is no way back if the official opposition remains hostile. But if it hasn’t happened before 2040, I fear the boat will have been missed or the caravan moved on, whichever transport metaphor you prefer.

 

Anon : It is encouraging to see European Movement UK becoming more culturally diverse, but what still needs to be done in order to appeal to a younger pro-European demographic?

Difficult, and all campaigning organisations have the same issue. Younger people are far more transactional in their political involvements – they don’t generally join up to anything for a long haul. But making our campaigns relevant and exciting improves the chance of engaging them, albeit temporarily, and as long as we make it all dramatic enough when the big moment comes, they will come through on the side of the angels. YEM is doing well among young graduates. 

Matt Burton : As a former minister for the armed forces, what are your thoughts on a European Army?

I think individuals will always join the army of a sovereign nation. Otherwise, they could be called into an action their own country didn’t support. But British forces can deploy under either UK, UN, NATO, Commonwealth or (in the past) EU command and flag. This is great and nobody should get hung up about it. Europe will have to take more responsibility for its own defence in future, and an EU defence capability should logically be the European pillar of NATO – capable of acting alone when America isn’t up for joining in. It is profoundly in Britain’s interest to be part of this – aside from the issue of EU membership. I greatly welcome David Lammy’s commitment that a Labour government will negotiate a defence treaty with the EU and I look forward to British forces operating under – and on occasions commanding – an EU defence flag again.

 

Anon : What is the most challenging aspect of being CEO of European Movement UK?

Riding two horses at once. We know that to grow, we must recruit members and supporters, raise money and build up capacity. That means delivering to committed pro-Europeans strong bold messages, proclaiming our goal. By contrast, to win, we must be seductive and persuade the middle ground that Brexit isn’t working, and we would do better closer to our European friends. To do that, we have to meet them where they are, not where we are. There is a big jump between admitting that Brexit has failed and wanting to reopen the debate. For Leavers, Brexit failing is someone else’s fault – but rejoining means admitting they got it wrong. So, they need time and space to make that journey with support and a few nudges along the way: seductive not strident, positive not negative, unifying not divisive, looking forward not back. So, we have to master the art of pushing bold messages to pro-Europeans and more nuanced messages to the middle ground. We must use bolder messaging only where it is ‘safe’ to do so, and more nuanced messaging for general public consumption. 

 

Lisa Burton : Some say that as pro-EU campaigners, we should start shifting the dial now and start introducing the idea to the British public of the UK joining the Euro and Schengen. What are your thoughts on this?

I think this is dangerous. Our policy wonks tell me the EU would not even allow us into Schengen, much less force us. As islands, Britain and Ireland are not entirely compatible with the Schengen operating practices. On the Euro, the short history of the Eurozone has made the EU less dirigiste than they once were, and if they are going to admit Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and the remaining Balkan candidates, forcing those on a convergence pathway towards Euro membership is up with the birds. So, the Euro issue will be more relaxed in future and not a deal-breaker in accession negotiations in the way Maggie’s rebate, for example, will be. By that time, economic and currency arguments will have moved on and, who knows?… the British public might want to join the Euro. But it is a red rag to a bull for now, especially with that important middle ground – and best avoided like the plague! One nettle we will have to grasp well before the big battle, though, is free movement: a fundamental which is not going to go away, and which is hugely to Britain’s benefit if people could only be persuaded to see it. 

David hewing

Next month

David Henig is a leading authority on international trade policy and Director of the UK Trade Policy Project at the European Centre for International Political Economy, where he examines the economic and trade implications of Brexit and broader UK policy.

He is an expert adviser to the House of Lords International Agreements Committee and former adviser of the UK Trade and Business Commission. He previously served as a trade specialist in the UK Government, including 3 years on TTIP talks and establishing the Department for International Trade after 2016.

Please submit any questions for David to enquiries@bremaininspain.com no later than Friday 8 June.

Hunt’s taxing rhetoric: empty promises and fear mongering

Hunt’s taxing rhetoric: empty promises and fear mongering

May 22, 2024 | Bylines, News

With the numbers not in his favour, and having run out of ideas, Hunt has opted for the classic finger pointing “look, Labour will be worse, honest!”, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines.

Speaking at an event in London on Friday, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt made promises to cut taxes. Again. Though he can’t say by how much, or when. Or even confirm what will be in his party’s manifesto for the next parliament. All he can do is “make a very clear argument that we will bring down taxes, because that is already what we have been doing”. Really? Can’t say we’ve noticed.

Hunt’s empty rhetoric and pointless promises

Like many of his colleagues, promises made by Hunt will only come into effect should the Conservatives win the election. Considering both the country and the government know they are going to lose that battle, the promises are both cynical and pointless.

Not only that but promises being made for the current parliamentary term come with conditions attached. While Hunt has pledged to cut national insurance again this autumn, that’s only “if we can afford it”. By “we”, I don’t believe he’s referring to himself and his fellow millionaires. Hunt also pledged that there would be no increased borrowing or spending cuts and any tax cuts pre-election would “come through growth in the economy”. Given the government’s economic record over the last 14 years, the expectations aren’t high.

The Chancellor defended the government’s handling of the economy, claiming it was a “myth” that the UK was performing badly in comparison to similar countries. While accepting that the financial crisis, the pandemic and the war in Ukraine had been detrimental factors affecting the economy, Brexit, unsurprisingly, failed to get a mention.

Record levels of taxation under the Conservatives

The UK tax burden is currently at historically high levels according to the Office of Budget Responsibility. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) recent annual report showed a tax-to-GDP ratio of 35.3% for the 2022/2023 financial year – the highest level since records began in 2000. The figure is predicted to continue to rise to 37.7% by 2029, despite Hunt’s recent National Insurance cut.

When the OECD figures were produced in December, Labour argued that it was as a direct consequence of years of “Conservative economic failure”. Hardly surprising then that we rarely hear the claim anymore that the Conservatives are the party of low taxes.

So, when the numbers don’t work in your favour, and you’ve run out of ideas and steam, there’s always that favoured old tactic – point the finger elsewhere, preferably at the opposition.

 

This is the reality of any Labour government, as history shows us.

Taxes going up, hitting you in the pocket – as the official analysis by the Treasury today shows. 

— Jeremy Hunt (@Jeremy_Hunt) May 17, 2024

Look over there!

Forget the financial crisis, Ukraine, the pandemic, or anything else that may have caused the economic mess the country is in. As far as Hunt and his colleagues are concerned, it’s not their fault. And it’s going to get worse when they are not in charge. Not only will “taxes go up” under a Labour government, “as sure as night follows day”, but Labour’s £38bn spending pledge means “tax rises for everyone”.

Labour have responded by stating that all their policies are “fully costed and fully funded”, and that, unlike the Conservatives, Labour would never play “fast and loose with the public finances”.

Labour’s £38bn plan, according to Hunt, would cost every family in the country almost £2,100 in additional taxes. Except, once again, government claims have been “community noted” on social media as inaccurate or misleading. The costings quoted by Hunt were “widely acknowledged to be political” based on “assumptions from special advisers”, rather than from independent civil servants.

With trust in the government at rock bottom levels, all but the most loyal of Conservative supporters are likely to take Hunt’s warnings with a large pinch of salt. If this is a campaign aimed at scaring the public with negative numbers, it’s reminiscent of the doomed Project Fear campaign of the Brexit era – and likely to prove just as ineffective.

Of course, the British public are concerned about the high level of taxes and the impact on their cost of living. But they are also concerned about how those taxes are distributed between the haves and the have nots, and how those taxes are spent. After 14 years of Conservative rule, austerity, spending cuts and waste on an industrial scale, the country is desperate for change.

The next government will have a monumental task on its hands dealing with huge economic pressures and the damaging legacy of the Conservatives. Labour may not have all the answers, but they have one huge advantage in their favour. They are not the Conservatives. That fact alone should give us all cause to celebrate, and to hope for a brighter, fairer and more prosperous future.

Deciphering Conservative Party doublespeak

Deciphering Conservative Party doublespeak

May 18, 2024 | Bylines, News

Badenoch’s latest UK trade figure announcement requires more cautious reading, writes Bremain Vice Chair Lisa Burton for Yorkshire Bylines. 

The Conservatives cannot be trusted to provide accurate information without skewing data, misleading comparisons, or indulging in some Trumpian ‘alternative facts’, particularly in their denial of Brexit damage. Kemi Badenoch’s latest trade figure announcement continues this trend.

After Badenoch announced impressive trade figures and other stats, Brexiters latched onto them as proof that Brexit is, and has been, a roaring success. But are all these figures an accurate and fair indication of the economic and trade situation, and do they prove Brexit success?

 

Fourth biggest exporter in the world?

Badenoch’s overall quoted figures in the above graphic are a mixture of 2022 and 2023 results. She stated in parliament that the UK was the fourth largest exporter in 2022. To conflate and make fact-checking harder, the sum of £862bn in trade is from a different year, ending Feb 2024.

Why do this? In 2022, sums were inflated by a rise in oil and gas import and export prices, due to the Ukraine war as well as inflation. Her figure was not adjusted for inflation and precious metal trades, which would be standard for making long-term comparisons.

The ONS’s 2023 trade data show that UK trade was much more stable in 2023 than in 2022. If you only look at the top-line figure, it seems like an increase in trade. However, once adjusted for inflation, total goods exports (not services) fell in 2023 by £15.2bn (4.6%) compared with 2022, with substantial decreases in exports to the EU and non-EU countries.

Compared with 2018 (the last stable period), total goods exports fell by £44.7bn (12.4%). In comparison, the rest of the G7 were up 5%. Without Brexit, we could safely assume that goods exports would have risen in line with the rest of the G7 and be around 17% higher than where they are. Now, that would have been a success story!

Looking at trade in goods for 2023, we see a very different worldview.

Leading the world in services?

The UK has a robust service industry and history of service exports. Most export growth mentioned came from financial services, insurance, travel, telecommunications and computer and information services. They have continued to do well since Brexit because, unlike trade in physical goods, most services are delivered digitally, for example, selling an insurance policy to someone or a company abroad. Services don’t have to navigate the same barriers that Brexit erected by adhering to strict customs rules with the products crossing a physical border. It makes sense they would be less affected by Brexit than other sectors.

Leading the world though? With $929bn worth of services sold internationally in 2022, the United States of America remained the world’s leader. The UK was second, by some distance, at $494bn. Still, considering the difference in the size of economies, this an impressive figure, albeit despite Brexit and Conservative policy.

 

£862bn in exports?

Not quite. The biggest issue with Badenoch’s figures of £862bn in the government’s report is that it has not been adjusted for inflation, which is standard for analysing long-term flows. The data she uses for the report from the Department of Business and Trade for the government document clearly states: “Unless otherwise stated, all figures are reported in nominal (current prices) and have not been adjusted for inflation. Accurate estimates (Chained Volume Measures) take into account inflation.”

Badenoch used the below graph to highlight the £862bn figure but after removing the effects of inflation, total annual UK exports of combined goods and services were £690.8bn in 2023, but hey, what’s a mere £172bn between friends?

In July 2023, the UK signed an agreement (not a trade deal) to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) – an Asia-Pacific trade bloc of 11 countries. This agreement is not yet in force for the UK. While it is good for cooperation and relations, the government has severely overegged this one, too.

Estimates show a mere £2bn boost to trade by 2040, less than 0.07% of UK GDP, mainly because the country already has FTAs with most CPTPP partners.

The UK has also signed digital trade agreements with Singapore and Ukraine; these are not considered ‘free trade agreements’.

To cut through the jargon – If we add up the impact of all the current FTAs and, for good measure, throw in the two big ones the Conservatives want with India and the USA, it would only give the UK a total boost of around 1% of GDP by 2040. This is a tiny amount compared with the already incurred loss of around 5% in GDP due to leaving the EU.

It feels slightly contemptuous, assuming the public won’t know the difference, so why? Could it have something to do with the fact that last year Badenoch made a speech and came up with the plan called ‘Race to a Trillion’? £1tn in exports by 2030. So, if that’s her plan, which sounds better? £862bn, or £690bn. I think we have our answer.

 

73 trade deals agreed?

We often hear the government boasting of a new trade deal, but how good are they? Who benefits?

Of the 71 free trade agreements (FTAs) or trade deals the UK has signed since leaving the EU, 68 are rollover deals identical to those the UK had with those countries when it was inside the single market.

The UK has signed three new trade agreements since leaving the EU: with Australia, New Zealand and Japan. The National Farmers’ Union has strongly criticised the outcomes of the deals with New Zealand and Australia for their long-term effect on sectors like British beef and lamb, dairy and horticulture, saying “there appears to be little in those trade deals to benefit British farmers”. British farmers feel betrayed by their government and all for a cheap, quick Brexit success headline. Even New Zealand sees this.

Highest FDI (foreign direct investment) stock in Europe?

London remains a global financial powerhouse, and I’d love to break this down more. Still, after researching thoroughly, I found that the figure is too ambiguous and lacks details on what it supposedly represents. The only statistics I could find for the inward ‘stock’ of FDI were from 2022, and the Netherlands pipped the UK for the top place. If this applies solely to the UK’s FDI ‘stock market value’, and is for 2023, it could be correct.

Regarding FDI, France is first and has been for several years. In 2023, the UK was second, with Germany third. In 2022, the UK was third after France and Italy for inward FDI and second after Germany in outward FDI

 

80,000 jobs from 1600 FDI projects?

As noted above, France received the highest number of FDI projects at 1,194. The UK received 985 FDI projects in 2023, down 6% from 2022. Badenoch’s figures of 1600 FDI projects with 80,00 jobs created are amalgamated over a two-year period – certainly not a usual way of presenting figures.

 

The UK has done well overall on FDI investment, but the graph regarding general business investment shows a different story. Brexit has diminished confidence in the UK for businesses, making it much harder for them to plan ahead, which has led to this decline.

Faster growing economy than Germany, Italy and Japan?

In 2020, the UK was the worst-performing economy in the G7, seeing a 10.36% drop. The UK was the only country to drop double digits, which was one of the reasons its bounce back was also the highest in 2021, with an 8.68% lift. The UK also did well in 2022, when fuel prices and inflation were volatile. In 2023, however, only Germany had lower growth; this year, it looks the same. Looking at the graph below, the government is a little picky with its story by focusing on specific years only, not the overall picture or one available now.

Higher employment than in the USA, France or Italy?

This is a half-truth. In the case of France and Italy, yes, but not the USA. In 2023, the annual unemployment rate in the UK was 3.9%. The national unemployment rate in the USA in 2022 and 2023 was less than 3.6%. The UK is expected to see a rise in unemployment to 4.4% this year.

 

500 trade barriers removed?

Finally, here is a beautiful example of Tory doublespeak. They mean they have eliminated tariffs or allowed access to certain products to/from other marketplaces. Some examples given are:

  • Selling new medicines and medical devices to South Africa.
  • Cutting red tape for British pharma companies has also already led to £17mn of new business secured in Colombia.

UK-qualified professionals, including architects and auditors, will not have to fully requalify to work in Switzerland. Before Brexit, UK professional qualifications were mutually recognised across the EU member states. Since Brexit, they are not and have to be negotiated with individual countries, putting many UK professionals at a significant disadvantage to their European counterparts.
Rejoicing about removing trade barriers while completely ignoring that by leaving the EU, we erected trade barriers with our closest and largest trading bloc, adding mountains of paperwork, red tape and costs seems oxymoronic.

Small and medium-sized businesses, in particular, are struggling. In 2023, 45% of SMEs said it’s getting harder to trade in goods with the EU compared with 36% one year earlier, with a similar rise for SMEs selling services (43%, previously 34%). Large corporations and manufacturers can adapt and swallow these costs, but smaller businesses cannot, stifling growth and productivity.

 

Summary

Since Brexit, the UK’s ‘trade intensity’ (trade as a proportion of GDP) has fallen significantly, considerably more than other advanced economies. The UK economy has grown in some aspects, but not as much as it would have if we were still part of the European Union. Hence, any good news is despite Brexit, NOT because of Brexit. The graph below shows where the UK would have been without the Brexit effect.

In her words, Badenoch used these numbers to “confirm that the strategy the public voted for on 23 June 2016 is delivering. Leaving the European Union was a vote of confidence, and we are seeing the results”. For her to say so is profoundly flawed and categorically wrong.

With the cost-of-living crisis, crumbling services, rising costs and wage stagnation, the British public sees and feels a different reality to the sunlit uplands Badenoch and the Conservative party portray. “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” Luckily, the majority of the British people are not quite there yet.

Bremainers Ask… Lord Chris Rennard MBE

Bremainers Ask… Lord Chris Rennard MBE

Mar 28, 2024 | Bremainers Ask, News

 Formerly the Chief Executive of the Liberal Democrat Party, Lord Rennard was elevated to the House of Lords in 1999. He was Director of Campaigns and Elections for the Liberal Democrats from 1989 to 2003 and Chief Executive of the Party from 2003 to 2009.

Iain Shirlaw : Considering the rising cost of living, increased border friction, and labour shortages in key sectors, why do the Liberal Democrats oppose rejoining the Single Market and Customs Union?

We don’t, and we are the only major UK party offering a route to achieve this, although I accept that we have had insufficient profile for our view on this. Ed Davey made our position clear in his recent Conference speech when said that “we need to renew ties of trust and friendship to set us on the path back to the Single Market”. I think that we should be bold in saying that most people now agree that Brexit was a mistake, and I think that this can be said without insulting those who voted for it. Re-joining the EU eventually may require things like proportional representation (so that a decision made after a negotiation would be stable), or the Conservatives returning to their pro-EU position of many decades (not likely anytime soon, but eventually possible), and we also need to be seen to take people with us.

 

Ruth Woodhouse : Has there been any recent progress in building support for a campaign for overseas constituencies for British citizens abroad?

I was responsible for introducing the concept to a Lib Dem Manifesto, based on the models of countries like France, Portugal, and Italy. When I first spoke about it in the Lords, senior Labour figures said that they had never heard of it. But as we explained the arguments, it attracted more interest as it would avoid people who have lived away for decades being expected to vote on issues such as those concerning local hospitals, whilst directly electing representatives who as MPs for such constituencies might prioritise issues like frozen pensions as well as the drawbacks of Brexit (I see no “tangible benefits”, by the way). The excellent Unlock Democracy is now campaigning on the issue, and I am a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Overseas Constituencies and I spoke at one of their recent meetings. If enough UK citizens living overseas manage to register and vote, then I believe that this will eventually happen.

 

Lisa Burton : How do you feel about the recent ‘stuffing’ of the House of Lords by Conservative PMs which undermines public perception of the House and the excellent work conducted by many peers and committees?

I may be in a minority amongst members of the Lords, but I believe that the main alternative to “stuffing” is elections and that is the policy of the Lib Dems. In debates in the Lords Chamber, I quote Churchill saying that “democracy is the worst possible system of Government, apart from all the other ones that have been tried from time to time”. Many of the Crossbenchers make excellent contributions, but I do not think that someone appointed, for example, because of military experience should be voting on issues like the NHS. Any appointments should be made by a properly independent Appointments Commission, not by Prime Ministers simply seeking to reward loyalty or defections, or to reward major donors.

 

Steven Wilson : Do you think former supporters of the Lib Dems have finally forgiven the party for the coalition with Cameron?

Mostly. The coalition strategy of the Lib Dems in 2010 failed to learn from the experience of many of our European sister parties, or our experience of coalition government in Scotland, Wales, and Local Government. We needed to show our differences with the Conservatives, and not let it appear publicly that we generally agreed on major issues. Paddy Ashdown asked me to look at how our sister parties in Europe handled coalition when he was contemplating forming one with Tony Blair. I explained how those which handled it successfully often had major public rows with their partners and they used their balance of power position to force changes which everyone knew about. We differed from the Conservatives on many things, but it was a mistake to place the image of unity above the need for distinctiveness. With hindsight 2010 – 2015 was a much happier period than that since then, but as I argued with Paddy Ashdown, coalition is very dangerous for a “third party” unless it involves proportional representation.

 

 

 

 

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/uk-england-flag-european-union-eu-1569512128

Valerie Chaplin : Why are the Lib Dems so reticent about trying to rejoin, getting freedom of movement, Erasmus+ etc back, when so many people have voted for them because they oppose Brexit and want to rejoin the EU?

We appear more reticent than we are, partly because we lack the media exposure that we used to have as the “third party” when I worked with Paddy Ashdown and Charles Kennedy. But he we have also appeared too nervous about offending those who voted “Leave”. I helped the likes of Vince Cable to win back his seat in 2017 after he had lost it in 2015, thanks to the coalition, by helping to make sure that we appealed to Leave voters on issues such as health/care and school budget cuts. The climate is also polluted by the likes of GB News, as it has been by the Murdoch media for decades. Again, I would quote Ed Davey’s recent speech saying that we want to restore Britain’s place at the of Europe and that this is “where we belong”.

 

Anon : The Government has done everything in its power to undermine democracy and lower parliamentary standards. Can a new Government turn the situation around and restore our former parliamentary glories, or are those days gone forever?

Agreed, and I hope so. I worked with leading Labour and Lib Dem figures when we were in opposition in the 90s to produce a sequencing plan for constitutional reform after 1997. We made a lot of progress until Tony Blair lost interest in 1999. Our First Past the System with “artificial” majorities is undemocratic and encourages strong hostility between parties rather than collaboration. No party has a majority in the House of Lords, which engenders a better and more courteous level of debate. We can turn things round, but it will require proportional representation, a new system of election registration to enable everyone legally entitled to vote to be able to vote, and an end to “big money” in politics. I have led much of the opposition in the House of Lords to raising party election spending limits to allow huge donations from dodgy donors, and I hope that a new Government will put a cap on the size of political donations.

 

David Eldridge : What do you think the chances are of electoral reform within the next 10 years?

I would like to shine a very powerful light into the eyes of Sir Keir Starmer and find out. His Party wants it, overwhelmingly so. It might have happened after 1997, but the power that went with a 179 majority in the House of Commons seduced Tony Blair and those around him into thinking themselves infallible and that they would never lose. Failing to make this change then led to the worst of everything that has happened since he was Prime Minister. Sir Keir should not be so shortsighted. The point may come again that Lib Dems hold the balance of power (certainly within the next ten years), and I hope that we would be able to use it more effectively than we did in 2010 to make our Parliament properly representative of the people who vote for it.

 

Anon :How long can the House of Lords last in its current state, and do you support modernisation? If so, in what form?

Reform began with the Parliament Act of 1911 and I have argued that “only in the House of Lords could over 100 years be considered too short a period of time to consider proper alternatives”. I supported the 2012 House of Lords Reform Bill which received an overwhelming majority when first put to the House of Commons for a Second Reading. The problem was that Nick Clegg mishandled a planned constituency boundary re-organisation for MPs, which meant that a timetable for debating Lords Reform could not be agreed with Labour. The Bill had then to be withdrawn and, some years later, so was the plan for redrawing constituency boundaries. We threw away a great chance for reform which had provided for electing 80% of the membership by Proportional Representation, holding elections for a third of these members every five years, and for each member to serve a single maximum term of 15 years. That would be a good place to start again.

Next month: Liz Webster

Liz is the founder of Save British Farming, established to challenge the impact of Brexit on British farming and to oppose the decline in British food, animal welfare and environmental standards. Liz was also the lead plaintiff in the 2017 Article 50 court case vs. the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. Liz is actively campaigning to rejoin the Single Market and is a regular anti-Brexit commentator in the media. Earlier this week she led a farmers’ protest to Parliament to highlight the damage done by post-Brexit trade deals.

If you wish to submit a question for Liz for consideration, please send your question(s), no later than Tuesday 9 April to enquiries@bremaininspain.com 

‘Big Dog’ returns: is the nation ready for a Boris Johnson comeback?

‘Big Dog’ returns: is the nation ready for a Boris Johnson comeback?

Mar 14, 2024 | Bylines, News

As the nation anxiously awaits the announcement of a general election, hints of Boris Johnson’s return are causing a stir, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines.

In the run-up to the forthcoming general election, are we about to see Boris Johnson making a comeback? If reports in the Express are to be believed, Johnson is the Conservative Party’s secret weapon. Or at least, in the eyes of his supporters.

 

The suggestion is for Johnson to be “deployed” in red wall seats in the north of England and the Midlands, making speeches and appearing on leaflets in marginal constituencies. A government source said:

“Don’t expect Boris to appear on stage with Rishi – that’s not going to happen – but he is up for it. The relationship is in a fairly good place.”

Whilst there have been reports suggesting a thawing of relations between Johnson and Rishi Sunak, these have been disputed by one of Johnson’s most loyal supporters, Nadine Dorries. Not only is there no thawing of relations, she says, but there are “no plans to campaign”. She added that “Sunak had not spoken to Johnson for over a year”. The country should be so lucky!

The Johnson hokey-cokey

As for Johnson’s relationship with parliament, he has form for having a one-foot-in, one-foot-out position. Not only has he resigned twice as an MP, but even as PM he was often AWOL from Westminster and his prime-ministerial duties, even in times of crisis.

Johnson resigned as MP for Henley-on-Thames in June 2008, following his election as London mayor. His second resignation, as MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, came in June 2023, just four years after leading the Conservative Party to an 80-seat majority in parliament. This resignation came after a series of political scandals – in particular following the Partygate inquiry – described by Johnson as a “witch-hunt”. But in true Terminator style, at the time, he pledged “I’ll be back”.

This latest move in the Johnson hokey-cokey may not, however, just consist of his deployment in red wall constituencies. He may also be looking to return to his former safe seat in Henley and may have even higher ambitions.

Rowing back up the Thames

In May 2023, Johnson bought a £3.8mn, nine-bedroom mansion in Oxfordshire, close to his former Henley constituency. Ever since, there has been speculation he has his sights set on a return to his former seat – the current MP, John Howell, having announced his decision to step down just one month earlier. Now new rumours are circulating that Johnson and his supporters have a plan to return their hero to Henley, at the very least.

In a recent article in the Telegraph, a “secret plan for Boris to take back the Tory Party”, was revealed. The ‘Henley plot’ sees Johnson’s reinstatement as an MP as the first step towards his return as leader of the Conservative Party. Presumably – in the eyes of his delusional supporters, this would not only save the party from self-inflicted destruction but see Johnson back as PM as well.

Losing the plot

The ‘bring back Boris’ proposition may have seemed like a good one on paper, but the plot has hit a snag. That snag comes in the shape of Caroline Newton, recently selected by the party to stand in the Henley constituency. Johnson’s plotters may have assumed that she would simply step aside to make way for the ‘Big Dog’, but Newton was having none of it.

When asked on LBC whether she would consider making way for Johnson, Newton said, “Absolutely not”. She added that “the idea that a woman should step aside for a man to take a job that he just fancies is absurd. And it’s certainly not something I’m going to do”. Newton also pointed out that she has been a candidate representing the local communities, as a councillor, for a decade and if asked, would say “thank you for the thought, but no thank you”.

According to Johnson, the qualities needed to be a good MP for Henley are a willingness to listen and patience – neither of which anyone who has ever met him, watched him or listened to him would suggest he possesses. He described the people of Henley as “the nicest, kindest, most wonderful and indeed eccentric people in Britain”. As a newly re-registered overseas voter in the Henley constituency, I’ll take that – and most everything Johnson has to say – with a very large bucket of salt.

Above all, said Johnson, “the quality you need to represent the people of Henley is to be a Conservative”. But what, exactly, does being “a Conservative” even mean anymore? Not what it once did, that’s for sure, and certainly not what the electorate regard as a vote-winner, whether you live in Henley or Halifax.

Still, not to worry, Boris. I’m sure the Reform UK Party would welcome you with open arms, and you’d feel right at home. Perhaps they’ll even let you run in Henley. You have, after all, done untold damage to the Conservative Party, and the country, already. So why not break the habit of a lifetime and finish what you started?